From the New York Times via Volokh, protests have broken out at Stanford University against appointment of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.  As David Bernstein wryly notes,

[W]ith regard to Hoover: “They can have any fascist they want there, and they do… We’ve never protested before but this seems to be egregious.” Ah, the voice of reason. I guess, say, George Schultz is just “any fascist,” but Rumsfeld is an egregious one.

The protests at Stanford are designed to express that the Hoover Institution, and particularly Donald Rumsfeld, are “out of the mainstream” of thought there.  SO WHAT!

This fall back on academic freedom, which presupposes that there can be only the freedom to express one unitary point of view, is one of the most destructive ideas in understanding and addressing the problems of society.  Frankly, it just embarrassingly weak.

I don’t agree with Donald Rumsfeld, though I’ve come to better understand who he is after reading Lisa DePaulo’s interview of him in GQ.  But Donald Rumsfeld had a real impact on the lives of real people, while the academics diddle themselves to enjoy the thrills of mental masturbation.  These “freedom” protesters demand the right to shut down any voice other than theirs.  Some freedom, huh?

Worse yet, the notion that sound thought and policy is best derived from the resounding expression of commonly held ideas is just foolish.  Invite your enemy to the debate.  Let him challenge you, and let you challenge him.  The worthiest ideas prevail only when subjected to rigorous debate.

Stanford is generally revered as a bastion of learning.  High school seniors prays to be accepted there.  College seniors prays to go to their graduate programs.  This is a big time school.  so why, I wonder, is the faculty so fundamentally afraid of Don Rumsfeld or the Hoover Institution?  Worse yet, why must they resort to calling him a “fascist”, which he may well be but that isn’t the point, rather than dazzle the world with their ability to logically and rationally express themselves to show that Rumsfeld was wrong?  Is that the Stanford message to students:  If you can’t beat them in the arena of ideas, then call them bad names?

There is no doubt in my mind that Donald Rumsfeld is an ideologue, who has smugly helped to push America into a world-situation that is horribly destructive, wrong and ultimately disastrous.  I have no University to make him a fellow, but he’s welcome anytime to come to my house and be a distinguished guy here, where we can discuss and debate what he’s done and why till he cowers in anguish from my astute and irrefutable logic and persuasiveness.  I’m not afraid of Donald Rumsfeld.  Why are you, Stanford?