Upon entering the University of Wisconsin, I immediately realized that I was joining a group of very politically charged individuals. It was clear to me in an instant that our student body was one very interested in getting its views heard through our right to freedom of speech. When does getting your views heard, however, have a negative impact on your political opinion?
This past Wednesday night, a group of left-wing protesters stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the head of the Minuteman Project. As a fellow leftist, I think that what these protesters did in opposition of an invited speaker is absolutely outrageous. To give a bit of background, The Minuteman Project assembles hundreds of volunteers, some armed, to patrol the Arizona-Mexico border for illegal immigrants. I personally disagree with the sort of violent enforcement of illegal immigration that this group advocates, but the actions of the protesters at Columbia created a whole new issue and gave them a very bad image.
One of the key rights that I, along with many other Democrats, cherish in our country is granted by the First Amendment: the right to freedom of speech without censorship. In their violent protests, the students at Columbia took their rights too far by impeding those of the speaker. When asked to comment, Columbia's President Lee Bollinger stated, "Students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have the rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers," which is just what the protesters in this case did.
Although I agree with the general dislike of Mr. Gilchrist's organization, there is no reason that anyone should be silenced when giving a speech. When the protesters went on stage they were, according to one student involved, punched and kicked, although they did not start the violence. Now, the protesters are being seen as the attackers and Mr. Gilchrist is viewed as the victim. By trying to get their views across in this manner, they made themselves, and other left-wing college students, look like rowdy, hypocritical individuals. Generally, true leftists are constantly fighting against censorship, and in this instance they completely contradicted themselves. In trying to make Mr. Gilchrist look bad, they instead made themselves look as if they lack any self-restraint. Instead of calmly showing what is wrong with Mr. Gilchrist's organization, they created a riot in which they appeared in a bad light.
One of the protesters argued that the incident was "fundamentally a part of free speech" because "the Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration." So now, instead of simply taking some responsibility for their disrespectful actions, the students are making their situation worse by arguing that they actually did nothing wrong. Even if the students can decide who is "legitimately" part of a debate on campus and therefore "legitimately" allowed to voice their opinions, what about the respect they should show for their fellow students who wanted to hear Mr. Gilchrist speak? Through their excuses, the students are, for lack of a better saying, digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole on this issue. On top of looking uncontrollable, they now look irresponsible, intolerant and simply ignorant.
Every person, no matter his or her view, should be able to voice it and have it heard freely. Not only do these students, through their actions, shed a bad light on student protesters, they also shed a bad light on the left in general.
Gabbie Wade ([email protected]) is a freshman intending to major in journalism.
