Last night, former Attorney General John Ashcroft came to Cornell. He toured the campus and called it the most beautiful learning environment on earth! 
Then he came to a small reception to meet and greet and briefly answer questions. I was privileged enough to meet Ashcroft at the reception. He was very down-to-earth, friendly, and answered some asinine questions quite brilliantly.
Following the reception, Ashcroft went on to speak before over 700 members of the Cornell and Ithaca communities. His defense of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay was incredible. I had liberal friends tell me afterwards that he was so logical, they almost believed him — no small feat on Ashcroft’s part, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, the speaking event was repeatedly disrupted by some of the most pathetic and immature demonstrations I have ever seen. Before Ashcroft even came on stage, a member of the Cornell Administration came up and referred to the sections of the Campus Code of Conduct on free speech and invited speakers. Essentially, his point was that Ashcroft has been invited to speak and may not be prevented from doing so. Also, attendees of the speech had the right to hear the presentation without interruption. Demonstrations and protests are allowed outside and those in disagreement with the speech may ask questions at the appropriate time following the speech. The Cornell Police and Campus Life staff were on hand to escort out any troublemakers.
I have to admit, for a few minutes there, I was actually optimistic that the administration would have a spine and actually enforce the rules they profess to abide by. Boy, did they fool me.
About halfway through the speech, some people in the crowd stood up, turned around, and put black hoods over their heads. I assume they were protesting about Gitmo. Audience members who were sitting behind these protesters could not see. Other liberals started yelling and shouting out questions when Ashcroft was still speaking. The administration did absolutely nothing. They only approached the shouters after about a minute and politely asked them to quiet down. About 10-15 minutes later, a person I recognized to be the leader of the campus International Socialist Organization blew a shrill whistle and the hooded figures exited the auditorium. That in itself was quite hilarious, as some old women who put on the hoods were tripping around and couldn’t find the door.
I must give Ashcroft a lot of credit. He handled the protesters better than I could have dreamed. Not only was his speech absolutely brilliant, but his response to the completely unintelligent questions and protests was consistently quick and clever. He turned the audience against the demonstrators. It was a proud moment for me.
As soon as the protesters stood up, I knew they were going to get free press in today’s papers. So, I decided to do a rough count of how many there were. My estimate was around 30 people, with no more than 50. This morning, the Cornell Daily Sun apparently agreed and reported that about 50 individuals walked out.
The local newspaper, on the other hand, blatantly exaggerated — read: lied — about the numbers of protesters (who they affectionately refer to as “dissenters”).
From the Ithaca Journal: 100 walk out on Ashcroft talk
To me, this is just the icing on a very pathetic cake. I was extraordinarily disappointed in the behavior of Cornell students and administration. I was not surprised, just disappointed.
Honestly, how mature are we here at one of the best educational institutions in the world? Haughty professors and students preach the merits of an academic environment where minds, hearts, and doors are open and any subject can be discussed calmly and politely. They pride themselves on fostering an atmosphere were individuals can speak and listeners can respond intelligently.
In light of that, what the hell happened last night? It was pathetic. It was embarrassing. I read an article last week about Colorado University’s similar actions toward Ashcroft. It’s good to know that the Cornell community is capable of acting in the same immature manner as a state school which must accept any Colorado high school graduate.
Way to go, Cornell.
Sphere: Related Content
Obviously, you seem ok with having your civil liberties raped from you. Whether you’re a liberal or not, true freedom (which has been lost) and humanity are what make life worthwhile. Ashcroft’s actions do not protect our freedom despite what our naive population (including you) seem to think.
What freedom have you lost M.Y.?
I have always admired John Ashcroft, who spoke at my high school graduation. I don’t share M.Y.’s concern but perhaps that is because I don’t receive phone calls from terrorists. Even if I had a problem with The Patriot Act, it wouldn’t detract from my view of this man of integrity.
The same thing happened at my alma mater when Mr. Colin Powell and the former President Bush came to speak on campus, as part of a lectures series funded by a private individual (FWIW). In fact, the protests involving Mr. Bush were so bad that they installed snipers on the roof and police in riot gear.
(Just want you to know: the liberals are the peaceful ones. /sarcasm)
http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2003/03/tufts_strips_pr.html
Please note that the young lady in question had also assaulted an editor of a conservative journal.
For some reason, private universities have failed to tell their students that, as private universities, they can restrict speech all day, every day, in whatever manner they so desire. The First Amendment is only applicable against the federal government, and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states. Private universities, bosses, parents, and teachers can tell people to stuff it, with utter impunity.
As such, there is nothing wrong with prescribing a code of conduct for admittance into these speeches, with appropriate sanctions. There is no entitlement to attend a university, use all of its resources, and act as one chooses to act. The university may make the use of those resources conditional upon standards of behaviour. When it fails to do so, it denigrates its own reputation and deprives other students of the benefits of the university. Any system which acts to the benefit of wrongdoers, at the expense of the innocent, is utterly perverse.
That rant aside, I cannot understand why Cornell did not sanction these students. It would be pretty easy: for freshman, sophomores, and juniors, disruptive behaviour would bar them from all similar events for the next year. For seniors, such actions would strip them of their right to participate in graduation.
Now, one last element of sarcasm: how about liberals allow us to do in front of abortion clinics which they state is their right to do in college lectures? Does that mean we can throw pies, block the doors, disrupt the operation of, and otherwise hinder abortion clinics? Good for the goose, good for the gander, and all.
We cannot be sanctioned because what we did was legal, in both federal terms and according to the Cornell’s law.
It clearly states that an audience may not be hindered from ‘listening’ to the speaker, and the folks with the hoods on did no such thing. Perhaps you could not see, but you could hear.
And the hecklers were by themselves. It was well organized with legal observers.
I think it is important that these things happen to show there is an opposition to anything. To show there is no absolute right on either side.
If you are the person who sits next to the people in hoods, you cannot hear as they turn around, put on their hoods, and create a ruckus. It’s disprutive.
Your description of Cornell’s speech code is incomplete. Here is the full context of how y’all are supposed to behave with invited speakers:
The right to listen to a speech must be read in light of your duty to not disrupt it. It is not as if the right to listen to a speech is the only right given to audience members who do not oppose the speech; there is a duty upon you to not disrupt. You cannot violate that duty by claiming that there are no rights other than to the lack of impediment to listening.
Now, here is Tieki’s description:
Now, even under your standard, I’m not sure how blowing a shrill whistle is designed to do ANYTHING but hinder the right of Mr. Ashcroft to speak, and the right of other Cornellians to be heard.
But wait - there’s more!
Exactly. While you may want to oppose Mr. Ashcroft, you must let him speak. Your opposition ends when it interferes with the free expression rights of your fellow students. I know there would be hell to pay if anyone interrupted a precious liberal speaker with a shrill whistle, hooded figures, and the like - so why do you think that it is acceptable to do it when you personally don’t agree with the speaker?