College republicans nix Ann Coulter

Addicting Info shares that Fordham University's college republicans cancelled Ms. Coulter's speaking engagement after a passionate letter from their University president. "There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature."


    1. I think it should be clarified that the College Republicans initially wanted Coulter, but nixed her only after they received the letter from the college president.

      They deserve credit for changing their minds, but the idea that the college president said anything about Coulter that they didn’t know is like, to borrow a line from Denis Leary, a smoker saying, “Holy shit, I didn’t know these things were bad for you!” only after the warnings on the package were enlarged.

      1. not to stand up for the College Republicans, but they claim they rescinded her invitation before the President sent out his message. Something that everyone seems to be missing in the article. 

        1. I think we should stand up for them, and for any other group, that legitimately deserves it for doing the right thing. And that’s why I don’t want to be too down on them, but it’s problematic that they offered an invitation. Rescinding the invitation was a good decision, but having done so they’ve created more publicity than they would have if they’d just had her come and speak.

    2. Hope for the Republican Party is never, ever going to come from the College Republicans. That’s where the tricksters get their start!

  1. good for them. a perfect, reasonable response. i hope more join in this line of thinking. i’ve had enough of her type of “fame”.

    1. i’ve had enough of her type of “fame”

      Agreed, Coulter is the Honey Boo Boo of political discourse and only distracts us all from issues that truly matter to most Americans (and the world for that matter).

      1. That’s a bit insulting to Honey Boo Boo. She and her kinfolk are dim-witted but good-natured (the gay pig bit was super-cute!), which is the exact opposite of Ann Coulter, who is rather witty but unadulterated evil.

        1. I see your point, Ann Coulter is far more evil… but I’m not sure that the Honey Boo Boo sensation is advancing humankind (similar to Coulter’s distractions from things that matter) and it’s very possibly debasing our American zeitgeist with its presence.

          Then again, I have to admit I’ve never watched more than 5 minutes of the inane show; Maybe I should catch the gay pig episode and see for myself?

          Overall, I find Americans embracing ignorance via mass media a bit jarring.

        2. Remember that Ann Coulter is a character played by an actress named Ann Coulter, just as Steven Colbert is a character played by an actor named Steven Colbert.  Ann-the-actress may be a lot more conservative than Steven-the-actor, but the over-the-top evil is still a crafted act, even though she never breaks character in public the way Steven occasionally does, even when she’s hanging out with Bill Maher.

          And while she probably does have a coat made from Dalmation puppy fur, it’s fake, though the flying monkeys are strictly non-unionized.

  2. That’s nice, now she gets to be a martyr. She should be allowed to speak, then she should be exposed. However…since there is money involved, and I’d rather her not get paid for Idiocy.

    Edit:What I mean by ‘exposed’ (as it made sense in my head), is heckled mercilessly in a live, public forum.

      1. Isn’t a gruesome and protracted painful death a Quid pro quo for martyrdom ?Not that that should stop her , hell you could sell tickets.
        Burning at the stake,  or the wheel?

    1. “She should be allowed to speak, then she should be exposed.”

      REALLY? Ann freakin’ Coulter of all people DOES NOT need exposure.

      1. She does actually seem to need exposure and ridicule. And cameras.

        We don’t need her to have those things though.

      2. No one is refusing her the right to speak, they are simply not inviting her to speak. Is the difference that subtle that you don’t see it?

        Edit: Sorry, that was meant as a reply to the Cap’n.

    2.  She’s been “exposed” as a hateful sociopath time and time again. There’s nothing new anyone is going to learn from any future speaking engagement.

  3. BB: “Fordham University’s college republicans cancelled Ms. Coulter’s speaking engagement after a passionate letter from their University president.”
    linked article: “..he would not forbid the CRs from having Coulter at the Jesuit University. By that time, Fordham CRs had already rescinded the invitation to Coulter.”

    I think you’ve confused the order of events.

    This is the only corroboration I could find quickly:

  4. Also, she’s definitely showing her age, which is the real limit of her career.

    (I’m not slagging off the woman for her looks. I’m saying her looks are the main reason she’s had professional gigs.)

    1. I … wait.  I don’t seem to recall anyone ever speaking of Ann Coulter as an attractive woman, and in fact, most people describe her in sexist and transphobic terms.  I really, really don’t think we live in the same Ann Coulter reality…

        1. A lot of this *comes from the right*.

          Also, yeah, I’m from the middle of nowhere Arizona. Yes, yes I do know deep-dyed conservatives, and I can tell you that she is not their type.

          1. I’m betting AZ isn’t on her speaking tour. What I should have asked is do you know any deep dyed conservatives who operate news and/or publishing empires? I like plenty of conservatives, I’d probably love AZ.

      1. She’s very cynically tried to use sex to boost her sales and personal brand, and there are a lot of conservatives who seem to think she’s hottt stuff, which personally boggles my mind, but hey, taste is subjective.

      2. “most people describe her in sexist and transphobic terms”

        I’ll assume you’re just repeating what idiots say, but you’re giving them credence by using the transphobic slurs as “evidence” to justify her lack of appeal.

      3. When people denigrate a woman’s looks or sexuality, it rarely has much at all to do with how she actually looks. It’s just perceived as the best way to invalidate/insult women, which is fucked up on so many levels. Besides, her physical looks don’t really need to be called into question: She’s an ugly human being, no matter what she looks like. 

        1. When people denigrate a woman’s looks or sexuality, it rarely has much at all to do with how she actually looks. It’s just perceived as the best way to invalidate/insult women, which is fucked up on so many levels.

          It is, however, the cup Coulter has specifically fought for women to be measured by in truly (depraved) conservative ideology (i.e. baby makers that serve their men). It is therefore entirely appropriate to judge her as she has judged others.

          1. Perpetuating that kind of rhetoric only validates it. She is an utterly hateful human being- that should be more than enough fodder without bringing in poisonous gender-targeted language and arguments. In her world view (or at least the one she makes her money peddling) those are perfectly valid criticisms, because women have no inherent value. Therefore, using them back at her, while perhaps satisfying, does nothing but play into that same assumption….which is a way of acknowledging that she’s right! It’d be like using racist language against a racist.

          2. It’d be like using racist language against a racist.

            Ann Coulter is more like Dave Chappelle’s skit of a black man born blind and raised as a white supremacist, only she’s a misogynist with perfect vision, so it’s sad, not funny.

            But here’s what I’m getting at: When Conservatives eat their own, it’s because their hypocrisy was their own undoing, like a preacher who was notoriously against extra-marital sex getting caught having an affair. Hopefully, Republicans have learned the lesson that hate doesn’t win elections, and if they have, the willful blindness against Coulter’s hypocrisy will become unclouded and she will be hoist by her own petard.

          3. That actually works as well as an example- calling a black blind guy who is a racist a racist epithet doesn’t do anything but validate the racist mindset. Misogyny directed towards a misogynistic woman doesn’t do anything but validate her misogyny. Changing the culture means applying it to everyone, not just directing it at people you don’t like….because that’s exactly the status quo.

        2.  There’s not a chick in that audience that Bill wants in kneepads. That’s ugly

          -Coulter tweeting the 2012 DNC..

          1. That just proves that she’s an ugly human being. Why should that be used to justify perpetuating her disgusting behaviors?

          2.  It doesn’t. I was just pointing out that she engages in exactly what you were describing above. Mocking somebody’s looks is cheap and easy when it comes to politics, but there’s an undeniable ‘glass houses’ aspect to Coulter that probably makes people feel like it’s less off limits when talking about her.

          3. I know that’s how it’s justified, but it’s still bull IMO. Mocking someone’s looks is more than cheap and easy in politics. It’s frequently, FREQUENTLY used to imply that women shouldn’t be in politics at all- after all, what’s the point if they aren’t attractive, amiright? Because that’s what all these dumbass comments about what any woman who enters politics or voices an opinion (even a hateful one. Even if she were an honest-to-god Nazi) come down to – is she attractive, do I want to fuck her, but what about her children, can you believe her hair style- the idea that nothing she says matter (whether for good, bad, or evil) because she’s just a woman. I want to see that culture destroyed. Obliterated. Forgotten. Perpetuating it, even against the most vile of the vile? Does not destroy it. It tacitly acknowledges that that world view is *accurate*.

            The best way to refute Ann Coulter’s misogynistic, racist bullshit is to call her out on it…or to ignore her all together, which would be my preference, because ideas that rotten are not worth spending even a moment on. Sending it back to her? Worse than pointless, it’s actively counter-productive. 

            But then again, feminism is usually considered an inconvenient progressive cause whenever it’s not being directed at the other side.

      4. TIME magazine.  (I delivered mail for thirty years.  Delivering that issue of TIME with Coulter on the cover was the only day I ever felt dirty and ashamed of what I was doing.)

    2. Yeah. Her real enemy isn’t liberals, it’s S.E. Cupp. Who I’ll note is a bit more moderate, if at times incoherent (an atheist who privileges those of faith?) 

    3. I was just thinking the only way she can get away with the relentless negativity is her looks.  

  5. I struggle to understand what a Republican would be without the hateful rhetoric, isn’t it part and parcel?

    I know in the UK at least ‘conservative’ is a codeword for caring more about policy than people and generally disliking anyone who isn’t white and privileged. It’s a very selfish political stance, whilst ironically (on the most part) benefiting those they aspire to be, rather than who they are.

    1. Conservatives in the UK had the first Jewish, and first female UK Prime Ministers.  Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer. John Major, the last Conservative Prime Minister was the son of a trapeze artist. Conservative Governments introduced the first ever unemployment benefits in the UK, banned discrimination against the disabled and brought into force the Equalities Act.  Let’s not fall into Miss Coulter’s trap of substituting name calling and type-casting for political discussion pls.

      1. I was living in the present – but yes, there are a lot of voters that cast their ballot based on history and familiarity, rather than the candidates and their policy. I was also referring to the political stance and not the party, party politics (in the UK at least) hasn’t represented actual political leanings for a little while now, we have fringe parties that represent the extremes, but the big 3 are pretty much different masks for the same corrupt mess we call Westminster – but this brings me back to my first point.

        And really? Margaret Thatcher? She was a woman, yes, but also a monster.
        You are right though, I did present a rather extreme perspective – but I must admit I often struggle to see the perspective of the political right as anything other than what it is. Kind of like when a bigot claims they’re not a bigot because it’s all a matter of opinion.

        1. All my British friends who ended up in politics are conservatives (Well, and one who is part of the SNP). I frequently disagree with them on things, but I’d never say they were all about things that benefited while privileged males (and especially the most privileged of the privileged) to the detriment of anyone else. Actually, that’s what’s kind of refreshing. Whereas the republican party has definitely gone there, to the point reasonable debate seems impossible, at least my British conservative friends argue things from a different point of view that is at least a) based in reality b)not monstrous.  

          1. “I frequently disagree with them on things, but I’d never say they were all about things that benefited while privileged males.”

            Agree this is more relevant for a Republican (from what I gather) than a British conservative,

          2. I would happily import all of my Conservative friends to US politics if it were all possible. Though the sad truth is that whenever American politics comes up, it’s usually readily apparent that they remain blissfully unaware of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone. There have been many awkward moments where they’ve mentioned supporting the tea party or wanting to work closer with their republican counterparts and those of us in the US have been like “….you do realize they’d consider you slightly to the left of Obama-The-Godless(/Muslim)-Baby-Killing-Socialist?”

      2. Coming from a poor background (theoretically, I’m unfamiliar with their stories and how much might have been fluffed up) doesn’t mean that you’re not primarily serving the interests of the privileged.

        Plenty of self-made and “self-made” persons want to keep others in their supposed former spot in life struggling.

        1. Exactly, ‘kicking away the ladder’ is typical conservative stuff. As is having complete amnesia when it comes to recalling all the social benefits that may have aided you throughout your life..

      3. Conservatives in the UK had the first Jewish, and first female UK Prime Ministers.  Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer. John Major, the last Conservative Prime Minister was the son of a trapeze artist

        That reminds me of Rush Limbaugh being stunned that blacks don’t vote for Republicans even though they ‘have’ “well-spoken” blacks like Condi Rice. Thing is, white privilege doesn’t require wealthy beginnings, so I think his point stands.

        Conservative coalitions aside, conservatism (ideology) at it’s core is a defense of privilege and hierarchy. The fact that a lot of working and middle class people subscribe to an ideology that often actively works against their interests (at least their financial interests) doesn’t change that.

        1. It reminds me more of US conservatives pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican and that proves today’s GOP is obviously not racist.

          1. It’s pathetic how that ahistorical narrative keeps getting trotted out. There’s always somebody that has to patiently remind them about Dixiecrats, The Southern Strategy, The Civil Rights era….etc…. all erased from history. Doncha know, it was progressive hicks who were beating and murdering conservative civil rights workers and marchers…

    2. I’m a registered Republican, but not a big fan of hateful rhetoric.  My family is mixed race, although I am lily white.

        1. Not to defend the Republicans in their current madness, but it’s not like the democrats don’t have their fair share of selfish positions. 

        2. I have three reasons for being a Republican.

          1)  I believe in many of the things they say, although it’s interesting to note that these are the exact things they don’t do if you actually elect a Republican Party candidate.  For example limited government, personal responsibility, individual freedom, fiscal conservatism, state’s rights, all these are things I believe are good.  They are also the things that most Republicans will espouse during campaigns and then actively destroy once in power.

          2)  I live in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Therefore, if I am a Republican, my vote and my political activities that require major party membership count far more than if I am just another Democrat drone.  In a primary, for example, my own vote is vastly more powerful than any Democrat’s vote, because there are so many fewer people voting.  If the Republican party continues to fall apart, eventually I will be the sole Republican and there will be some changes, let me tell you!

          3)  It’s a two party system.  Somebody has to do the job.  I manned a voting booth in 2008 because the state was desperate to find anyone willing to be a Republican representative (tales of that experience here).  It’s not an enjoyable task, although I learned a lot.

          All these reasons are entirely selfish.  They are related to my selfish desire to make the world a more enjoyable place for myself and my children.  I would not agree that Democrats are more or less selfish, I don’t think that is party related.

  6. “I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed. ’Disgust’ was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.”

    As a graduate of a Jesuit highschool I find this pretty ironic. It was ~15 years ago, but there was no lack of name calling and incivility towards people of different sexual orientations on the part of the faculty, and they certainly promoted sexist attitudes as well.

    1. So you had a bad time in a Jesuit highschool, which means it’s ironic that a different group of Jesuits is doing something right today? I think I have a different definition of irony from you.

      Irony to me is the equating all Jesuits together as a monolithic group, as a response to one group doing something individual and maybe different. Saying they are all the same when the point at hand is that they are not. That to me is irony. 

      Doing that is IMO basically namecalling. You may have picked it up in high school? It’ s uncivil. If you had a hard time with that treatment, don’t do it back maybe?

      1. In that the Jesuits are a very centralized organization who have official policies of discrimination, yes I do find it ironic that they use that set of ethics as a justification to condemn some else’s discriminatory actions. Many of the Jesuits who taught me were lovely people, a minority were not. I have no doubt that this guy at Fordham is also an ethical and well intentioned person. That said I have no reason to believe that the things I was taught weren’t the Jesuit party line, things could have changed, and I could have been exposed to a particularly conservative bunch, but I don’t think that was the case.

        1. Connected a dot I hadn’t seen re: centralized org with official policies….

          If you think the bullying IS a official policy, then yeah, you’d see this story as irony.  Thoughtful reply. Thank you.

      2. “So you had a bad time in a Jesuit highschool, which means it’s ironic that a different group of Jesuits is doing something right today?”

        Or perhaps he’s preferring deeds to words.

    1. Regardless of when she said that “women and men under 26 shouldn’t be able to vote” they did invite her after she said that women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

      At best that doesn’t say much for their process for reviewing potential speakers.

  7. I’m wondering if reflection on their recent election losses caused them to reconsider how they’re presenting themselves. 

Comments are closed.