Naraghi is a fourth-year history and philosophy student.
By Barmak Naraghi
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Paul
Henderson’s article regarding Conciencia Libre and their very
noble effort (“Conciencia
Libre should follow rules,Viewpoint, Jan. 26).
Let me first say that I agree with Henderson. I agree with him
in so far as his main argument concerns the idea that “In
contract law, the willing violation of the terms of an agreement is
a breach of contract.” This is true indeed.
But what is being overlooked, and is crucial to
Henderson’s argument ““ indeed to every argument
advanced against Conciencia Libre ““ is that this student
organization was not the party responsible for the breach of said
agreement. It was the university administration.
Conciencia Libre very generously made agreements with the
administration and the administration backed out of the agreement
citing that the event had become, in its view, “too
controversial.” Since Henderson is so fond of the law, I will
pose to him several key points.
The administration had no clause enabling withdrawal from the
agreement. Furthermore, under the “rule of law,” such a
determination is not only arbitrary, but irrelevant. An issue
becoming “too controversial” is exactly the aim of the
exercise of free speech.
And this brings us to the real heart of the matter: freedom of
speech and the First Amendment. As a graduate in political science,
Henderson must realize that the First Amendment does and must take
precedence over administrative rules. Thanks to the provisions of
the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the U.N. Declaration of Human
Rights (unanimously signed by all nations including the United
States, and carrying the weight of international law applicable in
all nations), we, not only as residents of the United States, but
as citizens of the world, are entitled to practice freedom of
speech wherever, and, whenever, we desire.
Conciencia Libre need not have made any agreements with the
administration to practice its rights on public land. That it did
is a testament to its good will and generosity. Furthermore, I
would invite all readers to go and look for themselves at the
plaque on the grass in front of Kerckhoff Hall where this
demonstration took place. If they do, they will see that it has
been designated as a “free speech” area.
Meyerhoff Park has historically been a place of protest ““
from burning draft cards during the brutal and unjust Vietnam War
to the recent protests against racist and homophobic propositions
that target youths of color and gays and lesbians.
UCLA has also historically been a strong center of activism.
Civil rights groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee as well as the Black Panthers have roots here on this
campus. Conciencia Libre is a part of this tradition of activism
and represents another group that is exercising its right to free
speech.
If one is at all familiar with the history of student activism
on college campuses during the not-so-distant ’60s, here and
in Berkeley at the height of the Free Speech Movement, I believe
that he will have more of an appreciation for what is the true
“rule of law.”
During the FSM, students led by Mario Savio fought for the right
to pass out pamphlets on campus that dealt with off-campus issues
as well as the right to hold demonstrations and political rallies.
Through social agitation, those students played a huge role in
guaranteeing rights to future groups like Conciencia Libre.
Students need not make any agreements to practice the most
fundamental right of expression. Such an agreement nevertheless
having been made, and the university breaching said agreement …
well then, all bets are off.
The university administration broke the law when it hindered
students’ rights of speech and political expression. When the
administration backed out of its agreement, the students stood
firm, bravely weathering the cold and spending the night on the
steps of Kerckhoff Hall to protect their rights and advance their
humanitarian message.
The administration then threatened them with reprisals. The
administration didn’t just threaten the organization as an
entity, but went so far as to threaten the individual students and
their right to an education. This amounts to nothing less than what
J.S. Mill would call moral coercion.
I commend the members of Conciencia Libre for standing firm. I
invite all others to do the same.