Below is the comment I posted to this hilariously bland point-counterpoint about Mark Steyn speaking on the University of Western Ontario campus:

I love the ideological mixup in this point-counterpoint article. One writer doesn't agree with anything Mark Steyn will speak about, and because once upon a time somebody else on campus spoke from a similar worldview she doesn't think he should be speaking on campus. Another writer doesn't agree with anything Mark Steyn will speak about, but because once upon a time somebody else on campus spoke from a similar worldview she thinks he should be speaking on campus. What range!

In 2006, Douglas Roche spoke at UWO on the topic of "Beyond Hiroshima: the role of Canada in nuclear disarmament". Was Roche a "controversial speaker[s] with something new to say"? Or was he a predictable far-left blowhard, insisting that the United States stop funding the military that responds to humanitarian efforts worldwide, and throw good money after bad in a 'fight against poverty and disease', and outright lie claiming that the US (which hasn't built a new nuclear warhead since at least 1992) spends over $500 billion annually on nuclear armaments? I'll leave that up to readers as an exercise to investigate themselves, along with the presence or absence of a Monica Blaylock insisting that -- as a controversial speaker with no new content -- Roche shouldn't be invited to speak on campus.

If the Gazette staff, upon looking around, discovered they don't have a single staff member who could represent Steyn's viewpoint, perhaps they should have written an article admiting that since they themselves don't represent the group of students that brought Steyn to campus, UWO students might be well advised to attend the upcoming talk. After all, if they missed Ann Coulter, this is their only chance to hear it directly. Maybe the Gazette can change some students into Steyn "sympathizers". Of course, they might find that they start challenging the messages within your own pages.
If it turns out the University of Western Ontario Gazette in fact does have both right and left articles, I am truly sorry. Of course, then the question becomes why they didn't pick one of those folk to write the other point.

If I'm right, and there is a far-left bias in the campus newspaper, then perhaps it might raise an eyebrow or two that only right-wing speakers are "controversial". After all, Maude Barlow spoke at UWO in 2007. Is there a single more offensive harpy on the entire planet?

Update, October 27 2010, 9:01pm: Your UWO student paper didn't appreciate the comment that I wrote above nor the comment that preceeded it: they have locked down the post and restricted comments to people who have registered. It looks like the Gazette's tolerance for opposing viewpoints is about as deep as you could have guessed from their treatment of the Steyn visit. Kim Jong Il would probably have gotten a better reception from this lot. George Galloway most certainly would have.

UWO students, even the ideologically driven (Monica Blaylock, Lauren Pelley) or cowardly (Managing Editor Mike Hayes) who work for the Gazette, are more than welcome to comment on this post. I think its pretty clear who's the more confident in their opinions.

Update, October 28 2010, 5:11pm: The #uwo Daily portal, which summarizes news stories about the University of Western Ontario, is covering this blogpost.