Harvard Officially Allows Protestors Ten Minutes to Disrupt Events

Elite University or Unruly Kindergarten?

From Kassy Akiva's X feed:

At Harvard for an event with Mosab Hassan Yousef [author of Son of Hamas].

The organizers were just forced to read a note from the Harvard administration stating that disrupters are allowed to make noise for 10 minutes before being removed.

Here's the full statement the students had to read to the audience:

"A quick note before we begin—Harvard University is committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea. Speech is privileged in the University community. There are obligations of civility and respect for others that underlie rational discourse. If any disruption occurs that prohibits speech the disrupters will be allowed for up to 10 minutes. A warning will be issued to all disturbers at the 5-minute mark explaining that the protesters are disrupting the event and ask them to stop. Any further disruption that prevents the audience from adequately hearing or seeing the speakers will lead to the removal of the disrupters from the venue."

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

"...will lead to the removal of the disrupters from the venue."

Is that ALL?!?

No suspension, no firing, no trespass notices, no arrests, no prosecution for what is a CRIMINAL offense in Massachusetts (See: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section40 or 272 MGL 40)

And after the first group of lovable darlings have their 10 minutes of fun, then the next group of lovable darlings can have their 10 minutes of fun, etc.

Heck, I think that I'll stumble over to Cambridge and disrupt some social justice group's event. I get 10 minutes to be a total jerk and all they'll do is to tell me to leave? I have to leave anyway, I don't live there....

[Dr. Ed 2]

One other thing: Mosab Hassan Yousef is a former Israeli spy.
I have no doubt that he has *armed* security with him, the man would be a fool not to — and what happens when his security team mistakes a lovable Team Hamas member for a potential assassin? Particularly after what happened to Salman Rushdie?

That’s essentially how Kent State happened.

And if you have multiple people with handguns shooting at a moving person in a crowded room, you’re not going to have just one fatality. No one is that good a shot under those circumstances…

This could get rather messy quite quickly….

[Dr. Ed 2]

One other thing: The academy used to be a venue where people with controversial -- often unpopular -- views could safely express them.

For example, Yale got a lot of grief when it invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak in 2007. (It was a different country then, they'd probably be praised today.)

I'm glad they did, and I was listening to it on the radio as I was shingling my roof. And I almost fell off, laughing, when he answered the question about homosexuals in Iran -- to the laughter also of the audience...

You want to quietly hold signs that say "We Think You Suck", fine. But there is a public good in viewpoints being known, and I like to think that the gays at Yale got a wakeup call in his response.

I couldn't believe he was that brazen -- I was expecting some lawyerly doublespeak obscured by English not always being directly translatable from Farsi. But he really said what he did, in English...

American gays shouldn't know that?!?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Well don't keep us in suspense! What did he say?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Essentially "we don't have any"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I remember that.

[Savagely Average]

I mean, they do execute them.

[neurodoc]

Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, not Yale.

[David Nieporent]

For example, Yale got a lot of grief when it invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak in 2007. (It was a different country then, they’d probably be praised today.)

It was, of course, not Yale that did this. Dr. Ed may not be quite the most malevolent MAGA poster here, but he's certainly the most incompetent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yale, Columbia, whatever.

The man said what I said he said, within what? 30 miles of there?

Distinction without a difference.

[Randal]

The Republican presidential candidate is threatening to shut down CBS because it aired an interview he didn't like with his competitor.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

To be fair, he’s only using the same standard the Ministry of Truth Czar wanted to use.

What I wish is they’d all shut each other down. They might actually begin to appreciate what a stupid position they've taken.

[Randal]

I don't remember the Ministry of Truth Czar threatening any broadcast licenses. That seems like what happens when the hecklers get power.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

They threatened social media companies with the equivalent. How many billion dollar fines have they paid now? There was a lot of that hecklers' veto going on.

[Randal]

How many billion dollar fines have they paid now?

Zero point zero. What are you even talking about? We don’t fine (or threaten) social media companies over their content decisions in this country! At least, the Democrats don’t. (And the Supreme Court agreed.)

But the Republicans sure seem to want to (see e.g. Texas and Florida).

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You can quibble all you want, but people who don't sit in a bubble know two things:

* Trump is a candidate with no power at the present, proposing something which would never pass muster in any court.

* The current administration, including the other candidate, who has stated she would do nothing different, spent 3½ years cajoling and threatening social media and Big Tech companies to actually delete real posts and cancel real accounts.

If you can't see the difference between a nothing burger proposal and actual real censorship over 3½ years, that's not my problem.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Oh, well then I guess those threats are OK
2. Do you know what a threat is? Find anything like what Trump said about CBS that a prominent Dem said. Cajoling, zounds!

When Trump says authoritarian stuff, it’s a nothingburger. When a partisan investigation of Twitter finds not much, the Dems are the real censors.

Amazing how all these supposedly antigovernment people become authoritarian apologists.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Trump's threat is a nothing burger because no court would allow it. That you choose to think Trump is so magically powerful that he can overrule this explains your TDS but does not make it real.

The last 3½ years of censorship and threats are real. That you choose to ignore it because your side was doing it does not make it invisible.

[Randal]

The last 3½ years of censorship and threats are real.

No, they were not real. Even the Supreme Court said so.

Look at yourself. Defending the anti-speech authoritarian because "the courts will protect us," while denigrating the side that the courts actually exonerated. That's supporting lawlessness, plain and simple.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you forgotten all the "election interference" and "Russian disinformation" nonsense from 2020? And all the things the Dem's and the government agencies were doing just a few years ago?

Do Democrats even have long term memories? Are they allowed to?

[David Nieporent]

If you can’t see the difference between a nothing burger proposal and actual real censorship over 3½ years, that’s not my problem.

No; your problem is that you're too stupid to tell the difference between a proposal to use the law to punish one's perceived political enemies and asking companies to take down material that they were free to ignore if they wanted.

[jb]

And not just theoretically free to ignore--they actually have said that they routinely did ignore the government's requests. With no negative consequences whatsoever!

[Krayt]

Not true. They threatened to change or delete section 230 if they didn’t censor harrassment to the satisfaction of the politicians. This would crush their business model, causing a large drop in stock price (and impact many retirement plans, so I guessed it wouldn’t actually happen.)

But it’s the thought that counts. The 2020 D debates even had a discussion unit on it, and so it cannot be memory holed. The Republicans even threatened the same thing, section 230, if the internet media companies actually did do what the Democrats threatened them with.

[Sarcastr0]

No matter how many times you claim this, it remains just something you made up because you want to believe.

It's not even a lie, it's a personal fable.

Your only proof is appeals to incredulity. And you ignore all the signs that social media companies are far from cowed by government requests.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Disinformation Czarina...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nina Jankowicz aka Mary Poppins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi3rhkPKoEE

Halfway through, they have her singing...

[Commenter_XY]

Blog mentioning hamas?

Randal is here to 'splain why it is all good. Another moth to a flame.

[Randal]

No, I think it’s a stupid policy. If they need an enforcement guideline for practical reasons, it should be more like 10 seconds. 10 minutes is an eternity.

I just happen to be the only one here standing up for free speech no matter which side is threatening it.

You’d think a libertarian-leaning blog with a soft spot for free speech would be interested in a presidential candidate threatening a media company for covering his political opponent. You’d be so, so wrong.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is that all the media company did? Just covered the opponent? Nothing else?

[Magister]

What do you think they did beyond that? Anything that could support a lawsuit in a judge-shopped venue?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well they edited her interview and took responses from different questions and spliced them together to show her making statements to answers she did not make.

In essence, fabricated the interview.

Is that election interference? Would it be election interference had they done the same thing but instead of making her look acceptable, made her look stupider than she is?

[Randal]

Is that election interference?

Are you retarded? “Election interference” isn’t actually a thing, silly. Freaking everything is election interference. A MAGA hat is election interference. Get the most basic of grips, if you don’t mind.

It’s like “collusion” all over again! Remember when that was Trump’s go-to meaningless accusation? Everyone was colluding everywhere all at once.

You know Trump’s feeling guilty about something if he accuses other people of it. Fake news, being disgusting, “you’re the puppet,” cognitive decline, the list is endless. He has a simple psyche really, in that it’s always about himself.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Russian collusion was a Trump thing? That was the 3rd word out of every Democrats mouth from 2016 - 2019

Are you retarded?

If ABC News edited a video of Kamala, splicing together answers from different questions and instead made her sound worse instead of better, would that be okay?

Or is that dangerous election misinformation that’s harmful to our Democracy?

[Randal]

Here's one example out of a million:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-claims-collusion-between-big-tech-democrats-backs-antitrust-fines-n1015726

If ABC News edited a video of Kamala, splicing together answers from different questions and instead made her sound worse instead of better, would that be okay?

Of course it would. People do that sort of thing all the time, what are you talking about? You're a real shitstain you know.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-claims-collusion-between-big-tech-democrats-backs-antitrust-fines-n1015726

That’s because it’s true. Big tech platforms definitely do favor one party and act on their favoritism. We also know from leaks that they coordinate with Democrats in government agencies all the time too. I love all of sudden you people are all sorts of okay with corporations interfering in our elections, especially after you people spent years hyperventilating over Citizens United.

>People do that sort of thing all the time, what are you talking about?

Mainstream news does do that all the time. That’s why Trump calls them Fake News. But since they’re on your team, you don’t really care.

>People do that sort of thing all the time, what are you talking about? You’re a real shitstain you know.

What did you people do when the NY Post published the Hunter Biden files? Were you all okay with it? Or were you onboard with the massive waves of Big Tech/Government/DNC coordinated censorship?

We know where you were, since you were posting here. You people are so fucking disgusting it’s sickening.

[Randal]

Hunter Biden’s laptop was all over the place! Facebook or Twitter, can’t remember which, self-censored for like an hour before reversing course. Good for them for being careful. But that was their own call, it wasn’t under threat.

Just like it would be CBS’s call to air disinformation. People — including government people — would obviously call them out for it, and it would hurt their reputation. That’s what’s supposed to happen when you have free speech. But the government can’t take (or threaten to take) any action against them.

Your guy is the bad guy here. He threatens social and other media all the time and you’re fine with it. So shuddup your a face.

[Randal]

Also, way to miss the point on the collusion thing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you okay with multi-national corporations influencing US elections?

What about multi-national corporations altering the products in deceptive ways to convey false impressions of candidates?

Are you okay with multi-national corporations working with candidate campaigns in unreported ways?

Is it kosher for multi-national corporations to work with government agencies in secret to manipulate voter’s behaviors?

Is okay for national networks, subsidiaries of multi-national corporations, to campaign and be activists for candidates without reporting it to the FEC?

Is it okay for foreign government’s to influence our elections by coordinating with our government agencies?

Is it okay for multi-national corporations to discriminate against citizens?

You seem to be okay with all these things. But it doesn't surprise me, since you're also okay with illegals voting, no verification ballots, no chain of custody, and vote counting in secret with no records too.

[Randal]

You seem very confused, to be coming at me from the left! Just trying to be contrarian at any price, I suppose.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Two groups proposed to exercise their free speech rights in a manner that was mutually inconsistent, so the administration offered a compromise whereby they each get to speak in turn. What's the issue?

[Randal]

If that's what it was, they could've just made that the policy. Like, the first 10 minutes of any speaking event must be reserved for protest speakers, or whatever.

But this isn't that. The policy is still no heckling, and this is just implementation guidance. Which is stupid on a number of levels, of which I'll name one: it doesn't clarify any privileges or responsibilities, rather it just invites more gamesmanship by introducing an additional layer of rules for enterprising provocateurs to test and manipulate.

[Martinned2]

No, because that would be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get that that's what American lawyers are trained to do, but the whole point here is to find a pragmatic solution for this one situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know that if the people disagreeing with the event sponsors wanted a chance to speak, they could sponsor their own event, right? They aren't there to speak, so much as to keep the other side from speaking. And the university has decided to let them be partially successful at that goal before beginning enforcement.

They get 10 minutes to personally disrupt the event, before the university itself takes over the disruption in the process of removing them. I wonder how much time the even sponsors are left with, after all that?

[Martinned2]

You know that if the people disagreeing with the event sponsors wanted a chance to speak, they could sponsor their own event, right?

They could, but that's not what they want to do. The starting principle is that everyone gets to speak how/when/where they please. The only problem is that in this case two groups want to speak in times/places/manners that are inconsistent.

[David Bernstein]

That's not the starting principal. The starting principal is that you reserve a room, pay for the speaker, organize the event, you get to control the event.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernstein — Note, that is not at all the rule the right-wingers here demand. They loathe the idea that they control the event. They even go to court to demand they not be held responsible to control the event. What the right-wingers want is for Harvard to control the event, be held legally liable to control it, and that Harvard's control extend to suppressing anti-right-wing speech at the event. Harvard has declined that last bit.

If counter-speech is by policy a routine part of such events, it is no longer even disruption. Harvard has hit on an interesting approach to handle controversy occasioned by outside speakers. Harvard should explore expanding that approach, and making it more flexibly responsive.

[Randal]

find a pragmatic solution for this one situation

You discovered one of the other levels of stupidity. So now each speaking event has to negotiate its own one-off set of rules of engagement with any protest groups and the University? That’s not gonna work for many of its own reasons. For example, when one protest group only gets five minutes of disruption and threatens to sue for viewpoint discrimination.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or when one protest group clones off multiple protest groups, and they all demand their own 10 minutes.

[Martinned2]

That's exactly why you don't want a one-size-fits-all rule, because you want to have the option of telling groups of groups to buzz off.

[Brett Bellmore]

The organizer getting to tell them to buzz off and reserve their own room IS a one size fits all rule.

[Martinned2]

You've discovered the problem with how Americans resolve disputes. Every issue gets litigated, where all questions get reduced to a yes/no dispute.

[Randal]

Not ever time the same issue comes up! Once, and then there's a precedent, which can be further generalized into a policy.

[Voize]

Harvard has a free speech policy. With regard to disruption it says

The length of time of the action -- in order for an action to be deemed a disruption, it must extend over an unreasonable period of time. Thus, the first condition for disruption is that the action is repeated or continuous, extending over an unacceptable period of time.

but doesn't define how long is an unreasonable time. It goes on to require a warning before expulsion, and that the warning may be directed at individuals, groups, or the entire audience.
This announcement seems to be in line with the policy, defining the unreasonable time as 5 minutes and that the warning will be issued to "all disturbers" (eliminating the imagined gaming scenarios where each group gets 10 minutes). They aren't making up policy on the spot, but they are providing fair warning to disrupters. I don't see that this is objectionable.
Some commenters would seem to prefer zero tolerance. The policy document explains why Harvard didn't adopt that rule, I think rightly because free speech principles require tolerating some dissent from the audience.

[David Nieporent]

They aren’t making up policy on the spot, but they are providing fair warning to disrupters. I don’t see that this is objectionable.

"No disruptions" is fair warning.

[Voize]

That is Harvard's published policy that they are enforcing.

But the policy also says only an action that is "repeated or continuous, extending over an unacceptable period of time" will be considered a disruption, so they couldn't eject anyone immediately for a single disturbance.

I think the policy is reasonable, though 5 minutes may be too long. But the comments here accusing the administration of making up one-off arbitrary rules are misplaced.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Free speech absolutist Nieporent supports suppression of counter-speech.

Funny thing is, Nieporent, you have been doing that all along, while preening as a libertarian, and attacking me as anti-speech. And all along I have been far more supportive of free speech than you have. Same with freedom of assembly, by the way.

Note, of course, that this time we discuss actual speech, instead of publishing, a distinction you apparently rely upon to inflect your own advocacy, while denying it is a real distinction.

You would do well to reflect whether axiomatic thinking is as useful a guide to systematic advocacy as you apparently suppose.

[Voize]

Stephen, that isn't fair. David isn't saying no counter-speech, he's saying no interfering with the speaker's speech.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not sure what the problem is. Two groups proposed to exercise their free speech rights in a manner that was mutually inconsistent, so the administration offered a compromise whereby they each get to speak in turn. What’s the issue?

Well, for one thing, there is no “free speech right” to disrupt someone else’s private assembly.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It would be appreciated if there was more context added.

Is this the first time Harvard has done this? If so, why? We can conclude the decision is misguided or sound. But, they crafted the statement with some planning. They had their reasons.

Did any other institution do anything like it?

There have been cases of heckling involving a variety of speeches over the years in various education facilities, involving various types of ideological messages.

Did these cases, including instances where the disruption ended in a short time, influence the decision here? Did the cases specifically involve past Harvard events?

Did the university consider this a one-off? Students reasonably would assume not. They would assume the “rules” here would apply to future events. Was Harvard asked for comment? It would be a good idea if someone did.

I realize the answers to these questions might not be known. But, they do come to mind.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Context? Someone reserved a room. Some other group gets to steal part of that reservation.

What more context do you want?

[JonFrum]

My idea - one taste of the riding crop for each minute disrupted. For a maximum of ten, of course.

[SimonP]

Yes - I, too, believe absolutely everything I see shitposted on Twitter.

[CJColucci]

It isn't the policy I'd enact if I were king, but I'm not and I don't expect anyone else to favor exactly what I happen to want. If enforced, I expect it will be good enough.

[Stephen Lathrop]

CJColucci — I don't think it will be good enough. I think the time for counter-speech needs to be regulated in accord with the length of the presentation, and opportunities for replies need to be stipulated at appropriate intervals. Or perhaps better, allocated in real time by a referee.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unsurprisingly, comments here seem mostly uninformed by the experience of campus free speech at the outset of the Viet Nam War era, circa 1964. At that time it was customary for even elite universities to restrict opportunities for public comment about the war to pro-war advocates—often public officials making the case for a war it was their job to prosecute.

By contrast, to afford campus resources to support anti-war advocacy was treated as politically scandalous, with legal suppression, or sometimes violent suppression, called for and provided. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement followed.

All that, of course, followed in the controversial recent tradition of civil rights protest, met with establishment suppression.

Today's advocacy on this thread feels like a reversion to that former more-restrictive era, with too many of the lessons forgotten. One signal lesson: there is always a fundamental risk that protections for university presentations will get allocated preferentially to the powerful, while less well-funded, less well-organized, and less-influential others get shouldered aside.

Perhaps it is because I remember that era first-hand that I read with a feeling of apprehension much of the commentary presented here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

True fact* - before the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, the most influential chapters of the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan were at Princeton, Harvard and Yale.

*No, not really.