Did the University behave properly? Did the gadfly behave properly? Was this objectionable censorship? Was it a reasonable means of maintaining decorum? Did the administration target this student because they didn’t like his criticism? Would a left-winger have been treated differently? How do you think this dispute will be resolved? See
Moderators – can you please move this to Great Debates, where I meant to put it? Thanks.
Well, december, what do you think?
I do know that at my alma matter, Rice University, we had some kind of agitation by your typical left-wing crowd when Bush Elder spoke at graduation (for a large speaker fee). This was in, I believe, May 2000. Word came down from On High that the flyers and petitions were OK, but people refusing to stand or participating in a mass turn-your-back-on-the-speaker would be escorted from the ceremony, and, if seniors, would have to pick up their diploma later. As far as I know, the protest dissipated after that announcement.
So left-wing gadflyism wasn’t tolerated at my school, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism. I can match you anecdote for anecdote, but I assume that nothing is proven by this.
As for my opinion, I think it’s rude that he taped a speech that they asked for no taping in. I also think it’s a pretty silly request, but frankly I find both arguments pretty lame, and that’s just from this very biased editorial. Why does he get to decide what the contract should be? But it does seem that the administration overreacted.
University administrations like to make things go away quietly. Now that it’s become a media event the student in question will be given a slap on the wrist and go back to his normal activities, is my best guess.
He was told he was not permitted to tape, because there was an agreement with Gore and her staff.
He refused to comply, and made an ass of himself.
Sheesh, not another post hoc argument from december.
sigh
I’m not at all surprised. I graduated in '99 from AU, and this guy was one of the only people ever impeached in student elective office. He’s also a bit of a jerk. That said, AU has a rather draconian response when it comes to any dissent by the students. Campus security has also been known to take bad situations and make them worse by blowing the incidents out of proportion, and in one case while I was there, assaulting a student. About five members of the cop shop have also been arrested while on duty for larceny and sexual harassment.
That aside, the university had a contract, expressed it in a policy, this guy decided to test it. They dropped the hammer on him. It’d be easier if life had a don’t be a jerk rule, but it doesn’t. The University is at fault for handling it poorly, the gentleman needs to choose his battles more wisely.
Ya gotta admit, though, it’s refreshing to see december sticking up for Left-Wing principles against the bad old establishment for a change.
Note that while the student is compared to an immature Matt Drudge (what a concept!), there is no other indication of his politics and that his defenders are identified as civil libertarians rather than advocates from the Right.
december, do you know more about this incident and the people involved than was mentioned in the article? There’s a very specific reason that I ask this. (HINT: What assumptions might you have made about the political ideology of the “gadfly”?)
Gah! tomndebb just edged me out!
It seems kind of stupid, IMHO, to prevent videotaping of a public speaker at a public event. But I see no reason to think they wouldn’t enforce their no-videotaping agreement with a lefty. Why do think there’d be a difference, december, because Gore is a democrat?
Why xeno, what a suggestion. I’m sure that december has exactly the same attitude toward Ohio State University for physically removing (and threatenting to expel) the students who simply faced away from the stage without even a vocal protest when the President spoke, this spring.
(Of course, he didn’t quite remember to post a thread on the subject, but I’m sure that was simply an oversight.)
You’re quite right to chastise me, tom’, that was uncharitable of me. Obviously, it is december’s strong committment to civil rights which has prompted this OP. (He used to be a member of the ACLU, you know.)
I don’t get why taping the appearance would further his cause any. How does it prove she got a hefty paycheck for speaking there? I’m sure that his evidence could’ve been the couple thousand eyewitnesses.
-BKB
Class of '06
Moderator’s Note: Ooh, I get to Harrow the Pit…I feel so Christ-like now!
Actually Tomndebb, the statement of the president of the Ohio State University was that any disruption of the procedings would cause the person to be escorted out, and charges filed against them. The face away was just one of the things that the people who were trying to organize the disruptions were trying to tell people to do. It is my understanding that none of the people telling people to disrupt things, BTW were students. The students basically told them to shut up, and by far the majority of them agreed with the president of the university about any disruptions to the ceremony.
I am a little unclear as to why this person is required to comply with an agreement between two other parties.
And turning away without any other action is disruptive how?
He was told cameras were not allowed. Therefore, he was required to follow it.
At the very least, not doing so would be “Acting like a Jerk”, as we say.
Sorry, Guin, but I don’t see anywhere in the story where he was told video cameras were not allowed. They said flash photography wasn’t allowed, which everyone knows is not to stop you from being photographed, but rather is to prevent the disruption of flashbulbs.
Perhaps they DI say “no taping” - to be honest, I am VERY skeptical - but it’s not stated, so we can’t assume it’s true. The story states it was in the agreement between Gore and the school - but again, why is Whetmore bound by someone else’s agreement?
The charge that he committed “intellectual theft” is asinine.
Me too. This wasn’t exactly a private meeting he was taping, and my (admittedly weak) understanding is that while he’d be violating intellectual property laws (which is what he was allegedly busted for) if he made commercial use of the tape, or made it freely available to all comers, no such restrictions apply if he chooses to use it to accurately quote and criticize Tipper’s speech. Which is his right as an American.
And I’m equally upset at the clamping down on the First Amendment rights of protesters at Rice and OSU as described in this thread. I can understand a firm stance against heckling a speaker off the podium, but to prohibit any protest, even a silent one, at the site itself is pretty hostile towards the First Amendment.
If some scared teenager has to put up with being verbally harassed from a few yards away as she enters an abortion clinic, the Prez can deal with having students turn their backs on him. The wuss.
[sub]I’ve never seen a thread removed from the Pit before. Cool beans, MEB![/sub]
Thanks for all your responses – especially False_God, who had experience at AU. For my convenience I will not bother to identify the comment to which I am responding. [ol][]Thanks for your help, MEBuckner[]Wetmore acted like a bit of an a**hole. Even though the original public statement before the speech hadn’t mentioned video-taping, the university police, who represent the university, did make that specific request.[]I know nothing about this incident except for the cited article. I am guessing that Wetmore is not liberal, because he was compared to Drudge, because he opposes university administrators, and because of the strong action taken against him. I welcome clarification.[]Seeking to kick Wetmore out of school is a far, far greater punishment than merely escorting a student out of a graduation ceremony, as was threatened at Ohio State.[]At one time, freedom of speech was highly important to liberals and to libertarian-type conservatives. Sadly, many liberals have moderated their support of FOS. The majority of liberals seem to be OK with, e.g., “campaign finance reform” and campus speech codes. []Without seeing evidence, I tend to question the school’s allegation that their contract with Gore prhibited videotaping the speech by a student. I wouldn’t be surprised if the contract only prohibited the university from taping. I base this guess on the fact that no public statement was made prohibiting taping.My guess is that AU will not succeed in expelling Wetmore, since he seems to have effective legal support and public support. I expect he could succeed in proving what his supporters allege – that campus officials singled out Wetmore for excessive enforcement and punishment, and denied him a fair hearing, because of his political views. I think AU will wind up dropping the charges, or they will get even more egg on their face.[/ol]