So, basically, what being claimed is that the Cal police were unable or unwilling to control 20 fascists in defense of a speaker whose’s views, although provocatively put, are really no different from mainstream conservative America’s.
That’s weak tea, as far as defending the University is concerned. Perhaps they SHOULD lose some funding until they prove they can enforce the law in an orderly fashion.
“…the Berkeley campus was invaded by more than 100 armed individuals clad in Ninja-like uniforms who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior designed to shut the event down.” Nicholas Dirks, UC Berkeley Chancellor.
“More than 100” is a lot different than “20”.
UC Berkeley, Feb 1, 2017, 6 pm. About 1500 of peaceful students gathered on Sproul Plaza to protest a hate speech performance on campus
Please. If Milo is “hate speech”, so are people like Bill Maher and Jon Oliver. This sounds more like “free speech for me but not for thee.”
Note: The police did not stop the attack.
Nothing in this account is more disturbing that that line. Any trained policeman will act to stop a criminal act in progress. Unless they were ordered not to, which brings into question the motives of the executives over the police force.
At that point the University of California Police Department concluded that the speaker had to be evacuated from campus for his own safety, thereby bringing the event to an end.” N. Dirks.
Police threatened to use rubber pellets and use tear gas.
Mmm. They “threatened” only AFTER the University cancelled the event. Not before.
What influenced the administration’s decision to decline the multiple requests of the faculty and students to cancel the event due to the speaker’s open and militant xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, opposition to social justice, incidents of threats to the personal safety of individual students and shooting at similar performances in other colleges.
Even if any of that were accurate, you cannot take student activities money and then propagandize away one group’s right to sponsor a speaker of their choice.
Is it really about the Freedom of Speech at the price of human life?
This is a false choice, but one that was made real by the University’s decision to not properly manage their campus.