zrm (02/20/83)
Mr. Glasser: You admit the students' heckling to the realm of "reason" by comparing their attitude toward Mrs. Kirkpatrick with your atitude toward a man whose evil is incomparable to any in history. Does this make their attitude, or your argument, reasonable? What are you trying to say? What it seems to me you are saying is that it is OK for these students not to be reasonable. If that is what you are saying, the point becomes as difficult to argue as a matter of faith. You have decided they are right and nothing will change your mind. Reason is a very cold blooded thing, and if, say, Yassir Arafat were to give a lecture in this country I imagine there are people who would consider it their duty to behave in an extremely unreasonable way toward Mr. Arafat. It is the experience of those persons families, friends and countrymen that drives them to their unreasonableness. But those students in Berkeley acted in ignorance. They were not blinded by rage but by stupidity. Cheers, Zig
turner (02/24/83)
#R:mitccc:-35600:ucbesvax:2900007:000:924 ucbesvax!turner Feb 20 18:51:00 1983 Dear Ziggy, You say that "those students at Berkeley" acted with blind stupidity, rather than in blind rage. You say that they were acting in ignorance. Not quite knowing what this "blindness" is that seems somewhat more FACTUALLY informed than either you or Ms K., I am wondering about the definition and context of this "ignorance." What is it that they are ignorant of? Please be specific. Also, while I was not in the audience, the rage that the protesters felt was strong enough to survive translation to a video screen - it was quite in evidence. No snap judgements, if you please. Again, the question is: what we're the demonstrators ignorant of? And don't say "basic civil liberties" - this is what we are trying to define here. (Or rather, one of these liberties: freedom of expression.) You imply that you know the answer. What is it? Please reply to the net. Michael