By now, everyone knows that conservative speakers aren’t welcome at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout 2017, violent riots and contentious cancellations graced television screens across America every time a right-wing figure attempted to exercise their First Amendment right at the former epicenter of the Free Speech Movement.
But what hasn’t gotten so much coverage is how hard it is to get liberal figures to speak at UC Berkeley.
UC Berkeley is so politically-polarized, liberal speakers don’t want to risk the extensive controversy guaranteed by visiting the “Home of the Free Speech Movement.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., recently withdrew her offer to speak at UC Berkeley’s 2018 Spring Commencement ceremony only a few days before the event was slated to occur. Unable to secure a new, notable commencement speaker in such a short span of time, UC Berkeley instead substituted university Chancellor Carol Christ for Sen. Harris, even though Christ had already delivered the keynote address for the 2018 Winter Commencement.
But this begs the question: why would Harris, an aspirant for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, turn down an opportunity to put her stamp on the future elite of the Left and speak at the most liberal university in America, the forefront and breeding-ground of the self-styled “Resistance” to the Trump administration?
Harris was perhaps unwilling to risk any possible fallout for speaking on behalf of the university while its largest employee union protested for better wages. In any case, she turned the situation to her political advantage by explaining her withdrawal as proof that she stands in solidarity with the protesters.
This recent disappointment is in keeping with UC Berkeley’s troubled history with liberal speakers: prominent liberal atheists Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins were met with resistance from faculty and students when invited to speak on campus in 2014 and 2017, respectively. In both cases these celebrities of the Left were actively protested for their comments critical of third-wave feminism and radical Islam – the two sacred cows of the Leftist, intellectual elite.
To his credit, Mr. Maher refused to cave into pressure and delivered the keynote address for the 2014 Winter Commencement ceremony, making free expression a prominent theme of his speech. Mr. Dawkins was not so lucky. The Berkeley-based radio station which had initially invited him rescinded their invitation, denying the Berkeley students the opportunity of hearing the world-renowned scientist discuss his new book, which had nothing to do with either feminism or Islam.
What all three of these incidents show is that high-profile liberal speakers – not just conservatives – are generally unwilling to speak at UC Berkeley or simply unable to do so. Berkeley’s campus is controlled by the most radical elements of the Left who strive to shut down all dissenters, even those with whom they agree on most issues. One either has to endorse the most outlandish positions on race, sex, gender, and class, or face an unparalleled bevy of public attacks. This sort of conformist thought-control is what veterans and survivors of UC Berkeley call the “Berkeley bubble,” the strictly-enforced far-left orthodoxy that exists on campus.
Simply put, speaking at UC Berkeley is a minefield for any liberal politician or celebrity who wants to avoid controversy. It should come as no surprise that former President Barack Obama never spoke at UC Berkeley during his tenure as President of the United States – that honor went to UC Irvine in 2014, a campus that lacks UC Berkeley’s turbulent history of violence and protest. Obama still hasn’t spoken at UC Berkeley after he left office.
Until university administrators, faculty, and staff put their commitment to the ideal of free speech above their political concerns, they will continue to lose out on hearing from the prominent figures they agree with on most issues. Furthermore, they certainly won’t be hearing from anyone they radically disagree with (i.e. conservatives) anytime soon.
