Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

When the Left Turned Against Free Speech

The long, ugly journey from the Free Speech Movement to professors assaulting protesters

Creative CommonsCreative CommonsOn March 4, in a designated "free-speech zone" at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), associate professor of feminist studies Mireille Miller-Young walked over to a 16-year-old anti-abortion protester named Thrin Short and demanded that Short take down a graphic sign showing pictures of aborted fetuses. When Short refused, Miller-Young forcibly snatched the sign out of the smaller girl's hands, then handed it to her students and walked away triumphantly. The rattled teen accurately accused Miller-Young of being a "thief," to which the professor implausibly retorted: "I may be a thief, but you're a terrorist!" Adding injury to insult, Miller-Young then shoved the protester and barred her from entering a campus elevator. Moments later, the professor and her students cut the stolen poster to shreds.

The story gets worse. According to the ensuing police report, Miller-Young maintained that she had set a good example for her students by acting like a "conscientious objector" to offensive hate speech that had "triggered" her emotions and violated her "personal right to go to work and not be in harm." Many students, too, remained defiant about the assault long after tempers cooled.

"We, as students of UCSB, are in solidarity with Professor Miller-Young and urge our student body, staff, faculty, and community members to provide as much support as possible," reads a petition submitted by "UCSB Microaggressions" that as of press time had received more than 2,000 signatures, dwarfing a rival petition asking for the professor's ouster. "We do not condone the hate speech and media attention she has been actively receiving."

Our tale gets worse still. In an open letter to students on March 19, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Michael D. Young did not mention Miller-Young by name, did not address either the outrageousness of her actions or the inanity of her logic, and instead aimed most of his fire at "outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas."

Here is how Young's letter begins: "Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims. Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university."

Young's letter–filled with to be sures about "the sanctity of free speech" and in-group signaling about how the Founding Fathers were "all white men of privilege"–was shockingly familiar to those of us with a certain amount of historical memory. A half-century before, a big chunk of the modern political left was forged at the University of California, Berkeley, through a series of protests against the university's ban on unsanctioned political speech. The Free Speech Movement, as it came to be known, kick-started '60s campus activism and led to a backlash that, among other things, helped propel to the governor's office a Republican political novice named Ronald Reagan.

Back then the people using the conspiratorial slur "outside agitators" to denigrate campus activists were not anxious administrators mouthing progressive pieties but conservative politicians disgusted to see antiwar sentiment at publicly funded universities. In 1965, Bay Area Assemblyman Don Mulford–who once warned FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that University of California President Clark Kerr was under the thrall of Communist puppet-masters–introduced anti-outsider legislation to (in his words) "remove from the campus the professional agitators, the beatniks, the mentally ill, the untouchables, the unwashed." The bill sailed into law.

I first learned about these foundational free speech battles at what turned out to be a critical time and place in the left's journey from free-speech champion to anti-speech thug: UCSB in the late 1980s.

As a cub reporter for the university's Daily Nexus, I wrote a multi-part series connecting '60s radicals to the '80s activists who were constantly comparing themselves to the previous generation, and were fresh off their victorious effort to pressure the California university system to divest its holdings from apartheid South Africa. But in the course of interviewing the mostly supportive Free Speech Movement stalwarts, a whisper of concern began leaking through about the youngsters' attitudes toward free speech.

Turns out there was ample reason for worry. In the fall of my freshman year, a vigorous debate erupted around David Lynch's new movie, the now-classic Blue Velvet. Feminists argued that the disturbing film, which features serial violence perpetrated against an often-naked Isabella Rossellini, contributed to the "objectification and dehumanization of women." Not long after, in an act presaging Miller-Young's 2014 outburst, a group calling itself "You Can't Keep a Good Woman Down" charged into a local liquor store and tore down its mildly bawdy St. Pauli Girl posters.

I will never forget the sight of the famously gruff liquor store owner appearing just after the incident in front of the entertainingly far-left activist student council (the vice president looked like a beatific version of Charles Manson and favored long flowing purple robes and wizard hats), breaking down into some of the least convincing tears I have ever seen as he thanked the vandals for opening his eyes about society's pervasive sexism.

Institutional racism, too, became a cause for which speech could be sacrificed. On the one-year anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger blowing up, the Nexus ran an op-ed from a non-staffer memorializing the dead and listing all of their names. Well, all except for the first-ever black astronaut, Ronald McNair, who was inadvertently omitted. Soon after, members of the Black Student Union dumped thousands of copies of the famously left-of-center newspaper (whose unofficial motto in those days was "Commie Rag") in the trash.

In 1989 the campus radio station, KCSB, removed from its airwaves an unknown young conservative shock jock for making "multiple discriminatory statements based on sexual orientation," such as: "Anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed." Ugly stuff, yes, but on a station that had no problem broadcasting Soviet apologetics the punishment felt pretty selective. Still, Sean Hannity went on to have a pretty successful career.

Activists in my era, through hunger strikes and other actions, successfully pressured UCSB to adopt an ethnic and gender studies requirement, helping give rise to Miller-Young's feminist studies department. They also served to demonstrate, perhaps unwittingly, that the descendants of important political movements often become that which the original activists despised.

The University of California, and American academia as a whole, is long overdue for a 21st century free speech movement. Hopefully this time it will be bipartisan, and will aim from the outset to defend precisely the types of speech its advocates find most abhorrent.

Photo Credit: cc

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians would allow mean offensive speech that forces emotional responses in people! That's tyranny! Liberty is tyranny!

  • Almanian!||

    Uh, how about a "trigger warning" before using the "l" word - either one of them - sarc.

    That word and its derivatives SCARE some people, you know.

    THANKS...

    *glares*

  • DEG||

    Yes, it does.

    I was at a housewarming party in the Boston area a couple of years ago. I was chatting up a cute redhead. Something related to then-current events came up. I can't remember what exactly. I said something libertarian-light, something you would hear on Stossel. She got wide-eyed and scared, and said, "You're one of those libertarians aren't you?" I said yes. She excused herself soon afterwards.

    Damn. She was cute. Silly me.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Eh, your pitchfork, pointy beard, and horns would have tipped her off eventually.

  • TerryD||

    Lucky you if she's that thinned skinned

  • jessefan in chapel hill||

    I understand female 'Eloi' are cute but a bit dense.

  • waffles||

    How can we go back to teaching the virtues of thick-skinnedness? It needs to be learned that individuals choose to be offended. But it seems futile.

  • sarcasmic||

    Individuals female reproductive health to be offended? That doesn't make any sense.

  • waffles||

    It's kinda fucked up how a simple word like "choice" can become so loaded. We live in strange times. I want to see the alternate timeline where college freshmen are given orientation classes that teach them how to ignore things they find hateful or offensive. In this universe the orientation gins up everyone's triggers such that everything gets a warning. Like the state of California and things that may cause cancer.

  • AuH20||

    Academia is one of the few places in America where openly professed communism is an acceptable ideology. Of course they hate free speech.

  • ||

    I got in to it the other day with a younger friend at the bar over communism. He's a smart guy (software programmer) but is convinced (as many liberals are) that Capitalism is inferior to direct redistribution of wealth. When I tried to explain how miserable the outcomes have been when socialism/communism is practiced he gave the "WELL THEY DO IT IN EUROPE AND EVERYTHING OVER THERE IS FINE PLUS FREE HEALTHCARE!!!", which convinced me I was wasting my time and I ordered another shot to change the subject.

    Are they actually teaching any history anymore at colleges about Mao or Stalin or do they just kinda skip that part?

  • AuH20||

    I love when I have pointed out that markets are organic, and gotten the, "Well, I guess I just care more about people."

    Yes, because people do so fucking well under socialism/communism.

  • ||

    And then when you try and explain the fact that capitalism has done more to alleviate poverty than anything else bar none they look at you as if you just raped a baby.

    I've had that conversation too.

  • AuH20||

    I think it's that capitalism is counter intuitive. Or at the very least requires the ability to follow a logical chain and see second order thinking.

    I got in a conversation recently with a guy, and pointed out that the natural minimum wage is 0$, and a living wage is a crock of shit. He saw this as a flaw of capitalism, which is to me super face palm. It's a goddamn law of economics. Next time I get in to this with him, I'm bringing up the Milton Friedman spoons and dams in China example.

  • ||

    Bah. Par for the course. My buddy is a high-income earner and sprouts all kinds of "yeah but you gotta regulate" and other lefty jargon crap. We get into it every so often. He once said, "I'm not complaining" (about high taxes) because "free services."

    On the other hand, I've met and talked to blue-collar guys who 'get it' and understand that more government is not a solution by any stretch.

  • Idle Hands||

    I find that most people who are in business for themselves and experience the effects of regulation 'get it' and most of those are blue collar contractors.

  • sarcasmic||

    On the other hand, I've met and talked to blue-collar guys who 'get it' and understand that more government is not a solution by any stretch.

    Only because they've been brainwashed by FAUX News and talk radio!

  • James Taggart||

    PJ O'Rourke is fond of saying: "nothing turns liberals into conservative like mortgage payments, property taxes and FICA withholding."

    He should add that that's the first step in evolving into a libertarian.

  • ||

    Whatever you do, don't bring up the calculation, or knowledge problems. All you get is blank stares followed by drooling.

  • sarcasmic||

    And then when you try and explain the fact that capitalism has done more to alleviate poverty than anything else bar none

    Capitalism allows for the unfair accumulation of wealth! If left unchecked it would result in a barren and dead wasteland in which the poor are enslaved by the corporations! You're a fucking monster! Why do you lick the corporate boot that holds you down!

  • ||

    Don't use the word capitalism, use free markets. Capitalism is one of their animist totem words. It's like saying "profound evil" to them. Because that's what they hear.

    Yeah, it's fucking asinine. But so are animists. If you want to actually bother talking to them and attempt to change their minds, you can't use their totem words, because they don't think when they hear them. They just react.

  • sarcasmic||

    Free markets? You mean unlicensed and unregulated corporations killing their customers and poisoning the earth? Because that's what free markets mean!

  • ||

    I still get the same looks either way, although I'll admit free markets doesn't get the same visceral reaction as capitalism.

    I've even tried the Friedman "if it's jobs you want just give them all spoons" a few times and for whatever reason it rarely gets through.

    I pretty much avoid talking about this stuff with people unless they push me these days. Most of the time it's not worth the trouble.

  • craiginmass||

    Who doesn't want "free markets"?

    That's like saying "free money" or "free sex" or "free food". Or, better yet, "free refi of your mortgage and a lower payment".

    Alan Greenspan believed in Free Markets. Until he didn't.

    A rose by any other name would smell the same. A turd called a stool still smells like poop.

    Why not be honest?
    Just say "we believe there should be no regulations or limits on what corporations are allowed to do".

    That's a free market.

    Oh, I think I know why! Because unless you use propaganda (defined as telling some truths to promote a Big Lie), no one would go along for the ride.

    Or, if you really want to be honest (you don't, of course), you'd take them to a Koch factory and have them pipe the smokestack with the "free market" soot and then one with the "regulated market" soot and ask them which they'd rather have their children breathe?

    I say most would go for the cleaner "regulated" non-free market air.

  • Idle Hands||

    you need to publish a pamphlet in which you name all the totems with a brief explanation of each one, complete with a synonym for each that will allow the reader to navigate the minefield that is identity politics.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I've been trying to think of a term that can evoke the sense of awe I get when I think about free markets. Because let's face it, "markets" doesn't sound sexy. But my God, just look at all the amazing things we have today that make our lives easier and better than they were even a decade ago, let alone a century. And this all comes about because millions of people go out and peacefully exchange things that they value, without being told what to do or who to trade with. It's awe-inspiring, it's elegant, it's beautiful. Yet it almost only gets discussed using economic terms that sound dry and boring. They should have sent a poet.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just call it economic democracy. They like that word but simply can't get around the fact that free markets are one of the purest forms of democracy out there.

  • Idle Hands||

    When anyone brings up "fairness" it is a clear indicator that they don't think logically because they are illiterate and have reasoning capacity of a child.

  • waffles||

    Which conversation? How many babies did you rape?

  • TerryD||

    If you don't believe what radicals believe it's a hate for them. That's why when you have one down spit on them as you walk off

  • sarcasmic||

    "Well, I guess I just care more about people."

    Well yeah! You can talk all you want about caring about people, but unless you use coercion to force everyone else to pay for it, you don't really care!

    Coercion is caring!

    Liberty is tyranny!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    One of PJ O'Rourke's best quotes:

    “There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.”

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The answer is "Well, if you care so goddamned much about people, don't give the government the power to push them around. Join a charitable order. But you won't, will you, because you don't give a flying f*ck about people, you just want them to do what you tell them to."

  • bob sacomano||

    Methinks Francis Fukuyama maybe jumped the gun just a little bit with his whole "The End of History" thing after the Wall came down.

    Communism was never "defeated." It just stratified and decentralized (irony!) into three main industries: academia, journalism and (the big one) environmentalism.

    I don't think it's a coincidence that I wasn't at all aware of Earth Day, recycling, GreenPeace, Save the Whales, the ozone layer, CFCs or solar panels until right around the fifth grade, which for me was... 1992.

    I think the Commies saw the writing on the wall by the mid-late 80's and started gaming out ways to transform their agenda into something more palatable than Marxist-Leninist Communism. Of course there were earnest enviros before, but it wasn't until the great Commie migration that the "Green" pathology was born.

    Just once, I would kill to hear a Bill McKibben sycophant say something like "you know, maybe a decentralized market solution is the way to go" or "you know, the profit-motive does actually appear to yield better environmental results, maybe we should rethink this." Because then I would at least do them the courtesy of listening. But as long as every proposed climate change initiative just happens to magically and coincidentally align perfectly with whatever it is the fringe factions of the left are hankering for, then I am going to continue maintaining that they don't mean what they say and this is simply communism by another name.

  • waffles||

    They're communists, I knew it!

  • Gmason||

    Don't retreat! Defeat! Leftism needs to be conquered person by person or we're doomed! :)

  • Baineblade||

    The best reply to any liberal's ideologue on socialism/communism is that socialism, while a fine and dandy theory, falls apart when one throws in the human element.

  • bendover||

    When you've lost Bloomberg ( stopped clock etc...)

    “It is just a modern form of McCarthyism,” Bloomberg said of university “censorship” of conservatives. “Think about the irony: In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting to repress left wing ideas. Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species.”

    “And that is probably nowhere more true than it is here in the Ivy League,” declared Bloomberg…

    “In the 2012 presidential race, according to Federal Election Commission data, 96% of all campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama,” he said. “There was more disagreement among the old Soviet politburo than there is among Ivy League donors.”…

    “Neither party has a monopoly of truth or God on its side. When 96% of Ivy League donors prefer one candidate to another, you really have to wonder whether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a great university should offer,” Bloomberg continued, occasionally being interrupted by moderate applause.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Academia doesn't consider the intellectual incestuousness of its environment to be a problem. Quite the opposite, in fact--they actually revel in it.

    And like all incestuous relationships, malformed, stunted, and distorted creations have resulted, most of them steeped in cultural marxism.

  • ||

    is long overdue for a 21st century free speech movement.

    Between Obama jailing journalists, Net Neutrality, campaign restrictions and calls for FTC regulations of youtube videos because some youtube gamers might endorse a product without disclosure (polygon writers told me commercial speech is not protected) i think we are in need of free speech movement everywhere...not just in college.

  • Homple||

    ...IRS targeting conservative groups....

  • ||

    One thing we consistently see in most revolutions or upsetting of the current power structure, from actual physical revolutions to the free speech movement, is that if the revolutionaries succeed, they almost inevitably become just like those they replaced. Because once they're in power, they fall victim to the same corruption of power that everyone falls victim to. We see nothing different today on campuses.

    This is partially related to the TOP MEN fallacy, and why so many of these types fall for both TOP MEN and the idea that they can replace someone powerful with someone different and somehow they won't act exactly the same. It is a delusional, utopian fantasy that there are heroes out there who are immune to human desires and weaknesses. And as we all know, the only people immune to being human are the Irish, and you certainly don't want them in charge.

  • ||

    "Waste no time with revolutions that do not remove the causes of your complaints but simply change the faces of those in charge." -Francesco Guicciardini

  • R C Dean||

    "But what if my complaint is that I'm not in charge?"

  • LynchPin1477||

    Ding ding ding.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    We have a winner!

  • AuH20||

    I think your mistake is believing that the revolution was about ideology. It was not. It was about TEAM.

    It's like that recent Nation article about illiberal liberalism. The author talks about how every so often, the left starts shitting on free speech and liberal values, and that the "cure" (electing right wing politicians) is worse than the disease.

    Basically, he admits that the left only remembers to advocate for free speech when it is sticking it to the right, but somehow thinks that a core piece of left-wing/liberal ideology is advocacy for and respect for free speech.

    It's about the content of the speech, not the idea that speech deserves protection.

  • ||

    I think when these movements start they're much more about ideology, but then morph into TEAM as the exact wrong people (of course) start to try and take power within the movement. The way that they inevitably do this is to go FULL TEAM, because that is an easy way of enforcing groupthink and getting the others to follow you because TEAM and not arguments.

    Any situation where there is power to be had, the wrong people will try and take it, and what we've seen--what Orwell saw--is that they tend to do it the same way every time. And we've seen countless examples of the result of that.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Bullshit. The vast majority of all political movements that take place in an absence of serious threat are about feeling morally superior to the common herd. This is as true of US as it is of the Left, and we should hard against it constantly.

    That said, the Left has controlled the terms and conditions of debate for so long that they have calcified into brittle inflexibility. They are unaccustomed to real opposition, and lash out in blind fury when they encounter it. Bunch of petulant little @ssholes, no morally better than the fading European Aristocracy during the Age of Reason.

  • TerryD||

    You are absolutely right about prick know it all radical progressives. I would even bet 100% believe what our duche bag believes

  • TerryD||

    You are absolutely right about prick know it all radical progressives. I would even bet 100% believe what our duche bag believes

  • Paul.||

    Young's letter-filled with to be sures about "the sanctity of free speech" and in-group signaling about how the Founding Fathers were "all white men of privilege"-was shockingly familiar to those of us with a certain amount of historical memory.

    Yet none of these progressive douchebags are concerned that our police act like an occupying force, tossing grenades into the faces of 19 month-old babies, and then vigorously defending these actions as "unfortunate" but necessary.

  • AuH20||

    The 13th amendment was ratified and voted on by white men of privilege. Perhaps we should ignore that as well.

  • TerryD||

    I bet you don't even know what the 13th amendment is about dumba-s.

  • TerryD||

    Progressives have no idea about their bullshit they spread. Someone told them and everyone on their reservation is as stupid as they are. That way they can sit around and tell each other how f-cking smart they are not but think they are. Bunch of a-swipes.

  • ||

    Ya know, somewhere in the world a tree is producing oxygen so that Miller-Young( Why is it always a hyphenated name with these stories?) can breath. She owes that tree an apology.

  • TerryD||

    She owes my p@ss an apology. I p@ssed on that tree.

  • Drake||

    Found this earlier today. It made me feel a little better.

    http://theprincetontory.com/se.....c-freedom/

  • GILMORE||

    "I will never forget the sight of the famously gruff liquor store owner...breaking down into some of the least convincing tears I have ever seen as he thanked the vandals for opening his eyes..."

    Goodthink better than Joycamp!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    He's a smart guy (software programmer) but is convinced (as many liberals are) that Capitalism is inferior to direct redistribution of wealth.

    A common error among people who do not have even the faintest understanding of how wealth is created.

    Like, you know, the Redistributor-in-Chief.

  • wareagle||

    I guess you could ask how many programming jobs are available in authoritarian nations.

  • TerryD||

    Progressives would rather appoint people to the high paying companies. But then there would be no high paying jobs. They would f@ck it up just like Barry is.

  • paranoid android||

    I'm reminded of Milton Friedman's old line about the leftists' chief problem with capitalism being that it gives people what they want, rather than what their self-appointed betters think they ought to want.

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, but if you prefer the forcible redistribution of wealth to capitalism, I can't really consider you a "smart" person.

    Clever, perhaps, in a limited technical field, but smart? No.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    You would think that computer programmers would be the least statist of all. It takes so much damn work just to get a fucking computer to work in sync without bugs, let alone more than one. God forbid you try to get 310M people to work as expected.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The antics of Professor AfroCunt are your tax dollars are work.

    #NothingLeftToCut

  • TerryD||

    If you saw this news clip of this little fat bitch running her mouth at this student just because the little fat bitch professor would rather f@ck abort and do again rather than learn how to say no. That would be to hard for the little fat mouthy c@nt.

  • AlgerHiss||

    I am laughing my sphincter off! The almighty leftist Mario Savio, that led the “Free Speech Movement” in the sixties, must be laughing his own dead, worthless arse off as well.

    Leftists have never… ever been in favor of “free speech”.

  • ||

    I've come to realize as I get older that indeed progressives don't defend liberty for all. Just for themselves. Without doubt the entire Reason community, for example, would VEHEMENTLY defend Tony's right to free speech, I don't believe he'd return the favor.

    Commie's are shithy that way.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    It all goes back to projection. These people (on both teams) have been taught since day 1 that the emotions they project on others is true empathy. Therefore, you get arguments on the religious right for theocracy because "I would want somebody to tell me if I'm sinning!" and arguments on the prog left for nanny statism because "it's better for {society, the environment, the poor, the children}"

    When you have true empathy, you respect people's decision making abilities, and give them free reign over their own life.

  • toolkien||

    Pete Townshend wrote a very good song about all this, and Moon had some awesome drumming on it too. Of course that was long before before Pete knuckled down on all that research he was doing...

  • Thomas O.||

    The one that ends with "same as the old boss"?

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    I thought Guion Bluford was the first Black astronaut. McNair was second.

    Or third, if you count the Cuban who flew on a Soviet mission before either of the Americans did.

  • Homple||

    Herewith a documentary on the subject:

    http://www.negrospaceprogram.com/

  • Gorilla tactics||

    "Miller-Young forcibly snatched the sign out of the smaller girl's hands, then handed it to her students and walked away triumphantly. "

    seems kinda bossy to me.

  • Michael Price||

    You used the B-Word!

  • TerryD||

    No that's being nice. If you had seen it live you would have said what a f@cking c@nt.

  • R C Dean||

    So was the prof who committed theft, assault, and I'm sure a few other crimes arrested, indicted, anything?

  • TerryD||

    In her little radical world? Are you the jay carney of California. If I was there and the girl that had the sign stolen and she was my daughter, I would have kicked the living f@ck out of the short fat mouthy c@nt. So stick up for the bitch. That makes you look real lawyer type.

  • R C Dean||

    The University of California, and American academia as a whole, is long overdue for a 21st century free speech movement bulldozer.

    At some point, the only way to fix a dysfunctional organization or system is to just bury it and start over. I'm pretty sure we're to that point with most of academia.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Bulldozers are far too indiscriminate. The various UC campuses doubtless house numerous culturally and historically important documents … which the Liberal Professorate are vigorously ignoring because they don't fit The Narrative. Still, a bulldozer would wreak havoc with them. What is needed is a board of regents with some real respect for scholarship and real contempt for people who pretend to be scholars but are, in fact, work shy bums.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    The left was never in favor of free speech-from it's inception it's always been a totalitarian movement-they styled themselves as "liberators" when they weren't in power. After the 60s they gained power and showed their true colors.

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    Voltaire

  • Brandybuck||

    The first mistake was the idea of Free Speech Zones. Even as a kid when they trotted this out on Berkeley I thought it was a stupid idea. It's not free speech if you have to go to a special spot to say it.

    Yet the Leftists rolled over and accepted this bone from the establishment. Now that the Sixties radicals are the establishment, they see nothing wrong with regulating controversial speech out of existence.

  • Sevo||

    "It's not free speech if you have to go to a special spot to say it."

    And having to apply for the use of the space makes the label even funnier yet.
    'Here's the space where we allow speech we've approved 2 weeks in advance!'

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    "a petition submitted by "UCSB Microaggressions""

    HUGE red flag right there. Anyone who keeps a journal of all the times other people were rude or dismissive toward them is one to be avoided.

    "offensive hate speech that had "triggered" her emotions and violated her "personal right to go to work and not be in harm."

    Again, anyone obsessed with Microagressions is going to be a person whose emotions are easily triggered, to the extent that they feel violated by seeing a 16YO kid holding a sign and rip it out of their hands in order to 'not be in harm'.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    It makes me wonder what happens to these people when the power goes out for a couple hours. Do they piss themselves and curl up in the fetal position? Do they cry in the corner cuddling a stuffed animal?

    How do people like this function normally when their tolerance for things anything less than perfect is zero?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    But they don't. Function normally, that is. They are conspicuous wastes of space and air.

  • TerryD||

    They piss themselves

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Their sensitivity reminds me of the slate/salon posters who insist that it is impossible for them to leave their home without being subjected to an unending series of catcalls, public gropings, and strange men agressively propositioning them. When the inevitable question "Are you wearing high heels and a mini skirt and hanging out on the street corner?" comes, you are guilty of the Macroagression of Blaming the Victim.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Funny, I work in construction and have never heard anyone cat calling, the only time I've ever seen public groping it was a black socialist work acquaintance who was doing it because he was brick faced and forgot he wasn't in Haiti, and if strange men are aggressively propositioning you maybe its time to buy a taser or some pepper spray and take a self defense class, even make yourself proficient with a firearm and buy a cute little derringer for your purse, or stop hanging out at bars where the bouncers allow it to happen and use the awesome power of the free market.
    but I'm sure most of the complaints are lies fed by disgustingly repulsive hildebeast supporters

  • ||

    Like I tell my wife whenever she tells me stories about parents at the governing board at my kid's school who always have a problem or some sort, seem to have drama follow them and know a bit too much (often usless) information for their own good: Stay the fuck away from people like that.

    They're trouble.

    Her close friend is like that. A drama a minute.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    If only they could keep the drama in their journal, and not make a public career out of insisting that the Government do something to protect them from the demons in their head.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Man, am I glad I graduated from college in 1980. Might have been close to the end times as far as actual "free exchange of ideas" goes.

  • Tony||

    The right could help things along by having thoughts and ideas that are worth a shit.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    LOL...you are proving the article true and you don't even know it.

  • ||

    Way to go, Tony. You never disappoint.

  • Michael Price||

    "Way to go, Tony. You always never disappoint."
    FTFY

  • TimothyZ||

    Well said. As a self-described conservative, (and I may be mistaken about thinking a conservative conserves that which is worth conserving) I would largely agree. Besides which I like your style. I like a good hater. ;)

  • TimothyZ||

    Well said. As a self-described conservative, (and I may be mistaken about thinking a conservative conserves that which is worth conserving) I would largely agree. Besides which I like your style. I like a good hater. ;)

  • VicRattlehead||

    which part of our current political spectrum is right? are you talking about the big statist republicrats? or big statist socialists? differing ever so slightly on the part of the constitution they want to destroy?
    why are you under an illusion that our country isn't run by a 1 party oligarchy that pretends to be different for the charade of an electoral process?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Why is that none of the usual cock sucking Prog posters show up on a thread like this? Are they embarrassed or do they think..."Well duh, what could possibly be wrong with limiting the speech of those with whom I disagree?"

  • Tony||

    I'm here. I find speech codes and any attempt by universities to stifle free thought repulsive.

    I also know that this issue relies entirely upon anecdote and really only matters to people who are pissed that their ideas aren't good enough to be paid that much attention to in academia. People who are just fine with free expression being completely nonexistent in the workplace, where people spend 10 times more of their life in than they do university.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    I also know that this issue relies entirely upon anecdote and really only matters to people who are pissed that their ideas aren't good enough to be paid that much attention to in academia. People who are just fine with free expression being completely nonexistent in the workplace, where people spend 10 times more of their life in than they do university.

    You know all this? How? What people? Name a few. I suppose I could talk about how free speech zones influence students which in turn influence the kinda crap the next generation will impose on their student. But it would be a waste of time. You clearly needed to throw out an empty disclaimer to get you off the hook then go on to say that it doesn't really matter for various unsubstantiated reasons. When, in fact, free speech zones are real, you can count them and their number is growing.

  • Tony||

    And I oppose them. I have no choice since I screamed bloody murder about it when Bush II started putting protesters in pens in an unprecedented manner. Campus free speech zones have been around since at least the 60s, and there's always going to be a tension between free speech and disruption of activities.

    So whatever, I applaud the attention you're paying. Universities remain the freest places in the world with respect to speech and thought, and the Left is really not our big problem right now.

  • Chumby||

    "Don't tase me, bro."

    John Kerry agrees that universities are one of the freest places for him to practice HIS free speech.

  • cw||

    Universities remain the freest places in the world with respect to speech and thought, and the Left is really not our big problem right now.

    You're a one-man comedy routine!

    *slaps knee*

  • GILMORE||

    "People who are just fine with free expression being completely nonexistent in the workplace"

    'The Workplace' PAYS YOU.

    Not that you think that far ahead.

  • Tony||

    From which follows there are no guaranteed freedoms in the workplace? Why is that, necessarily?

  • Lord at War||

    There is a guaranteed freedom- You are fucking free to leave anytime you want.

    Dumbass.

  • Tony||

    So are Bangladeshi sweatshop workers, in theory. One wonders why they put up with such conditions.

  • TimothyZ||

    Tony, Because they do not live in freedom, but a world in which there are no elections. wait a minute... Ok, let me try again: They are not free because they are not paid! pfff... Let me try again: They are not free because they voted for Obama!

    Okay, I give up.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Because it's better than the abject poverty brought about by your precious central planning? What did I win?

    Sweatshops are one step to accumulating the capital so you don't have to labor as much. The US went through the same phase about 150 years ago. China is going through it now. Real progress --not the unicorn prancing parties you seems to believe in--is a good thing and requires the one thing that the Left isn't willing to provide: work.

  • Harun||

    This is a simple question to answer.

    Because being a subsistence level farmer is worse than working in a sweatshop.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    They put up with such conditions because the alternatives are worse. Maybe the alternative is a bullet to the head. Far likelier the alternative is doing stoop labor in fields fertilized with human excrement for a place to sleep and half the gruel you can eat.

    Multiple studies of actual conditions during the "Industrial Revolution" show that, bad though working conditions in the factories were, the workers were eating roughly twice the calories their parents had enjoyed as peasants tied to the land. They were likelier to be somewhat literate. Their condition was an improvement on what had come before. Which isn't a defense of the conditions in the factories. They were horrid. But the fact that they were horrid did not and does not mean that they were not preferable to a life of pastoral squalor. And by concentrating the horrid in the factories and the slums, where it could trouble the well to do, reform became an important social goal.

    But don't deprive the people of their agency. If they seem to be making irrational choices, look into the alternatives they have, don't just theorize without data.

  • cw||

    You're right.

    Working in the average U.S. firm is just like working in a Bangladeshi sweatshop.

  • TerryD||

    That's right, so they ought to make you president just like the lowlife we have f@cking up everything he touches. And all the radicals run to the streets when he drives by screaming all hail the king.

  • Michael Price||

    Because thanks to a corrupt and powerful government the alternatives to such employment don't exist.

  • TimothyZ||

    You're a dumbass if you leave anytime you want. You have mouths to feed/want to keep out of prison. You have the liberty to do what you want by virtue of your national laws/if you can afford it or have the political influence to do so.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.30.14 @ 5:05PM|#
    "I'm here. I find speech codes and any attempt by universities to stifle free thought repulsive."

    Yep right after:
    "The right could help things along by having thoughts and ideas that are worth a shit."

    There are those whom you might think are hypocrites and then a Tony shows up and removes all doubt.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Tony-
    just so we are clear
    I will NEVER be fine with an adult organizing a hate mob to assault and batter a 16 yo girl. its disturbing that anyone could be fine with it under any pre-text short of the 16 yo girl is a notorious baby killer (which is ironic since that's exactly what she was protesting with her first amendment right)

  • TimothyZ||

    I am by no stretch of the imagination convinced that conservatives are a mite less ready to muzzle free speech where they have the will and ability. Given the opportunity and they will do exactly the same thing.

    Clearly the cultural problem is intellectual incest.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The cultural problem is that political activists are, for the most part, the kind of folks who simply cannot leave other folks be. This is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are so important, and why I view anybody who wants top abridge any parts thereof without following established procedure as a dangerous scofflaw. The problem with money in elections isn't that it is unregulated. The problem is that it is regulated to a fare thee well, to tilt the playing field. The problem isn't that guns are unregulated. The problem is that wealthy people who can afford to hire armed thugs want to keep them out of the hands of the poor, who might reasonably want to shoot their "betters".

  • TerryD||

    Timothy, just watch the so called news and you see radicals with hate in their free speech and you will get your political a-ses kicked for that to.

  • TerryD||

    Timothy, just watch the so called news and you see radicals with hate in their free speech and you will get your political a-ses kicked for that to.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "When the Left Turned Against Free Speech"

    Whenever and wherever they have the power to do it. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

  • Sevo||

    And we certainly are free of alt-text.

  • Chumby||

    The First Amendment area is between Canada and Mexico.

  • NerdIsTheWord||

    Next thing you know, femi-nazis will say they are being "visually" raped. "I did not give permission for that sign to enter my line of sight!"

  • nwcolorist2||

    It seems like we hear of some attack against free speech on our nations campuses on a regular basis these days. The elitist mentality there has become bizarre and dangerous.

    Academia is heading for a fall. It's just a matter of time.

  • thesafesurfer||

    I found the comments of Vice Chancellor Young troubling. The phrase "outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us...." reminded me of the response of white supremacists to civil rights workers from the North protesting segregation in the South.
    What a repulsive episode by supposed intellectuals.

  • Gmason||

    "Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known and seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force."
    Thomas Jefferson

  • VicRattlehead||

    so an adult assaulted and battered a 16yo and its "o.k." because the 16yo said something the adult disagreed with?
    why is the professor not in jail for assault and battery, endangering the welfare of a minor, and organizing a mob with malicious intent?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online