Back in August, in a rare victory for academic freedom the University of Chicago sent incoming freshmen a letter strongly espousing vigorous discussion of issues, on their merits. The text of the letter is transcribed below:
On other campuses and more recently, Anne Coulter was prevented from speaking at UC Berkeley for the reason of students claiming to feel "unsafe" with her speaking. To my knowledge she has hurt no one. In New York, Oscar López Rivera, the head of a Puerto Rican liberation group who back in the 1970's killed four people at Fraunces Tavern and bombed a New York City police barracks is about to be honored in the Puerto Rican Day Parade
(link to article). I don't see a lot of conservatives out there rioting.
But query, shouldn't many people feel unsafe with this gentleman being honored? Should accountants, lawyers and the like pour into the streets and disrupt the parade?
"Unsafe" that he's being honored? No. Not at all. Unsafe that terrorists are among us? No. Not really for that either. Unhappy that a terrorist is being honored? Maybe, but I've got a hell of a lot of other things in my life that concern me more and effect me directly than this guy and some leftists in NYC.
You see, here's the thing as far as I'm concerned: Unlike the kids and young adults that are trying to stifle freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country, I support both their right to try to stifle it, and the right to the freedom of expression and unrestricted speech. Unless I want to knowingly be a hypocrite, I also have to support the right of the organizers of the Puerto Rican Day Parade to not only exercise their right to free expression and free speech, but also to the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Association.
If the people in NYC of Puerto Rican decent that support this parade want to have their names, reputations, and futures tied inextricably to Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (English translation "Armed Forces of National Liberation") which was responsible for ~120 bombings, killing 5 and injuring scores more, then that is their right.
It's not like these people are taking up arms against the citizens of the United States as FALN did, or that they are advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the installation of a Socialist/Communist form of government as FALN did, and their sister organization did in Venezuela. However, if they do begin to do so, then at that point these people will have broken a number of laws, and I won't have to be concerned or feel "unsafe" because the FBI and the DOJ as a whole will take care of removing any potential danger to society that they represent.
However, since he granted clemency to a bunch of the terrorists in 1999, President Bill Clinton gave the group and many of their members a legitimacy and cult like persona for young Puerto Ricans to latch onto, as we see in this instance.
Feel "unsafe?" Again, no, not really. I seriously doubt that the current DOJ or FBI will allow anything dangerous to get too far along before it's cut off at the knees. The US Attorney's Office, the FBI, and many in Congress (on both sides of the isle) were not happy by the Clinton Clemency, and I seriously doubt that FALN has garnered any support from any of those three in the last 18 years.
Now... If we were talking about FLAN, instead of FALN, then we could have a really sweet discussion, where we could get our just dessert.
