(dramatic music)
- Good afternoon.
I'm Carol Christ, I'm the
Chancellor of the campus.
And before I make few welcoming remarks
I'm gonna read the civility statement.
Before our program begins I'd like to draw
your attention to some general rules
of civility for today's events.
We hope that you will honor them
by allowing all audience members
to fully engage with the program.
Kindly allow our speakers and
your fellow audience members
to enjoy today's program
without interruption.
Please turn off all cellular phones.
Please refrain from blocking anyone's
view with banners or signs.
Please do not shout or
engage in any action
that disrupts the event or that prevents
the speakers from being heard.
This event is being live streamed
and will be archived on
the Berkeley website.
And I really hope that
you all enjoy the program.
This has been an extraordinary day.
We've had, starting this morning
a quite extraordinary convening
of about 50 people sponsored by PEN,
the writer's organization
that's based in New York
about free speech, and I wanted to say
just a little bit about some of the things
that I've realized from this day.
But before I do that, I'm just gonna say
a few words about the complexity
of the problem of free speech.
Values, we're at a very
interesting political moment
in which values that have been associated
predominately with liberal
interests and causes
are now claimed by the right.
It's really shifting
the political dynamics
around this, both right and value.
And free speech, as
we've seen in the events
of the last month and a half,
often conflict, free
speech often conflicts
with other values that
we hold as a community.
Values of tolerance,
values of inclusivity,
values of diversity.
People, particularly people from groups
that have historically
experienced discrimination
often feel that calls for free speech
authorize the powerful, and that power
is not evenly distributed,
nor is the charge of
incitement evenly applied.
This was a powerful insight
from today's discussion.
In thinking deeply about this issue
over the past two months,
I've become convinced that
understanding free speech
is not a set of principles that you
put on a set, a piece of paper.
But rather a process of engagement.
And I think this day, in University House
has been an example of
that process of engagement.
Some of the insights
that were particularly
powerful to me were the following.
We're dealing with a
21st century disruption.
This is from one of the
journalists in attendance,
with 20th century methods, and we need
to use technology more powerfully
to address the problem.
People asked in a very searching way
what culture around the
issue of free speech
we were trying to foster,
to nurture, to create.
And the point was made
again very powerfully
that our business is to encourage
certain rules of discourse rather than
to be concerned with the
content of that discourse.
That this was Dean Wasserman from
the School of Journalism who spoke
so powerfully about that
that's what the university is.
We need to work to create
discourse across difference.
That sounds like an easy formula,
but it's actually very hard to achieve.
And I thought we began to achieve
it in today's conversation.
We also talked a lot
about the siloed nature
of the university and how that
makes things more challenging.
We each live in our own bounded community
in the university in which we have less
exposure to difference in perspective,
and difference of opinion.
And we talked a lot about resilience.
How we achieve and foster
resilience as a community.
You know that I'm appointing
a commission on free speech.
I'm excited for the
commission's work to begin.
This convening today that
PEN and the campus hosted
provided lots of both suggestions,
policy suggestions for the
commission to consider,
but also lots of questions that it
wanted the commission to engage.
So now I'm going to turn the podium over
to Abdi Soltani who's gonna be
the moderator for our panel.
Abdi is the Executive Director
of the ACLU from Northern California.
(applause)
- Thank you very much.
I wanna thank Chancellor
Christ for her leadership
and for convening today
and today's events.
I wanna also just say
I'm a Berkeley resident.
So when the issues of free speech
play out here on your university campus
it also, I can hear it overhead
as the helicopters fly
(laughter)
in Berkeley, and I'm
proud to live in Berkeley,
and also to be a part of
this extended community,
although not a student
or alum of your campus.
Today my job is to be only the moderator.
So I'm really excited about this wonderful
group of speakers and my job will be
to ask questions and
to illicit your views.
But not to dive into the content,
although with my questions,
I will probably guide
things one way or the other.
But I'll look forward
to being the moderator
and appreciate everyone's
time being here today.
So I'm gonna do the introductions
in a little bit out of, well actually,
I'll start at the far end.
And I'm gonna first
introduce Suzanne Nossel,
Susanne's the Executive
Director of PEN America.
And I have had the pleasure of reading
this great report called
In Campus for All,
which really delves
deeply into a whole set
of issues related to free
speech on our campuses
that's very thorough and really well done.
So I welcome Suzanne for being here.
Next I wanna introduce Rigel Robinson
and Rigel is a student
here at UC Berkeley.
He's a senior.
He told me he's planning
to graduate in May,
but he needs to meet with his counselor
to make sure he can.
(laughter)
And he serves as an elected student leader
as the External Affairs Vice President
for the University of California
and serves both on local and state issues
on behalf of the students
here at Berkeley.
So really excited that
Rigel here with us today.
Next we have Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Dean Chemerinsky is the
Dean of the Law School
here at Berkeley as well as being
a professor here in the Law School.
And he is one of the great scholars
and an advocate in the law,
both on first amendment,
but also equal protection
and many other issues
related to our constitution.
So we're really excited
to have Dean Chemerinsky.
And then immediately to
my left is DeRay Mckesson.
And DeRay is one of the
very powerful voices
that has galvanized
this country's attention
on racial justice as a voice
for Black Lives Matter movement,
and also as a co-founder
of Campaign Zero to end police violence.
So that's quite a lineup,
so we're really in for a treat.
I wanna just jump right into it,
and maybe I could start
with a question to Suzanne,
that will follow to everyone,
and Suzanne this is gonna
be tough for you to answer,
but if you could pick one,
what would you say is one of the biggest
challenges facing free
speech on our campuses today?
- I would say it is this
question of power and balance
and the ways that that plays out.
We have in our constitution,
and in our law,
you know, a whole set of really venerable,
neutral principles that govern
when you can speak, who can speak out,
the constrain, the
ability of our government
to impair free expression
and your free speech rights.
All that I think is very important,
it's the pride, it's an
American point of pride.
It's the strongest set of protections
for free speech anywhere in the world.
Better than Canada or in Europe.
And yet those principles
are being challenged
by a whole series of
imbalances in our society.
And people are looking to those principles
to protect the vulnerable.
To enable voices to participate
and come into our discourse
when they've traditionally been excluded.
And at times the principles
don't work all that well
in making those power realities,
allow everybody to really speak
and participate in a full way.
And so as PEN America we look at our role
as kind of guardians of
open discourse writ large.
It's not just about whether the government
is standing in the way of your speech.
It's also about what
voices aren't being heard.
Or what voices are being treated
differently in the discourse.
Are the rules being
applied in a neutral way.
And I think all of it has been
complicated significantly
by the rise of social media
and the very powerful new
platforms that we have
to express ourselves,
to connect with others,
to mobilize, advocate, persuade,
but also ways that can be explosive,
out of control, this
potential for fake news
to spread, you know long before
the truth even gets its boots on,
to paraphrase Mark Twain.
So I think in that context
these wonderful principles
that we subscribe to as an organization,
and that we treasure as a
society are being tested.
And we face questions about
whether to adapt them,
how to apply them, how to defend them
in the context of these new challenges.
- So that's a great opening.
And you're talking about
these neutral principles
in a society with a
great deal of inequality.
And I actually had very
little of a job to do.
And I already messed one step up.
Which was that I'm to
introduce David Kemp.
And today we're gonna
hear from the panelists.
But there's also an audience polling
that David's gonna tell you all about.
We're gonna come back to the
conversation in a moment.
- Thank you so much Abdi.
So everybody should have a little device.
So part of what we're tryin' to do is
to encourage people to participate.
So we're gonna do that here.
We're gonna do that, hear from all of us,
with these little devices,
everybody should have one.
And I'm gonna ask you a few questions.
They'll be mostly about who you are
so we can know who came to this meeting.
But then we're gonna ask some questions
about how you feel about free speech
to give the panel some stimulus.
Okay, so I'm gonna ask you a question.
Just press a number
according to your voice,
to your choice, do not
press go or channel,
and we can move forward.
Fist let's warm up to make
sure it's working here,
and you understand how it works.
Do you have any siblings?
If your answer is no, happily only,
but not at all lonely press one.
If your answer is no, but you
often wish I did, press two.
If your answer is yes but mom
loved you best, press three.
If your answer is yes,
and they were great,
most of the time, press four.
If your answer is yes,
but I wished more than
once that I didn't, press five.
And if the answer is
complicated then press six.
(bright music)
Okay, whole bunch of
us liked our siblings,
and a few of us had some
mixed feelings about it.
Okay so we see the idea.
Question, vote, answer.
We're gonna ask a few questions,
the music for the questions may or may not
be related to the theme of the question.
Which of these best
describes your role at UCB?
Student, staff, faculty, other
member of the UCB community.
(bright music)
Go ahead.
Alright, students came tonight 44%,
bunch of staff people here too, alright.
Let's keep going.
How many times have you
been around the sun.
If you've forgotten your
fifth grade astronomy
that's how old you are,
because a year is one trip around the sun.
Are you 25 or fewer press one.
26 to 35 press two.
36 to 55 press three.
56 or better press four.
(bright music)
Go ahead.
Alright so we got a good mix.
So what to remember is our definitions
of free speech and those trade offs
might vary by how old we are.
So that's Important for us to recognize.
Which of these best describes how
you think about your gender?
One woman, two man, three
transgender, four genderqueer.
(bright music)
We'll go ahead.
Okay, alright you see a little more fewer,
a little more women than men.
Recognizing that this
all a social construct,
we know all of that stuff.
Do you identify as a
person of color, yes or no.
(bright music)
He's dancin', very nice.
I saw that.
(bright music)
Good mix here.
That's about the mix in
the United States actually.
It's funny how that is.
Alright, and you're orientation.
And this is the last demographic question.
One asexual, two heterosexual,
three lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer,
four questioning.
(bright music)
So while the panel is talking I'm gonna go
analyze whether our
questions about free speech
are varied by which group,
and if we have some findings
we'll come back to y'all.
Okay so we see our mix there, alright.
Here are the next two questions,
the real meat of this.
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot this question.
This is important to know too.
Where do we stand on the political system?
Hard left one, left
two, left leaning three,
right leaning four, right, hard right,
or right on some issues
left on some issues.
(bright music)
So we're skewed to the left.
It's important to recognize who we are
if we're trying to have a conversation
that is broad and inclusive,
let's remember who we are.
And we're trying to make sure we invite
everybody to that conversation.
Okay your level of hopefulness
that our lovely school can
navigate all these challenges.
Very hopeful, hopeful,
a little hopeful three,
not hopeful, doubtful, very doubtful.
(bright music)
How hopeful are we?
(bright music)
- [Off Camera Male]
We're a pit of despair.
(laughter)
- So the good news is,
about 20, 25% of us are
on the not hopeful side.
A whole bunch of us are hopeful though.
So we're glad to see that.
This is the last and perhaps
most important question.
You get to choose three from these.
Which of these are most important
to making the campus
free speech atmosphere
what you think it should be?
We'll take our time on this question.
The polling should be open now.
- [Off Camera Male] Is there a way to move
this little bar thing right here?
- Probably.
Uh oh, let's see.
I think there was a glitch here.
Well just as we'd expect,
the technology on the
most important question
breaks down, I'll have to go fix that.
We may be back to you all later.
But we wanna get to the
panel that's so important.
We have some great speakers here.
I thank you all for that.
And we will go look at whether or not
who we are varied our hopefulness.
And I'll be back up later
with some reports on that.
Thank you Abdi.
- Alright thank you.
(applause)
So Suzanne you kicked us off by talking
about these neutral principles
and the challenges that they're facing
given this wider context of inequalities.
And so Rigel you're a student right here
at UC Berkeley, from your perspective
what do you see as some
of the tough issues
facing free speech at your campus.
- I'm glad you asked.
And I think depending on the channels
that you get your information from
you could have very different
answers to that question.
To a lot of people in this country,
if you know, you read Trump's Tweets,
and pay attention to a
lot of the mainstream
narrative around this issue it would be
easy to imagine that students obstructing
the speeches of visitors who intend
to bring agitators to campus would be
an infringement on free speech.
But what I think is really
much more terrifying
is the response to a
lot these developments.
Particularly on legislative fronts.
We've seen bills introduced in both
the California legislature
and the Wisconsin legislature
that would authorize universities,
and the legal system
to take fiercer action
against students that obstruct speeches.
And protests, organizing
freedom of assembly
is as much an important
facet of the first amendment
as every other clause
in that long sentence.
And the fact that you know, these bills
are gaining traction, making ground,
should be alarming to any
scholar of constitutional law.
I think the Wisconsin bill actually
made it out of their state assembly.
I don't know where it is now,
but that's a majority
of a legislative body
in this country deciding that it is okay
to take action like that against students
exercising their first amendment rights.
- So it's basically punishing protest.
You you're seeing a threat
to the right to protest
as a concern that's on your mind.
- Right.
- Right.
- I'm optimistic that here we will
evade those kind of knee jerk reactions.
The Chancellor's put together a commission
to talk about what kinds
of ways that we can,
you know adjust policy to insure safety,
and free expression for
students in the future.
But that's gonna need to be a really
inclusive and thoughtful process.
Because it would be very easy to respond
in a way that would make
it even more difficult
for students to express
their views in the future.
- Okay great.
Earlier as Dean Chemerinsky walked in,
he said I can call him Erwin.
So I'm gonna do that.
- Thank you.
- So Erwin, you've been a professor
and a Dean here at UC Berkeley,
but you've also taught elsewhere.
What would you see as a threat
to free speech on campus today?
- I think the central
problem for this campus,
and for all college universities
is how to balance the need
to protect free speech
with also the need to create an inclusive,
safe learning environment
for all students.
This is a public university.
The first amendment applies.
As university principles
of academic freedom apply.
Above all that means that all ideas
and views can be expressed
no matter how offensive.
On the other hand the campus has the duty
to make sure that this is an inclusive
learning environment where
all students can thrive.
If free speech had no effects,
we wouldn't protect it
as a fundamental right.
Those effects can be
tremendously positive.
Enormously informative.
Greatly uplifting.
But we delude ourselves
if we ignore the fact
that free speech can
also inflict great harms.
Many such as my colleague John Powell,
who is here today, scholars
like Richard Delgado,
Charles Lawrence, Mari Matsuda
have talked about the
effect of hateful speech.
Especially on traditionally
excluded students.
How is the campus going to protect
free speech while also make sure
those students feel
protected and included.
That hate speech doesn't cause them
to feel further marginalized or excluded.
At the same time, the
campus has the legal,
the ethical duty to
protect the physical safety
of students, staff, and faculty.
We've seen on this campus the tension
between protecting free speech,
and safeguarding safety.
We've seen the campus incurred enormous
costs already to do that.
Costs that wouldn't be
sustainable in the long term.
So I do think that the problem
that every campus faces right now
is how do you meet the
constitutional direct speech
with the duty that exists to get
an inclusive learning environment
that's safe for all students.
- Okay, well said.
DeRay you have a national outlook on this.
I take it you're not
from California, right?
- [DeRay] Correct.
- But you're seeing these issues play out
throughout the United States.
So from your vantage point what do you see
as key issues affecting free
speech on campuses today.
- I think in general there are two ideas.
One is that it's
impossible for me to think
about free speech without thinking about
the enforcement aspect of it.
That I get it in theory.
I'm like yes, makes sense to me.
But what we know to be true is that
the enforcement is just so different.
I think Charlottesville
is a perfect example
of you saw white people with tiki torches,
like pushing the police.
They had stockpiles of
weapons in Charlottesville.
And the police were just
like pretty chill about it.
Whereas we were in Ferguson.
And if you look back on Ferguson
in August, September and October of 2014
it was illegal to stand still.
So if you ever saw us marching
it wasn't because we thought that marching
was like an incredible tactic.
It was because it, literally if we
stood still for more than
five seconds we were arrested.
And I think about the enforcement
as being so different.
And then there's this question
of who gets to decide what
incitement looks like.
So you think about some of the speakers
that have come to this campus.
People who have gone to so many places,
like don't think that immigrants
should like be people.
Or they don't think that
black people are whole people.
You know Jews, you will not replace us.
Those sentiments, like
that's incitement to me.
Like that is hate speech.
And when you think about
like Nazi's organizing.
That had a direct outcome
on lynching in the past.
And it's not too far fetched to think
that those same actions
could come back today.
And I think that on college campuses
there's this idea that if
the campus is left leaning
then we need to create space
for conservative speakers
sort of at all costs.
I'm not convinced that Ann Coulter
is actually furthering any
intellectual debate on campus.
Or Milo for that matter.
So we can't like let this need for,
a space for conservative voices
really be just carte blanche
for like any voice to be,
I think that that becomes
like this easy space
that suddenly gets created when we
enter into these conversations.
- You talked about the
comparison to Ferguson,
between Ferguson and Charlottesville
which gets right at this
issue of enforcement.
Where in one case we have
a militarized response
and in another case we had a complete
inadequate law enforcement response.
And I'm wondering, like as you've seen
the last several years unfold.
Have your views changed or sharpened
as you've seen the comparison
between these events?
Or do you find that they kinda,
did Charlottesville
kinda amp it up for you
and make things even more clear.
Or was it crystal clear
from the beginning?
- I think it made it clearer
for a lot of other people.
You know, we knew, I remember Baltimore
during the protests, we did an action
like in a white neighborhood
and I was there.
And the police literally they
were like, please go home.
We're like did you just
tell them please go home.
You like arrested all
of us in two seconds.
But you like begged
them to please go home,
cause you didn't wanna arrest them.
I mean like I think we've seen
that play out time and time again.
If anything, I'm interested in the fact
that we don't think about
protest as free speech.
That we put all these
restrictions on protests.
So shouting people down
like seems pretty free,
like that is a form of speech that
we engage in all the time,
because we think that it's right
and that we need to do
it for some speakers.
And we shut down streets,
those sort of things.
But we've seen these time,
place and manner restrictions
placed on protesters, like
you have to stand in a corner,
and those sort of things,
and I just don't know,
that doesn't seem very free to me,
when we think about this conversation.
So back to his question about
who has power and who doesn't.
Is that that is always at play
in these free speech conversations,
especially with the issue of enforcement.
Like I don't know how you talk about this
in practice without honing
in on the enforcement issue.
- So Suzanne just picking up on that.
One of the themes that
really stood out to me
in your report was this
idea that you know,
let's say there's some
speech that contains
a message that's
discriminatory or hateful.
And then there'll be a counter speech,
or a protest by students criticizing
or even attacking that speech.
And then there's speech
criticizing the counter protest,
and it kind of goes on from there.
And you, a number of the
people who are quoted say,
well that's all speech,
that's all protected speech.
So what's your outlook on that.
Like is it all just speech,
and we just need more dialogue,
and that the speech, the protests,
the counter protests,
it's all protected speech
that should be celebrated?
- Well a couple things.
First of all, I don't think all speech
is created equal in
many different respects.
And I do think, you know,
get to this question
of what we call and describe the proportus
or the heckler's veto.
So if we're doing this panel here,
and there's folks in the audience
who start shouting and screaming
to the point where we can't
have this conversation.
Our speech is effectively shut down.
You know, whatever we were gonna say
you know, we can't get out.
Those who maybe in the
room wanting to hear that
don't get a chance to
hear it because somebody
in the audience has decided
they're gonna override it.
And you know that, I think
under the first amendment
is not lawful and I think
it's certainly not preferable.
Even if the speech is offensive,
I agree there's the right to protest
forcefully and vociferously.
But we don't approve of protest tactics
that effectively shut down
and silence that speech.
I think once you allow that,
you know there's really
free speech for no one.
Yeah you may be the one next time.
Or maybe that protestor
next time who's up on stage,
and then you know, those who oppose him,
how can you say they
don't have every right
from the audience to shout him down.
I think that's sort of
a race to the bottom.
That in the end ends up
protecting nobody's speech.
You know that said, can
you protest outside.
Can you have signs, can you
stand up and turn your back,
can you make comments
throughout the speech.
Can you ask a very challenging,
direct, potent question
that puts the person on the defensive.
Yes, I think all those things
are perfectly appropriate.
And there are ways to make yourself heard
as counter speech that
can be very effective
and quite piercing that don't end up
shutting down the original speech.
So I don't think all
speech is created equal.
I also, you know this notion,
long standing notion
that kind of the answer
to offensive speech is more speech.
And I think you know,
that is a good principle.
And very often it can work.
And if somebody is saying something
that is baseless, you
know doesn't make sense,
is predicated on fiction rather than fact.
Pointing that out, drawing attention
to facts, to evidence, being persuasive,
you know very often is the best answer.
But it's not a perfect answer.
I think there are certain market failures
in this you know, ideal
marketplace for free speech.
You know for example when online,
you know somebody's being,
there's some kind of false
accusations that's made
that may get repeated a thousand,
10,000, 100,000 times and simply you know,
being able to rebut
from your little account
where you may have 250 followers,
you know may not be adequate.
I mean you may just be
absolutely drowned out.
And so I don't think it's enough to say
the best answer or the only answer
to offensive speech is more speech.
I think there are other kinds of tactics.
I think it's important for the university
to play its role as you know,
sometimes the first
among equal as a speaker.
You have channels of communication
that aren't available to
the campus as a whole.
And so when the university
or somebody else
in a position of authority speaks out.
That carries added weight.
And I think that can be one example
of a potent way to
counter offensive speech
that doesn't just sort of leave it
up to individuals of their own account.
- So here at University
of California, Berkeley
there's a legacy of free speech
that's associated not just
with the free speech movement
but with many each decade,
a legacy of free speech.
And I'm wondering for,
maybe turning to Rigel
as a student who's here now,
how does that legacy figure into it.
How do you see, being a student,
you see Berkeley with that legacy
affecting how this issue is
playing out on your campus.
- This weekend, actually
I got back last night,
pretty late from a convention I was at
with a number of major
figures in federal politics.
And this issue came up several times.
The attendees were
mostly college students.
You know people had a number of questions.
Berkeley and conversations around
free speech kept on surfacing.
A number of other
students at other campuses
are fearful that similar situations
will happen on their own campuses.
And there's a talking point that keeps
being reverted back to, I think
largely because it's easy.
Where you know, a point will be made,
but always capping it off with a reminder
that it's important
that we allow discourse,
and not shut down the speech
that we disagree with.
Obviously I mean that's
impossible to disagree with.
That is you know the
purpose of free speech.
And it's a principle, it's a value.
And it's a wonderful thing.
But I think to frame the issues
that we're talking
about, and the situations
that we're talking about,
within those parameters,
the idea that these
situations have happened
because students just
can't bear to be in a room
with an opinion that they disagree with,
is a little bit insulting.
I think what's happening is it's a lot
more complicated than that.
- What makes you say it's insulting.
Can you elaborate on that?
- This is a university.
It's an enormous pubic university
and intellectual discourse happens here
every day and that's a beautiful thing.
You know we have conflicting viewpoints
on every issue that you can imagine,
that comes out in our discussion sessions.
That comes out in our lectures.
It comes out in events that are host
on campus by student organizations.
It happens when you know,
Cal Berkeley Democrats
and Berkeley College Republicans
have an annual great
debate against each other.
And it's very well attended,
and it's fun to watch.
And that happens every day.
What's happening here is not students
hearing an opinion that
they don't agree with,
and deciding that they
need to burn things down.
But what is happening is a climate
and an environment being
deliberately created
by agitators that creates an unsafe space
for the campus community.
When someone like Milo comes to campus
intending to bring
people who attend these,
literally at the Charlottesville riots.
Whether they've flown in from elsewhere
or they happen to work at Top Dog
and they're in the area anyway.
We create a space where a lot of students
will literally not be
safe going on campus.
You look at me and that
doesn't apply to me.
I'm a straight dude who is
in theory a person of color
because I'm mixed Korean and American.
But I can walk through sprawl
when it's surrounded by
members of the AltRight,
and no one will ask me a question.
I can get to my class and that's fine.
But if that's not the case for you,
whether because of your gender expression,
or because of religious
garb that you wear.
That is not okay.
We have a principle of
community at this university
that says we're committed to creating
an inclusive environment
for all of our students.
And this scenario I think has been
heartbreaking in that we have to realize
and accept that those
really are just principles.
They're not binding, and as
much as we would like to believe
that that is our purpose,
that is what we will do.
Ultimately we may come into a situation
where we have to violate a principle
of our community in order to
do what is legally prudent.
And that's difficult.
I think free speech and
our history of free speech
is intensely powerful but that is much
less of a player in the
events that have happened
than a lot of folks would
like to make it out to be.
- So I just wanna pick up
a little bit on this theme
where I'm hearing maybe
that there's some ideas,
or some speakers who are so vile
that it's separate than the space
that you normally afford
to the difficult discourse
students have, but that I'm also hearing
the idea that you know,
actually the shutting down
of the speaker is a line Suzanne
that shouldn't be crossed.
So I wanna pose this
question to you Erwin,
in terms of is there a line
that just goes too far?
And the university is in
a really difficult place
with obligations under
the first amendment,
as well as obligations to
the educational environment.
- I think it's very important
to separate a discussion
of what the law currently
is and a discussion
of what the law should be.
I'm gonna answer your question
focusing on the former.
The campus can never stop a speaker
cause his views are offensive.
A campus can never stop a
speaker their views are racist.
There are certainly lines where speech
becomes unprotected and we can talk them.
If the speech rises to be
incitement of illegal activity.
If it is what the supreme
court has called a true threat,
if it's harassment.
But ultimately the question is do we trust
government officials, that includes
campus official public universities,
to make the decision as to what speech
should be allowed and
what's beyond the, yeah.
The first amendment says no we're not
gonna trust government officials.
And I often asked, well if
we trust government officials
what would that have meant in the early
1960's when southern universities
wanted to keep civil rights protests out.
They regarded them as provocateurs.
They regarded them as communist inspired.
What's meant in the late
1960's and early 1970's
as campuses tried to keep
anti Vietnam war protestors.
They saw them as provocateurs.
They saw them as inspired by communism.
Is there a difference when
we grant the government
power between the speech we like
and the speech we don't like.
And do we really want that to be the basis
for empowering censorship
or punishment of speech.
- So this meaning of incitement
really gets to the heart of it.
And in the law the incitement
needs to be imminent,
a direct threat, and
DeRay you talked about
incitement as being the language that
creates the conditions in
which these threats occur.
What's your outlook DeRay.
You've talked about the
challenge of enforcement
and how unequal enforcement is.
How would you advise a university
to deal with these clashing values
as they unfold in real time.
- Like I think about
pro choice and pro life
as like a space where we
can just like disagree
about some fundamental things.
But some of the people
who'd be invited to speak
like literally just don't believe
in any modicum of diversity at all.
And that is like a, I don't know what
both sides of that looks like.
I don't know what both sides of like,
you not believing that people of color
should have equal rights,
like I don't know.
That to me doesn't seem like an issue
that we should even give credence
to like there are both sides,
are they equally legitimate.
I get that like people should have space
to show up and talk about their beliefs.
But there is something about,
what is the line that
that becomes incitement.
Because what we've seen
happen time and time again
is that they leave lecture halls like this
and then things happen on
campuses that are hate crimes.
There's a relationship between like
the space created and then
the actions that follow.
And I don't know how we ignore that.
Like that doesn't seem honest to me.
So when I think about, my
advice to campus officials
is you know, I'm all about having
many sides of issues present.
Again I would say that I
don't think Ann Coulter
is the many sides person right.
I don't think Milo is
the many sides person.
I think there are other people
who can probably talk about
why they're against DACA
in a way that might make some sense to me.
Or they can talk about like why
they are pro life in a way that I can,
even if I disagree, I'm
like okay, I got it.
That argument makes sense.
But that is not who the
people being invited today.
Like that's not who those people are.
And I worry that the space that's open
has sort of said like, well everybody,
everybody's like equally legitimate
in their beliefs and thoughts.
And that's just not true.
And we've seen the repercussions of that
be really painful for people of color.
- So I just wanna pick up on that theme.
And Suzanne the kind of analysis
and research you've done which
is really quite thorough.
And I really appreciate your report.
I mean I read every page.
- Not paying him to praise the report.
- You know there's probably a few thousand
person hours that went into that.
And I get the benefit of reading,
it in just a few person hours.
But I wanna pick up on this theme
between the relationship between the space
that's created and then
the actions that take place
and one of the topics that you look at
in your paper is the whole issue
of sexual harassment and
sexual assault on campus
where there's real conduct
that's directly harmful.
I would just love to hear from you about
if you have any insights on this point
between the space that's
created and subsequent conduct.
- I think, I mean these are
important discussion to have
about whether hate speech and a climate
that is permissive for hateful speech
fosters hateful action.
And I think there's some
evidence on both sides
where people are quick to, you know,
the example that's always
given is the Rwanda genocide.
It's a potent example where you had
hateful screeds being
broadcast on the radio there.
And you know that was in
the run up to the genocide.
That was classic, I think
incitement of violence
where people were being
stoked and energized,
and urged and encouraged
to look at other people
as subhuman, and to take action,
murderous action on
behalf of those beliefs.
Clearly there can be a relationship
between speech and action but I do think
we have to be careful in
talking about incitement.
And it is something that is looked at
differently in different legal contexts.
In Europe they have
concepts like incitement
to discrimination, or
incitement to prejudice.
Here we focus really in our law
only on incitement to violence,
imminent violence or illegality.
So it's not about restricting someone
from inciting another into
a prejudicial attitude,
or a discriminatory attitude,
and I think we could agree that
hateful speech, racially offensive speech,
sexist speech can be
wounding, harmful, damaging.
But I do think you get into very difficult
questions of where to draw lines.
For example in Europe, you
know there's a big debate.
Been a longstanding debate about why
depictions of the Muslim prophet Mohammed
are not illegal, and some people argue
those depictions constitute incitement.
Just a priori, it's an active incitement.
It should be made illegal.
You know and then other people
feel and believe as I do that taking that
completely off limits
and rendering it illegal
begins a road down a slippery slope
where there's all kinds of offensive.
You know you have your view
on abortion versus choice,
and you think that's a
legitimate subject to debate.
I mean there's a very potent example
right now being debated in our country
about this 17 year old
undocumented immigrant
who wants an abortion and is
being denied that abortion.
I think some people would argue
you know really calling
that a legitimate subject
for debate is a denial of women's rights
and that that perspective
really should be off limits.
It's tantamount to
incitement against you know,
powerless women in a powerless position.
And you know you could
disagree or disagree,
but I think that you know, we have
these very protective laws,
and constitutional
requirements visa vie speech,
that have in general served us well.
I think what we see now is,
we have an environment politically
that's very permissive for hateful speech
where from the highest
levels of our government
that kind of speech is
being endorsed virtually,
or it's certainly at the very least
being countenanced and subtly encouraged.
And I think that has you
know, opened the way,
and I understand why you argue as you do
that we need to take more
assertive measures legally.
But I do think kind of
in the sweep of things
if we can find ways to
counter these speakers
who are noxious, who
don't really contribute
to our debate, in ways
that don't shut them down.
We will have a much better precedent
that won't be applied against
social justice advocates,
women's rights advocates,
advocates for racial justice
who might likewise be
called by someone else,
called provocateurs, or
called illegitimate speakers
who can justifiably be shut down.
- It seems like there's
a difference between
the quality of the discourse
and DeRay I heard you,
and Rigel both talked
about, that there are topics
and spaces where legitimate perspectives
can be put forward and
people can grapple with them.
But then we get into the question
of what's the quality of that discourse.
So I wanna kinda twist this a little
into a little different direction.
And with Milo and Ann
Coulter, I am no fan.
I'm with you on that DeRay.
And it pains me the amount of attention
that they get by virtue of
the way the story unfolds.
Now I'm wondering is there
a way to step out of that.
Whether it's advice to the activists,
or to the universities,
to not fuel their fire?
Because were it not for,
I'm not sure what they have
if it weren't for the protests
and the counter protests generating
the attention that they get.
So I'm just wondering if
there's a way out of this
that doesn't confront the first amendment
in a way that's a dead end.
Or shut people down in
a way that fuels their,
the kind of attention
that they're craving.
Is there a way out Rigel?
- Whew.
(laughter)
I think, I hear time and time again
with every one of these.
People like to imagine you know,
what if an event happened
and nobody showed up.
How funny would that be.
Like it'd be hilarious.
What, there's no way to control for that
and frankly I find it very difficult
to even to advise people
really to do that.
You know if something
like this is happening
and the way that you,
if you feel, you know
affected by that situation,
if you're going to manifest
your reaction to this event
in protest you are
absolutely entitled to do so.
I mean it's difficult to discourage
people from exercising their right
to freedom of assembly like that.
But there's a number of ways that we can
you know, respond to these sorts of things
and mitigate you know,
the safety implications
of them in ways that should be
jurisprudence with the first amendment.
It's actually, I think looking back
to what happened with the Ann
Coulter event last spring,
is an interesting model there.
I think Steve Sutton's in here somewhere.
Hi, I'm so sorry that Milo
made fun of your mustache
in his video, that was uncalled for,
I appreciate your work.
In the lead up to the Coulter events,
Steven along with other administrators
tried to work around the time, space,
manner considerations of the events
that was going to happen,
and make sure that
were the event to happen,
were we to accommodate it happening,
it would happen in such a location,
and time of day that could minimize
the harm likely to occur, A to students,
B to the surrounding community.
I mean this has become
a city of Berkeley issue
beyond just University of
California Berkeley issue.
And also to surrounding
properties, et cetera.
And it's interesting to
me that we didn't seem
as eager to do that as free
speech week approached.
I'm only, I'm really disappointing in that
because we actually within
the student government here
received a pretty explicit
commitment to do so last year.
The Chief of Staff, our former Chancellor,
this man named Nils Gilman, he'd swung by
the senate of our student government
to touch base after the
Milo event, take questions.
We had many.
He stuck around for a little while.
But something that came up,
we asked him in light of
everything that's just happened
what kind of best
practices have you learned.
What would you advise for administrations
dealing with these sorts
of events moving forward.
He gave us pretty explicitly
two recommendations.
That A, if Milo, or a similar
situation were to return,
the event would have to
happen during the day.
And that B, it would
not happen at the most
student dense center of campus.
And that other venues could be found.
Which would still be the university
facilitating the event happening.
But you know, taking necessary steps
to try to mitigate the event.
It's interesting to me
that in light of that,
you know maybe it's because
we lose the media battle
every way no matter what we do.
You know if Coulter's
event gets reshuffled
she'll take to Twitter and
accuse us of silencing her,
even though she has one of the biggest
platforms of any human
being on this planet.
But it's tricky.
But I think there are ways to go around
facilitating these sorts of things
that are less destructive.
- Right so you're saying basically
take that time, place, and
manner principle seriously
and apply it in a way
that creates that safety,
and that condition for
everybody on the campus.
Let's keep going around on this theme
and hear from each of
you, what's something
that you would want your university,
whether it's the administration
or the student community,
to consider as something we could do,
or something people can do.
- I think it's exactly
what Chancellor Christ
and the campus did this fall.
Let the speakers come.
Insure their safety.
The event will come off
hopefully without incident
and that will then be
the best way of showing
that this is a campus
committed to free speech,
and everyone will be protected.
So just to break that down.
I think it's very
important that the campus
allow these controversial
speakers to come.
I think when you talk about
people like Milo Yiannopoulos
and Ann Coulter, what they most want
was to be kept from speaking.
Because then they'd be able to portray
themselves as victims, as martyr.
At the same time the campus needs
to protect the safety
of everyone who's here.
This is where I agree with you in terms
of time, place, and manner restrictions.
There is a right to speak on campus.
But that doesn't mean at any time,
or at any place or in any form.
The campus can make sure
that the speech occurs,
say in an auditorium where
it can restrict the access,
where it can have metal detectors,
where it can control the perimeter.
It can also make sure that
the speech occurs in a way
that it doesn't disrupt
classes, or other activities.
I think at the same time it's important
that the campus protect the ability
of students to engage in counter speech.
Ideally it would be physically separated.
But I think students have the ability
to express their disagreement with,
their detesting of certain messages.
And that can be through leafleting,
through counter demonstrations,
teach-ins and the like.
If all of this happens,
then the first amendment is worked
the way it's supposed to, and the campus
the way it's supposed to, and it's not
going to get all that
much media publicity.
Which then denies the
people like Ann Coulter,
and Milo Yiannopoulos most what they want.
The spotlight.
- Let's go to you,
what's your take Susanne
on a key step, or a key piece of advice
you would give to a university?
- You know, I think, I guess I would
stress this kind of dual
role of the university
as a facilitator of all kinds of speech.
But at the same time as a moral voice
that has a responsibility
to make the campus
truly inclusive and as equal as possible
for all kinds of students.
And I think that's one thing that really
has been sort of encouraging,
seeing this campus and other campuses
inhabit that dual role
where they say fine,
I'm gonna let the Milo, or the Ann Coulter
speech go forward for the
reasons that Erwin sites,
which is like honestly, it's
the lesser of two evils,
to let them speak, have their say,
deprive them of the chance to grandstand
on the basis that they
were denied a platform.
And then you know, I think gradually
the air will go out of those balloons.
But at the same time the university
coming forward very forcefully
as an institution that's committed
to diversity that's an inclusion
that's mindful of those groups of students
that are kept out of the discourse
that may lack the tools to participate,
that maybe feel most threatened,
as those forces come onto campus.
And what needs to be done
from a security and safety standpoint.
What needs to be done in terms of dialogue
to amplify and elevate those voices.
So I think that dual set of roles,
and I'm not saying it's
easy to balance them,
but kind of looking at
both as very serious
responsibilities and thinking about
how to really bring both to life.
- I love this point because,
while the university
can protect the first amendment
on a content neutral basis
the university and its leadership
have their own voice and
should exercise that voice.
- I think one troubling thing you know,
about these legislative
proposals that you touched on,
is I think some of them really are at risk
impairing that by enforcing new,
or proposing new requirements
at the university,
avoid expressing views
on controversial issues.
And I think, and I do worry that those
could be applied in a way that
sort of pulls the rug out from under
this important role
that the university has,
I think as a speaker in these instances
as well as as a forum.
- So DeRay what's your key point,
key advice to the university,
both, either as an institution
or as a community of students and people.
- My advice is to the protestors.
It's always that you
can change the tactics.
I think about some of the most effective
protests that we had in St. Louis,
was two people organized
a protest of churches.
And we sat out in front of churches
and hummed Wade in the Water.
And it was more powerful than anything
that we could have done
outside of those churches.
Because they didn't know what to do
with us like humming outside.
It was like, havin' the police come
and arrest hummers is sort of weird right.
(laughter)
They just didn't know what to do.
And another thing that we did,
it was, one of the earliest chants was,
they think it's a joke,
they think it's a game.
Like that was just, people don't really,
that's not a chant that's big anymore,
but it was in the early days it was.
So we shut down this
intersection by playing games.
It was like four square, and hop scotch,
and like monkey in the middle,
and we knew that the police wasn't gonna,
they weren't gonna
arrest like a 50 year old
white woman playing monkey in the middle,
they like just weren't gonna do it.
So they like came up ready to arrest us.
And then they were just like,
uh I'm gonna fall back.
And it was like, it was an incredible
way to like play with
the tactic of protest.
And I think it'd be interesting
when some of these people show up
to like have everybody
talkin' in inside voice
as if the person wasn't there.
That's like facinating to me.
Or like everybody pass cards around.
Something that is obviously disruptive,
but it's disruptive in a very,
in a way that people don't expect.
And I think that can
like shift the energy.
And I think about when we did it.
Like I remember when we
did they think it's a game.
Like the police came ready right.
And we just kept playin'
and like you could just see them fall
cause they didn't know what to do.
And those sort of things are incredible.
- I think that's, could make
for it's own whole class.
(laughs and laughter)
And it is, it's a whole
body of work and practice.
And how do you exercise
your first amendment rights
in a manner that has creativity, spirit,
and brings life to your movement.
Go ahead Rigel.
- In that vein, it was, I don't remember
which one of the evenings, but a number
of students organized a study-in,
in the hours preceding
one of these events.
A woman named Victoria
pulled a number of students
together to do exactly
that, I mean a sit-in,
but with an emphasis on the optics
of them being students
there with their textbooks.
And really reinforcing the fact that,
it's students lecture, it's
faculty, the staff here
that were being affected
by what was happening.
And we're here to you know
maintain a school, and learn.
And that you know was being obstructed
by everything going on.
It was really a beautiful thing.
- And I think in the context
of the earlier question
about University of California Berkeley.
Let's just acknowledge
that this is a perfect
foil for these stories to unfold,
given the history of this
university, its stature.
And so I love this theme of the choice
of tactics cause that can affect
what the story is that's told.
So what we're gonna do now is
turn to our friend David Kemp,
to hear any themes from
the audience polling.
- Sure.
Thank you so much.
There was just only a
few notable subgroups
that were different than the average.
On the average 77% of us were hopeful.
On the three of the hopeful choices
about what Berkeley could do.
And 23% not hopeful.
There was not, a little of folks of color
were a little bit less hopeful,
but the biggest thing I noticed on that.
Chancellor Christ is that
your staff have to lead us.
Because your staff is a
whole bunch more hopeful
than the students and the faculty right.
So about whether we can
do what we wanna do.
So God bless the staff.
Okay gotta be real quick
cause we have two questions,
and then I'm gonna let the panel come back
and then maybe ask some questions.
Let's move forward.
Your level of agreement.
It's important that UCB assess whether
some socially toxic ideas
are hate speech, and if so,
prevent them from being, having
access to the public square.
From strongly agree, agree,
somewhat agree somewhat disagree,
disagree or strongly disagree.
Okay, so what's interesting.
Professor you said earlier that
you did a poll of your class and it
was very different than this.
The people who come to free speech events
clearly don't agree with that.
As a general, but some of us do.
Some of us do.
And now we need to make sure that
we respect that opinion
and hear from that.
Last question y'all.
An important educational mission of UCB
is to expose students and others to ideas
that might make them uncomfortable.
Strongly agree, agree, same scale,
somewhat agree somewhat disagree,
disagree or strongly disagree.
(bright music)
Okay let's see where we are.
Okay, okay, alright.
Well thank you all again.
So, I'll be, take it back.
- Okay great.
So we've covered quite a bit of ground.
In a couple of minutes we're gonna turn
to some audience question and answer.
I think that they're,
Erwin you talked about
what the law is and
what the law should be.
And I wanna just say that none of us
on our own can be the decider
of what the law should be.
There's a Supreme Court.
They have some authority.
There's congress, legislatures.
But I wanna put you on the spot
a little bit and ask you if I may,
what do you think the law should be.
Do you think that the standards
are too permissive for language
that's too close to
the line on incitement.
Or is there something to be inferred
from other areas of the law
about what the law should be?
- Let me focus on the
example of hate speech.
The law is clear that hate speech
is speech that's protected
by the first amendment.
I think that's probably right.
But I'm not sure.
I can tell you why I think
that's probably right.
I've seen that there's
really no way to define
what's a hate speech without being
unduly vague and over broad.
In the early 1990's over 350 colleges
and universities adopted so
called hate speech codes.
Every one to be challenged in a court
was declared unconstitutional.
Most always on grounds that it
was unduly vague and over broad.
The University of Michigan,
the most famous of these,
it defined hate speech as
speech that stigmatizes
or demeans on account of race, sex,
religion, sexual orientation.
What does it mean to be speech
that stigmatizes or demeans?
Most European nations
have hate speech laws.
They're phrased in similar language.
Last year and the year before,
when I co taught a class at the University
of California Irvine, on
free speech on campus.
We asked our students to try to draft
a hate speech code that wouldn't be
unduly vague and over broad.
The students couldn't
figure a way to do that.
Also I have great pause.
I look at the experience
under these hate speech codes,
and hate speech laws,
so often they're used
against the very groups
they're meant to protect.
When the University of Michigan
had it's hate speech code,
every enforcement action
under it was brought against
the African American and Latino students.
When England adopted its initial law
prohibiting hate speech
the first prosecution
under it was brought
against a Zionist group
with the prosecutor saying Zionism
was a form of racism under
United Nations regulation.
Just to pick an example,
cause you mentioned pro
life versus abortion rights.
I worry that we may not be far from a time
when the United States Supreme Court
is gonna overrule Roe versus Wade
and allow states to prohibit abortion.
I fear then that those same states
will prohibit advocacy of abortion rights,
by saying that's advocating
murder and a form of genocide.
Do we really wanna empower the government
to prohibit speech in that way?
But maybe most of all, I still believe
that all ideas and views can be expressed.
And hateful ideas and views are that.
They're ideas.
And I'm so afraid of giving the government
the power to pick and choose and say
these are the ones that
are beyond the pale.
And yet I'm still persuaded
by all of the discussion
about the harms of hate speech,
which is why I think the
law is the way it should be.
But I'm not sure.
- So I had to ask the question,
not just of what the law
is, but what it should be.
And I'm sensing you're grappling
with some difficulties.
And I also heard you
earlier acknowledge that,
you know we should acknowledge that speech
can be harmful and I wanna
just maybe give a quick moment
for a rapid fire from
our three other panelists
on any theme, any quick
point that's on your mind
before we turn to Q and A.
- I'll just add one
thing about hate speech
which is last week the New York Times
had a little quiz to see whether you could
discern what Facebook
considers to be hate speech.
Because hate, you know, and that's
a whole other set of questions.
And you know Facebook
is a private company.
Can ban hate speech.
They're not subject to
the first amendment.
They can impose community standards.
And you know I think we can all understand
the rationale for it, you know,
we don't want to go and see a lot
of hateful speech in our Facebook feed.
And so I thought, well I know something
about hate speech, I'll
take this little quiz.
And I'd probably do pretty well.
You know, I failed the quiz.
Because, you know there's just one example
that I remember which was,
you know, it was some speech about
a poor black woman, you
know, poor black women are,
I don't remember exactly what it was,
but they're lazy, and they
belong in the back of the bus,
or something like that, and I thought
okay, hate speech.
It wasn't hate speech apparently
because of the modifier poor.
And hate speech only
applies to protected groups.
And so because the word
poor was added there,
and you know, I'm paraphrasing,
I'm sure someone will look this up
and find that I haven't
gotten it exactly right.
So with that caveat,
because of the addition of the word poor
you know this was kind
of then not hate speech.
And so I think it's a good illustration
to add to Erwin's of just
how tricky it ends up being
in practice to define these things
in a way that is sufficiently precise
to really be a workable standard.
- So it's the difficulty of defining it.
Rigel, a quick thought
on your part right now.
- I think it would be reckless of me
to speculate what the law should be
next to Dean Chemerinsky.
(laughter)
But I will say the idea of, you know,
of us going to courts over
any of this is terrifying.
I think it's easy to imagine
that there is literally nothing
that Milo wants more than for
for Yiannopoulos v
University of California
to be precedent setting
law that could disrupt
everything that we hold
dear for the rest of time.
But outside of kind of those legal,
judicial parameters, there's a lot that we
can be doing to address the
roots of what's been going on.
There's a lot we could do to address
why students wanted to make these events
happen in the first place.
A lot of people look at this and think
it's like a right versus left battle
happening within Berkeley,
but it's really like a,
seven students versus
another 40,000 people
who generally agree it is annoying
that this is happening.
Battle.
And conversations around you know,
the climate that exists that made them
want to do that are important.
I think it's also worth noting that
these efforts were being initiated
by a very small squad of men,
and their conversations
around toxic masculinity
and entitlement that should be had
about the motivations for putting
on an event like this, so will come
at the detriment of the entire city.
Moving forward if we really wanna
champion ourselves a
campus of inclusivity,
and tolerance, I think it's important
that we put our money
where our mouths are.
There are a lot of other very pressing
needs on this campus,
and a lot of the students
who have felt most marginalized
by the events of the last
several months have demands.
And they're organizing around them.
The recruitment and retention centers
want a better space to
conduct their operations.
And we have a number of students,
undocumented students
who are likely to find,
or have already realized that they
are no longer eligible for work permits.
So that their family members back home
are no longer eligible for work permits.
Which makes it very difficult
to continue to be a student here.
So I hope that soon we
can realign our attention
away from discussions like this,
as important as they are, to really doing,
- The conditions of inequality
and the conditions of
access and opportunity
that affect students on a daily basis.
So DeRay, what's your, a quick
closing perspective from you.
- I'm interested in how the internet
is starting to radicalize young people,
and people in general, so you think about
their Instagram accounts
with 200,000 followers.
And they're just hate
accounts and they're private.
And with Instagram and Facebook,
the way their reporting works is that it
requires you to report,
like you have to report
it for it to get shut down.
But how do you report a private account?
You don't.
So it's those sort of things that I think
are gonna be the next
frontier of these issues.
I think that the obvious hate speech,
Twitter will figure out,
I think Facebook will figure out,
but it's like what about
the secret Facebook groups
that were like made
for the right purposes.
It was like what if you're in a country
where organizing is legally prohibited.
And the Facebook group is the only way,
the private Facebook group is
the only way to get together.
What happens when that actually
becomes neo-Nazi's now.
And then we're like,
like nobody's reporting that because
all the people in it are people
who believe in those things.
So that'll be I think the next frontier.
And I'm sensitive to the hate online.
The first person ever publicly banned
or permanently banned from Twitter
was somebody who Tweeted that he was
raising money to take me out.
So I think about, I think about
these issues all the time.
And I think that that sort of stuff
will be more obvious as time goes on.
It's like the private accounts
are gonna be the thing that
I think will be interesting.
- I think what your point there suggests
actually is these are vast arenas
for scholarship and study.
And the university itself with
both the talented students and the faculty
could actually dedicate itself
to grappling with these questions
and figuring them out, and not just
in a US context, but internationally.
I think you're hitting
some really difficult
and important topics there.
So what we're gonna do now is we've heard
from an amazing group up here.
But we wanna turn the conversation
not through just the online poll.
But through actual questions.
So where is the microphone?
Great, so we have a wonderful person
who will be walking around
with the microphone.
And she is gonna hold onto
the microphone like dear life.
So she's not releasing the microphone.
So if anybody wants to make a comment,
or to ask a question please do so.
And I'm gonna be just
informally watching time.
So I ask these comments or questions
to not exceed a minute each.
- I'm very curious about the time,
place and manner application.
Let's say we had a progressive speaker
like the Senator Sanders
who comes to campus
and would draw thousands of
students to listen to him.
And we offered him Spraul
Plaza, but at five pm.
But if we had a provocative speaker
like Milo or Ann Coulter,
and we offered them
Edward's Track, which we could control,
and at five pm, would that be
a violation of free speech?
- Someone gives an actual
legal answer to that.
The scenario that you're
describing almost happened.
About two years ago one
organization that I work with
successfully had the Sanders campaign
agree to do a campaign
rally on Sproul steps.
That is a rally that ended up being held
at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland.
We communicated with Dean Greenwell,
found out that the security
costs and implications
would not be feasible so
we did not host the event.
And then preceded to not claim that we
were being silenced or
that our free speech
was being oppressed by the university.
But for context I appreciate
you bringing it up though.
- Do you want me to answer?
- Please.
- Sure.
The context will matter enormously,
why is the university
drawing this distinction?
If the university is
drawing this distinction
solely based on the viewpoint,
liking Sanders viewpoint, not
liking Yiannopoulos viewpoint.
Then that violates the first amendment.
But if the campus can say the difference
is based on articulable,
demonstrated safety differences
then it's a completely
different situation.
So imagine as to Sanders,
there's no reason
to believe that there's
any threat of violence.
But imagine as to the latter speaker
on the basis of what's occurred previously
when that speaker's been on campus,
or when the speaker's
been on other campuses,
or what the campus knows
through its information,
they really believe
there's a safety threat.
And the campus can show
that the difference
is not about viewpoint,
viewpoint isn't the pretext here,
but there's really a safety difference.
Then the campus can constitutionally
treat them differently.
- And picking up on these
two things just as an observation.
I love your example of
the student democrats
and the student republicans
hosting these debates.
It's just no one else hears that.
Cause that's not gonna be
broadcast on evening news.
So I think documenting these examples
and communicating them in the context
these controversies will
actually be quite helpful.
Yep
- I'm with the empathy tent.
So it's this tent that we set up
at these different conflict situations
like the Milo event, and Ben Shapiro.
And we offer listening
and empathic mediation
between the different sides.
And we've had mediations
between the different leaders.
So we see the situation a bit like,
like a dysfunctional couple,
or dysfunctional family.
That they're all speaking,
they're all screaming and
yelling at each other.
They're demeaning each other.
They're putting each other down.
And if we have more free speech,
we'd just get more of that.
So what seems to be missing,
I would say is really free empathy.
So what would you say, is how do we
actually go about
creating more free empathy
in this situation, cause we're looking
at a relationship right,
there's the speakers
and the listeners, and it's a,
how do we kind of build up a
positive empathic relationship?
- Suzanne.
- I mean that's a lot of our focus as PEN.
You know a sense that this different sides
and these battles very
often are sort of talking
past each other, caricaturing one another,
demonizing one another, and then if you
can actually get them in a room.
And I think we saw this today.
You know, in fact, there's
some valid perspectives
that conservative students today
brought up that I think
some people hadn't heard.
I think people were all
enlightened by hearing
Erwin Chemerinsky talk
about the first amendment,
foundations of this.
You know Carol Chris
spoke about how hearing
DeRay's account of the power imbalances
and how that plays in
informed her thinking.
So I'm with you.
I do think though, there are some people
don't come to these debates in peace.
You know there are people
who have no interest
in empathy, or fostering understanding,
or even really persuading
people of a different view.
They're about building their brands,
building notoriety, provoking,
creating a media spectacle, and so I think
you have to, you know, you can't assume
everybody is coming to these
controversies with good will.
I think, you know, the vast majority are.
But for those who aren't
I think you need to kinda
to meet that with the
agenda that they have.
- Let's see if there's another question.
- There we go I think
we've got one in the back.
- Yeah, she's not letting
go of the microphone.
- Oh, great, I'm not gonna take it.
I'm an MBA student.
So something that we struggle with a lot
is that we end up with a lot of people
who have similar viewpoints consistently
in the conversation, and something
that we found today when
we did the poll early on
is that a lot of us
were hard left or left.
So that's great that
we're all in the room,
but we all have similar viewpoints.
And so something that I'm wondering
is how you think we can get a
lot more people in the room.
Like something that I wonder is how we can
incorporate these kinds of conversations
into our class discussions for example.
How we can talk to faculty about this.
Because I know that we all take classes,
so that's one example.
But I even find that
this is something that
our professors aren't bringing up.
So I wonder what your
thoughts are on that.
- I think it might be this false notion
that like viewpoints have
to be equally distributed.
I think that what is important
is that you've considered the other side.
And that you've thoughtfully engaged it.
But I don't know if every room
has to be like half and
half for it to be a room
where there's like equity of voice,
or where there's like
diversity of thought.
I've thought, I've thought deeply
about some of the rights, you know,
I was in this one meeting
that was like half republican.
It was like a work group.
And I asked them, like why
do you disagree with welfare.
And I had all these ideas of
like what they were gonna say.
And she was like, and
I'll never forget it.
She was like DeRay I think that welfare
takes away people's dignity.
And I was like, I think
that being homeless
actually takes away your dignity right,
you know, like not having
food takes away your dignity.
And she, her whole thing
was that like giving
people things for free, like takes
away their dignity as people.
And we fundamentally disagree about that.
But it was important for me
to hear that perspective.
And it's like I've grappled with that.
I've thought about it.
And we just like come
out on the other side.
But it's not like I didn't
put myself in proximity
to those other thoughts
to be able to engage it.
So I don't want us to,
I worry about building this narrative
that like there's always two sides,
and that we've gotta give
equal voice to both sides.
And I think that this administration
is a great example
of like some things that
you're just like lying.
Or like some things aren't true.
Or some things aren't right.
And we shouldn't have to be in a space
where everything has to be 50 50
for there to be like equity of voice.
- So we've only heard from
that side of the room.
(laughter)
We haven't heard from
this side of the room.
- Hi, so I've heard the
theme of the republicans
and democrats on college campuses.
Kinda getting together
to show that there is,
not like unity, but we like,
so I'm the president of the
democratic club on campus.
So it was especially kind
of interesting to hear
that come up, and you know, for instance,
Rigel who's actually my roommate.
(laughing)
We were both in Nevada this weekend.
When I got home last night
from this 10 hour drive.
My first reaction wasn't to make food.
It was to call the president
of the republican club
and set up a debate.
That will never make it
in the New York Times.
That will never make it anywhere.
It's just gonna be when
Berkeley accidentally,
it's not an accident when Berkeley
takes safety precautions,
I guess my question is,
since this kinda seems to be a theme
of just highlight the
good rather than the bad.
What would anybody up there
recommend that looks like?
- Say your last sentence again.
I'm sorry I,
- Sorry, so I've noticed the advice
that we should be highlighting the good
to kind of wash out the bad.
And this isn't necessarily
a legal question.
But my question is, what
would that look like.
And what, yeah.
- Got it.
So how to highlight the good.
I mean the thing with news
media is it loves controversy.
And things that lack controversy
are often not newsworthy so I'm looking
to you Suzanne, have you
seen success in this area.
- Yeah.
I mean right now people
do have the perceptions,
so polarized here are that they're,
you know it's always sort of,
the joke that news media likes to write
about man bites dog, not dog bites man.
And so it's the unexpected.
You know if you're collaborating with the,
your counterpart in the
college republicans,
you know maybe you write a joint op ed.
And you say, you know, everybody thinks
we don't even speak to each other,
and we're on opposite
lines of the, you know,
sides of the picket line.
But in fact, you know,
we're planning this event
together and here are some
things we can agree on.
And I think you could get that
piece published right now.
Because there's a lot
of interest in Berkeley.
And you know people might be surprised
to learn that you could come together
around a common message,
so I think, you know,
you asked for one, you
know that's maybe one,
one small example, but
I think in a climate
of polarization to actually
be able to demonstrate
some collaboration, you might be
able to get some attention for that.
- And I just wanna point out though,
that Suzanne's answer was actually
right next to her, the freedom to write.
(chuckles)
Go ahead DeRay.
- I'd say too, like we
don't actually often see
in the public space any sort of debates.
Like that's just not
something that you see often.
So I could see like a
dope two minute video
on Twitter or something,
of like literally,
of the debate, of the
content of the debate.
It's like actually an
interesting sort of thing.
If it's high quality debating right.
That like that would be
a story in and of itself
that people I think would be engaged in,
because you just don't,
I can't think of the last time
that I actually saw like people our age,
like debating issues
in a way that was like
organized and thoughtful, and wasn't like,
we don't see that often so
that could be interesting.
- So in that answer there
seems to be one thought
which is how to actually
exercise your voice
in whatever arena is available to you.
And then I loved, DeRay, your point
about the choice of tactics earlier
that when these
controversies are unfolding
that itself is a stage where
you can demonstrate that.
And so that might be another opportunity.
So we have time for one final question.
Every question came from
just this side of the room.
(laughter)
Okay, there we go.
- So one thing that I'm
curious about is intention
in terms of freedom of speech.
I think Suzanne said something about
if your intention is getting as much
publicity as possible or if your intention
is really just marketing is that,
does that still constitute
freedom of speech.
Should I be able to stand here,
let's say right now and
just talk about nothing,
or just say anything any kind of words,
or tell you about a business I have.
Do I have a right to do that?
Really?
- I think that it's certainly protected
by the constitution that the purpose
of your expression is
to reach an audience.
And the freedom of speech is followed
by the freedom of press which reaches
an even larger audience.
But I think on that question,
Erwin do you wanna give
it a shot, as we close?
- Well what you said is absolutely right.
The first amendment protects
your right to speak.
It doesn't depend on your
underlying motivations.
Let me give an example.
When Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., led protests
in the south in the early 1960's,
he wanted very much to provoke
a police reaction against
the demonstrators.
He was disappointed when the police
didn't react against the demonstrators.
Because if they did, it
then made national news.
In fact they put children
at the front of the march
so that if the police
came with Billy clubs,
it would be the police
beating up children.
Does that motivation
of provoking a response
mean that his speech unprotected
for the first amendment.
Of course not.
The government isn't able
to pick and choose speakers
based on their underlying motivation.
So long as it's speech
that's constitutionally
protected the government
can't censor it or punish it.
- So we've had a very productive day
of discussions earlier,
and Chancellor Christ
you shared a few major themes from that.
And I'm sure there's many
other learnings for you
and the members of the
community who participated.
And then we followed that with this panel
with four incredibly
thoughtful voices and leaders
who have brought such important
perspectives to the discussion.
And I just wanna close
by sharing, if I may,
just a couple of observations
that really sit out to me.
One was your point Rigel as a student
of this university that you don't want
to have your university
in a legal confrontation
that gives a censored
speaker what they wanted,
and sets up potentially
even further bad law.
That really stood out to me,
as a student in this community,
who is mindful of equality and justice,
that that's not an outcome that you want.
And then another point that
really stood out to me was,
DeRay your call for the tactics.
And what is the nature of the protest,
what is the nature of the resistance,
and the response when these
situations are playing out.
And using the full array
of tools that are available
to us to express ourselves
in the face of hate
and discrimination and
that's another perspective
that really stood out to me.
This has been a wonderful,
wonderful conversation.
It's one that will continue at the
University of California at Berkeley.
It will sometimes unfold, not in moments
when there's space for reflection.
It'll sometimes unfold in
the heat of the moment.
But what's so important about what
you're doing today is creating that space
when there is the time to reflect,
that will inform the actions we take
later in the heat of the moment.
So thank you all for being here,
and thank you to the University
of California Berkeley.
(applause)
(bright music)
