or “The Triumph of Antinomianism”. Yesterday, students and others engaged in a riot at the University of California at Berkeley in protest of the scheduled appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos. Piles of trash and some building were set on fire. A few people were injured in fights. Barricades were used in an attempt at breaking down the doors of the venue. CBS San Francisco reports:
BERKELEY, Calif. (CBS SF/AP) — Protesters armed with bricks and fireworks mounted an assault on the building hosting a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos Wednesday night, forcing the event’s cancellation.
Several injuries have been reported and at least four banks have been vandalized after demonstrators marched away from the scene of a violent protest at the canceled speaking event by controversial far-right writer and speaker Yiannopoulos on the University of California at
Berkeley campus.UC Berkeley officials said the protest was infiltrated by vandals.
Yiannopoulos was making the last stop of a tour aimed at defying what he calls an epidemic of political correctness on college campuses.
Personally, I find Mr. Yiannopoulos obnoxious. Worse, he is a provocateur. He is clearly deliberately outrageous and offensive, something I categorically reject. Nonetheless as a child of the Enlightenment, I may disagree with everything he says, etc.
The events couldn’t help but remind me of other events that took place on the UC Berkeley campus more than 50 years ago. They made national news and I was a student at the time so the events held particular resonance for me.
In 1964-1965 student at the UC Berkeley and a few outsiders held peaceful demonstrations protesting the ban on political activity on campus, loyalty oaths for the faculty, and related issues. The protests came to be known as the “Free Speech Movement” and it was the seed from which the anti-war protests of the 1960s sprouted.
A few weeks ago leaders of that long ago protest wrote a letter in support of the Berkeley administration’s decision to allow Mr. Yiannopoulos to speak:
As veterans and historians of the Free Speech Movement, we are writing to comment on the forthcoming visit to Berkeley of Milo Yiannopoulos.
Yiannopoulos is a bigot who comes to campus spouting vitriol so as to attract attention to himself. His modus operandi is to bait students of color, transgender students and anyone to the left of Donald Trump in the hopes of sparking a speaking ban or physical altercation so he can pose as a free speech martyr. His campus events are one long publicity stunt designed to present himself as a kind of hip, far right, youth folk hero — sort of Hitler Youth with cool sunglasses. “Look at me, I’m so rad, the PC police won’t let me speak on campus.†That’s his whole shtick in a nutshell, along with bigotry.
Banning him just plays into his hands politically, which is one reason why we were glad to see the UC administration refuse to adopt such a ban. True to form, however, Yiannopoulos and his Berkeley College Republican sponsors nonetheless put on their phony free speech martyrdom routine when the administration asked them to pay for security needed to ensure that the incendiary bigotry of their event does not end in bloodshed.
Berkeley’s free speech tradition, won through struggle — suspension, arrest, fines, jail time — by Free Speech Movement activists is far more important than Yiannopoulos, and it is that tradition’s endurance that concerns us. “The content of speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the universityâ€: That’s what the pivotal Dec. 8 resolution says, as adopted by the Berkeley faculty’s Academic Senate when it finally backed the FSM’s free speech demand in 1964. Under the terms of that resolution, even the worst kind of bigot, including Yiannopoulos, must be allowed to speak on campus. So the UC administration was acting in accord with those principles when it refused to ban Yiannopoulos.
I wonder what they think of last night’s events? We may learn in due course.
I was reminded of something else by the events in Berkeley. Some scholars at the time wrote of the secular “antinomian personality”. The thrust of the argument that a combination of isolation, impotence, fear of the future resulted in a distinctive psychological state. The antinomian “treats his mind as if it were completely malleable, devalues reality, rejects reason and understanding, and selects certain experiences to create a fantasied, dogmatic cosmic view of the world.” (from Lawrence Chenoweth’s paper, “The Rhetoric of Hope and Despair: A study of the Jimi Hendrix Experience and the Jefferson Airplane.”) The influence of the antinomian personality seems to have reached full flower.
It is irritating that these idiots fall so foolishly into the trap set for them. What do they really hope to accomplish? It seems obvious to me that the best thing they could do would be to ignore him. I hope they throw a bunch of them into jail for a long time. Anyway, I agree with nearly everything in the part of the letter you have quoted here.
Caveat- If I were a student paying tuition there I would actually, if I had time, be organizing a protest against the administration there if they paid this guy to come talk. If he came for free, that is fine if it did not incur any costs for the school.
Steve
Proof positive that the brains of young people in their teens and 20s are still developing and maturing.
I was just about to type something very similar to Dave: Angry young people (mostly men) are not known for moderation or clear thought.
“Antinomianism” ???
A much more illuminating take on the subject can be found in Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
It’s what it was called at the time.
Dear Rioter#XXXX,
Thank you for your in-kind contribution to the GOP filibuster-proof senate majority 2018 campaign and the Re-elect Donald Trump for President 2020 campaign.
Unfortunately, your contribution is not tax-deductible, but it will be deducted from the funding of the cities and institutions where your contribution occurred. As a consolation, your contribution will be prominently mentioned in aforementioned campaigns.
Finally, if you would like to make further contributions, here is a list of times and places, etc etc.
Sincerely,
Dark Lord of the S
Anyone who would refer to Milo Yiannopoulos as a ‘bigot’ and a mere provocateur shares the major characteristics of the totalitarian left – a lack of a sense of humor and a violent intolerance of any views not in lockstep with theirs. Underline that word ‘violent.’
What Milo is doing is exactly what our universities used to do and still claim as their ‘mission’. He’s challenging preconceived notions with the idea of getting people to actually think for themselves. And his campy persona and use of mockery as well as his ability to present facts and ideas in an entertaining manner make him dangerous to the totalitarian Left. That’s why he has to be silenced, and this is not the first incident. At DePaul, for instance, #blacklivesmatter thugs stormed the stage an disrupted his event, with one of them taking a swing at Milo…while the campus police stood by and did NOTHING.
A word about those ‘security fees.’ Milo’s talk at Berserkley was arranged by the college Republicans there, and a permit was given. At the last minute, after it had already been scheduled, the University suddenly hit the college Republicans with a $6,500 ‘security fee’ that had to be paid or the event would have been cancelled. The students obviously didn’t have the cash, so this was a blatant attempt at selective censorship. An Alumni donor paid the fee,but of course the idea was that Milo Yiannopoulos was not going to get to speak no matter what, so the riot option was used.
Since when does an invited speaker at a university have to pay for his own security when the campus police are available?
I guarantee you that if someone from #blacklivesmatter or an Islamist was scheduled to speak at Berserkley, no such fee would have been levied. And what they had to say would have been far more provocative, bigoted and violence invoking than a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos.
The definition of “provocateur” is someone who deliberately provokes actions (frequently illegal actions) from others. That Mr. Yiannopoulos is a provocateur is obvious. Note that I didn’t say “mere provocateur”. I don’t know whether he’s a bigot. That’s from a quote, not something I wrote. Whether he is or is not is not actually material to my post. I quoted the letter to highlight the yawning chasm between the Berkeley students of 50 years ago and those of today.
I believe it’s immoral to offend others deliberately. It fits the Kantian definition of immoral action—treating persons as means rather than ends. I have an excellent sense of humor (my grandfather was a comic, for goodness sake) but I don’t find that funny.
Note that I think that silencing him is very wrong. Clearly, I concur with the last several paragraphs of your comment.
College campus, 50 years ago (1965), UCLA. I was a tech rep for Scientific Data Systems. A colleague and I were walking on campus. We had our SDS badges clipped to our jacket lapels. We walked pass a group of students and one said “Wow. I didn’t think they were THAT organized.”, mistaking the initials for Students for a Democratic Society.
Good one.
“Since when does an invited speaker at a university have to pay for his own security when the campus police are available?”
When he is not really there as a good faith speaker. The guys not there to exchange ideas or broaden minds. His role is to try to provoke people. Getting people to think for themselves? You win the internet today for funny, even if it was not on purpose. The school should not pay a penny for someone like him. If it were a serious speaker from the right, that would be different.
Steve
If the speaker get’s charged for security, just bring your own. I hear the Hell’s Angels have some experience.