Ann Coulter wanted to speak at the University of California at Berkeley and decided not to, because of leftist anti-free speech pressures. The other day, when her talk was still on, I looked at the California Constitution to see what support it might provide for her appearance. Since her talk was on, I didn’t write about it. Now that her talk is off, a comment is in order.

The main point I’d make is that Ms. Coulter can cite both the California Constitution and the University charter in support of her appearance. She can proclaim that her right to speak is embodied in California law. She can claim that she is being discriminated against. She can use this charge to shame her antagonists and put their hypocrisy on display.

The Constitution of California shames anyone in California who dares to suppress her speech. Article IX Education, Sec. 1 was adopted in 1879. Its venerable content says “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.”

California has seen fit to support Berkeley in this endeavor, finding it a “suitable means”. Ann Coulter, author of 11 books and a career intellectual, cannot possibly be regarded as unsuitable, and I’ll tell you why. It’s not only because she’s a bona fide intellectual; it’s because she has a right not to be discriminated against because of her political views, this right emanating from California law.

Let us inspect the charter of the University. Do we find among its purposes a respect for a wide variety of opinion and speech? I will quote from Sec. 13 of the 1868 Bill that created the California University system:

“And it is expressly provided in no sectarian, political or partisan test shall ever be allowed or exercised in the appointment of Regents, or in the election of Professors, teachers, or other officers of the University, or in the admission of students thereto, or for any purpose whatsoever; nor at any time shall the majority of the Board of Regents be of any one religious sect, or of no religious sect; and persons of every religious denomination, or of no religious denomination, shall be equally eligible to all offices, appointments and scholarships.”

Certainly, the people of California through their legislature’s establishment of the university system have spoken out against sectarian, political or partisan tests for any purpose whatsoever.

Now I will quote from section 9f of article IX of the California Constitution:

“The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs, and no person shall be debarred admission to any department of the university on account of race, religion, ethnic heritage, or sex.”

The “administration of its affairs” might just be broad enough to include speakers brought to the campus. Even if is not, this passage taken together with the others I have cited add up to the same thing. The university is not supposed to be guided in its education or selection of people by political influence. And it is supposed to provide “a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence”.

I will close by citing Section 2a of Article 1 of the California Constitution, which is its Declaration of Rights:

“Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”

Note that by SEC. 26 “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”

Therefore we argue that this provision, being an affirmation by the people of California and being California’s supreme law, must hold for institutions created by the California legislature, which include the University of California system. There are no exceptions listed.

Ann Coulter had and has all this on her side. Those who are protesting her appearance have none of it on their side. She has called her cancellation “a dark day for free speech in America”.

I am well aware of the libertarian position that one’s right to free speech depends on property to make the speech. The situation in this case is that the people of California through their Constitution and University charter have made it clear that speakers invited to speak on university property cannot be turned away because of their political or partisan views. On these grounds, 2 days ago the students who invited Ms. Coulter to speak filed a lawsuit.

However, the University copped out, literally. It would not provide security at the event. Coulter’s sponsors would not hold the event under those conditions and she had to cancel. The University attempted to justify its inaction as a tradeoff between free speech and public safety, but this is a sorry excuse. It’s actually a failure to do its duty and live up to the free speech provisions in California law. It means that the University has abdicated in favor of a loud leftist mob. The lawsuit will go forward anyway.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff