LA Times Columnist: They Should Have Killed Gilchrist!
Meghan Daum: The State of Student Activism
For some college protesters, the aura of unrest obscures what's actually being protested.
THE EVENTS at Columbia University on Oct. 4, in which about a dozen students stormed a stage where the founder of an anti-illegal immigration group was speaking, didn't exactly resemble those of April 1968. There were no arrests, no soundtrack by the Grateful Dead, no occupation of the president's office. But considering that most young people are considered to be politically apathetic, you have to credit the Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization for trying.
For trying? Trying what? To shut down free speech? I think we can call that one a win for the retard side. Trying to bully and physically intimidate? Again, a win for the bad guys. To prove they are indeed the political heirs of their socialist progenitors, well, duh!
Judging from the media coverage of the Gilchrist incident, the majority of students today see the protesters not as lionhearted heroes but as obstreperous liabilities to the university's commitment to free speech. In 1968, they might have been regarded as both. But now the tone seems sour, forcing the question of where and why the demonstrators may have gone wrong. Inexperience and lack of leadership? Is the political climate so confused and convoluted that we no longer have a firm grasp on the meaning of activism?Who's this "we" you speak of? When you speak of activism you should recall that the same tactics that were employed against Mr. Gilchrist can and will be employed against these socialist retards. And one doubts they'll be quite so delighted then.
So of course our doughty columnist turns to a sixties radical for sage advice...
Seeking answers to these questions, I called Mark Rudd. A founder of Students for a Democratic Society, Rudd was among the leaders of the Columbia revolt in 1968 and was later a member of the radical Weather Underground. No stranger to the ways in which protest can go astray — he was in hiding from 1970 to 1977 in connection with a bomb-making project that blew up a building and killed three people — he has since owned up to his mistakes and writes and speaks frequently on activism. I thought he could shed some light on the recent fracas at Columbia.You'll be shocked to know that jack-ass boy can't quite bring himself to question these retards...
"The 19-year-old me would have done it exactly the same way," Rudd said from his home in Albuquerque, where he's a math instructor at a community college. "But the 59-year-old that I am now would be on the side of free speech. I would let the Minuteman speak, and I would certainly let the Iranian president speak. But I would also tell the students to understand the difference between organizing and self-expression. Young people are as thoughtful as ever, but they don't believe they can make a difference. They don't know how to organize and build a movement."
"I'm not going to point a finger at these kids and say you're a hoodlum fascist," he said. "I'm just going to wait and see what they do."Since we've already seen these Bozos in action, it's not exactly a mystery what their going to do, is is?
So with all this sage learnifyin' going on how does our columnist end this tripe...
Still, I'll give them an A (OK, maybe a B+) for trying. So does Rudd.Why ask the question if your not actually looking for an answer? Perhaps I'd have to have the amazing depth and breadth of knowledge that can only be had with a J-school degree.
H/T Michelle Malkin
Technorati Tags: jim gilchrist, columbia college, the minutemen, free speech