Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law
professor at UCLA, posted FIRE’s “victory” press release on his blog, The
Volokh Conspiracy, the day UCLA was forced to scuttle its unconstitutional attempt to rid the Internet
of ucla-weeding101.info. Professor
Volokh’s blog and the comments it drew provide useful material for
consideration here since his website likely attracts individuals who regard
themselves as well educated, if not career intellectuals. Volokh himself has little to say here on
UCLA’s threats against constitutionally protected speech, but before
considering his remarks, a close look at a few reader comments can allow a
better understanding of how these individuals viewed the material on this website.
Commentator
ArthurKirkland “believe[s] Mr. Wilde is entitled to rail against UCLA, by name”
and “also believe[s] he (1) was dismissed for poor grades rather than
‘dissenting views,’ because the only dissent apparent from his website concerns
the institutional decision to terminate his studies for inadequate grades
and/or (2) has assembled a strikingly poor website.” From this, Arthurkirkland also apparently believes UCLA when
its termination letter says I was dismissed for poor grades, but apparently
cannot believe UCLA’s grade record (showing an adequate GPA) placed next to
the termination letter. Therefore,
we’re left to conclude that one document is visible to him (and unquestionably
true, perhaps because it bears an administrator’s signature on UCLA letterhead)
and the document next to it is invisible.
There is no other way to explain how ArthurKirkland could write that he
believes I was terminated “for poor grades”— i.e., beliefs obscure facts in
his mind. And ArthurKirkland isn’t
one to give up his beliefs easily.
So when commentator Hannibal Lector responds to these beliefs by steering
him straight to the facts shown in the documents, Arthurkirkland nonetheless
ends his participation in the discussion by stating: “If Mr. Wilde has a point,
he fails to identify it.” In other
words, a document stating that UCLA terminated me for “a low grade point
average” placed next to a document showing an adequate grade point average
creates no discernible point in Arthurkirkland’s mind, which is understandable:
he’s displaying his beliefs here and is therefore unable to see facts that
interfere with his beliefs.
A Reply to
Hannibal Lector (RHL) comments that “it seems to me that UCLA had a perfectly good
reason for terminating his graduate student status” since “UCLA requires at
least a ‘B’ average in all courses taken in graduate status at the University,
and in all courses applied toward advanced degrees.” Though RHL obviously misread UCLA’s policy on GPAs (as
pointed out by another commentator), the comment indicates that s/he did not
bother to read the UCLA faculty members' statements on my termination. Therefore, perhaps it’s sufficient to
note that when it comes to dealing with the university, RHL
doesn’t feel the need to concern him/herself with these faculty members’
statements of fact before weighing in on the matter. Evidently then, some facts don’t matter to RHL, just as some facts don’t matter to the
university itself. Between RHL, no doubt an
educated person, and a university a very profitable coincidence it seems.
2cents, the last
commentator, offers what I think are the most revealing remarks on the
matter. In sincere prose, 2cents begins by stating that
“standing up” and “pointing out injustice” “do not always comport with reaching
your goals.” (From this thinking,
we’re to accept without reservation that a goal reached by sitting down after
injustice slaps us down is as laudable as any other goal one may wish to
achieve. I myself cannot think of
a better way to invite totalitarianism into being.) 2cents continues by telling me that although it may have
been the case that the university’s request following my termination “was
inappropriate and irrelevant” (see: Letter to Committee), I am to “remember,
you were asking them to re-instate you.”
Nowhere in this letter was I asking them to re-instate me; rather, I was
making the case from the facts at hand, using the university’s academic and
ethical principles, that the university had no grounds for terminating me as it
did in the first place. But 2cents
has already proclaimed the need to sit down and remain seated after injustice slaps us down. So
it follows that 2cents would misread my letter to the committee as my “asking” to
be re-instated, since this deference to unjust authority ‘comports’ with goals as
2cents defines and accepts them at the start. (By the time I wrote my letter to the committee, my advisor
and division head had already recommended, requested, and asked for my
reinstatement and a review of the termination decision “in a respectful manner” (2cents),
but to no avail; but because the Letter to the Committee is undated, 2cents couldn’t have known this chronology, and thus couldn’t have known
that requests made in a respectful manner by UCLA’s own faculty members did not
elicit the "positive response" 2cents surmises here.
Putting aside this advice on comportment and respect, 2cents “think[s] it comes down to a
balancing of what goal is most important to you: 1) making the point about
injustices or 2) getting back into school.”
“If the answer is number 2, I think you should
consider doing anything to placate them” [and] “if number 2 is your goal, then
you may not realize that you are likely going about this in the wrong
way.”
In other
words, in advising me that I “should consider doing anything to placate
them,” 2cents is telling me that what we’re dealing with here is an institution
operating on the same principle used to great and lasting effect by organized
crime: might makes right. Then
accepting 2cents’ view of the university, yes, I firmly agree that in order to
get back into UCLA I “should consider doing anything to placate
them,” and thereby come to the realization that by using facts and the
university’s own codified academic and ethical principles to get back in I am “likely going about this wrong way.”
In this advice 2cents is also acknowledging the accuracy of the
statement by Chomsky that I’ve used on this website: the university selects "for obedience and conformity."
Accordingly, there is one notable thing to be said for 2cents’ advice on
getting back into (and thereafter getting along in) the university: it works—since 2cents wouldn’t have offered it so sincerely
if it didn’t. But 2cents’ advice
works only as long as people have complete disregard for facts and academic
principles, and care only about their own goal of getting back into the good
graces of an institution with substantial ties to potentially lucrative employment (a goal
of dubious sorts, since it also undermines the stated mission of the university and
education as a whole).
2cents’ comments show a
profound misunderstanding of the stated aims and responsibilities of the public university. And UCLA’s own motto, “Let There Be
Light,” is reduced to grotesquely false advertising when “doing anything to
placate” the university is understood to be the proper way to enter the university. Our doing anything to placate the university in order to enter (or re-enter) it necessarily leads us to seriously doubt the value of our contributions both to and from this valuable public institution.
Finally, we should
note that even with so little to say here on the free speech he professes to champion,
Volokh himself displays markedly fettered speech in his comments on this case. For instance, take his blog’s title on this case: "UCLA Drops Demand That
Online Critic Stop Using “UCLA” in His Web Site." Holding regard for Volokh’s intellect and training, we would then reasonably question why he chose not to accurately
identify me as a terminated UCLA student in this title; after all, an accurate title, say, 'UCLA Drops Demand That Terminated Student Stop Using "UCLA" in His Web Site' is much more likely to raise interest and questions among not only UCLA students, but also among all university students. Interesting, too, that in Volokh's telling of this case,
it is only his “sense” “that the original demand [by UCLA] was mistaken.” With his legal background, why wouldn’t
he simply cite cases (as FIRE did in its letter to Chancellor Block) to observe that UCLA’s demands
are decidedly unconstitutional? Or
are we to suppose that in UCLA law school’s moot courts Volokh also instructs
his students to argue merely on their “sense” of a case?—hardly. Volokh ends by saying he’s “very
happy that [UCLA] has withdrawn its demand.” In so saying, Volokh might as well tell us (and his law
students) that he does not participate in the central operations of his
own distinguished university, where his
participation in university governance is his right as a UCLA faculty member (see UCLA Faculty Code of Conduct) and therefore crucial to strengthening academic freedom at the university. Volokh’s choosing not to exercise this
right at a time when UCLA is attempting to quash free speech rightly brings us
back to the quotes by Chomsky and Graeber, and demonstrates once again their
accuracy.
<< Previous | Page 19 |
Next >>