The college campus has always been a place for heated debates, but has it gone too far?
When protesters from the UC-Irvine Muslim Student Union shouted down Ambassador Michael Oren, the school came under fire for allowing students to overstep their bounds as activists.   Freedom of speech is important but the event was a black eye for Irvine, as the students interrupted Oren  at five minute intervals and even forced him once from the stage. As the police escorted them out, the protesters shouted “Whose university? Our university!†as police escorted them out.
Apparently, the university disagrees. UC Irvine yesterday decided to recommend suspending the MSU’s campus activity for a year, as the group had planned, coordinated and approved of the demonstration. Under the recommendation, the MSU will also be required to perform 50 hours of community service. The MSU denies any association with the protest and insists that the students acted on their own. So it must be coincidence that the protestors were yelling “Propagating murder is not a responsible expression of free speech,†a statement they took from the MSU’s letter on the issue. The MSU never condemned the protest and still insists that the students “stood up and protested against inhumane Israeli policies,†refusing to acknowledge that the students were asked to wait until question time and denied another person the freedom of speech.
Honestly? The jig is up. The MSU supported these students and if we believe the probe, organized the protest. They have all but taken credit for it, and it’s not surprising that the university would punish them in order to respond to the event.
Unfortunately, suspending the club might actually make the situation worse, as collective punishment usually does. I’m sure there are students in the MSU who had nothing to do with it and they deserve to keep their club.    Why didn’t the university just suspend the students who disrupted the debate?
Suspending the MSU is not going to change the fundamental problem that college campus discussion is becoming less involved with teaching and more with indoctrination to one side of a political issue.   Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestinian? There is no central ground; students are expected to adhere to a “black and white†mentality that ignores the fundamental grayness of society.  There is no other side to any issue and those on the opposite end of the spectrum are always vilified without being given a fair hearing. Without civilized and respectful discourse, we only embrace the mob mentality that led to the UC Irvine debacle.
On that day, I was ashamed to be a graduate student, ashamed of my peers who couldn’t even let Ambassador Oren finish a few sentences in a row. I can understand the temptation to shout people down. At an Anti-Zionist rally I covered for a student paper, I remember listening to Yisroel David Weiss of the Neturei Karta and feeling my teeth set on edge as I longed to fling the nearest heavy object at him. As this anti-Semite spewed his religious hatred against the Jewish people, I wanted to shout him down or storm the stage with a cross and holy water in hand ala Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Nevertheless, I am glad that I did nothing of the sort and that Weiss (no relation, thank God) was allowed to speak his hatred unmolested. I would react just the same way had Zionist students protested him. Even the worst speakers have a right to be heard in the marketplace of ideas.
So how about this? The MSU, the Hillel and all other political groups make a pledge to attend and respect an event of the other side and actually listen and acknowledge that the other side might have a point. They might learn something, which is, after all, why they’re in college.
