I
WHISKEY-INFUSED
COLD BREW
Starbucks’ leap into experimental coffee.
See page 5
inquirer Volume VII, No 5
Wednesday, Oct. 25 - Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2017
GATEKEEPERS of the First Amendment
A series of controversial speakers and complaints about censorship at UC Berkeley have brought the role of college administrators back into the spotlight. TREVOR CHEITLIN Production editor
I
n April, the administration of UC Berkeley came under fire for its response to a planned visit by conservative commentator Ann Coulter. It wasn’t an isolated incident: just two months earlier the university had cancelled an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Berkeley faced widespread backlash in both instances, with political figures and commentators both conservative and liberal, accusing the administration of stifling free speech and expression as protected by the First Amendment. These accusations against Berkeley speak to a larger debate that has been raging inside collegiate institutions for decades: the role of college administrations in establishing guidelines about student discourse, and their right in policing such guidelines. Diablo Valley College political science professor Scott MacDougall says that college administrations have a duty to weigh the exercise of students’ right to free expression against its societal impact. “The purpose of a school is learning,” MacDougall said. “It is possible that the exercise of your free speech might get in the way of the learning process, and if it does, then the school can restrain it.” The definition of an impaired learning process, and therefore the leniency with which administrations treat students’ free speech, has changed drastically over the last few decades.
UC Berkeley has been a battleground for Today, UC Berkeley is given a speech this debate since the mid-1960s, when the code rating of yellow by the non-profit Free Speech Movement led to the campus student rights organization Foundation for softening its strict regulations on on-campus Indvidual Rights in Education (FIRE). Yelpolitical discourse, and causing a fundamen- low, according to the organization, indicates tal shift in how political discourse was con- policies that “restrict a more limited amount ducted on campuses throughout the United of protected expression (compared to a red States. rating) or, by virtue of their vague wording, “The Free Speech Movement of the 1960s could too easily be used to restrict protected was crucial in advancing the speech rights of expression.” students across the country,” wrote Berkeley How far administrations are allowed to Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky in an edito- go in defining and restricting hate speech rial for the Daily Califoris the crux of the debate. nian. “It is possible that the As the National CoaliChemerinsky admits tion Against Censorship exercise of your free (NCAC) argues, “modthat the context has changed. “Now, students’ ern Supreme Court despeech might get in protests are about speakcisions (particularly Haers from off-campus, the way of the learning zelwood School District such as Ben Shapiro, v. Kuhlmeier and Bethel process.” Milo Yiannopoulos and School District v. Fraser) Ann Coulter,” he said. At have made it clear that ~SCOTT MACDOUGALL the heart of the issue, he the right to free speech Political science professor, DVC claims, is the ever-evolvand expression can someing definition of “hate speech.” times be subordinated to achieve legitimate Schools tried to combat these problems in educational goals.” the 1980s and 1990s with the adoption of According to the New York Times, Berkespeech codes – in-house regulations on ac- ley spent an estimated $600,000 on security ceptable speech designed to prevent discrim- for Mr. Shapiro’s controversial speech in Sepinatory harassment and violence. Many of tember. A similar figure was spent to secure these speech codes proved to be flawed upon the campus for Ann Coulter’s visit in April. execution, oftentimes overly vague. Their vagueness, in the eyes of some, gave college Continued on Page 2 administrations too much power to restrict student discourse.
Copyright © 2017 The Inquirer - www.dvcinquirer.com
Photo by TRISTAN HARWARD / CC-BY-SA 2.5