Did UW President Cauce use her blog appropriately?
Jan 25, 2017, 5:42 AM | Updated: 9:48 am
A man was shot at a UW protest outside an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos. (Josh Kern, KIRO Radio)
(Josh Kern, KIRO Radio)
The response from University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce to last weekend’s violent protest was welcomed by some, but it is rubbing one UW professor the wrong way.
“I have no issues with the president … or anyone else expressing personal opinions on anything,” said William Burrows, professor emeritus and senior lecturer at the Foster School of Business at UW. “But on that particular letter, I think she went a little too far in a couple of areas.”
“In addition to the appropriate things she said about freedom of speech, lack of violence, she expressed personal items that I don’t think are appropriate for a university resource,” he said.
Related: What happened at the violent UW protest where a man was shot
A student Republican group hosted an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial figure, on Jan. 20 — the night of Donald Trump’s inauguration. But protesters prevented Yiannopoulos and Trump supporters from entering the event. Violence erupted among the crowd, and a man was shot among the chaos.
Following the incidents, UW President Cauce released a statement, which included:
So why did I allow the event to go on? First, there is the legal right of our student groups to invite speakers, even a controversial one whose message is anathema to many, including me. We are bound by the law. But beyond that, canceling the event would have sent the message that a risk of disruption or conflict can be used to overwhelm our rights. That would empower those on the extremes willing to resort to such tactics. And while canceling this event would have meant canceling a speech by someone whose views I personally find repulsive, the next time it could be a speaker whose views are more in line with mine, but anathema to someone else. Then there would be silence, with all the real discussion happening underground where arguments could not be examined, or critiqued openly.
Cauce opinion and the president’s blog
Burrows actually has no problem with the sentiment of President Cauce’s statement. But it’s the venue he objects to.
“That is the UW Office of the President’s official blog site,” Burrows said. “Specifically, she characterized the speaker Saturday night as ‘someone whose views I personally find repulsive,’ and she added that he was someone whose message was ‘anathema to many, including me.’”
Burrows argues that the Office of the President’s blog at UW is not for personal use, rather official business of the office.
“It’s not Professor Cauce’s blog to be used for the expression of her personal opinion and beliefs,” he said.
“She is certainly welcome to hold that perspective, but that is her personal perspective, but not a perspective given the sanction that an official university website provides,” Burrows said. “It has an implication that this is the university’s perspective – that is, everybody on that campus finds this person repulsive. Even if she says ‘personally,’ it’s not her personal website.”
Burrows said he previously did not know who Yiannopoulos was, and for the most part, he still doesn’t. He suspects that he would agree with the things Cauce wrote. But he objects to those opinions being featured in a forum for university business.
And further, he is concerned about the president saying such things, because the controversial man was hosted by a valid student group. Therefore, by saying that his views were “repulsive,” she sets herself up to say that the students in question are repulsive.
“Now like it or not, this is a person was a guest of the university and was invited by a valid student organization to present his viewpoint,” Burrows said.
