Thursday, February 23, 2017
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Warrior Blogger Receives Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick Award
The award will be presented Friday night at CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference).
According to the Foundation:
McAdams was selected for his outspoken criticism of political correctness on college campuses.Actually, one campus (Marquette) which led Marquette to attempt to fire us.
“Professor McAdams is a fearless defender of free speech and open inquiry, and a martyr to political correctness,” said Richard Graber, President and CEO of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which supports the Kirkpatrick Award. “His dismissal from Marquette University flies in the face of the traditions of academic freedom.”And now the really good part:
The award carries a $10,000 stipend and honors the memory of Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who was known for her outspokenness in hostile environments, her clarity and determination in the midst of oppression, and her fierce dedication to American ideals and academic freedom.Kirkpatrick earned the enmity of the academic left by being an ant-communist. Further, she claimed that “moderate autocrats friendly to American interests” were better than communist (or other totalitarian) regimes which entirely suppressed civil liberties and where hostile to U.S. interests. History has proven her right, but at the time, leftist academics claimed that any less-than-fully democratic government might as well be replaced by a communist (or Islamist) regime.
We, of course, are not nearly as important as Jean Kirkpatrick, having done nothing but defy an attempt by a nominally Catholic (but actually secular and politically correct) university to fire us.
But we’ll accept the award anyway.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Being Blunt About Being a Bigot
I don’t like white women.We first were about to label this tirade “politically correct,” but it turns out it’s not.
Whenever I say that, white women look at me like I just decapitated Taylor Swift. If I’m being honest, their reaction is part of the reason I say it. But rest assured, it’s not the only reason.
I don’t like white women because I’m not particularly fond of the construct of whiteness or what it represents. I also don’t appreciate those who are complicit in my oppression and benefit from it. When I say I don’t like white women, it’s not in reference to any specific white woman (aside from maybe Taylor Swift). It’s a declaration that white women pose a very real threat to my existence, and I don’t have to embrace that threat with open arms. You have to earn my fondness. This goes for several other groups, obviously, but for some reason white women seem the most baffled by it. Whenever I meet a white woman who’s not baffled by it, we instantly become friends. Those are the white women I like.
It turns out the author rejects “intersectionality,” a terms that means, roughly, you’ve got to make common cause with all the other politically correct victim groups.
That, of course, includes “women,” but not the women of the real world. In that real world, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump in 2016. It only means feminists.
But even in the Trump-hating “Women’s March” this writer feels alienated.
There is a bit of wisdom here. The writer understands that the white feminists who claim to speak for all women don’t. But the wisdom is buried under a huge racial grudge.
Monday, February 20, 2017
The “Living Constitution:” Trashing the Social Contract
This brings us to the opposition to President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who The New York Times actually calls a “Nominee for a Stolen Seat.” In reality, the Times advocates a perversion of judicial philosophy that long ago had stolen Americans’ birthright.We don’t think the judges should literally always rule according to “original intent.” Sometimes previous Supreme Courts have made such a mess of the law that doing that would be like trying to unscramble an omelet. But what judges should not ever do is base their decisions on their policy preferences, violating each and every defensible rule of construction. That is indeed what most of the “landmark” decisions of the late 20th century did. We don’t need more of that. We should, in fact, never vote for a presidential candidate who promises judicial appointees who will do that.
The paper complains that like Justice Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch “is an originalist, meaning he interprets the Constitution’s language to mean what it was understood to mean when it was written….” Leftists prefer the Constitution be considered a “living document,” interpreted to “suit the times” (and the Times). This just guarantees a dying republic.
Why? Consider: Imagine I violate the language of a contract to which you and I are party. You take me to court, but the judge determines that the contract can be interpreted to suit the times. You may object and say the “times” are being interpreted to suit me, but the judge is in my pocket.
Oh, he justifies this by saying he’s a “pragmatist.” Feel better?
The analogy is apt because, in essence, the Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. It specifies the rights (of the people) and powers (of the different governmental arenas) of those party to it. It does have one significant flaw, however.
For it to work as intended, people must actually abide by it.
When they don’t, our very rights are in jeopardy.
Another analogy was drawn by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he said his job was only “to call balls and strikes.” Expanding on this, judges can in fact be likened to baseball umpires, while the players are the people, the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book the Constitution.
Now, if a rule is thought inadequate, it’s the ruling body’s role to change it. Of course, the players, umpires or anyone else may lobby passionately in that regard. What, however, if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, “With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes”?
He’d be fired. And would it help his cause if he added an intellectual veneer to his cheating, saying “You don’t understand! I’m not a radical like those originalists! I’m moderate — a pragmatist”?
No, he’s a bad umpire — and he’d be history.
Likewise, all the terms describing justices — constructionist, originalist, moderate, pragmatic — are part of a pseudo-intellectual rationalization obscuring a simple truth: There are only two kinds of justices, good justices and bad justices. Good justices rule based on the founders’ original intent.
Bad justices don’t.
They put a spin on the Constitution to prove “by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white,” as satirist Jonathan Swift put it, so they can impose their agenda from the bench.
Some will say we mustn’t be hamstrung by a 200-year-old document. This gets at the big lie. There is a lawful way to make the Constitution “live:” the Amendment Process.
Yes, it can be long and difficult. This ensures that before our national contract is altered, the vast majority of those party to it (the people) agree on the change. “Living-document” judges, with an intellectual veneer and a sneer, usurp this power. The people are to decide when and how the Constitution will live — not five unelected lawyers.
Those who trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers, to facilitate an unconstitutional agenda, tread a dangerous path. Their corruption of the establishment has led to precisely the kind of anti-establishment movement we see today. After all, if a game is judged and won or lost fairly, both sides can accept the outcome. But what happens when the vanquished know the judges fixed the contest for the other side?
That is the stuff revolutions are made of.
The living-document lie can be gussied up as “pragmatism” or something else, but it’s not a legitimate legal philosophy. We can have a living constitution or a living constitutional republic — but we cannot have both.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Friday, February 17, 2017
The Utopia of the Politically Correct
She walked up the subway stairwell, smiling. Atop the Fifth Avenue sidewalk landing, a crowd had already gathered. Cheers broke out as the first glimpses of her were caught by the impatiently awaiting audience. Once on the sidewalk, she gracefully and confidently approached the prepared lectern and waived to the gathered masses. Her smile slowly faded.The author goes on to take a swipe at the Trump movement, although he is fair minded enough to admit that:
“Our country is fallen,” she began. “The legacy of colonialism and racism still haunts our communities. From small towns to big cities, police brutality is destroying lives and ruining families. Hate crimes are on the rise. Our Muslim and LGBTQIA brothers and sisters are traumatized by hate speech on college campuses and in the media. White, straight, cisgender men are bringing racism, they’re bringing sexism, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” These apocalyptic images were followed by a few more depicting rampant bigotry and oppression and the all-consuming fires of capitalism.
“But today,” she continued, her voice brightening, “we say no more! Today will be remembered as the day when we all came together and dealt the first blow to the heteropatriarchy! Just as the spirit of our movement has inspired people throughout the land to resist fascist oppression by violently opposing the Nazis who question the self-evident truths of affirmative action and affirmative consent, so today I announce that it has inspired me to run for the highest office in the land.”
This never-before-encountered brand of leftist politics was a breath of fresh air to many — especially the multicultural cosmopolitans living on the coastal areas of the country. Lately, it seems, they had been forgotten by a nationalist regime beholden to backward interests such as the religious right, gun owners, soon-to-be-obsolete polluting industries such as oil and coal, and, of course, garden variety “racists,” “sexists,” and “Islamophobes.” In their new candidate, the coastal masses, heretofore unheard by the right-wing power-holders, saw a savior who would clean up the nativistic, nationalistic infestation at the nation’s capital and in the country.
As time went on, once-unquestioned assumptions about free speech and due process were attacked into oblivion. The candidate insisted that not only will her administration punish racists and sexists themselves — it will also punish their family members if they do not report their bigoted siblings, parents, and aunts and uncles to the soon-to-be established “Department of Hate and Bias Reporting.” Universities were likewise threatened with the withholding of funds if they deigned to allow student groups to invite controversial speakers who might “microagress” against vulnerable students, faculty, and administrators. The Department of Homeland Security was called upon to create an “online harassment taskforce” that would monitor citizens’ private and public communications for hateful rhetoric directed at minorities, government officials, and even abstract concepts such as “intersectionality.” The candidate even went as far as shaming specific yoga studios and Asian restaurants run by non-Asians for “cultural appropriation.” Death threats were leveled and the businesses closed.
And yet, the more the candidate spoke, the more popular she got. Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives who seemed horrified by the implications of the candidates’ policies were quickly drowned out with rally chants such as “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, right-wing bigots go away,” to the smirking approval of the candidate. Journalists and correspondents who dared to question the candidate’s contention that the country is overrun by bigots by invoking actual statistics on the matter were either ignored or had their sources maligned as “fake stats.” The candidate, meanwhile, boasted her “Ivy League” credentials and insisted that her education and subsequent experience as an activist shielded her from any and all accusations of being illiberal and despotic.
. . . Trump’s support is to some extent undergirded by authoritarianism (though perhaps it is grounded more in nationalism and anti-elitism) . . .But his main target is the authoritarian left.
As in any good dystopia, the picture he paints merely starts with current trends and takes them to their logical conclusion, which typically is not that far from where we are now. His ranting presidential candidate is not that far from Hillary Clinton raving about a “basket of deplorables” or Barack Obama talking about “bitter clingers.”
And the idea of a Stazi tasked to ferret out and punish any politically incorrect thoughts is almost perfectly representative of the bias incident reporting systems on college campuses. Indeed, college campuses, being dominated by the left, are the places most like the dystopia that Gorelik has described.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Taking Provost Myers to Task: Young Americans for Freedom
Last week, the Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette held a wildly successful talk featuring Ben Shapiro. Two lecture halls were filled beyond capacity, even as Marquette staff attempted to sabotage the event behind the scenes.What does it say that, on the Marquette campus, it is usually conservatives who arrange debates, but the Marquette administration arranges only one-sided programs? It must mean that, deep down, the people running Marquette sense that they would be at a disadvantage in an open, balanced debate.
The first time any Marquette administrator publicly addressed students about the Shapiro talk was in an editorial in the campus newspaper on February 14. Provost Dan Myers —who once carried a sign that labeled conservatives as homophobic, transphobic & biphobic—penned an op-ed pleading for “critical thinking” when considering conservative speakers like Shapiro.
His message was simple: the conservatives who came to hear from Ben Shapiro failed to think critically.
According to Myers, Shapiro’s visit “produced some controversy.” In reality, it was university staff that ginned up the controversy. Myers argues that campuses “should not avoid controversy.” Instead, he wants the campus to challenge “controversial” views. Myers, as the second in command at Marquette, has made it his duty to challenge exclusively conservative views the few times they are allowed to be heard on campus.
Interestingly, Myers did not even attend Shapiro’s lecture, but this did not prevent Myers from responding (presumably, he watched the video provided by YAF).
In his contradictions of Shapiro’s assertions, Myers leans heavily on fallacies. When Shapiro remarked that “institutional racism” is no longer the norm, Myers wrote that targeting “legacy” students is racist. He continued, asking whether the legacy advantage “replicate[s] that racism in the next generation.” That is, Myers believes recruiting students who are more likely to attend Marquette because of a prior family connection is racist. Surprisingly, Myers never mentions Marquette’s expressed desire to slant the admissions process in favor of Hispanic students, despite the fact that he himself supports a policy which would require Marquette’s racial demographic to reach at least 25% of all enrollments.
A quick recap of Myers logic reveals a troubling conclusion:
To recruit legacy students, those whose parent or sibling attended Marquette University before them (regardless of race), is institutional racism. But to set a goal of creating a Marquette where 25% of the population is Hispanic (potentially at the expense of other qualified minority students) in order to seek federal funds is not institutional racism.
That’s right Marquette alumni: The provost of your alma mater does not want to recruit your kid, younger sibling, or grandkid in the name of some warped version of Jesuit social justice.
Marquette’s desire to welcome more Hispanics is laudable – but not through this scheme. Skewing numbers to fleece the feds and pander to progressive pieties will throw off other diversity metrics, including socioeconomic status, religion, sex, and many more. Note that intellectual diversity is never part of any initiative promoting inclusion on the campus of Marquette University.
Doubling down on his accusations, Myers argues that Ben’s promotion of the Brookings Institution’s Three Simple Rules to Join the Middle Class is also racist: Graduate from high school, avoid early pregnancy, and get a job. Myers says not all races have equal opportunities to finish high school, get into college, or, evidently, avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Myers offers no solutions to address this broad institutional charge of racism. For decades, conservatives have advocated school choice that would benefit minority students. Yet progressives dramatically opposed Betsy DeVos for the Department of Education, despite her plan to expand to expand choice for impoverished children.
Milwaukee Public Schools (serving the residents who live around Marquette) have been run into the ground by progressive unions for decades. Perhaps left wing unions are the example of institutional racism Myers was seeking?
Myers writes, “Healthy skepticism is at the very foundation of active learning.” If Myers is genuinely interested in interaction with active learning, perhaps the Young Americans for Freedom might bring Shapiro back for a debate.
In fact, Young America’s Foundation has a strong reputation of supporting dialogue on Marquette’s campus. The Foundation has sponsored Attorney General John Ashcroft, Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Stossel, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Allen West, Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Christopher Horner, and many more.
Additionally, the Foundation has sponsored two debates at Marquette. Marquette’s own liberal theologian Dan Maguire backed out of a debate on pro-life issues with conservative Mike Adams.
The Foundation also paid for Liz Cheney to debate Howard Dean prior to the 2012 election. Marquette was one of only a handful of campuses to host such a debate. The Foundation paid for both speakers.
Non-progressives are left to wonder if Myers is planning to write a similarly scathing op-ed after Shaun King appeared on campus this week, or well-known domestic terrorist Angela Davis appears next month. We won’t hold our breath. As Myers pointed out in his op-ed, a “variety of speakers” were on campus last week. Myers singled out the conservative.
If they were confident of their views, they would welcome having those views be shown to be superior in head-to-head competition.
No doubt they are confident of their moral righteousness. But somewhere deep down they know that there are things they don’t want aired, else people start having doubts about the “social justice” agenda.
[Update from YAF]
YAF-Marquette chairman and adviser reached out to Provost Myers for a meeting. Through his chief of staff, Myers denied the request because he was too busy. Myers’ office said they could direct the YAF chapter to another person on campus. At this point, Myers is unwilling to defend his actions directly to conservative students.We can’t imagine Myers refusing to meet with representatives of any politically correct victim group. But he refuses dialogue with conservative students. That’s the Marquette version of “inclusion.”
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Marquette Provost Touts “Critical Thinking,” Then Repeats Politically Correct Clichés
Myers claims to be making a plea for “critical thinking,” but in fact simply demands that people not critically examine politically correct shibboleths. He focusses on the notion of “institutional racism,” a notion that Shapiro challenged.
There is a lot to address there, but let’s focus on three critical questions before we express agreement. First, has the institutionalized racism of yesteryear really disappeared? Take one instance in our own world of higher education. It is widely accepted that back in the bad ol’ days, universities had racist recruitment and admissions practices that severely disadvantaged African Americans. That disadvantage is gone in our new enlightened era, Shapiro says.Does Marquette target legacy students? If so, Dan Myers, you are the Provost, why don’t you stop it?
But is it? Consider this: Almost all universities have long had recruitment and admissions practices that target legacy students (the children and relatives of its alumni). If the parents or grandparents were admitted using a racist standard, then doesn’t the legacy advantage replicate that racism in the next generation? Haven’t these legacy practices built racism into the access to higher education? Maybe it’s possible that racial advantages still exist more than we think.
But of course, targeting legacy students is not racial discrimination, even if it has a differential racial impact. Universities target good athletes too, and (at least in “revenue sports”) this benefits blacks. But that’s not racial discrimination either.
Then there is the huge advantage racial minorities have with affirmative action. It typically is (as Shapiro reported) in the range of 250 SAT points (Verbal plus Quantative).
School ChoirMyers then offers an example of a bad person: a choir director who systematically excluded black students from a highly desirable program.
Myers seems not to understand that this simply isn’t “institutional racism.” There was nothing about the “institution” of the choir that discriminated against blacks, but rather one bad person who did.
And Myers admits he is now dead. So much for this as any sort of example of contemporary racism, institutional or otherwise.
Individual AgencyMyers continues:
By denying institutional racism, Shapiro can boil racial differences down to individual agency: if Black people just tried harder and made better choices, they’d do just as well as Whites. Simply finish high school, avoid early pregnancy and get a job. If you do, you’ll be OK. Seems reasonable, but let’s pause again. Does everyone (regardless of race, income, where they live and family circumstances) have the same chance to finish high school? Does every high school produce the same results (learning, skills and chances of getting into college)? Does everyone have the same chance of getting a job? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” we must rethink whether individual agency is the only thing that matters.Myers is oblivious to the fact that he is demeaning black people. They are, he seems to be saying, so beaten down that they are unable to make good decisions. For example, today about 72% of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Poor beaten down black folks can’t make good decisions about sex, birth control and marriage, according to Myers.
But in 1955, only 20% of black babies were born out of wedlock. Why could blacks make good decisions in the 1950s, before the civil rights legislation of the 60s, but can’t now? The generation of blacks that had kids in wedlock in the 50s was the generation that marched with Martin Luther King. What has happened in the black community? It hasn’t been the rise of “institutional racism.”
That blacks are, on average, in poorer schools than whites is certainly true. But it is leftists like Myers that are the staunch defenders of poorly performing public school monopolies in central cities, and the opponents of charter schools and vouchers schools.
It is, in other words, the people who whine about “institutional racism” who are defenders of the clearest form of institutional racism that harms black kids: the inner city public school monopoly.
UnemploymentMyers goes on to talk about unemployment, and claims that if the “jobs were there” black people would take them. He points to the fact that the black unemployment rate is consistently higher than the white unemployment rate.
But is this “institutional racism?”
In the first place, because blacks tend to have less human capital than whites (because of poorer education), they are at a disadvantage.
Secondly, because blacks tend to have less human capital, they are more likely to be lured into dependency on government programs, which compete too well with actual employment. (The same thing happens with poorly educated whites, but it is less noticed.)
Here are the data on dependency on means-tested programs, by race.
Here are the data on dependency and family structure. Married couple families are quite unlikely to be dependent on government programs.
One of the many things that politically correct types won’t talk about is the fact that the black/white gap in unemployment was, in an era where “institutional racism” was undeniable, nonexistent. This chart, from the linked article, tells the story:
Hypocrisy on Critical ThinkingBut the most blatant, bizarre thing about Myers and his bureaucrats is that, instead of promoting critical thinking, they have promoted one-sided political correctness.
Critical thinking involves confronting diverse, often conflicting ideas. But the programming coming out of Myers office (and offices under his control) this year has consisted of nothing but leftist indoctrination.
And Myers, uncomfortable with Shapiro challenging his one-sided programming, goes to the Tribune to try to debunk Shapiro.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Not a Good Place for That
Warrior Blogger on Vicki McKenna
Breaking: Condoms Being Handed Out In Front of Marquette Library
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Ben Shapiro on Trangenderism and Abortion
Called on the Carpet
Thursday, February 09, 2017
Pro-Israel Program at Marquette
Seeing a pro-Israel event at Marquette is a bit unusual, since there have been numerous programs bashing the Jewish state. For example:
- Arab Heritage Celebration in 2005
- A Manresa program titled “Jews of Conscience: Voices for Justice and Peace, Hope and Obligation.” Jews of “conscience” were all anti-Israel Jews.
- A Soup With Substance presentation by one Julie Enslow, an anti-Israel activist.
- Israeli Apartheid Week in 2014.
- Same event, 2015.
Students for Justice in Palestine (a registered MU student organization), Intercultural Engagement in the Office of Student Development, Marquette University Student Government, and the Office of International Education will be having the following speakers on campus for a series of programs to raise awareness about Israeli apartheid and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.The Voices of Israel program, in contrast, appears to be entirely student organized.
Which is typical of Marquette. Programs organized by the university are leftist and propagandistic, and it falls to student organizations (like the Young Americans for Freedom inviting Ben Shapiro) to provide a tiny bit of balance to the campus discourse.
Following is a promotional video for the program:
Ben Shapiro Talk at Marquette
Stunning Success: Ben Shapiro at Marquette
Not only did a staffer from the Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies attempt to sabotage the event by advising leftists to get tickets and not show up (depriving a student who wanted to see the speech of admittance), but the campus feminist group Empowerment circulated a deranged letter accusing Shapiro of racism, xenophobia and hateful rhetoric.
But in fact, the event went off without a hitch.
Given the history of leftist mobs disrupting Shapiro events, it seemed that extra security would be needed. Initially, Marquette suggested that the Young Americans for Freedom, the group staging the event, would have to pay for the extra security. A terrible idea, this tactic (often used by universities hostile to conservative speech) amounts to a tax on any speech the campus left dislikes. Happily, Marquette backed down.
There were private security people at the event (paid by Marquette) and several of the campus police. Further, Shapiro has his own body guard. And the security people were instructed to remove anybody who caused any major disruption — in marked contrast to many universities where leftists are allowed to shut down events with impunity.
So far, two news outlets have published stories on the talk:
But according to Shapiro “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Invited Questions from LeftistsShapiro answered questions for an extended period, and especially invited questions from leftists. Several leftists challenged him, all in a civil way. And Shapiro, who is often caustic in his speeches, responded in an earnest and respectful way.
In an epic exchange, one leftist challenged Shapiro about “institutional racism.” Shapiro responded by demanding to know what that means, and offered to fight it, if the questioner could specify exactly what should be fought. The questioner could not, an implicit admission that he had accepted vague rhetoric in the absence hard facts or analysis.
To his credit, this same leftist told Channel 6 that “By the end of the back and forth, I think we both had been respectful. I think we both learned something.”
Extremely gracious, Shapiro accepted requests from questioners to shake his hand and even to have a selfie made with him.
ConclusionAll this, of course, is exactly the sort of discourse that ought to take place on a college campus. But it is significant that a conservative student group, and not the Marquette administration, arranged it.
All that the Marquette administration has produced is the dour, race baiting moralists.
The contrast is stunning.
Labels: Ben Shapiro, Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies, Empowerment, Free Speech, Leftist Intolerance, Marquette University, Political Correctness, Student Affairs, Young Americans for Freedom
Marquette’s Stunning Hypocrisy on “Hard to Hear” Opinions
The Winter Edition of Marquette University’s “Marquette Magazine” includes what appears to be a self-congratulatory piece where open expression on campus is concerned, through its yearlong Marquette Forum series. The column chronicles the university’s fall semester efforts to generate discourse on the topic of racial justice and inequality:In fact, the whole year of Marquette-sponsored programs has been entirely devoid of anything but standard leftist indoctrination.
During the fall semester the university seized the moment when issues of racial justice and inequality were central in the national and local consciousnesses to launch a conversation format designed to inspire thinking — together. Those efforts included hosting a conversation with Sam Pollard about his film Two Trains Runnin’, which was featured at the Milwaukee Film Festival and a panel discussion “Segregation in Milwaukee: A Conversation with Leaders on the Near West Side.”The sub-headline for the article was:
This is about talking and listening even when opinions may be hard to hear. This is about being a university.
The irony of that sentiment was not lost on suspended MU professor John McAdams. McAdams, you may recall, was suspended for a blog post about an instructor who wouldn’t allow debate over same sex marriage in her philosophy class. In January, McAdams received a letter telling him his suspension would continue until he apologized. Media Trackers asked McAdams for his opinion on the Marquette Magazine piece:
It’s absurdly ironic, since Marquette only wants to hear opinions from the hard left.
There are plenty of voices who would dissent from the uniform leftist slant of these programs. One thinks of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. On criminal justice issues, there is Heather McDonald. I could name a dozen more. But nobody who at all dissents from the notion of blacks as entirely innocent victims of white oppression is allowed to speak.
The notion that any of these issues should be debated seems never to have crossed the minds of the Marquette bureaucrats. There is only one “social justice” position, and every person of good will agrees on it, and only evil people refuse to sign on.
This is radically at odds with what discourse at any university should be, but it’s all too typical of academia today. There is no “engagement” with diverse ideas, but only one-sided indoctrination.
The only saving grace is that few people who don’t already think this way will attend. That is unless their instructors bribe students with extra credit or require attendance.
It is not “hard to hear” opinions you agree with. Marquette is happy to serve up ideas “hard to hear” for conservatives (typically “hard to hear” because they are absurd) but unwilling to allow anything that the politically correct liberals would find “hard to hear.”
Infrastructure of IndoctrinationConsider, for example, a faculty program “Faculty Conversations on Learning: Sparking Curiosity in our Students.” The point, as we have noted, was not at all to spark curiosity, but rather to encourage faculty to indoctrinate students into the standard politically correct view of racial issues.
Then there is the Center for Intercultural Engagement. How politically correct are they? Each staff member lists his or her “preferred pronoun” on the assumption that some “transgender” or “gender queer” or such person might dislike “he” or “she.” One of the staff (Enrique Tejada III) wants to be referred to as “they,” even though there is only one of him.
Not surprisingly, the list of events sponsored or supported by this office is a smorgasbord of politically-correct identity politics, with lots of gay and lesbian events, “dreamers” (read: young illegals) events, and a “Dining in Drag” event.
Catholic teaching on homosexuality is nowhere to be found. Why? That opinion is “hard to hear.” So is the opinion that we should control the border and stop illegal immigration. Those opinions aren’t allowed at Marquette, at least so long as campus bureaucrats are controlling the discourse.
Mission WeekMarquette’s Mission week is merely more of the same. Titled “Black, White and the Call of the Church,” there is not the slightest mention of the problems that most afflict the black community: illegitimacy, a high crime rate, drug use and poor urban schools.
Rather, it’s all about white racism. The video about the event gives the full flavor:
Angela DavisAnd of course, Marquette is bringing Angela Davis to campus. Of course, having extremist speakers (and Davis is a communist) as part of a diverse menu of provocative and even extremist opinions is perfectly fine at any university. But there is no diversity in the events Marquette has scheduled. It’s all about leftist indoctrination, with Davis merely being the most extreme of a uniform slate of leftists.
Wednesday, February 08, 2017
Hypocrisy: Is it OK to Want the President to Fail?
The Democratic Left is trying to pretend that Donald Trump wasn’t really elected President last year, with an unprecedented 67 U.S. Representatives boycotting Trump’s Inauguration after Congressman John Lewis told NBC that Trump was not “a legitimate President.”Of course, the two most common elements in Washington (and this includes the Washington press corps) are hydrogen and hypocrisy. So none of this is a surprise.
But instead of scolding this divisive and unhelpful repudiation of a new President, the news media are enabling the sore-loser Left.
After Lewis announced his rejection of Trump, NBC’s Chuck Todd prodded him for more extreme action: “You believe this President is not legitimate. What would you tell young folks, young activists to do?”
And even though Trump hadn’t yet been inaugurated, Todd also pressed Lewis about impeachment: “Are you one of those that believe the impeachment process should begin?”
Contrast that with the news media’s hysterical reaction eight years ago when Rush Limbaugh said of incoming President Barack Obama and his ardently liberal agenda: “I hope he fails.”
It was a sentiment Limbaugh repeated a month later when he spoke at the annual CPAC conference: “What is so strange about being honest and saying, ‘I want Barack Obama to fail,’ if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?”
Liberal reporters freaked out. CNN political analyst Bill Schneider said Limbaugh’s CPAC speech had “sinister” tones and had “crossed a line.” During a CNBC interview, host Mark Haines lectured Limbaugh that it was a “stupid and mean spirited thing to say,” an exchange that so tickled MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that he re-played it that night on his Countdown program.
Republican politicians were pressed to denounce Limbaugh. ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked John McCain to say he was “offended” by the remark (McCain demurred), while then-MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell scolded then-Indiana Representative Mike Pence: “Why don’t you feel like you could denounce something like that?”
On MSNBC in 2009, the failure to appreciate Obama was seen as treasonous, as Hardball host Chris Matthews asked viewers: “Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country?”
But last week, before Trump was sworn in, Matthews pressed Democratic Representative Maxine Waters if she would consider impeaching the not-yet-President. During Friday’s inauguration coverage, Matthews described Trump’s speech as “Hitlerian” and suggested Trump could use “Mussolini” tactics if he wanted to jettison his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a White House advisor.
And over the next few days, ABC, CBS and NBC all provided heavy and positive coverage of an anti-Trump protest march that included speakers like Madonna seeming to suggest assassination: “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”
The news media are obviously not demanding a consistent respect for the office of the U.S. Presidency. The most obvious explanation is that eight years ago most in the so-called “news” media wanted Barack Obama’s left-wing policies to succeed and were appalled by dissent.
Now, the media see themselves as part of the opposition to President Trump and his agenda to roll back Obama’s policies — and they hope he fails.
As we write this, the media are in a frenzy about Trump’s criticism of a Washington state judge who put a hold on his immigration pause. But attacking conservative Supreme Court judges over Citizens United or Heller or Hobby Lobby is just fine.
It’s not that only liberals are hypocritical, but in any subculture that is overwhelmingly dominated by liberals it is liberal hypocrisy that is going to run riot. And the people in that subculture, being so entirely surrounded by people who think the same way, can’t see it.
It’s much like academia, where one of our colleagues in Marquette’s Political Science Department told us he did not know what “political correctness” means.
Fish don’t know they are wet.