Marquette Warrior

Monday, December 30, 2019

Another Bum Present

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Marquette Law Professors Signed Letter Supporting Trump Impeachment

A total of three Marquette Law School Professors are among the (as of this writing) 854 such professors who have signed a letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump.

The are:
  • Ellis Atiba
  • Murray Kali
  • Michael Waxman, Emeritus
They are, of course, absolutely within their rights to do so.

But others have an equal right to decide they have let their partisan biases override their sober legal judgment.

Interestingly missing are at least a couple of the usual suspects among left-leaning Marquette law professors: Paul Secunda and Ed Fallone.

In Fallone’s case, it may be because he’s running for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, and the latest Marquette Poll shows that only 40 percent of Wisconsinites favor impeachment and removal, while 52 percent oppose it.

Or perhaps either or both believe that the case against Trump is pretty thin, or alternatively that it’s a rather useless symbolic gesture given that the Senate will not convict.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 05, 2019

Angela Merkel. Why Does She Sound Like Hitler?

Labels: , , ,

Monday, December 02, 2019

Tucker Carlson: Media Pushed Democrats Toward Impeachment

Sunday, December 01, 2019

Leftist Marquette Prof: You’ll Be Penalized for Failing to use “Gender Neutral” Language

With some frequency, we hear stories from students about far-out leftist professors at Marquette.

So it was no surprise when, a few weeks ago, a student told us about a professor (actually, a Visiting Assistant Professor) whom our student viewed as pretty far out.

So far, dog bites man: not news.

This fellow attacked not only contemporary conservatives like Ben Shapiro, but Enlightenment figures like Adam Smith. When the student suggested that the professor read Ben Shapiro’s book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, the professor replied “What a stupid ass book. He is a fucking idiot.”

He complained about how little he is paid by Marquette, and leaving class one day advised “Oh, and also support your local unions.” But the job market in academic Philosophy is pretty difficult, especially if you don’t have a Ph.D. from a top program, which this fellow doesn’t. Indeed, one source notes that the market is:
Extremely competitive, and job prospects are often dim even for PhDs who graduate from top programmes.
So it might seem like a visiting gig at Marquette is a lot better than what a lot of PhDs have to settle for — a few adjunct courses at $4,000 or so per course.

But this particular professor is quite tolerant of students who disagree with him in class. He even wrote the student a semi-apology for the comment about Ben Shapiro.

So far, just another average day in academia.

Too Far

But this professor went too far when he informed the student he would be penalized if he did not use “gender neutral” language.  In a message to the student, he claimed that “Use gender inclusive language: humanity is not ‘man’ nor is it a ‘he.’”

The student did not do what most students do, and supinely accept the professor’s diktat. Rather, he complained to the Provost’s office, and particularly to Prof. John Su, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

After a meeting which the student said “went really well,” Su wrote the student the following e-mail:
Hope all is well with you. I’ve had several rounds of conversation with the department chair, Dr. Kevin Gibson, and email correspondence with the instructor, Dr. James Bahoh, regarding your request to use gender-specific pronouns in formal written work without penalty.

Dr. Bahoh has indicated his willingness to accept a version of what you and I discussed:
  1. In each future assignment, after your first usage of a gender-exclusive or gender-specific pronoun, please add a footnote demonstrating that your usage is a deliberate choice (i.e., not an error).
      a. If it’s helpful, I might use something along the lines of “While I recognize that gender-inclusive language is defined as a best practice by the American Philosophical Association, I disagree with it because of my personal beliefs. My decision to use gender-exclusive language is thus not an accident but a deliberate choice to represent my authentic voice.” If that doesn’t feel right to you, please use what is most compelling to you.
  2. Dr. Bahoh also asks that the footnote follow the spirit of philosophy in asking us to articulate the reasoning for our beliefs: specifically, for you to clarify the personal belief that guides you to reject gender-inclusive language. You and I had some conversation about that during our meeting in terms of developing your authentic voice and different language choices in different eras, so that might provide you some guidance. I think this only requires 1-2 additional sentences.
I hope this is a reasonable resolution for you.

On your behalf, I pressed the department chair about writing expectations. He indicated to me that the department as a whole follows the American Philosophical Association’s best practice guidelines regarding gender-neutral language. He provided us the following URL: https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist

Please let me know if this works for you. I will forward this email to the department chair and associate dean, so that you can have confidence of a written record for this resolution.

I hope this helps you to find a satisfying conclusion to this course. And I hope you have an intellectually engaging end of the semester.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,
John

Surprise

Given Marquette’s mania for political correctness, this outcome is a bit of a surprise. Having to write a footnote is a bit of an imposition — standard English the way it was for centuries before the advent of modern political correctness should be acceptable without explanation. But the imposition is fairly modest.

But what this case probably shows is that, if a student will stand up to a leftist professor’s demands that his speech be censored, the student can prevail.

Most students are unwilling to do this. They will “go along to get along” and simply do — often grudgingly — what the professor demands.

Reasonably tolerant professors will tolerate being challenged by students, and often even welcome it, since it shows that the student is actually paying attention, and might even be engaged.

Intolerant professors need to learn that they cannot with impunity impose their own intolerance on their students. They can only learn this if at least some students push back.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Impeachment Telephone Game

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Conservative YouTuber Speaks at Marquette: Draws Protests, Protester with Knives

It’s pretty common: anytime a conservative speaker comes to a campus leftists turn out to protest. What is uncommon is that one of them brings a weapon. But it happened at Marquette. From the Marquette Wire:
A Marquette student was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed in the Wehr Chemistry lobby at approximately 7:15 p.m. Nov. 12, Marquette University Police Department assistant chief Jeff Kranz said.

. . .

MUPD arrested the student following a report from another student saying that they saw an individual wearing a mask and carrying two knives at a Young Americans for Freedom event in Wehr Chemistry, Kranz said. The event featured John Doyle, a conservative YouTuber.

“It was a bandana style face covering so it covered (the student’s) nose and mouth,” Iona McPeake, a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences who attended the event as a protestor, said.

Prior to the event, students stood outside and protested because they found some of Doyle’s tweets and YouTube videos offensive and not in line with Marquette’s values.

McPeake was a part of the group of protesters. She said the individual with the mask was not affiliated with the group protesting.
There is more information here. We can’t know if the individual actually intended any violence, but between the mask (typical of the violent thugs of Antifa) and a knife there is certainly an implied threat.

Campus leftists have a history of intolerant response to Young Americans for Freedom and their speakers. When the group invited Rachael Campos-Duffy to campus, they went around tearing down posters advertising the event.

On the other hand, a large group of leftists showed up at the event, and listened to Campos-Duffy without incident. They asked critical questions of her during the Q&A session, and listened in a civil way as she responded.

Who is John Doyle

We had never heard of John Doyle, but he’s a very young fellow who has gotten a considerable following as a YouTuber. In one recent video, he actually discusses the Marquette incident.



His final point: that conservatives can prevail if they just refuse to be intimidated by the left, is a good one. Doyle was willing (see the video) to flatly say that transgenderism is a mental illness. Rejecting this notion is a prime example of mindless political correctness. Transgenders claim to need to “transition” with massive doses of hormones and surgical reconfiguration of their genitals. But how could you need that unless something was wrong before?

A large part, and maybe most, of the toxic politically correct atmosphere on college campuses these days is (at least on most campuses) the result of the left being willing to bully and intimidate anybody who dissents.

Kudos to Young Americans for Freedom of bring speakers like Campos-Duffy and Doyle to campus.

Doing that breaks the spiral of silence and emboldens people to challenge politically correct intolerance.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 14, 2019

“Deplorables:” The Bigotry Behind the Impeachment Attempt

Marquette Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Adjectives and Adverbs

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Just in Time for Bernie

Friday, October 11, 2019

From Dan O'Donnell: Bill Penzy is a Massive Hypocrite

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Just Another Example: Intelligence Bureaucrats Spying on Trump

At the bottom of the first page of this memo (page 6 of the PDF document) Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a recording device into the Oval Office to spy on President Trump, since “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

This is Rosenstein’s conversation with Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Not that it hasn’t long been obvious, but government bureaucrats were doing all they could to undermine Trump.

The pretext was “Russian collusion,” but the real reason was the aversion of the “Deep State” to a candidate (and then president) who might upset a lot of apple carts.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Marquette: Intolerant Leftist Tearing Down Posters for Conservative Speaker

Campus leftists at Marquette, like their cohorts on virtually every other campus in the nation, can’t tolerate views with which they disagree, so when the Young Americans for Freedom invited conservative spokeswoman Rachael Campos-Duffy to campus, what happened was not surprising.

Members of the organization posted flyers advertising the event all around campus. This is the flyer:


Nobody familiar with the campus political scene will be surprised with what happened next. At least one campus leftist went around tearing down the posters, and then went on Instagram to brag about it.

Click Image to Enlarge
The person in the Instagram post is unidentified, but we hope someone is able to identify him, and report him to Student Affairs.

Unfortunately, Student Affairs has a record of very lenient dealings with leftist students who vandalize things.

When members of the feminist group Empowerment vandalized an anti-abortion display mounted by Marquette Students for Life, the vandals received a mere slap on the wrist. The guilty students were required to write a three page paper explaining how they had how they had “acted irresponsibly.” One student on the panel refused to do that, saying “it’s finals week.” So did one other student. Both were put on university probation for a semester. Not suspension, but mere probation.

We will see what comes of this, but the odds are that campus bureaucrats don’t think ripping down a poster advertising a conservative speaker is a big deal. Had the speaker been a leftist, it would play out very differently.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 09, 2019

Media Doubles Down on Trump/Charlottesville Lie

You Can Hear it if You Really Want To

Thursday, August 08, 2019

Racism, “White Supremacy” and the Official Narrative

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Hillary’s E-Mail Server: Getting the Facts Straight

OK, this is rather old news. But it’s never too late to get the facts straight, even on an old issue.

What advantage was there to Hillary Clinton in putting e-mails on her own server?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Did it the Easy Way!

Hispanics Favor Census Citizenship Question, Deny Trump “Too Tough” on Immigration


For the left, anybody who wants to control the border must be a racist. And Donald Trump’s desire to ask about citizenship status on the 2020 Census is also racist.

Of course, white leftists pride themselves on being very sensitive to racism. But what do Hispanics, the “racial group” (actually not a racial group, but let’s play the game) think?

The Center for American Political Studies at Harvard asked them, in an online poll that included 2,182 respondents, including 282 Hispanics.

Not Very Politically Correct

Asked “Should the census be able to ask whether people living here are us citizens?” Sixty-seven percent of the entire sample said “yes,” and only 33% said “No.”

But even a majority of Hispanics said “yes:” 55% did, as opposed to 45% who said “No.”

Even More Politically Incorrect

The survey also asked “Do you think President Trump is too tough, too lenient or just right in dealing with illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the border?”

Among the entire sample, 42% said “too tough,” 24% said “too lenient,” and 34% said “just right.”

But among Hispanics, the results were very similar: 46% said “too tough,” 30% said “too lenient,” and 24% said “just right.”

Thus Hispanic opinion was a bit more polarized, with 4% more saying “too tough” but also 6% more saying “too lenient.”

Bottom Line

Taken at face value, both Hispanics and the entire sample show a majority favoring Trump’s policies, or policies even more strict.

But it is a well-known artifact in polling that, when given three alternatives, people tend to choose the middle option (“just right” in this case). It seems “safer.” But this only applies when people don’t have a strong, clear opinion.

If the nation’s Hispanics were convinced that Trump’s policies are too harsh, or that asking about citizenship is a racist attack on their group, nothing would prevent them from expressing that.

We have yet another case where the white Social Justice Warriors and their pet ethnic activists don’t represent the group they claim to.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bladensburg Cross: Victory for Religious Freedom



From the Family Policy Alliance, a press release about the Supreme Court and the Bladensburg Cross:
Last week the Supreme Court released a 7-2 opinion that not only protected a 94-year-old World War I war memorial that is in the shape of a Cross, but it also took major steps to secure religious freedom for all.

What happened?

As a way of memorializing those who died defending freedom in World War I, a 40-foot Latin Cross was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland in 1925. The Cross stood relatively unmolested until several years ago when a group of atheists decided that merely viewing the Cross was offensive.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross was an unconstitutional means of “government establishing a preferred religion” under an arbitrary legal test known as the Lemon test. The arbitrary nature of this test was highlighted in 2005 when the Supreme Court issued rulings on two different sets of religious monuments or displays on the same day and came to opposite conclusions.

What did the Court say?

In last week’s opinion, the Supreme Court not only reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit in order to save the Bladensburg Cross, but it also took a hard look at the Lemon test. The Court spent the majority of its opinion discussing all the problems with the test itself. Justice Gorsuch further pointed out in his concurring opinion how it hasn’t been useful in deciding anything having to do with deciding whether government is “establishing a state religion” – not when it comes to religious displays, mottos, monuments, religious accommodations, religious subsidies or tax exemptions, religious expression in public schools, regulations of religious speech, or interference in internal church affairs.

So how would the Court have us deal with these sorts of challenges going forward?

Essentially, the Court will presume the constitutionality of long-standing monuments and traditions based on our history. This is a much simpler and much clearer way to deal with these issues.

Justice Gorsuch eloquently extended and clarified the Court’s rule this way:

“What matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is just as permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”

What does this mean going forward?

It opens a lot of doors to proactively advance legislation that protects our timeless history and beliefs. Prior to the Court’s recent ruling, when we worked on religious liberty legislation, we were inevitably asked about the Lemon test – which was normally just a way to try to kill whatever bill we were working on.

Now Lemon can’t be used as a threat to your religious liberties. We can work on laws that protect student and educator rights in schools, doctors’ religious conscience beliefs, tax exemptions for religious organizations, religious displays, and internal church decisions without the threat that the Court will arbitrarily use Lemon against the expression of our faith in these realms.

This decision could spell the beginning of the end of ridiculous lawsuits that certain groups who are bent on removing any reminder of God from our culture bring against many small towns or groups they view as vulnerable.

We are thankful for the Court protecting religious freedom in this case, and we look forward to working with state legislators and allies to advance policies that allow religious freedom to flourish for all.
Those hostile to religion (and this increasingly includes Democrats) tend to take the position that the Constitution requires anything invoking the Christian religion must be sanitized from the public square.

Of course, Judaism or Islam are different matters. The National Menorah on the White House Ellipse has never been particularly controversial.

But Jews and Muslims vote Democratic. Christians vote Republican.

But banning anything religious, while allowing anything not religious, and even allowing things contrary to a lot of people’s religious convictions (such as funding abortions or flying the gay pride flag over a state capital) is to discriminate against religion.

Which frankly, is what a lot of people want to do.

But not a majority of the current Supreme Court.

Labels: , , , ,