Wrecking a Conversation

In November 1966, the Harvard-Radcliffe branch of the Students for a Democratic Society staged a protest against visiting Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, who was speaking at Harvard on the Vietnam War (and who had, to be fair, declined to debate an editor of a liberal magazine while at Harvard). What ensued was a “physical confrontation” just short of a riot, in which the embattled McNamara fled in his car through angry crowds on his way out of Cambridge. It was an event that prompted one Crimson reader to remark, in a letter to the editor, that “it seems apparent that due to the temperamental orientation of many of the opponents of the war, it is impossible to have any meaningful dialogue in a context which involves a non-select audience.”

A similar confrontation took place last week when Republican senator John McCain delivered the commencement address at the notoriously liberal New School in New York City and was greeted by jeers and taunting from hundreds of students and faculty. With the senator seated just a few feet away, one graduating senior took the podium and announced, to loud applause, that “the senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded.”

And just what were those ideals? The ideals of free speech? The ideals of diversity of opinion, perhaps?

I do not agree with most of Senator McCain’s politics, nor do I agree that he merits respect because he’s a veteran, or because he’s older and a seasoned politician, or for the sake of political correctness. It’s not even a question of respect; it’s a matter of free speech and open dialogue about the state of our country.

Should Donald Rumsfeld or Jerry Falwell come to speak at Harvard’s commencement, I might vomit a little in my mouth, and I would certainly disagree vehemently from the audience, but it would take a lot to get me to issue jeers or to criticize the University for their invitation. Having dated a Republican, I can attest: you learn more (about being a liberal, about politics in general) from listening and engaging in productive debate than you do from heckling. Understanding the counterargument can only help your argument.

There are some things for which I will take a stand: I will protest and sign petitions for the rights of dining hall workers, I will vocally oppose the war in Iraq, and I will take on my friends who argue for turning Iran into a giant parking lot. I wish more Harvard students were willing to challenge the structures of authority that govern our daily lives and limit our capacity to think beyond the status quo, to abandon image-consciousness in favor of making a meaningful political choice. I would never advocate remaining silent on issues of great importance, and there are certainly some opinions we are not meant to entertain, but shouldn’t we save our voices for unjust laws, not displeasing commencement speakers?

To protest a speaker because he doesn’t “speak for you” is a cowardly, base display of narrow-mindedness, one that is certainly not conducive to any meaningful political change. This behavior is abrasive to no end, not forcing us to take a stand, but to blush at the brash arrogance of these students, whose efforts are counterproductive and embarrassing. The New School protest obscured the real issues at hand, putting their politics and measures on the front page rather than drawing attention to the sham of an administration under which we currently suffer and stagnate.

Of course, they have a right to protest as much as McCain has a right to speak, and I respect (and would defend) that right. But what kind of freedom can we possibly aspire to if we cannot learn from the politics and views of others, if somebody else’s politics are so offensive to us that we cannot bear to listen to them, learn to understand them if not embrace them? Disruptive protest has its time and place, but so does listening to contrary opinion (which is not the same thing, I should add, as complacency).

What kind of precedent does this behavior set? Will we soon see a day when incoming freshmen refuse to live with roommates on the basis of politics?

Hearing alternative perspectives helps us to think more critically about our own views. Without a willingness to tolerate diversity, we are doomed to myopic cocoons of inefficacy. As Mr. McCain told the press following his heckling at the New School commencement, “I feel sorry for the people who live in a dull world where they can’t listen to the views of others.” In 1966, supporters of the protesters said that just as Americans would have supported student uprisings in Eastern Europe against a visiting Nikita Khrushchev, students should demonstrate against the “butchers of Vietnam.” But there is a time and place for throwing courtesy to the wind, and a commencement address by a (not particularly offensive) senator is not one. We should tolerate diversity, not mediocrity, and focus on the real enemies at hand.



Rebecca D. O’Brien ’06 is a history and literature concentrator in Kirkland House. Her column appears regularly.