To the editor:
Where to begin? Well, first the praise: the Feb. 13 issue of The Breeze was a true public forum serving the entire community. Nice job.
Repercussions possible for student walkout protesters. Ooo… sounds ominous. If the administration can establish “guardrails” such as outside school buildings, during non-instructional times and without disruption on campus, then students may exercise their right to protest. Sounds more like a pep rally led by the coaching staff.
“Protest” IS disruption of business as usual to make a point not otherwise possible. By definition a protest is a cooperative public act of objection, disapproval or dissent by a group. It is not an administration sanctioned school scheduled event under staff supervision.
One board member said this is a teachable moment. She was right. Unfortunately the lesson is questionable: She said things got out of control at SOME schools. Well then some students at some schools might need a different approach from the others. But the overarching question is whether broad and/or vague school “rules” trump the constitutional right of students to protest. (Pun intended)
Now for the letters. One applauded student protesters; another called out the schools’ complicity with ICE, calling it a violation of arguably a school’s major responsibility: making children feel safe. A third letter, from a regular contributor, claimed protests against ICE are the “cause of turmoil in American cities.” (So sit down, shut up and obey our leaders?) Students have a right to express their opinions, but “doing so during school hours… should result in suitable disciplinary actions.” (Catch 22) The writer goes on: “…many individuals in this generation face challenges… comprehending complex political issues… a troubling decline in our educational system.” Perhaps we should be encouraging student involvement in politics — including protests — not punishing it.
A separate section of letters was devoted to reactions to the Breeze Editorial “We Cannot Look Away.” Here too equal space to both sides was published. One writer complained that political opinions do not belong in Editorials. (Welcome to “1984”) Forget the videos you saw; wait until the government tells you what was faked, rigged or a hoax, and what you should believe. Another writer cited a SCOTUS decision from 1942 stating “…words are EXEMPT from First Amendment protections when they… fail to contribute to the expression of ideas with social value for the truth.” That sounds opaque, convoluted and subjective to a non-lawyer like me, but that opinion was written in the early days of World War ll when civil rights were not a concern and protest was pretty much absent.
The writer lists terrible things done by protesters TOWARD ICE in Minneapolis; “they (protestors) were instigators and must be accountable,” especially “Alex Pritti who spit at law officers and attacked them.”
Look at the videos again; Alex’s attack was to kick and spit at an ICE vehicle that was driving away from him after he was roughed up.
Billy Herman
Cape Coral