ACTA's Must-Reads
« Hamilton Cans Western Civ Center | Main | Olive branches and battles royale »
Freedom for me, but not for thee
"All points of view are welcome at Columbia, from Venezuelan presidents to voices from vaginas," writes Columbia junior and U.S. marine Matt Sanchez; "Unless you're in the military."
Sanchez has a way with words, and he has a point. His quarry is not just Columbia's hypocritical approach to diversity--wherein certain kinds of difference are valued, and others are not tolerated at all--but its glaring failure to discipline the students who recently exercised a decisive heckler's veto at en event featuring the Minutemen:
You see, I had a problem: fellow student Monique Dols.Back on Activities Day, Dols didn't just lecture me on my stupidity in serving our nation; she also yelled that I was a baby killer. For a Marine, being called a killer is almost flattering - but for months Dols and her friends had been disrupting pretty much every event I attended.
Most famously, her crowd rushed the stage at another group's event, preventing the guest (from the border-enforcement advocates, the Minutemen) from delivering his remarks, and nearly causing a riot.
That day, Dols claimed to be protesting for the recognition of the humanity of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Yet somehow her concern doesn't apply to a citizen Hispanics proud to serve this country and eager to go to college.
And the Columbia administration seems to agree. Despite bringing national embarrassment to the university with her actions, she's gone completely unpunished.
It's unlikely that an angry op-ed written by an undergraduate--even one who is a corporal in the U.S. marines--will change Columbia's course of action (or inaction) at this point. But it's telling nonetheless that Columbia has preferred national humiliation at the hands of the media to a fair and reasonable response to the Minutemen incident. After all, it's not as if this is controversial. Columbia has clear, content-neutral rules about disruptive protests.
Here's the student handbook on what you are and are not allowed to do when you are protesting:
440. DEMONSTRATIONS, RALLIES, AND PICKETING.
Demonstrations, rallies, picketing, and the circulation of petitions have an important place in the life of a university. They are means by which protests may be registered and attention drawn to new directions possible in the evolution of the University community. But in order to protect the rights of all members of the University community and to ensure the proper functioning of the University as an institution of teaching and research, it is necessary to impose reasonable restraints on the place and manner in which picketing and other demonstrations are conducted and on activities of counter demonstrators or self-appointed vigilantes.
This is the intention of the Rules of University Conduct: to protect the concurrent rights of both the University community as a whole and demonstrators. While the University as a private institution is not subject to the Constitutional provisions on free speech and due process of law, the University by its nature is dedicated to the free expression of ideas and to evenhanded and fair dealing with all with whom it conducts its affairs. The Rules of University Conduct are thus enacted by the University to provide as a matter of University policy the maximum freedom of expression consistent with the rights of others and a fair and speedy hearing to any person charged with a violation of these Rules.A violation of these Rules is an offense against the entire University community. However, such violations are not here considered as crimes, and University disciplines should not carry the same stigma as a criminal conviction. All members of the University community are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty of a violation of the Rules. The University shall publicize the existence of the Rules and make them readily available to persons who may be affected by them. Such persons are responsible for being aware of all provisions contained in the Rules.
It would seem that Columbia is violating its own policy--and principles--by failing to follow up with Dols and her compatriots. That, in turn, seems to be a worse offense than the one the hecklers committed.
Posted by acta online at December 4, 2006 08:46 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/252
Comments
Well, perhaps the Columbia admini-crats (led by President "I'm-paid-more-than-President Bush-and-worth-it-too" Zilch, of recent memory distinguished by his distinguished inactions at the University of Michigan, now succeeded by the distinguished President Coleman, who distinguishes hersay-yulf by squandering taxpayer money battling a duly-passed citizens' initiative--the MCRI) are just hoping the issue will evaporate away, leaving them with the attractive option of doing what they normally do when confronted by outrages by the violent and disruptive Left: Nothing.
Posted by: Jacques Albert at December 5, 2006 12:14 AM
THUG-TACTICS ARE LEFT'S FATAL FLAW
I was at the U.S. Rep. Tancredo appearance at Michigan State, merely as an observer.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5185248,00.html
IMHO -- the protestors were right out of Nazi Germany.
It is one thing to be opposed to a viewpoint and bear solemn, purposeful witness.
It is another to seize the stage, block entrances, shout, menanace bystanders, slash your opponents' tires, and demand to be arrested.
It is at that point, reasonable people will not care if you are wrestled to the ground and hog-tied into submission, IMHO.
That is Stuart Smalley crowd's fatal flaw -- this is thuggery, not the 1st Amendment at work.
If the public had a full-view of what I saw, they'd be amazed the police did NOT arrest the "protestors."
Frightening. Right out of Nazi Germany, or the USSR.
The inmates are running the asylums -- no matter what Mr. Bollinger says. Only a cut-off of federal funds will get his attention, IMHO.
Posted by: B.D. at December 5, 2006 03:51 PM
Couldn't agree more, "B.D.". Just shake off what the delightfully succinct "LL" calls the universities'--and I'd include here the anti-military lunatics "running" San Francisco--"lip-locks on the public teat" and listen to their frantic shrieks . . . their wildly-overpaid presidents notwithstanding . . .
Posted by: Jacques Albert at December 6, 2006 09:29 AM
The failure of university administrators to discourage such thuggish behavior as we saw in the Tancredo and Minutemen incidents increases the likelihood that someone will be seriously injured or, heaven forbid, killed.
Which raises the interesting possibility of legal action against the institution, on the grounds that it's administration was negligent, if not complicit, and should have foreseen the consequences of their decision not to discourage thuggish behavior. After all, if you can sue McDonald's and win because they served coffee that's too hot . . .
Even if such a lawsuit were to be unsuccessful, can you imagine the amount of bad publicity that would deliver to the hapless school's doorstep?
Clawmute
Posted by: Clawmute at December 7, 2006 12:57 AM
As "Clawmute" notes, lawsuits against institutions that fail to take proper measures necessary to protect free speech rights of those invited to campus to speak would be one way of shaming universities and colleges before the public at large for their generally two-faced, craven policies of "tolerating" the intolerant and violence-prone Left.
Posted by: Jacques Albert at December 7, 2006 09:45 AM