The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman, obviously no fan of Ann Coulter, writes:
There are few prospects in life more appealing than the silence of Ann Coulter. She brings to mind what novelist Mary McCarthy said about playwright and Stalinist Lillian Hellman: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'” If the world never suffered another emission from Coulter’s toxic brain, it would be a better place.
But she said she would speak at the University of California at Berkeley on April 27 even though the school administration had canceled the speech hosted by two student groups. Faced with that challenge, the university changed its mind, sort of, proposing to let her appear May 2. All I can say is something I never thought I would: It will be a great thing for Ann Coulter to speak.
Berkeley is an exceptional institution whose history includes the 1964-1965 protests that gained fame as the Free Speech Movement. Long known as a hotbed of left-wing activism, it has lately gained attention as a place where right-wingers venture at their peril.
In February, the administration abruptly called off a talk by then-Breitbart News troll Milo Yiannopoulos after protesters threw stones and firebombs and smashed windows. In all, they caused $100,000 in property damage and several injuries.
Chapman concludes with the following warning:
For any school to impede speakers because critics might protest violently is to give the critics control of who may speak. That’s why Berkeley’s handling of Coulter is so dangerous. At the moment, it’s rewarding thugs for being thuggish and thus encouraging more thuggery. It threatens to make the school a hostage to bullies instead of a place where ideas may be heard and answered without fear.
On Thursday, Ann Coulter, on Fox News Channel’s ‘Hannity,’ “took aim at what she described as ‘beta males’ behind what could be ‘Rodney King riots’ staged to protest a speech she has pledged to give next week at the University of California in Berkeley, CA.”:
“[N]one of this has to do with security,” she said. “After acceding to all their requirements, which were also arbitrary and silly, and they claimed it was on the basis of safety, I suggested two measures that actually would allow free speech to exist on Berkeley if they wanted it to. And that was one thing to announce that any students caught engaging in violence, mayhem, or disrupting an invited speaker’s speech would be expelled. And number two, to have a little talk with the Berkeley chief of police, who is allowing these Rodney King riots to go on whenever [a] conservative speaker speaks.”
“I mean, it is anarchy when you are only enforcing the law in order to allow liberals to speak,” she continued. “But, no, we’ll let these masked rioters show up with weapons and start — I mean, they are all little beta males, but with a weapon, even a beta male can do some damage, especially to a 99-pound girl. To have them stepping in, those private individuals, according to courts, are acting under color of state law. And for the police to refuse to protect even offensive speech and by the way, and I’m the author of 12 New York Times best-sellers. This has damaged my reputation for them to be acting like I’m David Duke out there. But courts have found, even somebody out burning an American flag, the police cannot stand by and let skinheads beat them up. That is viewpoint discrimination. And they are all liable.”
Stephen Frank, from California Political Review, advocates even tougher measures “to allow free speech to exist on Berkley.”
I wonder, does the University of California system teach the Constitution to its students? The answer is yes — not in the classroom but by edict, by show of force, by violence and use of Administrators that oppose the First Amendment — and most of the other amendments. As violence breaks up on the UC and State College campuses, as administrators “protect” the students” from varying views on public policy — now in the case of Berkley, it is ending free speech rights because of an American promoting the rights of free speech.
It is ironic that on the same campus that founded the “Free Speech” movement in 1964, it now looks like a Soviet gulag — mention you think Trump could be a good President, and you will be bullied to tears and in some cases physically violated. The time has come to end the abuse of students.
Rich Eber gives the first step — call out the National Guard — and in so doing arrest every black masked gangster burning buildings, hitting students and killing freedom on the campus.
That is the easy part. The hard part is firing every Administrator, from Janet Napolitano to the professors promoting the violence to freedom on the campus.
Allow them to run hot dog stand, so they harm fewer people. The Chancellor of UC Berkley and his staff needs to go — his abuse of a taxpayer funded university, abuse of students wanting to hear differing views and his open disrespect for the Constitution show he is capable of being a double talking comedian, not an educator.
Get the National Guard on campus and show the snowflakes that freedom will be protected, not shamed.
President Donald Trump can do that without the participation of California Governor Jerry Brown. United States presidents have the power to federalize the National Guard.
“President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard in 1957 to integrate public schools. (The same Arkansas troops who had once blocked black students then escorted the students to school.)”