Late Tuesday night I left my desk for to join 10,000 people swarming around the ice rink at Rockefeller Center where NBC was doing its coverage with giant screens on the skyscraper walls and a map on the ice of the U.S. with the states marked red and blue as the votes came it. It was very cold and all, average age of 25, were bundled up against the elements, but having a good time, though at least 80 percent were texting their absent friends rather that looking up or around.

In our family we were trained to keep our enthusiasm in check concerning events we looked forward to but, for some reason, might not happen. I had read enough analyses to be rationally confident Obama would win; but, having lived through Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes, I was emotionally primed to ride with it if we lost. So I bought a 2 dollar hot dog and went back to my 8th floor room on 56th St., made a cup of hot tea and turned on the tube. By 11:15 CNN declared Obama the winner. My emotion was not elation but relief.

For me the most important issue was the one Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz spelled out in Sunday’s New York Times Review section: “What’s at Stake in This Election.” American inequality had become so extreme that it was no longer just a moral issue but an economic threat with worldwide consequences. The Romney-Ryan budget would “slow growth and increase unemployment while decreasing the protection of government safety nets just as Americans would need them more.” American inequality, he said, at a historic high, “is greater here than in any other advanced country, and it is rising.” It has increased because of ineffective enforcement of business competition laws, inadequate financial regulation, deficiency in corporate governance laws and ‘corporate welfare,’ huge corporate subsidies that reached new heights in the Bush administration. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan’s tax policies, he concluded, “would lead to more inequality . . . and would lead to a divided society, one that endangers our future — our economy, democracy and sense of national identity.”

There is no guarantee that President Obama can turn back this tide, but it is clear that his opponents would not want to. But Obama has renewed the hope he planted four years ago: maybe now, conscious of what history will say, he will risk his popularity and take on gun control and climate change.

Romney in his concession speech was excellent — calm, generous, dignified. The commentators on MSNBC were taken aback: this was a Romney they had not seen before. I turned in at 1:30 and listened to Obama’s speech as I approached the peace of sleep, then read the text this morning.

It is beautiful, the eloquent Obama who captured my idealism four years ago during the primaries as he addressed the crowd at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City, with hundreds outside who could not get in. Last night he began, the task of perfecting our union moves forward: “It moves because of you. It moves forward because you affirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.” That’s a good start. We should support him.

Raymond A. Schroth, S.J.

 

Comments

Tom Maher | 11/13/2012 - 6:34pm
As one would expect the controversial issue and reaction to censorship at Fordham University continued today as the articles and commentary of the Fordham University student newspaper The Observer.  The strife over censoship and supression of polital speech is intensifying.  More people are statrting to strongly disapprove of the Universities hostility toward free speech although others stongly approve of sfree speech supression and scorn directed toward Ann Coulter politcal views.  Thiis yet further evidence of the intensity and duration of politcal conflict in America.  Once again this instense politcal divide at a Jesuit insitution is contrary to Father Schroth's visions where "we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people."  And the wider public is noticing and reacting to this politcal divide over censorship of politcal speech at Fordham University.  

It turns out the students who where publically ridiculed and humiliated by Presdient McShane felt that President McShane had been unfair to them and said so publically.  They however recived no apology from Presdient McShane for his fierce and uncivil public rididcule of the students.  Instead McShane approved of the students conforming , under pain of further pulic humiliation, ridicule and excitation of politcal hositilty on campus to free speech, to submit Presdient McShane politcal preferences as follows:  


November 10, 2012Late yesterday, Fordham received word that the College Republicans, a student club at the University, has rescinded its lecture invitation to Ann Coulter.
Allow me to give credit where it is due: the leadership of the College Republicans acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regretssincerely and eloquently. Most gratifying, I believe, is that they framed their decision in light of Fordham’s mission and values. There can be no finer testament to the value of a Fordham education and the caliber of our students.
Yesterday I wrote that the College Republicans provided Fordham with a test of its character. They, the University community, and our extended Fordham family passed the test with flying colors, engaging in impassioned but overwhelmingly civil debate on politics, academic freedom, and freedom of speech.
We can all be proud of Fordham today, and I am proud to serve you.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
Tom Maher | 11/12/2012 - 5:14pm
Ed Gleason # 31 


Well the attack on free speech at Fordham is just another example of how  unrealistic Father Schroth's visions of one big happy American family are. The Fordham attack on free speech only demostrates a fundementally divided American society where even bsic free speech rights are no longer recognized as an Amreican standard as it is everywhere else in America.  What kind of higher education experience is this where students are attacked by teh University President for their politcal interests?   Don't tell me that one should expect this type of autocratic rule of the jungle at an American University   This heavy-handed suppression of free speech is sub-standard and unacceptable in America.

And don't say the students were not heavily coerced and publicslly humiliated such that they grovel an apology like they were animals beaten with a stick. Adult students grovel aout an apology for making an independent choice to appease the fierce public ridicule  of the Jesuit President.  Theae studets were under extreme  duress from public humilitation.  What kind of educational insistution destroy students confidence and sense of well-being and legitimacy for their seletion of a speaker it turn out to their surprise the University Presdent disapproves.  The students are intimidated into a grovelling apology for a perfectly legitimate selection suitable to their needs and interests.
 
The original smoking gun on November 9th on censorship of free speech at Fordham is the student Facebook page “Stop Ann Coulter from speaking at Fordham.”,  The Facebook page says it all. The intent of the students is supress political speech. 

And the Jesuit Presdient does not disapprove of these strudents attack on free speech but vigorously attacks the students who want to to hear Ann Coulter,  The Jesuit President pulically redicules the student sayig he has great disgust for their choice of speakers and pulically calling the students immature for inviting Ann Culture as if there was some obvious problem in doing so .  The Jesuit President public personal attacks on the students are  profoundly disrepectful and humiliating.  The Jesuit President by his attacks and comdemnation of students failed to  encourage respect for the essential American value of politcal free speech in American society at Fordham University.  
Marie Rehbein | 11/12/2012 - 12:44pm
I guess it could be debated whether the First Amendment was to be understood by people with little or no education.  The debate in these comments, however, seems to fall on the side of answering yes it should be understood in its simplest terms.

However, the freedom to say what one believes does not come with some kind of "freedom" to collect money for it.  So, while no one should object to Ann Coulter, for example, coming to Fordham to express her opinions, they are well within their rights to oppose paying for it.

As to a theologian coming to an institution of higher learning in order to be heard so that listeners have more information upon which to base an opinion of the theologian's work, it seems to me that this would be something an institution of higher learning considers to be its calling.
Kang Dole | 11/12/2012 - 10:56am
Ok, sure. And YET, I still think that all of this comes down to is the fact that someone you like got the shaft, as opposed to someone who you don't like. But, hey, since you're al about free speech on camps, I look forward to you rasing your voice in the future to protest when Catholic schools put the kibosh on other speakers-ones that you don't like.
ed gleason | 11/10/2012 - 9:55pm
Tom ..enough.. send your family to Catholic U of San Diego where the president really bans scholars.  Fr McShane did not ban the Fox news entertainer. 
Tom Maher | 11/10/2012 - 9:33pm
Ed Gleason

But the point is Ed this demostrates a Jesuit Higher Eduacation President treats his  students and the people they invite to speak with great disrespect and contempt.  This is a public warning to all students that for no apparent reason ceratain speakers and the students that invite them will be harshly and uncivily attacked. This says to students your choices will not be respected.  Students have reason not to be confident that they are free to choose speakers whom they may be interested to hear and are heard at other insitutions of higher education.  Not all ideas and speakers are welcome at Fordham Univeersity.  Students will have to guess why that is and otherwise attempt to read the Presidents mind or know the Presdients preconceptions.  Clearly not all ideas,  free speech or speakers is welcomed or tolerated at Fordham University. This lack of civility and tolerance toward students and speakers and their ideas is appalling and not what is expected at all at a insitution of higher education. 
ed gleason | 11/10/2012 - 8:05pm
You say "Here is is here intimidatiing statement that casued adult students to grovel and apoligize as if they had done something terribe or illicit by inviting Ann Coulter:

As I made clear in my above post Bronx students don't grovel. The GOPers 'grovelers' must have been from Westchester or Jersey
ed gleason | 11/10/2012 - 5:30pm
Tom Maher;
as  usual you try to pull a fast one by implying the Fordham President canceled Coulter. It was the Fordham  Republicans, a small frightened minority, who now canceled her harangue. Here is what The Fordham President said.

"Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech.'

Having gone to Fordham Prep in the Bronx  we Bronxites are never afraid of anything..... much less a shrieking witch.
Tim O'Leary | 11/9/2012 - 10:31pm
As regards global warming/climate change, I would bet that we will get some good speeches but, no change. I wonder if President Obama will do anything about Guantanamo, not that I think it was ever as important as he pretended four years ago.

I wonder if the debt will really be above $20 trillion when he retires. They say the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the former's focus is the next election and the latter's is the next generation. Well, the next generation will get the debt.

The greatest inequality in America is that the unborn are treated less than slaves, less than animals. Most remarkably, it is also the most sexist and the most anti-disability. Girls are killed much more than boys before birth and 90% of babies with Down syndrome are snuffed out before birth. So, that almost certainly will not improve in the next four years, barring a true conversion of the President. And his choice of Justices might cement this injustice for a generation. 

I also worry about increasing intolerance of charitable religious organizations. Like the adoption agencies, and the public schools, the regime will further suck the Christianity out of it all. We are in for some sad times. But, I will pray for the President, and hope he changes.
ed gleason | 11/9/2012 - 4:30pm
Right!
ed gleason | 11/12/2012 - 3:21pm
Tom will never admit the only people who banned Coulter were the Republican student Club.. they folded   Tom won't fold ..he'll keep on posting diatribes against Jesuits. 
Kang Dole | 11/12/2012 - 9:42am
Well, for starters, you're applying lables to Beattie and Coulter that you must surely recognize will be unacceptable to many. You and others can express the opinion that Beattie does not teach authentic Catholic tradition, but this is exactly what is controversial, and will not be agreed to by others. Even if we were all to agree that such a sanction legitimized censorship. would you be able to point to anything binding and official that supported your denigration of Beattie? Moreover, while Coulter has her fan club, she is hardly the recipient of wide respect, even in conservative circles; rather, many would dismiss her as sensationaistic and inflammatory.

You also seem to be creating some weird dichotomy between the theological and the political in terms of privilige: religious speech can be censored, political speech should be open (not to mention that this simply discounts the fact that the two are hardly fixed as separate).

No, what you've done is found a way to justify shutting up some, while allowing others more freedom, which seems to be what you're heaping scorn of Fordham for doing in the first place.
Tom Maher | 11/12/2012 - 2:42am
Abe Rosensweig # 25 


Different First Amemndment  principles apply to the two cases you mentioned.  Freedom of religion allows for the religion itself to define what a religion's doctrines,  beleifs and practices are and who decided that the religous doctine is or is not.  In the case of Tina Beattie she represents hereself as a Catholic theologian but blatantly writes tehology that contradict basdic Catholic such as what the sacrement of marriage is or is not. Beattie either radically revises or ignores basic well-established Catholic doctrine or practices on a regular basis.  Her theology is not authentic Catholic theology and inherenetly can not be cosnidered Catholic theology.  Freedom of Religion allows the University of San Deigo to not allow Beattie's theology to be promoted in any way as autherntic.  As they say Abe her theology is just not kosher.  There are definate satndards for Catholic theology which her theology does not meet. One can not call something kosher when it is not.  Its a integrity thing that applies to all academic subjects including Catholic theology.

Free speech is free speech.  Ann Coulter is a author of number of best seller politcal books and is a regular telivision, newspapaer and web politcal commentator.  Her political views and analysis is accomplished and compelling and are widely regarded by a very significantly politicaly conservative but amin stream following.  But even if she was not as well known and accomplished she should be allowed to speak to the students who were seeking to have her speak.  The desire is by lift leaning students,  faqculty and sadministration is to censor her speech and prevent students from assembling and hearing  her and ssking her questions. (Freedom of assembly is another key freedom involved here.)  Freedom of speech of course in a democracy such as the United States of course is most applicable when politcal speech is involved as it is her.  Suppressing political speech is something Commuinsist China, Cuba or Iran and is not a part of the United Stares poltical or constitutional tradition.   What is happening at Fordham University - censorship - is radically out of the mainstream of American political and academic discourse and a spectacle to behold of Jesuit education dysfuntion. 
Kang Dole | 11/11/2012 - 10:28pm
Tom, you were pretty psyched a week ago when you learned that Tina Beattie had been blacklisted from the University of San Diego. How do you square your adulation for the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that lives to block speech on Catholic campuses, with your current hard-on for free speech?
Marie Rehbein | 11/11/2012 - 10:20pm
It's a private institution, and the money to be paid to guest speakers comes out of tuition.  Furthermore, no one needs to invite this individual to speak in order to experience the benefit of her thinking given that she is constantly on television and her crazy talk is repeated in numerous publications.  Clearly, this is not censorship, but a budget call to spend speaker fees wisely.
ed gleason | 11/10/2012 - 8:09pm
You say "Here is is here intimidatiing statement that casued adult students to grovel and apoligize as if they had done something terribe or illicit by inviting Ann Coulter:

As I made clear in my above post Bronx students don't grovel. The GOPers 'grovelers' must have been from Westchester or Jersey
Tom Maher | 11/10/2012 - 6:55pm
Ed Gleason # 15

What university President in the 21st century issues a public statement condeming in strogest terms without proof, or any specific example the speaker to be inviited to speak at the univeresiyt and express strong ressive disapproval of the students for inviting the speaker who grovel and apoligize for inviting a wrote a number of books, appears on televison including recently major Sunday news commetary and frequently speaks at numerous other univerisities?  The answer is Jesuit President Mc Shane of Fordham University.  

Here is is here intimidatiing statement that casued adult students to grovel and apoligize as if they had done something terribe or illicit by inviting Ann Coulter:


Here’s McShane’s whole statement, followed by the College Republicans’.


The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy — and one another — stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
From the College Republicans:
The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter’s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely before Father McShane’s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

ed gleason | 11/10/2012 - 2:23pm
I thought that the losers would take awhile, re-group, test out newer ideas.  but NO, the usual suspects are right back spouting the same ole same ole as if  repeating  losing ideas will make it all eventually come true. The class warfare mantra went down with the Berlin wall. Go ask the Scandinavians if they want to give up their level playing field and they will throw you into the North Sea. 
And stop your carping about Jesuits.. nest foulers are detested by all classes.   
Stanley Kopacz | 11/10/2012 - 12:37pm
The Occupy movement still exists.  THere have been are still people who see grass roots organization at a low level and strengthening of local economies geared toward the simple, basic needs of people as important.  THe goal is to defeat or displace the large conquistador economic entities that suck the life out of the rest.  It is those who think we must mewl and grovel before the so-called job creators who have the true slave mentality, though perhaps they are among the better-off house slaves/pets.  Class warfare? THe more, the better.  We didn't start the war.
J Cosgrove | 11/10/2012 - 12:35pm
''There is no guarantee that President Obama can turn back this tide, but it is clear that his opponents would not want to. ''


This an amazing statement.  If Obama fails and all economic wisdom says that his programs will be the cause of it, Fr. Schroth is already laying the foundation for laying the blame.  Namely, his opponents don't want him to succeed so when the next four years do not work out, the rationale for failure is pre set.  


I think the Republicans in Congress should give Obama his tax increases on the rich.  They will not be the losers.  The American people will be the losers but it will deny people like Fr. Schroth from making such nonsense claims.  The increases in taxes are expected to collect about $95 billion a year.  Let's see if they do and let's see what happens to investment.
Tom Maher | 11/12/2012 - 9:09pm
Ed Gleason # 34

The politcal censorship at Fordham University is  a real scene from real life that happened right in Father Schroth own backyard and shows a fudematal intolerance of politcal ideas and a desire to supress poliitcal speech within Jesuit instiitutions. This is not supportive of Father Schrofts iideas of a America family.  Intoleranceof political expression is a sign of a profoundly politcally divided nation.  But this would not be the first time that visions of a workers paradise that turned into nighmare of politcal strife.  What is unusual in modern times is this time politcal censorship comes from within a Jesuit institution of higher leasrning. one can not help but notice that is not a good sign at all.
ed gleason | 11/12/2012 - 7:23pm
Get a spell check and stop bashing Jesuits in their own blog.
Tom Maher | 11/12/2012 - 10:42am
Abe Rosensweig # 27

Let's not muddle the issue of free speech.  We are talking about what rules and centuries old expectations of free speech and especially political free speech in the United States of America. The First Amerndmenof the United States Consistution free speech as the central legal and political norm of American society.  The First Amendment has been well tested is responsible for making the United State a hugely successful and stable functioning democracy by enabling to the  maximum the free flow of ideas without censorship.  The First Amendment is a huge legal, politcal, and cultural  advance of human ciivlization.  Americans that do not understand the cdntral importance of free speech are fundementally ill educated and several culturally deprived of the fundementals of how free speech works in American society.

One has to be carefully educated to what free speech is in America and its historic acultural background and hugh cultural and politcal advantage free speech ahas given America.  It appears that Fordham University students are not adequatly aware of what free speech is all about in America.  There is a extremely deep history and practice of free speech in Amereica that Fordham University has demosnstrated has no idea about. But it is central to understanding America society and how it operates that one understand the First Amendment of the United States Constistuion and how free speech and rleligious liberties wrok in  America.  

By the way free speech rights are radically different than in Canada where you live which actually criminalizes politcal speech based on supposed audience reaction.  American free speech begins with the verbal attack by Patrick Henry's on King Geroge IIi that was denounced in pre-revolutionary days a treason to the Briitish crown.  Expressing politcal polints of view were not allowed in colonial Amercia.  So the only alternative was a violant and intense Amerian revolutioary was which the Patrick Henry's of the world won.  The rule now is free speach is the highest and only American standard.  If you son't undersatnd what free speech in America is all about you just do not know what your talking about and it shows. 
Tom Maher | 11/10/2012 - 4:00pm
Ed Gleason # 13

Hey Ed you don't have to worry the Jesuits have a solution.  

You got to read the article in Novemeber 10, 2012 Salon magazine about Fordham University in New York by Joan Walsh titled "Fordham head blasts Ann Coulter".  It is a hoot.  The Jesuit head of the Univesity after all these centuries has revived the Inquisition and is pasing judgement on who should be allowed to speak at Fordham.  Isn't it grand?  None of the 21th century crap about free speech or academic freedom.  Bring back censorship and though control.  You go tot read this.  It is a relic.  
Stanley Kopacz | 11/10/2012 - 10:24am
With the exhaustion of cheap fossil fuels, it is unrealistic to expect strong or even slow economic growth no matter what economic system is in place.  Tar sands isn't your grandma's cheap crude.  Renewable resources aren't, either, even though I fully support them over the permanent environmental destruction wrought by the desperate low return squeezing of fossil fuels from the earth's crust.  Over the last thirty years, since the Great Sandman became our president, we've been wasting fossil fuels in pushing big, fat SUV's around and heating big ticky, tacky McMansions.  The carbon cost  should have been invested in setting up a sustainable, comfortable infrastructure.  Instead, we've been playing a zero sum game with future generations.
Patricia Bergeron | 11/10/2012 - 8:22am
Wow. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes and false charges out there. If you all hate social justice and the Jesuits so much, why read America magazine?
By the way, what do you call Mitt Romney's "47%" comment if not class warfare? 
Tom Maher | 11/9/2012 - 11:39pm
Father Schroth's "most important issue" of "American inequality" as defined by Joseph E. Stiglitz in his New York Time opinion article of October 26, 2012 titled "Campaign Stop" "Some are more unequal than others"  is as old as the Bibile story of Cain and Able and just as perverse and wrongheaded.   Cain was envious of his brother Able prospering  more than Cain prospered.  This is the first documented case of wealth inequaity.  But this wealth inequality happens all the time in life.   Cain acts on his envy of his brother have more ewealth than he has by killiing his brother Able and taking all of his welth for himself.  Envy is a very powerfully  depraved and preverse part of human nature.  I that is frecognized as one of the first prerversion of human nature where one will even kill his own brother to solely posses his brother wealth.

Joseph Stiglitz's politcal commentary on the 2012 Presdential campaign shamefully justifies the evil impulses of Cain and justifies the irrationality of class warfare., a marxist comcpt that justifies the elimiantion of inequality by violent means.  Don't talk about American family love, unity, morality and peaace when you embrace the powerfully destructive ideas of class warefare which come from the basic human flaw of envy of others' wealth and good fortune.  
Tom Maher | 11/11/2012 - 9:40pm
Here is Fordham student newspaper list of student demands which states the central  justification for their demads for the university to cesnors and prevent Ann Coulter speech is their Jesuit eduacation.  The students believe they are obeying some unheard of Jesuit moral prinicple that allows censorship. The "manifesto" these Fordham students produced states they are acting on some higher moral Jesuit principle that iis superior to the principles of free speech practice everywhere else in America for centuries.  Wherevever did they get these ideas of moral supriority from that they are free to autocratically judge and censor others people's  speech?  These Fordham students seek to judge of other people's speech  and then demand the univesrity censor free speech and prevent other students from hearing speech they judge should not be heard at Fordham.


The students have formulated these ideas into what they call a manifesto, which has just been posted to their Facebook page, “Stop Ann Coulter from speaking at Fordham.”
The manifesto reads:

I. Ann Coulter, as an American, is entitled to her opinion and the right to express it.
II. Ann Coulter’s inflammatory rhetoric upsets the Fordham Community because her fighting words directly attack our members.
III. Fordham University is a private institution, not a public forum, and the speakers it chooses reflect on the values of our Fordham community.
IV. Ann Coulter’s self-expression is not compatible with the values the Fordham community professes–particularly the Jesuit tenet of “Men and Women for and With Others”.
V. For these reasons, we feel that our tuition should not pay for Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham University or any Fordham Facility

But censorship is censorship.  Does Jesuit education teach that speech should be cesnored or that cesnsorship is sometimes ok depending on how you feel or the mode your in or some other arbitrary rule that allows censorship? ?  Do Jesuits beleive there is good censorship and bad censorship depending on content of speech?  Or do Jesuit teach the importance of free speech, free from censorship especailly in a university settting where hearing unceonsored ideas is expected?  Where do Fordahm students get the idea that in the 21st century censorship of other people's speech is ok?  
Vince Killoran | 11/10/2012 - 10:17pm
Ed's right: You woulld think Catholic Republicans might pause & consider their positions on social justice, the economy etc. They might not change but at least think a little. . . Instead, they have doubled down on the attacks. Swinging widely, increasingly talking to themselves.

After thirty years in higher education-public & private-I can state that Jesuit colleges & universities are the most diverse, challenging and truly Catholic  of all Catholic institutions of higher education.

When my kids apply to college in the next year or two I hope they put several Jesuit schools on their lists.
Crystal Watson | 11/10/2012 - 9:22pm
I'm both elated and relieved that Obama won.  If anyone can do something about climate change, it's certainly him rather than Romney, who seemed to think that's not even a real problem - no surprise that the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations supported Obama.

As for "class warfare", I really don't understand how Christians can champion the preservation of the rich against the poor  ... didn't all you conservatives read the pope's call for wealth reditribution? ;)

Vincent Gaitley | 11/10/2012 - 1:25pm
Here's a prediction:  Everyone who is poor today and voted for Obama on Tuesday will still be poor four years from now.  
Tom Maher | 11/10/2012 - 11:58am
Amy Ho-Ohn # 5

The Occupy movement is indeed a good example of class warfare.  And yes many writers in America magazine romanticized the contrived 1%  vs.99% conflict  as some great moral insight on how the world could be politicaly prefected as Father Schroth would liketo do.  The problem is the movement was intellectually vacuous as you mentioned.  The people in the movement liked to be pandered to but were intellectually vacuous.  They ere narrowly looking out for their own personal interests only.  In 2011 the backgroud unionorganizer attempted to mobilized this group as class warfare  political factor in hte election but most recognized the shallow self-serving nature of this movement. 

In the end the Occupy movement has very little sympathy except by people who want to exploit it to promote class warfare.   Unfortuantely Jesuits do tend to intellectualize fuzzy concepts such as  "wealth inequality".  As a thigh nit and imbreed group they are  not readily able as a group to recognize the lack of intellectual merit in politcal concepts such as "wealth inequality" .
Barry Hudock | 11/10/2012 - 8:26am
That was my reaction to the results as well: not elation, but relief.
Amy Ho-Ohn | 11/10/2012 - 7:15am
I don't understand people who think "inequality" is a problem all by itself. If you take away everybody's wealth and make everybody freeze to death in huts like serfs, you've solved the inequality problem, right? But nobody would say you had made society better.

Saying you're going to "fix" inequality is disingenuous. It's an attempt to suggest to the wealthy that you're only proposing to make other people wealthy too, while simultaneously hinting to the unwealthy you're in favor of giving them somebody else's wealth. It's just a way to pander for popularity without proposing anything concrete. That's how the Occupy movement managed to implode itself into its own vacuity.

Of course, some would say Occupy learned that trick from the Jesuits.
Kevin Murphy | 11/10/2012 - 5:38am
Father Schroth says Obama is in the process of  "perfecting our union."   You mean the one he purposefully tore apart along class/gender/religious lines in order to be reelected?   His campaign was the political equivalent of Sherman through Georgia, destroying and laying low anything that got in its way. 
Father Schroth also says "We should support him."  

No, I'm going to go "all Bartleby" to that suggestion - "I'd prefer not too."