The Decline of Western Civilation Continues Unimpeded on College Campuses

University Columnist Calls Free Speech ‘Expression Of White Supremacy’
Author claims murder and offensive speech nearly identical


A columnist with Duke University’s student newspaper has labeled Americans’ “obsession” with freedom of speech as nothing more than “an expression of white supremacy.”


Free speech, Black lives and white fragility

Free speech, Black lives and white fragility

FreeSpeech.jpg



As I write my first column, I am thinking a lot about speech. I am thinking about how an urgent and overdue conversation about racism—on our campus and across our country—has been derailed by a https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html (diversionary) and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment. I am thinking about how quickly the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility—and how this shift is itself an expression of white supremacy.

White fragility refers to a range of defensive behaviors through which white people (or more accurately, people who believe they are white) deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress. Because white people tend to live in environments where whiteness is both dominant and invisible, they grow accustomed to racial comfort, as a result of which even a small amount of racial stress becomes intolerable. This helps explain why talking about white supremacy can feel more painful to white people than white supremacy itself, why the ostensible "stifling" of debate can feel more pressing than the literal strangulation of Eric Garner and how "free speech" seems more important than Black lives.

Needless to say, it requires an astounding degree of narcissism, ignorance and— yes—fragility to scan headlines detailing the daily, state-sanctioned slaughter of people of color and somehow conclude that speech is the real problem. White fragility weighs the minimal discomfort of being confronted with painful realities about race and racism against the literal death of Black and brown bodies and decides that the latter matter less than white discomfort. Which is how we end up here, talking about speech on campus and reading a dozen iterations of the same editorial in which students describe—with utterly unintentional irony—how being called out by anti-racist activists makes them feel upset and hurts their feelings.

This leaves those of us committed to abolishing white supremacy in a double bind. To engage with this debate is to fall for a diversionary tactic in which we again center the conversation on white feelings. To refuse to engage grants the latter a monopoly on the airways, drowning out more vital issues in an ocean of white noise. Still, in the interests of the open, honest debate the free speechers ostensibly advocate, let me try to address the constitutional and philosophical principles at play here.

The first point to make is that, despite the hand-wringing, I have yet to see a single example of student activists violating the First Amendment. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they could do so, given that the latter proscribes government abridgment of speech while student activists are private citizens. Many seem to confuse "free speech" with some banal notion of civility, forgetting that the very freedoms they invoke to defend racist drivel permit anti-racists to respond—whether by calling someone out or calling for their resignation.

This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs?

It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color."

Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree.

At the same time—and here I'll throw a bone to the civil libertarians—I'm unconvinced that hate speech legislation can resolve this. Not because hate speech isn't violent, but because the state is. As others have noted, we often view the state like some strange sort of Jekyll and Hyde—as if the very government quite literally built on white supremacy could somehow save us from its effects. I've sometimes noticed the same double vision among campus activists, who both call out Duke (quite rightly) for institutional racism yet also call on the administration to fix it.

So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing.

Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech. The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise.

"any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree" - WTF!!!!

This garbage is written by a 95lb pencil-necked liberal arts puke:
http://literature.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=17916&subpage=profile

It's a low-res picture, but it looks like he's compensating by trying to grow some stubble.

English Lit, clearly a waste of time and money.
 
"any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree" - WTF!!!!

This garbage is written by a 95lb pencil-necked liberal arts puke:
http://literature.duke.edu/people?Gurl=&Uil=17916&subpage=profile

It's a low-res picture, but it looks like he's compensating by trying to grow some stubble.

English Lit, clearly a waste of time and money.
These guys are typical of the same breed that brand themselves feminists. They think this will help them get some pussy from the women they serve.
 
These guys are typical of the same breed that brand themselves feminists. They think this will help them get some pussy from the women they serve.

That won't work - the feminist women those pansy males associate with are carpet lickers. Maybe those men are lesbian cuckolds? Or the male version of a fag hag, perhaps. Seems about right.
 
That won't work - the feminist women those pansy males associate with are carpet lickers. Maybe those men are lesbian cuckolds? Or the male version of a fag hag, perhaps. Seems about right.
No of course it doesn't work. It's usually the only option for them. Watching videos of those guys holding signs during those slut walk rallies just makes me sick.
 
Our taxes at work..

Northwestern University

Social Justice Education

http://www.northwestern.edu/socialjustice/programs-and-events/Deconstructing%20Whiteness/index.html

A 6-part workshop series for undergraduate students who self-identify as white

Deconstructing%20whiteness%20jpeg.PNG


Here are the sign up questions:
Why are you signing up for this group?
What do you hope to learn from participating in this workshop?
How will you contribute to the learning in this workshop?
 
FREE SPEECH IS THREATENED ON CAMPUS
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1500-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus

The atmosphere on college campuses has changed, a Columbia University professor argued before an audience full of Yale students and New Haven residents Tuesday. And that change has created spaces in which free speech is not extinguished, but threatened.

A majority of the audience agreed.

After a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared U.S., a nonprofit that provides free online access to debates held across the country on issues facing society, 66 percent of the audience left convinced that free speech is threatened on college campuses. The event was held at the Yale Repertory Theatre.

John McWhorter, a professor of linguistics at Columbia, argued with Wendy Kaminer, a writer and lawyer, that free speech is now being threatened on college campuses because of language codes and policies that punish those who use any form of speech deemed hateful or derogatory, no matter how minor.

McWhorter and Kaminer discussed instances from colleges and universities all over the country in which professors have been fired for comments made in the classroom that students were unhappy with and protested against. They talked about times when student speech has been limited by university policies, such as when students have been forced to remove “All Lives Matter” signs from dorm room doors.

When students call for professors to be fired based on something they said, they are threatening free speech, Kaminer said.





“Students have a right to demand what they want to demand,” Kaminer said. “But it shows an intolerance for free speech ... and a desire not to hear opposing views.”
 
KU vote funds separate, multicultural student government; organizers call move unprecedented among U.S. universities

“Multicultural students are best equipped to create spaces in which fellow multicultural students feel safe and accepted,” according to the memo. “The current Student Senate does not advocate for students of color in part due to refusal by select members, and because of lack of understanding and empathy.”

Students Jameelah Jones and Katherine Rainey stressed that the Multicultural Student Government would not be “separate but equal” and would not be divisive.

Rainey said each of the eight executive board members would receive a $6,000 annual stipend as opposed to an hourly wage, which would enable participants to hold other campus jobs...

Rainey declined to answer questions about detailed logistics, saying it was important instead to fund the group because the Student Senate last fall had pledged its support to the Black Lives Matter movement and students of color...

KU vote funds separate, multicultural student government; organizers call move unprecedented among U.S. universities
 
Harvard students debate whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘privilege’

March 16, 2016
By Steve Gunn

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – White lives do not matter, according to a student debater/activist from the University of West Georgia.

Miguel Feliciano, along with fellow West Georgia student Damiyr Davis, reportedly participated in a recent debate with other students at Harvard University.

During an exchange with their opponents, Feliciano suggested that white people should kill themselves because of their “white privilege.”

The exchange was caught on video and posted on YouTube.



http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://trends.revcontent.com/click.php%3Fd%3DeJwdVIkNwyAMXAn%252FMA742X%252BEXqpKSZsSON%252FnV6R9LTqPycz6qnX5HH9618NHQ469%252FfJt01bapzY96z59m06MxA1zIhFfPaYvSZt6n9ArW3Zry%252FhW6cLlWQwX9qPZNOTdcvKkuuveviNyBIdf2sE8FUF7ed%252B3iVxKVrQsqT08Zyee6Vgzn3vuWxQip4SV1uR%252BN%252BKKH8yTpVsvWSRm0aPLuPQ1dnizmVNuzFwW1XPIqGrdzrWrmo%252FX9UfW5PT4cWYos59Zdn309N7rSXfkVu25y7GOKqhkeL2c0HOJb4jz5b1nIgGIZrG3TtgK8gmnaJU043Uni8RFt0RyqK86Pa9rcchdnCfOmmG2KQ9OKDP56CYGSaZNbo8WCbunnrAEI9S2JKQwwlogO4QKDEuu4ABbzqzhcSogQyXjssk0jUDa0vlY8iIeZTyNTya3nuKyU7OaHQde87fvCT%252BaN%252Fa92ca39n13E2g7I2UAWaBLP2PdePpYNvBmuy0o5oPXrkUBqjaI9%252BtX4q31AojGX%252FptVcd0n6McgpcKtffMAwSoXwASNz32AjS6E2%252B%252BH0demS%252FHN7sMrb%252BBIZfBFBK%252BIRAOTb6jtxoD%252BBaVum0GMfuRKh846QzHIqscKC0bO751i9aG8vuNwZdasMcB68X2enwp6C4j%252BQznzboydVM1bjL3TBvNyRpNzALrJaL2TkJhAXgqIHQ6JPOQqzdLEMTthtQ%252Bg8lglh64KY858nHLAvi2OMTY6rSKnboJwIaxN%252FSPtIMwvyqxvUJzIZAJ46WiDv5UODavL2PwONvah5FARd4XgjTmmRdAGotU8KdCWHBwcFxAxdXnqEnhFh3nrHwHmTCY2Ysx4omsqPdqy9IFTWPDZJkwxG5GF1WhhwZ6NsO%252FjSwst1y1PJqREJAdvRMwFX0SsPpaZyZhMn5yDti8yhAuPjMkI3woloP0oytuwV8jtC6BoK3oILUH3SRBcu1Pmyswzd6JZrmSiCRKZFtCgjov2qax0xe2%252B4i4QLDXPEelYfnQgc9OBlQthnizDc22DkfMQXBxY2C8DGPhXf%252Fs74ZETYOrzVDJvr78AIN0lAZqwBPrDqoTpJGBvEQML7rkO%252Frwu9dhM6e0IFTDD0RYl5o%253D&s=1&f=1&ts=1458229935&sig=APY536xGapWwX-jQ1vGMs7kumyF75rJUEw
“White life is wrong,” Feliciano was quoted as saying by http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.infowars.com/activist-white-people-should-kill-themselves-to-atone-for-white-privilege/&s=1&f=1&ts=1458229935&sig=APY536zffX4zB4L4nyUCDpbhnPiGP2U9Fw. “Our argument is that we should never affirm white life. White life is based off black subjugation.”

When a white debater asked Feliciano whether he should commit suicide, Feliciano said “I don’t see why not, it’s ethical.”

When the white debater suggested that it might be better to remain alive and fight the social forces that promote “white privilege,” Feliciano rejects the notion.

“Struggling against the structure means putting yourself on the line, putting your body on the line, do it. Affirmative suicide, that’s cool, it’s one little step in the right direction,” Feliciano said, according to Infowars.com.

Ironically, the debate topic was supposed to be about renewable energy.

“The black debaters simply ‘chose’ to point out their opponents’ skin color and begin advocating genocide,” reported InvestmentWatchdogBlog.com. “They expressly stated that these were their ‘sincere beliefs,’ not just an argument to win a debate.”

Feliciano and Davis are not some anonymous student crackpots posing as serious debaters.

They form a respected two-person debate team that took second place at the 2013 Cross-Examination Debate Association Nationals, according to Infowars.com.

Feliciano also acts as an instructor at the Eddie Conway Liberation Institute, an annual debate camp at Coppin State University that reportedly instructs high school students on debate strategy and radical thought, Infowars.com reported.

The institute is named after former Black Panther Party member Eddie Conway, who was convicted and imprisoned for 44 years for his involvement with the 1970 murder of a Baltimore police officer.
 
LAWRENCE, Kan. – A four-month investigation into a University of Kansas professor who used a racial slur in class has concluded the word was used in an educational context and not intended to be racist.

Assistant communication studies professor Andrea Quenette has been on paid leave since November, when a group of eight graduate students filed a discrimination complaint after she used the slur in response to a question in class.

The university's Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access notified her on Friday that she did not violate the school's nondiscrimination or racial and ethnic harassment policies when she used the word, the Lawrence Journal-World reported.

"This word is offensive, but it was used in the context of retelling a factual event that occurred at another campus," Quenette said, summarizing what the university wrote in a letter explaining its conclusion. "It was not used in racial animus."

The discussion occurred on Nov. 12, a day after a heated, campuswide town hall forum on race. Her comment was in response to a student's question about how to best talk about the event and racial issues with other students.

Quenette responded that as a white woman it was difficult to relate to others' challenges because she has not experienced racial discrimination herself, according to both Quenette and students.

Then she noted that unlike on other campuses where there had been visible racist acts and assaults, she had not seen the racial slur — she used the actual slur — spray-painted on walls at KU.

"Dr. Quenette's deployment of racially violent rhetoric not only creates a non-inclusive environment in opposition to one of the University of Kansas' core tenets, but actively destroys the very possibility of realizing those values and goals," the graduate students, some of whom weren't in the class at the time, wrote in their complaints. [emphasis added]

Jyleesa Hampton, a first-year communications graduate student who is black, signed the open letter but was not in the class. She said Friday that the office's conclusion that Quenette didn't violate policy doesn't mean her comments weren't perceived as racist by those who received them. [emphasis added]

The university recommended that Quenette undergo cultural competency training, re-evaluate orientation curriculum to include more diversity support and pair up with a faculty member. The school also recommended possibly reassigning duties within the communications department. [emphasis added]

University spokesman Joe Monaco confirmed Friday that the investigation was complete and that all involved parties had been notified of the outcome. University administrators won't comment on the findings, Monaco said, citing confidentiality.

University of Kansas professor keeps job after using racial slur in class | Fox News
 
The Absurd Demands of Harvard Students Who Feel Guilty About Their ‘Privilege’

Where direct regulation does not change hearts and minds, America’s universities have long used indoctrination. At Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, for example, student orientation now includes instruction in “privilege.” If you aren’t already aware, “privilege” is a term employed in conversation as a way to encourage the listener to recognize that his or her upbringing might be clouding dialogue. In practice, the term is generally used to shame and intimidate people the person employing the term doesn’t like—usually ordinary Americans.

But this kind of shaming is not enough, apparently. For months now, students and faculty at Harvard Law School have banded together to create what they have labeled the “Reclaim Harvard Law Movement.” While not really a movement, these privileged students are making increasingly silly demands.

They argue that “the law school [Harvard] refuses to provide adequate institutional support for an office of diversity and inclusion, hire critical race theorists, promote staff of color in the workplace to management positions in their due course, provide adequate contextualization in curricula, educate its professors, its staff, and its students around cultural competency, take the steps that are necessary to accord adequate and equal dignity to marginalized students.” On top of this, they claim that the law school promotes and sustains systems of systemic racism and exclusion of marginalized groups.

Reclaim Harvard Law has taken campus activism to such extreme lengths that even former supporters are concerned. A recent article published in http://hlrecord.org/2016/04/reclaim-harvard-law-please-stop-destroying-yourself/ calls for the movement to “stop destroying itself.” A former supporter claims that the movement has “taken over Belinda Hall not just physically, but mentally. Everyone who dares to disagree with you is labeled a racist or an extremist.”

The Absurd Demands of Harvard Students Who Feel Guilty About Their 'Privilege'
 
At Ithaca College, The Left’s Kids Devour Their Parents

Ithaca College President Thomas Rochon will step down next year over his failure to respond to racially sensitive issues in the appropriate manner. The decision came after much personal introspection, according to Rochon, after the faculty and students separately voted no confidence in his leadership in a vote that was inexplicably conducted http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2015/12/14/rochon-gets-no-confidence-ic-faculty/77286318/%27, an unscientific method of deciphering opinion.

Much of these charges are far beyond and tangential to the original cause of the unrest. In October 2015, on an alumni association panel one panelist, 1992 alumnus Tatiani Sy, said she had a “savage hunger” to learn and be professionally successful. A white 1976 alumnus participating, Christopher Burch, complimented Sy’s thirst for knowledge by referring to her as “the savage” during the course of the panel discussion.

After the event, Sy complained Burch’s use of the word she employed to describe herself made her feel uncomfortable. She added, “When the slur was repeated not once but several times, I think someone should have gotten up and intervened.” She concluded that Burch committed a “microaggression.” Burch apologized profusely, to no avail.

Despite Burch’s assurance that he was merely using in an admirable way the language Sy had originally used to describe herself, the campus exploded. Jennifer Jolly, an associate professor and chair in the Department of Art History, stated, “While I very much respected that [Burch] made a place for empathy, it seemed to me that empathy is particularly important when it comes to being a privileged, white male, who seemed to be completely unable to understand why an African-American woman might object to being called ‘savage,’”

Rochon telephoned Sy soon after, and she rejected his apologies, claiming she needed “space” to “process” the situation that overwhelmed her.

This hysterical atmosphere at Ithaca did not develop out of thin air. In March 2015, the student government had passed a bill to create an online system where people could inform on each other for committing “microaggressions.” The aim was to hold those violators legally responsible for their offense. Social justice protestors at campuses across the country http://www.thedemands.org/. [emphasis added]

At Ithaca College, The Left’s Kids Devour Their Parents
 


University of Chicago Strikes Back Against Campus Political Correctness

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” John Ellison, dean of students, wrote to members of the class of 2020, who will arrive next month.

It was a not-so-veiled rebuke to the protests calling for limits on what kinds of speech should be condoned on campus, and who should be allowed to speak, that have rocked Yale, Wesleyan, Oberlin and many other colleges and universities in recent years.
 
Harvard students debate whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘privilege’

March 16, 2016
By Steve Gunn

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – White lives do not matter, according to a student debater/activist from the University of West Georgia.

Miguel Feliciano, along with fellow West Georgia student Damiyr Davis, reportedly participated in a recent debate with other students at Harvard University.

During an exchange with their opponents, Feliciano suggested that white people should kill themselves because of their “white privilege.”

The exchange was caught on video and posted on YouTube.



http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://trends.revcontent.com/click.php%3Fd%3DeJwdVIkNwyAMXAn%252FMA742X%252BEXqpKSZsSON%252FnV6R9LTqPycz6qnX5HH9618NHQ469%252FfJt01bapzY96z59m06MxA1zIhFfPaYvSZt6n9ArW3Zry%252FhW6cLlWQwX9qPZNOTdcvKkuuveviNyBIdf2sE8FUF7ed%252B3iVxKVrQsqT08Zyee6Vgzn3vuWxQip4SV1uR%252BN%252BKKH8yTpVsvWSRm0aPLuPQ1dnizmVNuzFwW1XPIqGrdzrWrmo%252FX9UfW5PT4cWYos59Zdn309N7rSXfkVu25y7GOKqhkeL2c0HOJb4jz5b1nIgGIZrG3TtgK8gmnaJU043Uni8RFt0RyqK86Pa9rcchdnCfOmmG2KQ9OKDP56CYGSaZNbo8WCbunnrAEI9S2JKQwwlogO4QKDEuu4ABbzqzhcSogQyXjssk0jUDa0vlY8iIeZTyNTya3nuKyU7OaHQde87fvCT%252BaN%252Fa92ca39n13E2g7I2UAWaBLP2PdePpYNvBmuy0o5oPXrkUBqjaI9%252BtX4q31AojGX%252FptVcd0n6McgpcKtffMAwSoXwASNz32AjS6E2%252B%252BH0demS%252FHN7sMrb%252BBIZfBFBK%252BIRAOTb6jtxoD%252BBaVum0GMfuRKh846QzHIqscKC0bO751i9aG8vuNwZdasMcB68X2enwp6C4j%252BQznzboydVM1bjL3TBvNyRpNzALrJaL2TkJhAXgqIHQ6JPOQqzdLEMTthtQ%252Bg8lglh64KY858nHLAvi2OMTY6rSKnboJwIaxN%252FSPtIMwvyqxvUJzIZAJ46WiDv5UODavL2PwONvah5FARd4XgjTmmRdAGotU8KdCWHBwcFxAxdXnqEnhFh3nrHwHmTCY2Ysx4omsqPdqy9IFTWPDZJkwxG5GF1WhhwZ6NsO%252FjSwst1y1PJqREJAdvRMwFX0SsPpaZyZhMn5yDti8yhAuPjMkI3woloP0oytuwV8jtC6BoK3oILUH3SRBcu1Pmyswzd6JZrmSiCRKZFtCgjov2qax0xe2%252B4i4QLDXPEelYfnQgc9OBlQthnizDc22DkfMQXBxY2C8DGPhXf%252Fs74ZETYOrzVDJvr78AIN0lAZqwBPrDqoTpJGBvEQML7rkO%252Frwu9dhM6e0IFTDD0RYl5o%253D&s=1&f=1&ts=1458229935&sig=APY536xGapWwX-jQ1vGMs7kumyF75rJUEw
“White life is wrong,” Feliciano was quoted as saying by http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.infowars.com/activist-white-people-should-kill-themselves-to-atone-for-white-privilege/&s=1&f=1&ts=1458229935&sig=APY536zffX4zB4L4nyUCDpbhnPiGP2U9Fw. “Our argument is that we should never affirm white life. White life is based off black subjugation.”

When a white debater asked Feliciano whether he should commit suicide, Feliciano said “I don’t see why not, it’s ethical.”

When the white debater suggested that it might be better to remain alive and fight the social forces that promote “white privilege,” Feliciano rejects the notion.

“Struggling against the structure means putting yourself on the line, putting your body on the line, do it. Affirmative suicide, that’s cool, it’s one little step in the right direction,” Feliciano said, according to Infowars.com.

Ironically, the debate topic was supposed to be about renewable energy.

“The black debaters simply ‘chose’ to point out their opponents’ skin color and begin advocating genocide,” reported InvestmentWatchdogBlog.com. “They expressly stated that these were their ‘sincere beliefs,’ not just an argument to win a debate.”

Feliciano and Davis are not some anonymous student crackpots posing as serious debaters.

They form a respected two-person debate team that took second place at the 2013 Cross-Examination Debate Association Nationals, according to Infowars.com.

Feliciano also acts as an instructor at the Eddie Conway Liberation Institute, an annual debate camp at Coppin State University that reportedly instructs high school students on debate strategy and radical thought, Infowars.com reported.

The institute is named after former Black Panther Party member Eddie Conway, who was convicted and imprisoned for 44 years for his involvement with the 1970 murder of a Baltimore police officer.

Maybe this guy should look up the term afro-mexicans
 
Reading these makes my blood boil and itmakes me scared for my children. The worst part is these idiots who are utterly incapable of forming a rational, logical argument are the ones that will be/are running the country.

I don't blame students/young people. A majority of young people follow the mob mentality- I know I did. This is what young people are told to think by the people that are trying to control them.

America is not a country I want to live in anymore if it continues on the path it's on.
 
NYU Brings Back ‘Deplorable Professor’, Awards Him a Raise

By Masha Froliak

Liberal studies professor Michael Rectenwald, the man behind the controversial @DeplorableNYUProf account, has been promoted by prestigious New York University and given a raise days after the University had put him on a paid leave for criticizing politically correct culture on campus.

Michael Rectenwald was promoted from clinical professor to full time professor on Monday, a source said to the NY Post.

In the initial interview with Heat Street on October 26, Rectenwald was outspoken against the current on-campus culture of social justice warriors and safe spaces. He likened academia to a mad house and claimed that “safe spaces” is an existential error.

“This movement is not going to overthrow homophobia, transphobia, racism, or sexism. In fact it works the other way and it will constantly cause people to be resentful and probably even foster the very attitude it opposes,” he told Heat Street.

Rectenwald contended that by shutting everyone else up, social emancipation is impossible—something academia should stand for.

His Twitter account “DeplorableNYUProfessor,” launched last month, was a personal protest against social justice warriors and trigger warnings. It was a “no safe spaces” zone where among his tweets you could see statements like “academia has officially gone ape shit. This is now merely mental illness posing as politics” or “the identity politics left: they need a safe space that is at once a hall of mirrors and a rubber room.”

When “Deplorable Professor” went public about being placed on paid leave by NYU after criticizing political correctness and “safe spaces”, the University claimed that his leave was voluntary and had nothing to do with his criticism or his tweets.

Several major publication seemed to have sided with NYU. An article in New York Magazine titled “A Communist NYU Professor Says He Was Ousted for Mocking Political Correctness. Was He?” by the leftist writer Jesse Singal questioned the professor’s arguments and portrayed him as an embellishing attention-seeker who was trying to impress Breitbart commentators.

As the controversy raged, Michael Rectenwald told Heat Street that his leave was indeed strongly suggested by the NYU and was not his idea. “No, I wasn’t asking to leave. I was having a good semester, I had a good bunch of students, I liked them all and they seemed to be liking me. Once I made my statements public, all these developments started…”

On October 26, prior “to the strong suggestion to take paid leave,” Rectenwald had received an open letter from the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group of NYU, signed by twelve people, including two deans, claiming in a Kafkaesque fashion that Rectenwald is “guilty of illogic and incivility”.

“He seeks to discredit many of us who are committed to social justice by calling us insane and suggesting that some of our concerns are crazy,” the letter said.

Now, according to the New York Post, liberal studies dean Fred Schwarzbach sent a “strongly worded” email to the department reminding them to be respectful of the opposing views.

NYU also offered a promotion to Professor Rectenwald.
 
Back
Top