Pity the Terrorists
by Bill Dusty
The ongoing controversy regarding the on-again, off-again speaking engagement by convicted terrorist Ray Luc Levasseur has struck an emotional chord with many of those critical of the decision to allow Levasseur a platform to speak at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In the end, Levasseur was not allowed to attend the talk because of parole restrictions that prevented him from traveling from his home in Maine to Massachusetts. (Levasseur served 20 years in prison for his role in the radical leftist group, United Freedom Front, which claimed responsibility for a series of bombings and bank robberies in the 1970s.) His ex-wife, Patricia – also a former member of the UFF, spoke in his stead.
One of the more ridiculous aspects of this entire ugly episode is the radical Left’s continued insistence that Levasseur is a “political prisoner” in need of understanding – and in some quarters, sympathy. Reading radical left-wing Web sites is like strolling into some twisted version of the Twilight Zone, where Levasseur is hailed as both a hero and a victim. (Lavasseur himself even had the gall to recently accuse the police of threatening his own safety – simply because they protested his speaking engagement. This from a man who co-founded a group that openly went to war with them.) One site – aptly decorated in red with barbed wire – implies that the alleged “atrocities” committed by the U.S. Government are reason enough for groups like Levasseur’s to turn to violence.
Never mind that the methods used by such groups are every bit as wrong as the tactics America or its allies are accused of using. A wrong is a right, you see, so long as it is committed by the Left.
As outrageous as these views are from the radical Left, they are hardly surprising. Radical progressives routinely look up to terrorists as freedom fighters – particularly those who assault America. Purposely targeting and killing innocents, kidnapping politicians, blowing up markets, hostage-taking – all are considered noble traits as long as the goal is to embarrass and weaken the United States or its allies. Levasseur was a founding member of a cowardly group that used bombings and robberies to gain attention and to incite fear in the population. His enemies were the U.S. Government and law enforcement – those same entities that have provided peace and security to millions of Americans, both on and off college campuses, for generations. And for that Levasseur is hailed as a hero by some of the very same people who have benefited the most from a sheltering government and vigilant law enforcement: university professors and their mind-control experiments, the college students of America.
Still another unsurprising aspect of this episode is UMass’s defense of Levasseur’s appearance, calling it a matter of academic “freedom of speech.” The professors and students who arranged and supported Levasseur’s talk insist that he has a constitutional right to speak at the college. Unfortunately, that same right is apparently not owed to those who don’t prescribe to the left’s shared progressive philosophy. Conservative speakers at UMass are routinely shouted-down and silenced by angry mobs of left-wing students. Tolerance and diversity, it seems, are only good traits if everyone thinks exactly the same way. Stray from the progressive mindset, and you will be driven out.
In truth, neither Levasseur nor anyone else has any inherent right to speak at UMass. As a publicly-funded institution, the university’s primary obligation is to address, first and foremost, the interests and concerns of the taxpayers and their children who attend classes there. They do this by educating students using the programs and curricula of the college, not by sponsoring terrorists and other radicals simply to stick a finger in the eye of those they disagree with. If everyone had a constitutional or academic right to speak at colleges and universities, then administrators would put a stop to the shout-downs and podium-chargings carried out by left-wing students at conservative forums. This does not happen.
In a May, 2009 article in the Valley Advocate, writer Cathy Young talked about the hypocrisy of progressive students who carry the banner of “Free Speech” while at the same time not allowing the same freedom to those they disagree with. Excerpts from the article:
On March 11, the Republican Club at UMass hosted Don Feder, a conservative journalist, addressing the subject of hate speech and hate crimes. Feder believes that legislation which singles out hate crimes with special penalties, rather than treating all violent crime equally, amounts to unconstitutional punishment of bad speech or bad thoughts. He also disputes the notion of a hate crime epidemic in America.
A group of left-wing students announced their intent to protest Feder’s appearance. The campus police then demanded the organizers pay an added $444 for security, nearly tripling the costs to the club.
It’s bad enough to place a burden on unpopular views by requiring student organizations to shoulder extra costs for hosting controversial speakers. It’s doubly outrageous when, even with the extra costs, the controversial speech is still silenced. [...]
A genuine liberal would be embarrassed by these actions. But in some quarters, intolerance of dissent is now a cause for self-congratulation. When Feder noted that he’s spoken on numerous college campuses and has never experienced anything of the sort, one student could be heard shouting, “Go UMass!”
A letter writer to the Advocate later dismissed Young’s concerns, stating in part that since Feder could talk anywhere else in the United States, the students at UMass had every right to restrict his speech there. That, of course, is just like saying, “since a person can speak freely in Japan, it is perfectly acceptable for China to silence that person in their country” – a notion that very many liberals would find ridiculous. But since the person in our case is a conservative, let the silencing begin. (In the above Advocate citation, the $444 security fee was later reimbursed by the college.)
More and more, these days, the faculty members at UMass and other colleges seem to be living in a cultural vacuum – entirely unaware of, or uncaring of, the concerns and interests of the community around them. The idea that the vast majority of the population does not share in their radical leftist beliefs appears to have completely escaped them. That an invitation to Levasseur would incite heartache and loathing in the community seems not to have bothered the inviting professors at all. Instead, they’ve looked only to their well-indoctrinated charges – the students they’ve spent the last couple of years carefully molding into dependable socialist radicals – for understanding and approval. It’s the only world they know.
Examples of academic arrogance such as the Levasseur invitation have, unfortunately, long-ago become commonplace in America’s more liberal colleges. And yet they still manage to dumbfound those who witness them.
PDF
2 Responses for “Pity the Terrorists”
Comments are closed
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
Wow, you totally fail to get it don’t you? The point isn’t freedom of speech (Levasseur clearly can speak all he wants in Maine), nor is it the parole boards caving in to pressure from the police lobby in denying his permit to travel.
The whole point is to provide a venue in an academic setting for students (regardless of their individual political stances) to get to understand what motivates an individual to take such actions to the level of violence and killing he did, as well as to understand the legal and social ramifications of the trial on sedition.
In the end, the end it doesn’t matter whether the general populace condones or approves of any specific speaker, the university has provided an oppurtunity for students to learn, regardless of any protests by special interest groups at odds with those in attendence. The concept of academic freedom is maintained (despite Patrick’s attempt to quash it).
Also recall, that Ben Franklin and others that history views as “freedom fighters” were branded terrorists by the British Crown. Don’t be a fool to so easily swallow the labels imposed by others, and use your intelligence to make your own conclusions.
Wow, you totally didn’t understand my article, did you?
The notion that Levasseur’s invitation was meant to provide an opportunity for students and faculty to (as you put it) “get to understand what motivates an individual to take such actions to the level of violence and killing he did,” is a lie. This excuse is commonly given by progressive academics and their robotic mind control subjects (their students) in order to justify having radical socialist/Marxist militants speak at UMass, among other colleges. But it’s all horse crap. Liberal professors and students don’t want radical leftists to speak on campus in order to better understand them. They want them there because they admire them, and – much like a rock star – they want to see their hero live, on stage.
If the liberal faculty and students at UMass really were interested in “better understanding” the motivations of militant factions, then one would think that somewhere down the road – among all of the invitees down through the years, they somehow might have managed to fit in a few right-wing militant groups or individuals along with all the left-wing radicals that make their list.
But no.
In fact, when even a moderate group of conservatives is invited by student Republicans, they are routinely shouted down and silenced by liberal students who have no desire at all to “better understand” their motivations.
This is precisely why UMass earned criticism from the renowned free speech activist (and left-wing radical) Harvey Silvergate, who commented:
If free speech is what gives value to the campus “marketplace of ideas,” UMass Amherst would long ago have gone bankrupt. [...]
For freedom of speech to function, its supporters must be willing to apply it equally, especially to speech with which they disagree. Though the Levasseur incident saw faculty asserting its academic freedom rights — as the UMass administration kowtowed to outside pressure — it also exposed the professoriate as one-sided. Defending only controversial speech on one half of the political divide is a formula for hollowing out this time-tested constitutional guarantee and academic axiom. [...]
There is a certain irony, then, in seeing a faction of the UMass faculty appear to come to the rescue of free speech and academic freedom, knowing that the same faculty cannot be counted on when political speakers whose views they disapprove of are threatened.
(Thanks to Tommy Devine for reporting the above quotations.)