Gulag Demonstration at Washington University
Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall! To celebrate the historic event, the Washington University branch of Young Americans for Liberty constructed a Gulag on their campus. Josh Smith, Caitlin Hartsell, and I trekked over to the event and talked with students about liberty.
The organization’s message was that Americans shouldn’t forget the lessons learned from a divided Germany, and that we should be wary as our government expands in size and scope.
Show-Me Institute intern Caitlin Hartsell was interviewed on KMOX (link via Combest):
“I mean it’s out there and it’s really out of the box,” said graduate student [Caitlin] Hartsell, “But I think it’s good that it really gets people thinking about what the actual implications of what socialism and communism mean.”
Ultimately, the university shut down the gulag because it was “too offensive.” Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reports more on this subject.
Actually, I think Gateway Pundit and John made too big a deal of it. It actually was shut down because they got a permit to pass out pamphlets and instead built a structure… slightly different.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — November 10, 2009 @ 6:44 p.m.
Caitlin,
Actually, your comment is wrongheaded for several reasons:
1) Have you been to the event services website? http://www.eventservices.wustl.edu/resources/student/
Have you seen the online reservation form?
http://www.eventservices.wustl.edu/forms/general/general_request.php
Have you seen the reservation guidelines?
http://www.eventservices.wustl.edu/information/reservation/
Point is, the forms are all general, and there is NO stated outside policy. It is left up to the Events Services personnel to approve or disapprove of an event arbitrarily.
How would you like to drive on the highway and be pulled over because the officer thought you were driving too fast.
“How fast is too fast, officer? I didn’t see a sign.”
“Well, there is no speed limit, except to say that whatever I say is the speed limit…is the speed limit.”
That makes no sense whatsoever and is purely arbitrary.
2) You must not have been there when they shut us down – Barbara Tennant told us the primary reason we were being shut down was that we failed to have our tools approved – the tools and the equipment made the structure and the entire event unsafe.
If this were to be taken at face value, it might be seen as quasi plausible.
However, if the tools, equipment, and materials we used to construct the stockade were faulty and dangerous, WHY ALLOW US TO VOLUNTARILY DISMANTLE THE STOCKADE? Since they allowed us to dismantle the stockade with said materials, they are exhibiting an astonishing level of inconsistency. Unsafe to construct, safe to deconstruct.
3) Moreover, how much detail are students supposed to offer to authorities about their events? Especially when there is no stated policy for outside events!!!
I Quote the event services website linked above:
“The policies for the outside spaces are currently under construction. Feel free to contact Event Services for more information on these spaces.”
So how much detail is enough? Should we have mentioned how many uniforms? The types? The sizes? Should we have specified the banners? How much detail is enough?
If the university is going to regulate a space on the campus, it cannot get upset when it utterly fails to promulgate its own policies.
As such, your comment is meaningless, as the definition of “sufficient detail” is entirely subjective.
Comment by J. — November 10, 2009 @ 9:42 p.m.
while he may lack a certain degree of tact, it appears that “J” is quite on-point and correct.
It becomes easy to nitpick situations and we too easily deconstruct. We should ask if any policy ought to have stood in the way of students making a simple demonstration. No amount of paperwork is acceptable when it comes to basic free speech, or are we so bureaucratized that we too easily foresee each form for each act now?
Or more bluntly, to invert Marcuse, we ought to have total tolerance to all movements from the right and total intolerance to all movements from the left.
Comment by Ben — November 11, 2009 @ 3:42 a.m.
J. and Ben
I am a Wash U alum and was president of one of the conservative groups on campus. In that capacity I was involved in organizing several relatively controversial events, ones considerably more offensive to the administration’s sensibilities than this one. They were never shut down and never hampered by the school. You are correct to point out that the University’s stated policies are vague: they SHOULD be, because (as any small gov’t person knows) institutions are unable to foresee all possible scenarios and consequences. Instead, the school’s practical policy is “Work with us in advance and there will be no problems.” I was always upfront with the school about what we were planning to do, and while they didn’t give me any pats on the back, they didn’t get in my way either. This all comes down to YAL having been deceptive. You guys need to stop whining and start making an effort to communicate a thoughtful, non-socialist message.
Comment by Michael M. — November 11, 2009 @ 8:09 a.m.
As a member of the club who interviewed both the head of Wash U YAL and the administrator, I feel I can comment on this better than either of you.
This is not an events service regulation. It’s an architectural one. It’s stupid, but it exists. Every club that builds something HAS to have a go-ahead from the administration. (And lots of clubs do build and DO get this permission. YAL didn’t.) The gulag was up for 3 hours. It made its point. Wash U is private property and the Wash U. administration can (and does) do what it wants with it… no group would have been allowed to make a building like this without getting explicit permission.But overreacting to a legitimate concern makes you (and your point) sound illegitimate.
Comment by Caitlin — November 11, 2009 @ 9:35 a.m.
“Whatever happended to the Popular Front?”
“He’s over there.”
“Splitter!”
Comment by David Stokes — November 11, 2009 @ 10:18 a.m.
I liked this quote from a blog post on the Grade:
“About three hours in, administrators in the university’s Event Services department declared the gulag a possible safety hazard”
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-grade/higher-education/2009/11/gulag-gets-the-heave-ho-at-wash-u-demonstration/
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — November 11, 2009 @ 2:15 p.m.
Caitlin,
How in the world did you start working for ShowMe?
You’re a schill for the University.
“Quit being part of the problem. Start being part of the solution.”
Further, so which policy are we supposed to believe? There is no policy integration on the campus regarding events.
And, you haven’t had the balls to respond to my points yet.
I’ll take that as an admission of defeat.
Comment by J. — November 12, 2009 @ 11:30 a.m.
I wasn’t there, and have spent precious little time at Wash U, so I can’t comment on the merits of either side in this argument. But here’s what I can say without reservation: Caitlin is awesome. And trustworthy. A disagreement over disputed facts and policies doesn’t change that.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — November 12, 2009 @ 4:53 p.m.
J,
While I don’t appreciate your style, I applaud your creative use of inappropriately-gendered insults. And I never admit defeat, especially when I am right.
First off, as a brand-new club, Wash U. YAL is NOT yet recognized by the university. In this first semester limbo, the University does not have to afford the group space EVER. Thus, any use of meeting rooms and reservations on campus for events is from the goodness of the administrations’ hearts. Allowing YAL to pamphlet on campus and reserve the space was generous. Had the group been honest about their intentions, perhaps the gulag would have been allowed to stay up longer (but it made its point, it didn’t need to stay up longer!) So referencing existing rules is meaningless.
The gulag project was offensive and attention-grabbing… but was that not its purpose? To shock people and force people to consider its message? When one has an unpopular message, one has to be very careful to follow the rules and be respectful (like trying to work with the administration.) Otherwise, the administration will find rules to bring it down.
And the safety issue actually is a legitimate one; had someone been hurt, Wash U could have been liable. By reproving the project and forcing you (you because who else is going to do it?) to take it down, they send a message to future groups and YAL that this isn’t the way to go about things. Obviously, safety wasn’t the key issue in this project… but it could be in future ones and allowing YAL to subvert the process without rebuke just opens a can of worms for the school. Plus, Wash. U. is private property and they can set whatever rules they’d like for it; the rules are vague on purpose to force student groups to be transparent and protect the university.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about these things. It’s fine if YAL wants to subvert that process, but to get indignant that it is taken down (and considered offensive, one of its main objectives) is stupid and only takes away from any point it tried to make. The University generously turned a blind eye from 11 till 2:30 and YAL made its point. That point is obscured though in any of your hoopla of “victimization.”
At any rate, being radical at Wash U. will get attention, but it will not change minds. What was the point of the gulag? A self-congratulatory display meant to shock? Or an opportunity to get people’s attention focused on issues closer to home? The latter opportunity was disappointingly wasted; Show-Me staff engaged far more people in thoughtful debate than anyone else while we were there. It is not enough to shock and offend. You cannot convert most people in one moment, but that moment can be used to get people thinking about issues. The logical stepping stones need to be laid out and that opportunity was not taken.
The message “Wash. U. censored us because they considered our gulag offensive” does not bother anyone other than those that already agree with you. If the point was just to rally those that agree with you, you chose the wrong venue.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — November 12, 2009 @ 9:37 p.m.
While I don’t appreciate your style, I applaud your creative use of inappropriately-gendered insults. And I never admit defeat, especially when I am right.
- Good for you. I admire your tenacity. ;-) And yes, Eric, I met Caitlin. She seems like a fine person, but one which has much to learn about liberty. Thank goodness Show Me will save her soul.
First off, as a brand-new club, Wash U. YAL is NOT yet recognized by the university. In this first semester limbo, the University does not have to afford the group space EVER. Thus, any use of meeting rooms and reservations on campus for events is from the goodness of the administrations’ hearts. Allowing YAL to pamphlet on campus and reserve the space was generous. Had the group been honest about their intentions, perhaps the gulag would have been allowed to stay up longer (but it made its point, it didn’t need to stay up longer!) So referencing existing rules is meaningless.
- From the goodness of their hearts! You would make an excellent monarchist. All good things come from the king. We are all just slaves on the plantation. “Yes ma’suh, I’s be workin’ on ya plantayshun.” I don’t know how they do things in Elizabethan England where you’re from, but in America we have rights. Freedom of speech is one of those. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the group is fully “recognized” or not. You work at a think tank. Surely some there must be lawyers. Students have rights. http://www.theFIRE.org
- Honest about their intentions? what degree of specificity is appropriate? The whole point of having rules, as you so eloquently point out, is to avoid arbitrary decision making. A FAILURE to promulgate law is a failure on the part of the leviathan, not the subject.
Clearly, the university has liability concerns. But were these concerns truly the issue, why then the inconsistent behavior? Why unsafe to construct, safe to deconstruct.
But as you have written, I see you basically concede that point.
The gulag project was offensive and attention-grabbing… but was that not its purpose? To shock people and force people to consider its message? When one has an unpopular message, one has to be very careful to follow the rules and be respectful (like trying to work with the administration.) Otherwise, the administration will find rules to bring it down.
- So the more shocking or controversial the speech, the greater the impetus on the part of the speaker to be less shocking or controversial. That’s a circular argument.
Further, I’m blown away by the arrogance of the statements in the paragraph above. The administration exists to allow students to grow and learn – period. It DOES NOT EXIST to regulate speech merely when it is inconvenient or disliked. You’re turning this into a pure free speech issue…which is bad for your overall thesis. Retreat while you still can!
And the safety issue actually is a legitimate one; had someone been hurt, Wash U could have been liable. By reproving the project and forcing you (you because who else is going to do it?) to take it down, they send a message to future groups and YAL that this isn’t the way to go about things. Obviously, safety wasn’t the key issue in this project… but it could be in future ones and allowing YAL to subvert the process without rebuke just opens a can of worms for the school. Plus, Wash. U. is private property and they can set whatever rules they’d like for it; the rules are vague on purpose to force student groups to be transparent and protect the university.
- That’s like saying that a cheating husband gets pulled over by a cop (who asks him to declare any suspicious items in his vehicle) must declare he has his lover’s clothes in the trunk! The whole point here is that the UNIVERSITY HAS NO PROMULGATED POLICY! Further, how much detail is enough detail? Where does it end? THE UNIVERSITY FAILED TO MAKE POLICY AND THEY HAVE EGG ON THEIR FACE. Again, the liability issue is a red herring because of the utterly inconsistent manner in which it was utilized.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about these things. It’s fine if YAL wants to subvert that process, but to get indignant that it is taken down (and considered offensive, one of its main objectives) is stupid and only takes away from any point it tried to make. The University generously turned a blind eye from 11 till 2:30 and YAL made its point. That point is obscured though in any of your hoopla of “victimization.”
- The university – as is apparent on the video: http://www.campusgulag.org or biggovernment.com plotted and schemed to shut down the event. I’m going to assume for your sake that you haven’t seen the video.
At any rate, being radical at Wash U. will get attention, but it will not change minds. What was the point of the gulag? A self-congratulatory display meant to shock? Or an opportunity to get people’s attention focused on issues closer to home? The latter opportunity was disappointingly wasted; Show-Me staff engaged far more people in thoughtful debate than anyone else while we were there. It is not enough to shock and offend. You cannot convert most people in one moment, but that moment can be used to get people thinking about issues. The logical stepping stones need to be laid out and that opportunity was not taken.
- Have you read Saul Alinsky? Pick up __Rules for Radicals___ then come back and see me.
The message “Wash. U. censored us because they considered our gulag offensive” does not bother anyone other than those that already agree with you. If the point was just to rally those that agree with you, you chose the wrong venue.
- Ditto my last sentence.
Comment by J. — November 13, 2009 @ 12:25 a.m.
As a liberal and someone without a dog in this fight, I think it’s interesting to watch J and Caitlin duke it out. I think it fundamentally represents a divergence between two forces within conservatism, Caitlin’s being safe and J’s being a bit rogue and wild.
Was the gulag “safe”, it looked fine on the video, and that certainly was a laughable reason to take it down. It’s delightful that Caitlin worries about the liability of the university but that concern’s almost silly.
And as she, I think, represents the agenda of the Show Me Institute better, I think it’s hilarious that for all her talk about ‘free markets’ and the low-level of government, that she so clearly wants the government to come in and quash this ‘dangerous’ and ‘unsafe’ event that clearly didn’t follow the ‘rules’ because it was too controversial.
Thus let me point out the obvious hypocrisy as Congress passed universal healthcare, bringing the government back into the protection of individuals, to stop the dangerous free market that was clearly unsafe for MILLIONS of Americans. It was dangerous to let the market go on, and the rules of this society are to take care of one another. That’s the world we live in, Caitlin, and before you and the Show Me Institute get all huffy and puffy about “free markets” and “capitalism” ask yourself why should we respect your silly antiquated ideas when you won’t even apply them for a stupid meaningless shock event at WashU? When you won’t even support the rights of your fellow “conservatives”, you expect us to take you seriously when you advance the agenda of the AMA and millionaire doctors by saying you represent all of society?
i think this stupid gulag event was put on to make some distant detached point about the economy, whatever. But I think it ultimately made a much more powerful statement about people like Caitlin, and “conservative” groups like Show Me that only end up serving corporate interests.
Comment by Hans — November 13, 2009 @ 1:54 p.m.
Hans, the Show-Me Institute is not a conservative organization, and I think Caitlin and J would both easily be described not as conservatives, but as libertarians — an entirely different chunk of the ideological spectrum.
Two essential features of a free society are respect for property rights and equality under the law, which is largely the approach Caitlin is taking in her argument here. Free markets and property rights are inseparable, and property ownership entails the right to control its use. J’s argument is not with that, but with whether the university acted contrary to its stated policies regarding its own property, by attempting to control its use in ways that are incompatible with its extant rules and mission.
Again, I can’t comment on that portion of the argument. Neither perspective, however, is incompatible with a fundamental respect for individual liberty and free markets.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — November 13, 2009 @ 2:27 p.m.
“But I think it’s good that it really gets people thinking about what the actual implications of what socialism and communism mean.”
I understand that communism must be far from romaticized, but socialism of a kind exists in possibly every country I would want to live in. By a bunch of criteria the United States is socialist, Medicare [giving according to one ability/paycheck, taking according to one's needs/medical bills], free education regardless of economic standing, Workmen’s Compensation and the list, literally, goes on and on. The above is all funded by taking one set of people’s money and giving it to another set of people, involuntarily. It is, of course, validated at the ballot box, but that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t socialists every now and then.
I realize that ’socialism’ is a word that focus groups well, but lumping it in with communism [and totalitarianism] is irresponsible.
Comment by Papillon — November 13, 2009 @ 3:36 p.m.
“By a bunch of criteria the United States is socialist”
You are absolutely right, that is the whole point, it is really bad.
Comment by vroman — November 13, 2009 @ 4:44 p.m.
Hans,
Eric and Caitlin in no way end up serving or advancing corporate interests. That’s my role. I feel the same obsequious devotion to corporate interests that Kent Brockman had for the ants:
“Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we’ve just lost the picture, but what we’ve seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- ‘conquered’ if you will- by a master race of giant space ants. It’s difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthman or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I’d like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.”
Comment by David Stokes — November 13, 2009 @ 4:44 p.m.
Was Hans one of the people in costume? I watched the video, and he sure sounded like the fellow with the blood on his head, carrying the banner.
By the way, Hans, the AMA came out in support of the PelosiCare bill that was passed, much to the chagrin of many non-millionaire physicians. Nice of you to drop in an incorrect non-sequitur argument.
Comment by Bill H — November 13, 2009 @ 5:31 p.m.
[...] on the blogosphere. I have shared a lot of my feelings about the event in the comment section of Christine Harbin’s Show-Me Daily post, but as I’ve since learned that other campuses plan to replicate the event, I have a few [...]
Pingback by Lessons from the gulag: how to ruin a good message « Lady Libertarian — November 22, 2009 @ 10:59 p.m.