The UC Berkeley gag controversy-- one I've never been able to care about-- has winded to a quick close, with the Administration quickly backpeddling with all the grace it can manage. (Not much). For what seemed to me to be another unimportant Administrator/Faculty row over who had authority over fundraising efforts, this one had legs as a Free Speech issue. The University's official backing-out position is 'The Administration official who handled this was interested in more money, not pleasing Bush.'

Asked if the campus is now acknowledging a mistake, Cummins said, "There was a difference of opinion, obviously." Price "certainly didn't view it as a free-speech issue" but as "what's more appropriate in a fund-raising letter," Cummins said.

The Chron has a closing shot Editorial as well, which doesn't seem to get the facts right.

A campus official evidently feared the quotes, dating from 1915 and 1902, would be taken as a UC-endorsed attack on the Bush administration.

Was this really feared as pissing off the Bush administration? All indications are that VC Price was more afraid of pissing off everyone who received the letter, and perhaps attracting some negative press attention. He feared entering politics in general, not Bush in particular. This isn't some minor distinction. Fearing the wrath of Bush would imply that UC has become a servile, cringing beast of the Beast. Fearing using politics in ad copy is merely administrative heavy-handedness.Email This Post!