// essays //
May 18, 2015
What's the Matter With California?
Bryan Schonfeld
About a decade ago, historian Thomas Frank explored why his formerly progressive home state of Kansas had been taken over by conservatives. In a best-selling book, Frank explored his state’s inexplicable shift from economic populism to cultural conservatism, asking, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” A similarly incomprehensible transformation has occurred at the University of California, but in the opposite ideological direction. One of the world’s most reputable systems of higher learning is losing its liberal values to leftist relativism, especially with regards to intolerance towards Jewish students and censorship of campus speech.
A viral New York Times article profiled UCLA sophomore Rachel Beyda, who was recent- ly nominated to join her school’s judicial board. During her confirmation hearing, a Student Council member asked, “Given that ... you’re a Jewish student, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?” This cynical take on identity politics was followed by a forty-minute debate in which several Student Council members acknowledged Beyda’s qualifications, but asserted that she could not be both Jewish and judicious. The Student Council initially voted against her appointment, before a faculty advisor explained that being Jewish was not a reasonable disqualification. The students eventually voted unanimously to approve Beyda’s nomination. After the ensuing campus and national controversy, four students apologized for their “remarks,” as if the issue was insensitive statements, rather than discriminatory voting. Three faculty members wrote an op-ed afterwards asking these students to “apologize again, this time not for saying something hurtful, but for doing something unjust.” No further apology was forthcoming, although the offending students did co-sponsor a resolution against anti-Semitism in March.
This unfortunate instance of anti-Semitic bigotry at UCLA was not an isolated incident in the UC system (in fairness to public universities, a similar incident occurred at Stanford a few weeks later). The over-the-top animosity of UC students towards the State of Israel exceeds that of any other major university system. Seven of ten UC student governments have enacted resolutions calling for divestment from the Jewish state. In February, the University of California Student Association went a step further, urging that the university boycott not only Israel, but also its ally, the United States. At UC Davis, a student senate representative declared on Facebook that “Hamas and Sharia Law have taken over” after a successful divestment vote. A swastika was found on a Jewish fraternity house the next day. Perhaps the most blatant vilification of the Jewish state occurred at Berkeley during an experiment conducted by journalist Ami Horowitz: when Horowitz stood on campus waving an ISIS flag, he received little censure, and even some encouragement. After switching to an Israeli flag, he suffered vicious opprobrium and condemnation.
Though Israel is a prime target of California leftists, the virus infecting the UC system is not anti-Semitism, or even anti-Zionism, but illiberalism. A great university system is succumbing to relativism in the name of inclusion, and discrimination in the name of justice. When UC-Berkeley professor Judith Butler calls Hamas, a fascistic terror organization that murders not only Israelis but its own people, a “progressive ... part of a global left” while longing for a bygone era of Jewish powerlessness, she adheres to the twin principles of relativism: to be weak is to be moral, and to be strong is to be evil. Even jihadist violence is justified in this framework: after the attack on a French kosher supermarket in January, BBC interviewer Tim Wilcox told a Jewish woman, “Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well ... you see people see it from all sides.” The dangers of such relativism taken to extremes were perhaps most evidently on display this spring, when a student government body at UC-Irvine passed a resolution warning, “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech.” The hateful object in question was the American flag, because flags “construct paradigms of conformity ... which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality and democracy.” Relativism in this case was directly responsible for outright censorship, showing that even basic patriotism was too morally strident for their intellectual appetites.
To restore liberal values at the University of California, students and administrators need not look further than their own history of free speech advocacy. Left-wing Jewish student activists, history shows, played a disproportionate role in the famous “Free Speech Movement” (FSM) protests of the 1960s. FSM student leaders, such as Jacqueline and Art Goldberg, Bettina Aptheker, and Steve Weissman, fought for their right to criticize American foreign policy and assert their (admittedly misguided) proto-Communist views. The activists ultimately succeeded in expanding free political discourse on campus, laying the groundwork for the Vietnam protests that would ultimately contribute to the national anti-war movement.
In a startling role reversal, today Berkeley’s administration seems to have a greater appreciation for unrestricted discourse than do its students. Fifty years ago, FSM leaders defended controversial Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce, who had been prosecuted for using obscene words in his stand-up. In stark contrast to their forebears, contemporary Berkeley students demanded the dis-invitation of politically incorrect comic Bill Maher from last fall’s commencement ceremony. The administration held firm, and ignored this petition. In his keynote address, Maher told students, “We are lucky to live in a country that has a First Amendment. ... Liberals should want to own it.” To Maher, it seemed as if Berkeley’s liberals had forgotten how to be liberal. Left-wing students were not pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior, but prudishly aiming to constraint a controversial comedian. Columbia students are no strangers to debates over the limits of campus comedy; both California and Columbia students would do well to channel the ethos of the ‘60s FSM by embracing the free expression of humor of all kinds.
Though relativism has become deeply engrained in Californian academic culture, the Berkeley administration’s recent stand for liberal values indicates that the situation is not completely hopeless. The UC system can still win the fight against censorship and thinly disguised anti-Semitism if California students heed the example of the student leaders of a previous generation. In doing so, they can also pay tribute to a long legacy of free speech and Jewish flourishing at the University of California.
A viral New York Times article profiled UCLA sophomore Rachel Beyda, who was recent- ly nominated to join her school’s judicial board. During her confirmation hearing, a Student Council member asked, “Given that ... you’re a Jewish student, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?” This cynical take on identity politics was followed by a forty-minute debate in which several Student Council members acknowledged Beyda’s qualifications, but asserted that she could not be both Jewish and judicious. The Student Council initially voted against her appointment, before a faculty advisor explained that being Jewish was not a reasonable disqualification. The students eventually voted unanimously to approve Beyda’s nomination. After the ensuing campus and national controversy, four students apologized for their “remarks,” as if the issue was insensitive statements, rather than discriminatory voting. Three faculty members wrote an op-ed afterwards asking these students to “apologize again, this time not for saying something hurtful, but for doing something unjust.” No further apology was forthcoming, although the offending students did co-sponsor a resolution against anti-Semitism in March.
This unfortunate instance of anti-Semitic bigotry at UCLA was not an isolated incident in the UC system (in fairness to public universities, a similar incident occurred at Stanford a few weeks later). The over-the-top animosity of UC students towards the State of Israel exceeds that of any other major university system. Seven of ten UC student governments have enacted resolutions calling for divestment from the Jewish state. In February, the University of California Student Association went a step further, urging that the university boycott not only Israel, but also its ally, the United States. At UC Davis, a student senate representative declared on Facebook that “Hamas and Sharia Law have taken over” after a successful divestment vote. A swastika was found on a Jewish fraternity house the next day. Perhaps the most blatant vilification of the Jewish state occurred at Berkeley during an experiment conducted by journalist Ami Horowitz: when Horowitz stood on campus waving an ISIS flag, he received little censure, and even some encouragement. After switching to an Israeli flag, he suffered vicious opprobrium and condemnation.
Though Israel is a prime target of California leftists, the virus infecting the UC system is not anti-Semitism, or even anti-Zionism, but illiberalism. A great university system is succumbing to relativism in the name of inclusion, and discrimination in the name of justice. When UC-Berkeley professor Judith Butler calls Hamas, a fascistic terror organization that murders not only Israelis but its own people, a “progressive ... part of a global left” while longing for a bygone era of Jewish powerlessness, she adheres to the twin principles of relativism: to be weak is to be moral, and to be strong is to be evil. Even jihadist violence is justified in this framework: after the attack on a French kosher supermarket in January, BBC interviewer Tim Wilcox told a Jewish woman, “Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well ... you see people see it from all sides.” The dangers of such relativism taken to extremes were perhaps most evidently on display this spring, when a student government body at UC-Irvine passed a resolution warning, “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech.” The hateful object in question was the American flag, because flags “construct paradigms of conformity ... which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality and democracy.” Relativism in this case was directly responsible for outright censorship, showing that even basic patriotism was too morally strident for their intellectual appetites.
To restore liberal values at the University of California, students and administrators need not look further than their own history of free speech advocacy. Left-wing Jewish student activists, history shows, played a disproportionate role in the famous “Free Speech Movement” (FSM) protests of the 1960s. FSM student leaders, such as Jacqueline and Art Goldberg, Bettina Aptheker, and Steve Weissman, fought for their right to criticize American foreign policy and assert their (admittedly misguided) proto-Communist views. The activists ultimately succeeded in expanding free political discourse on campus, laying the groundwork for the Vietnam protests that would ultimately contribute to the national anti-war movement.
In a startling role reversal, today Berkeley’s administration seems to have a greater appreciation for unrestricted discourse than do its students. Fifty years ago, FSM leaders defended controversial Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce, who had been prosecuted for using obscene words in his stand-up. In stark contrast to their forebears, contemporary Berkeley students demanded the dis-invitation of politically incorrect comic Bill Maher from last fall’s commencement ceremony. The administration held firm, and ignored this petition. In his keynote address, Maher told students, “We are lucky to live in a country that has a First Amendment. ... Liberals should want to own it.” To Maher, it seemed as if Berkeley’s liberals had forgotten how to be liberal. Left-wing students were not pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior, but prudishly aiming to constraint a controversial comedian. Columbia students are no strangers to debates over the limits of campus comedy; both California and Columbia students would do well to channel the ethos of the ‘60s FSM by embracing the free expression of humor of all kinds.
Though relativism has become deeply engrained in Californian academic culture, the Berkeley administration’s recent stand for liberal values indicates that the situation is not completely hopeless. The UC system can still win the fight against censorship and thinly disguised anti-Semitism if California students heed the example of the student leaders of a previous generation. In doing so, they can also pay tribute to a long legacy of free speech and Jewish flourishing at the University of California.
// BRYAN SCHONFELD is a Junior in Columbia College and a Contributing Editor for The Current. He can be reached at [email protected]. Photo courtesy of Steven McConnell/UC Berkeley.