Dead Poets Society Lied: What the Movies Don't Teach You About Student Resistance (on Irvine11)

John Hrabe
Huffington Post
9/25/2011

...In February 2010, members of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Association systematically interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. On September 23, an Orange County jury found ten of the students guilty of misdemeanor charges and sentenced them to three years of informal probation...

To be clear, I'm not defending the content of the protests, nor do I support the students' outbursts. Freedom of speech doesn't include a heckler's veto, and the students could have protested the ambassador in more constructive ways...

But, Dr. Smith also wisely points out that the heckler's veto wasn't the only First Amendment question in this case. There was also the issue of whether Muslim students were singled out and selectively prosecuted because of their views.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the District Attorney selectively prosecuted," said Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Greater Los Angeles Area, "because the students were Muslim, the speaker was an Israeli diplomat, and the verbal protests centered on Israel's long history of war crimes."

It strains credulity to think that the politics of the speakers didn't affect the decision to prosecute. Had this been a raucous student council meeting about the cost of tuition, the case would have ended in a campus administrative hearing. You'd be laughed out of any prosecutor's office if you tried to turn it into a criminal case. Most hecklers not only avoid prosecution, but get a bigger platform because of their disruptions. Anyone remember Rep. Joe Wilson and Joe the Plumber?

In Orange County, Muslim Americans have other reasons to believe that there's a double standard for free speech. Earlier this year, Villa Park City Councilwoman Deborah Pauly protested an Islamic charity event and exclaimed, "I know quite a few Marines who will be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise." Just this month, San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve said at a council meeting that he named his dog Muhammad to intentional provoke Muslim Americans and make a statement about free speech. These incidents explain why Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, described the verdict as keeping an "open wound" in the community.

If you protect the offensive, anti-Islamic rhetoric of Orange Curtain councilmembers, you have to protect the rights of the UC Irvine Muslim Student Association. As Ayloush put it, "No topic should be off limits and no public official or country should be above criticism."

When controversial speakers are prosecuted under ridiculous "disturbing the peace" statutes, it sets up a forced choice for freedom. Every speaker must live in fear of prosecution, or worse, only the dissenting speakers get quashed. Either scenario is unacceptable because both outcomes lead to less speech.

Our natural reaction to contrasting views should always be to speak out ourselves, not shut our opponents up. Muslim students get the same First Amendment protections as Israeli ambassadors. I'm entitled to my review of Dead Poets Society; and Roger Ebert has a right to his -- even if he's wrong.

Read Full article

Khutbah: "The Best Jihad: Challenging Injustice"

My Khutba/sermon commenting on the Irvine11 verdict, recent FBI abuses, Palestinian state bid at the UN, execution of Troy Davis, Islamophobic comments by OC councilmembers, and our need to respond to injustice.

Khutba was delivered on September 23, 2011 at the Islamic Institute of Orange County in Anaheim.


Khutbah: "The Best Jihad: Challenging Injustice" by Br. Hussam Ayloush. from Islamic Institute of Orange Cty on Vimeo.

Stand with the Irvine 11 Townhall meeting at IIOC, Anaheim

Stand with the Irvine 11 Townhall Meeting at IIOC from Islamic Institute of Orange Cty on Vimeo.

Ayloush and Rabbi Fischer discuss Irvine 11 on local PBS/KOCE

CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush debates Rabbi Dov Fischer of Young Israel of Orange County about 11 students protesting Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at UCI on February 8.



Read more:
On the Irvine 11 - Ayloush and Lafferty: Rude, unpopular speech worth defending (Orange County Register)

On the Irvine 11 - Ayloush and Lafferty: Rude, unpopular speech worth defending

By HUSSAM AYLOUSH and JAMES LAFFERTY

2/23/2010
The Orange County Register
Opinion

Eleven students heckled Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at different intervals at a UC Irvine event recently and set off a debate on what constitutes free speech and when it should be protected.

The right to freely express oneself, particularly against government policies, is a cherished freedom protected by our Constitution. That's why we were not surprised when people protested at health care town halls, when a congressman interrupted the president's address to Congress, or when audience members disrupted a speech by former White House lawyer John Yoo at UCI in 2005.

While some may argue that the students' tactics against Oren were loud and rude, our opinions on the politeness of such conduct are irrelevant. The students merely voiced their passionate discontent on a grave political and moral matter they deemed worthy of their activism.

Israel has undertaken a massive public-relations campaign to salvage its negative image over its violations of international humanitarian and human-rights law, and Oren – as the Israeli government's representative – must have anticipated vocal audience opposition, the same way supporters of Apartheid-era South African government speaking at U.S. campuses did in the 1980s.

Though their protest was delivered in a loud and shocking manner intended to express the gravity of Israel's immoral policies and actions, the students were nonviolent, nonthreatening and peacefully left the public gathering as soon as they spoke.

Some try to characterize this incident as a case of Oren's right to free speech. News reports and videos of the event clearly show that his talk was not wholly disrupted. The interrupting remarks amounted to no more than 10 seconds by each student, barely two minutes total, versus Oren's allotted time of about an hour. Oren left the stage for some time, but then returned and, despite shout-outs from supporters and opponents, was able to continue his speech.

Public speakers, including ourselves, know that speaking on highly charged topics invites opposing viewpoints. Our own public appearances over the past 15-plus years have been interrupted by jeers, heckling and protests. And, although we don't enjoy being subjected to that, we know that the freedom exercised by some who rudely interrupt us is the same that protects our right to publicly and freely speak our minds on important political matters.

We are troubled to see that, for exercising their right to free speech, the 11 students at UCI were cited by campus police and faced the threat of disciplinary action, including possible expulsion, not only by the university, but also potential criminal charges by the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

It is incomprehensible that an institution of higher learning that claims to engage in and promote the free exchange of ideas now seeks to punish its students for peacefully expressing political views, however unpopular, at a student-organized event.

Over the years, there have been countless instances of protest activities during campus speeches, including at UCI, with no comparable disciplinary action taken that we know of. By disproportionately and selectively punishing one set of protesters and not others, including the counterprotesters at the same event, who cursed, threatened and even assaulted students, the university has chosen to censure a particular set of political views – the legitimate criticism of Israel.

Freedom of speech is a two-way street, and it must not be restricted to what is popular, respectful, or appropriate speech, though such guidelines might be preferred by us and others. Oren has the right to speak, even if it is to justify Israel's occupation and brutal policies. Similarly, the students have the right to dissent, even discourteously.

Both sides exercised that right.

We urge the university to drop all charges and disciplinary actions against the 11 students and redouble efforts to reach out to all students, including Muslim and Jewish students. Not doing so will cause a chilling effect on First Amendment rights on college campuses and our society at large, and leave many students feeling excluded and unwelcome.

Islamic group defends student protest (Daily Pilot)

District attorney should drop charges against 11 students because the incident took place on campus, says CAIR.

By Tom Ragan
The Daily PilotTuesday, February 16, 2010

A pro-Islamic group is urging UC Irvine to drop disciplinary actions against a group of students who were arrested after protesting the Israeli ambassador’s presence on campus by intermittently interrupting him during a speech last week.

In all, 11 students, many of whom yelled and screamed in protest, were detained and cited by campus police for causing a ruckus during Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech. Their tones at times reached fever pitch, according to scenes from the event that were captured in a video posted on YouTube.

Oren was trying to speak about diplomatic relations between Israel and the United States, but was interrupted so often that he had a hard time delivering his message, UCI officials said.

The matter has been forwarded to the Orange County district attorney for possible criminal prosecution, but a decision won’t be made until later this week because the office has not yet received the complaint, said Susan Schroeder, spokeswoman for the D.A.’s office.

But the D.A.’s office should drop the charges because the incident occurred on campus, said the Anaheim office of a pro-Islamic group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We feel this is a campus event. It was noncriminal, nonviolent and nonthreatening,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR’s Greater Los Angeles Area office. “Off-campus police should not be involved in such matters. The D.A.’s office shouldn’t be involved in such matters. It was just a bunch of students who spoke out at a student event.”

If the campus decides to pursue disciplinary action, then it would only be perceived as “selective enforcement,” Ayloush said, adding that the campus probably does not want to be viewed in such a light.

“We strongly see the protest as a matter of free speech, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees,” he said. “Students complain all the time, they interrupt all the time, or they boo people all the time. This is nothing new. People have yelled to me, ‘Go home, you terrorist,’ and I take it. I don’t complain.”

UCI spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said the process of disciplinary action has already begun and that the university will treat the case “just as it would with any student who faces university discipline.”

She said the students could face disciplinary consequences ranging from a simple warning to a suspension to all-out expulsion. She did not give a timeline on when a decision would be made.

This is not the first time that the Muslim Student Union or a pro-Palestinian group have stirred the pot at UCI as it pertains to Israel-Palestinian relations abroad.

The same can be said of pro-Israeli groups, including the Zionist Organization of America. Demonstrations by both factions have become quite common on campus.

At one point a few years ago, the pro-Palestinian groups during one of its demonstrations compared the plight of the Palestinians to the Holocaust, a view they announced on the back of T-shirts sold at the event.

Jewish students took offense to the comparison.

Eventually, the Zionist Organization of America complained to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, calling the atmosphere at UCI campus “anti-Semitic.” It cast partial blame at the university for standing by and not doing anything about what it viewed as a “hostile environment.”

Ultimately, investigations stemming from complaints in 2004 and 2007 were conducted by the Office of Civil Rights, and after three years of “extensive investigation,” it was determined that there was no basis to back up ZOA’s claims, according to Lawhon...

On campus, is heckling free speech? Or just rude? (USA Today)

On campus, is heckling free speech? Or just rude?
By Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed
USA Today, 2/17/2010

Every few minutes during a talk last week at the University of California at Irvine, the same thing happened. A student would get up, shout something critical of Israel, be applauded by some in the audience, and be led away by police.

The speaker —Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States— was repeatedly forced to stop his talk. He pleaded for the right to continue, and continued. University administrators lectured the students and asked them to let Oren speak. In the end, 11 students were arrested and they may also face charges of violating university rules. (See video of the event)

Those who interrupted Oren, not surprisingly, are strong critics of Israel who believe that they must draw attention to the Palestinian cause. But an argument put forward by some national Muslim leaders in the last week has sent the discussion in a new direction. Those groups maintain that interrupting a campus speech — even repeatedly — should be seen as a protected form of speech.

"The students voiced political views to shame the representative of a foreign government embroiled in controversy for its outrageous violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Delivering this message in a loud and shocking manner expressed the gravity of the charges leveled against Israeli policies, and falls within the purview of protected speech," said a letter released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. That statement followed one by Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which said: "These students had the courage and conscience to stand up against aggression, using peaceful means. We cannot allow our educational institutions to be used as a platform to threaten and discourage students who choose to practice their First Amendment right."

Those statements are quite different from the view of Irvine officials. Michael Drake, the chancellor, had this to say after the interruptions: "This behavior is intolerable. Freedom of speech is among the most fundamental, and among the most cherished, of the bedrock values our nation is built upon. A great university depends on the free exchange of ideas. This is non-negotiable. Those who attempt to suppress the rights of others violate core principles that are the foundation of any learning community. We cannot and do not allow such behavior."

All of this raises the question: Is interrupting a campus speaker ever a legitimate form of free expression?...

"That's definitely not free speech," Jarret S. Lovell, a professor of politics at California State University at Fullerton, said of the interruptions at Irvine and similar tactics elsewhere. Lovell is a scholar of protest and the author of Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Conscience (New York University Press).

Not only does Lovell think the tactic is wrong in that it denies a hearing to whoever is being interrupted, but he thinks it fails to win over anyone. "When you only hear sound bites" from those interrupting, the students come off as intolerant, he said. "There are so many better ways to demonstrate."

...As one who identifies himself as critical of Israel's policies and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, Lovell said that the Irvine hecklers should realize what will happen next. "It's only a matter of time until Norman Finkelstein speaks at UCI and Jewish groups shout him down," Lovell said of the controversial scholar viewed by many Jews as anti-Israel...

Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defended his group's defense of the interruptions at Irvine. He said that it was unfair to say that the students who interrupted were trying to shut down the talk because they voluntarily left the room after each interruption, and let the talk start again (until the next outburst at least) and eventually let it finish. "Let's put it in perspective. The speaker had an hour to speak, and they each had less than a minute."

Ayloush noted that he is frequently interrupted when he gives lectures, and that it goes with the territory. "We firmly believe that both the representative of the foreign government had the full right to speak and the students being addressed have the right to express their speech, too," he said.

Asked why it might not be better to organize protests with a rally outside or leaflets or signs that don't interrupt a talk, Ayloush said such approaches might well be better, but that this was beside the point and that he wouldn't exclude the heckling strategy used at Irvine. "These are all tactics and different methods of expressing their free speech, and everyone might have their favorite," he said. "The First Amendment was never intended to be exclusively polite and courteous."

Yet another perspective holds that some, modest interruption (less than what took place at Irvine) may be seen as an expression of free speech that doesn't limit the right of a speaker to be heard.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said he holds that view, although he said this was not a question on which AAUP has a policy. And he said that he believes that "most faculty members regard interruption as unacceptable."

Nelson said he is a fan of the speech/protest policy of the University of Michigan. That policy says: "Within the confines of a hall or physical facility, or in the vicinity of the place in which a member of the university community, invited speaker, or invited artist is addressing an assembled audience, protesters must not interfere unduly with communication between a speaker or artist and members of the audience. This prohibition against undue interference does not include suppression of the usual range of human reactions commonly displayed by an audience during heated discussions of controversial topics. Nor does this prohibition include various expressions of protest, including heckling and the display of signs (without sticks or poles), so long as such activities are consistent with the continuation of a speech or performance and the communication of its content to the audience."

Along these lines, Nelson said that some brief demonstration against a speaker doesn't strike him as an assault on free speech "so long as the speaker is allowed to continue." He added that "an interruption that signals extreme objection to a speaker's views is part of the acceptable intellectual life of a campus, but you have to let the speech go on," and he said that he did not believe that repeated interruptions were appropriate in that they would disrupt a talk. "Free speech doesn't mean you are able to trample a campus event."

While defending such a tactic as potentially consistent with ideals of free expression, Nelson added that he personally always favored other approaches. Nelson was at a speech by John Sexton, the president of New York University, after that institution ended recognition of its graduate student union and fought off a strike by supporters of the union. Nelson said he walked to the front of the auditorium, turned his back on Sexton and stood silently through the talk. While the speech was not about graduate unions, Nelson said he wanted to show "my rejection of everything he stood for." But he said he wouldn't have interrupted...