“GOEBBELS was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

Noam Chomsky said this in his film “Manufacturing Consent.” His absolute definition of free speech strikes many decent people as extreme, but it allows for the most total protection of rights imaginable. This is a right that should be cherished, especially in the midst of several ongoing free speech debates here at the University and the high-profile disappointment of the recently concluded Irvine 11 trial in California.

At the University of California, Irvine, there has been a long-standing tension between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student groups. The conflict reached a new level last year when Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren came to speak at UC Irvine. Eleven students associated with the Muslim Student Union (MSU) interrupted his presentation, calling him a “mass murderer” and loudly condemning Ambassador Oren in front of his audience. The MSU was punished by the school, but their trouble had only just begun.

The Orange County district attorney filed charges of unlawful disruption against the students, who were to be known as the Irvine 11. The students were not expressing their freedom of speech, the district attorney argued, but rather obstructing that of Ambassador Oren. There was instant outrage from the Muslim community, which felt its viewpoints were being singled out by the prosecution.
What the MSU did was nothing new for young activists in southern California. You can see a discussion panel full of liberal speakers being disrupted by the College Republicans at the University of California, Riverside on YouTube. This footage even was posted by sympathizers of the College Republicans, effectively bragging about preventing people from expressing their differing viewpoints. No charges have been brought against these students, leading many to rightly see the district attorney’s intervention against the Irvine 11 as a case of selective prosecution.

The issue does not even boil down to a simple right-left conflict. Also in Orange Country, two non-Muslim women disrupted a speech by former Vice President Dick Cheney the day the Irvine 11 went on trial. Months earlier, former President George W. Bush was disrupted, once again in Orange County, by more non-Muslims. No charges were filed against either group. Thus, one can see the Muslim community’s anger is well-grounded.

Additionally, the strange, undesirable pro-Israel dogma of U.S. politics is on display: A former U.S. president can be interrupted without serious repercussions, but if one messes with an Israeli ambassador then he is looking at possible jail time.

Did the Irvine 11 do the right thing? I have a hard time accepting that they did, though I understand their motivation to disrupt someone they saw as “an accomplice to genocide.” Shouting at a speaker just strikes me as the verbal equivalent of defacing a message on Beta Bridge. Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine’s dean of Law, said that students do not have the right to disrupt a speaker, but can feel free to counter by protesting elsewhere. This answer does seem to offer the maximum liberty possible to all parties. Imagine the tension at the University if Christians shouted at a visiting Richard Dawkins, or if atheists disrupted one of Economics Prof. Kenneth Elzinga’s religious presentations. One may find the policies of Israel or Hamas — or, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan — reprehensible, but the effective response is not to censor their representatives. Rather, it is to highlight the speaker’s errors and criticize what one’s opposition had the chance to say.

Now, did the district attorney do the right thing by bringing the case to court? Absolutely not. Even though he criticized the students’ interruptions, Chemerinsky also condemned the district attorney’s case as unnecessary, harmful and a “terrible mistake.” This was selective prosecution at its worst. What purpose does this serve other than making young Muslims feel even more unwelcome in the United States’ civil society? Of course, this would be understandable if all incidents of disruption were prosecuted, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. Interrupting a powerful or well-connected speaker is now dangerous, and unpopular minorities who lack resources or the loyalty of local district attorneys will just have to hope for no hecklers.

UC Irvine’s quarter-long suspension of the MSU was a proportional response. Yet what could have been the school’s moment to express commitment to freedom of speech, no matter the speaker, instead became a massive debacle thanks to the district attorney’s unnecessary intervention.

The Irvine 11’s defense said, with good cause, that the jury stood between “democracy and creeping fascism.” Sadly, the jury found the students guilty. This event will be remembered as another stunning blow against the concept of a dispassionate, unbiased justice system.

As our school year merges with a coming election year, passions are likely to grow heated at the University. If you disagree with someone, please let them speak. Write about how your opponent is a no-good liar. Invite him to debate you. Want to shout? Host your own damn event.

Sam Carrigan’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.

A report issued Tuesday by a subsidiary of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce concluded that a shocking 29.1 percent of the City’s families either are living below the poverty line or are not earning enough money to be self-sufficient. Since these families’ economic prospects are unlikely to improve without a coordinated effort from a variety of local institutions, the University bears a responsibility as one of the area’s largest employers to do what it can to address this situation.

In recognition of this fact, the report includes a specific recommendation aimed at facilitating future University efforts to support the local economy. Namely, the report proposes the creation of “a community-centered hub to harness regional economic power” from so-called “anchor institutions” such as the University. The goal of the hub would be to connect local businesses to large employers whose particular missions make them unlikely to outsource major operational components or relocate them to areas with better economic climates.

As a publicly chartered institution that has provided higher education services in Charlottesville since 1819, the University clearly fits into this category. To fully leverage its resources for the purpose of supporting broad-based economic growth and financial stability among Charlottesville families, however, the University needs a holistic strategy that extends beyond the report’s recommendation. This plan should recognize that although it is important for the University to support local businesses in situations where it is cost-effective, it also must operate with maximal efficiency so that it is able to combat poverty in other ways such as by providing adequate pay and benefits to all of its employees.

In recent years, the University has engaged in a number of successful collaborations with local businesses from which it can draw lessons. Notably, the Greenberry’s Coffee and Tea Co. locations in Alderman Library and Clark Hall have become among the most popular destinations for students to spend their Plus Dollars. More recently, University Dining has brought several Charlottesville-based food trucks to Grounds as part of this year’s meal plan upgrades. Although these are among the most highly visible examples of University partnerships with local businesses, there are countless low-profile jobs related to construction projects, Grounds maintenance and technology services that either do or could make use of local companies.

The desire to support local business should not be the only factor that influences University policy, however. If the choice exists between contracting with a local company or one from outside the area, the University must consider carefully which will carry out the given operation in the most cost-effective manner. This is partially because the University has an obligation to students and taxpayers to spend money in the most efficient way possible. Yet it is also in keeping with the anti-poverty strategy that the report endorses.

If the University were to hire local companies to carry out operations regardless of cost, it would leave fewer resources available to devote to other purposes. This would undermine the University’s ability to uphold its commitment to provide all employees with livable wages and benefits. At present, the University is working hard to meet this goal — in July it raised wages for its lowest-paid employees from $10.14 to $10.65 an hour, and it also increased the monetary subsidy provided to employees earning less than $42,000 annually. Wasting money by contracting with inefficient companies, however, would jeopardize this progress since the University already is severely constrained in the funds available to it for employee compensation.

This does not mean the University should stop striving to support local businesses, especially when it can do so in ways that are creative and enhance the University’s quality of life. What it does require, though, is that the University not lose sight of the fact that poverty alleviation is as much about increasing wages as it is about job creation.

Thanks to The Cavalier Daily for your coverage of discussions on Grounds regarding local, national and international policymaking issues.

In particular, we in Garrett Hall appreciated having The Cavalier Daily’s Monday front-page story about the recent visit to the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy by Rudy deLeon.  DeLeon is a widely respected veteran of service as the deputy secretary of Defense, the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, the former head of Boeing’s Washington office and currently a senior official at the Center for American Progress, a top Washington think tank. In fairness, however, we should clarify a misunderstanding, derived perhaps from the editing of this story.

One of the key observations attributed to Secretary deLeon actually was made by a senior Chinese scholar in Beijing, whom deLeon was quoting. The Chinese official’s confidence in U.S. resiliency is an ever more salient point coming from a scholar working in a rival nation governed by an authoritarian regime: Americans revere the rule of law, Americans separate church and state and Americans assimilate minorities fully into society in a respectful and mutually beneficial manner.

In challenging times, it is always helpful to hear why colleagues from other nations have such deep respect for U.S. capabilities.

Finally, I would clarify that the  public forum in Garrett Hall was actually a regularly scheduled session of a graduate seminar, but one the Batten School was excited to open to the public in our wonderfully renovated space — and to collaborate with the International Relations Organization in publicizing — because of our eagerness to share such a stimulating speaker with other interested parties on Grounds. We will do it again soon.

Gerald Warburg
Asst. Dean and Prof. of Public Policy, Batten School

It is outrageously difficult to get a Jewish engineering student with unfinished problem sets to write something on the eve of one of the holiest days of Jewish calendar. Yet Michelle Sawwan’s outrageously one-sided piece yesterday managed this feat.

Its biggest errors were those that misrepresented history. The list is long, but I will restrict myself to the most egregious errors:

Israel was created alongside a Palestinian state by the United Nations. Israel did unilaterally declare its independence earlier than the United Nations envisioned, on the eve of an invasion by five surrounding Arab nations.

In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel defeated the armies of three Arab neighbors who had aligned for war. The third was Transjordan, which until losing the war administered the renamed West Bank with strict military rule and little thought to allowing self governance under any ‘Palestinian Authority.’

U.N. Resolution 242 emphasizes the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

The Israelis appear to have made every attempt to engage in dialogue with the Palestinians. Ms. Sawwan fails to mention that the previous Israeli government offered Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas a state in all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank with swaps for the other 3%, territory in ‘East’ Jerusalem for a capitol and shared control of holy sites. The current Israeli administration has asked Abbas from day one to sit for candid talks at the negotiating table without preconditions. Both offers were turned down.

Joel Taubman
SEAS III

AS THE economy deteriorates further and the stock market remains in constant fluctuation, more Americans are laying blame upon President Obama. A September 2011 Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent of Americans place a “great deal or a moderate amount” of blame on Obama for the economic decline, a sharp increase from the 32 percent indicating that sentiment in the original Gallup poll conducted six months after Obama took office. Although it is understandable that people are going to play the blame game because of the high unemployment, it is unreasonable and illogical to hold a single person responsible for the current economic conditions.

Obama cannot single-handedly ruin an economy. Rather, a collection of political and economic mishaps have caused the current problem. Part of the blame rests with Congress, and specifically with the Republican and Democratic politicians who comprise it. Their sole ambition appears to be to blame the opposite party for everything, in addition to blatantly opposing any proposal the opposite party puts forward. Their lack of cooperation nearly has led the government to shut down twice in a single year.

The people are frustrated that Obama is not doing anything to force Congress to get its act together, but the executive power is not unlimited. The president cannot simply override Congress at will when the two parties are incapable of cooperation, nor should the President be expected to force Congress to behave like adults. The members of Congress should have the sense to realize that constant bickering will not solve the problem of the economy, nor reelect them.

The same September 2011 Gallup poll also revealed that although people place much blame on Obama for the economy, they place greater blame on Bush. Yet although Bush did make some bad decisions, some aspects of the economy such as the collapse of the housing market cannot be connected directly to him. The housing market problems were a consequence of low interests rates during the Clinton era, which encouraged people to obtain loans on houses they could not afford. When people were unable to pay their loans, the banks were affected. These same banks then had to be bailed out off debt by the government. It was a chain reaction of bad decisions involving banks and the federal government that led to a collapse of the housing market, which in turn affected the overall economy.

It is obvious that Obama has made mistakes as a leader. He himself admits that leadership involves “persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together, and setting a tone.”

But the president has been attempting to accomplish too many goals and has alienated Congress. He has failed to persuade Congress of the worthiness of his endeavors.

The blame for the current economic condition should extend to Congress, Obama, the collapse of the housing market and former officials. It is unreasonable to place the blame solely on Obama or to actually assume that he could single-handedly turn around the economy. Politicians during campaigns make multiple promises in order to get elected. Very few of those politicians, however, successfully accomplish all their promises because of reasons ranging from lack of time to lack of Congressional support.

Meanwhile, voters are disillusioned, especially independent voters from the 2008 election. The problem is that people perceived Obama as a source of hope during the 2008 presidential election. Many elected him because they believed that he would put the United States on its feet again with a booming economy as was the case in the late 1990s. Now, with the economy still the same, these people are disappointed. And who better to blame than the leader, the person who promised change?

Yes, Obama has made mistakes as a leader. He has not fulfilled all his campaign promises. Yet the people must realize that he is not the sole cause of the nation’s current economic malady.

Fariha Kabir is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.