“The University of Saint Thomas took the correct approach in resolving the Desmond Tutu flap, safeguarding academic and intellectual freedom while preventing Tutu from insulting Jews. The school has an obligation to protect students from inflammatory speech”.

The Strib stirred up a hornet’s next of controversy last fall when they put a period on the end of the Desmond Tutu controversy by endorsing a paternalistic, authoritarian approach to the controversial event.

OK. No, they didn’t. They reconsidered and re-invited the Bishop.  The Strib wrote no such thing.  Indeed, it’d be tough to imagine any such thing coming from the Strib’s editorial board if a left-of-center icon’s appearance at a campus were diverted in any way.

But can you imagine how the local media and Sorosphere would have reacted if they had?
No, it was the fairly affable conservative, pro-life, pro-self-reliance speaker Star Parker that gets the special treatment – and the Strib, predictably, backs the authoritarian approach to (conservative) free speech

In the Parker case, a compromise was struck and the university ultimately made the best decision. She will speak at the O’Shaughnessy Auditorium in St. Paul on April 21. As a Catholic college, St. Thomas had come under fire for denying space for someone who agrees with the church’s position on abortion.

The Strib dignifies Saint Thomas’ position by omission. Oh, it’s true – but they also banned Star Parker because the Young Americas Foundation had booked Ann Coulter. Jane Canney’s objections – as I noted yesterday from Katherine Kersten’s piece…

Katie Kieffer, an alumna who helped plan Parker’s visit, says that Vice President for Student Affairs Jane Canney, who oversees the committee, blocked the way. “She told me, ‘As long as I’m a vice president at St. Thomas, we will not deal with Young America’s Foundation,’” said Kieffer.

Which goes a lot deeper than just “not booking a pro-life speaker”. It means Saint Thomas indulges in institutional bigotry against conservative thought on its campus.  Speakers booked by the Young Americas Foundation – one of very few conservative student outreach groups in the country – are non grata.

Yet the university’s speaker missteps offer guidance about how private and religious colleges can balance institutional core values with respect for free speech and the duty to expose students to a variety of points of view.

Let’s come back to that last statement in a bit.

St. Thomas officials said that Coulter’s appearance was paid for by an external organization and that the same arrangement was originally made with Parker. But that arrangement gives the college little say in the event.

Of course, the University had no problem bringing Al Franken and transgender activist Debra Davis to campus – and, let’s be clear, I don’t want them to have a problem with it, since I’m a conservative and therefore value genuine intellectual freedom – even though both of their messages are, unlike Parker’s, fundamentally anti-Catholic.

What “control” is it that the Strib thinks Saint Thomas needs?

The university decided to pay for Parker’s appearance, which means she must agree to guidelines set out by the college. That contract does not censor speech. Rather, it says that speakers must engage in civil discourse and handle controversial issues in a responsible, respectful manner.

Except liberal groups’ speakers are not subjected to this paternalistic, discriminatory guilt by less-than-association!

As St. Thomas Vice President Mark Dienhart said in a statement, regardless of who pays, the university is ultimately responsible for the impact of speakers on the community and should be a primary party in agreements with speakers. That’s wise advice for any college or university.

It might be, perhaps, if it were consistently applied.

As it is, it’s merely further evidence of Saint Thomas’ intellectual cowardice – and the Star/Tribune’s hypocrisy.

UPDATE:  Scott Johnson updates this story with the latest from Katie Kieffer, whom he quotes at length (with emphasis added by me):

What exactly are the terms of this speaker’s contract? My sister Amie and I pressed Jane Canney to show us the University’s process for bringing conservative speakers to campus, and she refused to show this to us. Again, what is there to hide?

Why does the University feel such a need to properly “manage” events sponsored by conservative students? Who was monitoring the students or groups who brought Barbara Davis and Al Franken to ensure that they did not offend the St. Thomas community?

That’s the bit that gets me; the assumption, on the part of UST and the Strib, that the institution needs to “Manage” conservative events, to feel “comfortable” with the message its students get.

Would anyone in the Twin Cities’ leftymedia tolerate this if it were aimed at, say, Michael Moore?