UH Is Burning Books

In a digital age, we just don’t see the flames and smell the smoke.

David Simone, PhD Candidate in Philosophy, UH Mānoa

David Simone is an active member of the UH community, last seen in Ka Leo protesting the federal funding freeze that caused confusion for students nationwide at the beginning of February. Alec Johnson / Ka Leo O Hawaiʻi

On May 6, 1933, the Institute of Sexology in Berlin, Germany was raided of the contents of its transgender research library. The books were placed in Bebelplatz Square and publicly burned as a symbolic attack against the enemies of the tyrannical regime.

This past Summer, I visited Berlin and stood in that exact place. I saw the memorial to the burned books – a small street-level window with a view to an underground chamber containing empty bookshelves.

Today, UH and other universities are once again burning books. The only difference is that we don’t see the flames or smell the smoke because it happens digitally.

Our academic freedom and civil rights are under attack, and UH’s response is a policy of appeasement. The UH administration’s policy toward the Federal government’s “anti-Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)” order does not direct webpages to be removed or the halting of any campus programs or services.

However, as stated in President Hensel’s Feb. 28 email, they have “requested each unit to conduct a risk assessment and carefully evaluate whether the language we use reflects the work being done in light of shifting definitions.” This is Orwellian double-speak. It’s like saying, “We are not directing you to burn your forbidden books at Campus Center, but it’s okay with us if you do.”

This request actively suggests that censorship is permissible or even needed, resulting in confusion and chaos. In other words, it allows for two policies to run in parallel.

Policy (1) is no censorship after risk assessment – nothing needs to be done. That is an unambiguous policy. Policy (2) is censorship after risk assessment. This is an extremely ambiguous policy. Do we need to remove anything? What do we need to remove? There is insufficient guidance, resulting in chaotic applications.

As a whole, the policy results in the absurdity that we have as many censorship policies as there are UH units: 18. We should not have even one censorship policy, let alone 18.

Furthermore, this policy permits units to do what Yale historian of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance.” In his 2017 book On Tyranny, Snyder wrote “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

Some UH units are obeying in advance. For example, the School of Earth Sciences Oceanography and Technology (SOEST) has decided to remove all “DEI” content from their web pages despite no administrative or legal requirement.

The website of the SOEST Graduate Student Organization “Huliāmahi” has been removed because it contained “DEI” words. At one point, even the word “Women” was removed from the “Women in SOEST” webpage.

In a dystopian fashion, they recommend eliminating these words from all public-facing documents, including lab websites and publications. The Student Counseling Center asked student employees to remove physical signs and told student employees to remove pronouns from their e-mail bios (The Vice Provost for Student Success said this will be restored).

Native Hawaiian Health Services has been directed to remove mentions of the COVID-19 vaccine requirements from its websites. For a more comprehensive list see https://tinyurl.com/uhrestore.

Those who think appeasing these authoritarian demands will protect their funding are dangerously mistaken. This may be shocking, but the best strategy is resolute defiance.

This is not merely an academic argument. Empirical evidence shows that appeasing a tyrant makes it more probable the tyrant will only demand more of you rather than protect you, according to Snyder.

Those who stand up to the tyrant, especially early on, are more likely to survive. We are not dealing with a rational and truthful dealmaker. Do not comply until absolutely required to do so.

To those who think defiance will put a target on our back: there is already a target on our back. The bully will keep coming after us until we stand up to him.

We must stand with courage instead of fleeing in cowardice. Many other universities have complied to the maximum extent yet are still losing funding!

Other universities have not complied at all. We should heed former university presidents’ advice about how much worse this will become, such as those at Columbia. Resolute defiance is not just good politics or policy; it is the morally right thing to do. It is the fullest expression of our values.

At our university, we are extremely fortunate to have the liberty of accessing world-class academic experts. Despite what some may say, they are an indispensable resource applicable to on-the-ground policy-making decisions.

They should be utilized, not dismissed as irrelevant. This is not a mere business decision. Time is short, and too many of our morals and livelihoods are on the line to do otherwise.

Thus, President Hensel’s Federal Policy Advisory Council should expand to include more scholars from Political Science, Sociology, Philosophy, Geography, History, and WGSS departments who have spent their careers studying moments like these. Let us use our strengths to help create a bottom-up policy that defends our values.

As darkness descends over the mainland, let us be the beacon in the Pacific. We can light the way for others.

I believe the UH administration sincerely wants what is best for its community. However, this policy is actively harming us, and will invite more censorship in the short and long term. We’re watching history repeat itself and failing an open note exam. When the history of this moment is written, will UH look back on these actions with shame or pride?

But none of us can overcome tyranny alone. We need solidarity in the UH community: students, faculty, staff, and administration. It should be solidarity based on resolute defiance rather than appeasement.

Books are burning at Campus Center because of our current policy. The internet and our collections of digital books are supposed to encourage the widespread availability of knowledge, therefore we need to fight the government’s censorship. But, years from now, what memorial will we build to our burned books at UH?