Dumb and Silent (ft. Willard Preacher)

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” -George Washington

Over the past several weeks, I've examined several key components of the debate surrounding freedom of speech on college campuses. However, I've waited until my final post to illustrate a perfect example of that freedom, and the controversy surrounding it, on our campus. That's right, I'm talking about the Willard Preacher.

Credit: Eric Weiss/Onward State

Penn State boasts a wide variety of famous faces: Coach Joe Paterno, Nike CEO Mark Parker, and comedian Keegan-Michael-Key, to list a few. Of them all, the Willard Preacher occupies a unique (and some would say infamous) place in PSU history, quite literally. Named after the building he delivers his sermons outside of every day, Gary Cattell has been preaching to Penn State students since 1982. For many students, he is a fixture of Penn State life, akin to the Creamery or Old Main as a part of the iconic Penn State experience, though it's debatable whether being called a whore for wearing shorts on a 90 degree day can be considered an honor for the females among us. Cattell originally enrolled at Penn State in the late 1970s , but only for two years. He told Onward State in 2012: "Back at that time I wasn't a Christian. I was doing a lot of partying and stuff. It came down to choosing between continuing to go to school, or continuing to party. I chose to stop going to school unfortunately.” Cattell didn't stay away from Penn State for too long, however; soon after converting to Orthodox Christianity, he returned and began preaching in November of 1982. Before that, he told the Daily Collegian, he worked with special needs children in State College, which inspired him to begin preaching to a larger audience, claiming he received a calling from God to spread the one true religion.

Interestingly enough, Cattell wasn't the first to hold the mantle of Willard Preacher: the name originally belonged to Bro Cope (seriously), who preached while Cattell was still a student. As the years wore on, Cope could no longer afford to continue preaching, and his departure paved the way for his now more famous successor. “I would be preaching where Gary is standing, and he would wander in,” Cope told the Collegian several years ago, describing Cattell as “a long-haired hippie freak.”

Though it's easy to dismiss Cattell as just another radical lunatic, he's much more of a State College fixture than most people realized. He was born and raised here, while his wife is a public school teacher, and has four children that were all raised in their family home just outside of town. Cattell covers a wide variety of topics in his sermons, though most people recognize the "partying and fornication" part immediately. Since he's so strategically placed outside Willard, which I believe every single student here has had class in at least once, Cattell is never short an audience, and will frequently alter his sermons if some brave soul wants to debate him. Cattell is obviously quite socially conservative, as anyone who's ever listened to him can attest, and many of his views come into conflict with what most of the students here believe in. Though he draws his fair share of criticism from students, and not unjustly, there's something to be admired about a man who stands in the same place for thirty years and is willing to speak his mind, rain or shine, even when he knows it's unpopular and can generate friction with a large portion of the campus community.

Wait, wrong blog... 

The Willard Preacher covers a wide variety of topics during his sermons, including partying, student "nocturnal activities", current educational culture, ignorance of religion, and what he sees as the godlessness of many female students. His clashes with students and staff have become part of the campus culture (my personal favorite is down below), and his daily presence outside Willard is a sort of comfort to some, showing that all is right on campus for one more day. Love him or hate him, Gary Cattell is undeniably a key part of Penn State life, and no doubt helps contribute to the freedom of speech we enjoy as students. As long as he's free to say what he wants to us, we can say what we want, too. And think about; you can't get much more ridiculous than ranting about fornicating to college kids, so what's the harm in speaking your mind? Just this one time, take a page out of the Willard Preacher's book (though hopefully not word for word) and practice the wonderful right that we've all been afforded to enjoy. 

(This is my political science professor, Dr. Errol Henderson, confronting the Preacher in January of 2013. Yes, that's exactly how he teaches, too, and yes, this video might be the best thing you've ever seen.)

The Whole Ball Game

"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." - Salman Rushdie

How safe is too safe? That's a question that a growing number of campuses are being forced to answer, as the student voices demanding that so-called "safe spaces" be implemented across the nation. A safe space is defined as "a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm." On the surface, and when implemented correctly and unobtrusively, they can serve both physical and emotional refuges for students, especially those who are members are traditionally marginalized or persecuted groups. In a sense, they're the physical version of much-maligned trigger warnings, intended to keep student s from being bombarded by discomfiting viewpoints and distressing material.

The development of safe spaces over the years is as historically unclear as it is controversial. Some trace their origins back to the feminist movements of the late 1960s and early 70s, while others believe it came from the gay and lesbian movement of the 1990s. On paper, the concept sounds like a solid, harmless idea; a place for students to refrain from experiencing persecution, bias, or other microaggressions so that all parties feel comfortable enough to discuss a particular topic. However, the problem emerges within the words "safe space" themselves; by designating a particular area as "safe", you're implying that everywhere else is "unsafe." Thus, it stands to reason that you'd want to make everywhere else "safe", too, logic which causes most of the issues with safe spaces on campuses today.

That logic came into play at Yale, one of America's most prestigious universities, in October of 2015. In response to a memo asking students not to wear "culturally insensitive", associate master (a title later removed after student complaints of racial overtones) Erika Christakis said: “Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense -- and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes -- I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?" Apparently not. In the end, Christakis and her husband left Yale after student outcry, with accusations of racism and insensitivity abounding.

Incidents like this aren't isolated, either. I'm sure we can all remember the protests at the University of Missouri two years ago, where, among other things, student protests forced the resignation of the president and violated the First Amendment rights of student journalist Tim Tai by obstructing his right to report on the event. A student Twitter account run by the activists justified their actions by blaming white media distortion, apparently unaware of the fact that Tai is Asian American.

Credit: Mark Schierbecker 

In the video, both students and staff use intimidation, verbal and physical, to prevent Tai from doing his job. Where was his safe space, you may wonder? Well, therein lies the problem. By creating an environment of unilateral, conformist thinking and speech, the expression of alternative or contrasting opinions is shot down inside what's ostensibly a "safe" atmosphere of discussion. In what world is it acceptable, I wonder, to use physical force against another person for trying to document history on public property?  At the end of the video, the abuse of  safe spaces as a weapon of silencing other opinions is made painfully clear; a professor, Melissa Click, calls for "muscle" to remove Tai from the premises. She was later fired by the university for failing to uphold journalistic integrity, at a school famed for its journalism program, at which she was a professor in the communications department. 

Hopefully, the issue surrounding safe spaces is beginning to seem more clear. There's a fine line between free speech and censorship, and I don't envy universities the responsibility of determining which is which. Nor am I taking the position of many conservative speakers, politicians, and university officials, who want to see safe spaces done away with entirely. I think there's great value in having a place to go when you feel unsafe, so long as it's not turned into a weapon of censorship against those who aren't of the same opinion. Put like that, it seems pretty simple on paper; in practice, as we've seen, it's much harder. University officials are struggling to accurately respond to student demands while maintaining the integrity of the First Amendment, one of the cornerstones of this great nation. And students, as we all know, aren't always the most tolerant or helpful bunch when it comes to getting what they want. Time will tell if safe spaces are here to stay, or if the controversy surrounding them will explode into another politically polarized debate. Here's hoping it's the former. 

For those curious: Penn State has a safe space of its own, lodged right beneath our classroom in the Boucke Building: the LGBTQA Resource Center. 

No Such Thing As Wisdom

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech." - Benjamin Franklin

When the term first started seeing popular use, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, political correctness stood for the ideals of fairness and open-mindedness. But today, "PC" is often seen as a curse within the English lexicon, and politicians and talking heads are more than happy to destroy its image and intent in exchange for a quick popularity boost. Political correctness has long been an enemy of conservative politicians in particular, with right-leaning leaders in democratic countries around the world, from Russian president Vladimir Putin to French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen , among many others. And surprising exactly no one, even our current president refuses to bow to those who wish he'd do a little more thinking before opening his mouth.

So many "politically correct" fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2015 

In theory, the term is meant to be neutral, referring to the avoidance of certain words that can lead to the marginalization and offense of others. However, the "correctness" aspect can also be seen as normative, radiating authority and leading to feelings of being talked down to, or even subordinated. By using this view to construe PC as a top-down, biased agenda on behalf of oversensitive and freedom-hating liberals, politicians turn it into another weapon to be used to defeat opponents and win over the voters.

Political correctness, especially when it comes to the free expression of speech and ideas, is an incredibly controversial topic on college campuses across the country. I mentioned FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, in a previous post; keep them in mind, because they come into play a lot regarding campus PC culture, even when we're talking about Penn State.

A prime example of the clash between free speech and PC visited this very campus just last year, in the form of famous (or infamous, depending on your politics) conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro. Despite a mob of protesters who went as far as trying to physically break down the doors of the Sparks Building, Shapiro delivered a lecture on diversity and political correctness to a packed auditorium. Taking aim at trigger warnings, safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and more, Shapiro brought home the point that PC is just another name for censorship of free speech, and free speech is central to Penn State's commitment to diversity and respect. At the end of the lecture, Shapiro left the audience with this final thought: “America is the greatest place in the history of the world for two reasons. One is because we get to say what we think without fear of the government cracking down on you, and the second reason is because this freedom means that your actions are correlated with your level of success,” Shapiro said. “The left is out to destroy both of these concepts.”

Credit: Max Petrosky/The Daily Collegian 

Whether you agree with Shapiro or not, it's hard to ignore the consequences of political correctness run amok. We're fortunate to have a campus that respects our right to it, for the most part; UPUA did help foot the bill for Shapiro, and many other controversial conservatives before and since, just as they do for for liberal speakers. Even this class stresses the importance of words on people's opinions and attitudes, and leaves it up to us to decide how to use them. Some students agree that our free speech is in danger, and we must do all we can to stop the spread of censorship. Others, however feel the opposite, and it's easy to see why. Penn State is constantly reminding us about how diverse, inclusive, and respectful our campus is; my response to that would be to ask whether any of the slogan-writers have ever seen college kids interact with each other, but that's beside the point. 

It's everyone's right to feel safe on this campus, just as it's everyone's right to say what they wish without fear of reprisal. The problem is that what's offensive or hurtful is entirely subjective, and forcing every person at Penn State to conform to one person's feelings is not only logistically impossible, but hurtful to the potential of having a healthy discourse. A favorite saying of Shapiro's is, "facts don't care about your feelings." Drop the political connotations, and that statement is all too true; like it or not, most everyone we ever meet in this world won't give a damn about how we feel about what they say. 

Holding us back from a slice of the real world by dressing up speech in flowery euphemisms won't do us a bit of good, as I've said before. However noble the intention, political correctness has become a partisan weapon to be used by pundits or abused by misguided do-gooders, and we're the ones paying the price. 

A Double Wrong

"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." - Frederick Douglass

"Free speech is dead, and Berkeley killed it."

That seems to be the prevailing sentiment among many on both the left and the right this past week, as the fallout from violent protests that occurred at UC Berkeley in response to a planned appearance by conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopolous continues to be felt across the nation. According to the university, 150 "masked agitators" arrived to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest outside of the MLK student union center, causing over $100,000 in damage. College officials were forced to cancel the event two hours early and evacuate the Breitbart editor from the campus, while black-clad protesters hurled rocks, fireworks, and even Molotov cocktails at police, as well as smashed windows and set fire to the student union building where the event was to be held.

As the protest spiraled out of control, police ordered a campus-wide lockdown and demanded immediate dispersal of more than 1,500 protesters gathered.

.@UCBerkeley Milo event cancelled. Shelter in place if on campus. All campus buildings on lockdown. #miloatcal

— UC Police, Berkeley (@UCPD_Cal) February 2, 2017 

In a statement, university officials said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives. While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective."

Yiannopolus, a highly controversial and deliberately provacative right-wing speaker, had been invited by Berkeley College Republicans to speak at the highly liberal campus, and later released a statement of his own on Facebook:

Whether you agree with Milo or despise his existence, these violent protests accomplish literally nothing; if anything, they're counterproductive to the entire concept of free speech. It's incredibly ironic that such a thing happened at Berkeley, considering it's the home of the original Free Speech Movement. 

Image courtesy of UC Berkeley Archives. 

Berkeley students organized the FSM in 1964 to protest the ban on campus political speech and advocate for civil rights, including those of minority students. Unfortunately, it seems that the spirit of that movement has largely vanished from the university, and has been replaced with intolerance for free speech masquerading as social justice and "protection" from hate speech. 

To be clear, I agree that the students had a right to protest something they didn't agree with. And to be fair, it's not certain how many of the protesters were students and how many were outside anarchists from the Black Bloc, a known radical organization that's been harassing Berkeley for years. But the fact remains that the incident is a slap in the face to free speech advocates, and entirely antithetical to what the protesters were trying to accomplish. Now, conservatives across the country are using the riot to exemplify the "danger" of student protesters and their liberal attitudes, which could have disastrous effects on the university itself, including losing its federal funding. 

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017 

Like I said, disastrous. And what's worse, a sizable portion of Berkeley's student body is perfectly willing to defend the riots, with the student newspaper publishing a whopping 5 editorials in support, telling critics to "check their privilege" and labeling police "violent agents of the state". Because the cops were the ones burning things down, at the MLK building no less; if there was ever a man who appreciated free speech, he'd be the one.

As of now, the FBI has launched an investigation into the riots, while Berkeley is being skewered by the scandal-hungry media as a home of intolerance and triggered, insensitive liberals who represent everything wrong with this country. To me, this incident emphasizes the need for free speech on college campuses; without it, it seems, we'll all burn ourselves down because we didn't like what someone else was saying. Surely, we can come up with a better reason than that to start a riot.

Beating Ohio State, for example...

To Know, To Utter, and To Argue

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” - John Milton, Areopagitica 

Unless you're a hermit dwelling somewhere in the woods of Black Moshannon State Park, you're probably aware of the intense protests that have erupted in the wake of last year's election results. Protest as a form of political and civil discourse is nothing new in America; it's sort of our thing. And perhaps no other environment in the country is more conducive for engaging in this sort of activity than the college campus. Colleges are like the metaphorical bowls that all the necessary ingredients are mixed in; a variety of differing opinions, religions, identities, backgrounds, and course offerings all aid in informing the public discourse of every campus in the country, including this one. 

The modern idea of free speech has waxed and waned throughout our country's history, but the First Amendment really began to come under fire from colleges in the 1980s. In the decades prior, campuses were a hotbed of anti-government protest, tackling heavy issues like the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, and initial justifications for campus censorship kept this in mind. Colleges saw a massive influx of diverse bodies of students as discrimination began to collapse, and sought to prevent friction between them, initially targeting what was labeled as "offensive speech." But here's the catch: there's no one definition for what that kind of speech entails. 

Credit: Frank Esposito/The Daily Collegian

I probably don't need to draw a diagram to illustrate the hang-ups that can arise from this kind of broad-strokes decision-making. For one, it stifles one of the key tenets of a college education itself: broadening your perspective of the world by exposing yourself to new and different ideas. If we limit ourselves solely to ideas that are "safe" or "comfortable", we're denying the experience that can be gained along with them, even if all we get out of it is deciding that we don't agree. But even if we do disagree, at least we'll know that we went beyond our comfort zones and got a taste of the real world, where ideas and opinions number as many as the people who hold them. 

In that spirit, the other reason we go to college is to prepare ourselves for life in the adult world. As much as we may not like to admit it, we're not full-time adults. We enjoy a kind of semi-autonomy, but are still governed by expectations of those around us to eventually leave school behind and take our proper places. In the adult world, we won't have advisers and helpful professors watching out for us as we hover between decisions; everything ultimately comes to rest on our shoulders. Thus, it's critical that we familiarize ourselves with conflict and disagreement with others, even if it's difficult to even breathe the same air as them.

 It's an inevitability of life that we'll run into people and ideas that we dislike, but many colleges seem keen on telling us that those situations don't really exist. There's no disciplinary committee to whisk people away when they hurt our feelings; it's something we have to deal with ourselves. By taking that exposure to speech away, colleges are creating a generation that's critically unprepared for the world it's about to run headlong in to. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, overzealous speech regulations create an Orwellian atmosphere of fear around speaking one's mind without reprisal. In a 2015 visit to Yale University, The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf documented several instances of professors and students being afraid to speak openly about campus controversies. In their minds, their places at Yale would be jeopardized and they could be at risk from attacks by disagreeing activists simply for speaking honestly. 

This is no way for anyone on campus, student or faculty, to have to feel; colleges are intended to be bastions of deliberation and debate, not restrictive and controlling environments where any statement is subject to ridicule and attack, or worse, disciplinary action. But aren't speech codes intended to prevent people from feeling this way? Unfortunately, the message these types of restrictions send are ringing loud and clear: don't speak your mind and you won't get in trouble. 

As a final note, FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, maintains a list of colleges and ranks them red, yellow, or green based on how well they handle speech on campus. Penn State got a red rating, the worst of the three, for having "at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech," in this case the broad sexual harassment policy; policy for outdoor activity space didn't fare much better. 

As an experiment, take a moment before you say something that could be controversial or uncomfortable, and think about how you feel? Are you scared? Nervous? How free do you really feel to say what you want to say? The results might just surprise you.