Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read part of the article but am lost. Any clarification would be appreciated:

1. many of the groups in question are not united by, nor do I assume their scope to be, issues of the middle east, and are placing their ban based on a loose intersectionality argument. Did they first ban any speaker who contradicts the positions that define their incorporation?

At least in the case of the Berkeley Law Queer Caucus (the one group I Googled), their club by-laws and constitution are posted publicly online, but since I can't open DOCX files on my phone, I haven't been able to actually read them yet.

In any case, the answers seem to be out there if you want to find them... for one of the mentioned groups, at least.

2. would this include not allowing a speaker who is a Zionist to speak on issues unrelated to the middle east? Would the Queer group not allow an anti-gay legal scholar to discuss second amendment rights?

The article suggests that this is the idea, but I haven't read the bylaws for myself.

3. Could a group called "law students for plastic bags" ban speakers who are pro-Islam on general principle? Do they need to state some sort of invented sympathy and affiliation with those victimized by Islam as that is tied to the victimhood of plastic bags? Or can any group choose to ban people by the people's association with anything they happen not to like, or even just on a whim?

I would assume that Berkeley student clubs operate within some sort of framework of rules put in place by the university, but I haven't bothered to try and find those rules. Still, it seems Googleable.

Just so we're clear: are you suggesting that banning pro-Zionist guest speakers (i.e. people with a particular political position) is the equivalent of blatant religious discrimination like banning pro-Islam guest speakers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A question for those proclaiming a free exchange of ideas while also complaining about the position of these student clubs: what do you think they should be allowed to do instead?

You have clubs - groups of students - who are apparently concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people and want to participate in the BDS movement in some way. What alternative ways to do this do you think should be allowed?

... or do you think that concern for Palestine isn't entitled to a place in your "free" exchange of ideas?

 

[Stevicus]

If the Klan came to speak to a student group, suggesting that all black people in the U.S. be rounded up and sent back to Africa, or subjugated to the point of poverty and powerlessness by a white dominant society, most of those students would conclude that the Klan is full of crap, is inhumane, and is absurdly and dangerously self-centered.

So why should these students invite the Klan to come and spew their bile, again? And why would the other student groups, hearing of this, invite them at all? When does "free speech" become just a load of pointless, unwanted, crap? Never? Do students have to put up with this crap over and over and over year after year, just to satisfy the ideal of "free speech"?

I agree, but if we decide that such speech is pointless, unwanted crap, then can we also agree that it's equally crap regardless of which identity group one is advocating for? Shouldn't the same standards be applied to all individuals and groups?

My bet is that these students at Berkley understand this issue far better than most of us, here, do.

I wouldn't make that bet. I think there's a certain myth about these kinds of upper-class rich kids' schools with puffed-up, exaggerated reputations which makes people believe that the students and faculty are actually smart. It's rooted in the notion that upper-class, wealthy people are bred from "better stock," which is an idea I've never bought into.

As they have heard, read, and debated it in depth and extensively. And they are done with the Zionist spiel. They've heard it fully, and rejected it fully. And now they don't want to hear it, anymore. Which they should certainly have a right to.

I've seen this issue played out in the US media for most of my life. While most Americans are largely ignorant about the state of affairs in the world and the various conflicts, this is the one geographical area and ongoing conflict which many do know about - mainly because it occupies a great deal of geopolitical and media attention. I've known Christians who believe that it's God's will that America support Israel, as they believe it's part of prophecy. Historically, that particular territory has been fought over and regarded as holy by various factions for more than a millennium. And it's strategically located, on the crossroads of three continents.

Apart from that, most people on the American continent might feel somewhat far removed and detached from the conflict. It doesn't mean they don't care about human rights and human suffering, but in their day-to-day lives, what goes on elsewhere in the world may not be foremost in their minds. Many might be more concerned about things like the price of food and whether they're going to be able to afford to heat their homes this winter. It doesn't mean they're bad people, but they may not necessarily see things from the same vantage point as privileged, upper-class Berkeley law students.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, but if we decide that such speech is pointless, unwanted crap, then can we also agree that it's equally crap regardless of which identity group one is advocating for? Shouldn't the same standards be applied to all individuals and groups?

You expect a student group concerned with one particularly egregious case of injustice to come up with a worldwide catalog of injustices before they take action on the one that has their focus?

This is a ridiculous demand.

 

[rosends]

I see little point in the presumed difference your eluding to, here. Should the above exampled Klansman be invited to speak on, let's say, abortion, even though he is known to support racial cleansing? What legitimacy will his ideas on abortion have given that he is known to support racial cleansing? And why not just invite someone that is not a racist to come speak on abortion? It's not like only Klansmen are the experts on abortion.

But if the most renowned expert on the medical issues involved in a late term abortion, as evidenced by his CV and experience, happens also to be a klansman, would he be banned from speaking on his expertise? Are you assuming that his position on race inevitably infuses his statements on everything else? Let's say he was an expert on Picasso, or was a James Beard winner who was going to discuss how you can tell if a kiwi is ripe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where nationalists are resorting to violence (whatever type of nationalism they support), I would normally see that as a legitimate basis to restrict diologue.

And only to the subset of nationalists of that nation who resort to (or promote) violence?

 

[rosends]

Just so we're clear: are you suggesting that banning pro-Zionist guest speakers (i.e. people with a particular political position) is the equivalent of blatant religious discrimination like banning pro-Islam guest speakers?

I am not making any equivalence about the content of the groups, only about the question of banning all members of any group because of membership, regardless of the material being discussed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... or do you think that concern for Palestine isn't entitled to a place in your "free" exchange of ideas?

Absolutely! I also believe that J-Street is entitled to a place. You?

 

[PureX]

But if the most renowned expert on the medical issues involved in a late term abortion, as evidenced by his CV and experience, happens also to be a klansman, would he be banned from speaking on his expertise? Are you assuming that his position on race inevitably infuses his statements on everything else? Let's say he was an expert on Picasso, or was a James Beard winner who was going to discuss how you can tell if a kiwi is ripe?

It's a non-issue. For one thing it would be impossible to determine the relevance of such a (presumed) unrelated ideology if they really were unrelated. And if they weren't unrelated, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ideology would bias this expert's views on the subject at hand. Either way ... it's time to move on to the next expert.

Something else to consider. As law students, and future "movers and shakers" of American politics, these student groups would be prime targets for Zionists looking to further their agenda of ethnic cleansing without interference from, and maybe even with the support of the United States. I can easily see where their attempts at such would be unrelenting, and require such a strong and all-inclusive banishment.

 

[rosends]

The restriction is against "Zionist" speakers, defined as “[speakers who] have expressed interest and continue to hold views, host, sponsor or promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel and the occupation of Palestine,”

Just applying one form of rhetorical lens here: does said view or event have to support all three of the criteria listed? What if one supported 2 of three, or just 1?

Also, and again, not being facetious but one pre-requisite to clear communication is the agreement in language. The definition presupposes certain terms which are at least arguable and more likely, products of a lack of knowledge, or intentional misinformation.

 

[rosends]

It's a non-issue. For one thing it would be impossible to determine the relevance of such a (presumed) unrelated ideology if they really were unrelated. And if they weren't unrelated, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ideology would bias this expert's views on the subject at hand. Either way ... it's time to move on to the next expert.

So either we don't know if my view on the price of tea in China is irrelevant to the speech I'm about to deliver on Wheelchairs in space and therefore I can't speak, or if they are relevant so have to assume that ideology would color anything said and even a professional can't be objective.

Something else to consider. As law students, and future "movers and shakers" of American politics, these student groups would be prime targets for Zionists looking to further their agenda of ethnic cleansing without interference from, and maybe even with the support of the United States. I can easily see where their attempts at such would be unrelenting, and require such a strong and all-inclusive banishment.

Sure, we ZOG'ers keep a list. Going over it is a major part of the Elders meetings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Something else to consider. As law students, and future "movers and shakers" of American politics, these student groups would be prime targets for Zionists looking to further their agenda of ethnic cleansing without interference from, and maybe even with the support of the United States. I can easily see where their attempts at such would be unrelenting, and require such a strong and all-inclusive banishment.

And where have we heard that before?

 

[Stevicus]

You expect a student group concerned with one particularly egregious case of injustice to come up with a worldwide catalog of injustices before they take action on the one that has their focus?

No, I was just addressing @PureX's point.

This is a ridiculous demand.

It's not a demand.

 

[Shaul]

Given that zionists support terrorism and facism in Israel and Palestine, they don't really deserve a venue

Since that isn't a given you have no point.

 

[PureX]

So either we don't know if my view on the price of tea in China is irrelevant to the speech I'm about to deliver on Wheelchairs in space and therefore I can't speak, or if they are relevant so have to assume that ideology would color anything said and even a professional can't be objective.

You don't understand. If your ideas on "X" have no relation at all to your ideas on "Z" I would not know of your ideas on "X" when seeking out your expertise on "Z". You would be invited to speak on "Z" and I would never know or care how you feel about "X". If I do learn of your ideas on "X" while seeking out your expertise on "Z" it will be because they are related, and because at some point YOU related them. In which case that relation taints your supposed expertise, and discounts you as the expert you're proclaimed to be.

So no rule is needed relating to one's supposed "unrelated" ideas on ethnic cleansing or on whatever else. If they really are unrelated, it simply won't be an issue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure, we ZOG'ers keep a list. Going over it is a major part of the Elders meetings.

... immediately after the spirited discussions on ethnic cleansing and the preparation of matzah for Passover, and just before the cut-throat dreidel games!

 

[Left Coast]

Just applying one form of rhetorical lens here: does said view or event have to support all three of the criteria listed? What if one supported 2 of three, or just 1?

Genuine answer, I don't know.

 

[rosends]

You don't understand. If your ideas on "X" have no relation at all to your ideas on "Z" I would not know of your ideas on "X" when seeking out your expertise on "Z". You would be invited to speak on "Z" and I would never know or care how you feel about "X". If I do learn of your ideas on "X" while seeking out your expertise on "Z" it will be because they are related, and because at some point YOU related them. In which case that relation taints your supposed expertise, and discounts you as the expert you're proclaimed to be.

So no rule is needed relating to one's supposed "unrelated" ideas on ethnic cleansing or on whatever else. If they really are unrelated, it simply won't be an issue.

I'm glad you said this explicitly because the language of the resolution seems to disagree:

"[speakers who] have expressed interest and continue to hold views" are banned

whereas you said "and I would never know or care how you feel about "X""

You also wrote

If I do learn of your ideas on "X" while seeking out your expertise on "Z" it will be because they are related, and because at some point YOU related them.

If you ask me about Hamlet without knowing my views on local noise ordinances then my answer about Hamlet is useful. But if you then find out how I feel about noise ordinances because you saw a letter to the editor of my town paper, then those views will become related because, as you write "it will be because they are related." How exactly did I relate them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Speaking of Hamlet, I'm reminded of Macbeth's reference to ...

... a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.​

And now, back to the manic anti-zionist rant!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not making any equivalence about the content of the groups, only about the question of banning all members of any group because of membership, regardless of the material being discussed.

Which group has had all members banned, and what do you think they've been banned from?