University Denies Free Speech to Ken Ham and Boots Him from Speaking
( full article )
The University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), a school located in a region informally known as The Bible Belt, has booted Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, from speaking on the Edmond campus next month. UCO has reneged on a contract it signed that allowed Ken to give a talk on March 5. Ken’s presentation in the school’s Constitution Hall, titled “Genesis and the State of the Culture,” was objectionable to a campus LGBT group, which put heavy pressure on the UCO Student Association (UCOSA) to cancel Ken’s speaking engagement. In his proposed talk at UCO , Ken would have discussed the two different worldviews and their starting points when interpreting scientific evidence , as he did in his classic evolution/creation debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” four years ago.
They were going to pay this nut to discuss his observational vs. historical science nonsense.
Tags
Who is online
453 visitors
Most universities frown on those who seek to dumb down their students. How they got funding approval in the first place might be an interesting question.
Liberals have dumbed down campuses all over the country for a long time.
Well this seed is about YEC (ultra conservative) dumbing down. One problem at a time, okay?
Who are the intelligent conservatives? Richard Spencer, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?
Good for UCO. I'm surprised they did this, but good on them
But it's a whole lot worse: the Original Article is from... Ken Ham's web site! He's using an Internet site that probably gets more hits than the University of Central Oklahoma's own site, to air his grievances. On constitutional grounds. Gah! We already knew Ken Ham was ignorant about the origin of the world... and now we know he's ignorant about the constitution, too...
I doubt that he cares about the Constitution. He throws science under the bus when findings conflict with his beliefs (but embraces science when it is to his advantage). He is likewise using the prevalent 'bumper sticker*' understanding of the Constitution to rally his minions in his defense.
* (coined by Bob Nelson)
Ken Ham is not even an American, he's Australian, so he probably knows jack shit about the US Constitution.
Will Australia call him home already? sheesh!
We got to be more careful about who we let in here
Lol .... really! It's getting confusing these days isn't It?
I don't think they like us quite that much.
I doubt they want him, and I don't blame them.
That much is obvious since they sent him here. What did we ever do to Australia?
Considering they had a contract I imagine the nut will still be paid the majority if not all of his and as a businessman that's all Ken really cares about, making money.
My suspicion is that they refused to comply and Ham decided that his interests were best served by making a big stink with his minions. He probably sees this as a great opportunity (versus merely recovering a $2500 speaking fee - a rather petty thing to lawyer up for).
Indeed they did. No doubt about it.
It's worth it to keep Ham from dumbing down the student body
If they're good little Christians, they're going to church where they get all the opinions God requires them to have
Texan,
I have reminded you twice not to address trout and vice versa, several times now. The next time will result in a 2 day suspension.
Too late .For most of the student body , all the years of being "taught" by liberal teachers have effectively killed any functioning brain cells they may have had .
Just how they like it. Get em young before they learn to think for themselves. Still, i don't blame colleges for such things but rather the family.
If you haven't started to learn how to think for yourself by college it's probably too late anyway.
Why should parent's hard earned money be wasted on their children becoming misinformed by Ken Hamm's bullshit?
I totally agree. The poor kids are already misinformed on a daily by all the liberal professor's bullshit. Who cares about freedom of speech? It's better to censor and shout down opposing viewpoints so the poor little dear's minds won't be contaminated by a politically impure thought.
I don't see the issue. I was raised to make up my own mind about such things, so were my kids. It would bother me more if they were exposed to differing ideas. That is part of what college is all about.
The censorship being displayed by the left on college campuses these days should bother everyone. And make no mistake, regardless of your politics, this is censorship.
No doubt about it.
"weren't" exposed, not "were" exposed .... no Freudian slip, just Monday morning dyslexia ....
I would have thought that his speech would be about how not to get caught smuggling illegal religious artifacts into the country.
He tried the old ''The devil made me do it'' defense.
That is one of the more difficult things about freedom, listening to things that we may find distasteful while defending the rights of the speaker to say them.
The negative factor to such things is accurate information, with the facts any semi-intelligent individual can glean through the BS and reach the truth. Just remember, facts are facts there are no alternative facts.
"There are no alternative facts." ? ?
Really? Then explain the rise of Trumpism.
Facts are facts, any alternative to them is purely in the eye of the beholder.
To answer your question, ignorance.
Just plain public/voter stupidity.
Some thumper moron that believes the earth is 6000 years old and that man shared it with dinosaurs has no business setting foot on any campus of higher education.
Agreed! Flat Earthers and fundie creationists are so outside the realms of reality their nonsense should be dismissed out of hand. Theirs is not a theory or even a credible argument. There are differing branchs of study regarding man's origins and prehistory but Ken Hamm's brand of fundie faldegras has no place at the table. Parents an students should be and rightly are appalled that the outrageous fees they pay for things like speakers were ever approved to be applied towards funding anti-iintellectual gobbledy gooke disguised as a credible viewpoint such as that espoused b the disreputable and infamous huckster known as Ken Hamm. It is not like Edmond, Oklahoma is some bastion of liberal thinking. Quit the contrary. Edmond and UCO are both hotbeds of conservatism loomed over by a humongous Christian cross. When Oklahoma's UCO says, "Get your mythical nonsense out of our lecture halls", that pretty much means that Christians in the main-stream want nothing to do with such bassackwards bullshit as Hamm is selling. BTW, there is a Christian college just down the road for those who believe UCO is becoming too liberal. UCO too liberal? HAHAHA! Nothing could be further from the truth. Edmond, Oklahoma is the proverbial "Buckle On The Bible Belt" but even Oklahoma does not stand behind krazy right wing fundies...
Or maybe they want someone to speak of academic and logical views, not irrational religious nonsense, especially at a public university!
Opinions do not supersede actual facts. You can have an opinion about anything. But when contradicted by actual facts, opinion loses every time. Creationism (especially YEC) certainly doesn't trump actual scientific fact! So holding on to an obviously irrational or wrong opinion in light of actual fact only makes one look foolish and willfully ignorant.
An article I read suggests that protests were raised before the contract was formed.
However, apparently the objections had nothing to do with the guy's views on evolution. Rather, objections were raised because of apparent views expressed about the LGBTQ community.
Candidly, I'm of the opinion that you let this guy come on. If you disagree, follow him with a counter position. Or, see if he'll engage in a debate. I don't see the down side to that.
If he had been called in to engage in a debate (rather than control the agenda as a speaker) I would be in favor of him attending.
Why waste university resources debunking superstitious and bigoted crap? What educational value does that serve other than to waste time? It's bad enough that Ham has fleeced the taxpayers of Kentucky, must he be allowed to do it to another bible-babbling state? Should a platform at a public university be given to other unscientific and bigoted religious claims, like the notion of "amalgamation" in traditional 7th Day Adventism that black folks are the products of intercourse between man and gorillas?
If Ham wants to advance his Cretinist ideas in a proper academic forum he's free to submit his peer-reviewed research to a relevant journal.
.
The downside is it lends credibility to completely unsupported and unsupportable nonsense. That's why Ham seeks out and eagerly accepts these invitations because it elevates Cretinism and gives him a platform to hawk his wares (which was part of the contract).
A case in point is Ham's "debate" with Bill Nye. An unbiased observer would see that Nye did a good job debunking Ham's claims and explaining what the current science actually is, but apparently superstitious people without an adequate background in science think that Ham "won" the debate.
In areas where such beliefs are prevalent it would be good for a university to -on occasion- engage in a real debate and, in so doing, illustrate the nonsense. I agree it would make no sense to do this at UCLA, but the Bible Belt is quite a different situation.
I'd agree except the problem is what we saw in the debate with Bill Nye, where science lost ground with people who hold Cretinist superstitions. So these debates actually exacerbate the problem in the bible belt.
The target audience needs a minimal education in things like the constancy of nuclear decay rates, and that doesn't happen in a debate forum. Don't forget that Ham will be reinforcing views these kids have been indoctrinated with, not challenging those views like their professors will do.
Well I agree it wouldn't serve any educational value, but there would be some comedic value. Seriously I did a tour of his museum a few years ago and was still giggling as I drove down the highway many hours later.
So, Oklahomans are such uneducated bible thumpers, they don't have capacity to comprehend or appreciate anything scientific? Better tell the folks at the museum of natural history. The allegation that its collection spans 300 million years must be a typo.
People automatically envision a scene from Deliverance when they think of Oklahomans. Not the case. Nor is it the case that the UCO student body is composed solely of white Christian males from Oklahoma.
Again, I don't see the downside of a debate. Allegations that a group of people is either too ignorant or indoctrinated to challenge or accept allegations of fact seems a poor argument against open debate.
Maybe you should ask the legislators who recently put a monument to the Top 10 Sharia Laws on state grounds?
.
Hmmm.....maybe university funds should also be used to sponsor a lecture by the Flat Earth Society and a lecture by the racist bible-babblers who say that black folks are the product of sex between humans and gorillas? The racist lecture will be followed by a fund raiser for that group in the hallway outside the lecture room. Surely those are a good use of taxpayer and student dollars. If black students find that offensive it's just too bad, right?
At the very least before we get to teach the relatively modern notion of Cretinism which Ken Ham holds, we need to teach more traditional views like the one where the disc of the earth sits on the back of giant elephants which stand on a giant tortoise.
I absolutely agree but neither I or my buddy in KY have been willing to subsidize the Cretinist Museum with our hard-earned $30 despite that being very cheap for good entertainment.
I don't know if you saw it but about 10 years ago there was a most excellent and extremely un-PC review of the tour by a guy who pretended to be disabled.
I don't know if I'd be able to suppress myself from breaking out into full-fledged laughter and being thrown out. I wonder if they'd give me my money back?
the tour by a guy who pretended to be disabled.
Maybe he had a part time job working getting "cured" by Benny Hinn on Sundays?
'Seriously I did a tour of his museum a few years ago and was still giggling as I drove down the highway many hours later.'
What a waste of money.
Bit of a non sequitur there. But, if you are referring to the Ten Commandments law, you may not have realized that Oklahomans, by and through the Oklahoma Supreme Court, held the law was a clear violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Again, I think this is getting a little far afield and away from the issues of a debate between Ham and (pick anyone you like from the scientific community) and of whether or not Oklahomans, in general, lack the discernment necessary to grasp the topic of debate. As an aside, I'd love to see a debate between a flat earth enthusiast and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
As for the "racist bible-babblers", I wouldn't mind seeing anyone of that ilk shredded at a debate by any one of a number of Christians I associate with.
If colleges are to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, then why exclude ideas? The only reason would be that a person, or group, believes they have already achieved the moral or intellectual high ground, and that nothing could be achieved by rigorous debate or the free flow of ideas. Therefore, any idea counter to their position should not be communicated. To me, the threat of some imbecile being persuaded by bad information is outweighed by the possibility that the good information is not only conveyed, but bolstered in that moment. So, again, where is the downside?
There isn't one.
Not if one is interested in truly unfettered "free speech" and not just forms of "free" speech that one can agree with. Nothing "free" about that. Nothing at all.
I want to agree with you, but I'm reminded of this class I took in college called Co-Evolution/Bioethics. There were people who signed up for that class who were not even science majors who took the class as an opportunity to proselytize and slam those of us who believed in evolution. It got downright hairy in that class and almost came to blows serveral times.
My point is...at the ripe old age of 21-22, these kids in my class had their minds made up and were not open to the concept of evolution. Now let's take this debate from Indiana, PA to Oklahoma. What do you think is going to happen?
That was a challenge
Dunno about that, between drinks and the ticket cost a comedy show would have been more expensive. I feel I got my money's worth out of the tour, which doesn't even take into account the added value of having a really funny story at parties and such.
Those darn liberal courts thwarted the clear intent of the GOP-controlled legislature and their sharia laws!
.
We don't know the university's rationale but I can see any number of valid reasons, like the Cretinist lecture being an utter waste of student funds, an improper endorsement of religious superstition at a state school, a grossly improper funding of a group with an anti-LGBT record, the fundraising by the Cretinist group which the contract permitted on university grounds, and the fact that the college really shouldn't be providing a venue for anti-science nonsense in a state which already has severe problems in science education.....particularly given the adverse influence such "lectures" seem to have on people who lack an adequate background in science. In other words it goes against the mission of the school to treat Ham's superstitious quackery as an "idea" worthy of equal treatment with peer-reviewed science.
However note that Ham is still free to rant in a public square, rant in a church or other venue which wants him.
And he's always been free to submit a peer-reviewed paper to a relevant academic journal in which he discusses the falsifiable hypotheses he constructed to test his speculation about Cretinism, and explain how he conducted experiments to test those hypotheses.....but he chooses not to do that for some reason. He simply likes to take advantage of these non- refereed venues to paint the illusion that his silly superstitions are scientific.
Look, I'm not saying give Ham his own room for a lecture. I'm saying that I don't see the downside in holding a debate, in a controlled setting. Let Ham get baked (rim shot) in an open forum. What is the real fear there? It can't be that Oklahomans are simply too ignorant and indoctrinated to appreciate what would be unfolding. Maybe it is. Apparently I'd think the same way if I believed that; all of Oklahoma was Christian, all of Oklahoma denied science, and that no Oklahoman had the ability to hear and digest information.
I don't know. I guess I don't share the apparent majority view here, that Oklahoma is chock full of science deniers that would go ballistic if anyone promoted a world more than 6000 years old. Are there some? Yeah, but that isn't strictly an Oklahoma thing. The majority of the more famous fundamentalists I think are farther East. Maybe some in the rockies.
As an aside, if that happened, anyone that enrolls in a college course, for the sole purpose of disrupting and disputing the material, is a special kind of crazy, but extremely dedicated to the cause. I bet the college didn't drop the course though.
That's already been done in the "debate" between Ham and Bill Nye.......and the bible-babblers who watched came away even more convinced in Cretinism despite the fact that Nye thoroughly debunked all of Ham's claims and proved they weren't based in science. The real problem with these sideshows is that they elevate the image of hucksters like Ham in the minds of the uninformed and unschooled.
Also note that this event was not a debate, it was a presentation by Ham, a Q&A, and a sales session of Cretinist wares.
.
Well it's not just bible-belt, southern or deep red states that have problems in this area. It's just a bigger problem in those states due to persistent efforts to use the public schools to teach Cretinism or make religious endorsements. As I mentioned up thread my buddy teaches physic at UKY and it's a big problem there.
.
No one here is making that claim. The way I look at it is in a state where science education is already problematic and not well supported by the state legislature, what's the benefit of "sifting and winnowing" through superstitions which were thoroughly debunked over 300 years ago? It's exactly like continuing to debate flat earthers and the enduring question of whether blacks are subhuman. Why would a state university do that other than for amusement and to offend people?
I agree. But of course this seed is not about debate and I see a world of difference between Ham at a podium unchallenged vs an actual moderated debate.
Not as far as I know. It was an elective very popular with biology majors and some anthropology majors.
I would't say that you made the claim expressly, but...
A fair reading of those comments could easily lead to an understanding that these poor simpleton kids from Oklahoma aren't taught any science in school, but have been hit on the head with the bible so often, they won't be able to process the information sufficiently enough to sort the good from the bad.
I'll agree with you on the point of education being problematic. I wouldn't limit it to science though. Oklahoma schools could use a little more funding and better pay for teachers. Maybe we'd retain more of the good ones, or possibly draw some in. Not saying all are bad, but I've seen some bad ones. Oklahoma ranks poorly on the national scale consistently. Its not because there aren't any capable minds, or that there is a refusal to believe anything not taken from the bible. Simply, the public schools are doing a poor job of educating and preparing students. You and I could have quite a lengthy discussion on that, and we'd likely see eye to eye on many points. We differ on the issue of Christianity's role in education in Oklahoma. From what I've seen, its not the road block its being made out to be though. There are other issues creating more or bigger problems.
Yes, it was a bit of a detour. As an aside, I have no idea what Ham's claims are. I'm interested in hearing what has everyone so opposed now.
Mr. Hamm's claims include the bible being the literal word of god and the Earth being only 6000 years old, where humans and dinosaurs coexisted, among other things.
Electives. I had poor counseling my first two years. I was an athlete. The team had one counselor, and she talked me out of pursuing something in chemical engineering. I'm not sure that was a good or bad thing, although I did really enjoy chemistry, and think I would have enjoyed that. Instead, she sent me on a path to nowhere, two years filled with worthless electives.
I'll admit I was a poor example of a student athlete. She may have had me sized up pretty well. I got on the ball my 5th and 6th year, when I was paying though.
I'm sorry but in my opinion anyone that truly believes this does NOT live in the real world.
Indeed. It's completely irrational, to say the very least.
I work with some chemical engineers and these guys are super smart. I like them better than I like the civil engineers in my section.
I think you would have done well with chemical engineering. But ya know...sometimes we get bad advice and don't have the experience not to dismiss it. You no doubt learned something and that's a good thing, am I right?
You've already admitted that science education in Oklahoma isn't very good, so why would you want a public university to host something which will make any susceptible students even dumber? You'd be doing a real disservice to the university and to those students who tend to hold those superstitious and erroneous beliefs.
Simple, I'm not afraid of what a debate might or might not produce.
It was not going to be a debate. It was a lecture by Ken Ham on 'observational' vs 'historical' science. Basically concepts he invented as a platform to dismiss the portions of science that compromise his religious beliefs.
Oh yeah. I don't have any complaints.
Right. (regarding debate/lecture) I want to watch the debate with Nye.
I found it amusing and a bit interesting. From a science perspective Nye wiped the floor with Ham, but people who hold Cretinist beliefs have the opposite view and think Ham "won" the debate. And that's why such a debate is a bad idea in a university setting - it elevates superstition as equivalent to science, and it reinforces those beliefs in people who tend to hold those superstitions.
Science educators (NCSE and others) across the country advised Nye not to do it for that reason.
Here's a good review of the debate which explains the problem (the full article is worth reading):
.
And here's one of the adverse consequences which that article predicted:
Well, that would be an issue in any debate, regardless of the, material. As an aside, dude is clearly upset Nye took the gig. Charged him with being a publicity hound.
That's why public debates aren't useful on issues like this. If Ken Ham wants to debate let him do so in a credible peer-reviewed scientific journal.
There is no reason for college students to waste time on myths that have been debunked for centuries. They need to be learning valuable information, they can easily get their mythology from their church.
Except 'right wing mouth maws' rarely, if ever, engage in a fair debate on any matter.
That's been done before, Ken Ham was destroyed by Bill Nye...
I really don't know anything about the man or who he is or what he believes. That is really irrelavent to me .(I wouldn't attend no matter what side he's on) What is important is that someone wanted to hear his opinion and tboughts .
For those that wanted to hear him, go for it. No big deal .
For those that don't like his words, dont attend you wont be missed .
Do you agree with the beliefs Ken Ham seeks to infuse into the minds of the next generation? A 6,000 year old earth? Dinosaurs coexisting with human beings ... baby dinosaurs on an ark? Literal (dead literal) interpretation of the Bible?
Would you prefer your children (students at the university) attend his speech (sermon) where he totally misrepresents science?
It doesnt matter whether I believe what he says or not . (I don't BTW) He has a right to them and others have the right to hear them if they choose. Who are you to deny him and his followers there rights to hear him just because you disagree. Someone at the school must want to hear him because someone wanted to invite him there to speak .
This too. The Russian Federation keeps its religious orders sequestered and only brings them out for a political end. It is strange that here in America the resurgence of religious ideology is being supported by questionable qualifiers whose purpose seems to be fear, suspicion and ignorance. Coincidence or Kompromat'?
While that's true the university has no obligation to give him a platform, and there are several good reasons why they should not do so.
Ham will be speaking at a Baptist church instead. That's a far more appropriate venue for his superstitious nonsense.
A university has the right to determine who they invite (or disinvite). Are you suggesting that universities do not have this purview?
If you are going to give the school the ability to deny him a venue to speak because some object to the content of his speechare you also willing to allow them to deny you the right to hear someone else who other people disagree with?
We are talking about a university here. Do you deny a university the ability to determine what is taught on its own campus?
Yes, arkpdx, that is quite true. Free speech does not mean that a university is obliged to let anyone address their students on campus.
He has the right to say whatever BS he want. But the university or any other organization is under no obligation to provide him with a platform for him to say what he wants. Refusing him a platform does not infringe on his free speech in the least.
You can not claim you are for free speech on one hand while denying free spech on the other because you don't like what is said.
True. Who has suggested otherwise?
Free speech does not mean you automatically have the right to address the student body of a university. You understand that, right? That is what I wrote.
So Ham has the right to free speech but he cannot address the student body at a university if said university does not wish him to. He was going to speak because they decided to allow him to speak. They changed their minds (broke the contract) and now he no longer can speak. This is not a matter of free speech, this is a matter of a university having the right to control what events it hosts.
Do you deny universities the rights to determine which events may take place on their grounds?
And if Professor Richard Dawkins was invited and then denied (broken contract) the right to speak at a Baptist University on the subject of evolution, I would disagree with the university's decision but it would still be their decision to make.
In this case I agree with the university's decision (for whatever reason it ultimately had) to not give an open podium to this nut to misrepresent science and deliver nonsense to the student body.
And i noticed that you were unable to give even one .
I agree too but there are other reasons why it was better to retract the invitation, including the anti-gay views of Ken Ham and his organization and the contractual requirement to allow Ham to fund raise and use university facilities to sell his crap during and after his presentation.
A more useful lecture by Ham would be "How to bilk the public and use taxpayer money to fund your for-profit religious cult."
Denial? No. But in the recent past, Ku Kluxers, Nazis, White Nationalists and other extreme groups rarely, if ever, knocked on the University doors to ask for audience. Why so much of it now? Why the urgency to nibble at the American Fabric? And who benefits from a divided weakened America? This nation is under attack.
Could we get back to Ham being denied access to give a scientific nonsense speech to university students?
Ham is part of the game plan. Stupid is as stupid does.
Seems to me you are being intentionally vague. Please make a comment that is somewhere close to the topic.
Perhaps this 'topic' is deep, not shallow.
A very good reason to use clear language!
The real question is - why would any university give a charlatan like this a speaking contract in the first place?
Yup. Good to see you here, katrix.
Spring is coming .. hiking .. kayaking .. and plays in July .. I hope to see you in person a few times this year!
I'm sure we can make that happen.
Paid even. (hi katrix)
Good Question. It was an Oklahoma University. So, that kind of explains Hamm's invitation...
Good question. Since we are becoming a nation of conspiracy theorists, I see one. I see conservatives pushing pseudo-news and now we see them pushing pseudo-Science. It's becoming clear that the truth will not serve conservatives, so this is part of the creation of a pseudo-Universe. Hopefully, once it is created, all the conservatives will move there, and we can get on with living in reality.
I've always prided myself on being non-partisan. But as someone who supports facts and equal rights, I've unfortunately had to start leaning much more to the left. I hate having to do it ... but what's another choice which is moral? Who the hell can support any politician who calls lies "alternative facts?" and is throwing our country under the bus in order to support his own ego?
The dumbing down of America has real consequences, and we're seeing them now. The first time Survivor aired, we went down this road.
I think it was to be paid with funds segregated for student groups to use for such purposes, but of course the university does have veto power over speaking invitations and contracts.