Bill Maher responds to the Berkeley fracas: “Who ever told you you only had to hear what doesn’t upset you?”

November 1, 2014 • 8:03 am

Bill Maher finally responded to the fracas about his invitation to give Berkeley’s commencement speech in December—an invitation that students voted to rescind after issuing it. The administration overruled the withdrawal, and Maher will speak. Here he affirms that he’ll be there:

Maher is, to me, an ideal graduation speaker: funny, entertaining, and smart—as well as controversial.  If you’ve watched a number of commencement speeches by “regular famous people,” you’ll see that they’re often boring and leaden, full of mundane advice like “Follow your dreama.” I’m absolutely sure Maher won’t say anything like that.

People have asked me what I’d do if a truly odious person were invited to speak, like Ann Coulter, Henry Kissinger,  or a white supremacist. That is in fact what happened when a right-wing Republican Congressman was asked to speak at my own college graduation. I went to the talk and listened, but protested in my own way, wearing a black armband and giving the “raised arm-clenched fist” salute when they asked me to stand up as class valedictorian (they prohibited me from giving the customary valedictorian’s talk). And we organized a counter-commencement with speaker Charles Evers, a civil rights leader.

So if Ann Coulter were invited to speak, I might protest, and I might not go, but I wouldn’t demand that her invitation be withdrawn. Once it’s issued, to my mind such an invitation is a fait accompli.  But not many colleges would invite someone that odious, much less an outspoken racist, so it’s a purely hypothetical question.

p.s. Two days ago the New York Times published an op-ed by Timothy Egan supporting Maher’s right to speak: “Don’t muzzle the clown: Berkeley students shouldn’t censor Bill Maher.”

h/t: Diana MacPherson

45 thoughts on “Bill Maher responds to the Berkeley fracas: “Who ever told you you only had to hear what doesn’t upset you?””

  2. I quite agree that Berkeley did the right thing here, but I am quite tired of people on all sides of seemingly every possible issue defining censorship as “denial of a privileged speaking position.” Maher would not have been censored had he not been invited to speak anymore than the roughly 7 billion people on Earth who are NOT Bill Maher are censored by inviting him. In much the same way, while I think disinviting Maher would have been asinine, for lack of a better term, it still would not be censorship. That’s enough of a petulant rant for this Saturday!

      1. Let’s say I invite you into my home; you start espousing politics exactly opposite mine, and in such a way that I take offense. I ask you to leave, and you do. As far as I’m concerned, you have not been censored.

        1. Your wife invites me into your home but you ask me to leave when I make comments you dislike but your wife wants to hear. Have I been censored?

        2. Not an accurate metaphor. It should be, you invite me into your home to chat with some others. You select me from other people you think might be interesting to talk to you and your other guests. However, your other guests have heard me speak about things they don’t like. Maybe they are all Catholics and they’ve heard me criticize the pope. They complain that they don’t want me to come to your house because they don’t like that I’ve said these things. You agree and pick someone else.

          In this domestic sense, you send me the message that I shouldn’t speak out like that or I won’t get invited to parties. I’m de facto silenced or pressured into silence.

          Now if you look at our situation with the school, the students don’t like what Maher says even though he isn’t going to talk about that subject at the graduation so they try to silence him from speaking about those things by ostracizing him. They would like to shame him into no longer speaking up and to forbid him access to their institution.

          1. The main problem is that not all students don’t want him to speak!

            Here in the UK most students are more concerned with their studies and don’t give a flying f**k about politics!

            Unfortunately, and I suspect that the situation at Berkeley (Berk being the operative syllable here) is similar. The “Activists” tend to dominate the NUS and demonize anyone who might speak out against their leftist agenda!

            This allows them to issue dishonest, broad brush, and undemocratic statements claiming to represent the views of all UK students ( In reality the views of themselves,and their cretinous fellow travellers.

    2. Oh, it’s not censorship; it’s censorship which is slightly different.

      A complex concept will have multiple degrees of interpretation; in different contexts, some interpretations will be more defensible than others. Gray areas thus entail discussion of these nuances.

      Please forgive this petulant rant; weekends bring out my bad side.

  3. “I went to the talk and listened, but protested in my own way, wearing a black armband and giving the “raised arm-clenched fist” salute when they asked me to stand up as class valedictorian (they prohibited me from giving the customary valedictorian’s talk).”

    Wow, Jerry! Impressive!

  5. Rula Jebreal’s rebuttal was bizarre to me. At one point she was comparing Maher’s view to that of the jihadists! I just didn’t understand what her point was.

    1. I didn’t understand the comparison either. Her primary point seemed to be about Maher blaming all Muslims for the actions of a minority – which I don’t believe he does.

      I also didn’t buy her claim that one can be openly gay or an apostate in countries where Islam is sponsored by the state or is the predominate religion.

      1. I found her rude, especially where she equated Maher to an anti-semite and when she asked her stupid question to Eva about the farmers simply to be able to say “oh they weren’t Mualim” implying Bill sees all bad people as Muslim. Very immature and rude in trying to bring the conversation back to what she wanted to talk about when it was Eva’s turn to talk about her issue.

        1. I agree. Jebreal’s farmer comment was one of the most childish things I’ve seen on Maher’s show in a long time. I was really embarrassed for her and felt bad for the other guests. In fact, her entire rant was embarrassing.

          1. I would have asked Jebreal what would happen if she was dropped off, dressed as she was on the show in Tehran, Karachi, Riyadh or any of numerous cities in the Islamic world and thereby prove Bill wrong. The key issue is that Muslims maintain that their religion cannot be criticized

  6. I don’t Agree with bill maher as I have faith in religion. However, I would always listen to hiS opinions as well As opposing opinions everyone is entitled to their opinion or belief. Tits always good to understand both sides of all issues–that’s why we have free will and the opportunity to express ourselves within the constitution and Declaration of Independence that makes our republic so great. Dr dan

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    1. I have faith in religion as well, faith that it will invariably find the worst solution for any particular social problem.

      I have faith that it is our species first and worst attempt to explain reality.

      I have faith that children indoctrinated in whatever the local dogmas are will usually grow up embracing those dogmas and will be impervious to the lack of evidence supporting those irrational beliefs and the mountain of evidence contradicting them.

      Oh wait, that’s not faith, that based on actual evidence and rational thinking.

      You know, after a while it gets very tedious responding to the same sophomoric platitudes bleated out by faith head children in adult bodies.

    2. Thank you. I’m glad to see support coming from people who disagree with Maher. So is Maher, who in the video expresses appreciation for similar sentiments expressed by Aslan.

      1. While I agree with you that it does the poster credit that they would allow Bill Maher to voice his views despite their disagreement with them, don’t you think that this should be the default position ?

        This should be the minimum level of acceptable behaviour for a responsible, adult member of a secular democracy.

        It’s like congratulating someone for not throwing trash onto the sidewalk or not running over pedestrians while driving their car.

        The fact that this sort of behaviour is so uncommon with the religious that it deserves special mention is in and of itself a damning condemnation of religion in general and specifically a rebuttal to the commonly held belief that adherence to religious dogma automatically imparts moral behaviour to the believer.

        1. Yes, it ought to be the default position. But if someone feels an obligation to mention that they will NOT throw trash on the sidewalk nor will they EVER run over a pedestrian while driving their car — not if they can help it they won’t — then I think it’s both polite and wise to say “thank you.”

  7. Please, if you have religion you don’t need to say you have faith in it. Kind of oxymoron.

    They could do much worse than Bill Maher, that is for sure. How about Ben Affleck.

      1. Has Affleck made any public statements about this issue since appearing on Maher’s show? I’m wondering what the reason for his silence is. He’s intelligent and probably following the issue now, even though he obviously wasn’t prior to the show. I’d like to know if his position has changed.

        1. I haven’t followed Affleck or his statements closely in the past (and could look him up on the internet, but won’t. I also wonder if he espoused, and publicly stated, these views before he was on Maher’s show. Maher has never been reticent about sharing his views and seems to be willing to have dialogues with all people. That’s as it should be.

  8. From Egan’s article:

    “You know things have gone full-circle crazy when the administrators, the original target of protesters in 1964, are telling the students to open their minds a bit.”

    Ah, but today’s administrators will be from the 60s and 70s student’s generation, won’t they?

        1. For some definitions of “student.” 😉

          I agree with your original statement, though. I’m amused when the current generations stereotype the Boomers as just your typical old conservative fuddy-duddies. (See Jerry’s valedictorian protest as a counterexample.)

  9. The last line was excellent: “My reputation isn’t on the line here, yours is.”

  11. Watched this last night and was very pleased with Maher’s commentary. I was hoping PCC would post it today. Thanks Diana for sending it. “I guess they don’t teach irony in college anymore” priceless!

  13. “Who ever told you you only had to hear what doesn’t upset you?”
    So much for trigger warnings.

  14. I don’t have much of a problem with Maher and certainly wouldn’t be protesting if I were at Berkeley, but here’s where I do have some sympathy for the protestors: Maher charges $50,000 for commencement speeches. That, to my mind, makes this more than just a free speech issue.

    If I knew that my institution was about to pay a substantial sum of money to someone who I consider odious (Dick Cheney, for instance), I would certainly protest that decision. Not because I don’t want the person to speak, but because I don’t want the person to profit from an institution that supposedly represents me.

    Now, I don’t believe Maher falls in this category, but I think it’s misguided to keep telling the students this is about freedom. If we want to convince them to accept Maher as a speaker, we should be focused on convincing them that Maher is not a bigot, rather than telling them that they should accept him on free speech grounds, regardless of whether they consider him a bigot.

    1. “…that supposedly represents me.”

      Somehow this phrase strikes me as odd. I’ve never thought of schools as “representing” students. The other way around at times, perhaps.

Comments are closed.