Free Speech Week will take place September 24-27, 2017
Full event info at the below link:
Month: September 2017
Milo: How to Prepare for Free Speech Week: Bring Milk, Take Shower, Etc.
Milo Counter Events Abound During Free Speech Week: SPLC to Marches to Clowns
September 19, 2017
A Presentation by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization.
A Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) expert on hate and extremism will share information on an orchestrated campaign by white nationalists to make college campuses their battleground. The battle is not over free speech or political conservatism. Come learn about what they’re pushing, why they’re obsessed with UC Berkeley and how we can effectively resist.
Speaker Bio
Ryan Lenz is the Senior Investigative Writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project and editor of its Hatewatch blog. Before joining the SPLC in 2010, Lenz was a regional reporter for the Associated Press and an Iraq war correspondent for the wire service from 2005 to 2008. He is a graduate of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop.
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. SPLC is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama and have of offices in Atlanta, Miami, Tallahassee, Jackson, Mississippi and New Orleans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/splc-guide-dealing-with-alt-right/index.html
Sponsored by: Division of Equity & Inclusion, diversity.berkeley.edu
September 20, 2017
Empathy Tent at UC Berkeley Sproul Plaza
Public · Hosted by Center for Building a Culture of Empathy and Compassion
3 PM – 7 PM PDT, Sproul Plaza
Bancroft Way, Berkeley
Join us at UC Berekely at Sproul Plaza. We will offer listening, trainings and practice in empathic dialogues. Discuss the current political situation on campus between the left and the right. How do you feel about the upcoming Free Speech week?
From 6pm to 7pm we will be training Empathy Circle practice with the Decal Class on Empathy.
http://EmpathyTent.com/
———————–
Saturday, September 23, 2017
No Hate in the Bay: March Against White Supremacy!
starting at 63rd St & Adeline in Berkeley, CA
begins at noon on Saturday, September 23rd
Join fellow community members to let fascists, the alt-right and all white supremacists know that they are not are not welcome in the Bay Area.
Stay through the march or meet up afterward for a festival of resistance to celebrating black, POC, Muslim, immigrant, queer, trans, dis-abled, and interfaith communities!
This march was organized so that we can take the streets on our own terms – counter-demonstrations are very important, but we live here, this is our community, and every day is a good day to be united against white supremacy.
This march takes place the day before upcoming far-right, racist events set to take place on (and off) UC Berkeley campus, but it isn’t taking place at the same time as any of those events nor is it a specific response.
This is for us to come together on a day of our choosing and show unity and solidarity in the struggles against all forms of oppression!
Endorsers:
Af3irm SF/Bay Area
AFSCME Council 57
Anti Police-Terror Project
AROC: Arab Resource & Organizing Center
Bay Area Queer Anti-Fascist Network (Queer As F*ck)
Berkeley Federation of Teachers, local 1078
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
Catalyst Project
Code Pink Women for Peace: East Bay
Community READY Corps
Critical Resistance Oakland
The Degenderettes
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
The Center for Political Education
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Jewitch Collective: Jews, Pagans, and Those Who Love Them
Jewish Voice for Peace
John Brown Anti-Klan Bloc
Left of the Dial
Middle East Children’s Alliance
National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Oakland Brown Berets
SURJ – Oakland/Bay Area
SURJ SF – Showing Up for Racial Justice
Workers World Party – Bay Area
Interested in endorsing? Follow this link! https://docs.google.com/…/1FAIpQLSe5l-e8AeySxoQ-0C…/viewform
——————–
September 23, 2017
We Are The Majority! We Must Defend Ourselves!
Public · Hosted by Revolutionary Workers Group
7 PM – 9 PM PDT
South Berkeley Senior Center
2939 Ellis St, Berkeley
Far right fascist groups have been growing amidst an increase in attacks on Muslims, mosques and immigrants. But we can’t afford to be scared into silence. These groups present a threat but they are small and can be stopped. We can stop these fascists by organizing in the tens of thousands to say “NO” to their messages of bigotry.
Join us for a presentation and discussion
$5.00 suggested donation. No one turned away for lack of funds.
————————
September 24-27, 2017
Express Yourself – A Program on Free Speech Week
Public · Hosted by ACLU of UC Berkeley – Cal ACLU
We bring to you a four-day event, a peaceful moment of reflection and show of solidarity for those vulnerable groups on campus. From faculty and departments to RSOs and graduates, we stand firmly behind the values of our community, and in defense of our loved ones. Join us for any of our events – listen to a speaker, participate in an open mic, or stop by to write a letter to your representative. Unite against hate.
——————————————–
September 24-27, 2017
Send In The Clowns!
Public · Hosted by Kira B. Summer
University of Califorinia, Berkeley
Send in the clowns! Show speakers Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos what you think of them by coming in your most ridiculous clown costume. Big, floppy shoes, red rubber noses, and don’t forget those horns for honking every time one of the three says something racist, homophobic, or misogynist. Carpooling encouraged.
———————
September 24 – September 27
See You At Free Speech Week!
Public · Hosted by Crowman17
Berkeley, California
Politically involved. Been to all 3 post-Milo “Battles of Berkeley”. This is the power of Orange ^ Pokemon Trainers for Trump are loved. Hindi has some of the funnest Holidays. Non violent- no joke! We settle our differences with Pokemon battles. Come get involved with us and get a burger and a beer, too. We raise up our glasses against evil forces.
—————–
Monday, September 25, 2017
Berkeley Rally Against White Supremacy:
Defend Our Campus and Reclaim Free Speech!
In solidarity with the faculty-led call to boycott campus business as usual during so-called “Free Speech Week,” join us for a rally on Monday, Sept. 25 on UC-Berkeley, Crescent Lawn.
We are students, workers, and members of the UC Berkeley campus community, the City of Berkeley, and the larger Bay Area. We are immigrants, people of color, religious minorities, queer and trans people, leftists, liberals, and others. We think it’s time to come together in a united front, celebrate our differences in solidarity, and speak out against the hateful currents on our campus while affirming our vision of a free, inclusive, and equitable society.
Since the 2016 election, white supremacists have been coming to Berkeley to intimidate, harass, and incite violence against us. This time, the UC Berkeley administration is set to spend hundreds of thousands of public education dollars and heavily militarize the campus to ensure that Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Stephen Bannon, and others speak at our university from September 24-27. We believe these speakers and their supporters are dangerous to our community. They support deportations of our undocumented friends and family and are leading figures of the white supremacist movement. They uphold the structures of power that violently suppress the speech and democratic rights of workers and oppressed people around the world.
But we will not be silenced or intimidated. The massive demonstrations of August 19 in Boston and August 26-27 in the Bay Area proved that when we come together, we can protect our communities and politically defeat the bigots. In that spirit, we are meeting on Crescent Lawn to reject white supremacy, speak to each other about the world we want, and reclaim our campus, our city, and our democratic rights. Join us, bring signs, bring friends!
To endorse our rally, please fill out this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmjE7ZDiBt6_iiGZey54UzESlgXWcMUpvPmB4XmLC1pUjVOw/viewform
—————————–
Milo’s Message to UC Berkeley Regarding Free Speech Week as of 9.18.17
Are We Killing Free Speech? Livestream Link, Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 7 pm Eastern
Join Dave Rubin, Steve Simpson, and Bret Weinstein on September 19th for a discussion on the current state of freedom of speech in America!
Conflicts over free speech are reaching a boiling point, leading to violent clashes and even the loss of life. The headlines out of Charlottesville, Boston, Berkeley, Evergreen State College, Claremont and Middlebury show a nation divided over one of our most cherished and important rights. Navigating free speech rights is no simple task. But sitting back and doing nothing could have catastrophic implications for this generation and the next.
What can we do to address the issue and to protect the all-important right to free speech?
In, “Are We Killing Free Speech,” panelists address this question and others related to the state of free speech in America.
WHEN: Tuesday, September 19, at 7 PM ET.
WHERE: Yenching Auditorium, Harvard University, 2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 021398
PANELISTS:
Dave Rubin — Creator and host of “The Rubin Report”
Steve Simpson — Director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute
Bret Weinstein — Former Biology professor at Evergreen State College
This event is sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute, the Harvard University Open Campus Initiative, and the Harvard University Libertarians.
Tune in to The Rubin Report at https://www.youtube.com/c/RubinReport/live at 7:00 PM ET to watch the livestream of the panel.
Scottish Social Attitudes Survey reveals highest ever proportion of non-religious
Figures from the annual Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, run by ScotCen social researchers, have shown the highest ever proportion of non-religious people.
The new findings from Scotland’s most authoritative survey of public attitudes show that nearly six in ten (58%) now say that they have no religion, up 18 points on 1999 when the figure stood at four in ten (40%).
Young people are least likely to be religious; three quarters of young people (74% of 18-34s) say they have no religion compared with 34% of those over 65.
Commenting on the new figures, Gordon MacRae, Chief Executive of Humanist Society Scotland said:
Gordon MacRae, HSS Chief Executive
“This change is part of a long term trend that has seen more and more people in Scotland live happy and fulfilled lives without a religious belief.
“Humanist weddings for example are now more numerous in Scotland than any religious service.
“Today’s figures help support Humanist Society Scotland’s long held view that we should end privileges that some faith groups unfairly enjoy. A modern Scotland should ensure individuals of all faiths and none are equally respected.”
Atheism Addressed in Constitution Day Study: Do atheists have the same rights other citizens?
While the question of whether atheists have the same rights as other United States citizens is only a small part of the below findings, it is interesting to note the percent of respondents were not sure about the constitutional rights of atheists.
Researchers asked those surveyed to respond to this statement:
Under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizens who are atheists have the same rights as all other citizens.
Responses:
61% Very Accurate:
18% Somewhat Accurate
5% Somewhat Inaccurate
10% Very Inaccurate
5% Don’t Know
2% Refused
Full Study results:
Many Americans are poorly informed about basic constitutional provisions, according to a new national survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
The annual Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey finds that:
- More than half of Americans (53 percent) incorrectly think it is accurate to say that immigrants who are here illegally do not have any rights under the U.S. Constitution;
- More than a third of those surveyed (37 percent) can’t name any of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment;
- Only a quarter of Americans (26 percent) can name all three branches of government.
“Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are. The fact that many don’t is worrisome,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. “These results emphasize the need for high-quality civics education in the schools and for press reporting that underscores the existence of constitutional protections.”
Illegal immigration and constitutional rights
The APPC survey, conducted Aug. 9-13 among 1,013 adults in the United States, finds that 53 percent think that people who are here illegally do not have any rights under the Constitution. That incorrect belief is especially strong among self-identified political conservatives – 67 percent think it is accurate, compared with 48 percent of moderates and 46 percent of liberals.
In fact, immigrants who are in the United States illegally share some constitutional protections with U.S. citizens. More than a century ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), a case involving a Chinese immigrant, the Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens were entitled to due process rights under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Other cases have expanded upon those rights.* (For more on Yick Wo, see this video on Annenberg Classroom’s website.)
Most respondents, though not all, know that under the Constitution, U.S. citizens who are atheists or Muslim have the same rights as all other citizens. Seventy-nine percent of respondents know it is accurate to say that U.S. citizens who are atheists have the same rights as other citizens, and 76 percent know it is accurate to say that citizens who are Muslim have the same rights as other citizens.
What does the First Amendment say?
Nearly half of those surveyed (48 percent) say that freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. But, unprompted, 37 percent could not name any First Amendment rights. And far fewer people could name the other First Amendment rights: 15 percent of respondents say freedom of religion; 14 percent say freedom of the press; 10 percent say the right of assembly; and only 3 percent say the right to petition the government.
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Contrary to the First Amendment, 39 percent of Americans support allowing Congress to stop the news media from reporting on any issue of national security without government approval. That was essentially unchanged from last year. But the survey, which followed a year of attacks on the news media, found less opposition to prior restraint (49 percent) than in 2016 (55 percent).
Many don’t know the branches of government
Only 26 percent of respondents can name the three branches of government (executive, judicial, and legislative), the same result as last year. In the presence of controls, people who identified themselves as conservatives were significantly more likely to name all three branches correctly than liberals and moderates. The 26 percent total was down significantly from APPC’s first survey on this question, in 2011, when 38 percent could name all three.
In the current survey, 33 percent could not name any of the three branches, the same as in 2011.
The phone survey, conducted for APPC by the research firm SSRS, has a margin of error of ±3.7 percent. For more on the methodology and questions click here.
Constitution Day and the Civics Renewal Network
APPC’s Annenberg Classroom, presented by the Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics, has created a series of free, award-winning videos for educators and the public, including Yick Wo and the Equal Protection Clause, The Role of the Courts, and Freedom of the Press: New York Times v. United States.
Annenberg Classroom has joined with 30 other nonpartisan organizations to create the Civics Renewal Network, which offers free, high-quality educational materials online. Among CRN’s partners are the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the National Constitution Center, the U.S. Courts, the NEH’s EDSITEment Project and iCivics.
Constitution Day (Sept. 17) will be celebrated Monday, Sept. 18. To mark it, the U.S. Courts are holding naturalization ceremonies nationwide and educators will lead students in the “Preamble Challenge,” celebrating the Preamble to the Constitution.
Updated 9/15/17: An earlier version of this release incorrectly referred to the immigrant Yick Wo as undocumented.
* In Plyler v. Doe (1982), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law violated the equal protection clause by denying a public school education to undocumented children. The Court held: “The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.” The majority also wrote: “In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.”
Free Speech INCLUDES Hate Speech and We Are Free to Hate It
Recent US Supreme Court Rulings upholding Free Speech including “the thought we hate”:
On June 19, 2017 the US Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
Justice Alito wrote:
“Speech expressing ideas that offend. . .strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Kennedy wrote:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
——————-
University of California at Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ addressed the Free Speech issue in an open letter on August 23, 2017
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.
The ACLU upholds the right to Free Speech in the face of “hate speech”:
FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?
The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn’t need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one’s liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are “indivisible.”
Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is “the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.”
At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.
https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-ann-coulter-speech
Free Speech Rights defined Courtesy United States Courts.gov:
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). - Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). - To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). - To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). - To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). - To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States,249 U.S. 47 (1919). - To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). - To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). - To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). - Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). - Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __(2007).
Courtesy United States Courts.gov
Sam Harris: Identity Politics Explained in Five Minutes
Philosopher and Neuroscientist Sam Harris gives a simple to understand explanation of the term “Identity Politics.”
Harris is the author of five New York Times bestsellers. His books include The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, Waking Up, and Islam and the Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz). The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. His writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics—neuroscience, moral philosophy, religion, meditation practice, human violence, rationality—but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.
Harris also regularly hosts a popular podcast.
Sam Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.
Video Courtesy The Independent Man, YouTube,
Milo’s Teasers for Free Speech Week May 24-27; UC Berkeley Faculty Calls for Boycott
Free Speech Week teasers feature David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos. Other speakers announced so far include Pamela Geller, Raheem Kassam and Alex Marlow. Milo himself promises to bring 16 Navy Seals with him as protection. More details are available at http://freespeechweek.com/
David Horowitz
Ann Coulter
Steve Bannon
Milo Yiannopoulos
Open letter from UC Berkeley Faculty, which continues to receive additional signatures.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISjcd8Suc-Nxs61HxsGiu5NnAPOo8KyK9Zso1MsQ1Rg/edit
BOYCOTT THE ALT-RIGHT @UCBerkeley
September 24-27th
A letter from UCB Faculty to the Campus and Berkeley Community
While there has still not been an official announcement from campus administrators, we are learning that from September 24th to 27th, the University of California at Berkeley will provide a platform to Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Stephen K. Bannon, Breitbart media and their far right audience. A series of explicitly violent Alt-Right, militia and pro-Fascist events are also, again, being scheduled for Civic Center / MLK park in downtown Berkeley on those days.
Once more, signs point towards an escalated and uncontrollable confrontation both on and off campus during these four days. The history of these events has been chilling. Since Inauguration Day, Alt-Right followers have shot someone at the University of Washington, stabbed two people to death on public transport in Portland, stabbed to death a college senior in Maryland, beaten numerous nonviolent protesters at the University of Virginia, and most recently murdered a peaceful protester with an automobile in Charlottesville. Most immediately troubling, given Trump’s decision to end DACA, is that these forces have publicly expressed their intent to specifically target “sanctuary campuses” and disclose the identity of undocumented students. As concerned faculty members, we cannot remain silent while students, staff, colleagues, and fellow community members are threatened.
Therefore, as faculty committed to the safety of our students and our campus, we are calling for a complete boycott of all classes and campus activities while these Alt-Right events are taking place at the very center of UC Berkeley’s campus. As faculty we cannot ask students and staff to choose between risking their physical and mental safety in order to attend class or come to work in an environment of harassment, intimidation, violence, and militarized policing. The reality is that particularly vulnerable populations (DACA students, non-white, gender queer, Muslims, disabled, feminists, and others) have already been harmed, and are reporting increased levels of fear and anxiety about the upcoming events, the increased police presence on our campus, and how all this will impact their lives and their studies.
It is not just physical violence that our campus faces from this media circus. Many of these provocateurs’ most committed audiences are online, and the Breitbart media machine uses that audience to harass, cyberbully, and threaten anyone who speaks out against them. Students and faculty on our campus have already had their lives threatened for speaking out against Milo and his followers. Online threats are real threats, and if we allow this intolerant and bullying version of free speech to take over our campus, then it can only but come at the expense of the free speech rights of the Berkeley community as a whole. In fact, campus safety concerns have already forced the Anthropology Department to cancel a public talk during “free speech week.” This makes clear that the administration understands the imminent threat to campus safety while also revealing that the loud demands of the Alt-Right has the effect of silencing members of our campus community.
We recognize that as a public institution, we are legally bound by the Constitution to allow all viewpoints on campus. However, there are forms of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. These include speech that presents imminent physical danger and speech that disrupts the university’s mission to educate. Milo, Coulter and Bannon do not come to educate; they and their followers come to humiliate and incite. If the administration insists upon allowing the Alt-Right to occupy the center of our campus for four days to harass, threaten and intimidate us, as they did during Milo’s visit in February, then faculty cannot teach, staff cannot work and students cannot learn.
We refuse to grant the Alt-Right the media spectacle that they so desperately desire. This strategy responds to the concerns voiced in the letter authored by the chairs of the three departments most impacted–Gender & Women’s Studies, African American Studies and Ethnic Studies – and also follows the lead of the SPLC advice to ignore these agitators. As faculty, we reject both the administration’s rhetoric of false equivalency that all speech – including “hate speech” – merits value and respect and also the impulse to see direct confrontation as the only strategy of resistance. A boycott of all campus activities during these days is the only responsible course of action.
Therefore we are calling upon faculty to take the following steps:
- Cancel classes and tell students to stay home. A boycott of classes affirms that our fundamental responsibility as faculty is to protect the safety and well being of all our students. While we understand the argument that canceling classes might be seen as a penalty to students who want to learn–by holding class when some students CAN NOT attend by virtue of their DACA status and the imminent threat that these campus events hold, faculty who DO hold classes are disadvantaging DACA students and others who will feel threatened by being on campus.
- Close buildings, close departments and let staff stay home. If the campus is unsafe for student learning then it is unsafe for staff members to work. We should work with campus maintenance and building managers to close as many departments and buildings as possible, starting with those in the immediate vicinity of Sproul Plaza. No one should be forced to work surrounded by men with clubs, police with guns and the sting of teargas.
- Faculty who decide to hold class during this week, in the face of these explicit threats, should not penalize students who are afraid to come to campus. It is unfair and discriminatory for faculty to schedule exams or require attendance during this week. Such an expectation forces students to choose between their physical safety, their mental well being, and a grade. Consider making a video lecture available, give the students a take-home assignment, or creating another alternative class plan. If you decide you must hold class, please do it away from campus, away from the Telegraph Avenue point of campus entry, and away from Downtown.
The Administration, in failing to halt these events, has left concerned faculty with no other choice than to act to prevent further harm to our community. We urge you to join us in keeping our students and our campus safe by signing on to this call for a campus-wide- boycott.
In Solidarity,
To add your name to this letter, follow this link and sign at the bottom.
Signed:
You may follow the link above for a LONG AND CHANGING LIST of educators.