Letter to the editor: Protect our school’s reputation

Ian Thomas

March 7, 2019

Open Letter to the Editorial Board of The Criterion

In the last edition of the Criterion, an article entitled “Attacking Student Clubs and the U.S. Constitution is Irresponsible” was published in the Opinion section by the paper’s Editorial Board. The article largely focused on a perceived attack against the Land & Energy Management Club and the First Amendment regarding the “climate” presentation by Steve Goreham.

CMU Land & Energy Management Club has every right to invite whomever they please to present on a given topic. If a presenter is offering a perspective that may expand people’s knowledge, then by all means, bring them to campus. However, this right, along with a right to post FaceBook comments and send letters to the editor of both the Criterion and Daily Sentinel, are all equally as protected.

I can proudly say that I am a staunch supporter of our inherent right to speak freely. Free speech is an absolute necessity for any country that relies on innovation and societal progression. However, claiming that community members, students, and professors are in any way “attacking” CMU students is just as much of an affront to everyone’s right to free speech as was claimed in the article.

Several Front Range news sites picked up the story, and as of the time of writing, searching “Colorado Mesa University news” brings up “CMU Invites Climate Change Denier” on just the second page. This generation of students that are most affected by climate change will see that, and it will affect their final decision as to alma mater. Having a definitive position on issues of global importance affect fiscal matters much more than a few FaceBook comments.

If a student organization decided to invite an anti-vaccination group to speak on campus, wouldn’t Nursing students be up in arms? Wouldn’t concerned students, community members, and professors react in an equally as forceful exercise of free speech? Both instances involve the defense of sound science and the protection of our schools reputation.

In 1964, a landmark Supreme Court case (New York Times v. Sullivan) established the “actual malice” standard for free speech. What this means is that false statements of fact are protected under the First Amendment, as long as those statements are made without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Seeing as man- made climate change is established fact, backed up by data going back hundreds of thousands of years, and the combined brain power of thousands of scientists and supercomputers, are there really two sides to the argument for us to hear?

As one of the “irresponsible and uncivilized” students, I am astounded that such dubious claims, backed up by cherry picked & outdated data was presented as verifiable fact at an accredited university. Presenting such claims is dangerous to the credibility of the school I have come to love, and I will defend it with the rights afforded to me by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.