It is good to hire relevant speakers

It’s public knowledge that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards had an extramarital affair while he was running for president in the 2008 Democratic primaries. However, that is not why IU is paying him $35,000 to speak in November.

IU’s Union Board hired Edwards to speak Nov.11 about America’s economic and political future. As a man who was almost vice president, he might have something relevant to say.  

Some might be dismayed that IU is financially supporting a speech by Edwards, not least of all because of his lack of fidelity. But the University is simply doing its part as an academic institution.

By having Edwards speak, IU acknowledges Edward’s might have a unique political understanding. In no way is IU supporting his questionable licentious actions.

In truth, IU is fostering academic discourse about Edwards and his speech. The Union Board should be lauded for not pandering to people who are upset by Edwards’ actions. 

It is foolish to judge someone by his or her greatest mistake, even a politician. IU, as a place of higher learning, has an obligation to provide objective and unbiased knowledge. One way the University does this is by providing prominent and significant speakers. Edwards’ political expertise and experience qualify him as someone deeply relevant and worthy of listening.

Universities have a rich history in hiring speakers, especially political figures. When The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art had Hugo Chavez speak, the university did not endorse Chavez, his policies or his actions.
Edwards will be the same thing, albeit a tad less contentious.

So, let’s just take a deep breath, relax and understand that neither IU nor the Union Board are necessarily supporting any of Edwards’ actions by having him speak Nov. 11. 

IU is plainly attempting to educate its students.


Dissent:

As a supporter of Sen. John Edwards during the Democratic primaries, it is painful to disagree with the decision to bring the former presidential candidate to campus.
At the risk of sounding like a Republican, Edwards’ affair was immoral and unbecoming of a leader. Strangely enough, Edwards would agree.

In 1999, during Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Edwards claimed that president had disrespected his office and the moral dimensions of leadership.

Also at issue is the blatant hypocrisy. While Edwards is opposed to gay marriage, he openly violated the sanctity of his own.
 
Some will argue that politics and morality should be removed from each other. This is ridiculous – our laws and policies are codified by our sense of morality and we should expect the same standards from our politicians. In bringing Edwards to IU, the Union Board implicitly condones his hypocrisy and immorality.
Who next, Larry Craig?

-Indira Dammu is a senior majoring in political
science.