Noel C. Cilker

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 belie...

There's trouble in the home of free speech. Ann Coulter , a controversial conservative author and political commentator, had been invited to speak on April 27 by the UC Berkeley College Republicans. But then the Berkeley administration stepped in and canceled it. Ann Coulter.   Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images On the surface it looked like a brazen political act. The city of Berkeley, after all, is considered one of the ten most liberal cities in the U.S, and the university was the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement in 1964. Naturally, many on the right have cried foul. Ron Robinson, Young America's Foundation president: "Berkeley disappoints anyone who really believes in free speech. Their actions to ban conservatives while giving leftists a platform reinforces this fact." Some on the left agree. Robert Reich, Berkeley professor: "This is a grave mistake. Coulter should be allowed to speak. How can students understand the vapidity of Coult...

In my last entry we began examining the power of eloquent open letters written by American Muslims in opposition to some of President Trump's administration picks , and by Norman Ah-Sing during the gold rush criticizing the governor's wish to end Asian immigration to California . Despite 164 years of separation, the letters share some common themes: Both minority groups - Muslim and Chinese - were eager to tell their opposition how they embrace American values and therefor fit in with other Americans. Both minority groups positively contribute to society by working in common, everyday occupations. In this entry we continue with two more. 3. "We regret to inform you that you are misguided." The American Muslims and Norman Ah-Sing voice their criticism in no uncertain terms. American Muslims to President Trump in 2016: "It is deeply concerning that you have announced the appointment of individuals to your upcoming Administration with a well do...

Previously I wrote how President Trump's travel ban was not a new idea to American history. Over a century earlier, President Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act in response to fears that the Chinese were gobbling up jobs and leaving red-blooded Americans out of work. But even before that, in the thick of the gold rush, California Governor John Bigler announced that he wanted to "check this tide of Asiatic immigration." What's fascinating is what happens when people respond to restrictive actions by those in power. Usually the most vocal are either VERY supportive or VERY opposed, and often sink into the mud with insults or disrespect for the other side. There are people, however, who rise above the rancor. Many times they are the people who are the most targeted, and rather than lose themselves in a sea of angry voices, they call on thought and reason to register their protest. These are often in the form of open letters which sometimes become seminal d...

When President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on January 21, 2017, suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, decreasing the number of refugees to be admitted to 50,000 in 2017, and suspending immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, among other provisions, he was standing on the shoulders of other state and national leaders throughout history who also exercised their powers to exclude groups of people from entering the country. President Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13769. Courtesy Radio Free Europe. Using the government to refuse entry or to expel a group of people is not new. Famous examples include President Franklin Roosevelt and the SS St. Louis  in 1939, the Chinese Exclusion Act  in 1882 and the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The fears that led to those actions are the same we hear now, that we're either 1) afraid that foreigners will compromise the security of our country, or 2) that they will leech the coun...