Thursday, January 26, 2006

Immature Dissent On Display

Georgetown University Law Center recently hosted a speech by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in which he defended the controversial NSA wiretapping of American citizen's phone calls with Al Qaeda members. The actual speech and the panel debate that followed were considered and informative. They gave an encouraging impression of Georgetown's commitment to discussing difficult issues in a mature, thoughtful manner. In stark contrast, the student protest during the Gonzales speech was an immature intellectual spasm that did nothing more than embarrass the Georgetown Law student body on a national stage.

It may seem cliché that as the president of the Georgetown Law Center Federalist Society, I would respond negatively to a protest by liberal students against George W. Bush’s Attorney General. On the other hand, I do not support much of the Bush administration’s conduct in the war on terror. For the last year and a half I have worked for Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal on the Hamdan case, challenging Bush’s use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. I also probably agree with the protestors that the Bush administration’s actions in this warrant-less wiretapping are a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act- and maybe the Fourth Amendment.

My agreement with the protestors’ underlying policy position only increases my dismay at their conduct. By standing with their backs to Alberto Gonzales, by holding up a sign with a misquoted Benjamin Franklin statement (which CNN.com decorously labeled a “paraphrase”), by stomping out like petulant children with their black hoods on - the students embarrassed themselves, their cause, and the Law Center. Rather than showing Georgetown Law as a school where different opinions are respected - they made it seem like a place where people have made up their minds and will turn their backs on anyone who dares disagree.

Merely disagreeing with the administration does not give good reason to act disrespectfully. The school invited Judge Gonzales as a guest to our campus and he addressed us on one of the most pressing issues of the day. Many students do not agree with what he had to say- that is unexceptional. The school regularly brings left-leaning speakers to campus with whom I strongly disagree. When those speakers come, I listen respectfully and then challenge them on the facts and on the law. That is the mature and rational approach that we have been taught in Georgetown Law classrooms. We have not been taught to turn our backs and walk out of speeches simply because we do not like the message.

One question really bothered me after I saw the protest- what reasons could lead otherwise intelligent people to act in this manner? My best guess is that there is a romantic/symbolic connection to the protests of the past- when brave dissidents fought against racism and a system that did not allow their voices to be heard. These modern protestors adopted the 1960s civil disobedience paradigm without understanding the predicates that made those protests necessary. They do not understand that the reason that people turn to civil disobedience is precisely because they cannot get the same respect that Gonzales willingly offered by coming to Georgetown and by having his speech rebutted by a panel that challenged and dissected his position after he spoke.

Consider what occurred here- the Attorney General of the United States came to a predominantly liberal/hostile law school to put the administration’s argument in front of the people- just as he should in a free, democratic country. As he spoke, he knew that the next voice would be perhaps the most articulate and powerful advocate of civil liberties in the United States today, Professor David Cole. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Professor Cole, perhaps out of loyalty-but also, I hope, a little out of embarrassment for the students- praised the protestors: “I am proud of the very civil, civil disobedience that was shown here today.” Unfortunately, there was nothing in these students’ conduct that should have made him proud. Cole sat on the stage, listened respectfully, responded carefully and convinced some listeners that his position was the correct one. The protestors convinced no one of their rightness of their cause. Their masked, martyr-like appearance, with their dramatic (if misquoted) poster contrasted poorly with the carefully parsing of the FISA statute and the arguments about the extent of the President’s Article II powers that the panel discussed after the walk out.

The protestors styled themselves as heirs of dissidents of the past- but no one wanted to drag them away, no one considered turning water hoses on them, no one tried to run over them with tanks- no one cared about their empty gesture. They were turning their backs and walking out of exactly the kind of event that all those protestors of the past were demanding- an open dialogue where the powerful had to come to them- a dialogue where they could voice their reasoned disagreement with the authorities’ conduct in front of their fellow citizens.

Of course, the protesting students were well within their rights to act as they did. It is their constitutional right to use their symbolic speech to disrespect the Attorney General, to embarrass Georgetown Law Center and to marginalize their own opinions. As a person who probably agrees with them on this issue and as a Georgetown Law student, I wish they had not done it. Not only did they trivialize their point of view, but they showed themselves as closed-minded, disrespectful and immature. It was not the image of Georgetown Law students I wanted broadcast on a national stage.

this article has also been published at watchblog

9 comments:

Scott said...

For a defense of the protest, see my friend the Scoplaw's post.

Anonymous said...

If were Dean, they would have been taken to my office by security and expelled on the spot.

I suggest everyone who was embarrassed as I was to contact Dean Aleinikoff and express your disgust.

Oh, and I also don't support the Administration position.

Anonymous said...

The infantile students obstructed the view of respectful audience members and were disruptful overall. There is a time and place for protesting Administration policies. It was the time, but not the place. They could have picketed outside McDonough.

I disagree that disrupting a major speech that had the purpose of promoting our school is their "right." This is a private institution, and the school administration may curtail our public right to free speech in any manner they choose.

Those students are an embarrassment to this school, and if I had the chance, I'd tell them to their face what I think of them. How'd you like that classy broad with "tap this" written across her enormous ass? What a great representative for our school!

Anonymous said...

I understand the motivation for what they did and why they thought it was right and appropriate. They feel that the Administration is acting tyrannically, and they drew national attention to their POV.

However, it was unnecessary. Half the country agrees with them and half don't. Their circus show isn't going to change any minds. It was nothing more than attention whoring and an attempt to embarrass the AG. Incident to that, they embarrassed this school, many (if not most) of its students, and discouraged future prominent speakers from coming here.

Georgetown gains nothing from the AG speaking here other than to show the country that some of the most important legal minds come to Georgetown to speak. This enhances Georgetown's image and prestige, and as a student here, that certainly is to me a worthy goal.

I don't care to reveal my identity (not that any of you would know me anyway) at the moment but feel free to e-mail me at paleocon@gmail.com and I would certainly reveal it there.

Anonymous said...

Misha,

Now that I've just met you, I feel bad starting an argument right away. But, so be it...

David is dead-on about the motivations that drove the AG's speech. Ask the Dean: this was a last-minute appearance (that just happened to coincide with a PR blitz by the White House), Gonzales chose not to take questions or stay for the panel. He was offered an opportunity to take part in a real debate, and he declined.

What I find most troubling about your post, Misha, is its implicit willingness to just sit on your hands and listen--as if the administration has something substantive to say. From everything I've been told, you're a damn smart guy. A smart guy would recognize two things immediately from reading the text of the speech: (1) the tone of the speech was much more political than it was legal, and (2) it must be political in tone b/c the substantive arguments are so weak.

Had I believed that the AG wanted to debate these substantive provisions, "allow me to challenge [him] on the facts and on the law," or even make a slight attempt to convince real lawyers and law students -- rather than Joe and Jane Six-Pack -- that this program is legal, then I fully endorse your approach and would have been first in line at the mic.

On the other hand, if our University is used as nothing more than convenient backdrop for a political stump speech, I believe those of us who care about the _law_ should make our opposition known. It's not some "romantic/symbolic connection to the protests of the past" -- which, by the way, is such a trite idea, as if people in modern times do not or cannot find causes for which they feel moved to protest -- it's an overwhelming frustration with this administration's dismissive view of the law that drove me to stand up and turn my back on the AG.

Finally, Misha, I have to ask: what form of dissent would have been less "immature" in your mind? Less screaming and yelling. Check. Less throwing of pig's blood. Check. Hmmm... Maybe standing quietly and walking away is a childish thing to do. (although children have quite a hard time staying quiet).

Oh, I forgot to add: your distinction about "the 1960s civil disobedience paradigm" and "understanding the predicates that made those protests necessary," was quite a laugh. Apparently, permitting a panel to rebut your speech and dissent your position _after_ you leave the rooms and the media turns off the camera is the current vanguard of dissent. Fight on, you progressive, you!

As always, closed-minded, disrespectful and immature,
Alex

Anonymous said...

Lets get real here. The facts are uncontroverted.

1. The protestors blocked the view of those who wanted to listen to the speeches;
2. The protestors blocked the cameras at times so that people on television couldn't see the speeches;
3. Whether or not a person agrees with another persons position, it is NEVER polite and ALWAYS rude to turn your back on them. I have a 9 year old daughter who wouldn't do that. I guess in the real world when they come across another lawyer who says something that goes against their in your face liberalism, they'll simply turn their backs, right? Would they dare address a judge that way in court? No.
4. They took seats away from those who wanted to be there.

Their actions embarrassed our school, and make it harder for our school to attract conservative speakers. Ever notice, as Misha stated, that the conservatives never pull such stunts when liberals appear on campus? We debate them. We're grown up.

5. Those students should be disciplined.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with Misha and Pat D'Arcy
except for the discipline (i dont think that is correct response)

I like your quick sum up of what really happened Pat...i think its spot on.

For those who support the protesters rationalizing thier conduct with the thought that they were respectful in not throwing pies, I would disagree. Of course they could have done worse...but they did everything they could do without getting kicked out...that seems to be the only reason they didn't go further.

After speaking with one of the organizers, I was unmoved by his point of view (on the protest, not the issue). There is a recurring idea that what was done was the only option under the circumstances to get the message heard. I think this is wrong.

First, the message was heard long before the hooded students stood up blocking the view of those behind them. After all, the reason the Bush administration is on a PR blitz is precisely because this is a hot button issue. Everyone knows of the concerns the students were trying to voice, this is controversial and if it wasn't it wouldn't be on the news every day. Thus, the students did not have to choose between this or some other avenue of protest in order to get thier message heard...the message was already out. And IF the students felt so compelled to do SOMETHING, then i would say that it would be much more tolerable for them to face the speaker and hold a sign (in view but not BLOCKING the camera). That would get the point across as well.

This brings me to my second point. Since the message was out there, there was little if any benefit to doing this. YES, it got national media coverage. But all it did was to demonstrate a viewpoint that is already well known in the marketplace of ideas...big deal. On the other hand, it came at a big cost to the school I attend. I have to agree with Misha that conservatives on campus (despite thier alienation) welcome an intellectual debate. Unfortunately Georgetown Law is now NATIONALLY known as an institution that is hostile to such viewpoints. That does not promote the kind of robust debate we expect out of a law school. It only ensures that there is no "critical mass" of conservative students enrolling in the school (reference Grutter).

The only significant effects this had (undoubtedly there are more, less significant effects including getting the message out that has already been heard) was to diminish the capability of the law school to foster academic debate and also deminish the law school's ability to attract key controversial speakers. I would hardly expect anyone from the Bush administration to show up again. This is unfortunate, even if the administration is wrong. (and I think it just might be) In the future, we won't even get to discuss the issue.

As someone who is undecided on this issue, it only galvanized my attitude toward the liberal viewpoint. Specifically, I have come to expect behavior from such individuals that results from an attitude "My point of view is the important one and to hell with anyone else who disagrees."

So THANKS A LOT to all those whose self-gratification in being the center of attention was more important those of us who wanted to hear Gonzales speak and moreover to have such individuals come speak on campus in the future. I had forgotten that everyone else's point of view was less important than yours.

Anonymous said...

Patrick,

Your analogy between a political speech and the courtroom is a bit of a stretch, no? I'd never turn my back on a judge or an opposing attorney, but you better believe that I'd turn my back on forms of political speech with which I disagree. I'm from the South. The KKK still holds rallies from time to time. Would you watch them quietly? Or turn your back? Apparently we know what your daughter would do.

As for your "seat" argument, that's something you should address to the Attorney General, who could've scheduled his speech to be in a room more accessible to students. He didn't. He was there for the cameras, not for you. Sorry I took your spot. Would you prefer we all sign loyalty oaths before we enter the room where the AG is speaking? The Bush campaign did this in the Fall of 2004. Apparently, it works pretty well.

Finally, what sort of discipline do you propose? I'm all ears to hear what sort of "punishment" you believe is appropriate for exercising one's First Amendment rights. Or, are you one of those folks who feel that Amendment (like the Geneva Convention) is quaint.

cheers,
Alex

ps - Andreas, I'm interested by your focus on the cameras -- we could hold signs, but not in front of the cameras? What's your distinction here? That the Administration has (or should have) a monopoly on presenting their point of view via mass media? If the cameras are important, as you imply, then shouldn't the protesters want to get in front of them? In other words, to whom do you think the protests should be able to "get the point across" to?

Similarly, to Andreas and those who seemed concerned that the protest somehow interrupted this "debate," exactly who was the AG debating? The liberal media? Those liberal legal commentators? The AG had the chance to stay for the panel -- to engage legal scholars -- and he didn't want it. Why not? If the admin wants a debate, they could've had one. They don't. They want to reframe/spin/present the wiretapping issue to the American public in a certain light, whether or not their arguments/sound bites make any sense as legal argument. (Consider, for example, why the AG used the first 5 minutes and the last 2 minutes of his speech to talk about 9/11 and future terror threats. Did he think we'd all forgotten about these things? These issues are irrelevant to the legal questions -- e.g., would Clement go on and on like that in front of the Justices? -- but they make for good political window-dressing.

Anonymous said...

Alex,

I suspect that you might have not read the caps in my post. I said to have the sign in view but not blocking the camera.

And the second point about interrupting the debate follows...my concern was that by blocking the camera the aim was to Monopolize (sp?) the forum in favor of the dissenting viewpoint. While undoubtedly I could hear the AG while the sign was blocking my view, I was distracted and wanted to listen intently...I was denied this opportunity.

I recognize the adminstration had a significant PR aspect to this. That does not mean it was not also academic debate. While I agree it would be better for the AG to have stayed and taken questions, I dont think that diminishes the fact that he came in the first place. And lets not forget that the dissenters left also.