Being principled not stifling free speech

I could only expect the Daily Herald to take a knee-jerk "free speech" position on the questions of whether Bill Ayers speaks at Naperville North or President Obama speaks at Notre Dame. But you are way off base with that view. It isn't a matter of free speech or "minorities squelching" someone else's opinion or right to express it. What is implied, dangerously, in the paper's emphasis on the value of "dialogue" and listening to someone else's opinions is the notion that all ideas are of equal value and validity, and equally merit being heard. They are not, and do not. The Catholic Church's teachings and positions on abortion and stem cell research, for example, are clear and unequivocal. So are President Obama's. If students and others in the Notre Dame community want to know the president's thoughts on any subject, they don't need to hear him speak at the forum of graduation. But the university giving him that forum lends a huge air of credibility to his positions, even though it's clear they are utterly contrary to the teachings of the church. What is the point and why are they doing it, unless it's because the university or some members of its community disagree with church teaching? If that's the case, Cardinal Francis George is more than justified in criticizing what is supposed to be a Catholic institution at the appearance of legitimizing views opposite to those of the church. We're not talking about "caving in" on free speech, but upholding clear doctrines the university is supposed to support. You say, "he's the president, for goodness sake." So what? Equally important may be making clear to the rest of the world that it's necessary for institutions like the church to not compromise their principles and values. That is not suppression of anybody's free speech.

Kent Schielke

Naperville