Berkeley Offers Counseling After Conservative’s Speech Due To Threat To “Sense of Safety and Belonging”

Berkeley has been criticized for its efforts to prevent conservatives from speaking and then its failure to control violent protesters who have assaulted people and destroyed property.

Security will cost of at least $1.5 million for five rallies and demonstrations.

What was most striking was this announcement by Berkeley:

Support and counseling services for students, staff and faculty

We are deeply concerned about the impact some speakers may have on individuals’ sense of safety and belonging. No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe. For that reason, the following support services are being offered and encouraged:

Notably, the counseling is not for the violence at such speeches or disturbing messages on both sides. Rather it is the presence of speakers like Shapiro that might threaten a student’s fear for their “sense of safety and belonging.”  The school insists that “No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or for what they believe.”  No mention of the past protesters with signs like “F**k Free Speech” or beating those who do not share their views.

It is the sole inclusion of the speaker and not the counter-protesters or campus disruptions that concern me. It appears to reinforce the view that conservative speakers are a foreseeable threat to the sense of safety and belonging of students.

What do you think?

169 thoughts on “Berkeley Offers Counseling After Conservative’s Speech Due To Threat To “Sense of Safety and Belonging””

  1. UCB should hand out Depends for such events, in case they can’t hold their bowels because they are so upset.

    Oh, the humanity!

  2. That is some bubble they live in! Surely at least some of them must have SOME inkling that at this point, the majority of the rest of the country thinks they and their behavior are a joke. Before too much longer, they are going to find the rest of the world has moved on without them.

  3. Ben Shapiro is about as smart as they come and has important things to say. I don’t know why the left is so against listening to intellgent people that have a different point of view. If that causes great consternation of university officials then perhaps these places of supposed learning shouldn’t be called universities.

    1. They’re not being asked to listen to him. They can ignore him if they so care. What they should not be permitted to do is prevent others from listening to him.

      And the problem is manifest below. David Benson, Dave137, FishWings, et al simply do not think they should have to live in a world where they have to argue their points and persuade others – David Benson indubitably because he fancies persons such as himself shouldn’t be subject to the taxpayers who repair Washington State University’s HVAC system and keep order on its campuses and Dave137 and FishWings because they operate under the illusion that they have David Benson’s status and accomplishments. Neither train of thought is attractive.

      1. “They’re not being asked to listen to him.”

        DSS, that is a given. Forget that a speech is even taking place. According to the law violent criminals are supposed to be arrested and that is something that the left seems to object to when it suits their purposes.

  4. David Benson, Dave137, and FishWings are in the business of demonstrating the character – or lack of it – of the progtrash element in this society. None of them can manage to acknowledge the absurdity of scads of expenditure on security and the deployment of grief counselors in response to the appearance of an unremarkable opinion journalist. None of them can even manage an embarrassed silence.

    FishWings, whose history of founding educational institutions approximates that of the average pole dancer, presumes to judge several evangelical schools and demand to know what outside speakers have been invited to these private institutions with discrete architectonic missions. That’s the left for you. Without giving it any thought, they fancy the premier campus of the UC system is their private property. (While we’re at it, Ted Kennedy did once speak at Liberty Baptist and was given a respectful reception. Liberty’s admissions policies and disciplinary regime do not encourage emotionally unstable people to display themselves).

    1. I guess you’re right, emotionally unstable people only write your’e wrong and I’m right posts. Spoken like a true brown shirt that you are. While you’re desperately seeking something why don’t you seek a more open minded discussion about things that don’t fit into your mindset.

        1. Thank you, at least you can accept that, as do I. Trying to shut out anybody that does not conform to others on this site is something I don’t think JT wants or needs.

            1. Fishwings and anonymous, are you both blind. DSS is not advocating violence and is only exercising his free speech. Both of you seem to accept violence when you consider them your friends. Both of you are acellerators of violent behavior.

              1. “Fishwings and anonymous, are you both blind. DSS is not advocating violence”

                Now don’t go puttin’ words in my mouth, allen. I’ve never said or implied that DSS is “advocating violence.”

                “Both of you seem to accept violence…”

                Not true. (That’s a pretty careless/unsubstantiated semi-assertion on your part, allen.)

                “Both of you are acellerators (sic) of violent behavior.”

                Because we don’t agree with you and/or say things that piss you off?

                1. Anonymous, I am not putting words in your mouth. Fishwings was bitterly complaining of being shut out by DSS and you agreed. I explained to both of you that DSS “is not advocating violence” but is using freedom of speech, Fishwings made some convoluted statements about the costs incurred when conservatives spoke and then discussed that Mellon should pay if he wanted to speak. The problem is that these people are invited to speak by students who should have the same rights as those that invite the Clintons.

                  “That’s a pretty careless/unsubstantiated ”

                  I said “seem to accept violence” and that is apparent from what has been written as well as some silence on the subject.

                  I call both of you accellerators because for the same reason I said “Both of you seem to accept violence…”

                  I will reaffirm what I said and I will add that I find both of you acting in undemocratic fashions. Additionally I note that you in particular, anonymous, run away from real discussion. I find that cowardly.

                    1. I can imagine how frustrated you feel. Your words are catching up with you and you are finding it difficult to maintain your sense of well being where you are essentially being stripped naked down to your own thoughts. Not a pretty sight.

                    2. lol

                      You truly are an idiot, allen. And you’re here way too much…

                      Still laughing.

                      Gotta run. Some of us have a life.

                    3. “lol”

                      Is that an insane Hillary laugh?

                      “You truly are an idiot, allen. And you’re here way too much…”

                      I’m actually pretty smart and you are frustrated. You have been here for how many years? Why should I leave when you provide me free entertainment? TV isn’t as good and I need to unwind and relax in between my chores.

                      “Still laughing.”

                      Sounds more like you are choking.

                      “Gotta run. Some of us have a life.”

                      Yes, and perhaps one day you will find one. In the meantime you have my permission to run away.

    2. If those students, apparently a significant number, are that intimidated by Shapiro, we are in far worse trouble than we suspected. The contrast between attitudes of students in the ’60s and those of today is remarkable, and the short time of attitude evolution even more so.

  5. What would happen if a atheist spoke at Pat Robinson’s or Oral Robert’s so-called schools? Or any of the so-called christian based public funded helped schools? IF they were allowed, the school would mandate prayer and counseling for the poor dears that would break their self imposed bubbles. Is there a difference?

    1. Yes, FishWings, there is a difference. However, you raise a fascinating point, anyway.

      Berkeley is a state university that receives public money. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects private religious schools from compulsory celebration of expressive speech and expressive conduct to which their religious views are opposed.

      If a private religious school accepted public money–which they can’t under the establishment clause–then the state could compel those religious schools to tolerate atheist speakers on their campuses. But since that hypothesis requires violating the establishment clause; therefore it will never come to pass–probably.

      1. But it would be good if it did. As with Berkeley, rather than preventing objectionable speech, those who are offended can be assisted in working to develop more persuasive arguments for their own point of view.

        1. Chris, are you asking atheists to assist the faithful in developing more persuasive arguments for their religious point of view?

      2. Private religious schools do receive public money thru roads, drains, bridges, etc. So who does the so-called discrimination when it comes to public speakers? Are religious schools therefore exempt from public laws? All I was trying to point out is people that throw stones in glass houses about how Conservatives are being shut out of universities are the same ones that scream they are protected because of religious beliefs.

        1. FishWings, I conceded that you raised a fascinating point. Don’t be too upset about the answer I gave to your question about the difference between state universities versus private religious schools.

          The state has no plausible way to exclude private religious schools from the beneficiary pool for roads, bridges and sewer systems. Certain forms of discrimination may be permissible. Private religious schools discriminating against atheist speakers may be one of those permissible forms of discrimination.

          The alternative is worse: a government that infringes upon the free exercise of religion.

            1. Yes, Paul. But should the government that grants those funds compel those recipients to host atheist speakers against their religious objections?

              1. Diane – those funds are for a limited specific purpose. The reach of the courts goes no further. However, when I was at Creighton University (a Jesuit institution) they had an atheist on the theology faculty. And the kid two doors down from me was a Navajo medicine man. They built a special sandbox for his room so he could do his religious art, before he destroyed them.

                  1. There is no ‘American Taliban’. There are quite ordinary political advocates that you see as ‘Taliban’ because you’re dopey and emotionally damaged.

                    1. DSS to another person, here:

                      “…because you’re dopey and emotionally damaged.”

                      And maybe you don’t belong here, DSS.

          1. FishWings, I conceded that you raised a fascinating point. D

            What are you talking about? It’s utter humbug and would justify stripping any person or corporate body of the franchise to pursue it’s preferred educational mission.

            1. I can humor humbug, if I want to. You can find fault with me for humoring humbug, if you want to.

              P. S. I also found fault with the humbug, you know.

            1. You’re welcome, as always, FishWings.

              BTW, the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment protect the rights of atheists, agnostics and other secularists against state-sponsored religion. The historical fact that those same clauses protect the rights of one religious group against the intolerance of another religious group just so happens to be the best reason for atheists, agnostics and secularists to preserve, protect and defend the right to religious freedom.

              We atheists et al. cannot be free from religion unless the faithful remain free to exercise their religions.

              1. Actually, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were prescriptions of denominational neutrality imposed on the federal government. The states with religious establishments retained them. The notion that the federal bill of rights applied to the states was an innovation of the 1920s and a rather debatable one. Enforced secularism was an invention of federal appellate courts over the period running from 1942 to 1963 and is largely humbug.

        2. Actually a lot of private schools permit people to speak that have ideas that are different. The answer to the problem you suggest is that all universities be treated the same and be permitted to determine who speaks and who doesn’t. To do that we should end all state and federal funding of all universities including scholarships. Tax all the universities as private entities. Now all are on equal footing and all can limit the speech at their univeristies.

          Is that what you wish FishWings?

          1. No, the answer is to treat public institutions as public fora open to every party on the same terms, and let private institutions set their own policies.

            As for educational finance, fund public institutions with vouchers distributed according to the results of baccalaureate examinations (debarring them from charging tuition or fees) and have private institutions finance themselves through tuition and fees. Treat student loans as a variant of the consumer loan. (There isn’t much point to corporate taxation of philanthropies, btw).

            1. There is no debate about treating pubic institutions as public fora open to all where private institutions have their own policies.

              I can see we probably have a disagreement with regard to how charitable entities should be taxed. I don’t like a lot of these tax deductions, but I am not inclined to start a debate over the reasons at this time. Suffice it to say I have experience and don’t like what I see.

              1. You’ve confounded taxation of corporate entities with tax deductions granted to contributors to corporate entities.

                1. “You’ve confounded taxation of corporate entities with tax deductions granted to contributors to corporate entities.”

                  DSS, where have I done that? I discussed charitable entities being taxed and have done so before. I actually believe at least some if not many more charitable entities ought to be taxed in all the ways private enterprise and individuals are taxed. I will add that I am not entirely happy with many of the tax deductions for charitable enterprises.

                  Where did I even talk about corporate entities?

                    1. Why don’t you quote the opperative word(s) and make sure you quote the word corporate or explain what you are saying. It is entirely possible we are talking at crossed purposes, but, sometimes people use these short non responsive answers because their argument falls short.

                      In other words: How have I “confounded taxation of corporate entities with tax deductions granted to contributors to corporate entities.”

                    2. DSS, I am still waiting for your response.

                      “Why don’t you quote the opperative word(s) and make sure you quote the word corporate or explain what you are saying.”…

                      Did your argument fall short?

          2. Never implied to what you wrote. My question was why does the right wing have a fit when someone they like is omitted from speaking because of safety or any other reason gave,, and yet free minded speakers, most anyway, are not allowed to speak at christian schools that receive public money thru road, bridges, water, etc. There are two sets of rules. The squeaky wheel gets the grease? As in Manning being omitted because some on the right did not like it? There are two sets of rules my friend.

            1. Because the people who invited Ben Shapiro and were ready to show up for his talk have every right to have him there and he has every right to speak there. It’s a public forum. The administration at Berkeley has no franchise to institute a staff ideology which would prevent him from speaking. Nor do they have a franchise to prevent him from speaking in a double act with obstreperous youths while making fraudulent statements about ‘safety’. You’re pretending not to understand the difference between public and private property and pretending that you actually believe that the presence of public works strips from any person or corporate body the franchise to educate and propagate. It’s pretty amusing to contemplate your reaction should your local municipal council – who might be quite impatient with frauds and perpetual juveniles – to apply that principle to your blog postings.

            2. One is private and one is public. Do you understand the difference FishWings? Probably not.

              A public entitiy isn’t supposed to yield to the criminal element that you support. They are supposed to keep your criminals in order or jail them. Ben Shapiro is a reasonable guy and isn’t threatening violence. Your friends do. I want the criminal elements that prevent free speech to be jailed. Ben Shapiro doesn’t have to prove anything. Is that clear enough?

              1. Is there is difference when taxpayer money goes to public or religious schools? The money is still public money. So you think that if you can afford a private education you should be able to discriminate at will? Kinda like money is speech right? If you have the money you should be able to speak, if not, shut the hell up? As for my friends I have a lot of republicans in my mix and I listen to them, do you do the same for yours? Then again, my republican friends don’t talk as you do, they listen and discuss.

                1. Private schools receive public money for provided mandated services, and that’s all. If you do not care for them to receive public money, remove state mandates.

                2. Maybe your Republican friends speak nonesense as well. I have no problem with discussion as long as it is above the level of imbecility and as long as that the other person’s discussion isn’t revolving around restricting another’s rights.

                  Private institutions are private. They pay taxes and the like. Government can cease providing all funding to all of these institutions as far as I am concerned.

                  Yale has an endowment in excess of $25 Billion, Stanford and Princeton $22Billion. They don’t require taxpayer money.

                3. FishWings, the double standard that offends you is the part of your argument that is fascinating. However, the alternative to that double standard would still be far worse: a government that compels the toleration of expressive speech and expressive conduct contrary to the free-exercise of religion. If atheists are to remain free from religion, then surely the religious must remain free from atheism. And that means that private religious schools have to be afforded the double standard to which you object. As strange as may seem, FishWings, discrimination for the sake of religious freedom must be permitted.

                  1. The ‘double-standard’ does not exist outside the breezy space between his two ears.,

  6. People who wish to shut down speech are on par with the Huckabees and Pences of the country, who whine about morality and wish to sanitize culture according to their own “divine” interpretations.

    1. Tell us Dave137 how Pence or Huckabee prevent free speech. They only call for their followers to be moral. For them to ask your friends to be moral is a lost cause because a lot of them seen at these gatherings are criminal. Lock them up and you as well if you can’t be civil in public.

        1. You could not offer a coherent summary of whatever it is you fancy you’re talking about.

  7. Well . . . At least they’re not cancelling Shapiro’s speech. That’s a little bit of progress. And they more than doubled security spending compared to UCLA’s $600,000. That’s a little bit more progress. It may be asking too much of Berkeley to go cold turkey on political correctness. Third time’s the charm.

      1. Allan, they might not be the same violent protesters at each and every last event. If I recall correctly (???), arrests of violent protesters were made at Shapiro’s UCLA speech and his DePaul appearance.

        1. “Allan, they might not be the same violent protesters ”

          Diane, once the second group of violent criminals sees the first group being incarcerated they will think twice before breaking the law. If they don’t they will be arrested as well and this will occur until all these nasty violent criminals are locked away where they belong.

          If you note, most of the ATIFA folk didn’t act violently. A lot were there to hide the violent actors, but once those violent actors are arrested these other folk are going to melt away for fear of being implicated.

          That is the basis of our criminal system. We lock up criminals so that those who might be mostly honest stay honest.

    1. Clearly, you haven’t watched any of Shapiro’s interviews on the news or his podcasts. He’s laughing about these snowflakes and their enablers at Berkeley.

        1. Pretty soon, this blog thread will be full of the “You are…” “No, I’m not….” ego-driven BS that has taken over the past few blog entries, and then it will be impossible to keep up with anything. 🙂

          1. Yes, FishWings. They do seem to be terrorized by snowflakes. It’s a most curious fear. Perhaps it is the reputed non-identity of any two snowflakes that troubles them the most. The snowflakes have to be lumped together and rolled into snowballs and packed into snow blocks and laid into snow walls forming snow forts all the easier in which to sequester and quarantine them.

            But I refuse to call them crybullies on account of their pathetic twerpery.

  8. It’s all part of maintaining the Democratic Party Narrative. It may seem silly to most of us, but it will help motivate stupid people to vote for Democrats and Lefties, and serve to demonize and marginalize the conservatives in the country.

    When you hear this kind of idiotic stuff, the point isn’t to make an intelligent argument. No, the point is to make an emotional point. Which, emotions are how most people make decisions whether they mean to or not. This foolishness is what permits comics like Colbert to spew out their hate and contempt on what is supposed to be a comedy show. This foolishness is what permits Antifa to tear up things, and beat people. This is what permits them to do these sort of things and not be roundly condemned by their bosses, or their audience.

    Quit thinking that politics is about what makes sense. My Goodness, did the anti-Semitism of the Nazis make any sense? But, did it have to? Not if got people behind the Nazis. Did Hillary’s latest round of invective against Trump make any sense, that he is a white supremacist? Does Isaac’s perpetual smear that Trump is stupid make any sense, when the man is a successful business person? No, and it doesn’t have to make any sense for it to work.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Tthe fact that Sqeeky thinks business success is an obvious sign of intelligence reveals much about how flawed is her thinking processes. Trump’s success in business had very, very little to do with intelligence or smarts.

        1. peltonrandy – the fact that you think there is only one type of intelligence shows how far behind the curve you really are. There are probably at least 5 types of intelligence of which academic is the one that is tested. However, two others are creative and business. Of hand I cannot remember the other two. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are business geniuses. Michelangelo is a creative genius, as was Leonardo da Vinci. So, what is the cut off for business genius and does Trump make the cut?

        2. Tthe fact that Sqeeky thinks business success is an obvious sign of intelligence reveals much about how flawed is her thinking processes. Trump’s success in business had very, very little to do with intelligence or smarts.

          Fine. Let’s see you do it.

      2. You live isolated from the world in your university tower located in a relatively non diverse community. I can’t believe that you have been around for such a long time and know so little. Squeeky has been around half your life-span and knows more about the world we live in than you. Along with that she is far more interesting and seems far more cultured than you will ever be. Apparently you are little more than a bunch of on / off switches.

          1. Allan, by now you ought to have every reason to believe that Mr. Benson is a Quaker. He has not stated so explicitly, let alone emphatically. But then Quakers don’t write emphatically. They only pray emphatically.

            If you or Squeeky know more about the world than Mr. Benson does, then you should already know that friendly persuasion is the Quaker way to quarrel. You should also know that, if Mr. Benson is in fact a Quaker, then he will not defend himself more forcefully than he has done thus far. He’s patiently waiting for the rest of us finally to catch onto the positive example he’s been setting for us.

            1. then he will not defend himself more forcefully than he has done thus far.

              No. He favors evasion and passive-aggressive maneuvers, so it’s all good.

            2. Diane, what lies under the guise of some that profess religion frequently is not a pleasant picture. I don’t think Benson is a Quaker or at least not in the true sense. (That doesn’t pertain to all religious folk many of whom are among the best Americans that America has to offer.)

              I’ve discussed these issues with Quakers and those with whom I had discussions with were more forthright in their comments and not as deceitfu.I have no problem with the views of others that disagree with me for in drawing my positions I incorporate a multiplicity of positions because nothing is perfect. That is why compromise exists.

              I have loads of agreement with everyone. I agree with enigma that Blacks were badly treated. I just don’t agree that it is desirous to label opponents as racists when one has no proof. I also don’t agree with penalyzing one person who has not wronged anyone to satisfy another’s guilt especially when the person benefitting never suffered the pains for which that penalized person is paying for. (I used the enigma example because I think it demonstrates a clear picture easy for you or anyone else to understand.)

    1. Agreed. The DNC needs Americans to fear their fellow citizens and to feel the party is their only protection. Maybe that’s why Bill Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden on any of the 10 clear opportunities he had to do so. He thought terrorism would help his party: if Americans cower, the DNC can wipe noses. Unfortunately for his party, 9/11 pointed out the stupidity and impotence of both parties in conducting the only genuine function of national government. Decades later, and the citizenry is still laser-focused on inconsequential BS (statues, bathrooms, wedding cakes, halloween costumes) that supposedly “divides us.” It doesn’t really matter though, because Kim Jong Un is about to educate us further about the “game of thrones” our politicians have been playing with our lives. They could have taken him out years ago, too — but they didn’t and they won’t. They think Americans only like underdogs and victims, so we’re destined to be victimized. God help us!

    2. Let’s see… and I quote… “silly, stupid, (Democrats and Lefties), demonize (is that the lynch mobs we’re demonizing? Silly Lefties!), marginalize, idiotic, foolishness, comics, spew, foolishness”. Who is/are the hater(s) here? I seem to remember something wayyyy back in January about healing the rift and bringing the country back together. I believe the opposite is happenning. BTW, IMHO, it feels like a decade has passed since January and I don’t see any healing or love on the horizon. Love, it’s all we need. After we all get rich and send anyone who doesn’t have 3 or 4 generations of genes aren’t linked to these 50 states home, that is.

  9. The antifa demonstrators are making me feel very nervous!

    I have trouble concentrating so I can’t study and I am afraid to go to class.

    I keep the blinds drawn during the day. All I can do is watch re-runs of Opra.

    Well, I might if I lived anywhere in the vicinity of Telegraphy Ave.

    1. Do you have a point?

      Or are you still the same ‘say nothing with long wind’ commenter you have always been?

      1. Thanks for reading.

        And, please, anytime you have nothing to say, please feel free to call attention to my comments.

        I could never get this kind of attention without your help.

            1. Bravo, bfm!

              Such a sharp mind that arrives at the obvious.

              To answer your question — I rarely do, but shooting fish in a barrel is sometimes fun.

            2. BTW, I never stated I was wasting time, I stated that time could be saved.

              Can you discern the difference of the words I stated and the pathetic ones you substituted so as to pave your adolescence response.

              Someday, you will learn how to differentiate between what was written and what you substituted in your reading.

              1. Have you ever made a comment on a topic under discussion here?

                If you believe your remarks are so worthwhile, why do you keep changing your pseudonym – as though to escape the history of your remarks?

                If you believe your attacks are so revealing, why do you feel you have to label them – Snarky – as though your words cannot stand by themselves?

                Attack me all you want to. My record here goes back nearly 5 years. Anyone can see what I have written and judge for them selves.

                Again, thank you for reading. And thank your for calling attention to my words here.

  10. At this point, who would hire a graduate of Berkeley. If I got their resume, it would go on the bottom of the pile.

      1. Dave137 – Harvard and Yale Law normally only take students from Ivy League schools. All other schools go to the bottom of the pile. It is the way of the world. Why, as an employer, would I take a chance on hiring someone who was going to be more trouble than good?

  11. What is happening to this country??? It is insane. The only people that these students want to hear are those that spew what they want to hear, otherwise it challenges their sense of well-being and belonging??? Where is the free speech???

    1. Sandy, the most sensible reply here. I want to hear both sides and see what I can take from it. Whether it is comfortable or not shows how much room there is for debate and enlightnment. That’s what education is for.

  12. Common part of government work now. King Mountain fire in the early 90’s seven fire fighters died. The local US Forest Service shut down. None of them knew the deceased but they were given a full day of get in touch with your feelings counseling. Local reaction was aren’t you getting paid to work?”

  13. The administration of the university is contributing to the drama and unease by making these speeches seem as so overwhelming that tragedy will result, causing some weak minded students to go into the throes of anxiety. In truth nothing will happen to them if they simply go about their classes and lives. I suppose this might be the intent of some of the faculty and administration individually, or perhaps others who are so blinded dogmatically they follow along obediently.

    Today I read a neologism defining some of these students fittingly–crybully.

    The 1.5 million dollar security bill shows that one of the reasons I read that college tuition increases is due to the growth of administrative staff employed to mollycoddle and pander this new generation of students. I’m sorry but I can’t help but not respect students such as these. Many will be unemployable if they keep up their insolence and lack of fortitude. They’re not worth the risk of hiring them.

  14. Jonathan it is really a sad reality that these student at some of these colleges are so mentally and emotionally weak. To think that these children (definitely do not qualify to be considered as adults because of their total lack of maturity) are suppose to be the ‘future leaders’ of our country. May God have mercy on us all.

  15. Surreal. Insanity. It some point, I hope one can be forgiven for it occurring to someone that the easiest way to reform this institution of higher counseling would be to fire everybody and start over. But that would really not be fair to the innocent. Sigh.

      1. I probably could have worded it better. Once it got posted I wasn’t able to change it. In any event, I believe the gist of what I meant was reasonably clear. Additionally, please note that, conveniently enough, a group has started a petition regarding this matter, which people may wish to examine and to consider signing. http://citizengo.org/en-us/sc/90965-berkeley-offers-counseling-students-and-employees-who-feel-threatened-mainstream

Comments are closed.