|
ABOUT THE QUICK TAKE Every Friday, the Quick Take columnists will offer their views on an issue of significance to American University. Notable members of the campus community will also be invited to contribute to this new feature. Suggestions for topics and other ideas from readers are welcome and encouraged, so please submit comments to edpage@theeagleonline.com. |
Over a week after the event itself, the impact Jan Brewer's appearance on campus and the subsequent protests are still being felt on campus. Our quick take columnists and guests weigh in on the event, debating whether it, or the student response to it, was appropriate.
The AU College Republicans Executive Board
An unacceptably disrespectful protest
Rachel Lomot
Taylor Kenkel
joe Gruenbaum
Karl Popper, tolerance and Jan Brewer
Will Beaudouin
The collateral damage of political discourse
An unacceptably disrespectful protest
By The AU College Republicans Executive Board
Throughout American University’s history, student groups of all affiliations have participated in the life of the university by hosting influential policy makers on campus. The acts by these students who protested Governor Brewer’s speech did not just disrespect Governor Brewer, but also the College Republicans who put on the event and the students who came to listen respectfully to Governor Brewer, regardless of whether they agreed with her. Most importantly, the students disrespected Public Safety Officers. To treat Officers who work hard to ensure AU is a safe and vibrant community with such disrespect is unacceptable.
Sadly, some students have chosen to defend the truly radical actions of the protestors, claiming that it was because we screened questions. For the multitude of protestors, there was only one question submitted by a student outside of our group, and it was on an issue that would have been addressed if the governor had been allowed to finish answering the questions. Regardless, we hope that AU students don’t believe that the proper response to not having your question heard is to shut down the event entirely.
Another argument was that Governor Brewers’ views on immigration are so extreme that she does not have a place on campus. Many AU students might fervently disagree with Governor Brewer, but 57 percent of Arizona citizens favor the controversial SB 1070, and Governor Brewer’s views are in line with the mainstream of the Republican Party. Does this mean that the College Republicans should not bring any speakers to campus who fit our values, but disagree with the prevailing campus orthodoxy? Do we really deserve to be treated unfairly because people on campus disagree with us?
This is not a general statement against protesting, which is a legitimate political tool. However, we believe that respect and basic decency call for protesting to be done in a way that allows us to continue our event. The actions of the protesters Friday night threatened the reputation of American University, threatened the way that potential future speakers view our campus and most importantly, threatened the very fabric of civil discourse on campus. We don’t expect everyone to agree with the policy-leaders who we bring to campus, but we do think they should be treated with respect. We hope that all students, faculty and university officials will join with us in calling for more respect for future guests on campus.
Stealing the spotlight
By Rachel Lomot
We all heard about the recent protest against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. We heard that students stood up during Brewer’s speech and began to yell. We heard that the protesters caused Brewer to leave early. We have heard a lot of debate about the actions taken, but have we heard anything about why students were protesting? In the midst of all of this talk the actual issue was undermined by the method.
Gov. Jan Brewer was invited to speak by AU College Republicans last Friday night. It was a very controversial move to start with because of her strict, seemingly immoral, immigration stance. There was some backlash to be expected, but not to this degree.
The extensive action taken by the protestors did bring the speech and the issue lots of press. Gov. Brewer’s speech might have gone unnoticed without the demonstration. So the protest worked – it brought the issue to the front page.
However, students and faculty are now left debating the wrong issue. All of the previous articles in The Eagle surrounding this issue briefly mention the controversial bill itself. The articles focus on the question of respect. Was this the way to go about protesting Gov. Brewer? This is what we are left talking about – not her immigration policies.
Andrea Gonzalez, one of the protestors, disagrees. “I find it difficult to separate the issue of Brewer speaking on our campus and the action that occurred. I have not yet found a person who did not know what we were protesting against, which made our point clear: we do not want a racist bigot speaking on campus” said Gonzalez.
However, if the protest were a success, wouldn’t we see more rallied alliance in the issue of immigration? Wouldn’t AU see students writing about how the government should change immigration policy?
Chelsea Lawrence, a Kogod student, didn’t understand the protestors’ beliefs as easily as Gonzalez explains. “I honestly didn’t know what the protest was about until a few days later when someone explained it to me,” says Lawrence. “I don’t think it was the right way to go about it. Gov. Brewer isn’t going to change her beliefs after a bunch of students yell at her. If anything, the people who agree with her will only see how irrational the protesters were.”
The protest stimulated conversation. But when the complainers quit complaining and the defendants stop defending what will be left? I’m betting it will be the same as before, which is the wrong outcome for a protest.
Protests brewing at AU?
By Taylor Kenkel
During the 1970’s, AU’s campus served as a site of protests against both the Vietnam War and racial discrimination. A group of students vocally rallied against the war and ignited a wave of involvement on campus after police tear gassed and arrested several for civil disobedience in May of 1970.
While tame compared to the events of forty years ago, the group of 20 students protesting a speech by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last Friday still sparked campus controversy.
Students rallied against the Republican governor’s push for Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, the most severe piece of immigration legislation in the nation. The act, commonly known as SB 1070, makes it a misdemeanor for aliens to be in Arizona without carrying proper documentation and bans ethnic studies programs in state schools. The main rub with SB 1070 lies in a provision requiring police officers to try to determine someone’s immigration status during lawful stops, detentions and arrests— a requirement that lends disturbing legitimacy to racial profiling.
After the law passed in 2010, protestors demonstrated in 70 different locations across the United States on May 1, rallying against the institutionalization of discrimination. Just as the nationwide protests of nearly two years ago pushed the controversial legislation into the national sphere, the protest of Governor Brewer’s on-campus speaking event sparked a buzz of online and face-to-face debates among AU students.
Some might think the protest and subsequent debate confirms the oft-repeated cliché that AU students are the most politically active in the country. The consensus among many students that the protest served as nothing more than a disruptive act of disrespect points to toleration for only “appropriate” and “civil” methods of dissent and a view of “radical” actions as a mockery of the political system.
Accepting only mundane forms of protest and action ignores the need to work outside the system in order avoid being slammed down and silenced by influential government officials or lost in the bureaucratic maze.
Though students throw around vague calls for dialogue between the groups, the short nature of the speaking engagement and reliance on pre-screened questions effectively squashed potential for a deeper conversation and understanding from the onset.
While college-aged kids like to think Facebook posts and angry texts amount to active protest, simple messages and whispers of disapproval only serve as documentation of controversial events. By electing to protest the event, the group of students effectively transformed their outrage and discontent into direct involvement and action. Tactics used by the protestors—mic checking, chanting and waving signs— represented a frustration with the inhibition of participation and the elevation of a political figure onto a higher, untouchable plane where dissent is not allowed. The actions served as powerful demonstration of engagement, direct confrontation and consciousness-raising otherwise made impossible by the imposed constraints of the situation.
Just as students present on campus during Vietnam felt though political action through more traditional would not effectively impart their message or produce results, students protesting the speaking event believed the radical actions of Governor Brewer warranted an equally eyebrow-raising response. The only objectionable actions the protestors could have taken include direct threats or violence—neither of which occurred at the event.
The knee-jerk condemnation of the protestors by AU students from across the political spectrum reveals a distinct phobia of controversial political engagement, and indicates just how little many value or care to act on their freedom of speech and assembly.
Karl Popper, tolerance and Jan Brewer
By Joe Gruenbaum
I first stumbled upon Karl Popper’s work studying philosophy of science, and that’s no accident—his legacy is the development of a concrete understanding of what a leap from theory to reality implies. But what does an Austrian philosopher have to do with Jan Brewer? (A lot, if we’re talking about Hayek and von Mises—but that’s for another column) Popper’s most eloquent statement is not found in the annals of some philosophy journal but in an interview on society:
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant,” Popper says, “if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Simply put, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance.
CASJ and the Student-Workers alliance protested Brewer in response to SB 1070, passed last April, which would have encouraged racial profiling among border security officers. That portion of the bill was blocked by district judge Susan Bolton. However, a more disconcerting amendment to SB 1070 was passed a week after the bill itself; HB 2281 outlawed ethnic studies in Arizona schools and mandates illegitimate cultural imperialism. The bill outlaws any class that “advocates ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”
Outlawing ethnic solidarity is a weird extension of Randian individualism, atomizing humans as sociopathic actors and preventing them from finding happiness in collectivism. Without “ethnic solidarity” the civil rights movement would never have happened, historically black or minority colleges and universities would not be able to give the opportunities they give now to underrepresented groups—and every oppressed ethnic minority in history would not have been able to break the bonds of their oppressors. Ethnic solidarity is the means by which an oppressed group recognizes that oppression and comes together to stop it. Fracturing, convincing members to be “self-concerned”—to value what those who follow western individualism value—is itself a system of control, forcing disassociation, replacing a diverse ethnic identity with a harsh, western, anarcho-captilistic and singular conception of the individual. Republicans like Brewer would like to stop collective action by destroying empathy.
Last Friday’s protest against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was legitimate and necessary. Her policies and rhetoric are, by any reasonable definition of the word, intolerant.
To the AU college republicans who believe that the protests “threatened the very fabric of civil discourse on campus,” that’s incredibly thick—Brewer was allowed to speak for 45 minutes, and discourse is in no danger. Because of politicians like Brewer and those that agree with her—yes, you, College Republicans—our country’s discourse is threatened by unconscionable intolerance. And Popper is right: if that kind of intolerance is allowed, it is tolerance itself that is in danger.
The collateral damage of political discourse
By Will Beaudouin
Growing up in a politically divided household, I’ve always been exposed to both ends of the political spectrum. My father—an ex-hippie who claims to have been tear-gassed multiple times in the sixties—often brags he has not once voted Republican. Meanwhile, my mother proudly voted for Bush twice and worships Ronald Reagan with an uncomfortable fervor. In short, I have absolutely no clue why they’re married. Yet while my parents’ political incongruity made discussing current events an impossibility, it did help me develop an objective perspective of politics. As I grew older, my personal beliefs began to skew much closer to those of my father, but I was still able to understand and appreciate my mother’s perspective. I like to think that I still have the ability to look at politicized situations with at least a modicum of objectivity; of course I have my own opinions, but I’ll at least make an effort to understand the rationale of those I disagree with.
It’s through this lens that I’ve been contemplating the recent regarding the mic-checking of Jan Brewer. Personally, I find Gov. Brewer detestable; I have a hard time stomaching any politician that supports racially discriminatory legislation and who engages in racially biased rhetoric. I believe that the protestors were in the right and chose to voice their dissent in a rather respectful manner. From my perspective, I see nothing wrong with what happened last Thursday.
Yet when I take a step back, I can’t help but empathize with the College Republicans. We all know the political demographics of AU—they’re a minority here. I can’t imagine that they regularly get speakers of Gov. Brewer’s stature; if you’re a conservative at AU, this is a rare opportunity. So, with this in mind, I understand how disappointing it must have been to be a member of AU College Republicans last Thursday. Your event that—in all likelihood—wasn’t easy to organize was nothing other than a complete disaster. To have this occur in front of a woman you presumably respect must have been humiliating. To say the least, AU conservatives probably aren’t too high on their institution right now.
Am I happy that Gov. Brewer was mic-checked? Yes—fantastically so in fact. I’m having a hard time sympathizing with Gov. Brewer whatsoever. That said, it’s too bad that this display of dissent came at the expense of an innocent party. This unfortunate collateral damage has become a commonality of contemporary political discourse in the United States—and that’s a shame.
