Oh boy — the UCI flag controversy has hit the media, and surely this will not turn out well. But we have to cover it. And, being who we are, we will try to take what’s happening as real news rather than as spectacle. (Offer does not extend to all of our commenters, of course.)
UCI’s student government has passed a resolution that is already being widely misinterpreted, but this is one of those situations where the truth won’t matter. It’s going to be a massacre, a rout, and it will have a rebound effect that will probably leave things worse off than they were before. They have roused the beast of demagoguery, and it will not return to its lair until its thirst has been slaked. Because if there’s anything that can still get the public aroused, it’s some sort of symbolic protest that really doesn’t matter. Nevertheless: KILL THE WITCHES!
The student government passed a resolution that did one of the following:
(a) Called for burning of all U.S. flags on the UCI campus
(b) Called for removal of the U.S. flag from the entire campus
(c) Called for removal of the U.S. flag from campus classrooms
(d) Called for barring the U.S. flag from the Associated Students of UCI lobby
(e) Called for barring hanging the U.S. flag on the walls of the ASUCI lobby
(f) Called for barring hanging all national flags on the walls of the ASUCI lobby
As you may have guessed, the correct answer is (a) … no, sorry, I had the answer key backwards — it’s (f)! (My bad.)
One thing to keep in mind at the outset is: at least most of us outside of ASUCI don’t know what prompted this resolution. Did someone try to put oversized American flags over all of the walls in a pugnacious show of nationalism? Was there an “arms race” between some students putting up Palestinian flags and others putting up more Israeli flags, and then more of the former and more of the latter, crowding out everything else and making the room an unpleasant place to be? Or was it just some students trying to figure out how to navigate the shoals between allowing freedom of expression and freedom from mandatory imposition of political indoctrination — the latter being something that a great university is supposed to reject? Before the tar boils and the feathers are gathered, oughtn’t we know?
It’s the “Whereas” clauses that are going to provoke the calls for expulsions, torture, defunding the university, closing social science programs, etc. So let’s look at the whole resolution and see what the shouting — and I literally mean SHOUTING — is going to be about. I’ve taken the trouble of adding numbering the clauses for ease of discussion. (I’ve also added a little color, for decorative purposes.)
REQUEST FOR ACTION BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
All requests may be typed and submitted to the Executive Vice President no later 5:00 p.m. Thursday in order to be included in the agenda for the following Tuesday. The Executive Vice President reserves the right to delay the Request for Action to a later Council session if the Executive Vice President feels the agenda for the next schedule meeting is full.
Item Number: 81
Legislation Number (B: Bill, R: Resolution): R50-70
Author: Matthew Guevara Second: Khaalidah Sidney
Synopsis: Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity
Date of Presentation: March 3rd, 2015
- Whereas flags are a symbol of a nation, are used as decorations and have a wide range of cultural significance.
- Whereas flags are typically viewed as patriotic symbols of a single nation, are often associated with government and military due to their history and have a wide variety of interpretations.
- Whereas the traditional patriotic interpretation of a flag is a result of a nation and/or persons who encourage a nationalistic understanding of the flag.
- Whereas traditional understandings and ideologies, as encouraged by the national government, include liberty, democracy, constitution values and are up for interpretation on constituents.
- Whereas flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.
- Whereas flags function specifically for a nation and
- Whereas people are assimilated into national ideologies by deployment of this cultural artifact.
- Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy.
- Whereas symbolism is interpreted differently by different groups or persons based on individual unique experiences.
- Whereas a common ideological understanding of the United states includes American exceptionalism and superiority.
- Whereas the American flag is commonly flown in government public service locations, military related entities, at homes, in foreign lands where the US government has a presence.
- Whereas the American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism.
- Whereas symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.
- Whereas displaying a flag does not express only selective aspects of its symbolism but the entire spectrum of its interpretation.
- Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space is taken seriously by ASUCI
- Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidently.
- Whereas the removal of barriers is the best option at promoting an inclusive space.
- Whereas it is a psychological effect for individuals to identify negative aspects of a space rather than positive ones.
- Whereas whenever public spaces are produced and managed by narrow interests, they are bound to become exclusive places and
- Whereas the planning process must be inclusive in such that designers are advised to forget about the ‘average’ user or themselves and instead begin the open space designing process with ‘deep knowledge’ of the preferences of the actual communities who are likely to use those spaces
- Whereas designers should be careful about using cultural symbols as the symbols will inherently remain open for interpretation.
- Whereas once an open space is created, it is important to employ continual evaluation in order to understand changing use patterns and needs over time.
- Whereas a high-quality culturally inclusive spaces is essential in any society that embodies a dynamic and multifaceted culture
- Whereas freedom of speech is a valued right that ASUCI supports.
- Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.
- Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.
- Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.
- Let it be further be resolved that if a decorative item is in the Associate student lobby space and issues arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.
Referred to:Committee on:
Vote Required: Majority
FINAL VOTE: Waiting Approval YEA: 6 NAY: 4 ABS: 2
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFONIA, IRVINE ON THE DATE OF March 5th, 2015 HAS TAKEN ACTION ON THIS LEGISLATION.
I have been a member of and faculty advisor to student governments. As the former, I can imagine having gone along with something like this. As the latter, I would have said something along the lines of:
“whatever you think you will accomplish with this action, I believe that you will find it much less effective and satisfying than you imagine and a whole lot more counterproductive and painful. Perhaps search for another way to make your point, recalling that the best cure to objectionable speech is usually more speech. If you don’t, I will try to explain and defend your actions, but I will very likely fail to satisfy your critics.”
But, come on, folks — it’s college! College students are supposed to test their assumptions, enhance their perspectives, and explore their boundaries when it comes to acting on what they have learned. Let us agree that of the three actual actions taken here, it’s hard — not impossible, but hard — to argue with paragraph #26 without coming off like an ideologue. It’s the bottom red stripe of type that raises both issues and hackles. And most of us aren’t really concerned about whether the Bulgarian or Ecaudorian or Malawian or Indonesian flag is going to be barred from flying under #27 — although there may be some desire to fly the Mexican or Israeli or Palestinian or South Vietnamese or Confederate battle flags, among others — we’re concerned about flying the American flag here, amiright? Dern tootin’!
(An aside: as an attorney who has studied legal drafting and interpretation, I’d have to remind them that the last two examples above don’t fall into the category banned by paragraph #27 — and arguably the third one doesn’t either. Nor would the ISIS flag, with which some joker will probably try to tack up there sometime next week. As for paragraph #28: I see why it’s there, and it’s a valiant try, but “issues” and “considerable” just won’t satisfy the First Amendment. And I really do half expect to see South Vietnamese flags hanging all over the place as soon as this policy is enforced.)
The very notion of declaring a room “Old Glory Free” is going to knock many critics right off of their nut. But hey, it’s a categorical ban! Is it fair to make an exception for the American flag? Well, it’s justifiable, given that Irvine remains part of the United States. But on the other hand, what would be the purpose of imposing (and that’s what it would be) display of an American flag on the student government lobby? Nobody at UCI is unaware of what country they’re in, and most college students in student government will know that there is not actually any legal responsibility to salute the flag. (They even have the right to burn the flag, but that point is where I, as their hypothetical advisor, start using profanity and taking about the domestic history of agents provocateurs.)
So the likeliest reason that someone would want to tack an American flag to the wall in the light of this resolution would simply be as a rebuke to the statements of principles and opinions is paragraphs #1-25 — to force at least some conformity upon them. And that’s why, as a matter of law, the students probably do have the better of the argument involving free speech. They get to decide how to decorate their room — and even if the reasons for their choices are bad ones, respect for their freedom demands tolerance of their choices within broad bounds that I don’t think this comes near to crossing. Don’t worry — students can still wear American flag t-shirts and probably even carry and wave American flags in the lobby. And the university can line every corridor and passageway leading into the student union lobby with American flags if they believe that students should be exposed to — or even bludgeoned with — their presence. But the more the latter happens, the more their “every flag is equally unwelcome” protest makes some sense.
Looking at those first 25 paragraphs, I only have a serious problem with a few (although bear in mind that I do speak social scientific and critical theory lingo, so some of the terms that might freak others out don’t scare me so much):
#3: I believe that one can have national patriotism without nationalist chauvinism.
#8: seems schizophrenic (in the colloquial sense), first part sounding provocatively bad, but ending up good
#14: this is flat wrong. Displaying a flag may invite these inferences, but that doesn’t mean that they’re expressed, just as a female college student in a tight low-cut blouse may invite inference without their necessarily being intended. Boo to this one! Communications Studies faculty, clean up on Aisle 14!
#16-17: these are tricky, depending on what “removed barriers” means. Arguably, removing one (subjective) barrier often raises another.
#19: a confident and sweeping overstatement; whoever drafted this one will go far in academia. Ha ha.
#24-25: these are in tension. The authors seem to recognize the tension, although they come down on the side of respecting the exception (25) to the detriment of the rule (24). Reasonable people can disagree with this (as, of course, can unreasonable people.) But guess what: as the policymakers and leading citizens of tomorrow, which is what we expect to get out of the UC system, these are exactly the sorts of impossible problems that students are supposed to struggle with! So let them do it.
I do not think that that final pair of Whereas clauses conveys the implication that display of an American flag is itself hate speech, which I’m sure is how their many and vociferous strong critics will choose to interpret it (to the extent that they think for themselves about it at all.) This document is so stuffed with attempted nuance — achieved and failed, sundry and self-contradicting — that I don’t think that I can characterize it as expressing any single belief at all. But there may be one exception: that forcing the American flag on people as a way to “correct” their “improper thoughts” by making them uncomfortable to dissent is wrong, anti-free speech, and, to the extent that their grievances are grounded in any legitimate facts, an affront to free academic thought and the clarity and objectivity it requires.
Students in the social sciences and humanities (when much of this language comes) are supposed to seek the same sort of objectivity that the doctor is to seek about patient care, the business student about costs and opportunities, the lawyer about the law. It is supposed to be unsentimental — even about one’s own family, religion, culture, and nation. The more that the inevitable attacks on these students for their insolence and ingratitude will try to squash them — based on sentiments of nationalism, pride, fear, and anger — the more that the rationale for their protest against the tendency to force orthodoxy on people, the most solid kernel of which is “don’t worry about the log in our own eye when we can talk about the mote in someone else’s eye,” will be borne out.
The first important place where these attacks on the UCI students will play out — considering online comment sections to be unimportant (sorry, everyone) — will be in the 37th District State Senate race, where tonight begins the second to last weekend before the primary. Who will do and say what? Don Wagner seems like as sure a bet as can be to bait the students as atheist Muslim communists (or whatever.) My hopes aren’t high that John Moorlach will do any less, but he’s more of an iconoclast himself and it wouldn’t be shocking for him to express his personal affront while accepting that if we fund them we have to let them make their own mistakes, while feeling free to rage on. This is an excellent opportunity for Naz Namazi to stake out a position as one who is on the one hand tied to pretty much the most relentless national chauvinist this side of the Sierras (if not the Atlantic), but also as someone who, as an immigrant woman of color and member of what has at times been a hated ethnicity, may see the students’ position as something other than the purest tincture of evil.
And then there’s the Democratic write-in, Louise Stewardson. I don’t recall ever discussing these particular issues with her, but if she has any inclination at all that is contrary to the wholesale fiery condemnation we’ll see coming from Wagner and perhaps from his Republican rivals as well, this would be a good weekend to go to UCI, meet some people who have probably just become a whole lot more likely to vote if approached the right way, and teach people how to spell and write in the name “Stewardson.”
UPDATE 1: The resolution was vetoed on Saturday by UCI’s Executive Council.
UPDATE 2: The names and photos of the six students who supported the resolution were released in a graphic on Facebook calling on people to “make them famous” — with comments promising them economic and even physical reprisals, including deportation regardless of citizenship. Ironically, this came on the same day that a video was released of University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members singing a song on a bus celebrating the exclusion of African-American students from their ranks with the refrain “There will never be a nigger SAE.” So far, none of the dozens of students who were chanting has been publicly identified — and it is unlikely that their personal safety would be at risk even if they were.
Thanks for the detailed analysis. I still think, as a hypothetical supporter of such actions, that their lengthy justification is confusing and misplaced. End reverence for nationalism (including nationalist idols) out of love for mankind.
“Patriotism is the last refugee of a scoundrel” and what not. Apparently I am among the tiniest minority in the US who feels this way, but it’s a pretty popular opinion overseas, if years of conversation with foreigners represent the larger populations they come from.
Oh well… maybe it will all make more sense to my grandkids’ generation.
“Remember when they use to wave pieces of cloth to stop people realizing that war was a disaster and that all men are brothers?”
Dumb. They should spend their time doing something useful instead of passing meaningless resolutions. Great material for idiot talk show hosts and reactionary politicos.
*Yeah, we agree…but .far too sex related and orientated for Facebook however!
The question remains…..if you sit on a school flag does that mean……you don’t respect her? The Beach Boys said it best: “Be true to your school….like you are to your girl…….” “Push’em back, push ’em back…..way back!” “When some loud bragger says his school is great…we tell ’em right way…..hey there buddy, we are number one in the State….” Anteaters? Rainbow Anteaters? Rainbow Warrior Anteaters then!
and they used to have such good concerts over there,,,what a bunch of fucking morons
What, are we doing the time warp again? What’s next, “freedom fries” in UCI cafeterias? Perhaps this resolution isn’t perfectly crafted, but it’s not “anti-American” and the professional demagogues should stop trying to stifle free thought on campus.
Now with this being said, perhaps the best solution is to designate places for placement of flags and/or reach an agreement of mutual respect. Hasn’t Irvine had enough trouble with attempted flag bans?
It’s sort of like the Time Warp, but here you step to the left and then you jump to the ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight..
This is such an easy issue for people because “defending” the flag is like going to church: people see you doing the socially encouraged thing, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect what’s in your heart or how you behave, when it comes to the values being symbolized. The students here seem to respect the symbolic power of the flag — which they see in part reflecting conformity, militarism, and national chauvinism, as well as some other more positive things, more than their critics, many of whom disclaim big government and the notion of individual obligation to the nation as socialism.
It’s going to get worse. The majority will pretend to be seriously threatened by this soon-flattened minority and will, accotdingly, destroy them. I wonder which group our Founding Fathers would prefer.
Anyone that voted for this ban should write a check for every dime that went for their share of public schooling, including subsidized tuition, retroactively, with interest. If they want to ban the symbol of the system that they benefit from, then they can do it on someone else’s tax dollars.
Banning the flag is about as ignorant as burning it. Symbolically, you’re stating that you don’t want the rights provided under today’s America. And if that’s what those students want, then by all means, let’s give it to them. Financially.
Email me for where to send the checks boys and girls.. Otherwise, if you want to change what that flag stands for, then vote. That’s another right symbolized by that flag. Or would you prefer to not have that either?
I present to you: “Exhibit A”.
They have the excuse of youth, inexperience, and idealism for any deficiencies in how they have handled the balancing of free speech vs. the right to protest. So what’s your excuse for being a patronizing, abusive, and dishonest asshole?
Their document looks like a self-contradictory exercise of compromise by committee, but most of what they’re saying comes through clearly enough: they don’t want to be forced to have to fly the flag in their own room if they don’t want to. They apparently consider too many of those who wrap themselves in it to deflect criticism for their warmongering and selfishness — people who generally sound a lot like you — use mandating “respect for the flag as a bludgeon to suppress protest against some US policies.
While they try to shift the battlefield to one of respect for those who are made uncomfortable by the demand for political orthodoxy, at base this is clearly about the right to protest. They feel that, as American citizens and/or residents, they have the right to say “no thank you” to having the flag shoved into their faces even in a room that they ostensibly control. If you don’t have the right to say “no,” then the rights you assert are exposed as tissue-thin phantasms.
Far from your spectacularly dishonest claim that they’re “stating that [they] don’t want the rights provided under today’s America” — something you just made up out of some combination of ignorance, malice, and delusion — they’re saying that “these rights are meaningless unless we can exercise them.” And so they want to do so.
I don’t have to agree with them on the merits of what they say to respect their right to say it. On the other hand, your thuggish demand that they be punished financially for their expression of protest speech is about as un-American as one can get. You don’t want dissent or unorthodoxy and you’re willing to bludgeon people in order to suppress is — in other words, you make their point for them more eloquently than they have, with all the dumb swagger of a commissar.
If you’d like me to give them your email so that you can debate them in public, I’ll be happy to do that. But you’re in no position to demand refunds of them. This is America, and they want us to be held to our proclaimed standards.
Now that’s a fine response, Mr. Diamond. Bravo.
Thank you. Still very much a minority position, unfortunately.
“Symbolically, you’re stating that you don’t want the rights provided under today’s America.”
Actually, sir, they stated just the opposite to your stunningly ignorant statement. You are the one who dislikes rights of expression and opinion.
By the way, would you care to discuss slavery, genocide of native peoples, the overthrowing of democratic governments such as in Iran and Chili, and unilateral invasions of foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan?
No one’s taking my chili. No one.
Oh, very clever.
My pleasure, and thank you for demonstrating that sanctimonious twats, malevolent douchebags, and everyone in between are free to screech their opinion on something that some dimwitted twenty somethings said, and no one involved has been imprisoned or executed by the state as a result, then the First Amendment is working as intended and histrionics are unnecessary.
” . . .histrionics are unnecessary . . .”
Do you have any sense of irony?
You have no idea.
Time for you to run along, little man.
Why, you’re all done talking about genocide and slavery?
There’s a dumb backstory. I’m sure it’s petty and childish. Those kids should become local political bloggers.
I presume that, despite your making confident assertions about what surely is so, you don’t actually know what you’re talking about here. RIght?
Don’t know, don’t care.
And yet still making confident assertions….
Well, you spilled only about 5000 words on it so I figured it was irrelevant to everyday life.
About 2000 of them, a big chunk of which was quoting the resolution itself.
But hey, it’s about constitutional and civil libertarian principles. So if you think that it’s irrelevant to everyday life, that’s your right.
Teapot meet tempest.
Sandbox meet sandman.
Go on to the comments sections on the various stories on this topic and get a sense of the nature and power of the beatdown now taking place. The beatdown, which was entirely foreseeable, IS the story. And that’s not a tempest in a teapot.
Under our Constitution, you can put that flag up on the wall and throw darts at it to protest our country’s policies and actions. (Please, UCI students, don’t.) In theory, we’re proud of our First Amendment. But here we are in practice, where the message is: “if you ever try to take advantage of this protected right, we’ll kick your teeth down your throat.”
To me, that’s a significant (and sad) story. But by all means, Zenger, go back to sleep.
“UCI’s student government has passed a resolution that is already being widely misinterpreted, but this is one of those situations where the truth won’t matter.”
And it shouldn’t matter, as it turns out the truth is as stupid as whatever else someone might have imagined.
Really, nipper? OK, explain your understanding of this “truth.”
How come Dave knows what I mean?
Yo snotballs, disperse.
For a second I thought you were calling people snoballs, was about to check Urban Dictionary.
Some twins have their own language.
All he knows is that you called protesters stupid. That’s good enough for him to agree. It’s just not especially deep.
I am saying that one can not know the particulars and make a snap judgement that it was idiotic or you can know the particulars and come to the same, albeit better informed, conclusion.
Why is it idiotic not to display an American flag on one’s wall? I am making a snap judgment that at least some of the walls of your own home do not display American flags. Are you therefore unpatriotic?
Seriously, you really consider that the important story here? I had never figured you for such a conformist. People protesting the American flag is a self-correcting problem. People beating others down over their resistance to symbolism while ignoring the substance behind it is not.
Please go on without me, I am too engrossed in reading Bold Ambivalence, the Sharon Quirk Silva biography.
I believe you. I’m transcribing a Anaheim City Council meeting, before I go back to work on CATER’s lawsuit, because I’m interesting in actually doing something useful rather than just blowing gales of hot humid wind.
nipsey, you may also have to read the sequel. The grapevine says she’s running again in ’16!
Bingo, nip.
do you recall that the barbaric ludite cave dwellers in h g wells the time machine were called moorlachs
I think you meant “Luddite”. And don’t get me started on that one. I’m only rationalizing approval over his election because Wagner is so much worse (and Stewardson has somewhere around 0% chance of winning).
I’m just rank ordering them. Moorlach comes in second to last.
*Look at it this way……five years from now Moorlach will still be doing Look Backs as to why HE Won!
Close. They were “morlocks.”
And Janet for the win
Tempest , meet Teapot.
Perfect.
Can we go now?
*The Power of the Veto……..The Administration finally realized that children should be seen and not heard.