Chaos at Berkeley: Free Speech Under Siege
Amid riots, armed guards, and a tense atmosphere, Rob Schneider, Andrew Doyle, Frank Turek, and I gathered to champion civil discourse and honor Charlie Kirk’s memory
Berkeley
Our TPUSA Berkeley event last night was a shitshow. Rioters outside and an extraordinary police presence inside. The environment was extremely tense. Here’s what happened.
Rob Schneider, Andrew Doyle, and I were picked up from our hotel (three hours early to avoid the chaos that would inevitably follow) by a large, black, windowed minivan and a somber driver. When we arrived at the venue and exited the vehicle, we were flanked by armed guards. They walked us a few meters to the back entrance, where we were again immediately surrounded by more armed guards, police, and what appeared to be members of some kind of SWAT team.
Our armed security escorted us through the bowels of a labyrinthine structure, then took us to the green room. It was filled with armed guards posted at the entrance and all around the corridors.
Why?
In one sense, it was comically surreal. An older Jewish comedian, a gay comedian, Oxford Ph.D., and Shakespeare scholar, a Christian apologist (more on Frank later), and me. We were treated as if we were in possession of unique nuclear codes or highly classified state secrets that were under immediate threat.
In another sense, it was tragic. What were all of these armed security personnel for? To protect four people advocating for free speech, civil discourse, and honoring the memory of a man who was recently assassinated.
That’s what’s happened to our once venerable universities. Instead of Berkeley as the beacon of free speech, it has become a stain on the promise of America. And I write this not merely because of riots outside the venue, but because of the university’s abject failure to do anything about those riots. Their actions don’t even rise to the level of disgrace and cannot be explained by mere incompetence. I have a hard time believing ideology did not play a role in this fiasco, but the courts will soon be the decider.
Frank Turek
I’ve known about Frank Turek for over a decade, but until last night we never met. He wrote the classic bestseller, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. For readers who aren’t familiar with my previous work, I was deeply involved in the New Atheist movement and wrote the book, A Manual For Creating Atheists.
I was in the green room when I first saw Frank. He immediately walked over to me, extended his hand, and said, “Hi, Peter, it’s great to finally meet you. I’m Frank Turek.” For those unfamiliar with the last culture war that ended a little over 10 years ago, at the time this gesture would have been unthinkable. Previously, at public events, there were entrenched camps with nobody speaking to anyone on the other side: Atheists segmented away and Christians doing the same.
But something has radically changed in the culture. I immediately noticed this when I was backstage at the Michael Shermer, Adam Carolla, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ross Douthat Free Press debate a few months ago in Austin. It was Shermer and Carolla vs. Ayaan and Douthat, with the resolution being: Does the West Need a Religious Revival? But Ross was hanging out in the same prep room as Shermer and Adam! (The only reason Ayaan wasn’t there was because of credible death threats; she needed another space with additional, special security.)
There’s been a great realignment (I’ve written about this here) with authoritarian forces on one side and antiauthoritarian forces on the other. Shermer (atheist), Carolla (atheist), Ali (Christian), and Douthat (Christian) are all antiauthoritarian. Antifa, who are comprised mostly if not exclusively of atheists, is authoritarian by nature. While I have radical disagreements with literally all of Frank’s Christian metaphysical beliefs, he does not demand that I become a believing Christian. He wants me to become a Christian, of course, but he wants me to make that choice voluntarily.
The terrorists outside the Berkeley event want you to believe exactly what they believe, and did their best to prevent people from listening to contrary opinions. (The event was sold out, but there were some empty seats because people could not get past the rioters.)
It’s worth noting additional similarities between Frank’s beliefs and my beliefs. Frank believes in objective truth. Me too. He believes Jesus was the son of God, and while I do not, we are both in adamant agreement that there’s a truth of the matter about this and other questions: Miracles, the age of the Earth, evolution, etc.
But there’s an even more fundamental alignment between Frank and myself. Frank wants to debate and converse, and he wants people to come to Jesus and be saved. I want Frank to debate and converse, and while I’m not particularly keen on people “coming to Jesus,” I’m certain there are far worse alternatives. I want Frank to debate and converse not merely because it is his right to do so. I want him to actually defend his ideas, in the same way I would hope that he sincerely wants me to actually defend my ideas. Not merely in theory, but in practice.
(Frank Debates Christopher Hitchens: Does God Exist?)
That’s how civilized adults behave. They converse. And yes, it’s often messy. And yes, it frequently ends in disagreement. And while Frank believes his Christian beliefs are true and I think they are false, I would never, ever deny him the right to attempt to make his arguments publicly.
In fact, quite the contrary. I insist upon it. If you think a man walked on water and public policy should be formed around that man’s pronouncements, you need to explain yourself and justify your beliefs. And Frank has every right to think that I should do the same. And he’s right to think so. And we are both within our rights to tell the other to fuck off, or to say nothing at all. That’s a feature of living in a free society. And that’s what the thugs outside of Berkeley are waging chaos against. Not just freedom of speech, but freedom itself.
Ideally, these engagements would be civil. They don’t have to be debates; conversations would work just as well and likely better (here and here). But the key is the method of engagement. Words. Not violence. Not shouting someone down or bringing in bullhorns to an event to prevent others from listening. Remember, if Frank were to be shouted down, then he’d be relieved of the burden of proving what he thinks is true. As would I, if I were shouted down. The irony, of course, is that by not engaging us and instead being petulant hoodlums, antifa are voluntarily relieving themselves of the burden of proving what they think is true.
The Event
I thought the event went really well. Frank gave a great speech (I disagreed with the fundamental grounding of his talk, which was rooted in Christian scripture, but that doesn’t make it less of a great speech.) Rob absolutely nailed it as well. Both spoke about Charlie, values, truth, and what people want and should want. Both men had deep, justified overtones of concern for what’s happening to our society.
Andrew and I didn’t get to speak because the event started late due to the riots. I had the outline for a nice little speech in my head. I was going to talk about how we know what’s worth fighting and dying for. It’s not an easy question, and I was going to speak about it in the context of Charlie’s murder. Instead, we jumped to the Q&A.
Right from the get-go, a young man who asked the first question called Rob a retard. Rob handled it quite well, but what he did after that was the highlight of the night. A few minutes later, after a woman who asked a question wanted to shake his hand, Rob called the young man up to also shake his hand, and the young man did just that. It was a lovely, lovely moment. It was sincere, compassionate, honest, and dare I say it, Christian.
That cemented the tone of the evening. The rest of the questions also had a sense of concern, but they were not adversarial. This, in spite of the fact that I repeatedly told people who disagree with us to come to the front of the queue. Andrew also mentioned that he wanted active disagreement, but there was none. Those who could have disagreed were too busy, of course, rioting outside.
A Stiff Drink
When the evening concluded, we were ushered out, again under heavily armed escort. In the car on the way to the hotel, I told Rob the event was so far from controversial it was benign, yet the usual suspects were losing their minds and again resorted to violence. Rob responded that “benign” was a good word. There was nothing even remotely hostile, angry, vengeful, hateful, or even negative about the event. Quite the contrary. It really was a lovely, sincere gathering of people who wanted to honor Charlie’s commitment to discourse.
When we got to the hotel, we all had a stiff drink. We breathed a sigh of relief, sat there, spirits in hand, and toasted to Charlie.
Thanks for reading.
You are doing incredibly important work, simply showing up for events like these, despite the hostility and the danger. I was born in Berkeley, to parents who were attending Berkeley in the 60s, when it was the cradle of the free speech movement. Eighteen years later, I enrolled at Berkeley, traveling halfway across the country to go there. I couldn't have landed at a better place at that time. I received an extraordinary education in every way.
I learned to think for myself, I learned to chase down my own questions and ideas, I learned to grapple with challenge, I learned to express myself in a civil and compelling manner. In short, I learned how to learn and how to be an adult in a civil society that expects and needs much from its citizens.
It grieves medeeply to see what the campus culture has become. Once Berkeley was a genuinely intellectual and curious environment, supportive of inquiry and exploration, a place where you knew for sure you could try on any idea and any way of being without being attacked for it. This is no longer so, and has not been so for many years.
Thank you for the work you are doing to change that.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The universities and their red guards need to be held accountable. If Trump lets them off the hook again, it will only embolden Antifa to commit more violence.