Tag: berkeley
The Un-Free Speech Movement At Berkeley

The Un-Free Speech Movement At Berkeley


Students at the University of California, Berkeley have threatened to sue if the university does not find proper accommodations for political commentator Ann Coulter to speak next week.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

There are few prospects in life more appealing than the silence of Ann Coulter. She brings to mind what novelist Mary McCarthy said about playwright and Stalinist Lillian Hellman: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.'” If the world never suffered another emission from Coulter’s toxic brain, it would be a better place.

But she said she would speak at the University of California, Berkeley even though the school administration had canceled the speech she was scheduled to give April 27 at the invitation of two student groups. Faced with that challenge, the university changed its mind, sort of, proposing to let her appear May 2. All I can say is something I never thought I would: It will be a great thing for Ann Coulter to speak.

UC Berkeley is an exceptional institution whose history includes the 1964-65 protests that gained fame as the Free Speech Movement. Long known as a hotbed of left-wing activism, it has lately gained attention as a place where right-wingers venture at their peril.

In February, the administration abruptly called off a talk by then-Breitbart News troll Milo Yiannopoulos after protesters threw stones and firebombs and smashed windows. In all, they caused $100,000 in property damage and several injuries.

The destruction came not from students intolerant of unwanted opinions, according to the university, but from masked self-styled anarchists bent on wreaking havoc. After Yiannopoulos was invited, the administration had issued a ringing statement condemning his views while defending his right to speak. It affirmed the university’s commitment to “the principle of tolerance, even when it means we tolerate that which may appear to us as intolerant.”

The event was canceled only after it became clear that the unexpected violence might prove “lethal,” as campus police said. Assistant Vice Chancellor Dan Mogulof offered a plausible excuse: “We have never seen this on the Berkeley campus. This was an unprecedented invasion.”

Whatever turmoil might attend Coulter’s appearance, though, would not be unprecedented, and it would not be impossible to contain. With so much advance notice, the university should be able to mobilize an abundance of police resources to prevent and, if need be, suppress another riot.

By deciding to deny her a venue until a time it deems suitable — September was its preference — the administration gave the strong impression that its devotion to intellectual liberty is negotiable.

Its partial reversal Thursday may have been a way of avoiding the embarrassment of having Coulter show up in defiant glory. Or it may have stemmed from the greater embarrassment of letting feral troublemakers shut down any event they choose. But Coulter, noting that students will be on break May 2, has vowed to come April 27.

At other public institutions, the record of tolerance is mixed. When white nationalist Richard Spencer was invited to Texas A&M, the school defended his right to free speech and deployed riot police to handle any violence — while sponsoring a well-attended counter-event.

Conservative writer Heather Mac Donald’s talk at UCLA went off as planned but provoked angry yelling from some in the audience, ending with her being escorted out by cops. When Spencer was invited to Auburn, the university said no — only to be overruled by a federal court.

Auburn’s excuse was the same one offered by UC Berkeley: It couldn’t permit an event that might jeopardize safety. That policy defers to what lawyers call the “heckler’s veto” — which gives those inclined to violence the privilege of silencing any speech that might upset them.

State universities, being organs of government, are bound by the First Amendment. That may be why some of the worst episodes, including the one at Middlebury College when conservative writer Charles Murray was shouted down and physically attacked, have occurred at private institutions, which may ban speech they don’t like. But the spirit of free inquiry ought to be upheld at any college or university worthy of the name.

For any school to impede speakers because critics might protest violently is to give the critics control of who may speak. That’s why UC Berkeley’s handling of Coulter is so dangerous. At the moment, it’s rewarding thugs for being thuggish and thus encouraging more thuggery. It threatens to make the school a hostage to bullies instead of a place where ideas may be heard and answered without fear.

UC Berkeley faces a dilemma that implicates the most vital part of its mission. And right now, it’s making the wrong choice.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

 

Book Review: ‘Becoming Richard Pryor’

Book Review: ‘Becoming Richard Pryor’

In the 1970s, my politically conservative father kept a small collection of comedy albums in our suburban home near Berkeley. I’m not sure how — my oldest brother may know better — but a Richard Pryor album appeared and went into heavy rotation. Craps (After Hours) was raucous and exhilarating. I still recall several outrageous bits, but Pryor’s sensibility also made a powerful impression on me. Profound irreverence, I gathered at the ripe old age of 12, was an acceptable social posture, even for adults. When reinforced by that period’s iconoclastic literature and film, Pryor’s influence almost unfit me for life in America — or most of it, anyway — during the Age of Reagan that would soon follow.

The geography in this case turns out to be important. As I learned from Scott Saul’s adroit biography, Becoming Richard Pryor, Pryor repaired to Berkeley for most of 1971 to find (or rather, to reinvent) himself. Pryor had already learned standup comedy in Greenwich Village, migrated to Los Angeles, and flopped in Las Vegas. His model was Bill Cosby, but he finished shedding that influence in Berkeley. His home base was Alan Farley’s one-bedroom apartment near campus, not far from where police scattered tear gas one week before.

Farley worked at KPFA, the nation’s first listener-sponsored radio station, and he scheduled standup gigs and a radio program for his guest. Pryor caught the eye of Ralph J. Gleason, the Berkeley resident and San Francisco Chronicle critic who also wrote for Ramparts magazine and co-founded Rolling Stone. Gleason praised Pryor as “the very best satirist on the night club circuit.” Much later, Pryor would reject comparisons to Lenny Bruce, whose comedy albums featured Gleason’s liner notes. But much like Bruce, Pryor’s post-Berkeley persona was profane, scathingly honest, and deeply political. That was the Richard Pryor I heard on Craps (After Hours), and he was amazing.

An English professor at the University of California, Saul shares the Berkeley connection. His previous book documents the efforts of John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, and others to navigate cultural crosscurrents and create new musical possibilities in the 1960s. Becoming Richard Pryor nudges Saul’s readers closer to the present, but it doesn’t try to depict Pryor’s entire life; in fact, the epilogue treats everything from June 1980, when Pryor lit himself on fire after five days of cocaine and alcohol abuse, to his death in 2005. Saul focuses instead on Pryor’s artistic formation. Thus the book’s title, which echoes Bob Newhart’s comment that after the debacle in Las Vegas, “Richard Pryor decided to become Richard Pryor.”

Who was Richard Pryor before that? A damaged child, mostly. His paternal grandmother, who raised him, also ran a brothel in the thriving vice district of Peoria, Illinois. His mother lived elsewhere, his father was a violent pimp, and his stepmother turned tricks. It wasn’t the sort of childhood that Bill Cosby had turned into comedy gold, but Saul shows how Pryor’s Peoria experience shaped his outlook, art, and turbulent personal life.

After his Berkeley sojourn, Pryor returned to Los Angeles and landed a tiny role in Lady Sings the Blues, the Billie Holiday biopic. During the shoot, his part expanded steadily until he was billed as a supporting actor. That pattern, which hinged on Pryor’s knack for stealing scenes with improvised dialog, was repeated in several other pictures. After that film wrapped, Mel Brooks recruited him to work on Blazing Saddles. Pryor, a lifelong Lash LaRue fan, wanted the role of Black Bart that eventually went to Cleavon Little. The stumbling block was Pryor’s reputation as a drug fiend. He worked on the screenplay, but many of his best lines were cut from the film. After Bart bunks with Lily von Shtupp (played by Madeline Kahn), he is asked how his evening went. “I don’t know,” Pryor had Bart reply, “but I think I invented pornography.”

Pryor didn’t appear with Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, but the two worked together on Silver Streak and Stir Crazy. In the former, Pryor’s limited role again grew into a substantial one. His improvisations sparked the film’s signature scene, in which Pryor applies blackface to Wilder, coaches him on his African-American disguise, and manages to skewer Hollywood’s minstrel tradition. Stir Crazy, the unofficial sequel, was the third-highest grossing film of 1981.

In the early 1980s, Saul maintains, “the future of Hollywood itself was bound up with the riddle of [Pryor’s] appeal.” The studios would solve that riddle by favoring blockbusters over what Saul calls “a certain sort of ‘1970s movie’ that sat uneasily within its supposed genre.” Pryor’s work after his self-ignition was unremarkable, and even his best roles couldn’t showcase the range and insight he displayed in his standup work. Even so, Saul makes a strong case that Pryor’s screen and television work created the necessary room for Eddie Murphy, In Living Color, Chappelle’s Show, and Key and Peele to flourish.

Pryor’s severe burn and recovery calmed his spirit, but his health deteriorated steadily after his 1986 diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Seven years later, he launched a farewell tour that focused on his life with the disease. A boxed set of his standup work appeared in 2000, and he died of a heart attack five years later. He was only 65, but much of his best work was already three decades old. In the epilogue, Saul marshals the expected tributes. Bob Newhart said Pryor was “the single most seminal comedic influence in the past 50 years,” Chris Rock named him “the Rosa Parks of comedy,” and Mel Brooks called him “the funniest comedian of all time.”

To measure Pryor’s achievement, Saul considers him as a comic, social critic, and crossover artist. Longtime friend and colleague Paul Mooney summarized Pryor’s social criticism with a single epithet: Dark Twain. But it was Pryor’s work as a crossover artist, Saul argues, that is “probably the most misunderstood and underappreciated aspect of his career.” If his television and film work couldn’t accommodate his range and depth, it was nevertheless true that his success changed an industry that largely kept black talent in a media ghetto. In his life as well as his work, Saul argues, Pryor was “crossing over” from the time he emerged, twisted but not broken, from Peoria’s red-light district. In this superb biography, Saul expertly traces those transgressions and makes the strongest possible case for Pryor’s cultural centrality.

Peter Richardson is the book review editor at The National Memo. His new book, No Simple Highway: A Cultural History of the Grateful Dead, was an Amazon Best Book of the Month in history and a San Francisco Chronicle bestseller. Richardson’s history of Ramparts magazine, A Bomb in Every Issue, was an Editors’ Choice at The New York Times and a Top Book of 2009 at Mother Jones. In 2013, he received the National Entertainment Journalism Award for Online Criticism.

150 Arrested As Berkeley Protesters Halt Freeway Traffic, Stop Amtrak Train

150 Arrested As Berkeley Protesters Halt Freeway Traffic, Stop Amtrak Train

By Nicole Charky, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

More than 150 people were arrested in Berkeley, Calif., late Monday as hundreds of demonstrators brought traffic on Interstate 80 to a standstill and another group forced an Amtrak train to stop in a protest against two grand jury decisions not to indict white police officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men.

Officials said the incidents began when about 1,000 to 1,500 people began peacefully marching through downtown Berkeley at about 5 p.m. They stopped at the Berkeley Police Department, where officers in riot gear blocked them from nearing the building.

The protesters then moved on to a Bay Area Rapid Transit train station, where demonstrators stood outside. BART officials closed the station for about two hours as a preventive measure, according to Lt. Gil Lopez of the BART police.

“We just had reports that a large group was coming toward our station. It was preemptive,” Lopez said.

Authorities said protesters then divided into smaller groups. In one incident, demonstrators were marching west on University Avenue toward Interstate 80 shortly after 8 p.m. when a small group entered the freeway through an opening in a fence, California Highway Patrol Officer Daniel Hill said.

By 8:30 p.m., he said, protesters had destroyed the fencing along the south side of the freeway at Aquatic Park and were flooding all the traffic lanes after the CHP shut down the University Avenue exit ramps.

“As officers attempted to stop the crowd and clear the freeway, the protesters became violent, and on several occasions assaulted CHP personnel with rocks and other objects,” Hill said.

Demonstrators were moved off the freeway and the roadway reopened about 10 p.m., he said

Another splinter group of protesters marched to nearby railroad tracks and temporarily blocked an Amtrak train, officials said. One demonstrator held up a sign “Black lives matter” in front of the stopped train, according to the Associated Press.

Those arrested were transported to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, where they were booked without incident, Hill said.

It was the third consecutive night that crowds gathered in the city, protesting the killings of unarmed black men by law enforcement officers in Missouri and New York.
___
(Staff writer Matt Hamilton contributed to this report.)

Police move protesters off Highway 24 in Oakland, Calif., Sunday evening, Dec. 7, 2014, during a second consecutive night of local unrest over the killings of two unarmed black men by police in Ferguson, Mo., and New York. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group/TNS)

Senator Rand Paul Demands An Investigation Into Domestic Spying

Senator Rand Paul Demands An Investigation Into Domestic Spying

By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times

BERKELEY, CA — Sen. Rand Paul, one of the foremost critics of the government’s domestic spying program, came to the birthplace of the free speech movement Wednesday to deliver a searing indictment of the intelligence community and call for a sweeping congressional investigation of its activities.

Speaking just off the University of California, Berkeley, campus, the Kentucky Republican depicted an overweening federal government prying into the most intimate reaches of people’s lives, from the books they purchase to the medications they take for their ills.

“I say what you read or what you send in your email or your text messages is none of their damn business,” Paul said to whoops and applause from the friendly, largely youthful crowd of several hundred.

Paul said that upon returning to Washington, he would call for creating a bipartisan committee, modeled after one that scrutinized CIA abuses in the 1970s, to conduct an unfettered examination of the country’s spy agencies. “It should watch the watchers,” he said.

Paul’s libertarian stance and condemnation of domestic surveillance are well-known. He filed a lawsuit this year against President Barack Obama and the heads of several intelligence agencies, challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s data-mining program, which for years has swept up troves of information on Americans’ private communications.

The suit is one of several challenging the once-secret program, started under President George W. Bush and defended by the current administration as a lawful and necessary tool to fight terrorism.

Of greater note was the venue Paul chose, a campus that has been a wellspring of free expression and left-wing politics for generations. More than any other GOP presidential prospect, the Kentucky senator has worked to broaden the party’s appeal by calling for greater outreach, especially to younger voters — “We need people with tattoos, ponytails and earrings” — and by showing up at places Republicans rarely frequent.

He spoke last year to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, where he broke with many in his party by endorsing comprehensive immigration reform. A few weeks later, he drew a mixed reception for a speech on civil rights at Washington’s Howard University, historically one of the nation’s top black colleges.

Asked Wednesday whether his appearance at Berkeley was an effort to broaden the GOP’s appeal preparatory to a run for president, Paul did not rule out the possibility.

“Maybe,” he replied.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Paul said he would not make a final decision about seeking the White House or reveal his intentions until after the November midterm election.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr