Bret Baier

Rank 24 of 47
|
Score 207

The statement 'Easiest way to lose hearts and minds — cancel graduation because of out of control protests sympathetic to terrorism' and the related conversations by @davidfrum and @johnfund engage in public discourse as they discuss the implications of university decisions in response to protests, which is a matter of public concern and policy. The statement and conversations address the impact of these decisions on students and their families, and the broader societal implications of handling protests linked to contentious issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement potentially does harm by framing the cancellation of graduation in a highly charged, negative light, possibly exacerbating tensions. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but might undermine the dignity of those involved by associating them negatively with terrorism without a nuanced discussion. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks an effort to promote understanding or compassion, instead it may fuel division by presenting the situation in a polarizing context. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of dialogue but leans towards a biased presentation rather than fostering constructive criticism or open dialogue. [-1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The use of influence here could be seen as negative, as it may contribute to a more divisive atmosphere rather than bettering society. [-1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    While the statement uses the platform to discuss a public issue, the lack of balanced reporting and consideration of multiple perspectives might not fully uphold the integrity expected in responsible free speech.