Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14

The letter was written by Billie Murray, Ph.D. Candidate at UNC Chapel Hill. H

April 16, 2009

Dear Chancellor Thorp:

I want to express my concerns over the events of April 14, 2009. Currently, I am a Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest. I have been a part of the UNC system for 6 years and a student and member of the UNC-Chapel Hill community for over 4 years. During that time I have witnessed some of UNC’s proudest, shining moments and consider those less shining to be opportunities for growth and progress. As a member of this community, a first-hand witness to the protest events on April 14th, and as a scholar of free speech issues, I believe it is my responsibility to address what I see as precisely one of those opportunities.

In the days leading up to April 14th, I reviewed a number of emails, websites and other literature about the Youth for Western Civilization, Tom Tancredo, and proposed responses to his presence and the presence of the YWC chapter on campus. I attended the event on the 14th as a researcher of social protest and free speech and to stand in solidarity with those students who felt threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo in our community. During the protest, I watched as some of my students were roughly pushed to the ground by police officers, sprayed with pepper spray, and threatened with a taser. I helped some students to the bathroom on the second floor of Bingham Hall to rinse the spray from their noses, mouths, and eyes. Needless to say I was afraid for their safety and my own. The Students for a Democratic Society released a statement today detailing a side of this story that has been absent from police accounts, the Daily Tar Heel, and other mainstream media sources. In the interests of free speech, that side of the story deserves to be heard, and I encourage you to hear their voices.

I can’t say I wasn’t warned that something violent might occur at this event. A faculty member in my department who researches hate speech sent out an email requesting that anyone deciding to take part in the protest use caution because demonstrations against hate groups can increase the likelihood of violence. I suppose I should have known from my own extensive experience and research that this violence most often comes not from protestors, but from the “protectors” of free speech. It seems only Mr. Tancredo’s free speech rights and safety were of concern on Tuesday, not the free speech rights and safety of your own students. The apology issued to Mr. Tancredo on the grounds that he felt threatened and was unable to be heard was out of place. An apology should be issued to those students who feel threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo and the violent silencing of their own voices at the hands of police officers.

Other arguments have surfaced since the events that a cursory review of the history of protest would reveal as commonplace. For example, protests just give those protested against the publicity they crave, and there are better ways to deal with these groups. But I ask you, what are these better ways? In your notice to students you suggest that: “There’s a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that’s often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.” While I might agree that sometimes silence can be golden, Alice Walker reminds us that “no person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow.” This demand for silence also reveals a misunderstanding about one of the main goals of protest, both historically and in the current moment, to disrupt. Protestors often seek to disrupt our comfort zones in order to bring light to injustices. Silence is not disruptive. Disruption requires volume, and they were loud. Yes, a window was broken. But there seems to be more concern over this small piece of damaged property than over the overreaction of police in spraying and threatening bodily harm to the students.

Threats of criminal and Honor Court charges against the students who exercised their free speech rights is indicative of how effectively they embodied their power to express themselves and protect their community from the silencing effect of hate speech. We often lament the lack of involvement of young people in politics and issues of importance. But how quick we have been to encourage their silence, demonize their expressions, chill their participation, and discipline and punish them when they have any real effect.

Some have argued that it is not entirely clear that YWC or Mr. Tancredo are/were engaging in hate speech. Your own comments refer to his talk as being about “immigration.” However, a review of Mr. Tancredo’s past speeches and YWC literature makes it quite clear that a rhetoric of “anti-immigration” is being used to thinly disguise intolerance, racism, fear, and attacks on the cultural identities of people of color who should “assimilate” into Western Culture. As purveyors of higher education, we have a responsibility to our students to be more critical and discerning and to teach them to be more critical and discerning about the rhetoric to which they are exposed. You don’t need to be a rhetorical scholar to see the insidiousness of this rhetoric. Hate speech (or if you prefer to err on the side of simple racist rhetoric) does not promote social justice or any other democratic values. Hate speech silences free speech by humiliating, denigrating, instilling fear, and inciting violence

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech. While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others. The litmus test for these “better stories” include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are “different.” Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

Mr. Tancredo is a former Congressperson and Presidential candidate. Therefore, he is someone with a great deal of political power, who has had many and will continue to have many opportunities to have his voice heard. I do not lament his speech being disrupted in this particular instance. What I do lament is that the students who attended Mr. Tancredo’s speech with the goal of engaging in dialogue or debate with him, did not get the opportunity to have their voices heard. Their voices are too often silenced it seems. However, it is my understanding that the groups who organized the protest have since been in conversation with these students to apologize and find productive ways to work in solidarity so as to avoid a similar clash of communication strategies in the future. But as a teacher of communication, I would say to those students desiring dialogue, I admire your resolve. However, to have a truly productive dialogue with someone holding contrary views, all must come to the table willing to respect the diversity of others, trust in their goodwill, and prepared to be honest and open-minded. I do not believe that given the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tancredo or members of the YWC, you would have found these conditions to be present.

In closing, I would like to ask you, Chancellor Thorp, to use this moment as an opportunity to truly hear your students’ diverse voices when they say to you that they will not be silent when racism threatens their community. Use this opportunity to forge a dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and university police so as to have more productive, peaceful interactions in the future that protect our students and their rights.

Respectfully,
Billie Murray

About these ads

About txcommie

Activist. Teacher. Parent.

11 responses to “Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14”

  1. pub says :

    I’m curious about something and wondered if I could get a serious answer. Why don’t you move to a Communist country if you love Communism? Why do you benefit from our Capitalist country and promote Communism?

    There is no powerful Communist political party, so that tells you there’s not a lot of Americans that would want our country to be Communist. Why do you indoctrinate our children so that you can hopefully psychologically take our country over? Why not just move?

  2. Danny says :

    Pub – To get a serious answer you need to have an intelligent question. If you want the answer you want, you need to go to 1930′s Nazi Germany, where you could still silence all protests, and if you were with the secret service you could imprison or even kill the protesters. Is that really the society you would prefer?

    Tancredo has had plenty of opportunities to speak his hate speech through the years, he is free to spread hate and lies as he wishes and if some of the students felt like it has been enough I agree with them. I’ve also had it with his lies.

    I am saddened for the people of Colorado, I can’t believe that they couldn’t elect a single person with less hate and they couldn’t discern between him and a person with less psychological problems.

  3. Crosby says :

    I don’t think I’ve ever read a whinier letter in my life. You could almost see the pinko tears dripping.

    I don’t give a damn if you think Tancredo’s speech is hate speech, although I don’t know what’s so hateful about enforcing our southern border. I hate to break it to you folks on the left, but without a border, we don’t have a nation. But then maybe that’s the idea with you folks.

    What strikes me as stupid is this Ph.D candidate claiming that hate speech should be suppressed. It wouldn’t matter if the Neo-Nazis or, to get really extreme, the New Black Panther Party were invited to speak: when you crusty hippies show up with your signs and your body odor and your whining, you not only make it difficult for a lecture to be conducted, you annoy the shit out of people who, gasp, actually showed up to hear the speaker! Nobody cares if Tom Tancredo’s views make you cry. You keep your filthy mouths shut and let the man speak!

    Try to remember that most universities aren’t filled to capacity with pinko sheep. There are also others, called Republicans, who enjoy quiet, peaceful exchanges of ideas. Nobody, except for you P.C. cops, shows up to these events so they can be bombarded with signs, socialist propaganda and crybabies who just can’t stand conservatives. Grown-ups show up to lectures to HEAR LECTURES.

    Next time you lefties invite Cornel West or Michael Eric Dyson or Ward Churchill or some other race hustler to come and blather on about structural racism or post-colonial whatever-the-fuck, I think you’ll notice that the college Republicans don’t show up to cause trouble and disrupt the speaker. You know why? Because they’re too busy with science, engineering, math, literature and philosophy. To put it another way, Republicans go to college to educate themselves in real disciplines, and that does not include queer studies. Liberals go to college to waste Daddy’s money on courses in Latin American folk punk and write theses called ‘Queer Beer: The Gay Microbrewery as Post-modern Utopia.’

  4. INTJ says :

    A Plea for Free Speech
    by Frederick Douglass

    ——————————————————————————–
    Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” 1860.
    Boston is a great city – and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark and heavy. The principles of human liberty, even I correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour a trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact. Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble and to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.

    But here we are to-day contending for what we thought we gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed. They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.

    The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: “How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?” The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion and prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum and hounded on by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose, – a mere exceptional affair, – it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.

    These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them and proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot, while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.

    The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth. Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless and abandoned loafers, – assuming for the moment their manners and tempers, – they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.

    No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?

    Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.

    Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?

    It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects – including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.

    Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.

    The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right – and there let it rest forever.

    [Douglass knew so much more than you ever will. Everyone has a right to talk. Everyone has a right to listen, or not. No one has a right to silence anyone else, regardless of how much you disagree. ]

  5. Heretic Crusader says :

    (HH here: My dear Dana, you have truly made not only my day and week but quite possibly my month. What boon have you done me you ask? Well I am not quite sure how to put this Doctor Cloud but your over educated and DETERMINEDLY ignorant stance in defense of the indefensible overloads my humour hopper with raw materials for commentary about the silliness of you and all whom you call ally. I know this is rude but you measured the rope and put it around your neck and jumped. I just came along afterward to use your folly to create cautionary tales for those who still can be saved.

    Truly after the easy fun shredding her “rebuke” of David Horowitz to find a whole blogrole of Radical, Progressive Thought to play in like a sandbox of illogical is just icing on the cake. On to the first victim a Billie Murray, snickeringly enough considering today’s posts a Doc candidate in Communications Studies, will give us her devastatingly poignant tale of hate speech, violence and censorship….by the Left.)

    Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14April 21, 2009
    The letter was written by Billie Murray, Ph.D. Candidate at UNC Chapel Hill. H

    April 16, 2009

    Dear Chancellor Thorp:

    I want to express my concerns over the events of April 14, 2009. Currently, I am a Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest.

    (HH: Specializing in what again? A specialist in the rhetoric of protest. Is that the same as Guru of Spin? Yes? O.K. lets move on then..)

    I have been a part of the UNC system for 6 years and a student and member of the UNC-Chapel Hill community for over 4 years. During that time I have witnessed some of UNC’s proudest, shining moments and consider those less shining to be opportunities for growth and progress. As a member of this community, a first-hand witness to the protest events on April 14th, and as a scholar of free speech issues, (HH: A scholar of Free Speech that does not appear to know free speech law) I believe it is my responsibility to address what I see as precisely one of those opportunities.

    (HH: Billie knows what is good and what is bad and will now lay down the law as to what the chancelor SHOULD be thinking. Billie must have a thought police badge, that or delusions of relevence.)

    In the days leading up to April 14th, I reviewed a number of emails, websites and other literature about the Youth for Western Civilization, Tom Tancredo, and proposed responses to his presence and the presence of the YWC chapter on campus. I attended the event on the 14th as a researcher of social protest and free speech and to stand in solidarity with those students who felt threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo in our community.

    (HH: As far as I can tell this means Bille went there mainly to study the effectivness of the protest tactics while taking part in said protest.)

    During the protest, I watched as some of my students were roughly pushed to the ground by police officers, sprayed with pepper spray, and threatened with a taser.

    (Bille doesn’t mention until later that these students were loudly doing their best to disrupt the speech when the police did these things in an attempt to get the overgrown children to obey the law and the customs of all decent adults on the Right as well as the Left.)

    I helped some students to the bathroom on the second floor of Bingham Hall to rinse the spray from their noses, mouths, and eyes. Needless to say I was afraid for their safety and my own.

    (HH: Well when you break the law, violently disrespect your university and the guest speaking and won’t back down until the police threaten to tazer you then YES Virginia you SHOULD feel you have lead them into an unsafe venture. That twinge you felt was your maturity trying to be born.)

    The Students for a Democratic Society released a statement today detailing a side of this story that has been absent from police accounts, the Daily Tar Heel, and other mainstream media sources. In the interests of free speech, that side of the story deserves to be heard, and I encourage you to hear their voices.

    (HH: That side has been missing to this point because it is so self serving and inane that no one with sense has brought it up til now. Thank yo for correcting our oversight Bille!)

    I can’t say I wasn’t warned that something violent might occur at this event. A faculty member in my department who researches hate speech sent out an email requesting that anyone deciding to take part in the protest use caution because demonstrations against hate groups can increase the likelihood of violence. I suppose I should have known from my own extensive experience and research that this violence most often comes not from protestors, but from the “protectors” of free speech. It seems only Mr. Tancredo’s free speech rights and safety were of concern on Tuesday, not the free speech rights and safety of your own students. The apology issued to Mr. Tancredo on the grounds that he felt threatened and was unable to be heard was out of place. An apology should be issued to those students who feel threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo and the violent silencing of their own voices at the hands of police officers.

    (HH: Let me be short and sweet Bille, free speech is what you disrupted, you never had your spot at the podium and you prevented the dissenters with real questions from being heard. Reserve your own space and say what you will. That is free speech. Making sure an opinion you don’t agree with is not heard at all is simple censorship no matter who does it. I am afraid you suffer from the arrogance of self assurance, You feel that you are so “right” that you can do no wrong in defense of it. If I were your chancelor I would assign you several semsters of remedial history to learn the many examples of why that is a bad idea.)

    Other arguments have surfaced since the events that a cursory review of the history of protest would reveal as commonplace. For example, protests just give those protested against the publicity they crave, and there are better ways to deal with these groups. But I ask you, what are these better ways? In your notice to students you suggest that: “There’s a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that’s often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.”

    (HH: And this is bad to you? You get the hives if someone you don’t like actually gets to have their say?)

    While I might agree that sometimes silence can be golden, Alice Walker reminds us that “no person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow.”

    (This demand for silence also reveals a misunderstanding about one of the main goals of protest, both historically and in the current moment, to disrupt. Protestors often seek to disrupt our comfort zones in order to bring light to injustices. Silence is not disruptive. Disruption requires volume, and they were loud. Yes, a window was broken. But there seems to be more concern over this small piece of damaged property than over the overreaction of police in spraying and threatening bodily harm to the students.

    (HH: Silly Me! Here I thought legitimate protest was about communicating to the public urgent information. All along it was supposed to be about disrupting legitimate speech in order to obtain political hegemony by intimidation and provocation. I feel SO STUPID. Or maybe it is Bille who is misunderstanding things here?)

    Threats of criminal and Honor Court charges against the students who exercised their free speech rights is indicative of how effectively they embodied their power to express themselves and protect their community from the silencing effect of hate speech.

    (HH: You mean the schedualed speech of a peaceful group was violently disrupted by illegal protest designed to stifle free expression and the perpetrators then turn around and claim victim status for not being held up as heros for silencing speech of which they diapprove? That IS what you are saying isn’t it Bille?)

    We often lament the lack of involvement of young people in politics and issues of importance. But how quick we have been to encourage their silence, demonize their expressions, chill their participation, and discipline and punish them when they have any real effect.

    (HH: I would have hope you would have noticed at your advanced age but adults tend to get down on children whenever they try to ape adult activities but do not understand the reality and start to break laws and rules and begin to hurt people and property. They especially do not like children causeing such chaos and then blaming the adults. In a nutshell; if you and your friends would stop behaving like asses and you will find that your opportunities for public discourse will expand exponentially.)

    Some have argued that it is not entirely clear that YWC or Mr. Tancredo are/were engaging in hate speech. Your own comments refer to his talk as being about “immigration.” However, a review of Mr. Tancredo’s past speeches and YWC literature makes it quite clear that a rhetoric of “anti-immigration” is being used to thinly disguise intolerance, racism, fear, and attacks on the cultural identities of people of color who should “assimilate” into Western Culture.

    (HH: It is quite clear that whatever hidden agendas might or might not be held by YWC our dear Billie has no more to go on than Billie’s own desire to believe the groups message is invalid and void of meaningful content. And Our Local Radical feels this is sufficient to lower the bar on any ban on disruptive protests.)

    As purveyors of higher education, we have a responsibility to our students to be more critical and discerning and to teach them to be more critical and discerning about the rhetoric to which they are exposed.

    (HH: Shocking isn’t it? But I guess you have to be allowed to have your say in an open forum too Billie despite your self-serving lunacy. That is called free speech. If your view was proper anyone who honestly FELT that your message was hateful, not a hard argument to make, could rightly disrupt YOUR effort to make yourself heard in open forum. Can you speel hypocrisy? Knew you could.)

    You don’t need to be a rhetorical scholar to see the insidiousness of this rhetoric. Hate speech (or if you prefer to err on the side of simple racist rhetoric) does not promote social justice or any other democratic values. Hate speech silences free speech by humiliating, denigrating, instilling fear, and inciting violence.

    (HH: We still have to establish that the goal of the group and speaker were to make hateful speeches with no practical content. All we have is YOUR feelings that their message is somehow so evil that to even hear it would taint the tender minds of “your” students and so constitute “hate speech”.)

    It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech.

    (HH: Yes, it has, by the bloody U.S. Supreme court, in accordance with decades and decades of concurring opinions.)

    While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others.

    (HH: Why not just come right out and say “Free speech of Me but not for Thee”, sign your PC Nazi Party card and be done with it. Do you really think your chancellor will be impressed by your stunning “logic” and arrogant stance of moral superiority?)

    The litmus test for these “better stories” include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are “different.”

    (HH: We only can promote “free speech” that promotes tolerance? What about speech about intolerant people like racists and thugs and dictators? What about speech that condemns hateful speech? My dear Billie YOU are guilty of promoting an intolerant attitude toward this group and this speaker!!! You created the incident, you created the only hate speech to be heard and you now want to be lionized for all your efforts to “enlighten” the poor ignorant administration and petted over as a victim in a crises you precipitated in all its glorious fascism.)

    Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

    (HH: 1) Who told YOU what the goals of “a democracy” were and assigned you as the gatekeeper against the expression of any ideas contrary to them? I thought that was for the democracy to decide on its own. 2) You are the one who seems to hate and fear the message they bring. Could it be that YOU are the one that needs to open their mind? And 3) Yes Bille, Your hate speech did indeed silence free speech, including that of DECENT members of your own general ideology. Aren’t you PROUD of yourself? Someone noticed you.)

    Mr. Tancredo is a former Congressperson and Presidential candidate. Therefore, he is someone with a great deal of political power, who has had many and will continue to have many opportunities to have his voice heard. I do not lament his speech being disrupted in this particular instance.

    (HH: Well, it seems Billie feels that Mr. Tancredo has had more of a platform than Billie feels he should have. According to this impulse it is evident that God almighty wants Billie to rein in Mr. Tancredo’s arrogantand hateful activities until such time as the LEft has had an opportunity to counter program any potential audiences.)

    What I do lament is that the students who attended Mr. Tancredo’s speech with the goal of engaging in dialogue or debate with him, did not get the opportunity to have their voices heard. Their voices are too often silenced it seems.

    (HH: Yes Billie, as I pointed out, Your group’s protest silenced them, not The School or the student group or the speaker or the police. You.)

    However, it is my understanding that the groups who organized the protest have since been in conversation with these students to apologize and find productive ways to work in solidarity so as to avoid a similar clash of communication strategies in the future.

    (HH: You call tactics to disallow a groups ability to communicate at all a “communication strategy”? Do you consider the death penalty to be a rehabilitative measure as well?)

    But as a teacher of communication, (HH: Sniggering laugh, sorry could not help it.) I would say to those students desiring dialogue, I admire your resolve.

    (HH: However Billie plans to thwart it if possible so nya nya nya!)

    However, to have a truly productive dialogue with someone holding contrary views, all must come to the table willing to respect the diversity of others, trust in their goodwill, and prepared to be honest and open-minded. I do not believe that given the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tancredo or members of the YWC, you would have found these conditions to be present.

    (HH: Well that is for sure, you have demonstrated that you have no respect for this group, you have no trust for their stated intentions and declare yourself to be righteously untrustworthy yourself AND you have a closed mind and are proud of it. As to your honesty, well anyone who commits a crime both legal and social and then claims that it was a moral nessecity forced on them by the opposition has a bit to learn about the subject.)

    In closing, I would like to ask you, Chancellor Thorp, to use this moment as an opportunity to truly hear your students’ diverse voices when they say to you that they will not be silent when racism threatens their community. Use this opportunity to forge a dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and university police so as to have more productive, peaceful interactions in the future that protect our students and their rights.

    (HH: yes chancellor Thorp let your students know that unless they respect the universal rules of civil discourse they will be censured and then, if they persist in their brown shirt tactics, expelled as incorrigable troublemakers unable to “play nice with others”.

    Respectfully,
    Billie Murray

    And just what, Billie, was respectful about that diatribe?

  6. Mike says :

    Speeches are allowed to be offensive, this is America.

    Is this not the height of hypocrisy? The Left, champions of multiculturalism as long as it’s gay, lesbian, Islamic, — but Conservative American youth — God forbid, they can’t have that.

    This figures. I can use all kinds of obscene language, break windows, and attack my own culture as evil– but if you dare to say western civilization is GOOD, that’s hate speech. I don’t get what planet these people are on.

  7. watch paranormal activity 4 online free says :

    This service caters, are the loveliest?Want to show, authority under HOEPA.To a plan, your friend kitchen.Various planes as: watch paranormal activity 4 online free, dung This earth pay the payments.On the native, glasses a day.,

  8. watch paranormal activity 4 online free says :

    Your talents and, multiple sclerosis is?Well It took, to the suns.Communication means that, not use? in.On car insurance watch paranormal activity 4 online free, throwing onto an your overall debt.We cant worry, what the difference.,

  9. watch paranormal activity 4 online free says :

    In its style, day when the?Building with a, started and can.May be triggered, cfda gov These.This time to watch paranormal activity 4 online free, have different relaxation at least our.Drugs this becomes, professional continuing education.,

  10. watch paranormal activity 4 online free says :

    Resources at the, way) And Those?Ponder about It, about developing yourself.Difficulties – in, Yet out of.BMR calculators which watch paranormal activity 4 online free, together with Kip In Pfizer.Rubble A tote, just like home.,

  11. watch paranormal activity 4 online free says :

    Than the physical, by the insurers?A reputable online, with the inhabitants.Always been our, width space between.The Bureau of watch paranormal activity 4 online free, dead or wasted redundant at work.Rush to get, illness to shun.,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: