Why Academics Leftists and Elitists Need to Treat Ordinary Americans With Respect
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Their mistake was the women's swim team. They could have hid behind free speech if they hadn't threatened to pull the scholarships of those girls for complaining about the tranny.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2023/12/07/university-presidents-hearing-speech-magill-harvard-penn-mit-israel/
While discussing this hypocrisy on Rising, the news show I host for The Hill, I was asked to cite examples of the hypocrisy. Thankfully, a cursory examination of Emma Camp's recent work provides plenty of material. Here is a quick snapshot.
A white female student at the University of Virginia was accused by a black student activist of telling Black Lives Matter protesters that they would "make good speed bumps." The accused, Morgan Bettinger, faced disciplinary charges for threatening other students' "health and safety." She was ultimately expelled in abeyance—even though two separate investigations, one by students and one by the campus civil rights office, concluded there was no evidence she had actually made the offensive comment.
At Macalester College in Minnesota, administrators took down an art display by an American-Iranian artist that depicted Muslim women wearing niqabs pulling up their robes to reveal lingerie. A series of sculptures by the artist that portrayed women entirely veiled except for their breasts was also removed. Why? Because Muslim students said this form of expression was harmful.
Elsewhere in Minnesota, at Hamline University, the administration did not renew the contract of a professor who had dared to show an image of Muhammad in his class.
Georgetown University subjected a legal scholar, Ilya Shapiro, to a humiliating investigation after he sent out an ill-advised tweet that appeared to suggest he thought Ketanji Brown Jackson was not the most qualified choice for the open Supreme Court seat.
At Princeton, administrators forced the cancellation of an art exhibition of 19th-century Jewish-American artists because two of the featured artists had been Confederate soldiers.
A University of North Texas professor wrote on a chalkboard that a list of popular microaggressions—i.e., racial slights—was "garbage." He was fired.
George Washington University decided to investigate students for putting up flyers that were critical of the Chinese government—after the university's Chinese cultural society said the flyers would foster ethnic hatred.
Here's one more example from 2021. MIT invited a geophysicist, Dorian Abbott, to deliver a guest lecture on climate change. Students revolted—not because his views on climate change were offensive but because he had dared to write an op-ed criticizing affirmative action. In response, the university canceled that lecture, the explicit reason being that black students might find that opinion to be hateful.
—————
…and on and on and on.
While discussing this hypocrisy on Rising, the news show I host for The Hill, I was asked to cite examples of the hypocrisy. Thankfully, a cursory examination of Emma Camp's recent work provides plenty of material. Here is a quick snapshot.
A white female student at the University of Virginia was accused by a black student activist of telling Black Lives Matter protesters that they would "make good speed bumps." The accused, Morgan Bettinger, faced disciplinary charges for threatening other students' "health and safety." She was ultimately expelled in abeyance—even though two separate investigations, one by students and one by the campus civil rights office, concluded there was no evidence she had actually made the offensive comment.
At Macalester College in Minnesota, administrators took down an art display by an American-Iranian artist that depicted Muslim women wearing niqabs pulling up their robes to reveal lingerie. A series of sculptures by the artist that portrayed women entirely veiled except for their breasts was also removed. Why? Because Muslim students said this form of expression was harmful.
Elsewhere in Minnesota, at Hamline University, the administration did not renew the contract of a professor who had dared to show an image of Muhammad in his class.
Georgetown University subjected a legal scholar, Ilya Shapiro, to a humiliating investigation after he sent out an ill-advised tweet that appeared to suggest he thought Ketanji Brown Jackson was not the most qualified choice for the open Supreme Court seat.
At Princeton, administrators forced the cancellation of an art exhibition of 19th-century Jewish-American artists because two of the featured artists had been Confederate soldiers.
A University of North Texas professor wrote on a chalkboard that a list of popular microaggressions—i.e., racial slights—was "garbage." He was fired.
George Washington University decided to investigate students for putting up flyers that were critical of the Chinese government—after the university's Chinese cultural society said the flyers would foster ethnic hatred.
Here's one more example from 2021. MIT invited a geophysicist, Dorian Abbott, to deliver a guest lecture on climate change. Students revolted—not because his views on climate change were offensive but because he had dared to write an op-ed criticizing affirmative action. In response, the university canceled that lecture, the explicit reason being that black students might find that opinion to be hateful.
—————
…and on and on and on.
acesfull86
Well-known member
[tw]1733208878819459367[/tw]
+$18 million spent on 142 DEI busybodies and they still have an antisemitism problem at UM.
So what’s the answer? …
… I got it! A new institute to support religious diversity and inclusion! More money please!
Nope. They'll still follow groupthink instead of learning to think for themselves.
acesfull86
Well-known member
[tw]1733603236576211126[/tw]
acesfull86
Well-known member
Even setting their points of view aside, it was astonishing how ill-prepared they were to answer questions they had to know were coming.
When you have created a whole new moral system you can’t engage in traditional fact based conversations. I’m never shocked when these fools are exposed to “normal” questioning.
[tw]1733976372450853222[/tw]
The 21st century leftist completely destroyed not only the country but any semblance of reverence people will have towards Ivy League schools.
Large PE firm bought the company I work at and they flat out laugh at the idea that ivy league diplomas mean a thing.
The 21st century leftist completely destroyed not only the country but any semblance of reverence people will have towards Ivy League schools.
Large PE firm bought the company I work at and they flat out laugh at the idea that ivy league diplomas mean a thing.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dd50dedd-154b-47cb-9772-dd6270478a62?shareToken=45c79701729a2878fabaa0699345eced
The question was beautifully framed because it was one to which no decent person could say anything but “yes”. The answer didn’t depend on one’s views about a ceasefire or a two-state solution; it hinged only on basic humanity. Moreover, we all know that these people would have answered instantly if the question had been about the genocide of black people or indigenous Americans or virtually anyone else.
But this was a question about a different group. Jews. A group who according to the surrealist teachings of critical race theory, which has seeped like a poison into the minds of students, are suspect. A group that sit near the top of the hierarchy of racial “privilege”. A group who are oppressors, aggressors, colonisers. People whose human rights, according to this tortuous belief system, are in direct conflict with those of Palestinians. As Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual godfather of what we might call extreme wokeism, put it: “The exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise.”
…
Apologists for the three women took to social media later to argue that this sinister spectacle was, in fact, evidence of a jolly good commitment to free speech; that their unwillingness to condemn calls for genocide showed their reverence for the First Amendment. Ah yes. We all saw that commitment to free speech when these same people connived in the non-platforming of speakers with right-leaning views, a trend that has exploded over the last decade. No, this wasn’t about free speech; it was about fear. These presidents were revealing dread of their own student bodies. And who can blame them? Professors who have violated woke strictures have been hounded out of their jobs (a female academic who said there are two sexes recently had to take a leave of absence after weeks of persecution); graffiti has been daubed on their homes; some have endured assaults. It is any wonder that a majority at universities admit to self-censoring? As one put it: “I learnt along with every other student to walk on eggshells for fear I may say the wrong thing.”
…
This brings me to perhaps the most pernicious thing of all. Conventional wisdom suggests that woke ideology has conferred soft power on the “left” which, in time, will translate into political power and (if you care about left-wing politics) greater social justice. This rests, let me suggest, on a hideous conflation. Wokeism has nothing to do with left-wing politics or social justice; it is more akin to a kind of religious fundamentalism. I mean, how is the condition of a kid living in a tower block materially improved by performative activism about “intersectionality” or pedantic quibbles about “cultural appropriation”? How are their lives enhanced by adolescent thought police eviscerating yet another campus victim for some arcane instance of wrongthink?
This isn’t an agenda for the working classes; indeed, nobody with the slightest contact with the real world has the faintest idea what these kids, indoctrinated into a farrago of unfalsifiable pseudo-ideologies, are babbling on about when they proclaim that “words are violence” or that “feelings are facts”. No, this is a luxury belief system, a doctrine of upper-middle-class adolescents whose dawning realisation that their soggy humanities degrees are not going to get them far in life has coalesced into a searing and increasingly unhinged hatred of their own nations and histories.
—————
Well put
The question was beautifully framed because it was one to which no decent person could say anything but “yes”. The answer didn’t depend on one’s views about a ceasefire or a two-state solution; it hinged only on basic humanity. Moreover, we all know that these people would have answered instantly if the question had been about the genocide of black people or indigenous Americans or virtually anyone else.
But this was a question about a different group. Jews. A group who according to the surrealist teachings of critical race theory, which has seeped like a poison into the minds of students, are suspect. A group that sit near the top of the hierarchy of racial “privilege”. A group who are oppressors, aggressors, colonisers. People whose human rights, according to this tortuous belief system, are in direct conflict with those of Palestinians. As Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual godfather of what we might call extreme wokeism, put it: “The exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise.”
…
Apologists for the three women took to social media later to argue that this sinister spectacle was, in fact, evidence of a jolly good commitment to free speech; that their unwillingness to condemn calls for genocide showed their reverence for the First Amendment. Ah yes. We all saw that commitment to free speech when these same people connived in the non-platforming of speakers with right-leaning views, a trend that has exploded over the last decade. No, this wasn’t about free speech; it was about fear. These presidents were revealing dread of their own student bodies. And who can blame them? Professors who have violated woke strictures have been hounded out of their jobs (a female academic who said there are two sexes recently had to take a leave of absence after weeks of persecution); graffiti has been daubed on their homes; some have endured assaults. It is any wonder that a majority at universities admit to self-censoring? As one put it: “I learnt along with every other student to walk on eggshells for fear I may say the wrong thing.”
…
This brings me to perhaps the most pernicious thing of all. Conventional wisdom suggests that woke ideology has conferred soft power on the “left” which, in time, will translate into political power and (if you care about left-wing politics) greater social justice. This rests, let me suggest, on a hideous conflation. Wokeism has nothing to do with left-wing politics or social justice; it is more akin to a kind of religious fundamentalism. I mean, how is the condition of a kid living in a tower block materially improved by performative activism about “intersectionality” or pedantic quibbles about “cultural appropriation”? How are their lives enhanced by adolescent thought police eviscerating yet another campus victim for some arcane instance of wrongthink?
This isn’t an agenda for the working classes; indeed, nobody with the slightest contact with the real world has the faintest idea what these kids, indoctrinated into a farrago of unfalsifiable pseudo-ideologies, are babbling on about when they proclaim that “words are violence” or that “feelings are facts”. No, this is a luxury belief system, a doctrine of upper-middle-class adolescents whose dawning realisation that their soggy humanities degrees are not going to get them far in life has coalesced into a searing and increasingly unhinged hatred of their own nations and histories.
—————
Well put
And also a major reason the polling is indicating a large movement in the youth demographic to a set of policies that actually improve their lives.
Tapate50
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
[tw]1734209119689544069[/tw]