News

Protesters stage walkout on controversial lecturer

Robert Spencer talk raises questions about 'hate speech' versus 'free speech'

Students at Stanford University gather at the Mitchell Earth Sciences Library for a rally against Islamaphobia after the Stanford College Republicans invited Robert Spencer, co-founder of the Stop Islamization of America and the American Freedom Defense Initiative, to speak at the university on Nov. 14, 2017. Photo by Veronica Weber.

More than 140 protesters who attended a lecture by anti-Muslim and "anti-jihadist" author and blogger Robert Spencer staged a walkout on Tuesday night at Stanford University.

The protesters, who have blasted university administrators for allowing the controversial speaker and author of the "Jihad Watch" blog to lecture on campus, filled the 250-seat Geology Corner Auditorium to capacity, causing at least 50 people to be turned away. About 25 minutes into Spencer's talk, the protesters quietly rose and filed out of the auditorium, leaving an estimated 20 people to remain who had come to hear Spencer speak, the protesters said.

Hundreds more stood outside the adjacent Mitchell Earth Sciences library for an event dubbed, "Stanford Against Spencer: A Rally Against Islamophobia." They chanted against what they said is hate speech that has no place on the Stanford campus. They were most upset that the university has given a "hatemonger" a platform using thousands of dollars of student funds, they said.

The protesters and those who came to hear Spencer speak about "Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam," agreed that free speech is important, but they had somewhat differing views on the dividing line between hate speech and free speech.

Perhaps the harshest words came from Spencer and the Stanford College Republicans, the student group who sponsored the event.

Stanford College Republicans financial officer John Rice-Cameron declined to comment prior to the event. He referred to the protesters as "fascists" as he explained to those who were not admitted that the seats might open again after the protesters left.

Spencer also called the protesters "fascists," a sentiment he repeated on his Twitter account after the lecture ended.

"Not surprising that Left-fascist ... would support the foreclosure of discussion at Stanford. Fascists do love their fascism, and fear the free and open exchange of ideas above all this," he wrote.

Spencer also accused the Stanford administration of hampering his lecture.

"I was sort of allowed to speak. @Stanford administrators made sure I didn't have an audience, preventing people who wanted to attend from coming in after the fascists left. Clearly @Stanford is no place for those who dissent from the accepted line," he tweeted on Wednesday.

Of the protesters, he wrote, "They refused to consider opposing views. They deliberately filled the seats so that those who wanted to attend could not. That's forcible suppression of dissent, or in a word, fascism."

Protesters who filed out of the building said they chose to stage a walkout at the lecture in as non-disruptive of a fashion as possible. According to Stanford Politics, a nonpartisan news magazine, and student newspaper Stanford Daily, some protesters claimed they were grabbed or kicked by others in the audience as they left the building. A video provided to Stanford Politics shows a person grabbing a student as he was leaving and pulling him down.

Some members of the Stanford College Republicans claimed they were also grabbed outside the venue in a confrontation with a small group of hooded individuals wearing bandanas after the lecture. Some witnesses said the altercation was verbal with each group calling the other Nazis, according to the Stanford Daily and Stanford Politics. But overall, the event was peaceful.

Chase Davis, a protest organizer with the Black Student Union Political Action Committee, said he and others did not see taking up the seats as an obstruction of Spencer's right to free speech. Spencer was free to speak and say anything he wanted to say; the protesters were making their voices heard by taking up space and then silently walking out.

"We wanted to suck the air out of the room," he said.

For black students, speech that attacks one group is personal and opens the door to hate toward black students as well, he added.

"If we allow one group to be attacked on campus it opens the door to all to be attacked. What separates hate speech from expressing an opinion is if you say something that attacks a group or person and has a negative impact. Separate political beliefs contribute to free speech, but when we attack people of a certain group, that's not OK," he said.

Other students and speakers said they were there to support the Muslim community. If Stanford is an all-inclusive place, as the university claims it to be, it should not invite a speaker who promotes language that singles out one group and makes them feel unsafe, they said.

"The emotional wellbeing of our Muslim community is a priority," said a female who identified herself as Mariela, a member of the Stanford Sanctuary Now coalition, said. "We hold all administrators responsible for even allowing this event to take place."

Some in attendance said they came out of curiosity; others said they were there to support free speech.

"I've never heard him encourage hatred or violence. He is exposing a lot of information and it's disturbing a lot of people," said Colin Montelongo, a Santa Rosa resident and student at Sonoma State University who was one of the few non-Stanford students to get a ticket to hear Spencer.

"Robert Spencer is trying to facilitate a discussion about a really controversial topic. The whole controversy around it is shocking. They are discrediting a man and his works and the conversation he is trying to project to thoughtful people. Emotional reactions are so judgmental and condemning. It seems like an overreaction and is fear based. People are blanketing it as hate speech and making attributions to him that are unfounded."

Asked about the dividing line between hate speech and free speech, Montelongo was more circumspect.

"In one sense, speech that does incite violence is probably inappropriate, but I don't have a comment on the dividing line between hate speech and free speech," he said. "Free speech is important and it's a slippery slope."

Montelongo said Spencer is presenting information for people to think about and challenge the status quo.

"In essence what he is doing is challenging an ideology that is antithetical to the Constitution of the United States. They (protesters) want to cling to multiculturalism and ... the fundamental ideologies of different religions," but Spencer is making an argument that Islam is a political ideology, he said.

Larry Estavan, who attended the talk, said he likes that Spencer is concerned about the erosion of free speech.

"Hate speech as a concept seems very subjective," he said. "It's important for the community to come together just to listen." He noted that he did not feel threatened at Stanford, but that at Berkeley the mood was much more hostile.

Stanford student Mary Manion said she had not planned to attend Spencer's lecture, but hearing that there would be protests changed her mind. She came out to support free speech. The event's organizers did not pose the lecture as threatening or aggressive, she said.

"I think certain issues become far too one-sided on this campus," she added, specifying the last election season, noting that far too many people made assumptions about political views that not all students held.

Kory Gaines, a Stanford freshman who was protesting Spencer's presence, said that he did not think Spencer had credibility as a speaker.

"It would be different if his background was as an expert," but Gaines said he was concerned that Spencer talks as if he is an expert in Islam, but he is not.

"I feel that hate speech is something that's directly harmful to someone. If you are harming someone else through your speech, I don't think it's free. If you take away somebody's identity and humanity, then it's not free speech. Hateful speech does not deserve legitimacy," he said.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

137 people like this
Posted by Illuminato
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2017 at 7:26 pm

No one is above criticism. No one's religion is above criticism. Unless it's Islam. Why is that? Simply talking about radical Islam in a critical manner has been made into a hate crime. That's censorship, and that is scary. I haven't seen any evidence that the speaker has encouraged any attacks on Muslims. [Portion removed.]


225 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 15, 2017 at 8:02 pm

"No one's religion is above criticism."

Try that line in Dixie sometime. Hee hee hee-ee.

What you and your cadres are doing--and you know it--is attempting to frame hate as a sacred institution immune to all question. Well sorry, pal. This is the American free marketplace of ideas. [Portion removed.]

That mass walkout was an elegantly dignified action. Too bad the speaker could only come up with a couple dozen in real audience, wasn't it?. Or, actually, that's a very hopeful thing.


70 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Curmudgeon - if you read the article you will see that the protestors entering did get places instead of 50 interested people.

Free speech means that sometimes there will be a speaker who says things of which you don't agree. Provided what they say is not inciting violence or illegal activity, they have as much right to say it as you. You don't have to listen so stay away. Preventing those interested in listening is just as wrong in my opinion as preventing him from saying it.


23 people like this
Posted by Illuminato
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2017 at 8:55 pm

[Post removed.]


16 people like this
Posted by Scotty
a resident of Green Acres
on Nov 15, 2017 at 9:10 pm

"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." Ernest Hemingway


53 people like this
Posted by Unbelievable
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2017 at 9:16 pm

It would be hard to imagine it, but apparently it's true -- there are those here in Silicon Valley who are willing to apologize for Richard Spencer [portion removed.]


53 people like this
Posted by Typical
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 15, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Typical Palo Alto online.


81 people like this
Posted by Typical
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 15, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Hype the protest side of this story days before the event and no where in this story so we actually hear mr Spencer's views, only that he is apparently a racist which has become the most overused word in the English language. Nice journalism.


44 people like this
Posted by Unbelievable
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

"Hype the protest side of this story days before the event *and no where in this story so we actually hear mr Spencer's views, only that he is apparently a racist which has become the most overused word in the English language.*"

1) Guess you know nothing about Richard Spencer.

2) Racism, the most overused word in the English language? Maybe if you have a an alt-right viewpoint. Otherwise...not so much.


81 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 16, 2017 at 5:53 am

mauricio is a registered user.

No one is above criticism? The right wing is in love with uttering this nonsense until its hits close to home. Try telling it to Colin Caepernick who was blackballed by the NFL for daring to criticize social injustice and police killings of unharmed civilians. Try criticizing evangelical christianity in many parts of our country and you'll find out in a hurry whether no one is indeed above criticism.


96 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 16, 2017 at 6:36 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

White privelage
Patriarchy and toxic masculinity
Homophobia
Islamophobia
Xenophobia
Jingoist

By traditional liberal definitions, persecuting an entire class of people as a group rather than as individuals (race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, foreign policy) is hate speach.

If we are going to practice censorship, let's start with banning those.


71 people like this
Posted by Perspectives
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 16, 2017 at 9:49 am

Perspectives is a registered user.

Note: this article is about the speaker Robert Spencer, not Richard Spencer.


110 people like this
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Nov 16, 2017 at 11:07 am

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Sigh. Has ANY ONE of the protesters actually read the Koran ( Quran. Q'ran )?

It makes Mein Kampf look like a fairy tale by comparison. ( Ya, Ich lese Deutsch ). If you want to make a comparison, the Christian Bible has a New Testament. The Koran also needs a New Testament, instead of the ravings of a pedophile caravan bandit who kills his own family members as described in several Surahs in the Koran.

YES, that is what these ignorant protesters are defending! Under Islamic Law, they would be killed by beheading or stoned to death if they did not cover up ( women ) or accept Allah and Mohammad as his prophet. Read the Koran, then get back to me. Or keep showing your ignorance.


66 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 16, 2017 at 12:30 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"Curmudgeon - if you read the article you will see that the protestors entering did get places instead of 50 interested people."

You know, if I'm interested in hearing a speaker I get there early to get a seat. Apparently those 50 people were not so interested, or they would have done likewise. Ironically, the most interested audience members seem to have been the protesters.


"Racism, the most overused word in the English language?"

Because there's overmuch of it, perhaps?


53 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

38 year resident is a registered user.

Ah, the liberal universities.......bastions of free speech unless they disagree with the speaker.


35 people like this
Posted by Missing pieces to the story.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 16, 2017 at 2:34 pm

Missing pieces to the story. is a registered user.

I am unfamiliar with the positions of this speaker. The entire article is about how people reacted to his presence. It says nothing about what he said.

Generally, I am in support of free speech--even when I strongly disagree with the viewpoint of the speaker. That said, I also strongly support the rights of people who are offended to walk out.

I'm puzzled why others who wanted to hear the speaker would be actively prevented from going in. Did that actually happen? Or is that a baseless accusation?

The reporter missed some important pieces to this story.


52 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ mauricio - You're mistaken. People didn't criticize Colin Kaepernick because of what he believed or his desire to share that belief. Rather, it was in his chosen METHOD for his speech. Colin Kaepernick decided to defy American etiquette during the presentation of the flag and National Anthem by sitting down.

His reasons were clear: He believes [portion removed] that law enforcement unfairly and over-aggressively targets minorities in this country. He wants to bring attention to the notion that law enforcement is corrupt when it comes to African Americans.

Few people were upset with the message. People in this country -- including conservatives, moderates and liberals -- were upset at the METHOD that was chosen regardless of whether they agreed with the message. Kaerpenick could have protested on his own time out of the stadium (and out of uniform) rather than choosing this particular method as a "protest."

This is not to say that Americans believe that law enforcement workers are perfect.
It doesn't mean that there aren't a few bad apples among law enforcement who have done bad things. If an unarmed person -- regardless of race, religion, etc. --
is shot without cause, then the person who fired the shot should face justice.

However, what Kaepernick is doing is disrespecting this American nation represented by a flag all on the basis of a stereotype. Many people deeply believe that disrespect of that flag is disrespecting the people of this nation -- especially those who served in uniform.

Thus, Kaepernick's method was the real problem. I can't help but wonder if he truly thought that he could help build respect for his beliefs by disrespecting something that is almost "sacred" in this country (especially among sports fans).

Think of it this way: There are relatively few killings of unarmed black citizens in this country. The rate of abusive activity by teachers in public schools is greater than this. Would anyone think about disrespecting the flag during public events as a form of protesting what they perceive as "injustice" in America's public schools?

Let's be clear: People can criticize the police all they want. Most of us would readily call to prosecute a police officer who committed a violent crime. Real social justice isn't about blaming everyone else (including the police, white privilege, racism or any other type of -phobia, -ic, -ism, etc.) for issues within a community.

As a Hispanic woman, I am embarrassed of things like poor performance in schools, high crime rates, high rates of theft, high teen pregnancy rates, etc. among people who look and talk like me. As a legal immigrant, I am embarrassed by illegal immigration and the demands by some that little should be done about it. These things reflect poorly upon me and my family. I can even understand how stereotypes can begin -- even if I never want to be judged for what others have done.

This is not a "conservative" or "liberal" issue. It is about right and wrong. It is about a man like Colin Kaepernick who wants to stereotype law enforcement in this nation without anyone ever using the same measuring stick against groups that he associates with or wants to protect.

By the way, Hollywood has criticized and stereotyped certain groups -- such as Christians -- for decades. Personally, I do see hypocrisy in how some people will be loudly critical of Christians but remarkably respectful of other groups out of fear of offense.


76 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto citizen
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 16, 2017 at 3:09 pm

Palo Alto citizen is a registered user.

Robert Spencer has no qualifications or credentials in Islam, Islamic history, or Islamic law. Two of his organizations are classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He makes a great deal of money fomenting demonization of all Muslims. He is not given any credibility by anyone who has any knowledge of the subject. He resorts to name-calling students; in fact, he has targeted students (along with their faces, names, and dorm rooms) on his website. He was quoted by Anders Breivik -- the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people from anti-Muslim and anti-immigration motivations -- dozens of times in his "manifesto." (Certainly, that's inciting to violence.) Spencer routinely fabricates "facts" and definitions of Islam.

Would these same people wanting a "different perspective" want to include the Nazi perspective when teaching Judaism? If the answer is no (and I devoutly hope it is), then Spencer's perspective shouldn't be included in any discussion of Islam; it's exactly analogous to the Nazi position -- demonizing an entire people (almost 1/4 of the world's population) by spinning false tales about them. That's why there were so many Jews at the Rally Against Islamophobia; they've heard this kind of rhetoric before.


33 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 16, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"Ah, the liberal universities.......bastions of free speech unless they disagree with the speaker."

Oh c'mon. How can Stanford--home to the superconservative Hoover Institution, sporting the tallest structure on campus by far--be called liberal?


"Kaepernick's method was the real problem."

Help me out here. How is kneeling during an affirmation of patriotism construed as a problem? Since ancient times kneeling has been the ultimate gesture of reverence. Kneeling is much, much more respectful than standing.

Seems to me Kaepernick is the patriotic one.


43 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 16, 2017 at 4:34 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Since I despise all religions, I would have no problem with the criticism of Islam, especially radical Islam. The problem mis that Spencer is a racist and hate monger who singles out and demonizes over a billion people, of which only a tiny fraction adhere to radical islam. He is a hate monger, and protesting hate mongering is free speech at its highest level.

Should all those who oppose abortion be allowed to be labeled as murderersbecause of the few extremists who have murdered doctors performing abortions?

Imagine a speaker who would demonize all gun owners because a minuscule percentage of them commit mass murders.

It is not for others to determine what form of protest, as long as it's non violent, is an appropriate expression of free speech, and which one isn't. Kneeling during the anthem to protest social injustice and police kbrutality is a perfectly appropriate form of protest. Demanding social justice is meaningful, blind devotion to symbols, while the country is not standing by its values and principles is not patriotism and not love of country. We are not a police state and not a fascist country, not yet anyway. Preventing Kaepernick from making a living reminds me of Samuel Johnson's classic words:Patriotism(fake one, my words) is the last refuge of the scoundrel.


16 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 16, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


32 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 16, 2017 at 8:17 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Curmudgeon - You wrote: "Help me out here. How is kneeling during an affirmation of patriotism construed as a problem? Since ancient times kneeling has been the ultimate gesture of reverence. Kneeling is much, much more respectful than standing. Seems to me Kaepernick is the patriotic one."

Initially, he didn't kneel. He sat. He sat for several games. When asked about it, Kaepernick said:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

So, it wasn't about kneeling. It wasn't even a protest. It was about a guy who said that he wouldn't stand and respect the flag of our country -- a country that he says "oppresses black people and people of color." It was a LACK OF RESPECT and the opposite of patriotism.

In addition, people began looking through Kaepernick's social media outlets to understand the context of his views. They found very disturbing tweets, retweets and likes. They embraced a stereotype of the nation's law enforcement officers -- many who do a difficult job under difficult circumstances (and often more difficult in certain areas).

Eventually, the narrative changed. Instead of being about how Kaepernick couldn't stand up in respect for our nation's flag, he decided to kneel as a compromise (supposedly because he spoke with a member of the military).

Again: I have no problem with Kaepernick believing whatever he wants to believe. Like many Americans, I have a problem with this particular type of "protest." He can believe whatever he wants. However, most of us aren't allowed to protest at work while in uniform. What would happen if police officers chose to make a public spectacle of the nation if they refused to stand for the flag at public events because they felt that a specific group of Americans assault and shoot cops and make their jobs more difficult? I suspect that they would be unemployed.


34 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 16, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

[Portion removed.]

YouTube is filled with videos of college students who claim that they feel "violated" for hearing things that they disagree with. At first, such videos are quite funny. However, it really does seem sad after a while to think that young SJW's cannot tolerate anyone but themselves and those who agree with them.


37 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 16, 2017 at 8:28 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ mauricio: I am pro-life. I also believe that any person who murders an abortion doctor should be charged with murder and should be executed for their crime.

Still, can you provide me a list of how many abortion doctors have been murdered over the last decade by people motivated by pro-life beliefs?

I would wager that there have been more women and girls killed in "honor killing" in the last year.

As for Spencer: I don't know much about him. However, you and others repeat a narrative that he is a "hatemonger." I don't see evidence that would convince me of this. Could you provide evidence that he is a "hatemonger" and not just someone who might stereotype a religion on the basis of a specific portion of the adherents of that religion? Do you see the difference?


64 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 16, 2017 at 11:16 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"So, it wasn't about kneeling."

It is now. In the future it will be about whatever this black man does to protest how black people are treated. In this context the flag is a red cape wielded by the Establishment to whip up The Base. They fall for it every time. I think that cynical exploitation of our national symbol is the real blasphemy to the Flag, don't you?


"However, most of us aren't allowed to protest at work while in uniform."

Neither, apparently, are NFL players. Especially black NFL players. At least, not according to those who unquestioningly follow the lead of the Establishment. See above.

But then, how many of us risk getting a lifetime supply of CTE at work while whipping up an hour of sanctioned mayhem for bloodlusty fans, for the financial benefit of overprivileged Establishment oligarchs? Not me. Do you?

BTW, how's the 49ers record since they let Kaepernick go? I'm too lazy to Google it.

But what do you expect? 400 years ago another Kaepernick was challenging the Establishment view that the sun revolved around the earth. Inspired contrarianism seems to go with the name.


Like this comment
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 17, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

Sorry, typo. 500 years.


17 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

Why was some of my comment deleted? Weird. Thankfully, I take screenshots of what I've written. I simply criticized the Southern Law Poverty Center because they target even mainstream organizations with which they disagree as "hate groups."

For instance, the SLPC labels Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- a fellow at the Hoover Institute here at Stanford -- as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist." Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born feminist who campaigns against child brides and female genital mutilation. She speaks as a former Muslim and a young woman who was forced into an arranged marriage that she escaped.

Ali is an outspoken critic of Islam; however, her criticism shouldn't be confused with "hate" toward adherents of Islam. She is now an atheist but her criticism is on the institution and history of the religion that she believes excuses or encourages extremism. She is well-spoken and quite articulate with her views of Islam. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with her, the fact remains that she is not an "extremist" or "hate-monger."

What baffles me is how the SPLC can label Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" yet remain silent when Hollywood films and shows often depict Christians (particularly the more evangelical ones) as a "Western Taliban" or as a group of imbeciles.

@ Curmudgeon - The 49ers went 2-14 last year (with Kaepernick on the team). They are currently 1-9. The only reason that I know this is because my husband is a football fanatic. :-)

By the way, I think that it is something of a stretch to compare someone like Colin Kapernick, his controversial SJW views and his refusal to stand for the flag with brilliant scientists who challenged conventional thoughts about the physical universe.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 20 comments | 6,207 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 2,220 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,956 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,812 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,731 views

 

THREE WEEKS TO GO!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now