One way or another, Ann Coulter is determined to speak at the University of California-Berkeley the day she was scheduled.
After the school cancelled her event, citing they could not find a safe venue, many are suggesting Coulter have an Army National Guard escort if the threat of violence can’t be controlled by the university.
After canceling the April 27 appearance, the university quickly backtracked after national criticism and said it had found a safe venue for May 2.
Coulter cited two problems with this.
First, she doesn’t plan her schedule around what Berkeley says is okay. She has other things to do. She was scheduled for April 27 and, because she believed she would be able to go, she scheduled something else for May 2.
Second, the May 2 date is during a reading period for Berkeley. They were able to find a safe venue because fewer students would be on campus.
The national Young America’s Foundation has looked for venues off campus for the April 27 date but the Berkeley College Republicans who initially invited her, had different plans in mind. They threatened to file a lawsuit against the school.
In a four-page letter, the group demanded the university find a venue close to the center of campus and provide appropriate security or “we will seek relief in federal court, including claims for injunctive relief and damages.”
Berkeley has been the site of several incidents of violence against conservatives, most notably at a speech by commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. According to Breitbart, there’s now a movement afoot among conservative pundits to have President Donald Trump put an end to that by dispatching the National Guard to ensure her safety — something that hearkens back to the days of school desegregation.
Back to the time of desegregation? Berkeley should be ashamed.
Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin said on his show that President Trump “should send his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in there to walk Ann Coulter onto the Berkeley campus so she can give her speech. Either we have a Constitution, or we don’t!”
California Political News blogger Richard Eber was in agreement:
“Are we to continue to accept the words of UC spokesman Dan Mogulof who commented ‘It has nothing to do with anyone’s political views? We believe in unqualified support to the First Amendment. But we also have an unqualified focus on (the) safety of our students.’
“Baloney! If such logic were used during the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks would still be standing in the back of the bus. Lester Maddox would still be waving ax handles to keep African Americans from eating at his lunch counter. Martin Luther King would have been forced to cancel his “I Have A Dream” oration because of security considerations.”
That’s what’s truly sad here. We’re living in a day and age where the same tactics used against George Wallace standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama or to protect the Little Rock Nine from hyperatavistic segregationists are being suggested as necessary to ensure that a conservative can speak freely at a state university.
It’s not just the left that ought to be ashamed of countenancing this violence. One wonders how administrators like Mr. Mogulof and Chancellor Nicholas Dirks — who said he supported the cancellation because of “very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker, attendees and those who may wish to lawfully protest the event” — look in the mirror every new morning and feel good about themselves and the job they’re doing.
This is a university that claims to be the birthplace of the free speech movement back in the 1960s. They should have that claim revoked. They freely admit they can’t protect the safety of their own students because of their political beliefs. And they don’t seem to be in a big hurry to do so anytime soon.
Time for the violence-enablers in the administration and faculty to go.