Editor,
I attended Phillip Johnson’s lecture on Monday and was appalled and embarrassed by the behavior of many audience members.
Professors and students alike were rude and disruptive, talking loudly amongst themselves and actually heckling the speaker. Fliers were distributed urging us to keep the “Culture War” off campus. These behaviors demonstrated to me that these people had no interest in whether the lecture material itself had merit and represent the antithesis of intellectual reason and inquiry.
They would have to actually listen to a lecture to determine its merit. Quite frankly, neither side presented anything novel, thought provoking or worthy of such heated emotion.
The University is the forum for considering controversial issues. I venture to guess that few individuals in attendance arrived without strong opinions on the topic and fewer minds were changed as a result of attendance. We do owe the lecturer and one another the respect of listening, should we choose to attend. Disagreement should be simply on the basis of scientific merit. Obvious counterpoints need not be voiced at inappropriate times. Questions need not be hostile, but carefully and respectfully worded to clarify a point.
Is it so difficult or too much to ask that we conduct ourselves with some degree of decorum in the face of controversy, whether or not we agree?
-Debra Stibick
Psychology graduate student
