Evette and SC State student controversy: Peaceful protest is not a mob

South Carolinians endured plenty of mudslinging during this year’s primary election. Gubernatorial candidates sharply, even brutally, questioned one another’s records, motives and fitness for office.

But one of the election’s most troubling episodes did not involve politicians attacking politicians. It involved Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette attacking students at South Carolina State University, slamming them as “woke mobs.”

A mob conjures images of violence, intimidation and lawlessness.

But the students who objected to Evette’s selection as commencement speaker marched, demonstrated and staged a sit-in. In other words, they appeared to do exactly what colleges and universities should encourage young people to do: organize peacefully, advocate for their beliefs and participate in civic life.

Whatever one thinks of their position, students had every right to oppose Evette’s appearance.

The university should not have invited a candidate for governor to deliver a commencement address in the middle of an election season.

Commencements celebrate graduates, not campaigns, and it was entirely foreseeable that students would object.

But the students’ response was not the troubling part of this episode.

Beyond calling students “leftist protestors” and “woke mobs,” her social media responses promised that they’re “going to really hate my speech.” Her posts concluded with “Bring it on!” and “See you at commencement.”

Hours later, she was disinvited. In announcing his decision, university President Alexander Conyers referred to Evette’s posts, without naming her.

Evette portrayed the rescinding of her invitation as censorship. But a commencement speech is an invitation, not an entitlement. Colleges regularly invite speakers and occasionally withdraw invitations.

The decision may be disappointing or unfair, but it does not violate anyone’s free-speech rights.

Ironically, the more serious threat to free expression emerged afterward.

Evette supported efforts to cut funding for the university following the controversy. The message was unmistakable: Students who speak out against prominent elected officials may find their university paying a price.

That is especially troubling because of the imbalance in power.

Evette was not merely another citizen upset about criticism. She is South Carolina’s lieutenant governor, one of just eight constitutional officers on ballots statewide.

The students she castigated were young people at South Carolina’s only public historically Black university.

Political campaigns are inherently combative, and voters generally accept candidates attacking one another. Politicians are expected to defend themselves against rivals. They can give as good as they get. Politicians at least fight each other on a level playing field.

But there is something different and unsettling about a statewide officeholder directing her anger at students who possessed little comparable influence and who had engaged in peaceful protest.

This was not a contest between equals.

Evette missed an opportunity to demonstrate what broad-minded public leadership can look like.

She could have said she was disappointed but respected the students’ right to disagree with her. She could have invited students to break bread with her and participate in a public discussion.

She could have praised young people for caring enough about public affairs to stand up for their convictions, even when they disagreed with her.

She could have reassured the students that, if elected governor, she would be a strong advocate for them and for higher education in South Carolina as a key to the American Dream.

There were many high roads Evette could have taken.

Instead, she escalated the conflict, doubling down repeatedly on the “woke mob” attack and threatening the university’s funding.

To her credit, Evette was absolutely right about one thing: We need conservative voices on college campuses. But the same goes for liberal students and everyone in between. The clash of voices is the rough music of democracy.

We should want all students to be deeply engaged citizens in our constitutional republic, boldly exercising their God-given and constitutionally protected right of free speech — and not be penalized for doing so.

Now that the campaign is over, perhaps the most enduring lesson from this episode has little to do with commencement speakers or campaign tactics. It concerns how people pursuing power choose to use it.

South Carolina’s students should learn that peaceful protest is not something to fear or apologize for. It is an essential part of citizenship. They should not be taught that challenging those in authority risks retaliation against themselves or their institutions.

Elections come and go. Candidates win and lose.

But leadership is measured by more than victory or defeat. It is measured by whether those with power respond to criticism with grace, curiosity and restraint — or whether they seek to punish those who have little power at all.

In this case, the students acted like citizens. It was the politician who missed the lesson.