Washington College students rudely disrupt a talk by a conservative scholar.
Stanford University Law School students rudely interrupt a conservative federal judge.
University of Pennsylvania students, disappointed by the school’s fossil fuels investments, rudely interrupt a Homecoming football game by storming the field at halftime and delaying the game for an hour. They hoped to gain attention (as they did) and alumni affirmation (which they didn’t).
Is free speech, as selectively applied by students displeased with a speaker’s political allegiance, fair speech? I think not.
Encouraged to be critical thinkers, students instead are favoring mob rule. Their treatment of people who think differently than they is abysmal. Their listening skills are defective. They believe that disagreement nullifies polite behavior. Their immaturity is astounding.
We are experiencing an epidemic of student activism similar to the protests that characterized the 1960s. Then, the Vietnam War and Civil Rights demonstrations ignited actions by young adults to occupy university administration offices and join marches in Washington and New York. The spark continued to inflame the first half of the 1970s.
Families steeped in the Great Depression and World War II became splintered. Privileged youth felt empowered to disclaim a war corruptly executed; unfortunately, they unfairly disparaged soldiers who had nothing to do with conceiving the Southeast Asian conflict. They justifiably condemned racism; they bravely suffered physical harm.
Nearly 65 years later, college campuses again are becoming battlegrounds for academic dissatisfaction. Those whose political philosophy is decidedly right-wing face uncalled-for disparagement from their liberal peers. Behavior has morphed into self-righteous indignation—and abject failure to listen.
Rudeness is the norm. It is unconscionable, destructive of civil discourse. Young undergrads don’t care. What matters is abject opposition. Free speech is weaponized.
Should undergrads accuse me of exercising judgment based on my advanced age, I would oppose that interpretation. Free speech is a Constitutional right, preferably devoid of heckling. It bears an unspoken responsibility to listen and treat the speaker with respect.
Or students can find something else to do with their time. That’s their right.
I must digress ever so slightly by referring again to Penn, my alma mater. The subject is fraught. The Palestine Literature Festival convened this past weekend, much to the angry despair of Jewish students and angrier dismay of alumni. Several speakers were known anti-Semites, including Roger Waters, a British singer who claims he is not an anti-Jewish, but someone who is critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
In a world dominated by nuance, American Jews too criticize the Netanyahu government for its oppression of Palestinians living on the West Bank. However, they do not voice anti-Semitic comments, only disappointment at the diminution of democracy in Israel.
Highly attuned to anti-Semitic comments and actions, Jews consider criticism of Zionism and Israeli policies toward Palestinians as code for anti-semitism. They may be right.
I am saddened by the university’s lack of judgment and its unwillingness to change course. And while I support the festival’s literary intent and free speech—if not a devious tactic to voice bigotry—I have spent painful time trying to divine the intrinsic value of free versus hateful discourse. If the latter leads to dangerous conditions imposed on Jewish students, then my tolerance weakens.
Anti-Semitic remarks sting me, as if fired by a stun gun. Still, a rude reaction is not my style. Agitated behavior accomplishes little but continuation of toxic dialogue.
University students, wherever they roam academic villages, achieve little but immature self-satisfaction when they exercise their free speech to thwart the expression of viewpoints antithetical to theirs.
Rudeness is avoidable. It also is inexcusable. Guest speakers who are not espousing viewpoints that can incite harm deserve tolerant hospitality.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. After 44 years in Easton, Howard and his wife, Liz, moved in November 2020 to Annapolis, where they live with Toby, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who has no regal bearing, just a mellow, enticing disposition.
Peter L Woicke says
Mr. Freedlander, I would make a distinction of what happened at Washington College and Stanford versus the interruption of the football game at University of Pennsylvania : I also find it very sad when College and university students are unwilling to listen to persons who have different philosophical or political ideas. But when the younger generation is rightly worried about their future because of Climate Change and at the same time witnesses that the politicians of our generation any where in the world hardly take any action because they worry not to be reelected by us, I have a lot of sympathy for “interrupting a football game’ to raise awareness to this huge issue most of us don’t want to burdened with.
Maria Wood says
I wonder if Mr. Freedlander would be writing about the students’ concerns had they been expressed more “politely,” with “civility,” in a “well-behaved” fashion.
The scholar at Washington College and the federal judge at Stanford surely know that the constitutional right to free speech prevents Congress from making a law abridging their speech but that it no way guarantees that members of the public will entertain their ideas with respect or indeed at all, regardless of the venue or the age of the hearers, with or without heckling. It beggars credulity to imagine that a gentlemen as educated and accomplished as the author of this piece does not understand the distinction.
Contrary to this article’s characterization of the student protests as “mob rule,” such actions require planning, organization, and coherent leadership to be successful enough to prompt opinion pieces and public discussion. Critical thinking is required for students to be sufficiently politically engaged to form opinions about (with apologies to the men in question) a relatively obscure thinker or even a federal judge.
Our country’s proud history of patriotic dissent and enthusiastic protest is as older than the nation itself. If Mr. Freedlander has ever attended the Chestertown Tea Party, he will have witnessed the rowdy celebration of a “rude” protest that no doubt looked like “mob rule” to King George, who I imagine may have very well called the tea-throwing “immature,” “inexcusable,” and “unconscionable.”
It’s too bad that this piece is constructed as a shallow condemnation of student protest and not an analysis and reasoned refutation of students objections.
Howard Freedlander says
I find it regrettable, Maria, that you place so little emphasis (if any at all) on respect for guest speakers invited to a liberal arts college, regardless of their viewpoints. So, I gather that you believe it is perfectly permissible for immature students armed with freedom of speech to interrupt adults who believe they are free to speak. Your reasoning surprises me.
Deirdre LaMotte says
May I chime in?
I posted a few weeks ago my opinion that rude behavior is never a good idea because we are
marinating in it daily. And it gives MAGA people more ammunition, thanks to a certain former President. I felt a boycott would have been effective,
a sort of turning the collective backs on a man whose views are absolutely repugnant.
However, these times are a first in the 21st c. We are effectively facing an erasing of
civil rights, woman’s bodily autonomy, the rise of fascism…anti semitism, book banning,
children gunned down in schools, voting rights eviscerated, LBGTQ people threatened daily and a GOP candidate who has
91 criminal counts against him.
And GOP Billionaires founding a third party candidacy, “no labels”. Right.
And you wonder why the students go nuts over a speaker who has outspokenly advocated all I just listed?
I am so happy that these students protested. I was in Barcelona a few years ago, literally caught up in
a pro Catalonia demonstration that closed down the airport. We thought we’d be spending the night on
the floor of the airport. Inadvertently before the armed guards charged the loo, I had an amazing conversation with these young people. I remember saying to them: we have Trump as President and I so wish our young
people were as politically involved as you. I was so taken with their activism. My husband a few days later
took a picture of me on our hotel balcony cheering on the thousand street demonstrators.
This is messy democracy. The Washington College students have shaken many people. They are responding to a system that silences their concerns with billions of dollars.
I hope they never stop and I am confident they will vote, always.
,
Maria Wood says
Permissible is a tricky word, isn’t it, Howard?
Does it infringe on a speaker’s first amendment rights to be interrupted, disrespected, ignored, or contradicted? Certainly not.
Does the age or maturity level of college students change that? Also no.
Questions of appropriateness, and what sort of protest or disruption crosses lines of decorum, institutional norms, or standards of civil behavior—not to mention educational value—is quite a different, and subjective, topic.
Washington College, in accordance with its institutional mission and belief in teaching free speech and critical thinking, was prepared to host a scholar with controversial views, *and* to make space for students to examine and express their own perspectives and dissenting views. Free speech for all! I gather that two students whose disruptive impact during the presentation was most intractable will face some sort of disciplinary process as per the college’s internal rules and standards. It would seem those students crossed the college’s line.
I, and I imagine you, like most people, have my own lines about how what’s important enough to make a fuss about, how far to go, and how much disruption is too much. I also suspect that you and I are less far apart than you think on our personal tolerance level for disruption. But it’s taking the easy way out to blame it on “kids these days” or “no one cares about politeness anymore.” It’s good when young people—or old people, for that matter—feel strongly about justice, and think about their views, and try to make the world better. Democracy and an open civil society requires it. Be worried when they stop.
Patty Heaps says
When I was at WC, if a speaker came to campus i didn’t want to see, i simply didn’t go. It didn’t occur to us to disrupt someone’s talk. How do these kids justify this as a victory.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Have you ever viewed at the House of Commons
during debate? It is a show of democracy. Check it out.
Keep it up WAPO undergrads!