2. Civil disobedience is not a ground for exonerating one from sanctions for violating the rules of
conduct regarding free expression, nor should it be a circumstance mitigating the sanction.
Commentary.
Although non-violent civil disobedience can be an honorable way of expressing moral outrage, in a university community where the free flow of ideas is paramount, it is contradictory and misguided to employ it to deny that very right of expression to another.

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?

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.

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:

To curb speech on
the grounds that an invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil, or that such ideas will offend some listeners, is therefore inconsistent with a university’s purpose. One may argue against inviting a speaker on the grounds that the speaker has nothing of importance to say. But once members of the University community extend an invitation, others may not disrupt the speech on the grounds that they find it stupid, immoral, or dangerous. Those who dislike what an invited speaker is saying also have rights. They include distributing leaflets outside the meeting room, picketing peacefully, boycotting the speech, walking out, asking pointed questions, and, within limits set by the moderator, expressing displeasure with evasive answers. Those who oppose a speaker may thus make their views known, so long as they do not thereby interfere with the speaker’s ability to be heard or the right of others to listen.

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:

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.

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.

(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.