Freedom of speech allows all views
Chris Lalonde
freshman
I am writing this letter in response to Nick Shepard's letter Tuesday about the choice of the College Republicans to have Don Feder speak at the recent pro-America rally. I find it a disturbing trend in recent Viewpoint articles that people are criticizing both this newspaper and campus groups, such as the College Republicans, for allowing different perspectives to be aired. This trend continued Tuesday with Shepard's grand idea that someone he and a Democrat representative label as a "racist" should not be asked "to speak at a University."
Shepard claims that he is all for political freedoms but goes on to be utterly hypocritical when he claims that someone people would label as controversial or offensive should not be allowed to speak on campus. I find this particularly appalling coming from a member of the anti-war movement, which has constantly whined about its freedom to express whatever view it thinks is right.
In looking at Shepard's argument, his main line of objection against Feder is that he is both offensive, and, of course, a "racist." The column in question, from five years ago, points out the difficulties that would arise in having, in Puerto Rico, a state wherein the majority of the population is not native speakers of the English language. If he had said anything bad about Hispanic people in general, I would be there with you saying that he was a jerk for doing so; but he did not, and, of course, to say anything that could remotely be deemed offensive to a minority makes one a racist.
Shepard's second claim that Feder should not be allowed to speak because he is offensive is even more ludicrous. Since when does anybody have the right not to be offended? I must have missed that part of the Constitution.
If I wanted to follow the trend of making outrageous claims about someone I disagree with to make them look evil or offensive, we could talk about Janet Reno. I could say she is a heartless murderess who ordered the killing of many in the Branch Dividian compound, and one who blatantly violated the law in taking Elian Gonzalez from his family in Florida. Since these are obviously very offensive actions, Janet Reno should not have been allowed to speak. I do my research, though, and I do not believe outrageous stories. Even if they were true, it does not give me the right to demand that somebody I disagree with not be able to speak.
The final part of Shepard's article I wish to comment on is what actually took place between the anti-war groups, Feder and the crowd last Thursday. First, I would like to give credit to the protesters who appeared at the rally. They have all the right in the world to disagree and they acted very respectfully while the rally went on.
While I was not around long enough to witness the conversation Shepard spoke of, the version of events I was told was that Feder was surrounded by a group of protesters and bombarded with questions until someone in attendance asked them to kindly be more polite and ask their questions one at a time. What I did see, though, was a protestor giving a lecture to a small girl in attendance, with her little American flag, who was being told by the protester that Israel is a much worse country than Iraq because they have more U.N. violations. Perhaps this person should fill out a form to speak so she could undergo the same scrutiny given to people such as Feder.
Chris Lalonde
freshman
Keenan Hall
April 15
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, April 16, 2003
