Kyle de Beausset, an undergraduate student and migrant advocate, who was one of the original Harvard protesters, said yesterday that Gilchrist’s removal will allow discussions to move toward policy, rather than animosity.
“It’s a victory for people who are trying to get hate out of the immigration debate,” he said. “There’s a difference between having views, and hate speech.”
Beausset said more students have been alerted to the group’s stance since the arrest in June of a woman with ties to the Minuteman Project.
Shawna Ford and two others allegedly shot and killed a father and son, and wounded the mother in a robbery that Beausset said was to “finance her nativist activism.”
He said the episode showed the extremes to which some members of the movement will go.
“I’m concerned about the broader national implications of legitimizing these extremist views with the Harvard name,” he said in a letter to fellow students.
Milton Valencia – Boston Globe (16 October 2009)
Jim Gilchrist’s organization, in characteristic fashion, has responded with hyperbole and falsehoods.
Anti-Free Speech Fanatics at Harvard Threaten Disruption and Violence
Despite appearing at last February’s symposium at the Harvard Law
School on immigration law with invited panelists ranging from
legislators and government officials to academics and private
practitioners from across the political spectrum, campus philosophical
fanatics have terrorized the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee
(HULC) with disruptive threats if Jim Gilchrist attends their proposed
convention.With just five days notice, after over five months of planning his
appearance, HULC gave Gilchrist notice that it was forced to rescind
its invitation due to serious threats from unnamed anarchist radicals
on the Harvard campus. The spokesperson for HULC said the threats were
sourced in only some errant students. He said no faculty members were
involved in the threat to wreak havoc upon the Cambridge, Massachusetts
campus.Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project (16 October 2009)
Why reporters still consider Gilchrist a worthy commentator on something as important as U.S. migration policy when he so willingly distorts the truth is beyond me. There was never any threat of violence. All I did was send out an email to a bunch of student group lists explaining why I thought Gilchrist shouldn’t be invited.
Before I further elaborate on why Gilchrist shouldn’t have been invited, I want to point out that this isn’t the first time he has distorted the truth about a visit to Harvard. The last time Gilchrist came to Harvard he posted this fictional account of his visit which was torn apart by Katy Glen and Ting Chen of the Harvard Law Record.
As the other panelists discussed the U.S.-generated demand for
immigrant labor, the practice of detaining asylum-seekers, and the need
to increase ways for immigrants to enter the U.S. legally, Mr.
Gilchrist exhibited a dearth of knowledge of basic issues in
immigration law enforcement and policymaking, and spent much of his
speaking time warning the students in the audience that we would pay
the price for the Mexican invasion. Audible laughter at several of Mr.
Gilchrist’s comments indicated the level of absurdity of his
allegations.
Mr. Gilchrist relied on fear-mongering tactics throughout the panel
discussion, creating an unwelcome distraction from what was otherwise a
lively and intelligent discourse on immigration policy.[…]
After failing to make a substantive contribution to the panel, Mr.
Gilchrist returned home and published an account of the discussion on
the Minuteman Project’s website that depicts an entirely different
event. In Mr. Gilchrist’s creative retelling, the audience broke into
spontaneous applause on two separate occasions after his comments.
Repeated viewings of the video recording of the panel have yet to
reveal this rousing applause. Mr. Gilchrist is also billing himself as
“the perfect guest” for radio talk shows after his appearance at HLS.
While he is certainly profiting from the publicity afforded by his
appearance at Harvard, he has yet to demonstrate his value as a
contributor to the ongoing debate on immigration policy.Katy Glenn and Ting Chen – Harvard Law Record (5 March 2009)
Gilchrist’s willingness to lie is reason enough not to give him a platform at Harvard or at any other respectable institution.
I admire the ideals the U.S. aspires to, and I believe free speech is chief among those ideals. Still, it’s important to be clear about what free speech means, embodied by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
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.U.S. Constitution (17 September 1787)
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from government abridging their freedom of speech. I will defend Jim Gilchrist’s right to express his views whatever he wants without government interference, but that doesn’t mean a private institution like Harvard is obligated to provide a platform for his views.
Establishing that Harvard is not obligated to provide Gilchrist with a platform under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, let me specify why I don’t think Harvard should have given Gilchrist a platform.
First of all, the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee (HULC) messed up in originally putting together their immigration panel for the Public Interest & Law Conference. Aside from Jim Gilchrist the only other two people on the immigration panel were Jessica Vaughn, and Jon Feere of the nativist Center for Immigration Studies. This means the entire panel was anti-migrant! I repeat, there were no pro-migrant perspectives on the immigration panel. Thankfully, the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee recognized their mistake, and now both Roberto Lovato of bastadobbs.com and Marcony A
lmeida of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy (MIRA) Coalition are on the panel. In other words, the nativist perspective will still be represented by two members of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason it would have been irresponsible for HULC to invite Jim Gilchrist is because of the violence he encourages and enables with his speech. There are countless examples of this. Jim Gilchrist advocated violence in his statement about being disinvited at Harvard:
It is obvious why our Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment
directly after the First Amendment. When free
speech is no longer an irrevocable right, well, that’s what the Second
Amendment is for…to preserve the First Amendment…for everyone on U.S.
territory.Jim Gilchrist – Minuteman Project (16 October 2009)
In a statement about being uninvited from Harvard I can only interpret this as a threat to bring guns to Harvard to “defend” his right to speak. This would be fine if this was all talk and no action, but the case of Shawna Forde has shown us that there can be deadly consequences to this sort of speech.
Forde, the head of Minuteman American Defense, is being tried for shooting and killing a 9-year-old girl Brisenia Flores, and her father, in an apparent attempt to finance her nativist activism. The only way to truly understand the consequences of hateful speech like Gilchrist’s is to hear the audio of Brisenia Flores’ mother when she dialed 911 to report that her husband and her daughter were shot and killed. (WARNING: Listening to this
audio might be traumatic for those who have suffered violence. I have
only listened to it once and that was enough.) Jim Gilchrist is a close associate of Shawna Forde’s and has defended her in the past.
To summarize, Harvard is not obligated to provide Jim Gilchrist with a platform because it is a private institution. That is not what free speech is about. Furthermore, the nativist perspective will still be represented on the immigration panel by the Center for Immigration Studies. Finally, it is irresponsible to give Jim Gilchrist the Harvard platform because he lies and has advocated violence. Violence which has been carried out by those closely associated with him.
I’m not the only one who believes this. The last time Jim Gilchrist came to Harvard Jeanne Butterfield, the former Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), refused to debate him. I’ll leave you with her letter to the organization that invited Gilchrist, the Journal on Legislation. Butterfield says it better than I ever could:
[To the Journal on Legislation,]
I fully understand and support your objectives of providing a non-partisan approach and of providing a forum for the airing of opposing points of view on immigration at your upcoming symposium. As I stated in my previous email to you, I often appear on panels which include a wide range of perspectives, and I have often debated speakers with opposite points of view to my own, including spokespeople such as Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, and commentator Pat Buchanan. I have appeared on Lou Dobbs, opposite Congressman Tom Tancredo as well. So I am not opposed to a spirited debate.
I draw the line, however, at debating or appearing with members of known hate groups, and those who advocate violence whether explicitly or implicitly. And I continue to believe that while Mr. Gilchrist has indeed attempted to moderate his tone and his rhetoric and perhaps has even changed some of his views, he continues to be the founder and leader of a group that is in essence a vigilante group, the Minutemen, one which intends to take law enforcement into its own hands.
I believe that there are some viewpoints which are outside the range of acceptable and credible dialogue in a democracy. I would not, for example, agree to debate a “Holocaust denier”. Neither would I debate a neo-Nazi, or a member of the Ku Klux Klan. While I would defend any person’s right to free speech, I can and do draw the line at lending my own expertise and credibility to these sorts of people’s agendas by appearing on the same platform with them. I believe that my appearance, my reputation, only lends legitimacy to them if I agree to appear, or debate them. And I believe it is my right and my responsibility to refuse to lend them any credibility whatsoever. There are certain viewpoints, including those which advocate violence, which are simply outside the realm of reasonable differences of opinion. In my judgment, this is the case here with Mr. Gilchrist.
…..
I have been an advocate for immigrants rights and immigration reform for more than 25 years. I have been intimately involved in the debate and in the legislative campaign on Capitol Hill during the past 15 years. I can bring an in-depth analysis and account of the immediate past debate on “comprehensive immigration reform” in a way that none of your other invited panelists can, as I was on the Hill and inside the room in many, many discussions and debates with Senators and advocates alike during the 2006 and 2007 legislative campaign.I believe that this information and analysis is valuable to your symposium attendees. And I would be happy to provide it on another occasion, or in a panel that does not include someone like Mr. Gilchrist. But I cannot accept an invitation to appear with Mr. Gilchrist, and I will therefore be forced with withdraw my acceptance of your kind invitation.
I hope that you will consider my views, and those that have been voiced by other invited speakers as well, as you proceed with your planning.
I have included some additional facts about Mr. Gilchrist and his organization below, which you may want to consider.
Best wishes for a successful symposium.
Jeanne Butterfield (2 February 2009)
I admire your thoughtful dedication and tireless efforts to raise awareness of the issues surrounding immigration in this nation. Keep on keepin’ on.
…of those who see liberals as stifling of speech. If we are truly liberal this is exactly what we should not be doing. There is a strong tradition and case to be made for freedom from academic censorship. While I detest the views he is espousing and realize this is not the government doing the censoring I believe he should have been allowed to speak. What you could have done was invite a speaker to rebut him afterward, plan your own event, and/or staged a demonstration outside the hall where he was speaking. You also could have had people in the audience poised to challenge him if there were a Q&A session. Yanking his invitation I fear confirms all the worst stereotypes about liberals and institutions such as Harvard prioritizing political correctness over free exchange of ideas.
Do you really think Harvard University should be providing platforms for bigoted hate speech as some sort of academic exercise of free speech? Should Harvard provide a platform to the birthers? The Klan? How about Reverend Phelps? Is that Harvard’s role? To appear unbiased and willing to the lower the bar of expertise in order to silence anti-intellectual critics?
<
p>There is a significant difference between inviting someone like Gilchrist, who brings absolutely no academic or intellectual expertise on the complicated subject of contemporary immigration in the United States, and inviting someone who actually has academic credentials and a body of work to rationally scrutinize but whose views may be controversial. Gilchrist speaks from a level of truthiness that has no place in academia.
<
p>As this nation further blurs the lines of fact and belief, intellectual endeavor and gut-level intuition, we should be raising the standards of evidence, not lowering them. A Harvard speaking engagement gives Gilchrist–and people like him–a veneer of legitimacy that erodes confidence in the academic and intellectual standards of the institution.
<
p>If Harvard were truly interested in sparking a debate between two legitimately differing opinions on the best approaches in dealing with immigration issues, they’ll find someone who has some credibility and expertise, not a zenophobic, gun-toting bigot.
…if Harvard hadn’t invited him in the first place, and your point about having academic credentials is well-taken. Uniniviting someone is always messy and never seems to turn out well or make anybody look very good. For better or worse there is the perception issue too which I guess was my concern, and I just wasn’t sure it was worth it.
… about conservatives playing the victim card. They will always do this, even if they aren’t invited in the first place. It’s not productive to go through life worrying about walking on the eggshells of the permanent victim class.
So, groups like MassResistance and the Minutemen have learned to cry intolerance when they are denied a platform to advocate intolerance…
<
p>My take is speaking at Harvard lends them undeserved credibility. Uninviting them was the right thing to do.
When respected institutions of higher learning make mistakes like this, it is entirely appropriate for the student body and other faculty & staff to voice their objections. Should the university see the error of their ways, all well and good. If they stand by their decisions, then let them defend those decisions in public and as a community.
<
p>As KBusch so appropriately puts it, creating a false equivalency, in this case, suggesting Gilchrist is somehow a voice of authority akin to other experts in the field, lowers the bar, empowers adherents to junk science and policy, and suggests that all opinions are equal. They are not.
As I point out below, I think it’s incorrect to think of this as an invitation from “Harvard”, as though Gilchrist’s presence implies “Harvard’s” approval of his message or at least his legitimacy. It seems Gilchrist was invited by a student group–so what? Let them hear from whomever they like.
<
p>TedF
I’m afraid of Asymptotes! If my beer is in the refrigerator, and I first must travel half-way to the fridge to get my beer, and then travel half of that distance, and then travel half of that distance, I will be constantly arriving at the half-way point and I’ll never arrive at my beer! My beer will remain forever un-drank!
<
p>Damn you, Zeno!!!
A counter-lecture is more effective, and more keeping with democratic tradition, then trying to silence voices one doesn’t like.
How dare those undemocratic jerks stifle my speech.
And providing a platform…
Freedom of speech is a principle enshrined in the First Amendment, but as a principle it extends beyond just the law.
<
p>You don’t provide any substantive reasons for excluding him. Juan Williams did a good job pointing this out. Instead you merely rationalize your own bias against this man and his, let’s face it, influential organization on the right (other “nativists” on the panel don’t make up for Gilchrist’s absence).
<
p>I’d be interested if you clarified this.
<
p>
<
p>”All I did was…” sounds very weasily. Do you have a copy of the email and a list of the organizations to which it was sent? Might help your case. But probably not if it went to the “ruckus society” or some such.
I don’t have to provide substantive reasons for excluding you from speaking to my family while we’re eating dinner at our dining room table.
<
p>Likewise, this Harvard group is under no obligation to provide substantive reason for inviting, or later uninviting him.
<
p>
<
p>Ultimately, methinks they’d have been better off with a terse press statement explaining that Mr. Gilchrist will not be on the panel and expressing regret for the confusion to both Mr. Gilchrist and the public.
where CJ (the press secretary) announces offhandedly on a Friday (paraphrasing and substituting):
<
p>(like the fact that he is an unmitigated asshole).
<
p>Let Mr. Gilchrist pound the table and squawk, he’ll do that anyway.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that “Harvard” is, or is not, providing this fellow with a platform. It seems that Gilchrist was invited by the Undergraduate Legal Committee, which, I take it, is some sort of student organization. Why shouldn’t they be able to hear from whomever they want? It seems to me that the real concern is that “Harvard” is somehow bestowing its imprimatur on Gilchrist, but to me, that’s just a misunderstanding.
<
p>And I do think it’s antithetical to the ideals of the university to “threaten disruption or violence” to get what you want, even if “Harvard” was wrong to invite Gilchrist to speak. I am picturing you and your comrades after your insurrection drinking grappa and belting out the Internationale before Dunster House or wherever. Sheesh.
<
p>TedF
Should have been: “before going back to Dunster House or wherever.”
Not cool to smother the kid’s diary with the chimp pic. It makes it look like you promoted it just to crap on it.
<
p>This is a case where someone needed to step up and remind the Harvard community it can assert values. Good job Kyle.
Not well done, Bob.
It does give a glimpse into why the RoTR are so hard to understand. If this isn’t a personal attack, what is? And how does it “advance the argument?”
you embarrassed yourself and us.
<
p>Do you understand that your front-paged snark is literally on the same front page as a posting from Governor Deval Patrick? Do you think your action helped or hurt BMG, the Governor, and Democrats?
<
p>This is a community.
<
p>You should strike the snarky image, apologize to us here, and apologize personally to Kyle.
Gilchrist can speak wherever he wants and Harvard Students are bright enough, should the want to hear Mr Gilchrist’s opinions, that the can search out speech by Gilchrist.
<
p>Why further legitimize the Minutemen by giving them a voice at Harvard? Let Gilchrist speak at places like Liberty “University” and such.
Here’s the dilemma…if Harvard students are shielded from Gilchrist’s ignorance, it gives every reason and excuse for Oral Roberts or Liberty to shield their students from Richard Dawkins’ truth. Rather than trust university students to learn for themselves, Kyle is promoting the idea that ideological communities should remain pure and unsullied by competing viewpoints. If everybody hears both, I would hope Dawkins would convince more than Gilchrist because he has reality on his side. If everybody hears what they like and nothing else, we’re right back where we started.
<
p>Ironic that Kyle is building fences to keep people he doesn’t like out of his community.
doesn’t work. Richard Dawkins has bona fide academic credentials and is a respected professor from Oxford Universities. Gilchrist is not. Moreover, Liberty University is not a “proper university,” either, in the words of Richard Dawkins. lol. A better example might be someone antithetical to conservative causes–say Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, in which case I don’t see any problem in Liberty University saying no to a speaking engagement.
<
p>I do believe the notion of imprimatur and validation is an issue here. There are plenty of opportunities to hear these people speak. If real universities, like Harvard, wish to have a dialogue on these issues, they can invite or approve the invitations of bona fide and credible experts in the field.
<
p>The blurring of popular culture with academic purpose does nothing to further intellectual pursuit or ensure progress.
I chose the example of Dawkins because of the hostility shown him by Liberty, and the government of the state of Oklahoma, for example. While he has better academic credentials than Sheehan, I would imagine he gets more cr*p than she does…partially because of his credentials.
<
p>That said, there are many ways to gain validation, and while you, kyle, and I may not like it, Gilchrist has it. He outperformed the Democratic candidates in a race for Congress in California run-off, despite running for a whack-job party. He came in second. His organization has political connections and a large membership. In my mind, Gilchrist has the bona fides to be seen as part of the national conversation, even if what he has to say is disgusting.
<
p>Besides, I don’t think kyle had a problem with Gilchrist because of his lack of academic background, but rather he doesn’t want anyone to hear what Gilchrist has to say — the exact reason the Sooner State tried to ban Dawkins.
on which reasonable and thoughtful people can disagree. I absolutely understand and appreciate the argument you are making; it is perfectly legitimate. Chalk this one up to I like vanilla and you like chocolate.
<
p>I hope Kyle will come along and clarify his motivations, though, as I hope your characterization is not accurate. If a qualified individual, e.g., a professor from another university, were coming to posit the arguments, such as they are, that would be forthcoming from Gilchrist, I have a hard time believing Kyle would have silenced this individual. If that is the case, then Kyle IS wrong and I would argue that point. Indeed, such academic silencing is reprehensible.
<
p>I truly believe this is a KBusch Equivalency Problem–heretofore known in my lexicon as a KBEP. Who gets validated, legitimized, buffed with imprimatur is important in maintaining academic integrity, in my view.
It appears to be legitimately accredited.
you, Christopher.
<
p>Personally, I don’t consider Liberty University a proper university, either, irrespective of the smattering of accreditations it has received.
…I have doubts that he would accept an invitation to speak at Liberty.
<
p>But, to engage the point at hand, I do think your line of argument is valid. However, there has to be some filtering of who gets to speak at Harvard and whose viewpoints gain legitimacy through such engagements. Gilchrist is fringe and need not be given further legitimacy any more than Orly Tates or Michelle Bachman.
<
p>It’s not that I’m for refusing people who are against immigration from being apart of the debate, it’s that I think that it would enhance the national debate if places like Harvard* featured speakers better committed to rational, fact-based discourse as opposed to speakers espoused to propaganda, histrionics, and fear-pedaling.
<
p>Jim Gilchrist has been heard. The Harvard students that include Kyle didn’t like what they heard and spoke up. Their voices were heard and they told Gilchrist to take his ideas elsewhere.
<
p>I’m all for the idea of Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park. But there’s no need for Harvard University to be a speaker’s corner. There is a reason they are selective about their students and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be selective about their speakers.
<
p>———————
*I know Harvard the University didn’t invite Gilchrist, rather it was a student organization. I use “Harvard” as a catch-all for the total Harvard Community in general.
Dawkins purposefully chose to speak as close to Liberty as he could get, with the full intention of hearing from its students…I bet he’d go there if he’d been allowed.
<
p>Secondly, I guess there are different definitions of “legitimacy” out there. Michelle Bachmann is a loon, but she’s also a Congresswoman. Even if we don’t like what she has to say, her point of view (like that of Gilchrist) is widely shared. Regardless of our — or kyle’s — personal feelings, it is part of the national conversation. Rather than finding reasons to hide from it, I say confront it.
<
p>How would Gilchrist have held up under question after question from educated, knowledgeable students? We’ll never know, and he gets to play the victim card.
Dawkins is fond of this quote, and I can’t remember to whom he attributes it. Paraphrasing, he says “that would look good on your CV, not so good on mine” when he is asked why he doesn’t debate creationists. I do have a hard time imagining Dawkins speaking at Liberty, but I can’t speak for him and I would not deem it inpossible. Put it this way, I’d bet you a beer or two he wouldn’t speak at Liberty, but not much more than that – I’m not a mind reader.
<
p>Sure, Gilchrist has some legitimacy, but much like the “don’t feed the troll” philosophy on the internet, his legitimacy can be prevent from growing (or at least the growth can be curbed) and perhaps the legitimacy can be made to shrink if he doesn’t speak at places like Harvard and Columbia.
<
p>I think Liberty has a lot more to gain and Dawkins much more to lose if he spoke at Liberty. At the same time, Gilchrist gains much by speaking at Harvard and is essentially using Harvard. Gilchrist adds nothing to Harvard’s metaphorical CV.
<
p>Dawkins understands the subtlety of the point here, and your characterization of his stance on these issues is spot on.
Sabutai, Harvard has hosted Gilchrist before. Kyle had this in the middle of the post:
That was followed by some discussion by others, describing the worthlessness of Gilchrist’s participation. They also point out that Gilchrist used a fabricated version of his reception there to bolster his “validation,” as you put it.
<
p>I don’t know about you, but if somebody comes to a party in my house, drinks my beer, eats my food, contributes nothing to anyone else’s enjoyment of the evening, then goes out and lies in public about what happened, he doesn’t get invited back, no matter how many people like him.
I figure the best way to take away Gilchrist’s power is to embarrass him every time, every place he tries to talk by putting truth before him.
<
p>Other people figure the best way it to make him look like a victim, and maybe that’s where we disagree.
… ways to make someone look like they aren’t acceptable for a legitimate forum is to deny it to them.
The issue then becomes whether you give him a platform, knowing he’s going to lie regardless. My take remains that speaking at Harvard gives him legitimacy he doesn’t deserve. He can whine about being shutout, but I trust most people (certain editors excluded) are intelligent and mature enough to enough to figure it out.
Well, this thread and Kyle’s appearance on Fox, along with the AP articles in the Globe and the Herald, certainly suggests that Mr. Gilchrist’s views were effectively downplayed by preventing him from speaking.
<
p>Not.
<
p>In my view, the people who delude themselves, with respect, are those that think this was somehow an effective action against the Minutemen. Far from it. Gilchrist and his cause have gained enormously, in MHO, from the decision, however politically well-intentioned, to disinvite him.
Both article’s quote Gilchrist portraying himself as a victim, but I don’t see how he “gains enormously” from it. He also cast himself as the victim when he did get to speak.
<
p> He got publicity from both occasions, but it’s not clear he got converts or advanced his cause. Neither article makes it sound like he was treated unfairly. Both quote the committee’s justification:
<
p>
<
p>I agree wholeheartedly. Gilchrist response was to call them chickens. So what?
Gilchrist refuses to be embarrassed. He appears at the event, steadfastly repeats his talking points, then announces to the gullible that he knocked ’em dead. Those gulls aren’t going to check whether he’s telling the truth; they just know that he spoke at Harvard. That mere fact gives him more legitimacy and makes it harder for the next group to decide not to give him a forum.
Bill never, ever admits defeat. If someone bests him, he simply spends part of his next show explaining how he won (and the other person is a lunatic left-wing loser). Wingnuts across America have copied his example. They’re about energizing the base and gaining media attention, not having a discussion.
Since when do you folks promote serious diaries merely to mock them?
<
p>Do the mature thing: take the photograph down.
I do think removing the chimp picture would show good form and be more exemplary of the environment and tone that I know you wish to foster here at BMG.
I think the point represented by the picture, however, is accurate. I’m with Sabutai all the way here.
And as I said above, I think the line of argument is valid.
<
p>From where I sit, the chimp picture, if you still thought it was necessary, would have been better suited as a comment to the post than the header.
That’s where I put it, following the wise advice of the commentariat.
I reprint it here because it sums up my attitude toward the behavior of the Harvard students. They think that by closing themselves off from people like Gilchrist they strike a blow against their appalling arguments. Quite to the contrary, by refusing to engage with people like this they suggest that they are afraid of them, and in fact do not have a countervailing argument strong enough to go head to head with them. In the long run, in my opinion, this kind of behavior undercuts the position Kyle and others seek to advance, and strengthens Gilchrist etal. (Indeed, one might say it accomplishes about as much as the anarchist movement has to date in the US, but I digress).
<
p>As to our rules, this picture is not a personal attack against our esteemed commenter Kyle. I am sure he is a wonderful fellow and wish nothing but the best for him on a personal level. It is a commentary on his theory that by disinviting Gilchrist he and his peers have somehow advanced their cause. The “hear no evil see so evil speak no evil” monkeys are an ancient representation of the vanity of willful ignorance. As Wikipedia confirms: “In the western world the phrase is often used to refer to those who deal with impropriety by looking the other way, refusing to acknowledge it, or feigning ignorance.”
<
p>
that what you’ve written so far on this topic suggests that the three chimps are, actually, a fair representation of your take on this issue. You seem to have reduced this issue to one of a collection of people being unwilling to hear opposing ideas. I suggest to you that that is an inaccurate and self-serving gloss of the problem.
<
p>Nowhere do I see a cogent rebuttal to those of us who have made reasoned and rational arguments against providing a forum to Mr. Gilchrist. You have merely bludgeoned the issue with a “failing to engage” hammer that is both simplistic and inaccurate. No one here is suggesting that the ideas put forth by Mr. Gilchrist are unworthy of response. His ideas are not really the point. What people, and I hope Kyle is suggesting, is that the messenger matters.
<
p>How about you respond to the issues of academic integrity, imprimatur, and equivalency, which are the REAL issues here, not a bunch of primate-like people clapping their hands over the ears and eyes in an effort to block out ideas they don’t like.
First, I suggest much of this thread indicts the idea that disinviting Gilchrist was the right thing to do in terms of discrediting his views. The entire discussion, from Kyle’s appearance on Fox News to the debate over whether the three monkeys analogy is appropriate raises Mr. Gilchrist to the position of First Amendment Martyr instead of allowing him to stew in the juices of his own hateful positions. The effect is to expand his credibility, not diminish it. The violence last year at Columbia, justified by similar arguments, resulted in a similar boost for this man.
<
p>Imagine if the LaRouchie so thoroughly eviscerated by Rep. Frank had been barred from that Town Hall. Or if, more generally, the birthers and deathers of the Town Halls of August 2009 had collectively been barred. That would have been the perfect outcome from the point of view of your argument. In practice, however, those views would still circulate, energized by the suspicion the spokespeople were barred because of a fear they could not be repudiated i.e. that they were true. The result of the “diningroom table” exchange, along with all of the other discussion over the summer, by contrast, has debunked the deathers for millions. That’s constructive. Keeping people like Gilchrist hidden and pretending they don’t exist helps them. They do exist, and they need to be confronted, not “denied.”
<
p>As to Harvard somehow affirming Gilchrist’s arguments, I think that is absurd. By that argument, members of the university community should never even address the most unpleasant issues that exist, or their spokespeople, for fear of somehow ennobling them.
<
p>Finally, to the objection that Gilchrist will make things up about his visit: so what. His whole career is based on making things up. The way to deal with that is to expose his lies — incidentally impugning on everything else he says — not to wail about how unfair it all is.
<
p>Now, if I was organizing a BMG forum on immigration I wouldn’t invite Gilchrist. I agree the students had no obligation to invite him. Once they invited him, however, the best approach would have been to rebut him at the forum, not embark on the road of the three monkeys.
If I understand it, you are asserting that in the following context:
then the result is that the extremist wins something.
<
p>But this is not a law of nature.
<
p>In fact, think of Al Gore. A lot of conservatives insinuate all sorts of negative things about Mr. Gore. Little of what they insinuate is true, but it has an effect of casting doubt on Mr. Gore. Why doesn’t the fact that a lot of people are asserting negative things about Gilchrist not have the same effect on him? In fact, they are so negative about him that they revoked his invitation. Why wouldn’t the above situation undermine his appeal rather than reinforce it?
<
p>I’m sure Ward Churchill got uninvited from lots of forums without that making more people take him seriously.
Even at Columbia, the College Republicans were only left with this soundbite:
<
p>
<
p>Well, yeah. Nor should they. Not every issue has two valid sides and the extreme right, like the Minutemen and their anti-gay brethren, are spreading hate, not ideas.
<
p>What Bob has yet to show is that the Minutemen gained support from the either the Columbia or Harvard incidents.
I submit that if Gilchrist had not been the subject of the ruckus at Columbia, or even if he had not been disinvited from the conference we’ve been discussing, his name would not be in the news at all — no matter what rubbish he spouted at a student conference — and the damage he could do would be far less. Attention is life for groups like the Minutemen.
<
p>Take a look at this Google Trends chart of searches for “Jim Gilchrist.” See the bump in October 2006? That’s the Columbia event — and millions of people typing his name into the web to find out more about him and his arguments, such as they are. There will be another small bump for this week after the data is processed in a few weeks, I predict. That helps Gilchrist as a general matter.
<
p>The issue is not, as I see it, about false equivalencies etc. The issue is that the Harvard students invited the guy. The question was what to do about it. The best approach, I think, would have been to let him speak.
for reasonable and thoughtful people to disagree on this issue and that the reasoning on both sides can be viewed as meritorious?
But I also obviously believe that in this particular case, the decision taken was unfortunate.
This reminds me a lot of the unconvincing argument that Secretary Rice used to make against doing diplomacy. TV appearances with American officials was supposed to shower noxious dictators with so many benefits that preventing such appearances was better than whatever could be accomplished through negotiation.
(1) The more publicity the better for them.
<
p>(2) I’ll stipulate that Bill O’Reilly is not a member of the reality-based community.
<
p>(3) We all agree that figuratively attacking Gilchrist at Ivy League campuses results in a wave of attention for him. My position is that helps him. You can disagree, but the debate is hardly being ducked.
<
p>I’m surprised that you see Gilchrist as comparable to a diplomat, but suit yourself. Personally, I find little analogous here to Secretary Rice’s ideas about diplomacy.
<
p>As to your point upthread, if Al Gore got disinvited from Liberty University because of his views, to use the example even higher in the thread, I submit that would strengthen his position with millions. By contrast, if he had spoken there and been politely rebutted, few would have noticed and the impact would have been negligible.
<
p>Finally, I remain eager to hear your response to my earlier hypothetical about the August Town Hall birthers and deathers, which I am surprised to note seems not to have been addressed. The perfect solution, as I understand the argument, would have been for them to have been barred from the meetings (ala Harvard) or shouted down when they tried to talk (ala Columbia). My suggestion is that the way Barney Frank dealt with the deather he confronted — let her speak, then rebut her — was much more constructive.
Proof for 1?
I’ve given you lots of proof, such as it exists. Your repeated demands for more “proof” suggest that you can’t actually make any argument of your own since you don’t adduce anything that supports your position.
<
p>Moreover, you refuse to respond to the substance of my comment, presumably because you can’t.
<
p>If you come up with an argument to support your position, let’s see it. In the meantime, I think it’s been pretty conclusively established that Mr. Gilchrist won this round, more’s the pity.
To KBusch point one you say more publicity is better. This is an assertion and I don’t see any backup. It seems to be an assumption on your part that more publicity = better. That didn’t work out so well for Sarah Palin. Granted, it made those already on her side more so, but you’re not going to win those people over anyway, the the assertion of advantage is debatable.
<
p>Toe KBusch point three you say “You can disagree, but the debate is hardly being ducked.” KBusch points out that you haven’t provided any back up to your assertion that it helps him. As far as I can see here, he’s right. There isn’t anything in your comment that backs this up.
<
p>”Moreover, you refuse to respond to the substance of my comment, presumably because you can’t. “
<
p>I’m not sure there is evidence of substance in what you wrote. Your assertions may have substance, but I don’t see it in what you actually wrote in your comment.
There are two arguments: (1) publicity helps Gilchrist, (2) publicity hurts him. I’ve established my claim for the former based on data, observation, and common sense. No one has offered even a scintilla of evidence for the latter, except for the new contention that publicity didn’t help Sarah Palin. In fact, I think Gov. Palin and her views are way ahead of where they were when she was an unknown governor of a distant state — as a result of publicity, however mixed. Quick! Who is the current governor of Alaska and what is their political philosophy. Most people have no idea. QED.
<
p>In any event, the esteemed KBusch has not offered a scintilla of evidence or even common sense logic to support (2). I presume because there isn’t much. That’s why the discussion is getting silly.
<
p>The substance I am referring to is my suggestion that disinviting the deathers from the summer town hall meetings — presumably the perfect solution from the point of view of people who support the Gilchrist Solution — would have increased their visibility. Barney Frank dealt with them the right way. If someone can make an argument that shouting down the “dining table deather” would have been a more effective refutation of her argument, I’d like to hear it.
… is that an advantage of publicity creates an advantage on recognition, but not necessarily of argument. That is, more people got to know Sarah Palin and of course, to the extent that those ‘more people’ included sympathizers, this translated into support. The flip is also true…. the more people learned about her that were not inclined to agree with her at all anyway the more derision she got to boot. Gilchrist’s arguments are not new and the ‘pre-disposed’ (on either side) are not going to be won over to the other side by having the debate he wants. The end result would be, predictably, notoriety for Gilchrist himself. While it may well be that a public refutation of him may be substantive, it’s tactical benefit to the cause wouldn’t be worth the price of admission. Making Gilchrist more or less of a public figure won’t diminish or enhance anything but name recognition. Claims of victimhood will go on regardless of how people may wish to indulge him. There’s no tactical victory to be had here.
I want to thank lightiris, Mr. Lynne, huh, Farnkoff, stomv, cannonneo, kirth, brooklinetom, and tblade for standing up for me and making my arguments for me so well while I was gone.
<
p>I have written a few updates about the fall-out (my thoughts and commentary on a Crimson article)
<
p>I frequently cross-post in a lot of forums, chief among them being The Sanctuary and Daily Kos. I don’t usually cross-post here unless I’ve cross-posted in those two forums, but I decided to cross-post here exclusively this time because I needed some local back-up.
<
p>In my experience, BMG has been one of of the most pro-migrant of the progressive spaces on the web. Progressive does not always equal pro-migrant (also see this video for more recent elaboration.
<
p>I thought there might be some opposition, because I know how BMF defends commenters of all viewpoints, but never in my wildest dreams did I think Bob would compare other students and me to chimpanzees. Even in symbolic form as an expression of “vanity or willfull ignorance” it is extremely offensive to an experience migrant advocate and organizer like myself.
<
p>Gilchrist has been spreading complete falsehoods about me through his website and to millions of viewers on Fox News, it sucks to have been crapped on here at BMG by an editor. Thankfully the overwhelming support in the comments has kept my faith in this being a pro-migrant space.
<
p>Patrick expressed a fair argument in suggesting that I was too narrow in my definition of free speech. The values of free speech should go beyond just government interference and into places like Harvard where all viewpoints should be debated openly and honestly.
<
p>I believe that argument is completely mute though with someone that has shown time and time and again that he has no regard whatsoever for the truth. Most importantly, though, Jim Gilchrist’s speech has led to violence through his association with Shawna Forde, his founding of a movement where a leader could commit such a heinous act of violence, and his refusal to condemn Forde’s action.
<
p>I would even venture to say that only someone from a privileged/elitist position could seriously suggest giving Gilchrist a platform like Harvard, which he has dishonestly used in the past to prop himself up, to allow him to continue to legitimize a movement which is responsible for violence, and which has led to a climate with increasing hate crimes against Latinos.
<
p>I’m am not alone in this feeling as exemplified by the views of the executive director of the prestigious American Immigration Lawyers Association.
but he didn’t compare you to a chimpanzee. The “see no/hear no/speak no” chimps are themselves symbols. His claim is that the dis-invite is very much a “see no/hear no/speak no” action.
<
p>I think it is too. The difference is that I don’t think that Gilchrist and his followers are the real chips, and I’d prefer that they “see no/hear no/speak no”ne of Gilchrist’s hateful dribble.
<
p>Ultimately, this is a strange debate. Had Mr. De Beausset’s organization never invited Mr. Gilchrist in the first place, nobody would have raised a stink. Why is inviting him and then uninviting him — bringing us to the same final situation of Mr. Gilchrist not being invited — any different?
I think it’s fine to organize against a speaker whose rhetoric you find dishonest, deceitful and corrupt but better to have them come and kick their ass on the merit.
<
p>In order to make the case, you must cite the person’s words in context and show how the speech is so offensive it must not be given the imprimatur of Harvard. Then your pre-event audience can decide for themselves and not just take your word for it.
<
p>That said, this approach leaves your audience with the notion that you don’t have the ability to debate those ideas and win. The greater idea of free speech is that in this democracy we debate ideas and the winning ones survive in our policy and laws while the losing ones decay in the dust bin of history. Ending the debate, ends the process of evaluation.
<
p>Who is one of the best advocates for a humane US immigration policy and boarder control? One alternative to dumping Gilchrist would be to get a panelist who advocates the policies and values you find appropriate and intellectually honest.
<
p>
I think Bob should have written his own post to comment on yours, rather than interject his imprecise graphically illustrated opinion on your thread.
<
p>On a related note, what initiatives could be undertaken to demonstrate the contributions made by immigrants in our society. In other words, make the case for a policy that benefits immigrants and natural born citizens in terms they value.
The fact that I strongly support migrants and migrant rights is why I reacted the way I did.
<
p>Our disagreement is tactical: having extended an invitation, the best way forward was to debunk Gilchrist ala Barney Frank and the deather, not to disinvite him and turn him into a famous martyr. I suggest the subsequent coverage supports my contention.
<
p>The monkey picture was a metaphorical allusion to a common saying, not a literal comparison, as I suspect you are in fact aware. Evidently I was not sufficiently thoughtful about the sensitivities of experienced migrant activists and organizers like yourself. I apologize.
<
p>As to people “from a privileged/elitist position,” I’ll leave it to you to speak for them.
And spent my early life without electricity and running water. I also spend much of my time among migrant youth. Giving Gilchrist a platform that he can then use to legitimize himself, his hatred, and his violence, is a privileged argument.
<
p>I do appreciate you’re pro-migrant support, though, Bob, and appreciate your tactical disagreements. I just wish you hadn’t done it by crapping on my diary like that.
I trust your reference to defecation is also intended as a metaphor, rather than a literal statement. 😉
<
p>Ba dump. I’m here all night.
<
p>By the way, how is the MA Congressional delegation looking on the DREAM Act?
Thanks to the work of the Student Immigrant Movement the entire delegation has co-sponsored the DREAM Act. It frees migrant youth like myself to work on in-state tuition, stopping deportations, and being a free speech fascist, lol.
<
p>I love it when Harvard students talk this way!
<
p>TedF
It appears you play victim pretty well yourself. I’m also glad I followed it because your hyperlink almost made it sound, at least as I read it, that it was Gilchrist himself who wished 9/11 on you.
Was trying to highlight the hatred and untruths of Gilchrist and his supporters to show that he’s not worth debating. How can you debate someone unwilling to even come close to telling the truth?
Al Gore makes this point very well in his 2007 book, “The Assault on Reason“.
<
p>Rightwing extremists like Mr. Gilchrist (together with their promoters at Fox News and similar smut peddlers) pander to the biases and prejudices of their audience and avoid rational or even truthful discourse. They routinely violate the usually-unspoken and implicit ground-rules that have governed western political dialog for centuries — the assumption that rational analysis trumps emotion, the assumption that all of us respect the importance of truthfulness.
<
p>In short, US-style democracy is premised upon the presumption that all sides of a debate will join, however reluctantly, in supporting a particular direction when that direction is demonstrated to be logically and objectively superior to the alternatives.
<
p>Rightwing ideologues like Mr. Gilchrist (and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, et al) demonstrate their contempt for these foundations of modern civilization with their daily utterances.
<
p>Not to get off-topic, but isn’t this almost exactly wrong? As a matter of history, has there ever been one time when all of America has, after conducting a debate, “supported a particular direction” after it was “demostrated to be logically and objectively superior to the alternatives”? And wasn’t the plan of the founders to create a government that could withstand the perssures from the multitude of constituencies and interest groups that America comprises?
<
p>I know it’s not that relevant, but I’m just saying!
<
p>TedF
The founders made some attempt to adhere to rational, reasoned argument. The premise of your link, for example, is that the reader was both able and willing to:
<
p>
<
p>Here is how Al Gore presented the case, in the book I cited above (to the moderators, this excerpt is pasted from the published and freely-available Amazon preview):
<
p>
<
p>My objection with extremists such as Mr. Gilchrist is not just the disgustingly hateful content of their speech, it is that they (in my opinion) knowingly, intentionally, and cynically lie. They appeal to the raw blood lust of our culture’s worst elements, apparently trusting that their resulting power — sheer, brute-force power — will overcome all opposition. They conjure the uncaring brutality of the street bully and the rampaging mob for their own selfish ends, regardless of the resulting tragedy for their victims or our society.