Ann Coulter vs. the Jesuits at Fordham: A college invite is rescinded
Pundit Ann Coulter
I have written this blog now for several years, and only mentioned acidic pundit Ann Coulter once. Three weeks later, I am bringing her up again because this incident demonstrates a sensible way to handle controversies over college speakers.
Coulter was invited to Fordham University in New York to speak on Nov. 29 by the College Republicans.
The planned appearance triggered protests and a student petition. A group of students argued that tuition should not be used to underwrite speakers at the private college who are “not compatible with the values the Fordham community professes – particularly the Jesuit tenet of ‘Men and Women for and With Others’.”
See what you think of Fordham President Joseph M. McShane’s response and of the decision Friday night by the Fordham College Republicans to cancel Coulter’s appearance.
First, Father McShane’s statement:
The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy — and one another — stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
From the College Republicans late Friday:
The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter’s invitation to speak at Fordham.
We made this choice freely before Father McShane’s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
413 comments Add your comment
TrishaDishawareagle
November 10th, 2012
11:13 pm
And a retard is still a retard..they were retarded 30 years ago and they are retarded today and they will be retarded in 1000 years.
HamiltonAZ
November 10th, 2012
11:25 pm
The Fordham President (was his name Marc Anthony?) was masterful in the handling of this situation. And the students responded well.
jake brake
November 10th, 2012
11:38 pm
Trish the recessive gene should have been bred out in 1000 yrs.Unless
Rich
November 10th, 2012
11:45 pm
First Amendment of the US Constitution…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Fine, Ann Coulter sucks…however, without a 100% free avenue for discourse, it is impossible to expect an honest debate about any meaningful topic…TLDR…liberty or not, choice is yours…
Joe
November 11th, 2012
12:07 am
It is beyond belief how far the intolerant left will go to keep speakers from being heard in this country. What is next, banning Coulter’s books? I’m guessing Bill Ayers would be more than welcome at Fordham, or just about any other college?
What are you all afraid of? That college students might agree with Coulter? If not that, then what are you afraid will happen? Whether the ultra-left likes it or not, Coulter has probably sold more books than every Fordham professor combined.
I thought college was supposed to be THE place for an airing of ideas; all ideas. We certainly wouldn’t want our students exposed to the “wrong” ideas, though, would we? In fact, should those people even have the right to exist? After all, those crazy notions of liberty, individualism, free markets and self-government are dangerous and must be censored, at the least, and ideally extinguished! Too bad Chairman Mao isn’t still around, he would be an ideal speaker at Fordham.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:19 am
@ Dr. Monica
its easy to say “its temping” when you advocate freezing out the opportunity. frankly this is a cowardly position since you know you’ll never be forced to follow through.
I cringe when people use the useless term “hate speech”. its means nothing and yet provides a faux moral high ground for character attacks and the very censorship you claim to deplore. what is “hate” to you may well be common sense to everyone else, since “hate speech” is like porn. by God, YOU’LL know it when you find it.
have the stones, the integrity, and the courage to air it out and let the people decide.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:22 am
I’m appalled by nearly everything Obama says, and much of it’s venom is aimed at people who look like me. but I would never call it “hate speech”, since I don’t know what’s in the man’s heart.
I have my suspicions, but that is a long way from knowing.
more than that, as long as someone is not doing an Al Sharpton and inciting violence (resulting in death) I would never not allow someone the chance to voice their opinion.
Bill Mackinnon
November 11th, 2012
12:23 am
Lexi @ 9:59
“I know full we’ll (sic) that “liberals” want to impose their own ideas of which speakers are “appropriate” on everyone-that’s thought control, pure and simpler.
The only way you can “know” this if you are a “liberal.”. Otherwise, you don’t “know” this, It is your opinion. Be clear and straight, you will be listened to more astutely
Taking another tack from the case cited by Maureen. You have generalized a premise and disproved your point: this was one academic leader expressing an opinion to influence one club on one campus about one event that had a limited and proscribed potential audience. Your leap to “. .. on everyone . . .” shows significant evidence of poorly developed critical thinking skills.
Ann Coulter was not censored or in any way had her right to free speech denied. She had an invitation rescinded and thus didn’t get paid ( if she is as smart as people say, she probably had a clause in her contract specifying paymant anyway in this case). Those who defend her on those grounds cast her, and themselves, as victims and fearful. Being an angry verbal bully, reveals the fear and perpetuates the victim hood.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:23 am
why the hell am I being moderated?
because I was critical of Obama?
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:28 am
http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/american_studies/news__events/past_events/guest_speakers_34229.asp
three nicely left of center speakers. while I wasn’t there, my guess is Alyshia Gálvez was not all sweetness and light when speaking of opponents of illegal immigration
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:35 am
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/hist_guestpix/index.html
another example of balance – all of one right of center speaker.
Dinkins, Cuomo, and Clinton all have had a history of acid tongues at one time or another
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:49 am
here’s another
Harold Hongju Koh
http://www.ilsa.org/conference/ILW/2011ILWSchedule.pdf
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
12:57 am
since I’m still stuck in moderation for some damn reason…
myself, I think most of what Obama says is venomous, ignorant, and counterproductive.
but its not “hate speech” -whatever the hell that is- and he has every right to say it.
I’d rather it be put out in the public arena for consideration and discussion than muzzle him.
or most anybody else for that matter
Decatur Artist
November 11th, 2012
2:22 am
Thank you, Maureen, for this blog post. It restores some of my faith in humanity that hatred – in any form – cannot stand and will not be tolerated.
I am bewildered by some people’s reactions, that they are ‘intolerant of others intolerance of hatred’.
Doublegoodspeech at its best.
Cherokee
November 11th, 2012
3:22 am
“If I were forced to guess I’d say Jesus would choose the side who doesn’t make fun of people who cling to their religion and guns…”
First, if you read the quote in context, that never happened. But of course I know Hannity has told you it did, so you won’t believe me.
But more importantly, it always amazes me how thin skinned today’s Christians are. The early Christians lived in a culture where they often had to give their lives for their faith. Today, we have to run for the fainting couches if someone ‘makes fun’ of us.
Lexi
November 11th, 2012
6:14 am
Bill Mackinnon
November 11th, 2012
12:23 am
So, if I understand you correctly, I can’t know anything about a state of affairs, what liberals think or want, unless I am a “liberal,” correct? How do you know then that I lack critical thinking skills?
There is not enough time remaining to list all of the examples of liberals seeking to control thought and speech. But since you asked, you might see: “Free Speech on Fire”-before you jump to the wrong conclusion (as unlikely as that would ever be), the author of the book being reviewed is a leftist.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333029/free-speech-fire-robert-verbruggen
“Unlearning Liberty is not a long book, but it is a truly staggering catalogue of stories from the nation’s universities — the plural of “anecdote” might not be “data,” but certainly there’s a point at which anecdotes establish some sort of trend. In his decade at FIRE, Lukianoff has seen it all: A Brandeis University professor was forced to attend sensitivity training for discussing the word “wetback” in a Latin American–politics class. The University of Delaware’s Residence Life department for years ran a now-notorious mandatory indoctrination program; one male RA filed a report against a female student when she refused to answer the question “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Numerous schools restrict political activity to tiny “free-speech zones” and require students sign up to use those zones well in advance.
And once universities get into the habit of policing and even mandating speech, they don’t stop with conservatives — often, students are targeted merely for criticizing their university. FIRE took up the case of an environmentalist who was declared a “clear and present danger” and kicked out of school for his crime of protesting, on Facebook, Valdosta State University’s plan to build new parking garages. At another school, a student was told he couldn’t attend his graduation ceremony because of his “negative social-media exchange during the institution’s recovery” from a tornado — he had criticized, also on Facebook, the college’s decision to reopen while some students still didn’t have power.
Universities have also taken up the cause of policing inappropriate speech, from swear words to sexual innuendos. Harvard University revoked approval for a dance party when the student groups hosting it used the term “barely legal” in their advertising. A student at Washington State University directed a play in which he, South Park–style, tried to offend as many groups as possible — and university officials trained a mob of students to disrupt the production.
These incidents typically happen thanks to some truly awful — and often unconstitutional — university policies. Overbroad “speech codes” are so common that FIRE has a Speech Code of the Month Award. Lukianoff provides a handy chart explaining each award since October of 2005, featuring official prohibitions on “negative comments or jokes,” “emotional harm to others,” “inappropriately directed laughter,” and anything that would “diminish [another’s] self-esteem.”
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
6:14 am
You have wonder about the intellectual condition of the Fordham Republicans. To speak plainly, and I don’t know how else to say it, according to their mainpage they sound like jerks when they state “We aim to combat apathy on campus.” So they have just appropriated everybody on campus and made a judgement about them? What else can you call it, lost little boys and girls? They sound like appropriating bullies, have poor boundaries, egotistical power trip, and seem vacant of higher concepts.
Academic speakers and such are not about left or right or liberals or political indoctrination at all. The academy is supposed to be a place of knowledge, analysis, and honest intellectual dealings. For example, my current bedtime read is a pretty challenging comprehensive text (8pt. type?) Social Change in Modern France – Toward a Cultural Anthropology of the Fifth Republic (Cambridge University Press, 1988). In the section on labor and “the de-mystification of national insitutions” (p. 84), the authors describe four “different types of workers and types of companies:
The unanimity culture… the withdrawal culture… the separatist culture… the negotiation culture
Hey Fordham Campus Republicans, get a job! and tell your professors to start providing some real information to you and not this shallow business and marketing gloss that makes you think you can appropriate other people in place of having real knowledge and producing without your specialty being to use your “values” to appropriate and exploit people! And yes, obviously you want a speaker to add a little fuel to your shallow greedy sense of appropriation.
They speak like little kids, having nothing to say except ring the bell of a few buzzwords they generously use. http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/student_leadership__/student_organization/political/college_republicans/ The truth is the intellectual condition of the “Fordham Republicans” is that it’s year 2012 and politics and power are changing and they are grasping from an intellectually retrogressive place.
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
6:27 am
Reading their website what I am seeing is Institutionalized bigotry and lack of purpose.
The bigot is invariably intellectually lazy. Nothing new at US business and marketing schools. This bunch seems to want to get their MBA and Law degree (the magic combination) and go rule people in the “representative democracy” when all the Congress members are millionaires and the general public has no traction whatsoever and it is documented that in the USA 2012, getting educated does mean getting ahead. This is not an opinion. This is from economists. Whoop! and Emory just cancelled their econ department – well, imagine that. Maybe the Emory Republicans and Fordham Republicans ought to get together and plot and plan how they can both be millionaires and rule over the populace. Let’s destroy the humanites programs. Think how much money we will save! And we won’t have to feel threatened any longer about being well-read. Who cares about that stuff anyway!?
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
6:38 am
Lexi, you’re right about contrivances and lack of free speech on campus, even lack of freely directed research. But the “campus republicans” with their narrow childish exploits are not the answer to this. Besides, they are too concerned about “pro life” and “law and order” to give a hoot about deeper concepts. And I declare, not a one of them has read anything more challenging than a bubble gum wrapper. If you look at their published agenda, they are just importing their party platform. They are tag-alongs, followers. Why do any work when you can parrot the party line? The USA was built on independent thought, not this mayhem. It is like they’re all playing the same dull song on the same brand cellos at their “republican student organizations” at schools across the country.
Will
November 11th, 2012
6:44 am
Why is Coulter so skinny? She needs to eat more pork rinds and supersized drinks. A few sweet pies would help too maybe.
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
6:47 am
Lexi, Thank for recognizing the cause of the FIRE organization about free speech and individual thought on campus, although you will not find this cause or organization on the campus republicans page. Therefore, in defending them, I think you are hitching your cart to the wrong mule.
Tom Miller
November 11th, 2012
7:37 am
I have read the letters and comments in vain searching for one quote from Ann Coulter that would disqualify her from being allowed to speak. This is the new tactic of the radical left – to simply dismiss people they disagree with and censor their speech. If her ideas are so hateful, why not expose that by debating her and showing how wrong she is. The problem is that she is a very smart and effective polemicist that would tear any liberal apart in debate.
GlennH
November 11th, 2012
7:55 am
If I didnt know better I would have thought Fr. McShanes letter was a parody from the Onion. It is an embarrassment, filled with cheap shots and personal attacks — I think that is referred to as libel — without citing a single reference. Ironic isn’t it? He engages in vile hate speech by engaging in libelous hate speech. Our college campuses have become centers of leftist indoctination. Can you name one radical leftist — whether a verbal bomb-thrower or literal bomb-thrower — who would be treated his way? I read this emotional — all heat and no light — letter and do not know whether to laugh or cry.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
8:09 am
something else which reeks about this act of intellectual cowardice….
at GPC all our clubs had sponsors whose role was to keep the kids operating within the schools guidelines. hard to believe little GPC had this and Fordham didn’t.
where was the sponsor in all this crap? even if I bought for a moment the school republicans didn’t know who they were inviting, its the job of the sponsor to know.
Fordham is playing very fast and loose with the truth here. as Father MsShane ought to know, lying is a sin. so is scapegoating
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
8:10 am
@ tom
disagree. there is nothing new in this tactic at all.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
8:14 am
what’s sadly funny here is the holier than thou stand of the posters who would refuse Coulter the opportunity to speak. most have resorted – easily- to personal attacks on Coulter and the kids who invited her.
what so many here are saying basically is: only we can be snarky and rude. the republicans have to take it.
bootney farnsworth
November 11th, 2012
8:24 am
the adult thing to have done here would to have been to contact Coulters people and remind them about Fordham’s rules for discourse (assuming they had any) and remind her she is expected to play
within these rules or forfit her privlege to speak.
and if possible, to agree to have a moderated forum with a representative of the opposition.
Soldier mom
November 11th, 2012
8:26 am
1. Ann coulter still has free speech. She just won’t get paid to go to Fordham to make her speech, so there is no liberal agenda to limit free speech.
2. The president had every right to assert his opinion and hope the college republicans listened to why he did not like the idea of Ann coulter speaking at Fordham. Wisely, they listened but had already made up their minds it was not a good idea to have her before they received his letter. Smart move on the college republicans side.
3. This is another good example of how some people on the right take an incident, try to put fear in people’s hearts and minds by injecting things that are not true. This has been done for so long by talk radio and certain news shows.
Get out of your bubble and think for yourself. Stop injecting things into a situation that just are not true. If you cannot see there is nothing here but the college republicans thinking they made a mistake by inviting Ann coulter and thereby rescinding in her invitation, the you aren’t thinking for yourself. Which makes you part of the problem today, not part of the solution.
Liberal Pariah
November 11th, 2012
8:35 am
Don’t preach to me about trying to put fear in people’s hearts when this Liberal President is the biggest utilizer of lies to promote class warfare in the history of this country. The college Republicans did not think they made a mistake, they were bullied into that decision by the school administration. Given the hate filled nature of other Liberal speakers at Fordham in the past, this amounts to viewpoint discrimination. Whether Coulter gets paid or not is irrelevant to my argument.
Fred ™
November 11th, 2012
8:50 am
Liberal Pariah: We the people have rejected your talk radio/FOX news lies. They have been proven false. Time for you to get new lies and quit repeating the old ones.
Now you call the Young Republicans at Fordham liars because they don’t fit into your preprogrammed rant of lies? How sad and pathetic you angry far right wing nutcases have become. How irrelevant you have been proven to be. We are tired of your hate, your hate for other people, your hate for our Country. Your message of hate has been unmasked. Please quit spewing it. There is a REASON we reject you, it’s not a “vast left wing media conspiracy,” it’s because your message of hate is flawed.
I think you could learn from these youngsters. When faced with opposition, they re-evaluated their choice to see if it was a correct choice or a flawed one. They weren’t afraid to learn, to admit a mistake and so they did. Good for them. I’m saddened by all the people on this blog who have called these youngsters liars. Shame on you.
Soldier mom
November 11th, 2012
8:57 am
No preaching here. There is a serious lack of comprehension or the refusal to see the facts as presented. The college republicans made the decision to rescind the invitation BEFORE they received the Letter from the president of the college. The letter did not TELL the group they couldn’t have her as a speaker, he requested they look at the known past speeches to see if that was in line with the Jesuit beliefs of the college. No bullying there. Ann coulter can still go to Fordham and speak, she just has to do it without getting paid. Again, Ann coulter does this for entertainment and she is financially successful at it. But that by no means what she says is factual or that all people want to hear it.
Soldier mom
November 11th, 2012
8:59 am
iPad typing….but that by no means should read but that does not mean…
Liberal Pariah
November 11th, 2012
9:08 am
I have absolutely no hate for anyone but I do detest the Liberal worldview based on Secular Humanistic values. I assume hate is not the real issue here as Chris Matthews has spoke at Fordham with an honorary degree and imho, is worse than Ms. Coulter. And Ms. Coulter doesn’t even pretend to be a journalist. If Mr. Matthews is in line with Jesuit beliefs then it makes their communication to the college Republicans more egregious. Your sanctimonious posture that only Conservatives can hate is pathetic even by Liberal standards. By the way Fred, half the country does not make up we the people. Not everyone is a hate filled Liberal. If you can show me where the administration took the same course of action towards a Liberal speaker, I will alter my opinion. Until then, you and your ilk that support what Fordham did are hypocrites.
Soldier mom
November 11th, 2012
9:17 am
LP – I don’t listen to Chris Matthews or Ann Coulter. I get my comic relief from different sources and get my news from doing research, on my own. I don’t live in a bubble and I listen to the “other side” as long as it is academic, not repulsive, incendiary, venomous, or hateful. I want to know what other people feel about an issue so I can objectively make up my mind about how I should vote on the issue. If I only listened to people who believe like me, it would not be an intellectual decision, and I despise those type of decisions. Again, get out of your bubble, quit listening to people who only believe like you and open your mind, see why the other side believes like they do. We can all come to the middle and get something done. That’s what it will take to move us forward.
And where in the world did you get Obama lied about something in regard to class warfare? Is that not a right talk show talking point, because it sounds like one.
freedom of expression
November 11th, 2012
9:33 am
Well said Sgt. Saunders. Tolerance folks.
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
9:46 am
Can you name one radical leftist — whether a verbal bomb-thrower or literal bomb-thrower — who would be treated his way?
Genn, You might want to read up on Ezra Pound. He got the original Guantanamo treatment, the outdoor cage – for what he said. They wanted to kill him but instead settled for 12 years in a prison. And this is from the “USA.” If you teach this in a US university, you won’t be teaching for long. Same thing with Bobby Fischer who went to play his anniversary chess match and collect his prize money. Bush Sr. and Henry Kissinger told him not to do it and then they destroyed his life when he did. Today, these Pound and Fischer are often ridiculed – fits well with “the script.”
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
9:54 am
PS Pound was rambling about usery and bankers and naming names of powerful people and families. There’s, like, three copies of the transcript in the whole of the state of Georgia, a similar distribution across the country. Well, would you look at that? Archive.org picked it up http://archive.org/details/EzraPoundSpeaking-RadioSpeechesOfWorldWarIi
Yep, they jailed Pound like catching a big mouth bass.
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
9:57 am
Pound – as if anyone in Italy could even understand what he was saying in English in his gurgling brogue on his 5 watt radio transmitter.
mountain man
November 11th, 2012
10:04 am
I think if the Republicans want to parade Ann Coulter as their representative on the campus, they should be allowed to do so. Free speech and all. If the Republicans want to bring in David Dukes as the representative of their ideals, they should be allowed. That way people would know what they represent.
Fred ™
November 11th, 2012
10:06 am
Liberal Pariah: In your hate filled world EVERYONE who isn’t a far right wing fanatical nutcase is a “librul” or a “dimocrat.” You are so blinded by your hate that anyone not walking lock step with your particular brand of lunacy is evil.
i’m something you can’t fathom. I’m an independent. I don’t need Fox News and talk radio to do my thinking for me. I do it for myself. As such I can debate issues based upon their merits not on some weirded out view as to what is “librul.”
The students that invited Ann Coulter were the ones who recinded the invite, not the school. They clearly stated taht. Yet YOU with your hate call them liars. YOU can’t imagine a world where someone could re-evaluate a decision and decide it was the wrong one. You would rather die than admit a mistake. You are probably a Southern Baptist as well lol.
You will note, if you pull your head out of your rear end long enough, that I have NOT offered an opinion on Ann Coulter, her politics, nor her message. YOU have inferred all of that because it fits your hate and lies. Truth is your enemy, I know. Hate clouds your thinking. I know that. Expecting rational words and behavior from you is a hopeless quest. Aren’t you late for Sunday School?
Although looking at the picture, Ann Coulter is pretty hot. Especially for a 50 year old lady. There, I just offered an observation on her. A positive one at that……..
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
10:16 am
Yep that Pound is a hot pepper. Read an article comment in the Financial Times that the guys in Israel that pound the drums of war about attacking Iran, they have partnership in a hedge fund. When they do the war talk, the price of oil goes up and they make money from the hedge fund. In the US, Donald Rumsfeld owned stock in bird-flu treatment pharmaceuticals at the same there was all of that ongoing (emphasis) official ruckus about bird flu. Cheney owned, and probably still does, stock in for-profit prison companies during the same period that the US prison population increased x4. Tell that to the college republicans at Fordham. I wonder what they would say. Likely slough it off to the side, too busy, or use the usual collection of propaganda type dismissals. The dismissal techniques are many. They are formal and known. They are often used. And these techniques used to be taught at US engineering schools just as an FYI for the young people turned adult professionals that they were training so that they could not be duped.
Real Athens
November 11th, 2012
10:22 am
A brilliant poet and phrase-turner, Pound lived in Italy in from the 20’s until his arrest by the U.S. military in 1945 for treason. The Italian government paid him DURING the Second World War to make hundreds of radio broadcasts criticizing the United States and supporting Mussolini’s fascism while expressing support for Adolf Hitler in these broadcasts.
Isn’t that the very definition of treason?
I love teaching. I hate what it is becoming...
November 11th, 2012
10:24 am
@Liberal Pariah
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
“Don’t preach to me about trying to put fear in people’s hearts when this Liberal President is the biggest utilizer of lies to promote class warfare in the history of this country.”
Obama is NOT liberal. Sometimes I am not sure the right really knows the difference. His policies are far more moderate than liberal – and he wasn’t the one who dismissed 47% of the country as being not worth worrying about.
“The college Republicans did not think they made a mistake, they were bullied into that decision by the school administration.”
Pure speculation, based upon nothing but emotion. They themselves released the following statement: “Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s.” Your comments fail to given them any credit for being able to think and judge for themselves. You paint them as children who had to be told what to do, and could not come to their own conclusions based upon facts and research. Frankly, they are showing the kind of critical thought that is needed to move this country forward. Sitting in opposite corners, throwing pots and pans at each other, is only going to lead to our downfall.
” Whether Coulter gets paid or not is irrelevant to my argument.”
Maybe it is not relevant to YOUR agrument, but it is relevant to the ACTUAL argument being discussed, since ALL students pay those fees and should be able to protest having them spent on someone who’s whole shtick is to use insults and a very broad brush to paint everyone who is unlikely to buy her books and keep her in the media spotlight.
And YES, I would be upset if someone of the liberal persuasion, whose total focus was vile attacks on my fellow Americans, was invited to a college on my dime.
I do not believe in censorship, but I *do* think the Young Republicans made a good choice by disinviting Coulter. I hope they will invite someone who better represents the policies of the Republicans and can offer an “educational” take on the political direction this country should take – and not just a “feel-,good let’s insult anyone who does not agree with us” take on things, which will accomplish nothing but creating further division.
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
10:26 am
“Hot women” are used to bring down the best men. That’s how they got the Israeli citizens who illegally took photos of their nuclear bomb making facilities and “told the world” that they had nuclear weapons. A “hot woman” befriended him and they went on a vacation. He was then drugged, kidnapped and put in jail for a long time. Wonder if he is still there? Lured to Italy for a vacation. 18 years in prison including 11 in solitary confinement. Somebody was not too happy with this man. Hero or treason? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
10:40 am
Real Athens, mainly Pound was extremely highly eccentric and yes, he spoke his mind. He was an American as Babe Ruth and it is said that if he was paid it was probably $5. or a sandwich. Point is the effect of his “broadcasts” was pretty much non-existent and mainly, this activity is pretty minor when compared with body of his literary work, which is quite substantial. He is the sumo wrestler of US intellectuals, and mentored four major authors including James Joyce and Ernest Hemingway (and I forget who else). He father worked for the U.S. Mint circa 1880 and Pound had a peculiar and demanding sense of “sound money.” He also saw behind the political machine of WW2. Hence, they wanted his head. He didn’t fit the script. Such a trouble maker he was, in Italy (fascism!) during WW2 and speaking against the war. You may wish to note, and I think it is important, I think he was in Italy before the war began. So you can see how it might have snowballed. Some call it treason. Some call it speaking your mind. To a high eccentric with personal-intellectual integrity, they probably do not care where their feet are standing when they speak their mind. For a patriot, all the more important.
Who’s the fascist now? with your internet monopoly companies and narrow ownership of major broadcast media, you might want to question this when the monopoly internet provider has enough cash to buy NBC and then fire half of the staff of the Tonight Show to save some money. I don’t know about you, if I want a wired internet connection I do not have any choice but to pay them. There is no other provider. After Reagan threw out the anti-trust laws, you’re just supposed to go along with it. ps seen any testing lately? here… testing … testing…. here… kitty… kitty….
Road Scholar
November 11th, 2012
10:42 am
Bravo!
Lexi
November 11th, 2012
10:44 am
Hey Private Citizen:
I wasn’t defending the Fordham College Repubs; merely criticizing the institutional compulsion to stifle unpopular speech. Seems like the repubs who caved were rather weenie like. And, as Jerry Springer and others teach, screeching trumps refuting arguments with facts and logic.
Real Athens
November 11th, 2012
10:46 am
Pound was a narcissist of the highest order, ever compounded by his brilliance. Even he realized this in his old age, admitting as much to Allen Ginsburg:
“My own work does not make sense. A mess … my writing, stupidity and ignorance all the way through … the intention was bad, anything I’ve done has been an accident, in spite of my spoiled intentions the preoccupation with stupid and irrelevant matters … but my worst mistake was the stupid, suburban, anti-Semitic prejudice, all along that spoiled everything. … I found after 70 years that I was not a lunatic but a moron. I should have been able to do better. … It’s all doubletalk … it’s all tags and patches … a mess.”
Private Citizen
November 11th, 2012
10:53 am
Real Athens, clearly you’re no dummy, but I think it inappropriate to characterize Pound as touting Hitler. I just checked some on the internet, and apparently Pound referenced Hitler when talking about the Americans, basically saying that in effect the Americans were working for Hitler. Out of 500 or 800 pages of transcript, this is likely a minutiae. I wonder why you zero in on it within a sentence or two? What do I care what Ezra Pound said about Hitler? I guess, like the Marquis de Sade must have said some mean things to they threw him in prison, too, and even named a word after him for meanness. I guess my point is that Pound is pretty much not taught in university, great, sideways or otherwise. You’re the “real” deal from the location of the major land grant university in Georgia and you’ve already dismissed him. How easy it is to terminate individuals. You might want to think about that if you enjoy a rich intellectual landscape.
Rob in the Mountains
November 11th, 2012
11:00 am
In the EARLY 70’s both Lester Maddox and Andrew Young spoke at “my” Georgia State University and neither was prohibited from stating their own brand of political opinion. Time decided the relevance of both men and the same will be said of Ann Coulter in the not-too-distant future. The Jesuit Order will endure long after the memory of “Acid Ann” fades into dust.