Subscribe to The Brown Daily Herald Newsletter

Sign up for The Brown Daily Herald’s daily newsletter to stay up to date with what is happening at Brown and on College Hill no matter where you are right now!


Photo Gallery, University News, Video

Ray Kelly lecture canceled amidst student, community protest

The event was canceled half an hour in, following heated remarks by audience members

By and
Senior Staff Writer and Contributing Writer
Wednesday, October 30, 2013

A lecture by New York City Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly scheduled for Tuesday afternoon was canceled after protesters halted Kelly’s speech and would not yield the floor.

Controversy preceded the talk —  titled, “Proactive Policing in America’s Biggest City” — due to its speaker’s staunch support for the contentious stop-and-frisk policy. The event was presented by the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions as part of the Noah Krieger ’93 Memorial Lecture series.

Student protest actions leading up to the event included creating a petition and holding a vigil in honor of victims of racial profiling, The Herald previously reported. After administrators rejected demands laid out in the petition, protest efforts expanded, according to a press release distributed by the event’s protesters.

Around 100 students and community members gathered outside List Art Center about an hour before the lecture was scheduled to start, chanting phrases such as, “Ray Kelly, you can’t hide, we charge you with homicide” and holding signs reading “Stop police brutality,” “Systemic Racism,” “Brown is complicit” and “Ray(cist) Kelly,” among others.

The event took place in a packed List 120, forcing some to watch from an overflow room in List 110.

Marion Orr, director of the Taubman Center, introduced Kelly and acknowledged the protesters’ presence. He said that while “protest is a necessary and acceptable means of demonstration at Brown University,” interrupting the lecture would be inappropriate because it would hinder others’ ability to listen and engage with Kelly.

Protesters reacted vocally to mentions of Kelly and his policies throughout Orr’s introduction. When Kelly himself took the stage, protesters’ boos mixed with applause. As soon as he began to speak, many protesters stood with their fists in the air and began shouting in unison, after which neither Kelly nor Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Margaret Klawunn and Vice President for Public Affairs and University Relations Marisa Quinn — two administrators present — could regain control of the auditorium.

“People felt very passionately and they wanted to share those stories,” said Esteban Ronancio ’15, who was not present in the auditorium but participated in the broader protest.

Protesters shouted various chants, including, “No justice, no peace, no racist police.” Others shouted that Kelly’s policies have been responsible for suppressing the voices of people of color and that Kelly did not deserve a platform at Brown.

“I have never seen in my 15 years at Brown the inability to have a dialogue,” Quinn said as she attempted to quiet the auditorium and resume.

After about a half-hour of attempts to continue the lecture, administrators decided to cancel the event.

Many individuals involved in the protest said they were pleased with the turnout and the results.

“Our goal was for the lecture to be canceled from the beginning,” said Irene Rojas-Carroll ’15, one of the mobilizers behind the protest. Rojas-Carroll previously told The Herald she felt there was no format in which Kelly would be an appropriate speaker at Brown.

Among the protesters were members of organizations in the greater Providence community, including Direct Action for Right and Equality, a group that seeks social, economic and political justice for people of color.

As the protest filtered into the building, some re-enacted a 2006 demonstration by the now-defunct Coalition for Police Accountability and Institutional Transparency, which had been formed in response to allegations of institutionalized racism and abuse by the Department of Public Safety and the Providence Police Department. Protestors read emotionally charged accounts of racial discrimination by police officers, which were originally shared at the 2006 rally.

After the event, protesters gathered in front of List and gave speeches in celebration and commitment to continuing efforts against racial profiling.

“I think it was very clear that a huge number of students support” the protest, Rojas-Carroll said.

Protesters voiced concerns that the event, and in extension the Taubman Center and the University, had condoned racial profiling.

“Presenting him in this place of honor is not just upsetting, but frustrating and angering,” said Camila Pacheco-Fores ’14, who attended the event in protest.

Many other students expressed frustration that Kelly was denied the opportunity to speak.

“It would have been more effective to take part in a discussion rather than flat out refuse to have him speak,” said Denise Yoon ’17.

At one point during the disruption, Chris Piette ’14 stood up to counter the protesters and was quickly interrupted.

“You’re angry for a good reason,” he said, “but your volume and your inability to listen is quieting my voice.”

Piette later told The Herald that though he identifies as a racial minority and is “no stranger to racial discrimination,” the way to reach progress is not through anger.

The protesters “were too loud and angry to realize their voices were not the only ones that matter,” Piette said.

Jamelle Watson-Daniels ’15 said she has found a lack of acceptance for opposing perspectives at Brown. She arrived at the lecture in protest after hearing about it at a Black Student Union meeting but said she felt the protest’s organizers had misrepresented the event to make the Taubman Center seem completely unresponsive to student concerns about the “racial implications” of Kelly’s policies.

She said she was surprised to learn the lecture would have a question-and-answer portion that would allow students to engage with Kelly.

“Open-mindedness runs both ways. You have to be able to hear both sides of the coin. It’s disappointing if we can’t, and then we can’t have a dialogue,” said Torin Collier-Mark ’17.

Orr said the Taubman Center had made efforts to respond to student concerns about lack of dialogue by creating an expanded time period for audience members to ask the commissioner questions. Kelly was slated to speak for around 20 to 25 minutes and spend the rest of his time responding to questions.

“I think it’s a crying shame that people didn’t get to hear Raymond Kelly respond to his critics,” said Ross Cheit, a professor of political science and public policy at the Taubman Center.

Various University officials and administrators expressed surprise and disappointment with the lecture’s cancellation.

“I don’t recall in my years here a time when a lecture was stopped based on the crowd disrupting the speaker,” said Mark Porter, chief of police for DPS.

Deputy Chief of Police for DPS Paul Shanley added that though DPS was there to make sure the protest did not get out of control, the shutdown was not for fear of a public safety risk. DPS does not “take sides,” he said.

“The conduct of disruptive members of the audience is indefensible and an affront both to civil democratic society and to the University’s core values of dialogue and the free exchange of views,” President Christina Paxson wrote in a statement.

In an email to the community, Paxson wrote that she has asked Klawunn to organize a forum to “discuss our values and expectations as a community.” Paxson also wrote that she would reach out to Kelly “to convey (her) deepest regret for the manner in which he was treated.”

Klawunn said the University does not plan to pursue disciplinary action against the students who disrupted the lecture.

Following the cancelation, Quinn said the University might have to review its policy of allowing all members of the community, as opposed to only individuals with Brown IDs, into the event.

Orr said it is unclear at this time what, if any, impact this event will have on future lectures at Brown.


— With reporting by Mathias Heller, Emmajean Holley, Elizabeth Koh and Andrew Smyth

Video edited by Henry Chaisson and filmed by Arely Diaz, Adam Toobin and Greg Jordan-Detamore.

 Updated Oct. 30. at 2 a.m.


To stay up-to-date, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

  1. Bud Brooks, '83 says:

    So much for liberals’ tolerance of others’ opinions and views….

    • As a liberal brown student, I totally agree with you……..

    • current Brown student says:

      It is a question of who the University gives platform to speak. Hosting someone whose policies are unambiguously racist (and who is in court for that same reason) has very real effects on this university. Kelly’s policies and his message directly attack members of this community and beyond.

      Tolerance is necessary and important – Ray Kelly can say whatever he wants to say by himself. The problem arises, however, when the University intentionally gives platform to racist and violent messages. In cases such as this, I am proud to attend a university where people come together to protect one another from attacks on members of our community.

      • Yes and conservatives should learn to be ignorant and intolerant to the many liberal jerks these colleges bring in to speak right ? Which they bring in all the time and we have to listen to their non stop blathering. That’s the way to hear others opinions right mr current university student

      • You have deemed his messages ‘racist and violent.’ Many reasonable people disagree.

      • A interested Cornell alumnus says:

        You are proud men and women came together to offer a collective “na na na, I’m not listening.”

        How can you argue against hateful speech if you cannot hear what is said?

      • Unambiguously racist? I think a lot of people disagree. I hate stop and frisk, but the man has done more than simply implement one policy. NY was a rampant with crime and his administration helped bring the city back to sanity.

        Regardless, he was a guest to our University and we a select few treated him terribly. Good luck getting anyone else with controversial views to speak at the University. This was an embarrassment to Brown.

        • Brian - Class of 07 says:

          So he is controversial because his policies/views(which is currently what the majority of New Yorkers support) oppose that of the radical leftist student body of Brown. The protestors should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. I went to Brown, and I see that its gotten even worse since I graduated with the leftist garbage that spews out.

      • I completely disagree with you…but that is not the point. The point is that it is better to disagree and discuss, then disagree and blindly yell criticisms at each other. It’s barbaric and embarrassing to the University that it’s students and members cannot have a reasonable discussion about their differences. Mr. Kelly even had a question and answer portion set up! Why wouldn’t the protestors take that opportunity to voice their concerns, instead of making themselves look foolish, childish, spoiled and ignorant screaming like immature brats.

        Lastly, if these “victims” have such a problems with Stop and Frisk, protest against the Supreme Court not the officers conducting them. This is just more proof that education does not fix ignorance…unfortunately.

      • This is the education people get for $44,000.00 a year? Wow! Mom and Dad are getting ripped off by either their young veal offspring or the educators. I suspect the former.

    • Since when do liberals have to be tolerant of racist opinions? Why are so many Brown students afraid of stepping on anyone’s toes?

      • boycottFacebookMsftApple says:

        This actually made me respect brown students

      • So you reserve the right to designate someone a racist and revoke their right to speak on campus?


        • Yes, that’s how it works.

        • The only person that revoked his right to speak was the woman in charge of the event. The protestors were using their right to free speech. Could they have done things better? Perhaps. But just remember who it was that actually cancelled the event.

          • The right to free speech does not extend to shouting down a speaker during a lecture at a private university on private property. The protestors actions led directly to the cancelling of the event.

            But you are right, if the university administration had chosen to, they could have stopped the disruption and continued or rescheduled the event. So they share the blame.

          • The right to free speech extends anywhere in America to anyone who is a citizen. You’re conflating exercising free speech with causing a disruption or disturbing the peace. These are separate things. If the protestors were to be arrested for causing a disruption or disturbing the peace, that doesn’t mean they weren’t also using free speech rights. They have a right to speak freely, and the people in charge of the venue/property have the right to remove those people for causing a disruption.

          • It is true, the protestors could not have succeeded in their suppression of the presentation if the administration had not surrendered to their aggression.

            But to call their disruptive behavior ‘using their right to free speech’ is wrong. The right to free speech does not allow you to go into any private venue and shout out loud.

            Try going into a library, a movie theater, a city council meeting, etc, and using your right to free speech in that way. Then let me know how the judge you are brought before evaluates that argument.

          • The right to free speech extends to any American citizen at any time on American soil. Going into private property and speaking freely is not illegal by itself. It’s up to the owner of the private property (and/or the other occupants of the private property) to decide if you are breaking any laws, like causing a disturbance or harassing someone or trespassing. But “speaking out of turn” or “shouting someone down” isn’t against the law per se, unless, for example, the person you’re “shouting down” wants to sue you for mental cruelty or slander or harassment or something like that. It would depend on the content and intent of what you say. Or, like the library example, you could be potentially charged with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, but it’s up to the library to charge you. Though aren’t libraries and city council meetings public spaces? At any rate, I think I’ve made my point. Free speech is free speech. Whether you’re committing any other crimes while exercising free speech all depends on the situation.

    • In a nut shell, thugs shut down the discussion and the administration does nothing. Might makes right. But I guess it’s okay because said thugs have decided that they have been oppressed and are therefore entitled to act out.

  2. This is a real shame. Coming from a country with rampant censorship and frequent silencing of dissenting opinions, I am ashamed to learn of this ugly side to our student body.

    Since when did an invitation to speak on campus become interpreted as a categorical endorsement of the entirety of a speaker’s views and convictions? Were President Obama to visit Brown, should we attempt to bar him from speaking for his condoning of drone strikes and mass surveillance?

    I am deeply embarrassed by today’s actions, and hope that President Paxson herself speaks out against what happened.

    • Agree. Paxson should condemn this.

      • boycottFacebookMsftApple says:

        No, Admin is here to serve the students, Not the other way around. Paxson should commend students’ civil disobedience. But of course that would not be good for her cacreer.

        • yeah, that’s a good idea. if the students decide that the workers at the Ratty must be paid the same as a tenured professor in the medical school then the admin must make it so!

          • boycottFacebookMsftApple says:

            some tenured profs don’t get paid that much. We dont’ need so many admins. Why do we have such a big endowment and then have so many admins? Are we actually learning more?

          • You have a big endowment? Ha! Your endowment is a joke compared to other private schools — and from there most of your problems spring.

          • The endowment slush stats correlate inversely to output quality anyway. Look at Stanford where they offer remedial English instruction. They’re all mere country clubs for the use of oil sheiks and political embezzlers needing somewhere to park their spoiled progeny for a year or 4

          • as opposed to Brown?

          • I love how you’re saying these things, in an article about protesting profiling.
            Stereotypes – they swing both ways.

    • Yes, even Ahmadinejad got more respect than this at Columbia!

  3. As a parent of a current Brown student, I am utterly disgusted and embarrassed by the behavior of the students at this college that is so often touted as being “open minded.” I often find myself defending Brown against criticisms from my conservative friends and family, but I have to admit that they have a point. The concept that some ideas should not be permitted to be expressed is a key feature of totalitarian thinking.

    • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

      How would you feel if brown paid a prominent fascist the opportunity to espouse his/her ideas before the Brown community? Are we to be “open minded” about quietly listening to a fascist? Or would you be okay with Brown inviting a speaker to argue the necessity of pushing for racial eugenics? Clearly, everyone has his/her own conception of where this line should be drawn, and while it’s unfortunate it had to be expressed as it was today, for many people including myself, racial profiling is one such topic that shouldn’t be legitimized by an institution of higher learning like Brown.

      • Ray Kelly is the head of the NYPD. He was the head of the NYPD under Dinkins. So Dinkins is also equivalent to ‘prominent fascist’? Or does that title only apply to Kelly? I guess ‘fascist’ only means what you thugs want it to mean.

      • Is this a joke? We have to listen liberal fascists every day!day, and heaven forbid we say anything about it.

    • boycottFacebookMsftApple says:

      Inviting Kelly to speak instead of more Science and Technology speakers is a waste of University resources, a waste of students’ tuition and an insult to higher education.

    • Ronald Pires says:

      As an alumni (’73), I’m curious about what you think Ray Kelly has to offer your child as a student there? Are we trying to rehab Jim Crow now? Perhaps justify constitutional disobedience by public authorities?

      I might suggest that if you feel you have to defend Brown against conservative friends, you might consider getting new friends. Or maybe just print up a Wiki list of great Americans that went to Brown and give it to them. It’s a pretty impressive list, you know, and I doubt any one of them ever felt they had to apologize for their alma mater. I certainly never have.

      • Yes. That’s exactly what we are doing. Tonight Ray Kelly was going to speak. Tomorrow we were going to reinstate Jim Crow and then repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. But, hey, you stopped him you clever radical you. Good job.

      • #1 you are hilarious. You are the second lefty in the last week to tell conservatives at brown that they simply need to fond new friends. What a dick.

        Also, not really sure who you’re referring to om that alum list. Not that impressive.

      • Remember what LBJ said once “The great society bill passed”…

        ……. Clue something about 200 years…..

  4. Do we think that this campus would be having a conversation on racial profiling and policing practices at this scale if this even had never been organized? Are we really comfortable pretending that the Taubman Center had no idea that some of Ray Kelly’s policies would be viewed as controversial by many members of the Brown community when extending him an invitation to speak?

    It isn’t the University’s responsibility to make sure that every opinion espoused by every speaker it invites to campus is matched by the opportunity of a speaker of the opposite opinion to rebut in the same venue and in the same style. Clearly there is room for discussion of these issues — the campus has been abuzz with such discussions for a week. Granted, the event as organized was a lecture rather than a town hall, but that doesn’t preclude the continuation of the conversation as it spills onto the headlines of our newspapers and the greens of our campus.

    Perhaps you’d really like the opportunity to ask Ray Kelly a question on the topic and hear a response that he’s rehearsed countless times to wriggle out of it. I don’t see what you’d get from that. But perhaps, if you give someone who holds an opinion you find appalling the chance to make a case for it, you can make a reasoned response and break down the arguments made in favor of it. Perhaps you might even find that learning about the topic at hand from a viewpoint diametrically opposite yours provides you a more nuanced understanding it. Perhaps you could understand Kelly’s justifications for the policies and then argue against them based on solid rationalized argumentation rather than a series of buzzwords.

    Or, perhaps, we could continue to see every issue as staunchly black and white at this school lauded for the way it embraces liberalism. Sometimes if you listen to what someone has to say, you might get something out of it — and even if it’s further fuel to drive the fight against him, there was value gained from hearing his opinion.

    Or, we could prevent him from speaking, celebrate a “victory” for the student body, and feel satisfied in having made a superficial statement through much screaming and shouting. Kudos to our academic institution.

    • Ronancio, Rojas-Carroll and Pacheco-Fores have great futures at the NSA. They don’t believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States either.

      • Kulture War says:

        They all make Stalin and Karl Marx proud.

        • maybe stalin says:

          no, they don’t. At least Marx was an intelligent man, engaging in reasoned debate, even if he was wrong. These kiddies are among the least intelligent on campus.

    • The protest did not make a “superficial” statement. It made a profound and important statement that has clearly resonated and extended beyond the walls of the university. Your careful denigration of the protesters (“superficial statement through much screaming and shouting”; “buzzwords”) cannot wash away the message that did come through – that stop and frisk is a racist policy that is not acceptable at Brown or in our country. REAL discussion, where the viewpoints that are not sanctioned by the people at the top, is messy, uncomfortable, and never goes in an orderly way. This protest started a real discussion

  5. Dan Greenberg '88 says:

    I graduated from Brown in 1988. Some of my fellow students were under the impression then that dialogue and opposing views were dangerous social phenomena that should generally be resisted. Brown really must do a better job at showing its students that there is a better way.

  6. Rex Visigothis says:

    @Bud Brooks-Liberals? Sure, liberals (who cannot take their own side in a quarrel) would let the odious running dog of Guilianish fascism vomit his apologia. But not the brave *Bolsheviks of Wriston Quad. Hail, Brunonia! *(Irony NOT intended)

    Roger II, Rex Visigothis, ’66

    • Ray Kelly wasn’t head of the NYPD under Rudy G. Kelly was head under Dinkins and was replaced by Bratton when Rudy took over.

  7. Hatin' on Hipsters says:

    Today is one of the only days that I have felt embarrassed to be a Brown student. A brown guest lecturer is a GUEST. Even if you fundamentally disagree with Kelly, appreciate that there are plenty of people who WANT to hear what he has to say- whether that is because they want to decide what to make of his controversial policies or because they support those policies. It is disrespectful to those of us who wanted to hear what Kelly has to say to just shut him down.

    Moreover, “smart” Brown students, appreciate that the issue profiling IS actually a complicated issue. If a certain race in a city, or area of one, is statistically more likely to commit a violent crime, is it unreasonable for cops to be extra perceptive of appearance when policing? To me, it’s the exact same thing as making someone from the former USSR subject themselves to extra screening at the airport because of where they were born, or police paying extra attention to teenage boys rather than girls on the road because they are more likely to be speeding, etc. Not all boys are going to be terrible drivers and get into an accident that kills someone, but if they are statistically more likely to, is it worth being a bit harder on them if it COULD protect even a few innocent drivers? Whether gender, country of origin, or appearance should affect policing is actually a complicated issue, one which today’s protesters did not allow us to explore.

    What I really wanted to ask Kelly was whether there was any kind of research or statistical analysis to support his policies (i.e. are latinos more likely to commit crimes in Spanish Harlem than those of other races?), but you protesters denied me the opportunity to do that.

    • You're Proving Our point says:

      “If a certain race in a city, or area of one, is statistically more
      likely to commit a violent crime, is it unreasonable for cops to be
      extra perceptive of appearance when policing?”

      This racist perception is EXACTLY why Mr. Kelly could not be allowed to talk at brown. The fact that this mentality exists even without him propagating it shows that instead of bringing in speakers like Kelly, Brown needs to bring in speakers to address the racist undertones present on our campus.

      How much data does there need to be to justify the criminalization of the colored body?

      • free speech says:

        “Could not be allowed to talk at Brown.” – What happened to free speech?

        • Nothing happened to it. The protestors used their free speech rights, and the woman at the podium eventually decided to cancel the event on behalf of the university. I have a question for you: What happened to a person’s right to walk down the street freely? What happened to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

          Anybody who still believes racial profiling, or any profiling for that matter, is okay, has several screws loose or is ignorant of the laws of our country.

      • Hatin on Hipsters says:

        You can use phrases like “mentality,” “racist undertone,” “colored body” to make your point nice and flowery, but I don’t see an argument “Proving Our Point.” Automatically deeming my point as racist without actually addressing my argument as to why this profiling is complicated and not an issue of “racist” or “not racist” (see Paragraph 2) only supports my own argument that Ray Kelly should have been able to talk so that we could actually explore this issue.
        Instead people like you used their upset feelings, not even arguments, to prevent that crucial discussion today. So you say we need to “bring in speakers” who think just like you and shut up any ones who don’t?

        I’ve always thought that the ‘far left’ and ‘far right’ (politically) have one key thing in common- a desire to destroy any voices that don’t agree with theirs. Now that’s a violation of the First Amendment, dontcha think?

        • Hatin On Hipsters says:

          Also note that I don’t really come down on any side in this- I don’t necessarily agree with Kelly. If you read my OP, that’s not what I am saying. What I was arguing was that it is a complex issue that merits exploration, which is precisely why it would have been helpful for Kelly to speak, so that we could ask questions and make informed decisions, rather than shutting down any discussion dictator-style.

          • Civil Discourse says:

            One thing that I want to point out, and I only do so on this post because it the most recent of many that have made this comment, is that, at least in my mind, “censorship” and “free speech” are both fundamentally intertwined with the government-sponsored suppression of ideas, or lack thereof. Many countries in the world do not have free speech, and advocating for certain politically unpopular ideas can result in imprisonment. Mr. Kelly’s free speech was not destroyed by the cancellation of this event, nor is anyone’s free speech being infringed by receiving backlash to their ideas on campus.

            There is certainly a conversation to be had about whether Mr. Kelly should have been allowed to speak, and my personal views on that topic are a non-issue here. Rather, I just mean to clarify that this is a debate about allowing *open discourse* on campus on an issue that may or may not have two sides, depending on where you stand. Calling this a threat to free speech, or anything similar, is simply sensationalist language and not an accurate representation of any of the actions by any of the parties involved.

            This is not about being politically correct, but rather about avoiding language that prevents the issues from being fairly and civilly discussed.

      • Ummm. It’s not a “perception.” It’s a little something known as a fact. Young minority males commit the vast majority of crimes in NYC. How can a fact be racist? How can it be racist to point it out? In other areas of life we call this data-driven decision making.

        • Ronald Pires says:

          Only if you forget about all the criminals on Wall Street. Or does crime not count when the sums get really large and the perps are really rich?

          • Correct. It’s not a crime if it’s a large amount. Look at slavery, it still persists today through the prison system. Remember police acts as security for the very rich. Once you commit a crime of large enough magnitude, it’s no longer illegal. Sad but that’s how we are set up.

          • Right, which is why all the rich people in New York are about to vote in DeBlasio — so that he can make sure that the NYPD continues to act as their personal security service.

          • It’s not the NYPD’s job to police the banking industry. Go talk to the SEC, FINRA, the Fed and the Justice Department for that.

          • That’s why we should remain the ‘Police’ to ‘Police pertaining to blue collar Crimes’.
            And SEC to ‘Police pertaining to some white collar crimes’.

            The misuse of the term police confuses the public.

          • Ronald Pires says:

            Perhaps you should have read the comment I was responding to, which clearly referred to “crimes in NYC” as a generic, and not to crimes in NYC for which the NYPD have jurisdiction? (And by the way, the state AG clearly has jurisdiction over many actions taken by players on the street. It’s not just federal.)

          • oh god, shut up. Would stop and frisk prevent Wall Street crime?

          • Hmm…put some average Joe homeowners from the Midwest in the corridors of the financial buildings, have them randomly stop the bankers and ask them, “Hi there, sir. How are you today? We’re just wondering if you’ve done anything to help Main Street today?”

            I think you’re onto something here…

          • YoungConservative says:

            When did it become a crime to be rich? Or even to be greedy? Greed isn’t going to get you into heaven, but it’s not against the law

          • It became a crime when we all realized, thanks to the financial meltdown of 2008, that the rich and privileged have been bending the rules and creating laws that essentially favor their own economic interests and not the interests of everyone. It’s not just the financial industry, it’s the whole system of lobbying and deregulation that provided fertile ground for the financial industry to run wild. Oh, and also, our country was founded on crime (the murdering and taking of land of Native Americans).

          • I suppose you have proof of these crimes? Or do you just hate people who made a lot of money by working for it?

          • Yep, they work for it alright. Until they realize there’s no rules to it, no higher purpose in it, and then move on to something else. The ignorant ones stay and move up into management positions.

          • You sound like a crybaby who can’t figure out the system. It’s all everyones else’s fault, right?

          • Organized criminals make a lot of money, too. Is there no moral standard to how money is made, or do the ends justify the means?
            Just because something is legal, that does not make it moral or logical, only exempt from prosecution from an incompetent government. A stop and search policy was perfectly legal, according to those in charge of interpreting behavior, but it was not ethical or principled. The same things go on with making money.

          • Libby Tardell says:

            Great point Ronald, it is a good thing our liberal friends formed Occupy Wall Street and pissed all over the sidewalks there, I think that made a great point!

          • ThatConLife says:

            “All the criminals”? Are you implying that there is more crime in business than there is on the streets?

        • First off, where are you getting this “fact”? Secondly, according to the 2010 Census, 33% of NYC is white, 26% is black, 26% is Hispanic, 13% is Asian, and 3% is “other”. Even if it *were* true that minority males commit the vast majority of crimes in NYC, minorities make up at least 65% of the population anyway. So making that statement doesn’t really indicate anything, unless we know the specific numbers we’re talking about.

          Source: the Furman Center’s report “The Changing Racial and Ethnic Makeup of New York City Neighborhoods”

          Also, read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. She casts serious doubt on the notion that minorities commit more crime. In fact, when talking about drug possession and selling, for example, whites are more likely to commit these crimes, yet blacks are several times more likely to be swept up by the criminal justice system for them. This type of research is just hitting the mainstream, so it’s understandable why you’d still have old stereotypes. Check it out for yourself, Chapter 3 of The New Jim Crow.

    • People have asked him that a million times, the answer is no. Read an article if you want to know. This whole “rational debate” argument is a red herring. The debate is already out there if you want to know about, Ray Kelly has been defending this policy for over a decade, he has nothing new to say. Frankly he has nothing of substance to say, if he did he would have testified in court in defense of his policy, something he refused to do. Also, how do you have a rational discourse with someone who’s express object is to instill fear in the other side of the debate?

      • Thank you! If there’s one thing Brown student activists have learned from their experiences with Paxson, its that rational debate knows no bounds. Invoking rational debate can be a condescending weapon to keep real action from happening. So yes we didn’t get to hear Kelly’s canned responses and maybe we could have gained one or two nuances BUT that was traded for a nationally impactful response by wielding Browns clout.

        • A nationally impactful response. You hit the nail on the head. We look ridiculous. But on the plus side, you get to look at yourself in your mirror and admire what a stud you are. An immature, over-indulged brat.

        • dear unworthy student says:

          “Wield Brown’s clout.” You pompous pinhead. Speak for yourself, and leave the rest of us out of it. You do not speak for this University or its tens of thousands of students, faculty, and alumni. You sure don’t have the right to “wield its clout,” you overstuffed puff pastry of a child.

          • Libby Tardell says:

            I say WIELD BROWN’S CLOUT!!! Show the world the true liberals we are! I loved it when that guy with the ponytail started jumping up and screaming! That was classic liberal style. I am going to save up my foodstamps so I can send my kids to Brown!!

          • Student#13 was speaking for themselves. That’s sort of the nature of online commenting, no? And no one person speaks for the University anyway. How come you’re not blaming the woman whose decision it was to cancel the event, or the woman who interrupted the guy at 1:20 and said “Excuse me, you need to stop shouting”? Why is it only free speech if it’s done the way calm, quiet people do it?

        • RealCollegeKid says:

          Yes, and this little protest

  8. I don’t agree with the actions of the protestors, but there was a request that Kelly not come out of respect to current students, especially since the University gave Kelly an honorarium. I don’t think the students behaved appropriately, but the administration needs to realize that ignoring student concerns entirely can cause major problems and create a really negative and hostile environment on campus. Perhaps if the administration had not cowardly skirted the issue, and personally I don’t think it’s a grea idea to invite someone presently engaged in a lawsuit to a speaking engagement, we would have had a different outcome.

    • current faculty says:

      The administration didn’t ignore the students’ concerns.
      There is a difference between (a) ignoring someone’s concerns, and (b) declining to do everything someone wants you to do.

      The Brown administration isn’t the cowardly party in this case, I’m afraid. The thuggish students are.

      • Current Student '14 says:

        I totally agree with you. The students (and members of the community) threw a collective temper tantrum that was rude and immature. The administration does not have to listen to us every single time. Sometimes, we don’t get what we want. We need to learn to be okay with that. And we need to learn that there are very mainstream ideologies that exist outside the Brown bubble that won’t just go away if we don’t listen to them. We need to learn to engage in respectful discourse and maybe listen to people we disagree with, even if we do so with the intention of strengthening our own arguments. What happened today may be seen as a victory to those who organized it, but to others it will be seen as Brown being intolerant and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with liberal ideology. That’s not cool.

      • How is it cowardly to stand up for what you believe?

  9. Ray Kelly isn’t racist- didn’t you all know that he’s just R. Kelly in whiteface?

  10. Ben Thompson says:

    So sad. The students who chose to behave in this way certainly took the “low road.”

    • Ray Kelly should stop defending his awful and hateful policy and turn in his badge already. His tenacity in defending a program that has hurt so many people is the only real outrage here.

      • You mean the program that has made new York city among the safest in the country.

        • enjoy it while it lasts. DeBlasio is coming.

        • Do you mean the fact the serious crime rate has fallen less than in major cities over the same time? Do you mean the fact the NYPD lies about crime figures to keep the stats looking good? Or perhaps are you forgetting the main question, safe for whom? Certainly not a safe city to walk around as a young black male, getting stopped and hassled by the police every few months, with each encounter bringing with it the risk or planted evidence and years in prison or use of deadly force if you don’t “yessum massa” quite fast enough…damn those assumptions.

        • Ronald Pires says:

          Except for those banksters, you mean.

  11. Shame on Brown.

    • Ronald Pires says:

      As if Kelley ever gave a damn about the rights of the people he was abusing, The administration was trying to rehab this man’s unconstitutional policies, and the student weren’t having it. They voted. Ray lost. That’s democracy. … Class of ’73 … BTW, we would have thrown him out then too.

      • What would make you think the brown administration was trying to assist ray Kelly’s policies? Seriously, justify that claim.

        • Ronald Pires says:

          If what Kelley has to say is so important, perhaps he could have debated an opponent on of his ideas? But no, Brown decided it was important that Kelley’s ideas be heard unchallenged. Brown took a political position in favor of what the courts have decided is a racist display of state oppression. In doing so, the administration made the event political, and now they feign disgust when they are met in return by a political response? Thou doth protest …

          • So, Brown should have had a liberal speaker debate Kelley? Are the “stop, question & frisk” policies, which are singularly responsible for saving the lives of thousands of minority individuals during Kelley’s tenure, that scary that they require a liberal counterweight? So, non-liberal speakers need a liberal on the stage to counterbalance scary, non-liberal views, but the hundreds of far left and liberal speakers at Brown whom the university routinely permits to speak “unchallenged,” as you describe it, don’t require a counterbalance? Is this a joke? I’m embarrassed to have graduated in the same class at Brown as you.

  12. Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

    Ray Kelly should be able to express his bigoted approach to crime and punishment on whichever platforms he desires. If Brown can pay him for his hate speech, all the better! I like Ray Kelly and have been familiar with him for quite a while – he has personally stopped and frisked my butthole on numerous occasions.

  13. I don’t understand the argument that everyone should quietly respect Ray
    Kelly’s defense of a horrid program in the name of open dialogue. He’s
    not only been ignoring critics for over a decade, he’s forcibly and
    violently silence a number of them, including a former NYPD officer,
    Adrian Schoolcraft, who was hounded out of the police department and
    committed against his will to a mental institution for challenging the
    stop and frisk policies championed by Mr. Kelly. I could see the
    argument for a debate on the policy if Mr. Kelly would agree to suspend
    to it while its debate, but it’s hardly a debate when one side has the
    other face first against a brick wall, at gun point, while it’s rifling
    through their pockets because they made the mistake of walking around
    the Bronx of Brooklyn while young, male, and black…

  14. Instead of yelling at Ray Kelly about racism, how about asking your mothers and fathers to pay their cleaning ladies a living wage?

    • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

      Memory, how about you stop pooping yourself in public and then asking people to lick the poo? You made an assumption about all brown students, and I’ve made an assumption about you.

      • lskfhgdkfgdfg says:

        I think we have all made some pretty (negative) assumptions about YOU, buy a refreshing mountain dew

  15. “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” -Justice Louis Brandeis

  16. As a Brown alumni, I laud the current students efforts to keep this thug out of the Brown campus. Since when should we be tolerant of racist opinions? Enough is enough! Glad to see some students still have the will to take direct action to support their views.

    • Thank you Hugo Chavez!

      • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

        Oh a socialist who drastically reduced the income gap between rich and poor for his people? Someone who is demonized for killing fewer people than any American president has since and including Truman? Well, mighty high compliment you’re paying Alumni ’92, pal.

  17. Clown College lives up to its name. What a bunch of dumbasses.

    • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

      Yes, we attend Clown College located in Providence, Rhode island. You are correct when you say that we are living up to our name, because our name is, in fact, Clown College. Thank you for reminding us of our name. Your input is highly valued, Mr. Softee.

      – Proud student of Clown College studying squirting water out of fake flowers

      • Sounds about right. Explains why all the other Ivies wipe the floor with you clowns.

        • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

          You’re right, our makeup application and costuming needs some work, and with all the corporate clown shills produced at Harvard and Yale and Penn and Princeton . . . well, I think it’s pretty self-evident we have some room for progress at our minor Clown College.

          • No, ya’ll are progressive enough already and that’s the problem.

          • Ew Mountain Dew Sux says:

            Alumni ’92 I apologize for the silly, juvenile, unintelligent comments of “Buy a Refreshing Mountain Dew.” He or she is definitely not representative of the Brown student body, who are generally well informed and open minded. In fact, many of Brown’s public facebook groups, i.e. Brown Confessions, indicate that many Brown students are disgusted by the embarrassing actions of a few protesters and would have wanted to let Kelly speak.

          • Then why do you let the thugs run the place?

          • Uhhhh we don’t…Paxson was appalled. We choose not to let 30 weirdos define ourselves and simply ignore it. It’s the same 30 people who are into the nude week and other too liberal shenanigans. At this point, it’s not worth dignifying by fighting them. We just go about our business and enjoy our time at Brown.

          • Well, it’s not like these thugs are going to be brought before any sort of disciplinary body for their behavior. What do they have to do? Act up during a lecture by a university professor that they decide is “racist” or whatever?

          • mr softee doesn't go to an ivy says:

            These kind of things happen at other colleges, and acting up during a lecture would lead to disciplinary consequences. Also you don’t even go here what do you know.

          • you never know who goes to the Clown College:-)

    • Ronald Pires says:

      A bit of the green-eyed monster there, Mr. Softee? Thanks for your input.

  18. At least 1 year to go as Ray Kelly wont be the NYPD commisoner as mayor mike Bloomberg leave office in January 2014.. Who will be the NYPD commionser in 2014. As N.Y.C mayoral race continue… As Ray Kelly said lecture what does he mean Occupy Wall St protest will come back who know

  19. Wow, what an attractive student body. LOL

    • Buy a refreshing Mountain Dew says:

      My penis is 20 inches long and I have a thick head of hair, so yes, I would say I’m an attractive member of an attractive student body. L-O-L

  20. 1. Princeton, 2. Harvard, 3. Yale, 4. Columbia… 14. Brown

    Keep acting high and mighty, and we’ll keep laughing from NJ and the IV League.

    • Ew Mountain Dew Sux says:

      Aw I was trying to defend you from the evil Mountain Dew poster below, Alumni ’92. If you’re really that into numbers I guess you wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate Brown anyway.
      #wastedenergy #opencurriculumrocks #brownisno.1

    • the school isn’t great but todays’ students raised the school’s standings, imho

    • However, Brown is ranked #1 for Eurotrash street racing contests. And everyone knows the safety Ivy is Cornell — legend has it there was another member school in Philly, who disappeared on a crack binge in the 80s never to be seen again

  21. Hypocritical leftist students. Disgusting.

  22. I’m not a Brown student, but I graduated from a similar school down the road a ways. We’ve had our own issues with intellectual bullying in the past few years, and here are a few things that I took from that debate without realizing it at the time:

    1) The primary purpose of obtaining higher education is to pursue intellectual growth.
    2) If your idea of intellectual growth is to listen to – or be – the loudest voice in the room, then you probably shouldn’t be in college.

    There are plenty of other venues to shout people down to make your point: your kitchen table, the bar, Congress. But by silencing discussion because you oppose the speaker – however profound that opposition may be – you rob yourself AND your classmates of the chance for intellectual growth in a place that’s supposed to be dedicated to it. That’s not your call to make.

    To be specific, let me get at this idea that “We don’t like the speaker / we don’t agree with some of his views, so he shouldn’t be allowed to speak here at all.” Or, as my friend wrote, “a discussion between someone with racist and discriminatory views and a student body opposed to such views would [not] be productive.” From what I’ve read, Ray Kelly was there to talk about proactive policing. Does he truly have nothing to contribute, to your own learning or others’? I just can’t reconcile this mentality with how we really learn in college, or life. Do you think I’ve never learned anything from – or had a “productive” interaction with – anyone who was racist? How about xenophobic? homophobic? selfish? arrogant? petty? cruel?

    There are a whole lot of flawed people walking around out there ready to teach you something, and if you choose not to learn from them, that’s your own problem. Don’t force that on others by monopolizing the space where they came to learn.

    • Maybe the police should learn from the “flawed people” walking around the streets of NYC, rather than stopping and frisking them.

  23. boycottFacebookMsftApple says:

    I’d thought University is there to serve the students, not the other way around? I’d thought the exponential growth of Higher Ed Administration far beyond that of Faculty who actually does research and teaching would mean better service to students?

  24. So much for the free exchange of ideas.

    So very disappointed, but not surprised in my alma mater.

  25. Why did Paxson spam my mailbox?

    • Can you post her message as a public service for those of us who didn’t get it?

      • I don’t want to maybe it’s encoded differently to each person for NSA to track me. But she sounded pissed and responded kind of quickly I’d thought. Personally I would have waited a few more hours after the emotions subside. But I don’t know what admins are supposed to do.

        • I just know that Universities and higher education are mostly training for conformity. Except the sciences. The costs of education is over $40K? I assume most of the money goes into admin costs. Since faculty sizes remained about the same per student. So admins are paid large sums of money to train people to conform better to serve the few large corporations so we can have cheap oil and cell phones at the costs of genocides in africa and china.

          • Here’s the email, for those who have asked for it:

            Dear Members of the Brown Community,

            Earlier today, a public lecture and opportunity for questions and answers with New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, hosted by the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions, was prevented from taking place. Some students and members of the local community in the auditorium disrupted the lecture through shouting, persistent interruption, and coordinated chants to the point that University officials had no choice but to declare the event over.

            This is a sad day for the Brown community. I appreciate that some members of our community objected to the views of our invited speaker. However, our University is – above all else – about the free exchange of ideas. Nothing is more antithetical to that value than preventing someone from speaking and other members of the community from hearing that speech and challenging it vigorously in a robust yet civil manner.

            As is the case with virtually every lecture or event on this campus, the publicly stated program was for Commissioner Kelly to speak for a short amount of time followed by nearly an hour of questions and answers on any topic. Many students and other community members who strongly oppose policies and initiatives of the New York City Police Department were prepared to present their perspectives and arguments to Commissioner Kelly. Not only was Commissioner Kelly denied the right to speak, members of our community were denied their right to challenge him. That is unfair to everyone involved and disrespectful to the rights we all embrace and should be vigilant in upholding as members of an academic community.

            The content of speech is often offensive to us as individuals and as community members. We have seen other instances on campus just this week of the use of symbols associated with some of the most heinous atrocities in human history to make a political point. Those symbols and posters were deeply offensive to many of us, including me, yet we responded to it by making our position and views known to others through the vigorous expression of values and ideas. Challenging views, arguments, and speech with which we disagree is expected in our community; doing so with intellectual rigor, careful analysis, and a commitment to respectful dialogue and discussion is also an expectation of our community.

            I will contact Commissioner Kelly to convey my deepest regret for the manner in which he was treated on our campus this afternoon. I have asked Vice President for Campus Life & Student Services Margaret Klawunn to work with faculty and students to convene a forum for the campus to discuss
            our values and expectations as a community further in the coming days.

            Brown’s character and culture calls for confronting pressing societal issues through education, activism, engagement, and rigorous discourse. Protest is welcome, but protest that infringes on the rights of others is simply unacceptable. We must work together to sustain this and the other core values that define us as a community.


            Christina H. Paxson

          • thanks for posting says:

            Way to go Paxson!

          • at least there’s one adult on college hill

        • pretty pelase says:

          Wait, seriously? It’s not encoded. They aren’t that clever. If she sent an email to the community, can you post it? I didn’t receive. But if she condemned this that’s a big deal.

  26. Donald Higdon says:

    Paraphrasing Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought while not accepting it.” The commentary from the defenders of the protestors is pathetic.

  27. Disappointed says:


  28. The totalitarian left strikes again.

  29. a question for the radicals says:

    If Ray Kelly is really so misguided, ignorant, and racist, why not let him speak so everyone can see how foolish he is? Surely you don’t think we’re dumb.

    Or are you worried he has real arguments that might convince your peers?

    • It costs money from the school to invite a speaker? Hello?

      • The totalitarians weren’t objecting to the expenditure. They were objecting to the speech. Would have been no different if he had not been paid.

  30. If the Brown administration really cared about FREE SPEECH they would ARREST the head of one of the largest CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD which every day threatens the free speech of MILLIONS of New Yorkers. Those of you who are so worked up about “free speech”— what about the free speech of Kimani Grey? Where’s his rights? And the rights of countless others who have been brutalized, terrorized, and killed by the likes of Ray Kelly and his criminal thugs? Where’s President Paxson’s condolences for them?

  31. Would people use the word ‘Thug’ or ‘Thuggish’ if it was all caucasian students? Just thinking out loud.

  32. Ronald Pires says:

    I noted one of the photos said the police emptied the room. Was that the campus police or Providence’s? Providence’s would never have been allowed on campus (or asked to come on campus) for that when I was there in ’73. The campus police were quite capable of handling anything like that, and were well respected by the student body.

  33. There is a valid point about Students being erroneously selective in their protests. Most of the students probably uses iphones, apple products, facebook, microsoft products when cell phones, iphones have funded the deadliest war since WWII. Over 5 million people have lost their lives in genocides and war in Democratic Republic of Congo, all to obtain minerals for iphones,ipads,imacs,most cell phones. But you don’t see people stop using Apple products by the majority.

    Same with facebook for stealing billions of dollars from the economy in a fraudulent business model that invades personal privacy as well as fabricate earnings to lure money into their stocks by the billions. Tax evasion by the billions by number of facebook executives. Real money that people needed to buy health insurance, medicine. Same with microsoft that destroyed a truly free technological landscape with the destruction of netscape amongst others.

    For a campus supposedly opposed to violation of our constitutional rights, its sure is lacking in the major problems the larger scale problems. Only very very few people install gnu/linux and free software (free as in freedom, not beer?) and that’s very sad for a supposedly institution of higher learning.

    • are you crazy or says:

      Are you high? What does Linux have to do with this? Cut it out.

      • I’m addressing the core problem of racism in its entirety. It’s for economic control and concentration by the very few. Race, like religion, is a highly leveraged construct to create separate classes that serves the few.

        I am not talking about just linux. I am talking about gnu. If we don’t fight for freedom in its entirety which now is going more and more through technology, we have no hope.

        And what is police? Police are mere security forces, military locally to protect mostly the small elites. Yes academia is not the elite but also a servant of the very very few. the aforementioned companies leads to extreme concentrations of wealth and power, which will perpetuate social and economic differences in our society. That is what initially created racism in the US, the very problem we are addressing.

        • Uh, so Facebook created racism in the US?

          • Facebook is the new Christianity. It’s a religious activity of the last few years by the populace to keep them out real engagement. In addition it also stole wealth out of the middle class and concentrated it to the few.

          • And Mark Zuckerberg is the new Jesus? Of course. Another Jew starting a revolution and a new religion. Makes perfect sense.

          • Zuckerberg’s actions are orders of magnitude worse than Stop and Frisk. So in that light, the lack of protests against facebook while a strong protests today is troubling.

  34. Name withheld for job security says:

    One of the major advantages to attending a school with Brown’s stature is that national-level figures come here to speak and hear from students (the Dali Lama was never going to show up at my little liberal arts school!). Someone like Ray Kelly isn’t stupid enough to believe that no one at that lecture was going to challenge him- but he still showed up expecting a rational discussion from people who claim to be mature adults. Going forward, why should anyone who might be considered controversial bother to come to Brown? The community clearly can’t control themselves long enough to get to the part where they get to have their say.

    Is that why you came Brown- do walk around in an echo chamber, insulated from the ideas of anyone different than you? Is that what a liberal scholar is now?

    • Ray Kelly gets challenged every day by the NYC media, Al Sharpton, the NY City Council, etc. He can handle a debate. Seems like Brown can’t.

      • Nonsense (as usual by Prep School Softee). When Black / Latino leaders asked to meet with Kelly, he did not respond for over two months. So much for Prep School Softee’s baloney.

    • “other peoples points of view” is a good talking point. Universities like Brown never invite inconvenient speakers. Those inconvenient speakers are usually invited by student groups.

      The administration knows who the elites and powerful are and invites a bunch of milquetoast speakers. Well in this case Blacks / Hispanics are not a very powerful interest group. So they get to hear the “other peoples point of view” spiel.

  35. hannah massachusetts says:

    yep, way to give Brown a good name to the rest of the country. All it does it make the students look clueless and entitled.

  36. Smoke Matish says:

    Either Chris Paxson truly wanted the discussion to proceed, according to stated plan, and then she failed in the delivery; or Chris Paxson knew that this would happen, has an agenda against the speaker, and willfully caused it to happen. I find either of these two scenarios very believable, one because of Chris’s demonstrated incompetence, and the other because of Brown University’s demonstrably twisted agenda.

  37. never ceases to amaze me what liberals will do in the name of their cause
    1) should conservatives here @ Brown act similarly if you were to bring Obama here? i personally feel the same disgust at his drone and surveillance policies

    2) why not talk about the profiling your beloved democratic leaders in Washington so frequently do? we’ve literally killed US citizens with drone strikes with circumstantial evidence. i’ll wait for a response.
    i really do enjoy watching ObamaCare fail and unravel before our very eyes in conjunction with the Merkel news, Snowden leaks, and countless other failed policies of our liberal leaders. you morons manage to paint the most complex issues in terms of black and white. probably the same idiots who propagated the 12 year old picture of Trayvon to make your sensationalist point. but please, continue watering down words like facist and racist to support your narratives. ill continue laughing at you and we can stop pretending Brown is truly an academic institution which promotes inquiry and debate.

  38. DepthTested says:

    Somebody should have gone all Kent State on these morons. Shout us down, we shoot you down. Point. Counterpoint. Or should I say, hollow point. Now, as I was saying…

  39. All_American says:

    Who paid these kids Soros? yep! Don’t believe it, don’t fall for the lies of an rich, dirty, criminal old man that thinks money will buy him laws

  40. brown parent says:

    I agree with P’11 wholeheartedly!! I am utterly disgusted and embarrassed at the behavior of the students….

  41. one more thing says:

    Now with technology and the fact that this meeting was videotaped….the student hecklers will forever be a part of Brown History and on the internet for eternity! Congratulations to those students who will never be able to erase their rude inappropriate behavior!!

  42. Richard Fontaine says:

    Childish morons. One parent stood up to ask a question of State of Maryland Public School administrators about the “Common Core” curriculum being forced on parents and teachers in Towson, MD and he was arrested and charged with a bogus assault charge. Fifty immature liberal activists interrupt a lecture by Ray Kelly and the Brown University administrators sit by and don’t even take any kind of action. If I was a parent of a Brown student and saw this video I would be very embarrassed.

    • why do we tolerate this? says:

      You’re right. The Brown police should have arrested them and continued the event. That’s what happens in the real world. Why do we have to be part of their make-believe?

    • I am totally embarrassed as a Brown parent. Thank goodness my son feels the same way I do!

  43. Kulture War says:

    Disgusting hypocrites. These students do not realize these policies protect minorities who are the overwhelmingly victims of inner city violence. Look at these students. They all live and grew up in gated communities with home alarm systems. Kelly has done an incredible job lowering gun crimes in NYC and was a former Marine and beat cop. He has dedicated his life to protecting others and these punk kids make judgements on him and call him names and shout him down? The campus had a duty to insure his voice could be heard. Why weren’t the disruptive protesters forcibly removed? If this was Noam Chomsky being shouted down by conseravtives [which wouldn’t happen in the first place] you can bet the campus response would have been different. Liberal Political Correctness leads to catastrophe wherever it is employed. Now go ahead Good Little Liberals, attack me for telling the truth. That is all you got.

    • You are exactly right. The urban poor are harmed most of all by the violence in their neighborhoods which is largely what stops economic development. They should thank Ray Kelly — the ones who aren’t committing crimes, at least.

  44. randy kowalski says:

    those cute little socialists need a spanking. then they need to go to a real university to get a clue.

  45. students are dumber than horsesht

  46. bring back Firefly

  47. This looks like a good reason not to hire some one coming out of Brown.

  48. KICK THEM OUT says:

    I believe we should expel these students. They clearly are unwilling to uphold the standards of discourse we expect of Brown students, and they’re proud of it. They don’t deserve to be here.

    At the very least they must be subject to disciplinary action.

  49. These students look like they’re at party. An excuse to protest…yeah man! I wonder how many of them grew up in the neighborhoods they are protesting about. Actually, I don’t wonder, the answer is very few, if any. If only each of those protestors would first have to spend a night in East New York, during which they could be videotaped and interviewed about their tolerance and acceptance of all the friendly and diverse people they meet.

  50. WOnderful where a place of higher learning limits thought and speech. Very refreshing.

  51. Chris Piette says:

    Dear Jenny Li,

    You were the first one who tried to silence me. When I began talking, I got almost a sentence out before you shouted “SIT DOWN!”, and then everyone started yelling over me. Every angry voice that spoke out yesterday was celebrated as heroic, but the moment I tried to be rational and open-palmed, you led the effort to squelch me.

    Ironically, the clause I was finishing up when you interrupted me went something like “talking over each other.”

    You think I’m against you. You think that by offering Kelly a platform to speak, I was complicit with the inequalities implicit in his policies. My plan, and the plan of many other silenced voices yesterday, was to examine the issue from both sides and lead Kelly to the unquestionable logical conclusion that he was approaching policing the wrong way. We wanted to destroy him intellectually while showing that Brown was a forum for progressive debate, but you simply raised the same angry (yet IMPOTENT) voice of “Why me?” liberalism.

    If you’d listened to me for more than 5 seconds, if you’d cared to look for the blue bandanna round my neck, you would have a very different opinion of me.

    I am on your side.

    I am a humanist, a liberal, a progressive, an anti-racist. I’m trying to do the same thing as you, but I know that people close their ears to anger, and despite the shrieks you raised within and without Taubman, you are quieting your own voice by clinging to rage. I challenge you to channel your (admittedly righteous!) fury into focused, peace-seeking passion.

    I am ready to be your friend and your ally.
    Everyone that hates Ray Kelly, that wants to see him deposed, I am fighting the same fight as you.

    Institutional racism is the devil, but as we’ve seen in the past, institutions can be immensely difficult to overturn because of their monetary and ideological inertia. Start from the bottom up. Instill your revolutionaries with love, peace, and harmony – have them embody the qualities that they are trying to spread. Lead not by force, but by example.

    I love you and I forgive you, as I do every socially-aware mind that attended the talk and that continues to discuss it. I will only seem to be your enemy for as long as you cleave to the idea that my ideology conflicts with yours – but it doesn’t.

    Be the change you want to see in the world.

    • If you really think Ray Kelly will be led “to the unquestionable logical conclusion that he was approaching policing the wrong way” through a civil socratic dialogue you are (and I’m saying this as politely as possible) absolutely out of your naive mind.

      • But you’ve got to remember, we’re dealing with an undergrad here who has such high self-regard that he believes he can “intellectually destroy” the very successful police commissioner of America’s largest and most diverse city *on the topic of policing*.

        • Booing was basically the only option because his inaccurate sense of dignity and worth (among elites) is the only thing that students could realistically destroy or cause him to question here.

          • just guessin but says:

            I don’t think you made him reevaluate his dignity and worth. What you did make him question was the dignity and worth of Brown University students, whose “inaccurate sense” of their own importance, intelligence, and quality “(among elites)” was disproved beyond question yesterday.

          • Oh I don’t go to Brown–I actually share a tailor with Mr. Kelly.

            You may be correct that he’s unlikely to respond to this event with a self-reevaluation, but that doesn’t change my assertion that he’s even *less* likely to respond constructively to civil argument from undergrads. Since neither party here is changing its mind, students may at least try to make him feel uncomfortable by specifically displaying their contempt for his beliefs, which previously he may have only guessed at. It’s a small victory but it’s better than the absolutely nothing (but with dignity!) that you seem to prefer.

      • and if you think that not even attempting a civil socratic dialogue, be that by booing him off the stage or closing your ears to all of it, will spur any kind of shift in ideas, then you’re not going to live to see any positive change.

        better to be naive, hopeful, and active than cynical and apathetic.

        • Not sure how booing someone off a stage is “inactive” or “apathetic” … Aggression and forceful action do not equal apathy or cynicism.

      • The point is not to change Mr. Kelly’s point of view. The point is to win over those people who are undecided, either because they haven’t thought about the issue much at all or because they presently see validity to both sides of the argument. With a good argument, you may even win over some people who leaned toward the opposing view.
        Inciting a mob to shout down your opponent accomplishes very little besides making yourself feel self-righteous. It does not win over undecided; instead it makes them more sympathetic to the other side.
        In a debate, you never see someone admit that their arguments are terrible. But you do see audiences evaluating the arguments and coming to their own conclusions. There is no guarantee that they will appreciate and accept your arguments, but the marketplace of ideas is the best humanity has come up with to settle issues of disagreement

  52. I think there is no disagreement between the two sides towards the sentiment of opposing Ray Kelly. The problem here is: what is the best way to do so? At the very least, I think we need maintain civility towards our fellow students, for example Chris Piette. There is little question that students who wanted to hear Kelly talk still object to his policies; recklessly silencing their voices as well does no good for our cause. Essentially, I believe we squandered the opportunity to express our thoughts as individuals in favor of mob volume. Had the event been planned without opportunity for dialogue, then I would have supported our actions. This is not about welcoming Ray Kelly or not, but about most productively expressing our objections once he was here. For me, the best way to oppose Ray Kelly would have been to defeat him intellectually and civilly on the open forum that was to be the question and answer session.

  53. tpartynitwit says:

    When it comes to blatantly racist policies such as Stop and Frisk, there is no “on the one hand, on the other hand.” Inviting Ray Kelly to speak at Brown was a serious mistake. He deserves the disrespect he was shown.

    • Joseph Miller says:

      Blatant racism is what the head of the American Nazi Party espoused when he spoke at Brown, as described in the Ken Miller article. That is, the speaker would plainly state the superiority of one race over another. A policy, on the other hand, may have some racist intention behind it or somehow enable racist abuse, but it is not “blatant” racism. The legality and morality of stop and frisk is actually up for debate, and if you step outside of your bubble of mutual reassurance you’ll notice as much. If this were not up for debate, a mob of tantruming students would not be needed to reinforce the false consensus through censorship.

      • tpartynitwit says:

        Blatant racism occurs on a continuum, on which the American neo-Nazis are at an extreme end. The stop and frisk policy is pursued and enforced solely in and directed against minority neighborhoods. If the NYPD occasionally chased down, roughed up, and planted evidence on the random white banker from Greenwich or did rough searches of lily-white soccer Moms visiting the City, you’d have a case. Instead, the NYPD annually makes more stops of black and Latino residents than the total number of such residents in the City. There has yet to be a civil rights or civil liberties case brought forth by a white boy in a brief case left a bloody and humiliated mess by the friendly local NYPD, though I’d love to see them head down to wall Street and bust a few random heads.

        • Joseph Miller says:

          Racism occurs on a continuum, blatancy is on end of that continuum. This is the end with the Nazis.

          Blatant: brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.

          Synonyms: unmistakable, overt, undeniable, obtrusive.

        • Joseph Miller says:

          Racism occurs on a continuum, blatancy is one end of that continuum. This is the end with the Nazis.

          Blatant: brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.

          Synonyms: unmistakable, overt, undeniable, obtrusive.

  54. Simply embarassing.

  55. Hypocrites, plain and simple!!!! Freedom of speech only applies to liberal ideals. The protesters are disgusting and intolerant!!!

    • Freedom of speech only applies to the government, not a private university. You might want to attend law school sometime and you’ll see it is in fact NOT so plain and simple.

      • Actually, no. While it’s true the First Amendment of the Constitution applies only to government, not to a private university, freedom of speech is a principle that we at this university uphold above and beyond mere legal obligations. We believe that this should be a place where people are free to express their thoughts in an open forum, as the Taubman Center attempted to host yesterday.

        No one on this page is arguing that Kelly had his first amendment rights violated. We’re arguing it was morally wrong to deny him the opportunity to speak.

  56. During the Weimar Republic the S.A. Brown Shirts quite often ended democratic public rallies with their disruptive behavior. Brown shirts redux.

  57. John Catalinotto says:

    I spent a year on the Brown campus in 1961-62 studying graduate math and was encouraged to see that there are now enough Brown students politically involved to show solidarity with youth of color in New York and razz Kelly. Compared to what his cops have done to the young people here in NYC, Kelly got off light with just canceling his talk.

  58. Apparently the students don’t believe in free speech. This narrow-mindedness on their part is not reassuring.

  59. Klawunn said the University does not plan to pursue disciplinary action against the students who disrupted the lecture.

    Waal, that is why you have this problem, sister. How much you want to wager the youths responsible have been receiving this sort of indulgence for many years in a number of different venues?

    In my parents day, the children of the haut bourgeois had a regard for appearances, were capable conversationalists (a conversation free of profanity bar is stag settings and generally grammatical), listened to concert and chamber music, did their military service without complaint, married at age 23, and did not think it was their business to be obnoxious or exhibitionistic. They earned the agreeable retirements they built for themselves. Pity their grand-children are such louts.

    • admin is toothless. expel them says:

      Right on. Someone please explain to me WHY THESE STUDENTS WILL NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR THIS BEHAVIOR (which of course cost the school many thousands of dollars).

    • James_Kabala says:

      Hi, Art Deco! Good to see that you find you way into even the most remote corners of the Internet.

  60. Yet, again, liberals preemptively shouting down and shutting down a scheduled speaker with whom they disagree and who doesn’t spout liberal orthodoxy have made Brown a deserved laughingstock. Standard liberal game plan: If you disagree with someone, confront, attack and shut down his/her right to speak. The exhibited behavior is disgraceful and despicable. That Paxson’s letter to the university community suggests that Brown’s core values include open and free discourse is a joke. Until Brown is able to provide a peaceful and civil forum for people like Ray Kelly (hardly an extremist and someone who should be lauded for saving the lives of THOUSANDS of minorities in NYC via the “stop, question & frisk” program) and others who challenge liberal dogma, it remains a university of liberals, by liberals and for liberals. Pathetic, just pathetic. Everyone affiliated w/ Brown should be embarrassed by this outrageous and fascistic behavior.

  61. As an alumnus, I am both embarassed and angry. Alumni are an integral part of the university’s future. There are quite a few competing institutions asking for our help. Alumni will have to think long and hard about the wisdom of investing in Brown University. There is no excuse for what happened at Liss. I am livid.

  62. says:


  63. If Kelly wasn’t responsible for silencing so many himself, for violating their 4th Amendment rights as well, if I believed for a second that he even CARES that his policies might be wrong, if he had actually been silenced rather than simply denied the convenience and privilege of a smaller than normal (for him) audience, I might feel sorry for him.

    But no, there’s no reason here to feel sorry for him, or believe that he was actually “silenced” in any way.

    When he’s pepper sprayed, beaten into submission, and hauled away in plastic cuffs when he tries to speak, let me know. That people finally had the power to tell him to bugger off this time isn’t anything to be ashamed of.

    • The issue here is much larger than Kelly. I am sure he is used to accusations of people on the political fringe.

      The issue is whether that group of people have the right to deny the rest of the community an opportunity to hear whomever they decide is unfit to be heard.

      • Ha! Let me know when anyone besides Kelly is booed off the stage at Brown… and also, what did you expect to hear that would be any different than what he’s said before?

        It is tragic, it’s not often that we get to hear from straight white males in a position of government power. /sarcasm

        • I could make a long list of people who if scheduled to speak at Brown would likely be greeted with a similar reaction from the activist fringe who wield the power to silence their opposition on campus.

          In fact, the political climate at Brown is such that people on the right side of the political spectrum are almost never invited to begin with, at Brown or any of a number of leftist universities.

          • Something tells me the “right side of the political spectrum” members you have in mind wouldn’t have much worth listening to to say anyway… much less anything they haven’t been spouting off before.

            In any case, you still have a list of actuals to provide instead of these vague hypotheticals you brought in.

          • Not worth talking to you anymore. Your position is that there are people not worth listening to (by your standards) so who cares if they are shouted down.

            You are not a liberal. You are a leftist absolutist who would suppress those who you oppose.

          • There are people not worth listening to. Are you saying EVERYONE is worth listening to, as an absolute? Because you’ve got to know that’s not true.

            When did I say I was a liberal, or anything for that matter? What’s your point? What’s wrong with not being upset at someone who silences people by the thousands being booed off a stage? Who was actually silenced here?

            Or maybe you just figured out you’re simply wrong and mad about it. 😀

          • No, the point is you don’t get to decide who is worth listening to and who is not for the community at large.

            And we can all agree, you are not liberal by any classic sense of that word.


          • The real hilarity is well-off white people who aren’t affected by Kelly’s actions telling the people who actually have to put up with his crap (disproportionately even) should “just hear him out.”

    • Joseph Miller says:

      Typical lazy argument from a latent fascist. Instead of ranting about why you hate Kelly, answer me this:

      Does an institute of higher learning benefit from free expression?

      If the answer is no, you’re wrong. If the answer is yes with some exceptions for things that upset you, you’re also wrong.

      • Ha! My being opposed to Ray Kelly, known tool of corporate fascists, makes ME a fascist? “You keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

        Question before your question: has any free expression actually been stopped? The answer is no, because Kelly can still talk all he wants, with a far larger stage than Brown provides.

        • Joseph Miller says:

          Not being opposed to him, but shouting him down so that he could not speak, is fascistic. If you think shouting down political opposition, then rationalizing it by saying their opinions are not respectable enough to be heard, isn’t fascism then I suggest you need to brush up on the definition yourself. “Latent” still means what it’s always meant too.

          >Has any free speech actually been stopped?
          Yeah, he had to cancel his speech. Just because you haven’t been able to hound him in all walks of life to keep all audiences from hearing him doesn’t mean you aren’t a censor — it only means you’re a censor with more work to do.

  64. Censorship is a filthy business. Censorship by the elite who purport to justify their behavior by claiming to represent the non-elite is folly.

  65. parent and professor elsewhere says:

    As the parent of a current Brown undergraduate, and a faculty member at another university, I am disappointed (although unfortunately not shocked) at the protesters’ success in silencing the speaker and very unhappy about what this means about education at Brown. The protesters took many appropriate actions to convey their views, before and outside of the event, and I applaud them for making their opinions part of the conversation. But shouting down the speaker is NOT appropriate. The university is a place to engage views, including those with which one vehemently disagrees. Far better, more informative and appropriate, to allow Kelly to speak and then take part in the Q and A. Silencing him infringed on the rights of the audience members who came to hear his views, and perhaps to engage him as well. I have thought about these speech issues a lot, as my campus has had similar events, and often has not dealt well with them. Some of the silenced speakers I more or less agreed with, others heartily disagreed with, but in every case the university was lessened when intimidated silence replaced expression. And note that it is NOT necessary that each event have speakers from multiple sides; clearly in this case, alternate views were heard, as they will be if there is ample free and open expression. Also note that if the protesters object to Brown paying an honorarium to the speaker, that issue can and should be addressed separately; it does not entitle them to silence the speaker. And finally, someone queried whether all speech should be allowed — even misguided speech, as long as it is not hate speech nor an incitement to violence (distinctions recognized in law), is best counteracted by more speech, not by silencing. I hope the Brown administration takes appropriate steps to keep the university a place where controversial views can be aired and considered.

    • Knight of Liberty says:

      I just want to point out that hate speech is not a recognized exception to free speech under U.S. jurisprudence; otherwise, I agree with everything you posted here.

  66. History repeats itself. About twenty years ago, I attended a Brown lecture by the controversial CIA Director, William Casey. Or at least I was supposed to. Several of my fellow students stood up and loudly recited the Lewis Carroll poem “Jabberwocky” — interesting choice, I have to admit — until Casey, unable to be heard over the din, gave up.

    I was embarrassed for Brown then, and I am today. Whatever happened to college being the quintessential marketplace of ideas? Candidly, I personally think he would have had a difficult time doing it, but Kelly should have been allowed to justify his policies and people can make up their own minds. Who made these students the arbiters of what their classmates can and cannot hear. They’re smart too. Shouldn’t they be allowed to decide for themselves?

  67. BROWN SUCKS!!!!

  68. In any civil gathering with a guest speaker, you allow that person to speak for the time agreed upon, then have a response time for the audience to express opinions. The level of decibels I heard from this audience and their intrusive style cancelled out any opportunity for responsible discourse. I have seen intoxicated fans at Fenway heckling opposing players with more class than these students did at Brown.

  69. So liberal fascism is alive and well at Brown University. How enlightened and progressive. You all should be so proud of the effort so silence a public employee from speaking who is supportive of a policy that doesn’t adhere to the popular socio/political zeitgeist on campus. Bravo…….tools.

  70. These “protesters” validate Allan Bloom. Although, I imagine they’re still stuck on Marx, Said, Alinski etc. Never mind that 8 out 10 victims of violent crime in NY are African-American.

  71. The “students” who can be identified should be expelled. There is no place in the world for this kind of hater behavior. The irony is most of these protesting punks think they are doing some kind of service when their ignorance has shown they don’t have the faintest clue what they are protesting. They should go get some objective facts before they start shouting down people who have the guts to come and address their concerns. As far as a place of higher learning, Brown University doesn’t hold a candle to my local community college.

  72. Libby Tardell says:

    I am a proud liberal and I loved what happened today! Great job Brown students! We as liberals have to stand up to these kind of people. Just like when our brothers and sisters did that to General Petraeus walking in the street a couple mos ago, one of the top military officials in our country’s history and our liberal siblings degraded him to no end. I bet they also went to Brown University. The Brown students today performed beautifully in accordance with our liberal textbook rules which state that if you dont agree with someone then call them a racist. Loud yelling, not giving the other side a chance to speak and dominating the situation, that is what us liberals do when we have no facts to back up our arguments. I hope Brown invites the president of Iran so we can show the world how we can show respect for someone. People have us all wrong, we really can show love. The world will now see what Brown University is all about!!! On another note, Sebellius rocks!!! I love her website!!!

  73. marx_and_hitler_were_losers says:

    Sigh…more grifting community organizing poorgressives in training.
    No venom from these folks for the Boston marathon bombers. Just those who try to stop them.

  74. Disgusted '14 says:

    I think a lot of us at Brown are really embarrassed by the protesters, and that’s always tough. But I just watched the video above and noted all of the individual protesters, names of those I know and the faces of those I don’t, and realized that THEY are the ones who will be judged here- by me, by the majority of Brown students who seem to think Kelly should have been able to at least speak, by the parents viewing this, etc.

    I’m sure Jenni Li, the head protester-organizer identified in the video, isn’t embarrassed for herself but I am.
    You all marked a first in 15 years alright, but not in a positive way. You labelled Brown as another uber-liberal college, one of those colleges I decided I didn’t want to attend because I wanted to debate using reason and respect, not ignorance and heated emotion as I did when I was 13.
    Yeah, you say Kelly isn’t reasonable or respectful, but couldn’t we one-up him and show him that we have those qualities?

  75. There must be a lot of proud mom’s and dad’s tonight, to see this display of childish, foot stomping temper tantrums. Classy!

  76. No Freedom of speech for one hurt all of us.

  77. No free speech permitted at Brown.

  78. Louis Farrakhan made a tour of college campuses all around this country, including Brown, with no protests whatsoever even though his hate speech against Jews, gays and whites is as hateful as the KKK’s was against blacks. The double standard is despicable. To all those saying “racism is not free speech and should not be on campus”- why isn’t that applied to Farrakhan and other instances of intolerance by blacks and Muslims? Only when it goes the other way does freedom of speech get shut down.

  79. disqus_fEBMu7aeo1 says:

    The Brown University protesters are deserving of a lobotomy. Think of the money their parents will save.

  80. Chris Smith says:

    What a pathetic display ! This man served our country and I am embarrassed to say I am from the state that continues to produce such one sided view points. MORONS !

  81. betsy bishop says:

    OK. Students screw up. We know that.

    I am so disappointed in the administration at Brown
    and the treatment of guest speakers who agree to come to your campus. UNREAL!!!
    Your students do not want to listen to opposing ideas. And you did not even try to control it. What is that about? SHAMEFUL! Opposing views are part of free exchange. This is the basis of
    democracy. I was disgusted by their behavior at the opening of the NYPD

    Why did you not ask all students to leave the room
    and then check if they were enrolled in the class or even at Brown?

    UNBELIEVABLE. I will never recommend your school to any of my liberal students who want to study back east. .

    does not monitor the free exchange of ideas. SO SAD!!!

    Betsy Bishop

  82. We don’t know what Commissioner Kelly had to say in defense of his policy.
    We do know that a bunch of emotionally driven and intellectually incurious spoiled brats did not want anyone to hear what he had to say.
    Which says a lot. For Commissioner Kelly and against his fearful/ragey opponents who are incapable of addressing the issue on an intellectual level.
    When did the heckler’s veto become a “win?”

  83. john cosgrove says:

    The Brown University students have demonstrated their ignorance and complete disrespect. Their shameful and cowardly behavior illustrates their lack of intelligence and lack of civility. Also, they hide behind the herd as usual because individually each of them is devoid of fortitude and strength to argue the debate one on one in a civilized manor.
    I would challenge any single one of these idiots to a debate over stop and frisk.
    They clearly showed stupidity with regard to the facts as a federal appeals court has just ruled against the moronic judge who “throw” out stop and frisk.
    So clearly the morons heckling Kelly in that room are not legal minds. It is arguable whether they have any intellect.
    John Cosgrove, MD
    New York

  84. It is not acceptable for Brown University to give someone a platform who has overseen a racist program for many years, a program which recently a judge halted due to its racist nature. Should the Taubman Center have an entire series of talks by heads of Neo-Nazi groups or heads of the KKK? Do you think that disruptive protests would be acceptable in that case?

    Ray Kelly’s actions and beliefs are well-known to anyone who cared. Two things could have happened – Kelly could have given his speech, a few questions could have been asked, and basically nothing would have happened to seriously question his actions or the policies he promoted. The alternate is what did happen, a major protest and disruption of the speech, which engendered widespread discussion of the policies and an increased awareness within and outside of Brown of the racial nature of the stop and frisk policies. I think that it can be very easily argued that the protest actually increased the amount of “free speech” and discussion of Ray Kelly and his ideas, but now with a focus not on his “achievements” but rather on the effects of his actions.

    I am a graduate of Brown University, and I am certainly proud and happy that these students stood up and did something that was the right thing to do, and moved the conversation a bit. When you have widespread, negative systems that are being promoted by the powers that be, sometimes you just have to stop the train.

    • “Kelly could have given his speech, a few questions could have been asked, and basically nothing would have happened to seriously question his actions or the policies he promoted.”
      Did you actually read what you just said? You assumed that nothing serious would have happened. How is anyone to know if you never let the discourse take place.
      Grow up and learn to effectively listen to ideas you disagree with. Brown University would probably not be proud for you to announce you’re a graduate with that mentality.

      • Ad hominem arguments (“grow up”, “not be proud”) are not worth responding to.

        The reason that I think “nothing serious would have happened” is because Ray Kelly has had many public speaking engagements where he has addressed questions or failed to address questions on these topics, and in fact they have failed to create the conversation that you now see. Your post does not address my basic point that the protest challenged the stop and frisk policies in a way that a few questions asked of Ray Kelly never could. At some point you have a responsibility to get up and do something about a bad situation, which these protesters did.

        The powerful structures in our society support race-based suppression through law enforcement, and this protest challenges a core foundational component of those power structures. I think a lot of the shame and anger that people are expressing on this blog related to the protesters’ actions derives ultimately from benefits received by conforming to the power structure as it exists and fear that a serious challenge to the structure will be met with economic or real world responses that will affect people personally. To put it more plainly, a lot of people who went to Brown get by acceptably in the world as it is, but they are worried that being associated with a place that becomes known for challenging the status quo will impact them negatively. I may be wrong, but I suspect I’m right at least in part.

        In the end, you must listen to the communities that are not given a chance to speak (as Ray Kelly has been given many times), and even if you are personally afraid you must peacefully act to decrease suffering.

  85. Dartmouth Alum '91 says:

    Members of the Brown community who denied Raymond Kelly the opportunity to speak sunk to his level; they behaved towards Kelly the way Kelly has behaved towards those subjected to his stop-and-frisk policy. Both sides seek to silence others who don’t fall in line with their way of thinking.

  86. Jeff Thompson says:

    Spoiled brat students in this country are ruining what’s left of free
    thinking and debate on campuses. Take your safe spaces and unrealistic
    expectations of life after your protected college years and go home. You
    really are a joke, and then you wonder why no one wants to hire you.

  87. Jacques Shellac says:

    This is such a simple problem to resolve. Just call the police, lock the doors, and don’t let anyone leave until you have their identity. Any students who participated in this “protest” gets summarily expelled. End of discussion.

    Do this a few times in US college campuses and you won’t have this problem anymore.

Comments are closed. If you have corrections to submit, you can email The Herald at