Spring Break
The Daily OrangeEdit | Roberts' speech dodged First Amendment
By
Posted: 9/20/07, 12:35 AM EST Section: Opinion
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. left many Syracuse University students scratching their heads. They had hoped Roberts would discuss the role of the First Amendment in his keynote address at Hendricks Chapel. But as reported today in The Daily Orange, Roberts' two speeches in honor of the official opening of Newhouse III mostly dealt with his concern for keeping politics out of the judicial branch.
The few remarks by Roberts regarding the First Amendment addressed the need for journalists and other public communicators to be responsible and educated with their words. But he failed to go into detail about what he defined as responsible or educated.
As an ultimate authority on the First Amendment and its meaning, Roberts should have said more.
Roberts, a young Supreme Court justice, justifiably avoided saying anything too risky in his public addresses. He is a figure in the national spotlight because of his legal authority, so any words he said could be used against him later in his tenure as a justice.
Considering this factor in retrospect, Roberts was a poor candidate for the dedication. With nearly 2,000 people watching live and countless more watching on the television or Internet, he chose to bite his tongue on the First Amendment. Worse yet, he avoided the subject in front of Newhouse III, a building that boasts the First Amendment on its windows with 6-feet-tall letters.
Students and faculty, particularly those in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, wanted to know about how the First Amendment would help them make their careers more purposeful. Roberts' discussion regarding the First Amendment more closely resembled the kind of talk parents use when begrudgingly granting their children privileges to stay up late: "Don't blow it."
Bringing someone of Roberts' stature to SU must be lauded. However, he was not the person to select for this particular occasion.
Someone within the field of communications who benefited from the First Amendment's protections, say the editors who dealt with the Pentagon Papers, would have better suited the event. But this realization only came after the fact. Unless SU administrators or Newhouse faculty members had read Roberts' speech beforehand, no one can be blamed for his skirting the First Amendment.
For future events similar to the Newhouse dedication, those in charge of choosing the speaker should make every effort to find someone as notable as Roberts to come and speak. However, the candidate list should be structured around people who are willing to perform as advertised.
The few remarks by Roberts regarding the First Amendment addressed the need for journalists and other public communicators to be responsible and educated with their words. But he failed to go into detail about what he defined as responsible or educated.
As an ultimate authority on the First Amendment and its meaning, Roberts should have said more.
Roberts, a young Supreme Court justice, justifiably avoided saying anything too risky in his public addresses. He is a figure in the national spotlight because of his legal authority, so any words he said could be used against him later in his tenure as a justice.
Considering this factor in retrospect, Roberts was a poor candidate for the dedication. With nearly 2,000 people watching live and countless more watching on the television or Internet, he chose to bite his tongue on the First Amendment. Worse yet, he avoided the subject in front of Newhouse III, a building that boasts the First Amendment on its windows with 6-feet-tall letters.
Students and faculty, particularly those in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, wanted to know about how the First Amendment would help them make their careers more purposeful. Roberts' discussion regarding the First Amendment more closely resembled the kind of talk parents use when begrudgingly granting their children privileges to stay up late: "Don't blow it."
Bringing someone of Roberts' stature to SU must be lauded. However, he was not the person to select for this particular occasion.
Someone within the field of communications who benefited from the First Amendment's protections, say the editors who dealt with the Pentagon Papers, would have better suited the event. But this realization only came after the fact. Unless SU administrators or Newhouse faculty members had read Roberts' speech beforehand, no one can be blamed for his skirting the First Amendment.
For future events similar to the Newhouse dedication, those in charge of choosing the speaker should make every effort to find someone as notable as Roberts to come and speak. However, the candidate list should be structured around people who are willing to perform as advertised.
Be the first to comment on this story