From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner Newsgroups: net.college Title: Re: Kirk at Berk - (nf) Article-I.D.: ucbcad.720 Posted: Mon Feb 28 18:24:23 1983 Received: Tue Mar 1 06:49:47 1983 #R:rlgvax:-105700:ucbesvax:2900009:000:3481 ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 03:10:00 1983 to thekid - Without disagreeing with all you say here, I nevertheless take exception to the following (in point 7 above): ....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. SAINTES is no less dedicated. They feel, however, that they have just about exhausted marching, protesting (of the "polite" sort), forming church groups, raising money, writing congressmen and canvassing. They have done all those things, and the administration CONTINUES on its course. There is a limit to what can be done "constructively" when you don't have the resources of the government, which itself makes no more than a pretense of acting "constructively". It is, in fact, this pretense which is the source of the rage that led to heckling Kirkpatrick: an awful abuse of the trust implicitly placed in her. So what is "the better way", here? Can you think of one that hasn't been exhausted? To suggest that we simply persevere, that we did wrong by losing our patience, places the burden totally on us. Innocent people will go on being maimed, killed and imprisoned because WE stepped outside the bounds of PROPRIETY?! I respectfully and politely request a big, fat break. The second thing that irked me about point 7 is this: I have seen riots. I have lived in Berkeley most of my life, and seen most of the worst disturbances, and let me tell you: what happened in that auditorium was nothing like a riot. There was no provocation of the kind that I witnessed in the late 60's and early 70's on the part of both the police and ultraleft terrorist/provocateurs. You implicitly and wrongfully put SAINTES in the latter category when you talk of "riots". Please look this word up in a dictionary. Then skip toward the front and find the word "apologist". (The word "apology" will be right near by, if you feel a sudden need for it.) Or did you intend this meaning ? What do you think of the recent incident at a Seven Sisters college where Kirkpatrick was "denied a forum" because the administration there could not guarantee the police protection that Kirkpatrick wanted? Which is to say, protection against heckling. Are the faculty members at Vassar who signed a petition of protest against Kirkpatrick's appearance threatening the same thing that happened to her at Berkeley, and thus effectively "inciting to riot"? The newspapers are willing to play up the "riot" view uncritically. So, to avoid bad treatment at the hands of editors, we'll just slog on, marching, canvassing, forming church groups... In 1968 in Germany, the student movement was heavily slandered by the main newspaper publisher, Axel Springer. Students were "drug addicts", "perverts", "bums". During a state visit by the Shah of Iran, a student died at the hands of a rightist assassin during the obligatory protest. The killer was gleeful to have gotten one of the "perverts". Shortly afterward, the printing plants of Springer were surrounded by an outer ring of enraged students and an inner ring of machine-gun nests. If it comes to that here, I know where I'll be. And you? Afraid, But Only A Little, Michael Turner