From: utzoo!decvax!duke!mcnc!rlgvax!thekid
Newsgroups: net.college
Title: Kirk at Berk
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1057
Posted: Thu Feb 17 14:14:36 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 05:09:15 1983



well, with the pilot flames idling...

Mike you weren't exactly objective... (i'm not either).

anyway, i feel that the whole thing was an exercise in futility.  and
i feel that the students were wrong.  absolutely, finally wrong.

1) what was their purpose?  if it was to confront Kirk's position on the
issues, why not wait for the Q&A session?  why not make a point of
requesting that Kirk have a Q&A session?  why not send her a list of
the questions that they wanted answered during that Q&A session (if
they didn't coincide with her talk, or just to be polite, even if they did).
if the request was phrased reasonably, i can't imagine that Kirk would
have refused.  after all, why is she giving these lectures?  i can't
conceive of what political/power advantages she will derive, i suspect
she enjoys it.  i must conclude that the students had no
desire to actually discuss/debate the issues.  i've always felt that the
people who do such things are trying to intimidate/panic the people who
have taken no stance or an opposing stance.

2) the students have harmed the school, themselves etc.  the next speaker is
going to come with a song of joy in his heart?  right!!!

3) it has been said that the refusal of non-violent revolution
makes revolution inevitable.  folks, that cuts both ways.
the demonstrators have just refused non-violent revolution.

4) Mike, you made quite a point of "concrete examples".  i lean with Bob,
it was HER talk ... i have taught speech, and it is often a good idea to
work your audience into your point ... a good speaker doesn't start a talk
with "point number 1: south africa".  a good lecturer does, but not a good
speaker.

5) i can't claim that the "demonstration" was pointless, similar
demonstrations were highly successful a la Vietnam. the question
that needs to be answered is if this one was successful,
or if other, non-violent means would have been as or more successful
in making the point.  i think most people, however, tend to immediately
close their minds to any argument that is forced upon them.

6) i'm NOT advocating "shut up, johnny, you'll know better when you grow up".
as a reasonably intelligent person, i knew at 16 that i was more intelligent
that the average "adult" who was trying to find his way home.  what you
reported, Mike, was not aggressive, questioning behavior ... it was arrogance,
and what's worse, unjustified arrogance.

7) Mike, i'm sure you know much more than i do about the injustices of
the El Salvador/Guatemala/Phillipines situations.  i make no point of
the `right' or `wrong' of the demonstrators political position.
it just seems that if the remedy of said situations were the real
reason for such demonstrations the methods would be different.
i know some very dedicated people (here in DC) who are working for El
Salvador groups.  they march, they protest, they form church groups,
they raise money, they write congressmen, they canvass ... they DO NOT
cause riots in college auditoriums.

well, thanks for listening,
i'd be interested in responses on or off the net.

p.s. re: point 7, that's not as valid a point as it should be,
ref. civil rights, and some gatherings in Watts for instance.
again, the final unanswerable question is: was there a better way?

	thekid
	mcnc!rlgvax!thekid