Members of the UWO branch of College Republicans picketed outside the union, and several made their way to the lecture as well. Shortly after Barrett took the podium, UWO Police were forced to take action when dissenting students stood up and turned their backs to Barrett mid-lecture. The officers received applause as they escorted students out of the room.Hmmm... Were they demonstrating against free speech or exercising free speech? The opinion that Barrett doesn't deserve to be a featured speaker at UWO is a perfectly good one. The only serious free speech question here is whether the students who stood up and turned their backs on the speaker should have been thrown out!
One of the student demonstrators outside was UWO fifth-year senior Erin Kisley, who said that while she believes in academic freedom, Barrett is stepping over a thin red line.
“I don’t want my student activity fees to be funding him to come here,” Kisley said. “I think his teaching is wrong. I believe in freedom of speech, but as an education major, I also believe that you should be teaching facts instead of your own opinions.”
Andrew Sabais, Chair of College Greens and UWO senior said many people view Barrett’s presence at the university as an “embarrassment,” but disagrees with Kisley.
“Tonight there is a big embarrassment for this university, and that is the College Republicans demonstrating outside against free speech,” Sabais said.
The student journalist who wrote the linked article says "UWO Police were forced to take action when dissenting students stood up and turned their backs to Barrett mid-lecture." What "forced" the police to "take action" against the students, who had chosen a peaceful, quiet form of protest?
ADDED: If Barrett had been a little sharper, he would have called on the police to leave the students alone. After all, he presents himself as very skeptical of government authority and concerned about free speech.
Posts
24 comments:
Andrew Sabais: Free speech for me, but not for you.
...especially on the heels of the Minutemen thing at Columbia where the students shouted them down and stormed the stage. Standing up and turning your back is routine stuff--and a fairly respectful way to protest, in comparison. Hardly an offense that merits them being hauled out.
Because they were Republicans.
Students stand up and turn their backs to speakers all the time.
Georgetown allowed it a few months ago when Yoo came to speak, and there have been plenty of other examples.
But, I guess the University can set the boundary.
Knoxgirl hits the nail precisely on the head. One has only to compare this kind of protest - turning of backs - with the sort of heckling and stage storming that one sees when Ann Coulter speaks at a college, or, of course, the minutemen farrago at columbia.
I guess journalism students dont have to read Orwell
Maybe the people behind couldn't see? Regardless, it does seem like a stupid decision on the part of the UW-Zero police.
I think the speaker enjoyed it and the publicity it has caused.
It's just the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Thank you for writing that Derve, I wish more people at my school would understand that. Especially the Republicans, cause I have to work with them afterwards, and it's already hard enough to get people at my school to take us seriously.
And to truly: Lots (or at least more students than used to) of students are taking a fifth year because they're double majoring or dealing with tons of distribution requirements. I can't see how it's a bad thing, getting more education, as long as they understand the money side of it. I'm currently (probably) technically a fourth-year junior, because i took a gap-year between graduating high school and begining college. I would never give up my experiences from that year, they directly influence my ability to suceed in my chosen career path, and I went on the program I went on because it would help me learn more about the things I wanted to do with my life. I think probably lots of people on the five-year plan (at least if those that I have met are representative) have more direction in their academic life than those who graduate aimlessly in four years. At least the five-years had to make a decision to go for a fifth year...
"UWO Police were forced to take action when dissenting students stood up and turned their backs to Barrett mid-lecture."
Haha. Really need the police out for that one.
We don't like overdone spectacle here.
It's hard to construe turning your backs on the speaker as "overdone spectacle." It's roughly on par with getting up and leaving when a speaker get's up to speak (and in fact, is almost precisely parallel). It's a calculated snub.
A fifth-year senior? Is that a polite term for "I can't decide what I want to do with my life"?
That's a possibility. It's also possible that they decided to change focus. Or they couldn't get some of the required classes they needed.
I'd much prefer my kids take 5 years in college if it means getting into a career they find enjoyable and challenging vs. 4 years and something they started off thinking they wanted to do and finished just to get done in 4 years.
Talk to me again, however, when my kids are in the 4th year of college (grin)
So get up at the end and leave. Or don't come. Don't just stand there, block the view, and throw the speaker off. I want to hear him say what he prepared.
We don't need to import these protest techniques to Oshkosh. It's not as "value added" as you like to pretend. Politer smarter ways of getting your message across are more effective; ie/here, letting the man speak and people freely concentrate.
Goodness, how prim. We really are the new Victorians. Not even allowed to cut a man socially in public nowadays. Floreat Etona and all that.
In the end, probably the best way to deal with a talking bag of excrement like Barrett is to let them speak without distraction. Then follow up with pointed, pertinent, direct questions that nail him and his sickening delusions. The real power of free speech is not in shouting someone down, but in destroying their argument for all to see/hear/read.
but it was folks like "MadisonMan" on the Althouse blog that the College Republicans there wanted to reach.
The problem with trying to reach "Me" is that when "I" read about just anything college students do, "I" just say "College Students" to "myself" and then add that they'll grow up someday.
That's what "I" do.
"Kevin Barrett... spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh yesterday..."
The UW system is really taking it on the chin for this guy. And taking it, and taking it. His class, based on bizarre and fully-reputed delusions should be an embarrassment for any serious University.
I'd be angry if i were a student, knowing that goofballs like this are in the news when I'm just trying to get hired. "Oh, you're from that school."
It's unfair how rapidly a reputation can be undone.
The police confront respectful protestors like these Republicans and avoid mobs like the Columbia gang for the same reason the left attacks the US and studiously avoids criticism of Islam: one group will hurt you back, the other won't.
I don't know enough about the institution at Oshkosh, but if it's a commuter school, with a large working student population, then it's not uncommon for students to take five or even six years to finish a degree. They're fitting in anywhere from 6 to 12 hours each semester while they work full-time jobs. I admire those people and their work ethic.
er ...repudiated... or something
Wouldn't Prof. Althouse's questions be better directed to the University of Wisconsin administration? Of course, I'm not saying that she would be doing herself any favors by posing them.
Letting the Republicans be the only ones to protest Barrett seems like a bad play on the part of the Democrats. People are used to assuming that anything the Democrats protest must be Republican and vice-versa -- by letting the Republicans be the sole voice for reason and decency the Democrats create the impression that they're on Barrett's side. Considering that Democrats generally think Barrett's an asshole, too, that isn't a smart move.
This kind of nonsense could only occur on a university campus. No one is coming out of the seemingly endless Barrett mess looking good, with the exception of the students who chose to turn their backs in silent protest. Having compulsory student dues used to fund a speech by this nut gave them ample reason to express their views in a way that didn't disrupt the event. Given that the UW administration has screwed up at every step along the way with Barrett, it was to be expected that they would do the same here. I see that they didn't disappoint.
The Barrett saga remains a huge, continuing and deserved embarrassment to UW. It certainly sounds like UW -- perhaps more than one campus -- would benefit from some changes in the management team. That would certainly have happened already if this kind of screw-up had occurred in the private sector. Surely there must be at least one adult in the University's administration who could bring some judgment and common sense to bear. Since it's a university, however, I'm not holding my breath.
You know, one of Ann's articles recounts a Rehnquist speech at UW years ago where protestors of one stripe or another gathered to make noise outside the lecture theater..."Late Night Confessions in the Hart Hotel" or something like that?
I've mentioned that you should get some of your scholarship together into a format where people without regular westlaw / lexis access can read it, right?
Simon: Yeah:
"Outside the theater, a group of protesters chanted and banged, trying to disrupt the speech. They happened to be pro-choice activists, but they represented all the many persons who have found themselves, over the years, aggrieved by the Court's rulings. They had no way of knowing that, inside, the Chief's speech was taking a pristinely procedural track, devoid of any substance capable of sparking protest. The speech continued calmly, the audience continued to listen, and only the noise of the protesters intruded on our privileged space."
Late Night Confessions in the Hart and Wechsler Hotel, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993 (1994).
Post a Comment