Currently, the Left is facing an internal disagreement: What do we do about Bill Maher, given his recent comments about Islam?
A group of Berkeley University students has supplied its answer:
The students at the University of California at Berkeley represent a diverse array of students from all walks of life. Every semester a commencement speaker is given the privilege of inspiring a class of talented and capable students. This year, UC Berkeley has chosen to invite Bill Maher to speak. Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for. In a time where climate is a priority for all on campus, we cannot invite an individual who himself perpetuates a dangerous learning environment. Bill Maher's public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive and his dangerous rhetoric has found its way into our campus communities. Too many students are marginalized by his remarks and if the University were to bring this individual as a commencement speaker they would not be supporting these historically marginalized communities. It is the responsibility of the University of California to protect all students and uphold a standard of civility. Sign this petition to boycott the decision to invite Bill Maher as a commencement speaker at the UC Berkeley Fall 2014 Commencement Ceremony.
I don't want the university to disinvite him over his recent statements about Islam. I understand how sensitive an area this is, and why they've made some people uncomfortable. I know of the disagreement we're facing on the Left about this is. I am prepared for the possibility that you might strongly disagree with this diary, and that this diary may elicit fierce criticism.
And if it does, then I could not have been more successful in writing it. I am probably more proud of my diaries that ignited a debate and encountered disagreement than with my diaries that received universal praise.
This diary will attempt to answer the following question:
In what circumstances should a party end its association(s) with another party due to the latter's controversial beliefs, statement or actions?
I have discussed this question before, in my diary "I Don't Want A Debate If The Other Side Is Disgusting." That diary was in defense of the pressure put on Australian politicians to not speak at a conference of the World Congress of Families in Melbourne. This diary will build on that one. I believe that it in consistent with the previous one.
The main idea from that diary that I think is relevant to this diary is the following statement:
A debate is a discussion about two or more opposing ideas that could be valid, in an attempt to determine which ideas are indeed valid.
Debates are not for extremism.
Now, I am going to elaborate on what I think "extremism" means. For the purposes of this diary, I am defining it as "conduct, such as beliefs, statements or actions, that is wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society". It can also mean conduct that occurs in a non-political context, such as committing serious crimes. To allow it to apply to a non-political context, I will also refer to "extremism" as "unacceptable conduct".
One point I made in the question that I posed was punishment for conduct. Here, I want to make a distinction between what I will call "punishment for conduct" and "limitation of conduct".
"Punishment for conduct" means "the inflicting of harm, suffering or similar negative experience against a party in retaliation for that party's real or perceived beliefs, actions or statements." "Limitation of conduct" means "efforts to prevent the spread of a party's real or perceived beliefs, actions or statements."
To articulate this distinction, I'll provide an example. Requesting that someone not give a speech to a certain group is a limitation against the group. It does not actually make it more difficult for the group to do what it wants to do. Recently, Australia's opposition leader, Bill Shorten, gave a speech to the Australian Christian Lobby, in spite of requests that he not due to its homophobia. (He actually challenged their views, which was good.) The requests that he not speak to them are a limitation, not a punishment, because they do not actually place a burden on the ability of the ACL to do certain actions. Limitation is justified in more circumstances than punishment is, but in this diary, I will talk only about punishment.
Requesting that a group not invite someone to give a speech is a punishment against the speaker. It places a burden on the speaker's ability to do what they want. This is what's happening in Maher's case. The students who want his speech cancelled want to limit his speech in retaliation for his statements about Islam. This poses absolutely no legal question about free speech, but it does pose the question of if we should completely cut ourselves off from every single entity in the world that causes us some level of offence.
In order to determine whether a challenge to a party for its conduct is a punishment or a limitation, ask this question: Does the challenge intend to harm the party as a deterrence to holding its challenged beliefs or engaging in its challenged conduct? If the answer is yes, the the challenger is punishing the party, not merely limiting the spread of its conduct.
I disapprove of punishment for merely holding a different opinion. I don't believe that political discourse should be reduced to nothing more than vendettas against anyone we ever disagree with. We disagree with everyone over something. However, punishment in retaliation for extremism or unacceptable conduct (according to my previous definition) is not merely justified, but morally positive.
To determine if a party should end its associations with a second controversial party, I have a two-prong test:
a) Is the end of the association in response to conduct, such as beliefs, statements or actions, that is wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society, and;
b) Does the second party, through its associations with the controversial party,
(i) aid and abet, either intentionally or unintentionally, the promotion of unacceptable conduct, or;
(ii) endorse, either intentionally or unintentionally, unacceptable conduct?
If both prongs are met, then I believe that the party should end its association with the controversial party. If either prong is met, then I believe that the party is is justified in ending its association, but is not morally obliged to. If neither prong is met, then I believe that they shouldn't end its associations merely over the challenged conduct. However, if there is another factor that compels them to do so, such as the association being perceived badly by others, then they can.
Having determined that a cancelation of Bill Maher's speech would be a punishment, we turn to the question of whether the association between Berkeley and Maher fits this test. We start at the first prong: are his comments about Islam wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society?
Let's look at them. This is from his New Rule on September 26:
If vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.
I disapprove of this statement. I agree that the Muslim world has problems attributable to its culture and religion, but saying it's like ISIS is a step too far, considering that Arab nations are contributing to the fight against it, and
the poll that found opposition to ISIS in the high 90 percent range for all the Middle Eastern countries surveyed.
The following are from his debate with Ben Affleck on October 3:
It's just a fact [that Islam is the mother load of bad ideas].
I agree with this. Liberals have no problems with criticizing religions such as conservative Christianity, and this is a good thing. Conservative Christianity is undoubtedly is the mother load of bad ideas. It has been responsible for the propagation of ideas such as homophobia, sexism, bigotry and hatred directed against Muslims and other religious minorities, and the imposition of Christian theocracy against everyone. But in some cases, Islam has motivated its followers to follow similar ideas. A 2007 poll found that 61% of British Muslims support the criminalization of homosexuality. A 2009 poll found that (literally) 100% of British Muslims believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable. And there's the well-known, oft-cited poll that found that 78% of British Muslims believe that the drawers of the Danish cartoons should be criminally prosecuted. I also believe that Islam provides a motivation to many of its followers to do good things, such as giving charity. But the existence of the bad ideas that it has motivated cannot be denied.
(To Affleck) A billion people [aren't fanatical], you say. All these billion people don't hold any of those pernicious beliefs? That's just not true, Ben. That's just not true.
I don't have the time or effort to investigate this literally, and calculate if a billion Muslims do hold pernicious beliefs. But Maher's overall point is correct. Pernicious beliefs, such as support for Sharia law, and killing apostates, are widespread in the Middle East. Of course not all Muslims believe them. But more than a fringe do. So I'm not troubled by Maher's statement there.
It's the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.
I'm concerned by this statement. I disapprove of the generalization that he makes. There is more than fringe support for killing people who insult Islam in some parts of the religion, but there is also support, particularly in the West, for not doing so. I believe that the 78% of British Muslims who want the Danish cartoonists prosecuted do not want to actually kill them. By making a general statement, Maher implied that moderate Muslims also believe that you should be killed for insulting Islam, which is problematic.
But the statements I've listed, while sometimes troubling, in my opinion, fall well short of being wholly incompatible with the operation of a just and civilized society. With that question resolved, I come to the conclusion that Berkeley University is not morally obliged to cancel its association with Maher.
But that's not the end of the question. We move onto the second prong: does Berkeley, through its association with Maher, aid and abet the promotion of, or endorse, his statements?
I first considered this question when I saw a debate between the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Greg Lukianoff, and Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR on MSNBC. The former opposed rescinding the invitation, and the latter supported it. Hooper gave this justification for his position:
Bill Maher is being honored with a keynote address at a commencement. That’s a tacit endorsement of his hate-filled views by the university. Our position is, if Bill Maher was invited by a student group, and wanted to spew his anti-Muslim hate, maybe we’d tell people to hand out literature — but we wouldn’t ask that he be cancelled.
He also stated that one would not invite a member of the Ku Kluk Klan.
To determine the first part of the second prong, aiding and abetting, I ask: Does Berkeley's association with Maher increase the propagation of his views? As far as I know, the answer is no. His commencement address, as far as I know, will have nothing to do with Islam, and as far as I know, he's not going to use his platform at Berkeley to continue to make similar statements.
We now move to the second part of the second prong: endorsement. To determine this prong, I ask this: What is the intent behind Berkeley's inviting of Maher? Did they invite him because of his statements about Islam? There's nothing to suggest this. He's a well-known and popular commentator, who would be a good pick for giving an inspiring speech to a group of students. So I don't believe that they are endorsing his views either.
With neither prong met, I conclude that Berkeley University should not end its association with Maher only for his speech. There may be other valid reasons to do so, such as preserving their image, but I don't believe the speech should be cancelled for no other reason than his comments about Islam, concerning as some of them may be.
So that's what I think. I'd love to hear what you think. Feel free to post anything, support or criticism, in the comments.