DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-04-29 Daily Iowan Article: ""ROTC--the April 18 incident, the April 29 impression"" Page 2

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-04-29 Daily Iowan Article: ""ROTC--the April 18 incident, the April 29 impression"" Page 2

April 29, 1970
THE DAILY IOWAN--Iowa City, Ia.--Wed., April 29, 1970--Page [3?]

The Daily Iowan
OPINIONS
Sidestep by Beller
It was with considerable interest that I read the views of our newly elected student body president, Robert Beller, concerning the Pershing Rifle Drill Meet demonstration. The subject matter is important because it is likely that it will not be the last demonstration held this year, and because demonstrations are potentially a source of effects that could reach all members of the academic community.
It is unfortunate that Bo lets his "empathy for the demonstrators and their cause" interfere with his reasoning.
Bo asks that the demonstrators be absolved of disciplinary action because the demonstration was very orderly. This neatly sidesteps the main issue of whether or not the rights of a minority group (the Pershing Rifles) are to be maintained.
If it is concluded that their rights as members of the university community were violated, then the orderliness of the demonstration is an irrelevant argument.  Indeed, with orderliness as a criteria nearly all crimes could be committed with impunity.
The issue then is whether or not rights were violated. This question will be resolved elsewhere, but there seems to be good reason for concluding in the affirmative.
The Code of Student Life maintains that it is unlawful to intentionally obstruct or deny acess to services or facilities by those entitled to use such services or fascilities. At least for some time, the demonstrators did just that.
Secondly, Bo asserts that the demonstrators were justified in their actions because the administration had not provided a "viable forum on this issue".
Is this good reasoning? Beller is asserting that the administration is at fault, therefore the Pershing Rifles should be punished. 
It this reasoning is applied elsewhere, its full absurdity is apparent. The students were not provided viable forums on the recreation building issue or the busing issue.
Should they then stop all basketball and football games or prevent the present bus service from functioning? It is clear that the Pershing Rifles were not at fault, why shojld their rights be allowed to be violated?
Third, Bo tries to justify the demonstration by asserting that the "mere presence of ROTC on campus provokes those students who demonstrated."
This reasoning leaves much to be desired. After all, there are racists in this community who could justify disrupting black activities because the presence of blacks provokes them; there are people provoked by the presence of the Greek system, the dorms, religion, etc.
It must be concluded that the community would not long be a community if this justification were deemed reasonable.
In conclusion, it should be asserted that the central issue here is not eliminating the existence of ROTC on campus (the ends of the demonstrators) but violation of the rights of members of the university community (the means chosen to gain those ends.)
If members of this community begin to select which rights should be protected and which rights should be ignored on the basis of empathy with causes then the community is beginning to approach such notable examples as Mayor Daley's Chicago.
The ultimate result is likely to be violence until one or the other group is eliminated. Does anyone really think that is desirable?
Jim Stellen, A3
Ankeny

Vote would veto minority
   In his "Opinions" column of April 21, regarding that anti-ROTC demonstration of April 18, Student Body President Robert Beller states, "The issue is . . . {missing remainder of this column]
academic courses relating to this social objective.
   If the courses offered by the University are to be subject to the changing [winds?] of public and student opinion, we will [missing remainder of article].

Saving...

April 29, 1970 THE DAILY IOWAN--Iowa City, Ia.--Wed., April 29, 1970--Page [3?] The Daily Iowan OPINIONS Sidestep by Beller It was with considerable interest that I read the views of our newly elected student body president, Robert Beller, concerning the Pershing Rifle Drill Meet demonstration. The subject matter is important because it is likely that it will not be the last demonstration held this year, and because demonstrations are potentially a source of effects that could reach all members of the academic community. It is unfortunate that Bo lets his "empathy for the demonstrators and their cause" interfere with his reasoning. Bo asks that the demonstrators be absolved of disciplinary action because the demonstration was very orderly. This neatly sidesteps the main issue of whether or not the rights of a minority group (the Pershing Rifles) are to be maintained. If it is concluded that their rights as members of the university community were violated, then the orderliness of the demonstration is an irrelevant argument. Indeed, with orderliness as a criteria nearly all crimes could be committed with impunity. The issue then is whether or not rights were violated. This question will be resolved elsewhere, but there seems to be good reason for concluding in the affirmative. The Code of Student Life maintains that it is unlawful to intentionally obstruct or deny acess to services or facilities by those entitled to use such services or fascilities. At least for some time, the demonstrators did just that. Secondly, Bo asserts that the demonstrators were justified in their actions because the administration had not provided a "viable forum on this issue". Is this good reasoning? Beller is asserting that the administration is at fault, therefore the Pershing Rifles should be punished. It this reasoning is applied elsewhere, its full absurdity is apparent. The students were not provided viable forums on the recreation building issue or the busing issue. Should they then stop all basketball and football games or prevent the present bus service from functioning? It is clear that the Pershing Rifles were not at fault, why shojld their rights be allowed to be violated? Third, Bo tries to justify the demonstration by asserting that the "mere presence of ROTC on campus provokes those students who demonstrated." This reasoning leaves much to be desired. After all, there are racists in this community who could justify disrupting black activities because the presence of blacks provokes them; there are people provoked by the presence of the Greek system, the dorms, religion, etc. It must be concluded that the community would not long be a community if this justification were deemed reasonable. In conclusion, it should be asserted that the central issue here is not eliminating the existence of ROTC on campus (the ends of the demonstrators) but violation of the rights of members of the university community (the means chosen to gain those ends.) If members of this community begin to select which rights should be protected and which rights should be ignored on the basis of empathy with causes then the community is beginning to approach such notable examples as Mayor Daley's Chicago. The ultimate result is likely to be violence until one or the other group is eliminated. Does anyone really think that is desirable? Jim Stellen, A3 Ankeny Vote would veto minority In his "Opinions" column of April 21, regarding that anti-ROTC demonstration of April 18, Student Body President Robert Beller states, "The issue is . . . {missing remainder of this column] academic courses relating to this social objective. If the courses offered by the University are to be subject to the changing [winds?] of public and student opinion, we will [missing remainder of article].