Saturday, February 13, 2021
Friday, October 23, 2020
Christina Hoff Sommers at Marquette
Wednesday, August 05, 2020
New College Crest
Sunday, August 02, 2020
Marquette College Republicans on Student Whose Admission Was Threatened Over Conservative Opinions
The Marquette College Republicans want to commend our University for upholding their mission in the search of truth and discovery of knowledge by maintaining their decision regarding Samantha Pfefferle’s acceptance to Marquette this Fall. While, in the end, administrators made the correct decision, the way events transpired continues to concern our members. Our club has a standing offer that if people disagree with our points of view, they are welcome to attend any club meeting or event to discuss those disagreements. Instead of pursuing this appropriate course of action, emboldened upperclassmen (those meant to embody tolerance and maturity) mischaracterized and slandered one of our own. More concerning is the feeling that our school’s administration gave these schoolyard bullies legitimacy by forcing Samantha to defend conservative thought in an intimidating setting (outnumbered and answering trap questions) with the threat of university rejection looming. What transpired was unacceptable and must not be the procedure when conservative students share their views.This is quite a good statement, and “schoolyard bullies” is the perfect description of the mob that wanted Pfefferle cancelled.
Marquette, as an institution of higher learning, has the responsibility of encouraging diversity of thought, not just skin color or ethnicity. It cannot endorse intellectual intolerance and certainly not partake in Cancel Culture. Our club members deserve the ability to share their views without the fear of an inquisition by our administration or threats of harm by fellow students. Marquette must stand strong against any threats of violence towards any student, including Samantha. We seek only equal treatment and equal respect.
This affair highlights that too many people continue to misunderstand, willingly or unwillingly, our club’s intentions and opinions; but, while those who slander and threaten our members want us to retreat from our views, this matter will only strengthen our resolve and our mission. We believe great institutions like Marquette should be proud of diverse opinions, as well as people, and we hope our fellow students, faculty members, administrators and alumni feel the same way too.
-The Marquette University College Republicans
We, however, would not have “commended” Marquette. Marquette did not really come down on the side of free expression and intellectual diversity. Marquette backed off because Pfefferle was willing to fight, and the issue had gotten considerable attention.
There is no reason to believe that the basic instinct of university bureaucrats — to pander to politically correct leftists — has changed at all.
But statements like this one — as well as the massive public relations fiasco Marquette brought on itself — will hopefully temper the expression of that instinct.
Friday, July 31, 2020
Minneapolis Needs Help / Or Perhaps Republican Officials
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Marquette Student Who Instigated Campaign to Get Samantha Pfefferle Cancelled Under Investigation by Marquette
From her Instagram account: an e-mail she got from Marquette officials telling her she is the subject of a student conduct investigation:
Cook, of course, is entirely unrepentant. She promises to “call out” racism, sexism, transphobia and xenophobia, which in her world are pretty much any political opinion with which she disagrees.
We don’t know whether her campaign violated any Marquette rules — although trying to get somebody punished for their political opinions ought to be against the rules at any university. But few, if any, universities have the courage to make or enforce such a rule against leftist cancel culture. Instead, they pander to that culture.
Any Marquette students who sent harassing or threatening messages to Pfefferle can be punished. We hope to learn that that has happened.
And we hope that Samantha Pfefferle’s success in fighting off the forces of intolerance will embolden students to express themselves freely, ignoring the threats of the Erin Cooks of the campus.
Marquette’s Dishonest Spin on Student Whose Admission Was Threatened Because of Her Conservative Views
But now, Marquette is trying to imply that her admission was never really in doubt, without actually saying so.
Marquette’s First LieMarquette send out an e-mail on July 22, touting a PolitiFact article, claiming:
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel PolitiFact analysis rated “mostly false” a claim that Marquette University threatened to rescind an incoming student’s admission for views she expressed on social media.Here is the blurb from the Marquette e-mail:
But in fact, the article assesses the claim that “Marquette University threatened to rescind student’s admission over pro-Trump TikTok video.”
The pro-Trump post was not at issue. Marquette and the people complaining to the university were examining comments on topics like sexuality and immigration in other social media posts.In other words, it was her political views that got her in trouble with the Marquette Admissions office.
In fact, Marquette told the New York Post that “Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university’s attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language.” In the world of politically correct identity politics, “discriminatory language” is pretty much any conservative political position.
How the Issue DevelopedThe student’s admission came into doubt when a leftist Marquette student named Erin Cook noticed the pro-Trump TikTok video. She described it as “Shits tacky. Pls watch out for this one, MU.”
|Click on image to enlarge|
Going over Pfefferle’s other posts, she found the heretical opinions on immigration and transgenderism, and started a campaign to have her admission cancelled.
Was Pfefferle Threatened?Marquette told PolitiFact:
“Marquette received hundreds of emails, social media messages and formal bias-incident reports from current students, alumni and others regarding the incoming student’s social media posts and her comments on social media, which some deemed to be ‘transphobic and racist’ language,” university spokeswoman Lynn Griffith told PolitiFact Wisconsin in an email. “The concerns brought to us by hundreds of students and non-students were not specific to that (pro-Trump) TikTok. Rather, the messages and formal bias incident reports referenced other posts on the student’s social channels.”Translation: it was indeed her political opinions that caused Marquette to consider cancelling her. The fact that there were “hundreds” of people in a leftist mob — most apparently claiming an connection with Marquette — is utterly appalling.
BackgroundPfefferle knew about the campaign against her, and had indeed received many harassing and threatening messages.
And Marquette had indeed recently cancelled a student for an “offensive” social media post. The student compared the cop who knelt on George Floyd’s neck to Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the National Anthem.
That’s a stupid analogy, but not much more stupid than that of a Marquette English professor who compared looting and rioting in the wake of George Floyd’s death to the Boston Tea Party.
Further, if you show me an 18 year-old who never makes stupid analogies, I’ll show you somebody who probably doesn’t need a college education.
But the leftist mob, having gotten one scalp, smelled blood, and was after Pfefferle. Pfefferle knew about all this.
And indeed, Erin Cook, after the attempt to oust Pfefferle failed, said that she thought that, after the successful attempt to oust one student, this attempt would succeed.
|Click on image to enlarge|
Hostile InterrogationWhen leftists begin to bombard Marquette with demands that Pfefferle be cancelled, the Admissions office, rather than simply responding that “we don’t cancel students over political opinions,” promised to “review the situation and take appropriate action.” Erin Cook posted the response she got from Admissions Dean Brian Troyer:
|Click on image to enlarge|
Pfefferle was then interviewed via Zoom by two Marquette officials, Admissions Dean Brian Troyer and Erin Lazzar (Associate Dean of Students). She has given several consistent accounts of what happened.
First, she was reminded she was “not a student.” And, according to The College Fix:
“They also asked me hypothetical questions regarding Dreamers,” she said. “How would I respond if a Dreamer who lived down the hall from me came up to me and told me she didn’t feel safe or comfortable with my views and me being on campus. They also asked me if they thought there was anything I could do to improve my image on campus. They proceeded to ask if I was comfortable with the reputation I have established for myself. The assistant dean asked if I put any thought into the response I would be getting from my videos.”Further, she was told by Lazzar “The content you are pushing out has created this environment that is contrary to a learning environment that we hope our students are engaged in.” What kind of “learning environment” is that? Perhaps one where leftist views are never challenged?
The interrogation was on Wednesday, June 24. They told her they would get back to her in a couple of days.
Threat?Marquette claims Pfefferle was “never threatened.” Indeed, Pfefferle doesn’t claim that anybody told her “we might kick you out.”
But was she right to feel threatened?
Given the context, absolutely.
But Was Her Admission Really Under Threat?When the weekend came, and she had no response, she went to a conservative Marquette student activist, who came to us, and we blogged about it on Sunday night.
It was picked up by local talk radio, with Marquette getting chewed out by:
When other media outlets became interested, and Marquette went into full damage control mode, they put out several non-denial denials, claiming (as we have seen) that she was under attack for alleged “discriminatory language” which simply means she expressed politically incorrect opinions on immigration and transgenderism.
Marquette LiedBut then Marquette told the Daily Mail:
Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.Note the intention to deceive. After Marquette had backed down and told Pfefferle her admission status had not been revoked (on July 6), Marquette put out (on July 8) that it was untrue that it might rescind Pfefferle’s admission. A dishonest evasion. The issue is whether Marquette had earlier considered cancelling her. It clearly had.
The Smoking GunOn Saturday, June 27 (the day before we blogged about it), we e-mailed Brian Troyer, asking him “What can you tell me about the attempt of leftist students to get the admissions offer of Samantha Pfefferle cancelled?”
His response at 10:38 a.m. the following day was “I cannot discuss matters under review involving future and/or continuing MU students.” [emphasis added]
So her case was “under review.” The only issue that might be “under review” was her social media posts. Nobody had accused her of anything else.
The entire e-mail and his response is here.
Troyer had no way of knowing that his honest response that Sunday morning would undermine Marquette’s later spin on the issue.
After the story broke here and on talk radio, Troyer failed to respond to an e-mail from Fr. Kurz (posted here on July 6, but sent several days earlier) or our letter of June 30. He (or Marquette PR people) could have responded saying the issue was moot, since she was not going to be cancelled. But apparently, the issue was not moot.
Quite obviously, they were still considering whether to boot Pfefferle.
Lovell and Damage ControlA leaked e-mail, dated July 8 that Marquette President Michael Lovell set to trustees has been published on PowerLine Blog.
In it, Lovell says that:
We at Marquette then received many messages and bias incident reports about the language she [Pfefferle] used in her posts.But it was clearly being considered, and Pfefferle could plainly see that.
Here is an article about the trend at high schools and colleges around the country, especially in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
As is our practice when bias incidents are filed, Dean of Admissions Brian Troyer and Associate Dean of Students Erin Lazzar followed up by having a conversation with the incoming student. We did NOT rescind her offer nor was that even mentioned.
Following this conversation, however, the incoming student conducted interviews with blogs and talk radio where she inaccurately says that we threatened to rescind her admission.She didn’t say any such thing, but she clearly knew that her admission was under threat.
Those blogs have been making the rounds for about a week, and one such link from powerlineblog.com has been more widely shared today.Now the most damning:
This afternoon Donald Trump, Jr. retweeted an article from College Fix.
Since then, we have received messages on social media, mostly from people with no affiliation with Marquette, who want to express their anger about us “rescinding” her offer of admissions. We did correct misinformation with blogs that were spreading blatant falsehoods, though some still continue to share inaccurate headlines, links, and social media posts. We are also replying to Marquette alumni and those with a Marquette affiliation letting them know of the inaccuracy of the reports. That has satisfied most of the people we have engaged in the Marquette community.
After consultation with our external crisis communication consultants this afternoon we released the following statement [emphasis added]:Yes, when you are the head of a bureaucracy that has done something evil, simply telling the honest truth won’t suffice. You need “external crisis communication consultants.”
Marquette University’s admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.
To state the obvious, an honest university administration would not need “external crisis communication consultants.”
SummaryMarquette did what it usually does: it pandered to the leftist mob, seriously considering whether to placate the mob by kicking out a student who had expressed politically incorrect opinions.
What they did not foresee was that Pfefferle was willing to fight back, first by coming to us, and then by interviewing with any media outlet interested in the story. A lot were.
Although the huge burst of national (and international) publicity came a day or two after July 6, when Troyer told her she had not been cancelled, the bureaucrats knew that she was willing to fight back, and could easily foresee that the story would go national and international.
When it did, they moved into damage control mode.
Labels: Admissions, Brian Troyer, Erin Cook, Erin Lazzar, Free Speech, Freshman Class, Leftist Intolerance, Marquette University, Michael Lovell, New Students, Political Correctness, Samantha Pfefferle
Monday, July 27, 2020
The Sins of the Fathers
Friday, July 17, 2020
Free Speech Group Speaks Out Against Cancel Culture at Marquette University
PRESS RELEASE from the LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTERThe entire letter is here, and is well worth reading.
MEDIA CONTACT: Kristen Williamson, firstname.lastname@example.org
MILWAUKEE (July 16, 2020) — In an incredibly toxic, divisive political environment, a mob-like cancel culture has taken hold in many industries. This culture of shutting down debate and muzzling free speech is not limited to professionals or public figures. It has infiltrated college campuses in an attempt to silence a new generation of college students.
Recently, an admitted student to Marquette University was villainized and shamed for expressing her political views. When a current Marquette student discovered her online posts and unilaterally declared her point of view intolerable, the student led an attack campaign against the incoming freshman. The new Golden Eagle, Samantha Pfefferle, told her story to various media outlets to expose the hypocritical and discriminatory behavior she experienced from the Marquette community. She alleges that her very admission to the university was threatened and she even received death threats.
Today, Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center, felt compelled to weigh in through an open letter to the university’s president, Dr. Michael R. Lovell. Hughes not only leads a national, public interest law firm committed to protecting our fundamental, constitutional rights, he is also a graduate of Marquette University.
Hughes warns that Marquette University should not discriminate based on political views or free speech expressions. This discrimination runs afoul of Marquette’s principles and could put the university’s federal funding at risk. Here are excerpts from Hughes’s July 16 letter:
On Patrick’s motivation to contact the university president:
“Not only is the Marquette campus better off with a wide array of perspectives, but so is our country. To that end, I have spent the better part of the last decade working to make life better for others by litigating to protect our fundamental, constitutional rights. Ten years ago, I co-founded the Liberty Justice Center, a national, public interest law firm that specializes in First Amendment and free speech litigation. We are best known for helping free non-union public sector workers from paying forced union fees in Janus v. AFSCME…”
On threats made against incoming student Samantha Pfefferle:
“According to Ms. Pfefferle, an admissions official asked about her image on campus, her reputation as a result of her videos and how students who hold different points of view would feel if she was present on campus. My firm has not observed or been made aware of any instances of students who hold opposing points of view to Ms. Pfefferle being treated in remotely the same manner.”
On university leaders living up to Marquette’s commitment to free speech:
“Marquette has made several commitments to students that guarantee their free speech. Marquette’s mission statement states, ‘[W]e are firmly committed to academic freedom.’ The University’s guiding values also promise ‘an inclusive, diverse community that fosters . . . vigorous yet respectful debate.’”
Finally, Hughes concludes:
“Moreover, I am left to wonder what would have become of Ms. Pfefferle's admission if she didn't have the courage to speak to the press. What will happen to others seeking a Marquette education — who like Ms. Pfefferle simply prefer a political candidate in opposition to the mob — and who don't have the power to speak? I hope it never comes to that again, but if it does please know that the Liberty Justice Center will be there to speak (and litigate) on their behalf.”
University leaders must model support for free speech before they become complicit in the silencing of students and faculty on campus, thereby quashing the free, academic exchange of ideas. If students at Marquette University or other universities and colleges across the country experience this type of suppression in the future, Liberty Justice Center is prepared to defend their constitutional rights.
Thursday, July 16, 2020
COVID: The Case for Opening Up
Marquette College Republicans Respond to Threat to Cancel Admission of Conservative Student
Pfefferle had made it clear she supports Donald Trump, wants to end illegal immigration, and does not accept transgender ideology.
She was reminded she was “not a student” and subjected to a hostile interrogation concerning her political views.
The admissions office said they would “get back to her” in a couple of days, clearly implying her admission was now in doubt. But they did not get back to her. She went public on this blog, and after her situation was publicized on Milwaukee talk radio, Marquette (twelve days after the original interrogation) finally told her her admission had not been cancelled.
This threat to free speech and diversity of viewpoint has concerned a lot of people, but especially concerned have been the Marquette College Republicans. If conservative speech can be punished coming from a incoming freshman, are Marquette students who express similar views in danger? Pfefferle was a bit more vulnerable, having not begun classes, but intolerant leftist mobs routinely target conservative students.
Thus the Marquette College Republicans sent the following statement to Marquette officials.
The Marquette College Republicans want to commend our University for upholding their mission in the search of truth and discovery of knowledge by maintaining their decision regarding Samantha Pfefferle’s acceptance to Marquette this Fall. While, in the end, administrators made the correct decision, the way events transpired continues to concern our members. Our club has a standing offer that if people disagree with our points of view, they are welcome to attend any club meeting or event to discuss those disagreements. Instead of pursuing this appropriate course of action, emboldened upperclassmen (those meant to embody tolerance and maturity) mischaracterized and slandered one of our own. More concerning is the feeling that our school’s administration gave these schoolyard bullies legitimacy by forcing Samantha to defend conservative thought in an intimidating setting (outnumbered and answering trap questions) with the threat of university rejection looming. What transpired was unacceptable and must not be the procedure when conservative students share their views.The College Republicans have asked for a meeting with Marquette officials. Hopefully, those officials will commit to free expression on campus.
Marquette, as an institution of higher learning, has the responsibility of encouraging diversity of thought, not just skin color or ethnicity. It cannot endorse intellectual intolerance and certainly not partake in Cancel Culture. Our club members deserve the ability to share their views without the fear of an inquisition by our administration or threats of harm by fellow students. Marquette must stand strong against any threats of violence towards any student, including Samantha. We seek only equal treatment and equal respect. This affair highlights that too many people continue to misunderstand, willingly or unwillingly, our club’s intentions and opinions; but, while those who slander and threaten our members want us to retreat from our views, this matter will only strengthen our resolve and our mission. We believe great institutions like Marquette should be proud of diverse opinions, as well as people, and we hope our fellow students, faculty members, administrators and alumni feel the same way too.
-The Marquette University College Republicans
And hopefully, they will live up to that commitment the next time the leftist mob gets mad.
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Christian Schneider on Marquette Freshman Whose Admission to Marquette Was Threatened for Conservative Posts
It seems the story of Samantha Pfefferle, whose admission to Marquette was thrown into doubt when the leftist mob discovered her politically incorrect social media posts, has made it to out-state Wisconsin markets. Schneider is here interviewed on WCLO in Janesville.
Blacks Who Really Care About Black Lives
Marquette Freshman Whose Admission Was Threatened on Laura Ingraham
Monday, July 13, 2020
Marquette Freshman Trump Supporter Whose Admission Was Threatened Goes International
Intolerant leftist students, led by one Erin Cook, wrote Marquette demanding her admission to the school be revoked on the basis of certain politically incorrect opinions she held: opposition to illegal immigration and refusal to accept transgender ideology.
Marquette responded by subjecting her to a hostile interrogation, and then for 12 days holding over her the possibility that she would be kicked out of the freshman class.
We broke the story, and Milwaukee area talk radio quickly featured it.
Finally, on the morning of July 6, she got an e-mail from Brian Troyer, Dean of Admissions, assuring her that her admission was not in danger.
The College Fix Chimes InFinally, on July 7, The College Fix ran a story on the issue.
|Click on image to enlarge|
This got picked up widely.
- In the UK, by the Daily Mail.
- By the New York Post.
- By Howie Carr on talk radio.
- Church Militant
- Duke Pesta Podcast — go to 11:40.
- The Dom Giordano Program.
- The Mix
- The Sun (U.K.)
- The Post Millennial
Marquette’s Dishonest ResponseMarquette tried to downplay the whole business by issuing a non-denial denial that rescinding her admission was ever under consideration. Marquette’s web page asserts:
Marquette University’s admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information publicly circulating that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded, nor did it threaten to rescind, her admission.But Marquette was clearly considering rescinding her admission.
In the first place, a form letter, distributed by on Erin Cook on Instagram clearly called for the rescinding of her admission. Presumably, a fair number of people sent it to Marquette.
Second, Marquette had recently rescinded the admission of another student over a politically incorrect social media post.
Third, the Admissions office subjected Pfefferle to an Inquisition over her social media posts. According to Pfefferle:
“They also asked me hypothetical questions regarding Dreamers,” she said. “How would I respond if a Dreamer who lived down the hall from me came up to me and told me she didn’t feel safe or comfortable with my views and me being on campus. They also asked me if they thought there was anything I could do to improve my image on campus. They proceeded to ask if I was comfortable with the reputation I have established for myself. The assistant dean asked if I put any thought into the response I would be getting from my videos.”What would be the point of the interrogation unless they were considering rescinding her admission?
They told her she was “not a student,” and that they would “let her know something” in a couple of days. “Know something” about what, if not whether she was to be booted?
Fourth, Admissions Dean Brian Troyer could have responded to this letter (which we e-mailed to him as well as posting on this blog) by simply saying that her admission was not in question. Other people wrote too. But he did not. Which clearly implies kicking her out was still under consideration.
Finally, after the hostile interrogation on June 24, Admissions waited until July 6 to finally inform her that her admission was not in question. Quite clearly, whether she would be admitted was under consideration that entire time.
“Discriminatory Language”Marquette told the New York Post that “Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university’s attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language.”
But what was the “discriminatory language?” Pfefferle made it clear that she did not accept transgender ideology, and further that was was opposed to illegal immigration. In the world of leftist (or merely opportunistic) bureaucrats, that’s “discriminatory.”
ConclusionMarquette, quite simply, pandered to the leftist mob who wanted Pfefferle kicked out of the Freshman class, and seriously considered kicking her out. When she fought back, going public on this blog and on local talk radio, they decided that the backlash from kicking her out would be worse than the wrath of the leftist mob if they failed to.
But then, they issued intentionally misleading statements, implying that her admission was never in doubt. But their use of the term “discriminatory language” shows it clearly was, and that the “discriminatory language” was merely her espousing standard conservative political opinions.
Thursday, July 09, 2020
Marquette Professor Compares George Floyd Rioting to Boston Tea Party
The headline: “Responding to Inequalities: Common words or phrases with racist history.”
As is usual with the politically correct, often the words do not in fact have a racist history, but are inconvenient for people on the left.
RiotingTake, for example, “rioting.” Burrows explained to Channel 4:
He hopes the current events can be an example for change. Those who may label protests as riots are giving a negative connotation to what’s happening. He compares it to the Boston Tea Party being referred to as a rebellion; or good triumphing over evil. “When I hear that, it’s like, I hear that history,” Burrows said. “They may not realize it, but that’s when I have to explain to them the dynamics behind it. Because they thinker’s a matter of me being too stiff or formal. I say this is my background.”So was the rioting and looting in the wake of the death of George Floyd at all like the Boston Tea Party?
The destruction of the tea was a very costly blow to the British. Besides the destruction of the tea, historical accounts record no damage was done to any of the three ships, the crew or any other items onboard the ships except for one broken padlock. The padlock was the personal property of one of the ships’ captains and was promptly replaced the next day by the Patriots. Great care was taken by the Sons of Liberty to avoid the destruction of personal property – save for the cargo of British East India Company tea. Nothing was stolen or looted from the ships, not even the tea. One participant tried to steal some tea but was reprimanded and stopped. The Sons of Liberty were very careful about how the action was carried out and made sure nothing besides the tea was damaged. After the destruction of the tea, the participants swept the decks of the ships clean, and anything that was moved was put back in its proper place. The crews of the ships attested to the fact there had been no damage to any of the ships except for the destruction of their cargoes of tea.Is what you see in this video really like what was done in Boston Harbor?
Are we to suppose this woman views the looting in the wake of the George Floyd death as like the Boston Tea Party?
to the Journal-Sentinel:
Katherine Mahmoud is furious about George Floyd’s death — but she’s also angry at those who destroyed her family’s Milwaukee cellphone shop as protests escalated early Saturday morning.She complained: “I look just like them.”
“If you really care deeply in your heart ... (protest) in silence, go to the courts,” she said.
She was awakened in the early hours by a phone call from the alarm company. Not knowing what to expect, she drove from her home in Oak Creek to her family’s Boost Mobile store on North King Jr. Drive in Milwaukee’s Harambee neighborhood.
The windows were smashed, the merchandise all gone.
Why would she think they cared?
Thug“Thug” is a word Burrows wants silenced, as he explains:
Thug - “People harken back to how it may sound and they remember how people were explicitly saying the N-word so it evokes a particular memory of society and how it was more blatantly racist than it is now.”This statement is not entirely coherent, but he seems to be saying people think of black people when they hear “thug.” But Webster’s merely defines “thug” as:
: a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER, TOUGHBut if people do associate “thug” with black people why is that? Could it be that there have been riots over a number of high-profile black thugs like Michael Brown and (yes) George Floyd — although nothing Floyd did justified his killing by the cop.
Could it have something to do with the fact that blacks, 13% of the population, commit 48.4% of all homicides in the U.S.?
|Click on image to enlarge|
Of course, in 2015, Barack Obama called rioters in Baltimore “criminals and thugs.”
Honesty in LanguageThe great proponent of the use of honest language was, of course, George Orwell, whose 1984 described a regime in which words could mean their exact opposite, if it served the interests of the regime.
In his essay on “Politics and the English Language” he gives some examples of the use of dishonest language.
Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:Thus rioting and looting become “protests” or “demonstrations.”
While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
People wanting to defund the police are said to be concerned with “racial justice.”
People tearing down statues are supposedly demanding that “America come to terms with its racist past.”
People who use, and insist other people use, dishonest language must be assumed to have a dishonest agenda. They simply can’t defend their positions using straightforward English, so they demand that words be used in a way that obfuscates the reality. Dishonest thinking demands dishonest language, which promotes more dishonest thinking.
Wednesday, July 08, 2020
What a Real Christian College Will Stand Up and Say
Tuesday, July 07, 2020
Marquette Feminist Group: Don’t Call the Cops If You Are in Trouble
Marquette Empowerment, which posted this on their Facebook timeline, is the same group that vandalized an anti-abortion display on campus back in 2016.
In 2017, they demanded that conservative speaker Ben Shapiro be banned from campus.
They are, to be blunt, a rather nasty, intolerant bunch.
How SillyBut do they even begin to understand how silly this post is? Probably not. The meme claims “calling the police often leads to unnecessary escalation and may lead to the brutalizing and even killing of the victims themselves.”
So if somebody is trying to break into your house, the LGBTQ+ Resource Center are just the people to do something about it.
If you hear shots in your neighborhood, the Suicide Prevention Hotline absolutely needs to come out immediately.
Why Demonize the Police?Which bring up the larger question: why does the left demonize the police?
They know perfectly well that crime is absurdly high in inner-city black neighborhoods. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Homicide Tracker tells the story:
|Click on image to enlarge|
So they are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they admit to a massive amount of dysfunction in the black community, or they pretend that the problem is all those racist cops.
Since they cannot and will not admit the former, they have to claim the cops are the problem.
Which means the real problems will not be addressed. Which they don’t particularly mind, since they care more about posing as social justice warriors than about black lives.