http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Yiannopoulos-visits-Sproul-for-15-minutes-UC-12225043.php http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/23/uc-berkeley-free-speech-week-officially-canceled/
UC Berkeley was supposed to have a “Free Speech Week” organized by a conservative group on campus called “Berkeley Patriot,” and controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, and was supposed to feature Yiannopoulos and other speakers like Steve Bannon. There was a lot of confusion leading up to the event between the student group, the UC Berkeley administration, and Milo Yiannopoulos. The student group didn’t turn in the necessary paperwork to the school administration to allow the event to take place, but Yiannopoulos vowed that he would go through with the event. Despite it not being an official event, UC Berkeley prepared for the Free Speech Week by spending $800,000 on increasing the security and police on campus, blowing through their annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000, and using $300,000 from the UC system. Yiannopoulos advertised a list of speakers that would appear, but not all of them confirmed that they would appear, and some said they never had any intention of appearing. In the end, the event was cancelled, and Yiannopoulos was the only one to show. He was outside Sproul Hall for 15 minutes and he prayed, took selfies, and signed autographs.
UC Berkeley had to spend a lot of money to protect an unofficial event that was cancelled at the last minute. This has raised questions like if a small student group should have the power to organize a four day event in the first place, if UC Berkeley should expand their “demonstration fund” budget, what steps should be taken to accommodate speakers, and how reasonable those steps are.
3 comments:
While free speech and First Amendment rights are certainly important for UC Berkeley to uphold, I think the money they're spending on security for events like this "Free Speech Week" would be far more useful elsewhere. The fact that this event was cancelled and the money was essentially wasted just makes this choice of funding seem worse. The LA Times article mentioned that many Berkeley students are still financially struggling with things like housing and food, as well as the shortage of classes available, so I think these funds would be best used to tackle these basic issues and support the school's education system. For me, these issues should take priority over events organized by small student groups. Berkeley should just have a set budget to cap the money spent on events like these.
The student group that is putting on these events is not actually concerned about increasing the market for free speech. For them, it's all about proving that they're right. They invite controversial figures to the campus, knowing it will lead to huge pushback, making the other side look like they oppose free speech. And while I find the tactic to be childish and unhelpful, I think it is ultimately the fault of the demonstrators for being so easily goaded.
I agree with Emma's concerns about campus funding. Essentially, a small group held an outrageously expensive event that really failed to benefit the campus, students, or staff. With the Berkeley housing crisis that Emma mentioned and the organizers' lack of objective purpose Michael mentions, I think the event needs to have evidence of contributing significant value to the campus discussions rather than resulting in a security risk. Had the event been better organized, had the event operated on a smaller budget, and had the speakers contributed anything to the political discussion in the same way they were advertising, I might be able to see a justification for the event budget.
Post a Comment