After a handful of less than 50 students staged a sit in protest against Ms. Rice speaking at commencement and despite Rutgers President Robert Barchi defended the selection of Rice to speak.

First of all, kudos to the Rutgers President for defending the selection and not bowing to pressures from students and faculty. Secondly, if I were graduating from Rutgers, I would withdraw from the graduation ceremony because these un-American individuals have led Ms. Rice to withdraw her commitment. I hope that the only graduates present for this ceremony are the students that were protesting. Thirdly, I hope that all other people contacted to speak refuse or, if they accept, that they walk up, stand around for five minutes, then tell the students, "That's what the silencing of free speech sounds like," and sit back down.

Interesting... I just read a couple of articles and neither of them expressed the view of the protestors very well... they just said "for her role in the Iraq War" and cited her as a "war criminal"... what, specifically, are they accusing her of?

Regardless, her specific comments on why she declined the invitation were spot on.

she is a wonderful person and a great american.

That's too bad. Even as someone who's fairly liberal, I hate when organizations bow to people protesting for, what I assume is purely partisan political reasons.

The school that I teach at had an opportunity to have one of the highest ranking Democratic senators come and speak to our students at an after school function, and being a relatively conservative community, some vocal parents threatened to protest and ultimately our school administration canceled the event.

I see this as roughly the same type of situation. It's too bad, because people like Rice have an incredible amount of knowledge to share about so many different topics, and whether you're for or against what they stand for, it's always a good thing to hear intelligent, articulate people talk about topics they're involved in.

Twain, that's something that was right in this situation. The University administration did not bow to the protesters. Rutgers' President was not backing down on Rice speaking. He saw it as an opportunity for discussion. Condoleezza Rice decided not to come because she felt she would distract from the students. That's something these protesters could learn from...being more concerned for others than for themselves.

Breaking news? Come on now

Breaking news: I need more moisturizing lotion.

haha is that so you have soft supple hands to masterbate with?

I don't get it? What is the big deal about this?

The students exercised their rights to protest, and did so peacefully (props to them) she could have spoken if she had wanted to.
The administration backed its decision on selecting her. (props to them for not caving)
She responded in the best way that she could have. (props to her for understanding the situation)
The students, all of them, learned a lesson.


Frankly, I am happy to see that some kids actually took action instead of just blogging about it or doing some online petition or facebook group event thing that everybody does these days.

I have never understood why schools try to get celebrities to speak at commencement ceremonies, it totally over-shadows the actual reason for the ceremony. I am satisfied how this turned out. I would also like to add that even if she did go forward with the speech, I would have also been satisfied.

However, to add to this discussion, what would have been the media/public reaction if this were Colin Powell, or the President, or Spike Lee. Would the protesters have been treated by the media how they were? Would they have been labeled anything? Would they have been a double standard applied? Or would it have been the same coverage?

I find it interesting that these kids are being put on a pedestal by CNN's and NBC's but what would have been the storyline if it were not a Republican woman of ethnic minority, rather a more centrist or liberal figure?

The big deal is that those protesters should show more tolerance for points of view that they don't agree with, instead of silencing their opposition. According to these people, we have the freedom of speech so long as we agree with them, otherwise shut up and don't speak out.

These people's idea of freedom of speech is silence.

While I do think it's too bad she canceled the speaking engagement, mdevol's totally got you on this one, Angel. You're saying you think that these people are protesting to shut up the opposite side, but by you criticizing their right to peacefully protest, aren't you advocating exactly the same thing?

I'm not arguing against their right to protest, I am merely asserting that they are wrong in their speech. You have the right to speak...you don't have the right to be correct. Their objections to the things they allege Condoleezza Rice participated in are perfectly fine (setting aside agreement or disagreement). It is their assertion that Condoleezza Rice should have been barred from speaking at commencement that I have a problem with.

Saying that these people should not have protested her speaking in no way infringes upon or seeks to silence their right to speak out against Ms. Rice's alleged actions during her time in the Bush Administration. I only seek to defend that line between speaking freely about your view and attempting to silence your opponents. They crossed that line, I'm defending it. You don't have the right to silence your opponents or to protest for the silencing of your opponents.

It is the student's graduation. They can do whatever they want with it.

Can they? Can a small group of students ruin it for a larger group of students who would have liked to hear Rice speak? Is it ever proper to suppress speech (unless we're talking about someone lying in a crowded theater, "Fire!")? No, it's really not proper to suppress anyone's speech. They had open to them any number of other avenues to protest while respecting the same freedom of speech that they themselves were using. A small minority has silenced someone that they don't like. Not that a large majority would make silencing Rice any better...it most certainly would not. If we're to have the freedom of speech in the United States then we must act in a freedom of speech manner. If we cannot respect for each other the freedom of speech then we should most certainly not expect the government to respect the people's freedom of speech. This small group of students and faculty stole from other students an opportunity to hear a great American speak. Their victims are angry and they have a right to be angry. They have a right to be angry because a small group of students chose the anti-freedom path of enforced silence, rather than the pro-freedom path of engagement and open debate.

Umm... I really haven't followed this story. But I don't see how the above makes any sense. You don't "bar someone" from speaking at a commencement - it isn't a "right" you are taking away. If the students are protesting their commencement speaker, they are protesting the administration's choice in who to invite to speak. I see nothing wrong with them expressing their views on who should be invited (and given an honorary degree, to boot) to their institution to speak...

Suppose the administration invited Hugo Chavez to come speak at commencement... Then would the students have been allowed to protest the invitation?

You can protest the speaker without protesting their speech. You don't, afterall, have to listen to a person's speech. You can choose not to attend. You can engage in debates before the graduation, etc. These students were trying to silence someone they disagreed with, plain and simple. In doing so, they levied an attack on their fellow students and on the idea of freedom of speech.

If Hugo Chavez had been invited to speak at my graduation, I would simply have refused to attend. I wouldn't have been trying to silence him, merely to not be present when he spoke.

meh, your choice, but I still disagree with you.

Who an institution invites to speak publicly on their campus at a campus-wide honorary event and to give an honorary degree to is a reflection upon that institution. This is the institution to which these graduating students have now attached their names. The value of their degree for the rest of their lives, in part, rests with the reputation and respect of that institution.

I think they have a right to express if they feel the institution is making a choice that devalues their degree. In fact, if you think of them as customers, the customer is always right! :)

I don't agree with this group of students in this case, but I just don't see how you can justify saying they shouldn't be able to have the protest.

Where is CNN?