Op-Ed | The Waterbury Times
By R. Colella
“I’m a proud member of the RLS, and prouder still of being born in the Constitution State. I’m never comfortable with restricting speech—even when I vehemently disagree with it. Debate in the marketplace of ideas is always the better path.
That said, if there are concerns for the safety of students, every measure should be taken to protect them. If there are credible threats, I also believe that information should be shared with organizers where appropriate.
Certain factors immediately come to mind in the current climate:
- Turning Point USA being a lightning rod in today’s political environment
- The assassination of Charlie Kirk
- The legacy of mass casualty events like Sandy Hook
- Ongoing international tensions involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran
These are all realities that shape how institutions assess risk today. There are unfortunately individuals and bad actors who may use high-profile events as opportunities to cause harm, and that has to be taken seriously.
No one wants to see that happen. If this is a case of “better safe than sorry,” and UConn believes it cannot guarantee the safety of attendees, I understand the decision—even if I disagree with the broader implications for speech on campus.
I couldn’t disagree more with everything TPUSA stands for, but I would still rather see those ideas challenged in the open through words, debate, and public scrutiny. That is how ideas are defeated in a free society.
However, if there is even a minuscule chance that lives could be at risk, caution has to come first. Safety must outweigh politics.”
— Commenter of the Week, Facebook
Read More Opinions From Our Readers
Opinion & Editorials | Waterbury Times – Local Perspectives and Analysis
Leave a Reply