Free Speech & cancel minority opinions
I am extremely disappointed in ASU 's decisions to try to cancel the Messrs. Prager and Kirk lecture, then to fire Lin Blake, and finally to terminate Ms. Atkinson, in spite of her achieving the excellent result of over 25,000 listeners per WSJ, Opinion section, 6/20/23. The biggest loser is the Barrett Honors College. Future Barrett students can take their business elsewhere. New faculty will prudently consider ASU's narrow-mindedness and censoring.
Given the recent reversals in advertising campaigns, such as Bud Light, due to entanglements in cultural issues causing negative effects on companies' businesses, I believe ASU should likewise consider a reversal in terminating Ms. Atkinson and its future actions. ASU should live up to its green-light rating.
The 39 faculty members pushing their agenda to censor people holding different personal views need to be enlightened about allowing minority peer voices to be heard. Did any of these 39 signers feel pressure to acquiesce? Why not consider the six minority non-signers, who bravely stood up to the majority of their peers, since diversity is a Barrett value? If the 39 do not want to listen, or would like to request a counter lecturer, so be it, but they should not have the right to block speakers with whom they disagree.
Today's (June 21), WSJ, China Tries to Cancel an art Show in Poland, article expresses "China often attempts to censor speech abroad that's critical of the Communist Party" exampled by China's attempts to cancel an artwork exhibit by a Chinese-dissident, Badiucao, depicting true events surrounding communism. A senior Chinese diplomat said showing Badiucao's work would "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people." The reasoning is remarkably similar by those faculty who condemned and wanted to censor the lecture by Kirk and Prager for hurting the LGBT group's feelings.
Poland's bravery is heartily admired for not canceling Badiucao and cowering; unless ASU reverses its decision, ASU's reputation will be soiled by its cowardliness, and likely hit both the number of student applications and its future faculty who value their own freedom of speech.