I would like to suggest what I believe to be a better, more objective rubric to be used to determine what should or shouldn’t enjoy the platform offered by the college campus or any other responsible civic organization: honesty.
A presentation should be honest in 3 ways: explicitly, implicitly and intellectually.
Explicitly honest means a presentation is factually correct. I think this is pretty straight forward.
Implicitly honest means that important context and historical information is included. Here is an example:
A team of several masked, well-armed men break into a man’s home in the middle of the night and shoot him in front of his family. As they leave, they steal his computers.You are probably feeling one way about the victim. Now I tell you that I have just described the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Context changes everything.
Finally, intellectually honest means that conclusions and opinions are supported by the evidence, that counter evidence is not ignored, but can be explained, that cause and effect are not reversed, that correlation is not confused with causation, etc.
It seems to me this standard could be applied to any presentation, controversial or not. As far as I remember, it was the standard for scholarship back when I went to college. Maybe it could be used to determine what makes a "contribution to the intellectual life of the campus" and should be part of "the open and free exchange of ideas."
How does BDS fit into this? That is for next time.