Discourse, Not Disrespect

One would hope that in an academic community such as Harvard’s there would be little room for lowbrow baiting and outright heckling in the face of a distinguished guest. One might also hope that the guest wouldn’t lower himself to the levels of disrespect and obstinacy broached by his audience. For those who attended presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s speech at the John F. Kennedy, Jr. Forum this past Monday, such hopes were dashed.

Upon the completion of Nader’s speech, the gloves were dropped and any pretense of civility was abandoned. Members of the Harvard College Democrats bum-rushed the microphones with glee—wearing matching tees—to bait and taunt Nader with questions such as: “How do you feel knowing that over 1,000 people died in Iraq because you ran for president?” For his part, Nader responded obstinately, often attacking the questioner instead of his or her logic. Throughout the question and answer session a contingent of Lyndon LaRouche supporters also rudely catcalled, heckled and chanted over Nader and other attendees in a fairly base display of disrespect.

Certainly, there should be room for friction, dissension and difference of opinion in an academic community—a University devoted to open and honest discourse is based on argument. And, certainly, one can expect some tension between a candidate and those who view him as a potential “spoiler” in an important election. But the kind of unimaginative and disrespectful proselytizing of the LaRouche supporters in question or the openly combative College Dems—not to mention Nader’s unimpressive and angry sensitivity to such taunting—is frustrating. The Forum should be a place for sober and respectful civil discourse, something that is hard to find in an era of meaningless sound-bites and swift-boat ads. Everyone who made Nader’s visit such a circus should be ashamed.

Furthermore, it is self-defeating for several groups dedicated to progressive ideals to tear each other apart in public. The parties in question agree on a range of issues facing our country—the glaring exception, of course, is Nader’s candidacy. It is a waste of energy for groups with the same mission to wrestle in the gutter while their mutual opponent struts on by.

If some guests of the Forum came only to heckle or protest and not to listen and politely challenge an opposing viewpoint, they should have followed the example of those peacefully and respectfully protesting outside. If that would have been too difficult, perhaps they should have stayed home.