Table of Contents
UCLA Fears Protest, Shuts Down Immigration Debate
Last Tuesday, February 6, a UCLA student group called Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism, Capitalism (LOGIC) planned to sponsor a debate on immigration between Carl Braun, Executive Director of the , and Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the and advocate for open immigration. LOGIC鈥檚 goal was to host a true debate, with both speakers representing opposing points of view on immigration.
On Sunday, February 4, a group of UCLA students led by Students for a Democratic Society that they would protest the debate to 鈥渄emonstrat[e] against the Minutemen and the racist agenda they promote.鈥 LOGIC CEO Arthur Lechtholz-Zey reports in his that one protestor wrote on the website , 鈥渓et鈥檚 do what they did at Columbia and shut it down,鈥 referring to the students who turned a Minutemen appearance at Columbia University into a free-for-all last October.
With just two days to spare, UCLA reacted to the protestors鈥 threats by demanding that LOGIC pay for additional security guards鈥攁t a cost totaling $12,000-15,000. Lechtholz-Zey reports that university administrators told him that student organizations bear the cost of security for their events and for whatever proximately results from those events.
Because LOGIC was unable to pay for security to patrol the area outside the debate, its only option was to cancel the event.
Although UCLA has no clear policies delineating who pays for additional security for campus events, Director of Police Community Services Nancy Greenstein on Tuesday that 鈥渦niversity police provides each student group with 12 free hours of security per year.鈥 Mike Cohn of UCLA鈥檚 Center for Student Programming further told the Bruin, 鈥淭he protest is involved with their event. They have to ensure that their event is safe for everybody. If they choose to bring speakers that are controversial, then they have to be responsible for that. And that鈥檚 the standard for all campus organizations.鈥
The Ayn Rand Institute issued a last week condemning UCLA鈥檚 actions. Indeed, to say that students are responsible for whatever disruptive activity results from hosting a debate is to grant a heckler鈥檚 veto to the most disruptive members of the university community, since protestors wishing to shut down speech with which they disagree merely have to threaten to protest, and student groups not able to come up with thousands of dollars will be forced to cancel their events.
Cohn鈥檚 statement above, that LOGIC invited protest by holding a controversial event, is truly outrageous considering the fact that hosting debate between two experts with different opinions is about the most responsible and educational manner in which LOGIC could have brought attention to the immigration issue. If student groups are to be punished for hosting debates on important, timely issues, then the marketplace of ideas is surely doomed.
LOGIC is working on rescheduling the event, but UCLA has not yet made clear who will foot the bill for the extra security. 蜜桃直播 plans to pursue this issue until UCLA realizes that student groups are not accountable for protest or violence that occurs in reaction to responsible, reasonable, free expression.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from 蜜桃直播.
蜜桃直播 answers your questions
Podcast
Changes at the Pentagon, Charlie Kirk and cancel
culture, free speech and misinformation, globalized censorship,
Indiana University, how to support...
Texas runs afoul of the First Amendment with new limits on faculty course materials
The Texas Tech University System ordered its five member-universities to comb through faculty materials to root out any of the state鈥檚 disfavored viewpoints.
Free speech advocates rally to support 蜜桃直播鈥檚 defense of First Amendment protections for drag shows
Drag shows are inherently expressive and protected under the First Amendment.
蜜桃直播 statement on Trump demand for social media history of foreign tourists
Requiring temporary visitors here for a vacation or business to surrender five years of their social media to the U.S. will send the message that the American commitment to free speech is pretense, not practice.