Displaying the most recent of 90799 posts written by

Ruth King

The Double Standard in the Progressive War against the Dead Will Progressives erase the history of their racist heroes, or only their racist enemies? By Victor Davis Hanson

Much of the country has demanded the elimination of references to, and images of, people of the past — from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee — who do not meet our evolving standards of probity.

In some cases, such damnation may be understandable if done calmly and peacefully — and democratically, by a majority vote of elected representatives.

Few probably wish to see a statue in a public park honoring Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founding members of the Ku Klux Klan, or Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the racist Dred Scott decision that set the stage for the Civil War four years later.

But cleansing the past is a dangerous business. The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the nonwhite population

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion (“growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”).

Why did we ever mint a Susan B. Anthony dollar? The progressive suffragist once said, “I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.”

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II while he was California’s attorney general.

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil-service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilson’s progressive racism, dressed up in pseudoscientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it.

In the current logic, Klan membership certainly should be a disqualifier of public commemoration. Why are there public buildings and roads still dedicated to the late Democratic senator Robert Byrd, former “exalted cyclops” of his local Klan affiliate, who reportedly never shook his disgusting lifelong habit of using the N-word?

Why is Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, in the 20th century, still honored as a progressive hero?

So, what are the proper rules of exemption for progressives when waging war against the dead?

Terror Averted in Rotterdam A tip from Spanish authorities saves Dutch lives. Matthew Vadum

Authorities in the Netherlands foiled an apparent Muslim terrorist plot to attack a concert venue in Rotterdam while an American rock band with an Islamic-sounding name was performing there.

Authorities shut down the scheduled performance by Los Angeles act Allah-Las at a 1,000-person capacity club called Maassilo. The band’s name has attracted some unwanted attention in the Muslim world. Band members say they selected the name Allah, Arabic for the Muslim deity, because they wanted something that sounded “holy.” Lead singer Miles Michaud said: “We get emails from Muslims, here in the U.S. and around the world, saying they’re offended, but that absolutely wasn’t our intention.”

After being tipped off by Spanish police, on Wednesday Rotterdam police and counter-terrorism personnel located a van near the Maassilo venue bearing Spanish license plates and that reportedly contained “gas bottles.” The driver, a Spaniard, was detained, after he was observed by police going to and from the concert site repeatedly.

About 120 gas canisters were found at the suspected lair of the terrorist cell that used a rented van to mow down pedestrians last week in Barcelona, Spain. The night before the August 17 vehicular attack, two members of the terrorist cell are thought to have inadvertently blown themselves up in Alcanar, Spain, possibly while preparing terror materiel. At least 15 people were killed and 130 injured in a series of attacks by the cell.

According to one British media outlet,

It has since been claimed that the 12-strong terror cell planned to rent three large lorry-type vehicles, pack them each full of butane gas and TATP plastic explosive, and drive them into busy hotspots in Barcelona city. One van was to be driven into the Sagrada Familia, another was to be detonated on Las Ramblas, and the third was going to be blown up in Barcelona’s port area.

Of course, the foreign-born Muslim mayor of Rotterdam urged people not to connect the dots.

Ahmed Aboutaleb told a presser that there was no proven connection between the Spanish tip and the van. “We should not draw conclusions too fast.”

An Open Letter to Michael Chabon’s Readers The novelist instructs his fellow Jews that their biggest enemy is – who else? – Donald Trump. Bruce Bawer

Michael Chabon is a novelist who in 1988, in his mid twenties, shot to fame – or, at least, shot to that rather more modest commodity known as literary fame – with a novel, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh. I vaguely remember reading it. I think I reviewed it. I don’t remember if I liked it. I can’t imagine I loved it, because I think I’d remember that. I see from his Wikipedia page that he’s written several other books since then, but none of them has made it onto my radar, even though I review literary fiction and talk regularly to friends who do the same thing and who tell me about new books they’re excited about.

In any event, Chabon is still out there, and the other day, thanks to several of my Facebook friends, I became aware of a new article he’d written under the title “An Open Letter to Our Fellow Jews.” The piece wasn’t actually addressed to all of his fellow Jews – it was meant for those Jews who voted for Donald Trump and who have continued to back him even though his administration is, in Chabon’s words, packed with “white supremacist[s], anti-Semite[s], neo-Nazi[s] [and] crypto-fascist[s],” and even though Trump has a “long and appalling record of racist statements.” Despite this execrable record, maintained Chabon, Trump’s Jewish supporters have continued to make excuses for him and to argue that however bad it may look, Trump isn’t really an anti-Semite.

Well, Chabon insisted, such rationalizations are no longer possible. Trump’s Charlottesville remarks were definitive, demonstrating unequivocally that our President’s heart lies with the Nazis: “So now you know. First he went after immigrants, the poor, Muslims, trans people and people of color, and you did nothing….Now he’s coming after you. The question is: what are you going to do about it? If you don’t feel, or can’t show, any concern, pain or understanding for the persecution and demonization of others, at least show a little self-interest.”

As noted, I became aware of Chabon’s screed because Facebook friends of mine posted a link to it. The friends in question are New York Jews – and as far as they were concerned, Chabon was right on the money. A friend of one of these friends dared to offer a sane dissent: “I am a proud Jew and consider myself a Zionist. I have never heard our president utter a single anti semitic remark, as opposed to the left.” As for Israel, it has “never had a better friend, unlike Mr. Obama who trounced on Israel at every turn.” Verdict: absolutely true. But one of the Jews who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid wasn’t having it. “Keep supporting Nazis and the KKK,” she wrote. “Be proud.”

Do American Jews really believe that there is a sizable Nazi or KKK presence in the United States that represents a serious threat to them? Does Chabon? Chabon professes to deplore Trump in part because “he went after…Muslims.” By what trick of the mind do Chabon and those who agree with him shut out the almost weekly reminders of whom Muslims are going after? Chabon’s piece appeared on August 17, the very day of the Barcelona terrorist attack – after which the chief rabbi of that city, Meir Bar-Hen, told the Jerusalem Post that “Jews are not here permanently….I tell my congregants: Don’t think we’re here for good. And I encourage them to buy property in Israel. This place is lost. Better [get out] early than late.”

The DNC: America’s Most Notorious Hate Group Now we’re told that some racism and supremacism is perfectly okay. John Perazzo

Riddle: What does a Democratic National Committee member say the moment he wakes up from a sound sleep?

Answer: The same thing he says during all his other waking hours, and the same thing DNC members have been saying for many decades: “Conservative racists and white supremacists are lurking everywhere…. Yeh-yeh-yeh … everywhere, everywhere.”

Consider the DNC’s latest pathetic ad campaign, which reads: “If Trump wants us to believe he does not support white supremacy, tell him to fire the enablers of white supremacy working for him in the White House.” What’s remarkable is that while the imaginary “white supremacy” of Trump’s aides and advisers makes Democrats squawk with fiery indignation, the DNC not only countenances a number of very real, impossible-to-miss racial supremacists of its own, but it actually celebrates and honors them.

In August 2015, for instance, the DNC issued a formal resolution officially endorsing Black Lives Matter (BLM), a black supremacist movement founded in 2013 by a coterie of revolutionary Marxists. Numerous BLM activists have openly called for the murder of white police officers — and in some cases white people generally. Moreover, the demonstrators at all BLM events invoke a famous call-to-arms by the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur, in which Shakur quotes a passage from her beloved Communist Manifesto.

Notwithstanding BLM’s racist and violent (and Marxist) track record, the movement’s leaders were frequent guests at the White House during President Obama’s second term in office. One of those occasions was September 16, 2015, when BLM activist Brittany Packnett — making her seventh White House visit — proudly told reporters that the president had offered her and her comrades “a lot of encouragement” while exhorting them to “keep speaking truth to power.” The following month, the DNC invited BLM activists to organize and host a town hall forum where the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates could discuss “racial justice.” In December 2015, President Obama lauded BLM for shining “sunlight” on the problem of racist policing in America, and on a subsequent occasion he likened BLM to the abolition and suffrage movements, which he said were also “contentious and messy” but ultimately noble. And on July 13, 2016 – a mere six days after a BLM supporter in Dallas had shot and killed five police officers and wounded seven others – Obama hosted three BLM leaders at a lengthy White House meeting along with the legendary racist anti-Semite, Al Sharpton.

By then, Sharpton was well-established as “Obama’s go-to man on race.” Indeed, Obama had addressed Sharpton’s National Action Network on multiple occasions, lauding the organization for its “commitment to fight injustice and inequality,” and for doing work that was “so important to change America.” He had also characterized Sharpton as “a voice for the voiceless and … dispossessed,” and had praised Sharpton’s “dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.” From January 2009 through December 2014, Al Sharpton – the most visible racist anti-Semite of the past generation – visited the Obama White House on 72 separate occasions, including 5 one-on-one meetings with the president and 20 meetings with staff members or senior advisers.

And the DNC had no problem with any of this.

Nor is the DNC troubled by the fact that its own National Chairman, Thomas Perez, who served as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Obama’s first term, has repeatedly shown himself to be a profoundly ugly racialist. Under the rubric of “disparate impact” theory, for instance, Perez believes that bankers and mortgage lenders who reject the loan applications of blacks at a higher rate than the loan applications of whites — regardless of the reason — are akin to Klansmen. While such lenders discriminate “with a smile” and “fine print,” says Perez, their subtle brand of racism is “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.”

Former Justice Department veteran J. Christian Adams has given damning testimony about how Perez and other Obama officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.” Christopher Coates — the Justice Department’s former Voting Section Chief — has corroborated Adams’ assertion that the Obama Justice Department routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. And an Inspector General’s report released in March 2013 stated that Perez believed that voting-rights laws do “not cover white citizens.”

“It is Our Very Existence That is Unbearable to Jihadists” by Giulio Meotti

The Islamist attacks against Spain, Finland and Germany unmasked the central problem: Pacifism will not protect Europe from either Islamization or terror attacks. Spain and Germany were, in fact, among the most reluctant countries in Europe to take an active role in the anti-ISIS coalition.

The Spanish press did not participate in a discussion of the Mohammed cartoons; no Spanish writer was accused of “Islamophobia” and no Spanish personality was put under police protection for “criticizing Islam”. It seemed as if Spain were not even interested in what was at stake in Islamist attacks on Europe’s very existence. No Spanish city made headlines for having multicultural ghettos, as in France and Britain. The attack in Barcelona should have ended this illusion. Terrorists do not need an excuse to butcher “infidels”.

The sad conclusion seems to be that that jihadists do not need a “reason” to kill Westerners. They attack equally France, which conducts military operations in the Middle East and North Africa, and countries such as Spain and Germany, which are neutral.

In 24 hours, Spain suffered two major terror attacks. A jihadist cell killed 15 people in Barcelona and the seaside resort of Cambrils. In the past year, Germany was the other European country hit hard by armed Islamists. First, a jihadist plowed a large truck through a Christmas market in central Berlin and murdered 12 people. Then a man wielding a knife murdered one person during an attack at a supermarket in Hamburg.

One day after the carnage in Barcelona, another terror attack took place in Turku, Finland. Two women were murdered in the market square of the country’s oldest city. Jihad — in Finland?

Jihad — in Finland? Terrorists do not need an excuse to butcher “infidels”. On August 18, an Islamic terrorist murdered two women in in Turku, Finland, during a stabbing spree in the city’s market square. Pictured: The Aura River in Turku. (Image source: Arthur Kho Caayon/Wikimedia Commons)

The Islamist attacks against Spain, Germany and Finland unmasked the central problem: Pacifism will not protect Europe from either Islamization or terror attacks. Spain and Germany were, in fact, among the most reluctant countries in Europe to take an active role in the anti-ISIS coalition.

John Vinocur of the Wall Street Journal recently defined Germany as “a country where the army and air force basically do not fight”. And Spanish politicians, since the 2004 train bombings, have not backed U.S. and NATO operations in countries such as Libya and Mali. Spain has been described as a “reluctant partner” in the anti-ISIS coalition.

Spain and Germany contribute less than others to NATO’s efforts. US President Donald Trump has made clear that the existence of NATO is contingent on members meeting their agreed-upon obligations of spending 2% of GDP on defense. Spain spends less than half of that — 0.91 percent. Germany does only a little better — at 1.19 percent. Finland never even joined NATO.

The surprise of the Finnish élite over the Turku attack was noted by The Financial Times:

“The Nordic country of 5m people does not feature prominently in jihadi invective against the west. Despite Finland’s armed forces having occasionally supported Nato missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the country’s longstanding nonaligned and peaceable military status has insulated it from most blowback from crises in the Middle East.”

Strides in the Struggle for an Independent Kurdistan by Lawrence A. Franklin

The regional regime that is in the best position to threaten the drive for a free Kurdish state is that of Iran.

The country that has the most to lose in the event of an independent Kurdistan is Turkey, due to its huge population of ethnic Kurds, some of whom support the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has battled Turkey’s military for decades.

Ironically and thankfully, this combination of recently acquired combat experience on the part of the Kurds — plus widespread unrest in the region, still reeling from the “Arab Spring,” and the loss of Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty over swaths of their territories — improves the chance of a peaceful secession of Kurdistan from Iraq.

On September 25, 2017, the people of Iraqi Kurdistan will vote overwhelmingly in favor of establishing an independent nation-state. All ethnic groups, from Erbil to Zakho — and in other disputed areas claimed by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), such as Kirkuk, Sinjar and Makmoor — are eligible to take part in the referendum.

Although the result of the plebiscite will not be binding, it is likely to enhance existing secessionist sentiment among the populace and increase pressure on KRG officials.

The Kurds’ dream of a separate state is more than a century old. Yet geography and the imperialist designs of outside forces have conspired to render that goal a nightmare. Predictably, the most vehement opposition to the establishment of an independent state for the Kurds comes from the major powers with large Kurdish minorities — including Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. Apparently fearing that a Kurdish state would heighten irredentist sentiment among the Kurdish minorities within their territories to merge with a “Greater Kurdistan,” the governments of these countries view any form of Kurdish independence as a national-security threat. It is thus quite possible that one or more of the KRG’s neighbors will move militarily to prevent a Kurdish secession from Iraq.

The regional regime that is in the best position to threaten the drive for a Kurdish Free State is that of Iran. It already employs small pro-Iranian militias — the Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and the Badr Organization — on KRG territory, operating under the rubric of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Should Iran decide to take military action to prevent a Kurdish secession from Iraq, it will likely deploy the PMF to do so.

However, while the political and military asymmetry between Iraq’s Kurdish region and outside regional powers have seemed fixed, the historical inequality no longer exists. Currently, in fact, no state in the region easily could crush a determined effort by the Kurds to sever the artificial ties that have bound them, disadvantageously, to the Arab people of Mesopotamia.

This is chiefly due to the Peshmerga (“those who defy death”), Kurdish fighters who have become combat-hardened warriors; so much so that, with NATO air support in August 2014, they fought the Islamic State fighters to a standstill outside the gates of their regional capital, Erbil. In the event of a confrontation against the Peshmerga, even the pro-Iran PMF militias would pay a heavy price.

Greater Zab River near Erbil Iraqi Kurdistan. (Image source: jamesdale10/Wikimedia Commons)

Most of Iran’s Kurds live in the western part of the Islamic Republic, in Kordestan, West Azerbaijan and the Kermanshah provinces. Although regionally concentrated, they are not in a position to secede from Iran, due mainly to the efforts of Tehran’s intelligence services to suppress Kurdish irredentism by eviscerating rebel organizations. That could change, however, if Iraq’s Kurds are successful in seceding from the central government in Baghdad. For one thing, it might buoy Iran-based Kurdish groups — such as the Komela (Society of Revolutionary Toilers of Kordestan), the Kurd Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) and the Free Life Party of Kordestan (PJAK) — and spur them to rise up against the regime in Tehran.

The country that has the most to lose in the event of an independent Kurdistan is Turkey, due to its huge population of ethnic Kurds, some of whom support the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has battled Turkey’s military for decades.

Although Turkey is also the greatest obstacle to Kurdish independence, Turkish troops have become entangled in the Syrian civil war. They have also not recuperated from the failed coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the summer of 2016, an act that resulted, among other things, in a massive purge within the Turkish military.

To allay Istanbul’s apprehensions that an independent Kurdish state on its borders might energize Turkey’s Kurds to seek autonomy, KRG political leaders are likely to forswear any assistance to the PKK, at least publicly. Kurdish spokesmen will probably also point out that Turks could benefit from a stable Kurdistan’s pledge to keep the oil flowing to Turkey from Kurdish fields around Kirkuk.

ISIS Calls Jihadists to Philippines, Threatens Pope Francis By Bridget Johnson

As the Islamic State loses caliphate territory in Iraq and Syria, a new video released by the terror group touts the growth of operations in the Philippines and the destruction jihadists unleashed on a Catholic church in Marawi.

Muslim fighters loyal to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began clashing with government forces in the city on Mindanao in the southern Philippines in May, eager to carve out a province for ISIS. The “Inside the Khilafah” video brags about how jihadists freed inmates from the local jail and attacked local churches, and called Marawi “a reward for holding firmly to the rope of Allah.”

The English-speaking narrator with an American accent, who has narrated other videos for ISIS’ Al-Hayat Media Center, said the occupation took root in Marawi because the Philippine government tried to “subjugate the Muslims” and “expel them from the land.” Like ISIS recruitment and operations in their shrinking home-base caliphate, the video also shows child soldiers fighting with the jihadists.

ISIS re-ups raw footage first released in June showing jihadists rampaging through a church, first toppling a large crucifix and stomping on it. They also toppled and smashed statues of Jesus, Mary and saints, tore up photos of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI and set fire to the parish.
ISIS jihadists topple a crucifix in philippines (ISIS video)
ISIS jihadists destroy church statue in Philippines (ISIS video)
ISIS jihadists destroy church statue in philippines (ISIS video)

“After all their efforts it would be the religion of the cross that would be broken,” the narrator states. “The crusaders’ enmity toward the Muslims only served to embolden a generation of youth.”

One of the jihadists, vowing that “we will make more revenge,” holds aloft a photo of Pope Francis. “We will be in Rome, inshallah,” he says repeatedly before pointing his gun at the pontiff’s picture.
ISIS jihadists tear up a photo of the pope in Philippines (ISIS video)

The narrator says that Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte, who is a Mindanaoan,”ran to his masters, the defenders of the cross, America, along with their regional guard dog Australia, and begged them for help, and despite having been previously insulted by Duterte, they were quick to put their differences aside.” CONTINUE AT SITE

What the ‘Great Terror’ Taught Autocrats Lesser terror keeps them in power without as much scrutiny. By Paul Roderick Gregory

“North Korea still uses great terror. But modern dictatorships in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran and Venezuela have realized that lesser terror is effective, attracts less attention and does not jeopardize the loyalty of their radical supporters in the West. Lesser terror, though, is still terror. ”

Eighty years ago, Joseph Stalin’s Great Terror (to use Robert Conquest’s term) was well into its first month. In towns and cities throughout the Soviet Union, the headquarters of the NKVD—the secret police—were filled with screams, the sounds of beatings and the clacking of typewriters. In the Kremlin, Stalin signed “shooting lists” of prominent Bolsheviks to be executed. Extrajudicial troikas provided a thin veneer of “socialist legality” as they rubber stamped death sentences.

The Great Terror was initiated by Stalin in his order on July 2, 1937, telling regional bosses to submit lists of “enemies of the people.” The NKVD’s infamous Order No. 00447, which followed on July 30, allotted quotas for 75,950 executions and 193,000 prison sentences. These “limits” were forgotten as regions competed for higher victim totals. By the time Stalin ended the purge with a single telegram on Nov. 17, 1938, 687,000 had been shot. Stalin pleaded innocence: Mavericks in the NKVD were to blame, he claimed.

Subsequent horrors in China, Cambodia and North Korea demonstrate that the Great Terror of 1937-38 was not the product of one man’s paranoia. What Stalin did was entirely “rational” for an absolute dictator with no moral qualms. It was perfectly fine, Stalin asserted, to kill 19 innocents as long as the 20th was an actual enemy. Instead of minimizing false convictions, as Western jurisprudence does, the system minimized false acquittals. After all, that one enemy left alive could end up being Stalin’s assassin. CONTINUE AT SITE

Nisman and the Iranians Did the Islamic Republic poison an Argentine prosecutor? See note please

Argentina’s former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (from 2007 until 2015) was directly involved in the cover-up of Iran’s role in the 1994 terrorist attack in Buenos Aires, Argentina. See the documentary “Los Abandonados”….which investigates the murder of Nisman…..rsk
Argentine federal criminal prosecutor Ricardo Sáenz announced Monday that a new toxicology analysis on the body of the late Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman has discovered the drug ketamine, an anesthetic mostly used on animals. It is highly unlikely Nisman would have voluntarily ingested such a drug. He had been investigating Iran’s role in the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center when he was found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the head in January 2015.

“There is a mountain of evidence in the case that indicates that it is a homicide; this would be one more,” said Mr. Sáenz, who worked to get the case moved to federal court last year so he could take over the probe.

In 2006 Nisman indicted seven Iranians and one Lebanese-born member of Hezbollah for the bombing, which killed 85. At the time of his death Nisman was a day away from testifying before the Argentine Congress about his more recent findings. He alleged that then-President Cristina Kirchner and her foreign minister Héctor Timerman had made a deal with Tehran to bury the matter in return for Iranian oil and Iranian purchases of Argentine grain.

At the news of Nisman’s death, Mrs. Kirchner’s secretary of security rushed to label it an apparent suicide. But by all accounts the 52-year-old father of two had been in good spirits, and the government’s claim that Nisman took his own life sparked a public outcry. Even Mrs. Kirchner soon dropped the suicide theory.

Yet the investigation was sloppy and less than transparent and the case was never closed. The new evidence could lead to the truth—if the Argentine judiciary lets Mr. Sáenz continue the investigation.

BERKELEY’S NEW CHANCELLOR CAROL CHRIST’S VERY WELCOME MESSAGE*****

THANKS DPS!

Last week, Chancellor Carol Christ shared a back-to-school message outlining her goals for the campus. Today, she also sent a message to the campus community articulating her thoughts and Berkeley’s approach this academic year to free speech:
—————————

Dear students, faculty and staff,

This fall, the issue of free speech will once more engage our community in powerful and complex ways. Events in Charlottesville, with their racism, bigotry, violence and mayhem, make the issue of free speech even more tense. The law is very clear: Public institutions like UC Berkeley must permit speakers invited in accordance with campus policies to speak, without discrimination in regard to point of view. The United States has the strongest free speech protections of any liberal democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that most of us would find hateful, abhorrent and odious, and the courts have consistently upheld these protections.

But the most powerful argument for free speech is not one of legal constraint — that we’re required to allow it — but of value. The public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university. The philosophical justification underlying free speech, most powerfully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, rests on two basic assumptions. The first is that truth is of such power that it will always ultimately prevail; any abridgement of argument therefore compromises the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. The second is an extreme skepticism about the right of any authority to determine which opinions are noxious or abhorrent. Once you embark on the path to censorship, you make your own speech vulnerable to it.

Berkeley, as you know, is the home of the Free Speech Movement, where students on the right and students on the left united to fight for the right to advocate political views on campus. Particularly now, it is critical that the Berkeley community come together once again to protect this right. It is who we are.

Nonetheless, defending the right of free speech for those whose ideas we find offensive is not easy. It often conflicts with the values we hold as a community — tolerance, inclusion, reason and diversity. Some constitutionally protected speech attacks the very identity of particular groups of individuals in ways that are deeply hurtful. However, the right response is not the heckler’s veto, or what some call platform denial. Call toxic speech out for what it is, don’t shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech.

We all desire safe space, where we can be ourselves and find support for our identities. You have the right at Berkeley to expect the university to keep you physically safe. But we would be providing students with a less valuable education, preparing them less well for the world after graduation, if we tried to shelter them from ideas that many find wrong, even dangerous. We must show that we can choose what to listen to, that we can cultivate our own arguments and that we can develop inner resilience, which is the surest form of safe space. These are not easy tasks, and we will offer support services for those who desire them.

This September, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos have both been invited by student groups to speak at Berkeley. The university has the responsibility to provide safety and security for its community and guests, and we will invest the necessary resources to achieve that goal. If you choose to protest, do so peacefully. That is your right, and we will defend it with vigor. We will not tolerate violence, and we will hold anyone accountable who engages in it.

We will have many opportunities this year to come together as a Berkeley community over the issue of free speech; it will be a free speech year. We have already planned a student panel, a faculty panel and several book talks. Bridge USA and the Center for New Media will hold a day-long conference on Oct. 5; PEN, the international writers’ organization, will hold a free speech convening in Berkeley on Oct. 23. We are planning a series in which people with sharply divergent points of view will meet for a moderated discussion. Free speech is our legacy, and we have the power once more to shape this narrative.

Sincerely,

Carol Christ
Chancellor