The way I understand it, a number of people were removed and threatened with arrest (disturbing the peace) if they didn’t leave peacefully. They all did as they were also threatened with explulsion from the school.
I hear an awful lot of dopers saying there is “a time and a place” for this sort of political protest.
Please let me know when the appropriate times and places are, as I was under the (presumably incorrect) notion that a public gathering at a public intitution that is funded in part by public monies was such a place.
It makes no difference in what context the speech was being held.
Of course, with the current level of mania we have in this country it is no surprise so many dopers would advocate this sort of action from school officials, local police, and federal employees.
The Columbus Dispatch ran a story this morning along the lines of december’s spinsanity link. O.S.U. says that it warned students against any protest that would prevent others at the commencement from seeing or hearing the President speak, and that violators would be subject to expulsion from the stadium and possible arrest. Further, O.S.U. says that the call for applause was for the outgoing University President, not for Bush. A half-dozen or so students stood up and turned around during the speech according to O.S.U., and were asked not to obstruct others’ view, whereupon they moved into the aisles, none being arrested or removed from the stadium.
A state A.C.L.U. spokesman, while expressing reservations about O.S.U.'s policy, acknowledged that it probably would have been reasonable to remove students who attempted to verbally drown out the speech.
Reliable contradictory evidence should be easy to come by (arrest records, multiple reports from students who say they heard otherwise from the University).
Now that I’ve seen sober accounts of all this, my reaction is that O.S.U. was wrong to try to prevent students turning their backs on Bush. It would have inconvenienced students who wanted to sit and see the Prez, but protest does have a way of inconveniencing people (in this case, it doesn’t seem like a big deal - I’d bet a lot of those students have stood up in the stadium for longer than the 20 minutes of Bush’s speech - during football games, and could have stood facing the President in order to see him during the protest.
It behooves those who oppose the current Administration (including, at times, me) to get their facts straight, keep a sense of perspective during our current semi/pseudo-wartime situation, speak out against unnecessary infringements of liberties and avoid idiotic hyperbole about Nazism and Fascism if one wants to be taken seriously.
Often (not always) speakers at commencements, particularly those who are going to receive honorary degrees, are selected on the basis of how much money they can later grant to the university.
I know that’s how it was at all three of the colleges I’ve attended.
Often (not always) speakers at commencements, particularly those who are going to receive honorary degrees, are selected on the basis of how much money they can later grant to the university.
I know that’s how it was at all three of the colleges I’ve attended.
This should definitely be a new thread on its own.
Short answer: yes, I think the current Administration is nibbling away at American’s civil liberties in the wake of 9/11, and it’s worrysome. The suspension of attorney/client privileges, warnings that “criticism of this administration is tantamount to helping the terrorists,” and the treatment of Jose Padilla should be causes for alarm. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of folks are willing to ignore these abuses all for the sake of “fighting terrorism.”
Even if they intend to be disruptive? I don’t think so.
In either case, the university’s obligation in exchange for the money is to allow the student to attend classes and, where applicable, to provide room and board. Should the student successfully complete all coursework in his or her area of study, the university is obligated to present an academic degree commensurate with that area of study. The university isn’t even obligated to hold a commencement ceremony, let alone to let anyone attend.
So, the problem you have is that the protesters were asked to move to the aisles? O.S.U did not, according to your own post, try to stop protesters from turning their backs to Bush. O.S.U just said that the protseters could not block the view of the other graduates.
Did the protesters have a ‘right’ to block the view of others? If someone decided that they wanted to stand up through Bush’s speach just for the hell of it would asking the person to move to the aisle somehow violate that persons rights?
I think we did clean up the Urban Legend aspects of the story.
Slee, the problem I have here is that O.S.U. probably chilled attempts at a peaceful non-disruptive protest by going overboard with a warning about ejection and possible arrest (reports of the turn-your-back-on-Bush protest plan had been circulating).
If larger numbers of students had joined the protest, moving them all into the aisles wouldn’t have been a solution for safety reasons. So there’s an argument as to whether seated attendees who wanted to see Bush should have been inconvenienced by standing protestors. I’ve stated my feelings on that score. There’s also the question about whether significant numbers of graduates opposing the President felt strongly enough about his policies to inconvenience themselves by boycotting the ceremony and staging a protest elsewhere. Apparently not.
The University has taken substantial heat over its actions, which hopefully will be remembered the next time this issue comes up.
It’s all well and good for some campus lackey to emptily threaten arrest to those who cause a disruption. We’re here debating whether those who turn their backs should be arrested, and ignoring the question of whether they can be. I’d guess no, or that if they were, no charges could stick. My guess is, someone afraid of a black mark on their career (“Oh, you’re the guy who flubbed the President’s visit back in '02!”) got a little overzealous in trying to keep the kids civil.
Interesting column. Interesting that the report doesn’t resemble the second sanitized version of the AP story.
Simply turning their backs on the president should not be enough to warrant their arrest, and certainly not their expulsion from college. Especially if the protest is known of ahead of time and no one makes any threatening moves. The president should be big enough to put up with some college students turning their backs on him. If he handled this with dignity, he could have come out looking almost presidential. Instead, it seems like he needs thugs to enforce order.
This administration scares me. The Padilla detention alone warrants impeachment IMHO. He seems to think due process is optional. Ari Fleischer has made it clear that no good American should criticize the president. Criticizing the president is a great american pastime. I don’t buy that becuase we have terrorists now a days that we need to stop being critical. Heck, when I was in Germany in the mid to late 80s terrorism was a real threat, but the people there criticized the government and its Allies. There were anti-nuke protests that were truly impressive. How is it that we are in danger from criticism and they were not?
