Did Occupy Vermont Suppress Free Speech in Goldman Sachs Protest Controversy?

Tweet

Jeff Ares, a University of Vermont alumnus who now works for Goldman Sachs, was scheduled to speak to business students at the school on Friday. Given Goldman Sachs's sizable role in the financial meltdown, this didn't make Vermont's contingent of Occupy Wall Street supporters too happy.

Occupy Vermont participants planned a "showdown" at the talk to protest Goldman Sachs and to urge business students to take up careers away from Wall Street. Talk of a protest led Goldman Sachs to request that the event be canceled, according to the AP.

The AP story includes a quote from a notable free speech advocate, who appears to condemn Occupy Vermont for their role in getting the plug pulled:

Harvey Silverglate, a Boston lawyer and chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said by effectively pressuring Ares to cancel the talk, the activists involved were likely involved in “a conspiracy to restrict free speech.”

Harsh words. Occupy Wall Street protesters and their supporters scattered around the world seem pretty dedicated to democracy — accusing them of trying to suppress free speech is a serious charge.

Sure enough, Occupy Vermont didn't take kindly to that suggestion. Occupy Vermont participant Matthew Cropp published an open letter to Silverglate on the group's blog  that claims Occupiers never asked for the talk to be canceled, and that Goldman Sachs is the real enemy of free speech. Here's an excerpt:

Our goal was to use the event as an opportunity to engage in a public discussion about Mr. Ares’ employer, which was the stated purpose of his presentation. Indeed, in our event invitation, we urged all attendees to read up on the activities of Goldman Sachs so that they might meaningfully contribute to a constructive dialog. As far as I know, no one from our movement called on his talk to be canceled; what we desired was the opportunity to offer alternative perspectives in an environment of intellectual freedom (a right that your organization purports to promote).

And here's where the story takes an unexpected twist. Harvey Silverglate responded with an open letter of his own, which was also published on the Occupy Vermont blog.

According to Silverglate, AP reporter Dave Gram "mangled" his views and took his quotes out of context. In fact, Silverglate supported the right of the protesters to make their perspective on Goldman Sachs heard, as long as they also respected Ares's right to speak as well. An excerpt from Silverglate's response:

If demonstrators get together with an aim to drown out the speaker, they are in a conspiracy to restrict free speech. On the other hand, if the speaker fails to show up because he does not want to confront those who disagree with him, that is the fault of the speaker, not of the audience.

One final note: Facebook postings suggest that Occupy Vermont participants weren't entirely sad to see Ares's talk canceled. An administrator on the Occupy Vermont Facebook page posted a link to the AP story on the ABC News site with the caption "Victory!" You shouldn't glean too much from a one-word Facebook posting, especially from an ostensibly leaderless movement like this one, but it's worth noting. (I wasn't able to confirm who's running the Facebook page while writing this post.)

UPDATE: I spoke with Matthew Cropp, who in addition to penning the open later is one of the 14 administrators on the Occupy Vermont Facebook page. "My intended meaning was to celebrate the fact that, in spite of the cancellation, our proposed attendance was nonetheless sparking a discussion in our community about Goldman Sachs," he said via email. "I still would have much preferred to have been able to attend the actual in-person event, but the fact that Goldman's cowardice in the face of scrutiny didn't slip beneath the media radar was cause for celebration."

File photo of "Goldman Sucks" sign was taken by Shay Totten at the October 2 Occupy Wall Street solidarity rally in Burlington.

Comments

[caleb]

Whether it's Occupy Wall Street refusing to let a UVM grad speak at UVM, or Michael Colby and Boots Wardinsky refusing to allow a US diplomat speak at his own kid's graduation at St. Johnsbury Academy, or a UVM mob not allowing Ben Stein to be the graduation speaker after he was already invited, those who identify as "politically correct" are a bunch of intolerant, anti-free speech, un-American thugs. Shame.

[Scomber]

OWS did nothing to stop him from speaking - Goldman Sachs learned that there would be dissenting voices at the event, and pulled the plug. If you want to point the finger at the anti-free speech party in this situation, it is clearly Goldman Sachs...

[Josh Schlossberg]

Just because some people were pleased with the eventual outcome--the Goldman Sachs guy canceling--doesn't mean that was the intended purpose. In fact, it seemed as if the purpose was to have a dialogue with the individual in front of the audience to educate people, not scare him from showing up. When he doesn't show up, it makes it impossible to have this dialogue...Occupy Vermont shouldn't be blamed for the cowardice of this Goldman Sachs guy.

[caleb]

Wait, who said that Occupy Wall Street mob was "invited" to have a dialogue with this guy at a private event on the UVM campus? Answer: they weren't.

And the "Occupy" mob didn't call it a "dialogue," they called it a "showdown."

You can make all the anti-Goldman Sachs speeches you want. Have at it. But you can't barge into places you aren't invited because you want to have a so-called "dialogue."

Bottom line: someone was threatened with being shouted down by a mob, which mob claimed "Victory!" when the guy didn't show up. If you claim to just have wanted a "dialogue," how is his not showing up a "victory"? This was schoolyard bullying.

Shame.

[Scomber]

@Caleb If you've been paying attention to Burlington politics at all in the last year, you'll recognize that "Showdown" was a reference to the "Showdown with Lockheed Martin" of a few months ago, which consisted of such wild things as citizens holding signs and speaking during the public comment period of a City Council meeting. the term thus hardly summons up the image of an angry, out of control mob - more, an active and engaged citizenry.

And last time I checked, UVM was still a public university, where there are certain rights to free speech and protest.

The fact of the matter is, Goldman Sachs was worried enough by the prospect of encountering dissenting voices that they chickened out. It speaks volumes of their confidence in the moral status of their firm if they refuse to defend its reputation in public. They are the shameful ones - the occupy movement, by contrast, is standing up for justice...

[Scomber]

And if there are any lingering doubts about Goldman Sachs, read this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511

[Jcarter]

In all fairness, there is a huge difference between dissenting voices and irrational stubborn protestors.

[Peterb]

@SCOMBER: how can you expect some (probably) junior guy who'd come to talk about recruiting to face a mob - yes a mob - of hostile questioners and defend his firm's reputation? This was thuggery pure and simple. I'm sure Goldman doesn't lack confidence in the "moral status" of their firm. They're protecting their employees and that's to be commended.

[caleb]

@ Scomber:

You don't get it on so many levels.

"And last time I checked, UVM was still a public university, where there are certain rights to free speech and protest."

First, "Public University" doesn't mean that anyone can go anywhere they want, anytime, whether you're a current UVM student or not. Is it your understanding that anyone can do whatever they want at UVM because it is called a public university? Can I, as a member of the public, walk into any class at UVM and interrupt because I don't like what's being taught? Please confirm that you're not that simple. Please.

Second, you don't even realize how paradoxical you are. Yes, there are "certain rights to free speech." Exactly. That includes the right of UVM students to hear Jeff Ares's message without being stormed and shouted down by a mob of thugs.

Third, you point to a "Rolling Stone" article which expresses a point of view about Goldman Sachs. Exactly as I suspect about free-speech-chillers, you confuse and equate YOUR moral opinion about Goldman Sachs with the U.S. Constitution. If I'm right, the other side doesn't have the right to speak, is that it??? Good God. The issue is not whether you believe Goldman Sachs to be good or bad; the issue is their right to speak without being shouted down by a bunch of thugs who think they own the moral high ground and therefore can decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.

And by the way, is that your final authority -- Rolling Stone magazine? Really? Like, is that a peer-reviewed journal? So, based on a Rolling Stone article, a Goldman Sachs employee doesn't have the right to speak at UVM despite the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? WTF? Are you that confused? Seriously? I'm truly scared for humanity if the issue is First Amendment rights to speak and you point to a Rolling Stone article condemning Goldman Sachs. Can you say, Apples and Oranges, my totally-stoked up friend? Holy Freakin Christ. By the way, I grew up when Rolling Stone was a countercultural magazine, not the establishment institution that it is now. Let me tell you, Rolling Stone, of all magazines, would advocate in FAVOR of Mr. Ares's -- and anyone's -- right to speak unmolested.

Message to the politically correct mob: You don't own the only acceptable viewpoint. How dare you prevent other people from speaking? Shut up and let other people talk. It's the First Amendment that is allowing you to shout and sing and chant at Zucotti Park and City Hall Park all day and all night and march your butts up and down Church Street. That very same First Amendment applies to a guy who graduated UVM and who just wants to talk to UVM students (in an event that you weren't invited to).

Shame.

[Scomber]

@Caleb - Nowhere have I said that the fellow didn't have the right to speak, yet you seem to be leaning heavily on that claim as a rhetorical point in your rants. I believe he absolutely had the right to come and say his piece; I also believe that the other members of our community have the right to dissent from the narrative that he presents. We did not ask for him to be uninvited, nor did we advocate that he be shouted down. We merely called for people who don't appreciate the bald-faced corruption and criminality of his employer to exercise their equal right to advocate their position. The goal was clearly not for him to be "shouted down by a group of thugs," but for informed people to challenge him with difficult questions about the activities of his employer. If you want conjure up wild, unfounded fantasies of mobs of Jacobins bent on hauling Ares to the guillotine, you're free to do so, but that doesn't make it true.

On the Rolling Stone piece, there are plenty of more in-depth investigations of the wave of fraud that could be cited, but Taibbi's article is a good, accessible, and factually accurate narrative that is not laden with jargon that is only legible to people with graduate degrees in finance and economic history. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole I can list a number of citations, but I'd first want to hear a specific critique of Taibbi's piece (rather than "it was in Rolling Stone and therefore not valid") before I devote the time to that line of this argument.

Additionally, your analogy of disrupting classes one disagrees with is totally off the mark. The talk was set up to be open to the public, as evidenced by the fact that anyone could RSVP to it online. Had UVM set up a policy in which only students could be admitted (as with classes), that'd be one thing, and the non-student dissidents would have legally and rightly protested outside of the hall. The University, however, set no such requirement and left the event open to the public, and thus the Occupy folks had a right to attend.

Finally, to address something that seems to pervade your posts; the First Amendment does not shield you from having to encounter perspectives that are opposed to your own. Your implicit claim that Ares has a right to make a presentation in a criticism-free environment is absolute anathema to both the environment of free intellectual inquiry that the University exists to cultivate, as well as to the values of a free and open society, in which dissent is the mechanism by which dangerous concentrations of power (such as that of Goldman Sachs) may be challenged. You are, of course, free to hold these core values of our society in low regard as a matter of personal opinion, but I believe that the purpose of Free Speech is to allow for meaningful discourse, not to create ideological echo-chambers that are heavy on group-think and short on creative innovation.

[annonymous]

I'm going to chime in here briefly. I think it's important to point out that the current economic crisis, caused mainly by irresponsible and corrupt (and so far completely unaccounted for) behavior by large corporations and banks (I don't think I need to mention names), is NOT ONLY causing immediate pain and anguish for BILLIONS of people around the globe, but:

Income inequality and the dilution of the opinion and political voice of those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, and the false inflation of the opinion and political voice of those on the higher end of the economic spectrum (ahem, I'll give you a hint at who these guys are...there are between .99% and 1.01% of them in the US) are directly related and continually exacerbated by the current system. Let's start by simply giving everyone a voice before we get all picky about what they get to say, shall we?

(And for the record, you can JSTOR that shit.) If you're gonna be debating this at all, why don't you try addressing some of the more significant nuances of the situation before expressing your petty critiques. "...is that your final authority -- Rolling Stone magazine? Really? Like, is that a peer-reviewed journal?" Sorry, but not everyone is privileged enough to refer to a peer-reviewed journal on the regular. I think this would be an appropriate time to point out that for this reason, it would be nice if everyone had access to the kind of education you did (oh wait, the people with the money think education is a privilege, not a right, and they're the ones who get to decide), not to mention being able to rely on our different media sources to present TRUE FACTS (and well shit, that's being biased to the left, isn't it?)

[caleb]

@ Scomber:

You seem to think your Free Speech rights give you the unfettered right to go anywhere where someone is speaking and confront them. Um, no. The United States Supreme Court has never said this, thankfully. I have no problem with your right to debate, Mr. Ares or someone else representing Goldman Sachs, in the proper setting. But your right to free speech is not a license to freely confront and harass somebody who's speaking, wherever you want, whenever you want, at your personal whim. How about if I just follow you around all day, wherever you go, and shout back something at whatever you say? That's my free speech right, according to your interpretation.

"but I believe that the purpose of Free Speech is to allow for meaningful discourse, not to create ideological echo-chambers that are heavy on group-think and short on creative innovation."

Echo-chambers heavy on group-think? Like . . . when someone at the front of your mob says something and the entire group repeats every word, robot-like, and this goes on and on and on and on all day, every day, for a month, like a never-ending Unification Church gathering?

You can try to dress up your position all you want as if all you were ever really talking about was having a civilized debate with the guy. The fact remains, it was announced as a "protest." The fact remains, you thugged a speaker away from speaking because you don't like his employer. And the fact remains, your mob declared "Victory!" when someone didn't speak, for the simple reason you don't like his employer.

You don't believe in Free Speech unless that speech echoes what you believe.

Shame.

[Scomber]

"But your right to free speech is not a license to freely confront and harass somebody who's speaking, wherever you want, whenever you want, at your personal whim. How about if I just follow you around all day, wherever you go, and shout back something at whatever you say? That's my free speech right, according to your interpretation."

You seem to be willfully committed to mis-interpreting what I've been saying, despite my attempts to be quite clear. As I pointed out before, had this been a restricted event, we would not have gone in. It wasn't. It was open to the public in a lecture hall at a public university, and thus the core thread of your argument (that the event was an inappropriate venue for political speech) is *entirely irrelevant* to this situation. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this reality, then it's clear you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith. If you want to go on knocking down straw men because it makes you feel good, have at 'em. Just know that you've abandoned any pretense of meaningfully defending your position.

In any case, the fact remains that we are talking in hypotheticals. The reality is that the representative of Goldman Sachs canceled his appearance as the result of a Facebook event, and now a great many more members of our community are taking a hard look at that organization's connection to the present economic crisis. That augmented awareness and dialog constitutes a "Victory" in my book...

[Scomber]

Also, for those interested in how general assemblies work, minus senior Caleb's hyperbole: http://nycga.cc/resources/general-assembly-guide/

[Jimmy]

"My intended meaning was to celebrate the fact that, in spite of the cancellation, our proposed attendance was nonetheless sparking a discussion in our community about Goldman Sachs"

Yeah, right. What a bunch of assholes.

This wasn't "cowardice in the face of scrutiny," it was canceling a talk by a UVM alumnus when it was clear that the event was going to be disrupted to the point that it would have been a huge waste of the speaker's time to show up. A talk that could have helped some kids that wanted to hear it.

Stick to your convenient little weekend garden parties and let everyone else get on with their lives.

[Jimmy]

"a great many more members of our community are taking a hard look at that organization's connection to the present economic crisis."

Are you out of your mind? Cropp isn't influencing anyone now any more than he did when he was flogging his secessionist nonsense.

[caleb]

"As I pointed out before, had this been a restricted event, we would not have gone in. It wasn't. It was open to the public in a lecture hall at a public university, and thus the core thread of your argument (that the event was an inappropriate venue for political speech) is *entirely irrelevant* to this situation."

And you seem wilfully committed to refusing to recognize what I'm saying. The fact that a speaking event is open to the public does not give you or anyone the right to confront, harass, badger, intimidate, and shout down the speaker. Under the guise of Free Speech, you don't get to just show up and control the speaking environment so as to effectively prevent the invited speaker from making his speech.

The First Amendment does not give you that right, whether the venue is public or private.

Free Speech means you let the speaker speak, and then you speak. In civil fashion.

Cropp's attempted backpedalling for calling your mob tactics a "Victory!" is bogus.

Shame on you and your anti-free speech mob.

[Sean]

Caleb, your getting kind of ridiculous...

You keep referring to "the fact that a speaking event is open to the public does not give you or anyone the right to confront, harass, badger, intimidate, and shout down the speaker. Under the guise of Free Speech, you don't get to just show up and control the speaking environment so as to effectively prevent the invited speaker from making his speech."

None of that happened, the event was canceled...

Your problem is that you're ASSUMING this was going to happen...but I guess we'll never know.

Shame.

(yeah i stole that overused ending from you...)