This was originally posted on blogger. On November 22nd, 2019 the Berkeley College Republicans hosted Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator, on the UC campus. Several hundred students and anti-fascist protesters demonstrated before and during the speech. Police was called to prevent violence, and eventually 5 were arrested in the rally.

“Ann Coulter is a fascist” were the signs posted on Dwinelle Hall. Such a statement is widely agreed upon by most liberals – statements like “why do we let people in wheelchairs become citizens? I feel sorry for cripples, but that doesn’t mean I want them in my country.”, or “I have to say I’m all for public flogging.”, or “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.” Such blatantly discriminatory statements, statements marginalizing people in already-difficult circumstances… Statements that define who is superior, who is inferior, and who is allowed to be a citizen. Such statements are akin to those made in Nazi Germany – this is fascism in the extreme.

And so, the argument goes, Ann Coulter should not be allowed on our campus. Now, this is where things get a little tricky.

On the one hand, she technically does have the right, at least in the US, to speak. No matter how vilely racist, one might say that she is protected by the “right” to Free Speech. This is, however, with a caveat: that her speech does not cause or incite violence against anyone else. You have the right to say, “I disagree with Trump,” but not to say anything encouraging physical harm against him. And despite the horridness of her statements, Ann Coulter doesn’t directly incite violence.

On the other hand, one might extend this concept of physical violence to emotional violence. UC Berkeley, some claim, should be a sanctuary for marginalized groups – a place for people to feel safe and unthreatened. Ann Coulter’s words – even if they are just words – threaten minorities at this university, hearkening back to threats against Jews in the Holocausts. It is horrifyingly scary.

So what’s my issue? Why am I writing this post? My problem isn’t one about vision; I believe in the same world that the anti-fascist protests were fighting for last night. I have an issue of approach – that shutting down speakers with such forcefulness is simply not in line with the world of peace and tranquility that we are striving for.

I believe that this is related to “Cancel Culture”. Cancel Culture is something we’ve all heard of – the idea that in order to educate people about social inequalities, we should simply call them out. In order to stop racism, it is said, we have to ridicule someone every time they call Africa a country. In order to stop speciesism, we need to vilify anyone eating an animal. And in order to stop fascism, we have to call fascists out when they speak and shut them down.

Such a culture is reflected in the very framing of many movements: “Antifascists”, rather than “liberationists”; the “United Week Against Hate” (from Carol Christ’s campus-wide email), not the “United Week for Love”; that “Ann Coulter is not welcomed here” (from the Black Student Union’s statement).

The mere framing of these issues turn them into a controversial one. Leftist groups – groups pushing for a compassionate, just and inclusive society – have fallen into the trap of using shocking, negative language to communicate a message. This makes admirable activists be subject to critique, because to the uninformed observer, “Ann Coulter is not welcomed here” also seems like a type of fascism.

And it’s quite clear that positive framings are an essential part of social movements. In the 1960s, oppressed black people fought for Civil Rights as well as anti-segregation laws. In the 1990s, queer people fought for Marriage Equality and against a culture of homophobia. But it is the compassionate messaging that sticks with us – it is abundantly clear from their message that the Civil and Gay Rights Movements were fighting for a just world, a prospect far more agreeable. This is simply what I wish the Berkeley protesters would take into consideration.

And with this compassionate language comes compassionate dialog between people of different backgrounds. We should engage in evidence-based dialog, not shut down opposition after one bigoted statement. We should do creative, positive demonstrations in line with the just world that we imagine. We should channel the energies used against fascists and use it for a more beautiful world. That, to me, is what social justice is about.