February 15, 2008
Posted by yaman
The cowardice of the Daily Cal and the Daily Clog
One of the absurdest ideas that has arisen regarding the Berkeley City Council’s now-abandoned resolution telling military recruiters they were not welcome in the town, is the idea that “freedom of speech” for military recruiters was at stake. The internalization and reproduction of this idea by many people who supposedly are on the left, cautiously dissenting–in their heads, without action–against the American occupation of Iraq has also been startling. The Daily Californian and The Daily Clog are no exception.
No official paid representative of the American government has a right to say whatever he or she wants to say in an official capacity (this is different from their free ability to share their opinions, and to lie, unofficially). And certainly nobody should agree that representatives of the American government are allowed to lie, deceive, or trick citizens without consequence, especially minors. This is one of the allegations that has been raised against military recruiters, who are situated near Berkeley High School–that they exaggerate the benefits to students of joining the military.
The idea that the government has a “right” to say whatever it wants is not only a strange and harmful inversion of the spirit of freedom of speech, but one that serves to mask the power dynamic between the government and between dissent, to the benefit, of course, of the government. Freedom of speech is worthless if it means the freedom of the government to say and claim things without consequence, wherever it wants, and whenever it wants. It is also meaningless if it’s stripped of its intent, to protect citizens from the government, not vice versa. The government has everything to lose and everything to gain from incidents like these, so it is not surprising that it would claim a non-existent right.
The fact that much of the commentary, especially from student journalists, has come on the side of the government against Berkeley citizens with this same logic is especially disturbing. One writer for the Daily Clog, for example, called the activists supporting the Berkeley City Council resolution “the new fascism.” The same author later described the protesters as “rally kids and crazies,” and those speaking in support of the earlier resolution as “bitching nonstop.” How a group of citizens banding together against the government, with no power whatsoever, can be “the new fascism” escapes me. If there is anything “new” about this “fascism,” it is that a group of 50 citizens, unaffiliated with any government apparatus, is doing it. Surely this has little resemblance to Mussolini’s project.
But what bothers me the most is the casual, dismissive, and belittling attitude that commentators at the Daily Clog always take liberties in exercising. Maybe they think that they are coolly objective and critical, and smartly independent. But I wonder, would any of these writers ever dare to use the same words or attitudes to describe Chancellor Birgeneau? Or would that be crossing the line? Instead, their criticism is channeled towards easy, harmless targets, like other students or local activists, and it reeks of an egoistic “I’m not like the rest of them” attitude. All the posters at the Daily Clog who comment on political issues are sorely lacking the courage to take a stand in relation to somebody more powerful than they are. What they write rarely even serves the function of criticism, but rather the function of feeling and appearing independent and critical with no practical utility whatsoever.
The Daily Cal also had its head on backwards, calling the City Council resolution a “ridiculous display of hypocrisy,” adding that “the dispute is with the Bush administration’s military policies–not with offices making a pitch for the armed services.” As if Bush’s military policies don’t depend on dozens of other things, these recruitment centers being one of them! Does the Daily Cal imagine that the confrontation with Bush’s military policies can take place merely in newspapers and at the ballot box?
Even more humorously, The Daily Cal published a series of comical letters showing that “business” was being hurt by the event. One person wrote that sadly “the concerns of the business community have been ignored.” The poor business community! Maybe one day we will see Halliburton raising its ignored little voice, “what about me!” when the occupation of Iraq is beginning to come to a close–if we ever make it happen. Will the Daily Cal report on the negligence of Halliburton’s interest’s then?
It’s no coincidence that every single imaginable act of dissent against the war, among other things, will probably draw the inane “criticism” of The Daily Cal or the Clog in the future, until folks with backbones take over. We all know it’s fun to be critical–it’s also important, even if it’s about other activists and students. But what exactly feels good about public criticism of a bunch of people who have no political power whatsoever?
On almost every single issue this past year regarding student influence over the University, regarding the independence of the University from external influence, and regarding any and all attempts to do something positive for the community or the student body, the Daily Clog and Daily Cal have been on the wrong side of the debate, especially when it comes to discussion of the groups forming on campus to deal with those issues.
There absolutely is room for criticism of student activities on campus. Most of these activities will benefit from it, when it is offered in good faith and with constructive intent. There is even room to disagree, fundamentally, on the issues. But when you are ostensibly the voice of the student body, there is a necessity to prioritize your energies, and to responsibly raise that voice in a way that is beneficial to the student body.
This is not about having the Daily Cal take one position in favor of another–it’s about having it take a position, period, not the worthless pseudo-commentary that we see now which tries to sound critical and to project independence, but rarely offers criticism of any consequence whatsoever, especially since it rarely if ever targets people who are not students, and not in power.
What has happened in the past two weeks is a perfect example. After coming out strongly against the resolution earlier this week, today The Daily Cal reflects (once it’s over, and the window of relevancy has passed) that next time Berkeley should “say something [it] can stand by.” How is it supposed to do that, o wise men and women of the Daily Cal, if you won’t stand by it when it tries?
Recall the true spirit of the Free Speech Movement that the Daily Cal references to talk about the city’s “hypocrisy”:
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!
To my friends at The Daily Cal and The Daily Clog, and on campus more generally, who see themselves to be dissenting with proper manners, and in sensible, objective, cautious ways, you have to watch this video of Mario Savio delivering this speech. This is how he delivered it. Have you heard anything like this on campus during your time here? Have you seen anything that confident or brave in The Daily Cal during your time here?
Military recruitment centers are part of the apparatus that allows the machinery of the American occupation to function. Recognize the reality of what is required to regain our control of our government and to stop its crimes, or recognize that you do not actually disagree with this war in any meaningful way whatsoever. But do not pretend that there is a useful middle ground that exists, because there isn’t one, and if you believe there is, you will continue to dwell in a corner of irrelevancy–to the benefit, of course, of the status quo and those in power.
6 Comments
February 15, 2008
A couple things
1. You could paint the protesters as powerless but it isn’t helpful to do so. Berkeley activism has come to a point where it isn’t even effective anymore. Even the old school activists knew that sit-ins and rallies can only do so much. You want power? Get a job, make money, and then voice your opinion because that is the only way to get your voice respected. Can you really say that the 11-year olds present at that protest fully understand the implications (both negative and positive) of having recruiters at the University? Because if they don’t, they’re just gonna learn how to protest without working the system. “If all you do is shout, then you’re gonna look like a fool.”
2. Berkeley activism was tight (and I mean tight in the sense that there were a couple of pioneers and the rest were a bandwagon of followers) in the 60s. It’s just not cool anymore.
3. You can’t really cite Mario Savio on this one. Old school activists even thought that he was becoming more radical in a bad way as time went on. Why place your bodies in the gears of the machine when the machine is sustaining us?
4. The price of my Berkeley degree goes down everytime we get negative media coverage filming crazies.
5. The Iraqi War sucks, but rallying doesn’t get the job done like it used to. That’s probably where the attacks from Daily Cal come from.
6. It doesn’t serve the Daily Cal’s interest to attack anyone in a position of power, especially when the person is as likable as Chancellor Birgeneau. Now that probably does not make for 100% responsible journalism but the Daily Cal is not going to hang itself for stirring up some sh*t that it didn’t have to. Yeah they could exercise their freedom of speech but why risk their existence? You could say “to fight for the ideals of this and that” but it’s really just human nature.
7. You could call the Clog and the Daily Cal cowardly but they are the voice of the students. And the students don’t care that much either way. They’re comfortable just having something to read on their free time. And I am sure they would refer to protesters as crazies these days.
February 15, 2008
(1) By “powerless” I mean that they are not in positions of power in the government. They have no direct control over policy etcetera. Obviously I don’t think that they are powerless, in the sense that they don’t have the ability or potential to take control of the system, as is their democratic right. The solution you’ve laid out for how change should occur is, in fact, the best way to stop participatory politics before it happens.
(2) “Berkeley activism” of the 60s doesn’t happen anymore. What you have–the lame sit-ins and parades where nobody is willing to actually engage in civil disobedience–is, I agree, not cool anymore. Neither is this war.
(3) I didn’t cite Mario Savio–the Daily Cal did when it chose to accuse Berkeley of “hypocrisy” because of its historic role in the Free Speech Movement. As for gears and machines, there’s a difference between a system that sustains us, and a system that sustains itself on us. A reversal needs to occur.
(4) I am sorry that the price of your Berkeley degree means more to you than the degree of sheer criminality done with your taxes. Nevermind that though, you are confirming what I said about the opposition to these activists; it’s rarely principled, and has more to do with a nervous desire to disassociate yourself from the Berkeley image.
(5) Random rallies on Sproul Plaza against the war don’t get it done. A resolution like the one which Berkeley City Council issued is on the right track–the Daily Cal didn’t support that one. The rally at the Berkeley City Council was not about the war, but about supporting the resolution. The Daily Cal didn’t support that either.
(6) You missed my point. The tone that the Daily Cal/Clog uses towards people of power differs markedly from its tone towards people that are not, even when they are critical of both. I am not saying it should vilify the Chancellor or offer crude commentary, but neither should it offer that for people who are not the Chancellor. It’s juvenile and elitist.
(7) That is not a rebuttal, and I do not disagree.
February 15, 2008
Yaman,
You are a passioned and talented writer, and I’m happy to see someone at least responding to the Clog.
My take on these sorts of things is: if you don’t like the way it’s done, change the way it’s done yourself. That’s why I joined the Clog.
February 15, 2008
Thanks Christine… I have thought about writing for the Daily Cal and the Clog often, but there are only so many things I can devote my time to. I’ve never really thought the people at the Clog or Californian were ‘bad’ people or mean or anything (in fact the ones I have met or interacted with have been very fun), but I am increasingly frustrated with coverage of political events and the like. I wish it was more constructive–it just seems like it’s always putting people down rather than encouraging them to improve or change.
February 22, 2008
Well I am worried that the marines would be banned. What happens if in Alabama someone wanted to kick out the ACLU, or EPA, or whomever simply because they didn’t like what they were doing? Or there were unfounded “allegations”.
I think some evidence is in order about tricking minors. That is a serious claim, and since it is a major factor in your piece, it should be supported by some evidence.
February 22, 2008
Those allegations are not unfounded–I didn’t put any evidence in my post because I personally have not invested much time in research it, but there are a number of studies on the tactics that marine recruiters use, as well as the demographics and communities that they target. One, two, three random samples that turned up at the first google search. I am sure you can find something less journalistic and more social sciency if you looked for it.
Nevertheless, since the marine recruitment center was only an example I used and not the primary focus of my post, I have the following things to add about that topic:
(1) Funding for the University should not be threatened as a result of the City of Berkeley’s opinions regarding the military (remember, the resolution did not “ban” them, it simply expressed that they were not welcome), nor should students or their representatives be expected to “apologize” or “prove” that they love the military in order to continue receiving their funding.
(2) One central part of the Berkeley City Resolution was that the Marine Recruitment Center discriminates against non-heterosexual individuals. This seems to me to be ignored in most coverage of the issue, which focused on 3 or 4 words of the resolution and failed to capture its actual tone, spirit, or intent.
(3) The MRC is doing a bit more than “expressing” itself. It actually is engaged in something which is supporting this war materially and physically. For the end of impeding the war, targeting the MRC makes sense. I don’t perceive this on an attack on actual individual marines, but on the institution as a whole.
(4) For people who believe in local politics, supposedly, I think it’s funny that Berkeley is being reviled for trying its autonomy.
Leave a comment