Sunday, April 23, 2017

Yale: Students “Of Color” Turned Into Arrogant Bullies By Liberal Pandering

It was all over the news last year: leftist activists at Yale were incensed by an e-mail sent out by the wife of a Yale house master suggesting that the university should not be trying to dictate to students what sort of Halloween costumes they should wear.

The house master, one Nicholas Christakis, was bullied to students, and eventually caved in, offering an abject apology, and resigning as house master.

We just had a Twitter exchange with him, in which he denied he apologized. But in fact he did.

But for a sickening exhibition of the bullying he was subjected to, check out this article. It has a series of videos showing in sickening detail how Christakis, rather than calling out and refuting the arrogant claims the students made of being “hurt,” panders to the students.

Christakis is a well-meaning liberal who thinks he is for free expression on campus. But he is simply unwilling to stand up for free expression when faced with the irate demands of racial minorities. He even begs for absolution by telling a black female student that he’s a leftist who agrees with her racial grievances.

While intolerant leftists on college faculties are a big part of the problem, liberals like Christakis are the enablers of both the intolerant faculty leftists and the intolerant student activists.

It’s hard not to conclude he got the treatment he deserved.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 22, 2017

They Know How to Get Rid of Troublemakers

Friday, April 21, 2017

College Journalist Bigots Pounded on Twitter

We blogged about this: the editorial board of a trendy, tony, expensive leftist college demanded that speakers they don’t like be forbidden to speak, and that “hostility” should greet those who express unapproved views.

But outside a campus newsroom, where a larger group of Americans gets a voice (as on Twitter), views like this don’t go over well.

You’ll have to click on the blank white space in the embedded Tweet below to see responses (or click here).


We left a critical comment in response to the original Wellesley News editorial. We said (first quoting the article, and then responding):
>>> Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. <<<

I see. People who disagree with your leftist, politically correct intolerant views need to be punished. So ironic that people who talk about “hate speech” always turn out to be the real haters.
After four days, our comment has not been approved. And neither has any other.

So we wrote the editor of the Wellesley News, and asked the following:
Why aren’t you approving comments on your editorial saying that politically incorrect views should be censored at your college?

Is it that you got really pounded, and are trying to conceal that fact?
The e-mail quickly bounced with the following error message:
<editor""> :
Remote host does not like recipient Remote host said: 550-Sorry. Mailbox full. You tried to send mail to 550-Unfortunately the mail box of this user is full. Try to contact the owner.
It is fair enough that the editors of the Wellesley News are getting pounded, although we hope most of the messages are reasonably civil (as the responses on Twitter [see above] are). But if the little leftist snowflakes are learning that the issue of free speech looks different outside their narrow campus environment, that’s a lesson they need to learn.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Yet Another Fake Racial Hate Incident

From Heat Street:
The University of Southern California has apparently identified the person who put up a “No Black People Allowed” sign and a Confederate flag on campus as a black man who’s not studying at the university.

According to The Tab, the university’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) is currently questioning the man, suspecting he recently put up the inflammatory placard together with a Confederate flag and “#MAGA” – meaning President Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again”.

The student outlet reported that the man isn’t “affiliated with the university” and acted because of disagreement with someone. The man was supposedly identified by DPS after a security camera recorded the incident.

USC Department of Public Safety Assistant Chief David Carlisle has confirmed to the College Fix that the alleged culprit won’t be facing any charges because there was “no crime committed”.

Since Donald Trump’s election as President, there has been an explosion of fake hate crimes across the country. Numerous hoax hate crimes were reported in the media, only to later find themselves retracting the stories.

Back in February, a black waitress in Virginia has accused a customer of leaving no tips because he “don’t tip black people,” prompting multiple media outlets to champion the waitress’ cause. The woman received around $3,600 in donations after a local resident started a fund raiser for her.

As it turned out, it was either the waitress herself or someone known to her who fabricated the receipt showing the racist words

In December, a female student at the University of Michigan reported being attacked by a man who threatened to set her on fire if she didn’t remove her hijab. The Police found the student’s story false.
Why so many of these hoax hate incidents?

Simple. There is a huge demand for them. On college campuses, there is an Axis of Grievance: left-wing activists and the legion of bureaucrats who pander, pamper and cater to them. These incidents are grist for the grievance mill for the activists, and “issues” to be “addressed” for the bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats need these “issues” to justify their jobs.

Outside academia, the media has an insatiable demand for stories that fit their current narrative. The current narrative is that the election of Donald Trump has loosed the forces of hatred and bigotry. They don’t seem to much care that it was Trump (and not Hillary) who was constantly dogged with riots outside his election rallies. Nor that it is leftists on college campuses who shout down and sometimes assault conservatives (including those like Charles Murray and Ben Shapiro who opposed Trump).

Media people, like academics, live in a little self-contained world, and it’s extremely difficult for the real world to penetrate their consciousness.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, April 17, 2017

College Journalist Bigots: The Wellesley News

One interesting thing about the rise of political correctness on college campuses is that student journalists, people whom one might suppose would support free speech, have overwhelmingly lined up in favor of suppressing opinions the left does not like.

A particularly egregious example appears in the Wellesley News, the student paper of that very expensive, very elitist northeastern institution.
Many members of our community, including students, alumnae and faculty, have criticized the Wellesley community for becoming an environment where free speech is not allowed or is a violated right. Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers who cannot exist in the real world. However, we fundamentally disagree with that characterization, and we disagree with the idea that free speech is infringed upon at Wellesley. Rather, our Wellesley community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.
Of course, what speech is “hate speech” is a matter of opinion. In a free society, anybody has a right to their opinion as to what is “hate speech.” We think the speech of Black Lives Matter is hate speech. But in a free society, nobody has the right to decide that certain opinions need to be shut up.
Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.
Translation: people we agree with should be protected by the Constitution, but not people we disagree with.
This being said, the tone surrounding the current discourse is becoming increasingly hostile. Wellesley College is an institution whose aim is to educate. Students who come to Wellesley hail from a variety of diverse backgrounds. With this diversity comes previously-held biases that are in part the products of home environments. Wellesley forces us to both recognize and grow from these beliefs, as is the mark of a good college education.
So the “home environment” is bad, but the Wellesley environment is good. And just who decided that? People completely assimilated into the Wellesley environment.
However, as students, it is important to recognize that this process does not occur without bumps along the way. It is inevitable that there will be moments in this growth process where mistakes will happen and controversial statements will be said. However, we argue that these questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks.
Sounds nice, but just read on.
We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society.
Yes, it’s “society” that is prejudiced, and Wellesley is a model of enlightenment.
Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way. It is vital that we encourage people to correct and learn from their mistakes rather than berate them for a lack of education they could not control. While it is expected that these lessons will be difficult and often personal, holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.
Note the utter contempt for anybody whose opinions might differ from those of these student journalists.
This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.
Yes, we have the right to shame and bully people who don’t agree with us.
If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.
Yes, we have to punish people who try to bring “racist” speakers to campus. And we leftists get to decide who is a racist.
It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.

We at The Wellesley News, are not interested in any type of tone policing. The emotional labor required to educate people is immense and is additional weight that is put on those who are already forced to defend their human rights. There is no denying that problematic opinions need to be addressed in order to stop Wellesley from becoming a place where hate speech and casual discrimination is okay. However, as a community we need to make an effort to have this dialogue in a constructive and educational way in order to build our community up. Talk-back, protest videos and personal correspondences are also ways to have a constructive dialogue. Let us first bridge the gap between students in our community before we resort to personal attacks. Our student body is not only smart, it is also kind. Let us demonstrate that through productive dialogue.
But “productive dialogue” has to exclude anything that we consider “racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech.” That is, pretty much any political opinion we disagree with, we intend to try to shut that up.

That people like this will soon be dominating the mainstream media is a scary prospect indeed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 13, 2017

United Airlines

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The Red Line That Wasn’t

GLENN MCCOY © Belleville News-Democrat. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Race and School Discipline: The Leftist Fantasy

Now that Heather McDonald has received the honor of being shouted down and shut up by raving leftist campus bigots, it’s time to review another of her articles.

McDonald, one of our favorite scholars on criminal justice issues, is a “law and order” person. She believes that people who commit crimes should be punished. Since blacks commit proportionately many more crimes than whites, this makes her a racist in the eyes of the politically correct.

Remember, a key doctrine of the politically correct is that anything bad that happens to black people must be the result of white racism.

This past Christmas season, she noted the usual mall flash mobs, mostly consisting of black kids, and remarked on the connection to school discipline. Some key points from her essay:
Judging by video evidence, the participants in the violent mall brawls over the Christmas weekend were overwhelmingly black teens, though white teens were also involved. The media have assiduously ignored this fact, of course, as they have for previous violent flash mob episodes.
Of course, while the media assiduously ignore the racial component of flash mob violence, they can’t resist showing the video. And that tells the story.
That disproportion has significance for the next administration’s school-discipline policies, however. If Donald Trump wants to make schools safe again, he must rescind the Obama administration’s diktats regarding classroom discipline, which are based on a fantasy version of reality that is having serious real-world consequences.

The Obama Justice and Education Departments have strong-armed schools across the country to all but eliminate the suspension and expulsion of insubordinate students. The reason? Because black students are disciplined at higher rates than whites. According to Washington bureaucrats, such disproportionate suspensions can mean only one thing: teachers and administrators are racist. The Obama administration rejects the proposition that black students are more likely to assault teachers or fight with other students in class. The so-called “school to prison” pipeline is a function of bias, not of behavior, they say.

. . .

The idea that such street behavior does not have a classroom counterpart is ludicrous. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age. The lack of socialization that produces such a vast disparity in murder rates, as well as less lethal street violence, inevitably will show up in classroom behavior. Teens who react to a perceived insult on social media by trying to shoot the offender are not likely to restrain themselves in the classroom if they feel “disrespected” by a teacher or fellow students. Interviews with teachers confirm the proposition that children from communities with high rates of family breakdown bring vast amounts of disruptive anger to school, especially girls. It is no surprise that several of the Christmas riots began with fights between girls. School officials in urban areas across the country set up security corridors manned by police officers at school dismissal times to avoid gang shootings. And yet, the Obama administration would have us believe that in the classroom, black students are no more likely to disrupt order than white students. Equally preposterous is the claim that teachers and administrators are bigots. There is no more liberal a profession than teaching; education schools are one long indoctrination in white-privilege theory. And yet when these social-justice warriors get in the classroom, according to the Obama civil rights lawyers, they start wielding invidious double standards in discipline.

. . .

Over the last year, a Seattle school district in the throes of “restorative justice” experienced an alleged gang rape and several student deaths. Criminal charges, including murder, were filed against a group of students not yet out of middle school, reports the Seattle Times. Teachers’ unions in Fresno, Des Moines, New York City, and Indianapolis have all lodged complaints about the anti-discipline philosophy, according to Education Week. The Fresno teachers signed a petition pointing out that students are returned to class after cursing at teachers and physically assaulting them, without suffering any consequences. Fresno’s teachers have been injured trying to stop fights; some are retiring because teaching where severely disruptive students cannot be dislodged has become impossible. In Des Moines, students now hit and scream at each other and their teachers, reports the Des Moines Register.
Read the entire article.

Of course, the real “school to prison pipeline” is what happens when schools teach kids they can engage in disruptive and even violent behavior with zero or trivial consequences. That is, unless it becomes the “school to getting yourself killed pipeline” for people like Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin, who somehow thought they could attack an armed individual with impunity.

This whole business reveals the dirty little secret of the race hustlers and the social justice warriors. Deep down, they would rather articulate grievances than make things better for black kids. Of course, they won’t admit this (not even to themselves), but to face the issue squarely, they would have to admit that disorder in the black community creates these kinds of conditions in schools, and that white racism has virtually nothing to do with it.

And if they admit that, their whole world comes crashing down.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Not News

GLENN MCCOY © Belleville News-Democrat. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Media Hypocrisy: Filibuster Judicial Nominee

Now, with Senate Republicans poised to use the “nuclear option” to quash a Democratic filibuster against Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the media is portraying this as some sort of radical coup d’état. But back in 2013, when the Democrats used the same tactic to get Obama judicial appointees approved, the media spin was much different.

From the Media Research Center, a roundup of media reaction from the time the Democrats went nuclear.

The print media were equally bad.
. . . the cable network news hosts and analysts weren’t the only ones championing the nuclear option. On the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Reid’s move was celebrated in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.”

The Times editorial board crowed: “We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.”

That same day, The New York Times championed the procedure in an editorial headlined “Democracy Returns to the Senate.”
Of course, the Republicans would be foolish to let the Democrats use the “nuclear option” and not use it themselves. That would simply make them suckers. Of course, often the Republicans have acquiesced in the role of suckers, but they seem to be wising up.

Even if one believes that requiring sixty senators to confirm a presidential appointee is appropriate, what the Republicans are doing will make that outcome more likely. So long as the Republicans fail to retaliate for the Democrat’s use of the tactic, the Democrats will have no incentive to stop using it.

For readers with a tolerance for academic jargon, the proper tactic in a Prisoner’s Dilemma is “tit for tat.” Or in everyday language, “we are not going to let you get away with screwing us over.”

Labels: , , , , ,

Virulent, Abusive Facebook Posts of Former Marquette Official

That Marquette’s administration is strongly leftist and politically correct is obvious from their actions. Their public statements are also politically correct, but one wonders just how much virulent passion lies behind their public statements?

At least one of them, no longer working at Marquette, has let it all hang out. Bob Deahl, recently retired Dean, College of Professional Studies at Marquette University, has a Facebook page on which he does nothing to conceal his hatred of Republicans and conservatives.

[Warning: Offensive Language]

Attack on Conservative Christians

At the top of his page at this moment, he reposts (with obvious approval) an article that claims:
Worse than this chronic fixation on sex, gender, and sexuality, is that Conservative Christianity has somehow deputized itself as qualified and entitled to police such things for the world, with the Bible (not Science, facts, or reason) as its sole authority on the matter.

More accurately, not merely the Bible—but the Bible as carefully filtered through a repressed, puritanical, selective interpretation crafted almost exclusively by men raised to believe that God was a dude and that Eve ate the fruit and seduced poor Adam.
If that’s not bad enough, he adds his own comment:
F’ing sick nutcases
We all, of course, can imagine what would happen to any university bureaucrat who said anything even faintly resembling this about Muslims. But he doesn’t work at Marquette anymore, so he can let it all hang out.

On Trump and His People

In another shared post he says:
Well the Russians sure have succeeded in ruining AmeriKa....they got Trump elected who is, almost everyday, using his ignorant power to change things that will ruin our environment, health care, freedom and personal liberties, education, progress on sustainability, and on and on ....this monster asshole is a tool of the Russians and is RUINING this country.
If that seems pretty ordinary anti-Trump rhetoric these days, that’s merely a symptom of how the president has utterly deranged his enemies.

In other shared post about Mike Flynn he said “Disgusting white trash like the entire Trump family and administration.” But that was nothing compared to his next post, which said about Trump:
Corrupt, Incompetent, Mentally Disturbed, Malignant Narcisist, Idiot, asshole, monster
And then about Mike Pence:
You total fucking piece of inhuman shit.....You piece of pathetic gutless, heartless, cruel piece of shit...
And then about mild-mannered Boy Scout Paul Ryan:
Ideological asshole and morally bankrupt to boot
And then back to Trump:
this monster is destroying this country
He is a bit milder with Betsy DeDevos:
she is just one of many completely clueless, ignorant, arrogant right wing cabinet members...
But then returns to Mike Pence:
Just remember this is the extremist right wingnut bigot, sexist, homophobic, mysoginist that is now our VP...
Then, in a commentary on a video, he goes into a more extended rant on Trump:
Here is what everyone is missing...the ESSENCE of this asshole, what Trump REALLY believes in is....MONEY...he believes everything exists to MAKE MORE MONEY. And many of the Republicans see that this is Governments role as welll...they confuse Governing and Running a Business. So they don’t give a shit about you or me or the well-being of society or the common good or that government is about care and service and assistance...hence go fuck yourself about health care and social security and safety, etc....everything is just about making money. ThatHere is what everyone is missing...the ESSENCE of this asshole, what Trump REALLY believes in is....MONEY...he believes everything exists to MAKE MORE MONEY. And many of the Republicans see that this is Government's role as welll...they confuse Governing and Running a Business. So they don’t give a shit about you or me or the well-being of society or the common good or that government is about care and service and assistance...hence go fuck yourself about health care and social security and safety, etc....everything is just about making money. That’s all Trump cares about...he does NOT care about you duped Trump voters and supporters THAT IS FOR SURE....That’s all Trump cares about...he does NOT care about you duped Trump voters and supporters THAT IS FOR SURE....
Then Deahl posts a fake video with Donald Trump holding up a book reading “Fuck the Planet,” and comments:
Sums up this complete asshole's approach to life

Fan of Angela Davis

And of course, he is enthusiastic about Angela Davis speaking at Marquette. Indeed, he claims:
So proud of Marquette University for hosting Dr. Angela Davis who spoke on Freedom, equality, gender, race, feminism, LGBT, transgender, Palestinian, and other rights issues! Lots is students and faculty AND LOTS of members of our great community

Back to Trump’s People

And of Ivanka Trump joining the White House staff:
More pathetic ignorant corruption
If Ivanka can be attacked, of course Sean Spicer will be, with Deahl calling him a “mentally unbalanced man” and then back to Trump calling him an “asshole” and Republicans “Pathetic heartless bastards...ALL of them.”

Then, why not lump a bunch of people together and say:
Trump and Spicer and Bannon and all these Trump relatives are ALL fucking incompetent idiots
Not satisfied with attacking Trump and his Administration, he asked of Scott Walker:
When will this pathetic little boy idiot drop out ignoramace just finally go away
But then back to Pence:
Pence is an extremest to the extreme, a cruel, hateful homophobe and terribly anti gay and anti women....He must NEVER become president
And then Mike Pence meeting with the Congressional Freedom Caucus, with the observation:
Mysoginist racist white pigs, ALL


We could go on and on, since Deahl does, but this raises a question. Is Deahl the secret id of the Marquette Administration, having come out of the closet since his division (Professional Studies) went down the drain?

That would be a questionable generalization, but neither would be be completely off base.

Campus bureaucrats are motivated by two things: their own ideology, and their own bureaucratic interests. Thus when an administration panders to the campus left, is it because the bureaucrats are leftists, or because they fear that campus leftists can make trouble for them, and thus need to be placated?

Marquette has gone much further than it has had to to merely placate the campus left. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that attitudes like Deahl’s are pretty common among people who run this “Catholic university.”


As of 4/16/2017 Deahl seems to have sanitized his Facebook page by deleting the vast majority of his posts.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, April 03, 2017

Why the Social Justice Warriors Hate Israel

Friday, March 31, 2017

Warrior Blogger on Belling: Angela Davis, Campus Repression

Hosted by Matt Kittle, we discuss our lawsuit, Marquette’s reception of communist and party to a murder plot Angela Davis, and the broader issue of free speech on campus.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Angela Davis Speaks, Marquette Pounded on Social Media

Click on the image to see reaction on Twitter. You don’t have to click to see her described by Marquette as a “Scholar, activist and renowned speaker” who “will deliver a distinguished lecture.” Some of the tweets provide information about her background not generally known.
An earlier tweet from Marquette was just as bad:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Ship Going Down

GLENN MCCOY © Belleville News-Democrat. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Communist Angela Davis Gets Warm Welcome from Marquette Officials

Yes, she is speaking tonight, and at very large venue (the Al McGuire Center) which Marquette would not let Young Americans for Freedom use for the (heavily oversubscribed) Ben Shapiro speech.

But the crowd does not look especially large:
Ethan Hollenberger, at the event and tweeting about it notes that President Lovell called Davis an “awesome example.” This about a woman who is a self proclaimed Communist, and who bought guns for her fellow black militants in a plot that led to the killing of several innocent people.

When Ben Shapiro was at Marquette, the university required the reading of a disclaimer that noted that Shapiro’s views were not necessarily the views of Marquette University.

No such disclaimer was read at the Davis event.

Davis discussed a mural of FBI most wanted terrorist Assata Shakur, which decorated the wall of the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center at Marquette, until we reported it, and an embarrassed Marquette administration had it painted over.

Davis called the mural “whitewashed” and called Shakur “a comrade and a friend.”

According to the Washington Examiner:
Davis is most renowned for her career of radical leftist activism, involving leadership stints in both the Black Panther Party and Communist Party. Today, she continues to proclaim that “capitalism is the most dangerous kind of future we can imagine” telling the Los Angeles Times recently, “as long as we inhabit a capitalist democracy, a future of racial equality, gender equality, economic equality will elude us.”

Davis is notorious for landing on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list in 1970 for fleeing police after she was charged with purchasing the murder weapon used in a courtroom shootout in 1970.

At the Women’s March in January, Davis called on activists to become “more militant.”

“Those who still defend the supremacy of white male hetero-patriarchy,” she said, “had better watch out.”

Her views on abortion and marriage openly contradict Catholic teachings. Nevertheless, Marquette is touting Davis as a “living witness to history” and featuring her remarks as a “distinguished lecture.” Davis’ speaking fee has previously been listed between $10,000 and $20,000.
Note the double standard: when Ben Shapiro, a rather mainstream conservative spoke on campus, Marquette officials threatened to charge the Young Americans for Freedom (who sponsored the event) for security.

They backed off that, but then staffer Chrissy Nelson tried to undermine the event by advising leftists to sign up for a ticket and not show up, depriving an interested student of a seat. She did so at the suggestion of an unnamed “director of diversity.”

A disclaimer, saying that Marquette did not endorse Shapiro’s views, was required to be read.

Not only did no Marquette official laud Shapiro, Provost Dan Myers took to Marquette Wire to argue against Shapiro.

While minor contributions to Shapiro’s speaker’s fee were made by Student Government and the Residence Hall Council, apparently all of Davis’ fee was paid by Marquette. Out of tuition money.

So what we have here is Marquette officially lauding and supporting a Communist who was party to a murder plot.

It would be different if Marquette sponsored a diverse group of speakers, including some extremists from both left and right. But Marquette is officially on the hard left.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, March 27, 2017

Fake News from the Anti-Trump Media

From The Federalist, a list of stories, virtually all negative about Donald Trump, from mainstream outlets that have turned out to be bogus. We will just list them, and you can read about them as you wish:
  • Early November: Spike in Transgender Suicide Rates
  • November 22: The Tri-State Election Hacking Conspiracy Theory
  • December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
  • January 20: Nancy Sinatra’s Complaints about the Inaugural Ball
  • January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
  • January 20: The Great MLK Jr. Bust Controversy
  • January 20: Betsy DeVos, Grizzly Fighter
  • January 26: The ‘Resignations’ At the State Department
  • January 27: The Photoshopped Hands Affair
  • January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
  • January 31: The White House-SCOTUS Twitter Mistake
  • January 31: The Big Travel Ban Lie
  • February 1: POTUS Threatens to Invade Mexico
  • February 2: Easing the Russian Sanctions
  • February 2: Renaming Black History Month
  • February 2: The House of Representatives’ Gun Control Measures
The concept “fake news” came into currency during last year’s election, mostly used by liberal media to condemn stories that favored Donald Trump. And a good number of genuinely fake stories, apparently intended a click bait, did appear.

But the cudgel has been turned on the liberal media, and the alternative conservative media (such as The Federalist) has scrutinized the liberal outlets.

One of Donald Trump’s “achievements” (if you want to call it that) is to excite such hostility and even rage in the liberal mainstream media that they create stories as wild and irresponsible as Trump’s own worst pronouncements.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 20, 2017

Let the Republicans Deal With It

GLENN MCCOY © Belleville News-Democrat. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, March 17, 2017

Academic Fascism by Transgender Activists

Something like this seems to happen every few days at some university. From Breitbart:
Students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, derailed an event featuring University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson on Friday evening.

The event, which Peterson claimed was originally scheduled to feature a panel of three speakers, was whittled down to just himself after the school received threats for hosting the event.

Peterson was thrust into the spotlight after a video of him engaging with students over a controversial piece of Canadian legislation which would have made it a crime to address transgender individuals by anything other than their chosen set of personal pronouns.
That’s right. A crime. The act in fact does not literally say that, but in the hands of enforcement bureaucrats, failing to call a person with a penis “she” or even “ze” if that’s what he wants will quickly be considered “discrimination.” That is already the case in New York City.
As a precaution before the event at McMaster University, Professor Peterson had students guard the fire alarms around the building so that protesters couldn’t set them off in an attempt to derail the event.

On Friday evening, Peterson was unable to speak at his scheduled event McMaster University due to a group of students who shouted and blew horns. The students shouted “shut him down,” and “transphobic piece of sh*t” in unison, with one student leading the cheer through a megaphone, making it nearly impossible for Peterson’s voice to be heard over their noise.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Talking About Race and IQ

The recent riot at Middlebury College over a speech by Charles Murray was based on some over broad generalizations about his book The Bell Curve. That volume certainly seemed to say that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites.

So that makes him a racist who should be shut up, according to the politically correct left.

But what is the result of that sort of thinking? A fair number of people, and especially people who don’t just go along with the crowd, are going to be sympathetic to Murray.

Further, if the notion of black racial inferiority can’t be discussed, it takes on the character of a dirty little secret. People generally try to stifle discussion of ideas they consider dangerous, and people have to suspect that the most dangerous ideas are the ones that are disapproved, but true.

Thus, stifling discussion of supposed black racial inferiority actually gives a certain legitimacy to the idea. Further, since most people (at least outside academia) instinctively side with people being bullied (and not the bullies) the sort of thing that happened a Middlebury gives Murray a certain legitimacy. Since evil people hate him, he must be one of the good guys.

Murray is, in fact, a good guy in many ways, but that doesn’t mean his ideas on race and intelligence are valid.

Evading the Issue

Suppose, instead of trying to shut Murray up, people who disagree with him actually debate him? Try to show how his evidence and logic are deficient?

One suspects that, deep down, the campus social justice warriors believe that he might be right, and his beliefs are the “awful truth” that must be concealed, else it undermine their political agenda.

Further, since certain ideas have been ruled “out of bounds” even for discussion, the campus leftists would not begin to know how to refute Murray. So all they have is blind intolerance.

Confronting the Issue

People who are open minded enough to actually look at the evidence are perfectly able to refute Murray’s ideas on race and intelligence with data and logic. Consider, for example, a 2007 article by journalist Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker.

Gladwell points to something known as the “Flynn effect:” human intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, has been increasing markedly for at least the last 100 years. It is implausible that the genetic endowment of humans has changed much during that time, and indeed, the eugenicists of a hundred years ago believed that the “less intelligent” groups were breeding faster than the more intelligent, which would imply the genetic inheritance of humans was degrading over time.

Suggested reasons for this increase have included “improved nutrition, a trend toward smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity.” Note that all of these factors are environmental. While nothing about this disproves black genetic inferiority, it does prove that environmental factors matter.

More relevant evidence is provided by racial differences in IQ broken down by age. Gladwell discusses a debate between Flynn and Charles Murray:
Murray showed a series of PowerPoint slides, each representing different statistical formulations of the I.Q. gap. He appeared to be pessimistic that the racial difference would narrow in the future. . . .

Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail . . . .
Note the irony here: while the social justice warriors at Middlebury seek to shut Murray up (and ironically, he was not even talking about race and intelligence there) in a debate with a capable opponent, he was successfully refuted.

Gladwell goes on to provide further evidence:
When the children of Southern Italian immigrants were given I.Q. tests in the early part of the past century, for example, they recorded median scores in the high seventies and low eighties, a full standard deviation below their American and Western European counterparts. Southern Italians did as poorly on I.Q. tests as Hispanics and blacks did. As you can imagine, there was much concerned talk at the time about the genetic inferiority of Italian stock, of the inadvisability of letting so many second-class immigrants into the United States, and of the squalor that seemed endemic to Italian urban neighborhoods. Sound familiar? These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion. “Did their genes begin to mutate somewhere in the 1930s?” the psychologists Seymour Sarason and John Doris ask, in their account of the Italian experience. “Or is it possible that somewhere in the 1920s, if not earlier, the sociocultural history of Italo-Americans took a turn from the blacks and the Spanish Americans which permitted their assimilation into the general undifferentiated mass of Americans?”
The answer, of course, is “the latter.” The conclusion has to be that IQ differences of the magnitude of those that separate black and whites can be explained by environmental factors.

Gladwell goes on to explain that people who score poorly on IQ tests are not necessarily stupid. They merely have not been socialized to see the world through what Flynn calls “scientific spectacles.” That is to say, they have not been assimilated into the ways of dealing cognitively with the environment that characterize advanced industrial and post-industrial societies. But socialization is not heredity.


The bullies at Middlebury are, to the cause of anti-racism, what the Inquisition was to the cause of Christianity. Trying to forceably suppress and shut up bad ideas is ultimately a foolish and counter-productive enterprise. The people who will confront the issue of race and IQ with data and logic play the same role as the great Christian apologists (G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, just to name two) who show that engagement, and not suppression, is the way to deal with ideas one believes are mistaken.

Labels: , , , , , ,