College, Local Authorities Handled Protest Properly

Author: Bryan Goldberg

"We reserve the right to refuse admission or to eject any person violating facility rule, local, state or federal law or whose conduct is deemed illegal or disorderly." —"Art of Kissing" ticket disclaimer

In light of The Campus opinions articles blasting Public Safety and the Middlebury Police Department, I thought it was necessary for those of us who understand the law and the Bill of Rights to voice our opinions. As someone who identifies as a liberal, I have been more than excited by the amount of activism on our college campus these last few weeks. Unfortunately, the execution of recent protests, and even worse, the public response that they have generated, has been disappointing. Many of the critics who responded to the protest breakup in last week's Campus unfairly tarnished both the local authorities and the laws that they uphold.

In the April 10 issue of The Campus Dominique Thompson '03 complained that Public Safety denied one particular protester the right to freedom of speech "when they threatened to 'physically remove' her from the premises if she did not stop protesting."

Ms. Thompson failed to mention that the protester's ticket was purchased under the legal condition that he or she could be removed if his or her "conduct was deemed disorderly." The producers of the show, in this case MCAB, issued the ticket and therefore had the right to deem the protest "disorderly." Furthermore, Ms. Thompson falsely stated that "they [Middlebury College] crossed the boundaries of the law. 'Prevention of another's free expression of ideas by intimidation, abuse, or physical force' is a serious offense and also punishable in a court of law."

The protesters were practicing free speech on private property. Middlebury College owns McCullough, and they get to choose who is allowed to be there. If the College puts MCAB in charge of McCullough, and MCAB decides that a few students are creating a disturbance, they have every legal right to make those students move.

In a separate Campus opinions piece, Nahal Batmanghelidj '02 made many a strong statement regarding the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. "Unlike most people, I know that civil liberties were not only created by men in positions of power, but are also aimed at helping the powerful maintain their power. The First Amendment, under the guise of freedom for all, protects the rights of the powerful by ensuring that the powerless remain silent," Ms. Batmangheldj argued. Like many students, I was confused by Ms. Batmanghelidj's claim that she "knows" what our founding father's hidden agenda was when drafting the Bill of Rights given that she never once shared a conversation with James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or John Jay. Ms. Batmanghelidj defended her views by stating that "I am going to be labeled an anti-sex angry feminist for the beliefs I hold, they too [people who did not protest], by expressing similar beliefs will be setting themselves up for similar criticism. So ask yourselves, whose rights are the first amendment protecting? Does everyone really have the same access to this right?" Even though Ms. Batmanghelidj opted not to state the First Amendment, I will do so:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To answer her question, yes, "everyone really has the same access to this right." Nowhere in the First Amendment does it single out feminist protesters. Perhaps Ms. Batmanghelidj objects to the First Amendment because it does not prevent her peers from calling her an "anti-sex angry feminist." What does Ms. Batmanghelidj want from our Constitution? Would she like one that guarantees her right to protest but denies her peers the right to call her an "anti-sex angry feminist?" Ms. Batmanghelidj should understand that our founding fathers would never have had time to complete the document if they constructed it on a case-by-case basis.

When students write articles in which they misinterpret the law or inexplicably dismiss the First Amendment, it not only destroys their validity, but it also reflects poorly on this community.

It is also unfair to local authorities when their actions are falsely deemed inappropriate or illegal. Both Public Safety and the Middlebury Police Department should be commended for the way in which they handled the protest situation, for they followed the law and properly interpreted the First Amendment.