Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[rosends]

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

I asked a rhetorical question about an undefined group called "Zionist" and a group called Muslim. In the hypothetical, another group bans speakers from other one because of the speaker's affiliation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked a rhetorical question about an undefined group called "Zionist" and a group called Muslim. In the hypothetical, another group bans speakers from other one because of the speaker's affiliation.

Okay - so you were defining the hypothetical group based on a tautology (i.e. the group who has "all members" banned is just the group of people who fit the criteria for the ban). I wasn't sure if you were trying to insinuate that a ban on Zionists was effectively a ban on all Jews.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you imagine us enacting the actual policy in question? Preventing anyone who supports Israel from posting or starting an OP?

Consider that student groups are far smaller & often
of limited focus. It makes sense to me that they
should be afforded more liberty in refusing to provide
a venue for people who advocate opposing views.

Caution!
I'm not saying I approve of the banning.
But I approve of their right to ban.

 

[Revoltingest]

....maybe crosses a line when entire national identities are proscribed.

That doesn't appear to be their goal.
But overly sensitive people sometimes conflate agenda
(zionism) with religion (Jew) or nationality (Israel).

 

[Left Coast]

Consider that student groups are far smaller & often
of limited focus. It makes sense to me that they
should be afforded more liberty in refusing to provide
a venue for people who advocate opposing views.

Caution!
I'm not saying I approve of the banning.
But I approve of their right to ban.

I will let people more familiar with constitution law argue the nuances of whether they have a "right" to this particular ban.

At minimum, I consider it a foolish and unnecessary way to invite criticism and backlash.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will let people more familiar with constitution law argue the nuances of whether they have a "right" to this particular ban.

Anyone can read the document & commentary by
our betters. I feel qualified to venture opinions in
some areas without claiming expertise. No one
expects scholarship from me.

At minimum, I consider it a foolish and unnecessary way to invite criticism and backlash.

I regularly invite (in the sense of expectation rather
than intent) criticism & backlash when expressing
my opinions. Life would be limited indeed if we
kept quiet from fear of criticism.

Do you oppose allowing student groups to ban
some speakers from their venue? This smacks
of compelled speech. Are you OK with this?

 

[rosends]

Okay - so you were defining the hypothetical group based on a tautology (i.e. the group who has "all members" banned is just the group of people who fit the criteria for the ban). I wasn't sure if you were trying to insinuate that a ban on Zionists was effectively a ban on all Jews.

Nope -- just staying local to the group stated. I think that there is a problem using the term, considering the variety of potential meanings, but I was specifically not conflating. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope -- just staying local to the group stated. I think that there is a problem using the term, considering the variety of potential meanings, but I was specifically not conflating. Sorry for any confusion.

No worries.

I think it's worthwhile for everyone in this thread to remember that the article in the OP doesn't include any of the actual wording from the bylaws of any clubs involved. Before going into semantic nuances, I think it would be a good idea to read the actual bylaws, rather than relying on one writer's take on them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will let people more familiar with constitution law argue the nuances of whether they have a "right" to this particular ban.

At minimum, I consider it a foolish and unnecessary way to invite criticism and backlash.

To go back to a question I asked that nobody seems to want to answer so far: what do you think would be appropriate ways for a student club to take action that's aligned with the BDS movement?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Any group has the right to choose who speaks to them, they do not need to justify that choice.

It might be educational to set up serious debates between speakers from conflicting groups.
It might identify areas that can be built on.

Most people can see a clear distinction between antisemitism and anti Zionism.
In my student days I had a Jewish watch maker friend who came to the UK to getaway from the strong Zionist attitudes at that time (50's). I was living in the NW3 area of London, which even to this day has a large Jewish population. And where the opinion was quite heavily split against the Zionist cause. They were either very much for or very much against.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To go back to a question I asked that nobody seems to want to answer so far: what do you think would be appropriate ways for a student club to take action that's aligned with the BDS movement?

You would expect them to invite BDS speakers, you would not expect them to invite Zionist ones.
Speakers do not invite themselves nor should they be imposed.
It should not be necessary to go as far as banning anyone, unless their views are known to be criminally dangerous to society.
Simply not inviting them should be sufficient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You would expect them to invite BDS speakers, you would not expect them to invite Zionist ones.
Speakers do not invite themselves nor should they be imposed.
It should not be necessary to go as far as banning anyone, unless their views are known to be criminally dangerous to society.
Simply not inviting them should be sufficient.

So you don't have an issue with a student club deciding not to invite any Zionist speakers; you just have an issue with them making a public declaration of what they're doing and why they're doing it?

 

[Quagmire]

If the university clamped down on its student clubs and said "you MUST allow Zionist guest speakers," that would be only permitting one side of the argument.

I don't see how.

 

[PureX]

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

Exactly. Their opinions of "X" are related to "Z", BY THEMSELVES. And so they have forfeited their credibility on "Z".

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

Unless they've made an issue of it. Or someone else has done so. Either way, once the issues are linked, credibility is lost.

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?

Exactly.

When you lose credibility for your lack of reason in one area of thought, you lose credibility for your lack of reason on all your areas of thought. Because there's only one you, and the credibility of your reasoning is singular.

 

[Left Coast]

I regularly invite (in the sense of expectation rather
than intent) criticism & backlash when expressing
my opinions. Life would be limited indeed if we
kept quiet from fear of criticism.

All things in moderation, as they say. There is no need to invite unnecessary criticism when one can accomplish their goals (inviting whatever speakers one wants to a group, for example) without it. This does not mean being eternally silent out of fear.

Do you oppose allowing student groups to ban
some speakers from their venue? This smacks
of compelled speech. Are you OK with this?

I'm genuinely undecided whether it should be allowed. Part of the issue is that I don't think we know the exact extent of these bylaw changes and whom they would exclude. If they exclude nearly an entire ethnic group, I think that's deeply problematic and foolish even if technically legal.

 

[Left Coast]

To go back to a question I asked that nobody seems to want to answer so far: what do you think would be appropriate ways for a student club to take action that's aligned with the BDS movement?

Advocate for BDS, I'd assume. Host speakers that support BDS. Create materials that promote it. If I sat down and thought about it for a while I could probably develop a longer list.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So you don't have an issue with a student club deciding not to invite any Zionist speakers; you just have an issue with them making a public declaration of what they're doing and why they're doing it?

I do not mind either way. One is a logical extension of the other. But unnecessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see how.

The two sides of that argument:

- Zionist speakers should be banned
- Zionist speakers should not be banned

Right now, a club can take either position. You want to forbid clubs from taking the first position, leaving only one position available.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Advocate for BDS, I'd assume. Host speakers that support BDS. Create materials that promote it. If I sat down and thought about it for a while I could probably develop a longer list.

What meaningful difference do you see between what you suggested ("host speakers that support BDS") and ths position that the clubs have taken ("do not host speakers who oppose BDS," effectively)?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Yep.
I'm sure there are going to be specific instances that blur that line, but that would be my guiding principle.

(An example of a blurred line would be the evolving role Sinn Fein played in peace talks)