Wednesday, May 04, 2016

You Are Not Alone

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Donald Trump: Crazy Conspiracy Theorist


If you are even slightly inclined to take this notion seriously, you should read this, and also read this.

Conspiracy theorist Jefferson Morley (one of the few conspiracy theorists with a modicum of mainstream credibility) notes:
In the still photo reproduced by the Enquirer the man alleged to be Cruz appears to be handing out pamphlets with Oswald. In the film version, however, he seems to have taken a pamphlet and talks to other passersby, and then vanishes, never to appear again. The man took a pamphlet. There is no visual evidence that he “worked with” Oswald.
One might try to excuse Trump on the grounds that other important political figures have believed in JFK conspiracy theories. Secretary of State John Kerry is one example.

We think all the JFK conspiracy theories are unsupported by evidence, and most are provably bogus. But having doubts about Oswald as the lone gunman is not a bizarre belief, especially for somebody who has been paying only casual attention to the issue.

But Trump has embraced a very marginal theory for which few if any seasoned buffs (including those who believe in a conspiracy) see any evidence. And he has done so on the basis of a report in the National Enquirer.

If he is so incapable of distinguishing reliable and unreliable evidence on this trivial issue, how much confidence can we have in his judgment on vital matters of national security?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 02, 2016

Press Conference: Warrior Blogger Will Sue Marquette

Letter to Lovell: Gay Marriage Can Be Discussed

President Michael R. Lovell
Office of the President
Marquette University
1250 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53233

Dear President Lovell:

I have read with dismay the controversy at Marquette University over the question of whether a student can raise objections or even discuss the question of same-sex marriage at your university. The claim of the teaching assistant, Ms. Abbate, is that some gay student may be upset if the issue is discussed. Her position was challenged by Prof. McAdams and he is the one who got suspended. Sir, you have suspended the wrong person. This is especially ironic since the Catholic Church has been and is vocally opposed to same-sex marriage.

The reasoning here is faulty: Are you allowed to object to abortion at Marquette, knowing that a feminist might be unhappy? The typical tactic of the left—the left that has captured the humanities at most American universities—is not to debate issues, but to intimidate and silence those whose views do not align with theirs. It is not a question of arguing against those with a different position, it is a matter of silencing them.

I will quote your mission statement because it is so relevant here:
As a Catholic university, we are committed to the unfettered pursuit of truth under the mutually illuminating powers of human intelligence and Christian faith. Our Catholic identity is expressed in our choices of curricula, our sponsorship of programs and activities devoted to the cultivation of our religious character, our ecumenical outlook, and our support of Catholic beliefs and values. Precisely because Catholicism at its best seeks to be inclusive, we are open to all who share our mission and seek the truth about God and the world, and we are firmly committed to academic freedom as the necessary precondition for that search. We welcome and benefit enormously from the diversity of seekers within our ranks, even as we freely choose and celebrate our own Catholic identity.
I am a graduate of [redacted] and have been teaching at a large state university for the past 48 years. I teach an Introduction to Moral Philosophy course each semester. We discuss these four topics: Abortion, Euthanasia, Death Penalty, and Sex and Marriage. We read philosophers and analyze Supreme Court decisions on each of these topics. With respect to same-sex marriage, we read Goodridge v Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the first state supreme court decision overturning the Massachusetts prohibition of same-sex marriage, both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion of Justice Martha Sosman who gives vigorous objection to the majority opinion and defends marriage as between a man and a woman. We also read Bowers v Hardwick in which the U. S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Georgia statutes criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Then, we read a later case, Lawrence v Texas in which Justice Blackmun’s dissent in Bowers became the majority opinion in Lawrence. This case overturned Texas’ statute banning homosexual sodomy.

I put in this detail because I have never had a gay or lesbian student, or any other student, object to the open and spirited debate over abortion, marriage, sex, or social arrangements. In other words, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and sex and marriage can and should be discussed in a university ethics class. Most ethics textbooks have chapters on these topics.

Going to a university, especially a Catholic university, should never mean that you will not hear things you do not agree with or things which may challenge your views or things that may even hurt your feelings. Do you admit Protestant students? How do they feel when Catholic doctrine is taught? A university is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where we challenge each other to give reasons and use persuasion, all done in a civil manner. Someone in your administration or even you yourself should instruct Ms. Abbate the meaning of free speech, academic freedom, and the purpose of a university. Better yet, have her read your University Mission Statement. Do not give in to the totalitarianism of controlling speech under the guise that someone may have his or her feelings hurt or that any speech that does not accord with the catechism of the politically correct is “hate speech.” It is hard for me to believe that I can teach things and allow arguments in a state university that are forbidden in a Catholic university, especially when the forbidden discussions are in accord with Catholic doctrine.

Best wishes,

[Name Withheld]

[The writer notes that he does “not want to be dragged personally into the New Spanish Inquisition.”]
In fact, it is perfectly plausible that a large state university might be more open to a discussion of diverse ideas about sexuality than the nominally Catholic Marquette, just as places like the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Texas A & M have more vital Catholic ministries than does Marquette.

There is a particular type of parochialism that afflicts the secularized “Catholic” institutions, but it it not Catholic parochialism. It’s the parochialism that believes it has right to enforce an orthodoxy by authoritarian top-down means. But it’s not a Catholic orthodoxy being enforced, but rather secular political correctness.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Shark Infested Waters

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

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan

From the Chicago Tribune, a comparison between the late president, revered among conservatives, and the current Republican front runner.
Today, the polarizing contender is Donald Trump, and it’s safe to guess that many of the voters who like him also liked Reagan. He has built his campaign, in fact, on his appeal to “Reagan Democrats” — socially conservative working-class voters, particularly white men. “Let’s make America great again” was Reagan’s 1980 slogan. Hmm.

The parallel may sound absurd to those who remember the Gipper as a smiling, avuncular statesman whose speeches could touch the heart. When he was running against President Jimmy Carter, though, critics perceived Reagan as a reckless ignoramus with a simple-minded view of the world and a knack for exploiting racial resentments.
But then the analogy breaks down:
But the resemblance is deceptive. The differences between the Reagan of 1980 and the Trump of 2016 are bigger and deeper than the similarities.

Reagan was a consistent conservative with a clear vision of what he thought the federal government should do, drawing on a body of political and economic thought and first-rate advisers. Trump is not consistently conservative or consistently anything else. He appears to listen to few advisers of any caliber.

The 40th president also had experience in office, having served for eight years as governor of California, where he showed he could balance ideology with practical and political necessity. Trump has no comparable experience, and he has shown no such ability.

The two also diverge on some major issues. Trump regards undocumented workers as a dangerous plague, while Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty that let millions of foreigners gain legal status and citizenship. The protectionist Trump deplores NAFTA — which was the brainchild of Reagan.

Less tangible differences are equally revealing. Trump traffics in dark fears about Mexicans and Muslims, brags nonstop about himself and bombards rivals with insults. Reagan was a courtly man who often made jokes at his own expense. He didn’t take disagreement personally, and Hoover Institution fellow Bill Whalen notes, “Reagan wrote the Eleventh Commandment: ‘Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican.’ Trump has broken the entire tablet.”

Reagan was able to inspire and unite Americans as few presidents have because of his generous spirit, his likable personality and his devotion to the idea of America as a “shining city on a hill.” Trump invokes big goals, but often in ways that diminish our highest ideals.

Reagan served a cause bigger than himself. Trump gives the impression that in his mind, there is nothing bigger than himself.

Republicans mulling whether to fall in line behind Trump ought to ask: Would I be advancing the ideals that Ronald Reagan advocated? Or would I be undercutting the legacy of someone I admired?
Indeed, the white working class has every good reason to vote against liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats, after all, are the people who would discriminate against them in employment, and discriminate against their children in college admissions. Liberal Democrats sneer that their conservative social values, and don’t even bother to conceal their contempt.

But there are better and worse ways to express a legitimate grievance. Right now, the better way is to vote for Ted Cruz, which is actually a vote for an open convention. We don’t see any Ronald Reagan among Republican candidates right now, but we see lot of people better than Donald Trump.

Labels: , , , ,

Anti-Trump Fascists Riot, Harass and Vandalize Rally Goers

Friday, April 29, 2016

Got it Backwards

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

Labels: , , , ,

Still More Coverage of Marquette Attempt to Fire Warrior Blogger

First, from the John William Pope Center, “At Marquette, Honesty, Free Speech, and Tenure No Match for Political Correctness.” Read the whole thing, but one key quote is:
One lesson we learn from this dispute is that faculty contracts and tenure are no shield against vengeful leftist academics. The Marquette administration should have immediately realized that McAdams was perfectly within his rights and told those who were calling for his head to go to their keyboards and argue with him. Instead, it chose to lead the mob.

Another lesson is that academic freedom is on thin ice, at least at some of our institutions. It’s particularly thin under the feet of students and faculty members who dare to contest politically correct ideas. If any Marquette professor had criticized McAdams for his views or the way he treated a student, there would have been no repercussions: no administrative rebuke, no banishment, no suspension, no threatened termination.
In fact, we have been attacked by leftist faculty, and of course that was fine with Marquette.
But free speech on campus has become like the equality of animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm. All animals were supposedly equal, but, once the revolution took over, some were more equal than others. Similarly at Marquette, faculty members are supposed to have academic freedom, but some are more free than others.
Then we have the Weekly Standard. Among many excellent observations we have these:
One might expect [Abbate’s] sort of bullying from, say, a certain Mizzou ex-faculty member. But Marquette is ostensibly a Jesuit institution. Are views held by, for example, the pope out of bounds at a Catholic college? Because for all Pope Francis’s moves toward a less judgmental tone on social issues, he has not reversed the church’s position on same-sex marriage. Speaking last year in the Philippines, the pope said the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage.” He warned that society was “tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”

What could be more confusing than an ethics class at a Catholic university in which discussion of a church doctrine—defense of traditional marriage—is verboten?
And then:
Once upon a time, universities were animated by the classical liberal belief that learning and knowledge, let alone liberty, are best served by robust debate. As John Stuart Mill wrote, it “is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” Dogma is the alternative.

Marquette, its administrators, and faculty would be wise to recall how this inquisition started: An instructor told a student that a legitimate debate could not be held because it would cause offense. The college seems determined to compound the original error by punishing the professor who had the courage to call attention to this betrayal of intellectual freedom.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

“The Hunting Ground:” Agitprop in the Service of a Moral Panic

How We Got Affirmative Action

Originally published in 1998, we just found an essay by one Hugh Murray about how “affirmative action” (a euphemism for discrimination against white males, as well as against other successful groups like Asians and Jews) came about. Murray first explains that, when it was passed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act not only did not require affirmative action, it actually outlawed it.
Conservatives Roberts and Stratton and remind us that the debate about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the debate over quotas; it would never have been enacted without a series of amendments to ensure that quotas would not result. Democrat Emmanuel Celler amended the proposal so that the EEOC could make no substantial interpretations of regulations. Sen. Everett Dirksen amended it so that discrimination must be “intentional” and seniority systems protected. Sen. John Tower amended it to protect continued use of aptitude tests in which whites invariably scored higher than blacks. All the supporters of the bill assured the nation that there would be no quotas—and Roberts and Stratton quote Senators Hubert Humphrey, Clifford Case, Thomas Kuchel, Harrison Williams, and even the Leadership Committee on Civil Rights to that effect.
Murray goes through the transformation of a law requiring equal treatment into a law used to promote discrimination, and discusses what might seem to be a paradox: conservative and Republican-voting business executives have supported affirmative action. Murray explains:
Why? “While AA may be one of the costs of doing business for the big fellows— ... it is no threat to their existence and can even be viewed as raising the entry barrier to potential competitors, the little guys.” To put it bluntly, IBM and Proctor and Gamble can afford to hire dummies, druggies, and violent criminals. Smaller companies cannot. Meanwhile, the large corporations gain an image of compassion and fairness. Better qualified whites who are not promoted or hired are poor or working class whites. But with AA, those poor whites are labeled “privileged,” and therefore deserving of being denied employment or promotion. Meanwhile, the wealthy, privileged, CEO’s receive humanitarian awards. Clearly what is most needed is a class analysis of the monstrosity called affirmative action
The rhetoric about “dummies, druggies, and violent criminals” might seem overwrought, but in fact any qualification that produces “disparate outcomes” for blacks versus whites is considered suspect. Failing to hire because of criminal convictions, poor aptitude test scores, and drug use are quite explicitly named among those things.

Liberal Protection Racket

What business is subjected to is, quite simply, a protection racket. Just as, early in the 20th century in many American cities, it was rational for any business to pay “protection” to the mafia, today it is rational to have and advertise initiatives for “diversity” and “inclusion” and “sustainability.”

If you talk loudly enough about such things, and fund some liberal interest groups, and hire some bureaucrats promoting those things, you will be allowed to go ahead and do what you need to do — produce a good or service that people value and sell it for a profit.

To acquiesce in this system is a rational choice for any executive. The the collective effect is to screw over a lot of innocent victims.  But they are the poor and working class whites that the affluent liberals view as the “other” and demean and deride.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Yes, A Wall Sounds Good

Monday, April 25, 2016

Marquette’s Feckless Response When Confronted By Concerned Alum

Marquette’s attempt to fire this blogger has gone over quite poorly with a fair number of alumni, and some (we don’t know how many, but have gotten copies of several communications) have written to express their disgust. And often, to tell the University not to ask for money again.

One such alumnus shared the letter (it is obviously a form letter) he got in return.
President Lovell has asked me to reply on his behalf to your recent letter regarding Professor McAdams. While we have complied with your request to remove your name from our mailing lists, I would like to provide a fuller accounting than what has been disseminated in media reports. First, please know that your alma mater has not abandoned its Catholic principles and in fact has been guided by them during this challenging situation.

The principle at stake here has always been behavior, not free speech. The topic of marriage may have initiated the situation but it had nothing to do with subsequent events or the substance of what happened to our student. I have enclosed a recent paper that clarifies Marquette’s position, as well as Dr. Lovell’s “A Call for Decency” message. Online at http://today.marquette.edu/2016/04/faq/, you will find additional facts and endorsements and a link to an article from U.S. Catholic, one of the country’s most respected Catholic magazines. I think you will find this article compelling as it lays out facts and a viewpoint that have not been carried by most media outlets reporting on this story.

Let me reinforce, [redacted], that our Catholic, Jesuit identity is at the heart of all we do, our students are our central concern, and our guiding values and mission will not be compromised by political correctness. Marquette’s position is that without respect and decency, we cannot have robust discourse and intellectual inquiry — in short, we cannot be a great university. I hope you get a sense of this in the enclosed articles. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional concerns.

Sincerely,

Michael VanDerhoef, Jour ‘84
Vice President, University Advancement
The dishonesty here would be comical, did this letter not come from a once-decent university that was really Catholic and really provided a Jesuit education.

Let’s take it piece at a time (Marquette’s statements in sans-serif type):
The principle at stake here has always been behavior, not free speech.
But our “behavior” was a blog post. If a blog post isn’t speech, what is it? If speech that Marquette doesn’t like somehow becomes “behavior,” then academic freedom means nothing.
Dr. Lovell’s “A Call for Decency” message
Somehow “decency” did not involve decent treatment of an undergraduate who was demeaned and bullied by a graduate Philosophy instructor. The student was greeted with hostility by Marquette officials when he complained of his treatment, and the instructor (Cheryl Abbate) was supported in her intolerant attitudes.

Why the hostility? Quite simply, Marquette officials apparently agreed with Abbate that opposition to gay marriage should not be allowed to be expressed at Marquette.
a link to an article from U.S. Catholic, one of the country’s most respected Catholic magazines
The liberal U.S. Catholic is in fact the only Catholic publication that has supported Marquette in this. As noted by the Louis Joliet Society:
A hastily assembled blog post on the website of a magazine called “U.S. Catholic” is not likely to persuade skeptics that there is anything “Catholic” in Marquette’s decision- making in this case, particularly given the reams of analysis and commentary to the contrary, much of it from weighty Catholic/Christian publications as well. (For starters, see here, here, here, here, here and here.)
And then:
our guiding values and mission will not be compromised by political correctness
Again, the Louis Joliet Society has a list of the things that Marquette has done that can only be characterized as politically correct. Among those they list:
While most of the political correctness on campus seems to revolve around sex and gender issues, we have things such as a mural honoring one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Terrorists. Since she is a black woman, apparently it doesn’t matter too much that she’s a murderer. Then we have Marquette’s support for an extreme anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian position.
Marquette’s position is that without respect and decency, we cannot have robust discourse and intellectual inquiry — in short, we cannot be a great university.
Apparently, we can be a great university without freedom of expression. At least, when that free expression discomforts the administration and intolerant leftist members of the faculty.

But of course, nothing about our blog post was uncivil — that is unless any criticism of the politically correct intolerant left is automatically uncivil.

That, however, seems to be what the Marquette administration believes.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 23, 2016

New Face on the Currency

Friday, April 22, 2016

Marquette’s Hypocritical Claim to Care For Students

From Rick Esenberg, on Right Wisconsin:
Cura Personalis is a Latin phrase that translates as “Care for the Whole Person.” Marquette uses the term to claim that it will support each student based on their unique talents, challenges, needs and possibilities. But does Marquette practice what it preaches?

This question brings us to the controversy surrounding Marquette’s suspension and termination of Professor John McAdams. Little attention has been paid to the heart of the story: a complaint by a Marquette undergraduate about his Marquette Instructor. How did cura personalis apply to this student?

The student came to Professor McAdams with a complaint about the way he was treated by his philosophy instructor and the way his complaint was handled by Marquette administrators. His instructor, Cheryl Abbate, made it clear to him that expressing opposition to gay marriage was not just mistaken but “homophobic” and “offensive.” As such his views would not be tolerated. There is no dispute about this. The exchange was recorded. The Instructor informed her student that his traditional Catholic beliefs were beyond the pale.

Although the University refers to Ms. Abbate as a “student,” she was a paid employee of the University responsible for delivering a required philosophy course and grading the students who took it. In fact, she invoked her authority as a “professor of ethics” when talking to this student. Her treatment of her student was anything but an exercise of cura personalis.

The student complained to Dr. Susanne Foster in the College of Arts & Sciences, and was sent to the Philosophy Department where he spoke with then-chair Dr. Nancy Snow and Dr. Sebastian Luft. Neither Dr. Snow nor Dr. Luft took any action on behalf of the student. In fact, Dr. Snow referred to him as an “insolent little twerp” in a communication with the College of Arts & Sciences. What Dr. Snow did do was communicate immediately with Ms. Abbate to tell her, in essence, that they had her back. Dr. Snow reported to Ms. Abbate that she told the student that he “needed to change his attitude” and that she would be “monitoring” the situation. Dr. Snow told Ms. Abbate to let her know if the student did anything that Ms. Abbate found objectionable. Ms. Abbate thanked Dr. Snow and said that hopefully the student learned that “oppressive discourse is not acceptable.”

So what we have thus far is the administration at the university calling an undergraduate student names behind his back and circling the wagons against the undergraduate.

But it gets worse. The student returned to Arts and Sciences and spoke to Associate Dean James South. Dr. South recorded the interview without the student’s knowledge or consent. The recording shows that Dr. South lied to the student, telling him he had not listened to the student’s recording of the conversation with Ms. Abbate even though he had. Subsequently, in explaining why he did not tell the truth, Dr. South said that he had “used [his] prudential judgment to try to keep him [the student] at ease.” In other words, he could dismiss the student’s concerns if he pretended not to know the facts.

No one in the University Administration has ever addressed the student’s complaint or publicly (or privately to the student) expressed any concern for the way the student was treated. Dean of Arts & Sciences Richard Holz and President Lovell are both aware of all of these facts and have done nothing. The only person at Marquette who did stand up for the student was Professor McAdams. For this he was suspended, banished from campus and is going to be fired.

And that brings us back to academic freedom. This demonstrates why robust protection of free expression is required. The student has conservative Catholic views that are unpopular with many. Ms. Abbate was part of the faculty with contrary views. Marquette believes that an instructor was entitled to be protected from accurate criticism. It apparently believes the undergraduate student deserved to be told that his views could not be expressed in polite society.

Freedom of speech is an essential remedy for hypocrisy. Sadly, Marquette does not understand that.
Esenberg is the President and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and head of the legal team representing us in our battle with Marquette.

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

Feminism and Donald Trump

A provocative and often insightful essay from Robert Oscar Lopez in The Federalist. One passage in particular is of current interest:
Trump Treats Women As Feminists Demand

Second-wave feminism created Trump. Feeding on the scraps of Hefner’s and Mailer’s sleazy sex liberation, second-wave feminism misconstrued women’s plight as the consequences of chastity and patriarchy, which were actually cultural ideals that limited male behavior and forced men to sublimate their libido into chivalry and other respectful gestures toward women.

The anti-rape “yes means yes” consent laws governing college campuses are clumsily trying to replace the consent-focused purpose of marriage—“Do you take this man…”—without admitting that marriage was actually good for women. In a Buzzfeed video featuring feminists challenging male chauvinism, some of the feminist challenges are:
Why do you think we’re obsessed with you when we hook up?

[When we hook up], I just want you to leave too, I’m busy, I got s*** to do.

Why can’t I sleep with as many people as I want to, without being judged?
This landscape of transient female lust is only possible if there are men left in the wake of all these callous one-time encounters. Fifty years of life after “Sex and the Single Girl” led to … Donald J. Trump. Told by feminists that he is damned for wanting a traditional commitment, and told by Christian conservatives that he is damned for giving women what feminists said they wanted, Trump plays to the middle ground, where misogyny blossoms. He is not an isolated phenomenon.

There’s much to criticize about divorce. But one divorce is necessary: It is time for “civil rights” and the “sexual revolution” (including feminism) to part ways. There is no intersectionality here, just poisonous cross-purposes. In the meantime, both feminists and social conservatives need to brace themselves for the possible words “President Donald J. Trump.” Karma.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 21, 2016

The Eloquence of Donald Trump


The quote on the graphic isn’t precisely accurate, but the inaccuracies are trivial. To see the original speech, check this video.

Labels: , , ,

No, You Have It Right

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Student Government and Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies to Show Discredited Film on Campus Rape

A story in the Marquette Tribune includes this short note at the end:
The CGSS (Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies) and MUSG (Marquette University Student Government) will show “The Hunting Ground” on April 25, followed by a panel of faculty and staff who will discuss campus sexual assault.
In fact, “The Hunting Ground” has been widely discredited in liberal and mainstream media outlets for its distortion of facts, and its attempt to convict for rape a fellow who is almost certainly innocent. See for example:
Are people who got to see the film going to be told about the controversy, or if so, will all the critics be dismissed as “rape apologists?”

When supposed scholars become activists, nothing good comes of it. And intellectual honesty is always the loser.  That’s the story of academic feminism.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bullies at University of Missouri (Endorsed by Marquette President and Provost)

From Heatstreet:
Just days after protesters successfully toppled the University of Missouri’s president and chancellor last fall, a white student forwarded her professor a disturbing tweet. “#Mizzou black students need to stop protesting and start killing,” it said. “The white supremacy made it clear they ain’t hearing it.”

The ominous tweet had already received 16 retweets and 3 likes. The professor forwarded the message onto interim administration and the university’s police, adding that he was unsure whether the person who had sent the tweet was a student. But, he wrote, his student was scared to come to class.

To understand what was going on behind the scenes as the University of Missouri was rocked by protests during October and November of 2015, Heat Street and National Review requested access to email correspondence from key leaders at the school. The request yielded 7,400 pages of records.

News coverage at the time focused on black students’ claims of pervasive racism, pointing to several troublesome incidents as evidence of a bigoted culture on campus. But a look at the email correspondence of the university’s administrators and faculty members during the crisis reveals another side of the unrest: how protesters’ belligerence left many students, faculty and parents fearful of violence and concerned for their safety.

Here is some of what we found:

On Oct. 7, as the protests had started to pick up steam, a student wrote to the chancellor describing her encounter with a group of Black Lives Matter supporters.

“Everyone has freedom of speech and expression,” she wrote, “but this was a large group of people. I know I’m not alone in saying that I felt very unsafe and targeted when I encountered them,” describing “people screaming at me from the sidewalk.” She wrote that “all lives matter and discrimination should be fought against,” but she feared “that group brought more division, hostility and discrimination than that one man [yelling racial slurs] could have.”

On Nov. 9, the vice president for human resources, Betsy Rodriguez, wrote to Missouri’s president, Tim Wolfe, saying that she thought he needed to see some videos being circulated on Twitter under the hash tag #ConcernedStudent1950.
One video shows a protestor singling out people on campus, shouting, “If you’re uncomfortable, I did my job.” In the background, other protestors shout “power,” raising their fists.

“There are at least 2 [such Twitter videos] from Griffiths society today, and 2 from the dining halls (one of those – Plaza 900) included visiting high school students,” Rodriguez wrote. “The protestors are increasing in aggression and disruption. These are pretty scarey [sic].”

A conversation later that day between Rodriguez and Michael Kateman, the university’s director of internal communications, raised other “collective thoughts” on the protestors’ behavior.

“Even students not involved in the protests are getting agitated, fearful and concerned,” their notes say, pointing out an incident where outsiders drove two hours to join the protests on the University of Missouri’s campus. “The protestors are willing to interrupt non-related events to protest. …. Our concern is that the longer we wait to have mtg [to address the situation], the more we risk violence. The longer we wait, the greater the risk of violence.”

“Many of the students in [protest group #ConcernedStudent1950] are motivated by anger and don’t seem to have a plan of action even if their demands are met,” the student wrote. “Many of them don’t have a plan of contingency,” adding that “preparations need to be made in the case the student [hunger sriker] passes and Mizzou is threatened with rioting and senseless violence. While I have not gotten the sense that they would go after your residence, it could be a target despite your public efforts.”

President Wolfe and Chancellor Bowen Loftin caved to students’ demands and resigned on Nov. 9, effectively ending the crisis on campus. But the events of last fall have continued to haunt the school, which has seen its fundraising and enrollment plummet.

The email exchanges we reviewed also show impatience with frequent disruptions to academics at the school during the protests. Several parents and students wrote to complain about classes being repeatedly canceled in response to the demonstrations.

A day after Mizzou’s high-profile resignations, a university employee wrote to Wolfe describing her frustration after seeing the video where Melissa Click, a communications professor, called for “muscle” against a student reporter.

“My fear is that things are going to get out of hand and something very bad is going to happen,” she wrote. “My husband is a Sgt. For the University Police and he is having to be in the middle of this mess and having someone like Melissa Click do everything in her power to incite a riot will make things go from bad to worse. I normally take walks around the campus a couple of times a day but currently am afraid to do so because I am white. My daughter goes to school at Mizzou, has some night classes, and she is now afraid to walk around campus and go to class because she is white.”

That same day, a parent wrote to the heads of the university on behalf of her daughter, who she said was so frightened she was trying to transfer out of the university.

“My white female student is being mobbed on her way to class and shouted at while being pushed claiming she’s a racist solely because of the color of her skin. … In the last 2 days she’s had 3 cancelled classes so her teachers could participate in this nonsense. So we’re paying for our child’s teachers to protest instead of educate?” she wrote.

Administrators had repeatedly called for students to confront racism and engage in “an ongoing dialogue” about “moving the UM system forward.” On Nov. 10, one student wrote to the now-ousted chancellor expressing frustration about the results of such a conversation.

“I tried to foster peaceful, civilized discussion with a few peers,” the student wrote. “What I received was a combination of personal and racial attacks, with direct quotes such as ‘You can’t have an opinion on this because you are white,’ ‘You have no right to speak,’ and ‘Get the f*** out of the lounge.’ I will not fill out a bias report on this because it has been made perfectly clear to me by both faculty and students that my skin color apparently gives me immunity from racial harassment, and I can only be treated as the aggressor in these situations.”
On the intellectual level of the protests:


While the media were concentrating on the protestors, Missouri students unimpressed with the protests expressed their dissent on Yik Yak.

And who sided with the bullies at Missouri? A small group of Marquette students. And Marquette President Michael Lovell and Provost Daniel Myers.
Those that gathered were of various races and included faculty, staff, students and Milwaukee community members. University President Michael Lovell, Provost Daniel Myers and the mother of Dontre Hamilton, an unarmed black man who was killed by a white Milwaukee Police Officer, were also in attendance.

Lovell said he went to show support for the students and community. Myers added it was a proud moment to be a part of Marquette.

“It is well-timed since we are in the middle of Marquette’s campus climate study,” Myers said. “We are making big steps. These are awareness-raising moments.”
Awareness of what? How university administrators cower before leftist demonstrators, including those with little support among the general student body and even less among alumni?

Yes.

Labels: , , , , , , ,