As I ventured into the The Radical Reader, I couldn’t help but notice a common theme among the first two excerpts — the categorization of the university as a commoditized experience, or as The Port Huron Statement puts it, “a place where students learn to … get by, modestly but comfortably, in the big society beyond.” As a freshman living in UC Berkeley’s Clark Kerr Campus, named after the man whose legacy was literally turning the education process into a machine, the ideas expressed in these readings felt close to reality. It evoked questions: does UC Berkeley, as a university, force its students to, as The Port Huron Statement describes, “challenge their values and political orientations?” More importantly, who is ultimately at control of the student experience in a university — is it the students, or is it our administrators, our deans, etc.?
After having lived in Berkeley for the short period of half a semester, I am truly perturbed by that first question. Has the university sought to challenge my increasingly, and possibly university-influenced, liberal views? Now that I think about it, the only sort of opposition I have received towards my beliefs are the small stands that the Berkeley College Republicans set in Sproul, a small speck in the galaxy that is our university. Instead, here I have found individuals, organizations, and propaganda that is more than willing to corroborate and strengthen my views on Donald Trump and his actions, on conservatives, on health care — on issues that create our so called liberal bubble. Individually, UC Berkeley has failed to provide the debate and argument necessary to challenge the values and ideas that I held previously.
Of course, UC Berkeley’s image in the eyes of diehard conservatives is no less biased. They easily criticize Berkeley, its students, and its administrators. As conservative commentator Sean Hannity once said, “Colleges like Berkeley want to stifle free speech.” When both sides dismiss each other without so much as a second thought, intellectual commentary and debate is stifled by anger and hate. But I argue that it is our duty, as members of an intellectually diverse community, to begin to change these perceptions.
In a time where both Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos have both been invited to speak and then subsequently prevented by varying events, I say that we have failed. We should let those, who bear increasingly controversial opinions, explain themselves and then proceed to provide our arguments. Adults should behave as adults. While I have nothing against protesting, violent demonstrations do nothing but further the gap between the two aisles and increase intolerance on both sides. Although the protesters may have driven Milo away, they have allowed Berkeley to become a target for the ire of the right. They legitimize splitting statements, do nothing towards bettering our country, and prevent the all important discussion and debate that is necessary for real change.
However, it must be noted that I do not participate in the assorted array of political organizations on campus. To examine UC Berkeley’s effect on a broader scale, I would like to point to the words of an unnamed, much more politically-involved, Facebook friend. He/she writes in a Facebook post: “most of the political spaces on campus are, quite frankly, an embarrassment to Berkeley’s history of activism. They are filled with people acting to advance their own careers through social climbing and people there only to socialize.” Although only the opinions of one individual, these words are a stinging rebuke of the liberals, republicans, libertarians, socialists, and communists at Berkeley. Are students less concerned about the cause than about becoming a part of the corporate machine? Has our mockery of real political organizations turned into a swamp as well?
This discussion brings my thoughts to the next ideas — who shapes the climate of an university. Is it Dirks, who used public funds to hire PR firms to increase his reputation, or is the the students who “act to advance their own careers through social climbing?” Who has turned both the politics and the political organizations into swamps? Who is to blame for an astounding lack of real action, real discussion, and real debate? I would argue that it is both. Dirks, with his unsavory tactics, may have altered culture among administrators, but it is the students themselves who are at fault for not living up to their university’s storied history. We should take a stand and allow free speech at the university that began it all. We should not be afraid of the angry words of individuals; we should listen to their arguments and reply with rationality. However, at a university of our size, it is no surprise that UC Berkeley has individuals who play politics as a game, and not as an agent of change.
Although I have been educationally challenged at Berkeley, I do not feel intellectually challenged. But I have hope: This is the school that fostered Mario Savio, who at the heart of Clark Kerr’s mechanized revolution of the university, began expressing the power of students. This is the school that holds protests on the month. This is the school where students regularly block Sather gate in order to express their opinions. Although we may not welcome the other side of the political fence now, I have hope that UC Berkeley will become the heart of debate between both sides.
As a final note, it should be known that I believe that these issues are being targeted. Recently, the organization known as BridgeCal was founded in order to cross the gap between the left and right. By (although unsuccessfully) inviting controversial speakers such as Ann Coulter, they have begun to spur the discussion that I have pined for. Secondly, the administration is changing, with Carol Christ replacing Dirks. I can only hope for the best, and for an administration that is brave enough to withstand the challenges of a turbulent political environment.
