Because it is there department that is organizing the talk?
I'm happy to argue about whether they should have decided to cancel the talk, how in general you should decide what speakers to have, and how you should respond to public pushback to your selections. But the general idea that a department gets to decide who they have come and speak seems like it should be uncontroversial?
My point is, for whose benefit was the talk in the first place? I imagine it’s mostly for those who were coming to listen to the talk, right? So what’s the job of the chair of the department in this case? To serve those who are coming to listen to the talk, is it not?
If that’s all true, then were all of those coming to listen to the talk consulted prior to the cancellation?
If not, who was the chair serving?
Do you see where I’m going here with the idea of the “weak bureaucrat”? They’re pervasive in modern politics too. Most such people are supposed to serve others, but inevitably end up unashamedly serving themselves first and foremost.
I'm happy to argue about whether they should have decided to cancel the talk, how in general you should decide what speakers to have, and how you should respond to public pushback to your selections. But the general idea that a department gets to decide who they have come and speak seems like it should be uncontroversial?