Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Explore openly

Comments

Return To Article
  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 27, 2014 6:33 a.m.

    Universities and their students are entirely within their rights to reject speakers they find objectionable.

    America is hardly a place where people seek out speakers of opposing view points and invite them to speak at their functions.

    When's the last time a church invited Richard Dawkins to give the sermon, and I'm still waiting for the Beef Council to have the head of PETA as their annual banquet speaker.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 27, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    Well,
    If that isn't the eptiome of the pot calling the kettle black?...

  • dave Park City, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon, Bravo. Done in one.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    I'm w/ omm and dave on this.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    I remember back in 2004 when UVSC (now known as Utah Vally University) invited "liberal" film director Michael Moore to come and speak. Long time posters like Mike Richards spoke out in favor of censorship then. He talked about how Moore didn't "represent" the morals of people in Utah. And that public funded schools had a right to censorship.

    This became a national issue. In fact, a fantastic book was written about it. Everyone should read, "Free Speech 101: The Utah Valley Uproar over Michael Moore."

    Now suddenly, he's against it, why?

    What changed?

    Why would Mike Richards be for censorship in regards to Mike Moore but be against it when it comes to Condi Rice?

    Anyone care to explain?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    @larry,
    Why would our Secretary of State be offensive to them? Because she served under Bush?

    Why would Rice being allowed to speak... be "offensive"?

    She's a very intelligent, black, woman... what's "offensive" about that???

    She's a very talented and accomplished person. What's "Offensive" about that??

    She stretched the same glass sealing Hillary Clinton keeps talking about... both made it to the same level (Sec of State). But one is VERY acceptable speaker... while the other is "Offensive"...?

    Seems like a shallow (partisan) reason to choose to be offended by her presence at your graduation...

    These kids could learn to have a thicker skin, and this time in college is a good time for them to learn and develop that thicker skin, that would allow them to hear opinions they don't agree with 100%... and let people speak who OTHER people at the University want to hear (SOME students at the University wanted to hear what Rice had to say... but these loud intolerant people who didn't want to let her speak FORCED the other students to not be able to hear what she might have said). Hint... That is the definition of "intolerance".

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    liberal larry and company,

    Rejecting speakers who you disagree with is okay, so book burning is okay too, as long as it is any book you disagree with? That is indoctrination. You would decry this if it were, say, religious indoctrination, but as long as it is secular, and socialist, you are okay with it. In other words, you only want to hear what you think.

    You are the ones Mike is talking about, with good reason.

    Mike does speak up for conservatism, and always well supports his viewpoints. That must be hard on your narrow view.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 27, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon,
    So... no defense of the intolerance? Just "they did it so we can"?

    ====

    Cliches are nice, but... How is this "the pot calling the kettle black"?

    Can you give us instances when conservative Universities or conservative students prevented honorable Democrat's from speaking at their graduation?

    Even ultra-conservative UVU and BYU have allowed controversial Democrats to speak at their University. So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison (to throw in another cliche)...

    If you have instances where conservative students prevented Democrats from speaking at their University... it WOULD be the pot calling the kettle black. But if not... it would be an ironic use of the cliche...

    Please give us the instances you were thinking about... where conservative students prevented Democrats from speaking at their graduation...

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 27, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    There is a cycle of failure that appears in societies no matter how the start up, they end up in turmoil.

    Societies, thus far, have always become top heavy with the wealth more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer people. When the oppression becomes so intense the people at the bottom, with nothing to lose, revolt and start the whole process over again.

    We are at the point where the oppression is becoming unbearable. Without a way of letting off steam and relieving the pressure, we are heading for a restart. A more democratic voting system would help. Without a way for people to control their government they will seek others ways of relief.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 27, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    FreedomFighter41,
    You need to read the book you referenced. Some students did protest... but UVU did not give in. That's the difference. The liberal schools gave in to the protesters and wouldn't allow Rice to speak. Michael Moore did speak at UVU (despite the protests).

    ===

    The students have the right to protest (that's obvious). But the issue is the school giving in and not allowing people from one side of the spectrum so speak (when some students wanted to hear what she had to say) because of some loud intolerant protesters.

    And yes... the protesters at UVU were also showing intolerance. But a difference... Michael Moore was making a profession out of attacking our President, stretching and bending the truth to make him look as bad as possible, and trying to affect the election. Condie Rice didn't do that. All she did was serve this country and the President at the time honorably.

    You have to admit that she's a pretty accomplished woman. But just because she's the wrong party, and her history as Sec of State for the wrong President... she gets black-balled at Liberal Universities???

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 27, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    conservatives seem so intent on ignoring the difference between someone speaking or taking part in a debate at a university and giving the commencement speech. Typically, the commencement speech is not going to dive deeply into that individual's personal opinions as the speech is most likely directed at providing advice, etc... to the recent grads.

    Condi Rice was not uninvited for her opinions or for what she was going to say (the students had no idea what her commencement speech was going to be about) - rather she was unwelcome due to her actions, her life. Essentially, the student body voiced their opinion (free speech) to let the faculty know that they did not deem her life as one worth honoring.

    2bits - This SoS was offensive to them, and many of us, because she lied to the American people and government officials in order to facilitate a war that killed hundreds of thousands of human beings, including thousands of American servicemen and women. Think of the throngs of families that were visiting grave sites yesterday due to Condi Rice's actions. There is nothing reputable or honorable about such a person.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 27, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Can you give us instances when conservative Universities or conservative students prevented honorable Democrat's from speaking at their graduation?

    ========

    That's too,
    so I'll even top that --

    How about fellow Mormon Senator Harry Reid needing to cancel speaking at an LDS Stake Youth Fireside because of Death Threats?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    May 27, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    College students have a right to speak out. This is an open and shut case. College students absolutely have a right to speak out.

    No one is advocating censorship. The colleges didn't cancel the speakers, the government didn't force the speakers to withdraw, and the speakers could have still given their speeches. In fact, the speakers cancelled. They used their free speech to cancel. No harm no foul, right? It's right wing media that is trying to make martyrs out of these people and make it sound like colleges are somehow close-minded to conservative speakers.

    I guess the right is trying to do anything to take the focus off their lack of ideas!

    Denying college students their first amendment rights seems to be a top priority for conservatives these days. For some reason they're fearful of what the young and informed think and feel. Is it because they're not stuck in the same tired and failed traditions and policies conservatives are obsessed with?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 27, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @2bits --
    Please give us the instances you were thinking about... where conservative students prevented Democrats from speaking at their graduation...

    8:56 a.m. May 27, 2014

    ---

    I’ll see your bet, and raise…

    How about fellow Mormon Senator Harry Reid cancelling an LDS Youth Fireside due to Death Threats?

    BTW -
    What do you expect from a bunch of now College educated graduates,
    who see a Political Party who is becoming more and more --
    Anti-Science, Anti-Tolerant, Anti-Education, Anti-Choice, and Anti-Socialist?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @2bits
    "Why would our Secretary of State be offensive to them?"

    Condi was considered partially responsible for lies getting us into a war where a few thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis died. Granted I wouldn't be opposed to her speaking, but others are for that reason.

    "Way more deaths when Clinton was SoS than when Rice was SoS"

    That's completely false.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    "Way more deaths when Clinton was SoS than when Rice was SoS.... and I'm pretty sure she's going to make a TON of money speaking to the exact same people who shut down Rice's speech..."

    And conservatives wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore?

    Condi was in the Bush administration from 2001-until Obama won.

    She was SOS from 2005-08. Far more Americans died on her watch than Clinton's. In fact, 2007 we lost more Americans than from 2008-present day. In fact, over 900 died in 07. That's 225 Benghazi's.

    Speaking of which, under Rice's watch, we saw 13 Benghazis resulting in over 90 deaths.

    Where were conservatives then? Why didn't we question her about those attacks?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    When you have an open mind, people keep trying to throw garbage in it.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 27, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    "The Cabinet contains no one with extensive business experience"? How about Sec. of the Treasury Jack Lew who was head of operations for Citigroup, Sec. of Commerce Penny Pritzker who founded and ran three major companies, and Chuck Hagel who made his fortune in the cell phone business, etc. etc. ????
    This letter is fact free . . .

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 27, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    To those of you using the Harry Reid canceling speaking at an LDS meeting or Michael Moore at UVU, lets look at the facts.

    Other than Harry Reid canceling due to death threats, we know nothing about what was going on. We don't know who the threats came from. For all we know it was a uber left wing Union boss posing a security risk.

    As for Michael Moore, the controversy start with the huge fee that Moore was going to charge. The student government didn't want to spend that much. Plus, as the DN article points out, it was Moore that approached UVSC.

    To "FreedomFighter41" actually we didn't see 13 Benghazi type incidents under Rice. The issue with Benghazi isn't the attack, but the outright lies and coverup by the Obama administration. Had they been honest from the beginning and called it a terrorist attack and praised the valliant soldiers that died, this would have been like the incidents under Rice. Instead the administration made excuses and blamed a YouTube video.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 27, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    "The Cabinet contains no one with extensive business experience"? How about Sec. of the Treasury Jack Lew who was head of operations for Citigroup,...

    No wonder this admin is so messed up. Citigroup was a major recipient of bailout money, Billions of dollars of it.

    So what you are saying we have people experienced in driving businesses to bankruptcy in the administration. And Irony guy is proud of this?

    Great, just great.

    But it does explain so much!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 27, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech
    Pasedena, CA

    Other than Harry Reid canceling due to death threats, we know nothing about what was going on. We don't know who the threats came from. For all we know it was a uber left wing Union boss posing a security risk.

    ==========

    Nice spin RedShirt --
    When you have no facts or evidence to present -- make up a story, another conspiracy.

    Like Benghazi...

    BTW -- Let's turn this around on your terms --

    For all we know [eyes shifting, whispering quietly] Fox News and The Blaze could be making this up as well.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 27, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    To "airnaut" it is as good of a conspiracy as what your ilk were presenting. The news only reports that Harry Reid bowed out of an LDS Fireside due to threats. There was nothing about who was making the threats, your ilk presented it as if it was a group of conservatives threatening Harry Reid. We have no facts, and shouldn't jump to conclusions.

    Yes, just like Benghazi. The Administration had no evidence to show that the attack had anything to do with a YouTube video that nobody had watched, so they made things up. Since the attack we have learned a lot, thanks to FOI requests and some journalists looking into the ordeal and discovering what has gone on. But then again, it was CBS, MSNBC, and ABC new that did a lot of reporting on the change to the talking point memo. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 27, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    Dear letter writer --

    Thanks for all the great quotes!
    I have saved them,
    and will using them to respond from now on.

    Sincerely,
    The man in the mirror.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2014 4:52 p.m.

    @Redshirtcaltech
    What kind of "cover-up" corrects their mistakes within 2 weeks?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 27, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    It's been an interesting experience to read the comments. Just as expected, some comments had nothing to do with the contents of the letter, but we're only veiled (or not so veiled) personal attacks. Some were off topic, which to me, is just another way that some people use to divert attention from the topic under discussion. Some used false statements to give "gravitas" to their point of view. Some addressed actually addressed the topic.

    To those who stood for freedom of speech and freedom of expression without resorting to lies or misrepresentations, I am particularly grateful.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 27, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    I emphatically denounce those who charge Condi Rice with lying about WMD. We gave Iraq weeks to get their WMD moved into Syria or buried in the desert sand before the invasion, well announced in advance.

    In this case, President Clinton defended the Bush administration, saying that he knew Iraq had WMD while HE was president. Of course, the liberals attacked Pres. Clinton and quickly silenced him. However, Pres. Clinton never publicly denied that statement.

    The liberals have slandered Pres. G. W. Bush and SoS Condi Rice, and one day there will be an accounting at the judgement bar for this maliciousness.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:27 p.m.

    FreedomFighter41, You it the nail on the head. Michael Moore was a voice against so much that had gone wrong in that time. The Eagle Forum tried with all of it's might to get him taken off the program. Sounds like it is the kettle calling the kettle black!

    Also Mike Richards needs to check his facts before telling us all there are no business people in the cabinet. Come on Mike we expect better.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    "Look at the posts commenting on letters in any newspaper with an electronic edition. Close-minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their viewpoint by "shouting down" those they oppose."

    This is just too much. The irony here is side-splitting. Um, the most closed-minded person I've seen commenting on the Des News website is, well, gee, I can't really name him because the comment moderators will surely deny this comment. But this letter has to be one of the best ever. I give it 5 stars.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    Let's see now. Who gets away with all-caps shouting more than the author of this letter? Can't really identify anyone. Of course, it's possible there are two Mike Richardses in South Jordan. In that case, my apologies.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    May 27, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    "To those who stood for freedom of speech and freedom of expression without resorting to lies or misrepresentations, I am particularly grateful."

    I really hope you mean this Mike, because your past posts suggest otherwise, and the internet doesn't forget.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 28, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    Irony Guy

    I believe that none of the people you mentioned were in the Obama administration at the beginning 5 years ago. Back then it was true that if you had spent one summer running a lemonade stand you had more business experience than his entire cabinet. Obama may have finally taken some good advise that business people are needed to run the country. Probably a little too late though.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 28, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    It appears to me that "liberal" posters are anything but liberal. It appears that many of them openly attack anyone who advocates the need to explore other opinions. I didn't read in the letter anything that justified the personal attacks on the letter writer, but I did read that Mike Richards considers all sides before forming an opinion. Maybe that concept is what has brought on all the controversy. Maybe the fact that Mike Richards reads all sides to an argument and then consistently rejects the "liberals" argument is what infuriates those who attack the messenger without even referring to the message.

    I believe that Mike Richards has fully proved his point when he wrote that "Closed minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their viewpoint by shouting down those they oppose". Just read the posts and decide for yourself.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT

    Taking the position of "God said so - I'm right, and you're wrong, The End"!
    in every comment and on every single issue - including politics,
    ...is about the most "Closed minded" position one can possible ever take.

    BTW - another cliche just for you -
    Birds of a Feather, Flock together.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    re: J Thompson

    "...Mike Richards has fully proved his point when he wrote that "Closed minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their viewpoint by shouting down those they oppose". Just read the posts and decide for yourself."

    For instance, all the political righties & byu fans who believe they are on the side of the angels?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" but there are times when it is very clear what God has said. So, saying "God said so - I'm right, and you're wrong, The End" can be correct.

    For example, the scriptures are quite clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you started to say that you believe that sex outside of marriage is ok and that you fully believe the scriptures, then you would be wrong and it is an instance of "God said so."

    The closed minded person sees no hypocrisy in declaring a belief in something while acting contrary to that belief. The open minded person can recognize the hypocrisy and will either own it or will alter their behavior to eliminate it. Think of somebody that says they believe in the LDS church, yet dismiss what the Prophets have said and portions of official LDS doctrine.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    to RedShirtCalTech yesterday afternoon...

    Lets put this silly, ridiculous, partisan nonsense regarding Reid, Benghazi, or whatever else to bed.

    What do you expect when you keep electing Ivy Leaguers & that 5 global companies control a Lions share of all media outlets in the US?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 28, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    There's a very simple "litmus" test that can be applied to almost every argument. That test askes only one question, "What would happen if everyone had this attitude?" Apply that to the Consitution. What if everyone insisted that the Federal Government do only what the Constitution permits, as enumerated, not as desired? What would happen if everyone had "subsidized" health insurance? What would happen if everyone paid exactly the same income tax, not the same rate, but the same tax, just like everyone pays the same amount for a gallon of milk? What would happen if the "government" decided that the minimum wage should be $50 per hour? What would happen if the "government" tried to force other nations to buy our products when the minimum wage became $50 per hour?

    Using the "what if" argument blows holes through almost every "liberal" idea. Unless the "government" forces us to accept those ideas and unless the government punishes us for not accepting those ideas, those ideas would fail - every time.

    When people freely discuss ideas and leave the kindergarten bullying out of the argument, the best idea will rise to the top.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 28, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    in regards to J Thompson...

    "When people freely discuss ideas and leave the kindergarten bullying out of the argument, the best idea will rise to the top."

    Curious; is this your advice for all of Congress especially House Republicans?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 28, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    re: Hank Pym,

    Should the House of Representatives abide by the Constitution or should it pander to the populace? Isn't that what you're really asking? Not one Republican in the House or the Senate voted for ObamaCare. Why was that? Was it because they want people to suffer, or was it because Republicans care more for law and order, as dictated by the Supreme Law of the Land, than they care about pleasing a President who wanted to TAX us to subsidize the cost of health insurance? There are 17 enumerated duties which we, the people, have authorized the Federal Government to tax us to implement. Health Insurance is not on that enumerated list. Forcing us to pay for personal welfare items is not on that list. Using the IRS to force us to comply with that tax is not on that list. With just a little research, it is apparent that the Republicans would not be caught up in Obama's snare. Now, even the Democrats are running as fast as they can away from Obama and ObamaCare.

    Evauluate ideas fully before throwing rejecting the Constitution.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    There are 17 enumerated duties which we, the people, have authorized the Federal Government to tax us to implement.

    ==========

    I'm a veteran,
    and work for the DoD --

    All duly authorized by the "Constitution",

    Yet,
    You have bullied, shouted [all caps], berated me for collecting a pay check from your taxes for years for it.

    And now have the audacity - and I quote - "Close-minded people constantly reject anything that opposes their viewpoint by "shouting down" those they oppose."

    or

    "So many times they only want to hear from others who support their point of view."
    blogging only in the safety shirts of Deseret News, in Utah, under ownership of the LDS church....

    And you claim to be the one who is most "Open-Minded"...

    I staand by my earlier "Pot meet Kettle" reference...

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 28, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    gmlewis/VST - You are mistaken. The UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was accepted by Iraq in November 2002. Then, after 218 inspections at 141 different sites in Iraq, the UN begged the US not to invade on March 7, 2003 in an open letter from the IAEA because they confirmed there was no WMD in Iraq: The international community knew there were no WMD, your politicians fabricated a different story. THen they invaded on March 20, 2003 and proved the international community correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 28, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    LDS Liberal

    When you blog on liberal sites many times you get swear/curse/slander back as a response. I'd rather engage with folks who may oppose my POI, but at least try to make an argument rather than just try to shut down debate. That is why I for one would rather stick to the DN site. It is one of the few civilized places to engage discussion. More and more it seems the left in America is becoming the side with the least tolerance for any opposing viewpoints. Being called racist for not supporting Obama for instance. Being a homophobe for not supporting same sex marriage. Being anti women for not supporting Hillary or abortion. That kind of stuff is going around a lot these days, along with the name calling slurs that DN tries to edit. I'm glad they do.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    May 28, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    to Mike R.

    I specifically pointed out the House GOP as their typical & all too frequent MO is whine like a petulant 5 yr old who doesn't get a doughnut when going to the grocery store w/ mom.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 30, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    VST - I know WMD is not constituted exclusively by nuclear weapons, please read the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to review what it entails (hint, it incorporates many previous resolutions). My note on the IAEA is to provide you with information rebutting your claim that the international community had bad data. In fact, the opposite was true. Int'l organizations reported accurate data but folks like Condoleezza responded with falsified "intelligence" coming from the Bush Administration.

    We know she lied because there have been comprehensive reports since the war started; one notable study performed by the Center for Public Integrity found she, along with other Bush officials, made nearly 1000 false statements in order to take the US to war. Please review each instance for yourself. Further, she lied to Congress when confronted on these issues in 2008.

    I suspect if you had any interest in reviewing this scenario from a neutral standpoint, you could have found this information on your own.