Justice Scalia visited NYU Law today (where I'm a 3L). I disagree with him on most opinions that he's sided with or written, notably Bush v. Gore and his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. He's blunt, often rhetorical, and I think his understanding of 'originalism' as a method of constitutional interpretation isn't ultimately defensible even on its own terms. But those are issues for debate, even passionate debate. What happened at NYU Law today, however, was a disgrace to free speech and academic debate, this time triggered by those I usually agree with. I'm writing this diary in the hope that civil, reasoned discourse can be our mantra, rather than lewdness, mean-spiritedness, and censorship.
Here's what happened: Scalia held a Q&A session with students. Two big rooms packed full of people. He started off by giving a rather standard talk about his approach to constitutional interpretation, namely, by divining the intent of the Founders and leaving any additions to what they intended up to the political process (via legislation or constitutional amendment).
Then came the student questions. The second question started off by asking why Scalia finds no right to privacy in the constitution ("because the Framers didn't foresee it," Scalia replied more or less). Then came the bombshell from the student: "Do you sodomize your wife?" Scalia rather calmly replied "next question" but the student kept at it, yelling into the microphone about hypocrisy before finally sitting back down. The entire room was shocked and rather appalled. If you want to personalize an issue, there are ways of doing so without trying to publicly humiliate the speaker or yourself. But the petty track of humiliation was what this student chose. Ugh.
Next came the dedication dinner. A group of about 25 students were hollering and yelling outside things like "f*** Scalia" and other obscenities, using a bullhorn to do so, with the intent to disrupt the event. Even Nadine Strossen, head of the ACLU who was at the dinner, thought the students outside had crossed the line.
Now, I can understand the desire to confront Scalia and have him answer some tough, thoughtful questions. But to do so in this manner so as to try to humiliate him and bring disregard to the entire student body I think is counterproductive.
So, this thread is for a discussion about confronting our disagreements with people like Scalia WITH CIVILITY. I don't want to live in a world where this kind of behavior is the norm even for those of us with whom I ultimately agree.
One caveat that comes to mind, and that is for people as part of a political process cause a ruckus and are willing to accept the consequences for doing so. A great example would be those that interrupted the Bolton hearings yesterday. They got their 15 seconds, but they also knew and accepted the consequences for their disruption (namely, arrest). The students at NYU Law who staged this did what they did at an event where others had come to listen, learn, and even respectfully disagree. And they likely knew that they would face no consequences for what they did. That's not courage or conviction--that's rudeness and an entitlement attitude.
[EDIT] (from the comments) Scalia was there to accept the dedication of an issue of the NYU Annual Survey of American Law journal to him. Here's the link, and here's the teaser:
"New York University students and members of Manhattan progressive communities will protest an April 12 ceremony at the university's School of Law honoring Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as the dedicatee of the 2005 NYU Annual Survey of American Law."