Still More on Student Protests
A Chronicle article on the recent student protests of commencement speakers quotes one replacement speaker (Mr. Bowen) as encouraging ‘civil non-disruptive protests.’  Students at OSU are cited as unhappy with the choice of Chris Matthews, because they do not know who he is. 

As usual, some of the most thoughtful ideas emerged in the exchange that followed the article.

A:  Student protests are a sign of student engagement, perhaps even critical thinking, designed to create publicity in the hope that more will pay attention…encouraging us to see something presented as bland entertainment as controversial and contested.

B: Counters that the protests signify mindlessness, but then strays from this mindless comment to quite thoughtfully note that the type of protest matters:  if you silence opposing ideas there is no engagement, and therefore no learning, no appreciation for the nuance of arguments on all sides, no progress. Bullying opponents into silence is not critical thinking; quite the opposite, as B points out.

C: Agrees with B and adds that we need to know more about the vitality of communication channels that might have made more effective protest also more deliberative…shifting our attention from student to administrator agency, where it belongs given the power relationships here. 

C and D also remind us that when Mr. Bowen-types are the substitute speaker we have to wonder out-loud if the administrative decision makers are even interested in hearing student messages, delivered in any form, rather than being only interested in their own political spectacle, as A suggests.

E: focuses much more directly on power and the ways that our perspective on conflicts like this often reflect more about our relationship to the status quo than they do about our understanding of free speech, civil disobedience, or protest.

Here are the comments from A-D, in full and without editing:

A: ‘I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Bowen's view. I am delighted that there are still bright, critically thinking college students who objected to their school's choice of commencement speakers. If they were brought to campus (and paid handsomely), any discussion of views between speaker and students would have resulted in no publicity and nothing would change. At least now, those beyond the campus, who are paying attention, would investigate the reasons there was protest. In these cases I agree wholeheartedly. Chris Matthews? What a joke.

In fact, I wish Emerson College students objected to its' choice to give, CNN teleprompter reader, Don Lemon, an honorary degree. Mr. Lemon exemplifies how far from true journalism the media has sunk. It is, as Edward Bernays, advocated it to be ...totally scripted propaganda.

It is refreshing, however, that some college graduates are paying attention and they have not become mindless zombies. I appreciate Ms. Jerde's [author of Chronicle piece] effort to bring this to our attention.’

B: ‘I have serious doubts about the assumption that these are "bright, critically thinking college students." Rather, they are mindless zombies of another kind, responding in a knee-jerk manner to speakers who are opposed by the group-think evident in their particular campus subcultures. The close-mindedness of these protesters is revealed by their unwillingness to engage intellectually with those with whom they disagree. Instead, they bully their opponents by trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas and failing to engage those ideas. Their notion that there is only one way to think about important issues of the day (and that their way is the only way) is anti-intellectual and pure arrogance. All of the issues surrounding the graduation speakers who backed out of their speeches have much more nuance attached to them than these individuals are capable of absorbing and, apparently, understanding. Let's stop the hero-worship of those who engage in thuggish behavior on college campuses.’

C: ‘Thank you for this. The kind of protest we too often see is thuggery of the worst kind, not genuine protest. There are effective channels for protest, and I wonder if these have been exhausted. The real problem is how effective administrations are at insulating the deciders from alternative viewpoints. The sometimes echo chambers of administrative meetings causes this problem. To pretend that the substitution of one monochordic drone for another is somehow virtuous denies everything "bright" or "critical" about the "thinking."’

D: ‘Well spoken.

Not to distract from your excellent post, I would only add that the sentiment expressed by your final sentence should be applied across our entire society and particularly to our political arena (for it has become an arena in all but the literal sense of the word, and not far from that at times).’

Much further down the thread...

E: 'While I find the Haverford folks’ list of “demands” to be disingenuous, since their purpose is not so much to invite conversation with the would-have-been speaker but to call attention to his problematic decisions, I’m bothered by the claim that the protest was not “civil.” In my mind, when attempting to speak truth to power, people should rely on language and non-violent behaviors, which is what the students and faculty did. Could they have been nicer? Sure.

Could Mr. Birgeneau have been nicer, both in responding to protests at Berkeley and in replying to the recent protesters? Yes. And it was hardly civil to endorse the use of violence at Berkeley.

It’s also disingenuous to suggest that open discussion among people with different points of view would happen in the context of a commencement visit and speech. It’s hard enough at a university to engage in open conversation with those who have more power.

 

In my experience—granted, I’m a woman and untenured—people with more power choose to ignore debates and discussions about topics they don’t want to discuss. And if there’s a chance that talking honestly about something (e.g., sexual assault) that might make the institution look bad, those with power will often try to “spin” the talk in a way that protects the status quo. When “freedom of speech” threatens power and its sense of order, it is seen as uncivil and disruptive. Everyone would be more civil if we seriously considered the perspectives of those who wish not merely to be heard, but to engender change for the common good.'