 Hi, my name is Joseph Greenwell. I go by he, him, and his as the opportunity of serving as the associate vice chancellor and dean of students here at UC Berkeley. As part of my role, I have the opportunity of working with events such as those that happened last semester in a variety of ways, partnering with the lead center and supporting the student organizations who are hosting such events, as well as working as part of the PRT and working as the dean of students office and working with activism. In this particular situation from the past year, I had the opportunity of working in partnership with professionals, also in equity and inclusion, not only in talking about how we support our students in relation to how these types of events and activities impact them, but also talk about how that impacts our professional teams in support in that. And that's where I'd like to focus my remarks. So we, in partnership with Mia Fabrizio and Claudia, which are all professionals within student affairs and equity and inclusion, had called together a bunch of professionals that work on the ground that support students. And the intent in that particular meeting was to kind of get their perspective on how we can best as a campus be supporting our student communities. What came out of that meeting, it was very different than what we had expected, was an opportunity for the professionals to really kind of actually debrief and talk about their experiences as professionals and the impact that these events have on them and in their work. So in part, some people were really struggling with the fact, based on their roles and how they felt as a professional, they needed to show up and how that in some ways contradicted their own beliefs on a personal level and how to be able to kind of address that internally as a person and kind of be able to manage those particular pieces. Always showing up professional in that space was a concern. Others were talking about their lived experiences from other events. The impact of security officers, of police on the campus had impact on professionals. And it's something you know, Margo and I have been in communication with and because they actually started showing their own personal experiences in their own past when they have been targeted by police because of their identities and the impact on that particular individual. And we also were just talking about the frustration of not understanding why for these particular events and the communication and the need for more communication in that space so that they as professionals can, they don't understand why, then how can they best support students in understanding that as well. I will say we met several times and I think that was new and I think that was helpful and successful. And we also did conference calls during the week long of events to share information which I thought was helpful as well in that space. I think they all understand the freedom of expression and so there wasn't the need for that. But I think what they were needing more was an understanding of kind of how are we supporting those that are impacted based on that need for freedom of expression. Those are my remarks. Thank you very much. We'll have a minute and 15 seconds. Thank you. I was gonna have you finish it. Very well done. Anybody else like to speak? Questions or are you just here to listen? I think we, I mean we were concerned about doing that comparatively with our ability to give an opportunity to everyone to speak but I don't, I think that's not gonna be a problem so. On the staff, hearing their concerns and responding to their concerns. Sure. I don't wanna speak for them too, I just wanted to, because this is just my perception and there are people in the room that were in those spaces so if they choose to come and speak I'll let them speak as well in that space. I think it was at multiple levels. So I think my sense is from the chancellor to their direct supervisors and being able to kind of understand based on their role what is doable. So I would say from a supervisor standpoint if they were really having conflict in this space and particularly for events that are happening over a duration of time, then although we did have broad communication about working with your supervisor but kind of what does that support look like and what the expectations are in that space and I think from a larger campus perspective continued acknowledgement of yes, commitment to freedom of expression but an acknowledgement around an empathy around what does that mean as far as impact not just on the students but on the professionals that are happening not to say that that wasn't happening because I know it was happening at some level but I think my sense was that there was greater need for that in that space. I mean just to emphasize to others who are here we're particularly interested in perspectives on the free speech activities from last fall. So if you, that's the focus of this first hearing so we'd be anxious to hear any thoughts you might have not necessarily about issues of first principle but just about how your experience is on campus at the time when the free speech week events were underway in the fall. We've also received quite a few comments that could be read. We have permission to read some of these. Is that correct? So these people were on the record. They did let us know that, for the most part it was very nice. They were thanking us for the opportunity to share their thoughts with the Free Speech Commission and so since it has requested I imagine they have no concerns about this being public graphic. Okay. So does anyone else want to come forward? We could choose to just read some of these if they're about to be here. Okay. I'm not sure if we should be sharing. These are students and we can, oh I can tell from the bottom here what they were for support. We can share some of these with her. We haven't read through these. I'll start with a short one. Sure. Okay. Do you want to extend that short? I could do it, whatever. I'm sorry if I mispronounced the name. First of all, for those of you who don't know me I'm Prudence Carter and I'm the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Co-Chair of the Commission. So good morning to you and thank you for coming out. We did invite email responses as well to the commission and so if you have come in, this is from Mala Hatley who's a manager here at DCRP. And she says, hello. I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the events surrounding the free speech week at Cal. However, I do wish to share my thoughts and observations. First off, typing of these events could not have been worse. To set up such a controversial chain of events right at the beginning of the academic year was simply not right. We had new students on campus, many of them underaged and away from home and their support networks for the first time ever. They had yet to make friends or connections here. This isn't what they came here for regardless of how much you believe in free speech. Secondly, I agree with African American faculty who wrote to protest these events. Why didn't those in charge, predominantly white academics, set up a diverse committee of academic staff and students to debate and assist in making decisions on whether these events should even go on? We absolutely cannot be this tone deaf in 2018. All in all, this played out like the tail wagging the dog where we're taken for a ride by the Young American Foundation big time. Ironically, the GLP governor of Florida got called for a state of emergency in advance in the county where the ultra-right wing speaker was to appear on a university campus. So even the GLP doesn't support these events, it appears. As a higher education academic institution, I expected us to have the backbone to say no and firm and succinct terms to these proposed speakers. To think that a tiny group of underage undergraduate students and a student group would be allowed to host such majestic events on campus without paying for security or being held for responsible consequences is justice and freedom of speech turned upside down. If a group of African-American students have requested for the black block or Antifa to be hosted as speakers, what would your response have been? And really, what is the difference? I hope we have learned one thing. Freedom of speech is not free. It comes at a cost at times. Hate speech is not free speech regardless of how much you wish it were. Mala Hadley. Yeah, I'm Jay Wallace, Professor of Philosophy. With prudence, the other co-chair of the pre-speech commission. This is a somewhat longer statement from Robert Kazmarek, who's named the candidate. He says, esteemed Berkeley administrators and staff. Good start. Mine is but one opinion and a sea of many. I don't expect you to directly acknowledge or even accept my own point of view. Yet my hope is that it further adds some colors in the lines to a worldview that is our campus community. Thank you for soliciting my input and likely the views of others. Free speech has evolved quite a bit as society has evolved. Life has become more complex. You can't yell fire in a crowded building. You can't threaten harm and so on. Though technically speech, they are more malicious. Justice Stewart said it best on pornography. I know it when I see it. So the devil is in the details. How can you somehow maintain the ability to share while having an objective way of shutting down an attempt to harm? Polarization is happening so much nowadays that anything running contrary to a thought bubble we all willingly or unwillingly engage in results in taunts of snowflake and triggering. It's hard to stay objective. I might fundamentally disagree with tax breaks to the rich. It's economically irresponsible but I digress. But I can't accept it. But I can accept it. I also fundamentally disagree with diminishing another human being based on well anything. I can't accept that. I grew up in suburban San Diego. Yet living overseas will help you realize that people are just people at the end of the day. They laugh, cry, get stressed about and love the same things that we do here. Color and creed objectively do not matter in how human beings think and act. We're all people and we all want the same things. And though I may disagree with tax breaks, I oppose discrimination. I think it runs counter to who we claim to be as a country which would mean something and I think it's just bad business at the end of the day. So if someone wants to have an opinion, I disagree with fine. I'm a big boy and can handle disagreement. If someone wants to passively or actively diminish, injure or harm someone in their words or actions for no biologically justifiable reason, I don't think that should be allowed. I know I don't like the thought of giving neo-Nazi extremism a voice on a stage to debate their point because I feel it rationalizes something that the world already decided 70 years ago effectively that Nazis are bad. We have that chat as a globe and lots of people died. I don't think we need to re-litigate it. Yet I also recognize that if we are who we say we are, we need to listen to what people have to say. The neo-Nazi group can take a stage and share why they believe what they believe and do so in a respectful manner and engage in debate in a respectful way. Maybe that's how we have to diffuse this situation. If they want to share that white people are awesome, maybe that's fine. If they start getting into how non-whites are not awesome, then they are approaching the realm where they are discouraging dissent and division which is flat out uncool. At the end of the day, I think of an Intel mantra, disagree and commit, didn't know that one. All of us are at Berkeley for a reason, though those reasons may differ from person to person. The community at large will decide what it wants, what it stands for, and what it can accept or not accept. Even if something is not agreeable at the end of the day for the sake of progress, we will need to move forward to remind people that they are welcome to continue any crusade they deem fundamental to their core. It will just not be discussed again at Berkeley. The Berkeley community have made its informed and well-gracioned decisions moving forward. Thank you for giving me a chance to share. I'm grateful to be part of this community and to represent this institution. So before we move on to the next one, I really already had a change of heart and decided I would like to speak. So, okay, we have two people, so let's give each of them up to five minutes. Oh, there's a third. Okay, great. So why don't we give each of you about up to five minutes to speak. If you could, when you've got up to the stage, just let us know who you are and your page to the campus. Do you have a fourth? Great, okay. Great. So don't rush the stage all at once now. Okay. Hi, my name is Jonah. I'm a freshman on campus this is my second semester. I also work at the restorative justice center making documentaries. One of the, I've been doing a lot of research and just doing a lot of studying on pre-speech week that happened on campus and the circumstances surrounding pre-speech. And so these are some of the things I just wanna speak about and some questions that have been raised and what I've been learning. The first one was that generally people have been talking to is that students and my peers have expressed great frustration with the cost of both the Ben Shapiro event and the Milo Unopolis event, especially considering that the information that's been expressed to us says that $1.4 million was spent for these two events, which essentially accounts for $1.4 million for essentially five days of security on campus, especially considering that there have been a lot of hikes and tuition, budget cuts to many programs, there's an immense housing crisis happening. So the message that has been received by a lot of students is that the securitization and or the militarization of campus is more important than students' well-being. The question I wanted to ask is what measures are the university taking to address this discontent if there have been any measures taken? Because that's been expressed by many members of the community. The other issue that was brought up to me was some of my peers that work in student orgs in Eshelman and MLK and Cedric Chavez expressed to me that they felt disproportionately targeted by Milo's event and also that they felt disproportionately neglected by the university because the university did not offer any other spaces on campus that were sufficient to meet the needs of those student organizations. This felt especially hurtful considering that especially the Milo Unopolis event felt very targeted at a number of those organizations. Were some of the events that were expressed to me. One person works in bridge on campus or bridges on campus and he said that they were given a small space in the field annex, the first field annex that could barely accommodate all the student orgs that were scheduled to meet there. Some places were scheduled to meet at like University of San Francisco but logistically most people weren't going to meet there. So the question that was raised to me was how will the university address this and express to the student organizations or try to interact with the student organizations to bridge that apparent divide that exists between the administration and the student organizations at Eshelman and MLK and other buildings. Those are just some questions. Thank you very much. My name is Niku Shafady. I'm a staff member. I work for the ASUC student union. I apologize in advance. My thoughts are not organized and my observations are personal in my own opinions. I was not planning on standing up here and sharing but I feel I think the energy is welcoming so I'm gonna talk about it. I am a very proud, very very proud Iranian-American immigrant of 12 years in this country. I have always felt welcome in the United States especially when I got into Cal as an undergraduate. I felt like this was my place. I was heard that there are people that think like me and maybe look like me and feel what I say. I'm gonna address the militarized states that I felt during those days. It was interesting to me because I grew up during post-Iran and rock war in a very militarized state of the country where we had curfews at nights and there were always police force present every time you went out to go to school, you went out to go grocery shopping. So it's something that always lives with me. It's my lived experiences. I realized during those days where the police force was very much, very heavy and very present in upper straw that I felt very confined and uncomfortable in my skin. I kept going out to take a look at outside and coming back. I was like, okay, you can sit down, get your work done. And then I found myself staring at the computer and not being able to get work done but I also didn't want to get up and go outside again because it was uncomfortable. One thing I realized was the police force outside of my office, I work in Swarovall, no longer look like colleagues from downstairs that we work with. I have worked on campus ever since my student days. It's now combined probably eight years for me but it was the first time that it felt like this home, Berkeley and the United States no longer felt like home to me. And then it was interesting because I had to take a trip back to Iran where I spent five weeks over the break there and that also didn't feel like home to me either. So it's hard because I'm at a loss and it's difficult to come to work to a place where it has taught me so much and showed me so much and opened my eyes so much but it doesn't feel comfortable. I guess that's it, I hope for a better day. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you very much. My name's Ty Decker, I'm a patron of UC Berkeley, Berkeley City of Berkeley, the Bay Area. I grew up in Sunnyvale, California. ASP president in 1981, 1982 in Fremont High School in Sunnyvale. My mom came over from Japan in late or early 60s and having to bear the brunt of World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War, I gotta say that you guys are disgusting. You professors, your educators, not educating. You can't rule by feelings. This is not what free speech is about. You've got to get a thicker skin. It's not your feelings that we're worried about. It's the ignorance of the words. We need more speech, not less speech. I cannot imagine a situation where you're worried about the police. After you've got maltuff cocktails thrown at your building, you have a blonde girl banging on the door of one of your halls and the police would not let her in the front door and your feelings are hurt. Come on, this is America. We have had to suffer from day one. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, all of them had to remain silent for six months or they would have been hanged and most of them were chased down and met very, very bad fortunes in the end. And to say that now that we're at a stage where arbitrary, which is selective enforcement of the laws and caprice, which is whimsical or feelings. The young lady who just came up here and said that she doesn't feel welcome, we're in the United States of America. Everybody's welcome here who comes here legally. It's the illegality, the capriciousness, which is feelings and the arbitrariness of enforcing laws, which is, it's not a sanctuary city, guys. It's human trafficking. You've got to understand that you are being deluded. You're emotionally engineered for eight years. I believed in Barack Obama after he got elected. I tried to vet the guy. I couldn't find out anything. He was never a professor. I called him Professor Fraud. I tried to highlight a speech delivered on April 27th, 1961 in a 50th anniversary for what have been April 27th, 2011. More likely than not, I was one of these people who were illegally, unlawfully surveilled because I was helping people as pros and litigants, as a paralegal in Marin County, transferred over that I lived in Emeryville and there's a very pervasive harm that's going on, meaning that we had an office of information in the White House. We had a communist from Oakland, Jones, Van Jones, who was part of this nudge propaganda, which is essentially shove, okay? Nudge is something that if you have a driver's license and you have a donor card on it, instead of opting in, you have to opt out. So they increase, I can Sweden from three to 5% or 8% or whatever it is to 80%. No, that sounds great. But what happens is it becomes shove. In Emeryville, they shove. It looks all pretty, but I'm telling you, this is the harm that BLM face because they do not believe in the institutions that we have because they do not have, because it's arbitrary and it's capricious because Alameda County does not use judicial rules equally, that's why. And we have got to understand that this is the United States of America, not the United colors of Benetton where everybody needs to feel good, all right? So there's a couple of speeches. There's a couple of maxims I grew up with. Don't judge a book by its cover. So all this micro division, everything that we're doing, instead of aligning underneath the United States of America and the flags, saying the Pledge of Allegiance so we all are united, instead of divided we fall. This, you've refused fascism. That's not refused fascism. What it is is it was communists and Nazis had a non-aggression pact in 1938. In 1941, the Nazis stabbed the communists in the back. They've been heartbroken since then. That's what they're doing. The fascism of the Nazis, now they're blaming on all of America. You've got to learn your history. You've got to say no to professors, you being professors of Berkeley. I don't know who you are specifically, but to have this parade of, this charade that's going on, that's basically, you're calling alt-right, you're blaming, you know that Charlottesville was organized by some guy named Kessler. He was a BLM supporter and an Obama supporter up until the election. There's something very nefarious going on here. If you look at the Vice video, why were they embedded in that group? Why do they have aerial view of the actual collision? There's a lot of stuff that's going on with regards to false accusations being weaponized. I want to know what is the penalty for a false accusation? Thank you. How much time do we have? Five minutes. Oh, that's hell of a time. 10 minutes. Good morning, everyone. Ruben, he, they work in the division of equity and inclusion. So I've been here for 10 years as an undergraduate staff member. And there's just been a lot of things that I've noticed, so I just wanted to share just questions, some more than make statements, because for the last 10 years, I feel like I've made so many statements and they feel like they go nowhere. So I'm switching it up, being very different in the approach learning. So 10 years, three different chancellors, various administration, leadership changes, and various responses. I've noticed over the years of protests happening on campus. So what I'm about to say is not about any individual person, because no person was here the entire time. We've had different dean of students, different chancellors, different everything. So these are just questions for the community at large to ground ourselves with and hopefully guide the conversations that we're gonna be having. So what I've observed in the months and weeks leading to known events, debates, discussions, these things take over. Debates take over, discussions take over, overpowering other work and responsibilities, either intentionally or unintentionally. And it also serves as a gauge of like, how much do you care versus how much you don't care? So even when you try to shut things off, you can't because then you're seen as somebody who's not really down or up or whatever language you wanna use. You know what I'm talking about. So with that, it's also important to name that choices of who is invited, when they're invited, who has influence, and who has decision-making authority. Depends on the personal relationships of campus leaders, divisions, departments, and student organizations. Student organizations and student governments. This has relative impacts, of course, at times healthy and other times unhealthy. So grounding it on that, these are the questions that I wanted to offer to the space. Number one, what are the protocols of engagement, decision-making processes, checks and balances to ensure that equity in our university values rise above exhaustion, internal and external pressures, and survival mode? Second, what training is provided to campus leadership on this topic of protest? Is effective communication in times of crisis included? Decision-making processes in times of crisis? Emotional agility and intelligence? Deescalation? And what are the roles of leadership? And what should they be playing in real time at events when things are happening? Three, at the chancellor's event last semester, we were educated that cost and violence are the two only legal reasons that can prevent an entity from counseling an event on free speech grounds at the end of the event. I had the opportunity to follow up about what are the metrics used to determine each cost and violence, and what are the charge strings that we are using to cover all costs of events and moments like this? Does it include a budget for the physical damage of campus, the emotional violence and deterioration of campus community, the physical damage to community members? We did not get an answer at that event. Do we have answers to those questions now? And if not, what is the process to answer these questions and how many more events and how many more years and how many more administrative turnarounds will it take for us to answer those questions? Four, what is the restorative justice process and reconciliation protocol and processes so moments like these harvest wisdom, improve relationships and growth as a community and as a campus so that each generation in the future can be healthier and wiser and better? So with that, I'm gonna close it with what seems to get everybody who rod, which is we're Berkeley. We should be getting better at this. Everybody's looking at us what we do, what we do. So let's be kinder to each other, more compassionate to each other and wiser to each other because I physically see relationships shift before events like this, during events like this and after events like this. Thank you all so much. So I had a student that I was working with and they told me that our campus had turned into a cultural war zone. Can you tell us your name first? My name is Tiffany Shane. I use the pronoun she and her. My job at UC Berkeley is to work with survivors of sexual violence and sexual harassment as a confidential advocate and we work in Sproul Plaza and we've been very intent on creating a space in Sproul Plaza that feels safe and for people to heal. For the survivors I work with, one of the most painful losses of trauma is when they no longer see Berkeley as their dream school but as the place where they were raped or harassed or stalked or hurt. And Berkeley no longer is a place where they get to learn and thrive but a place that becomes a nightmare. A lot of my work is to help students get connected to resources and accommodations to help them go through reporting processes but a big part of what I do is also to help them get back to a place where their campus gets to feel like their own and that they belong here and that they deserve the space that they take here and that we as a university have a responsibility to protect that space for them. When my student told me that UC Berkeley was once again not just a trauma war zone but also a cultural war zone, that loss was compounded. We were forced to move out of our space in Sproul Plaza and Sproul Hall because there were police lining the hallways and for the people I work with that can be incredibly triggering. A lot of the people I work with come from marginalized identities that felt like if I'm walking through a crowd in Sproul Plaza, will I be safe or will I be attacked? And that feeling of not knowing is so painful. Once again our campus had been stripped away and made unsafe. It became a place for police and threat and bigotry and violence. And as an employee at UC Berkeley and as an alumnus I shared that loss with my student. Berkeley didn't feel like our own. We were chased out of a space we had intentionally built to feel safe and we didn't feel protected. This is our campus. We work here, we learn here, we live here, we thrive here. This is the space that we contribute to every day. We as a community, we are the ones who make this campus what it is and we deserve to have that protected. Thank you. Hello everyone, my name is Aja Perlow and I am a third year student here at Berkeley. And so what I wanted to discuss about as far as the handling of the free speech events was specifically the Ben Shapiro event. So during that event there was a large blockade around Scral Plaza which redirected transportation lines which limited mobility and accessibility for students especially those who rely on public transportation for access to campus. And also I have the Nixon report sent out by UCPD at 10.08 a.m. on the day of the event which if my recollection is correct was after the blockade had already been put up. And some of the prohibited items, backpacks and bags bikes or sorry bike, U-locks, umbrellas, coolers, hard or frozen fruit. Some of these items that are on this list are also liquid other than water. Some of these items that are on this list are things that students take with us every day to school. Hello, backpacks, those are very important. And there was not enough of a notice for students about the obstacles that this event would entail. First of all, we didn't know that the transportation lines were going to be redirected. I walked out of my apartment that morning and saw a bus that wasn't supposed to be there driving down the street and not stopping. And then I saw that all around the campus the buses were being redirected. And this is through one of the main entrances to campus for I think a lot of students Scral Plaza. So how can we handle these events where the way that we're securing them does not interfere with the student's ability to learn? Because after all, this is a university. We're here to learn. We're here to go to our classes for one that we pay tuition to go to. And if we can't bring our backpacks, our transportation lines are redirected, we can't bring our bikes because we can't lock them up. How are we supposed to learn? So I think in handling events like these that are high risk, we need to consider that students are still here to learn and we need to do it in a way that doesn't prevent this from being something that we can do in a university where we come to go to class and learn. That's all. So at this point, if you're here to speak on another opening in 1145, right now what we would like to do is reserve the next half hour for staff people who would work in the environs of Scral Plaza, which these are, yes? Yes, we're very pleased that Carol Christ has agreed to join us for this next half hour. And Carol, you said you'd be willing to make a few brief comments or? Oh, I didn't, but I'm gonna. Oh, okay. You said you'd make a few brief comments. I wanna say how important this is to me and to the campus for us to really explore deeply not only the issue of free speech but the relationship of free speech to our values as a community. One of the things that I've become aware of as I've thought intensively about free speech over the last several months is that free speech is a process. It's not a set of principles that you put on a piece of paper. And so hearing from the community, hearing from you about how the events of the fall affected you, hearing your advice is going to be really important in our development of the best policies for the campus and also the best priorities in the use of one of our important resources, which is the forums that we offer people to speak. Two speakers here, Lisa, would you like to introduce? Sure. Thank you. We'll give each of our speakers about two minutes. If anyone else would like to speak a lot of things here. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Good morning. I don't know, is this work-in that I missed? Is it working? Can you actually hear it? Can you hear in the back? Should I talk like that? Is that different? Sorry, I'm working in an event space. So maybe I shouldn't touch it, actually. I can just talk really loud. Okay, cool. Is that better? Can you hear in the back better? Okay, cool. So good morning. Thank you all for extending the invitation specifically to hear from staff that work directly in the immediate area of Sproul. My name's Lisa. I'm the director of the Multicultural Community Center here on campus. It's a student one and student led space. And I'm one of two very lucky staff people who get to work directly with undergraduate and graduate students in this space. I also work really closely with my colleagues in Multicultural Student Development offices and spaces and the Gender Equity Resource Center. So what I wanted to talk about today is both from my personal experience but also kind of collectively, we've had a few conversations about what we might want to address to the commission. And we also want to maybe submit something to you all in writing. But the questions that have surfaced for us time and time again, when we talk about free speech is really the question of who's free speech and who's safety. And while those might seem like rhetorical questions, they're actually quite serious questions to consider. So for us, the proposed tactic of responding to hate speech with more speech actually was not extended to us. As evidenced by the removal of a poster from the Multicultural Community Center, that was a removal of a poster from within the inside of the Multicultural Community Center the day after the Ben Shapiro event. After a lot of inquiries and my little investigative hat, we were told that it was campus paint facility services that came into the MCC and removed the sign. And that was without prior conversation with either MCC staff or with the student union staff. As a space, that was a violation of our space and our understanding actually with the student union with the Multicultural Community Center as part of the lower-spout redevelopment and our working relationships. It's just one example of the ways that working relationships were kind of cross cut in the tension of the time. The impact was very clear to students. One was that, and the students in our offices and connected offices who are primarily first generation students, low income students and documented students who are queer and are trans students, it was very clear that free speech was not extended to them in this instance. It was also an example of how professional staff members are regularly excluded from communication and management of security of our own spaces. This includes having our key card access summarily removed and completely revoked during certain times, while others, including students, staff that are not affiliated with our spaces are allowed to retain access without prior consult or discussion. I believe this in particular puts us in a precarious position, especially in emergency situations, which happened when folks decided to study in the building on the night of Ben Shapiro. We were without, as professional staff members, there's no way that we could ensure their safety, getting to our safety supplies, getting to our kitchen. Any of those things were taken away from us in that moment. And to this end, I hope that the commission is able to offer recommendations to address the gaps in communication that exists between staff members who may work in distinct offices and divisions but are responsible for overlapping spaces and populations on campus, including the MCC. And as an example, it makes sense for me that while discussing safety and security plan for the student union buildings, directors for spaces like the MCC and the Public Service Center are, hold on, it makes sense, hold on. It would make sense that we're directly included in conversations. And this would extend to directors of SESAP Chavez in the event of upper sprawl and lower sprawl. Each day, my colleagues and I work to support the holistic and physical and emotional health of all of our communities in order to make sure that we have the opportunities for academic, personal, and professional success. While the public messages throughout the last semester were about physical safety for the UC Berkeley community and public, many of us would argue that the hyper-militarization practices utilized on campus themselves cause significant harm to our communities. We had countless conversations with students and staff members reporting everything from stress-induced illness to debilitation and fear of coming to campus due to the heightened levels of law enforcement presence on campus. These are things that you all already know. But specifically, I wanted to talk about accommodations. We received really mixed messages around accommodations. Within the division of equity inclusion, we got clear messages that we should work with our students, with our staff about talking about what the holistic impacts were on our working environments and our learning environments. When some of the events were, a free speech week were canceled, we know that the environment didn't just go away, it didn't go back to Berkeley. The police presence was still present. The, what is this called? The barriers were still there. All those things still happened. And what I communicated to students was that they could ask for accommodations flexibility from the professors. When things were canceled, many professors just took that away and many staff, people also took that away from the accommodations they had offered to the staff that they work with. And so all of a sudden folks were expected to come to campus without those accommodations and they came into a tense environment. They came into an environment where they were physically assaulted, where they were spat upon, where they were yelled at. And so this is a really mixed message. I feel like I set up students to ask and to advocate for themselves and the university didn't help me support those students in their success and for staff members. I also got reports from a staff member that when they asked to leave campus, leave campus for the day because of their own well-being, they were actually locked into their office and were fine, we're not even on central campus here and they were not allowed to leave or even take a sick day. So those are the kinds of things that I was holding that are somewhat outside of my job purview, but I really hoped that we're able through you all and through the commission to talk about some of these gaps in communication and really start making those connections so that we can be preventative and or when we're caught into a, we have to just act in the moment that we go towards harm reduction models and or we really think about de-escalation. Thanks. It depends on the number of speakers. Right, so if they agree on the ability to set time first. Peace everyone, how are we doing today? Good, all right, happy Friday. My name is Blake Simons, assistant director of the Fannie LaHemmer Black Resource Center. I've been on this campus since 2011. I'm also an alum. And what I saw there for each week is something that I've never seen on this campus before in my time. And that is also going through like the Black Lives Matter movement in which I was a student and was tear gassed in the streets of Berkeley. So to see this happen again was definitely very frustrating. Not only just as a staff member, but as just a black person native to the Bay Area having to go on campus and to be subjected to such like violence. And violence isn't always just physical, but like what does it mean when you have police with militarized weapons standing everywhere, right? I also wanted to raise the attention to certain events that happen during free speech week that a lot of folks might not be aware about. The black community every Wednesday we have something called Black Wednesday as a space where we can just chill and be in community with each other. That also happened to fall on Nigerian Independence Day where our students were celebrating independence, right? That was also a free speech week. And we were there doing what we normally do every Wednesday, which we did this past Wednesday, which we'll do next Wednesday and the week after, be at that space. And we were physically attacked by white supremacists who were on campus under the guise of free speech, right? And literally as a staff member having to almost like be in the protector role of my students to make sure that my students are safe, right? And having to put like my body, my physical safety in the line to make sure that my students were okay. And I think we need to really think about what free speech is, right? What the implications of quote unquote patriot prayer is, right? And talk about it for what it is because we need to protect our students. And a lot of my students did not feel safe even asking me to come do security for them during their meetings because they did not feel safe to be on campus that day. Another point I want to make too is that policing doesn't inherently mean safety. I saw some communication that this event was good because it was safe, right? But the most unsafe I felt was on this campus having to walk home at night, walking down Baincroft, militarized police officers everywhere, walking down the middle of the street trying to get to my car. And at that moment I'm like, I wish I had my staff ID in my hand but I'm not going to go into my pocket because I'm a fear, I'm fearing like what they might think that I'm going in my pocket for. And that was like most fear I've had in a while. So I don't want people to think that police means safety and that students actually feel safe with militarized police officers, tanks. It felt like a very war zone occupation. There's also a lot of students that I worked with that are in a lot of emotional trauma and I know the tanks center was doing a lot of hard work but there's also not enough resources for folks to be able to see therapists consistently going through the trauma that they were going to. And then the last point I wanted to speak about was the closing of the buildings, right? And what does that mean? When the buildings that are closed are where black, brown, indigenous students are at. So we're closing Cesar Chavez Center under the name of free speech but literally displacing students into a few very safe spaces that we have on campus. And also there was communication about which way to go or which way to be on campus, right? Where there was like little small red lines about areas you were supposed to avoid. And who are you telling to avoid these areas, black, brown, indigenous people, right? So we're supposed to avoid certain areas of campus that we're supposed to go to because of quote unquote free speech. So I just ask that people really think about black, brown and indigenous folks, people of color, queer and trans students when these quote unquote free speech events are going on. Thank you. What about the yellow folks? It just seems to be racist against yellow folks. Oh, sir. I'm here to listen. Hi everyone. Thank you for having me. I'm Daryl Ansel. I'm the executive director of the Student Union and the associate dean of students. I'm also Cal alum, 83. And it's a rare moment when one day of work becomes etched in my mind forever. But Feb one was like that. So I'm very proud of our team and everything we've done. But I felt it was important just to share with the commission on behalf of the team the emotional toll supporting major events has taken on us the last year. For the sake of time, I narrowed this down to four key topics. Time, conflict, disruption and readiness. So for time, I want to make sure everyone knows that leading up to the February 1st event, that helps. How much time many people put into this on our team? For many people, this took over their entire job duties and caused great stress as other duties had to get put aside. And with all the major events we've had, there's many team members who've never been able to really catch up. And they carry great sorrow over the impact all these events have had on their work. The necessary focus on events has negatively affected team members' mental and physical health. And we remain very concerned about the adequacy of our resources to support these major events. So that's time. Conflict, beyond the time, there's internal conflict that arose with many of us, which was difficult and painful. The conflict arose as our required roles became significantly misaligned with personal beliefs. There were a fair amount of tears and anger both before the events and after the events, especially Feb 1. And while we might think this is sort of like the reality of a job, this conflict, I observed conflict that reached hikes and extremes that seemed inappropriate for our culture and our climate. It was to say the least disorienting for many, and had us questioning our purpose, our leadership. And the feeling was perhaps extreme mostly in the days and weeks after, but it lingers and it's never fully dissipated for many. Three, disruption. We strive each day in all that we do to be very inclusive at the union with diverse programs and services to meet the needs of many communities. There may have been no sadder moment for us than 4 p.m. Feb 1 when we had to sweep the building and shut down all operations and kicking out the very students we exist to serve. It seemed wrong then and it still seems wrong now, even though we've gained a greater understanding of the free speech issues related to this. Fourth, readiness. So we're a group of professionals we're well trained to do what we do. That includes years of education and hard earned deep physical experience. We plan many programs and events were consistently diligent in our efforts to be properly prepared. Feb 1 we did everything we knew what to do to be ready but we could not have imagined what occurred. We felt like nobody helped us imagine what might occur and given the nature of our character and culture this wasn't just scary but it was very disheartening and that lingers as well. We found ourselves in the surreal uncontrollable environment with our student workers surrounded by smoke, hundreds of police, hearing of the fires, rubber bullets and Molotov cocktails. And I believe we put too many people in harm's way but I'm thankful we avoided for the most part physical injury. So these are kind of like the main points of impact on our team and I share it in hopes that this will help inform the discussions going on. We appreciate all you're doing to be thoughtful regarding how we support free speech on this great campus of ours. We hope you'll carefully consider the impact the policies, procedures and decisions have on our staff and our students. And I thank you for the time and the chance to speak. My name's Elizabeth Wilmerding. I work at the Path to Care Center. The Path to Care Center supports folks who have been impacted by sexual violence and sexual harassment on our campus. We are essentially located on campus. I will give a disclaimer that we keep our location confidential so I ask that you please not take anything that I say and share it about where our location is on campus. I wanted to share an incident that took place over free hate speech week. It was an interaction that I had with a student. I had a meeting scheduled with a student who I supervised and worked with and I was waiting for the student to arrive and my phone rang and it was the student. And they said, I'm outside your building but I can't get in. And I said what? And they said, yeah, I can't get in. There are cops stationed at every door. They said the building's on lockdown. I was shocked because we had received no notification that our building was actually on lockdown that nobody was able to enter or to exit. And so I went downstairs and sure enough the student was right. There were cops stationed at every door and we were told that nobody was able to enter and nobody was able to leave. If you wanted to leave, you wouldn't be able to return. And I said, well, I have a student right here. I'm trying to provide support to this student. And they said that's the rule right now. We're not letting anybody in. So what followed was a conversation, a rush conversation between myself and the student. Through a door, I'm here. My student is here on the other side of the door and there's a cop standing in between us. The Papticare Center has worked tirelessly every single day to be seen as a trusted and confidential resource on our campus. And it is completely unacceptable that I was put in a position to talk with a student in that setting. I wanna make sure that that never happens again on our campus. I know that I don't have a solution to the events that have occurred and what we can do and do next time. But I want to be very clear that having a militarized police presence on our campus is certainly not the solution. It's not a solution that helps our students feel safe. It's not a solution that helps me feel safe. I went on a different day. I went to leave the building to go to a meeting and I was told that I needed to leave through the basement and that when I returned, I needed to return through the basement. I got off of the elevator in the basement and I faced a surge of hundreds of uniform cops. They were from Oakland. They were from Berkeley. They were from the state. And even as a white woman, I felt paralyzed. I was so shocked to see that in my office, in my place of work. And I can't imagine how others have felt. I know that there were many staff who didn't feel safe coming to work to support our students. And I think that's the most important thing. That's why we're here is to support our students. And if we can't feel safe, if we can't feel like we're able to do our job, we're not going to be able to support our students and meet those goals. The other thing I wanted to touch on was the financial impact. So we actually had to reschedule and relocate many of our meetings. Many of our clients did not feel safe coming to our building. We also didn't know whether, we didn't know whether the building would be shut down. Folks didn't feel safe for a variety of reasons. Some of it was because of the police presence. Some of it was certainly because of the rhetoric that was happening and they weren't sure who was going to be located near our building. So we had to relocate many of our meetings and appointments, which meant that we needed to pay for space across campus. And so it had a financial impact on us as well. And that money, I can tell you, can be much better served to actually do violence prevention and violence support efforts, rather than paying for space that we should already have access to. And then the one other point that I wanted to make was that it actually impacted our students financially as well. So we have peer educators, we have student staff. Even when we relocated our meetings and relocated our appointments with them, many of them still didn't feel safe coming to campus. And so they actually lost out on making money and they lost out on being able to attend those meetings and log it on their timesheet and be paid and compensated for their time. And that's income that those students are counting on. And that's why we pay them is because we believe in the work that they do and we believe in its value and they weren't able to do the work and they weren't able to be compensated for it. So I really wanna make sure that we think not just about those impacts, but then that we can think even broader and think about how can we hold each other accountable to the respect and the safety that we deserve as people, but also especially as members of this community where we're supposed to respect one another and care for one another. Thank you. Working with the city of St. Rossoff, you'd like to speak? Did you all finish your video, Marisa? Since I represent a minority of new people here, I'd love to be able to take questions and use the video as an update for more. I don't know, are you all just doing statements or are you all just doing the questions for us at St. Rossoff? We're very close to that. I am close just to talk to you. Well, we've been through all of our scheduled speakers. So if you ran a little bit over time, but if we had to cut you off to a lot of the other speakers, you'd have an opportunity to address the commission, but we have a few minutes left and so if you would like to see anything else. I mean, I was able to say my statement, but we could in helpful for the commission, they have questions for us specifically as members in the area. I would be open to that. I actually have a question. There was one fact that was one fact that's just with the last speaker that was just raised. I'm curious about the amount that has to be paid and whether or not you've sought repayment or reimbursement and whether or not, and this is something to consider if you've talked to someone else that higher up in the university to seek repayment or to replenish your budget. I mean, because that is because that could potentially be added to the total cost for the event. So has that been pursued? I'll have to check with our director to see what the latest stats is. But I'd be happy to follow up with you and let you and the rest of the commission know. To that point, one of the things I did, I just did not mention in our, is that there was a lot of efforts to find other spaces for our programs. For the MCC in particular, our program, our space is our program. There's actually not another space that we can move to. It's actually not an option to find another space on campus to move us because the program itself is a space. So that was a big challenge actually that even in that, there's not really an adequate place to move everything that we are. And so that was one of the things that you can't quantify financially, but had that huge impact in terms of, because we're also such a support space for so many other services, PS, counseling, partner with USP. We partner with a lot of providing free space for all the services for our students that and for staff and for faculty that we actually, it's an irreplaceable kind of thing or it's not thought of viable in that way. So I would add that. Question about the recommendation itself. Sure. Sure. I think it's helpful to better understand, and maybe there's already been published, but I just haven't read it, but just trying to get a better gauge of how numbers been published, of like total figures up to right now what we know, what is the role of the commission, when do we expect things to come out of the commission? I'm expecting for events to be happening this semester because it's Berkeley and that's what we do. That's just kind of like how it flowed. So like what are like immediate decisions that have already been made to make those events better? Like so on and so forth. Just like what's the central information space? Because when we get questions, I don't know who to point people to. And I myself don't know where to go to for information. And what's the most reliable source of information? Because sometimes we hear something from student affairs, but then we'll hear something different from equity and inclusion. And then we hear something else coming from the Berkeley News Center. And it's kind of like really difficult, especially for service providers like the MCC. I'm over at the basic needs sites of food pantry. So when an event is canceled, we're like, hey, there's no event. Go ahead and carry business as usual. But then we have like 150 police officers walking in the area where the two main entrances are to go into the food pantry. Like there's just mixed messages that are going on. So I think just all of those questions would be helpful. So we're then just in terms of central source for information about the three-speech commission. We just set up a website this week. It's a chancellor.berkeley.edu forward slash commission type and free type and speech. Andy, can you say that again? Sure, so it's chancellor.berkeley.edu forward slash commission type and free type and speech. Or if you just, if you just go to chancellor.berkeley.edu there's a full down of recent task courses or sort of initiatives. And it sits in that full down too. And at this point, if you Google on Berkeley, if you just searched on Berkeley commission on three speech, you'll pop up too. Is the commission gonna look into the violence by the communist group Antifa? As I've seen perplexed that nobody even mentions the perpetrators of the violence and having this ad hominem attack against some group that he said attacked his group, which was not true, that Patriot prayer guys, they were just, they came here free speech and they were attacked by moms. 40,000 of them in San Francisco. The charter of this free speech commission is to review campus policies and practices around the free speech issue. It is not to do any investigation into events. And so that's really what the focus of this group is. We provided some feedback into the process of formulating a set of special events policies that have gone into effect now. We're holding, we're trying to get information about the experience of the campus connected with various of the recent free speech type events with an eye to brainstorming about whether we can improve our policies to more effectively protect free speech while also protecting the other values that are important to the campus. Have you reached out to the speakers who you censored? We're, there's nothing, we said nothing about censorship. We're not aiming to censor anyone. Oh, yeah, yeah. We're hoping to offer some recommendations to the chancellor. I'm just going back to the question about what our brief is and what our timetable in April. And these recommendations might inform further revisions to the special events policies that's on it. So at this time, are there any other speakers, people who would like to address the free speech commission? They take questions because it seems like this is about. Sir, sir, are you're a visitor? You're a guest here in the room. The commission is here to hear from the broader community and they're like, can you ask for input? I just gave an input, that's all. Yeah, so you could possibly give that to us privately but I would ask that you respect the process and the norms of the room today that we would like to listen. Thank you. There are some others. There are some other speakers. There's a position against me. I'd like to be able to respond to that. I'm trying to, I'm sure. There are some, shall I read while the Chancellor's here? Some of the other messages. Correct. There is, and these are in no particular order. This one is from James Stone Lundy. It's entitled, A Defense of Free Speech. Dear sir or madam, I would like to thank you for extending an invitation to the campus scholars to discuss free speech. Below I would like to outline a defense of the importance of free speech in four parts. Number one, there is no reason to trust any individual or organization to regulate speech. Certainly not the Trump administration but not the UC Berkeley administration either. No offense to anyone in particular. As soon as a framework for the restriction of free speech is in place, it becomes abusable by anyone seeking to silence their critics. In my opinion, there is no institution of purpose, no ideology or religious creed that can safely be given such awesome power. None of us are so wise or so good that we deserve the right to silence our detractors. Number two, historically free speech and the ability to offend has been very important for social progress. During the early civil rights era, expressing the view that black people should vote or that interracial relationships should be legalized was regarded by the majority of mainstream American society as revolting degeneracy. Certainly offensive and quite possibly hate speech of source. The fact that the ability to express those views was enshrined in the US Constitution, permitted the USA to move one step further away from its dark past. Free speech made that transformation possible. Doubtless, those views will have been deeply offensive to a great majority of the American public. Justice support for gay marriage has been deeply offensive to many Americans religious sensibilities. However, cow-toeing to those who claim offense the loudest, even if they do so for religious, cultural, or ethnic reasons, and forcefully silencing discussions is a certain way to erase all chance for future social progress. Number three, there are many countries with strict restrictions on speech. China, North Korea, Singapore, most of the Gulf states, Pakistan, et cetera. And most of these restrictions of free speech take the form of curtailing the ability of citizens to criticize the government, the political system, or the religious underpinnings of the state. This is a predictable outcome of restricting free speech, in my view. The most powerful institutions of the land, especially governmental, military, industrial, and religious are best positioned to leverage restrictions of this type to expand their power and wipe out their opposition. We should have a healthy fear of such developments. It could well happen here. Number four, UC Berkeley is an institution of learning. The fearless pursuit of truth often requires proposing difficult or offensive hypotheses. History is full of examples of scholars who fearlessly presented the truth in a world without free speech and who suffered terribly for their claims, only to be vindicated by the inexorable march of time and truth. Sima Kouyan, Galileo Galilei, Muhammad Ibn Zakaria Razi, the list goes on. Free speech truly is the most beautiful thing in the world. It is uncomfortable, it is often painful, but the alternative is far worse. I hope you will take the above points into consideration. Best regards, James Stone, Lundy, PhD, ABD, University of California, Berkeley. Hello, thank you for providing this opportunity to speak. My name is Jennifer McNulty. I'm one of the student organization advising team members in the LEED sensor. And in my purview is advising student media organizations, including publications like the organization that was behind the free speech week events of this past fall. I also support the Publications and Media Center and the student staff that work for that center that are based in MLK. So we were affected by the building closure. Our staff were not able to work during the closure and we were not able to provide services to the community from our space during the closure. But what I actually wanted to comment on now was to address one of the focus questions that I think was shared by Chancellor Christ and the letter to the campus community regarding some of the key topics of interest for the commission. And that is the required number, minimum number of students for a student organization to be registered with the university. As many of you may know, we at the LEED center have the responsibility to manage registration for all student organizations on campus and there are over 1,000. We have seen a huge proliferation over the last few years and the number of new student organizations seeking to be registered. And we have struggled with our staffing levels to be able to provide real transformative leadership support for those student organizations and advising. And the CalLink system enables us to support student organizations who have on their roster four members that are private. So for example, if you are a very small student organization and you don't want your roster to be known, you can join a student organization privately and no one needs to know that you are in that organization that is information that we protect as LEED center staff and we certainly don't share it. So I would make the recommendation with that information or the request to the commission that at least it is explored that a student organization membership is required to be more than four individuals. The fact that such a tiny organization can leverage such incredible power on our campus is I think really problematic. And certainly I wouldn't want to keep small organizations from being unable to work and register. There's certainly small communities that need to have the organization of being supported by the LEED center and by the university but four just seems way too small to me. So I ask that that is reviewed. I also just as sort of an addendum to that comment would point out that the LEED center does not control where student organizations are able to receive support financially. And so you can have an organization of four members receiving tens of thousands of dollars of support from off campus and can be used as proxies which I think is something that the commission is very well aware of but I would just like to point that out to everybody else in the room. I think that we need to have a conversation about how can we work to help students to navigate what it means to partner with off campus entities and how do we manage our resources on campus so that we are enabling all student organizations to have access to the amazing resources that Cal provides without making it something that is just basically open to be manipulated by off campus entities. Thank you. The website's awesome by the way, this is super clear. As you can see the commission tasks coming from the EOP perspective and working from academic counseling and advising side. One of the things that we've noticed is that there's some academic departments that are more willing to be understanding and work with students and other ones that are not so much. So I'm curious like what's the role of the commission in terms of investigating those processes? Is there some students that are allowed to find a different test day or find a different assignment or something of that nature and will be able to perform to the best of their abilities and whatever that means in the context of events like this but then there's other departments that are just very like just a hard no. Either you submit the assignments or you come to the test or you don't do it at all. So there seems to be a necessity for an equity like metrics or something to be discussed in terms of what is our campus overall protocol regardless of what the politics of the students are or regardless of what the politics of the events. They're just a stark inconsistency in the way that we take those things into consideration and who are the students that end up having to unfortunately leave Berkeley completely or take the semester off to make up for what they didn't do and some of them are able to continue throughout. So that's not something that I'm seeing in the commission's roles in terms of academic impact and then what happens after the fact for students that are just a portion of the impact. So our charge is said by the chancellor and the charge is what you see for you but you're raising a very interesting point, a very good point for us to consider as we think about recommendations. So that's information for us. So thank you. You're about five minutes left and will it come as a period? We're going to go ahead. Just hold this down. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the faculty and students. I'm an international student here. My name is Rudra Reddy, I'm also a conservative so I'll be expressing some minority opinions today. A number of speakers today have mentioned the presence of militarized police court on court as being equivalent to violence. They've also mentioned how a number of victim groups, black people, immigrants, LGBT folks have been traumatized by free speech as if simply expressing all opinions without prejudice is inherently harmful to persons of color and all these groups. Now I might point out that if free speech itself is something that you cannot handle, there are many institutions that are fit for you but a university is not one of them because I don't think your education up to this point has prepared you for what a university will throw at you and what real life will throw at you when you graduate from here. Now I wanna mention that all the inconvenience caused during free speech week and during the Ben Shapiro event, the lack of access to student services, the resources, the community, so on and so forth was not something that conservatives themselves wanted. We would rather have avoided all of this. Mr. Shapiro himself has already spoken at this campus in 2016 and that event went without any inconvenience, without any curtailing of access to services or anything like that. Mr. Shapiro has not changed his viewpoint in those two years. What has changed is the response to him. What has changed is that when we saw the Mayo event in January, which was scheduled, we saw that many conservatives were beaten up, that we saw physical violence against them, which is why UCPD has changed its assessments for security for conservative events in the future. The university's purpose, especially this one, is not to protect any group from ideological strife or from political differences. It is to secure all viewpoints and it is to make sure that everyone is represented. I frankly find this commission itself profoundly unnecessary. Free speech is not something that is controversial or should be up for debate. It is pretty well established in legal precedent. You, especially the faculty here, are obliged to make sure that every speaker, regardless of political viewpoint, gets a chance to be heard and such speakers are not placed with unnecessary financial burdens like for the student groups hosting them and that every student is able to access financial services regardless of which speaker's coming on. Also, I would like to point out that the faculty, especially the chancellor's office which sends out these emails saying that if you feel offended by the speaker coming to campus, you can access all these student services, all these safe spaces. They also play a very key role in the kind of reaction we see to conservative students and to speakers on campus. If you keep telling students on this campus that they're victims of some kind of right-wing conspiracy, they will act out against their victimizers and that's what you've seen repeatedly on and on again. For example, when I worked as a columnist at the Daily Californian, I repeatedly received emails calling me a brown Nazi, a brown member of the alt-right, an Indian, Richard Spencer. These are offensive, these were remarkably offensive to me, but I have the ideological maturity to understand that this will pass. I mean, this is one person's immature judgment and I'm much more than that. And I tell my liberal colleagues and I tell my liberal fellow students to think the same thing. If one person's judgment to you is derogatory, it is just one person's voice. Move on. If there's a political viewpoint you disagree with, voice that disagreement, articulate and come up with sophisticated arguments, move on. Nothing is worth sacrificing the ideal of free speech. Nothing is worth sacrificing the ideal of this university. It is, I love this college, I love what it stands for. It is why I came to the US and I would hate to see it being taken over by people who are tyrannical in the ways they operate and I hope this commission, now that it has been created, will take steps to prevent that. Thank you. We have reached 12 o'clock p.m. Well, thank you everybody for coming today. That's the end of our second section.