You may have heard recently about the incident when some members of fraternity and sorority life on campus used an inappropriate concept as the basis for a party, showing a lack of respect for other people’s cultures. There has been quite a bit of talk about how bad this is and that there should be some kind of punishment or repercussion. While I find what those involved did to be morally reprehensible, I think that it is important we also use this case as an example of a time that someone did something that many find to be wrong, but we respected their right to do it. In other words, I think it is just as important to recognize their right to do this sort of thing. While I by no means support this type of behavior, it is important that we not view this situation from a purely emotional perspective, but we set aside our anger in order to evaluate the situation in the fairest way possible.

I recently watched Steven Spielberg’s new film “Bridge of Spies,” and I could not help but to see some similarities (on a much smaller scale) with this incident on our campus. If you don’t know about the story, the main character is a lawyer tasked with defending a recently captured soviet spy. The spy has a trial that involves lots of tainted evidence and should probably be thrown out. The case is not thrown out mostly because of the general public’s perception of this spy. The public is so enraged by what the spy has done that they are not at all concerned about the spy’s rights and only respond with anger to the situation.

This is a much more extreme example of this type of situation of course, but I do think it is analogous to what is going on with this fraternity issue. In the film, the public is so angry at the spy that no one cares about defending his rights and giving him a fair trial. Those involved in the fraternity incident have also been viewed in such a negative light that no one seems to be interested in protecting their right to do this and only want to see them punished. 

In the film, there is a great scene where the lawyer wants to appeal the spy’s case to the Supreme Court because he knows that he did not get a fair trial. In the scene, the lawyer gives his case to the Supreme Court and stresses that the United States has been given the opportunity to show the Soviet Union “who we are” by treating the man portrayed as our enemy with the rights that he deserves. Shouldn’t this be true of the way that we treat those who do things that we see as wrong? It is important that we do not get so lost in our anger about these issues that we forget to respect the rights of all parties involved, even the rights of those with whom we disagree.