Respect has become a lost virtue in the modern culture.
Presidential candidates resort to mudslinging tactics and dehumanizing opponents. While universities are the most common breeding ground for this movement, with numerous protests and chaos ensuing every time a controversial debate arises, this new trend has evolved even further. This lack of respect has reached the sanctity of United Nations meetings.
Walkouts and heckling cannot and should not be tolerated during speeches. They do not allow for constructive debate and turn a speech into a mockery. It takes away from the argument the speaker is presenting as well as defining roles of good and bad: Those who disrupt are almost always portrayed in a negative light.
An audience attends a speech because it is genuinely interested in the point of view of the speaker. If these protesters wish only to attend speeches in order to disrupt the event and invalidate the speaker’s point, then they have no right to be there. They should have the common courtesy to hear the speaker’s perspective without solely trying to push through their own agenda.
Last week, the United States led a walkout while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, spoke at the U.N. General Assembly. This was not the first time, as walkouts have been engineered numerous times in past years ““ always when Ahmadinejad begins to discuss his personal beliefs.
It is easy to walk out during speeches or to yell back at the speaker, but those are some of the most disrespectful actions to take, and they create conflict on a personal level, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. They also present a sense of denial for those who participate in such activities; they cannot handle the stance of the speaker, so they heckle or cause a ruckus in order to disregard the argument.
The members of the U.N. did not walk out on Ahmadinejad, they walked out on the country of Iran and its entire population, insulting each and every citizen of Iran. Ahmadinejad represents his country and its people. Though members of the U.N. may not like him because of his beliefs, the people of Iran deserve the right to be heard.
The problem has infiltrated the depths of colleges across America. Students use walkouts and abuse the First Amendment to humiliate speakers, rather than trying to create a productive debate.
In 2010, members of the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine were arrested under charges of disturbing a speech by the Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. Regardless of the legal circumstances surrounding the situation, one thing is clear: The union members clearly decided to attack him rather than participate in a civil discussion.
Ultimately they were all charged and convicted of conspiracy to disrupt a meeting and of disrupting a meeting. This act not only took away from the speech, but it made the students look like villains. While trying to make a point, acting in this manner resulted in nothing except a fair share of name-calling and arrests.
Yet, there have been instances of civil engagement during speeches at a university. David Horowitz, well-known conservative media personality, gave a speech entitled “Intellectual Terrorism” at UCLA this past spring quarter. Horowitz was highly protected with security, both at the entrance and surrounding him, anticipating some sort of defaming act that has become so common on university grounds, but what he received instead was the exact opposite.
Civility had finally won a battle; instead of rants against Horowitz, students presented their qualms against his beliefs through a civilized Q&A session. Though there were students who walked out during the lecture, the overall event was under control. Many expected rioting and fierce protesting, yet neither of these ever came to fruition. The participants managed to keep the nature of a debate intact without allowing emotions to control them.
Debates should focus on attacking the words of the speaker, not the speaker as a person. A debate cannot exist without an atmosphere of respect. Shouting and walking out does make one’s argument better, instead it makes it more of a personalized attack rather than intellectual criticism. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but what everyone does not have is a right to insult another person. Childish antics like walk-outs and heckling are attempts to personally humiliate the speaker. We are old enough to combat an idea with a well-developed argument, not with a high school mentality.
If the members of the United Nations have a problem with Ahmadinejad’s theories, then develop a counter-argument against them; if some of the members of the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine had issues with what Oren was saying, they should have brought it up during the Q&A session. No matter what idea a person represents, respect is universal.
UCLA has proven it can combat a debate with a debate, without resorting to these primitive tactics. It should strive to become even better, phasing out the disrespectful gestures that have characterized university speeches. I do hope we as a society can resurrect the idea of respect, because without it we degrade into nothing more than primordial animals.