#Stop White People

The State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton is now offering a course called “#StopWhitePeople2K16” as part of routine training for residential assistants.

Nothing screams tolerance and diversity like a university workshop designed to target white people.

The university’s residential assistant training schedule lists “#StopWhitePeople2016” on its roster, with the mission of giving RA’s an “overview of disabilities in Higher Education.”

The presenters of the course, Ciaran Slattery, Nicholas Pulakos, and Urenna Nwogwugwu, are all RAs at the state-funded college, which describes itself as New York’s highest-ranking public college. They state their purpose is to “help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within,” presumably the “white” society they plan to “stop” at the event.

The three RAs claim they will give “#StopWhitePeople2K16” course attendees the “tools” to respond to “uneducated people” with “‘good’ arguments.” You know, the people who preach mutual respect, equality under God, and constitutional freedoms. Those people.

They also state they will help other RAs at the state-funded college “hopefully expand upon what they may already know”: that white people are cancer, of course.

Get a load of the course description:

“The premise of this session is to help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within.”

I developed a micro-aggression just reading that nonsense. (Todd Starnes)

The hilarious fact that they are, in and of themselves RACISTS, is almost as hilarious as the fact that if you presented that to them their brains would be totally incapable of processing such thoughtcrimes and they’d just consider you “uneducated” and probably say something condescending and sanctimonious.

“We verified that the actual program content was not ‘anti-white’,” said Brian Rose, vice president for student affairs.

Orwell’s work is done.

“The terrifying implication here is not that students on campus think it is appropriate to call an event by that name, but that the university seems to endorse it as a proper part of a RA training,” wrote Howard Hecht in the Binghamton Review. “If Binghamton University is going to endorse ‘stopping’ someone due to his or her skin color, without any explanation for why he or she must be ‘stopped,’ would that not be a real example of racism on campus?”

The training session obviously did not invent the phrase “stop white people.” The line is a popular one among social media users and is used to critique alleged ignorance of white privilege, ranging from jabs at overtly offensive behavior to jokes about petty subjects like white people dancing — the class’ name was probably a reference to this cultural meme. 

Thanks to the SUNY Binghamton class, the hashtag #StopWhitePeople was trending on Twitter Wednesday. Although, while many posted about SUNY Binghamton, many users ignored the news story in favor of unrelated posts with the hashtag. The trending topic also led to an angry backlash from people upset about the potentially divisive interpretations of the hashtag. 

Ya think?

Racism as “civil rights”. Wow! Orwell’s work is done. Their brains are overcooked mush and they have no clue that it is.

Binghamton University has not commented on it, but the Daily Caller points out the school’s official R.A. guide encourages “an environment where interaction between people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as the sharing of divergent opinions and beliefs are respected and welcomed.”

So when the course attendees  are given the “tools” to respond to “uneducated people” with “‘good’ arguments” that would be the people with divergent opinions and beliefs, right?  🙂

In other words, White People, Conservatives, and Religious People (or just ANYONE who disagrees with them at all). The Un-Persons of the Liberal “tolerance” and “diversity” cult.

From Binghamton Review

 

College Exploration of Learning?

Victor Davis Hanson:What do campus microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings, speech codes and censorship have to do with higher learning?

American universities want it both ways. They expect unquestioned subsidized support from the public, but also to operate in a way impossible for anyone else.

Colleges still wear the ancient clothes of higher learning. Latin mottos, caps and gowns, ivy-covered spires and high talk of liberal education reflect a hallowed intellectual tradition.

In fact, today’s campuses mimic ideological boot camps. Tenured professors seek to indoctrinate young people in certain preconceived progressive political agendas. Environmental studies classes are not very open to debating the “settled science” of man-caused, carbon-induced global warming — or the need for immediate and massive government intervention to address it. Grade-conscious and indebted students make the necessary ideological adjustments.

It’s their way or the highway. It’s not like Liberals are tolerant of people disagreeing with them. 🙂 Diversity is Progressive. 🙂

Few sociological courses celebrate the uniquely American assimilationist melting pot. Race, class and gender agenda courses — along with thousands of “studies” courses — have been invented. A generation of politicized professors has made the strange argument that they alone have discovered all sorts of critical new disciplines of knowledge — apparently unknown for 2,500 years — to ensure that graduates would be better educated than ever before.

Universities have lost their commitment to the inductive method. Preconceived anti-Enlightenment theories are established as settled fact and part of career promotion. Evidence is made to fit these unquestioned assumptions.

A former student government leader at American University is disdainful of a student group’s decision to host Karl Rove, arguing that conservative views are anathema to the school.

“AU is a very liberal-leaning community,” William McNamara writes in an op-ed for The Rival, a student publication unaffiliated with the university. “Which begs the important question many are asking which is, why is KPU bringing a speaker that the majority of the campus doesn’t care for?”

“I am fucking sick of my student activity fee going to individuals, ideologies, and organizations that neither I, nor a majority of student organizations support,” said SIS student and notable KPU malcontent Bill Kakenmaster. “Karl Rove may well be sought after, but to call him a political ‘brain’ is to discredit valid political intellectualism.”

A professor from Temple University,the professor said sex markers are “poor proxies” because “maleness and femaleness” are characteristics we share with many other people.

“heterosexist in assumption” and something which seemed “like a relic from another time…nonsensical,” saying it “has been discontinued, thankfully.”

He cited the labeling of mother and father as “harmful” because these parents don’t “self-identify” that way and “some transgender men can bear children.”

While the talk had approximately 50 student, faculty, and Charlottesville residents in attendance, some students came to the event to fulfill a requirement imposed by the University of Virginia’s Intro to Gender and Sexuality class. Campus Reform also spotted an attendance sheet, on which six students of the Anthropology department’s Language and Gender course had written their names. (Campus Reform)

Two unfortunate results have predictably followed.

Students now leave campus largely prepped by their professors to embrace a predictable menu: the glories of larger government, income redistribution, greater entitlements, radical environmentalism, abortion, multiculturalism, suspicion of traditional religion, and antipathy to the international role of the United States in the past and present.

Unfortunately, this costly indoctrination comes at the expense of what is increasingly less taught: traditional mastery of foreign languages, great works of literature, philosophy, history, mastery of grammar and composition, and the Socratic method.

Careerism often drives campus politics. If poor, minority or first-generation college students could obtain the traditional tools of success — English and mathematic literacy, acquaintance with American history and protocols, oral and written language mastery — they would succeed as individuals without need for the college industry of collective victimology that assumes a permanent lack of parity.

Employers and the adult world no longer equate a bachelor’s degree with proof of a well-rounded education. Yet chastised universities usually oppose any objective measurement of their effectiveness. They certainly want federally insured student loans, but they do not want proof of their competency through national exit tests, which might help ensure that all graduates leave college able to compute, read and write well. How odd that standardized tests are permissible to judge entering students but not to certify exiting ones.

Colleges are schizophrenic in lots of other ways. They claim they are special institutions that should be free to form their own curricula, enjoy ancient rites such as faculty tenure, not worry much how much they charge students or treat part-time faculty, and establish radical new legal protocols that run contrary to the Constitution.

When colleges create “safe spaces” designated by race and gender, they butt up against U.S. law. Assuming the guilt rather than innocence of students accused of bad behavior does not stand up in court.

Most Americans who work in a mall or shop are not awarded lifelong guaranteed employment. Nor are our newspapers censored with “trigger warnings” in fear that readers might become hurt by depressing news stories.

Universities ask the public to subsidize these strange rituals by making endowments tax-exempt. The government extends federally guaranteed loans and ensures write-offs for charitable giving.

 

In the past, there was a clear bargain. The university said, “Leave us alone to do our business that we know best, and we promise to turn out the best-educated and most inductive generation of American youth.”

Universities are now breaking their word. Students, if they even graduate (about four in 10 do not, even after six years), are not “universally” educated. Instead, they are the least prepared yet most politicized graduates in memory. Arrogance and ignorance are a bad combination.

But make excellent Democrats. 🙂

If the university cannot fulfill its original compact of broadly educating youth while keeping within bounds of American laws and protocols, then it will either have to change or slowly become irrelevant.

The market is already sensing a void — and thus opportunity. Online degree programs proliferate. Private vocational and trade schools sprout up around college campuses. Even Ivy League degrees have become mostly empty brand names, like Gucci or Versace, that convey status and open doors but hardly guarantee that graduates are knowledgeable or inductive thinkers.

All of these growing alternatives to borrowing a collective $1 trillion for university education reflect that it may not only be a bad deal, but a rigged one as well.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

DUKEing It out

Fed up with the politically correct orthodoxy they claim has created a “climate of fear” on campus, students at Duke University are banding together to call for the restoration of academic freedom.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

DIVERSITY IS SEGREGATION 🙂

ORTHODOXY IS DIVERSITY

“We seek to invigorate the Duke community’s commitment to supporting an open intellectual climate on campus,” the Duke Open Campus Coalition (OCC) declares in an open letter addressed to University President Richard Brodhead published in The Duke Chronicle Wednesday.

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment.”   

Hell NO! That’s politically incorrect and “insensitive” . 🙂

 

“During our time here at Duke, we have encountered a community that values identity politics over reasoned discussion and debate when confronting real—and at times misperceived—instances of injustice,” the students explain. “Actions taken that emphasize identity politics create a climate of fear on campus whereby people who publicly dissent from the policies being proposed are afraid of being personally attacked and slandered.”

They should be, because the Politically Correct will. The Ministry of Truth is all powerful, didn’t you know ? 🙂

The letter was signed by 12 students representing every class year, who say they were inspired by a similar group at Princeton University that was established in November after Princeton capitulated to an ultimatum from a group calling themselves the “Black Justice League,” particularly the university’s endorsement of a demand to create “safe spaces” for students based on race.

Malcontents and radicals… 🙂

The Princeton OCC acknowledged the Duke chapter’s formation on its Facebook page, applauding the Duke students for following Princeton’s lead and encouraging students at other schools to do the same.

Yet while the Duke group is reacting to issues that have arisen at colleges and universities across the country, the students feel that the climate of fear “has a particular character on Duke’s campus” that threatens to stifle open discussion.

Not only do “some students consider it morally acceptable to remove copies of The Chronicle from campus when they disagree with its content,” the letter claims, but “select members of Duke Student Government’s Executive Board have taken to intimidating first-year student government representatives to affirm ‘politically correct’ views regardless of whether they agree with them.”

CONFORMITY IS DIVERSE. 🙂

“With grave concern about the tactics of some protestors and the substantive demands they are making, we call for an open and inclusive campus—a campus where all members of the Duke community can communicate openly as Blue Devils without fear that they will be censored if their views differ from, or even offend, other people,” the letter states before outlining the group’s specific objections.

INCLUSION IS EXCLUSION

“First, while we are disturbed by acts of racism, homophobia, and bigotry on this campus, and agree that more can be done to combat intolerance, we do not believe that acts of bigotry committed by individuals implicate Duke as an institution,” they say. “We share the goals of increasing tolerance and punishing individual students who engage in behavior that harms other people, but we do not think these goals are best served by the policies some protesters have prescribed to advance them.”

One such policy involves expanding the university’s definition of hate speech to include “speech that offends or insults,” which the OCC describes as “a slippery slope to censorship.”

FREE SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP

The students likewise object to the demand that Duke introduce mandatory diversity and bias training, predicting the effort “will amount to mandatory reeducation classes” and further discourage faculty and students from expressing dissenting opinions.

They also contend that the activists’ demand that faculty demographic makeup be made consistent with that of the student body, arguing that “Instituting a quota system on staff members based on a student population that changes every year is not only unfeasible, but is wrong,” because it necessarily reduces quality to a secondary consideration in hiring decisions.

“Moreover, mandating minimum or maximum thresholds on employment or student enrollment on the basis of skin color or gender reduces people to immutable characteristics of their identity,” the students add, saying they “strongly denounce the idea that our interactions with one another should be defined by demographic traits like race and gender.”

QUOTAS ARE DIVERSITY.

The group also takes issue with the methods employed by student activists, claiming that “students from across the political spectrum were unsettled that protesters would vandalize Duke property, refuse to allow Duke administrators to ask questions during a community conversation, and seek to remove students on the Chronicle staff with whom they disagree politically.”

[RELATED: Duke students petition to ‘fire’ opinion editor for ‘inflammatory’ column]

{The change.org petition castigates Zhao’s alleged furthering of “racist stereotypes” and “misinformation about an entire group of people–a group of people to which the writer does not even belong.”

Zhao, who is a rising senior at Duke, came under fire after arguing in his column that the hurdles in the way of advancement for “black America” is no longer racism or social injustice.

“Instead of paving a road to prosperity,” Zhao wrote, “the self-defeating economic policies advocated for by the black community are shackles of poverty and disillusionment, miring blacks in a cycle of underachievement and social immobility.”}

“All people should feel ‘safe’ when expressing their opinions on campus in an academic environment,” the letter contends, calling attention to the contradictions in the activists’ demands. “The administration should not institutionalize a space where any member of this community, student or faculty, is protected from having even their most core values challenged and scrutinized.”

The OCC concludes the letter by commending the administration for taking steps to “methodically study bias and hate issues,” but counsels “creating an administrative channel to scrutinize policy proposals and streamline deliverables [to] help ensure all parties have a stake in ensuring we can combat bigotry.” (Campus Reform)

That’s what they have done. It’s called The Ministry of Truth.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

FEAR IS HOPE

CENSORSHIP IS FREE SPEECH