Who’s teaching these kids?

[1]: http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/398396.html
[2]: http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/433153.html
[3]: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005086.htm

Well, there was one of those important, meaningful protests in town today. A bunch of kids protesting a couple of recruiting offices. Supported by groups like “Socialist Alternative”, they came to share their anti-war perspective. Is that bad in itself? No way. They should be free to express themselves… Freedom of Speech and all, right?

Well, the protest itself is so iconic it’s pretty useless as a method to meaningfully express the intended viewpoint. But what *was* revealed was interesting.

Here’s Freedom of Speech from one of the recruiter’s perspective:

> “They’re exercising their rights. We knew they were coming,” [Army Capt. Val] Bernat said, adding that campus police had alerted them days earlier. “However, we don’t appreciate the vandalism.”

Understanding Freedom of Speech from the protestor’s perspective takes a little more reading:

> The afternoon demonstration, which consisted of mostly students, had been organized as an antiwar walkout rally at the University of Minnesota today for about an hour. Demonstrators planned to march around campus, go to a military recruitment site on campus and on to an undisclosed location.
>
> But the Twin-Cities high school and college students who planned to participate in the metrowide walkout today would no longer get the show they were expecting.
>
> The walkout was scheduled to start at noon at the Northrop Plaza on the University of Minnesota’s East Bank campus and would take students through the streets of Minneapolis to the Free Speech Plaza at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
>
> There, students were to find a peace concert featuring several Twin Cities bands, but the college will not allow it.
>
> The groups organizing the concert claim that the administration gave them permission to hold the event over a week ago, but then withdrew it because of pressure from police.
>
> “Why does there have to be a time and a place to express our views?” said Janae Marshal, a student at the college. “[The concert] was taken away when pressure was put on the administration by the authorities.”
>
> With an estimated 800 to 2,000 participants expected, the event is too big to use the Free Speech Plaza, college officials said. The students would therefore need to rent a larger space for the concert.
>
> “The students told the staff they didn’t have the resources to rent the space,” said Ann Freeman, the college’s director of public relations. Freeman said that the students failed to sign the rental contract for the space and that they are not a recognized student group.
>
> Laura Fedock, dean of enrollment management, called the problem a misunderstanding.
>
> “Free speech is who we are as a college,” Fedock said. “This is a facilities issue.”
>
> But event organizer Ty Moore said he thinks there are political motives to the decision. “I have no doubt the administrators feel they are upholding policy details,” he said. “But I think they’re using policy and procedure in a political way.”
>
> The walkout is organized by the Anti-War Organizing League, Socialist Alternative, MCTC Students Against War and Racism and Youth Against War and Racism.

First, to answer Janae Marshal’s question – “Why does there have to be a time and a place to express our views?” Well, perhaps because these rallies are [notoriously vandalous][2]? (hat tip: [Malkin][3])

But more importantly, look at how they seem to think that their freedom of speech means someone else should be providing them a suitable forum. How they seem to think that when their numbers exceed what is allowed for in certain free forum, it is “political” that they are not allowed to use it. Anyone local knows pretty well that the U of M is not seen as an institution that would tend to oppress the viewpoint that was expressed. And “free” for them would still have required security and clean-up. Who pays for that?

Seems the “organizer” might have had a leg to stand on if he’d signed a rental contract, but not even getting that done? How did he expect to pull off a 800-2,000 person rally with no place in particular to put them?

The main thing for me is that Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean you automatically have the right to use someone else’s property as your forum. The windows and doors they vandalized were not theirs, and in fact most likely weren’t even the military’s; just leased property. The labor it takes to clean up and repair damage after their rallies and vandalisms is not theirs to allocate.

It’s Freedom of Speech. Not Right to Be Heard.

It’s Freedom to Assemble. Not Right to Others’ Property.

Whoever is teaching Social Studies to these kids is doing a very poor job. They neither understand they rights by which their voices can be heard, nor do they seem to care for those who help ensure they retain those rights.

5 thoughts on “Who’s teaching these kids?”

  1. We actually had a very raw-nerve situation on campus a couple months ago. The area in the center of campus is a designated “free speech zone”. Well, as part of the gay/lesbian/transgender week, a spoken-word performer was doing his bit out there. His performance had a lot of vulgarity, and a university representative came out and pulled the plug, saying it violated the law. That sparked a lot of debate, and follow-up protests were also intimidated by campus police who cited the same reasons.

    They were saying it was covered under the law about inflammatory speach geared toward inciting violence (the words themselves were not unlike what you would hear from Samuel L. Jackson in “Pulp Fiction”). Ultimately, the university apologized (I believe rightly) for their actions, and we now have more clarity about the “free speech zone” on-campus.

  2. Odd as it may seem, this reminds me of whenever some “artist” who paints or sculpts or renders in someway an expression that becomes controversial because it’s widely reguarded as “offensive” or “obscene”, and the work is paid for with tax dollars, thus adding fuel to the fire, another great debate begins.

    Trying not to get too far off topic here, but whenever I get into a discussion with someone on this subject and that person holds the view that; “whatever is expressed is protected by our constitution
    and withholding public funds is censorship and outright fascism”, I find myself wondering ,”who’s teaching these kids?”.

    Dispite the compassionate reminders of what our constitution actually does say, the debate often ends with no headway made.

    Well now I see why.

    If our “higher educated” masses don’t understand the seemingly obvious dictate; “That building doesn’t belong to you. You’re not allowed to block the doors, spray-paint the walls, plant pretty flowers around it, or burn it down”, why did I think those who would have me pay for; the U.S. flag in a toilette or a crucifix in a jar of urine, would understand the subtle nuance of phrase when revealing what the constitution protects with reguards to their “freedom of expression”.

  3. It’s interesting to me that there seems to be no “bottom”. Both speech like Jeep mentions and art like ScottyJ mentions would once have been considered beneath contempt. Now it’s embraced or celebrated or some other such nonsense by finger-on-the-chin, nodding, pensive “intellectuals”.

    I feel like we used to be able to express the vast range and depth of emotion with some at least cursory acknowledgment that there are societal norms which are worth considering. Often it seems expression now can only be made in the context of striking out against what old timers might have called common decency.

    I think that when one is forced to use the fewest words possible, the best writing can take place. I feel like there’s a parallel to this; that the best, most lucid points are made within a construct of respect. Anyone can lurch around cursing or screaming or throwing paint. Anyone can find some way to heap shame on an icon. That’s child’s play.

    And in my opinion, those who resort to such shallow methods of communication are asking for their opinions to be considered similarly shallow. Why should I spend a moment more considering their opinion than they seem to have spent formulating their expression of it?

    I leave you with a little Frank:

    In olden days a glimpse of stocking
    Was looked on as something shocking
    Now heaven knows
    Anything Goes
    
    Good authors too who once knew better words
    Now only use four letter words
    Writing prose
    Anything Goes
    
    The world has gone mad today
    And good’s bad today
    And black’s white today
    And day’s night today
    When most guys today that women prize today
    Are just silly gigolos
    
    So though I’m
    Not a great romancer
    I know that you’re bound to answer
    When I propose
    Anything Goes
    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.