Paxson’s Response to the Ray Kelly Protest

As everyone on campus knows, about two weeks ago, a speech by Ray Kelly from the NYPD was forced to end by a student and community wide protest.  In response to the Ray Kelly protest, which halted the proceedings and forced Kelly to leave before he could address the audience, students received a message from President Paxson this past week that has left the campus buzzing with emotions and opinions.  Although the campus has been overwhelmed with discussions about the protest and the manner in which it was conducted, Paxson acknowledged these discussions with a far more definitive opinion about the situation.  In the message, she asserts that protests should not obstruct the exchange of ideas, whether or not the ideas presented are controversial or hurtful to some or all.  She continues on to outline the plan to form a committee, which will decide whether students are punished for their proceedings. For all those Harry Potter fans out there, this section of the message bears a strange similarity to the oratory styling of Dolores Umbridge.  Even though many do not agree with the way the protest was carried out, I feel that regardless, the fact that these students cared enough about the racism embedded in our culture to let themselves be heard is commendable, even if this wasn’t the most positive way to do so.  Many students on campus disagree with the style of the protest and how it completely prevented Kelly from speaking or being challenged with questions, but I haven’t heard of any who believe these students should be punished.  The truth is that many in our generation probably haven’t heard of stop and frisk, or even so, would not be interested in having these difficult discussions.  By claiming that these protesters may need to be disciplined, Paxson has fallen into disfavor with many. 

 I think it is interesting to explore Paxson’s position a little further.  This message has forced her to gain a fair amount of dislike within her first year as the head of the university, which is pitiable to say the least.  I wonder though about how many people she needs to please with her decision.  Although one can easily argue that appeasing students is the most important factor, for Paxson, pleasing the board, or the Corporation, must be an additional factor.  These members are some of the primary originators of our campus’ financial supports, and taking into account their wishes is in Paxson’s best interest.  This summer, I worked at a nonprofit organization that depended on donors for much of their multi-million dollar budget each year.  Although speaking with donors was often my favorite part of the internship, I recognize that my relations with them were more about friendly banter than obtaining funds.  Even when a donor would call complaining that their view was obstructed at the last performance by a woman in a wheelchair, saying things about a disabled woman that were just plain inappropriate, there was nothing I could do without offending the donor, and so I had to remain silent and apologize for something I could not change and would never dream of changing.  There are certainly times when donors are able to make decisions for a company that may not be the most beneficial, but what is the best way to balance their happiness with the general success of the company or university?  I think Paxson faces difficult times ahead as she approaches the moment when she must decide whether students will be punished for expressing their beliefs, perhaps at the cost of others’. 

• protest