…there would be UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. From the LA Times
“In the e-mail, sent Monday, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau condemned a “climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated.”
He continued, postulating on factors that may have motivated Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged gunman in Saturday’s shootings, in which six people died, including a 9-year-old girl, and 13 were injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.): ‘I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.'”
There’s been a lot of discussion on the “blame game” that inevitably begins after tragedies such as the Tucson shootings. But for attacks on free speech to come from a leader of UC BERKELEY? Talk about irony. If there is ever a place to witness the First Amendment in action – even “hateful speech” (entirely legal, BTW) – it’s a campus like Berkeley. I will note also, without getting too into it, the utter lack of logic between action by the Arizona legislature and the irrational actions of Jared Loughner.
I don’t think U.C Berkeley is widely known as a center of hate speech or that its Chancellor is known to be a promoter of hateful speech. So you need to tell us what you are talking about.
<
p>In any case, charges of hypocrisy are pretty uninteresting in my book. Everyone fails to live up to their own standards from time to time; only saints are not hypocrites.
<
p>
I’m speaking more broadly than that. UC Berkeley is surely known as a center of FREE speech, as the article even refers to the campus as a “frequent hotbed of student activism.” And free speech naturally encompass some hateful speech. I find it very much hypocritical to praise the tenets of the First Amendment – but when the message is distasteful to you, blast our society’s tolerance of it.
<
p>I apologize if the title of my post is a yawn to you. True, none of us are perfect, but I think the Chancellor’s assertions more remarkable than “everyone messes up now and again.”
Where is the hate speech at Berkeley? How does “hotbed of student activism” equate to “hate speech”? Yes, free speech allows for hateful speech, but being open to free speech is not even remotely the same as encouraging hate speech and so far you have utterly failed to provide the slightest evidence that there is any hate speech at Berkeley or that the Chancellor is associated with it.
<
p>You aren’t making the slightest bit of sense.
You are dwelling far too much on the “hate” part. If you are going to be a true proponent of the First Amendment, you advocate for the right of people to express their viewpoints – regardless of the message behind it. To be “open to free speech,” if you actually truly mean the term, you are per se “open to hateful speech.” As an aside, I am interested to know precisely what “hate speech” the Chancellor was referring to – Arizona’s efforts to combat illegal immigration, i.e. a CRIME? I think that point is better left for another discussion, however.
<
p>Your imposition of the word “encouraging” to this discussion is a red herring, and so I’ll leave it at that.
<
p>As for specific instances of protests at Berkeley, I really think most would agree that Berkeley is known for its openness to the freedom of expression. But since you insist:
<
p>Activists, UC Berkeley Alumni Protest Yoo on First Day of Classes
At Protest, Handful of Students Demand Bush’s Removal
UC Berkeley stages protest of war in Iraq
<
p>Before you reply, I’m not saying that these protests amount to “hateful speech.” But they are instances of the University’s openness to robust public debate. It is not necessary for me to find specific instances of so-called “hateful speech” at Berkeley, because I’m not claiming it is an epicenter of hate speech. I’m saying it is an epicenter of free speech.
<
p>As for your last statement. I’m attempting to engage in an intellectual colloquy of this issue. I believe you understand exactly the issue I brought up and have a personal opinion on it, given your entries here. To simply accuse me of not making “the slightist bit of sense” is very much unproductive for further discussion.
still no hypocrisy here.
<
p>It is indeed necessary for you to produce evidence of actual hate speech at Berkeley to prove your uninteresting claim of hypocrisy and you have failed to do it.
<
p>Perhaps you are not explaining yourself properly. Are you trying to say that supporting “free speech” means that one cannot criticize hate speech? If so, that doesn’t seem like a very sensible expectation. Free speech means that people have a right to express themselves – even in a hateful way – it does not mean that they have the right to not be criticized for it.
bleah on you too
as to refrain from writing stupid sh*t?
<
p>Love and kisses,
KBusch
…condemned “tolerance of hate speech,” i.e. indicated that our society should not put up with hateful speech. This is in direct contradiction to the tenets of free speech. The First Amendment MANDATES that we “tolerate” hateful speech (assuming, of course, the required government action that would trigger applicability of the First Amendment).
<
p>Sure, I guess the Chanceller also has the right to say what he wants, although his decision to send a campuswide email while acting in his official capacity seems troublesome. But there is certainly hypocrisy in a campus known for its thriving expression, but then condemning others’ exercise of this same right.
<
p>Lastly, I am fairly new to this site and maybe it’s common custom for bloggers to throw in adjectives such as “uninteresting” when addressing another’s claim. But I have to say, it does little to advance your argument and adds an unnecessary element of hostility to a discussion we have only just begun. But maybe that’s just my opinion.
When you never miss an opportunity to point out when the opposition says something hypocritical, but feign “shock” when someone accuses someone in your tribe of it.
<
p>So you see nothing wrong with UC Berk doing this? Thankfully we have people like Alan Derchowitz (?sp) for defending the First Amendment rights of people even when they wanted to speak the most vile speech (nazies) against something he was (Jewish). He was NOT a hypocrite.
“So you see nothing wrong with UC Berk doing this?” Doing what? You have to actually point to something before it can be determined to be hypocritical.
<
p>And for the record, he wasn’t defending the character of their speech – he was defending against having their speech legally suppressed. Nobody on this site as far as I know has been calling for legal suppression, so I’m wondering why the reactionary tone about Dershowitz.
Free speech means that you are free to express yourself as you desire. It does not mean that I lose my freedom to speak about the speech that you choose. One has freedom of speech, not freedom from criticism.
Do you think Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau is supportive of person’s rights to hateful speech? But that they should be condemned for it?
He says it shouldn’t be tolerated. That doesn’t mean that it has to be banned. I think hateful speech should be condemned, but not silenced. The best fertilizer for hateful thought it marry it with victimization by letting it rot underground. Like any pestilence, sunlight is a good disinfectant.
<
p>I know there’s a cottage industry right now to mine, sift, edit, misquote, exaggerate, misread, and hype any utterance from “the left” to equal out some egregious examples of violent rhetoric from the right (more egregious in the wake of recent events). Even when this means playing loose with the meanings of “the left” or “violent rhetoric”. I even accept that provoking people on the left is being tried out as a way to solicit that balance. But so far, not so good.
speech you don’t like (hate, uncivil, whatever you subjectively disagree with…) vs. demanding it be banned. On the surface you can understand how someone could misunderstand the difference. Think Westboro Baptist Church!