Kerby Anderson
Periodically I must remind my listeners that you should pay less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do. Climate change activists encourage us to lower our carbon footprint while flying to conferences in private jets. Progressive politicians warn that global warming will raise the level of oceans yet live in homes next to the shore. Liberals claim there is a rape epidemic on college campuses, but still send their daughters to the university.
The latest claim is that “coffee is racist, and drinking coffee perpetuates white supremacy.” Therefore, argues the author, “It’s time to boycott and divest.”
According to the article, “Coffee first came to North America and Europe between 1650 and 1700. But coffee was an important, almost religious, part of Black culture going as far back as the 1400s in Ethiopia. After the whites got the first sip of the Black delicacy, they brutally enslaved people of color to keep up with demand, turning a ritualistic drink into another consumer product in the colonial capitalist machine.”
I don’t know how much of that can be verified by historians, but let’s assume it’s all true. The argument is that by consuming coffee you are helping an industry built on racism. By consuming coffee, you are perpetuating white supremacy.
Now for the more important question: do you think we will see a massive boycott of coffee over the next few months? I doubt we will see a dent in the coffee business, and if there is any decline in coffee sales it will pale in comparison to the number of people who no longer buy Bud Light.
The article may claim that coffee is racist and call for a boycott. But I doubt we will see any boycott. Once again, we can see the value of paying more attention to what people do rather than what they say.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have heard of the “heckler’s veto.” This occurs when someone who disagrees with a speaker’s message triggers actions or protests to disrupt the event and get the speech cancelled. We have seen this tactic on university campuses primarily used against conservative speakers.
I thought of this tactic when I read about the controversy surrounding expensive security fees charged against Turning Point USA at a Texas university just thirty miles from my radio studio. The administration charged the conservative group $28,000 for security, without obtaining permission for the charges.
The justification for the huge charges apparently was based upon “subjectively evaluating possible actions in which protestors might engage.” It doesn’t appear that any major protest took place. But consider the precedent this might set. If the university administration thinks a particular speaker or conference might draw protestors, they would feel free to charge huge amounts for security.
The ADF has written to the campus police about their actions because the university charged “outrageous security fees for two small campuses events simply because of fear of how others might react.” And they argued that this security fee is essentially a heckler’s veto.
I suspect this might become a new tactic used by radical groups. Threaten a protest or even a riot, and the university feels the need to charge the sponsoring group so much that the group must cancel.
Over the years, I have scheduled speakers to address controversial topics like climate change, radical Islam, and gender confusion. If I was confronted with such an outrageously expensive bill, I would probably have to cancel. This might become a new tactic to silence free speech.