Editor’s note: This letter is in reference to the letter, “UNM’s actions violate First Amendment rights” by Don McIver published in Tuesday’s issue of the Daily Lobo.
Editor,
I was furious to read this letter, not so much because it supported the protesters, but because Mr. McIver made some fairly thoughtless assertions about the institution of UNM and its responsibilities. Mr. McIver is listed as “visiting faculty.” I hope to God that doesn’t mean he’s a teacher.
First, looking through the requirements, mission and other literature about UNM, I get the sense that the goal of the institution is to educate; nowhere do I see anything, read anything, nor was I told at orientation that being a UNM student required tolerating activism or protesters on campus.
UNM is not a springboard or a foundation for activism — it is a college with the fundamental mission of educating its student body. I know that the activists feel that it is in their rights to occupy the campus and that the campus is indeed public. I can understand that, but I also understand when people are exploiting their rights and using the First Amendment as an excuse to occupy and intimidate just to get their point across.
As far as the protesters’ rights, as usual activists have leapt into a protest situation in which their presence, initially allowed, is wearing out its welcome … Then, like clockwork, the protesters shake off their impression of the First Amendment and wave it like a banner for the ‘injustice’ that is happening to them.
But the Constitution is not the only American document that regards the rights of its citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees a right for all citizens to receive an education without intimidation or harassment. If I disagree with the protest, and if the protesters refuse to leave, isn’t that a violation of my rights to an undisturbed education?
McIver suggests that vacating the activists at midnight was a covert move, but let me ask this: Is it preferred that they are vacated when there are lots of people around to make noise and perhaps attempt, either orally or physically, to prevent the removal of the protesters? Is it preferable to Mr. McIver that there is a conflict, or perhaps even civil disorder or violence?
It seems, then, that in their complaint, it is the protesters that seek conflict, not the UNM police.
In the letter, Mr. McIver writes, “If you don’t want people defecating on the lawn, put up a Port-a-Pot … put up those nice, neat Lobo tents … .”
Is McIver suggesting that UNM facilitate a protest they did not provoke, incite or invite to the campus?! Balderdash! Outrage! Boycott the protesters!
Further, Mr. McIver states, “You (UNM) either support the protesters or support the banks.” That is complete hogwash, and inane to even suggest that UNM is required to take sides on the issue. Really, Mr. McIver? REALLY?!
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Lest we all forget, the University of New Mexico is an educational institution and the students are indeed here to learn, not to hang around and listen to lame, squatting protesters. If they want to get their point across, they should try a different method of communication, rather than hold sections of the University hostage.
Jason A. Graves
UNM student
