Saturday, August 01, 2015

Texas “Christian” University: Punishing a Student for Politically Incorrect Speech

There is something like this almost every day: a student says unkind things on social media about black rioters in Baltimore and about Islam and he is punished by his college.

From The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
FORT WORTH, Texas, July 29, 2015—Texas Christian University (TCU) has abandoned its stated commitments to free speech and due process after a group of Internet commenters were offended by one student’s social media posts and complained to university administrators.

TCU suspended student Harry Vincent for commentary posted to his personal Facebook and Twitter profiles related to current events, including the protests in Baltimore, the threat of terrorism, and the spread of the “Islamic State.” The suspension comes after a non-student, using the name “Kelsey” and apparently living in Maryland, created a post on her Tumblr page containing screenshots of a selection of Vincent’s posts. Kelsey labeled Vincent’s commentary “racist” and “disgusting” and asked readers to contact TCU to report his speech.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote to TCU today to urge the university to reverse the charges and sanctions applied to Vincent for his protected extracurricular expression. FIRE also expressed dismay with TCU’s violation of Vincent’s due process rights, which included coercing an apology from him prior to any determination of guilt.

“If TCU no longer believes student rights are important, it should just come out and say so,” said Ari Cohn, an attorney and Senior Program Officer for Legal and Public Advocacy at FIRE. “Tricking students into attending TCU by making glowing promises of free speech and due process rights—only to go back on those promises following unreasonable demands from someone who doesn’t even attend the school—is shocking and itself offensive to the most basic sense of fairness. TCU should reverse its action against Harry Vincent immediately.”

TCU is a private university and thus not legally bound by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, it is both morally and contractually bound to honor the explicit and repeated promises of freedom of expression that it makes to its students. Among these is TCU’s “Demonstration Guidelines” policy, which states that “TCU firmly supports the rights of all members of the University community to express their views.”

From approximately December 2014 through April 2015, Vincent occasionally posted commentary on his Facebook and Twitter profiles related to current events. Vincent’s viewpoints on these events apparently inspired Kelsey’s Tumblr post on or about April 28, 2015. Shortly after publishing her post, Kelsey and some of her readers reported that they received a response from TCU Associate Dean of Campus Life Glory Z. Robinson that said “the Campus Life Office will address this situation.”

On April 29, Vincent received a letter from Robinson charging him with violating two student conduct code provisions, those relating to “Infliction of Bodily or Emotional Harm” and “Disorderly Conduct.” At the conclusion of a May 1 ”investigative” meeting at which Vincent was first informed of the basis for the charges, Robinson directed him to write a letter of apology for his posts and detail the punishment that he felt would be appropriate for his speech.

On May 8, Robinson informed Vincent that she had found him in violation of the two conduct code provisions and that he would receive a “Suspension in Abeyance” through August 15, 2016, and be placed on “Disciplinary Probation” through his graduation from TCU. Under the terms of his suspension, Vincent can only attend his classes and cannot reside on campus, participate in any co-curricular activities, or utilize any non-academic facilities on campus. He is also required to complete a course on “Issues in Diversity,” complete 60 hours of community service, and meet with Robinson on a regular basis.

On July 16, an appeals panel of TCU faculty members and administrators denied Vincent’s appeal and upheld all aspects of Robinson’s decision. In a July 24 letter formalizing the panel’s decision, Student Conduct and Grievance Committee Chair Lynn K. Flahive summarily dispensed with Vincent’s appeal arguments and declared, “The choices you made caused harm to other individuals. These types of comments are not acceptable at TCU … .”

In addition to betraying its promises of free speech, TCU has also betrayed its due process promises. Robinson coerced Vincent into writing an apology and proposed sanction prior to any determination of his guilt, and then used those statements as evidence of his guilt. In doing so, Robinson violated TCU’s “Fair Play Rights for Students” policy, which states that students have the right “[t]o remain silent about any incident in which s/he is a suspect. No form of harassment shall be used by a university representative to coerce admissions of guilt.” TCU also did not inform Vincent about any details of the specific complaints against him, despite his having requested the incident reports and complaints against him.

“If the TCU administration is willing to punish its students every time they offend someone on the Internet, TCU students should be very afraid,” said Cohn. “That TCU would sacrifice its students’ free speech and due process rights to appease a social media mob betrays where its priorities lie—with its public relations department, not its students’ fundamental rights.”
If one looks at Vincent’s actual posts, it should be obvious that they express strong opinions, but are not racist.

For example, he says that Baltimore rioters (“hoodrat criminals” he calls them) should be “shipped off and exiled to the sahara desert.” Apparently, any criticism of any black people (even criminals who are rioting) is considered racist. Or, put another way, in the minds of leftists, the rioters are the authentic representatives of the black community, so criticizing them is criticizing all blacks.

Likewise, Vincent adds that “maybe then they’ll realize how much we provide for them (welfare, college tuition, obama phone’s [sic] medicare, etc.”

Associating black people with welfare dependency is something that the left does not like. But of course, if somebody wants to cut back welfare programs, the same leftists will loudly call such initiatives racist!

In reality, in 2009, 25.1% of persons living in black households were receiving food stamps, while only 6.9% of persons in white (non-Hispanic) households got food stamps. Indeed, a bit over half of all blacks (50.9% to be exact) lived in a household getting some means-tested assistance, as opposed to only 20.5% of non-Hispanic whites.(See Table 543 here.)

The fact of black welfare dependency should not be used to taunt black people generally, but it’s a perfectly fine response to race hustlers who are constantly claiming that a racist America oppresses black people.

In another post Vincent says that Islam is “clearly not a religion of peace” and that Obama “needs to step up and take action.” Certainly an arguable position, no matter how it offends the politically correct.

Of course, at TCU as in academia generally, blacks are protected from hearing anything at odds with the supposed black political agenda, but calling whites racist and berating them for supposed “white privilege” is condoned and even encouraged. Attacks on Islam are frowned on (and punished) but nasty attacks on Christianity are perfectly OK.

This case should make it clear to any Christian parents who want to send their children to a Christian university that TCU is not such a place.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Outlaw the Redskins Name? Just the Beginning

From an anonymous e-mail. We don’t know who first wrote this, but it’s all over the ‘net. It was written in response to an oh-so-politically correct column by Clarence Page.
Dear Mr. Page:

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let’s also ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns. The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60’s alive. Gone. It’s offensive to us white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then, there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.

As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women’s athletic teams to something other than “the Beavers” (especially when they play Southern California) . Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them.

As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the Do Nothings to better represent their community, paying tribute to the idiots in Congress.
Once one starts looking for grievances, the possibilities never end. The U.S. Army, for examples, has attack helicopters named Sioux, Iroquois, Apache, Black Hawk, Kiowa, Comanche, Cayuse and Cheyenne.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Global Warming/Climate Change: Extended Discussion

Talking to legendary Chicago talk show host Milt Rosenberg, two global warming skeptics (James M. Taylor and Steve Goreham) discuss the issues in depth.

Interestingly, proponents of man-made global warming refused to appear on the show, leaving Rosenberg to play the role of devil’s advocate. This, Rosenberg explains, is almost invariably the case as warming advocates imperiously insist that warming is “settled science” about which there is no legitimate doubt.

But public opinion polls shot there most certainly is doubt among the citizenry.

So if their case is so strong, why won’t the advocates avail themselves of the opportunity to convince doubters with their (supposedly) superior arguments? It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the issue is way more complex than the warmists want the public knowing, and that they fear they would be on the defensive.

Instinctively, we should distrust people who refuse to argue their case. Their refusal implies that they live in a little bubble where everybody shares their assumptions, and they fear stepping out into the world where their assumptions will be challenged.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 20, 2015

Bye, Bye First Amendment

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Humanity in South Carolina

As a Klan demonstration faced off against a bunch of black militants and white leftists, an act of humanity by a black trooper put what has happened there in the proper perspective.

For their part, the white citizens of Charleston have rallied around the black church whose members were killed, so much so that an MSNBC reporter broke down on the air.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Left Wing “Netroots” Really Hate Walker

From Politico:
PHOENIX, Ariz. — There’s no love lost for any of the 2016 Republican presidential contenders at the 2015 Netroots Nation confab, but attendees reserve a special kind of loathing for one candidate in particular: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

It’s an understandable sentiment given the setting. This year’s edition of the annual convention of liberal activists is heavily focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, with a strong union presence. The AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association have booths set up near the center of the convention hall, and many of the other booths are focused on one economic topic or another. Two large American flags with rainbow stripes instead of alternating red and white hang from the LGBT Netroots Connect booth, an indication of how forcefully gay rights are defended here.

All of which makes this a very hostile crowd for Walker, who regularly trumpets his victories over public-sector unions in his home state, and now weaves his opposition to the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage decision into his stump speech as well.

“Scott Walker is probably the most dangerous of the Republicans in my opinion. And that’s just my opinion,” Dan O’Neal, the Arizona state coordinator for the Progressive Democrats of America, said. “He and Bush are probably the two most dangerous in terms of competing with Bernie or Hillary.”

It’s not that there are any warm and fuzzy feelings toward the rest of the GOP field, but it’s Walker who stirs the most negative passions among liberal activists.

“I mean, if you look at the records, Scott Walker has destroyed the economy and it’s been devastating for workers there,” Stephanie Taylor, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said on Thursday as she sat in a conference room alongside Adam Green, the other founder of the liberal political action committee. “I would hate to see that happen to America.”

Green quickly interjected, saying Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are the least appealing of the bunch. “But that’s not to say we could live with the other ones,” he added.

This year, Netroots attendees sporting pro-Bernie Sanders buttons are everywhere (on Thursday, it was hard to find a Hillary Clinton logo), and none of them had positive things to say about Walker.

And just as Sanders, with his unabashedly pro-labor views, fires up his left-leaning supporters, Walker’s union-busting boasts send them into paroxysms of rage.

“To me he looks like a little twerp,” said Fred Koegel, a retired member of the Iron Workers of Chicago Local 11 union. “He looks like the kid that hired the bullies in the schoolyard to protect him. That’s him, OK?”
This kind of raw hatred on the part of the left has, in fact, proven to be a huge political asset for Walker.

It is a truism among political scientists that people with intense preferences matter more in politics than people with bland opinions. But it doesn’t work that way when extremists are conspicuously deranged. The leftists’ tantrums in Wisconsin didn’t seem to hurt Walker. Ordinary voters are likely to sympathize with the targets of the extremists. This is especially true when the target of the extremists is rather mild-mannered and earnest. (Between left extremists and Donald Trump, the issue is more complex.)

Most certainly, nobody in the Walker campaign is crying in their beer over news like this.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, July 13, 2015

ABC in 2009: Global Warming Disaster by 2015

This from the Media Research Center. Of course, the fact that the media has puffed absurd scenarios doesn’t mean there is no man-made global warming. But numerous examples like this mean you can’t trust what the media tell you about the issue. Following is a part of the transcript of the segment from Good Morning America.

CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called “Earth 2100.” We’re asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don’t save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC’s Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob.

BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.

[NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention.

JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we’re not doing it.

[Graphic: Welcome to 2015]

PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we’ve still failed to address the climate problem.

JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.

UNIDENTIFIED “REPORTER:” Flames cover hundreds of square miles.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t know really know where the end is.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are rising.

HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.


CUOMO: I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?

WOODRUFF: It’s very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you’ve got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You’ve got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.


WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we’re going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that’s going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we’ve gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look.

UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon.

THIRD UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m scared [bleeped] right now, but I have to get this out.

WOODRUFF: So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we’re just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon.

CUOMO: Lovely. Bob Woodruff. Thank you very much. You can find out much more about how you can be part of this exciting and important show. You can go to or you can go to
Being the Mainstream Media, of course, means never having to say “we are sorry we lied to you.”

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Going International: Marquette Makes Jerusalem Post

An article on intolerance on American campuses, focusing especially on anti-Israel activism, mentions several instances of censorship and silencing of non-leftist views:
Not by accident is the most leftist dominated segment of American life also that in which free speech is least protected. Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) has written a new book called The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Much of that book is devoted to American universities where left-wing students, administrators and faculty have sent the message that “anyone [who] strays off the leftist script... might find themselves investigated, harassed, ostracized, even expelled” because their speech has given offense.

Nearly 60% of the colleges and universities in America have campus speech codes that dramatically restrict, if not obliterate, freedom of speech. One, for instance, bars students from “offending... a member of the university community.”

Fordham University prohibits using email to “insult.” Offense and insult are determined by the ones so offended. Numerous universities have instituted “trigger warnings” on course content to warn students that course material may cause them distress by challenging their worldview.

Janet Napolitano, chancellor of the University of California system, the nation’s largest, recently instituted seminars for deans and department chairs to guide them in things that should no longer be said because they constitute “micro-aggressions,” defined as “brief, subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating message to the recipient because of his or her group membership.”

Included are such statements as “America is a land of opportunity”; “I believe that the most qualified person should get the job”; “America is a melting-pot” and “affirmative action is racist.”

Each of these “suggestions” seeks to impose a particular societal vision and/or foreclose societal debate. They constitute a liberal version of the Gulag’s reeducation centers. Objections to the first two statements are based on a desire to portray America as so racist that individual talent and hard work are virtually irrelevant and it is impossible to speak of a hirings based on merit. “America is a melting-pot” is objectionable, because it prefers the traditional view of America as an affirmational society bound together by certain common ideas over the multicultural vision of a balkanized society based on ethnic, racial and sexual identities. The view that non-colorblind admissions and hiring is inherently racist is one side of a long-standing debate, and it just happens to be the view adopted by the US Supreme Court of late.

A group of Scholars of Color recently disrupted a class at UCLA, charging that the tenured professor had committed “micro-aggressions” against them. Example: The professor changed one student’s capitalization of “indigenous” to lower case, and thus disrespected her ideological point of view. Were the students punished for disrupting a class? No. The 79-year-old professor was instructed to stay off the graduate campus for a year, and UCLA commissioned an “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty.”

At Marquette University, a Jesuit school, Prof. John McAdams was stripped of tenure and fired for a blog post, in which he criticized by name a graduate teaching assistant who had told a student that he could not defend the traditional Catholic teaching on same-gender marriage in class because it might offend other students.

McAdams wrote that the graduate student had used “a tactic typical among liberals now.

Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”

His firing proved how right he was and how effective those tactics have proven.
Of course, part and parcel of this intolerant leftism is hostility toward Israel.
Not all offense is equal. Jewish students live in a hostile environment, which can at times be genuinely frightening, on many campuses across America. Last summer, Boston police had to protect pro-Israel students over three successive days from pro-Palestinian mobs shouting “Jews back to Birkenau.” Over 50% of Jewish students report that they have personally experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism.

No one, it seems, is particularly concerned about aggressions – micro or otherwise – against them, even though Jew hatred is not exactly an unknown phenomenon throughout history.

On about 200 campuses, there are annual Israel Apartheid Week rallies calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Many of the events are formally sponsored by academic departments and promoted by professors on their emails.

Ruth Wisse, in “Anti-Semitism Goes to School” (in the May Mosaic) describes how a group of pro-Palestinian student groups demanded that candidates for student government at UCLA and Berkeley sign a pledge that they will not participate in trips to Israel organized by groups like AIPAC or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships. Most candidates refused to sign, but the student government president did.

While expressing discomfort with the pledge, UCLA’s Jewish chancellor declined to go further on the grounds that promotion of the pledge is a form of free speech. When it comes to leftists, minorities and those otherwise easily offended, the subjective hurt of those offended trumps free speech; when it comes to insult and intimidation of Jewish students, however, the value of campus free inquiry and speech is suddenly rediscovered.

As Wisse puts it, “Institutions that enforce ‘sensitivity training’ to ensure toleration for gays, blacks and other minorities may inadvertently be bringing some of these groups together in common hostility to Jews as the only campus minority against whom hostility is condoned.”
Jews, for a few decades after the Holocaust, had the status of a politically correct victim group, toward whom liberals were sympathetic. But that era is gone.

Why is this? First, because Israel is an ally of the United States, and liberals and leftists, not liking America, instinctively dislike America’s allies also.

Secondly, liberals and leftists pride themselves on being champions of the world’s victims. Jews, and the state of Israel, have not played the part of victim. Jews have succeeded splendidly in American society, and Israel has not only prospered as a free society, it has decisively beaten off Arab attacks. Not the sort of place that can be portrayed as victimized.

Thus we have the (happily) unsuccessful attempt on the Marquette campus to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Some flavor of this campaign can by seen in the Twitter feed of Students for Justice in Palestine.

But the anti-Israel campaign has been supported by several official units of Marquette.

Labels: , , , , , ,

20 Cheap, Tacky, Totally Unfair Jokes About Democrats

Also, see the comments below the video on YouTube for more jokes.

To Democrats: you can use most of these jokes against Republicans by simply changing a name or two.

But one that wouldn’t work so well:
Why does Bill Clinton wear boxer shorts?

To keep his ankles warm.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 10, 2015

Bogus Racial Incidents on College Campuses

There have been a lot of bogus “racist” incidents on college campuses, incidents staged by leftists and members of minority groups, aimed at promoting a “diversity” agenda by making people believe that the modern college campus is just crawling with racists. And thus there needs to be a full court press to indoctrinate the entire student body into the shibboleths of political correctness.

A few examples can be found in Ann Coulter’s book Mugged.

White Gangs at Columbia University — 1987

In March 1987, eight months before Tawana Brawley became a household name, black students at Columbia University made the rather incredible charge that mobs of white students were beating up black students on campus. About a dozen blacks claimed to have seen or been victims of these racist attacks.

In the 1980s, American colleges were sturdy sentinels against the merest hint of a racist thought. There were seminars on racism, posters against racism, bake sales against racism, racism “awareness” days, articles denouncing racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism. More resources were devoted to studying racism than studying history, chemistry or math. It would be hard to find a single person on an American college campus, at least post-1980, who would have one good thing to say about racism.

Moreover, the alleged perpetrators of these racist beatings at Columbia weren’t teenaged toughs with criminal records in a working-class neighborhood: They were college students at an Ivy League school.

But blacks claimed that whites were so terrorizing them that they were afraid to walk alone on campus. According to their spokeswoman, Barnard student Cheryl Derricotte, it was “open season on black people.”

The usual nonsense ensued. There were sit-ins, administration building take-overs, and noisy rallies outside the fraternity house said to harbor the white racist thugs. Fifty people were arrested as a result of the anti-racism protests. Most of them were white. Twenty-three Columbia students staged a sit-in at 1 Police Plaza in lower Manhattan to demand the arrest of the white students they claimed were beating up blacks on campus.

Black students formed a group to protect themselves from the marauding white mobs and — in what was always a good sign — hired C. Vernon Mason as their lawyer. “The message has gotten out,” Mason said, —“that black students are not safe on the Columbia campus and someone is going to have to answer for this.”

Newsweek quoted Frank L. Matthews, publisher of Black Issues in Higher Education, saying that he blamed the surge of college racism on white students’ “reading the messages” from the Reagan administration. Of course, another theory is that it was black students “reading the messages” from a media that gave full-court press to even simulated racist incidents and refused to hold black people accountable for false reports.

If you are not a journalist, it will come as no surprise that, after painstaking investigations by both the police and the very politically correct university, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. According to dozens of eyewitnesses, it was black students who had started a fight with white students late one night after a dance, and then made up the cock-and-bull story about roving white gangs targeting blacks.

None of the newspapers and magazines that had reported the original story about white racists stampeding through an Ivy League campus ever got around to mentioning that it was a lie—not the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek or Time magazine. Careful readers had to wait for this admission in the Christian Science Monitor about a year later:
[T]he the university report on the incident, which relied on the signed statements of 22 eyewitnesses ...differed substantially from the account given by the blacks and used by the news media in reporting the story. [I]n the Columbia account, the actual brawl was provoked by a group of five to seven blacks outside the hangout. [T]heir story of “a white lynch mob” has since been discredited.
No charges were brought by the university or the police against the students for filing a false police complaint.

The national news coverage of a story about Ivy Leaguers as latter-day Bull Connors triggered dozens more of these incidents at campuses around the country. These were all hoaxes, too. But no matter how absurd the idea of marauding white students attacking blacks on college campuses, the false charges kept coming and liberals kept believing them.

Sabrina Collins, Emory University

A few years later, in 1990, Sabrina Collins, a black premed student at Emory College, claimed to have been the victim of a campaign of racial ha­rassment — “die, [N-word], die” had been painted on her floor, bleach poured on her clothes and typed death threats slipped under her door. Even her stuffed animals had been mutilated. As a result of these incidents, Collins fell mute and had to be hospitalized.

Hundreds of students held a rally to protest racism as a result of what had happened to Collins. One student, Leonard Scriven, denounced what he called the “pervasive system of racism” at Emory. At a meeting of students and faculty about the incident, a newly formed black student group, Students Against Racial Inequality, submitted a list of demands, including more black students and faculty members, two new centers for the study of African American culture . . .and the firing of the director of public safety, Edward A. Medlin.

The public safety office had already responded to Collins’s allegations by equipping her dorm room with additional locks, a portable motion detector and an alarm system. Safety officers patrolled her hallway as well as the area outside her dormitory building. The office of public safety had called in local, state and federal investigators. But the students against racial inequality wanted this poor guy’s head.

After a thorough inquiry, the Georgia. Bureau of Investigation concluded that Collins had perpetrated the racist acts on herself. Her fingerprints were the only ones on the letters and were arranged on the page in a pattern indicating that she had put the letter in a typewriter; the letters had been composed on a typewriter in the library she frequented; and, finally, the letters also spelled “you’re” as “your” — as was Sabrina’s habit. The incidents had begun just as Collins was being investigated for an honor code violation for cheating in a chemistry class.

No charges were pressed against Collins. The story vanished. Let’s just hope the head of public safety was allowed to keep his job.

Gilbert Moore, Jr., Williams College — 1993

Fake racist incidents on college campuses became as common as Madonna’s music. Against a background of daily lectures against racism, some racist letter or graffiti would materialize, there would be a generalized gnashing of teeth about the pervasiveness of racism and then the perpetrator would always turn out to be a black student.

At Williams College in 1993, hideous racist messages were found on the door of the Black Student Union. An uproar ensued. Two days later, Dean Joan Edwards announced to general relief that the culprit had admitted responsibility and was being punished — but neglected to mention that the student was black until two weeks later, as the rumor mill went wild.

Junior Gilbert Moore Jr. said he had put up the racist notes as a response to actual racism at Williams — of which there was no evidence or he wouldn’t have needed to fake it — and to encourage more dialogue about racism, because twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week was not enough. The college rose to the challenge — by suspending him for one semester. Enraged that a black student would be held responsible for anything he did, some black students denounced the harsh penalty, threatening to leave Williams. Moore concluded: “The system . . . has failed me.”

Alicia Hardin, Trinity International University — 2005

Federal investigators must have been getting bored with the hoax hate crimes on college campuses they kept being asked to investigate. After OJ, even the media’s hysteria was muted. Nonetheless, when three students at Trinity International University, a small Christian college near Chicago, received threatening racist letters in 2005, scores of newspapers across the country ran with the news.

A New York Times article on the alleged hate crime was bristling with references to the Christian nature of the school: “Christian College Secludes Students after Hate Letters ...a small Evangelical Christian college ...a conservative Bible-based school .. more than 20 students held hands in a circle to pray . . . Affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of America, the university mission statement says that its education is based on ‘the authority of God’s inerrant word, Holy Scripture,’ and that it seeks an international identity with ‘people drawn from every tribe and tongue.’”

As is required by law, Jesse Jackson met with the victims of the letters, reporting that they “feel like a target is on their back because they are black.” Charlie Dates, a black student getting his masters in divinity, did not sound especially worried. He told the Times, “Crazy people do crazy things. It’s nothing to be terrified over.”

There was big coverage for the initial allegation. You would not read in the New York Times, however, that the perpetrator turned out to be a black student, Alicia Hardin. She had staged the racist incident because she “wanted to switch schools.” But as soon as she confessed, the Times lost interest in the story.

So did most of the newspapers from around the country that had given banner coverage to the original story. Only a handful bothered informing their readers about the investigation’s results. When the hoax part of the story was reported at all, it usually showed up in demure, hundred-word items buried deep inside the newspaper. 

Instead of bemoaning the runaway popularity of Fox News, the liberal media might consider cutting into Fox’s popularity by not aggressively hiding the news.

None of the racist incidents sweeping college campuses ever turned out to be true. They were either the normal bumps and jostles that come with being a human being — or, more often, they were complete frauds perpetrated by wannabe victims.

Here at Marquette

Which brings up a supposed evidence for racism at Marquette. From a statement signed by a few dozen leftist faculty:
The evidence for Marquette’s racist climate is manifold: explicitly racist comments such as “black lives don’t matter” on the social media site YikYak; racist graffiti in the campus library; daily microaggressions and more.
Somebody needs to produce the offensive Tweets from Yik Yak; at the moment we don’t see anything objectionable. Of course, the comment could have been removed. If there was such a comment, it could have been a hoax, or indeed could have been a lament about the low value put on black lives.

Likewise, we would like to see the “racist graffiti.” In this era when everybody has a smart phone, there must be an image, right? And is it a hoax too? Even if some racist did it, he’s not likely to repent and see the error of his ways due to some Stalinist reeducation.

As for “microaggressions,” the concept is defined absurdly broadly to include things at which only somebody with a chip on their shoulder would take umbrage. Indeed, some perfectly reasonable expressions of opinion are defined, by campus leftists, as “microaggressions.”

The simple fact, of which anybody who knows Marquette students is fully aware, is that they are not racist. Do they sometimes hold opinions that campus leftists don’t like? Opposing affirmative action, for example? Or believing that the biggest problem blacks have is not white racism but the small number of black children who have a dad? Most certainly. And they have every right to believe those things.

But that’s something leftist faculty don’t accept.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 02, 2015

Bogus Narrative on Black Churches Burning

From Front Page Magazine:
The media’s dishonest reporting.

July 2, 2015

Michelle Malkin

America is still reeling from the horrific Charleston, S.C., massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church that claimed the lives of nine innocent people.

The last thing the community and our country need are hysterical journalists compounding the pain with inflammatory reporting on an unsubstantiated “epidemic” of black church arsons.

On Monday, a Baltimore Sun lead editorial decried “a series of mysterious fires at African-American churches across the South” in the wake of the Charleston murders. The newspaper cited a “pattern” of attacks, including what it claimed was an “uptick in attacks on 37 black churches in the South” in the 1990s that “prompted President Bill Clinton to set up a church-arson investigative task force.”

The Sun neglected to mention that Clinton had falsely claimed at the time that he had “vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child” — an assertion immediately debunked by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The Sun also neglected to mention that the manufactured media coverage that launched the 1990s black church arson juggernaut, fueled by former USA Today reporter Gary Fields’ 61 fear-mongering stories, fell apart under scrutiny. Fields’ own employer was forced to admit that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Reminder: Several of the hyped hate crimes against black churches had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the black churches were, in fact, white churches; and the complex motives behind the crimes included mental illness, vandalism and concealment of theft.

Once again, falsified history is repeating itself.

The NAACP, which capitalized on the Clinton-era race hustle, is now pushing the new arson epidemic narrative. The organization remains shamelessly undaunted after fueling the fake NAACP “bombing” in Colorado Springs earlier this year. The group’s CEO, Cornell Brooks, tweeted the incendiary “#WhoIsBurningBlackChurches” hashtag on Tuesday and disclosed that he is “informing churches, reviewing legislation, pushing media awareness and deciding legal options.”

The left-wing instigators at the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose stated mission is to “destroy” its political opponents and whose target map and list of social conservative groups were used by left-wing domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins to shoot up the Washington, D.C., office of the Family Research Council in 2012, baselessly reported: “In what may not be a coincidence, a string of nighttime fires have damaged or destroyed at least six predominately black churches in four southern states in the past week.”

Teach for America alumnus agitator DeRay McKesson quickly added his Twitter kerosene to the fire, reflexively claiming that the “KKK” was responsible for a half-dozen black church burnings.

Buried beneath the sensationalized social media avalanche of panic: the more judicious and careful observations of Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce that the feds have made no official determinations that any hate crimes have taken place and that “it’s unclear whether any of the fires are linked.”

It was observed that “one of the half-dozen church crimes was most likely accidental” and had “no element of criminal intent.”

Another “was likely touched off by an electrical short” after a tree limb fell on the property, yanking the electrical service line with it.

And yet another alleged “black church arson” actually involved a white church “struck by lightning.”

No matter.

NBC News trumpeted: “Spate of Fires at Black Churches Raise Concerns of Rise in Hate Crimes.”

The Washington Post ominously tallied “five predominantly black Southern churches burn within a week; arson suspected in at least three.”

The New York Daily News blared: “String of apparent arson fires plague black churches in Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee.” quoted a hate crimes “expert” blaming — you guessed it — “the growth of violent right-wing extremist ideology in the U.S.” for the nonexistent black church arson epidemic.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

In this case, it’s coming from the five-alarm self-immolation of agenda-driven journalism’s credibility.
That mainstream media types, with their liberal biases, would be suckers for the Standard Racial Narrative — black people as beaten down victims of white racism — is no surprise.

What is stunning is their absurd inability to notice that this narrative has imploded time after time. It did with the “black church burnings” of the 1990s. It did with the Duke Lacrosse case. It did with the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. It did in Ferguson, Missouri. It did in Baltimore (where three of the six charged officers are black).

Are they stupid? No, they are just immersed in a culture virulently committed to the Standard Racial Narrative. As True Believers, they are staunchly resistant to any reconsideration of the narrative. They might concede this or that case — albeit reluctantly when the evidence becomes undeniable. But the next time a chance to apply the narrative comes along, they revert to the standard credulity.


More on this from First Things:
Some coverage has taken the time to point out that about 1600 churches in the U.S. suffer fires every year, 16 percent of them due to arson, which means on average at least five churches suffer arson every week. There are believed to be about 340,000 religious congregations in the U.S., and about 20 percent are believed to be black, although about 40 percent in the South are thought to be predominantly black.

Much of the recent coverage has cited the black church arson story of the 1990s, when there was a reputed upsurge in burnings. Few articles back then noted that church arsons averaged about 500-600 annually, according to the insurance industry, and that if 20 percent were black there would be on average about 100-120 burned black churches, which no study ever found to be the case.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

A-10 Warthog: the Plane the Air Force Wants to Kill

And why does the Air Force want to kill the A-10?
  1. It’s ugly. The fact that it’s extremely effective matters less to them.
  2. It’s slow. Who would want a plane that can’t fly at Mach 2? Never mind that Mach 2 has almost no military value.
  3. It supports ground troops. That’s not something the Air Force particularly wants to do.
  4. It doesn’t engage in air combat. Flying it, you can’t pretend you are in the glorious tradition of Manfred von Richthofen.
  5. It doesn’t cost a lot.
  6. It’s ugly.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Muddle-Headed Pope on Arms Manufacturers

From the Huffington Post:
TURIN, Italy (Reuters) - People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.

Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another.”

Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second world wars. He spoke of the “tragedy of the Shoah,” using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

“The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb (the railway lines)?”
That’s right. In one and the same speech, he condemned arms manufacturers, and lamented the fact that the Allies did not bomb the railway lines to the death camps.

And with what were the Allies supposed to bomb the rail lines? Bombers. Built by weapons manufacturers. Most likely B-17s (built by Boeing) or B-24s (built by Consolidated).

Has the Pope even noticed the contradiction?

As Marc Livecche has noted:
With what, precisely, did he intend the allies to bomb the rail lines? The 20th Century ought to have convinced us, including us Christians, that those kinds of folks who enjoy genocide cannot usually be talked out of their malevolence with prayers or harsh language – they most often have to be forced out of it. If soft power cannot get those who are murdering the innocent to stand down then hard power is necessary to knock them down. Such business is about more than “hate, fratricide, and violence.” If stopping genocide is a good thing to do then those who have done it – and those who supply the tools to help them do it – have, well, done good. To be sure, the motives of some who sell arms might be mixed. But while this might, in those cases, marble our moral evaluation, we oughtn’t allow the marbling to eclipse the good nor to forget that, just as soldiering can be a Christian vocation, so too can be making the tools of their trade.
Livecche then deals with the notion that Christians can somehow opt out of war and violence:
It will do no good to claim, as some have, that this is the business of the government and not of Christians. To claim that God ordained the sword for the government to maintain just order but that he has called Christians away from such business in order to provide an alternative, peaceable kingdom is, in my judgment, the true hypocrisy – not the notion of Christians providing weapons of war. If the peaceable kingdom were a viable alternative to hard coercion then, surely, God would have ordained such a kingdom instead of, rather than alongside, the government’s sword. Given that God has ordained the sword, I stand among those who infer, therefore, that the sword is necessary. And if the sword is necessary then that makes the peaceable kingdom parasitic – because it cannot remain in a world in which the good do not bear arms. The idea that Christians should allow their neighbors to dirty their hands while keeping their own souls clean is, frankly, morally abhorrent.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, June 27, 2015


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Self-Righteous Marquette “Diversity Advocates” Block Traffic on Wisconsin Avenue, Make Absurd Demands

It happened back in April, a bunch of students demonstrating for “diversity” by blocking traffic on Wisconsin Avenue. They were quite proud of themselves, as they splashed a photo of themselves blocking traffic all over the top of their Facebook page.

They were, of course, arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Below are the mug shots of the student arrested.

Rebecca Zellelew
Miguel Sanchez
Victoria Gokee-Rindal
Joseph Martinez
So what are these students demanding? In fact, there is a document that is their manifesto, and it reads like a compilation of the standard politically correct grievances and demands of the race hustlers on college campuses.

The Seal

The first demand:
Recrop the Marquette University’s seal which depicts a biased and impartial [sic] narrative of Marquette’s initial relationship with Indigenous peoples to include the Illinois peoples whom [sic] are welcoming and guiding Marquette
That these folks don’t know what “impartial” means nor the usage of “who” and “whom” are the least silly things about this.

What is supposedly objectionable about the seal? One leftist faculty member explains:
“Where Father Marquette is active and commanding, the Native figure appears passive and subservient,” [Jodi] Melamed said. “It’s the classic colonialist and white supremacist division of humanity being represented: the white Jesuit provides the direction, he’s the brains of the outfit, the Native person provides the labor and follows the white person’s lead.”
Melamed, of course, brings the standard politically correct obsessions to the issue. Academics like her, if administered a Rorschach test, would doubtless see colonialism, white supremacy, racism, sexism and homophobia in the ink blots. In reality, Father Marquette was indeed “in the lead” as somebody exploring a land new to him.

And others don’t bring Melamed’s obsessions to the subject:
Jacqueline Schram, faculty advisor of Marquette’s Native American Student Association, sees the image as an inspiration of reflection and hope that Marquette can work to improve its focus on Native American issues and students.

“For me, the Native American in our seal serves as both a source of pride and compass,” Schram said in an email. “The decision to indelibly etch the historic relationship between the First Peoples of Wisconsin and Father Marquette pays homage to the interdependency and inspires a sense of hope that this can be once again.”
But for the politically correct, no opportunity to be aggrieved should be passed up.

Demanding More Indoctrination

Next demand:
The expansion of the core curriculum to include 2-3 more diversity and inclusion required courses that unambiguously address the realities of white privilege and oppression at Marquette, in Milwaukee, and in our nation[.]
Marquette already requires one “diversity” course chosen from a list of courses, virtually all of which are politically correct victim studies.

But this, apparently, is not sufficient indoctrination.

Note the demand that “required courses . . . unambiguously address the realities of white privilege and oppression at Marquette.” Apparently, there has to be an ideological litmus test for these courses. The instructor is not allowed to conclude that “white privilege” is not a useful concept in analyzing race relations, nor that the chief sources of black oppression come from within the black community.  Of course, objective social science says that the biggest disadvantage that black children face is the lack of a father. This subject would apparently be out of bounds in these courses (or else, somehow blamed on white Republicans).

What we have, then, is a direct assault on academic freedom. Faculty who don’t buy into the oppression narrative would not be allowed to teach these courses. Faculty who do, rather than being free to come to their own conclusions, would have to endorse a leftist interpretation, on pain of not being allowed to teach these subjects.


The there is this:
A dialogue and reflection based training on How to end discriminatory violence in the classroom and in the campus community for Faculty/Administration/Staff, New student orientation and beginning Service Learners
So there is violence in Marquette classrooms? Minority students are getting beaten up? If so, where are the arrests?

But the politically correct campus left, unfortunately, defines violence as pretty much anything they don’t like. Might a black student hear somebody criticize affirmative action? Might an Hispanic student hear somebody say that the nation should control its borders, and stop illegal immigration? In the rarefied world of academia, mere opinions that the leftists don’t like qualify as violence.

And of course, the standard treatment for Thought Crime is a “dialogue and reflection based training.” In other words, Stalinist reeducation.

Rat Out Politically Incorrect Expression

The next part is more explicit as to what might constitute “violence.”
The further development of the Bias Incident Report System to include an anonymous submission option and a student response team inclusive of student leaders, residence hall RAs and Diversity Peer Coordinators. . . . We define discriminatory violence as physical harassment, language, exclusion or imagery that targets an individual or group based upon their race / gender / sex / class / national or cultural identities
Here, it is obvious that “violence” is defined so broadly as to be meaningless. Is telling an ethnic joke violence? And how about “inclusion?” If a bunch of guys in a dorm go out for a beer, and don’t invite the black guy, is that violence? Did they fail to invite him because he’s black, or rather because he’s always whining about “systemic racism?” Or maybe he just wasn’t around when the guys decided to go out.

What the authoritarians who drafted this document seem to want is to micromanage all student speech, expression and association.

Needing a Racial Quota

Next we have this:
Increased initiatives to recruit and retain students of diverse backgrounds – especially students from Milwaukee’s community. Currently the racial makeup of the city of Milwaukee is less than 50% white, while all racial minority groups combined only represent 20% of Marquette’s student population. This is unacceptable.
Why is it unacceptable? These folks appear not to understand that Marquette is classified as a “national university,” attracting students from across the nation (admittedly with a concentration from Wisconsin and northern Illinois). So why does the racial composition need to mirror the city of Milwaukee (and not even the Milwaukee metropolitan area)?

Marquette already discriminates against white students in admissions. Beyond a certain point, admitting less qualified minorities is counterproductive, since it places those students in a tough academic environment where they struggle, and often fail.


Another point:
We call for the University to responsibly invest in companies that adhere to our Catholic and Jesuit ideals of promoting the betterment of the human community, therefore reconsidering its investment policy and divesting from companies that take part in the abuse and repression of human basic rights
They don’t specify what companies they have in mind here. Companies that do business with Israel? Defense contractors? They don’t say.

Conceal Race of Offenders in Campus Area

This one is particularly interesting:
(a) Remove race from DPS [Department of Public Safety] reports, (b) report ALL crime including sexual assaults, drug usage, etc., which will make clear that white students are frequent lawbreakers and will destigmatize black males/people and students of color on campus and/or (c) make available ALL crime reports via an online active report
The beef here is the fact that Marquette University sends out “Public Safety Alerts” whenever there is a crime on or (more likely) near campus, and the race of the offender (or offenders) is reported. Overwhelmingly, the offenders are black.

We analyzed all Public Safety Alerts issued between May 2014 and April 2015 (inclusive), and found that of 44 offenders whose race was reported, 37 were black. (Four were white and three Hispanic.)

Oh, my! This might give somebody the idea that blacks disproportionately commit crime. So why not conceal this information? Surely, if it isn’t reported, students will start assuming that they are just as likely to be assaulted or robbed by a white as a black. At least, people who drafted this document seem to think so.

As for reporting all crime, naming and shaming (for example) drug offenders, we aren’t terribly opposed to that. But who is going to be named and shamed? Christian students? College Republicans? Or the good buddies of the “diversity” crowd?

These folks better be careful what they ask for. They might get it.

But of course, the purpose of listing the race (and other descriptive details) in the Public Safety Alerts for at large offenders is to help apprehend them. Students smoking joints in the dorm are a different matter entirely.

Politically Correct Dress Code

Then, in a section of the document drafted by The Native American Student Association, we have this:
Implement a no tolerance policy for the Warrior mascot merchandise; students continually wear clothing that represents the mascot which is deeply offensive to Native peoples and upholds White superiority on campus
Here we have the nasty authoritarianism of the politically correct, wanting to stifle student expression. The notion that Indian nicknames are offensive to “Native peoples” is simply untrue. That is unless “Native peoples” merely means Indian race hustlers on college campuses.

A Sports Illustrated poll of a representative sample of American Indians found that over 80 percent opposed changing native American team names. And an Annenberg School poll of American Indians found that over 90 percent did not find the name Redskins offensive.

So what we have here is a situation typical in academia: grievance mongers claiming to represent some constituency (Indians, women, blacks) in fact don’t. But on a college campus, where few have the courage to challenge them, and campus bureaucrats have every incentive to pander to them, they are anointed as official representatives.

Extremist Organization

That the Coalition of and for Students of Color at Marquette University is a rather extreme organization is revealed by their Facebook page, which shows support for cop killer Assata Shakur. Indeed, the posts show that these people see Shakur as a hero.

One of the images from the page is below:

There is also a link to an essay titled “Our Sister, Assata Shakur: Life, Struggle, Justice, and Love.” What are these people thinking?

So how will Marquette react to the demands of this group? In a principled way? Certainly not. Might many or most of the demands be rejected? If there is enough pressure from people who think Marquette has carried political correctness way too far, maybe.

Labels: , , , , , ,