Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Eric Cantor protests at Rice University an affront to open discourse and free speech

Published: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Updated: Thursday, November 17, 2011 18:11

As my high school teachers know, I have a soft spot for being disruptive. I firmly believe that causing the occasional ruckus serves a purpose of not only creative expression but the simple joy of expression. However, I found the behavior of protesters who last week disrupted Eric Cantor, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, in the midst of his speech utterly reprehensible.

As soon as the very conservative Virginia congressmen took the stage at the Baker Institute, a group of individuals who looked as if they had just driven their Suburus from the Birkenstock convention to get a snack at Whole Foods began yelling and chanting that Cantor was not welcome at our university and began listing a predictable and wide ranging laundry list of complaints from gay rights to his lack of support of the 99 percent. Baker officials and RUPD immediately began to escort them out and Representative John Culberson, in the audience, began to yell at them calling them disgraceful. However it was President David Leebron who won the moment. Stepping in front of Cantor, whose smile betrayed no sign of annoyance, Leebron told those yelling that in their attempt to stymie free discourse they embarrassed the university and would be taken out. Those few of you who read my work from time to time know that I often have harsh words for the administration and Leebron has made his way in many a tasteful and perhaps not as tasteful Backpage during my tenure as editor. That being said, I have never been more proud to be part of this university and of my president when Leebron took the stage.

His heartfelt anger at the provocateurs showed his dedication to the principles of higher education and academic discourse. Especially considering that after reading several of the former Colombia Law School Head's opinions throughout the years, I am fairly certain many of his opinions lie far to the left of Rep. Cantor's. In fact, many of those who disagree with from time to time, including the Rice Young Democrats and SA President Georgia Lagoudas continued the admirable behavior expressing their support for the congressman taking the time to come talk to us despite their disagreements with his views. What could have potentially become an embarrassing moment for Rice was in fact quite the opposite.

Some will claim that the protesters' outburst fell within their First Amendment rights. In fact, . Cantor's only remark regarding the disruption was a laugh followed by the statement "only in America" with a shrug. In many of my columns I have argued the importance of exercising this very right and articulating one's opinions to further the cause of American democracy. However, attempting to shout out during another's talk with your opinions is not expressing your opinion but trying to stop someone else's. While I am not suggesting that we should lock up these protesters, these individuals most certainly believe they have something in common with historic protests such as those during the Civil Rights era where people courageously spoke out against authority despite the potential consequences. Instead, the protesters have more in common with the repressive regimes that their idols fought against.

Democracy requires the ability to express one's ideas, even if you don't agree with them. As famous Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once wrote when discussing hateful speech, "The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Those who disagreed with Cantor had many options for "more speech" from this very opinion page to perhaps demonstrating after the speech outside of the Baker Institute and expressing their views as a counterpoint instead of trying to childishly shut-up one of the most powerful men in America.

When all is said and done, the only people the protesters hurt were themselves. The university saved face through the excellent behavior of those who came to the speech to learn and discuss, those in the audience only lost a few minutes of his time, and as an elected official Cantor has faced far more odious cases of disrespect. As a self-avowed moderate, I surely do not agree with everything that the congressman says but I found his speech interesting and the questions and answers fascinating. I believe that those protesters are truly poorer for missing such an opportunity. In fact, many of the specific complaints they had were brought up respectfully during Q&A and I found his answer about his votes on sexual prefrence in the workplace unexpected when he indirectly compared the discrimination based off sexual preference to that of his Jewish family in Europe by saying that his own success was based off America's tolerance and no group should be discriminated against. I wholeheartedly concur, but I would also add that no group or person should be silenced. If only the protesters last Thursday agreed.

Anthony Lauriello is a Wiess College junior and Thresher Backpage editor.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

6 comments

Anonymous
Fri Nov 18 2011 15:45
Condemning the protesters for their violations of Cantor's "free speech" is ridiculous--and an affront to the very concept itself.

First of all, Eric Cantor is a high-ranking public official. His ideas and his power have an affect on millions. But was the event open to the public? No. Only members of the Rice community and select guests were allowed to attend. Houstonians who may have desired to voice their opposition to Cantor's policies were shut out from the beginning. But we might ask, why wasn't Cantor speaking at U of H, or somewhere more accessible? It's likely Cantor chose Rice in the first place because it's a fortress of wealth and privilege, deliberately set off from the rest of the community.

So, whose free speech are we talking about here?

Secondly, Cantor's ideas and his voting record are directly opposed to free speech, free expression, freedom of movement for many, and freedom for individuals to govern their own bodies. He voted in favor of making the Patriot Act permanent. He wants to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He voted against protecting whistleblowers. He wanted to build a border wall between the US and Mexico. And he voted for warrant-less wiretapping!

This man is dangerous. He's a right-wing extremist. His choices have the ability to impact our lives in incredibly negative ways. So if his very public, very frequent, very consequential, very free speech is delayed for a couple of minutes by a few protesters, so be it. We need *more* of that, not less!

Thomas Jefferson had a pretty extreme view of the relationship between democracy and powerful men. He said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." We definitely don't need to go that far. But we should get beyond the idea that American democracy is rooted in some obsequious idea of "proper" discourse, in which only powerful men are heard.

Anonymous
Fri Nov 18 2011 11:08
Cantor recently has ducked several speeches in order to avoid the protesters at other sites. You belittle the protesters who are only exercising their rights and as the previous comment said, he had a mike and security police and he is crying foul? I ssume you support the Tea Baggers, why not Occupy Wallstreeters? Did you see how peaceful their inital protests was? The diversity of age, race, class were all allowed with dozens of riot armed police just standing around, protesting. Share some of your appreciation for their good behavior and know that members of the GOP are about money, power and personal gain as in Mr. Cantor storming out of budget reduction talks when personal jets taxes was beneth his contempt.
Toby White
Fri Nov 18 2011 09:48
@anonymous: The great majority of people present were there to hear Cantor and to participate in the Q&A under the format agreed between Cantor and the University. If you wanted to have what you describe as "effective dialogue" (you yelling slogans, everyone else being required to listen, I suppose) you ought to have arranged to have that as part of the program. I suspect most of of the audience would have opted out of that part, but maybe not. I wonder, though. Do you think that, for example, freshman chemistry students should be allowed to break into an upper level philosophy seminar with random outbursts of naive personal angst, in the name of effective dialogue? That would be a little hard on the philosophy majors who worked rather hard to qualify for the class and prepare for the seminar, don't you think?
Anonymous
Fri Nov 18 2011 01:26
Well sites like www.backpage.com and www.classivox.com should be protected by free speech.
Anonymous
Fri Nov 18 2011 00:18
Lulz! Well put Anon!
Anonymous
Thu Nov 17 2011 23:52
I hardly think the protestors thought of themselves as some kind of new-wave Civil Rights demonstrators, but hey, whatever makes it easier to dismiss them.

Some of the contradictions in your piece are rather telling. The protestors are at fault because, in your view, they were attempting to silence Cantor, the guy at the front of the room with the huge microphone and about a zillion secret service folks ready to pounce at any moment. The reality of what happened undermines that take. You erroneously say they interrupted Cantor "in the midst of his speech" but CSPAN doesn't lie. In fact, the students spoke up between the introduction and the main speech. If anything, the students proved that any intervention outside of the (rather restrictive) Q&A would not be tolerated. Would be silenced, if you will. And that's understandable from the administration's perspective - Cantor was routinely demonstrated against at every single campus he went to (and canceled his U Penn speech b/c he didn't want to face protest). The facts of what happened do not reveal an attempt to take away Cantor's free speech so much as an effort to voice opposition outside of the limited framework of the Q&A. I saw the Q&A - there were some brilliantly framed questions (the one on abortion, for instance). Predictably, however, Cantor took the opportunity to swiftly dismiss the thoughtful questioners' legitimate concerns. And as for your example of discrimination based on sexual preference - a quick look into Cantor's voting record reveals that he's voted against laws that would make it illegal to discriminate in the workplace based on sexual preference. You may or may not agree with his voting record, but suffice it to say that there is a veritable distance between what he says on the platform he's given and how he actually votes.

On another note, it might be worth it to consider what the role of a university is in this case in terms of fostering effective dialogue. Is the role of a university to give a platform to a publicly elected official while shutting down its own students? (For the record, outside protests were clearly off-limits.) You say there is no good that can come of this. That Cantor should have been allowed to remain 100% in control of the message for 100% of the time. Hopefully, though, others are less cynical. Hopefully, whether or not you agree with the particular tactics, the event might raise further discussion on the ways similar events in the future could provide a more authentic space to voice opposition, regardless of the event's political leaning - liberal, conservative, Tea Party, what have you. When we have college students chastising their fellow students for "stymieing" the free speech of the likes of Eric Cantor, you know things have gotten pretty bleak. The Republican establishment should feel lucky to have you.





log out