Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals has long been condemned by conservatives as forbidden reading because it is associated with and used by radicals on the left. In essence it is a how-to manual with lessons on being as obnoxious and annoying as possible while not breaking any laws in hopes of having your voice heard or enacting change. Unfortunately, for us conservatives, these tactics have proven successful for the progressives, and they have helped fuel the fire of this ideological war that I referenced in my previous post.
Over the last month, Yale Law School has been embroiled in a battle of free speech between a brood of progressive protesters and the school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. On March 10, 2022, Yale’s Federalist Society conducted a panel on the topic of free speech. The two guest speakers were lawyers who have successfully litigated trials defending free speech, and they agreed on their approach to this basic Constitutional freedom despite being on the two opposite ends of the political spectrum. Monica Miller, senior counsel for the progressive American Humanist Association, and Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom were the two invited speakers.
Approximately 120 Yale Law students took umbrage with Waggoner’s presence on their campus, and they started yelling and chanting in the lecture hall where the event was taking place. The law professor who was moderating the panel stood up addressing the protestors and read aloud Yale’s free speech policy. Apparently that was just enough to shame the protestors into continuing their raucous behavior outside the lecture hall. However, they apparently only screamed the louder. The noise was so much that the event had to be paused several times with many attendees claiming they could not hear anything, another class in the building halted activity, and a faculty meeting had to be reconvened on Zoom.
I reiterate, these events took place on March 10, 2022. Dean Gerken of Yale Law School did not speak about the matter until she issued a pubic statement on March 28, 2022—more than TWO WEEKS after the panel and other Yale activities were disrupted or shut down. In her statement, she proclaimed that because the event was not shut down immediately, then the protestors did not violate the school’s freedom of speech policy. Had that been the case, she would have taken disciplinary action against the protesting students. “Had the protestors shut down the event, our course of action would have been straightforward — the offending students without question would have been subject to discipline,” her statement said.
The moderating professor of the disrupted event, Kate Stith, immediately fired back against Dean Gerken by issuing a memorandum. She claims that the university’s freedom of speech policy does not only affect events that are shut down, but also events that are simply disrupted. In fact, Professor Stith is correct as the following excerpt was taken from Yale’s freedom of speech policy:
“When Yale or its members host speakers, they are generally free to express their views, even if unpopular or controversial. Dissenting members of the community may peacefully protest and express disagreement, but they may not interfere with a speaker’s ability to speak or attendees’ ability to attend, listen and hear.”
Just from these facts alone, it is clear to me that Dean Gerken is scared of the leftest students who protested the panel discussion. It took her two weeks to issue a statement because she was hoping it would all blow over and she wouldn’t have to. Plus, she had to come up with a reason why she was not going to seek disciplinary action against them. And I must say manipulating and spinning the language of a very easily searchable policy is not the best tactic, especially from someone who supposedly knows and teaches law. In fact, in her excuse of why her statement came two weeks later than it should, she hinted directly at her fear. She wrote:
“I have waited to write you because it is our conversations as a community that matter most. In our statement-hungry culture, university leaders are constantly asked to be referees, encouraging our students to appeal to a higher authority rather than to engage with one another and tempting outsiders to enlist academic institutions in their own political agendas. Statements are expected instantly from institutions whose core values include deliberation and due process…”
This is an indirect statement that she did not want to engage in the issue. She is shrugging off her responsibility as leader and head of this prestigious institution out of fear of getting caught in the crossfire, knowing she would have to condemn the actions of the protestors. What might they do in retaliation? Protest outside of her office? Smear her name? Burn down her house à la the BLM riots?
As if this story isn’t ridiculous enough, it gets worse. According to a student from Yale’s Federalist Society, when they reached out to Dean Gerken to express their concerns about how their event was impacted by the protests, Gerken informed them that she was not available to meet with them for a month, apparently her schedule was just too cramped. However, she and other university administrators have found time to hold a meeting with the protestors to discuss their distress that a representative from Alliance Defending Freedom was allowed to speak on their campus. And to top it off, the Federalist Society students were not invited to this meeting.
Allow me to recap the key take-aways here. A group of students disrupted an event, several classes, and a faculty meeting. In doing so, they violated the university’s policy. Instead of disciplining these students as the policy dictates, the dean and administrators have agreed to listen to their grievances. And the victims in this situation were completely ignored.
The inmates are running the asylum. This is reminiscent, albeit on a much smaller scale, of the Evergreen College incident in northern California from a few years ago. How did we get here? Why are the perpetrators being entertained and heard while the innocent victims are ignored and treated as if they deserved to be punished? I’ve already given the answer: fear.
The progressives have co-opted radical tactics and used them as their own personal war games to forward their agenda. Say something they don’t like, get canceled and smeared as a racist, homophobe, or bigot. Do something they don’t like, get accosted in public, at work, or at home. Break a social justice maxim, have your property ransacked, looted, or burned to the ground. These tactics have proven fruitful, so fruitful that they can basically get away with murder and then say that the victim had it coming.
Yale’s administration doesn’t want the wrath of the protestors to fall on them and in response, they give the radicals everything they want. The conservatives are left to fend for themselves because the administration has nothing to fear from them—they play by the rules and take the high road.
When will enough be enough? When can we stop being the bigger person? It’s time to take a cue from our enemies. I condemned those on the left calling for civil unrest and throwing out smears without a second thought. But it’s clear those tactics work. If we want to be taken seriously, if we want our voices heard, we have to start going low. We have to make those in places of authority fear the repercussions of daring to anger us. Be spiteful. Be loud. Be ungovernable.