Education

Wellesley students advocate hostility on campuses to silence conservative ‘hate speech’

Conservatives have come to expect that they might be protested, ridiculed and disinvited when they venture to speak on college campuses, but the penalty for telling students something they disagree with has taken a more violent turn. Buttressed by an ideology that views “hate speech” as violence and its suppression as self-defense, students increasingly are resorting to the destruction of property and assault to keep conservative speakers quiet. Students at Wellesley College made the intellectual case for using force to stifle free speech in an editorial last week, arguing that “hostility may be warranted” against people who are “given the resources to learn” yet “refuse to adapt their beliefs.” “If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others,” the students wrote in the April 12 editorial in The Wellesley News, “then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.” The editorial was shared widely over social media — so much so that the student newspaper’s website crashed on April 14 because of the volume of traffic — and was condemned by conservatives and liberals alike. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, said the ideas expressed in the editorial are not new. He traces their lineage to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Italian communist theorist Antonio Gramsci and German-American philosopher Herbert Marcuse, whose ideas greatly influenced the students of the New Left in the 1960s. But Mr. Wood said the editorial “may be the first time in which the student newspaper at a highly respected liberal arts college has found its way toward endorsing what amounts to a Gramscian oppression of freedom.” “It’s almost exactly the same as the Comintern in the Soviet Union: ‘We’re the freest country in the world. You can say whatever you want, as long as it agrees with the party.’ Now instead of the party, we have the consensus of Wellesley students,” he said. The editorial did not elaborate on what “hostility” entails, but students at other schools clearly see nothing wrong with responding to unpopular speech with violence. Officials at the University of California at Berkeley this week canceled an April 27 speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter, citing safety concerns. The campus erupted into flames and rioting in February when students sought to prevent an appearance by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor for Breitbart News. After Middlebury College professor Allison Stanger offered to moderate a talk last month with social scientist Charles Murray, she was assaulted by a mob of students protesting the event and had to wear a neck brace after sustaining whiplash and a concussion. Midway through her talk at Claremont McKenna College this month, prominent Black Lives Matter critic Heather Mac Donald had to be escorted off campus when police determined that protesters had become too unruly.Conservatives have come to expect that they might be protested, ridiculed and disinvited when they venture to speak on college campuses, but the penalty for telling students something they disagree with has taken a more violent turn. Buttressed by an ideology that views “hate speech” as violence and its suppression as self-defense, students increasingly are resorting to the destruction of property and assault to keep conservative speakers quiet. Students at Wellesley College made the intellectual case for using force to stifle free speech in an editorial last week, arguing that “hostility may be warranted” against people who are “given the resources to learn” yet “refuse to adapt their beliefs.” “If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others,” the students wrote in the April 12 editorial in The Wellesley News, “then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.” The editorial was shared widely over social media — so much so that the student newspaper’s website crashed on April 14 because of the volume of traffic — and was condemned by conservatives and liberals alike. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, said the ideas expressed in the editorial are not new. He traces their lineage to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Italian communist theorist Antonio Gramsci and German-American philosopher Herbert Marcuse, whose ideas greatly influenced the students of the New Left in the 1960s. But Mr. Wood said the editorial “may be the first time in which the student newspaper at a highly respected liberal arts college has found its way toward endorsing what amounts to a Gramscian oppression of freedom.” “It’s almost exactly the same as the Comintern in the Soviet Union: ‘We’re the freest country in the world. You can say whatever you want, as long as it agrees with the party.’ Now instead of the party, we have the consensus of Wellesley students,” he said. The editorial did not elaborate on what “hostility” entails, but students at other schools clearly see nothing wrong with responding to unpopular speech with violence. Officials at the University of California at Berkeley this week canceled an April 27 speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter, citing safety concerns. The campus erupted into flames and rioting in February when students sought to prevent an appearance by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, a former editor for Breitbart News. After Middlebury College professor Allison Stanger offered to moderate a talk last month with social scientist Charles Murray, she was assaulted by a mob of students protesting the event and had to wear a neck brace after sustaining whiplash and a concussion. Midway through her talk at Claremont McKenna College this month, prominent Black Lives Matter critic Heather Mac Donald had to be escorted off campus when police determined that protesters had become too unruly.

Moody: Oh, shut up: Let’s prosecute criminal campus crazies

Ever tried dealing with a playground bully? What shuts him (or her, for our politically correct readers) up fastest? A bloody nose. Bullies operate on the assumption that they are safe from retribution. When they find out that’s not true, they curdle like spoiled milk. Until then, their conduct can only spiral further out of control. That’s what’s happening at colleges across America. Students who think they can dictate what is said on their campus are shutting down any point of view they oppose. That’s not youthful indiscretion. It’s a crime. And the perpetrators should be prosecuted for it. This week, the University of California at Berkeley – a communist commune that poses as a cathedral of learning – succeeded in getting conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s scheduled speech canceled. However, the university later suggested she give her speech on May 2. The reason for the original cancellation: college administrators feared her presence might pose a security risk. A risk to whom? Coulter? She can take care of herself. The students who, masked in balaclavas and paisley handkerchiefs, think the best way to express their opinion is to smash in windows and set fire to cars? They want their freedom of speech to be unabridged, including acts of violence. Coulter sets only verbal bonfires with her intentionally overheated rhetoric. It’s time for college administrators and campus police to grow a pair, and prosecute students who engage in these antics. Shutting down free speech is a crime, as Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, knows. ”What’s going on with Ann Coulter is classic viewpoint discrimination,” Sekulow told me. “The Supreme Court has been consistent that viewpoint discrimination is a violation of free speech. And that is illegal.” So who needs to take action? “It’s the school’s job to prevent the protests from becoming violent,” Sekulow says. “Letting students create a hostile environment that shuts down free speech opens the school to lawsuits.” So let’s stop worrying about the students’ rights and prosecute the criminals among them. Here’s how, according to Sekulow: “In a public place, and that includes the campus, you’re allowed to videotape what the students are doing. From a criminal perspective, the campus police would have to bring the lawsuit against people who are rioting. Frankly, until now, what the campus police have been doing is nothing. And the result is that free speech is being shut down. This goes way beyond political correctness. This is criminal conduct.” College life is a time for young people to be exposed to new ideas, to weigh them and decide what works for them as they form their adult personalities. The message today’s students are getting is: agree with me or keep your mouth shut. That’s not education. It’s tyranny.

Agreed..    That outstanding op/ed was written by John Moody.  John is exactly right.  It’s time to take a VERY aggressive stand, legally and otherwise, against the pc police and speech nazis on our nation’s colleges and universities.  Each time these masked thugs and punks start their chaos, someone needs to start videotaping, while others tear off their masks.  They fear being exposed.  Getting them caught in the act of vandalism or worse, with their masks removed, is what they fear most…or they wouldn’t cover up their faces. So, get out there and be their worst nightmare.

Poll: Most Californians Favor Vouchers for Private Schools

A poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) finds a solid majority of Californians support taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and religious schools. According to the poll, 60 percent of adults favor “providing parents with tax-funded vouchers to send their children to any public, private, or parochial school they choose.” Among registered voters, 55 percent favor vouchers, and, among likely voters, 50 percent favor vouchers. Among adults, the survey finds 73 percent of African Americans, 69 percent of Latinos, 56 percent of Asian Americans, and 51 percent of White Americans favor school vouchers. Republicans are more likely to favor school vouchers than Democrats, 67 percent to 46 percent.

UC Berkeley Bans Ann Coulter – But She Plans to Speak Anyway!

The campus that is the home of the historical free speech movement, UC Berkeley, has banned conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter, citing security threats. According to Young America’s Foundation, student organizers of an upcoming Ann Coulter event at the university were emailed by Berkeley administrators who claimed they were unable to “find a safe suitable venue” for Coulter. “Young America’s Foundation, BridgeCal and Berkeley College Republicans have been working together to produce a lecture at UC-Berkeley on April 27, 2017, by Ann Coulter, a twelve-time bestselling author, whose book, ‘Adios, America!’ – a No. 2 New York Times bestseller — is widely credited with shaping President Donald Trump’s immigration views,” announced Young America’s Foundation in a press release, Wednesday. “The topic of her speech was immigration.” “UC-Berkeley, a publicly-funded university, first imposed a series of ridiculous requirements on the speech allegedly in the name of ‘safety.’ Coulter, we were informed, would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event,” they continued. “Against our advice, Coulter agreed to all these requirements. In return, she requested two measures, which actually had something to do with safety.”

To see what those two measures are, and read the rest of the article, click on the text above.

Starnes: Proposed Chick-fil-A has students at Duquesne aflutter about microaggressions

A gay student group at Duquesne University fears that a proposed Chick-fil-A outpost could jeopardize the school’s safe spaces. “Chick-fil-A has a questionable history on civil rights and human rights,” Lambda executive board members Niko Martini told The Duke (the university’s student newspaper). Martini asked student government leaders to pass a resolution urging the school to reconsider Chick-fil-A as a dining option for students at the Pennsylvania Catholic school. “I think it’s imperative the university chooses to do business with organizations that coincide with the university’s mission and expectations they give students regarding diversity and inclusion,” Martini went on to tell the newspaper. So far, the student government association has not passed a resolution one way or the other. And with good reason. A university spokesperson told the newspaper they picked Chick-fil-A at the request of the student body. Still, fragile feathers were ruffled by news that youngsters would soon be nibbling on plump juicy chicken breasts tucked between hot, buttered buns. “I’ve tried very hard within the last semester and a half to promote this safe environment for the LGBTQ+ community,” Lambda President Rachel Coury told The Duke. “So I fear that with the Chick-fil-A being in Options that maybe people will feel that safe place is at risk.” President Olivia Erickson vowed to look into Lambda’s concerns. “We are working on gathering students’ opinions and getting all the facts we can so we can make the best decision,” she told the newspaper. Well, here’s a cold, hard fact: Chick-fil-A is not in the business of selling hate chicken.

Indeed!  They have crystal clear policies which prohibit any type of discrimination.  So, the whole canard about Chick-fil-A being bigoted and having a “questionable history on civil rights and human rights” is total bs being pushed by the extreme liberal and militant gay lobby, and idiots like this in academia.  Yes, the founder of the company is Christian and yes, he believes in traditional marriage and so on.  So flippin what?!?  And, yes, one of the unique things about the company is that it is closed on Sundays…so that employees can go to church if they want to.  That’s it.  But, to these anti-Christian fascists, that’s simply too much for their warped tender sensibilities. The real bigots are these liberal snowflakes.  Anyway, to read the rest of this nauseating op/ed by cultural warrior Todd Starnes, click on the text above.  Unreal..

French: An Army of Straw Men Keeps Campus Intolerance Alive

If there is one constant in the battles over free speech on campus, it’s this: Apologists for intolerance can rarely justify censorship without making stuff up. Confronted with the difficulty of justifying the actual facts of actual disruptions (and sometimes violence), they resort to defending the academy from enemies it doesn’t have, upholding standards that aren’t under attack, and creating new standards they have no intention of using to benefit anyone but their friends. I witnessed this countless times during my legal work defending the free-association rights of Christian college students. More than 100 universities in the United States have either thrown Christian groups off campus or attempted to toss groups from campus on the grounds that it is impermissible “discrimination” for Christian groups to reserve leadership positions for Christians. But rather than justify the actual facts of the actual case in front of them, campus officials would assert that if they don’t uphold the campus nondiscrimination policy, then the university couldn’t defend its students against . . . the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, at Vanderbilt University, administrators directly compared Christian students seeking Christian leadership to segregationists from the Jim Crow South. Yes, in the name of protecting students from hordes of sheet-clad night riders, the university was ejecting from campus student groups known mainly for playing lots of guitar, volunteering disproportionately at urban homeless shelters, and avoiding the binge-drinking hookup culture that was and is causing its own set of campus problems. This misdirection was especially pronounced in the aftermath of the Middlebury College affair, in which gangs of students and “outsiders” disrupted Charles Murray’s speech, chased him out to his car, physically attacked him, gave a Middlebury professor a concussion as she tried to defend him, and then tried to block Murray’s car as he left. But to read some commentators, one would think the protesters’ main problem was that they gave “intolerance” a bad name. Writing “in praise of intolerance” at Slate, author and James Madison University professor Alan Levinovitz, argues that “the subsequent violent protests were wrong not because they were intolerant, but because they were an ineffective and immoral form of intolerance, especially in a civic space dedicated to reason and evidence.” And what are the “effective” and “moral” forms of intolerance? Well, here come the straw men. He speaks of creationists and anti-vaxxers — two groups that are most definitely not trying to gain access to campus biology departments — and then moves on to a direct and misguided attack on religious conservatism, condemning (of all people) C. S. Lewis for advocating that “all economists and statesmen should be Christian” and rank-and-file Christians who believe that God wants men to serve as the head of the household. But here’s the problem — Levinovitz doesn’t point to a single example where those kinds of Christian beliefs are at issue in any modern campus controversy. Even Christian professors who believe in “male headship” (a misunderstood belief that has exactly no relevance to campus politics) don’t import that belief into their English or chemistry or mathematics lectures. One gets the feeling that to weed out or block alleged “extremism” that isn’t a problem on campus, defenders of the status quo are happy limiting mainstream conservatives, especially mainstream religious conservatives. Indeed, some writers are so entirely within their own ideological bubbles, it seems that they actually believe that the choice is a binary between the progressive monoculture and an extremist dystopia. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446138/campus-free-speech-progressives-intolerant-christians

Exactly!!  Well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is the author of that excellent op/ed.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  To read the rest of his article, click on the text above.

California Middle School Budget Cuts Due to High White Student Percentage Sparks Outrage

Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body. The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent. In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years. The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s. Parents, however, remain frustrated with what the cuts might mean for their children. “When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said. In an attempt to lessen the budget cuts, the district changed the school’s spending formula to one based on the number of students. “Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent. Several jobs will still be lost and class sizes could grow. For many parents, the race-based reason of “too many white students” has made the cuts more difficult to swallow.

Indeed!!  It’s breathtakingly racist on its face.  Just fathom if that same southern California school district had said they were cutting funding because the percentage of black, or Hispanic students was too high..  All hell would break loose and we ALL know it.  This is brazenly racist and shameful…and should NOT be tolerated.