The other day, I was walking across campus to have lunch with my wife. As I passed the Free Speech Area, I was assaulted with some sort of very vocal group. The group was protesting some sort of perceived injustice, claiming the civil rights of a “disenfranchised” group were being violated.
Did this assault on the peace of my day affect me? Absolutely. It made me less sympathetic to their cause.
I think the effectiveness of protest and the various means to change circumstances is an important topic. At Texas Tech, we have many groups and they all possess competing voices, trying to advance their perspectives on the crowd. So many voices espouse truth, but some are blatantly wrong. The goal of these groups is to promote a dialogue, in which students and others may dissect truth and ethics from fiction and lie.
Protest is an appeal to emotion. Those who protest in large demonstrations and angrily yell into microphones basically tell me their argument cannot be stated in logical, convincing terms. To me, at least, the reliance in emotion tells me the logic of their argument is relatively weak, so they must turn to other means to accomplish their goals, regardless of whether their argument is correct.
Obviously, calling to others on the sidelines is a method to bring attention to your message, but loud, vocal, angry calls of derision make most rational people cringe. It does not create effective conversation. Both left and right often use anger as a tool to promote radical social change and it is almost always ineffective. Examples that come to mind are the Tea Parties, FOX News and MSNBC, protest against Proposition 8 in California, and PETA protests.
Remember, the squeaky wheel may get the oil, but it is also the first to be replaced.
There is something to be said about patience. Effective social change must be drawn upon the lines of gradual change. Quick, radical change is almost always ineffective because it oversteps its bounds.
For example, in 1917, a group of citizens called for social change, the end to monarchy and equal rights to all. The change, however, occurred so quickly and forcibly that no line was drawn indicating when the group had accomplished their goals. The resulting revolution was the Bolshevik Revolution, founding one of the most tyrannical governments of modern history.
So, what are the alternatives? If angry yelling will not cause your message to be received, what can we do? Logical dialogue will always help. Promoting intelligent, thoughtful communication about the issue at hand will cause all to look at the issue with new eyes.
Perhaps there are effective compromises that will solve the issue without raising objections on moral or political grounds.
These compromises, however, will only be discovered through patient reasoning on the part of objective observers, not from the ones yelling angrily to the crowds.
Living life in a credible manner will bring your cause forward. If we can see an individual living his or her principles in an ethical, constructive manner, then certainly we will see some of the benefits to a differing side. Perhaps we could protest in the original meaning of the word, simply bringing forth testimony of how the principle has benefitted one’s own life.
Also, providing simple literature on why you believe a certain way certainly helps your cause. Last week, a group passed out literature in this same area, promoting the ethical treatment of animals. They were classy. Instead of yelling about how the poor cats were being mistreated, they simply passed out literature and asked for signatures.
I decided I would not submit my signature because I do not completely agree. However, I came to understand and appreciate their argument more. Without the pressure of emotional appeals and the annoyance I normally feel rising in my mind, I could look at their arguments and determine whether I could agree with them.
Before we call for peace to the world via our various philosophies, may we all have peace with those who disagree with us. Otherwise, we become hypocrites.
26 comments
Did Roy ever directly speak out against any particular group? No
Did he call out that being gay was wrong? Again, No
Did he exercise his right to free speech, the same as the protestors? Yes
I am going to pose a few more questions to those people so highly offended by this article. How is it our rights as gay americans to tell other people that they need to be willing to hear what we have to say, but in the same breath tell them that their opinions do not matter? I see everyone badgering him for speaking his mind... isn't that exactly what the protestors were doing? I personally think his last phrase to be his best and rather poetic "Before we call for peace to the world via our various philosophies, may we all have peace with those who disagree with us. Otherwise, we become hypocrites." As I see a certain level of hypocrisy in many comments on here. I am in no way saying that homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, as I would like to get married someday to the man of my dreams. However, I am saying that in order to expect change we have to be as open minded to what others are saying as we expect them to be open minded to what we are saying.
We weren't calling for an overnight change, we just getting our name and mission out there. He seemed to think we were trying to change people's minds on the spot, which IS unreasonable.
"...loud, vocal, angry calls of derision make most rational people cringe." As far as I know, we made a point to NOT be derisive. I, for one, saw us all smiling and laughing during our chants. I actually waved at and greeted random strangers.
(And apparently we're not rational, guys. We seem to hurt the ears of our intellectual superiors.)
Yes, we were loud and vocal and sometimes indignant-but we tried very hard to encourage people to come up to us and talk (which several bystanders did).
Personally, I don't see how our arguments couldn't be "logical and convincing" unless people having not been able to really hear us toward the end due to our voices slowly giving way to scratchy howls.I think that these are pretty harsh judgments being given by someone who walked by so quickly he didn't even notice that we DID have literature.