Evergreen responsibilities, rights out of balance

In my first piece, I talked about the responsibility of government officials to balance their power to protect the peaceful exercise of more active rights, such as speech and assembly, and the enjoyment of more passive rights, such as property and person. I related this to some local issues. Unfortunately, we have recently been presented with yet another exemplar of imbalance in this area. The Evergreen State College was the scene of protests and demonstrations in which some of participants engaged in intimidation and threats. Indeed, the disturbances generated blowback and ultimately led to a shutdown of the campus. Fortunately, this did not seem to result in outright violence but at the expense of some individual rights.

I note a continuing degeneration of decorum and reason in colleges and universities both locally and across the nation. In many cases the result has been property destruction and personal injuries. The same scenario is playing out on the political stage, although not as advanced. Yet. A group of individuals at Evergreen feel free to occupy public spaces, intimidate those with whom they disagree, and require retaliation against them. This includes requiring silence from those they oppose, demanding removal of their rivals from their jobs for disagreeing with them, and removal of others from campus based on race. The reaction of the administration was to sequester the campus police in their office and "suggest" to a target of the protest that he is not safe on campus.

Evergreen is a remarkably unique institution. It has a distinct style of instruction that allows a wide range of learning styles. In fact, it seems to model the British system where students "read" a course of study rather than primarily attend classes. It requires a certain type of student who is given to independent study. The teaching style of Evergreen requires an environment in which students are allowed to explore a wide range of attitudes and opinions. Intimidation and retaliation seriously affects this capability. It negatively affects all campuses and other public institutions.

The use of force is at the base of all government. This is true from the freest democracy to the most tyrannical dictatorship. It is hard to accept but it is an indisputable, observable fact. In the US, we, the People, have ceded to government, the exclusive power to initiate force. Yet, government is not the only source of force. Individuals and smaller groups also engage in its use. As I indicated previously, force is not limited to physical actions. It also includes intimidation, bullying, and trespass. Government is supposed to control and limit the use of force while protecting everyone's rights.

This requires balance and judgment by those who administer our institutions. It is a hard task to perform properly. Unfortunately, the balance has been lost. Some of those in charge locally have allowed a group of individuals to take control and use intimidation and violence to achieve their ends. It is time to protect all the rights of everyone. If this is not done, it is likely we will see further polarization and violent conflict between groups on campus, locally, and nationally.

Some of the actions of the protesters might be a form of kidnapping. At least, the Evergreen Student Conduct Code forbids obstruction or disruption of campus activities. It also forbids physical abuse of another, including threats. It forbids harmful behavior that diminishes or interferes with the ability of an employee to engage in their work duties. Clearly, this conduct has occurred without consequence. Indeed, the authorities abandoned the field to the protesters. A cursory examination of past events clearly reveal the consequences of this kind of inaction.

Finally, changes to the Evergreen State College "Social Contract" and "Student conduct code" are part of the demands of the protesters. They require input to changes. These documents are actually parts of Title 174 of the Washington Administrative Code. This code may only be changed as allowed by RCW Chapter 34.05, the Administrative Procedure Act. The act outlines a strict protocol including open hearings and input by all stakeholders, including the public. The content cannot be determined by any single group. All those concerned about TESC may wish to make their voices heard in the proper way in the proper forum.

This story was originally published June 14, 2017 at 8:37 PM with the headline "Evergreen responsibilities, rights out of balance."