OPINION & EDITORIAL
Horowitz raises important issues
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sara Mikolajczak:
- Governor wrongly solicits students (October 11, 2007)
- Conservatives call on seldom heard voices (September 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Hillel rejects Horowitz (October 18, 2007)
- Let's show Horowitz we value free speech (December 10, 2001)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
by Sara Mikolajczak
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The David Horowitz event hosted by the College Republicans on Monday was one of the most well-attended events I can remember in my time here at the University of Wisconsin. We had nearly 1,000 people show up. I knew there would be protesters and, yes, most of those in attendance were there in opposition to the speaker, but I do think a few good things came of the event.
After the event, my e-mail inbox was filled with numerous messages both from people I knew and some that I had never met before. These emails said things like, “Thanks for hosting such a great event! It’s good to hear another side for a change! I’m a Democrat but…” or “I never knew there was a conservative presence on campus. How can I get involved?” Provoking people to think about what they constantly hear, outside of simply accepting leftist rhetoric as fact, is one of the reasons the CRs decided to host “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on campus.
Then again, when I looked at the “Protesting David Horowitz” Facebook group when I got home on Monday night, I saw something I never thought I’d see here on campus: rational discourse! People were actually admitting, online, not anonymously, that they agreed with some of the points that Horowitz made. Perhaps they didn’t agree with how he made them, but there was no denying that he used fact in his lecture.
I also heard actual conversation taking place as I was leaving the theater. College Republicans and members of the Muslim Student Association stood in the lobby together discussing the event. Again, the fearless “sifting and winnowing of ideas” — it’s in the university’s mission statement. By simply coming and listening and discussing what you heard, you’re helping the cause.
There were, however, as I knew there would be, people on the opposite side of the spectrum… and I don’t mean Democrats. What I mean is disrespectful audience members. Clearly, the CRs, by hosting this event, welcomed opposition. We welcomed protest. We welcomed the tough questions. What we didn’t want was for people ignorant of the facts to get up and start ranting and raving during the middle of the lecture or to try to seize control of the Q&A period. Unfortunately, we weren’t so lucky. And, no, I’m not just referring to Kevin Barrett.
Aside from Mr. Barrett’s asinine outburst, the lecture went quite well. Sure, there were some pretty imperceptive hisses and boos from the audience at inappropriate times, but all-in-all, nothing that disrupted the event. And then we got to the question and answer session.
In my mind, that’s where it went downhill.
So much for “Q&A” meaning “Question and Answer.” Monday night it was more like “Quest to get in as many words as I can before they cut me off and Attack back.” Seriously, people, we’re university students and should know better. There were a lot of people lined up to ask questions, and many of the questions that didn’t get asked were probably a lot more intelligent than those “questions” that did.
Not only was it discourteous to the others in attendance, it was also disrespectful to the speaker. Not asking direct questions flustered Mr. Horowitz. Now, I’m not making excuses for him, but he did call me about an hour after the event to apologize for the way he handled the Q&A and he said that he hopes his mishandling doesn’t reflect poorly on the CRs. I hope so too.
He realizes, as well as I do, that name-calling and personal attacks are not appropriate for this — or any type — of educational forum. However, when you say “my question to you, sir, is…” four times followed by yet another statement and never actually ask a question, you are not adding to the conversation. When you call the triple “s” on your boarding pass “racial inequality” and then turn around and call it security, you’re invalidating your own point. When people cannot ask academic questions at an intellectual forum, they should stay seated. (Props to the one MSA representative who not only had the most intelligent question of the night, but also provided the attendees with some much needed comic relief referring to the “bling” he would be wearing if the MSA were supported by the Saudi government.)
I’m not saying the event went perfectly. Nothing like this can ever be expected to. However, I do think that despite the lack of self-restraint shown by all parties in the Q&A session, the event went very well and provided a good start to a much needed discussion.
I stand by my original decision to bring Horowitz to campus, and I’d do it again in a second.
Sara Mikolajczak (WisconsinCRs@gmail.com) is the chair of the University of Wisconsin College Republicans.
Mike Pruden (October 25, 2007 @ 8:59am):
"So much for "Q&A" meaning "Question and Answer." Monday night it was more like "Quest to get in as many words as I can before they cut me off and Attack back.""
Maybe they were taking plays from the Andrew Meyer (John Kerry 'tasee') playbook. xD
Well, at least both sides (at least Sara and Oliver) agree about the stupidity of Kevin "I-don't-care-about-academic-freedom-unless-it's-my-hide" Barrett's tirade.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 10:28am):
You act like you made some big executive decision to bring him when in reality he's been going around whoring himself out to CR chapters all over the country for free. It required no work on your part.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 11:23am):
*PUKE*
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 11:24am):
though i think that the horowitz event sparked some dialogue and i'm happy that the college republicans were able to bring some ideas to the table, i thought horowitz was a tasteless speaker. the university shouldn't have to resort to bring speakers like him, whose knowledge of the Middle East and Islam are so visibly weak, to spark dialogue.
of course, controversy drags in the publicity, but i think dialogue should begin in a more intellectual and academic way. as i stated above, it did get people talking, but horowitz's actual lecture and q&a turned into a zoo and was the farthest thing from what the herald called the sifting and winnowing of ideas.
next time, i'd like to see the College Republicans try to bring intellectual arguments instead of controversy.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 11:28am):
I don't think your interpretation of the triple "s" question is correct. Is there something wrong with not wanting to be profiled at airports because you have an Islamic last name? I don't think so.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 12:09pm):
You know, Sara, rational discourse has been around here for a very long time. The fact that you disagree with most of it doesn't make it irrational.
Shawn Snyder (October 28, 2007 @ 1:06pm):
a lot of anonymous posts... afraid?
Thank you! Thinking that whole Q&A session was disrespectful to the speaker has been making me ashamed of being a UW student for the past week.
As far as the triple S question...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Give me a f-ing break! I'm a white male and get that every time I go to the airport just because I'm a big mean looking guy from the military. That guy is so full of crap...(fill in your own blank).
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
