Despite protests, U.C. Berkeley says their event last night hosting conservative commentator Ben Shapiro went off without a hitch. The Morning Joe panel enters an in-depth talk about campus culture and debates Princeton Professor Eddie S. Glaude Jr. who opposed allowing Shapiro to speak. On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Glaude said inviting Shapiro and his ilk to speak on campus is bad because they “hold positions that call into question the very norms that allow the space to exist.”
Glaude also said there are people who want to use the “cover” of debate in the university to put forth their “noxious views.”
“I think there are moments where I don’t feel it necessary for me to have to endure an argument that questions my presence,” Glaude said about speakers who hold a different view than his.
“Now, it’s certainly consistent with the norms of the university to allow for open dialogue and exchange,” Glaude said. “But what happens when someone takes advantage of those norms to call into question the very ways in which that committee is constituted.”
“When I’m faced with an argument that I somehow am a beneficiary of affirmative action, which I am by the way, and by virtue of that fact I shouldn’t be there and I challenge the person in a very direct way and then that becomes the basis for, I’m losing my train of thought here, that becomes the basis, well, anyway,” a confused Glaude said.
Glaude would later acknowledge he is not making his point articulately.
Scarborough countered Glaude’s claims of the threat conservative speakers pose by explaining as a pro-life and a supporter of the Second Amendment he knew he would get his head “knocked off” if he opened his mouth in certain quarters.
“I’m more proud of this segment than any segment that we have ever done,” Scarborough said at one point during the discussion.
Glaude would later say conservative speakers are caricatures of universities and colleges which drew the ire of Scarborough who challenged him to be a conservative on campus for a week. Glaude said since the 1980s colleges have trended toward conservatism.
“I’m saying this not for conservatives, I’m saying this for liberals. They have been bubble wrapped in academia for 40 years and then they wonder why they wake up and see that George W. Bush has won two elections and see Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States, they get destroyed in 2016, and in 2017 they still don’t have a message to take to America. There’s a reason why, and Katy [Kay], I blame American colleges,” an impassioned Scarborough said.
From the key part of the debate:
GLAUDE: There are some people when you invite into your space who hold positions that call into question the very norms that allow the space to exist.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Like what positions?
GLAUDE: For example, what do I mean? What I mean by that is this: when I’m talking about just generally certain speakers because I want to be clear that thousands of conservative intellectuals speak on college campuses across the country every day. These sorts of events happen around particular sources. So what Imean by this?
SCARBOROUGH: What’s in Ben Shapiro’s head that should cause violence? That should cause people to break windows?
GLAUDE: I was making a general claim. So part of the claim that I am making… part of what I’m trying to suggest here is what happens when a conservative speaker or a particular kind of speaker makes the claim that certain people don’t belong in this intellectual space that we’ve sacrificed the norms or let me say we’ve sacrificed our admissions criteria, and there are a particular group of people that should not have been admitted to our campus. And I’ve seen this on Princeton’s campus when someone came in to make a very, very volatile argument I thought around affirmative action and the students protested.
Now, it’s certainly consistent with the norms of the university to allow for open dialogue and exchange. But what happens when someone takes advantage of those norms to call into question the very ways in which that committee is constituted.
NOAH ROTHMAN, GUEST: Is that a proposition that merits property destruction and violence?
GLAUDE: Of course not.
ROTHMAN: What does?
SCARBOROUGH: Eddie, what’s your point?
GLAUDE: My point is this: is that every institution has to grapple with the challenge of its values when its values are taken advantage to call that institution into question. Let me be more concrete. So when the university allows for open and free inquiry and then people come in and then make arguments that challenge the very people who are in that community —
SCARBOROUGH: But you can’t be delicate about the arguments that are being made.
GLAUDE: But there is precisely the case. When I’m faced with an argument that I somehow am a beneficiary of affirmative action, which I am by the way, and by virtue of that fact I shouldn’t be there and I challenge the person in a very direct way and then that becomes the basis for, I’m losing my train of thought here, that becomes the basis, well, anyway.
WILLIE GEIST, MORNING JOE: Do you think it’s productive for people to interrupt a conversation speaker? To walk up on the stage, to block his ability —
GLAUDE: In some instances.
GEIST: — to the point that that person has to be led out by security?
GLAUDE: No. But in some instances, I think there are moments where I don’t feel it necessary for me to have to endure an argument that questions my presence.
After the show, Glaude took to Twitter and said he wasn’t clear on the Shapiro issue and to “clarify” what he was trying to say. Read the thread here. …read more