American universities ought to be bastions of free expression, but as we too often find out, many have become inhospitable toward those with unpopular ideas. From college-imposed “free speech zones” to acts of force by activists and students to shut down speaking events, the free exchange of ideas is increasingly restricted and suppressed.

In the past week, state lawmakers across the country have introduced similar legislation to push back against this trend and protect free expression on college campuses. California Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Murrieta, was among those who introduced the Campus Free Speech Act as a constitutional amendment.

Among others things, it seeks to nullify restrictive speech codes, prevent college administrators from disinviting controversial speakers, and set disciplinary sanctions for students who interfere with others’ free speech.

“Liberty cannot live without the freedom to speak and nowhere is that more important than on college campuses where we educate the leaders of tomorrow,” Melendez said in announcing the introduction of the bill, which is based on model legislation drafted by the Goldwater Institute. “The institutional silencing of individuals because of differing political ideology threatens the very foundation upon which our country was built.”

As shown by recent events at the University of California, Berkeley, involving Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, and the shutting down of a talk by conservative commentator Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College, free speech is apparently seen by many ideologically motivated students as a problem.

This trend benefits and protects not the majority of students, but empowers and reflects the worldview of a minority of activists who see it as their obligation to control and dominate the exchange of ideas. This should not be tolerated, especially on campuses that receive public dollars.

The stifling of free speech through force, threats or bureaucratic obstacles not only directly impairs the free expression of individuals but undermines the ability of Americans to civilly engage with ideas different from their own.

Melendez’s introduction of the Campus Free Speech Act should inspire discussion of cultural and policy changes needed on college campuses.

It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 — the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution.

It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.”

It was implausible that Trump, notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks.

It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately — so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.

These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?

Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you’re doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you’re doing everything wrong.

Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices.

Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action — disclosure or silence — carried electoral consequences.

Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton.

A series of these, and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.

And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from election day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick a new director. No fanfare, no rancor.

True, this became more difficult after March 20, when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible.

For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.

Instead we got a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards?) A blindsided Comey ends up in an O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.

Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade.

Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.

So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post.

FLOWER POWER: For the entire month of May, Proenza Schouler’s boutique at 121 Greene Street in New York is decorating its windows with displays from Emily Thompson Flowers. The windows have ever-changing arrangements, and on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, Proenza Schouler will sell small and large bouquets to customers. A petite hand-tied bouquet is $45, a large hand-tied boutique is $75 and a grand hand-tied bouquet is priced upon request.
Each week, Thompson and her team frame a piece of the Proenza Schouler collection with foliage and flowers. Emphasizing textures, contrasts and lines, the living designs reflect the aesthetic nature of both Proenza Schouler and Emily Thompson Flowers. The first installment, which was on display this week, illustrated an undersea/outer space adventure. A new window display goes in Friday, but  Thompson wasn’t revealing details, except to say it will be  “particularly luxurious” in honor of Mother’s Day.

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

Stella McCartney is bullish on the retail front, opening four new stores in major markets in the next two months, while introducing a new design concept.
McCartney’s second Paris location opened earlier this week with a two-floor space at 231 Rue Saint Honoré in the 1st arrondissement. She first opened in Paris in 2009 at Galerie Valois of the Palais-Royal gardens. By July, there will be additional stores in Florence on Via Dei Tosinghi, South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, Calif., and a second store in New York at 929 Madison Avenue, bringing the brand’s store network up to 51 freestanding boutiques. McCartney’s original New York store is on Greene Street in SoHo.
“Some of these cities are so personal to me,” said McCartney. “It’s a dream to have a store on Madison Avenue. You know, I’m half-New Yorker and uptown is kind of the part of the city that I understand from a family point of view, so to finally arrive there is absolutely a dream come true. It feels like such an achievement for us, I’m so proud of all of us that we have that store. And it feels right for us to be there. We looked for a long

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

The first time Maria Grazia Chiuri came to California she was 22 years old — on a road trip with her husband just after they were married. They drove to San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Grand Canyon. “Many, many kilometers together,” she said at the Andaz Hotel in West Hollywood during an interview ahead of her 2018 Dior cruise show Thursday night in Los Angeles. “The USA is an amazing country if you go around in car, and not only arrive in New York or L.A. or the city. If you have time in the car, it’s unbelievable.”
To see the full run of show, click here.
The local landscape — ocean, desert, mountains — was what Chiuri wanted to highlight when she chose the Santa Monica Mountains at the Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve in Calabasas, Calif. — for her first big destination event and experience.
Dior is not the first luxury brand to touch down in L.A. for a show, with Hollywood glamour, celebrity and the red carpet as the default reference, but Chiuri wanted to draw out a different side of the city. “I think the natural element is very strong,” she said. “I think people choose to live here because

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

A number of brand signatories of the Accord for Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh are negotiating with global union federation signatories about a possible extension and potential broadening of the group’s scope.

Superdry brand owner SuperGroup has offered an optimistic outlook for the new fiscal year and booked a jump in full-year sales thanks to currency fluctuations.

Mexico has emphasised the country’s “critical importance” to the US economy as it pitched to President Donald Trump this week to uphold the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) pact.

German sportswear group Adidas has entered into a deal to sell its TaylorMade, Adams Golf, and Ashworth golf brands in a deal valued at US$425m.