Dirks, the Compassionate Bigot
Preface: UC Berkeley (and the UC system) has shut down discussion that is critical of Israeli occupation of Palestine on multiple occasions. Any mention of protecting all speech from any UC admin, official, etc. is hereby and as a result of their own precedents null and void. Free speech is simply not protected equally in the UC system no matter how badly anyone wishes this to be true.
In lock-step with PWI rationale, Chancellor Dirks of UC Berkeley (UCB) has decided to allow white nationalists to speak on campus. The Chancellor based his decision on two principals in a statement sent out by UCB Public Affairs:
“The first of these principles is the right to free expression, enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution […]. The second of these principles has to do with our values of tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”
Starting with the second principal, Dirks brings up the rhetoric of tolerance. Dr. Clarence Lang, from the University of Kansas, recently penned an article titled “A Harder Conversation about School Equity”(a conversation Dirks has seemingly never encountered or entertained). Dr. Lang succinctly sums up the impact of tolerance rhetoric:
“Managing diversity in higher education often is reduced to auditing statements and certifications of completion, with the rhetoric of “tolerance” taking the place of actual transformations in the distribution of resources, access, and opportunity. […] Courageous conversations are not enough. Neither is it sufficient even to acknowledge “institutionalized racism,” which can be so encompassing as to exist nowhere with no one held accountable.
Tolerance of violence against anyone creates a murderous type of complacency. Tolerance is for the compassionate bigot; for the one who deep down wants to maintain the current order. Tolerance rhetoric is deployed against literally protecting the mental and physical health of people. Sticks and stones may break bones, and also words can incite (state sanctioned) violence and hatred. Get it right.
As for the decision itself, one of the most confounding aspects comes from Dirks’ Public Affairs statement. Dirks’ describes the white nationalist speaker as “a troll and provocateur [who deflects] any serious engagement with ideas.” Dirks’ continues by saying he understands that this white nationalist engages in hate speech “directed at a wide range of groups and individuals” and that the white nationalist is “disparaging and ridiculing individual audience members, particularly members of the LGBTQ community.” Note here that well-being and safety of students is not on the list of two principals. Tolerance of hate speech and aggression towards marginalized peoples, however, managed to make the list. Dirks states that the white nationalist’s “attacks can be extremely hurtful and disturbing,” but he is simultaneously telling his students that they should accommodate and tolerate these attacks.
In another interesting turn and display of mental gymnastics, Dirks has announced that the campus group that has invited the white nationalist must pay for security of the event, but not for the security that will be required for the counter-protest. The latter cost of “those additional preparations and measures will be borne entirely by the campus, and will far exceed the basic security costs that are the responsibility of the hosting organization.” If there’s no white nationalist, there’s no counter-protest to begin with… but by allowing the white nationalist, Reagan, I mean Dirks, can pay homage and tribute to the police. Here, he is directly addressing the campus community and not the white nationalist:
“We will not stand idly by while laws or university policies are violated, no matter who the perpetrators are. […] UCPD has been directed to maintain public safety and to do what it can to prevent disruptions and preserve order.”
Decoded: counter-protestors beware. The police will mace you and beat you if you protest in a way that is not to their liking. Dirks has already positioned himself here for any fallout to come down on marginalized people and protestors while providing protections to the student group that invited the hate speech and violence in the first place. He honestly might as well have said: “So UCB students, tolerate hate speech that directly and violently impacts you, and also hold your counter-protest in a way that militarized police deem decent or face potentially excessive force and police brutality. The safety of our beautiful buildings and campus is more important than your lives and livelihood.” Dirks, I know you’re on the way out, but start measuring your impacts.
Adding further insult to injury, the police calculated the security costs that fall on the student group, “based on neutral, objective criteria having nothing to do with the speaker’s perspectives, prior conduct on other campuses and/or expected protests by those who stand in opposition to his beliefs, rhetoric and behavior.” Electing to ignore previous incidents at other universities shows a literal lack of foresight and planning. Such a lack of foresight can prove dangerous for all parties involved. Furthermore, the student group is being safeguarded from the actual cost of hosting their white nationalist speaker. Place the actual cost entirely on them, and we might have a learning moment about impact. Then again, this isn’t about learning. It’s about an Ivory Tower’s disconnect with reality, a PWI’s desire to protect bigotry at all costs, and a perversion of the 1st amendment to directly support white nationalists in hate speech.
So, what has happened at other universities? Let’s take a look:
● Other universities (listed below) have already canceled the white nationalist’s appearances on his “Dangerous Faggot” campus tour because they have triggered violence.
● A man was shot and wounded at a talk at the University of Washington.
● A group of 20+ Neo-nazis wearing all black and masks in Boulder, CO were intercepted by police while marching their way to an auditorium where Laverne Cox was speaking.
● The white nationalist spoke at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he was invited by a conservative student group, and he used his platform to mock a transgender student, displaying her name and photo prominently onscreen (This was very arguably unprotected speech; “fighting words”).
● NYU canceled on the white nationalist citing safety concerns. Senior Vice President of Student Affairs Marc Wais said, “On other campuses his events have been accompanied by physical altercations, the need for drastically enlarged security presence, harassment of community members both at the event and beyond and credible threats involving the presence of firearms or explosives.”
● DePaul University has learned from its mistakes and “having consulted with Public Safety and having reviewed last Spring’s events, it is clear that it would not be possible for DePaul to provide the security that would be required for such an event” (Vice President of Student Affairs Eugene Zdziarski).
● A UCLA student group canceled on the white nationalist. A spokesperson stated, “UCLA had trouble meeting his technical requirements, which includes the need for a projector and a wireless microphone.” Either UCLA is broke beyond belief, this student group is attempting to save face with other conservatives, or they too believe the violence isn’t worth the hate speech.
● UC Davis cancels on the white nationalist just 30 minutes before the talk. Their statement reads: “After consulting with UC Davis Police Department and UC Davis Student Affairs officials, the Davis College Republicans canceled tonight’s event.”
Conservative student groups around the nation have made attempts to defend their actions with some saying that the ‘repressive left’ perpetuates violence, censors speech, and spreads hate. For some reason, they also have no problem welcoming violence, condemning protest (censoring free speech), and spreading hate themselves. The ‘diversity of thought’ argument has also been deployed. This can be seen as nothing more than a lazy effort at defending their lack of desire to bring someone with actual ideas to campus. Bring someone with substance and you might actually be bringing diversity of thought. Bring a white nationalist and history will keep repeating itself.
To Dirks and the UC system, take the lead of UC Davis and NYU that rationally acknowledges the threat of violence and protect your students. Sure, the Constitution protects speech to an extent. Let’s talk about that number one guiding principal. Cohen v. California (1971) already decided that speech is not protected when it “tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace […] so long as it is a personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” Sound familiar?
If the UC system can rally around suppressing people who support Palestine, then they can rally around defending against white nationalist nazis... and guess what, you can still invite a diversity of backgrounds/ideas to speak! It’s not entirely certain why conservative student groups don’t invite speakers who, as an inverse to what Dirks believes about the white nationalists, reflect serious engagement with ideas. Unless, of course, conservative student groups are insinuating that there are no longer conservative leaders who can seriously engage with ideas.
Dirks, in his statement, closes by propping himself up by a colleague, UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman who recently wrote:
“Universities support free speech and condemn censorship for two reasons — to ensure that positive, helpful, illuminating messages can circulate widely, and to expose hateful or dangerous ideas that, if never engaged or rebutted, would gain traction in the darker corners of our society.”
We already know that this white nationalist is not coming with ‘positive, helpful, illuminating messages’ and the ‘hateful or dangerous ideas’ have already been exposed and rebutted at other universities. Either UCB thinks itself to be the center of the universe, or Dirks is welcoming already known and rebutted white nationalist nazis. Regardless of which might hold truth (possibly both) and if something horrible does happen, Dirks can carry that blood on his hands joyfully into retirement.
