A Reply to Used to Be UU
Last year, Frank Casper of the Fifth Principle Project wrote an article about a workshop I did with Dr. Sharon Welch at the 2020 UUA General Assembly, attempting to link ideas from my workshop to a more private controversy in the UUA. The workshop, which was about how conservative concepts of free speech have enabled the current rise of the alt-right and white nationalism in America, had nothing to do with the gadfly controversy in the UUA.
I wrote a piece at the time replying to Mr. Casper, which I have taken some constructive criticism on, but, for the most part, stand behind. Some highlights:
- I never said I was against free speech, but only certain conceptions of free speech, which are well-documented as having their origins in conservative thought of the 1980s and 1990s, which would extend a near-absolute demand for people to have to provide a platform to nearly all speech, no matter the content, in virtually every level of society, both public and private. Free speech becomes the hammer to argue against any criticism. In the Facebook conversation referenced below, Mr. Casper objected to these ideas being referred to as the “conservative concept,” insisting I am calling him and the other gadflies conservatives for believing it, despite my numerous attempts to clarify to him that I only refer to it as such because it is well documented that this form of free speech was popularized by conservative pundits who were looking to deligitimize gains by African-Americans, women, and LGBTQIA+ folks — these conceptions always come up around traditionally marginalized groups being granted rights and consideration. I believe that this form of free speech is dangerous as it would leave open virtually any organization to charges of violation of free speech based on irreconcilable differences of all kinds, thus limiting everyone’s freedom of association. I think we’re currently seeing this very scenario played out on university campuses among conservative academics, despite the fact that conservative academics have some of the broadest protections for freedom of conscience of any profession.
- I have never expressed support for hate speech laws and have, in fact, expressed skepticism as to whether they would work and wouldn’t just be misused by governments to suppress speech critical of the political party in power. I believe this fear was justified after four years of the Trump administration and a systemic war against journalism.
- I do not believe, as a private organization, that the Unitarian Universalist Association is a proper subject for free speech. I believe, when people attempt to apply free speech arguments to private organizations, they are most often speaking of freedom of conscience, academic freedom, and/or freedom of association. These are related but different inquiries and I believe it’s important we separate them, to avoid muddying the water as many conservatives have done. Free speech, historically, has been an examination of the power that governments do or do not have to regulate the speech that is permissible in the public square, and the United States already has one of the most conservative conceptions of free speech in the western world. Expanding free speech to the private sphere would not increase free speech, but allow people to argue that criticism is a violation of their freedom of speech. Mr. Casper has since insisted that he and his readers know I wasn’t speaking of private organizations but of the government (despite the fact that he joked around with a commenter who compared me to Soviet suppression of free speech). His argument rests on the idea that the conceptions cannot be separated.
- I have never accused Mr. Casper or the gadflies of being conservatives or members of the alt-right. I doubt they are, in fact. However, I have highlighted how the conservative idea of free speech has creeped into liberal and leftist circles over fears of being labeled anti-free speech, a tool often used by conservatives to squash disent.
- Above all, I believe that the best weapon we have in our arsenal for tackling white nationalism and white supremacism may not be unfettered tolerance, but an attempt to reach young white men who are most vulnerable to these organizations before they can be recruited. The internet has made such recruitment easier than ever, and it is imperative we counter these messages of hate with a sense of belonging that I believe Unitarian Universalist congregations can provide.
I had a long conversation with Mr. Casper in the Unitarian Universalist — Faith of the Free Facebook group in which there were multiple personal attacks levied against me when I insisted Casper was both misrepresenting the content of the workshop and gaslighting me about my own experience around the UU World article of the previous year. Nevertheless, I believed, at the time, there was a part of Casper that was genuine, and even invited him to dialogue. However, not only did Casper never respond to my private message, but my understanding is that he has proceeded to reprint his article in his new book Used to Be UU (written with his friend and UUA Board candidate Jay Kiskel, whom I have never met or interacted with).
I’m really disappointed that Casper continues to try to prop up his own, even as he gets angry about being accused of having an agenda. I would still welcome him to dialogue.
The fact that Casper continues to try to link my 2020 General Assembly presentation to the gadfly agenda is, frankly, mind-boggling. I do not believe that he and his fellow gadflies are white nationalists, but they seem to continue to insist that this workshop applies to them.
