Reader Jonathan Eddison sent along this piece. I agree with some of what the author says, but disagree with this: "Trump’s cabinet members and high-level appointees share collective responsibility for propping up a shameful presidency. They deserve opprobrium not merely because they hold cranky views on, say, the trade deficit or economic relations with China, but also, and more importantly, because their continued service makes them fully complicit in Trump’s behavior." We should be grateful that, despite Trump's being a noxious maniac, there are some competent people in his Administration. Does Secretary Mattis deserve the same oppoprium as the qyasu-fascist sociopath Stephen Miller? I would think obviously not! So I agree with the general tenor of this proposal, but I think we should be more discriminating, and judge officials not on a "guilt by association" basis but rather based on what they actually do or have done:
The most important principle to uphold is the distinction between hearing someone and honoring someone. Trump’s immediate circle and senior appointees should be welcome for discussion and debate. They should be treated in a civil manner when they show up. But they should not be accorded the degree of respect or deference that their seniority and government positions would normally merit. We do not, after all, have a normal administration that can be served honorably.
This means no honorific titles (fellow, senior fellow), no named lectures, no keynote speeches headlining conferences or events. While individual faculty members and student groups should be free to invite Trump appointees to speak on campus, as a rule such invitations should not be issued by senior university officers. And lectures and presentations should always provide an opportunity for vigorous questioning and debate.