France’s supreme administrative court, the Council of State, has struck down the new wave of local ordinances that sought to ban the “burkini,” the wetsuit outfit worn by some Muslim women to go to the beach. 

The court’s decision today is a preliminary stay, pending the writing of its final opinion. But the court doesn’t leave any suspense of what that final ruling will say, given that the stay already declares that the ban “seriously, and clearly illegally, breached the fundamental freedoms to come and go, the freedom of beliefs and individual freedom.” 

The big wall that this ban hit was the practical question of enforcing it. Look no further than the image of armed police forcing a woman to remove her outer clothing in public, which went viral around the world. It was a bizarre reversal of the sort of photos you might see from a century ago, in which a woman would be arrested for indecent exposure.

The prohibition was also criticized for being a double standard. For example, Catholic nuns wearing their habits at a beach would not be targeted in the same way as Muslim women. This made it clear that, as far as the ban was meant to protect “the values of France,” as stated by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, it had less to do with France’s ultra-secular principle of  laïcité, than with stigmatizing a minority community and tapping into growing right-wing sentiment in the country. 

In other words, if your efforts to protect women from oppression, and to bring them into mainstream society, involve armed police forcing a woman to take her clothes off at the beach—then you’re doing it wrong.

Less than 24 hours ago, she went on a tweetstorm berating Donald Trump for softening his immigration policy, which included him hinting at amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Coulter tweeted, “It’s ‘comprehensive immigration reform’!!!!” As Jeet Heer pointed out, her criticism was a sharp 180 from someone who had just (and I mean just) released a book titled In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!

But in another, even more surprising 180 (albeit one that doesn’t quite add up to 360), Coulter herself tempered her immigration rhetoric. Today, she told the Washington Examiner, “Perhaps it is in our interest to let some of them stay.”

Her interview with Bloomberg Businessweek’s Joshua Green sheds some light on why she stepped into Trump’s line so quickly—apparently, she thinks of him as her own Kim Jong-un:

As part of the rollout for Clinton’s speech today on Trump and the alt-right, the campaign has posted a video that truly takes the gloves off—and puts the sheet on.

The video begins bluntly, with a clip of a Klansman supporting The Donald: “The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in. ... Donald Trump would be best for the job.”

The video also throws in clips of a white nationalist robocall for Trump from this past January, as well as remarks by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and the infamous David Duke. We see Trump himself punting a question about Duke’s support: “I don’t know anything about white supremacists, so I don’t know.” Then there’s the coup de grace, the hiring of Steve Bannon from Breitbart.

“If Trump wins, they could be running the country.” It’s a message that works for the entire spectrum of Clinton’s support: minority voters, as well as the great many white people who don’t want to be morally associated with such people.

Jay Ellison, dean of students, has sent a letter to the incoming class of 2020 outlining the school’s policy on academic freedom:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Ellison’s letter is a perverse document. It’s very much like the French Burkini ban: an illiberal policy justified in the name of liberal values. As CUNY historian Angus Johnston notes, “There’s no college in the country where profs are required to give trigger warnings. They’re all voluntary pedagogical choices. Which means a professor’s use of trigger warnings isn’t a threat to academic freedom. It’s a MANIFESTATION of academic freedom.”

Johnston is exactly on-point. Prior to Ellison’s letter, University of Chicago professors had the right to use trigger warnings or not use them. Now, if a professor decides to use them, he or she will face administrative opposition. Academic freedom means that professors get to design their syllabus, not administrators like Ellison. His letter is a prime example of how the outcry against “political correctness” often leads to policy changes that limit free speech.

Update: Responding to queries from the group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) about the issues raised in this article, the University of Chicago stated that this letter was not meant to be a ban on trigger warnings. However, the issue of a ban (which wasn’t raised in the article) doesn’t get at the problem: the University administration is clearly making a stance on a pedagogical decision that has traditionally been left up to professors. That in itself constitutes a chilling effect and breach of academic freedom.

Changing positions is a subtle political art. Most politicians never master it. Some pivot gracefully. Donald Trump goes on to Sean Hannity’s show and polls the audience, Should I flip flop, yes or no? 

The answer was yes, and not vis-a-vis some trivial issue, but on the issue that defines his campaign, the one he used to hack the Republican primary: immigration reform. 

Trump is now embracing the idea of letting law-abiding, undocumented immigrants who’ve been in the U.S. for many years live out the rest of their lives here legally. An amnesty, in other words. Just like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. 

Not to get too technical here, but by the standards of his own core supporters in the white nationalist “alt right,” this makes Trump a cuck. Just like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

As it happens, Hillary Clinton is giving a speech today denouncing the alt-right as a cradle of racism and weird frog memes. Trump’s change of heart on immigration creates an opportunity for her to sow division among its ranks as well, by persuading them that Trump is a cuck.  

Following his major turnaround on mass deportations and a new embrace of an amnesty process, his reliably comical spokeswoman Katrina Pierson went on CNN this morning to try to convince people that there was really no change at all—and it wasn’t exactly successful.

“He hasn’t changed his position on immigration,” Pierson said. “He’s changed the words that he is saying.”

CNN host Erica Hill, along with the panelists, burst into laughter.

Pierson continued: “What he has always said from the beginning is that he does not want to allow people to stay in this country illegally. He does want to build a wall. But he wants to work with Congress to get things done. And that’s exactly what he has said from the beginning.”

Hill responded, “Katrina, he has said, ‘Get them out.’ He’s been very clear about his position. This is a change; this is a shift; this is a flip-flop; it’s an evolution, whatever word you want to use.”

Trump has put himself in an impossible trap. Unless he pivots away, he can’t make gains with non-white voters and white voters who don’t want to be associated with his racism. But if he does pivot away, he alienates his far-right base, such as the now-devastated Ann Coulter.

And even if he does pivot away, it can’t possibly work—because we all know what his positions have been for well over a year! The vast trail of TV interviews and campaign rally videos is not simply going to disappear.

Fifty-two years of bloodshed and terror. Four years of plodding, back-and-forth negotiations. Colombians have been waiting a long time for the armed conflict between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to come to an end. But even after the announcement of a historic peace accord last night, they’ll still have to wait a little bit longer.

Before the terms of the deal—which include sub-agreements on such issues as the eradication of coca, agrarian reform, demobilization and disarmament, transitional justice, and political participation for reintegrated rebels—can be implemented, each party needs to seek approval from their respective constituencies.

On the rebel side, that’s considered little more than a formality. The FARC could not have survived this many decades dispersed across the Colombian jungle were it not for the discipline of its troops, and commanders have been briefing mid-level officers throughout the peace process. Dissent and even subordination are expected on some scale, but for the most part, the guerrillas seem ready to lay down their weapons.

But the outlook for civil society’s ratification is not nearly so certain. President Juan Manuel Santos explained Wednesday that, while he will submit the peace agreement before Congress later today, approval will depend on the outcome of a previously promised plebiscite set to be held October 2. Despite a broad coalition of support, the peace process has never been as popular in Colombia as it is among the international community. The rebels have done much to engender distrust, and former President Alvaro Uribe has been leading a furious propaganda campaign against the talks since the parties first sat down in Havana in 2012.

President Santos—who fielded congratulatory calls from President Obama, among others, last night—has staked his legacy on peace. But that’s not necessarily reassuring, given that his approval rating has been flirting with the single digits for months now. The plebiscite was his idea to begin with, back when it seemed like a clever way of easing pressure on the peace talks. But it’s not hard to imagine it becoming a broader referendum on his leadership. Recent polls suggest the afterglow from Wednesday’s announcement will be enough to carry an up-down vote. But other polls have come back showing the “no’s” on top. As sad as it is to say, after more than a half century of war, the prospect of peace with the FARC is coming down to an ill-informed political bet.

Hillary Clinton is set to to deliver a major speech today on Donald Trump becoming the champion of the alt-right movement, which is rife with racism and misogyny. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway has a response: What’s the alt-right?

Norah O’Donnell this morning asked: “Steve Bannon, who led the Breitbart web site, is now part of the Trump campaign, and has heralded the alt-right movement. How would you describe the alt-right movement?”

“I am not that familiar with it, to be frank with you,” Conway responded. “I’ve read about it. But I think we all start cherrypicking headlines from a web site. And is Hillary Clinton running against a web site?”

Anthony Mason asked: “Would you say the Trump campaign has a platform for the alt-right movement?”

“No, not at all. We’ve never even discussed it internally. It certainly isn’t a part of our strategy meetings. It’s nothing that Mr. Trump says out on the stump.”

Considering that the Trump campaign and Breitbart are now essentially a single organization, and that Trump has a penchant for retweeting alt-right memes, a lot of people might find this hard to believe. But in some ways, it really does go right back to the original Know-Nothing movement of the mid-1800s—so named because its members were supposed to say, “I know nothing,” about its secretive meetings.

Trump has had no bigger media boaster, not even the lick-spittling Sean Hannity, than Coulter. Over the last year, Coulter has lent her considerable polemical power to the cause of defending Trump from Republican doubters. She even has a new book out titled In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! In this tome, she says, “There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.” So what does Trump do? Change his immigration policies, dropping hints that he’ll accept the very type of amnesty that he once denounced when it was advocated by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

What’s an author to do when the hero she champions in her book betrays her on the very eve of publication? Especially when your book launch is, by all appearances, a sad affair?

After the launch, Coulter went on a Twitter tirade:

But Coulter is a quick, enterprising writer. Maybe before the election is over she can churn out a sequel: In Trump We Distrust: E Pluribus Awful!