Caught in Coulter’s free speech conundrum
The discussion surrounding a visit by Ann Coulter is deeply disturbing. On one hand, there are the students who have grown up during a time of obstruction as the motto of their party, now followed by a mood of destruction. They have invited two of the most controversial speakers possible. One may question whether these speakers represent the Republican Party in a fair way.
On the other hand, there is UC Berkeley with a reputation for free speech. This reputation was gained in the 1960s when students spoke out. This was true free speech, not paid speech, paid for by outsiders. There is a fundamental difference here. Those speakers are known to be purposely offensive to certain parts of society and as such, they abandon civil and moral behavior. It is not right to use freedom of speech as an excuse to abandon responsibility for our fellow citizens.
By insisting on safety, the university is the responsible party. We can only hope that the students learn from being at UC Berkeley what liberal really means. It is not a free-for-all; it functions within the parameters of civil society.
Margaretha Derasary, Oakland
Hire security
Regarding “Welcoming the worst ideas” (Editorial, April 22): According to CalFacts, UC Berkeley has a $3.9 billion endowment. Surely the university could use a small amount of that money to hire extra security staff for conservative speaker Ann Coulter’s appearance on its campus. The home of the Free Speech Movement ought to preserve this legacy by ensuring that all individuals, including those with highly controversial views like Coulter, are allowed to speak there. Belinda Davis, San Francisco
Don’t halt science
Regarding “Trump gains, science loses” (April 23): The headline is incorrect. “Trump wins, planet dwellers lose” describes the situation. Science is a growing body of knowledge which cannot lose a struggle. It is not a belief system. Due to science, human beings enjoy a higher quality of life including improved comfort, convenience and health care. Halting further progress is un-American.
Eloise Hamann, Dublin
Everyone loses
“Trump gains, science loses” (April 23) implies that this is some kind of winner-take-all grudge match between President Trump and science. Maybe some readers will be thrilled that Trump is sticking it to those “know-it-all smartypants” types. But as the article itself makes clear, he’s attacking basic environmental protections. We’re already in a world of trouble as temperatures climb and our climate slides out of control. Now even the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe aren’t worth safeguarding? It’s not only science that’s losing — we all are.
Katherine Falk, Oakland
Tip of the iceberg
Regarding “O’Reilly’s hubris and hypocrisy factor” (April 23): Bill O’Reilly’s spectacular fall from grace is more of an abrupt, albeit inevitable ouster from Fox News. Roger Ailes, founder and former CEO of Fox News, was forced to resign amidst overwhelming allegations that he sexually harassed female colleagues. However, one must keep in mind that sexual harassment at the workplace is not a sporadic occurrence but a systematic and regular pattern of behavior that gets conveniently overlooked by the board or senior management for obvious reasons of profitability. It is a known fact that for any news media company, advertising revenue from maintaining top viewership ratings is the core objective. O’Reilly steered both for them and earned kudos from management, which turned a blind eye to his sexual misconduct. Unless laws against sexual harassment and codes of conduct are spelled out clearly and implemented vehemently in workplaces, I am afraid we may just be looking at the tip of an iceberg of blatant sexual harassment and sexism in what we see unfolding at Fox News.
Atul Karnik, Woodside, N.Y.
A priceless gift
Jill Tucker’s “Mr. Wilson’s second act” (April 23) was outstanding. What a delightful story about a wonderful man and his priceless gift to deserving kids.
The writing was exquisite. Thank you so much for this uplifting story.
Patricia Hamilton, Castro Valley
Vote out Congress
Regarding “Our government is not Trump’s property” (April 24): The only way to change the president’s “I can do what I want” mantra is by voting out his congressional enablers. The 2018 midterm elections must end the oneparty tyranny in Washington, D.C., which used a nuclear option to seat President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, and still seeks to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, defund Planned Parenthood and destroy environmental regulations.
Trump has ended marriages through divorce and dumped businesses through bankruptcy, but he mustn’t — with the current compliant Congress — be allowed to destroy the lives of everyday citizens.
Eleanor Chandler, San Francisco