Pages: 1 2
The second lie is that the SA “did not withhold any funding because of the speaker’s viewpoint.” That’s not just a small lie but a really huge lie, apparently promulgated by Katya Armistead. If you don’t believe me, read the minutes of both meetings for yourself.
And we should name names once again:
(1) Alfredo Del Cid, who voted against the $1,100 allocation, stated:
Diversity, speech, and ideas I appreciate and like the different angles, and when speakers with different views come I think it’s constructive, but I believe the statements should be founded in fact and there’s a difference between that and completely outlandish statements. Referencing David Horowitz’s article on how the gay AIDS epidemic stems from the gay pride movement. If there were intelligent discourse with David, then great, but this is not the case. He will go on a rant about people that he doesn’t agree with or like.
Del Cid also alleged that Horowitz had “call[ed] student organizations ‘terrorist cells.'”
(2) A student named Jared (surname unavailable), who voted against the $1,100 allocation as a proxy for Danielle Stevens, stated:
I didn’t hear concrete evidence on anything when I went to the event 3 years ago; all I heard was slander.
(3) Fabian Gallardo, who voted against the $1,100 allocation, stated:
My only reservation with bringing Horowitz is that it would be an educational event. David belittles students and professors and will only anger folks.
(4) Tiffany Mayville, who voted against the $1,100 allocation, asked the College Republicans representative:
Do you think the idea of free speech jeopardizes the safety of students on the campus?
She later asked:
Couldn’t you have chosen someone who better represents your minority group in a constructive manner?
She also stated:
Not funding their event is not making them feel like they are not included in this campus. Being a political minority is WAY different than a structural minority. I want people to represent their beliefs and we shouldn’t have to have security to protect the event. We should create a constructive dialogue and break down the structure of these issues and not break down these issues. I understand the weight words have and look at what are we setting a precedent for again. The threat of being sued is very disempowering and it feels like we’re being told how to vote because of legalities. We have the duty to represent students and not the Regents.
(5) Danielle Mayorga, who voted against the $1,100 allocation, stated:
I don’t want to fund security because I’ve been there and the police do not protect the students’ right to peacefully and protest and assemble.
If the police don’t protect that right, that is a problem, but in the context of the Horowitz speech, Mayorga seems to be arguing that the police should not do what is necessary to allow David Horowitz’s speech to continue if students decided to unlawfully disrupt it. You don’t have a right to “protest and assemble” in a substantially disruptive way in the middle of a venue that is being used for someone else’s speech.
These student government members acted against their moral and legal responsibility to uphold First Amendment rights on campus when they engaged in viewpoint discrimination. And now the university itself has blatantly lied about it and has hoodwinked the San Francisco Chronicle. Bob Egelko had it right the first time.
Next in line for some truth talk is UCSB’s own Daily Nexus. Stay tuned.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2