To the editor: A disturbing belief has taken hold recently: that university students have a right to an intellectual safe space and not to be offended by speech with which they disagree. (“Conservative group threatens UC Berkeley over Ann Coulter appearance,” April 21)

There are in fact no such rights. Students can choose not to attend a lecture or walk out if they choose, but they do not have the right to stifle the free speech rights of a speaker and of those who issued the invitation. Administrators and public officials have the responsibility to clearly explain this to the student populace, but they are not doing a very good job of it.

At UC Berkeley — which rescheduled conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s lecture after its previous cancellation of the event caused a backlash — university officials have shown they are willing to surrender to the domestic terrorists who light fires, overturn cars and smash windows. If they will not provide safety for those exercising their 1st Amendment rights, then it behooves the president to act. There are precedents from Arkansas and Alabama during the civil rights movement, when past administrations stepped up to ensure the rights of black students to attend public schools and colleges.

I resent my tax dollars going toward an institution that would deny the right of anyone to give a speech, regardless of how offensive it is. Jefferson C. Romney, Westlake Village


This is an opportunity for UC Berkeley students and administrators to learn an important lesson regarding the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.

Silas Mariano, Oceanside

..

To the editor: Coulter is scarcely the embodiment of a deep conservative thinker. Nobody would confuse her with Leo Strauss or Edmund Burke, for instance. And the right loves any chance to portray the left as stomping on the 1st Amendment.


UC Berkeley, in initially denying Coulter a platform, played into the right-wing agenda.

Joan Walston, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: Oh, the nugget of radioactive hypocrisy buried in the larger article covering conservative grievances over the short-lived cancellation of a hate-speech maven’s appearance at UC Berkeley: the insistence by Coulter and her right-wing sponsor that campus police expel any students engaging in “heckling.”


Translation: Coulter’s “free speech” rights take precedence over those of opposing viewpoint. To paraphrase Truman, what is Coulter doing in the kitchen if she cannot stand the heat?

Blaise Jackson, Escondido

..

To the editor: It seems to me that the most effective nonviolent protest of a speaker is to stay home. Violence is childish and counterproductive.


The purpose of a university is to expose students to other ways of thinking. I resent my tax dollars going toward an institution that would deny the right of anyone to give a speech, regardless of how offensive it is.

Jefferson C. Romney, Westlake Village

::

To the editor: No one believes that fomenting violent protests serves to advance the interests of the right or the left, just as no one thinks conservatives have a white supremacy dream for America. All of these thugs just muddy the waters of our democratic discourse.


I for one would appreciate mindful media coverage of the real issues as opposed to the sensational marketing of a divisive narrative. The Times should strive to uphold the highest standards for our fourth estate to achieve that end.

Pam Brennan, Newport Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook