In a shocking display of spine-strength usually reserved for overcooked spaghetti, the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) decided that hearing a retired doctor talk about medical care was simply “not in the best interest” of the university. Dr. Shelley Sella, a pioneer in third-trimester abortion care, was scheduled to speak last Monday until our local moral arbiters realized that learning about things that are illegal in Texas might accidentally cause a medical student’s brain to melt.
The cancellation comes courtesy of a collaborative effort between the local “extremely pro-life” crowd and the Texas Tech chapter of Turning Point USA. TPUSA’s campus president, a freshman named Preston Parsons, managed to get a direct line to System Chancellor Brandon Creighton—a man who previously spent his time in the State Senate sponsoring bills to stop doctors from even mentioning abortion. Because nothing says “world-class research institution” like a Chancellor who specialized in legislative gag orders.
Parsons was quick to clarify that shutting down a scheduled speaker isn’t “suppression of free speech.” See, because Texas has a near-total ban on abortion, talking about it on “government property” is apparently the same thing as committing a felony in the faculty lounge. According to this logic, the history department better start clearing out those lectures on Prohibition and the Confederacy, lest someone accidentally start brewing bathtub gin or secession in the basement of Holden Hall.
The university’s official statement was a masterpiece of bureaucratic nothingness, refusing to name the actual person who pulled the plug. Meanwhile, free speech advocates at PEN America are calling this a “dangerous pattern of censorship.” But honestly, what do they know? They probably think a “Health Sciences Center” is a place where you discuss all aspects of human health, rather than a place where you carefully curate which parts of biology are politically convenient for the donor base.
It’s truly heartwarming to see a university system so committed to protecting its students from the “danger” of a retired doctor’s perspective. After all, if we let medical students hear about controversial procedures, they might start thinking for themselves, and we all know that’s not what a $25,000-a-year tuition is supposed to buy you in West Texas.
If a medical school refuses to host a doctor because her specialty hurts a politician’s feelings, do we still have to call the degree a “Science” degree, or can we just switch it to “Applied Compliance”?