Posted on 02/11/2009 5:24:20 PM PST by pissant
I write today regarding the College's decision to invite a particular speaker to our campus. This decision to invite her on behalf of the College is one that involves our whole campus and signals that we as a whole will receive her openly.
Unfortunately, I am certain she will not receive many of us so kindly. I'm speaking of Ann Coulter, and I am advising you to rescind her invitation.
The United States is a nation that prides itself on acceptance and diversity and refuses to accept any less. The same holds true for the College. We are proud of the fact that ethnically diverse students comprise more than one third of our campus population, that 60 percent of our students are females and that we have a multiplicity of students of different religions, political views, abilities and sexual orientations.
Yet, Coulter has insulted people in each of these groups. On women, she has said, "It would be a much better country if women did not vote."
On Muslims, she has said, "News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do."
On homosexuals, Coulter has said, "I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital."
On Judaism, Coulter has said, "We just want Jews to be perfected."
The list of her odious quotations continues, and while she may not have been talking to students at the College, she was certainly talking about them. She has insulted the majority of our students directly and the remainder of us by extension because those whom she insulted are our friends.
Coulter has insulted our intelligence, and she has denigrated the work of those who strive for tolerance and equality. Her appearance encumbers all that the College has striven for in its implementation of courses and educational events on race, religion, homosexuality, gender equality and differing abilities.
How can we reconcile our attempts to shape a new generation of students who are tolerant, accepting and aware of those who are different from us when we invite as a guest a person who refers to our students as she does?
Coulter is no more welcome here than would be any other racist or sexist or homophobe. Yet, we are welcoming her to the College and embracing her visit with one the campus' largest venues, Kendall Hall.
My question is this: What does it say to our students by inviting her here, someone who has at one point or another blatantly insulted at least half of those enrolled here? Even more fundamentally, what does it say about us?
“With a first name of Mike and a middle name of Loretta, what is this critter?
Obviously He/She is a bit confused about many things in life.
Mike Loreta should go back to square one...age one, and start over.
Mike Loretta Kowalczyk needs to grow a pair. How pathetic.
Better yet, identify which one is being emotional and which one is being practical.
I have another way of saying that, but it's much less PC. ;-)
You first.
I guess I didn’t get that from what you said. You’re saying they vote that way because they are more apt to trade freedom for security. I don’t think that’s the primary reason why. I think it’s more because they view it as a matter of compassion rather than security. I don’t think they see that even though they may feel more secure, I don’t think they feel they are less free. I think many feel that when they feel more secure, they are more free (even though we guys would know they are less free because they are now more dependent on government).
The only reason I say that is because I know that women look at the decisions they’d make and justify it because ‘people need help’, etc. - but generally I haven’t heard them justify something because ‘I’ll give up this/my freedom for security’.
The article is written in a ridiculous and somewhat hysterical manner by someone who certainly doesn’t “get” Ann at all. She’s been writing and saying things like this forever, it’s part of her charm that she can get her point across with a pithy comment. Where did the name Loretta come from? On the page from the signal that has the original article it’s just Mike Kowalczyk.
Racist remarks make Coulter an unwelcome speaker at the College
By Mike Kowalczyk
Issue date: 2/11/09 Section: Opinion
I think its more because they view it as a matter of compassion rather than security. I dont think they see that even though they may feel more secure, I dont think they feel they are less free. I think many feel that when they feel more secure, they are more free
and I agree with that, especially that last sentence.
I do believe that's how they see this security/freedom arrangement, which is why I summed it up with "this is why they are so dangerous as voters/leaders".
they've willingly locked themselves into a cage that they can't see (until it's too late) and call themselves free.
And, as you can see upthread, some even mock those who point out the bars.
Mike Loretta is intolerant.
None of those remarks are racist.
Liberal Democrats. Following the Obama Fascist Camp.
KUDOS to Anne Coulter.
She is pushing them and she should.
Fine. Are you being chivalrous (as in ladies first) or are you just cowardly? One parent wants the child to "feel good" (emotion) about an action. The other parent wants the child to consider the consequences of its actions. Which is based on emotion and which is based on the real world?
Thanks, it’s the type of answer I thought you would give. So predictable that I almost posted this even before your post.
As you can see by looking upthread, I asked a simple question, you ducked and ran away from giving the answer. Why you did that I could only speculate, but the why doesn’t matter.
Most Americans could have given the one word answer in a flash.
As I pointed out upthread, I don’t expect you to be able to comprehend but it’s just more evidence why (generally) women shouldn’t vote, and shouldn’t be leaders.
In this typical situation the parent who said “get down from that tree, youll hurt yourself!” was being the most emotional.
The father was also being emotional when he revealed his pride at the prowess of his son, but mostly he was encouraging his son to continue to be brave and try new, and somewhat dangerous, things.
“In many cases it would be better if women did not vote. They vote their feelings. Feelings is hardly what government should be concerned about. Its not the job of government to feel. government is not parent. It is not spousal supporter. It is not dad to your kids. It is not your sole benefactor.”
Ann is practical and fact based in her opinions—that’s why it’s so devastating to argue with her. Based on how men have voted, we would not have had Presidents Kennedy, Carter, or Clinton, had women not had the vote. I believe there are other Presidents as well who would not be there, but for the women.
Living up to your moniker. Did you read the rest of my post or just the first sentence. Check out my other posts along the way in this discussion as well.
Oh good ... I pretty much agree with and expand on your comments and I’m dumb for having done so. Nice. I further made a point, in the hope that you might consider the unintended consequences of your wish. Do you have an answer for that, or are you only interested in unoriginal, juvenile insults?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.