It was a yellow flier.

It just sort of appeared last week. Some were taped onto walls in the C Building, and others were blowing around in the Quad, and a few even landed in the mirror pools leaving only a soggy sort of message that commanded students to: "BOYCOTT TERRORIST IRV RUBIN WED NOV 24 C333 11AM TAKE A STAND AGAINST RACIST VIOLENCE!!!!" Irv Rubin, chairman of the Jewish Defense League, was invited months ago to speak to a class about racism and Jewish rights.

So what did the flier mean by boycott Were students not supposed to go to their class, or were they being told to "bomb" their class?

What ever the message meant, it was "approved for posting and distribution only." It was stamped by the PCC office of student affairs; it was initialed by someone who "works behind the counter." It seems anyone can post anything and then have it endorsed by PCC; freedom of expression is definitely protected on this campus. However, when someone is called a terrorist it is like labeling them a Nazi or a child molester. That is slander. And when PCC "stamped" the flier, they supported the charge that Rubin was a terrorist.

The only responsibility for the flier was from this official stamp. Two students wrote the fliers; they were the infamous protesters, but they did not identify themselves. Anonymous protesters are exactly that, anonymous. They are not representing anything at all.

Rubin has not been proven to be a terrorist, and he has not been convicted of terrorist acts. But, there was a flier posted up in the classroom he lectured in which called him a "promoter of hate and violence." Rubin was horrified, and said that he has never had anyone insult him like this. At the podium in front of [the] class, he demanded to know who these PROTESTERS were and why the campus endorsed the flier.

(The protesters weren't allowed into the class room, because, quite simply, there weren't enrolled in the class. Rubin's appearance was not an open presentation.)

Meanwhile, as the class was going on, outside, in the hallway the protesters (the two of them), stood there. They were waiting for something. They sad they wanted in the class, but the "administration" barred them out. And then they said this was an academic freedom/First Amendment issue.

They wanted press coverage. And a few reporters from the L.A. Times and the Courier circled around them: "So what exactly are you protesting against?" The students stared blankly, and there was a meek reply: Irv Rubin is a dangerous man, he's violent, he could hurt students, he does not promote education but terrorism. . .(Pause, the protesters stop to think) "But, we're angry because the school silenced us and did not let us in the classroom."

Oh, Ok. . .the reporters scribble notes, but it just doesn't make any sense. The protesters want freedom, but they also seemed to want censorship at the college, so "radicals" can't speak to classes?

A circle of curious people hovered around the pair of "guerilla" PCC students. But, Irv Rubin was already gone. He walked right by the protesters "No one stopped me, or asked me any questions," he said. What kind of protester runs away from what they protest against?

And then, a couple of days later, one said the flier never meant to call Rubin a terrorist, instead Rubin was a CONSIDERED terrorist. Rubin, who has protested many times himself, said that the PCC protest against him was rather pathetic. Rubin once said in San Francisco, "They're just not comprehending the insult. There is no firestorm of activity. Where is the protest?"

The same could be said about the two students. What were the protesting about? Who knows? However, one thing is certain, they didn't take responsibility for their words.