Posted on 11/09/2001 5:25:55 PM PST by vannrox
In the past few days, Amherst College has been swept up in a controversy about patriotism and dissent. In the wake of the flag burnings that disrupted the Assembly for Patriotism organized by our students on October 18, I write to offer some thoughts on the events of that day and articulate the College's position on this provocative form of protest.
I want first to praise the students who organized the Assembly for Patriotism, as well as those—from all backgrounds and political affiliations—who spoke at the event. The Assembly was, it seems to me, an attempt to provide thoughtful, intellectual discussion of complex political and social issues. The organizers attempted to represent a range of perspectives, from the liberal left to the conservative right. The range of opinion was striking, but one thing was clear: Each person who spoke—regardless of age, national origin, or political bent—was proud and grateful to live in our democracy. As one speaker said, "For some people, patriotism means wearing the American flag on your lapel. For others, patriotism means being able to burn the flag. We are all fortunate, though, to live in a country where both of those options are available to us."
At the end of this event, a small group of protestors, apparently not connected with Amherst College, burned two small flags and stood on a third. The flags burned quickly, in a matter of seconds, before anyone had a chance to intervene; the protestors had brought water to extinguish the flames.
Curiously, the protestors had no interest in discussion: they must have agreed in advance not to say anything to those who challenged them about what they had done and why. They refused to give their names when our students asked who they were. (E-mails and Daily Jolt postings ostensibly from the protestors have arrived this week saying that they believe in "the interconnected destructiveness of all nation states" and that "America is a war, and all wars have casualties.")
Our student organizers are not just shocked but frustrated and saddened by what happened. In the press, in particular, the message of their rally had been upstaged and confused by this echo from the Vietnam era. But they had the maturity to express their anger in words and questions and to follow it up with extensive discussions around campus about protest and dissent in America.
Perhaps the hardest thing about this dissent is its impact on those who have lost loved ones. More than a dozen young graduates and close relations of our students died at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. The sister of one of the dead spoke beautifully at the rally about how angry she had been on September 11th that "America let this happen." In the days since, she went on, she has felt prouder than ever of the freedom and diversity of our country.
Even in this time, especially in this time, with our country under attack by terrorists, we need to define the meaning of our patriotism with care. The flag burners at the rally believed that America stands for evil and oppression. The rest of us believe not that America is perfect or without blemish—but above all that it is free. As difficult as it is, this means that we have to respect the rights of all to speak freely, even insultingly, about our country, its principles and policies. "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other," Justice Holmes wrote in a dissent in 1929, "it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Most of us would probably not engage in the type of behavior demonstrated by the flag burners at last Thursday’s rally. Flag burning is perhaps at the very margin of constitutionally protected behavior, an extreme form of dissent designed to confront and provoke, not to elevate or elucidate ideas. The precedents in the federal courts are a little confused. Still most of us believe that the Constitution should protect nearly all expression that does not threaten the rights, lives, or property of others. What these young flag burners did offends sensibilities across the campus and the nation. It hurt deeply many of us who feel with great immediacy and emotion the losses of September 11th. But it remains protected expression under the First Amendment.
Those of us who live and work at Amherst are privileged to be in a community in which we can engage in rigorous discussion and debate with those whose opinions sometimes differ from our own. As these discussions become difficult, touching on topics of national significance and personal conviction, we must work hard to ensure that we maintain an atmosphere of civility and tolerance.
I wonder how the President of Amherst College would feel if some of us went over and decided to burn one of his buildings as a "protest?" No doubt we would be promptly arrested, and there would be no sympathetic talk about our "right of free speech." What is so different, then, about this?
These "protesters" were nothing better than common criminal theives. They should have been promptly arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is simply no excuse to fail to do otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.