Protest Was Learning Experience

December 8 Letter

To the Editor:

As there will undoubtedly be many articles and letters about the Larry Summers protest in this week’s Review, I would like to raise some questions/points that may be left out. I saw Monday as a learning experience for all those involved and I welcome productive responses. 
Were the protesters offensive? In 1998, several Oberlin students and other Ohio activists disrupted a speech being given by Secretary of State Madeline Albright at Ohio State University on the eve of renewing the bombing of Iraq, verbally holding her accountable for the more than one million Iraqis killed by U.S./U.N. bombing and sanctions. The protest earned national media attention and bombing was called off. I have since heard Oberlin students, residents, faculty and administrators refer to this event with great pride. So why then do many of these same people consider what happened in Finney on Monday to be offensive? One reason I have heard is that anyone of any viewpoint should be allowed to speak uninterrupted. My response to this is twofold. One, Summers was not prevented from speaking. In fact he spoke for 40 minutes, twice the length of time he told the College he would speak for. If protesters wanted to stop him from speaking altogether they would have done something different. A conscious choice was made to allow him to speak but to make that process uncomfortable for him. Two: while it is true that everyone has a right to free speech, there are times when preventing someone from speaking sends such a strong message to the speaker and the public that is an effective tactic. Oberlin’s history is filled with people using tactics like this to make a morally imperative point. I would hope that if a Hitler or a Pinochet came to speak at Oberlin we would do more than politely wait for the Q&A session to hold them accountable for their actions. I agree that the tactics that were used were not effective. Many people who went to the speech opposed to Summers’s policies left siding with him and this is a regrettable outcome. The tactics may also have been annoying to many people, but I disagree that they were offensive. In the recent past, Summers has promoted exporting toxic waste to developing countries which he has deemed “under-polluted.” On Monday, Summers defended sweatshops and “free” trade zones, arguing that people choose to work in them, neglecting to mention his own failure to provide alternatives.
These are only two of a countless number of examples of Summers’ racist and classist politics. You may have thought that the protest was annoying, but compared to the negative impact Summers’ policies have around the world, was the protest really so out of line? It is my belief that a little bit of annoyance, a little acting outside the norms of civility to challenge the status quo is both important and necessary. 

–Jackie Downing
College junior