Ian Haney López cited by Mail & Guardian, March 15, 2018
Dog whistling politics, and by this we mean “expressing racially loaded ideas in coded terms”, as … Ian Haney Lopez explains it, has become part of the armoury of conservative politicians in Australia since Howard’s time.
Ian Haney López quoted by Atlanta Black Star, Jan. 3, 2018
“Dog whistle politics is a strategy. Power is the game, and those who stoop to demagoguery could not care less about recruiting some nonwhites or blurring the boundaries of white identity.”
john a. powell writes for and Ian Haney López quoted in The Guardian, Nov. 8, 2017
The opposite of Othering is not “saming”, it is belonging. And belonging does not insist that we are all the same. It means we recognise and celebrate our differences, in a society where “we the people” includes all the people.
In the United States, politicians used to engage in what scholar Ian Haney-Lopez calls “dog whistles” – they could make references to Others but only in a coded way; never saying “those Mexicans” or “those Muslims”, for example.
Ian Haney López writes for The Nation, Aug. 26, 2017
In pardoning an official who spat upon the 14th Amendment right to racial equality and who treated the federal courts contemptuously, Trump abused his presidential powers. He enabled a racist to trash our country’s core values and subvert the rule of law and face no consequences for these actions.
Ian Haney López cited by The Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2017
There are so many dog whistles that a whole book was written about the practice by University of California at Berkeley law professor Ian Haney López, apparently to help the left decipher secret messages without the decoder rings distributed to the right.
Ian Haney López quoted by Boston Globe, Aug. 14, 2017
“When you use a phrase like ‘free speech’ to mobilize those who are racially fearful, it switches the conversation. It pretends that the conversation is about the right to express unpopular views — which is a quintessential American value that is enshrined in our Constitution — when in fact, the dynamic is about the expression of ugly views of racial prejudice,’’ Lopez said.
Ian Haney López writes for Alternet, July 27, 2017
We need a Democratic Party that fights for all of us, and recognizes that the biggest threat in our lives comes from concentrated wealth and runaway corporate power over the economy, government and our political parties. Yes, the Democratic Party must resolve to put its own house in order.
Ian Haney López quoted by International Business Times, Feb. 2, 2017
“Affirmative action for white men is not social repair. Affirmative action for white men is a stunt to mock the moral and social importance of integration and to increase social strife,” he said.
Ian Haney López quoted by CNBC, Feb. 1, 2017
UC Berkeley law professor Ian Haney Lopez said Wednesday that affirmative action programs were undertaken “to welcome historically excluded and dehumanized groups into every school, neighborhood and workplace. Affirmative action for white men is not social repair. Affirmative action for white men is a stunt to mock the moral and social importance of integration and to increase social strife,” he told CNBC.
Ian Haney López, Jesse Choper, Daniel Farber, and Robert Cole quoted by California Magazine, Jan. 26, 2017
López: “When universities invite someone to speak, they communicate that that person’s ideas are within the broad range of important public [discourse],” Haney-Lopez states. “Disinviting someone from speaking likewise communicates something—in this case, that the universities have come to realize that this speaker intentionally degrades people to draw attention, while offering little of any real intellectual substance. His poisonous invective is being drowned out by more and louder speech affirming humane values and inclusion. That’s precisely the ideal of free speech in action.”
Choper: “On the one hand, you have to have a content-neutral basis for [any] regulation [that might impinge on free speech],” says Jesse Choper, a professor emeritus at Berkeley Law, “and on the other, your assessment must be based on the perceived danger of such speech. So in a way, you’re forbidden to make a judgment, and you’re also required to make a judgment.”
Farber: “The Supreme Court has emphasized that the First Amendment is intended to protect ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’ public debate,” Farber stated in an email, “so in terms of general principles, it seems to me that universities should be very hesitant to exclude a speaker or viewpoint simply because it is offensive or disruptive.”
Cole: In the case of Cal, says Cole, “Berkeley College Republicans is a university-sanctioned organization, and if, as it seems, it issued an invitation and arranged an engagement in accordance with university rules, then the university must allow the event. The university’s role is to remain a neutral marketplace. It can’t cancel a speaking event simply because a speaker is considered controversial, or officials are worried that it could result in bad publicity, or things could get raucous.”