Sun Blogs: Left, Right or Wrong?
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for Ashcroft
Email: 
Share: 
Simply attending an Ivy League school does not necessarily mean we are all upstanding citizens. This became evident when former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke at Cornell during the last week of class. The manner in which protesters interrupted his speech was shameful. Almost equally as shameful was how our University handled, or rather neglected to handle, the situation. This should not happen in an educational environment.
Let me first say that I fully support free speech and the right to protest. I have no problem with the protesters who peacefully assembled outside Statler Hall. When I sat down, the people next to me told me that they were planning on interrupting the speech and that they might need to make a quick exit. I thought, “Wow, I might be an accomplice to a crime and if this gets on YouTube I could be as famous as the ‘Don’t tase me, bro!’ guy.” But I thought better of it and moved my seat.
The night started off with some tension when a member of the Cornell administration clearly stated that anybody who prevented the speaker from delivering his message, or prevented the audience from listening to Ashcroft, would be warned and subsequently removed. At about 8 P.M. the protesters stood up with their backs to the stage. These protesters were preventing people from seeing Mr. Ashcroft, even though audience members had taken the effort to get tickets and wait in line.
The problems here are twofold. First of all, this type of protest was not only counterproductive, but it was unintelligent and disrespectful. Ashcroft was kind enough to have a question and answer session following his speech. Why had these protesters not confronted Ashcroft on his decisions and debated him? Instead, they stood up and got some attention, and then they left without proving or accomplishing a single thing.
The second problem was that Cornell showed no leadership. Instead of warning the people who were shouting, and then removing them upon a repeated offense, the administrators in attendance and the Cornell police simply stood there. They occasionally moved around a bit, maybe to give the appearance that they were about to spring into action. Maybe they were afraid that they would end up on YouTube. Nonetheless, Cornell University has a duty to its guests and students to ensure that there is a free exchange of ideas. The protesters were clearly in violation of the rules established prior to the speech, but there was no consequence. Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent. Why would Ashcroft or any other person with similar views ever want to come here? Frankly, the University was meek.
Along with the free exchange of ideas and intellectual discourse that I mentioned earlier, is this little thing called respect. This should not be taken as a criticism of protest or dissent. It is these two concepts that have, in part, made the U.S. the nation that it is today. However, there is a time and place for protest as well as a respectful way of protesting. Don’t get me wrong, Ashcroft is not right about everything he says. Nonetheless, as a conservative and a Bush appointee he willingly came in to the liberal lion’s den that is an Ivy League University. Furthermore, he answered Cornellians’ questions—some of which were scathing and pointed— in a respectful manner despite everything that was thrown (thrown in the figurative sense, although if people had actually thrown objects at him, I am sure Cornell would not have stopped it) at him.
There is something to be said for the office of Attorney General, or any high ranking office for that manner. The man who holds or held such a title deserves some level of respect, especially in an educational/intellectual setting. Ashcroft has devoted nearly his entire life to public service and has family members in the armed services, and he deserves respect. As college students, on the verge of adulthood, we should be able to distinguish between agreement and respect.
There is nothing wrong with exercising free speech or protesting. Part of the college experience is becoming passionate about what you believe in and fighting for a cause. However, passion should not supersede respect.
I disagree with just about
I disagree with just about everything Ashcroft stands for but at the same time this article is completely right. Why not just engage in intelligent debate with him rather than acting like a four year old kid whose mommy wouldn't buy him a popsicle? Imagine if a liberal speaker came to campus and conservative students acted with such stupidity? It's people like this who's minds are too simple to understand that all they are doing is undermining discourse and making liberals who actually do have common sense look bad.
Understand the facts
Hi, this is Everet, one of the many organizers for the protest.
First of all, free speech is a two way street. For three years, John Ashcroft has exercised his free speech spreading anti-democratic ideals as the United States Attorney General. He used the Bully Pulpit of the Justice Department to spread his anti-freedom and anti-justice message. Then he came to Cornell to again use his free speech to use the Bully Pulpit of Cornell University to spread his opinions and ideals.
So, we decided to give students an opportunity to excercise their own free speech by protesting Ashcroft. You can't just look at free speech as a one way street. If Ashcroft has free speech, then so do the students. I think it was admirable how students took their first amendment rights and actually used it!
Also, I want to refute some of your unsubstantiated claims:
1. The shouting protester was not part of the organized protest. That person took their own initiative. If you don't believe me, check the orignal sun article reporting the protest.
2. You say that we should show John Ashcroft respect because "he willingly came in to the liberal lion’s den." First of all, hearing from various reports, it took 30k to bring Ashcroft to Cornell. Now, I have nothing against spending money to bring a speaker, but don't tell me he would have come to Cornell without the money.
3. Finally, I want to address your central theme of "respect." Respect is also a two way street. We respected Ashcroft by letting him speak at Cornell. Also, we respected the audience by not obstructing them from hearing what he had to say. Furthermore, we respected students by giving them an avenue to excercise their free speech against Ashcroft. Lastly, the Cornell Police and administration respected the protestors by letting them excercise their free speech.
If you're going to take a holier-than-thou attitutde, first understand the facts. R-E-S-P-E-C-T the facts.
"Two way street"
You said that respect and free speech are a "two way street." According to that analogy, your protest veered into the opposite lane and crashed directly into oncoming traffic. You have not exercised the right to free speech; rather, you have sought to stamp it out. The event had a set of guidelines for audience participation that you chose to disregard for the sake of attracting attention to yourselves. The only point you proved that night was how misguided and jejune portions of Cornell's student body can be.
False Analogy
Dear Alumnus,
Your version of the "two way street" would mean we did something like the Minutemen incident at Columbia University, where people rushed the stage and ended Jim Gilchrist's speech. Obviously, this did not happen.
If you read the various news reports, John Ashcroft was able to finish his speech and the protestors were able to express their free speech. So you're analogy of "veered into the opposite lane and crashed directly into oncoming traffic" holds no water because we didn't "stamp it out."
The code of conduct, which the campus life official at the event quoted, deals with "obstructing an audience member to HEAR ashcroft. What we did was put on hoods, stand up, and turn our backs to John Ashcroft. I'm not sure how this impaired people's ability to hear ashcroft.
So, I hope you understand the facts :).
P.S. If you want links to the various new articles, let me know. Also, if you want to see the Code of Conduct, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks!
P.S.S. Looking forward to your response.
Blocking other people's view
Blocking other people's view of Ashcroft is an asshole move. People come to see the speaker speak live as well as to hear them. If I was at the speech and you were standing in front of me, I would tell you to sit down and if you didn't, I'd have you thrown out. "Free speech" isn't some limitless right that lets you do whatever you want to do. This was a private event that you received a ticket for, meaning you have no right to disrupt the speaker or the audience's enjoyment of the speaker in the name of "free speech."
Respect ??
You wrote: "He used the Bully Pulpit of the Justice Department to spread his anti-freedom and anti-justice message"
I assume that you would have shown the same "respect" if Bill Clinton or Janet Reno gave a speech at Cornell. I doubt it. They would have got standing ovations.
Has Ashcroft KILLED anyone latly?? Ever hear of Ruby Ridge and Waco? Ever hear of innocent children being shot and burned to death by Clinton's FBI? Bill had HIS FBI run backgroud checks on people who spoke out against him. It happened children.
Then why are people like Clinton and Reno shown proper respect on campuses like Cornell and Ashcroft not? It's an imperfect world run by imperfect people. You are litte mindless children who cannot debate the facts face to face so you resort to childish behavior
Grow up for God sake kiddies.
Know the Facts
Dear Anonymous,
First of all, I was just finishing high school when President Bill Clinton gave the commencement address at Cornell.
Second, I'm not against the Republicans protesting Bill Clinton or Janet Reno. I think they should! We need more people to excerice their first amendment rights.
You shouldn't be asking me why the Republicans didn't protest when Bill Clinton or Janet Reno came to Cornell. You should ask the Republicans.
Third, for me, protesting Bill Clinton and Janet Reno would be like the Republicans protesting John Ashcroft and George Bush. Unless, you're advocating that the Republicans should have protested Ashcroft...
Fourth, you have your chronology wrong on the Ruby Ridge incident. The incident of Ruby Ridge happened on August 21, 1992. Bill Clinton became the President of the United States on January 20, 1993. If you want to blame someone for the event, blame President George H.W. Bush.
Fifth, as for the Waco incident, I don't know much about it, so I can't comment, but looking at your false assertion regarding the Ruby Ridge incident, I'm sure that you're not cosidering all the facts when it comes to the Waco incident.
Finally, you state, "You are litte mindless children who cannot debate the facts face to face so you resort to childish behavior." Sir or Ma'am, look in the mirror, please. You're the one that's debating me as "Anonymous," while I'm using my real name. So, who's the one not debating "face to face?" It just seems a bit hypocritical.
Looking forward to debating you "face to face."
There you go again
Where did I say Republican or Democrat?? I am referring to liberal and conservative. I hate to bust your little kiddie balloon but there are liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Duh!
You never heard or read about Waco?? Well, maybe I'm just plain stupid because I assumed that a student at an Ivy League school would have a BASIC understanding of recent US history. Especially something that happened just a few years years ago. Hey, they have a new invention - its called the internet. I think Al Gore invented it. Try looking Waco up on it. Gee, God forbid, you might even learn something differnt than the liberal bull$#^% you been spoon fed all your life. And yes, little children were burned to death by the US government. It was on the nightly news, kiddie.
Ruby Ridge was done by a LIBERAL goverment run mainly by the democrats in congress. FYI - I'm no fan of Bush 1 or 2. BOTH turned out TOTAL failures to conservatives.
Most conservatives will not "protest" in the childish way you did because we deal in debate and facts. That is why many liberals resort to childish displays instead of meaningful discussions. As witnessed by you TOTAL lack of knowledge of Waco. You didn't even bother to look it up. Why? Afraid you might learn something negative about your Saint "Bubba"?
We are discussing your mindless disruption of Ashcroft's speech, not this thread or my name. Well, I'd rather be called a little hypocritical than mindless anyway!
Such Vitriol!
I have to say Anonymous, you have a way of using words. I'm impressed! You're almost good as the people at free republic :).
Before I continue the debate, I want to give you a "muah muah muah." My heart flutters from your sharp tongue and caustic wit.
My knees are weak from reading your prose.
My palms are sweaty from admiration.
I concede defeat! Take me away to that far off land called Texas.
Hi Everet, While I agree
Hi Everet,
While I agree with your general outlook about Mr. Ashcroft, I also have to agree with the writer of the article. Protesting an invited (regardless of whether or not he or she is being paid) is downright silly. Can you comment on what specifically you were protesting? John Ashcroft's anti-democratic and generally bad attitude or his existence all together?
Despite how hypocritical, unfair and dull-minded an influential guest may be, having these influential guests and engaging in intelligent discourse is something I, as an alum, and I think many others would like to see at Cornell. Your protest seems only to serve as a deterrent to future appearances by unpopular, but influential guests.
You are certainly correct that students ought to invoke their first amendment right and feel free to do so, but engaging in pointless and/or counterproductive activities seems, well, pointless and counterproductive, regardless of whether or not you are expressing your rights. There are far more productive uses for the first amendment on campus.
Fair Point
Hi,
You have a valid point that it would be silly if we were protesting for the sake of protesting; however, this wasn't the case.
Here's our Five Point of Grievances that we had with Ashcroft's actions and his policies as Attorney General.
(1) Ashcroft Promoted Illegal Detention and Torture. As Attorney General, Ashcroft presided over such extralegal maneuvers as the classification of "enemy combatants", internment at Guantanamo, and the Bybee memo attempting to redefine torture, all of which have come under attack and rollback.
(2) Ashcroft Increased Secrecy, Spying, and Border Patrols. Ashcroft was an architect of the USA PATRIOT Act, which has increased government secrecy, enhanced wiretapping authority, increased surveillance of civilians, increased border patrols, and created an enormous database tracking civilian activity.
(3) Ashcroft Initiated Racist Post-9/11 Roundups. As Attorney General, Ashcroft implemented a policy of special registration for people of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian descent that recalls the racism of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The Department of Justice secretly detained over 1,200 men without due process and sought to question 8,000 based solely on their national origin. Years before, as governor of Missouri, Ashcroft fought against desegregation.
(4) Ashcroft Persecuted Political Prisoners and Exonerated Political Activists . Ashcroft punished U.S. political prisoners by moving them into solitary confinement after the 9/11 attacks. He reopened every unsolved case of so-called domestic terrorism, and in at least one case—the case of the San Francisco 8—rehired the very officers who had been implicated in using torture to extract confessions in the early 1970s.
(5) Ashcroft Cultivated the Prison-Industrial Complex through Wars on Drugs, Gangs, and Immigrants . Ashcroft presided over the continued racist expansion of the prison-industrial complex under the "war on drugs", the "war on gangs", and "the war on immigrants", as well as the expansion of the Department of Justice-owned and –operated corporation UNICOR (aka Federal Prison Industries), which has come under attack for fraud, labor abuses, and worker injuries up to and including death.
---
The week before Ashcroft's event we published our case for protest, including the Grievances against John Ashcroft in the Bully Pulpit (a leftist publication on campus).
So, we did have legitimate cause and reason. Thanks!
I think the protestors
I think the protestors demonstrated more respect to Ashcroft than this administration has shown to the Constitution. Since when is politeness an appropriate response to outrageously stupid, misguided, damaging foreign and domestic policies on the part of a government? Regardless, Ashcroft's former position should have no bearing on the way in which he is treated by an audience. He made the bed and has to sleep in it. Lee Blum, you seem to be nothing more than an apologist for this administration, which shows you either haven't learned much don't have the capacity or willingness to learn. Start paying attention.
If you're going to make a
If you're going to make a personal attack on the writer of this blog, at least have the decency and respect to post under your real name. If you want to make anonymous personal attacks, save it for juicycampus.
protesters violate our right to learn
I wanted to attend the speech by Mr. Ashcroft... but tickets were not available when I had time to go get them. I think I am not alone in this experience. However, it seems some 100 or so "protesters" were able to get seats, and then vacate them. Gee, thanks jerks... many of us would have very much liked to hear what Mr. Ashcroft had to say. I am not a supporter of many of the actions some accuse Mr. Ashcroft of, however I would have liked to give him a chance to speak, hear him, and ask him a question. I and others were not afforded the opportunity to question and hear Mr. Ashcroft, in large part because some rude students choose to take seats for the explicit goal of leaving them empty. I support your right to free speech and protest, I even applaud effort to protest, but I DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ACTION TO PROTEST AT THE COST OF THOSE WHO HAD THE RIGHT TO ATTEND AND LEARN. Had those seats not been in limited supply and high demand, your actions would be less disagreeable with me. But in light of everyone with half a brain cell realizing that this event would be in high demand, I wish you had used your brain and held your protest outside... allowing people who genuinely enjoy to learn, hear ideas and hold open debate to attend. I wish I could have had the chance to attend... but I was not able to. Thanks jerks.
I agree
I agree with the posts above insomuch as that this protest made absolutely no statement whatsoever, and also that this was an incredibly selfish act carried out by a bunch of ill-informed, bandwagon-riding students. In my time in college (at a top 5 U.S. University much like Cornell), I was often disgusted by purported "protests" carried out by students who seemed to have very little knowledge about what they were actually protesting. Rather, these protests seemed like misguided attempts to attract attention. What is standing up and turning your back to the stage going to do? What is that going to accomplish? Well firstly, you obviously angered most of the rest of the audience, many of whom had gone out of their way to get tickets for the event and actually wanted to hear what Ashcroft had to say, regardless of whether they agreed with his policies and views. Had you actually wanted to carry out an effective "protest" (I put this in quotes here because I don't think this is really what you had in mind), you should have done your research and asked Ashcroft some hard-hitting questions.
And stop trying to hold on the whole free speech thing. Sure, it is a right granted to us by the Constitution, but that still doesn't detract from the fact that blocking the audience's view and preventing other interested parties from getting tickets was an incredibly wasteful, not to mention disrespectful, way to go about your protest.
Take the higher ground next time; if you're going to disagree with what someone has to say, challenge them to rise to you. Don't sink down to stupid theatrical antics that serve no further purpose than to garner you attention.
Thank you, Cornell Ashcroft protesters
Sorry to disagree with Lee Blum -- I believe Ashcroft used his appointed office to deface it. As a compassionate conservative and a patriotic American I of course find Ashcroft, along with many of his cronies, to have betrayed true conservative and American values. He treated the office and its principles with arrogance, contempt and incompetence that frustrated himself along with the rest of us.
An uproarious protest against Ashcroft is as dignified a method of responding to his presence than he should expect. Sometimes this is required -- I am glad to see Ashcroft receiving similar welcomes around the country.
Thank you protesters. As an American and a fellow Patriot I am proud of your actions.
And you may find the following of interest (from Google news):
"John Ashcroft Lands Lucrative Corporate Monitor Gig Courtesy of ...
Project on Government Oversight, DC - Dec 11, 2007 - Filter
That seems to be the case in New Jersey, where US Attorney Christopher Christie appointed his ex-boss, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, ...