Search News


Browse Archives

News

Speech Interrupted

April 8, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

David Horowitz was hit in the face with a pie Wednesday during a speech at Butler University. The attack was the third incident in the last 10 days in which a conservative speaker has been doused with food while trying to speak on a Midwestern campus.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, was hit in the face with a pie during a speech at Earlham College and Pat Buchanan, the former presidential candidate, had salad dressing thrown on him at Western Michigan University.

Horowitz was at Butler as part of his campaign to encourage state legislatures to adopt the "Academic Bill of Rights," which Horowitz says will encourage a diversity of views in higher education, but that critics say is an attack on academic freedom. In a statement on the incident at Butler, Horowitz said, "It is ironic that these assailants tried to prevent me from delivering a lecture on the need for greater tolerance and respect for dissenting opinions in the academic community."

After the incident, Horowitz finished his speech.

A spokeswoman for Butler said Thursday evening that officials were investigating the incident and that the pie-thrower had not been identified.

Bobby Fong, president of Butler, called Horowitz to express his concern and issued a statement Thursday criticizing the attack.

"A university is at its best a forum for the open exchange of ideas and opinions. Mr. Horowitz's right to express his opinions was violated by those who disrupted his speech," the statement said. "We support the constitutional rights of free speech granted to Mr. Horowitz as well as to those who disagree with his opinions. The university does not support this inappropriate behavior."

In the attack on Pat Buchanan, the assailant was identified by authorities as a student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College.

Earlham College suspended the student who threw a pie at Kristol. Earlham issued a statement Thursday affirming the importance of letting speakers address their audiences. The statement said that "any student who shows by word or deed that he or she will act to deny such rights to speakers and their potential audiences will forfeit the privilege of continuing to be a student at the college."

In explaining the reason for issuing the statement, the college said: "The exercise of speech is a fundamental principle upon which we organize this college and is essential to any college or university worthy of the name. That principle must be a visible and undoubted commitment of the college at all times. When it is threatened, the college must take steps to reaffirm that commitment."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Speech Interrupted

  • Lack of Reasoning Skills
  • Posted by Kathy , Instructor on October 2, 2005 at 6:08pm EDT
  • The food-throwers aren't capable of using reason to rebut the speakers' arguments, so they use food instead--like two-year-olds throwing a fit. Next time it'll be rocks or bullets.

  • Diversity of Opinion vs. of Sexuality
  • Posted by Mark Lokensgard on April 8, 2005 at 6:25pm EDT
  • Throwing pies is not the best way to deal with this issue. Instead, perhaps someone in these audiences could ask why so many people who identify themselves as conservatives believe that conservatives need to have special protection or guarantees given to them. Conservatives have argued against giving special protection to homosexuals on the premise that this is a "lifestyle choice" or a "practice," and not a marker of a more permanent identity of a minority group. If we cede this point for the sake of argument, are we then to conclude that conservatives are conservatives because they cannot help themselves?

  • Speech Interrupted (Conservatives and special protection)
  • Posted by Man in the Middle on April 9, 2005 at 5:05am EDT
  • Interesting comment above about conservatism being a voluntary choice and therefore by conservative standards not needing special protection.

    Speaking as a centrist, I think the conservatives' point here is not one of demanding special protection, but rather of agreeing with universities that diversity is a worthy goal, and should include diversity of thought so that students can learn critical thinking rather than merely memorize talking points.

  • Posted by Warren McGovern on April 9, 2005 at 5:06am EDT
  • I disagree...pies are simply BRILLIANT.

    As american as apple pie.

    Instead of whining about the barbaric behavior of midwesterners Horowitz could have acted like Bob Dole...who I witnessed take on similar treatment (and with whom I disagree with; on alot of topics). Dole's response was that he fought for people
    to be able to disagree with him. Very classy.

    Horowitz's response is what you would expect from someone making over $300,000 a year while at the same time lamenting how someone making less than $60,000 is bad for this country.... he's whining!!!

  • Speech Interrupted
  • Posted by pollyanna on April 9, 2005 at 3:38pm EDT
  • These childish ,left-wing antics serve only to convince responsible adult voters that the left is, well...childish. As in petulant, irresponsible, and self-dramatizing . That the Democratic party has managed to get itself associated with such silly, counterproductive forms of protest (don't bother trying to build a political consensus that actually ATTRACTS voters, for goodness' sake!) is why it has become increasingly irrelevant.

  • Pie throwing
  • Posted by Hist.Prof. , Sad state of affairs on April 9, 2005 at 5:21pm EDT
  • Typical..pseudo-leftist way of dealing with dissent at American Universities...either shout it down or commit some other silly action. If a university allows or invites someone to speak, the speaker should be politely allowed to finish his or her speech then challenged on the merits of his or her arguments. Maybe these students should spend more time studying and less time with their bongs.

  • Posted by Rich on April 10, 2005 at 8:04pm EDT
  • Did they actually prevent those speakers from expressing their thoughts? Uh, no.

    Has William Kristol ever listened to those who disagree with him? Have the fora (incl. news/talk shows)in which he has appeared as a panelist, ever really provided adequate balancing viewpoint? No.

    Having heard the evidence utterly disproving his own views on Iraq, has Kristol ever modified his stance? Listened w/ greater care to new voices or new information? Engaged in an honest dialogue, conducted w/ integrity in relation to his opponents? Listened to reason?

    No.

    He has not.

    Public figures doing the college lecture circuit presume that aristocracy has its privileges -- that free speech is their right, and no one else's. That free speech is a one-way street. That they have no obligation to listen to their fellow Americans. That free speech entitles them to lie, do great damage to the nation, and send others off to die, sans Declaration of War.

    You defend the right to free speech for Kristol, but by scolding your own students, you essentially deprive them of the same free speech rights to speak to and be heard by those same speakers.

    "Protecting" these speakers from any real debate, from any real dissent, and from any substantive challenge -- from hearing the free speech of those they PRESUME to educate -- comes at the cost of the free speech rights of your own students. If there is no right to be heard, then America is meaningless.

    So the heavy, overt irony exercised in having William Kristol "educate" those who are both better informed and more principled operates to install powerlessness and docility upon and within the student body.

    By defending Kristol's right to free speech, but eliminating students' free speech rights in that same forum, you eliminate any and all healthy and meaningful debate and dialog. When public figures have no obligation to listen, or to be confronted with facts, or to be challenged on principle, then there is no accountability, and no America.

    What upsets Earlham College is the breach of etiquette. It's remarkably hypocritical to scold students for Speaking Truth to Power, when Kristol has lied, perhaps treasonously, and his allies at every turn eliminate free speech and the function of open dialog in the public realm.

    So they did it with a pie.

    So what.

    Did they heckle, censor, or jeer? Did they close down the lecture, or beat Kristol in the street? No. You will recall antiwar protestors pre-Iraq invasion were beaten in the streets of DC. (No hubbub re the 1stAmendment then, bub. Kristol didn't defend their free speech rights, then, nor did Earlham.) Did those same students urge the country rush to war? Did they lie & present fraudulent evidence to the American people? Did they falsely assert a link to Iraq? Or falsely claim it's the Preznit's decision to go to war, rather than Congress's?

    No.

    Earlham & Co.are upset not by a violation of free speech, but by the unseemly expression of perfectly justified emotion. It's impolite, unseemly, and creates a scene. But you'll recall that discomfort is a primary benefit/byproduct of free speech.

    Earlham has punished the wrong folks. They've failed their students, just as surely as Kristol has betrayed his country. And they've done so at the cost of their cherished Quaker virtues & American values.

    Let us not ever again pretend that politeness is equivalent to morality. We have clear evidence, now, that rudeness is moral and impishness is ethical. Kristol, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld do not listen to the polite. They do not listen at all.

    But America does not elect Kings. Nor tyrants.

    And the deans & chancellors at Earlham had best remember that, as they enforce obedience, that the same role was played by the same institutions in Germany of the early- to mid-20th century. Germans were polite, knew their place, but later said:

    "I was just doing my job."
    "I'm a good German."

    Sound familiar?

    There is no small stain, on Earlham as an institution, in their reaction to . . . pies.

    What about their reaction to bombs?

    To lies?
    To betrayal?

  • Posted by David Noon on April 11, 2005 at 5:06am EDT
  • None of this would happen, of course, if we'd just close the borders, hire conservative faculty, and invade other countries to promote democracy.

  • Attacks on Academic Freedom
  • Posted by Steve McCarty , Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan on April 11, 2005 at 5:06am EDT
  • Observing from abroad, this is the most ominous trend in Academia in a generation.

    Check out this article that was rejected by the Chronicle of Higher Education ;-)

    Can a “Patriotic” Mob Take Over the Universities?
    by Baruch Kimmerling, March 29, 2005
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Kimmerling0329.htm