Inside Voices
Liberals Attempt to Inturrupt John Ashcroft's Speech
Bryan Weynand
2006-09-22
“Ashcroft spurs political debate.”
So read the top headline of The Daily Tar Heel on Wednesday, Sept. 13, the day following the speech given by former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft at Memorial Hall.
Debate? Really? Ask a person who attended the speech for their insights, and one is likely to receive an exuberant account of the protestors and disturbances easily apparent at the event.
To bring someone of Ashcroft’s stature and record is to solicit controversy, and controversy there was. But there was little debate.
It is commonly accepted that at the heart of America’s ideals is that of free, open, and respectful discussion of all political issues; it is one of the beauties of our country that we are as citizens allowed to engage in criticism of our government officials.
“Genuine extreme differences of opinion should be respected,” Archie Ervin, associate provost for diversity and multicultural affairs, said. “There has to be a civilized procedure if our society is going to have that marketplace of ideas.”
In that vein, money was spent to bring Ashcroft to UNC to engage the campus in discussion of the issues surrounding his role, thus increasing the intellectual awareness of our student body and contributing to the intellectual diversity that makes a college campus what it is meant to be: a marketplace of ideas. Here differing opinions are presented so that students can become well informed, effective citizens that formulate responsible opinions on societal and political issues.
The assumption is, however, that with our freedom to disagree and criticize comes the obligation to maintain a level of sophistication in our actions and in our words. It is this assumption that makes it possible for us to maintain that right and conduct productive discussion.
Many of our fellow students at Chapel Hill, however, launched an assault on these ideals in a manner that dealt a severe blow to the credibility of our student body. The day began with a falsified, and grammatically incorrect, email that reported that the event had been cancelled. During the speech, Ashcroft was interrupted repeatedly, sometimes by students with thoughtful questions, more often by students with angry accusations. In a blatant display of juvenility, both parties ignored Ashcroft when he allotted time after the speech for questions that remained unaddressed. It didn’t take but a few minutes after Ashcroft began for a few disruptive students to be removed from the auditorium, and many others walked out on their own at different times throughout the speech.
The Young Democrats organized a cooperative walkout that occurred, albeit silently, midway through the speech, just as Ashcroft was beginning to explain the justification for the federal government’s controversial wiretapping surveillance program, a program in which many people find their most passionate qualms with the administration in which Ashcroft once worked. Vice president Uzma Panjwani said that her organization was not in any way affiliated with the more disruptive protestors, and rather sought to make their point with the least hindrance on others as possible.
But the principles of debate stand. Ashcroft was here for the purpose of spurring discussion, and many students, instead of capitalizing on their rare chance to hear first-hand and engage a person of such high status, chose not to listen, but to leave. That lack of listening, the refusal to even try to understand the opposing side, constitutes ignorance, not debate.
“We felt he only had so much to say,” said Panjwani. “We’ve heard what he has to say before; he wasn’t going to answer our questions.”
The basis of this accusation was partly that Ashcroft had refused to answer many questions that were posed during the speech before their walkout, questions that were posed as interruptions before the time designated for that purpose. Panjwani admitted, however, that their walkout had been preconceived and had been in the planning stages for days, before Ashcroft even arrived on campus.
That Ashcroft was not even allowed a chance to explain his positions to those who least understood them reflects poorly on our university. Disruptive or not, those that chose not to listen disrespected ideals that are central to the most basic and significant American value of free and open debate.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment that arose from the situation is that the campus community in some respects was denied that free and open debate. While the goal was for the campus to be discussing the content of Ashcroft’s speech and the answers given to those who were patient enough to wait, the campus is largely discussing instead the nature of the protests and disturbances, more often than not directing at them a negative tone.
So I pose this question to those who participated in these events: what exactly did you accomplish?
We are not only failing to discuss Ashcroft’s positions. We are failing to discuss your opposing positions, as well.
What we are discussing instead is simply the absurdity of the manner in which you made known your opinions. Signs reading “Stop your racist war on terror” and “Get your laws off my body” offer no explanation nor do they offer anything resembling a solution.
What you did accomplish: you took a $25,000 gift and threw it back in the faces of those who paid for it, many of whom were your fellow classmates through their student fees, with a much less civil version of “No thanks.”
Included in the docket for the remainder of the year are several speakers sponsored by Gay Lesbian Transgender-Straight Alliance, among them basketball legend and lesbian Sheryl Swoopes. It will bring similar controversy and disagreement, this time from the other end of the political spectrum. Our university is getting another chance at demonstrating our ability to listen to and engage speakers responsively and effectively.
Hopefully we will fare better next time.