There
are few places in America where individuals are encouraged to develop and
exercise independent thought than in our country’s Universities. So on Brown
University’s campus on Tuesday, administrators and event planners were stunned
when students acted with such disregard towards the first amendment during the
speaking of a guest on campus, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
Kelly,
who intended to speak to the students on the subject of the NYPD’s
controversial “crime fighting efforts”, which involve the “stop and frisk”
policy. Barely able to start his speech entitled “Proactive Policing in America’s
Biggest City”, Kelly was relentlessly booed and interrupted by his audience.
The interruptions were so disruptive that the event was eventually canceled.
What
interested me in this event was that there were two opportunities for the
infringement of ones freedom of speech. The students could have been forcibly removed from the lecture, as it was
causing a disruption to the speaker and those who wished to hear him speak, but
then the students could have claimed that their rights were infringed upon.
Alternatively, Kelly could claim that his rights for free speech were infringed
because the overthrowing of the students silenced him and canceled his
promotional event.
According
to the New York Daily News, one student shouted during the event, “It’s not a dialogue, it’s not a discussion,” one heckler
yelled. “He doesn’t get to say s—“ (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brown-students-shout-commish-kelly-talk-article-1.1500618).
One student replied in Kelly’s defense, “The way to reach progress is not by
fighting, not being angry, but . . . . ” Unfortunately, one voice of reason wasn’t
able to finish his thought before being interrupted by a heckler who yelled: “Go write an essay or something!” I don’t necessarily believe
that the students should have been dragged out to preserve the speakers ability
to speak, but I do believe that students who attend such a reputable
institution would have chosen to act in an alternative way to get their message
across.
A
statement made by the university president eloquently expressed this sentiment.
“The actions that led to the closing of this
afternoon’s lecture prevented any exchange of ideas and deprived the campus and
the Providence community of an opportunity to hear and discuss important social
issues,” said Christina H. Paxson, Brown’s president, in the statement. “The
conduct of disruptive members of the audience is indefensible and an affront
both to civil democratic society and to the university’s core values of
dialogue and the free exchange of views.” http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/362594/brown-u-students-cant-handle-free-speech-william-gonch
In
a group’s quest to exercise their free speech, to voice their displeasure with
the Commissioners implemented policy, it can be argued that they violated the
right itself by silencing those they disagreed with. If I had the opportunity,
I would ask the students if they really believed that this was the most
effective way of disapproving of a states policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment