Share:

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment, which allows us to address issues and voice our concerns. The discretion with which we exercise our rights, however, is what troubles most protesters.One who chooses to exercise this freedom must always remember that there is a place and time to do so as long as you are not disruptive.

Recent student activity at both UC Irvine and UC San Diego has begged the question of whether the students were exercising their freedom of speech or just being uncivilized delinquents.

With limitations levied on the First Amendment, school administration seems to have turned away from the issues and has instead looked towards enforcing the restrictions instead. Consequently, those with actual concerns become the enemy.

At UCI, 11 protesting students were arrested for briefly interrupting Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech. The students, now dubbed the Irvine 11, face possible academic consequences.

Motivated to protest by the Israeli attack on Gaza, their brief and sporadically thrown statements at Oren during his speech are now being used against them for disciplinary action.

But is disciplinary action really necessary? All 11 students peacefully surrendered themselves to authorities and Oren ultimately finished his speech. He even admitted that he “wished the students had stayed.”

There are no clear criteria for which the students should have to face consequences. Clearly if Oren himself said that he wished to “address” the Irvine 11, he knew his image had been negatively impacted.

UCSD’s “Compton Cookout” also raised eyebrows as a group of students from Pi Kappa Alpha, a campus fraternity, organized the themed party during Black History Month. While students and administration took action to shine light on discrimination, organizers were merely suspended by their organizations.

The incident was a cheap shot at black stereotypes that offended students of color. Invites were sent out via Facebook and suggested that attendees arrived in rowdy, urban fashion.

Despite the social perspective the organizers had on the black community, there is not a single thing the school administration could do to reprimand the students without being unconstitutional. It has absolutely no authority in limiting student expression because the organizers did not disrupt academic activities.

The Irvine 11 have snatched the unfair portion of the bargain. Their outspokenness during Oren’s speech was their way of bringing about peace; however, it is the same thing that has put their education in danger.

While those students await their fate, the party organizers at UCSD are safe, despite the fact that they’ve fulfilled a legacy of racism and have given life to stereotypes at the expense of ethnically diverse students.

UC administrators have done their schools a major disfavor by choosing to pay attention to students’ infringements on the restrictions rather than acknowledging the message they are trying to convey. Protesting students, like the Irvine 11, will be left with the impression that their voices will not be heard and that demeaning behavior, as demonstrated by the “Compton Cookout” organizers, is allowed.

If administrators continue to pay more attention to the procedures, then evidently free speech is an extremely loose term.

Follow: