Thursday, 50 students protested outside of the class taught by the chief justice of the United States, William Rehnquist. The crowd contested his stances on several social issues, including the death penalty, abortion, affirmative action and gay rights. We asked our columnists: Were the protesters in the right when they attacked the political right?
Protests part of democratic process
The roughly 50 people who gathered to protest Rehnquist's record on hot-button issues like abortion, the death penalty and gay rights raise the question posed by every major protest: Are the protesters just ignorant idiots who should be doing something more productive, rather than making a big fuss?
Those of you who think of protests simply as ridiculous wastes of time should realize that protests are a basic tenet of true democracy; hence, they are always appropriate when addressing political leaders. Protests are a tool for the public to make its feelings known, especially to justices like Rehnquist (who are appointed, not popularly elected). Last week's protesters simply wanted to generate discussion on certain issues they view as important and to make their feelings known to the man who represents them.
So long as the protesters avoided violence, disruption of class and unwarranted personal attacks, they should always be viewed as allowable, even appropriate, and not questioned.
The truly ridiculous and tactless protest of the day was that of the Law Students for Free Speech protesting the protesters, claiming that the protesters wished to "censor" Rehnquist. These people need to realize that, using their own reasoning, they were trying to censor the protesters. Wake up and smell the First Amendment!
Brett Berry is a regional development sophomore who thinks having Chief Justice Rehnquist at the UA is a great thing. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Use time for something constructive
No one would say that the protesters last week don't have the right to protest, but the overall value of these protests leaves me wondering why law students aren't using their precious time for something constructive.
Congregating with posters, while a class is conducted in a non-politicized fashion, to attack the political views of an individual who must justify every decision he makes with a solid position in the law itself is useless ÷ it may be better to attack his approach to the law, something actually relevant to the issue at hand. And if the point is to protest decisions handed down by the court, one should remember that, chief justice or not, Rehnquist is one voice out of nine, and for any of his rulings to mean anything, he needs at least four others to join him.
The protesters may have succeeded by creating a limited discourse on the campus, but they are miserable failures in effecting change, the ultimate goal of protesting.
I surely hope that law students know the way our government works well enough to know that the effective way of changing the Supreme Court's handling of things is not making posters and sitting outside a classroom in Tucson.
Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be contacted at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Place social limits on legality
Of course, the people who stood in front of the College of Law building in protest of Chief Justice Rehnquist had every legal right to be there. The real question is whether they should have been there at all. As much as protesters have a right to protest, teachers have the right to teach. All students and teachers deserve the same amount of respect, no matter their personal politics. When Rehnquist comes to the UA, he is here in the capacity of teacher only. Everyone should be honored that he should choose to teach here, whether his views are left, right, up, down or diagonal. Agreeing with his rulings isn't the issue. However, anyone who has agreed with the majority of his decisions probably has serious morality issues.
Why bother protesting some of the decisions that he's already made? Chances are he's probably clever enough to understand that not everyone will agree with his conclusions, and he has certainly heard all of these objections before. The people have chosen to put their faith into the Supreme Court, and that is why that body of able-minded, politically diverse (though possibly less and less so) old people is responsible for the law of the land.
Sara Warzecka doesn't think that capital punishment is a deterrent. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Don't protest Rehnquist for teaching a class
Well, first let me say that I recognize the irony of criticizing a protest of the chief justice of the United States when it's the job of the court to protect the rights given to us by the Constitution, including free speech and the right to protest.
That said, there is a time and a place for exercising those rights, and this is not one of them. Chief Justice Rehnquist came to the UA, like he has done for many years without protest, to teach a class on the Supreme Court, not preach political rhetoric. Students attending his class say he keeps the politics out of the discussions, even to the point of purposefully avoiding talking about issues that may go before the court in the near future.
Let's face it ÷ like him and his rulings or not, he has been the chief justice of the Untied States for 16 years. He is one of the few people in the world, if not the only person, with that kind of experience, and has decided to share that experience with about 130 UA students. We should feel lucky and honored that he has come here and not to any of the other universities in the country. The UA should welcome him for doing so, not greet him with protests and picket lines.
Jason Poreda is a political science and communication senior who has a great respect for the U.S. Constitution and its institutions. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
These people just need to grow up
Protests in general are usually pretty asinine, but this has got to be one of the dumbest ever.
First of all, most public protests are worthless. Some people decide they're going to get a group together to shout generally baseless claims about whatever happens to be bothering them that day, when instead they could have done something that's actually productive. With the time and energy they put into a protest, those people could actually contribute to the resolution of their particular issues. Instead, they decide to sit around and throw a hissy fit.
But this particular protest is even more absurd. The Rehnquist protest only displayed the complete idiocy of the protesters. Justices can't be removed from the Supreme Court except under extraordinary circumstances. What do these people really hope to accomplish?
There's just one last thing: If anyone out there is thinking, "Protests are a good way to impact an issue because it's important for others to know my opinion," you should just stop thinking. Even if it were as important as you think it is for others to hear you, a protest is about the worst way to do it. Respectable causes have an organized movement behind them. A protest is little more than a mob. How much respect do you really think that garners from the general public?
If you're going to do something about an issue, do something productive.
Tim Belshe firmly believes that every right comes with a responsibility and that protesters are usually irresponsible. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
For lack of anything better to do
So, let me get this straight: Each year the chief justice of the United States takes time out of his busy schedule to teach UA law students the finer points of the judicial system, which is basically the equivalent of someone like Rickey Henderson teaching students how to steal second.
And to this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn from the best of the best there is, people have actually launched a protest?
Not since the production of the movie "Waterworld" have we seen such an immense waste of time and effort.
Couldn't these people find an issue that would prove useful to champion, like adding more vegetarian options on campus?
Or perhaps saving poor, young fashion victims from themselves by banning those hideous Ugg snow boots?
Student activists said that the purpose of the protest was to create an open dialogue.
To this weak attempt at justification, I must launch my own little protest.
Quite frankly, I think that most people find it difficult to open up to someone waving placards while trying to make up some sort of angry, witty chant that rhymes with Rehnquist.
It's not that I'm against protesting. I'm just against protests that use out-of-context venues, a la Michael Moore's rant at the Oscars, to push their own agendas.
Susan Bonicillo is a journalism sophomore. She hopes that people will realize that snow boot use is solely reserved for cavemen. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.