I have written a follow-up article to this one to address some concerns which have come up. I invite you to also read Telling Our Stories: The Aftermath for more on my thoughts on Eklof’s book.

Author’s Note: I struggled with whether to write something at all on The Gadfly Papers. There are a lot of good arguments for not reading it altogether. There’s also a good case for not buying it but, rather, trusting those of us telling you that it’s very problematic. In the end, only you can decide what you will do. I hope to show in this article why Eklof’s book is problematic. If, in the end, you still feel the need to read it, please don’t purchase it but, rather, read it through the scanned pages that are showing up on social media. It is recommended you don’t search for it on Amazon or Google as this will only increase its search rankings and bring it to an even wider audience.

Author’s Note 6/29/2019: People are continuing to use the above author’s note as supposed evidence that I’m in favor of a ban of Eklof’s book, even after I addressed it in my follow-up article. This is being amplified by people getting together in certain social media groups and deciding what it is I believe without asking me. To summarize what I wrote there: it takes a huge leap in logic to get from “There are arguments for something but decide for yourself what to do” to “OMG BOOK BAN!!!” This is the last time I plan on addressing this point anywhere as I can only say I’m not in favor of a book ban so many times. What I am against is Eklof profiting off a book that has hurt so many. What I called on him to do in my follow-up is to post the book on his web site so interested people could read it for free as a good faith effort. I still hope he will do this.

Logo of the Unitarian Universalist Association

Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof’s book The Gadfly Papers: Three Inconvenient Essays by One Pesky Minister is supposedly about what’s wrong at the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), especially with our social justice programs. Its opening essay, “The Coddling of the Unitarian Universalist Mind,” depends on the telling of stories to demonstrate how safetyism, identity politics, and political correctness are corroding the foundations of this liberal religion. As such, the minimum standard we can expect of these stories is that they be fair and present all sides of the issue.

In reading “Coddling,” though, it quickly became apparent to me that this wasn’t going to be the case. One of Eklof’s first stories in the essay is one that, at first glance, doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Unitarian Universalism. While defining the term “safetyism,” “a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical or moral concerns,” (Eklof 2) Eklof tells the story of the 2017 Berkeley demonstrations against Milo Yiannopoulos. Eklof’s telling of the story follows the same narrow reporting of events that have been used to demonize the students: Milo, an admittedly controversial figure, only wanted to come speak to the students and exercise his free speech. However, a bunch of liberals and leftists got together and prevented him from doing so just because they hated what he had to say, and now free speech is under attack.

This telling of the Berkeley narrative is convenient to those who would paint the response to Milo as being symptomatic of something seriously wrong with the left. However, this doesn’t come close to telling the full story of what happened.

Milo’s controversial beliefs were certainly concerning for students at the University of California at Berkeley when its college Republicans group invited him to speak on campus, but even more alarming was his conduct at previous rallies on other campuses. At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milo publicly outed transgender students on campus, and publicity from the university made it clear he was going to do this again in Berkeley, this time with undocumented students. (Bray 105)

Milo was literally threatening to target a vulnerable group of students and give information about them to those most likely to be incited to violence against them. Their safety was literally at risk, and the university made it clear to the students that they had no plans to do anything about it. (Bray 105) One can argue until they’re blue in the face whether violent tactics are justified or not, but Milo and his supporters are not some innocent group who only wanted to speak on controversial topics. There is a reason the alt-right, white nationalists, and literal Nazis showed up to Berkeley in the aftermath: Milo was feeding into a culture that did not value these students’ lives as much as they did an abstract concept like free speech.

And what of free speech? Unless one believes in absolute free speech, there are always reasons free speech should be curtailed. Yelling fire in a crowded room, libel, slander, fraud, and inciting to violence are just a few of the types of speech not protected by the first amendment. So, if your definition of freedom of speech includes the right for Milo to stand in front of the college Republicans and announce to them who their enemies should be, we are already strongly disagreeing about the terms of your essay.

In short, the Berkeley case is not as cut and dry as free speech vs. suppression of thought.