This event generated overwhelming interest on campus, given the many programs focused on machine learning and AI. It could not have been more timely, and Dean could not be a better figure to facilitate substantive and civil discourse. It was organized by the Berkeley Forum, which is dedicated to intellectual exchange and free speech.
However, roughly twenty masked protesters entered the event with the intention of preventing others from hearing from Dean and discussing these issues. Soon after the event began, they reportedly disrupted it with megaphones and yelling. According to the Forum’s letter to university officials, “representatives from The Berkeley Forum, the College of Engineering, and Jelani Nelson, Chair of EECS, informed the protesters that they were not authorized to attend and asked them to leave. They refused.”
At that point, it should be a straightforward matter for campus security. In its student conduct directives, Berkeley repeatedly cites the First Amendment as binding and requires the university to allow opposing views. It is hardly an overwhelming statement of free speech values, but the university does state that “once a speaker has been invited by a student group, the campus is obligated and committed to acting reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.”
Nevertheless, protesters have repeatedly succeeded in canceling events, and it is rare for any conservative or libertarian speaker to be invited on campus for such events. On this occasion, the Berkeley Forum spoke with Berkeley campus police to remove fewer than two dozen protesters. Here is what they said they were told:
“Prior to their entry, a Berkeley Forum member had informed UCPD escorts on scene that this was a ticketed event and that the protesters were not registered attendees. UCPD and campus security responded that, due to “free speech,” there was nothing that could be done to prevent the protesters from entering the private event. When we asked officers to intervene and restore order, we were told they would not act unless the protest turned violent.
They made no request that protesters stop or leave, and no attempt to identify them. After over 10 minutes of back-and-forth, during which the audience vocally expressed its support for Dr. Dean’s talk to continue, we were forced to cancel the event due to safety concerns.”
The university’s reported position is legally untenable. The university clearly has the authority to remove disruptive individuals at events. These protesters were not exercising free speech. They were preventing the exercise of free speech. They are entirely protected in conducting protests outside of the events. What they cannot do is disrupt or cancel an event.
On a practical basis, it is equally absurd. They were unticketed trespassers with bullhorns. It effectively enables a heckler’s veto, telling protesters that, so long as they do not resort to violence against speakers or other students, they will not be removed. That leaves organizers subject to the will of the mob. The message from Berkeley is BYOB, Bring Your Own Bullhorn.
The situation is reminiscent of the recent disruption at UCLA law school, where students drowned out a speaker with profanity and cellphone ringers. The school took no action against the readily identifiable law students while threatening others not to reveal their names. (The school later rescinded that threat, but has not taken any action against the administrator who made the threat).
In “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about this passive-aggressive position of universities in shrugging off disruptive and obstructive conduct. Berkeley is fully aware that remaining passive, absent violent conduct, will fuel such disruptive protests.
The passivity of the Berkeley police is nothing new for conservatives, pro-life, and other advocates. From the University of North Carolina to UC Davis, police often stand by as mere onlookers, even in the face of property damage.
The university’s position here is clearly antithetical to the intellectual values that should govern such events. It is also legally incomprehensible, in my view. What is missing is not the authority to act, but the will to do so. The faculty and administrators of Berkeley have a choice to make: take a stand for intellectual diversity or yield, again, to orthodoxy and intolerance.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”