Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

A highly provocative fellow, who uses the “f-word” a lot, but also speaks with real passion and logic on race in America, and names the race hustlers who have poisoned the racial environment.

[Link to Video]

In order to see the face of fascism, watch the first few minutes, where leftist students demonstrate against Milo.

To see more academic fascism, check out the petition demanding that Milo be banned from the UWM campus. The people who have signed have, in effect, brazenly proclaimed their own intolerance.

American Indians: “Redskins” Team Name Not Offensive

All the politically correct types are demanding that the Washington Redskins change the name of their team. It’s “offensive,” they say.

But a new Washington Post polls says otherwise.

The headline says “New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name.”

The race hustlers claiming to represent the Indians reacted badly.

But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed the Post’s findings.

“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”

But the Post explained:

Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.

Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.

What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do.

In a 2014 national ESPN poll, 23 percent of those reached called for “Redskins” to be retired because of its offensiveness to Native Americans — more than double the 9 percent of actual Native Americans who now say they are offended by it.

A 2013 Post poll found that a higher proportion of Washington-area residents — 28 percent — wanted the moniker changed.

An earlier Annenberg poll which showed the same result was attacked on the grounds that respondents classified themselves as “Native American.” Maybe they weren’t really, the race hustlers said.

(Interestingly, these are the same people who say that a man can be a woman if he just calls himself a woman. But apparently a white person can’t decide to be an Indian.)

But the current survey not only shows overwhelming majorities of Indians enrolled in a tribe are not offended, it shows 91 percent who live on or near tribal land say they are not offended.

This is just another case where the politically correct hustlers fail to represent the groups they claim to represent. Thus, women are as likely to oppose abortion as are men, feminists to the contrary. Blacks are likely to favor “quality of life” policing (which jumps on small offenses) and a clear majority of blacks believe the courts are “not harsh enough” on criminals.

Likwise, the black race hustlers go ballistic when people say “all lives matter” rather than “black lives matter.” But black people nationwide say they prefer “all lives matter.”

Honesty in any discussion of policy requires calling out the race (and gender) hustlers.

Hoax Racist Incidents on Campus: A Roundup

From the Daily Wire. We won't repost the entire article, but you can read the whole thing here. But we will list the headlines, so you can get the flavor of what is happening.

• ‘Confirmed’ KKK Presence At Mizzou
• Racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism at Oberlin
• KKK is Coming to Berkeley High... Or Not
• Hangman Graffiti
• ‘White Only, Black Only’ Signs
• Students Sends Racist Text Messages to Himself
• Students Target Themselves With Racial Graffiti
• Students Target Themselves With Hurtful Messages
• Fabricated Case of Police Harassment
• Student Posted Racist Facebook Messages to Himself

The number of such faked incidents has become massive. They are the result of the fact that university administrations are easily manipulated by any claims of racial grievance.

Of course, when those bureaucrats try to redress the claimed racism, the policies they implement have no plausible connection to any real racism on campus (and there is very little real campus racism). They respond by hiring diversity bureaucrats. They respond with mandatory “diversity training” (read: Stalinist thought reform). They respond with “programs” that cater to minority students.

Of course, any real racist on campus is not going to repent because of any of this. On the other hand, students who aren’t racists come to resent being marginalized, subjected to indoctrination, and watching institutions treat black activists as privileged characters.

But the entire charade gives the minority students a feeling of power. Unfortunately, it teaches them that articulating grievances (rather than studying, learning and achieving) is the way to get ahead.

It also grows the bureaucratic empires of the campus bureaucrats. Which is part of the reason they react so supinely.

The other reason is that they are scared to death of being called racist. Real racial progress requires that people be willing to stand up to the racial bullies. Principled people might be surprised at how easy it is to endure charges of “racism” now that the term has become so debased, and now that so many people know how debased it is.

The Campus “Hate Crime” that Wasn’t a Hate Crime

From Townhall.com:

On Monday, Townhall’s news editor, Katie Pavlich, went to the University of Delaware to give a speech about the Second Amendment. University of Delaware’s student group–Students for the Second Amendment–had invited Pavlich to speak about the issue, which was open to the public at the cost of three dollars. Yet, Pavlich criticized the Black Lives Matter (BLM) for their atrocious “pigs in a blanket” chant - and the overall movement - as one that promotes violence against police officers. Well, surprise; that didn’t bode over well with some folks on the left and a protest was organized during her visit to U-Del.

There was a heavy security presence at the event, and it ended without any major incidents. Yet, reports of nooses being hung in some trees on campus one day after Pavlich gave her speech got everyone freaking out about hate crimes. There was only one problem: these weren’t nooses, thus no hate crime:

University of Delaware police say what was originally believed to be “nooses” hanging from a tree on campus were actually leftover lantern decorations.

Officials say a hate crime investigation ended when it was determined the items were paper lantern decorations leftover from an event that was held on campus on September 16.

The items that were left in the tree were part of a decoration from a paper lantern that was used during an event held on The Green that was a UD-sanctioned event,” University of Delaware Police Chief Patrick Ogden said Wednesday morning.

It was determined that the paper lantern decorations were removed from the tree, but the strings were never taken down, leading to them being mistaken for nooses.

OK, so it was all over then, right?

Well . . . no.

The issue should have ended right then and there, but nope–not a chance. We need to meet and discuss this non-hate crime for reasons that escape logic. On Wednesday, the acting president of the University of Delaware, Nancy Targett, encouraged students to meet her at The Green for a dialogue about what happened.

Can we at least agree that we should be happy that these aren’t nooses? Could we come to that consensus? Of course, if such an incident had occurred, it does deserve the wrath of disgust and anger over what is a blatantly racist act. This incident didn’t carry any of that–and having some un-serious discussion about events that are the figments of some people’s imagination isn’t helping anyone, it’s enabling one’s disconnect with reality.

Campus bureaucrats can’t resist pandering to racial (and gender and sexual) grievance mongers, and it doesn’t seem to matter at all if the people claiming a grievance are entirely out to lunch.

Typically, these folks need to be scolded rather than pandered to. In this case, Targett needs to be asking “why did you say that wire hangers were nooses when they didn’t look at all like that.  What were you thinking?”

This reminds us of what Marquette diversity official William Welburn told a small group of students who objected to the removal of a mural honoring cop killer and terrorist Assata Shakur.

“I believe very strongly that we are not going to have processes like this again, especially when it comes to issues of how this campus handles diversity and inclusion,” Welburn said. “Whatever we do moving forward, we have to think about women, women of color, African-American women specifically because of this incident. We have to think about the damage.”

What Welburn should have asked the students was “Did you really think it was a good idea to honor a terrorist and a cop killer? Why in the world did you want that?”

But campus bureaucrats can’t possibly imagine that the grievance mongers might need to be confronted, challenged to defend their ideas, and learn that lots of people out in the real world don’t agree with them.

The coddling of the activists is simply a failure to educate.

Nooses? Here are the “nooses.” What sort of people could see a hate crime here?

Black People Prefer “All Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter”

The “Black Lives Matter” movement has arisen to protest supposed unjustified police shootings of black suspects. Never mind that in the majority (and probably a lopsided majority) of cases the shootings have been justified. The narrative of racial oppression demands that the activists insist that cops undervalue black lives.

Bizarrely, when well-intentioned but muddle-headed liberals have said that “all lives matter,” the activists have gone ballistic.

First case, the president of Smith College:

The president of prestigious Smith College is red-faced and apologetic Tuesday for telling students on the Northampton, Mass., campus that “all lives matter.”

Kathleen McCartney wrote the phrase in the subject line of an e-mail to students at the school, whose alumni include feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, former First Lady Nancy Reagan and celebrity chef Julia Child. McCartney was attempting to show support for students protesting racially charged grand jury decisions in which police in Missouri and New York were not charged in the deaths of unarmed black men.

Protesters have adopted several slogans in connection with the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, including “Black Lives Matter.” McCartney’s more inclusive version of the refrain was seen as an affront that diminished the focus on black lives and racism, according to emails obtained by FoxNews.com.

“We are united in our insistence that all lives matter,” read the e-mail,in which she made clear she was strongly behind the protests, writing that the grand jury decisions had “led to a shared fury… We gather in vigil, we raise our voices in protest.”

But she soon received backlash from students for her phrasing. They were offended that she did not stick with the slogan “black lives matter.”

The Daily Hampshire Gazette, which first covered the story, quoted one Smith sophomore, Cecelia Lim, as saying, “it felt like she was invalidating the experience of black lives.”

In response to student backlash, McCartney apologized in another campus-wide email Friday, saying she had made a mistake “despite my best intentions.”

She wrote that the problem with the phrase lay in how others had used it.

“I regret that I was unaware the phrase/hashtag ‘all lives matter’ has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against Black people,” she wrote.

Next case, Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. We won’t go into the details, which are equally bizarre.

But now comes a Rasmussen Poll which asks likely voters (including black Americans) whether “black lives matter” or “all lives matter” is closest to their view.

Among blacks, 31% say “black lives matter” is closest to their view, but 64% say that “all lives matter” is closest to their view.

Thus, by more that two to one, black people in America side with the humane notion that all lives matter, and not with the activists’ race hustling.

Thus McCartney and O’Malley look like typical muddle-headed liberals. They cave to the radical activists, and take a position at odds with the majority of black people.

Liberal campus bureaucrats like McCartney talk a lot about “inclusion.” But in fact “inclusion” is just an Orwellian term for an exclusive concern for politically correct victim groups.

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 students 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.

Violence

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.

Divest

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.

Unpleasant Truths About Race Relations

From the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute:

By ROBERT L. WOODSON SR.

What distinguishes the recent unrest in Baltimore from other protests around the country over deadly encounters with police is the difficulty protest organizers are having linking the death of Freddie Gray to his race.

From Ferguson to Milwaukee to Madison, “Black Lives Matter” has been the rallying cry. Because Baltimore’s mayor, police commissioner and half of the 3,000-member police force are black, including three of the six officers indicted in Gray’s death, there seems to be confusion about where to assign blame. But there is little confusion about where to direct anger.

Many black activists complain that little has improved for blacks in West Baltimore since the 1968 riots. They used the conditions of poor blacks to make the case for voting rights that would help put middle-class, college-educated blacks in positions of power and offer a better way forward for all blacks.

However, five decades of civil rights legislation, anti-poverty programs and community renewal initiatives have not eased the persistent hopelessness that exists in many low-income black communities, including Milwaukee. Why not?

It is time to explore some unpleasant truths. The seeds of distrust were planted even back then as to whether the interests of poor blacks were sacrificed by their new black representatives, in government and in social service businesses. Poor blacks have been the victims of a cruel bait-and-switch game, where the demographics of all blacks were used as the bait; when resources arrived, the bulk of them went to middle-class providers.

If race were the primary culprit in injustice and poverty, why are poor blacks no better off in institutions run by their own people, including city governments and public schools? If government safety net programs were the answer, why has $20 trillion spent on the programs over 50 years failed to improve the lot of the poor? The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said that the highest form of maturity is the ability to be self-critical. Black America needs a serious self-examination.

What are possible solutions?

Before external resources will be effective in improving and rebuilding blighted areas, there must be improvements in the attitudes of young people living there. This attitude overhaul should be led by leaders from within the community, not outside professionals.

It was, of course, perfectly natural that in the heyday of the Civil Rights movement racial solidarity among black people should prevail. In reality, the movement did represent the interests of black people generally — poor and not-so-poor, educated and less educated. But increasingly, over the last half century, the interests of the race hustling elite in the black community have diverged from the interests of ordinary black people.

Urban riots, for example, create a demand for more spending on social programs, but also depress property values in black neighborhoods and deter investment in these same neighborhoods. Hostility toward police fuels a liberal narrative about cops oppressing poor black people, but makes it hard for cops to protect the poor black people who are the main target of crime.

It’s long past time to start looking critically at black elites, and asking the question “just whose interests are they really serving?”

Gwen Moore, Lena Taylor, we are talking about people like you.