Saturday, May 20, 2017


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

Labels: , , ,

Friday, May 19, 2017

Trump: Very Lucky in His Enemies

Peggy Noonan is far from being a Trump supporter, although she’s not an implacable enemy either. She sees his flaws, but hopes he will do better.

But she notes that Trump has one huge asset: his enemies.
Mr. Trump has struggled so colorfully the past three months, we’ve barely noticed his great good luck—that in that time the Democratic Party and the progressive left have been having a very public nervous breakdown. The new head of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, performs unhinged diatribes. He told an audience in Las Vegas that “Trump doesn’t give a sh— about health care.” In a Maine speech, “They call it a skinny budget. I call it a sh—y budget.” In Newark, he said Republicans “don’t give a sh— about people.”

This is said to be an attempt to get down with millennials. I know a lot of millennials and they’re not idiots, so that won’t work.

The perennially sunny Rep. Maxine Waters of California called Mr. Trump’s cabinet “a bunch of scumbags.” New York’s junior Democratic senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, has taken to using the F-word in interviews.

I thought Mr. Trump was supposed to be the loudmouth vulgarian who swears in public. They are aping what they profess to hate. They excoriated him for lowering the bar. Now look at them.

And they’re doing it because they have nothing else—not a plan, not a program, not a philosophy that can be uttered.

The closest they got to meaning recently was when Mr. Perez found it helpful to say, of a Democratic mayoral candidate who’d backed some pro-life bills, that that kind of thinking had no place in the party. Bernie Sanders rightly called this out as madness. You can’t do this “if we’re going to become a 50-state party.”

Imagine a great, lost party defining itself by who it’s throwing out. They’re like the Republicans the past 20 years, throwing people out for opposing Iraq or George W. Bush, or for not joining NeverTrump. Where does this get you? It gets you to where we are.

That most entrenched bastion of the progressive left, America’s great universities, has been swept by . . . well, one hardly knows what to call it. “Political correctness” is too old and doesn’t do it justice. It is a hysteria—a screeching, ignorant wave of sometimes violent intolerance for free speech. It is mortifying to see those who lead great universities cower in fear of it, attempt to placate it, instead of stopping it.

When I see tapes of the protests and riots at schools like Berkeley, Middlebury, Claremont McKenna and Yale, it doesn’t have the feel of something that happens in politics. It has the special brew of malice and personal instability seen in the Salem witch trials. It sent me back to rereading Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.” Heather Mac Donald danced with the devil! Charles Murray put the needle in the poppet! As in 17th-century Salem, the accusers have no proof of anything because they don’t know, read or comprehend anything.

The cursing pols, the anathematizing abortion advocates, the screeching students—they are now the face of the progressive left.

This is what America sees now as the face of the Democratic Party. It is a party blowing itself up whose only hope is that Donald Trump blows up first.

He may not be lucky in all of his decisions or staffers, or in his own immaturities and dramas. But hand it to him a hundred days in: He’s lucky in his main foes.
Even a casual observer can add to her list of liberal derangement. That’s not her fault. This is a column, not a book.

Health Care

Jeff Jacoby provides several examples from the debate on health care:
  • “Donald Trump and Republicans just celebrated voting to let thousands of Americans die so that billionaires get tax breaks.” Those are the words of a prominent US senator.
  • “They” — Republican House members who voted for the AHCA — “should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.” So fumes a professor at the Art Institute of Washington.
  • “I hope every GOPer who voted for Trumpcare sees a family member get long-term condition, lose insurance, and die. I want the GOPers who support this to feel the pain in their own families. . . . I want them to be tortured.” Those sentiments are expressed via Twitter by a senior writer at Newsweek.
  • “The GOP Plan For Obamacare Could Kill More People Each Year Than Gun Homicides.” That’s the headline in Vox, a popular news and opinion website.
There is no shortage of additional examples, just as enraged or hysterical. . . .

Some progressives justify the shredding of civil discourse; with Trump in the White House, they say, courtesy is a luxury the nation can’t afford. “America, don’t be polite in the face of demagoguery,” exhorts Jessica Valenti in the Guardian. Representative Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, is likewise unapologetic about resorting to rhetorical brutality. “This is a new time in politics where people are just blatantly lying and essentially producing policies that are going to kill people,” Gallego tells CNN. “I think the old time of civility needs to go until we actually go back to the rules.”
The Daily Caller lists many more examples of violence, harassment and intimidation.

And of course, who could forget Stephen Colbert’s deranged rant.  (Note that one word has been censored in the YouTube version, but was originally broadcast.)

Trump, it seems, is not very good at governing, but he’s great at driving his adversaries nuts. That’s a political asset, although it’s not the sort we would prefer he have.

What is new about this is not that a lot of liberals hate conservatives, and particularly hate Donald Trump (who isn’t really a conservative). People in American politics have long hated their partisan enemies. It goes back even further than the followers of Jefferson and Hamilton. And plenty of conservatives have hated liberals.

What is new, and peculiar to the left, is the overt claim that it is good to hate. That people on the other side deserve to be hated, harassed, intimidated and even attacked.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 12, 2017

Leftist Professor Tells His Students to Wipe Out Anti-Abortion Messages

This kind of intolerant fascism reminds one of a similar incident at Marquette, where members of the feminist group Empowerment defaced an anti-abortion display, and then blatantly bragged about it on Facebook.

Will this professor (William Gregory Thatcher) be punished for his attack on speech he does not approve? We doubt the institution will do it. But perhaps the lawsuit filed against him will have some effect.

While the media are constantly talking about how intolerant “snowflake” students have infringed on speech, let’s be clear on the fundamental problem: increasingly college faculty are intolerant bigots.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Leftist Activist: Campus Free Speech is a “Luxury”

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Hello. I Need to Buy an Insurance Policy

Social Psychologists Finally Admit: Liberals are Prejudiced

Since the field of social psychology leans sharply left, it’s no surprise that a lot of “scholarly literature” claims that conservatives are more “prejudiced” than liberals.

Of course, “prejudice” is defined, by these professors, as disliking groups that the liberal professors like and are solicitous of. If you express negative attitudes toward such groups, it must be “prejudice” rather than some principled moral stance. If one believes homosexual acts are immoral, is one “prejudiced” or has one simply reached a different conclusion about sexual morality? The liberal social psychologists assume the former.

But sometimes, in the social sciences, empirical reality wins out.

From Politico, an article outlining recent research, titled “Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think: The political left might consider itself more open-minded than the right. But research shows that liberals are just as prejudiced against conservatives as conservatives are against liberals.”

This conclusion won’t surprise anybody who reads this blog; the only surprise is that several social scientists have admitted it, based on their research.

There is a long list of groups that liberals dislike, and they dislike those groups as much as conservatives dislike the groups they dislike. Citing just one example, while conservatives don’t like atheists, liberals don’t like Christians.

We, not surprisingly, think that liberal intolerance is a much bigger problem than conservative intolerance, for one simple reason: intolerant conservatives tend to be marginalized, far from centers of power, and intolerant liberals tend to be at the centers of cultural power and influence, in the media, schools and colleges, government bureaucracies. Where “social issues” like gay and transgender issues are concerned, they dominate the business world.

Thus we can’t remember when any leftist speaker on a college campus was shouted down or assaulted, but that happens to conservative speakers about once a week.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 05, 2017

Trying to Put Out the Light

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Warrior Blogger Legal Case Against Marquette: Our Lawyer Comments

Rick Esenberg, head of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which is providing us legal counsel in our case against Marquette, discusses the case (and the recent judgment from Judge Hanscher) on the Vicki McKenna show.

Embedded player:

Direct Link to audio:

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Setback: Judge Rules Against Warrior Blogger in Academic Freedom Case


May 4, 2017 – Milwaukee, WI – In a 33-page ruling today, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David Hansher found that Marquette University had the legal right to terminate tenured political science professor, Dr. John McAdams. The judge treated the Marquette committee that sat in judgment of McAdams as the equivalent of a neutral, third-party arbitrator, adopting its reasoning and conclusions wholesale. McAdams has already vowed to appeal the ruling.

In November, 2014, McAdams shared a story on his blog, Marquette Warrior, of an undergraduate student who had been told by a graduate student instructor, Cheryl Abbate, that he could not express his disagreement with same-sex marriage in her theory of ethics class because doing so would be homophobic and offensive. The story went national, resulting in a lot of bad press for Marquette.

In response, Marquette summarily suspended McAdams from his teaching duties and banned him from campus, then initiated proceedings to revoke his tenure and fire him. An internal faculty hearing committee (FHC) was convened to judge the dispute, but it suffered from serious procedural flaws, as Marquette withheld evidence from McAdams and allowed a clearly-biased professor to sit on the FHC. The FHC eventually recommended McAdams be suspended for two semesters. Instead, Marquette President Michael Lovell suspended McAdams indefinitely without pay unless he issued a written apology for his behavior – effectively firing him.

Judge Hansher adopted the FHC’s cramped and unsupported view of academic freedom and the First Amendment. He concluded that because naming Abbate could conceivably bring negative attention to her, McAdams was prohibited from doing so.

“No college professor in Wisconsin has any real protection if that’s the standard,” explained Rick Esenberg, President and General Counsel of WILL. “If a professor can be held responsible for the actions of every person who reads or even hears about what the professor writes, then they have no protections at all. By that standard, every professor who was publicly critical of McAdams should be fired too.”

Tom Kamenick, Deputy Counsel at WILL, sharply criticized the court’s decision to defer to Marquette’s own internal committee: “When two parties to a contract disagree about its application, courts cannot simply let one side decide how to interpret it. That’s like saying an employee who brings a sexual harassment complaint against another employee has to abide by the employer’s internal review that finds no wrong-doing occurred.”

The court also found no problem with Marquette allowing a clearly-biased member to sit on the FHC. Professor Lynn Turner signed an open letter shortly after the controversy broke out condemning McAdams and concluding he had violated his professional responsibilities. McAdams asked that she be removed, but the FHC refused. The court decided that as long as the FHC had considered the request, that was good enough – it didn’t matter how biased she was.

“This is another example of the increasing unwillingness of colleges to stand up for free speech. Hardly a day passes without an example of a speaker being shouted down, or disinvited, or a student being punished for some innocuous (but politically incorrect) comment on social media,” commented Dr. McAdams.

“This is just another step in a long process,” said Esenberg. “As Ronald Reagan said, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.’ We will take this case as far as it needs to be taken to vindicate McAdams’ – and all professors’ – rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.”

Background on the case can be found here.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Campus Version of Miranda

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

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Racist Tells Auburn Students Football is Evil

It was a victory for free speech: Richard Spencer, by order of a Federal court, was able to speak at Auburn University.

Unlike most of the people the social justice warriors call “racist,” Spencer really is.

You are welcome to watch the entire speech (below) if you want to know what a racist thinks, but we found one particular segment particularly interesting: Spencer condemns football.

And he specifically mentions SEC (Southeastern Conference) football. At Auburn!

While overshadowed by the best football program in the nation at rival Alabama, Auburn has been quite a powerhouse, winning the 2010 National Championship, and losing the 2013 championship game to Florida State.

If you haven’t already inferred the reason, Spencer makes it obvious in the talk: a lot of the athletes are black.

The audience, which of course is highly self-selected from among the minority of students inclined to agree with Spencer, isn’t too impressed with this.

There are better reasons not to be a racist, but loving SEC football is not a bad one.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Can Snobbery Save the Liberals?

From Daniel Greenfield in Frontpage Mag:
The Atlantic’s May cover features Alec Baldwin covered in orange makeup holding up a Trump wig. The cover asks, “Can Satire Save the Republic?”

What is satire saving the Republic from? Republicans. While making America safe for Socialism.

After Bush won, Democrats fought back by doubling down on the ridicule. Before long they were getting their news from Jon Stewart’s smirk. Stewart spawned a whole range of imitators. Today you can find numberless clones of the Daily Show across cable and even on CBS and, soon, on NBC.

The left is devoutly convinced that this snickering can save America. That it’s better than the news.

The Peabody awards celebrated the Daily Show as “a trusted source of news for citizens united in their disappointment and disgust with politics and cable news.” But the media was the first in line to anoint the politics of contempt, ridicule and disgust as the future of journalism. Now the future is here.

The Washington Post, once a paper of record, swarms with snarky Stewartesque headlines like, “Jeff Sessions doesn’t think a judge in Hawaii — a.k.a. ‘an island in the Pacific’ — should overrule Trump.” Journalism is dead. And replacing it with snarky lefty spin hasn’t saved the Republic. Or anything else.

But the left’s faith in the power of its contempt has nothing to do with its tactical effectiveness.

The left remains convinced that Jon Stewart brought down Bush and Tina Fey brought down Palin because ridiculing the right isn’t just an ugly tactic. Instead it carries an almost religious meaning. Mocking Republicans can save us. Every ideology expresses its superiority through its own triumphalism. Sneering is the left’s own invocation of its own superiority. These are the grown up politics of kids who were convinced that they were better than everyone else because they looked down on them.

Much as Allahu Akbar denotes the superiority of the Muslim and the inferiority of the non-Muslim, the knowing smirk, the lifted eyebrow and the braying laugh of the audience when the unironic applause sign flashes is the prayer of the progressive to the cruel little god of his own ego.

The ritual is tribal. A lefty dons the mock wig of the hated enemy and is ritually humiliated for the entertainment of the tribes of Manhattan, Berkeley and Marin County. The foe is destroyed in effigy. The video of his destruction is virally spread with titles such as, “Saturday Night Live Destroys Trump.”

And yet Trump, like all the other viral subjects of destruction, is never destroyed. The tribal ritual lets lefties vent their anger on a totem that, unlike Trump, can actually be destroyed by liberal laughter.

Satire isn’t trying to save the Republic. It isn’t stopping Trump. It’s saving the left.

Trump has proven even more indestructible than Bush. It’s hard to think of any insult that the left hasn’t hurled his way. A dictionary of them could run all the way from Abuser to Xenophobe. To no avail. Instead he has proven exceptionally adept at treating the left with as much contempt as it treats him. When lefties bemoans his cruelty and vulgarity, what they really mean is that he is beating them at their own game without wasting time on their pretenses to saving the Republic on Saturday Night Live.

Saturday Night Live is still the only place that progressives have been able to beat Trump.

Mocking Bush didn’t save the Republic from him. If anything, liberal disdain helped make him a two-term president the way that it helped put Trump in office. Obama won by taking the opposite road. He kept his contempt and arrogance just enough in check to appear aspirational during his original race.

Elitist contempt isn’t an effective tactic. American politics is anti-establishment. Stewart, Colbert, Oliver and Bee are only revolutionary to likeminded lefties in lavish condos. To the Tennessee coal miner, the New Mexico checkout girl and the Pennsylvania steelworker they convey the smugness of an establishment in all its insufferable disdain for flyover country, for the working class and for everyone outside that golden circle of the tall towers and hot clubs in the big cities that really, truly matter.

Liberals need to believe that even their pettiest acts are ennobling. Their Whole Foods organic avocadoes are saving the planet. Their fair trade yoga pants are saving indigenous tribes. Even their ridicule of the “Other” on TV is the redemptive and salvific process by which they save America.

This isn’t idealism. It’s elitism. They’re not spitefully lashing out because they lost an election. Instead they’re saving the country by watching a lefty hack who had become more famous for his credit card commercials, and racist and homophobic slurs do a tepid slurred imitation of Trump.

What a piece of work is a progressive. How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty. In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god.

Beneath the Midtown Manhattan sound stages and green rooms, the million dollar contracts of the performers, the Ivy League degrees of the writers and the suave sophisticated five-star restaurants where they rendezvous is the dark and primitive world of the firelit circle in which enemies are bound and destroyed by a magic fed on the anger and hatred of the watchers.

The tribal signifiers of power have changed. The totems are class, cool and hip. And much of the country does not recognize their claim to lead the tribe. Each time America dissents, the left wears out its lip sneering at them. Contempt is the final refuge of failed tyrants. If you can’t rule, you can always sneer.

The left’s faith in contempt tells us far more about them than it does about the objects of their contempt. Art is a reflection of the artist. Some artists strive to create while others only destroy. The left remains convinced that it can create through destruction, that it can build a fair society through theft, an ethical society by destroying its values and a high-minded society through contempt.

It must believe in the redemptive power of its thievery, amorality and hatred. Or face a moral reckoning.

When they go low, we go higher, they chant, before laughing as Alec Baldwin snorts through his nose. It’s not funny or meaningful. It’s wish fulfillment. The left gets a Trump they can destroy in a world where they are bound to win because they are naturally superior.

For a movement obsessed with the redemptive power of its own power and convinced of the utter truth of its own imaginary visions, what could be more sacred than acting out the destruction of its enemies?

Is it any wonder that getting high on snarky delusions of potency and superiority appears so uplifting? Can satire save the Republic? Its fumes are almost as good as actually winning an election. But a better question would be can the Republic save satire?

Saturday Night Live’s war on Trump is also a war on comedy as mediocre casts turn to outside performers to portray recognizable political figures, based not on talent, but sheer recognizability.

Tina Fey had a passing resemblance to Sarah Palin while Larry David shared an accent with Bernie Sanders and was forty years older than the average SNL cast member. Alec Baldwin is a real life version of what progs think Trump is; angry, dumb and bigoted. A bad man with no self-control. And that is appropriate. The left’s effigy of Trump is a self-portrait. Their hatred of Trump is pure projection.

Baldwin’s bad acting won’t save the Republic. He isn’t funny, but he doesn’t need to be. Funny is surplus to requirements. The point isn’t laughter, it’s barely sublimated hatred. Baldwin understands hatred far better than comedy. He knows that what his prog audience wants is not a good imitation but a contemptible one. One they can despise and feel superior to. And that is what he gives them.

Saturday Night Live could not satirize Obama to save its life. It can’t satirize Trump either for the same reason. The façade of humor is falling away from the left’s worship of its ideological idols and fanatical hatred of its enemies. And hatred isn’t funny. It’s clumsy. It’s stupid. And it’s ugly.

Comedy is creative. Contempt isn’t comedy. Ultimately it’s just contemptible.
Liberals like to claim that the Trump election has loosed the forces of hatred and bigotry in America. And it has. From the left. We’ve long claimed that, relative to conservatives, liberals have a superior ability to segregate and isolate themselves from other points of view. Their college professors were virtually all liberals. Their neighborhoods are enclaves of liberalism, like the East Side in Milwaukee. They are in professions where virtually everybody is a liberal: academia, journalism, social services.

This has rendered them unable to understand or even take seriously conservative arguments. It has rendered them unable to have any empathy with working class people (the core Trump constituency) or with middle class conservatives.

They paid the piper in November 2016. And there is no reason to believe more than a tiny minority of them will learn any lessons from that. It’s just too comfortable being smug.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 24, 2017

Bill Clinton’s Advice for O’Reilly

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 by 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 excruciating 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: , , , , , ,