Still more on St. Thomas and Abp. Tutu

For starters, thanks to Tom for his thoughtful response to my questions about the St. Thomas faculty statement.  His answer to my question, "how offensive is too offensive?" -- i.e., "I think at least a major criterion is a judgment whether the speaker is engaged in a good-faith expression of a moral or intellectual position or simply a malicious attack on a person or group" -- strikes me as quite sensible.

Thanks also to Rob for his thoughts.  It sounds reasonable to me to say that no "speaker engaged in the search for truth should be categorically excluded from a Catholic university based on the offensiveness of his speech[,]" with (perhaps) the caveat that the "offensiveness" of the speech is likely, in some cases, to constitute good evidence that the speaker is not, in fact, "engaged in the search for truth."  (Do you disagree, Rob?).  But, that said, how do we know -- as Rob puts it -- that Holocaust deniers are not engaged in the search for truth?  Is this just another way of saying that what Holocaust deniers say is not only offensive, but wrong (or, so wrong as to be offensive)?  How do we identify those offensive speakers who are seeking the truth, and distinguish them from those who are not?

And, I agree entirely with Lisa that "we need to think about how we, as universities, can constructively foster dialogue and debate, rather than simply providing platforms for assertions of positions on divisive issues."

Finally, it was clear, I believe, in my post that I was not asserting or concluding that, at the end of the day, Archbishop Tutu should not have been included in the program at St. Thomas.  What I wanted to do was to raise some questions about the translatability (not a good word, I know) of standard, "marketplace of ideas" / New York Times v. Sullivan / "speech always trumps offense-harm" arguments into the Catholic university context.  I did not, with all respect to Teresa, contend, or even "suggest", that "no one who is in disagreement with any aspect of the Truth taught by the Catholic Church can be invited to speak, even on issues in which they are in complete agreement with the Church and from which their fame derives, at least without some denunciation of the speaker's incidental false views."  Here, just to be clear, is what I wrote:

Also -- and I intend this as a serious, good-faith question:  Given Tutu's regrettable failure to understand well, and speak clearly about, the immorality of abortion, do those who signed the statement think that a Catholic university that welcomed Tutu to speak about peace-making should -- given the celebrity, and near-saint, status he enjoys, particularly with students -- do something (anything?) to identify his unfortunate blind-spot on abortion?  To challenge him?  Should a Catholic university that welcomes (and celebrates, and honors) Tutu have any duty to use his presence as a kind of teaching moment?  (As, for example, Pres. Bollinger did at Columbia.)  To be clear:  I'm not sure what I think about this -- again, I'm all for the rough-and-tumble of free speech -- but I'd appreciate others' thoughts.

I agree with Teresa that the position quoted above (i.e., "no one who is in . . . ") should not be embraced.