Wallace House Presents Bret Stephens of The New York Times

Bullet Stevens of the "New York Times" columnist stated that the difference is "the most important part of any decent society". He believes that it rationally raises questions about the position and beliefs, expands our view, and can revitalize our progress. Finishing offensive statements is more about harming our principles than sticking to it. However, in this extreme differentiation era, the art of diverging ideas has replaced the hostile closed attitude. Often the tolerance range is misunderstood as having no discomfort.

Let's participate in Brett Stephens and Wallace's House and make a provocative discussion about discomfort to society and individual education and the necessity of functional democracy.

In April 2017, Bret L. Stephens joined the New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist. After a long career at the Wall Street Journal, he went to the Times to serve as editor and served as a diplomat for 11 years. columnist. Prior to that, he was the editor in chief of Jerusalem Post. At The Post, he oversees journal news, editorials and digital manipulation and international versions and writes a column every week. He reported and interviewed dozens of worldwide leaders from all over the world.

Stevens is the national judge of the Livingstone Awards. As a winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 2013, he is the author of "American Retreat: New Isolationism and the Upcoming Global Disorder." He grew up in Mexico City and has a bachelor's degree in the University of Chicago and a master's degree in science from the London School of Economics. He lives in New York, Germany and Hamburg.

This is "Ubiquitous Speech and Inclusion: Understanding Contradiction and Building Participation Tools" of the U - M 2018 series.

Last week, "New York Times" columnist Bret Stephens was one of the "family conservatives" of the newspaper column page and praised Betsy DeVos Education Minister about the initiative he is about to restore. Defendant's legitimate procedure in sexual assault on campus. Now, as a follow-up and conflict, he shares personal notes from "Young Friends" about "the story of Survivor" - "The experience raped at university". Stevens reminded me of the need to find her account "detailed, destructive, sincere, thoughtful" and take steps to deal with "barbaric reality" of sexual harassment on campus.

Brett Stephens wants to make people crazy. When he reached the opinion page of the "New York Times" from the right wing space that focused on the Wall Street Journal, he did not seem to think anything else. His first feature article at the new home is on the surface of global warming, but in fact people are dissatisfied with the work of Brett Stephens on global warming: scientific certainty conveys the spirit of science We claim that the vacancy that caused alleged climate suspects to be wrong is wrong. A sudden and expensive change requiring public policy brought a fair question of the ideological intention. I insisted on the moral superiority of notorious people, treated skeptics as stupid and fallen, and won several converts

When the New York Times hired Brett Stephens, many supporters of sound science were worried. As a climate scientist, Brett has a history of destructive and collapsing power and weakened climate science using the influence as a journalist awarded the Pulitzer Prize. People expressed concern about his publication in the New York Times' first issue column. This is not the first time that Brett became a climate change factor. In an article he published earlier in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote a similar article attempting to weaken the climate science and make it impossible for the reader to understand it. Together with real-time Bill Maher on 23rd January 2015, Brett crushed climate science using historical events and reports of cherry selection. He took a cool debate without any mention of the fishery management conference being advertised in the 1970s. He believed that experts might be wrong. Please ignore all the evidence. And do not check Brett's claim too strictly.