Yes, we understood it was a provocative topic. That’s why we chose it. To provoke thought. Next.
No, the question is not racist. It’s a speculation about race. Let’s be clear about that. Next.
Well, because it’s frankly ridiculous to base admissions entirely on test scores. We have new science that tells us that answers to these essay questions are good indicators of creativity and leadership. Next. In the back?
No, I don’t think we’d be here if he hadn’t sued us. That’s his right. He feels he was discriminated against for his ideas.
Other topics from the list? Germany Wins World War II was another example. Your Roommate Is an Alien. Next?
No, we never anticipated the sort of opinions he expressed. We find them, any civilized person would find them, offensive in the extreme. I’m sorry. Did you have a question? We can’t just let you—. No. That’s my microphone.
That’s right. His rejection letter did mention the quality of thinking shown in his essay. No. No. Quality of thinking.
No, actually, that’s not policy, to explain to students why they’re rejected. We’re looking into how that happened.
No, we didn’t use the language “hate speech.” I know that’s been reported, but, no.
No, as I said, we’re the exact opposite of racist. We’re a university. If not here, where else can dangerous ideas be discussed? I’m sorry. I’ll have to insist you leave if—can we get security?
No. Student applications are confidential. We have no plans to release the essay. It would be inflammatory.
That would be true if we had rejected him for content. No, as I said, it was the quality of his thinking that cost him the—. Well, that’s what the judge will decide. Yes, next. A soft one, please.
Copyright © March 04, 2007 David Hodges