The University of Maryland has recently taken disciplinary measures against three students with disruptive conduct for shouting during a February 29 speech at the Stamp Student Union by Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife. Two of the students, Chuck DeVoe and Ryan Grim, each shouted a question at Cheney-one about gay marriage, the other about reparations payments for slaves’ descendants-while the third student, Michael Cawdery, shouted an obscenity. In the interest of promoting free and respectful discussion of all ideas, the university should reprimand these students but avoid more serious punishments.
The first two men’s questions were valid and relevant to current events, and deserved to be aired in this academic environment. Cheney even answered DeVoe’s question about reparations. The students’ method of speaking out, however, was disrespectful to Cheney and to the other audience members. Cawdery’s vulgarity, especially, was counterproductive and inappropriate.
Universities should allow students the right to contribute to public discourse, but students also have a responsibility to show prudence and consideration when exercising this right. A university will have difficulty attracting speakers to campus if its audiences do not act respectfully, causing all community members to lose valuable opportunities for dialogue.
Free, productive, respectful speech can be cultivated in several ways, such as through live question-and-answer periods. Guests at Cheney’s address were only allowed to submit questions in writing before the speech. This practice inhibits open conversation by filtering out some questions and preventing students from directly responding to the speaker’s answers.
Additionally, allowing those who disagree with a speaker’s position to picket peacefully outside the lecture hall can further help achieve the goal of academic discourse. As long as guests and protesters alike do not limit the free speech of the speaker by interrupting the presentation, they should be encouraged by a university to express their own views.
The University of Maryland is right to hold DeVoe, Grim, and Cawdery responsible for their disruptive and disrespectful behavior. Rather than punishing them, however, the University should use this opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to continuing a rigorous yet dignified academic dicussion in an environment that embraces diverse opinions, and does not tolerate disrespect.
