Recently, Steve Goreham lectured at Colorado Mesa University by invitation of the Land and Energy Management Club. The response to his speech, not its content, is the subject matter of this editorial. The message is this: students invited him and free speech is protected in the United States Constitution regardless of how palatable that speech may be. 

Goreham’s speech, which downplayed the human role in climate change sparked emotional responses from community members, students and even professors at Colorado Mesa University. The Daily Sentinel received letters about CMU allowing the speech and angry comments were left on The Criterion’s Facebook link to the news article about the speech.

Pete Kolbenschlag called Goreham, “a known science denier,” in his letter to the Daily Sentinel and said, “It is simply irresponsible – from an academic and a fiscal point of view – for a public institution to spend resources spreading falsehood and harming its own reputation. It’s an embarrassment to Grand Junction.”

“Ignorance is the enemy of the people, and shame on an institution of learning to perpetuate the myth of sides to scientific facts,” Tanya Travis, said in a letter to the Daily Sentinel.

Jack Delmore, lecturer of music at CMU, commented on The Criterion’s Facebook page. “It is rather outrageous that such an unqualified person is invited and paid to lecture at CMU, […] Makes me wonder who’s really guarding the academic integrity of the Institution?!” Delmore said.

“Spare me the “it’s good to hear both sides” nonsense,” Delmore said. The professor finished by calling CMU “dopey” for inviting Goreham to speak.

CORRECTION: Though Delmore was still listed in the CMU email directory as a lecturer of music at the time the editorial was written, he is retired.

Delmore, Travis and Kolbenschlag failed to realize their attack was not levied against CMU. It’s a student-run club they called irresponsible, embarrassing, deserving of shame and dopey.

[media-credit id=89 align=”alignleft” width=”300″][/media-credit]

It was the Land and Energy Management Club, not CMU, that invited Goreham to speak. It was students that wanted to hear a different side to a hotly disputed topic. It was ‘adults’ that attacked them for their quest to hear all sides before formulating opinions.

Community members attacking CMU students isn’t fiscally responsible. The university adds over $450 million in revenue every year. A lot of that is from student spending, but another portion is from students who graduate and continue to work and live in Mesa County.

That amount can either climb or fall if students decide to stay here after graduation or not. Attacking their choice of seeking all sides to an argument won’t leave a pleasant taste in their mouths and can heavily impact the decision to stay here or go live and work elsewhere. That’s a lot of money potentially walking out the door because community members decided to have a temper tantrum.

More unsettling than community members attacking CMU students is professors doing so. When student clubs try to expand their horizons and professors call them “dopey,” it heavily shapes how students view their treatment at this university. That can affect the choice to finish education here. It can also determine how many new students want to enroll at CMU. Who wants to go to a university where they might be ill-treated by their professors?

That must be disturbing for the administration, which goes out of its way to enhance the student experience. In fact, one way CMU attempts to create positive student experiences is through club activity with autonomy to make their own choices, such as inviting guest speakers.

Another disturbing trend in the vitriolic responses to Goreham’s lecture is the attack on the constitution. This is particularly highlighted by Delmore’s comment about an unwillingness to “hear both sides.”

There is a sickness in society today that drives people to attempt silencing opposing viewpoints. That’s shutting down speech, which is constitutionally protected. Those who claim the university should not have allowed Goreham’s speech are in direct opposition to the first amendment; an amendment that only exists to protect speech others might not like. Otherwise, there would be no reason to protect it.

It’s fine to disagree with what Goreham said. It’s possible to do so without making an assault on free speech or enthusiastic young minds. Otherwise it’s just irresponsible and uncivilized.