By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief
(National Sentinel)Â Cowardice: The University of California-Berkeley has taken another giant step towards banning anything that countermands Marxist groupthink with a new report that blames Left-wing violence and campus destruction on conservatives.
Rather than hold individuals responsible for their own actions while sending a message that freedom of speech is alive and well at the place where the campus movement promoting political diversity was born in the 1960s, Berkeley officials have chosen instead to sequester opposing thought while blaming their decision on those who are the least guilty.
As reported by The Washington Times, a â€œlong-awaitedâ€ report on speech protections lays blame at the feet of â€œhard to defendâ€ conservative speakers who are being accused of â€˜incitingâ€™ Left-wing student violence.
The paper noted further:
A commission of Berkeley faculty, students formed in 2017 after violent and costly student protests called its commitment to free speech into question. Their months-long study of the issue resulted in the conclusion that â€œultra-conservative rhetoricâ€ by the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter only exists to â€œadvance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.â€
Well, yeah, because theyâ€™re not.
â€œContrary to a currently popular narrative, Berkeley remains a tolerant campus,â€ the report says, PoliticoÂ reported. â€œAlthough those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech. Indeed, at least some of the 2017 events at Berkeley can now be seen to be part of a coordinated campaign to organize appearances on American campuses likely to incite a violent reaction.â€
So in other words, just by holding opposing political, social, and cultural ideas, they are responsible for the violent reactions of student thugs who directly damaged school property and endangered the lives of some of those who were speaking.
Thatâ€™s like saying because police are on the streets, their presence triggers crime.Â
â€œMembers are skeptical of these speakersâ€™ commitment to anything other than the pursuit of wealth and fame through the instigation of anger, fear, and vengefulness in their hard-right constituency. Speech of this kind is hard to defend, especially in light of the acute distress it caused (and was intended to cause) to staff and students, many of whom felt threatened and targeted by the speakers and by the outside groups financing their appearances,â€ the report continued, as per Politico.
This passage is particularly curious because the academic frauds who wrote it have concluded that just by showing up, Right-leaning speakers are seeking to start a rumble. That by choosing to believe opposing political viewpoints or support opposing policies they are purposely trying to provoke others to violence.
It is appalling that an American university finds it impossible to protect and defend everyoneâ€™s right to believe what they want and speak of those beliefs freely â€” without having to worry about getting carried out of a venue on a stretcher, then be blamed for being attacked.
But what are we to expect from people who genuinely see themselves as defenders of our culture, not enablers of uncontrolled rage and violence?
As for Yiannopoulos, he pushed back on the idea that he is not interested in having a debate about issues.Â
â€œI always prefer to give my talk,â€ he told Politico. â€œI care about my subjects, But [the report] gets Berkeley off the hook, doesnâ€™t it?
For sure it does. But it also deepens our partisan divide at a time in our history when we Americans find ourselves having less and less in common with each other.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.