Have you seen the video of the pro-abortionist student who vandalized "The Cemetery of the Innocents," a University permitted pro-life display? Watch it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5NeLyMZUYM), before you continue reading. This article offers a brief commentary and suggests a fair course of discipline for the University to adopt.

Some Comments

The video exhibits well the high level of intolerance to which liberals can go to defend their agenda. Many leftists and humanists who constantly boast about "freedom" and "tolerance" will rarely show those virtues to people who oppose them. What they really mean by those appeals is "freedom for me and my leftist ideas but not for anyone who opposes those ideas." Well, wouldn’t everyone enjoy such immunity? You know, the kind of immunity that the classic dictators — Hitler, Stalin, Mao — have made infamous. Their dictate is "right," plain and simple. As the saying goes, "It’s good to be King!"

This particular student’s tantrum amply demonstrates this mentality. Roderick King, a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, plays the dictatorial role well. He shakes his finger authoritatively and shouts at the pro-life demonstrators, "In 1973 it was made a Constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion. It's not your responsibility. Since it's a right, you don't have the right to challenge it."

Where in the world would anyone in this country get the idea that a Supreme Court decision cannot be challenged, overturned, or, going as far as King does, that such a decision can not even be spoken against? Apparently, King has forgotten about another small part of the Constitution — the one called the First Amendment. King reiterated his Constitutional knowledge, "Do not . . . Do not put this in front of all of us to see. This is not your right." King’s bullying thus displays the woeful lack of understanding which allegedly enlightened liberals can have of Constitutional rights. [Mark this well: a college education does not guarantee an education.] Again, "Rights for me but not for you."

What makes the situation more awful is that the pro-life group had the University’s permission for the display, and King himself is a Senator on the Student Government Association. Shouldn’t he know the rules? Shouldn’t he be an example of campus integrity? But when confronted by campus security King tried to justify his vandalism as freedom of speech, "You’re going to arrest me for doing my freedom of speech, and you’re going to let them do theirs?"

"Rights for me but not for you."

The officer defended the pro-lifers’ permitted display, and King baldly retorted, "I don’t care if they have the university’s approval."

"Rights for me but not for you"

How did the school react? Huffington Post cites a statement from the University affirming that it "values free expression" and that King’s behavior exhibited "intolerance that is unacceptable," but that it has tabled any decisions about disciplinary actions until next Fall. This statement has been updated on the University’s website since Huffington’s May 8th article and joined by a statement from the Student Government Association itself. Still, they will not finally decide a course of action until Fall.

One of King’s fellow Student Government officials, Claire Smith, contributed a sassy email in defense of King. The email made its way to pro-life blogger Jill Stanek. Instead of even acknowledging that what King did was abusive and wrong, Smith said he was "in the right" and blamed the pro-life group for King’s disgrace. How is that for fairness and rights?

"Rights for me but not for you."

Thankfully, one University official reprimanded Miss Smith. Via a shared email he told her "You make no sense," and "don’t help anybody," with her stunt, and that her nonsense "creates more confusion," and her comments "inflame the situation."

A Course of Action

Since the body has given itself the Summer to deliberate on the situation, I offer the following as a substantial yet fair action to consider and adopt:

If Mr. King desires to keep his seat on the Senate then he should be required to:

1) make a public apology for his public infringement of freedom of expression, and

2) make restitution to Pointers for Life for his destruction of their time and effort, replacing it with an equal amount of his own time and effort in setting up their next display. This would not be an endorsement of their position on his part, but only a fair restitution of the damages done. Pointers for Life may consider allowing for a reasonable financial contribution from Mr. King in lieu of physical time and effort.

Given these two actions, having demonstrated repentance and good faith, Mr. King should be allowed by the governing body and supported by Pointers for Life to retain his seat on the Senate. Else, the governing body should disallow his reinstatement.

If Mr. King does not desire to remain on the Senate, or is unable to by rule, yet wishes to demonstrate regret for his actions, he should adopt the two actions above as fitting expression of such.

If Mr. King remains unapologetic for his actions, the governing body should:

1) Bar Mr. King from a position on the Senate now and at anytime in the future

2) Require Mr. King to take refresher courses, one covering the Bill of Rights, another on anger management

3) Issue a statement definitively condemning Mr. King’s actions and reaffirming the right of Pro-Life groups to conduct similar displays in the future.

This decision would have the merits of consistently holding that Mr. King’s actions were wrong and should be punished, yet allowing for repentance, restitution, and forgiveness in the light of these. It will also force the University to add genuine substance to its claims to protect "freedom of expression."

If the University does not follow a path similar to the one I have suggested, it will be paying lip service to tolerance while telling its liberals that they will not be punished for vandalism. Go ahead, rip away. If that be the case, Mr. King’s destruction of the Cemetery of the Innocents represents the Death of Freedom as well. 

Further Reading:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/post_63.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/justice_served.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/whoops_king_ree.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/claire_gets_rep.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=63659http://www.uwsp.edu/news/May1incident-update.htm
http://www.uwsp.edu/news/SGArespondsMay1.htm
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65030
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=63659
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/vandalism-of-pro-life-dis_b_100883.html