- Good afternoon my name is Mariel Goddu,
I'm a Phd student in the
Department of Psychology.
And today, I hope it's alright,
I'm actually going to
share two statements.
The first is my own and
it's intended to provide
some context for the second.
The second is a statement
that I'm going to read
on behalf of a Cal-community member
who wishes to remain anonymous.
The topic of these statements
is the following principal of community,
which is the topic of today's hearings.
We respect the differences
as well as the commonalities
that bring us together and
call for civility and respect
in our personal interactions.
Okay so my statement.
During free speech week
I had a chance encounter
with some students in
front of Sproul hall.
It was late at night and
I was biking back to lab
to fix a problem with some data
that hadn't uploaded properly.
As I passed Sproul Hall I noticed that
there were some undergrads
who were tearing down signs
from the front of the building.
Hesitated for a second but then
my inner-GSI kicked in and I stopped.
I said hey, I called out.
Why are you taking down those signs?
If you don't like what someone's saying
you put your own sign up
or graffiti it or something
but don't take other people's signs.
This is how I met the Berkeley Patriot.
The kids stopped and
looked down at their shoes.
It was clear to me that I'd interrupted
some kind of mischief, though I certainly
did not appreciate the scale
of it until much later.
Why are you taking those
down, I asked again: silence.
Hang on did you guys put those up?
Vigorous nodding.
Like to take a photo or something?
More vigorous nodding.
And now you're taking it down,
to make it look like someone else did?
Less vigorous nodding but
honest nodding all the same.
I said huh you guys are like
some kind of political group
or something like this?
Yes said one after a
pause, we're conservative.
They all looked at me
waiting for a reaction.
I said okay I know conservative people.
But not the kind you might
think, another piped up.
Like for example I'm a vegan.
And I said hey that's kind
of cool I'm a vegan too.
But what are you guys doing,
what are the signs for,
what are you up to?
Are you going to free
speech week they asked?
Looking at me with their sort
of shiny college kid faces.
Of course I'm not going to
free speech week I said,
why on Earth would I do that?
We want Milo to come to
campus said the vegan.
We want a debate.
At this point some student
reporters with cameras showed up.
I was left speaking with the
vegan, let's call them Jessie.
Spoke with Jessie for about five minutes.
And Jessie told me that it's hard
to express conservative
political views at Cal.
It's not just a Berkeley
problem obviously, Jessie said.
Jessie pointed at one of the
others, that person over there,
they were beaten unconscious
by Antifa about a year ago.
Wow I said and they're still
doing political activism?
Yeah Jessie said.
We chatted for a few minutes more.
Mostly me asking questions about
the different student
organizations on campus
and whether or not they
talked to one another.
They don't, Jessie said.
We exchanged email addresses,
I said let me know,
if you ever want to talk
about campus political stuff.
I'm interested and understanding.
Monday's hearings were
centered on the topic
of registered student organizations
and one of the suggestions
that arose from the commission
was the idea of asking
student organizations who
are hosting major events to perhaps submit
along with logistical information,
a statement of intention and
a statement of expected impact
on the campus community
for their major event.
After Monday's hearings,
I contacted Jessie
and I asked if they would be
willing to write a statement
explaining the intention
and expected impact
that the Berkeley
Patriot would have stated
if the group had been asked at the time.
Jessie said yes as long as
they could remain completely anonymous.
It seems natural that Jessie
and the other students I met
last night should be here participating
in this conversation right now.
After all none of us
would be here probably
if it weren't for them.
But they're not here and
maybe this is out of shame
which would be understandable.
But it may in part be out of
genuine fear for personal safety.
Due to the negative
consequences of the events,
I think most people have
assumed that the groups
intentions were malicious and hostile.
A plan designed to harm and disrupt.
But my chance encounter
with the individuals,
my chance encounter with these individuals
suggests otherwise.
To be clear I do not condone what they did
but I do think that
understanding their perspective
is critical for the discussion
that we're trying to have.
These were college kids who
decided to something extreme.
Were their actions wise or responsible?
Absolutely not.
Were they disruptive, obnoxious
and deeply inconsiderate of other people?
Yes they were.
Did they act from a place
of malice and hatred?
I don't think we know enough to say.
So without further ado, I will
now read my second statement.
Uh not my second statement,
an anonymous statement
from a member of the Berkeley Patriot.
Okay so again this is not my statement,
to be clear I am reading this
on behalf of somebody else.
I do not personally
endorse any of these views
but I'm sharing them with you
in the spirit of these hearings.
I can't represent the group,
I can only represent myself
but here is what I can say about
the intention, says Jessie.
The whole point of inviting
Milo to campus to speak
was to demonstrate that the
communities' values are toxic.
The whole point was to get
the community to self reflect.
The UC-Berkeley community is so worried
about self reflection.
Their ideas are founded
on emotions not on logic.
One of the main arguments
for why Milo shouldn't come
is that he's a provocateur
and he is, I accept this.
So then your question is probably,
why would we let a provocateur speak?
Well Jessie asks, why would
we let a comedian speak?
To entertain us.
What happens when a comedian's
jokes are all terribly bad?
What happens when we are not entertained
but instead provoked?
Do we ban unentertaining comedians?
Who decides if they are entertaining?
Who decides who gets to
speak and who doesn't?
Why should anyone have that power?
When you boil it down, the
core of this kind of argument
is that feelings are more
valuable than logical words.
The problem about feelings
is that you can never measure
how people feel, you can
only take their word for it.
But what happens when people discover
that they can exaggerate and
dwell on certain feelings
in order to get certain power.
The group hoped that
inviting provocative speakers
to UC Berkeley campus
would facilitate a debate.
A debate is always conducted
on the grounds of logic alone.
Consider the difference
between these two sentences.
I'm offended by what
you're saying, shut up.
I'm offended by what you're saying
and here's why I think you're wrong.
With the former, disagreement
results in silence.
Silence creates division and often
only intensifies the emotion.
But saying I'm offended
by what you're saying
and here's why I think
you're wrong invites dialog.
It is only through dialog
that one can understand
the motives behind one's speech.
I discovered this first hand.
I once met someone whose ideas
were completely alien to me
but whose intentions were identical.
We all want the world
to be a better place,
we just don't know how to do it
and so we try different things.
By identifying our common intentions,
we were able to rearticulate
our disagreements
and discover how much we really agreed.
We were able to communicate,
we were able to empathize.
Is that not our highest goal?
To connect with people
on the deepest level
so that we can coexist in
peace, to understand one another
and no longer fear one another?
After all how do you
expect to change a person,
if you do not understand them?
How will you ever change the world
if you cannot change a person?
So this is my statement
of intention, says Jessie.
Statement of impact is harder.
We weren't sure what would happen.
The only reason that it cost so much money
is that people are violent.
We brought Milo to show
people what they are doing.
That they are protesting
instead of debating.
We hoped that the impact
on campus would be
to encourage a change in behavior.
Looking back I can see
that, that was idealistic.
All this was already there,
it's not something that we
created, we just showed it.
We showed that people would
rather protest than debate.
That is the end of this
anonymous statement
by a member of the Berkeley Patriot.
Again a, the organization
that brought Milo Yiannopoulos
to campus and precipitated
Free Speech Week, thank you.
- [Facilitator] Do you have
any questions for the speaker?
Thank you Mariel.
Next speaker.
- [James] I can go.
My name is James Eckhouse.
I am the president of
the International Youth
and Students for Social Equality.
We are an extreme-left
Trotskyist organization
on this campus.
We represent a minority political
position on this campus.
We completely reject the
new major events policy
that has been established
by this university
which we see as inherently anti-democratic
and frankly a ridicule of free speech.
We believe these
proceedings are being done
behind the backs of the UC student body
and we ask quite
concretely if these issues
were actually put up to a vote
of the student body what would happen?
How would the proceedings
of what has changed
with this new major events
policy be different?
Let me concretely speak to this issue.
The new major events policy on this campus
shifts free speech from
a right to a privilege.
In the email that was sent
out to advertise this event.
I believe the language
that was used in discussing
free speech was: our
obligation to free speech.
I would ask ourselves to look
in the mirror on this question.
Is free speech an obligation?
Is that how the university sees it?
An obligation, or is it
a basic political right
of all students on this campus?
I side with the former.
This past semester we scheduled an event.
I received an email from
the police department
or someone I think speaking for them
essentially telling us that this
had been labeled a major event.
I immediately sent back several questions,
which at no point did I
ever get any response to.
The reason why our event
was labeled a major event
was simply because of the
speaker we had invited out.
A man named David North who is a,
he is the chairman of the most
widely read Marxist website.
And he has different and uh,
perhaps you would say
controversial political views
that are in a minority on this campus.
By asking our student organization
to be financially responsible
for any kind of potential
police involvement that
is deemed required.
What is happening on this campus
is making of the case that
instead of free speech being
a political right, it's a privilege
that can only be afforded
to those who like myself
have more extreme political beliefs
if I have the cash to pay for it.
We are a penniless
organization that certainly
does not have the cash to pay for it.
I would ask what happens in the long term?
If the capacity to hold a
controversial political event
on this campus becomes
tied to one's capacity
to finance it personally?
That is a destruction of
the right of free speech.
I think the prompt for this event
said something along the lines of
where will the money come from?
We live in the richest
country in the world,
in the richest state in the world
in one of the richest places in the world.
I don't mean to hold
individuals in this room
or the specific
administrators of this campus
as being, you know, fully
responsible for this
but we obviously are in an
incredibly privileged place
to go and finance these things.
We believe the IYSSE, the
organization that I represent,
that the way forward to ensure free speech
on this campus is to
guarantee it as a right.
As a political right not tied in any way
to one's particular finances.
And um...
I would lastly conclude by saying that
this should be brought up as
a point of political debate
and vote by the entire student body
as opposed to something
that's largely conducted
behind closed doors with,
yes these commissions
and what not to voice community concern
but ultimately the decision is not
within the student's power.
Thank you.
- [Facilitator] Thank you.
Any questions for the speaker?
Thank you.
- [Woman] I'm wondering
if by your interpretation
of our like obligation to
provide for free speech
without a financial burden
on the group would extend
outside of the political realm,
such as for entertainment,
comedians, other high-profile speakers.
Would there then be a similar obligation
to provide for any security necessary
despite the financial
capabilities of the group?
- [James] I can't speak for, I you know,
I haven't really thought
through quite honestly
the question of how it relates to issues
that don't have to do
with political content.
So I'm not in a full
position to talk about that
but I think that insofar as you're trying
to have an event on campus,
that is largely for the
students of UC Berkeley
and the intention of the
event is not to make a profit
but to educate and share a perspective
whether it be cultural
or political or whatnot
by making that student
group responsible for.
Let me put it more pointedly.
To make, I mean this maybe where,
this perhaps this answers your question.
To make for example my student
group financially responsible
for someone else disagreeing with me
is an abrogation of free speech.
There's other left-wing
organizations on campus
for example, Students
for Justice in Palestine
which have gotten into
various conflicts I believe
with the university and
other groups on campus.
As there are right-wing organizations.
And it will be, I would
just lastly say this,
we're living in a time
of increasing political,
social and economic turmoil.
And UC Berkeley as the kind of originator
of the Free Speech Movement
is a example, sets an example.
Not simply nationally but internationally
for how public institutions
go and deal with the rise
of more extreme viewpoints
while we're witnessing
this turmoil in politics around the world.
And so what happens here I think actually
has quite a big effect globally.
- Could we maybe just clarify the issue
of the financial responsibility
of registered student groups
for security costs of events
under the major events policy?
- Do you want to take that
or do you want me to take it?
So under the major events
policy, student organizations
are responsible for internal security
that would normally be
required for any event
and if there happens to
be disagreement outside
that actually, that cost
actually is borne by the campus.
Okay so there's no, you're
saying that there's no.
There's no financial burden
on student organizations
for providing security for their event.
- No that's, they are responsible
for normal internal security.
So in other words, Zellerbach
Auditorium requires
that you hire a police
officer for its event.
You would still be responsible for that.
But if there was a threat
outside Zellerback Hall,
that was presented by other parties.
The UCPD would provide
that security at no cost
to the student organization.
- Gotcha okay, that's helpful
to be clarified, thank you.
- Next speaker?
Don't all stand up at once.
Well chairs we have, do we have a speaker?
Go ahead.
If you could sign in.
- Well it's good to see
some friendly faces.
For those of you who don't know me,
my name is Bradley
Devlin, I'm the president
of the Berkeley College Republicans.
Coming today to clear
the air a little bit.
I've prepared a few, a few remarks.
And you're gonna hear
here first I might agree
with the Trotsky fan a little bit.
So we're gonna, we're
gonna see how this goes.
After requesting to be a
representative of this panel
via email and receiving
absolutely zero response
from this commission or university,
I figure it's time to
delve into the history
between my organization
and the university.
My peers involved in the
Berkeley College Republicans
are continually accused of
being xenophobic, transphobic,
homophobic, racist, fascist, reactionary,
bigoted, sexist and just pure evil.
Just yesterday I was
called a Nazi while tabling
on the, on three separate occasions.
Somehow my conservative
values of limited government
and individual freedoms
have been construed
with a fascist ideology that is
the antithesis of conservatism itself.
However the leftist
students on this campus
have a knack of rewriting history in order
to fallaciously cast its
conservative minority
into their own version of
Dante's Nine Layers of Hell.
Whether the, when the
Berkeley College Republicans
were hosting Ben Shapiro
in Zellerbach Hall
after the university made
that space available to us,
there were individuals openly
calling for a condemnation
because us being Republicans
don't want members
of marginalized student
groups to have access
to the services located
around Zellerbach Hall.
That includes this building,
the multi-cultural student
center, Caesar Chavez Center
and I'm sure there are other
ones that I am unaware of.
This is the precipice of insanity,
I have no intention
when I'm holding events
to shut down half of the campus
and make the university fork out $600,000,
but you know who has an
interest in that: Antifa.
In the year 2015 BCR hosted
Ben Shapiro on campus
with zero mandated security and a zero fee
even though I believe we paid
for two off-duty police officers.
But after the election of
Trump even bringing Ben Shapiro
a conservative who does
not openly support Trump
and did not vote for him in the general
cost the university $600,000.
And the election of Trump
is an important point
because one of my friends Mitch Horn,
who has now transferred back
to the University of California Berkeley
spent his first semester of this year
at the University of Virginia after
he was punched in the face
on the night of the election
after expressing happiness
for the election of Trump
in line at, for Artichoke's Pizza.
So this is, this is,
this was the exception
prior to Trump's election,
Trump's election occurs,
people want to resist
and act out and the attacks
have become much more palpable
and much more routine on my club.
Ben Shapiro is a Harvard educated lawyer.
He went to UCLA as an undergrad,
he has the largest
conservative podcast on iTunes
and is a role model for
millions of young conservatives.
Bringing him to campus is educational.
The intent was educational.
Shifting the blame to
conservatives with consistent cries
for students saying
you should know better,
remove the legal and moral obligations
to protect free speech on this campus.
Now I know we've gone
over many, many times
the free speech laws but it's always good
to remind ourselves of this.
Nadine Strossen of NYU Law in front of
a congressional committee to free speech
says that free speech in the abstract
is easy to defend but it
gets much more difficult
when we hear something we hate.
Supreme Court Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes
shared this sentiment: we must protect
the ideologies we hate in order to ensure
we can espouse our own.
Violations of law are much different.
Hate crimes and other
infractions of robust free speech
are not a binary choice.
We can uphold law and order
while encouraging equality.
The appropriate answer
is more counter speech
not more red tape and
legislation to censor ugly views.
The SPLC, ACLU, Heritage
Foundation, they all agree
with Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
who said, who in his famous
Whitney versus California
opinion in 1927 said:
if there be a time to,
to espouse through
discussion the falsehood
and fallacies to avert
the evil by the processes
of education the remedy to be applied
is more speech not enforced silence.
Free speech is not the enemy
of racial and social justice.
The courts have held consistent
and bi-partisan standings on the issue.
So the court holds that free speech
can not be limited because
we revile its ideas,
this is the principal
of viewpoint neutrality
and speech can be punished
when clear targeted harassment
to cause imminent and reasonable fear.
These terms are legally
defined by a genuine threat
or a targeted harassment and these terms
are intentionally narrow.
Because the element of intent
is crucial within these
conversations of
legalities of free speech.
If a rhetor intends to create
a reasonable fear and threat
there does not have to be
proof of intent to act on it.
Law exists to prosecute on this front
and we don't need more of it.
Rhetoric is responsible for violence
when it explicitly calls for it.
See our friend Yvette
Felarca for more information,
give her a Google, that's
always a good time.
Also the Washington Post suggesting
that we should start throwing
rocks at the alt-right.
Even though we may revile it's ideas.
So thank you very much
for that, brief moment.
Any questions?
- How do we promote counter speech on,
or a culture of counter
speech on UC Berkeley campus?
I agree with you that it's,
we should be making efforts
to try to facilitate dialog
amongst diverse student groups.
Student groups of all
different political viewpoints.
So how do we do that,
does it happen already?
I'm a grad student so I don't
know anything about anything.
Right well first, what
was your last name Goddu?
Is that, is that, am I
saying that right Ms. Goddu?
- Mariel is good.
- Mariel, okay well thank you first
for giving that statement anonymously
for that Berkeley Patriot member.
I don't have any ties
to that organization,
I can't speak on behalf of them
but we really do appreciate that.
I think a culture of counter
speech can be made available
if we are empowering our law enforcement
in order to protect those, those rights.
A fun fact is that, well
not really a fun one,
but 19% of my generation,
college-age students
in the United States believe that violence
is permissible to shut down free speech.
That's gonna take the action
of university administrators
and the university police department
in order to ensure that
we have a safe area
for us to engage in dialog.
If you do not feel safe
in that area of dialog,
you're not gonna be able to
engage in counter speech.
So continuing to uphold law enforcement,
uphold our principles,
our American principles
that I think most of us can agree on.
The semantics used is what
we, what we disagree on
a lot of times, so that
I think is a huge way
to continue to promote
counter-speech culture.
- Okay. (mumbles)
- Thank you, uh that's
not, okay thank you.
Thank you for your
comments, I have a question.
First of all about the Shapiro event.
How would you characterize
or assess the security
that the campus provided for that?
If you had to give it a grade
in terms of what was provided
by campus, how would you assess it
in terms of the presence
of police to minimize
or mitigate violence on campus?
- Again I think Ben Shapiro
said this in his speech itself,
I think I worked closely with
police chief Margo Bennet
in ensuring the safety of that event.
It is a shame that it was $600,000.
That's not something that
we wish for this university.
I'd much rather have
that going towards chalk
in my classroom or a better
Power Point projector
but what we're looking at now is.
I believe the major events
policy is looking at
mostly giving unbridled discretion,
which the DOJ has said in
their statement of interest
into the lawsuit, my
organization's lawsuit
against the university,
that unbridled discretion
for university administrators
is what makes it a problem.
And this was ruled,
ruled in Forsyth County,
roo-ja do you know?
Forsyth County versus
National Socialist Party
where if you're using
the content of speech
in order to impose larger,
larger security fees
that is unconstitutional.
So while we do appreciate
the administration
for ensuring that security
because it is necessary,
continuing to empower law
enforcement and not give
unbridled discretion in order to silence
minority viewpoints,
ideological minority viewpoints
such as the socialist friends
we have in the back or
the Republican club.
- So I'm just going to follow up, again.
You are saying that to
continue and to be able
to give the administration.
The administration should
be able to continue
to give security or
provide security for events
so there could be unbridled expression
and we okay, is that correct?
Is that what I'm hearing,
that the university should continue
to provide security, police
presence and security
to allow unbridled expression
of perspectives or viewpoints?
- I think that's necessary and also it,
but we also have to
draw the line of whether
that security is being charged
on a content neutral basis.
If these things are happening
with viewpoint neutral
regards, if we're creating
time, place and manner restrictions
in a viewpoint neutral manner,
that isn't against the
constitution, that isn't undermining
our principles of free speech.
Ideally I would like to have
as much free speech as possible
however, you know, I can't go
out there with my megaphone
at 2 a.m. up in Piedmont
and start making some noise.
How would you advise
the university in terms
of the fiscal context we're in,
where there are not unlimited funds.
There is not an infinite supply of funds
to operate and allowing as
much free speech as possible
but also not going bankrupt
to be able to cover the cost.
What would you advise the university?
Right I think, I think that
one time, that one time.
What can we say?
Funding the Ben Shapiro event
in the way that it happened.
I have three events on the calender.
I have a event next week,
three conservative women
are coming for a conservative
women in media panel.
We have not received a
single threat of disruption.
I have an event on March
7th with Dave Rubin
and Heather Mac Donald titled
Are We Killing Free Speech?
I have not received a
single threat on that event.
Dennis Prager is coming on March 13th
and we have submitted all
the proper documentation
for these events by the way.
Some of that documentation
is still pending.
However we have not received
threats for any of these,
any of these organizations,
any of these events.
I have come back with
UCPD, they have not said
that there is any mandatory security.
I also am in contact with these speakers
and saying hey listen if
you want to have security,
you're gonna have to fork
out that money yourselves
because I have limited
funds as an organization
and the university isn't
going to be covering that.
If they and if they haven't replied back
with a UCPD mandate on security.
So empowering law enforcement one time
has really, really gone
a far way, thus far.
Hopefully we can continue to do the same
as we move towards, move through 2018.
- [Facilitator] Any further
questions for the speaker?
- Good afternoon, Matthew Smith.
Anyways uh, I'm a conservative
student on the panel.
I think I'm the only, probably
the only conservative.
I don't want to speak
for everybody else but.
- God bless you. (laughs)
- But you know, do you feel
like you can speak in classes
and people will respect your viewpoints?
They don't shut you down in a class room
when you wanna argue with the professor
about their ideas on
how to solve problems?
You know like when you're talking
about fiscal conservatism.
Do you, are you able to voice
your opinion in a classroom?
- I am personally...
I'm gonna try to not make
this sound like being a jerk.
I have the self-confidence to do so.
I am incredibly blessed to
have that self-confidence
in order to speak up,
however that's not the same
for every conservative student.
Every conservative student
will come back to me
and said you know I
wrote my English thesis
on Hitler's rhetoric because
if you read, Mein Kampf
it's very, very contradictory.
It doesn't make any sense.
You can't have Hitler arguing that Jews
are the greatest threat to society
and saying that their lives
don't matter whatsoever.
So when they're writing that paper
and they come back and
give a good analysis
on this evil, disgusting piece of rhetoric
and they come back with a C
and the professor tells them:
listen I really liked your
paper, it was definitely
a B+ paper but I just, I
didn't really like the topic.
I just had a really hard
time getting through it
because it's just so vile.
Because the content of
Hitler's writing was so vile.
I mean we can all agree on that.
That's where the problems come
in because we need to have
those conversations on what
people, what evil people did
in order to create movements like that.
We have students all
the time who come back
and say listen I wrote this poly-sci paper
with a Neo Realist perspective,
with a conservative perspective
and the GSI has marked us down.
Every single time I hear
that I go challenge it
with your professor.
I have a good working relationship
with the poly-sci department
chair Eric Schickler.
He has been incredibly helpful with this.
I my first paper I ever wrote in college
was in my poly-sci five class
with professor Amy Gurowitz
and my paper leaned more
Neo Realist perspective
and my GSI gave me a C.
I challenged it with the
professor and professor Gurowitz
came back with a B+ paper for me.
So there are ways we can
reach out with the university.
It's just encouraging
conservative students
to take those steps.
And that's, you know that
why my organization is here.
That's also why I encourage
GSIs to be as fair as they can
in grading and to you know,
confront your own ideas
about the world while
grading these papers.
(mutters)
- I just wanted to ask one more.
The other thing is with
Trump winnin' the election,
myself I was pretty
disappointed in our candidate
just because right from the get go
he said really horrible
things about John McCain
and I'm a veteran and it really just,
flat off from the get
go and then it was just
one thing after another.
Him talking about like different,
our neighbors to the south
and saying horrible things
about these different people
and then he wins and
everyone's really upset.
And I felt, it feels like to me,
was that other group that she brought up.
You know, was the Berkeley
College Republicans
spiking the football by
bringing these speakers
at such a time when people
were upset about who won?
Were you guys, because it felt like to me,
it feels like it was a
spiking of the football.
Like hey we won and now we're
gonna shove it in your face
by bringing these speakers.
Was that the intent?
- Uh given, I can't speak on
behalf of the Berkeley Patriot.
Given that, that was a second attempt
to bring Milo I feel like that was more,
more of their cause.
Our cause in February for
bringing Milo Yiannopoulos.
Milo Yiannopoulos was on
what he called himself,
the Dangerous Faggot Tour and it was
a hundred college campuses
that he was going across
the United States for free.
Something that you don't know
about these conservative speakers,
they come with a high cost.
I often have to bring in organizations
to sponsor these speakers.
So when I have the (mumbles)
approval to bring a speaker
I have to talk with them,
coordinate with them,
see who is available to come speak.
So once the Milo Yiannopoulos
event was shut down.
Yeah I've got involved.
We attempted to bring David Horowitz.
David Horowitz was a, is
a Berkeley grad I believe.
And then we were contacted
by Bridge Cal which is now
under the umbrella of Bridge USA.
Bridge USA says listen we're gonna be
having a debate on immigration.
We're gonna have the Cal
Dems bring a liberal,
we're gonna have the
Berkeley College Republicans
bring a conservative on immigration.
Naweed Tahmas I believe
suggested Ann Coulter at the time
so YAF went and sponsored Ann Coulter.
These are actually promoting
counter speech culture.
This Ann Coulter event regardless of
what you think about her rhetoric.
Spiking the football
in Ben Shapiro's case,
I don't see an argument
for that whatsoever
given his tendency to
be absolutely consistent
on Trump's behavior, you know.
I mean I have a hard time
too when he says you know,
holds up the bible and
says: this book's greater
than The Art of the Deal.
I have a hard time believing that as well.
Yeah I don't think we're
gonna be spiking the football.
I have you know, events
lined up, three events
as I've told you lined up already.
We're not spiking the football,
this is just to espouse
conservative viewpoints.
- Just to clarify, so the purpose
of inviting Milo was
because he was already
going to be at a, at
college campuses in the area
and he was a low-cost speaker.
- Right low-cost event,
I mean he had prominence,
he was a Breitbart tech
editor at the time.
He was also, you know, I
mean obviously you want
your event if you're going
to be hosting an event,
you want your event to fill up.
And he is definitely one of those speakers
who's gonna fill your room.
And I think, I think the same can be said
for Ben Shapiro and they do
not get along whatsoever.
Milo Yiannopoulos sent a
picture of a black baby
to Ben Shapiro on the
day of his child's birth
and said you're a cuck
ha-ha-ha and that's where
the division happened.
So Ben used, Shapiro actually used to be
a Breitbart editor as well until he left
because of Bannon and Milo.
So I mean both of these people
are going to fill a room
and they have vastly different views.
- We have another speaker.
- I'm sorry?
- We have another speaker.
- Oh yeah.
- Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
- Hello.
It's a bit tall for me.
My name is Ray, I am a sophomore in LNS.
I am not here representing any community,
I am just simply a concerned student
who wants to voice my opinion,
specifically on three
measures regarding the policy.
I'm not gonna talk about
politics or anything
like that because I feel
like it's kind of taking us
in another direction and distracting from
some more important things.
So three things in particular
that really bother me
about the policy was the way in which
a threat assessment was made
and then the reaction to that.
So essentially if they're deciding that
the police department,
when they're reviewing
the threat assessment,
UCPD would essentially
just elevate their police force instead
of thinking about other alternative ways
to deal with that threat.
So then we have things like the Milo case
where we have riot police and
the shutdown of a building
which is really disruptive
for a lot of student life
and putting people in more
danger than it needs to be.
So my first issue that
I would like to address
is sort of the, the
increased threat assessment
being met with an increased police force.
Instead of that, it winds
up, it winds up costing
the university a lot, it winds
up putting students in danger
it winds up putting people
who aren't even affiliated
with the event who are just
passing by in danger as well.
Because then there is a more likely chance
for a larger confrontation.
So I would suggest
either canceling an event
if it gets to a point where they think
it would be necessary to have
police in riot gear there
or relocating it to a different venue.
People aren't necessarily required,
like it's not part of free speech
to be allowed to speak in Zellerbach.
Like we all know there's people
in Sproul who just come out
and yell out there all the time.
You know those wonderful vegan protestors
who have the like naked ladies and they're
dressed up as chicken
and we don't invite them
to Zellerbach right and that's still,
we're not impeding on their free speech.
So if it winds up being a
condition where we think
that the students are threatened
because there's going
to be a confrontation,
we are not obliged to host that speaker
in that venue even if they
are going to pay for it
because it's going to harm more people
than would be there at the event.
And even those people who
would be there at the event.
So that's position number one.
Position number two as
far as payment goes.
Because we've seen a lot of budget cuts
to language departments which
is where one of my majors is
to other student groups
and things like that.
And recently we've seen
hikes in tuition for students
passed by the ASUC to cover
different financial aid costs.
To me it doesn't make
sense for the university
to be paying for really any
sort of costs regarded to this.
So if we are going to bring in police,
if it's necessary to bring
in police to Zellerbach
for instance I don't think it makes sense
that the university
would be financing that.
I think the speaker who
would be coming should be
the one financing it
because they are a guest
and they are not entitled to our resources
the same way our students are,
the same way our teachers are.
Yeah so if we are having,
if we had to pay UCPD
more than we would pay them
for just everyday costs.
Like if we're paying them overtime
or because they're going
to be working extra hours,
then it would make more sense if we had
the speaker who was coming,
so not the student group,
not the university paying for
those extra security costs.
And then thirdly and this
is to speak to the issue
that happened this past fall where we had
areas in Caesar Chavez and areas in the,
in Eshleman and the student
union building being shut down.
I think if we, I think
if that is necessary
for security purposes
that the place should be,
the venue should be relocated
because those are not only
important places just for
students to get together in a way
they kind of act as like the
millionth library that we have
because so many people study there.
It's also home to many of
our student organizations,
it's home to ASUC, it's home to the DSP,
it's home to the MCC, it's
home to all these different
things that are meant to
be serving our student body
and when you're shutting that
down then they don't have
access to those resources.
Also people tend to, professors
of very large classes
tend to use those spaces
for testing as well.
So for instance this past fall
one of my friends was supposed
to have a mid-term there
that had to get rescheduled
because they had shut down the building.
So if a speaker is going to be coming
and going to be speaking somewhere
like Zellerbach it doesn't
make sense for them
to be speaking there and have
all of the surrounding
buildings be shut down
in order to host just one person.
So that's my two cents.
- [Facilitator] Questions for the speaker?
Thank you very much.
Next speaker.
If there are no other
speakers, chairs I believe we.
Oh do we have one?
Sorry I didn't see you.
- Where do I sign in?
(man speaking quietly
overwhelmed by mic noise)
Hi there everybody my
name is Derek Tapper.
I run the sport analytics group on campus.
So obviously not a political
group but I have some issues
with the policy that I
would like to talk about
as well as some issues
as a concerned student.
You know free speech is an important thing
and obviously I think that I
speak for a lot of students
that I've spoken to, you know
and just, as well as myself
that you know a lot of
these groups whether it be
the Trotsky whatever it was called,
as well as BCR and the patriot, you know.
I love to see these groups existing
and to see these groups on our campus.
You know promoting their
ideas and that's the only way
we're going to, you know, survive.
Berkeley is a liberal
echo chamber, you know,
it's obviously, you know, we're the one of
the most politically
liberal counties and places
in you know the country.
And it's really tough, you know,
I consider myself a
centrist and a lot of times
it's hard to express
ideas that are, you know,
even remotely to the right of center.
You know a lot of times people
in Berkeley are you know,
like we've seen with BCR,
they've been punched and kicked
and had themselves attacked
just for expressing
their viewpoints and that's not right.
But at the end of the day
we need to keep these,
we need to allow them to bring
the people they want to campus.
You know I don't agree
with people like Milo,
I don't agree with people
like Ben Shapiro even.
But these and quite frankly
I think that the people
that BCR bring to campus are provocateurs.
I think that they're
here to incite violence
but I think that without that,
I think that we're setting
a very dangerous precedent and
we're not putting ourselves
in a situation where we can...
I guess uh,
you know, we can't really have
that facilitation of discourse
that we need to if we're
gonna be a developing campus.
You know and I, and I'm
sorry to people like Ray or,
and plenty of other
students on this campus
who feel harmed when, you
know, these speakers come out
but it's just a really tough
thing and I really think
we need to bring these speakers to campus.
That being said I would like to talk about
some of the other issues
that were presented
in the email that we
didn't get to talk about.
We certainly do need a
centralized reservation system
for all the facilities on this campus.
It's very hard to, you
know, book any events
because just because you might
not be able to get a space
for that event and be able
to get a space, you know.
The current system as
I forsee, as I know it,
with my sports analytics group
is we have a lot of trouble
knowing when our events
are gonna happen because
we'll try to arrange an event,
we'll work with the
university, we'll book a room
and then we won't get
approved for that room
and we won't be given a reason as to why
or we'll be told there
were no rooms available
at that time and suddenly
it's two days before the event
and we thought everything was set.
Some of the other things I,
so I think that a centralized
reservation system
for every facility would allow, you know,
not only my group but more of
the politically extreme groups
on campus to be able to find
spaces and understand the costs
you know without compromising,
you know, security.
I also regarding this should
students be able to serve
as observers at major events?
I think that they should.
A lot of times faculty
and staff, you know,
don't wanna put their necks
out on the line due to
and I don't know this to
be true but I believe that,
a faculty and a staff
would have a hard time
you know, trying to support certain events
that they don't necessarily agree with.
And I just think that
it would be much easier
if someone like, you know, the president
of the two groups the far
left and the far right groups
were able to serve as these observers.
And lastly, you know, as
much as I hate to say it,
I you know, I'm an out-of-state student
and I think that, you know,
the university has to cover
the costs for these events.
I agree that the event
policy itself sounds fine
but you know, I think that in regards
to the external security people,
when people protest that
is a university thing.
I don't even necessarily
think that the club
should be required to pay
for the internal security
but you know, we as a university
need to take on the responsibility.
We're the free speech
university and if we're not
gonna protect our campus groups
trying to bring free speech
to this campus, then what are we?
Cool.
- [Facilitator] Questions for the speaker?
- Thank you so much for your statement.
Actually just building off of
the last point that you made.
So you were talking this
whole time about sort of like
this idea about facilitating
discourse on campus
and again I would strongly agree with you
that this is really important.
But then you're also talking
about sort of speakers
coming out and sort of the university
protecting campus groups
and campus groups'
right to have speakers.
But I wanna make sure that we're noticing
that these two things are
actually separable right.
In order to facilitate
discourse on this campus
there is a variety of things
that the student groups
themselves, this is maybe a
question for the socialist group
and the Republicans and the moderates
and anyone else as well.
There is, there is the issue
of who should be allowed
to come to campus, which of
course has been the subject
of this major events
policy and all of this,
lots of hub-bub and et cetera
but when it gets right down
to thinking about how we could actually
do a better job of building community
and building this positive,
discourse positive,
or dialog positive environment on campus.
What are you all invested in
that is even a question, right.
This is something I was wondering about
as you were speaking, the sort
of like well yes of course
like there's the issue of sort of
protecting your own group's events
and making sure your own speakers can come
but beyond that are you
willing to invest in community?
Are you willing to debate
him and are you willing
to ask them questions?
You know how do we get
people talking to each other?
You're giving thumbs up,
like anybody? (laughs)
Anybody who's involved at
all, as a student group?
Does this happen already and
I don't know about it, like?
- So I you know just in
terms of my own experience,
I definitely feel like
you know a lot of times.
So you know I ran for, I tried to run
for senate last semester.
It didn't quite work out due to
a bunch of ASUC I don't
even know, (laughs)
but like it was actually like
the most insane thing I've heard of.
But one of my platforms when
I was running for senate was
the idea that, you know, why don't we
try to facilitate discourse?
Why don't we try to, you know,
have these types of events
and bring these types of events to campus?
And one of the responses
I received on Facebook
was how dare you?
Like how dare you think that
anybody should be forced
to sit down in a room with
these right-wing nutjobs
and that was literally
word-for-word the quote
and I was just taken
aback because you know,
it's so tough when you have
a very liberal populace
like in Berkeley, you know,
and unless you've got these
you know and BCR I think
they're doing a great job
although I do think that
like I said that they're
doing too much to be provocative.
But they're fostering this
community of conservative voices
on this campus and that's
something that's needed.
But you know, it's an echo chamber.
It's an echo chamber within
a liberal echo chamber
and we're not getting
this, I really don't think,
we're getting this
facilitation of discourse.
I really don't think that
groups are coming together.
I think that, you know,
like Bradley even said today
he'd been called, er
yesterday I believe he said
he'd been called a Nazi three times
and I see BCR out on Sproul, you know,
talking to these people but these people
shout obscenities at them.
They kick down their
walls and so I don't know.
I just think that, personally
I think that a lot of like
what both the extreme left
and what the extreme right
are saying is a load of hooey.
But I think that I
really would love to see
groups come together and
I'd really love to see,
I would totally go to an event like that.
- So I'm wondering where you think
this facilitation of
dialog like on the behalf
like of the action of the
university should begin?
Do you think it should
begin like with orientation?
Should it begin in the classroom
where we're making space for these,
facilitating these discussions
within the classroom
and within events like, what do you think
is the scope that the
university should be involved
in making sure this dialog happens?
- Sure, and I don't know if this is
this particular committee but I love the,
what Chancellor Christ has been doing.
So far I think the events
that she has been putting on
have been great, you
know, there's free speech.
Bringing free speech and
different speakers to campus
that aren't just people like Ann Coulter
or people like Milo Yiannopoulos.
I think that when we have, when we can,
I've always said that if
we can bring, you know,
like people like John
McCain and people like
that are actually, you know,
either sitting congress people or former
you know, people that
have like Frank Luntz
would be a great example of somebody
that would be lovely, would be great
a great Republican for
us to bring to campus
rather than somebody whose sole goal it is
to provide provocative natures.
So I think the campus's responsibility
should be to be putting on events
to be educating the public
within the classroom.
I think that a lot of times,
you know I sit in class a lot
and whenever I'm sitting
in class for example,
I'm in a class right now and it's
the topic is race and I feel
like a lot of the times,
students are holding back on
what they could be saying.
They are trying to, you know,
if they, they are afraid
that if they say something
that offends somebody
then it'll lead to a whole,
you know, the whole class
will come at them and that's
not something that I think
is appropriate for this university.
I don't think that that's
something that we should have
at this university and quite
frankly I just think that
this is something that the
campus should be working towards
and I think that you
know, I know Milo wanted
to do that free speech week
but I think the campus should
and do it as like a, you know, a just
bringing actual speakers
and trying to provide
this education throughout
or through orientation
through every aspect and
avenue that they can.
- [Facilitator] We have
about two minutes left.
Would anybody like to
make any quick statements?
- Thank you.
- [Facilitator] Thank you.
- I'll make a very quick statement.
I'm not gonna take my entire time.
Just one point: that is
that, this was brought up
by Matthew I believe that are, is BCR
and are the Berkeley Patriots
trying to stir up controversy
are they trying to purposely
spike the ball, as he said.
I think Brad made it
appropriately clear that,
that is not our intention.
I was a member for some time
of the Berkeley Patriot,
I am a member fully active
of the Berkeley College Republicans
and we were not, it was not our intention
to stir up controversy but the
point I would like to make,
even if it was that would
make no legal difference.
Even if it was, even
if it was our intention
to be intentionally provocative,
that would make no legal difference.
You can still not censor
any student organization
that does that.
Because even the most base
provocateur who indulges
in the least substantive dialog,
who only insults people or
calls them out on any grounds.
Even that person serves
the function of demarcating
the lines we draw in society
of what is acceptable
opinion and what isn't.
And that is something that is a function
that even the base, the worst
provocateur can perform.
That is one point and as for are we ready
to debate people on
campus, of course we are.
Berkeley College Republicans
and the Cal Berkeley Democrats
have hosted I believe
three or four debates
like in the last year or so.
I've taken part in all of them.
They have been on the
subjects of immigration,
on executive amnesties,
on taxation policies,
environmental policies,
wide-ranging discussions.
So the idea that the two sides
of this political spectrum
have not been able to converse
on major issues of public policy.
That isn't, that just simply isn't true.
And it's reflected in the attitude
of both these student groups.
But I would just like to
remake this point clearer again
that even if it was our
intention to be provocative,
you can not censor us.
- [Woman] Can I ask you a question?
- Yeah.
- [Woman] Can you tell
me your name please?
- Roo-ja.
- Thank you and I can
appreciate what you're saying
because the principle of free speech
in the most orthodox way is something that
this university stands behind.
The question I have for you is that,
let's say hypothetically
even if it were meant
to be provocative, how do
you advise a university
and the leadership of this
university, myself included
to act in order to protect
the lives of individuals
if their, if the words
were to incite a riot.
How do you avoid what
happened in Charlottesville?
- Okay let me just like make.
- How would you advise a university,
like practically how
would you advise them.
- So there's a legal distinction here,
if there is an incitement
to physical violence,
that is protected, I
mean that is something
that is not, sorry it doesn't protect it.
That is something that
is a criminal offense.
Okay but that's an incitement
to physical violence.
We are hearing, like we
heard a number of speakers
like a number of commentators,
especially on this campus
including the ASUC Senators
who say that speech itself
is violence of a kind
and I just have to say
that like if you honestly
hold to that viewpoint,
then a university is really
not the place for you.
I believe that you should
repeat your K through 12
education until you attain
the intellectual maturity
to function at an American
institution of higher learning.
- Roo-ja, Ro-ja, I just
want to follow up quickly
because we were talking
in the hypothetical.
You're saying even if the
intent were to incite.
Let's stay in that, if
the intent were to incite,
so that inciting was
really what was behind it
how do you advise the
university because presumably,
even if you want to incite,
you don't want anyone killed.
- Well, yeah.
- And so part of the university's
response was to protect
the lives of its students.
What would you advise
the university to do?
- Yeah see if there was an
incitement of physical violence
then yes the university
has the right to refuse
to host that speaker but this
is, it's physical violence.
That definition is intentionally narrow.
It has to be physical violence and it's,
it should be likely to produce
that violence as well, so.
- [Woman] Well I'd say in the context
that she's asking the question
that at the rally itself
there were not people, like no one told,
no speaker got up and told
the guy who drove the car
into the young woman who lost her life,
drive that car into that woman.
Where it's not an explicit
incitement to violence,
I think we're addressing what
we know will be the reaction
to a certain speaker,
how do we, like she said
preserve life and safety
of students when we know.
Not no matter what the actual speaker
is calling for,
- Yeah.
that there is likely to be violence.
And it comes from
- Yeah that's a good
both sides as we saw but you know both,
people from both political spectrums.
Extremists being violent are.
- Yeah, the answer to that is
covered, was covered by Brad
and the idea is that the
university can implement
reasonable time, place and
location restrictions or what.
Yeah those restrictions can be imposed
only if they are in a
non-ideological manner
that does not reflect the
content of the speaker
and does not change if there's
the ideological persuasion
of the speaker changes.
So that is something that could be imposed
however we do understand
that this is Berkeley
and the reaction to a conservative speaker
will be much more intense
that it usually should be
for a liberal speaker regardless
of how far left you are.
If you are like, modern
democratic party left
or Trotskyite left.
It still would not be as
intense as it would be to even
a main-stream conservative
like Mr. Shapiro.
- Alright.
- Thank you very much
everybody for a lively session.
The open comment period is now closed.
If you are not a member of the commission
we ask that you now depart.
The commissioners will
sit for another hour or so
and debrief over what we just heard.
Thank you very much.
