Recently Alex Epstein spoke about the moral case for fossil fuels at Colorado Mesa University (CMU), and the mixed response afterward showed how valuable it is to bring speakers like him to campus. The only thing better than an individual lecturing on controversial topics is two, or more, individuals with opposing viewpoints. That is what stirs genuine intellectual growth and it’s what clubs and organizations at CMU should bring to campus.
It’s important to make sure it’s understood that doing so is the responsibility of the students. CMU doesn’t often bring in speakers, and it didn’t bring in Epstein. Landman Energy Management (LEM) club brought Epstein using grant money. CMU, being a university that promotes the exchange of thought, simply didn’t get in the way of student leaders exercising autonomy.
That autonomy is something LEM has exercised, and will probably continue to do so. The last two years they have brought in speakers on controversial topics, so it stands to reason they will make it a pattern. This is their right and good for stimulating conversation and thought.
In no way, therefore, is The Criterion taking an issue with LEM’s decision to bring Epstein or any other speaker. The Criterion is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Epstein in this editorial.
At the same time, having a one-sided lecture with only a few, one-sentence questions, to respond to an hour or longer presentation probably isn’t the best format. Information gets presented, but without two sides equally represented, the intellectual stimulation value is diluted.
That’s not on LEM. That’s on clubs and organizations that disagree with the stances presented by their speakers. In fact, according to LEM Vice President Carey Thomas, they recognized this and offered the opportunity to have opposing viewpoints join Epstein on stage for civil discussion. Thomas said they didn’t receive any interest.
That is a shame because it denied students the opportunity to see a different side presented. While some students challenged Epstein during the question and answer portion of the event, or told The Criterion that he was a dangerous person, that’s a far cry from actually having equal spotlight and speaking time.
In Boulder, CO, Epstein recently debated Robert Kennedy Jr. at Colorado University (CU) last October. If CU can recognize the need to present opposing viewpoints, then CMU should certainly do the same. After all, it’s The Criterion’s stance that CMU is the best university.
The onus, then falls upon other clubs and organizations. If they have the passion to disagree with him, they ought to have the passion to bring forth their own expert. The civil debate resulting from such a move would benefit all in attendance. Both sides would be equally represented and attendees could listen and form their own opinions.
To be fair, that’s not necessarily a cheap endeavor. However, LEM utilized a grant to bring Epstein, so it’s not like they have deeper pockets than any other club. There are grants, donors and fundraising that can be done, and The Criterion actively encourages all clubs to pursue such means to bring in speakers.
It’s really easy to stamp one’s feet in protest, but that doesn’t get the point across as effectively as providing an equally represented rebuttal. It’s time for passionate individuals to put money where their mouth is and bring in their own experts.
This doesn’t apply simply to presenting an opposing viewpoint to Epstein. He’s long gone and speaking elsewhere. However, he’s probably not going to be the last controversial speaker brought to campus. All such speakers brought by any club should be challenged by an opposing view. That’s the path to intellectual growth.
