It used to be that the Left was the bastion of free speech in America—at least that’s the way I remember it from the turbulent times of the Sixties. It was the Left that, in the Fifties, opposed the censorship of McCarthy; it was the Left that fought UC Berkeley’s ban on political organization on campus, giving rise to the Free Speech Movement; it was the Left who created and supported the American Civil Liberties Union, dedicated to preserving Constitutional rights like free speech (even for Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois); and it was members of the Left who were beat up and even killed by publicly opposing the Vietnam War.
Things have changed. The Left, both on campus and elsewhere, is in fact becoming the repository of censorship: censorship of free speech on the grounds that it creates “unsafe spaces” that make people uncomfortable. This is the road to First Amendment Perdition, and I oppose it with every molecule of my aging body.
And nowhere is this tension more obvious than in a ludicrous resolution passed by the Associated Students at the University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) on March 5. According to Snopes.com, the resolution, which you can find here, banned the display of flags of any country in the lobby of the student government offices—on the grounds that they disrupt “cultural inclusiveness.” I reproduce it below. It’s poorly worded, full of bad grammar, but was passed by a vote of 6-4, with two students abstaining. Pay attention to the words in bold at bottom, which perfectly exemplify the doublethink of supposedly left-leaning students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of speech is a value that these students supposedly support, but only partly, for “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.” Right there you have the whole crazy rationale behind “safe spaces” and the Columbia University signs proclaiming such spaces in students’ rooms. The definition of a “safe space” is this: “a space where nobody will be presented with ideas that make them uncomfortable by challenging what they already believe.”
It’s deplorable. College is supposed to prepare you for the real world by providing you with a diverse group of people and ideas that challenge your worldview. If it’s a good college, it will be a place of intellectual ferment, giving you the yeast to raise your thoughts (and not your dough). If these UCI students had their way, there would be no intellectual give-and-take outside of class (or even in class), and the whole college would be a “safe space”.
Now I’m no big fan of flags: I’ve never flown one or even owned one, as I feel more part of a world community than a specifically American community. But I would never try to ban them, especially on the ludicrous grounds that they create an unsafe, non-inclusive, and psychologically debilitating climate. The whole resolution above reeks of postmodernism, and the sentence about free speech being equated with hate speech is the precise trope behind the growing censorship on American college campuses.
It’s ironic that this kind of nonsense is taking place at the University of California, a system once known for its liberal students. And fortunately, this ill-conceived resolution was nipped in the bud: two days after this was passed, the ASUCI’s executive board vetoed the decision.
Killers are hanged, flags are hung. That said it never ceases to amaze me how much power student councils are given, especially in America. Some things should be left for “grown ups” to decide.
Yes, that’s a hilarious error considering how few people used hanged for executions.
…surely flags are flown?
On a wall?
“Have the hags flung out.”–The Speverand Rooner.
Isn’t this an example of the system working? Small group of students comes up with wooly-headed nonsense. Wiser heads prevail. Wooly-headed nonsense is not enacted.
This is insane.
As for flags… I started flying a flag on my home a couple of decades ago. I had finally grown tired enough of the flag-waving of right wind politicians and decided to claim it back in my own small plot of liberal-land.
I fly two flags, actually. The second one is a rotating flag that changes with my whim. The pole has sported everything from the old flag of Newfoundland, to the flag of Uganda. It keeps my neighbors on their toes figuring out whose flag is on display at any particular time. (At the moment it is Germany. But maybe I’ll go out and change it to the Welsh dragon, not that I’m thinking of it.)
I have two rainbow flags, but the wife wants them in the garage…still, the upside is they never get weathered and the people can still see them when the garage is open.
I used to have a rainbow Peace flag from Italy. Peace in Italian is Pace. I got tired of explaining it to everyone who thought I was gay. and they failed to understand the Peace part of it anyway…’merca.
I live so far out in the boonies, it would be silly to display a flag as no one would ever see it except my wife and me and the UPS delivery person.
But if I were to fly a flag, I think it would be the Jolly Roger. Arrrgh!
I rotate flags as well, Traditional US, 21 star US, Chicago Bears, White Sox and Jolly Rodger. I’ve had a few others. I change it when the mood strikes.
No sport flags for me. But I am entertaining the idea of getting an FSM flag.
So, what’s the first flag?
(I like the second flag, btw).
The one that doesn’t change is the stars and stripes. Not because it is a magic cloth but simply because I refuse to allow conservatives to “own” it.
I put out the Welsh dragon yesterday. Later in the week I think I’ll put up the flag of Bohemia, which happens to be identical to the red/white flag of Poland. Or maybe I go with Switzerland or the Acadian flag (France, with a gold star on it). Lots to choose from.
Hmm, I’m not sure I follow the rationale unless there’s some other conspicuous indication that you’re not conservative.
Maybe the other flags help in that respect.
Re Welsh, I walked into the Welsh Dragon bar in Wellington inadvertently wearing an ‘Atiu’ T-shirt – a handsome green lizard on a red background – and being quite surprised at the welcome I got.
I think that political campaign signs go a long way toward clarifying any confusion a passer-by might suffer. And I’ve yet to see a conservative flying anything BUT Old Glory, unless it is a Marine flag (like the guy next door).
O-kay. Question answered 🙂
In contrast, at my University we have an outdoor array of flags that represent the home countries of all of our international students. There is even a periodic event where the flags are rotated. It’s quite a colorful display. Understandably, the U. S. and State flags are nearby in a fixed display.
I *can* see a problem if someone has a tiny 3×5 inch flag and someone else has a huge 3×5 foot flag.
Flag envy? It’s true you know – what you do with it is more important.
Yes, the penis mightier than the sword.
Bunting!
“Things have changed. The Left, both on campus and elsewhere, is in fact becoming the repository of censorship”
This is true but I think you are way behind the times. This has been the case for a long time now, alas. I remember anti-speech campaigns from the left in Canada as far back as 1974, and it has gotten worse since then.
It’s ironic to argue that you can burn a flag but not fly one.
Kudos to JAC for calling this out.
Curiously enough, in New Zealand (which is far less obsessed with its flag than USA) it is illegal to burn the (NZ) flag. I suspect the law (which is recent) was politically motivated after someone burned a flag at a protest.
Ironically, our current Prime Minister keeps advocating changing the flag, cynics suspect as a diversion from all the really nasty shit he’s been getting up to. This would suggest that the anti-burning-flag legislation was more aimed at ‘getting’ protestors than out of any reverence for the national flag.
So far as I know, only the NZ flag is protected, anyone else’s is okay. Which suggests to me that protestors should burn an Australian flag (which has six stars as opposed to our four) since in the rush of the event no-one will notice the difference but they’ll have a bulletproof defence in court.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
FREE SPEECH IS HATE SPEECH
By the way, is there anyone else who suspects that the two abstinents actually wanted to vote ‘nay’, but were afraid to be ostracised?
I wondered about that. The way this stupid resolution is worded, opposing it would make you seem like you were a right-wing extremist.
The education of these kids seems to have failed somewhere. They do not have a grasp of the principle of free speech, and appear to feel entitled to be protected from dissent, especially that of non-liberal voices.
You can’t win a debate without having the debate!
Why do they keep saying “whereas”?
Is this standard bureaucraspeak or something?
It’s standard to any type of resolution. Whereas is used to separate the section of the resolution or law that discusses the reasons for the measure from the actual resolution itself.
But I don’t think every Whereas should end in a full stop. A semicolon seems more apt.
It shouldn’t. A period is an error there; this level of ignorance shouldn’t surprise anyone.
I’m far less disturbed by the punctuation than by the principles they are articulating.
Another banner day for “student government.” This seems so obvious that it comes close to being a cliche, but did these students ever think that not all countries are equal, and that it is under the flag of the United States that they could even have a vote like this? Yes, not every person has the same experience of American ideals in action. The point is, though, that they are ideals. I would like them to try this in Iran, or China, or even Russia. Is nationalism a bad thing, if the nation represents individual liberty?
And was it really a case of banning the flags of “every country,” or just that of the US, where the students live and go to school, and where residents’ taxes go to support their adolescent posturing?
At a local swimming pool they used to have about twenty five or more international flags (really big wall display) and they took them down. The claim was that not everyone was being represented. This is the same logic for placing religious symbols in public places. If not all can be represented, then none should be represented. This is deep insecurity.
This post has hurt my feelings. Take it down at once or I will pout or stamp my foot or maybe both.
seconded.
It’s also written in English, which is a language that was used by imperialistic powers in the past. Only esperanto should be used in any publicly available text. But without exclamation marks, as they are kind of violent.
So what’s the next step, blue uniforms, same haircut, no tattoos or piercings?
Same here — though the Left would also include Communism and even in the 60’s there were those who doubted whether that really encouraged free speech.
Incidentally, I’m very pleased that we’re talking about problems with the Left as opposed to “liberals” — which always confused me, since it looked like a pro-conservative blanket condemnation of liberal ideas in general (which it wasn’t.) Clarity and accuracy for the win.
In the interest of being fair, I’m trying to think of examples of “safe spaces” which make sense within the framework of a university.
I can come up with a lot of private groups or clubs which form for a specific purpose which isn’t really open to challenge. A Star Trek fan club won’t want people coming in just to trash Star Trek. Or, more seriously, I can see where atheists might forbid proselytizers or Christians might forbid atheists from joining a group and coming to the meetings and arguing. I’m not sure I’d call this a “safe space” though.
For that I’d go to the most reasonable interpretation: psychological support groups containing people who have been addicted to something or traumatized in some way– raped, beaten, abused, or otherwise picked on — needing a ‘safe place’ where they can work through their pain, receive support, trade stories and tips, and maintain strict confidentiality. There’s a good reason they should insist on only positive criticism which has none of the “you asked for it” or “you’re just weak” insensitivity of uninformed cultural condemnation. Such bullying will only hurt their chances for improvement.
Okay. “Safe spaces” for the wounded. Reasonable.
But now we come back to the reality of the Student Union and whether or not they fly any national flags. “Safe space” language makes little to no sense here.
Left vs Liberals. As I’ve said many times, many liberals appear to have forgotten about liberal principles, just as the left has forgotten about the principles of free speech. My fellow liberals are in danger of becoming as dogmatic as any extremist.
Nazism makes me uncomfortable. The Holocaust makes me uncomfortable. Slavery, now and in the past, and the treatment of Native Americans, now and in the past, make me very uncomfortable.
The historic lot of “my” people, the Québécois, makes me uncomfortable – but so does the more and less violent and misguided efforts to change the situation. Also uncomfortable, an ugly strain of antisemitism among Québécois separatists.
There seem to have been a number of embarrassing incidents of clumsy public gaffes by people who really don’t seem to realize the meaning of what they are saying: I can’t remember them all, a tweet here and there, a UK shop offering discounts as “KKK” (Krispy Kreme Klub). I can’t help but wonder if this is the product of not learning uncomfortable truths.
This is where the “doomed to repeat them” addage about mistakes of history is invoked. This is where the “sticks and stones” saying is tested. Here’s what else makes me uncomfortable: the most vocal group calling out the misguided, censorial lefty youth is right-wing a-holes! Please, kids, do not make them my bedfellows! Do not want!
In a good fight I’ll take *anyone* as a “bedfellow”. It’s important not to decide issues based on which team you identify with.
I can acknowledge that, within a certain boundary: if a racist skinhead is an atheist, for example, I can’t deny there is a shared idea but I do not “like” the association. But you’re right, the association should not affect my lack of belief.
Why should ‘KKK’ have any significance whatever to a shop in the UK, where the Ku Klux Klan has never existed? It has NO meaning in a UK context (other than Krispy Kreme Klub. Obviously someone thought the repeated K’s were quite katchy. So, obviously, did the parents of Kim & Khloe Kardashian). I get a bit miffed at the unconscious cultural imperialism that assumes their social memes should rule in other peoples’ societies.
I don’t think social memes should rule in other people’s societies either, so if I’m guilty of unconscious cultural imperialism that’s something I should examine. I don’t doubt that the folks behind the doughnut KKK thought it was cute, but that’s kind of my point: they don’t know – but point taken, it’s perfectly understandable why that might be.
BTW it turns out the KKK campaign came from Krispy Kreme UK corporate, it was just from a shop in Hull’s Facebook page that the campaign came to light.
I was a little bit sharp there, for which I apologise. I do think that people can’t fairly be expected to know of things that don’t influence their world – there are just too many horror stories in cultures we’ve never heard of.
(As an aside, once a year in Rarotonga you can see the Rising Sun proudly flying – a sight that certainly startled me. This is the annual Pukapukan cricket match, where the expatriate Pukapukans in Raro play cricket between their three home villages, Yato, Ngake and Roto, who style themselves “USA”, “Japan” and “Belgium” for the occasion for some unknown reason. They have no idea that the Rising Sun could cause offence to anybody).
” ‘Safe space’ for the wounded.”
That’s a key phrase. To me, I think that this is precisely how many of those ideologues, like the ones who drafted this document at UCI, justify their actions. On a college campus, it’s a certainty that someone is going to come from an oppressed background – “oppressed” as defined by those drafting this type of resolution is of course a *very* loose term and it is usually the institution (here, an American college) that is seen as doing the oppressing. And those who are oppressed in some way, be they of a certain nationality, race, gender, religion, etc., are wounded in the sense you’ve described. Therefore, the need to convert the oppressive institutional space into a safe space.
Obviously, this line of thinking is severely flawed in several places and also extremely shallow. But I have seen it at work many times myself. I’ve had to work with people who push this type of ideological tripe every chance they get, and then pat themselves on the back for their “deep knowledge” and eye for oppression. It’s an ideology that comes with a feeling of superiority because you can use it to spite any established institution. And like all ideologies, it loathes critical analysis or rumination.
I would make a distinction between a workspace which was “safe” in that it discouraged racism, sexism, bullying, and harassment — which is reasonable enough — and one which too-quickly slaps demeaning labels on legitimate disagreements in order to dismiss them. It can be very hard to draw this line soimetimes.
But the student council wasn’t close. This should have taken place at some university which still flies the Confederate flag.
I would not call workplaces “safe” so much as focused on profit and obeying the law. If you’re a peacenik working for Lockheed or green working for BP, you’re just going to be kind of SOL when it comes to being forced to listen to opinions that upset you. Sexism etc. is not tolerated because its illegal to tolerate it and because it affects the bottom line (through hiring and retention), not because most companies are thinking about their employee’s feelings – and when it comes to other contentious opinions that are legal and won’t hurt business, corporations will be anything but ‘safe’.
“This should have taken place at some university which still flies the Confederate flag.”
Under the resolution as worded, that would in fact have been perfectly ‘legal’.
“no flag, of any nation” – I interpret that to mean ‘national flag’. And the Confederacy was never a nation (sorry, Texas. You Lost).
I’d say Communism is neutral on the topic of free speech. The totalitarian governments who drew inspiration from it were the ones who suppressed free speech.
In my opinion, this was dumb legislation, but not as far out there as many seem to think. First off, this legislation bans the American flag in one specific area—the main Associated Students lobby, not anywhere else. It was also vetoed at the executive council level and never took effect. Second, if there are people complaining about the flag (no matter how crazy that may seem), then it is being divisive. Atheists often make the same argument about local councils attempting to put up “In God We Trust” all over council chambers, it is divisive, not inclusive and does not represent all residents of a town. A cross as a decorative work can also be divisive, and even though a cross can be banned under the 1st Amendment, a common argument from atheists is that it is a symbol that they find offensive and carrying the burden of all of the terrible things done in the past and present. Atheists often say, either display all forms of thought equally, or none at all (which is what we often prefer).
It is possible for a flag to be found offensive—would a confederate flag be looked at as being inclusive? Some states do fly the confederate flag, which has been banned by others. A student in Arizona was banned from displaying the confederate flag on his truck after fights had broken out. The student argued that to him it meant freedom to fly the flag. Are you saying that a student at a school that openly displays the confederate flag and finds that offensive has no right to object? To some, say a Native American, the US flag may be offensive (and I would have a hard time arguing against that), is that any different?
Does the American flag deserve special place that is qualitatively different than any other flag or symbol? Atheists often argue that nothing is sacred and that everything is open for questioning. Is the American flag an exception? Many of the comments on this site about this story border on the side of “love it or leave it” sentiment that is much more common on the theist side. Are there some symbols that shouldn’t be displayed in a student government lobby? If so, who gets to decide and by what criteria?
“Are you saying a student at a school that openly displays the confederate flag and finds that offensive has no right to object?”
But they weren’t just objecting to flags, they were trying to ban them. It tends to be the case that whichever side of the political divide controls the dialogue will also demonstrate the most hostility towards the idea of free speech. Since today’s media, even the conservative media to an extent, is beholden to left-wing, liberal ideas, the left, or a depressingly large section of it anyway, will not find much use for free-speech. It’s the right, who feel persecuted and constrained by equality legislation and politically correct self-censorship, that are standing up for free-speech. It’s Breitbart, The Spectator and Spiked that are writing about the freedom to offend – they’ve got something to gain from it.
Now that the liberal-left(apologies for using those two terms almost interchangeably – I’m not entirely sure what the relevant distinction is today) are on top, and now that subversive, left-field ideas are more likely to come from the right simply by definition, a lot of liberals are perfectly comfortable junking the idea of true free-speech.
It’s depressing that one of the most fundamentally liberal ideas is now defended mainly by conservatives, who have no real interest in the basics of free speech beyond their utility in pushing back at anti-discrimination legislation and equality laws. The boot was on the other foot for centuries after all, and conservatives throughout history didn’t show the slightest interest in allowing their opponents room to express themselves – forgive me if I don’t trust right-wingers to lobby quite so hard for free-speech if the general discourse shifts back in their favour.
I hope the liberal left realise quite how important true, warts and all freedom of speech is for their continued existence, and that they stop seeing it as a tool that can be chucked in the bin once they don’t need it.
So it is all right having a cross or “In God We Trust” or the Ten Commandments displayed in any public space, or is it OK to ban those?
All those things are prohibited by the constitution(not that that seems to make much difference to the religious right). That’s the difference, surely.
That is a separate argument. If you argue that banning a flag depresses discussion and learning and should be against the purpose of higher education, then why is it ok to ban religious symbols? Most atheists use the 1st amendment protections against religious symbols as a good thing, but most comments on this story say banning anything is anti-liberal and should be discouraged. This is not a consistent argument. What is the philosophical distinction between banning one symbol that represents a particular view of the world (a cross for example) and not banning another symbol that represents a particular place in the world (a flag)? I understand there is a legal distinction in the Constitution, but if banning anything is against free speech, why aren’t the supposed liberals on this site proposing eliminating the first amendment religious “protections” on the grounds of greater discussion and liberal idealism?
Because secularism is far too important an ideal to junk simply because of a specious argument about flags. Why would anybody here advocate the jettisoning of one of the most important progressive ideas there’s ever been just to marginally open out the terrain of the discussion?
Also, the amendments are not banning citizens from doing anything. The distinction is that freedom of speech and religion applies to private citizens, not Government agencies. Yes, private citizens make up the Government, but it is not their speech when they are acting in their capacity as a Government worker. To have freedom of religion, Government must be explicitly nonreligious. We only have the whole of civilized human history as supporting evidence for this.
I am not sure what your argument here is: banning of a flag is against one of the “most fundamental liberal ideas” (free speech), but banning religious displays is “one of the most important progressive ideas there’s ever been.” This could be seen as contradictory, which is why I asked for how you were making the distinction. You seem to imply that secularism is more important than displaying a flag, so is your argument based on importance? To that I would argue that patriotism and nationalism rival religion as destructive forces throughout history. The reason this is a story is because it is an American flag being banned and that is not patriotic. I agree with the first amendment right and I believe the legislation from UCI is poorly conceived and poorly written, however, the over the top rhetoric of atheists who vociferously block any possible intrusion of religion into public life while arguing that blocking a display of patriotism is completely anti-liberal, anti-progressive, and “specious” intrigues me.
To the following comment that the amendments only apply to the government and not citizens, I agree, but this is a student government organization that is passing an ordinance governing how it will decorate the walls of its offices. An individual could still have a flag pin, for example. My question is if you support not allowing overt religious symbols to be displayed on the walls of representative government offices why is not allowing patriotic symbols such a problem?
No flags at all? I can understand banning foreign flags, but banning the stars and stripes as well? Such nonsense. The American Revolution has been an inspiration to many people who value democracy, separation of church and state and democracy. Even though the US hasn’t always lived up to its own standards, it still has the self-correcting mechanism in its DNA. These students should be proud of the country they’re living and studying in.
Quite right. Per a flag-flying commenter above, progressives should not cede the symbols of American idealism to the Tea Baggers and racists. The Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary, anti-imperialist manifesto. The promise of democratic self-determination is a radical idea being trampled and perverted by corporate influence.
Fly that flag, g*d**mit, and make it stand for what you know is right! And while you’re at it, kids, find a way of fighting against fascists that doesn’t involve behaving like, you know, fascists!
“Tea Baggers”
Homophobic smear. Shameful.
I’m sure you’re being facetious.
http://theweek.com/articles/494697/evolution-word-tea-bagger
And there’s nothing homophobic about it: all that’s required is a scrotum and a mouth, no gender or orientation is necessarily implied. As the reactionaries consistently espouse policies that suck balls, the handle is apt.
The reporting on this issue is kind of weak, focusing on the outrage over the students’ vote and not really explaining what triggered it – though as the text of the resolution suggests, it does seem the prominent display of the Stars & Stripes in the association lobby sparked the silliness.
I’m many more years down the road than are these students, and I still have fond memories of drawing other nations’ maps and flags in middle school social studies. I was once assigned the newly-flagged Zaire and, being as I was in the pre-Internet dark ages, I could find no images of the new flag, only a written description. My flag was quaintly and hilariously wrong/
Free speech does not mean banning a flag, it means displaying it and talking about it. Multiculturalism doesn’t mean flying no flag, it means flying all the flags. Why not have the flag-of-the-week on display and let the lovers and haters of it say their piece?
Apparently a number of faculty signed on to the no-flag resolution. Now THAT’S embarrassing.
I found this bit particularly interesting: “if a decorative item is in the Associate student lobby space and issues arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.” What’s a ‘considerable request,’ and who judges it to be so?
Its all so ‘cut off your nose to spite your face.’ Since any flag probably offends someone, no flags. Since any piece of art probably offends someone, no art. Well, how about this: since your form of student body government offends me….
Flags can be contentious, take northern Ireland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAvxqGnVO2w
Indeed they can, but displaying the Stars and Stripes in a US University? I think not.
I graduated around 197 and don’t recall students expounding freedom. One touchstone of the period:
National Lampoon did a stage show called “Lemmings” which satirized Woodstock. John Belushi was the stage announcer. At one point, he says, “From now on, this is a free concert. that doesn’t mean you can do anything you want. It means you have to do what you’re told.”
My opinion is that puritanism is a psychological trait rather than a theology or ideology. When theology is no longer relevant, Puritans find something else about other people that requires them to be controlled.
197 CE? Ah, you are old and wise indeed.
And my opinion is that Puritanism is primarily a theology or ideology which involves the idea that it is good or important to control and be controlled because that is how it presents the workable framework. I’d only approach it as a psychological trait first and foremost if an adherent (or all adherents) had been presented with a wide range of belief systems to choose from, had little to no background assumptions on what was or wasn’t true about God, and then deliberately selected a theology which involved high levels of control because that’s what they liked.
I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but I don’t think it’s the way to bet.
1970. No way to edit typos, and I usually post from a tablet.
I think people do select theologies and ideologies that suit their temperament.
When people are born into a family or culture that doesn’t suit their temperament, you get compatibilism and “No True Scotsmanism”.
Why else would people cry out — from many directions — that this or that abomination is not really Islam, or Catholicism, or socialism, or Republicanism or whateverism.
For those people living in cultures that allow young people to break from received politics and religion — they will find something compatible.
Sometimes. But as you point out, this is more likely if the emphasis on loyalty and faith is not that strong and there are role models for differences of opinion within the group which can go pretty far on doctrine. Otherwise, you get versions of being moderate like “we should treat slaves/sinners/the damned kindly.”
Which, depending on what the standard was, could still be pretty grim.
A lot of moral disputes don’t come down to who cares about being good (or kind or tolerant) and who doesn’t; they come down to arguments on facts. I respect the fundamentalist more (and am probably more accurate) when I think they’re mistaken than I do if I simply turn it into a character contest they’ve already lost.
And it works the other way around, too. When the atheist is seen as seeking truth rather than a way to be selfish then the religious have thrown out the faith-based approach to knowing God. I can’t promote that if I can’t grant them the same credit and standing.
My opinion is based on personal observation rather than on research. I tend to be a fuzzy thinker. My high school chemistry teacher — Prof. Snape — said I had a cluttered mind.
My brother is what I’d call a rigid thinker. In college he flitted from secular humanism to John Birchism to half a dozen other isms. Always with certainty.
I am certain of only one thing. There are no certainties.
We grew up in the same household. I see nothing in our upbring to account for he being a fundamentalist and I being a non-believer. He wants certainty and I want doubt. I have an appetite for doubt in all things.
Looking around — with the hindsight of 15 years arguing on the internet — I simply don’t see more than a handful of people that I can think of as soul-mates. People I think of a like me.
You’re onto something I think. Puritans and the will to power. Every ideological organization seems to go through a certain pattern, independent of the tenets of the organization. Interesting.
I can think of a political movement — that cannot be named — that in 1970 was considered “libertine” and which now has a distinct puritanical flavor.
I’m personalizing things, but from my perspective, all organized political activity is about telling other people what to do. Or not do.
I recognize the need for some compulsion in society, but I am constitutionally unable to participate.
Draken has already said it, but I’ll say it again. Orwell would love: “Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.”
FREEDOM = HATE
It’s disturbing that there EVER be an excuse for bad grammar in an ‘official’ statement. Maybe these students need to actually go to class.
Reminds me of the quote:
A hundred years ago we had Latin and Greek in high school, now we have remedial English in college
Have you seen what passes for debate in college? Youtube “2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s national championship” and despair.
I find nationalism fairly ridiculous and flag idolotary worse. But clubs for students of certain orgins (e.g., to find people who speak your first language) or whatnot can be very valuable. Using the flags of such places seems reasonable.
Agreed, most heartily.
This action by the Student Council reminds me of theology: one huge waste of precious time.
I was very happy to read the last sentence though. Perhaps now they can work on something more substantive.
As others have said, if the concern is that having only an American flag sends a message of uber-nationalism, then encourage or even mandate that the flags of other nations, ideals, and/or organizations join it. Though keep in mind that a pro-gay-rights flag now allows a Christian Nation flag, if it’s an open forum on any flag at all.
As it is the students are treating the American flag AS IF it were just like a Nazi flag or the Confederate flag, and it could not possibly stand — or come to stand — for anything better.
Free speech is not one of those issues that has left/right fault lines.
“Law and order” (including regulation of speech) has proponents on both the left and right, as does “free speech”.
Oh my shades and whiskers! You put in bold the worst bits, but there were so many others like “Whereas whenever public spaces are produced and managed by narrow interests, they are bound to become exclusive places”.
The irony abounds.
I do not know what the space is like. Did it have the U.S. flag and the flag of the state of California? Seems appropriate. Did international students feel oppressed by that? If so, then remember that the remedy for hate speech is more speech. The remedy for one or two flags is more flags. Hang all the nations’ flags. No reasonable person should feel left out that way.
Great highlight. Yeah that is laugh-out-loud ironic.
It is interesting what nonsense can produce with this resolution with the substitution of “flag(s)” with other cultural items and very little editing. “Uniforms”, “Haircuts”, “Pledge of Allegiance”, “architecture”, and “food”, to list a few, all go to showing how absurd the resolution is.
It bothers me that substituting “flag” with “religion” actually makes sense.
The standard of English in that statement is staggeringly poor. I mean it really is dreadfully, embarrassingly bad. The sentiments it represents are even worse. In response to a similar issue here in the UK Richard Dawkins said: “What do these priggishly officious offence-junkies think a university is FOR?” and I couldn’t agree with him more. Students can be such self-important little twonks, and this lot in particular need to grow up. I suggest the entire student council read 1984 – although they probably wouldn’t recognise the irony.
“Whereas it is a psychological effect for individuals to identify negative aspects of a space rather than positive ones.”
Whereas some people write new age bollocks! What is it, a Feng shui exercise?
Whereas it is expected that any student reaching university level should possess at least some modicum of capability in expressing himself/herself in grammatically correct language and…
Whereas any such student is also expected to exhibit some degree of rationality in framing and expressing his/her arguments and….
Whereas any such student also benefits from living in a country established on enlightened and tolerant principles – allowing even for the expression of ungrateful, anal, ungrammatical and irrational opinions as the said student may possess……
Let it be resolved that a symbol of these democratic freedoms, in particular the flag of the nation which provides them to the student, be exhibited in a place which is most guaranteed to piss off these silly, childish and ungrammatical idiots.
I would sneak in there at night and plaster the place with flags of all nations and organizations just to stick it to them.
Prescript
It being the case that,
i. Deeldale is a geographical location consisting of valleys and fells as defined by the Ordnance Survey
ii. Said region has a rich and proud history of cultural heritage
iii. That patrimony continues to this day, personified by the proliferation of literary scrivenors
And, in this purview,
i. Said literary excellence requires conscientious and careful cultivation
ii. Said genius demands the foundation of an association in perpetuity to foster
a) its interests
b) its literary affairs
c) its financial affairs
d) its legal affairs
Whereas we hold all of the above to be the case, we do hereby resolve the following.
CONSTITUTION
The name of this Association shall be, ‘The Deeldale Society Of Authors For The Promotion Of Literary Excellence’, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Wigwam’. Inasmuch as all of the items heretofore referred to above as ‘Prescript’ may be declared fundamental, incontrovertible, inalienable and doctrinal, no revision, amendment or correction may be introduced thereto, with the sole exception of para. 2, section ii., wherein additions may be deemed necessitous and supplemental, nevertheless, notwithstanding the possibility and future desirability of material alterations, that addendum to the above ‘Prescript To The Constitution’ shall be determined by no less than an eighty-one per cent vote of the members (see below, ‘Membership’, para. 4, section vii.) present in a one hundred per cent quorum (see below, ‘Meetings’, para. 5, section xiii.) of and at an Annual General Meeting (see below, ‘Meetings’, para. 2, section i.) .
x
When did being a liberal change from a rational, results driven, populist approach to public policy into a BS philosophical lifestyle choice?
I apparently didn’t get that e-mail, or maybe I was just absent that day.
Silliness aside, they have not so much “banned” flags as declared that they are not going to display any flags. The lobby is the front part of their office.
This resolution does not exactly have a global reach. However they implicitly are advocating that policy for everybody.
Doesn’t anybody realise how childish and outdated this obsessive whereasing sounds to any non-American?
Somebody should tell these guys how horribly hateful and exclusionary they’re being.
No Confedeerate flag? Scandalous!
I was a hardcore leftist until they started suppressing any speech they disagreed with. I lost faith in liberalism and became a libertarian. They may be heartless capitalists, but they are much more passionate about liberty than the liberals.
Thankfully, the proposed ban was quickly vetoed and never took effect.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uci-vote-to-ban-american-flag-others-misguided-20150307-story.html
I hate to sound like “that guy” in pointing out that there are so many more important issues than flags that these students could take up, but I really think they are missing the forest for the trees. Do they feel like they are “the good guys” by enacting these rulings? Do they feel they’ve made a big change in the world? My fear is they do and in the meantime the world continues on without them. Oppression of the truly disempowered continue, violations of freedom of speech continue, those in positions of power answer to no authority. But, hell, no one will be upset at looking at a flag.
Good thing that anti-flag resolution was vetoed. I was going to suggest that a gun be mounted on the wall that might have displayed flags. Underneath the gun, the following resolution would be displayed: “This is what happens when free speech is stifled. Remember Charlie Hebdo.”
I think they should have allowed for one exception–a white flag but only if it is flown in front of The Bill of Rights.
I can see the high bullshit quotient that prevails in the resolution.
I also note that it seems to be aimed at least partly at the US flag, and frankly the American obsession with displaying their flag on every possible occasion is often regarded with amusement or derision or downright loathing by furriners who are often aware of the bad consequences of excessive nationalism. (By many nations, not just the US).
Interestingly, the resolution itself only bans national flags. Whether the omission of ‘other’ flags was accidental, or someone pointed out the difficulty of telling a ‘flag’ from any other graphic design, I don’t know.
I can understand the free-speech argument and tend to sympathise with it. Here in NZ a while back the Onehunga RSA (Returned Services Association) got its knickers in a twist because the Italian cafe next door was flying an Italian flag (and they, of course, used to be the Enemy). I hope the RSA lost, narrow-minded bunch. Curiously, the one time I visited the RSA, the big video screen in their bar was showing Not Ready to Make Nice, followed by Village People – not, one would have thought, the RSA’s approved tastes at all.
But my devil’s-advocate streak says, what if some Asian student quite innocently wanted to display his good-luck symbol – the cross with four crooked arms widespread in Asian culture and one with no bad connotations (in his culture) at all – what would ‘we’ do? Come to that, what if some misguided student wanted to display an ISIS flag? What would ‘we’ do?
(I note that both those, not being national flags, would both escape the resolution, but I’m sure that was an oversight).
Today we will make the university library and classrooms a “safe space” for all students.
Step 1: Remove all the books from the shelves.
Step 2: Throw them out of the windows into a pile in the courtyard.
Step 3: Burn all the books.
Step 4: Report anyone you see reading a book.
Step 5: When in class say nothing in case you offend anyone.
Step 6: Rejoice! From now on the tyranny of evidence is over. All opinions are equally valid, there are no more facts and everyone feels comfortable in their own safe space.
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that religion is on the decline while this sort of stuff is on the rise.