This email was circulated at Berkeley earlier this week, according to an acquaintance of mine:
“Dear Students, Faculty and Staff,This fall, the issue of free speech will once more engage our community in powerful and complex ways. Events in Charlottesville, with their racism, bigotry, violence and mayhem, make the issue of free speech even more tense. The law is very clear; public institutions like UC Berkeley must permit speakers invited in accordance with campus policies to speak, without discrimination in regard to point of view. The United States has the strongest free speech protections of any liberal democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that most of us would find hateful, abhorrent and odious, and the courts have consistently upheld these protections.But the most powerful argument for free speech is not one of legal constraint—that we’re required to allow it—but of value. The public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university. The philosophical justification underlying free speech, most powerfully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, rests on two basic assumptions. The first is that truth is of such power that it will always ultimately prevail; any abridgement of argument therefore compromises the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. The second is an extreme skepticism about the right of any authority to determine which opinions are noxious or abhorrent. Once you embark on the path to censorship, you make your own speech vulnerable to it.Berkeley, as you know, is the home of the Free Speech Movement, where students on the right and students on the left united to fight for the right to advocate political views on campus. Particularly now, it is critical that the Berkeley community come together once again to protect this right. It is who we are.Nonetheless, defending the right of free speech for those whose ideas we find offensive is not easy. It often conflicts with the values we hold as a community—tolerance, inclusion, reason and diversity. Some constitutionally-protected speech attacks the very identity of particular groups of individuals in ways that are deeply hurtful. However, the right response is not the heckler’s veto, or what some call platform denial. Call toxic speech out for what it is, don’t shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech.We all desire safe space, where we can be ourselves and find support for our identities. You have the right at Berkeley to expect the university to keep you physically safe. But we would be providing students with a less valuable education, preparing them less well for the world after graduation, if we tried to shelter them from ideas that many find wrong, even dangerous. We must show that we can choose what to listen to, that we can cultivate our own arguments and that we can develop inner resilience, which is the surest form of safe space. These are not easy tasks, and we will offer support services for those who desire them.This September, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos have both been invited by student groups to speak at Berkeley. The university has the responsibility to provide safety and security for its community and guests, and we will invest the necessary resources to achieve that goal. If you choose to protest, do so peacefully. That is your right, and we will defend it with vigor. We will not tolerate violence, and we will hold anyone accountable who engages in it.We will have many opportunities this year to come together as a Berkeley community over the issue of free speech; it will be a free speech year. We have already planned a student panel, a faculty panel and several book talks. Bridge USA and the Center for New Media will hold a day-long conference on October 5; PEN, the international writers’ organization, will hold a free speech convening in Berkeley on October 23. We are planning a series in which people with sharply divergent points of view will meet for a moderated discussion. Free speech is our legacy, and we have the power once more to shape this narrative.Sincerely,Carol ChristChancellor”
In between the lines, it looks like the Chancellor is trying to reboot Berkeley’s policy to disallow violent suppression of dissenting opinions. This is a marked contrast from the University’s behavior over the winter.
Of course, the real bellwether would be “how do the campus’s tiny conservative minority fare in day to day interactions”. That’s the part I’m most intrested in.
But it’ll be interesting to see if this announcement is followed up with effective execution – and if any other schools follow suit.
Whoa! I just saw a pig fly by my office window! And Harvey did not even make landfall yet!
$5 Pool to pick the date when Berkeley first violates this letter?
“In between the lines, it looks like the Chancellor is trying to reboot Berkeley’s policy to disallow violent suppression of dissenting opinions. This is a marked contrast from the University’s behavior over the winter.”
Strawman bullcrap. At no point in time did the University accept or embrace violence. Your comments come pretty close to libel, Mitch. Now, I doubt very much they’ll give a damn, but, seriously, let’s keep this to reality. That they didn’t speak out against violence in the exact way you wanted is your issue rather than theirs. All that said, how many of those “violent suppressionists” came to the protests wearing guns on their backs? How many said “No Jew is going to take my job”? How many were shouting “Blood and Soil!”? Clearly what you’re doing here is trying to draw a moral equivalency between right-wing terrorists and protesters who, WRONGLY, attempt to prevent speakers from appearing at Berkely. That Berkely’s administration gave in I don’t like. Not exactly the first time an institution has cancelled an event for fear of violence. Should they have done so? No. But then again, I’m the ACTUAL libertarian here, whereas many on the right, you included, have argued certain violations of civil liberties, like jailing Muslim Americans without charge/indefinitely and/or profiling Blacks, was “A-OK” if it enhanced safety.
So, outside of trying to claim people who make hatred of ethnic groups or members of religion are no worse than people who protest against their appearance at public speaking events (which is all this post is doing) – do you have any condemnation for the rather out-of-control right-wing terrorism? Or is this yet another complaint by the man with a log in his eye about the twig in someone else’s?
Ok, addendum, to be fair, you’re backhandedly ALSO giving Berkely credit something for which they were always doing, and far more so than the right, namely, standing up for civil liberties. Good for you, but when will do the same?
Typically, the sponsoring organization picks up the tab for a couple of off-duty cops to provide security. When Milo comes, they’ll need a battalion of riot cops. Will the college pay for that under its famous commitment to free speech? Or will the college insist the sponsor put up an enormous deposit so the college can cancel the speech for ‘failure to comply with permit requirements?’
Strawman bullcrap. At no point in time did the University accept or embrace violence.
Pen, their police stood down twice as “Anti”-Fa rioted against conservative speakers.
Their official position on “Thugs Repressing Dissent” is irrelevant, if their actions in effect legalize it.
Your comments come pretty close to libel, Mitch.
Pen, God love ya, man – I still owe you a bunch of drinks, and I do hope you collect soon – but no. Light leaving “Defamation” of any kind will not reach this statement until long after both of us are long dead.
I mean, feel free to state your case; I’ll have the requisite fun knocking it down.
That they didn’t speak out against violence in the exact way you wanted is your issue rather than theirs.
Their “speech” about violence is of no importance whatsoever. It’s their actions – lack of actions – that are the problem here.
All that said, how many of those “violent suppressionists” came to the protests wearing guns on their backs?
A Molotov cocktail that is used is far worse than a gun that is not. Making a molotov cocktail is a felony; carrying a gun, legally (absent any evidence that you’re not entitled to – is not.
How many said “No Jew is going to take my job”? How many were shouting “Blood and Soil!”?
Bellowing “F*** Free Speech” is no better than either of those. May they both rot in hell. Both are the “Bad Speech” which we’re supposed to meet and beat with more better speech. Which I do.
Clearly what you’re doing here is trying to draw a moral equivalency between right-wing terrorists and protesters who, WRONGLY, attempt to prevent speakers from appearing at Berkely.
Nope. I’m saying that “Anti”-Fa, which has a long record of attacking peaceful demonstrations long before Charlottesville, are precisely the moral equivalent, not of the “white supremacists” who marched in Charlottesville (a bunch of pathetic losers), but of the actual Sturmabteilungen of the real, original Nazi Party in Germany (and of the Communist Party thugs that opposed them). That parallel is much stronger.
That Berkely’s administration gave in I don’t like
Bazinga! We agree!
Not exactly the first time an institution has cancelled an event for fear of violence.
And just how much suppression and fear are we supposed to allow?
No. But then again, I’m the ACTUAL libertarian here, whereas many on the right, you included, have argued certain violations of civil liberties, like jailing Muslim Americans without charge/indefinitely and/or profiling Blacks, was “A-OK” if it enhanced safety.
Er, no. I have done no such thing.
So, outside of trying to claim people who make hatred of ethnic groups or members of religion are no worse than people who protest against their appearance at public speaking events
Wrong again. I’m saying that people who physically attack those they disagree with are the same as actual German Nazis in 1933
Hope we’re clear on that.
you’re backhandedly ALSO giving Berkely credit something for which they were always doing
Close. I’m noting that they seem to be publicly committing to doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.
We’ll see.
Strawman bullcrap. At no point in time did the University accept or embrace violence.
OK, Penigma. Tell me who was convicted of trashing the Martin Luther King building at Berkeley on the start of Black History Month this year as “antifa” fascists protested Milo what’s-his-name.
According to CNN, no arrests were made by the responding agency, which was the University of California at Berkeley police.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html
Looks like Beserkeley university officials did indeed accept this violence.
The only strawmen we’re erected by peev. Anybody in favor of jailing Muslims indefinitely for being Muslim raise your hand.
UC Berkeley shows a glimmer of hope, and the reprobates come crawling out, hissing their disapproval.
Tuff shit, Peevee. Tide is turning and you got no oar…time to swim, boy.
The lack of official response is even more pernicious than suggested. I could be wrong, and the trial will bear it out, but the homicidal vehicle attack struck me more as a crime of passion, or temper escalated by the day’s conflict vs. being a plot hatched days or weeks before the protests.
The official non-protection in Charlottesville is what likely allowed the violence to escalate to a homicidal level.
But police have constantly shown a tolerance for violence in dozens of episodes over the past year. In cases where the violence was directed towards the police, their tolerance is admirable. In cases where they refused to protect the peaceful from the violent, their tolerance was completely unacceptable (see every campus incident). In this case, the police refused to protect the two sides from each other, and the result was murder.
This in no way exonerates the murderer from his actions, but the failure of police to enforce their monopoly use of force has left us vulnerable to violent cretins that may choose to escalate their violence without warning.
A lot of people, when making a sensational charge like “You want to lock up Muslims,” would helpfully provide a link to evidence supporting the charge. They feel having proof enhances credibility.
Penigma is not one of them.
.
gill — well stated.
Good point, Gill. Was the vehicle attack premeditated (how could he have predicted the crowd being there in that form, exactly?), or was it an act of passion, or was it a scared kid who saw the clubs coming towards him and his car?
This is why we provide him with a lawyer, I guess. And again, thanks to the Charlottesville police for evading their duty to separate combatants, thanks to the antifa fascists for violating their demonstration permit (which did not allow them in Emancipation Park), and thanks to the media for distorting this relentlessly. Thanks as well to Republicans who were apparently unable to look things up, but rather did impulsive comments based on media alarmism.
This may not play well with everyone’s perceptions, but it does fit with what I’ve heard/read about C-ville.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/does_the_left_know_somethings_coming_involving_guns.html
As if on cue, more violence against free speech and Berkeley police stands down. It is mindboggling how intellectually corrupt libturds are that they continue to hang on to talking points in light of the real world actions and facts.