Trouble in the Home of the Free Speech Movement, Part II

The furor over Ann Coulter's canceled speech at UC Berkeley seems to have mostly died down for now. Though she was rescheduled to speak at Berkeley on May 2, Coulter vowed to speak on April 27, the originally scheduled date. Demonstrators on both sides arrived from up and down the west coast expecting a confrontation, but Coulter didn't show.

In a remarkable turn of events, the demonstrations were peaceful.

Peaceful demonstrators engage in conversation during the protest in Berkeley on April 27.  Daphne White

The free speech debate, however, goes on.

In the Washington Post, Pranav Jandhyala, a UC Berkeley freshman who founded BridgeUSA at Berkeley and worked with the College Republicans to bring Coulter to the campus, explained his reasons:

"Coulter’s ideas have an audience, and though most members of our group don’t agree with her, we recognize the following she draws. We also understand that many see her as an inflammatory figure with destructive beliefs that disqualify her from appearing at an institution of higher learning. But we believe the only productive way to fight views one sees as bad or dangerous is with better views. So we chose to get involved and include Coulter in our speaker series on immigration so students could hear, and actively challenge, her views."

Pranav Jandhyala.  Washington Post

Some have called on Berkeley to allow Coulter to speak. The Los Angeles Times agreed that the administration had a difficult job in ensuring safety on campus, but opined that that wasn't enough justification:

"No one who has observed recent violence in Berkeley would dismiss the university’s safety concerns. But it’s important that a campus that was the birthplace of the free speech movement not succumb to what lawyers call the 'heckler's veto' — the idea that a fear of disruptive or violent protest justifies canceling a speech by a controversial figure or shunting it to a time or place where it will have a significantly smaller audience."

Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic that the cancellation gave Coulter more power, not less:

"Her critics would have done well to deny her attention by treating her scheduled appearance with the ambivalent yawn every provocateur most dreads. Instead, they began playing into her hands. . . . Issuing violent threats was, for the left, the most counterproductive of all courses. It generated just the sort of attention Coulter thrives on."

Demonstrations in Berkeley turned violent on April 15.  Getty

But what of the clear-and-present-danger test? Though the Sacramento Bee agreed that Coulter should have a platform to speak, it argued that safety was paramount:

"The debate, given the escalating violence these past few months, is over how to make sure no one gets hurt or killed in the process. . . . The university is being used. Coulter, Yiannopoulos and the extremists around them don’t want free speech; they want a taxpayer financed forum for political theater, even if it hurts people and puts 40,000 kids at risk."

And Otis R. Taylor Jr. wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that Coulter's "hate speech" should take a back seat to public safety:

"It’s in this explosive environment that Coulter has rejected UC Berkeley’s concerns over safety and has repeatedly tried to frame the issue as a First Amendment fight. . . . My interest in public safety, yours and mine, is much greater than hearing someone hate on humanity."

That's what the papers are saying. But what about the original participants of Berkeley's 1964 Free Speech Movement? Where do they stand on this issue, given that Coulter is so ideologically different from themselves?

Protesters in the Free Speech Movement march on the UC Berkeley campus on November 20, 1964.  Don Kechley

Folk Musician Joan Baez, who protested then, supported Coulter's right to speak:

"Let the Ann Coulters of the world have their say. Trying to stop Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking or any group from marching will not stop the advance of fascism, but rather might strengthen it. . . . Let the opposition speak, let them march, let us speak, and let us march."

Joan Baez performing at UC Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement in 1964.

Taking aim at Milo Yiannopoulos, the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Movement Archives agreed:

"Even the worst kind of bigot, including Yiannopoulos, must be allowed to speak on campus. . . . At a time when we have a bigoted president taking office in the White House it seems especially important for universities to expose and refute bigoted speakers — banning them evades that responsibility."

Finally, Lynne Hollander Savio, herself part of the Free Speech Movement and widow of its leader, Mario, concluded:

"I don’t think Ann Coulter has anything useful to say, but it was unconstitutional for the university to bar her from speaking. . . . I think free speech has slipped as a value."

Mario Savio, leader of  Berkeley's Free Speech Movement in 1964, celebrates freedom of speech but advocates responsibility.

So where does that leave us? Some argue free speech should trump safety. Others say the opposite. And the veterans of the Free Speech Movement want to protect free speech no matter the content.

Where on the spectrum do you land? Is anyone glaringly right or hopelessly wrong in your view?

How should an issue like this be solved? Join the conversation in the comments section below.

At the protest in Berkeley on April 27, one demonstrator had an idea.  Frances Dinkelspiel

I am currently working on a book about Ah Toy, the first Chinese brothel madam in gold rush San Francisco.

Want to read more? Click "Subscribe." Please feel free to share this post and your comments.