There was an interesting story circulating recently regarding college students. They spoke their truth, stood their ground, and suffered results that upset and offended them. One can reach personal conclusions about whether the world is in a good place, which side of debates appeal, and whether or not to take actions. That is all within the confines of your personal discretion.
These students apparently attended Barnard College and chose to join "disruptive anti-Israel protests on Columbia University's campus." The New York Post reports that the officials at Barnard began sending "warnings (to students) that they risked being suspended if they did not leave the encampment" on the Columbia campus.
This is an important point, the students were provided a warning that consequences were coming. The President of Columbia University noted that she "authorized the (New York Police) to crack down," and reportedly "at least 108 protesters ended up cuffed and slapped with trespassing summonses" the next day. There was notice and there was an opportunity to take action (leave).
One of the students made the news, perhaps because of posts on social media. She complained that she was arrested, "suspended, and evicted from housing by Barnard" College. The story seems to stress that the student got out of the police system at 02:00 in the morning. That is not the best time of day to be on the streets.
The student complained that she was "forced to stand outside the Barnard gates for an entire hour waiting for someone to let me in." She was dismissive of the "Barnard Public Safety" officials characterizing their actions at 02:00 as "going above and beyond." She was afforded 15 minutes, during which she "haphazardly packed &...left." She felt that time was insufficient or perhaps "evil."
But, the student made choices. Her choice resulted in some school employee being awake and available at 02:00. She may not realize it, but most businesses do not have a full staff on duty at 02:00. Is it possible that more than one student needed the attention of that night-shift staff? She lamented she had only 15 minutes, but was that because the same staff needed to accommodate another suspended student who was likewise waiting at the gate for her or his turn?
The student is upset. Her rights to freedom of expression have been constrained. But, there are rules.
The school faculty is reportedly upset. Their committee has drafted a resolution of censure. The professors believe that there should not be constraints on protestors, rules, or detriment. One might wonder if they would feel the same if the protestors were ignored and someone was hurt. Would the faculty financially back the payment of damages to the injured? Would the faculty explain to an injured student or family members why it was wise to ignore published policies and accede to the protestors' unfettered and violative behavior?
No. It is unlikely. That does not suggest that they should not express their views. The faculty has the same freedom of expression as anyone else, whether expressed individually or in the comfort of some crowd.
The resolution of the faculty expresses some belief that it is the faculty that runs American education, and they view enforcement of published school policy as an attack on academic freedom. They collectively view enforcement of school policy as an "assault."
“President Shafik’s violation of the fundamental requirements of academic freedom and shared governance, and her unprecedented assault on students’ rights, warrants unequivocal and emphatic condemnation,”
There are perhaps broader issues than enforcement of school policies and enforcement of laws.
To be clear, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution. That is not questioned. But, the Court has long held that this right is not absolute. I am free to speak my mind, but not in your living room. That exact scenario recently played during a dinner at the private home of a law school dean at some school out in California. It turns out that even in California they "cannot condone using a social occasion at a person's private residence as a platform for protest."
In this same vein, the folks at Columbia University elected to enact "time, place, and manner" constraints on speech. In a study released in March, the school noted that "there also have been repeated violations of the rules on protests." The report concludes that there are three critical points about protests. The right to protest must be protected, but the protests must "not interfere with the rights of other(s)." And, finally, there is an interest in "combating discrimination and harassment." To meet the three, the school established a place on campus for protests, and it defined the hours during which protests could be held.
The protest noted above exceeded what was allowed by the owners of private property (Columbia). The president of the school issued a warning to the protesters. They chose to ignore her. The president informed the students that suspension could occur. They chose to stay. The president apparently afforded them 24 hours to leave. They did not. They were arrested. They were inconvenienced. But not because anyone is evil, because they chose to stay.
There is a right to free speech in this country. According to some, the U.S. does not rank in the top cohort for protecting expression, finishing in 2024 behind such countries as Denmark, Switzerland, and Jamaica. But, the U.S. is reportedly number 3 in the world for "valuing free speech the most." You have every right to say what you want. I am doing so here.
The tendency seems to be perspective-oriented. Those who protested and ignored saw "evil" and oppression in the schools' reaction(s). They feel mistreated and disrespected. They could have easily left the private property and demonstrated instead somewhere in a public forum. Is it the "what" of protesting or is the "where" the critical point? Is it the message, or the defiance?
Those who own the premises (Columbia) see a group violating policy, trespassing, and potentially creating a dangerous situation for themselves and others. They see an obligation to provide security for their premises and their guests. They likely fear the potential of someone being hurt, and suing them for not protecting them or following their own rules.
Is there a right or wrong? Is there a good or bad?
The point is that the property is private and the owners have rights. The protesters are entitled to their right to express themselves. The two sacrosanct rights collide in this situation. See Rights Collide (February 2016). And as I write this John Cougar Mellencamp resonates through my brain. His lyrics encompass all three of the important lessons from this story.
He delivered Don't Misunderstand Me on Nothin' Matters and What if it Did (Riva 1980)?
"Everybody can do what they want, But they just can't do it here"
You may protest. You may "do what you want." However, that is not an absolute right. Your rights may abut someone else's. The Constitution protects both your right to expression and their right to private property. When they conflict, someone is going to lose. You cannot have your opinions on someone else's property. This is not an afront to your rights. It is a compromise recognizing both rights.
Mellencamp included the Authority Song on his Uh-Huh album (Riva/Mercury 1983). This one had the line
"I fight authority, authority always wins, Well, I fight authority, authority always wins"
And there you have it. In the end, authority always wins. When confronted by the police you will need to follow their instructions. Even if their instructions are insulting and inappropriate. That has happened, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Certainly, the instructions described in that story are distasteful and wrong. But, the target followed police instructions, was not arrested, and then took to social media. He was vindicated in the end.
Thus, the police may sound irrational, illegal, or simply wrong. And, you get to explain their failings later, in court, to a judge. You can take to the court of public opinion later. But, in the moment, the police are the authority, and following their instructions will likely be the best and safest course. There are no absolutes, but disobey the police at your peril. In the moment, the police always have the upper hand.
Finally, turning back to Don't Misunderstand Me, Mellandcamp concludes
"You say that I lack maturity, Stop actin' like a child."
When your actions or inactions result in consequences, remember that you chose them. When the property owner says leave, you leave. Right or wrong can be sorted later. When there are consequences for your actions, put that blame on you. The property owner here gave warning. A full day later, it took action. You were inconvenienced not by their action, but by yours. There is no gain in calling names ("evil"). "Stop actin' like a child."
Sir Isaac Newton was a bit deeper philosopher than Cougar, well perhaps. He noted in his third law that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That is a near absolute. Don't follow directions, suffer consequences. Take action (protest, ignore warning), expect a reaction. Sure, the reaction may never come. But that does not mean you can be surprised when it does.
There is no reason not to have principles. Whether one agrees with a protestor or not is never the issue (unless they are promoting or exalting violence - "fighting words"). Principle is admirable, regardless of whether anyone agrees with you. Disagreement and opposition are no reason to abandon your course. Being arrested for standing up for your beliefs is not wrong or inappropriate.
But do not mistake your absolute right to stand on principle with any freedom to not suffer consequences. Grown-ups know this. Young people will learn it through one path or another.
