AP Images
A graduate waves an American flag at the University of Michigan undergraduate commencement on April 30, 2011.
Over 100 students, almost one third of the University of Michigan Law School's graduating class, walked out in protest over their speaker Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) anti-gay record at their own commencement ceremony Saturday. Students were protesting the choice of Portman who has a substantial anti-gay voting history.
One of those graduates and protest organizer, Andrew Selbst explains his protest decision as being part of a larger American audience where there is no longer a place for discrimination of any group. Selbst relates the protest to the recent refusal by the Justice Department to defend DOMA.
On his blog, Selbst explains:
"The walkout was a statement to a broader audience - America. I think this whole episode fits within the thesis of Minnesota Law Professor Dale Carpenter's recent New York Times Op-Ed about King & Spaulding's withdrawal from defending DOMA: The legal profession has simply moved past the point where LGBT rights are just another political issue, instead recognizing that discriminating against any group of people based on who they are is simply unacceptable in today's society. This walkout, like the Op-Ed, like the Justice Department's refusal to defend DOMA, is another data point for this observation. Here, even more specifically, we were saying that the for the next generation of lawyers, this is not even a debatable issue."
Watch the walkout video and hear from the students:
Senator Portman is a 1984 University of Michigan Law School alum, which partly explains his choice as speaker. The Plain Dealer reports that as a member of congress, before he went on to join the Bush administration, Portman voted for a same-sex marriage ban and the Defense of Marriage Act. Although the 1999 ammendment failed, Portman voted to bar same-sex couples from adopting children in Washington, D.C. Jeff Sadosky, communications director for Portman released a statement to the Plain Dealer stating, "Rob beleives marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman."
Although the protestors certainly evoke a sense of pride and of society's forward movement, two questions remain - why would the University invite such a controversial speaker? Secondly, why would Michigan invite a Senator from Ohio?
Leave a Comment:
Those are some great questions. I will answer, "propaganda".
Good for these young bright graduates. There is NO room in our society for discrimination and I think that these young men and women should be applauded and admired for their message and determination to walk away from bigotry of any kind. I am proud of them and their statement!
So not giving groups special rights is some how discriminatory. "Anti-gay" means anything that disagrees with an extreme Leftist gay agenda. If you don't agree with this agenda, then you MUST be an anti-gay bigot. How childlike.
Example: Marriage, which for 5000 years has been the fusion of two genders into a permanent relationship usually, but not always, for procreation and the raising of children. So called gay "marriage" can't meet the fusion of TWO genders part of the definition of marriage. Proponents of gay "marriage" then call anyone who disagrees with them "bigots" because they have no logical argument to what marriage actually is; they can only try to change the debate into a "rights" argument. Then they think they don't need to admit they are trying to change marriage into something that it is NOT.
Well even a bigot is correct when he/she says 2+2=4. Facts are true no matter WHO states them. Yelling "Bigot!" when someone disagrees with you, esp. when they have the FACTS on their side, isn't going to cut it anymore.
The students should have requested a debate with the good senator the night before instead of childishly walking out. But then again, in a in the arena of ideas, they come unarmed.
Your definition of marriage: one man + one woman who join in a permanent relationship for procreation.
By that definition unfertile people, regardless of gender, should not be allowed to marry either.
Yeah, marriage is super permanent. Good one.
Also marriage in many earlier civilizations was about practicality and property ownership, not "love" and "commitment" - that's way more recent. People who argue against equal marriage rights for gays usually have no understanding of the REAL history(ies) of marriage (like, that acknowledged and explored by actual historians with actual degrees/expertise in the matter). When you say "Because that's how it's always been" you're a) wrong and b) obnoxious. That's never been a good reason for doing anything. While we're at it let's just get some slaves and not send girls to school. Those were fine traditions too, right?
I was at the graduation and most of the students stayed. Among the students that stayed were the top ones in the class. The ones who walked out had a reputation for not being the brightest. To disagree with a speaker is one thing, but to have no class and walk out is another. I believe tolerance is a two way street. Unfortunately some of these students don't realize this. As for the silly questions that were asked on this, let me ask this, why do some universities invite extreme liberals to speak? I bet there are more students who disagree with liberal speakers, then with conservatives. These students don't walk out though because they were taught to have class.
Were you really at the graduation? Somehow, I sincerely doubt that. You state "The ones who walked out had a reputation for not being the brightest." Approximately 100 students walked out. The average class at Michigan Law is around 370. Are you really going to argue that only those in the bottom third of the class left? And if so, do you realize how asinine it is to label anyone who graduates Michigan Law as "not the brightest"? Michigan is an elite law school and only admits among the best and brightest in the country. Before you whine about tolerance, please keep in mind that you are trying to belittle those who do not share your beliefs.
Second, to further attack your claim of being at the commencement (or Ann Arbor at all for that matter), it is ridiculous to state "I bet there are more students who disagree with liberal speakers, then with conservatives." Michigan Law is a very liberal institution. Having the privilege of spending three years at this institution, I can assure you that while there was a strong, proud conservative segment of the student body, they were strongly outnumbered by their liberal classmates.
There was an petition circulated to prevent Mr. Portman from speaking that received several hundred signatures. Not the first time the administration has turned a blind eye to the wishes of its students.
In the future, please don't lie to bolster your argument. It does not help your cause.
also, it's "two-way," and it's "than."
Exactly. The grammar was a huge tell.
I was there--my nephew was a graduate. To say that the students who walked out weren't "the brightest" is another example of the right using personal smears as their "logic". ANYONE who graduates from the University of Michigan Law School is "bright"! What this piece does NOT mention is that many people in the audience--relatives and friends of the graduates--also walked out during the Senator's speech. Fliers and little rainbow ribbons were passed out as people went into Hill Auditorium, and people could accept or reject as they desired. The "walkout" was silent, dignified, and "made the point" without disrupting the ceremony in any way. It was awesome. The 3rd speaker, a graduate, also excellently explained that the "walkout" actually respected those with an opposing viewpoint--which is the whole point of having an open dialogue. What I saw was many people who do not usually "protest" quietly walking out and walking back in because they simply realize that discrimination anywhere is discrimination everywhere.
They won't get very far as lawyers if they actually have a conscience...
That said, this is fantastic! Good for them and good on U. of M. Law School for instilling a sense of morality in these young people —especially those charged with defending the law.
And I agree with the comment above mine that calling someone a bigot means nothing anymore. The ones who accuse others of bigotry are usually the real bigots. When these people are called out on their hypocrisy and hatred they just laugh it off. Again, tolerance is a two way street, and so what if someone believes marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them "evil". Until just a few years ago no one would even begin to call others who believe like this bigots. It's ridiculous what is happening.
What is "not right" or "evil", is that the state grants rights to some people but not others based on who they happen to love.
I personally don't think any state should recognize marriage, but that all should recognize civil unions, which should be able to exist between any two consenting adult people.
if you believe that gays and lesbians do not deserve the same rights as you do, then what would you call yourself?
tolerant?
compassionate?
empathetic?
just because something has been done a certain way for "5000" years doesn't mean we should continue to do i that way.
"JI-3452706
To disagree with a speaker is one thing, but to have no class and walk out is another. I believe tolerance is a two way street."
Portman may be entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to a captive audience. The grads did the proper thing rather than attend the ceremony and disrupt it. I would have done the same thing, even though my instincts are to disrupt. Politicians do not get a free pass.
The graduates did the right thing by walking out and returning quietly. I agree that this senator is not entitled to a captive audience...I've been to three commencements (my own) in my educational career and they all basically say the same boring stuff talking about aspirations and goals...but today, this one took on a whole new meaning as a new generation sees that their fellow gay and lesbian classmates look through the glass ceiling and are denied the rights and potential their straight counterparts are entitled to.
Those who think these adults are whiners and throwing tantrums need to seriously think about this...these graduates are graduating from a very good law school which is a very important time in their lives...I seriously doubt they took this decision to walk out lightly. This isn't a high school graduation which is essentially a conveyor belt for pushing out derelicts. I'm sure each one of them seriously thought about it before actually doing it. They are entitled to walk out when they hear a message they don't agree with delivered by a person whose own values conflict with their own. If right wing American can do it, why can't anyone else?
I find it sad that some children still(in their 20s) throw hissies. Maybe if they sat still and listened they might learn something other than the UMs's point of view. I remember listening, at my graduation, to a very boring U. S. Secretary of HEW Anthoney J. Celebreeze in 1962 explaining the Kennedy Administration view on welfare. Unlike the UM grads I knew when I graduated from college that I was only beginning to learn. Listening to that boring speach, I did learn that we were in the beginning of a 'nanny state' which persists today. Maybe, had we walked out, our nation would not be $14.335 Trillion in debt. But that was sixty years ago, at a different University, where they graduated adults.
did you just basically say that walking out is bad, and that maybe if you had walked out during your commencement instead of staying and learning, then a bad thing (debt) wouldn't have happened? was this um graduation a college graduation? was 1962 sixty years ago? gentleman's fifty?
also, speach?
Its a hissie to protest an injustice?
The students who walked out were exercising their right of free speech, just as the senator was. Good for them for opposing his divisive and, in my opinion, un-American views on equal rights. Perhaps we will have a generation of lawyers with more having a social conscience than we have had in the recent past.
Why not make every union a *civil union* with completely equal legal rights in all 50 states and at the federal level, and let the term *marriage* stand for the religious ceremony, which is not required for a union (now called marriage) to be valid? Voila, the semantics are dealt with and we can all move on to the real issues.
I am giving you the meaning of "bigot" so you understand why I used that term since it seems to inflame some of the commenter's. The fact is that any "group" of people (human beings) that are not allowed to exercise their basic rights to equality is unjust. The difference between listening to liberal's V. conservative's is a matter of intelligence V. ignorance. (Of course, that just my opinion).
big·ot
(bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I love the way Republicans stomp around proclaiming the need for "small government" and "freedom from government intervention" while insisting that government get into our bedrooms and into our doctors' offices. What a flippin' waste of time. How anyone can vote for ANY Republican is beyond me.
I think you overlooked the footnote after "freedom from government intervention" which reads "except when the personal lives of citizens are involved and applies only to corporations"