Anti-Scalia Wespeaks: reactions, aggression, and Mytheos o.0?

In case you didn’t pick up the Argus yesterday (or up to this point, for that matter), you probably didn’t get to see the rather interestingly formatted multi-singular-plural-whatever Wespeak penned by a number of Wesstudents (and an alum) speaking out against Scalia’s impending visit to Wesleyan.

Now, when it first came out, our Dear Leader Zach sent his flying monkeys to compel us Wesleying bloggers to pick up and comment on it. Unfortunately, in the last 12 hours or so, we did not. And it seems that an old friend, Mytheos Holt ’10 (pictured right), whom you may remember as Wesleyan Conservative extraordinaire and local troll-muffin, has beaten us to the chase.

Writing for the conservative online news and opinion platform The Blaze, Holt provides a considerable play-by-play of the Wespeaks. In an interesting turn that possibly had something to do with the editorial staff, it proved remarkably neutral for Holt’s standards.

Click here for Holt’s article, which conveniently links to the four Wespeaks that are up on the Argus website. If you’re interested in some choice morsels both within and without Holt’s article, check us out after the jump.

Also, what do you folks think about all anti-Scalia fist-waving? Sound out in the comments below.

From Holt’s article:

These students do not necessarily speak for the whole student body, however. One student who asked not to be named in this article told the Blaze that he hoped Scalia would bring a security detail, as “some f–kers are bound to engage in the barbarism they preach.”

A sweep-through of the Wespeaks comments section on the Argus website reveals additional discontent over the anti-Scalia talk.

For example, alum ’10 writes on the “The Value of Protesting, Disrupting, and/or Silencing Antonin Scalia” comments section:

This makes me extremely disappointed to be an alumnus. Current students are doing a piss-poor job of representing a Wesleyan education.

In the comments section of “Wesleyan Deserves Better Than Scalia”, Jzaman writes:

I think this is ridiculous. While I agree with your point of view about Scalia making some rather controversial decisions, the fact that you assume your views are inherently correct is what bothers me. Justice Scalia is a brilliant man who came to his conclusions upon careful and deliberate thought.

At the end of the day, by protesting Scalia’s presence in Wesleyan, you are being close-minded.

Once again, if you’d like to pitch in, go right ahead! Our very own comments section below accommodates for that.

Also, I suppose it is only appropriate for the Wesleying slave labor camp to thank Mr. Holt for doing our job of covering the situation for us. Thanks! ..(?)

12 thoughts on “Anti-Scalia Wespeaks: reactions, aggression, and Mytheos o.0?

  1. Pingback: Dear NBC Connecticut: You’re Not Helping – Wesleying

  2. Pingback: Can’t Stop The Spring: Wesleying Takes a Breather – Wesleying

  3. Mytheos Holt

    First of all, troll-muffin? Where did that nickname come from?

    Secondly, I actually made it “surprisingly neutral” on purpose. The Blaze doesn’t editorialize as arule, and besides, sometimes it’s smarter to just let the crazy speak for itself.

  4. Alex Pfeifer-Rosenblum

    Dear Wesleyan,

     

    As a student body that claims to value a diverse and robust learning
    environment, I am disappointed to learn about efforts to “silence” Justice
    Antonin Scalia’s lecture this Thursday.  You
    are right to call for greater diversity among “students of color, international students, students with
    disabilities, radical/non-politically ‘Left’ students, [and] low-income
    students,” but it is hypocritical and close-minded to actively exclude those
    who see the world through a difficult political lens than you do. The decision
    to host Scalia should not be seen as presenting a choice between intellectual
    engagement and activism, as some have framed it, nor are students presented
    with a choice between “wimpy liberal notions of decorum and propriety” and
    drowning out the interests others might have in engaging with Scalia’s speech.  

    Rather,
    students have been given an opportunity, first, to fully understand, analyze,
    and engage with a different perspective – a commonly cited goal for a liberal
    arts education – and to respond with effective activism to Scalia’s radically
    conservative agenda. And it is precisely due to the power and influence of
    radical conservative ideology in our country that an effective response is so
    urgently needed.

     

    Any
    effort to “silence” or interrupt Scalia feeds right into the conservative prejudice,
    usually false but in this case correct, that “Leftists” want to drown out any
    perspective other than their own. Moreover, crushing Scalia’s voice (and just
    because he has one of the most powerful voices in the country does not, by the
    way, lessen the impact of silencing his speech) limits any effort to build an
    articulate and effective response, such as “hosting critical discussions” or
    “organizing justice-related events” (which I am fully behind, by the way).

     

    This
    event instead offers an opportunity for those on the left to dissect Scalia’s
    language, and in doing so, gain a richer understanding of how and why
    conservative ideology has had such a tremendous impact over the past fifty
    years. How exactly does Scalia transform immoral ideas into imperatives that sound
    logical, coherent, and obvious to so many people? What metaphors does he use
    during this process, what values are they based on, and how do they differ from
    your own? What metaphors should he be using when discussing freedom, and how
    would they lead him to different conclusions? Conservative extremists have had
    so much success in spreading their messages because they are better at
    controlling language and framing the debate than those on the left. The success
    of progressivism depends largely on whether progressives will develop a
    coherent language that makes moral sense to people from a wide variety of
    different backgrounds, a task that conservative extremists have been tackling
    for decades (remember that fifty years and hundreds of think-tanks ago, Scalia
    would have been seen as exactly what he is: an extremist). Scalia’s speech is an
    opportunity to learn about how conservatives have captured the imagination of
    so many Americans, which just might teach us progressives something about
    revitalizing our own movement. I for one wish that I was still around to see
    it.

     

    – Alex
    Pfeifer-Rosenblum, ‘10

    1. BJ

      “just because he has one of the most powerful voices in the country does not, by the
      way, lessen the impact of silencing his speech)”

      I don’t necessarily disagree with all that you argue, but I think this sentence is an absurd one.  Temporarily silencing an incredibly powerful voice is a reasonable political tactic.  I would never support the silencing of a fellow citizen, but Scalia has been given a tremendous platform; his speech, in many cases, is granted the force of law.  Whether or not silencing him is right or wrong, it is not the same as silencing someone who isn’t “one of the most powerful voices in the country”

      1. Alex Pfeifer-Rosenblum

        Well…Scalia’s court decisions are given the force of law. His “speech” (I am referring here to a “speech” as a “lecture”) is not. I would never disagree with your final point. 

  5. Arnold

    “I already know Scalia’s perspective and so do most people who will be at the lecture – you can read about it on Wikipedia or watch him on Youtube giving what  will likely be a basically similar speech as the one he will give to us.”

    I was gonna read this Wespeak, but you can basically read about the perspective on Wikipedia or YouTube, so why bother?

  6. YYYYYY_Y

    “I already know Scalia’s perspective and so do most people who will be at the lecture – you can read about it on Wikipedia or watch him on Youtube giving what
    will likely be a basically similar speech as the one he will give to us.”

    I was gonna read this Wespeak, but you can basically read about the perspective on Wikipedia or YouTube, so I think I’ll pass.

  7. E. Warren

    I’d find it easier to believe that they’re open-minded if they had listed just one conservative who they would be happy to listen to and not protest.

    1. wieb$

      I would have believed MLK was open-minded if he had listed just one racist who he would be happy to listen to and not protest.

      1. E. Warren

        Right, see, here’s the problem. You’re likening your opponents to bigots. Your analogy is saying that if someone disagrees with you, that must mean they are absolutely wrong and a bad person. I disagree with many of the decisions Scalia has written, but that does not mean he as a human being is fundamentally bad or wrong.

        1. Log

          He’s not likening his opponents to bigots. He’s pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that Scalia is a bigot.

Comments are closed.