Ann Coulter at Berkeley -- UPDATED UPDATED

SECOND UPDATE:  One of the students who invited Coulter to Berkeley, on behalf of a group called BridgeUSA, has this oped in the Washington Post.  Here are a few key passages:

National media coverage of Coulter’s visit mostly overlooked BridgeUSA’s role and our plan for the event, instead reporting that the incident was a repeat of the Yiannopoulos fracas — exactly what we set out to avoid.

Antifa and other “black-bloc” groups that are able to organize do so far beyond the perimeters of our campus, and they receive an insignificant amount of support from Berkeley students, if any. But in national news, all that’s seen is violence and destruction being used to censor speech.

Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity. Our organization prides itself on the values of free inquiry and discourse, yet we understand the impossible trade-off that the university faces: the administration is caught between upholding its commitment to free speech and its responsibility for student safety.

The administration attempted to work with us, to propose alternative dates this semester and next semester where a defensible venue would be available. In balancing the concerns of protecting students and allowing peaceful protest, they never backed down from their commitment to help us bring Coulter to campus. It is easy and expedient to blame the university in this situation, but that avoids the actual problem. The true issue here is not the way that the university handled this situation; rather, it is the fact that this trade-off between student safety and free speech even exists in the first place.

FIRST UPDATE: Chancellor Dirks has this oped in today's [April 27] New York Times.

ORIGINAL POST:  The letter below was circulated today [April 26] by Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks regarding the Ann Coulter situation.  The story he tells is considerably different from the one generally reported in the press.  I have bolded the key passages:

To the Members of the Berkeley Campus Community,

As I write this, I am aware of the uncertainty surrounding Ann Coulter’s stated intention to come to campus tomorrow afternoon.  We will be sending out a separate message later today with updated information about safety arrangements, as well as our hopes and expectations regarding how members of our campus community should conduct themselves.  For now, I want to share my thoughts about all that has led up to the current situation in which we find ourselves.

This University has two non-negotiable commitments, one to Free Speech, the other to the safety of our campus community members, their guests, and the public. In that context, we cannot ignore or deny what is a new reality.  Groups and individuals from the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley. In early February, a speaker’s presence on campus ignited violent conflict and significant damage to campus property. In March, political violence erupted on the streets of Berkeley.  In April opposing groups again violently clashed on the edge of our campus. While some seem inclined to use these events and circumstances to draw attention to themselves, we remain focused on the needs, rights, and interests of our students and our community. We cannot wish away or pretend that these threats do not exist.

The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some – that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur – ignores reality.  Protecting public safety in these circumstances requires a multifaceted approach.  This approach must take into account the use of “time, place, and manner” guidelines, devised according to the specific threats presented.  Because threats or strategic concerns may differ, so must our approach.  In all cases, however, we only seek to ensure the successful staging of free speech rights; we make no effort to control or restrict the content of expression, regardless of differing political views.

This is a University, not a battlefield. We must make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected. While our commitment to freedom of speech and expression remains absolute, we have an obligation to heed our police department’s assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events.

In relation to the invitation made by a student group for Ann Coulter to speak at Berkeley this week, we have therefore to take seriously the intelligence UCPD has regarding threats of violence that could endanger our students, our community, and perhaps even Ms Coulter herself. It is specific, significant, and real.  Yet, despite those threats we have, and will remain ready, to welcome her to campus, and assume the risks, challenges, and expenses that will attend her visit.  That is demanded by our commitment to Free Speech.  What we will not do is allow our students, other members of the campus community, and the public to be needlessly endangered by permitting an event to be held in a venue that our police force does not believe to be protectable.  If UCPD believes there is a significant security threat attendant to a particular event, we cannot allow it to be held in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass; in any space that does not meet basic safety criteria established by UCPD.  This is the sole reason we could not accommodate Ms. Coulter on April 27^th, and the very reason we offered her alternative dates in early May and September, when venues that satisfy safety requirements are available.

Contrary to some press reports and circulating narratives, the UC Berkeley administration did not cancel the Coulter event and has never prohibited Ms. Coulter from coming on campus.  Instead, we received a request to provide a venue on one single day, chosen unilaterally by a student group without any prior consultation with campus administration or law enforcement.  After substantial evaluation and planning by our law enforcement professionals, we were forced to inform the group that, in light of specific and serious security threats that UCPD’s intelligence had identified, there was no campus venue available at a time on that date where the event could be held safely and without disruption.  We offered an alternative date for the event (which was rejected) and offered to work with the group to find dates in the future when the event could occur. Throughout this process our effort has been to support our students’ desire to hold their event safely and successfully. 

Sadly and unfortunately, concern for student safety seems to be in short supply in certain quarters. We believe that once law enforcement professionals determine there are security risks attendant to a particular event, speakers need to focus on what they actually want to achieve. If it is to speak to a large audience, to make a case for their positions, to engage students in discourse, we stand ready to make that work on any date when a protectable venue is available. If, on the other hand, the objective is stir up conflict and violence without regard for the safety, rights, and interests of others in order to advance personal interests we cannot abandon our commitment to the safety of our community members.

We will work cooperatively with members of our campus community who would sponsor events to ensure that those events can occur and that the campus can actually benefit from the dialogue their invited speakers might generate. To this end, we are working to clarify our policies and practices so that all know what is expected and how sponsors can best engage us to facilitate the success of their planned events. We trust that cooperation and good will among the members of our own community can help us jointly defend our campus against the threats to both speech and safety currently being posed by outside groups.

Sincerely,

Nick Dirks
Chancellor

And here is the statement issued today by FIRE (boldface in original):

FIRE statement on the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s speech at UC Berkeley

By FIRE April 26, 2017

Today, Ann Coulter announced that she will no longer attempt to speak at the University of California, Berkeley tomorrow, Thursday, April 27, because of safety concerns. This latest success for those willing to threaten or engage in violence in order to silence a campus speaker establishes a genuinely dangerous precedent.

Public colleges and universities have a legal duty to protect First Amendment rights. They also have a responsibility to do their best to protect all those present on campus from threats to their physical safety. But curtailing the rights of a speaker in the name of safety is wrong unless absolutely necessary, and canceling a speech must be the very last resort. Otherwise, restricting or silencing a speaker is simply a capitulation to violence or threats.

No university may be considered “safe” if speakers voicing unpopular ideas on its campus incur a substantial risk of being physically attacked. A university where people or viewpoints are likely to be opposed with fists rather than argumentation is unworthy of the name. Granting those willing to use violence the power to determine who may speak on campus is an abdication of UC Berkeley’s moral and legal responsibilities under the First Amendment.

In the wake of the violence at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1, we at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) counseled patience, given that UC Berkeley professed to have been caught off-guard and that it promised an investigation into what happened. Nearly two months later, and after multiple incidents of political violence in the adjoining City of Berkeley, the university still appears to be unprepared to ensure the safety of a controversial speaker, attendees, or peaceful protesters.

Moving forward, UC Berkeley must be properly prepared to host and protect speakers of all stripes. FIRE also calls for UC Berkeley’s promised investigation to go forward with thoroughness and transparency, and that its findings be made public without delay. The health of our democracy demands no less.

 

Comments

[anon]

So many misstatements, so little time.

First, "the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley." Please cite the groups on the "other end" of the political spectrum preventing any speakers at Berkeley.

Second, Lubet, as usual, doesn't really present all sides of the debate (sorry, the "FIRE" statement doesn't address the issue at hand in any level necessary to dispel false impressions, especially those Lubet promotes by highlighting certain passages of the UCB statement).

To wit, there no statement from Coulter. There is no report about her "side of the story."

According to her, she accommodated every request; intentionally, to avoid be blamed for being not accommodating as an excuse. She recently (as of last night, as I recall) stated that she would NOT speak on the scheduled date because the student group that had invited her withdrew its support.

As NPR reports: "Reuters and The New York Times report that Coulter said in an emailed statement that she decided to cancel the speech after conservative groups backed out of sponsoring the event."

Is THAT what Lubet refers to when he states that there is "news" here that one doesn't hear reported fairly?

Lubet states that there is some "new" information in the UCB statement. No, sorry, this is the MSNBC version of "news" ... which is to say, a one sided, incomplete, biased version of events, repeated over and over and over, with no opportunity for rebuttal by persons involved in the events discussed.

In other words, this post, once again, is a slanted, biased fake "news" hit, ripped from the talking points of the "right" side of the debate by Lubet. This "news" is inaccurate by omission of truthful information that renders the facts stated misleading, at best.

Readers be aware.

A scholar would be interested in the climate that the groups he slavishly supports are creating; a climate, that he, by ignoring the positions of anyone with whom he disagrees, fosters and supports by implication. These groups clearly wish to stifle and silence any voices with which they disagree. They want to live in a world where only the Party speaks.

Steve: like you?

I ask because every single time you post on a political issue, you palm off this one sided tripe, with no context, no deeper thinking, no recognition that there is plenty of fault in the Democratic Party (and its extreme members) contributing to the dysfunctional political climate that is ruining this country.

Can't you see this?

Why don't you post Coulter's statements on this issue, and highlight HER words?

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

anon at 7:35 pm:

As long as I have enjoyed this blog, Professor Lubet has always made intellectual, merit based arguments. This post follows that pattern He is similar to the giants on the right that I enjoy reading or hearing: Scalia, George Will and Charles Krauthammer. One of the finest speeches I ever had the pleasure of hearing was given by Justice Scalia.

Ann Coulter and her colleagues at Regenry Publishing are into personal attack dog politics. Similar to your post. They are into name calling..."Liberal this and Liberal That" Liberal, Liberal, Lib-tard. Even the Ayn Rand folks are in to this conduct. I bought a book this past weekend with a wonderful title....The Unfairness of the Minimum Wage. I was looking forward to an intellectual argument. The book is laced with Anit-Liberal platitudes and name calling.... I judged a book by its cover and was disappointed... Give me a good argument on the Right, not a tirade.

[r]

Deep State Special Legal Counsel:

"Ann Coulter and her colleagues at Regenry Publishing are into personal attack dog politics. Similar to your post. They are into name calling..."

Is this really your response to anon? I think you just reinforced his point. Anon says that not all sides are fairly presented, and that the posted statement includes misstatements and blatant omissions. Your response is to ignore all this because - name calling? Isn't this just another version of the "I don't like what you're saying, so you must be wrong and I don't need to explain why" epidemic that is creating the trouble at Berkeley?

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Precious, albeit typical bullshit from Coulter: “It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech.” That anyone would want to listen to (let alone pay for) what this woman has to say is emblematic of the depths (i.e., the muck and mire) to which mass media-filtered "public discourse" in this country is capable of sinking.

[anon]

Anyone who doesn't adhere to the received viewpoints of the Party is low in comparison to the ever so high and mighty, morally superior authorities on everything, including who may speak at Berkeley.

Most comments aren't even in the ballpark of recognizing the issue here.

All some folks want to do is vent about Coulter.

I find this as disgusting as they find her.

[anon]

"Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity. Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity."

And, those who will prevent Coulter from speaking "by any means necessary"? What values are they pursuing?

Lubet? Anything to post that addresses that issue?

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

r at 2:13 am

You are correct. I don't like what Coulter and what the above poster is saying. They resort to Labels. No different than a 6th Grader in a tight spot with limited coping skills. I don't like labeling people. I enjoy a good argument...

[Enrique Guerra Pujol]

How does the heckler's veto figure in all this?

[anon]

Exactly, as WIKI (not always the best source, but accurate here), most people misunderstand the "heckler's veto" to refer to the heckler. Rather "In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional."

Left wing extremists don't see how embarrassing their own hypocritical stances should be. But, because the media largely supports any interference with, ridicule of, outage or other negative reaction - and now, in the parlance of these ideologues "resistance" - to any person who is not a member of the Party saying or doing anything, the embarrassment is never felt.

What is so amazing is that the actions of these persons in doing what they do (and those on sites like this who support them) mirrors the fascists far more than Coulter does.

Her speech was to concern enforcing the EXISTING immigration laws. The horror of such a thought!

If those laws are wrong, they must be changed, or, as we have seen, enjoined by the courts. That is our system. Those who seek to shut down speech of that sort are ignorant.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

The "Heckler's Veto" is best illustrated by the Illinois Neo-Nazis' attempts to march on Skokie during the 70s. The Village of Skokie attempted to enjoin the marches in court. Coulter's appearance and talk is not that.

Extremism on the Left is not laudable. However, Coulter fabricates "outrage" where none existed. That is her gig. It's entertainment. It appears that Berkley foiled her ranting when they "allowed" her speech. It's no fun, nor does it maker her MONEY when there is no controversy.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Lest we forget, "Leftist extremism," insofar as this refers largely to indiscriminate and/or "terrorist" violence (in quotes by way of noting that there are contested definitions of same), and especially against persons, is not (for some time now, if ever) commonplace in this country, indeed, it's fairly rare, in comparison, that is, with comparable violence committed by members of the extreme Right (religiously or otherwise motivated), by either individuals or groups. Imagine if Native Americans and/or Leftists had engaged in a 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon! The treatment by the mass media, political pundits, and law enforcement officials would have been as different as night and day. If you think that is implausible, consider what often happens when those on the Left engage in principally peaceful (nonviolent and unarmed) protest: perhaps some property damage occurs owing to a few outliers, but that is typically incidental to the overall characterization of the behavior of the demonstrators (although it becomes the primary 'spectacle' for mass media consumption). Cf., for example, this article (as illustrative): http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a54391/how-the-government-is-turning-protesters-into-felons/

[anon]

Alcatraz, Ferguson (Justice Dept. found the triggering incident lawful), Baltimore (two acquittals followed by charges dismissed after calls for prosecutor to be removed), and on and on and on and hundreds of other examples, especially during the protests of the late 60s and early 70s.

Yes, "consider what often happens when those on the Left engage in principally peaceful (nonviolent and unarmed) protest."

The "media consumption" is mostly light and supportive. Compare then the coverage of the "teabaggers" ...

The comment above is perfectly illustrative of the blinders worn by some, mostly on one wing of the spectrum these days. Nothing can wake them up, even neo fascists in Berkeley trying to shut down free speech.

[anon]

Add to the comment above the reaction of some when, say for example, adherents of a particular world view based on what THEY say is their faith engage in what can only be called barbarism.

Some come to their defense, or worse, attempt to pretend that these persons are not doing what they are doing for the reasons that THEY say they are doing these things.

Relevant to the comment above, shall we call those persons who engage in religious extremism "rightists"?

The whole thrust of the partisan bs that gets peddled here is so obviously wrong and muddled. Zealots are always wrong, but don't always pretend to be morally superior while doing or supporting very bad things indeed.

Of course, the response must be, that the media has been kind to Coulter? Or the "teabaggers"? Please ...

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

The Wild Life Refuge Right winged wankers are a poor example to cite for lack of media coverage. What did they do? Over powered an elderly volunteer docent staffing a school children's interpretive center containing stuffed beavers, projectile points and a little gift shop with post cards and slides. There was no real threat to human life and property and there was no real threat of contagion. It was a "boring" stand off...

The Left Wing nut rioters destroyed a CVS, tossed bricks into an Apple Store and posed a real, immediate treat to human life and spreading violence. It was dramatic and dangerous and made for good television.