The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Editorial

Topics

Multimedia

Occupy Eric Cantor

Despite Eric Cantor cancelling his speech at Wharton, Occupy Philadelphia and other protesters came to Penn nonetheless. Related: Topics: Occupy movement

The events that occurred on campus after House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) canceled his Wharton Leadership Lecture exemplified both the best and the worst of our community.

Penn students are sometimes criticized for being ignorant of or indifferent to the conditions of their neighbors, but the protest’s arrival at Huntsman Hall burst the bubble that separates the two groups. Penn became a site of vibrant political activity, with students and protesters sharing ideas and opinions. A diverse range of viewpoints was represented, and the encounter began a much-needed civic dialogue. Even where individuals disagreed, a productive debate occurred all weekend, with conversations still continuing online.

Although emotions ran high, it is worth praising the non-violent nature of demonstration, in which approximately 500 people participated. No damage to persons or property was reported, thanks to the self-restraint of all individuals involved and the foresight of the protest organizers and the Division of Public Safety to plan ahead.

But the unfortunate actions of some students and protesters caused embarrassment for everyone in attendance and for the University as a whole. There were several pointed and misinformed comments from both sides. Some protesters made indiscriminate generalizations about the makeup of Penn and Wharton’s student body. Meanwhile, some students responded with arrogant and condescending remarks that generated tremendous negative publicity and lent credence to the worst stereotypes assigned to our community. Students have every right to disagree with the purpose or process of the demonstrators, but some took it too far by ridiculing their opinions.

Some of the confusion could have been avoided in the first place had it not been for the failure of Cantor’s office and of the Wharton administration to effectively communicate about the attendance policy of the event. It should not have been a surprise to Cantor that the lecture was open to the first 300 attendees regardless of Penn affiliation. It is disappointing that there was no transparent organizing and negotiating process and that potential conflicts were left unaddressed on the day of the actual lecture. Cantor’s absence did a disservice to everyone; it was a loss for members of the Penn community, for the protesters and for open dialogue at the University.

Penn is sure to bring politically controversial figures to campus again. There is a lesson to be learned and a choice to be made after the events of Friday afternoon. The administration must decide whether the school invites or restricts those unaffiliated with Penn exercising their voice on campus. Penn is a private university, but to what extent is it open to public dialogue?

Share your thoughts. Submit a letter to the editor.

Comments (10)

Let’s say Obama came instead of Cantor. Would it REALLY make sense for Penn to let in 300 random people from the street instead of 300 Penn students, faculty, and staff? It’s really disappointing that Penn seems to value these protesters over its own students.

If the protesters wanted to LISTEN CIVILLY to Eric Cantor’s lecture, they should have waited in line behind all the Penn Card holders. It’s a perfectly allowable demonstration of free speech (I personally disagree with him, but wanted the chance to listen anyway to help construct my own arguments against the Republican plan).

If they wanted to PROTEST and chant and cause a ruckus, they should have APPLIED FOR A PERMIT from the city, and done it on Walnut Street in a PUBLIC area, just like any other group of demonstrators has to do.

I feel like this isn’t so much Penn’s administration being bleeding hearts for excessive free speech to the point that the wishes of the majority get quashed, but more so Penn’s apparent infatuation with media coverage, even if it just means 2 of the 4 local TV stations send vans.

Really, Penn?
What the hell am I paying 50k a year for, when you decide to use my tuition money to bring Cantor here and have the first 300 seats, seats that could have meant me not being able to attend had the event gone on, not accessible to me?
Learn to prioritize your students first, else don’t expect an answer call when you knock on my door for alumni donations.

seats that could have meant my** not being able to attend…

being is a gerund – gerunds need to be possessed!

What a valuable lesson learned to those smart enough to pay attention. When leaders personify themselves as antagonists, it causes civil unrest. The protesters were only reacting (knee-jerk as it may be) to being oppressed by a government over which the majority has no control. Cantor (or insert any other politco here) was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can’t look down your noses at the non-Penn populous forever. Educate, don’t regulate.

I commend the DP for successfully describing the atmosphere of the mentioned event. Unfortunately, the “bubble” mentioned on the article will return. Sometimes, we need to remind ourselves where we are. Instead of acting like human beings and learn from one another, some of us squander the opportunity to examine a new ideology; Cantor was just a red herring (pardon the idiom).

Please have Mr. Cantor re-book with the Northern California chapter of Penn Alumni. I would pay for the opportunity to hear him speak in person. His political leanings are similar to mine, but even if they weren’t, I would still attend his event, because he is a ‘mover and a shaker’. He is not afraid to present his ideas, even in the face of opposition. And Penn was giving away seats to non-Penn attendees? Shame on Penn. What has happened to my campus?

Well, if Cantor “isn’t afraid to present his ideas, even in the face of opposition,” why did he bail out when he discovered he would be presenting his ideas in the face of opposition?

I believe in free speech as much as anyone, and it saddens me that Eric Cantor’s free speech was taken away. What is it these occupy people want, besides that someone else be forced to pay their tuition? What wonderful new thoughts are they articulating that we should all pay for their higher education? My many conversations with them have been uniquely vacuous.

It saddens me that Penn was going to blow my hard-earned tuition money to pay for a mediocre speech by a guy who already has a platform to blather incessantly and who gets paid copiously by businessmen for doing so.

I’ve been participating in the Occupy protests because I would like to see an SEC investigation of the Goldman-Sachs credit default swap scam that torpedoed the economy. Lots of people would like to see an investigation of the credit default swap swindle, but Obama’s justice department let them off with a pat on the wrist and we have no recourse within American political system. If you can explain how my desire for law enforcement against criminal bankers can be translated as “I want you to pay my tuition” I’ll bake you a cake.

Cantor chose not to speak. No one told him that he couldn’t or what he would be able to talk about. Penn has a fairly strict free speech policy, which is why the protestors were allowed to be on private property, and why they would have been allowed into the auditorium. If it was so extremely important that Penn change their habitual policies so that Cantor could speak only to MBA students who, ostensibly, wouldn’t ask tough questions, his team or his assistants or whatever should have asked about that and figured it out far ahead of time. This whole incident was a waste of our school’s time and the behavior of the students in Huntsman Hall has kind of put us to shame. It’s Cantor’s fault for waiting until the last minute to back out. I just do not believe that Penn “surprised” him with this sort of information.

Comments are closed for this item.