4 ms·
> As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments. In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's
by specialist 4y ago
> As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments.
In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's project to preserve white supremacy?
Why is a private institution obligated to signal boost a national leader who openly defies the law?
- gadflyinyoureye 4y agoThis specific institution claimed to have high academic credentials. One of the historical bonifides was the ability to hear an opposing view. It was thought that one could then argue back. Yale bouncing his presentation showed that they weren’t living up to their claimed standards.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYale in the 1960s still had a secret Jewish Quota to limit the number of Jewish students they would enrol, as they had done for decades. I'm not sure them inviting popular racists to speak against human rights is really a good look for them in that situation, nor an instant solution to centuries of systemic racism in America at that time, even if they made some really good points in the debate.