An Inconvenient Right: Free Speech Permits Bad Manners

In the spirit of dissension, Dean Reardon-Anderson commits a variety of intellectual faux pas. Certainly, free speech is important, but it is a right that exists between citizens and the state, not between private citizens. The university, in the spirit of academic curiosity, provides numerous forums for nearly any view. However, preventing the discussion between Gen. Petraues and the audience did not advance the knowledge of any party. Free speech in public spaces is sloppy, but private parties are obligated to make it fair speech in their private domains.

Though through words, the protesters' actions were akin to physically preventing others from engaging in free speech. A similar action would be me flipping the tables of pro-Palestine protesters in Red Square. I would hardly expect Dean Reardon-Anderson to come to my defense and compare me to Jesus, but this is exactly what he did in his defense of the infantile ambitions of a few 'noble' antiwar protesters.

Indeed, such sloppy intellectual comparisons only make the situation worse. The disruption of Petraues's speech embarrassed the university, its students, and its alumni. A shoddy public defense of their actions should equally embarrass us once again. Maybe, in the spirit of King and Gandhi, Hoyas should stage a similar protest in Dean Reardon-Anderson's "Maps" class. Surely students could benefit from hearing a dissonant message on subjects such as global climate change or geographic determinism.

Respectfully, sir, you are basically saying that in any situation where we have a speaker on campus, it is okay for any person or group who disagrees with that person to interrupt, to yell, to disrupt the speech, etc. While I understand your position on free speech - and would vehemently argue against limitations on Why would these it - I think that what essentially reads as condoning the actions of these students will ultimately backfire on the university, which will lose speakers whose views are remotely controversial. Abortion activists or opponents? Protests. The President again? Protests - inside Gaston. Why would these individuals choose to ever speak at Georgetown again if they are not guaranteed the right to speak their peace - particularly if it is not a Q/A session as the Petraeus engagement was?

Constructive "chaos" is all well and good, but the lessons must go both ways. Respectful listening should also be encouraged.

I'm pretty amazed that this was written by a Georgetown professor.

James Reardon-Anderson writes: "Absolute decorum is possible only under absolute authority or absolute agreement — and that does not leave much room for the ragged business of liberty."

This is obviously false. It is quite possible for people to disagree freely while observing proper decorum. Does Reardon-Anderson have an ARGUMENT for this strange claim, or is he content just to assert it?

"Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy of nonviolent civil disobedience is recognized by a national holiday. King, Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Rosa Parks — the list of people who have disrupted the public order and annoyed their neighbors is a long one."

This is an incredibly weak argument. That King, Jesus, and Gandhi are rightly admired for their civil disobedience does not render any and all cases of UNCIVIL disobedience justified. I wasn't aware that any of these figures favored shouting their opponents down over engaging in reasonable dialogue. Does Reardon-Anderson think that the protestors behaved in a civil matter? If not, then how is the comparison to King, etc. not completely irrelevant?

"Here is the point: Yes, we want rules that protect the rights of speakers and listeners, and yes, we want an attitude of respect for the views of others. But we should not clamp the lid too tight."

If this is "the point" of this bizarre editorial, I am not sure who Reardon-Anderson thinks he is responding to. He agrees--"the system worked." Who exactly is calling for "the lid" (whatever that means) to be clamped tighter? Reardon-Anderson does not address any actual argument, or point to anyone who holds such a view. He is responding to a straw-man.

"...how should we weigh seriously the cost of such disruptions against the benefits of ensuring lively — sometimes even annoying — dissent?"

Nobody disputes that dissent is valuable. But not all dissent is inherently valuable. Shouting down a visiting speaker contributes nothing to public dialogue. Is Reardon-Anderson arguing that the protestors' behavior in Gaston Hall was justified? If so, then would it be appropriate to similarly disrupt any guest speaker at Georgetown? (I have a hard time believing Reardon-Anderson would write a similar op-ed were anti-abortion advocates to have shouted down President Obama last spring). If not, then what is the point of this article, and who is it responding to?

And our bad manners permit potential speakers to refuse to speak here. I'm surprised that the actions of the protesters have been endorsed by the Dean.

I think that we should go in to his Map class and stand up and start reading off the names of people who think that Map should be changed back to the way it was. And we should have enough people so that he isn't able to get through any of his planned lecture. I wonder if this op-ed would have the same message if we did that?

I commend you Professor Reardon-Anderson for acknowledging the importance of free speech, even if it sacrifices the order or continuity of a speech like the one last week. Yes, critics can condemn the protests as embarrassing and classless, but one must recognize the importance of such protests and the American essence that allows for such protests to occur without despotic penalty... I am thankful.

I was about to write a detailed response, but I'm pleased that other members of the Georgetown community have already done so, and quite cogently.

Free speech does not mean the right to quash or disrupt others' speech by your actions. That's not free speech - it's quite the opposite: silencing others' right to free speech.

As the other commenters point out, I doubt you would be terribly amused if students came and disrupted your Map of the Modern World class. The alleged positive intentions of the protesters is not at issue; but, if anything, it has only hurt their cause. Students aren't talking about the merits of the Iraq War or General Petraus' policies -- they're instead largely united in condemning the disruption, regardless of the reason. Indeed, Petraus probably picked up a few new supporters from the aplomb by which he handled the situation.

You reference past civil rights leaders as "disruption the public order," as if to equate their disruption with the disruption in Gaston Hall. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They certainly discomfited and discomforted large sections of the public, but they did not 'disrupt' the rights of others to speak, argue and debate. Those that did we rightly condemn -- like Students for a Democratic Society, which, if I recall, once stormed Gaston and cut off speakers entirely.

There is no right to be free from offense from someone's speech (as much as certain segments of Georgetown students and professors would wish were not the case). Protests can be incredibly offensive and 'uncivil'. We protect the civil rights rallies just as much we do the KKK rallies. We do not, however, protect those that disrupt the rights of others to exercise their free speech rights - and that is exactly what happened.

If protesters wanted to protest outside Gaston, be my guest. They could be as rude and offensive as they wished. They could've shouted at Petraus as he left Gaston, held up graphic and/or offensive signs, whatever floated their boat. Inside Gaston, the protesters still could've communicated their dissent in a non-disruptive way: They are free to wear t-shirts with anti-war slogans, hold up signs (so long as they weren't blocking others' views) or even stage a walk-out or collectively stood up and turned around (again, so long as they didn't block the views of others while doing so). Indeed, the latter is exactly what happened when John Yoo came to speak at Georgetown Law. While many in attendance might have found the protesters actions distasteful had they done it, no one would have been prevented from hearing the speaker.

What are the consequences from a failure to discipline the students responsible?
[see next post]

[cont'd from previous post]

1. Other students at Georgetown believe they have a free pass to disrupt speakers of their choice without consequence. If Georgetown were then to discipline these students, it would look like it was engaging in blatant viewpoint discrimination (i.e., we won't punish anti-war disruptors, but we will punish pro-life disrupters) -- not to mention that the students would have a pretty solid case of disparate treatment even if not.

2. Controversial speakers don't come to campus. This deprives the entire community of the right to hear and debate controversial viewpoints and ensures only milquetoast viewpoints are accessible at Georgetown. This is more than a facetious concern. I recall a few years back, Henry Kissinger was going to speak, but withdrew when he heard word that students were planning to forcefully disrupt his speech. The same is true of Obama or other politicians, scientists, businessmen, leaders, etc.

Georgetown's position is not extreme. Yale University, which developed one of the most enlightened free speech policies, has this to say:

"The strength of these obligations, and the willingness to respect and comply with them, probably depend less on the expectation of punishment for violation than they do on the presence of a widely shared belief in the primacy of free expression. Nonetheless, we believe that the positive obligation to protect and respect free expression shared by all members of the university should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions, because obstruction of such expression threatens the central function of the university. We further believe that such sanctions should be made explicit, so that potential violators will be aware of the consequences of their intended acts."

Sir,

Your comments reveal a startling bias that concerns me as a student. The fact that you would even compare Dr. King to this disrespect is shocking. I also find it deeply offensive the way you idealize the Vietnam anti-war movement.

My great uncle served two tours in Vietnam, when he came back traumatized he was met by those people you idolize at the airport. They spat on him and called him a babykiller. He became addicted to heroin and suffered poverty and addiction until his death two years ago. From the actions of the anti-war community, nothing has changed. If they cared about policy, they would have protested Secretary Clinton, a leader who voted for the war. Instead they attacked the military viciously. Now where have we seen that before?

On behalf of General Petraeus, our veterans, and current soldiers: I request you apologize for supporting these hateful and disruptive acts.

This shameful op-ed is a slap in the face to all those who were unable to hear Gen. Petraeus, all those alums and students deeply embarrassed by the childish actions of a few and all those who would like to see the free-speech policy upheld and the protesters punished.

My father, a Georgetown alum and high-school principal who actively disagrees with the current wars described Sunday's display as "disgusting," and said that even his wildly liberal student body would ever stoop to such infantile behavior. Even ninth-graders would know better than to behave this way.

Perhaps the same self-righteous bias that encouraged the protesters to act the way they did has similarly clouded Dean Reardon-Anderson's vision.

Relatively recent (last 10 years) SFS alum here. I typically make a quarterly donation to the school of anywhere between $1,500-$2,500, depending on how things are going for me, etc. I've done this for the last 4 years. Meaning, on average, I donate approximately $8,000 to the school each year. This is in addition to my payment of full tuition with no aid over the four years I was at Georgetown. The money is typically directed toward SFS specific programming / funding.

My last check went into the mail on Monday. After reading this editorial, I am cancelling the check tomorrow morning. I will no longer be donating to (or in any way supporting) the SFS as long as Anderson is in his dean's position.

I'm appalled that the school would allow one of its officials, speaking as a school official (note the attribution, identifying him as a dean of the school; compare this to an attribution that only identified him as a member of the faculty) to support the disruptive behaviors that went on last week. (I'm also mildly disturbed by the intellectual flimsiness of the op-ed ... if this is one of the best and brightest that Georgetown can offer, we are in trouble ... but I digress).

Long story short: stances and positions have ramifications. Anderson's op-ed just lost the school ~$8k per year. I'm no Saudi billionaire, but I hope that this sign of a young alum's disenchantment with the irresonsible position endorsed in this op-ed serves as some sort of warning flag to the larger administration.

Best of luck & hoya saxa.

Luke,

I wouldn't go so far as to call the acts hateful. People are going to disagree - vehemently - about the wars. And yes, Petraeus is the embodiment of policy as well as the military and its troops; he's the leader, after all. Disparaging the troops did not occur in either the editorial or the protest (save for how they treated Petraeus, but let's remove the notion of Petraeus as every soldier from the equation). I'm sorry for the way your relative was treated, and it's not right, but I think that on the whole, nothing here has reached that level (and I don't recall, save for the crazy radicalist positions, any average person who has reacted in such ways this time around).

The problem here is that Dean Reardon-Anderson is endorsing continued disruption of speeches, and frankly, the likelihood is that he wouldn't be so amenable if it were people doing it to him or someone whose position he supports more than others (not that I presume to know his politics). Like another poster said, such an action in his Map class wouldn't go unpunished.

The university is a private institution. Free speech is all well and good (we let the anti-abortion protesters on campus when Obama spoke, but clearly did not let them inside Gaston), but the university has a right to set rules.

And the students should know when to not break them.

Wow. Once again, Dean Reardon-Anderson demonstrates a significant disconnect with the intellectual atmosphere of Georgetown University. Georgetown is a school that encourages civil and educated dialogue about modern-day issues; asking for decorum (i.e. asking that students be respectful of guest speakers) is not "clamp[ing] the lid" on students' rights, it is creating an atmosphere conducive to intelligent dialogue. Those "protesters" that interrupted General Petraeus' speech did not create "constructive chaos," but violated a central aspect of Georgetown University life: the ability to civilly debate others and the liberty to respectfully disagree. Those students are not the "Dr. Kings" or "Mahatma Gandhis" of Georgetown. They are immature, inarticulate young adults whose outbursts should not be entertained by the University.

This. is brilliant. 3rd to last paragraph is life changing. Dean Reardon-Anderson makes me wish I were in the SFS... and then I think of I Finance.

Dean Reardon-Anderson improperly assumes that the minority can only make themselves heard by being disruptive and disrespectful. The Dean notes, "Freedom of speech must allow for a minority to annoy and discomfort the majority."

Prior to speaking at the Main Campus, General Petraeus talked at Georgetown Law. From the start he opened the forum up to Q&A and proceeded to field one tough question after the next. The Main Campus protesters could have attempted to engage the General through these means but instead resorted to petty theatrics. If the students who attended the discussion wanted to see a song and dance, I am sure they would have gone to the Kennedy Center. Instead, they were deprived of a more robust discussion because Georgetown cannot control its student population.

The students' criticism of the General is also nonsensical. The military does not decide to go to war. If the protesters would like to experience a place where the military does make policy, I recommend Burma. I am convinced however that the students are ultimately not concerned with the logic of their arguments. They are striving to be controversial; much in the same way the doltish students at Columbia University were when they cheered on the despotic tyrant Ahmadinejad back in 2007.

Now after days to reflect on the protesters' disrespect, the Senior Dean of the SFS ignores an opportunity to condemn their vile behavior. Instead he endorses this banter, equating it to the heroic actions taken by, among others, Rosa Parks. Analogizing the meaningful and principled protest of Rosa Parks to the mindless actions of these students who cannot tolerate speech by someone with whom they disagree is unbecoming of a professor who aspires to become the Dean of the SFS. I sincerely hope that President DeGoia and the Board of Directors take note of this incident when contemplating Reardon-Anderson's future.

Dean Reardon-Anderson,

I went to Petraeus' speech to listen and to learn. My opportunity to learn was cut short by the actions of the protesters considerably---Gen. Petraeus was only able to speak for probably less than half of the time allotted. Putting any and all beliefs about the war, politics, anything aside---that in and of itself made me incredibly frustrated and angry. I wanted to learn from Gen. Petraeus (maybe agreeing with what he had to say, maybe not), but I was unable to, thanks to the actions of other students. Why aren't you defending my right to learn???

Dear all:

First off, I’m not sure if we all understand what free speech means. It means having speech be free. The protestors did not run up on stage, tackle Petraeus, and put duck tape on his mouth. Everyone’s speech in that room was, remained, and will forever be free.

As far as social graces are concerned, that’s a different story. But out of an incredibly loaded arsenal of vulgar insults and slurs, the protestors chose to remain polite. I think I even heard one of them yell “Have a fabulous day!” as he walked out the door. Indeed, as far as disruptive protests are concerned, this one was fitting for a queen! The protestors didn’t even take up the entire event, only about 20 minutes. They spoke, Petraeus spoke—DeGioia was even given the time and consideration to deliver his “Ode to Petraeus” at the beginning of the ceremony.

This amount of outrage and anger at something all those outraged and angered have deemed petty is rather (giggle) funny. And ironic. If it was so petty, then why are such a great number of individuals, national news networks, obscure bloggers, and especially students getting their panties in such big bunches! Either it wasn’t mere theatrics, or we’ve just got a lot of people with nothing better to do.

If we think critically for a moment, what could the protestors have possibly wanted? Think hard now. Really. Go beyond your PC manual filled with refrains of dialogue! and free speech! and think. We’ve got a handful of outraged people who want the war to end. What more success could they have had? They outraged not only a big chunk of Gaston, but a big chunk of the entire campus!

The only problem is what they’re outraged at. Most are outraged at the lack of (in a posh British accent) etiquette! And perhaps rightly so. But it’s not very polite to cluster bomb innocent civilians in their villages, is it? Or to say you need a bat in order to be diplomatic, as Petraeus so beautifully opened his speech. No, no.

In comparison to Petraeus and the macro-dealings of the US military, the protestors were beyond well-mannered and polite. They even left when requested!

And a note on theatrics: theatre and spectacle is a phenomenal way to combat theatre and spectacle. There was a stage glittering with lights, smiles, medals, Georgetown banners, and a General. This was a public relations, not a policy, event. So instead of fighting sand with fire, as our military does, the protesters bravely and nonviolently chose to fight theatre with theatre. Although the latter’s theater was arguably more important, interesting, and spirit rousing!

QUE MIEUX!

If the "protesters'" words were simply exercises of free speech, why would FIRE be against them? Link: http://www.thefire.org/article/11505.html>

Well, I can see not much has changed since I wrote this Viewpoint as a freshman just over 6 years ago: http://thehoya.com/opinion/inclusion-doesnt-involve-pre-set-ideologies/>

These people are noisemakers; to suggest they do something even remotely noble or worthy of praise is laughable. When I had to sit through my 2007 SFS commencement speaker's vapid, acerbic, and remarkably political diatribe against the Bush administration that passed as a speech, but which lacked any useful advice for my life after graduation, I didn't cause a disruption. Per Reardon-Anderson's advice, perhaps I should have...