Author Topic: Stanford student experiences intolerance of liberals concerning marriage conference  (Read 211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,335
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Stanford Student Experiences Intolerance from Liberals Concerning Marriage Conference

Posted By Dave Jolly on Apr 24, 2014 | 108 Comments

Stanford University is a very well-known and highly respected University.  Their academic standards are higher than most universities.  The school is also known for trying to be a diverse campus that is open to many differing ideologies, however, that reputation is becoming rather tarnished.

In her freshman year at Stanford, Judy Romea found the campus group known as the Stanford Anscombe Society, named after Elizabeth Anscombe, a British philosopher.  According to their website:

“The Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) is a student group that promotes discussion regarding the roles of the family, marriage, and sexual integrity in the lives of Stanford students both now and after graduation. SAS is neither religiously nor politically affiliated, instead basing our positions on human principles. We hold that the family is the key unit of a stable society, and we define the family as one man and one woman bound together by marriage, along with any children that they might have. SAS defines marriage as a union, until death, between one man and one woman. We promote the idea that sexual integrity is necessary for this family unit to be successful.”

“We meet every week to discuss relevant topics, which have included how to foster a healthy dating culture at Stanford, the harmful effects of the hookup culture, and the philosophical case for marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

“Furthermore, we host speaking events every quarter in which guest lecturers present their work on marriage and the family.”

Romea is now a senior at Stanford and worked hard on their last speaking event which took place on April 5, but not after being heavily discriminated against by the Student Graduate Council.  The event,  Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Media, was scheduled to take place in the Oberndorf Event Center located in the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

One month before the conference was to take place, the Student Graduate Council pulled all of the funding for the event.  Then they demanded that Stanford Anscombe Society pay them $5,600 for event security or the conference would have to be cancelled.

The Student Graduate Council said that their actions were taken to offset the unsafe space that the conference on marriage would create.  The student council made it clear that they disagreed with and disapproved of some of the speakers scheduled for the marriage conference.  One of the speakers in particular was Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Although Stanford boasts of its diverse nature, it seems that the diversity and tolerance ends with anyone defending traditional marriage of one man and one woman.  They welcome every other point of view, but not any that oppose their own liberal lifestyles.  In response to the intolerant discrimination from the student council, Romea commented:

“A void in the campus discourse exists regarding marriage, family, and human sexuality. At best, deviations from these values are viewed as strange, while at worst, they’re the result of bigotry and hatred — as we saw with the funding controversy regarding this conference.”

Romea and her group persevered through all of the harassment.  University officials manage to cover the security fees being extorted and the conference took place as scheduled.

What they endured is an example of the growing intolerance of the liberal left.  They speak of tolerance and diversity but only if it agrees with their ideology.  Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a bigot and hateful.  In reality, they are the most intolerant of them all, proving that they are nothing more than hypocrites.

Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo