SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Why Are Leftists Targeting Troll Columnists Like Ann Coulter Instead of Institutions?
Apr 27, 2017
California is at the center of the ongoing, nationwide conflict over free speech on college campuses. The latest installment: After Ann Coulter was invited, and then disinvited, to speak at UC Berkeley, university administrators tried to placate the conservative polemicist by rescheduling the event. But they made clear that they couldn't guarantee her safety, and it looks as though Coulter might not show up after all.
Administrators are worried that the black-clad radicals who protested against alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February will disrupt the streets of Berkeley again -- a sad indication that the flagship public university of America's most populist state is unable to protect the constitutional rights of invited speakers.
However the Coulter affair comes to a close, though, a larger question will remain unanswered: Why do leftists care about an Ann Coulter speech, of all things? Why a Milo speech before that? Since when have protesters focused on preemptively silencing troll columnists? Since when, more importantly, have radicals taken aim at individuals rather than institutions?
Leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
I'm hardly the first to note that Berkeley, birthplace of the free speech movement, seems to have lost sight of first principles. When Mario Savio stood in front of Sproul Hall in 1964 to denounce a ban on campus political activity, he declared, "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop!"
He cared about the machine -- the system -- not its loudmouthed byproducts.
Prior to that speech, he railed against the San Francisco Hotel Assn. for denying equal employment opportunities to blacks, and traveled to Mississippi for the Freedom Summer protests against Jim Crow. Soon afterward, Berkeley's radical left would organize one of the earliest mass protests against the Vietnam War.
Back then, conservatives were the ones who worried that words would hurt us, even when they weren't aimed at authority figures. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan supporters didn't want George Carlin saying those seven dirty words on television. More recently, Bill O'Reilly fretted that gangsta rap lyrics would corrupt my generation.
Today, many on the right seem to think that words don't matter at all. President Trump was caught bragging that he grabs and kisses women without their permission. His supporters didn't care.
Meanwhile, leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
Are Coulter and Milo offensive? Sure. Are they reactionaries? Sure. But if the masked "anti-fa" protesters want to change the world -- which I suppose they do -- they would do well to imitate the successful leftism of the old civil rights, anti-war or union movements, with their focus on concrete gains against power, and to forget the critical race theorists, whose Ivory Tower obsession with speech in the 1980s and 1990s yielded nothing for marginalized groups.
Left-wing students are embracing the notion that words do as much harm as the sticks, stones, and laws and institutions that oppress minority groups -- but enforcing silence won't get them anywhere.
Fifteen years ago, when I was a student at Claremont, undergrads were upset about abusive policing. In the spring of 1999, Irvin Landrum Jr., an 18-year-old black man, was shot and killed during a traffic stop. The officers who shot him said they recovered a gun, but it was last registered to the police chief in a neighboring municipality. Calls for an independent investigation into the shooting, and for reforms to policing in Claremont and beyond, were the biggest activist causes during my years on campus.
Today, Claremont students still care about abusive policing. But there is no major movement to transform the Claremont City Council or police department. Students most recently attracted media attention for mobilizing against an individual whose politics they dislike: They shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar who studies policing and has criticized Black Lives Matter.
But even if Mac Donald never speaks in public again, police departments will continue to use excessive force. There's no plausible cause and effect that I can discern.
When radicals disrupt speaking events, they damage 1st Amendment rights, fuel polarization and raise the profile of right-wing provocateurs, all without doing anything to stop "the operation of the machines."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Los Angeles Times
Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.
California is at the center of the ongoing, nationwide conflict over free speech on college campuses. The latest installment: After Ann Coulter was invited, and then disinvited, to speak at UC Berkeley, university administrators tried to placate the conservative polemicist by rescheduling the event. But they made clear that they couldn't guarantee her safety, and it looks as though Coulter might not show up after all.
Administrators are worried that the black-clad radicals who protested against alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February will disrupt the streets of Berkeley again -- a sad indication that the flagship public university of America's most populist state is unable to protect the constitutional rights of invited speakers.
However the Coulter affair comes to a close, though, a larger question will remain unanswered: Why do leftists care about an Ann Coulter speech, of all things? Why a Milo speech before that? Since when have protesters focused on preemptively silencing troll columnists? Since when, more importantly, have radicals taken aim at individuals rather than institutions?
Leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
I'm hardly the first to note that Berkeley, birthplace of the free speech movement, seems to have lost sight of first principles. When Mario Savio stood in front of Sproul Hall in 1964 to denounce a ban on campus political activity, he declared, "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop!"
He cared about the machine -- the system -- not its loudmouthed byproducts.
Prior to that speech, he railed against the San Francisco Hotel Assn. for denying equal employment opportunities to blacks, and traveled to Mississippi for the Freedom Summer protests against Jim Crow. Soon afterward, Berkeley's radical left would organize one of the earliest mass protests against the Vietnam War.
Back then, conservatives were the ones who worried that words would hurt us, even when they weren't aimed at authority figures. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan supporters didn't want George Carlin saying those seven dirty words on television. More recently, Bill O'Reilly fretted that gangsta rap lyrics would corrupt my generation.
Today, many on the right seem to think that words don't matter at all. President Trump was caught bragging that he grabs and kisses women without their permission. His supporters didn't care.
Meanwhile, leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
Are Coulter and Milo offensive? Sure. Are they reactionaries? Sure. But if the masked "anti-fa" protesters want to change the world -- which I suppose they do -- they would do well to imitate the successful leftism of the old civil rights, anti-war or union movements, with their focus on concrete gains against power, and to forget the critical race theorists, whose Ivory Tower obsession with speech in the 1980s and 1990s yielded nothing for marginalized groups.
Left-wing students are embracing the notion that words do as much harm as the sticks, stones, and laws and institutions that oppress minority groups -- but enforcing silence won't get them anywhere.
Fifteen years ago, when I was a student at Claremont, undergrads were upset about abusive policing. In the spring of 1999, Irvin Landrum Jr., an 18-year-old black man, was shot and killed during a traffic stop. The officers who shot him said they recovered a gun, but it was last registered to the police chief in a neighboring municipality. Calls for an independent investigation into the shooting, and for reforms to policing in Claremont and beyond, were the biggest activist causes during my years on campus.
Today, Claremont students still care about abusive policing. But there is no major movement to transform the Claremont City Council or police department. Students most recently attracted media attention for mobilizing against an individual whose politics they dislike: They shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar who studies policing and has criticized Black Lives Matter.
But even if Mac Donald never speaks in public again, police departments will continue to use excessive force. There's no plausible cause and effect that I can discern.
When radicals disrupt speaking events, they damage 1st Amendment rights, fuel polarization and raise the profile of right-wing provocateurs, all without doing anything to stop "the operation of the machines."
Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.
California is at the center of the ongoing, nationwide conflict over free speech on college campuses. The latest installment: After Ann Coulter was invited, and then disinvited, to speak at UC Berkeley, university administrators tried to placate the conservative polemicist by rescheduling the event. But they made clear that they couldn't guarantee her safety, and it looks as though Coulter might not show up after all.
Administrators are worried that the black-clad radicals who protested against alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February will disrupt the streets of Berkeley again -- a sad indication that the flagship public university of America's most populist state is unable to protect the constitutional rights of invited speakers.
However the Coulter affair comes to a close, though, a larger question will remain unanswered: Why do leftists care about an Ann Coulter speech, of all things? Why a Milo speech before that? Since when have protesters focused on preemptively silencing troll columnists? Since when, more importantly, have radicals taken aim at individuals rather than institutions?
Leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
I'm hardly the first to note that Berkeley, birthplace of the free speech movement, seems to have lost sight of first principles. When Mario Savio stood in front of Sproul Hall in 1964 to denounce a ban on campus political activity, he declared, "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop!"
He cared about the machine -- the system -- not its loudmouthed byproducts.
Prior to that speech, he railed against the San Francisco Hotel Assn. for denying equal employment opportunities to blacks, and traveled to Mississippi for the Freedom Summer protests against Jim Crow. Soon afterward, Berkeley's radical left would organize one of the earliest mass protests against the Vietnam War.
Back then, conservatives were the ones who worried that words would hurt us, even when they weren't aimed at authority figures. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan supporters didn't want George Carlin saying those seven dirty words on television. More recently, Bill O'Reilly fretted that gangsta rap lyrics would corrupt my generation.
Today, many on the right seem to think that words don't matter at all. President Trump was caught bragging that he grabs and kisses women without their permission. His supporters didn't care.
Meanwhile, leftist activists so radical that they'll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads.
Are Coulter and Milo offensive? Sure. Are they reactionaries? Sure. But if the masked "anti-fa" protesters want to change the world -- which I suppose they do -- they would do well to imitate the successful leftism of the old civil rights, anti-war or union movements, with their focus on concrete gains against power, and to forget the critical race theorists, whose Ivory Tower obsession with speech in the 1980s and 1990s yielded nothing for marginalized groups.
Left-wing students are embracing the notion that words do as much harm as the sticks, stones, and laws and institutions that oppress minority groups -- but enforcing silence won't get them anywhere.
Fifteen years ago, when I was a student at Claremont, undergrads were upset about abusive policing. In the spring of 1999, Irvin Landrum Jr., an 18-year-old black man, was shot and killed during a traffic stop. The officers who shot him said they recovered a gun, but it was last registered to the police chief in a neighboring municipality. Calls for an independent investigation into the shooting, and for reforms to policing in Claremont and beyond, were the biggest activist causes during my years on campus.
Today, Claremont students still care about abusive policing. But there is no major movement to transform the Claremont City Council or police department. Students most recently attracted media attention for mobilizing against an individual whose politics they dislike: They shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar who studies policing and has criticized Black Lives Matter.
But even if Mac Donald never speaks in public again, police departments will continue to use excessive force. There's no plausible cause and effect that I can discern.
When radicals disrupt speaking events, they damage 1st Amendment rights, fuel polarization and raise the profile of right-wing provocateurs, all without doing anything to stop "the operation of the machines."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.