Response to the Tasering

Among the various responses to the tasering incident at UF, the two that have garnered the most attention are those of University President J. Bernard Machen and Senator Kerry.

First let's review, in pertinent part, Machen's response:

"I want to state going in that we're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that the free exchange of ideas can occur....The incident that occurred yesterday is regretful for us because civil discourse and dialogue did not occur."

In light of recent events, the efficacy and/or existence of any such committment is questionable. And we should note that the second claim is patently false. Even if true, it's a non-starter. It's false because civil discourse and dialogue certainly did occur, at least for some period. It's a non-starter because the non-occurrence of civil discourse isn't, by itself, reason for regret. That a University President should indulge in meaningless speech isn't surprising, but it is, at least in this case, regrettable.

More difficult to understand is the response of Sen. Kerry. I'm referring, not to his after-event statement, but to his behaviour during the arrest. His defenders have claimed that he tried to intervene and answer the question. But shouldn't we ask whether this is sufficient? Of all the people in the audience, Mr. Kerry was probably the only one who has taken an oath to "support and defend" the US Constitution. Mr. Kerry, more than anyone, should appreciate the scope of constitutional free speech protections. He can't claim ignorance of circumstances. He was interacting with Meyer as the police approached and dragged him away. Whether or not he knew about the tasing is strictly beside the point. Meyer's speech rights went out the window the minute armed guards laid hands on him. Nor can Kerry plausibly claim that police intervention made the event a police matter. As a Senator, one would hope that he would be in a better place to discern what sorts of actions do and do not fall under the domain of police enforcement than even the best trained of the campus two-five. Had Mr. Kerry been any sort of leader, he would have used the incident to actually teach his audience about civil discourse by example.

We seem to have become confused about the meaning of "civil discourse." To be civil, a discourse need not be polite, nor deferential, nor soft spoken. "Civil," is a description, not of the form of speech, but of the forum. Obnoxious, biggoted, and even hateful speech also falls within its purview. We protect speech not because it's polite or convivial, but because protecting speech--especially speech with which we profoundly disagree--preserves our own right of self expression and defense, and (sometimes) promotes just the sort of debate which is necessary to the health of a democratic society. We tolerate free speech because the suppression of speech is a paramount--and, as in this case, often violent--failure of civil discourse. We tolerate free speech because not to do so prompts those who are censored to turn to alternative, sometimes violent, means of expression. We tolerate free speech because the violent suppression of speech is itself a ground for violent reprisal.

Which brings me to my last point. It is, perhaps, not shocking to find that Machen is mealy-mouthed, or even that Kerry is a coward. What is more shocking, to my mind, is that an auditorium full of able-bodied students at a public university should tolerate, under any circumstances, this sort of abuse. Those who aren't willing to fight to protect their own rights will, in due course, lose them.
Welcome to the police state.