Today's Paper Latest stories Most commented Obits Traffic Weather Newsletters Puzzles + Games

Remember the old story of the young communist who tried to explain to a Westerner that his system of government was truly free? For, he explained, how can elections provide freedom if the wrong side wins? Which, you'll understand, brings us to the American college campus:

Students at Rider University in New Jersey were given a survey asking what restaurants they'd like on campus. Which makes sense. Students are going to be the largest customer base, so they should get the most say in this decision. And they were free to pick anything they wanted, so long as what they wanted wasn't a fried chicken chain owned by a family that espouses Christian values.

The papers say Rider University removed Chick-fil-A as an option "based on the company's record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ community." Hmmm. Was this survey about the philosophical values of restaurant owners, or what food students wanted to eat?

What an insult it is to students for the administration to narrow down the options. (It reminds us of what Henry Ford said about his Model Ts: You can have them in any color you like, as long as it's black.)

If the administrators of Rider University think liberals don't enjoy chicken sandwiches now and again, they'd better reconsider their stereotypes. We know somebody who was there when Chick-fil-A opened just outside of Portland, Ore., one of the most left-leaning cities in the country. The place was packed with thousands of customers for the first few days and remains consistently busy to this day.

Have you seen video of when the one in New York opened? Their lines were so long, customers had to get food to tide them over while they waited in line to order their food.

What kind of lesson is this for students? Surveys are frauds? Your betters know best? Don't worry your pretty little heads about these things?

Thankfully, students in this more enlightened state have the option of getting Chick-fil-A on college campuses all over. You can get the waffle fries and the spicy chicken sandwich at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and Fort Smith, Arkansas State University in Jonesboro, Arkansas Tech, the University of Central Arkansas, Harding University and more.

It's not about the chicken. It's about the choice. Or the lack of it.

Now excuse us. We're hungry.

Editorial on 12/01/2018

Print Headline: College knows best

Sponsor Content


You must be signed in to post comments
  • limb
    December 1, 2018 at 8:18 a.m.

    Is this a private or public school?

  • 23cal
    December 1, 2018 at 1:29 p.m.

    If a PRIVATE school had as one of its goals and aspirations to support liberty and democracy, and that school decided not to offer as a choice to its students a business whose owners spoke out for and donated to Nazi or Communist causes.........this editor would easily grasp the principle at work here.
    Not only would editor grasp that principle, he would sing the praises of this PRIVATE school having the ability to decide which firms it wished to do business with on campus based on part on the actions and SOCIAL advocacy of that business.
    The editor's real problem with this isn't that the school is choosy, it is that the anti-LGBT editor has his panties wadded because the school is for inclusiveness, which requires exclusion of businesses which work against inclusion. Editor's problem is that the school's goals are positive toward LGBTs, and homophobic editor just can't abide that.
    There is a paradox of tolerance which most of the right wing trolls on here are incapable of comprehending. The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
    Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that states "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
    *In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
    This principle applies to inclusion as well. Always including those dedicated to ending inclusion (of gays) paradoxically ends up being the opposite of inclusion, because those dedicated to exclusion (of gays) will end inclusion (of gays) in the long run.
    There is no obligation to be tolerant of those whose intolerance is designed to end tolerance because you would then become complicit in ending tolerance.