<p>“When the university did not cancel the event, we decided to cancel it for them”. She called the protest “a powerful demonstration of free speech.”</p>
<p>Another example of Brown not being tolerant to other viewpoints.</p>
<p>Yes, please don’t generalize the Brown student population from the actions of some. The campus is filled with different viewpoints on this topic.</p>
<p>Students and alumni have been hotly debating this event all day today. My inbox is full with comments and there have been several Facebook comments.</p>
<p>Opinions are split down the middle. Some people support the protestors and an equal number are extremely upset at this behavior. There seems to be no easy way to categorize how opinions fall – I’ve seen arguments on both sides from recent alums, current students and alumni from all decades. Young or old disagree on this. There is no way to make any generalizations about Brown or Brown students from this event. </p>
<p>I am personally appalled at what happened. I may not agree with Kelly or his policies, but I think the student behavior was not the best way to convey their opinions.</p>
<p>^I am truly surprised that “opinions are split down the middle”. Surely common courtesy and respect should be an " always" policy, not an “only when I agree with you” policy. Was there not a scheduled Q&A to express differing points of view?</p>
<p>But the Q&A was only scheduled in the wake of the protests the last few days. The initial event was a simply a lecture on “proactive policing” with an honorarium. The response of the protesters to your comment about courtesy and respect lilly would be that Ray Kelly does not show common courtesy and respect via the ruled unconstitutional and proven ineffective stop and frisk or the failed muslim group infiltration operations in the name of homeland security, why should he receive the respect of an honorarium and a podium from which to pontificate racist policies for 45mins.</p>
<p>An interesting comment I saw pop up on my feed today was that the embarrassment people feel about Ray Kelly being shouted down should be multiplied by 100 if they would like to know the embarrassment felt by many people of color as officers hands slide over their genitals in public areas in search of guns or drugs they don’t have.</p>
<p>That being said, I still think shouting him down was wrong, but I do have to pause and think how people would respond to Brown inviting a neo-nazi to campus to discuss Hitler’s final solution, or the leader of the Westboro baptist church being invited for a session on the evils in the world today. In other words, do we truly believe that any and all positions deserve an honorarium and 45 mins to present their views or is it that stop and frisk is at least somewhat valid enough to warrant it - in which case one is really no different from the protestors.</p>
<p>I personally felt that protesting leading up to the event was fully justified and that Brown is under no obligation to invite any guest of any persuasion however once the session actually started it was game over for the time being and to leave the protesting at the door.</p>
<p>But I’ve seen many reactions from alumni and students supporting the protestors.</p>
<p>My thoughts are incredibly similar to i_wanna. I think the time for action was before the speech, not during it. I was recently on campus, saw many signs for this event, and there was no hint of a protest. The protestors should have plastered campus with opposition signs. I don’t know what was done to stop this talk, but that’s where the effort should have been made (has the BDH written about that?). </p>
<p>From the little I know, it seems that this speech was highly problematic. It’s one thing to invite Kelly to a panel discussion about police tactics. I’m fine with that. It’s another to give him money to speak at an event lauding his actions. I see major issues with that, given the highly controversial nature of his policies. It suggests that Brown as an institution approves of stop and frisk. I hope that when President Paxson holds her campus forum on this event, the issue of how Kelly was chosen and the message sent by this decision is discussed.</p>
<p>It is truly to bad that Liberal socialists and their children have no tolerance for free speech and value of debate. If you ask them they will tell you they are not interested in debate because their goal is to take down Capitalism and freedoms that do not wash with their tried and failed belief systems.
This to me is proof that socialist with money raise intolerant, ungrateful and deviantly lazy children. They themselves are the cause of our societal decay.
When I was there in the eighties One of those… students poisoned myself and my girlfriend with GHB. Luck for my girlfriend I was smart enough to know I was being poisoned and helped her to escape the situation. They tried to drug me to rape her, then all five of these creeps who lived two blocks south of the tunnel on Thayer stood on the porch of the house laughing as we Stumbled to escape. We never could remember what they looked like or the exact house they lived in. I only remember the coffee table book was an Anarchist Cookbook.</p>
<p>I support any protestors’ rights in general – but I find this group’s methodology to be appalling. Like others, the time for vocal protest was before and after the event. Inside, banners and questions (if a Q & A session was planned) were called for.</p>
<p>I find it disturbing that those individuals took it upon themselves to declare Ray Kelly as persona non grata. Could protestors at a conservative school be supported if they shouted down a progressive or far left speaker?</p>
<p>This reminds me of the situation several years ago at Columbia when a similar incident occurred…</p>
<p>As for a speaking fee, if other out-of-town speakers on the panel were similarily paid, then I see no issue whatsoever. Being paid is not an endorsement… it’s business.</p>
<p>There was no panel. It was only Ray Kelly. I agree that if there were a panel of people he should be paid in line with everyone else but he was the only person invited for that session - and while I agree that honoraria are necessary to get high profile speakers, I also support the idea that the university need not promote anyone and everything. That’s not suppression of free speech - that’s branding.</p>
<p>As fireandrain (and many in opposition of Kelly’s talk) have said. It’s one thing to include a multitude of views on a panel debate/discussion, it’s another thing to invite one person to give a lecture.</p>
<p>I have seen criticism of the fact that the protests were so delayed - and I fully agree with that. From what I’ve gathered, all of this started in the last few days whereas the fist announcement of his selection was months ago.</p>
<p>I think discussion around this event needs to separate the issues. 1st is the issue of whether or not Kelly should have been invited in the context that he was. 2nd is the issue of the response. I think the 2nd one is pretty straight forward, and I disagree with what happened not out of principle but out of the fact that I think protesting in an event like that does more harm than good for the cause.</p>
<p>Iwantobebrown, Stop-Question-Frisk is a high profile issue right now and pro-active police techniques have been credited with drastically reducing crime rates. New York City is divided roughly 50/50 on the issue so it is ridiculous comparing the issue to extreme fringe groups.</p>
<p>Also, it is pretty embarrassing that some Brown students refuse to let people speak with different viewpoints – if this continues Brown will just be seen as an irrelevant, radical echo chamber.</p>
<p>“When the university did not cancel the event, we decided to cancel it for them”. She called the protest “a powerful demonstration of free speech.”</p>
<p>The protesters have not yet taken the Brown course which teaches irony.</p>
<p>I’m confused OP. While I’m making the case that it’s a debunked policy, you were making the case that that was irrelevant to whether or not he should have been invited and allowed to speak. If you think fringe views don’t deserve a venue but Kelly does, then you’re views about how to handle inappropriate discussion are no different than the protestors - you just sit at a different point on the spectrum of what constitutes “not fringe”.</p>
<p>The only pro-active techniques I know of that have worked are increased police presence (totally fine) and greater enforcement of misdemeanor crimes (also ok since you’re targeting people who have actually committed a crime). This is the heralded Giuliani “broken window” approach ([What</a> Reduced Crime in New York City](<a href=“http://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html]What”>What Reduced Crime in New York City | NBER)) which caused the massive decline that precedes the major stop and frisk uptick.</p>
<p>So, sschickens, your daughter will be applying only to institutions where the students (a) all have a sophisticated understanding of free speech; (b) never act impetuously; or (c) never act at all?</p>
<p>I don’t condone the protesters’ actions . . . but if it’s a choice between non-violent action, albeit misguided, and apathy, I’ll take the former, thank you.</p>
<p>Brown is on top of D’s short list and this event doesn’t move it up or down the list in any way. I’m glad there is activism on campus, I’m glad students care about issues, even if I think it would have been better to protest before the event, let him speak, then ask tough questions during the Q&A.</p>
<p>Iwanttobebrown, the poll you cited is an outlier. The vast majority of polls show a 50-50 split on the issue. One of the most recent polls on the issue shows that 77 percent – want to continue, in some form, the practice of officers stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people they believe match a crime suspect or are acting suspiciously (Newsday 10/24). This is a contentious issue and there are plenty of studies that argue both sides of the issue (citing the ACLU is not an unbiased resource). Also, your links on the law being unconstitutional are now outdated. There is an article in the Wall Street Journal today Court Order Lets NYPD continue stop and frisk that details the unanimous ruling. </p>
<p>Obviously, the courts just recently ruled in favor of the law and the issue is a high-profile contentious issue. Many cities want to use the stop-and-frisk tactics of NYC, and people are firmly divided on both sides of the debate. </p>
<p>Universities should be a place where students can hear both sides of high-profile issues and make an informed opinion. Some Brown students thought it would be better to silence the viewpoints of others and it gives the university a black eye.</p>
<p>Dodgersmom, people who are raised properly know how to have basic manners when you have a guest. Nearly every university in the country would allow the speaker to present their ideas and people would listen. Then during the questions-and-answer segment they would be allowed to make their own arguments. Brown is not capable of facilitating these basic discussions because some of their students fear diversity of thought. Brown should just admit it has a history of not tolerating conservative viewpoints rather than pretend to be a school that values diversity.</p>
<p>Dodgersmom, diversity of thought is important to me, and to my daughter. It doesn’t seem to be a priority at Brown, and I say that based not by the action of a few misguided students, but on the administration’s response and handling of this incident. I’m not sure where the ‘apathy’ comment came from. There are several very liberal schools on my Ds short list, and I have a gut sense that all voices will be heard at all of them. My point was that had Brown been on my daughter’s short list, it would have been cause for concern. I understand that it wouldn’t be a concern for all parents/prospective students. That’s what makes the world go 'round.</p>
<p>The question and answer session only happened as a result of the protests. The initial event was a lecture on proactive policing by Ray Kelly.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that it is now no longer constitutional and does open itself up for debate. I still disagree that the university has an obligation.</p>
<p>Of course the majority of people want to stop and frisk people who match the description of a criminal on the loose - but that’s not how stop and frisk is being used - and in fact, that’s what the overturned ruling was. Not that the entire concept of stop and frisk is wrong, but that the NYC use of Stop and Frisk was wrong.</p>
<p>Regardless, you and I can debate whether or not stop and frisk is valid but that has nothing to do with the overall point you’re making (unless I misunderstood your overall point). </p>
<p>If your overall point is that stop and frisk is valid and worthy of debate - I personally agree that it’s worth a debate - which is not what the session was originally scheduled to be (which is why I didn’t have a problem with people protesting it outside the event) and is not what I thought your initial post was really about. </p>
<p>My understanding of your initial point is that no one should be able to silence another’s views and that the university has an obligation to bring all voices to campus, regardless of how juxtaposed they are to the university’s populace - I still disagree and the potential validity of stop and frisk really has nothing to do with this. Should the neo-nazis be invited for a session on “the evils of race mixing” what about westboro baptist on “AIDS as a means to control the gay population?” Should the biology department invite Jenny McCarthy for a session on the dangers of vaccination?</p>
<p>If your point is the former, then ideologically you align with the protestors with regard to the idea that certain view points do not warrant a stage - you just have a different opinion on what view points do and don’t warrant a stage. There’s nothing wrong with that - but let’s call a spade a spade and admit this is not about silencing free speech.</p>