Testicular Fortitude

In reconsidering the invite to have Ann Coulter speak at Harding College, I believe the college community exhibited plenty of “testicular fortitude.”

Although Jason Mattera (YAF) claims the college wss lacking in that particular fortitude by “disinviting” Coulter, it appears —much to its credit— that Harding College actually aligned its actions with its mission. Kudos to them!

Michael, at 8:02 am EDT on September 1, 2005

A reason to admire her

I actually admire her. Not because I think she is smart. Not because I think that she is right. But, I admire the fact that she has used a bunch of rather silly soundbites, skillyfully delivered, to make quite a bit of money. In some ways she is like a professional wrestler. Nobody takes them too seriously as athletes or actors, but lots of people, myself included, like to watch them.

Obviously, the school has its reasons for unloading her, but I think that she should be analyzed for her ability to get lay people to follow whatever message has been pre-packaged – and pay for it.

Larry, at 9:08 am EDT on September 1, 2005

Heh

I’m with Larry — I despise her, but I must confess to having bought two of her books.

Chris, at 9:26 am EDT on September 1, 2005

You are not Allowed to Say That

So much for free speech, which, by the way, used to be a lefty cause.

wyck, at 10:12 am EDT on September 1, 2005

We should be thanking Jason Mattera...

“Testicular fortitude", indeed. Harding College showed plenty of it, to my way of thinking. We should be thanking the Young America’s Foundation spokesman(?) Jason Mattera, for openly showing that they value ideology and political “purity” more than Christian values.What an excellent example to show that GOP does not equal GOD.

Mr.Mattera — go buy a clue.

Scott, at 10:41 am EDT on September 1, 2005

Congrats to Harding U. for standing up for its values and for intelligent debate. Anyone who critically listens to most talk radio (no matter what bias—political, sports team or otherwise) realizes just what Larry did, it’s about entertainment and is only slightly based on reality. Since entertainment is rarely educational and, in light of the other speakers, Harding U. likely realized the same thing and responded not just because they didn’t like what Coulter has said but because she didn’t fit the bill.

I also think Harding U. has the right to un/invite anyone they like. If they denied her all access to campus because of what she’s said then we might consider free speach, but this is simply an recinded invitation. We’ve all had co-workers or students we’d love to ban from our offices at work because they are exceedingly annoying/incompetent. We may go out of our way to avoid them, but we don’t prevent them from interacting with us.

It is sad that the YAF resorts to name calling when someone makes a decision with which it disagrees. Shame on them; I wish they would think more critically, and be less critical.

Lucas, at 11:06 am EDT on September 1, 2005

How about “Ovarian Fortitude"?

I’ve had it with this bs about “testicular fortitude.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? That you have to be a man with testicles to understand that a mad cow like this Coulton has got to be stopped from continue to spill her poisonous milk? How about what we women feel about when one of our gender shows such disrespect for other people’s values and religion, not to mention their very right to live?

Ann Coulton, what a shameful excuse for a woman. And she is NOT smart. She is merely dumb and loud, and placed by others in front of a microphone, in front of a camera. A freak. A puppet. A mouthpiece.Of course, her peculiar kind of stupidity can only be validated in a country like ours, where the loudest, the crassest, the “more nationalistic than thou” are festering at this shameful moment of our history.

Indeed, we need some ovarian fortitude to rid our country of such pestilence. Not by applying to them what this woman suggest we do with “liberals, radicals", but by simply sending them together, all the bunch of them—and we all know who they are—to live together in an isolated island (a kind of Jurassic Park for right-wingers). There, they can talk their heads off to each other, make up plans for taking over the world and forcing everyone to speak English, and eat hamburgers.

We’ll be so much better off ourselves, without this poison that sees no reason, hears no reason, knows no compassion, understands no love. They’ve had their chance.

If a woman like this, or any man who follows the same line, is allowed to go on speaking undeterred, why do we make sure we don’t let our children play with matches, or make friends with sex-offenders? Why then not let our daughters date serial murderers? how about THEIR right to speak???? or do as they please?

Mary, Dr., at 11:52 am EDT on September 1, 2005

Ann Coulter is smarter and more successful than you all!

Let’s go through just some of Ann’s accomplishments: Four-time New York Times Best Seller Graduated from Cornell University with honors Graduated from University of Michigan Law School with honorsSyndicated columnist

“Dr.” Mary, what have you done with your life that even minimally compares to that of Coulter’s?

Jedediah Jones, at 2:50 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Ann Coulter

I am not quite so upset as many of your entries. I see Christ and some of the Apostles occasionally, curtly even, admonishing, especially the Pharisees and others. I also see the imprecatory Psalms which are quite acidic. Perhaps our Heavenly Father raised up Ann Coulter to “jerk” the thinking of some people in our culture within this era of cultural war. I accept her and her manner of writing and speaking as part of God’s overall Providence in this culural war. I wish somehow, that the university (unity in diversity) would not be quite so narrow minded.

Gordon Shaw, Retired Social Studies teacher, at 2:51 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

This is laughable!

Not only are you silly liberals speaking of things you have no idea, you spew forth the same vitrol that you complain of Miss Coulter! Such a display of hipocracy if I ever saw one. And you call yourself’s CHRISTIAN? That makes me laugh. But what really gets my side to split is the fact that damn near every one of you commenting at this websight called “HIGHER ED” can’t spell to save your life. Typical of the leftist ranting who can’t argue the facts. I’d tell you all to get a life but you wouldn’t know what to do with it.Cheers cowards,

craig, at 2:52 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

The Wagons Are Circling

Kudos to Harding and the many Christians who are finally beginnng to reject the cultural diaspora of the “conservative” right.

Now, in the true spirit of Christianity, the same Christians need to apologize for supporting nudniks like Coulter, Limbaugh, and even the entire Fox News Channel. These people and entities have damaged America and Americans many of whom share similar values to those of the alumni of Harding.

You’ve sinned mightily; now it’s time for repentence. Harding’s disinvite is a first step.

Griff, at 2:54 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

“Virulent”

I note the remarkable term “virulent anticommunist.” Would the author classify anyone as a “virulent anti-Nazi” or “virulent antifascist"? Astonishing. ACK

Alan Charles Kors, at 3:00 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

calling off Ann Coulter

I must say that the people who are happy that Ann Coulter was disinvited to speak at Harding have a right to their opinion. What is questionable is the reasons they give for their opinions. Citing her outrageous comments. Some people just don’t get Hyperbole. She is simply expressing her feelings about a subject through exaggerations. More than anyone that I have read recently(speaking of political pundits) she has represented christian values and how they apply to the right. She is not intolerant. Those who can’t stand her abrasiveness...well that’s another story.

Juan R., at 3:01 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Mary at ringside

Mary, You are probably demonstrating why Ms. Coulter is so successful. She has pushed all of your bottons, and you loudly respond with an incoherent diatribe against her.

While Ms. Coulter’s arguments are usually not coherent, they are planned to illicit responses that will draw attention to her. So, to continue the wrestling analogy, you are like people routing against Triple H. Even if you scream quite loud, the WWF still wins. Indeed, the fact that she has trolled you into saying things like “Ann Coulton, what a shameful excuse for a woman.” leads me to conclude that she should be studied, if not just to see what makes people like you respond in such a silly manner. (Really, Mary, would you like it, if defending your dissertation, someone declared that you are a “shame excuse for a woman.”)

Coulter does not try to be an academic, but quite frankly, most visiting speakers at most schools are not there to seriously comment on some academic discourse.

Larry, at 3:02 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Isn’t it interesting that when a college “dis-invites” a liberal, it’s showing courage, but when it dis-invites a conservative it’s attacking free speech.

Gus, at 3:03 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Finally!

I am glad to see that Christians are finally waking up to the fact that the people who claim to be the “Moral Majority” are just paying lip service to them. That there is NOTHING Christian about this administration! Christian in name only, and do not practice the teachings of Christ.They are more concerned with Leviticus and his ‘Abominations’ than they are with spreading the word and teachings of Christ.

Arliss, Dr. at Retired, at 3:04 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Harding College

Mattera is write. Harding lacks testicular fortitude, intestinal fortitude,and every other kind of fortitude. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you. So why are these guys so afraid of what Ann will say? Once again we have fools who think they are promoting freedom by censoring free speech.

George, at 3:05 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

I would not invite Ann C to speak at any college function where intelligent discourse was expected. But, once she’s invited, she should not be dis-invited because of political pressure, be it from the left or the right.

Mike, at 3:05 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

The very first one

To the self-styled “Christians” who are happy at the disinvitation of Ann Coulter, I ask a simple question: who was history’s first leftist? He remains the master of your political and moral views to this day. He whispers in your ears, and he gains ground by the day. But he is going to be ash one day, and those who support his views are helping him take as many with him as he can.

Jim G, at 3:10 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Soooo...

Say, Andrew, if Coulter has said some things that Harding found distasteful, why did they invite her in the first place? Are you really going to try and say they didn’t know anything about her writings?

Sorry, that doesn’t add up. They cowed to pressure from those who don’t like to be disagreed with. Period.

Emily Elizabeth, at 3:33 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Does anyone seriously think she’s advocating murder? Anyone (I know public schools are failing a little) ever heard of a hyperbole? If you’ve only read her sentences once, you probably didn’t get it. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of peace, even though she associates with white supremists, anit-semites, and renown anarchists.

Gee, everytime I life my head up, all I’m seeing is grass and my feet are walking on clouds. Is it even possible to turn this country right-side up?

Kelly, Think a Little About What She Really Means, at 4:17 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

My compliments to Mr. Cope & Mr. Kendall-Ball

Mr. Cope and Mr. Kendall-Ball made a clear point that some of us — and I will at times include myself in this category — too often forget these days.

It’s not the message we find offensive; instead, it’s the method(s) used to deliver the message and the fact that those methods too often counter basic civility, decorum, and respect for others and for living the type of life we have chosen.

Neither Mr. Cope nor Mr. Kendall-Ball expressed opposition to Ms. Coulter’s positions on various issues. That was not their point.

Instead, Mr. Cope and Mr. Kendall-Ball exhibited concern about the ways in which Ms. Coulter presents those positions. Both individuals remarked, and I respectfully submit that they were correct in so doing, that Ms. Coulter employs demonization, fear, scare tactics, ostracization, and decidedly offensive tactics to present her points on various issues.

We could easily say that others who oppose Ms. Coulter used some of the same tactics, and that there are no friends in love and war. We could develop reasons for Ms. Coulter’s methods and behavior. Perhaps this would be the human thing to do.

But isn’t there somebody calling the shots elsewhere who’s been in the human being business a bit longer than any of us, includig Ms. Coulter? And hasn’t this somebody seen these kinds of tricks before, both in this country and elsewhere?

Doesn’t this somebody ask us to aspire to live life on a higher level, to rise above our petty fears and jealousies and aspire to be more for ourselves and, more importantly, for our fellow members of the human race?

Living like that, while hard, seems to be nothing more than walking the veritable walk we’ve been asked to take, not merely saying all the words and just standing still.

Hey, that’s only my opinion, and the one thing I’ve learned over the years is that my concepts and views about life as valid or invalid as the next person’s.

So I leave it up to you.

My thanks to Mr. Cope and Mr. Kendall-Bell for starting a truly interesting discussion. May we listen to each other a little more throughout this process and perhaps work less to make ourselves right while making others wrong. Again, wouldn’t that be walking that walk?

Mark, at 5:02 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

The reaction of the Left to Ms. Coulter’s material is proof that it is, for the most part, true. If it weren’t true, they wouldn’t feel so threatened. The school, of course, bowed to pressure from a vocal minority, which threatens the intellectual freedom of us all.

Robert, at 5:03 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Coulter and others

I wonder when those who characterize Coulter as abrasive, extremist and unenlightened will also disinvite Zinn et al from their campuses. I don’t think the support of many of these posting participats has as much to do with any belief in Christian values nor moderation, so much as a disagreement with her beliefs and a vain hope the the right will reduce itself to moderates who are willing to co-opt the far left.

If the school has acted for the reason it said it did, then this is merely a case of poor organization: Coulter’s opinions have been widely available for quite a while and they should suprise no one who is about to pay for a speaking event.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 6:40 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

Im PURVIS ro Reason

According to Andrew Purvis: This is not a free speech issue. Speakers in such series are invited and paid. Coulter, in be “disinvited,” is losing no constitutionally guaranteed opportunity for free speech, just a cushy speaking engagement.

Sorry, Andrew but that is a bit of specious reasoning. She was dis-invited because of what she might say. Once the University learned that her speech might upset a handful of people they backed down.

In academe one is free to say what she wants as long as everyone agrees. If your values are not my values, you may not express your values.

wyck, at 6:41 pm EDT on September 1, 2005

NINA

Thanks for the comment about “rightwingers", it’s clear you have no bias at all. Her background is well noted by anyone who read her. A graduate of Cornell, the law degree, I won’t rehash her bio just because you’re too lazy to read any other comments on her besides a nut liberal writer. Have you even read her, or have you only read those who wish to discredit her? She’s the only author I’ve ever read who backs up everything she says (just like a lawyer) with footnotes that go to specific articles or history books.

And for those of you unaware of who she is don’t think for a second that this means you are informed and this is the first time her name has been made public. She four published New York Times Bestsellers (even though she’s a constant critic of the newpaper and can never get their support), has appeared several times on TV (again I’d name them, but if you’re too lazy...) and speaks throughout colleges nationwide as one of the few conservative political satarists of our time.

I know your party is represented by a jackass and all, but now’s the time to be a good sport. You lost the election and a majority control over the government. Move on and act like grown ups. The world does not revolve around you.

I went to a very conservative college, at least they claimed to be conservative. Instead, I had to suffer through some of the worst liberal dribble in my life literally dripping with arrogance and patronizing. There’s this psychological term, bear with me now, called “projection". Just because you were spoon fed your political belief, doesn’t mean republicans were. Quit bashing someone you know nothing about. Come back with more than quotes taken out of tone and context and bring something contrete or nothing at all.

Kelly, at least read the work you critisize, at 4:36 am EDT on September 2, 2005

Coulter

A Christian organization makes a value judgement based on their publicly stated principles. Christian values were in play, as put forth by Christ (Get it? Christ? Christ-ian?). Is it of interest to anyone else that this rankles SOME on the reich (sorry) — right wing? I hope so.

And, is it of interest to anyone else that so many of the right wing comments here are so seemingly full of light and even-handed wisdom and tolerance? Well, it should be.

Is that even-handed wisdom and tolerance what sustains you people while you worship such even-handed, wise, Christian leaders as Coulter, Robertson, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Riley, et al? It must be.

Such shining lights — people you really want to trust with your kids. Coulter (skank image/snark mouth), Robertson (kill ‘em all), Limbaugh (the list is too long, but federal drug offender will do — lock ‘em up...), Hannity (what can you say about someone who calls a right-wing church the liberal left? Fraud will do), O’Riley (O’Really! Dildos galore — and even though he wants to talk about it, we don’t really need to know where they have been), et al (I could go on for a long time).

And aren’t we so thankful that they are so tolerant of other (sorry) — ...Wait a minute! I think I am starting to understand... What tolerance they have for themselves!

M E Mulhollan, at 4:38 am EDT on September 2, 2005

Nina, I am amazed at you, who critizes Ann Coulter, without thoroughly investigating her background. You simply asked for someone to provide it to you. (On that same note, did you actually read “Slander” or just the article — someone else’s opinion?) I admit, finding info on Ann Coulter is pretty tricky. It’s at www.anncoulter.com. Here is a little background on the lovely lady: ***Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. ***

Your turn! Please tell us about your “educational achievments” and “high intellectual level” or the anguish of waiting for that Assistant Manager position to open up at Starbucks. Whichever the case may be, you would be hard-pressed to rival Ms. Coulter’s career achievements.

Jen, at 4:39 am EDT on September 2, 2005

I wonder how — had they have lived in Jesus’ time — all the Christian alumni who originally complained would have felt about Jesus violently overturning the money changer’s tables at the temple and calling them “vipers". I wonder how they would have felt at his scathing rhetoric about the ruling religious leaders of th day. Would they have called his speech and actions “anti-Christian"? Would their “backbone-challenged” university administration have dis-invited Jesus’ to speak at their university because those few who do not believe in free speech did not want to be “offended"?

Joe Aguilar, at 5:01 am EDT on September 2, 2005

Yikes.

I’m vaguely appalled (though not surprised) at how pooly many of these Coulter seem to understand spelling and grammar.

YIKES. No wonder they love the extremely untalented Coulter!

Ferdie

Ferdie, at 7:15 am EDT on September 2, 2005

Ms Coulter

Such a fuss over a very funny and talented woman! It’s always money that makes these decisions!!!! The money-backers of the U. call the shots !!!!! NOT Ann Coulter!

The hate being spewed by the left these days is growing exponentially— and it will come back to bite you, I’m afraid—that kind of hate screws up your insides and makes you sick—-

Donna Loomis, retired teacher, at 9:00 am EDT on September 2, 2005

PC Police? At Harding?

From what I hear, the faculty at Harding has worked for many years to get the university to invite speakers from ALL SIDES of the fence to speak to their students. These requests have been ignored because of the university’s conservative worldview. The most “liberal” speaker on their 2005-06 speaker’s list is Zell Miller.

Liberals OR conservatives seeking a balanced dialogue won’t find one at Harding. Many of you can’t get past the fact that Coulter was “disinvited” for reasons other than her conservativism or pressure from alumni, students, or faculty. Harding has never feared the PCpolice. I don’t think they’ve ever heard of them.

Bobby, at 12:32 pm EDT on September 2, 2005

Ann

Keep talkin’, Folks. Ann loves all the attention. Positive, negative, it doesn’t matter. If she’s got you all stirred up, she’s done her job. And she loves it.

Allison, at 1:31 pm EDT on September 2, 2005

What Happened to Tolerance?

I always find it amusing that the folks who advocate so strongly for “tolerance” are so intolerant themselves when it comes to providing people a choice to listen and consider other points of view. No one if forcing anyone to hear Ann Coulter — she was simply invited to talk at an event. What are people afraid of?

I agree — testicular fortitude is not on display here. Dialogue is a good thing. Intolerance, in any flavor, is not.

Ken, at 7:48 pm EDT on September 2, 2005

Un-Christian

I wonder how Gorbechov got on campus – after all, he’s an atheist. This terminology of Unchristian is as interpretive as it is vague – whose version of Christianity? Who will be the arbiter of this?

I wonder if these same people would be cheering if any school dis-invited a “controversial” liberal speaker. This is exceedingly hypocritical. Coulter is far right, but is a moderate compared to the leftists like Chompski and Ward Churchill. Yet they not only are employed in universities, but have many speaking engagement and are highly respected. When Churchill was dis-invited, people screamed of suppression of speech.

It seems that these speech-code advocates need to establish a consistent ethic of what they believe should and should not be allowed on campus. If immoderation is out, incidentally, we will need to establish a better way of determining who is immoderate. Likewise with controversial behavior. If a speaker is controversial, maybe we should take a good hard look at university theater productions. If anything is to go, that should apply to both the right and the left and the moderates and the non-affiliated.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 5:06 am EDT on September 3, 2005

Pure craziness

As a graduate of a Christian college near Harding in SW Missouri, I am disgusted by the behavior of Harding. Ann Coulter is no doubt provokative and some of her views may be considered “out of the mainstream.” But this is just such a crock that Harding can consider her “unchristian.” I think of people in the public eye Ann Coulter has a history of standing up bravely in defense of Christianity and Christian values. Ms. Coulter’s books and weekly columns are challenging and thought-provoking. She gives opinions and challenges lies that we have all been forced to believe by the PC crowd our entire lives. Unforetunately, Harding has succumbed in the same way that many liberal campuses have. I am sickened.

Nathan Wright, at 8:41 am EDT on September 3, 2005

Ann Coulter is an entertainer—just like Rosanne Barr is an entertainer. Coulter may carry a relevant education (but then, so do I and no one has extended an invitation to speek at a College) but that does not put her in the same league of other notable conservatives (Margaret Thatcher as an example). The issue with Coulter is that she has opted to use histrionics and outlandish behavior to sell herself and her books, and in doing so she has made it impossible for even extra chromosonial conservatives to take her seriously. Coulter is at best, a guilty pleasure for conservatives. There is not a whole lot of difference between Barr’s antics—scratiching her crotch and croaking out the national anthem—to Coulter’s own theatrics.

s shaw, at 1:20 pm EDT on September 3, 2005

I Just Have To Add

The Ann Coulter Cult is silly. Turn off your TV’s and think for yourself. Yikes!

Diana Princeton, Student at UMD, at 6:22 am EDT on September 4, 2005

Ann Coulter

Courage Ann. Courage.

Bill O’Brien, Citizen at Military, at 11:29 am EDT on September 4, 2005

Censorship !!!!

John McCommas, at 3:13 pm EDT on September 4, 2005

On the subject of Harding

I am a graduate of Abilene Christian University, in Ablene, Texas. For those of you who are not from Harding or ACU, here is some perspective. The big picture is that these Lectureship events are not political battlegrounds, or free-speech events; they are primarily meant to publicize materials that support the viewpoints of the majority of the Church of Christ community—viewpoints which I do not share, but respect. The point here is not in censoring Ann Coulter, nor in bowing to a liberal influence (a laughable minority at any Church of Christ institution—though we had two “openly” liberal professors at ACU), nor in dictating what is Christian. The point here is that Harding has merely demonstrated respect for its active alumni, and the teachings of its individual community.

Lynette Hassan, at 10:31 pm EDT on September 4, 2005

Where have I heard this before

Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter! Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you’ve gone and done it! You’ve taken the proverbial baseball bat and smacked the nest of some angry w.a.s.p.’s! Have we not learned anything in over 2000 years? That is, it can get you killed if you shake up the religious heirarchy of the church by being, should we say, free-thinking and, ahem, somewhat controversial.

Take those stiff white collars off of your necks and breathe a little Reverends and future Reverends! If Ann took herself as seriously as you do, she would be the nutcase you ascribe her to be! Have you laughed at a joke at all this year?

Tom Heinrich, at 11:17 am EDT on September 5, 2005

Typical. Whenever Ann Coulter plans a college speech the brave academics agitate for cancellation through proxy (their students) or jeer and shout when the speech occurs since they are unable to put together a coherent thought during the question and answer period. These are the same people passing around petitions in support of Ward (fake Indian) Churchill’s right to free speech and fabrications.

paleocon, at 10:54 am EDT on September 6, 2005

One Voice Against Many

My perspective is somewhat skewed, as a conservative who attended a very liberal college (many years ago).

At the end of the day, Harding should be neither praised or villified. They made a decision, and people should truly focus on bigger issues. Freedom of speech is a right given not by God, but by a piece of paper, written by men.

It’s interesting to see people complain about Ms. Coulter’s “style” of delivery, or the “way” she puts her message across. Given the din created by an always left-leaning media, you sometimes have to shout to be heard. So she is “shocking and bombastic.” So what?

If anything, the actions of the school have served to once again elevate the debate and discussion surrounding conservative (and some liberal) pundits. Not a bad day’s work.

AlanM, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 6, 2005

I love Ann Coulter, but in all fairness to Harding University, Jose Maria Aznar (the former Prime Minister, not President, of Spain) is probably a more prominent choice. Although Miss Coulter is very well-known in America, Aznar, as the most recent Conservative Prime Minister of Spain, and one of President Bush’s staunchest European allies, is far more well-known on an international scale. And unlike Coulter, he’s exercised positions of power, and like her, he has strong conservative credentials. Any conservative institution would be proud to have such a notable figure as Aznar address its students. Particularly if it’s such a minor institution as Harding University.

Trevar Kolodny, Cambridge, UK, at 3:59 am EDT on September 7, 2005

Pushing Against the Age

This is just rich. People who on any other given day would be vilifying Christians are now praising them simply because they “dis-invited” Coulter. I guess that old adage “the enemy of my enemy” still holds true. Ironically, the poor fools at Harding University have yet to realize that they have made an enemy of one of conservative Christianity’s most loyal (and, yes, vituperative and enthusiastically vitriolic) defenders. Ann Coulter’s language is purposefully provocative. So was Jonathan Swift’s when he wrote “A Modest Proposal". It’s truly sad that some people can’t appreciate her inflammatory sense of humor for what it is. I wonder how many of her critics have actually taken the time to read her books. I’ve read them all and find her writing positively Mencken-esque (ooh, there’s another inflammatory writer for you!).

Flannery O’Connor once wrote, “You must push as hard against the age as the age pushes against you.” Ann is just “pushing hard.” Too bad Harding U isn’t.

Rebecca, at 2:46 pm EDT on September 7, 2005

Ann

Ann Coulter is one of the only writers I have ever seen back up all of her claims-cited with a footnote which references an aritcle/book,etc. She has 47 pages of references in “Slander” in which she describes all of the articles, with titles and dates!!!! When she makes a claim, regardless of delivery, it’s rarely if ever just some random blathering. She is poignant, precise and witty. I find it interesting that she scares academia so much...if the people in academia are “allegedly” so smart, they should be able to debate her—and they cannot because they know what she is saying is accurate. So instead of admitting ignorance and/or guilt, they decide to bash her without backing up their claims as to why. Liberals are a bunch of elitist bullies who think that you will discredit someone like Ms. Coulter by calling her names and think everyone will believe you. Well guess what...the internet is worst thing that ever happened to you all, and a good majority of the posts are proving that you are afraid of the truth.

Kbear, at 8:15 pm EDT on September 7, 2005

Good News, ryrie

According to my Religious Applications of Media class, The CoC is a non-denominational church. As to your comments about the curriculum, I’ve found in my department that ALL of my classes are taught from a christian view point. This may not be will all departments, but each one of my classes has been taught with specific care to cover morals, ethics, and the christian way to do business.

As for Ann Coulter, I do regret her name being taken from our list of speakers. Not necessarily because I agree with her, but because of the controversy behind her. It would be nice to see Harding take a chance every once in a while. But as for their decision, I understand it. Harding is what Harding does, period. There’s no way the board would let something so detrimental to their reputations go up on our stage. Is she unchristian? I’m not one to point fingers. I think the administration was simply looking for a good christian excuse.

Harding Student, Student at Harding, at 2:42 pm EDT on September 8, 2005

I am a student at Harding.

I find it funny that some of you are bad mouthing Harding without knowing anything about the students or the faculty... Come visit the campus for a week. Look at our values. Study what we stand for and then then look at Ms. Coulter’s values and ideals. What she stands for (or what she says she stands for) is something Harding does not want to endorse. Sure the majority of those associated with Harding might agree with her about some things, there are other things that Harding cannot and will not back. We have invited people before that not everyone agrees with, so replacing Ms. Coulter was not a response to few voices wishing to cause a disturbance. The revoking of the invitation was, for lack of a better phrase, to loose ourselves from the appearance of evil. We want to make sure people know that Harding has convictions and that we are strong enough to stand behind them.

Hmm... I hope you get my point.

I am proud of my school. A top ten list is unimportant to me and to others at my school. I don’t care that some people who have never even seen the campus and have never visited with the students or faculty will take us off of a top ten list. “But my conservative school was on the top ten list, God! You HAVE to let me into Heaven!” Ha. There are more important things in life than being on a list. I am proud of my school. I thank God that I chose a school that isn’t afraid of putting her beliefs into action.

Thank you very much for reading. Have a wonderful day!

Angela, student @ Harding..., at 5:22 pm EDT on September 11, 2005

Silly Harding

As a former student of Harding I was disappointed to hear that Ann Coulter was uninvited to speak on the campus. It is a shame that a few alumni seem to have such a powerful hold over Hardings purse strings. Ann Coulter is an accomplished writer, pundit, and she is also a staunch conservative. Yes, she has made some harsh comments, but no more harsh than the ones I heard while attending school there from faculty members. Ann Coulter is not a world leader, not like the speaker that Harding had who was a former head of a communist country, but she does have her good points. More tickets would have been sold for Ann Coulter than the former President of Spain, no disrespect to him, because the students would rather have seen her. She is easier on the eyes and the students could relate to her. I have spoken with several of my friends that attended Harding and they are just as disappointed about this as I am. Harding U, don’t call me for any support again. I am turning my back on you, not God. Mike Cope, if you read this ask yourself this question, Have I ever said anything un-christian? What do you think of Pat Robertson, could he speak at Harding?

Chad, at 4:38 am EDT on September 16, 2005

A Conservative? Qualified?

All of this chatter and the reality is utterly blatant. Ms. Coulter is no more than a female Howard Stern. She screams, she rants, she raves, she lies, she distorts, she ridicules and insults, and then she rushes behind her bleached hair and gets cute and pretends she never said what she said, or that you heard wrong, or she changes the subject. She adds nothing to the issue of discussion.

She’s not a Conservative. She only wants to conserve her $50,000 speaking fees. She’s entertainment. She’s in the same league as “National Enquirer.” Anyone who takes her seriously should take some time and ask themselves why they admire someone who is so cruel, so careless with the truth, and so totally irrelevant. She’s the Jerry Springer of an endless parade of loud, irrelevant, self-serving, rather silly people.

Ms. Coulter attacks Bill Clinton constantly, but she should get down on her skinny knees and thank God that he is around. He put her on the map. Without Bill, Ann would be chasing ambulances and doing title work.

I’d rather discuss something substantial and important. This woman is a waste of time and a distraction. The real issue is, why would Harding invite someone of this low level of credibility in the first place?

Matt, at 6:17 pm EDT on September 16, 2005

Ann Coulter

Again, a small minority, as stated in the article, takes over and dictates policy. Would this so called christian school rather invite Bill Clinton, who can’t keep his zipper closed in the oval office, address the college as he did at Eastern Michigan University several years ago much to the displeasure of many students and parents who supply the money. The more I see and hear about the views of some people who are members of the Church of Christ, it makes me wonder exactly what you teach your flocks. It certainly isn’t biblical conservatism. Robin

Robin Clifford, conservative christian, at 2:55 pm EDT on October 23, 2005

money

It all boils down to money. Ann Coulter speaks, alumni don’t give money. It has nothing to do with her politics, or her speech, or her behavior. It’s all about not being able to raise money if she was allowed to speak.

Jonathan, at 7:56 am EST on December 15, 2005

Give it a rest.

This is to everyone who has posted here, on either side of the issue. To the pro-Coulterites: yes, Harding has the right to cancel her invite. To the anti-Coulterites: yes, it was because of the alumni. What this boils down to is that a lot of the alumni (the people who give the school money) did not want Coulter to speak. Harding, like any buisness (and yes, they’re a buisness), did what they were told by the ones who pay the bills. End of story, case closed. No one was right, no one was wrong. I do not agree with it, but Harding did what they deemed best for their self-interest. Understandable.

However, to those who decided to use this site to bash Coulter, wake up. I, personally, have read two of her books-"How to Talk to a Liberal” and “Treason"-and anyone who has bothered to even crack the spine on one of them would know that she never “makes stuff up.” In “Treason” alone, almost a quarter of the pages are dedicated to her bibliography (called “notes” at the top). You can see for yourself that she reasearches EVERYTHING before she says ANYTHING. Has she made some wild comments? Absolutely. However, other than her many uses of hyperbole, sarcasm, humor, and exaggeration, she has never condoned murdering people, no matter how much she loathes them. This isn’t the case with others, however. At one speech she gave at a college campus, two students rushed the stage and threw (from three feet away) pies at her. They missed. Unfortunately, this is the only way most liberals can argue with her.

In actuality, so foolproof and factual are many of her arguments that the only way media can make her look like a fool is to “edit” them. By edit, I mean cut, paste, rearrange, and ad-lib. These are often identifiable by the “...” splattered throughout her “quotes” found in the New York Times and other “news” agencies. In one, for example, the editor took two quotes-used at least months from each other-and combined them into one. These quotes were about two completely different topics at completely different times. The first part, chronologically, was “My track record is pretty good on predictions.” The second was “I don’t think Hillary [Clinton] will run for Senator.” Put together, these make a fallible, and incorrect, argument. Placed how they were meant to be-in order and with the rest of each quote (the parts that were “edited” out)-and they are good arguments.

Look past the “editing” to the original quotes on ANY person to get the truth.

To those of you who seem so inclined, spelling does not make an argument any more than joining the National Guard makes you a four-star general. If insulting a person’s spelling is the best you can do, I welcome it-I’m sure I made a few mistakes myself. Have at it and enjoy.

Ryan, at 4:35 am EST on March 2, 2006

Thorough?

“Nina,I am amazed at you, who critizes Ann Coulter, without thoroughly investigating her background...It’s at www.anncoulter.com.”

This poster first admonishes someone for not being thorough in her investigation of Ann Coulter’s background. Yet, the person then goes on to practically copy and paste the information given on Anne Coulter’s biography from her website.

Now, is THAT an example of a “thorough” investigation of someone’s background?

Ken, at 1:25 pm EDT on September 17, 2006