Comments
GELFAND’S WORLD - I'm going to describe an incident which happened in a public setting, which was both shameful and inappropriate, yet involved protected expression under the Constitution. It also involved near-heroic forbearance by a member of the U.S. congress. One colleague suggested that I lead off with the line, "I went to a free breakfast and free speech broke out." Fair enough in its own way, as snacks were provided, but I would like to use the incident to talk about how the City of Los Angeles is going in the wrong direction when it comes to its attempt to stifle free speech in one public sector.
Over the weekend, congresswoman Nanette Barragan held a couple of year-end public meetings where she discussed what has been going on in the House of Representatives. She was blunt in referring to the Republicans who control the House as "unable to govern." She also was blunt in expressing her difference of opinion with the Biden administration over one negotiation: Biden is willing to negotiate legislation that would include aid to Israel and Ukraine, while also including increased funding for enforcement of southern border security. Her view, plainly stated, is that we should deal with aid to Israel and Ukraine separately.
She waited until the end to discuss her views regarding the Israel - Gaza war. She explained that she is not now supporting the call (by some in congress) for an immediate cease fire. She defended her position first of all by describing, however obliquely, the barbarity of the October 7 attacks, including the rape, torture, and mass murder that went on. She also said that she views Israel as our ally.
It is important to note that she prefaced these remarks with a defense of freedom of thought. We probably agree on ninety-five percent of the issues, she suggested, and it is OK to disagree on others. She welcomed those who disagreed, and even referred to a protest group who had gathered outside.
During Barragan's remarks, one member of the audience interrupted in order to describe the Hamas attackers of Oct 7 as freedom fighters. Like I said, both shameful and inappropriate. I responded with an expletive.
At another point in the presentation, one man from the audience interrupted to accuse Barragan of reciting propaganda. This is a pretty old line, implying that everything that Israel says is lies. (I would point out that we have seen similar claims right here in the pages of CityWatch over the past couple of months.) Now here is what happened by way of retribution against those who interrupted:
Nothing.
The congresswoman noted in passing that within moments of starting her remarks, there already were these strong disagreements. Nobody -- particularly Barragan -- argued that people should be censored or held back from either having strong views or expressing them.
In fact, after explaining her public position on the Middle East war, congresswoman Barragan offered time to a woman named Fatima to give a different viewpoint. Fatima offered thoughts that, if not actually conciliatory, accepted the common humanity of Muslims, Jews, and others while holding out for a cessation of the misery of the people of Gaza. (I'm somewhat paraphrasing her remarks here.)
In short, this gathering accepted the idea that on some things, there are different viewpoints, that these conflicts will be expressed, and that this is acceptable in a free country. There was no fatuous demand that we respect each other, or treat each other with civility. But there was the understanding that in this country at this moment, none of us has the power or authority to prevent other people from thinking their own thoughts.
The fight for freedom of thought needs to be waged on both sides of the aisle and right here in Los Angeles
A week ago, I published an article in these pages arguing that the Republicans in the House of Representatives were wrong to attack the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn who were defending the rights of students and faculty to have and express controversial views. The presidents made the logical point that physical attacks as well as verbal attacks made in an intimidating way would be actionable by their universities. But this wasn't enough for congresswoman Stefanik. According to her, the universities had to have a rigidly ideological rule that forbids political speech when it goes over some line.
I should like to submit that the lessons of the college presidents' remarks, and Barragan's defense of American freedom, also apply to the City of Los Angeles and its attempts to throttle free speech in its neighborhood councils. Let's consider once again the latest code of conduct passed by the city's Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. In particular, I cite the passage on what the new rules refer to as "inequitable conduct."
"This Policy prohibits inequitable conduct.
"Inequitable Conduct is any inappropriate conduct based on a Protected Category or protected activity. Inequitable Conduct includes any instance of unwelcome conduct directed at one or more persons, that is committed by any Neighborhood Council Board or Committee member, because of the person’s actual or perceived Protected Category(ies) or protected activity(ies). Similarly unwelcome conduct that is sexual in nature may also violate this Policy.
"Inequitable Conduct may be similar in nature to conduct defined as discrimination, harassment, and sexual harassment under this Policy, although to be considered Inequitable Conduct, it will be lesser in severity. It may include but is not limited to verbal or behavioral conduct that communicates hostile, derogatory or negative attitudes toward a person or persons because of their protective class or perceived protective class."
By the way, those protected classes include national origin, religion, and ethnicity among other things, so it would be largely impossible to make any remark about the Middle East war without offending somebody and therefore violating the rule against inequitable conduct.
(Aside: I suspect that the original idea was that workplace promotions should be based on merit rather than race or nationality, and that the BONC has simply pasted the verbiage into its neighborhood council rules because reasons.)
So let me reiterate: A lot of what was said at Nanette Barragan's meeting would be subject to the definition of inequitable conduct. If nothing else, the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners rule would apply to Fatima's remarks, since they were intended to make American Jews feel bad about support for Israeli policies, and to feel guilty over the deaths of thousands of women and children. I believe that Fatima's remarks were defensible, but under the new Code of Conduct, they would have been forbidden to a neighborhood council board member.
The BONC policy would prevent the woman who referred to Hamas as "freedom fighters" from making that remark as a neighborhood council board member, and would presumably forbid anyone else who actually is a board member from quoting her.
The BONC rules would even forbid board members from repeating Nanette Barragan's heartfelt remarks about Israel during a board meeting. We know this because those remarks were met with hurt and hostility by several of the people in attendance.
Where the BONC and the City of Los Angeles went wrong
In rereading the Code of Conduct, I notice that it mostly makes sense if strictly limited to the workplace. People at work in an office have to engage with other employees, and there is a long history of people making racist and sexist remarks to each other at work. It is entirely defensible to place restrictions on such expressions for the workplace, precisely because it is not a public space where it is possible to listen or ignore as one sees fit. In the workplace, the limited space and social climate raise such expressions to the level of bullying and harassment.
But contrary to what the BONC and some members of the City Council may think, neighborhood councils were always political, and always part of the public space. Board members are chosen by local residents to represent their interests, and such representation is not always uncontroversial. I say plenty of things at board meetings that could be taken as negative by downtown business interests, because that represents the interests of the residential area in which I live.
The idea of a safe space
A few years ago, one of the BONC commissioners referred to his desire that our meetings be a "safe space." This is a curious idea if you imagine this to mean "safe from all controversy."
But I recently ran across a comment that redefines this whole idea. The writer pointed out that there are two completely different ways to define "safe space," and that we need to recognize which one we are talking about. I will note that the context of this discussion was the college campus.
One meaning for "safe space" is physically safe, as in safe from being mugged and safe from being physically attacked for one's beliefs or public statements or ethnic background. You don't get to punch somebody no matter how offended you may be by his or her remarks. This is pretty obvious, and should be the rule whether on or off campus, and in or out of the neighborhood council.
The other definition for "safe space" is emotionally safe. There is a legitimate place for such safe spaces, whether they be the LGBTQ society or the campus Hillel. They are defined by their occupants and owners, and are limited to those places. But as so many have now remarked, we do not make the whole campus a "safe space" as in emotionally safe for all people at all times. Anyone who wishes to make overtly racist remarks should be subject in the public space to disagreement and refutation. Anyone who wishes to defend the acts of the Hamas October 7 attackers should be subject to counterargument.
And this is where the BONC and the city government have gone wrong in terms of the new Neighborhood Council Code of Conduct. We neighborhood council board members are not city employees, and our meetings are not the workplace. Applying legitimate workplace rules to the public spaces of neighborhood council meetings is to enforce suffocating conformity.
The city authorities including the BONC should swear to enforce rules against physical intimidation and violence, but the way to do this is to refer such issues to law enforcement. And when it is indicated, the city should pay to have law enforcement officers present at neighborhood council meetings.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
