The following are some opinionated responses to this week’s editions of the Daily Cal. Go Free Speech!
FRONT PAGE: Free Speech 40th Anniversary - Saying Less Today
In a series of articles commemorating the Free Speech Movement, the Daily Cal has been comparing the current free speech atmosphere to that of today. They commented on the supposed lack of student activism, marked by the student body’s unwillingness to get arrested. One individual notes that “An arrest on a permanent record could tarnish one’s resume.” It is odd that the Daily Cal and some at Berkeley see student arrests as evidence of free speech. Believe it or not, one does not have to get the cuffs put on to be heard. Just because the current discourse is civil doesn’t mean there is constrained speech. Perhaps it’s a shame that not enough students are getting arrested, but the fact is that free speech on campus is alive and well. Just ask those guarding the Berkeley College Republican Table.
If incivility is any indication of free speech, than the Cal Conservatives can testify to the presence of the movement’s lasting accomplishments. Nearly every week, a college Republican is approached by a student who disagrees with him or her, often armed with words such as “racist” or “war-monger.” Even remnants of the Foul Speech Movement come face to face with the Berkeley Republicans, with four-letter words I cannot mention in this article. After all, this is a family publication.
I mention the current civility of discourse, yet it is often not displayed towards the College Republicans. Let’s not forget the massive protest against Michelle Malkin, which involved banging on the doors and walls. Some of the rabble-rousers even followed Ms. Malkin all the way to her car, delighting in the fact that they video-taped her license plate number. Nor should we forget the time that a certain group known as Mecha broke in to the College Republican office and stole thousands of copies of the Cal Patriot magazine. Sorry if I opened up any old wounds, but it happened. Those actions would have involved police intervention, and in the logic of the Daily Cal, would have thus provided evidence of genuine free speech.
With such unfortunate actions directed towards the Berkeley Republicans, one could in fact see a restriction of free speech. But 40 years later, it isn’t the liberal anti-war voice being restricted, but instead the conservative voice being muffled. Perhaps, to some extent, the Daily Cal is right. As Cal Conservatives try to encourage free speech by introducing an opposing viewpoint, there have been attempts to silence them.
If free speech is to be celebrated, cherished, and most importantly honored, let us remember that on this, its 40th anniversary, the freedom to speak is a freedom for all.
FRONT PAGE: Boalt Mounts $100 Million Fund-Raising Campaign
The plan by Boalt Law School Dean Christopher Edley to raise private funds is a step in the right direction. A little privatization goes a long way, though this idea has its critics. According to the article, some see a potential conflict of interest in privatizing public education; As if there is not conflict of interest when tax-payer money is used to fund certain organizations which sponsor so-called “glory-holes” in the men’s bathroom. Cal Berkeley, and all entities which use public funding, should acknowledge the sound decision of the Law School. The government cannot solve everything, especially now, when the state budget is still riddled with wasteful spending and a deficit. The Law School is helping out the state and tax-payers by easing the monetary burden.
FRONT PAGE: Free Speech 40th Anniversary - Crossing Paths
It seems that one cannot mention the Free Speech movement without mentioning the great Ronald Reagan. The Daily Cal did a fair job of portraying the Gipper, though some readers might be left thinking that the 40th president could have made the FSM 40th anniversary nonexistent. The Daily Cal notes that after Reagan’s appointed regents fired UC President Clark Kerr, many free speech movement activists were outraged. Yet earlier in the article, it is noted that Kerr was “too liberal for many UC Regents, and too conservative for student activists.” Thus, it was essentially good for everyone that Kerr was fired. But to be fair, both Kerr and Reagan were accomplished men who did great things. Neither of them should be wholly responsible for either stifling or encouraging free speech.
Still think that Reagan was a free-speech hating president? You forget that Reagan devoted most of his presidency to defeating the Soviet Union, a communist regime that perished the thought of a free press within its borders. Reagan extended freedom to all people around the globe. As he said at Brandenburg gate in 1987, “just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom.”
FRONT PAGE: Free Speech to Bash Bush
In a speech to Berkeley Students, journalist, syndicated columnist, and typical Bush Basher, Molly Ivins, declared that the news media spins the facts to praise the right. It looks as if the cable guy forgot to install CBS on Ms. Ivin’s television. Has she even heard of Dan Rather? But of course, good ol’ Dan didn’t know that the Air National Guard files on Bush were fake, right? The evidence of liberal media bias is out there. In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers across the United States. These newspapers ranged from small town to major city publications. They asked the subjects, “what is your political leaning?” Of those surveyed, 61% considered themselves liberal/Democrats or left leaning. The proof isn’t just in the numbers, but in the stories themselves. I recommend that everyone read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Goldberg is a former anchor for CBS and, in his book, he gives us the details surrounding the liberal media.
OPINION: A Story of Power and Conspiracies
The author of this article, Robert Holbach, tells the story of the rise of Adolf Hitler. We get the point. You want to compare Bush to Hitler. But that is complete nonsense and absolutely disgusting. The author, a student from Wales, draws many parallels between our president and a the Nazi tyrant. One absurd comparison is the Reichstag burning and the World Trade Center attacks, and how both were used to fuel policy. This is an outrageous comparison, for the Reichstag was burned by the Nazi party with the intention of blaming it on the Jews and other minorities. On September 11th, Muslim Terrorists did fly planes into the World Trade Center. The brave passengers on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania would tell any of us that. They fought back and saw the enemy face to face. Osama Bin Laden will admit to us that he orchestrated the attacks. He is seen on video motioning with his hands and narrating how successful the attack was. Bush didn’t plan any of it, so Holbach should delete his downloaded copy of Fahrenheit 911. Another absurd comparison is that between the Nazi concentration camps and Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. No one is being exterminated at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. Certainly a little underwear on the head is hardly comparable to forced labor and random execution. The events at Abu Ghraib were regrettable, but did the Nazis apologize to their prisoners and launch an investigation of its own ranks? No way. It is indecent for Holbach to make such a comparison. He trivializes the men and women who were part of the Holocaust and suffered under Hitler.
Holbach should be intellectually honest, and not let rhetoric get in the way of reality. Here is a short story: For years, there was a leader of a Middle Eastern nation who wouldn’t know a human right if it constructed one of his illustrious palaces. He oppressed ethnic minorities, executed them, and dumped their bodies in unmarked graves. His dogs ate the remains of one of his enemies, while his sons raped and murdered anyone who got in their way. This leader also invaded a neighboring country, but was pushed back by an allied force. He remained in his palaces, hoping to rebuild a weapons program once in his possession. Then there was another man, who stood up to him. He couldn’t pronounce “nuclear” but he could distinguish the bad guys from the good guys, and now the world is better off because of this lone Texan.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot