I HATE THIS KIND OF CRAP -- UPDATED

Yeah, I hate this kind of crap.  The Young Republicans at Columbia University invites speakers from an organization called the Minuteman Project, which advocates stronger enforcement of immigration laws.  As soon as Minuteman Project founder begins to speak, student activists rush the stage and shout him down.  Ugh.  *Pounding head on desk.*

Now, don't get me wrong.  It's not like I'm a big Minuteman Project fan.  In fact, I don't know much about them other than what I have gleaned from briefly scanning their site.  They claim to be acting lawfully to push for stronger immigration enforcement measures.  The fact that they are in bed with the Eagle Forum (bleah) and have vaguely racist sounding statements as part of their platform leads me to believe that they may be a truly noxious bunch.  ("Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious melting pot.") 

But this college kid b.s. of disrupting things while going on a self-righteous trip bothers me to no end.  (Not so much now, since I am not part of that milieu any more, but it bothered me in college.)  Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished history from the Underground Railroad to suffragists chaining themselves to ballot boxes to Rosa Parks to sit-ins to protest segregation to the nonviolent actions of Mahatma Gandhi.  Columbia students rushing the stage to prevent some crazy person from speaking is a distorted shadow of past efforts.  These kids are aping their betters from days gone by and, by doing so, making the Minutemen look like the reasonable ones. 

I think it's a tricky question, tackled by far better minds than I, as to when civil disobedience is appropriate.  On the one hand, I think it's important that we (the United States) be "a nation of laws, not men."  On the other hand, there are times when individuals definitely should act to protest violations of human rights or second-class treatment of certain citizens.  I think we would all applaud people who sheltered Jews from the Nazis or who assisted runaway slaves in nineteenth century America.  If abortion were ever banned in this country, I imagine at least some readers of this  blog would assist women in obtaining illegal abortions.

I don't know where the line is drawn, but I think that breaking the law, at least in a country like the United States whose principles of governance I believe in, is something that should be done sparingly and with care.  And I do have two basic principles that I believe in: (1) Civil disobedience should never be used to prevent someone from speaking, no matter how insane or evil one believes that person's ideas to be; and (2) Civil disobedience should actually be related to the evil one is protesting, ideally to prevent the evil one is protesting, or to avoid contributing to it.    

UPDATE:  Just after I published this post, I saw this link in the Punkass Blog thread, regarding the protesters' side of the story.  Specifically, they claim that it was the Minutemen supporters who disrupted the speech and precipitated violence in response to the peaceful protest inside the auditorium.  I am still not buying though.  The protesters walked on the stage with a large sign.  They had to know that they would be removed and that this would disrupt the speech itself. 

Comments

[evil_fizz]

I think that breaking the law, at least in a country like the United States whose principles of governance I believe in, is something that should be done sparingly and with care.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't realize being obnoxious at a speech constituted a crime. Can you elaborate a little more?

[Chalicechick]

Yeah, what Happy said.

CC

[Chipmunk]

Evil Fizz, there's a lot of prosecutorial discretion involved. Without knowing the facts other than those related by Happy, a NY prosecutor (this was at Columbia University) might consider the following:

N.Y. Penal L. § 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

True, it is a violation and not a crime (a violation is an offense, other than a "traffic infraction," for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days cannot be imposed N.Y. Penal L. § 10.00(2)). It is possible that other charges could be leveled based on the facts.

[The Happy Feminist]

Yes, I was thinking of disorderly conduct. I would also broaden the idea behind civil disobedience to include violating rules and procedures of an institution one has volunteered to part of -- like staging a walk-out from class.

[evil_fizz]

I'll have to reflect on this a little more, but I do wonder if the NY statute has some First Amendment problems.

Oh, by the way, the guy from the Minuteman Project was on the Colbert Report last night. I'll see if I can find it.

[will]

I only saw the video once quickly. But it looked like they came out to disrupt the speech, and then the Minutemen got physical.

[The Happy Feminist]

The section about in the disorderly conduct statute about abusive or obscene language may be a bit overbroad, but I am behind this part:

Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons

[The Happy Feminist]

It seems to me that the law is protecting lawful assemblies and meetings, i.e. protecting our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights.

[Patsy]

FYI, the Minutemen are definitely a hate group, similiar to the KKK. Not that this necessarily changes you analysis. But it's worth asking if you'd support a similiar reaction to the KKK being asked to speak at a university.

[The Happy Feminist]

Trust me, I would be damn pissed if some student group at my college invited the KKK or a woman-hating group or any hate group. I am sure the students were right to be damn pissed that these Minutemen characters were there at Columbia. (Again, don't know much about these Minutemen but it looks like I'd probably really loathe them, and I am assuming for the sake of argument, that they are in fact really bad news.)

But no it wouldn't change my analysis. You protest outside, you write scathing editorials, and you publicize the fact that the College Republicans are basically inviting a hate group onto campus. But as a matter of both tactics and ethics, disrupting the actual speech isn't right.

[West Coast Arwen]

Oh, I don't know. Aping their betters? That's making me pretty uncomfortable.

I think college kids get passionate - and their actions sometimes hit, and sometimes miss, with this one being a miss, yes - but they're consistantly out there giving a damn. Which is a precious thing.

If I were going onto a campus with a timely and controversial point I'd be aware there was a likelihood of protest. You know? And sloppy protest sometimes. Ad hominem attacks. Disruptions. Misunderstandings. That doesn't make it not-worth-the-time: it means I'd have to be really sure of my point.

Do I think these students were wise, or polite, or within the law? No. Would I be against them suffering a fine? Not at all.

Was it a worthless protest? Well: the kids were on the news - it was an attention getter, for sure. Was there previously sufficient coverage of the opposition to the Minutemen? I don't know.

A lot of times, civil disobedience brings into the public eye the understanding that there are people who are deeply bothered by issue X: so much so they're going to go to jail for it. And issue X seems irrelevant or small or a non-starter to greater society; hardly worth being rude about.

[The Happy Feminist]

Another even that set me off about ten years ago was when students of my alma mater took over an administration building to protest the elimination of the school's need-blind admission policy. They also had other demands, which the administration ultimately granted, like the hiring of a Muslim chaplain.

I very much agreed with the goals of the protesters but just hated the taking of a building to try to force compliance. The weird things was that the college administrators praised the students for being courageous free-thinkers -- although it's not exactly courageous to have be disobedient when you know the school is going to pat you on the head afterwards (which given the culture of the college was a given).

[West Coast Arwen]

At my alma mater, there were these Anti-Abortion folks called GAP that showed up. They had the multiply offensive pictures of aborted fetuses in comparison to pictures of lynchings and death camps. There was one set of young women who freaked out and attacked the signs, resulting in disciplinary action. This was inappropriate civil disobedience.
But they learned from the mistakes. The following year, when GAP came back, the women's centers created a large swath of fabric with their disagreements (on all the levels) to comparing having an abortion to committing lynchings. The fabric was on posts, then manned by volunteers who stood in front of the GAP display: not interfering with traffic to the GAP display (the volunteers couldn't really see the table), but allowing both people of colour and pro-choice women and their supporters to choose. This wasn't even civil disobedience, but it worked. The outcry against GAP that year was quite a bit louder.

But the first badly thought out protest was a learning experience with both consequences and no positive effect. Colleges are sort of playpens, I imagine, whether it's business or politics or journalism or activism; and you get needed passion and heinous mistakes on all of those fronts.

[The Grouch]

I think one of the issues you have to consider is: who does the building belong to? And who does the college belong to?

Also, if the protesters just walked on stage with a sign, I don't see any problem with that. Sure, it disrupted the speech. So what? Being disruptive in a non-violent way is a legitimate form of protest.

[cooper]

I don't find the disruption that big of an issue; if one finds what any person or group of people are saying is abhorrent it is one's duty to protest. If the protesters did bodily harm that is another story.

This country was founded on protest, and one man's free speech is often an arrow in the heart and soul of another; to sit back and pretend otherwise is the real crime.

[The Happy Feminist]

I am reading various accounts around the internet as to exactly how disruptive the protesters were. There are some accounts that the protesters shouted down the speaker who preceded Gilchrist, the Minutemen founder. But even just assuming, they took to the stage with a sign, I am just not into that.

I respect the protest tradition, but I don't like disruption of speech, not matter how evil. Actually, I don't really like disruption much period unless it is directly related to some evil activity.

I think one of the issues you have to consider is: who does the building belong to? And who does the college belong to?

I think the building belongs to the college authorities and whoever had permission from them to use it -- in this case, the College Republicans. I suppose one could complain to the college for allowing the College Republicans space to sponsor hateful speech. But, even if the college was wrong and the College Republicans were wrong, it still wasn't the protesters' space.

Imagine if it were the College Republicans doing the same thing as the protesters during a speech by someone from Planned Parenthood!

[evil_fizz]

Imagine if it were the College Republicans doing the same thing as the protesters during a speech by someone from Planned Parenthood!

Honestly, I think I still have the same response: it's obnoxious, but I don't think it's criminal.

[West Coast Arwen]

Yes, I'd agree with evil_fizz: obnoxious, but so be it. If I were going in as a member of Planned Parenthood to a college, I'd be prepared for that sort of activity. (And maybe have signs of my own in the wings?)

[Richard]

>>> Patsy wrote: FYI, the Minutemen are definitely a hate group, similiar to the KKK.

Ohhh, Patsy. (rolling eyes) Get a sense of proportion, girl. Do you know what the KKK *did* to people?

And does this mean in your world that laws forbidding unfettered immigration and open borders are "hate laws"?

[Kai Jones]

If you really believe in free speech, the answer to bad speech is more good speech. The students could have held a speech of their own, separately. Disrupting the speech a lot of people came to hear, of an invited speaker, shows me they don't have a response to him in the form of words, a counterargument of some kind--they only want to shout him down.

[roula]

richard, did you know that KKK-ers tried for many years to keep the organization in existence after the civil rights movement, but found that their "social mission" was increasingly disavowed by reputable society? did you know that after the organization's consequent "demise" many of its members coincidentally happened to all meet again at a new organization called the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC, in case you missed it)? the CCC and the Minutemen do indeed have extremely similar perspectives on what (or who) is ailing this country, and it's not a stretch to call those perspectives thinly veiled racism. it would be reasonable to say that the Minuteman Project is like the KKK insofar (or almost as far) as the CCC is like the KKK. if the KKK stopped lynching people who were not a part of their vision for society, but continued to believe they did not belong, did it become a better organization? how much better?

[the Unknown soldier]

Hmmm...me being a college student, I really can't see anything too wrong with that. I can certainly stand behind civil disobedience and I give a mighty thumbs up to college students actually standing up for something, instead of the usual apathy I see from my colleagues(or maybe YOU'd prefer that)

[The Happy Feminist]

Nah. I'd like to see a passionately engaged student body, but one that eschews trying to force people to shut up about things. When I was in college (Mount Holyoke in the eary '90s), the student body was very engaged and passionate about politics and human rights. I got sensitive on the issue of tactics because I hated seeing students with whom I agreed stealing the conservative student newspaper, or shouting down invited speakers.

If you're shouting people down, it starts to feel like a might-makes-right thing. I realize that these are idealistic college kids, but it's not the kind of thing I like to see happening in our colleges and universities. That's not to say that I give the young Republicans a free pass for inviting these yo-yos in the first place!

[mythago]

Rushing the stage to shut down speech you don't like is not "civil disobedience." And the net effect was to get sympathy for the Minutemen. Way to go, idiot protesters.

I truly don't get the At Least They Care argument. If the college students were passionately, energetically blocking an abortion clinic, or trying to shut down a speech by Al Gore, would y'all be cooing over their youthful energy?

[the Unknown soldier]

There's quite a bit of hypocrisy going on here.If the students had decided to protest against pro lifers or maybe a men's rights groups I bet you'd be cooing over them, but I guess the plight of immigrants don't really matter. Your issues are so much more important