Allegheny's Soapbox Alliance

On November 5, 2007, Allegheny College announced its newly formed “Soapbox Alliance,” designed to encourage colleges and universities across the nation to work towards the goal of having an open campaign-event policy. The Soapbox Alliance seeks to end the practice of “closed” or “ticketed” events that are subject to discrimination. This initiative stems from an event that took place at Allegheny College in 2004, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited Meadville, PA and held a private, political event on Allegheny’s campus. Tickets to the event were distributed in advance, and the Bush-Cheney campaign controlled who was allowed to attend. The Allegheny College Republicans, for example, were given 40 tickets to distribute at their discretion. This tactic of selective ticket distribution was used by the Bush-Cheney campaign to make sure that there were no protesters, disruptions, or distractions during Cheney’s speech. Only supporters of Cheney were allowed in, and anyone who might oppose his policies were kept out. This is where the Soapbox Alliance comes in. Under the Alliance, at least half of the available seats are to be made available to the general public though some non-discriminatory means, like a lottery system. This way, everyone has a fair chance to attend, protest, and express their views; although, Allegheny President Richard Cook also notes that he would still support the removal of disruptive or uncivil persons from the event. While Allegheny College means well with the formation of the Soapbox Alliance, the problem with this initiative is that although it eliminates forms of political discrimination, it still locks out voices and creates more discrimination by not respecting citizen’s First Amendment rights.

The main problem with Allegheny’s Soapbox Alliance is the question of where to draw the line on appropriate behavior, or more specifically, disruptive or uncivil behavior. When is it acceptable or legitimate to remove a protester from a political event? Is it not within their First Amendment right to protest at an event? President Cook may say one thing, but someone else may say something else. For example, one person may feel that interruptions and yelling should result in removal, and someone else might feel that silent protesters with signs should be removed. The difficulty is that where to draw the line is often blurry, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t know if there is a right answer. The Soapbox Alliance has good intentions of letting everyone in, but it does not necessarily allow them to voice their opinions once they are in. In a way, it creates just as much discrimination as it eliminates. Denying someone their right to free speech locks them out just as selective ticketing locks people out, and that is a problem.

Another troublesome problem, for me, about the Soapbox Alliance deals with Professor Shea’s proposal that half of the tickets be made available to the general public. Why not make them all available to the public? If we are truly trying to end selective ticketing of events, we should make the entire event open to everyone; a true town meeting. I understand that this may cause some politicians to avoid coming to Allegheny College, and that is why Professor Shea proposed a collaborative or “give and take” arrangement. Still, I feel that if a politician is qualified and educated enough, he or she will be able to answer the tough questions and respond to the protester’s concerns. If I disagreed with a policy, but I saw a politician at least try to hear other’s concerns and questions, that politician would at least earn my respect. Doing the right thing is usually not the easy thing to do, but you never know how voters may respond. It might even change some people’s minds.

The Soapbox Alliance is a good idea with good intentions. I just feel that there is some room for interpretation that should be cleared up. When, if ever, is it appropriate to silence someone’s right to free speech? As I have said, I’m not sure that there is a right answer to this question. I do know, however, that Allegheny’s view of an “open” event still locks out some voices, even if those voices are actually at the event. It is something that must be considered if the goal really is to have a true open-campaign event policy.