What's so bad about Chris Hedges of the NYT?

[a_unique_person]

New York Times reporter booed at Illinois college graduation

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/05/20/reporter.booed.ap/index.html



CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A New York Times reporter cut short a keynote address to graduates at a private Illinois college over the weekend after audience members shouted down his comments about the war in Iraq.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of a recent book that describes war as an addiction, was booed Saturday at Rockford College, a small liberal arts school 80 miles northwest of Chicago. After protesters rushed the stage and twice cut power to the microphone, Hedges cut his speech short.

"He delivered what I guess I would refer to as a fairly strident perspective on the war in Iraq and American policy," college President Paul Pribbenow said Tuesday. "I think our audience at commencement were not prepared for that."

Many audience members turned their backs on Hedges, while others booed and shouted, said Pribbenow, who at one point pleaded to let the speech continue.



From what I can tell, he argues that war is something you can have for the sake of it itself, which is part of the reason I believe there was the war in Iraq, although he has fleshed out the basic idea with a full and comprehensive book. Interesting.

[hgc]

I've been awating the paperback to read his book, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400034639/qid=1053530572/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1193168-8452160?v=glance&s=books), which comes out next month. Sounds very interesting.

Sure I supported the war in Iraq, but it sickens me when people take such a strident stance against letting anyone opposed to war speak their views. Very O'Reillyesque.

[Tony]

I guess you guys care nothing for appropriateness and tact. A college graduation is about the graduates, its not a venue for some ******* to masturbate his ego.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
I guess you guys care nothing for appropriateness and tact. A college graduation is about the graduates, its not a venue for some ******* to masturbate his ego.
Thank you, Tony, for illustrating my point. No matter where it happens, the opponents of free speech will never come out and say they're opposed to free speech. They have all kinds of nonsensical arguments about the appropriate time and place.

For instance, all the college commencement speeches I've ever heard say something about the wider world into which the students are about to enter. The commencement speakers often speak on a topic related to their own noteriety. In this case, the speaker is the author of an anti-war book. Why on earth shouldn't he talk about what makes him interesting enough to have been invited to speak in the first place?

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc

For instance, all the college commencement speeches I've ever heard say something about the wider world into which the students are about to enter. The commencement speakers often speak on a topic related to their own noteriety. In this case, the speaker is the author of an anti-war book.


Ok, then am I to assume you would be ok if they invited a speaker and he started talking about the "evils of homosexuality" and that everyone had better get right with "the lord jesus christ"?

If someone plans on giving a controversial address they should prepare for negative reactions.

Read this (http://www.rrstar.com/localnews/your_community/rockford/20030521-4971.shtml) report, it gives a better picture of what was said.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony



Ok, then am I to assume you would be ok if they invited a speaker and he started talking about the "evils of homosexuality" and that everyone had better get right with "the lord jesus christ"?

If someone plans on giving a controversial address they should prepare for negative reactions.

Read this (http://www.rrstar.com/localnews/your_community/rockford/20030521-4971.shtml) report, it gives a better picture of what was said.
The article you posted didn't give many quotes from his speech, and I don't have a problem with any that were printed.

Yes, a speaker of controversial topics should prepare for negative reations, but what's that got to do with my criticism of the actions of people taking physical steps to silence the speaker? You have slyly shifted the responsibility for these actions from the perpetrators to the recipient.

Your assumption about what controversial topic would be OK with me is also irrelevant, and incidentally, incorrect. In my opinion, the way to combat disagreeable ideas is to present counter argument, not to take steps to silence the offending speaker.

edited to add: I just noticed a link to a transcript of the speech on the site Tony linked. I will read and comment later.

[DaChew]

Ok, then am I to assume you would be ok if they invited a speaker and he started talking about the "evils of homosexuality" and that everyone had better get right with "the lord jesus christ"?

No, of course not. Talking about the "evils of homosexuality" is hate speech and isn't protected. Also, banning "the lord jesus christ" from a college graduation speech isn't censorship it's respecting the separation of church and state. ;)

The blame for this entire fiasco lies entirely with the leadership of the school. They obviously invited an entirely inappropriate speaker for their commencement. The Regents and the President of the college are supposed to know and understand the demographics of their enrollement. They clearly either don't or they put their own biases ahead of the interests of their students.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc

The article you posted didn't give many quotes from his speech, and I don't have a problem with any that were printed.



I know, sorry, the one Drudge had yesterday was better. But it did give a better picture than the CNN article.

Yes, a speaker of controversial topics should prepare for negative reations, but what's that got to do with my criticism of the actions of people taking physical steps to silence the speaker?

If I went to harlem and started yelling "******* are monkeys", and got my ass kicked, would you blame me or the people kicking my ass?

In my opinion, the way to combat disagreeable ideas is to present counter argument, not to take steps to silence the offending speaker.

I agree, but is a commencement ceremony a place for debate?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony

If I went to harlem and started yelling "******* are monkeys", and got my ass kicked, would you blame me or the people kicking my ass?

I would blame the people the people kicking your ass for their violent actions. But I already said that people should be prepared for the reaction they get. I don't know that he was "unprepared" for it. I just don't agree that the students should have put a stop to the speech.

I agree, but is a commencement ceremony a place for debate?

A commencement ceremony is absolutely the place for the presentation of debatable ideas. The students should take the opportunity, after the speech, to argue those ideas with the speaker, amongst themselves and with anyone who wants to talk about it. This touches on what I was talking about with the "appropriate time and place" admonitions that are so commonly used against people opposed to the war with Iraq. These are current events -- this is the time to discuss them. As I said above, the administration invited him to speak, and I assume they expected him to speak about what he is famous for -- his anti-war stance.

[hgc]

Originally posted by DaChew


No, of course not. Talking about the "evils of homosexuality" is hate speech and isn't protected. Also, banning "the lord jesus christ" from a college graduation speech isn't censorship it's respecting the separation of church and state. ;)

The blame for this entire fiasco lies entirely with the leadership of the school. They obviously invited an entirely inappropriate speaker for their commencement. The Regents and the President of the college are supposed to know and understand the demographics of their enrollement. They clearly either don't or they put their own biases ahead of the interests of their students.
As far as I know, talking about the "evils of homosexuality" is not unprotected by the constitution. If you mean that it's "not protected" by some or other campus speech code, I don't know if that's relevant at this college, and even if it was, how it would affect a commencement address.

This is a private college, what would "separation of church and state" have to do with it?

As for the rest of your post, please provide your data regarding the demographics of the student body and the biases of the administration [as you put it: "Regents and President"].

[DaChew]

Originally posted by hgc

As far as I know, talking about the "evils of homosexuality" is not unprotected by the constitution. If you mean that it's "not protected" by some or other campus speech code, I don't know if that's relevant at this college, and even if it was, how it would affect a commencement address.

This is a private college, what would "separation of church and state" have to do with it?

As for the rest of your post, please provide your data regarding the demographics of the student body and the biases of the administration [as you put it: "Regents and President"].

First: I was being sarcastic. Sorry if you missed the ;)

The term "hate speech" is a leftist construct that is designed to give leftists a mechanism by which they may limit free speech on campus. I'm pointing out the irony.

Leftists will tell you that even if it is a private college, if they've received ANY federal grants, tuition from federal scholarships or loans or even money from federally backed loans from banks, the separation of church and state must be respected. They will therefore insist that there be no references to religion in any form on campus. Again, sarcasm on my part. Let me add an extra
;) Just in case you missed the last one.

My data? You've already seen it if you read the accounts of the commencement. Whoever made the choice of speaker obviously made a mistake. The President of the College approved the choice and even if he didn't, the responsibility is his regardless.

[WildCat]

Maybe it was the context in which the speech was given. Commencement speeches are usually of the "you are the future this is the beginning of the rest of your life" type, boring and predictable, but expected. Instead, they got some guy plugging his book and espousing his political beliefs. Still, they should have taken out their anger on the yahoo who hired the speaker, after politely listening to the speech.
The shoutdown tactic of denying someone the right to make a speech about something you disagree w/ has always irritated me.

[hgc]

Originally posted by DaChew


First: I was being sarcastic. Sorry if you missed the ;)

The term "hate speech" is a leftist construct that is designed to give leftists a mechanism by which they may limit free speech on campus. I'm pointing out the irony.

Leftists will tell you that even if it is a private college, if they've received ANY federal grants, tuition from federal scholarships or loans or even money from federally backed loans from banks, the separation of church and state must be respected. They will therefore insist that there be no references to religion in any form on campus. Again, sarcasm on my part. Let me add an extra
;) Just in case you missed the last one.

My data? You've already seen it if you read the accounts of the commencement. Whoever made the choice of speaker obviously made a mistake. The President of the College approved the choice and even if he didn't, the responsibility is his regardless.
Yes, I'm sorry I missed the ;) . That makes more sense now.

I am one leftest that is opposed to restrictions on "hate speech" and other forms of thought policing. In a similar vein, the rightist attack on anti-war speech leading up to and during the Iraq war was very troubling, but I guess you already know that's what I think.

I still don't think it was a mistake to engage Hedges for the speech. I think they did the students a great service in getting a speaker that would confront their cherished notions with an alternate view.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by hgc

I still don't think it was a mistake to engage Hedges for the speech. I think they did the students a great service in getting a speaker that would confront their cherished notions with an alternate view.
I don't oppose bringing alternate views to a campus, but a commencement ceremony was an inappropriate place for this. It's a captive audience who didn't expect to be preached to.
When I was in college, we had everyone from Louis Farrakhan to William Rehquist speak, but attendance was voluntary. Big difference!

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc



A commencement ceremony is absolutely the place for the presentation of debatable ideas. The students should take the opportunity, after the speech, to argue those ideas with the speaker, amongst themselves and with anyone who wants to talk about it.


What? I dont know which college you went to (University of Nerdville? :p) or when, but after graduation kids are more interested in celebration and partying than discussing current events.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by WildCat
Maybe it was the context in which the speech was given. Commencement speeches are usually of the "you are the future this is the beginning of the rest of your life" type, boring and predictable, but expected. Instead, they got some guy plugging his book and espousing his political beliefs. Still, they should have taken out their anger on the yahoo who hired the speaker, after politely listening to the speech.
The shoutdown tactic of denying someone the right to make a speech about something you disagree w/ has always irritated me.

Exactly. During the years of study at a college, students have more than enough "challenge" set before them. Commencement is a time for celebration of their sucess not "one last shot at them".

My undergraduate commencement speaker was an independent businessman who had previously graduated from my alma mater and basically he talked about his success after college. His main point was that it is all well and good to go out and get a job with a large corporation but don't think that you can't start your own business and do things your way.

The point is, commencement ought to be a time for the entirety of the graduating class regardless of all of the things that separate them feel good about their accomplishments.

[aerocontrols]

There's an audio link here (http://www.rrstar.com/localnews/your_community/rockford/rcaudio.shtml).

MattJ

[BobK]

After listening to the audio of his speech, I was astounded that not once did he even acknowledge the achievement of having graduated, or attempt to give any sort of guidance to the graduating class!

Seems to me he is a selfcentered, egotistical twit.

I don't blame the students for booing him. How else could they protest his speech? By leaving their own graduation ceremony?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BobK
After listening to the audio of his speech, I was astounded that not once did he even acknowledge the achievement of having graduated, or attempt to give any sort of guidance to the graduating class!

I think this has just been wonderful publicity for his new book. I'm sure his publisher is ecstatic.

(No, that isn't sarcasm)

MattJ

[JAR]

The reporter also said the United States and the embedded reporters portrayed war as a spectator sport, touting advanced and powerful technology while overlooking the suffering of Iraqis and the deaths of young American troops.

This is the exact opposite of the portrayal the LA Times and CNN gave for the war. They did their best when the invasion was going on to make it look like the U.S. was losing. Now my household watches Fox News instead.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
I guess you guys care nothing for appropriateness and tact. A college graduation is about the graduates, its not a venue for some ******* to masturbate his ego.

Oh, yeah, and what does this say about the graduates of this particular school?

Heh. Forgot that part, maybe?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj


Oh, yeah, and what does this say about the graduates of this particular school?

Heh. Forgot that part, maybe?

Maybe not much. The audience at a graduation has a lot more people in it than just the graduates.

MattJ

[Skeptic]

Ok, then am I to assume you would be ok if they invited a speaker and he started talking about the "evils of homosexuality" and that everyone had better get right with "the lord jesus christ"?

Sure--if you invited Pat Robertson to give the speech, as he is well-known for having such views. If you don't want to risk hearing such views about homosexuals in your commencement address, don't invite Robertson in the first place. Similarly, if you don't want to risk hearing anti-war views there, don't invite someone well known for such views.

If someone plans on giving a controversial address they should prepare for negative reactions.

The problem is with the claim that the speaker should not be allowed to have a "controvertial" commencement address. Since "controvertial" really means "anything I don't agree with", it is nothing less than a call for censorship on unpopular views.

[aerocontrols]

The speaker's biography was troubling, all right. The controversial figure was "responsible for human rights atrocities around the world" and had supported "major U.S. interventions that led to millions of innocent deaths" and now stands "accused of crimes against humanity."

It came as no surprise, then, that the speaker is affiliated with "an institution designed to legitimate foreign elections manufactured and manipulated by the U.S. State Department for corporate and private interests." Predictably, this fiend is also "a member of the Trilateral Commission."

...

When the speaker took the podium, a handful of graduates walked out. Others turned their folding chairs around and sat with their backs to the stage for the entire address. So did a number of parents and guests.

And that's when things got lively. As soon as the speaker began, a chorus of shouts and boos came from the back of the assemblage. The heckling continued until almost the seven-minute mark in the speech, when the speaker finally addressed the protesters and promised to meet with them afterwards if they would quiet down.

Mercifully, they did. The speech went on for a few more minutes--nothing terribly controversial, the standard fare about reaching for your dreams and giving back to your community. Then, as the speaker mentioned the remarkable example of the passengers of Flight 93, a man rushed the stage carrying a sign proclaiming, "Another reason why they hate us."

Police officers quickly surrounded him and escorted him out. A few moments later, another protester made a break for the stage wearing a gigantic papier-mâché mask that someone told me looked like a caricature of the speaker featuring a giant hooknose. Five cops rushed to intercept the papier-mâché kid and wrangle him or her out of the quad.

By then the screams and catcalls had returned. One more protester was surrounded by police, after which it was relatively smooth sailing for the final few paragraphs of the speech.

source (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/714cpljl.asp)