That does sound like an episode of Maude where John Wayne stopped by for some reason. She was going to let him have it, then when he got there, she essentially said forget about it, “lets dance”.
However, I agree, the idea of arrresting the students for only turning their backs makes me think of goose-stepping jack-booted thugs, rather than the good ole USA.
I’m gonna have to call you on this offensive little canard. If Svend Robinson came to speak at my commencement, and some of the people present had turned their backs on him, I would have ignored them and listened to his speech. If they had been arrested, I would feel that that cast a pall over the whole ceremony and I would look back on it with considerably reduced pride.
I’m rather insulted to hear partiality being imputed to left-wingers’ beliefs about freedom of speech. In fact, I don’t think that everyone here who’s complaining about this even is left wing.
What the heck is a Svend Robinson, I never heard of…Ah, I see now, Montreal. Oh. Canada.
Heck, matt, I see yer Svend and raise you a Jesse and a Newt and…
Oh, dear. He’s fainted.
The importance of propriety has been well defended, and I do not discount it. But the principle embodied in the 1st Amendment is that Authority may not sanction legitimate political speech, by word, gesture, or televised gibberish. Propriety does not rise to that level of principle.
As far as hypocrisy on the left goes, you may be assured it is rampant. In my experience, it is widely distributed, if not actually universal. What relevance that has on the matter at hand escapes me.
(Wow, good memory! It was the season 3 premiere, episode 47, “Maude Meets the Duke.” I pulled the episode description from tvtome.com: “As part of a publicity tour, John Wayne makes a stop in Tuckahoe. Maude decides to have a verbal shootout with the Duke about woman’s lib but finds her tongue tied when she meets him.” I guess Bea Arthur liked the plotline so much that she reused it in the Golden Girls. She may have held back due to the Duke’s charms, but I’m sure she would’ve given Nixon a tongue lashing.)
I’m gonna clarify what I was trying to say in my posts. I only advocated removing the protesters from the facility. I do not advocate arresting them. I am encouraging polite behaviour. There is a distinct difference between having government mandate politeness through law and having a university regulate the behaviour of guests in its facilities.
We have a very “activist” campus here at Missouri. There’s a place in the middle of campus called “Speakers’ Circle” that is designed to project a speaker’s voice. We frequently are visited by people of all sorts with many different agendas, all wanting to speak out, and short of vulgarity anything goes. You don’t need a permit, you don’t need a reservation, you just show up and start talking. That’s the university’s policy. Outside the Circle, however, the university reserves the right to restrict protest activity. At one point, a student angered by a recent string of bad luck got up onto the fountain by the commons and started raving at anyone and anything. A policeman finally arrived and told him that he could go to the Circle, or else he’d have to cease his rant. (Just like you board-dwellers might tell someone to take their discussion to The Pit.)
The school is within its rights to decide what type of behaviour will be allowed on its premises, whether its a private school or a state school. The fact that a school is publicly funded does not mean that we can make any use of the facilites we please. The interest of the school in general is to provide a center for learning. Political awareness is part of that, and the university made the Circle so that we had an appropriate outlet for political expression. In this case, the school has an interest in attracting prestigious commencement speakers, to increase the reputation of the university, to get better professors and more funding, leading to better education. If invited speakers are treated rudely, this will hurt the school’s chances of getting a quality speaker in the future. A university should be allowed to protect that interest. Arrests are going too far, I agree, but expulsion from the facility is appropriate.
Well, OK, matt, I might be wrong, although I did qualify my statement with “might be.” I can think of at least one SDMB communist (not just throwing that word out–an actual communist) who would feel that way though. He’s said so outright. He has no problem with impinging on the speech of far right-wingers and does not feel they have the same free speech rights as everyone else.
Still, you have to admit that for everyone whose ideals are not so easily compromised like yourself, there is someone whose defense of rights tend to vary along political lines. Nat Hentoff at the Village Voice has made a career writing about exactly that. (His book Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee is a must-read for any civil libertarian.)
In either case, I wasn’t accusing anyone in this thread of feeling that way. Merely noting that some people like that exist.
Thanks for clarifying, pl.
Elucidator, to clear up any misconception, Svend is a politician whom I admire, but whom I’m aware many others intensely dislike.
“Merely noting that some people like that exist.”
Indeed, they do. Your point is irrefutable. Hypocrisy abounds, and so what?
Is it your contention that sincerity has some bearing on the application of 1st Amendment principles? Is there some test you might see applied, in order that we might be sure?
I think the police over-reacted. My impression is that over-reaction is common when a President is involved.
OTOH the police had no way of knowing just what was planned. In a more ideal world, the demonstration would have been coordinated with those running the graduation. If the school refused premission (which is likely) the demonstrators could have gone to court. Then a judge could have decided how far their first amendment rights extended. By failing to warn the school, the demonstrators must bear some of the blame for the overreaction against them.
Following up on elucidator’s point, the first amendment rights should have nothing to do with the POV of the demonstrators. It should be the same if they were the Ku Klux Klan.
So, how would we feel if Colin Powell were speaking at our graduation and a group of Klansmen showed up, and began a peaceful demonstration? Even if they were wearing freshly starched sheets, I would think we’d prefer to do without them, and that we should have a right to exclude them.
Well, not to be funny, but what if we are them? If Colin Powell was invited to be the speaker of KKK University, it seems to me that the students would have the right to turn their backs to him if they wanted to, without getting arrested. After all, it’s their party. They didn’t get to invite the speaker, so they should at least have the right to sulk over who gets chosen.
Obviously the school knew what the demonstrators had planned because they made it against the rules for folks to turn their backs to the speaker. I don’t think the demonstration was very surreptitious.
KKK? Yes. Aryan Brotherwood? Yes. NAMBLA? Yes. Society for Slicing Up Aging Freckled Hippies and Stuffing Them with Moldy Tofu? Reluctantly, yes.
It applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody. Assholes have the same rights as everybody else, for which we should all be grateful.
What, you thought this democracy shit would be easy? Most anarchic, chaotic, unmanageable system ever. Gotta love it.
Considering that the commencement is for “these pathetic people,” I think having a speaker whom they dislike would be good grounds for a protest of sorts. It’s like I invited your worst enemy to your birthday party, then expected you to grin and pretend to enjoy it.
Granted, I think a silent protest would have been sufficient, to avoid disrupting things for the folks who do wanted Dubya to visit (obviously he’s an inspiration to C-average students everywhere 
), but threatening the protesters with punishment and/or urging the students to give “thunderous” applause is a no-no IMO.
I agree, if they feel they must protest, the silent way would be the best out of respect, if not for the speaker, then the rest of the students and audience. And the threatening protesters or urging applause is IMO unacceptable. I am all for protest, but there is a time and place. Before, after and even during outside of where the activity is held.
at least. I read about it last week. The plan was for people to silently turn their back on Bush when he spoke. Now assuming that’s all that was going to happen, that’s about as polite and non-disruptive a protest as I can imagine.
A protest at that level, and no further. Should absolutely have been tolerated. This article is so far the only evidence that it wasn’t. I look forward to having this confirmed or denyed by other first hand reports.
I’ve got a side bet going that it’s the truth. Any University insensitive enough to invite that man to speak at commencement is insensitive enough to threaten students.
Kids these days.
What kind of demonstration is this, some silent, dignified gesture of loyal opposition!
No Maoists screaming slogans at the Trotskyists? No tear gas, no head thumping? No trudging through two miles of snow with kerosene powered laptops?
Harrummph. Kids these days. Soft.
Not to unduly question the status of this possibly legendary injustice, but:
Is there documentation of any threat by any official University spokesman to expel/arrest/whip with cat-o-nine-tails any student who turned his back on the Prez, or any confirmation that anyone was tossed out of the ceremony or arrested for turning his/her back on the Prez?
I don’t recall seeing any such news account.
It would help if someone would post any kind of link from a reputable news organization. The newdemocraticunderground posting is so full of third-hand speculation and ludicrous hyperbole (complete with Godwinesque bombast) that it cannot be trusted.
Not that it’s directly relevant, but I like sharing:
When Clinton came to speak at my commencement, they told us that while the prexy was on stage we should not stand up or make any sudden moves of any kind. If we needed reminding, all we had to do was glance up at the Agents positioned on the rooftops all around us, peering at us through binoculars and scopes.
I will also confirm that the same thing happened at last year’s Notre Dame commencement, as well as the 1992 ND Commencement featuring George Bush the Older. Silent, backs turned, that’s all there was to it. Seems to fit into the whole “time, place, and manner” guidelines of protests. If they had been blasting air horns, smashing cymbals together and screaming, I’d say that would have been inappropriate and incommensurate with the situation.
Clinton was never protested as president, as he was the first since (I believe) FDR to not speak on campus during the presidency (he was never invited).
My opinion on this subject is that threatening expulsion from the stadium is within bounds. However, threatening with expulsion from school or arrest, well then I feel at that point it has become obligation to protest. I would have protested and risked arrest and expulsion, and if I was arrested, so be it, being arrested is not so bad, if I was expelled, well the university would have had a really expensive lawsuit on their hands. However I see it as your OBLIGATION to resist when the government threatens your constitutional rights. (Yes the government, because the university isn’t the one doing the arresting)
Erek
No, you are mandating it.
I don’t see how a violation of rights is better when it comes from a NGO.
It has the right to make reasonable restrictions. If a university takes money from someone for four years, it has an obligation to allow them to go to the graduation.