-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
A student’s free speech stifled
Archive
Comments
Story
I am writing in response to Jon Sawmiller’s opinion piece in last week’s paper. As the person being “quoted” in the article, I would like to point out a few discrepancies. Most importantly, I did not, nor did I allude to the opinion that Dr. Kustra should be fired for inviting Judge Napolitano to speak at Boise State.
My opinion is that, while I fervently disagree with Napolitano’s beliefs, he should be permitted to speak wherever he would like. My disappointment stems from hearing his interview on NPR. It was an affront on my beliefs to hear Napolitano blatantly equate murder with abortion, for example. This may be his opinion, but for all those listening to the interview, I would like to have heard the president of our university make an effort to create a more balanced discussion rather than acting as though the comment was innocuous and moving on with his questions.
According to Jon, leftist freedom of speech can be summed up with, “As long as I believe something, it should be allowed. If I disagree, then it should be censored.” If this is the case, then the second half of his article is null and void.
He claims the people of Columbia University are promoters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because university president, Lee Bollinger, invited him to speak. Jon forgot to mention that there was such an uproar over Ahmadinejad’s presence that reviews of his speech reached England’s newspapers. The students, most likely the same students who protested Jim Gilchrist’s canceled speech, were outraged by the Iranian president’s appearance on campus.
And no, Columbia University does not allow ROTC recruiters on campus because it is a private university, meaning the majority of it’s funds come from sources other than the government. Columbia’s students do not receive the same aid a public university student does and therefore should not be obliged to solicitations by the government.
In stating my grievances during class, I was hoping to generate a debate. I certainly got a debate, but what I didn’t expect was to read my words, twisted to fit into a poorly constructed argument accusing liberals of stifling free speech in the following week’s Arbiter. Doesn’t the misrepresentation of my words work against the very core of Jon’s article?
If a person must worry about what he or she says in class for fear of being misrepresented, I would argue this is a bigger infringement on free speech than making a complaint about someone else’s opinions.
And by the way, a person enlisted in the military is not allowed to speak out against the administration’s point of view because they are considered a “government property.” Sounds a lot like “As long as I believe in something, it should be allowed. If I disagree, then it should be censored,” to me.
Anna Demetriades is a Boise State University student
ANNA DEMETRIADES
Guest Opinion