2008 Woodie Awards
SectionsOrganizer of F-word protest claims success
J.T. Eberhard
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
If you take the time to extract the arguments out of Ryan Cooper's article against the free speech rally, you will find that they are:
1. We are animalistic, childish, and need to grow up.
2. It was offensive.
3. It was ineffective.
That's it. So, what I am going to do is attempt to refute his arguments while establishing that what we did was essential.
Argument #1: These comments were directed at the students, but Mr. Cooper was unclear whether or not this extended to the Ph D-holding men and women of the faculty who have given us their full endorsement. Are these intellectuals also wayward youths out of touch with humanity? What of Dr. Kaufman who wrote in support of us last week in The Standard? Does he also need to "grow up" as Mr. Cooper so succinctly put it? Standing in defiance of the status quo is no matter of child's play - it is the arena of adults.
It should also be noted that at no point during this column would I need to insinuate that my opposition must grow up. I will not be compelled to call Mr. Cooper childish - I feel my arguments will stand on their own without attacking any person's fiber. I do not believe Mr. Cooper is na've or foolish - he is an adult, and a concerned citizen, and I can appreciate that. However, in this case I believe he is just wrong, and that is not a crime any more than saying "f---" on the Bear Paw.
Argument #2: To some yes, it was offensive. What protest in the history of the United States hasn't offended some people? Did this undercut the good that they did?
Argument #3: Take a look at what this rally has accomplished already: countless articles written in multiple newspapers, SGA is talking about the free speech zone, professors are giving their input, students everywhere are talking about their rights. Aside from galvanizing the campus to care about this issue and taking an important political stand for an important philosophical concept, our "feeble" attempt has accomplished quite a lot. Not only that, it accomplished it expediently.
1. We are animalistic, childish, and need to grow up.
2. It was offensive.
3. It was ineffective.
That's it. So, what I am going to do is attempt to refute his arguments while establishing that what we did was essential.
Argument #1: These comments were directed at the students, but Mr. Cooper was unclear whether or not this extended to the Ph D-holding men and women of the faculty who have given us their full endorsement. Are these intellectuals also wayward youths out of touch with humanity? What of Dr. Kaufman who wrote in support of us last week in The Standard? Does he also need to "grow up" as Mr. Cooper so succinctly put it? Standing in defiance of the status quo is no matter of child's play - it is the arena of adults.
It should also be noted that at no point during this column would I need to insinuate that my opposition must grow up. I will not be compelled to call Mr. Cooper childish - I feel my arguments will stand on their own without attacking any person's fiber. I do not believe Mr. Cooper is na've or foolish - he is an adult, and a concerned citizen, and I can appreciate that. However, in this case I believe he is just wrong, and that is not a crime any more than saying "f---" on the Bear Paw.
Argument #2: To some yes, it was offensive. What protest in the history of the United States hasn't offended some people? Did this undercut the good that they did?
Argument #3: Take a look at what this rally has accomplished already: countless articles written in multiple newspapers, SGA is talking about the free speech zone, professors are giving their input, students everywhere are talking about their rights. Aside from galvanizing the campus to care about this issue and taking an important political stand for an important philosophical concept, our "feeble" attempt has accomplished quite a lot. Not only that, it accomplished it expediently.
Be the first to comment on this story