
Originally Posted by
East McCauley
(...)
Snide remark, yes. Perhaps even a juvenile response.
The issue is not about sucking up to mostly American oil companies, or requiring loyalty oaths of any faculty member or student attending the U of A. It's about the University Senate's tone deaf decision to award an honorary degree to an almost uniquely polarizing public figure. A person that is not a climate scientist, and whose criticism of fossil fuels goes well beyond reasoned analysis and borders on what some call climate alarmism.
^this...
As I said in another conversation, the University is extremely callous to its reputation when it purposely juxtaposes what is an honour with what amounts to present day clickbait. I get the whole academic freedom piece, and I fully support that. I am not a person who boycotts or solicits others to do so. ...but, I also subscribe to the reality that freedom of speech is not free...it has consequences. The main issues here are:
•The incredible hypocrisy of the recipient. He does not eat his own dogfood...
•The tone deaf nature of the timing
•What I feel is intentional drama creation to get press (aka clickbait). The U knew what the backlash would be IMO. While this is tone deaf in nature, I have a hard time believing the smart people were so unintentionally stupid. This is intentional...
•...and the question of tolerance/academic freedom...would this be more universally applied if someone they found objectionable was put forth to be a speaker at a convocation...let alone an honorary degree recipient...
I won't disrespect the legacy and history of the UofA. This decision is the responsibility of the current Senate. The fact that so many are speaking up from the student body and faculty is excellent, and demonstrates that at least on the UofA campus, discussion is still relevant.
Bookmarks