A
recent article in the Grand Forks Herald calls for the new SDS to not follow the "fanatic" path of the old one. It does not allow comments, so I'll comment here.
Frankly, the loose connection between Bill Ayers being at one time part of SDS and him later being part of Weather Underground (which resorted to violence against property in an attempt to get their point across), therefore meaning that SDS is on the brink of being a fanatical anti-American terrorist cell, is rather over the top.
If SDS invites Bill Ayers to UND to speak, does that mean they are violent? No. It doesn't even mean they support whatever views he holds on the subject of violent opposition to the government. It just means that they are interested in what he has to say--not that they are going to follow in his footsteps.
"What company SDS keeps" is not for someone else to decide--it is for SDS to decide.
The Herald Article has "slippery slope" written all over it--and reeks of condescension. Yes, those of us who are students today were not alive when Ayers was trying to blow up buildings, but give us a little credit, and let us make our own mistakes.
Changing topics a bit, the DS article (by Ryan Johnson) today on the subject cites Harald Brevik (president of Young Americans for Freedom, ironically) as saying "that he wasn't concerned that Ayers would sway students, because he knew that they are too well educated from their time at UND to be 'brainwashed.'" So why all the fuss? If you trust students to make their own decision, why try to block Ayers from speaking? Why not let everyone have their free speech (remember, Young Americans for Freedom!) and let students make their own choices? If you don't want to listen, you don't have to go.
I may not agree with Ayers' methods, but I think he should be allowed to speak. I'm just wondering what those opposed to him speaking are really afraid of.