Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 162

Thread: OT: UC Berkeley tucks its tail between its legs...cancels speech by Ann Coulter

  1. #16
    These "events" are now a lose-lose for Cal. I suspect a nefarious Stanfurd plot and, as our last football coach used to say (or think), "The best defense is a good offense." Who can we schedule to speak on The Farm?

  2. #17
    It's the smart thing to do by the University and the UCP. I don't have a problem with this. If they still want her to speak, they could always go off campus.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by socaliganbear View Post
    Maybe. But thats not how this will play out. Hell, we'll prob have a few BI defectors to Stanford in a page or two.


    Screw all these androids

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by GB54 View Post


    Screw all these androids
    What do they have in common?

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNIt View Post
    What do they have in common?
    Same sex organs

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by dajo9 View Post
    This thread would be better titled "OT: UC Berkeley Does the Smart Thing and Doesn't Become a Battleground for Competing Idiots"
    Quote Originally Posted by GB54 View Post
    If departments or Professors invite anyone on campus they want to speak in the interests of scholarship, they should be admitted on campus. If student organizations want to invite opinionistas like Coulter or Rachel Maddow then they can hold the event off campus and pay for it. I assume Coulter charges a hefty fee. Where does this money come from?
    But that's not the policy - the university doesn't require ALL student groups to do so. It only imposes onerous requirements on conservative groups, largely because anarchists and liberals resort to violence. If you don't see the problem with that - the university implementing a heckler's veto - than you are essentially in favor of mob rule.

    If this continues, one of two things will happen: (i) conservative groups will sue UC and police agencies and likely win; or (ii) conservative groups will start adopting violence and threats of violence, which may cause liberals to reconsider.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by BearGoggles View Post
    But that's not the policy - the university doesn't require ALL student groups to do so. It only imposes onerous requirements on conservative groups, largely because anarchists and liberals resort to violence. If you don't see the problem with that - the university implementing a heckler's veto - than you are essentially in favor of mob rule.

    If this continues, one of two things will happen: (i) conservative groups will sue UC and police agencies and likely win; or (ii) conservative groups will start adopting violence and threats of violence, which may cause liberals to reconsider.
    Except liberal groups with high profile guests have had large bills. We've covered that on this board already. And when SUPERB brings musical guests, they get charged even more. If BCR wants to bring in high profile guests, it will pay a higher price tag.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by dajo9 View Post
    This thread would be better titled "OT: UC Berkeley Does the Smart Thing and Doesn't Become a Battleground for Competing Idiots"
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNIt View Post
    It's the smart thing to do by the University and the UCP. I don't have a problem with this. If they still want her to speak, they could always go off campus.
    Why should some (most) student groups be allowed to use campus facilities but others not be allowed to do so?

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by BearGoggles View Post
    But that's not the policy - the university doesn't require ALL student groups to do so. It only imposes onerous requirements on conservative groups, largely because anarchists and liberals resort to violence. If you don't see the problem with that - the university implementing a heckler's veto - than you are essentially in favor of mob rule.

    If this continues, one of two things will happen: (i) conservative groups will sue UC and police agencies and likely win; or (ii) conservative groups will start adopting violence and threats of violence, which may cause liberals to reconsider.
    I think (ii) has already happened. Right wingers are driving to Berkeley from as far as Montana just to fight antifas. And they are initiating as much as they are defending themselves. Personally, I think UC Berkeley should announce a 6 month moratorium on all public speakers to let things cool off.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BearGoggles View Post
    But that's not the policy - the university doesn't require ALL student groups to do so. It only imposes onerous requirements on conservative groups, largely because anarchists and liberals resort to violence. If you don't see the problem with that - the university implementing a heckler's veto - than you are essentially in favor of mob rule.

    If this continues, one of two things will happen: (i) conservative groups will sue UC and police agencies and likely win; or (ii) conservative groups will start adopting violence and threats of violence, which may cause liberals to reconsider.
    Then it should be consistent. If an on campus club for the advancement of Palestine invited a speaker from Hamas who advocated terrorism then the same rules should apply. I don't think student groups have a right to invite speakers on campus and pay speakers in the name of the University.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by socaliganbear View Post
    Except liberal groups with high profile guests have had large bills. We've covered that on this board already. And when SUPERB brings musical guests, they get charged even more. If BCR wants to bring in high profile guests, it will pay a higher price tag.
    Which liberal groups have: (i) been forced to move events off campus and/or had UC dictate time and place of their event; and/or (ii) been hit with high security bills? This is a serious question - I'm not aware of any but I may have missed that.

    And for the record, this is not a case of BCR being asked to pay a higher price - they are being told they have to have the event off campus and subject to other requirements.

    Analogy to SUPERB/music concerts seems misplaced. Those are entertainment events paid for with student fees and outside sponsors. I believe it is non-political (or as much as programming can be at a university). No heckler's veto implications.

  12. #27
    Loyal Bear barabbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Puerto Plata, DR
    Posts
    3,724
    I think it would be much more constructive of the "Berkeley College Republicans" would invite a mainstream Republican, instead of those who like to provoke the other side like Ann Coulter and the Breitbart dude. There are a lot of conservatives who can express themselves without trying to upset anyone who disagrees with them.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    In defending the cancellation of the Big Game, "UCPD had learned that certain groups responsible for pulling donations and making really mean posts on the internet planned to make an appearance at the upcoming game,” according to an email from UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof. “We can’t guaranty that there will not be any micro-agressions leveled against UC administrators, and their safety is paramount. This is not silly.”

  14. #29
    True Blue Golden Bear Phantomfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    15,111
    Quote Originally Posted by dajo9 View Post
    This thread would be better titled "OT: UC Berkeley Does the Smart Thing and Doesn't Become a Battleground for Competing Idiots"
    This is the dumbest comment you have made.

  15. #30
    Looks like a court is ordering Auburn University to host Nazi Richard Spencer



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •