When actions don't speak louder

When editor John O'Sullivan of the
National Review came to speak to the Yale Political Union last week, crowds of student protesters lined the halls of Linsley-Chittenden. Their anger was in response to a National Review cover caricaturing Al Gore, and Bill and Hillary Clinton as stereotypical Chinese figures, refering to the Democratic campaign's Chinese connection.

At first, the protesters remained civil, holding up signs and shouting outside the meeting room. The situation soon degenerated into childishness on both sides, as a YPU member grabbed a sign from a
protester, who proceeded to complain loudly that this was "institutional racism"bringing up the incident in a question preceding O'Sullivan's speech. As the YPU meeting
progressed, the protesters outside grew louder
and louder, disrupting the speech at times with shouts of "We want respect!" O'Sullivan summarized the situation well when
he chuckled, "Well, that's not the way to
get it."

After O'Sullivan's keynote speech, he had to be ushered from the building, as those objecting outside surged towards him. With only a few policemen and a mob of protesters, O'Sullivan and the students him were
in danger.

The offensiveness of the cover in question is not an issue. It was in poor taste and I understand people were offended by it; however, it should also be taken in context. The National Review always satirizes political figures; this wasn't an attack on Asians. Raising a storm over such a minor issue minimizes real bigotry. They also hurt
their own cause--others see them as overreacting in this case and will discount their opinions in the future. In addition, the ways they chose to protest--shouting overblown slogans and an occasional insult about
imperial fascism--undercut the group's credibility.

Regardless of personal opinions, the students certainly had a right to protest. They had a right to stand outside holding signs and shouting before the meeting began. They even had a right to disrupt the meeting with noise from outside, although it was an immature way to register disapproval of an editorial decision.

But under no circumstances does an an opinion or speech alone justify a violent response. Say the cover had been clearly bigoted; say it had been not a cover illustration but a vehemently anti-Asian editorial. Violence still would have been completely out of bounds.

Amid the arguments over what our country should stand for, one principle shines through clearly: the right to free speech. If speech that does not present a "clear and present danger" (such as yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater) is met with violence, the American ideal of civilized discourse is undermined. The proper way to react to speech is with speech, as a couple of students tried to do within the format of the debate. O'Sullivan smoothly dodged the first carefully-worded question, but was forced to defend his position in response to the next. He did so unabashedly, explaining the intended representation of each element of the cartoon, apparently unaware of the more obvious interpretation of the picture as a cruel joke.

But whatever we think of his judgment as an editor, O'Sullivan came out on top in this situation--he acted coolly and appropriately, making the protesters look silly in contrast. Their violent actions, however, were worse than silly. They were dangerous --not only by endangering O'Sullivan and the students around him, but also by un-
dermining of the principles free and
rational discourse which underlie our country's strength.

Back to Opinion...