The following remarks by Emily Smith were made at the protest rally against philosopher Peter Singer's appearance at the University of Minnesota on March 23, 2006. Smith was one of the organizers of the protest.

Thank you all for coming. It's so great to see you here because it's been a rough road to get this thing put together. One day in particular I was really starting to have doubts, but luckily, that same day I checked out one of Singer's especially controversial books from the library, and all it took for me to regain my confidence against why this protest needed to happen was seeing the title of Singer's book: "Should the Baby Live: the Problem of Handicapped Infants". . . . The problem? Why does Peter Singer take it upon himself to define difference as a "problem"? Well, our presence here today is meant to give an answer to Peter Singer's question: The biggest problem, Peter Singer, is this sort of attitude.

An attitude that refuses to see the social value that people with disabilities can offer that able-bodied people can't.

An attitude that thinks that philosophical theory can understand disability better than those living the experiences firsthand.

Our message here today is meant to show Peter Singer that, as our signs, say his attitude is our only handicap.

Peter Singer says that the real reason that infants with severe disabilities should not be kept alive is because of the social hardship they may cause the family. Now I won't try to debate philosophical theory with Peter Singer because that won't get us anywhere, but as someone who grew up in a household with a disabled family member, I can say that the biggest hardship I ever faced, the only reasons I ever had remorse for her disability, were caused by the discrimination she faced because of views like his. Yes, of course there are moments where it was hard to see a family member frustrated because of their impairment, but what is much much harder is seeing them uncomfortable in public because they are constantly stared at, being unable to go places because of inaccessible buildings, and hearing that people like Peter Singer do not think they should even be alive.

Finally, I want to end by stating that as offensive and prejudiced as I believe Peter Singer's views to be, this protest is not about shutting him down because we support the free exchange of ideas and so he should be able to express his views especially since the talk is after all about animal ethics. My problem, however, is that he is being asked to speak when we don't have an equivalent place on campus to participate with this free exchange of ideas on equal footing. Efforts have been going on to try and get a disability studies program on this campus for years now, and they are repeatedly ignored, but the university threw in money from all over to raise the $15,000 for his lecture.

By all means, encourage the freedom of speech, but don't give $15,000 of tax payer money to someone whose work is considered an eloquent version of hate speech. Until we have a space on campus where the views and academics of the social model of disability can be equally heard and learned, we will not allow voices like Singer's to be heard without a fight. As the disability rights movement continues to say, Nothing about us, without us.

Thank you all for coming. . . .1, 2, 3, 4. Peter Singer out the door!

Read protester Kathryn Ware's remarks.

NOT DEAD YET * 7521 Madison St * Forest Park, IL 60130
Voice/TTY: 708-209-1500 * Fax: 708-209-1735 * TTY: 708-209-1826