lOionday ■ February 23, 1998
Opinion
ENDERSCOPE
toe v. Roe
r cCorvey speech proves an exercise in rhetoric, not informative debate
ast Friday
evening I at
tended a speech
m by Norma Mc-
/ey, who was Jane
in the famous
v. Wade case that
Jized abortion in
United States,
many of us, I
1 about her visit
|impus in Friday’s
‘alion.
he article made
Im:
rshe had radically changed her
ice from pro-choice to pro-life in
5 last few years.
C0II *ii the article, McCorvey’s spokesper-
said, “[McCorvey] is now 100 percent
life, even in cases of rape and incest.”
use McCorvey’s well-known abor-
case is of utmost legal, moral and
tical significance in this country, I ex-
ed a packed house and an intelli-
, insightful speech on the reversal of
position. I was half right.
udderTheater was indeed packed. I
hoped for a cross-cultural group (a tall or
der in Aggieland) with differing opinions
and religions posing interesting questions
about McCorvey’s transformation. In
stead, I found myself in the midst of a rally,
an overwhelmingly charismatic Christian
audience whose members all held the
same opinions — as evidenced by the pe
riodic group cheering.
McCorvey was “preaching to the
choir,” a most ineffective method of
spreading knowledge. I learned nothing
of abortion.
And it was preaching. The speech
was largely, if not entirely anecdotal
and based on her being saved by Jesus.
Although I was turned-off by the
rhetoric of her speech, there is certain
ly nothing wrong with her choosing a
religious format.
The Constitution provides us all with
freedom of speech and 1 freely chose to
attend her sermon. Ironically, however,
I was most disturbed by the manner in
which she, and the audience as a whole,
represented this brand of American
fundamentalism so often referred to as
true Christianity.
Ever since I attended a Church of Christ
elementary school where I had Bible class
every day for four years, I have been under
the impression the message of Christiani
ty was one of pacifism and tolerance. I
well remember stories of Jesus teaching us
to turn the other cheek, love our neigh
bors, be fair and treat others as we would
like to be treated. But these ideas were not
displayed in McCorvey’s discourse or the
audience’s general reactions.
Several times during her speech,
“Planned Parenthood,” a legal, nation
wide organization designed solely for the
puipose of educating and helping
women from an entirely objective stand
point, was referred to as “Planned Death.”
Most of the audience laughed and
clapped, clearly amused at a misrepre
sented jab directed at an organization
which has helped millions of women
not only in time of crisis, but in preven
tion of unwanted pregnancy and trans
mission of diseases as well. McCorvey
also implied women who answer
phones at abortion clinics are “tele
phone executioners.”
When the speech was over and Mc
Corvey began to take questions, a young
woman stood up and announced she
was very much a Christian. She also re
minded the audience we live in Ameri
ca, a free society, and we should be able
to make our own choices about abor
tion, that freedom of choice is what
America is all about. McCorvey essen
tially ignored the woman and fielded
someone else’s question.
Another young man made a state
ment regarding the question of life start
ing at conception and zygote develop
ment. Apparently unable to answer,
McCorvey paused and then retorted in a
sarcastic tone, “Are you going to medical
school?” to which the audience ap
plauded and howled with laughter.
I regard myself as one receptive to a
frighteningly wide range of humor, but I
failed to find funny what cracked up al
most the entire 800 to 900 member au
dience. Perhaps “zygote” is too scientific
a term for a statement about abortion.
Perhaps this was a classic case of people
mocking that which they don’t under
stand. Or don’t want to understand.
I didn’t really intend for this column to
promote the pro-choice movement, de
bate the abortion issue or bash Christiani
ty. I respect the right all Americans have to
freely, openly believe and practice their re
ligion in the manner they wish. But I left
Rudder Theater last Friday with a feeling of
fear that there is a large and vocal group of
individuals who not only think they have
the meaning and definition of life all fig
ured out, but wish to impose their beliefs
upon tlie rest of us through legislation.
Even though I am not a believer, I have
found numerous passages and themes in
the bible that I consider to be brilliant,
beautiful or at the very least livable.
But there is one particular verse I think
to be most applicable to not only McCor
vey’s speech and the audience’s reaction,
but to all the times I’ve been told I’ll be
spending eternity in a veiy hot climate.
Matthew 7:1
Frank Stanford is a philosophy
graduate student.
TATE OF THE UNION
le i
I
Id i
p:..
ha;
F^ivst nil6nfiJIiiMii8stt
face off
Idi^
|
I
ilencing protesters stands
iqual to dictatorship, Saddam
iiia
Caleb
McDaniel
columnist
ast
week,
’(ifJthrce
officials
tithe
iton ad-
i.fj3.^ist ration
med the
:omfort-
e truth
)ut the
itiffst Amend-
nt from a
up of an-
college students at Ohio State
versity. They discovered the
it to free speech entails the re-
insibility to listen.
Secretary of State Madeleine Al-
, ght, Defense Secretary William
hen and the National Security
riser, Sandy Berger, might have
ended the televised “interna-
eal town meeting” held in
lumbus to be a pep rally for the
isident’s policy toward Iraq. But
y found a veiy different audi-
ce awaiting them — atr audience
it included a raucous bunch of
tiers who interrupted the panel
h antiwar chants and shouts.
After the meeting, as the tired
ee crawled back to Washington
lick their wounds, White House
icials immediately began as
king blame for the divisive
ent. The meeting was called a
blic relations disaster, and the
Hesters were called unpatriotic
dradical because they made
country look irresolute about
litary strikes.
Both points deserve a resound-
Phooey.”
Above the clamor in the capi-
one senior Clinton adviser,
hm Emanuel, could be heard
ely rebuking his colleagues,
his is about public education,
t about public relations,” he
d the Washington Post. “It’s a
od sign that the First Amend-
nt is being fully exercised.”
Amen. Whatever our opinions
out the Clinton policy may be,
d however misguided the meet-
was in the first place, history
ould record the gathering at OSU
good sign that the first amend-
ftt is being fully exercised,” not
a public relations bust.
Albright, Cohen and Berger
fried free expression not only
otects their rights to state their
'frions; it also protects the rights
frde dissenters who interrupt,
dor, yell and boo. As political
tiyst Noam Chomskey said on a
talk show in 1992, “If we don’t be
lieve in freedom of expression for
die people we despise, we don’t
believe in it at all.”
In a very real sense, this country
has succeeded because even those
“we despise” are permitted to state
their views. Free speech is the
touchstone of political liberty for
Americans. Thanks to the Constitu
tion, disagreement is not stamped
out in favor of an artificial consen
sus. Instead, dissent is encouraged
as a necessary prerequisite for
healthy debate and democratic dia
logue. So those who believe tire pro
testers were out of line, or speech is
only free until it is irreverent, must
contend with a rather formidable
opponent — the Bill of Rights.
Of course, even those of us who
are skeptical about military action in
the Gulf are not entirely proud of our
Ohio representatives. There was lit
tle method to their madness. Inter
rupting top government officials is
rude; profane T-shirts are obscene;
and labeling air strikes against Bagh
dad as a “racist war” is admit
tedly extreme.
Ultimately, these protest
ers are a disappointment to
their cause, because their
tactics have not endeared
them to the people who call
tire shots in Washington.
But the hecklers were
not disgraceful or unpatri
otic just because they
heckled, unless exercising
the First Amendment can
be called treasonous or
criminal.
Not all speech is persua
sive or polite, but neverthe
less, all speech is protected. Free
dom of expression cannot
discriminate on the basis of
the form or content of expres
sion.
Some things are definitely
not the right things to say, but
Americans still have the right to
say all things. If this is not what
the First Amendment
means, then it does not
mean much.
If we do not pro
tect political dissent
even in all of its ugli
ness, we admit the
unacceptable dan
ger the people in
power will decide
what speech is permissible
and what speech is not. And
the willful suppression of
dissenting views would be a
tyranny on par with the reign of
Saddam Hussein himself.
If we wish to avoid the same evils
that Saddam perpetrates on his own
people, we must protect the first
principles of our great democracy.
That means all political dissent
must be heard, no matter how ob
noxious or annoying it may be.
Before America grumbles about
those pesky peace-lovers at OSU,
careful reflection on the founda
tions of our freedoms would be
wise. And those who detest the
chanting troublemakers should
first pause to consider a virtuous
vow once made by Voltaire.
“I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend
to the death your right
to say it.”
Town hall symbolizes turmoil
of Clinton's administration
« ne, two, three, r 'h
I 1 four, we don’t
want your racist
ne, two, three,
| four, we don’t
want your racist
war,” was the chant heard
around the world last
Wednesday night, as the
Clinton administration at
tempted to explain its plans
for Iraq.
In case you missed the ex
citement, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, Defense
Secretary William Cohen
and National
John
Lemons
columnist
Caleb McDaniel
is a freshman
history major.
Security Adviser Sandy Berger
held an internationally televised
town hall meeting at Ohio State
University.
The meeting was signifi
cant not for its content, but
for the behavior of the
throngs of hecklers and
protesters who disrupted it
at every turn.
The media event, in
tended to justify the ad
ministration’s threat of
force against Iraq, quick
ly degraded into a major
embarrassment for the
Clinton administra
tion and the United
States, itself.
Worse, though, is
that the debacle
is the defining
moment of the
Clinton presi
dency. Wednes
day’s town hall
perfectly cap
tures the presi
dency ofWilliam
Jefferson Clinton.
First, just like
the Clinton ad
ministration, the
town hall never
should have happened.
United States foreign poli
cy cannot be run like a talk
show. Last time I checked, Jer
ry Springer was not the Secre
tary of State, nor was Montel
Williams the Defense Secretary.
“Oprahdizing” the United States
armed forces is not an effective
way to run a military force.
Our military forces work un
der a strict chain of command.
Soldiers take orders from their
superior officers. They do not sit
around and debate those or
der’s merits. Likewise, it is not
the job of the Defense Secretary
to mull over United States’ poli
cy and strategies for the media.
It is his job to make our fighting
forces as effective as possible. The military needs
well defined policies for this conflict with Iraq, not
talk-show type debates.
It was the talk-show quality of the event that is
so disturbing. By all appearances, the meeting was
a cheap attempt at getting the public’s approval for
attacking Iraq. This desperate need for approval
has been a constant problem for Clinton.
No administration has ever used polls quite so
much as the Clinton administration to set goals
and policy. Unfortunately for President Clinton,
wars cannot be run by polls. Part of real leadership
is being able to do what is right, even when it is not
popular. The Clinton administration has yet to
learn this lesson.
Wednesday’s “Oprah Show” in Ohio had other
tilings in common with the Clinton presidency be
sides the administration’s constant need for ap
proval. The event was characteristic of Clinton’s ten
dency to waffle on issues. If sensitivity has been the
administration’s strength, waffling has been its crux.
If anything, this media circus showed how un
sure of itself the administration is in handling the
Iraq crisis.
The reason for the administration’s uncertainty
in handling Iraq, is that this president is not pre
pared for handling foreign policy. Likewise, the ad
ministration was completely unprepared for the
chaos of last Wednesday night. Americans elected
the president in 1992 on the virtues of his domestic
policies, not his skills in handling foreign affairs. Un
fortunately, Arkansas gave Clinton little preparation
for dealing with dictators and terrorist states.
Clinton has shown himself woefully untalented
at persuading the world it is a poor idea to allow
Saddam to stockpile biological and chemical
weapons. Heck, he cannot even convince Ameri
cans of this fact.
Furthermore, the administration needs to use
foreign policy to serve the United States’ interests,
not the world’s interests. By the way, for those of
clamoring against the president’s “racist war,” allow
ing terrorist states to have biological and chemical
weapons is not in the United States’ best interests.
Finally, the town hall gone bad showed exactly
how much respect Americans hold for Clinton and
his administration. The president has endured so
many scandals Americans no longer respect or ad
mire him. Sadly, this disrespect for the president
carries over to those around him.
The heckler’s behavior at the event was inexcus
able. Whether you like them or not, the positions of
Secretary of State, Defense Secretary and National
Security Advisor should commandeer some re
spect. Chanting “Bullsh—t, Bullsh—t, Bullsh—t” at
the defense secretary shows a terrible disregard for
authority. It is sad Clinton’s lack of leadership
would allow people to feel free to act in such a way.
Ironically, Clinton was not present at the defin
ing moment of his presidency. However, last
Wednesday evening captured perfectly the defin
ing characteristics of Clinton’s time in office. Last
week’s town hall at Ohio State University is an em
barrassment for the United States. Sadly, so is the
Clinton administration.
John Lemons is an electrical engineering
graduate student.