Shameful attention-mongering

When a handful of demonstrators interrupted the Issam Fares lecture on Feb. 26, they embarrassed themselves and the entire Tufts community. The method of their protest was completely unacceptable, and the motivations were highly questionable. This viewpoint is not about liberals versus conservatives, or pro-war versus anti-war. It is about common decency, manners, and the difference between constructive dialogue and shameful attention-mongering.

Regardless of all other issues, the manner of protest which these individuals engaged in was beyond any boundary of etiquette. As George Herbert Walker Bush was making a plea for greater racial and ethnic understanding in the United States, a small group of individuals began blowing noisemakers, shouting unintelligibly, and waving an American flag defaced with scrawled vulgarities.

When several police officers peacefully removed the offending parties from the lecture hall, one of the individuals waved an extended middle finger at the former President during her entire walk out. Just minutes after Mr. Bush resumed his speech, individuals too cowardly to show their faces began shouting insults at him.

None of these stunts accomplished anything. They lacked any sort of intellectual content. They were just vulgarity for the purpose of drawing attention. I myself use foul language from time to time, but the motivation behind hurling obscene personal insults at an 80-year old man while he lectures on racial understanding is completely unfathomable to me.

The individuals involved will no doubt claim that their stunt was intended as democratic debate and criticism on war with Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the lecture was not about the current issue of war with Saddam Hussein, and Bush said so quite pointedly in his speech.

It certainly was not about raising support for his son. Bush aimed his speech at two valid issues related to "Perspectives on the Middle East": racism following the 9/11 attacks directed toward those of Middle Eastern descent, and the necessity of outside negotiation to end violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Admittedly, his lecture was somewhat simplistic. It was meant to appeal to all political groups. However, that did not prevent these individuals from disrupting his lecture and shouting about a topic he was not here to discuss. Secondly and more importantly, some members of the Tufts faculty had worked very hard to organize a round-table panel to discuss the Bush lecture and the possibility of war with Iraq. Only ten students attended.

From my unscientific head count, at least twice that number were involved with booing and waving vulgar, unconstructive signs at Mr. Bush. Since these individuals did not bring up any concrete issues or arguments with their disruption (especially the American flag with F--- BUSH painted on it), and because they chose not to be involved with a serious round-table discussion, I am forced to conclude that they were more interested in winning 15 minutes of fame instead of fostering any genuine debate on the topic.

In addition, the reasons they gave for staging this disturbance are not very credible. Some have argued that by allowing His Excellency Mr. Issam Fares to choose Mr. Bush Sr. as a speaker, the University was giving tacit approval to the political agenda of President Bush Jr. When one outlines the issue as such, it sounds just as absurd as it is. Furthermore, those who argue this viewpoint seem to forget that just last year, former President William Jefferson Clinton was the guest of the Fares lecture series. No one seemed to think at that time that letting him speak was paramount to endorsing liberal politics. These arguments must be applied equally to both liberals and conservatives -- one cannot be selective.

Furthermore, some have voiced displeasure at the fact that only a handful of selected, pre-screened questions were allowed. Once again, I must immediately remind people of Clinton's lecture, which had the exact same policy. This is not a right-wing conspiracy. It is merely the format for the Fares lecture, regardless of the speaker.

And finally, some expressed anger that Mr. Bush would be speaking without having an opposing viewpoint represented or argued at the same time. Quite bluntly, I respond that it is the Fares lecture series, not the Fares seminar series. This manner of one-sided address has been around for thousands of years -- as long as politicians and political figures have. It is not a unique or sinister creation. Every rational person in the room knows that Bush was presenting his opinion, not some divine truth that they must accept unquestioningly.

There is nothing wrong with publicly opposing war with Iraq. But there is something wrong with repeatedly interrupting an 80-year-old man's speech with vulgarities and noise-makers. There is no possible justification for the sheer level of rudeness displayed by a handful of individuals at the Fares lecture. They disgraced themselves, and their actions reflected poorly on the entire campus community.

Their behavior runs against every rule of common decency that all Tufts students -- indeed, all adults -- should know and understand. My bitterness with these individuals has nothing to do with their political views, and everything to do with their selfish stunts for personal attention that disrupted a major campus function.

They should be ashamed.

<I>Eric Mitton is a senior majoring in history.