Category Archive 'Hypocrisy'
15 Nov 2018
According to the Yale Daily News, mocking African-American group poses is “racially provocative.”
The Oldest (and seriously competing for Left-est) College Daily was outraged.
The Yale Police Department is investigating reports from Yale students who witnessed two masked people post racially provocative flyers on bulletin boards around Cross Campus on Tuesday night. …
Yale students took photos of the posters, removed them from the bulletin board, replaced them with messages of support for people of color and reported the incident to Yale student life staff and the YPD on Tuesday night. The flyers depicted the symbol of a â€œWhite Students’ Union of Yaleâ€ and quoted slavery advocate and class of 1804 graduate John Calhoun â€” the former namesake of what is now Grace Hopper College. The quote reads, â€œIn looking back, I see nothing to regret, and little to correct.â€
YPD officers are currently reviewing camera footage to identify the perpetrators, Goff-Crews told the News. … The department has also stepped up its patrols in â€œsensitive areas on campus,â€ including the center of Yaleâ€™s campus, where the incident occured [sic].
â€œI find the sentiments signified by these flyers deeply troubling, and I want to be clear: hate is not welcome on our campus,â€ Salovey wrote in a campuswide email. â€œAs I have said in the past, the answer to speech one finds repugnant is more speech. [Flyers aren’t speech? Quotations from Calhoun aren’t speech? – JDZ] I have no doubt that the members of the Yale community will respond to expressions of hate, racism, and exclusion on this campus with even stronger affirmations of our valuesâ€”and a renewed commitment to creating a diverse, inclusive community where all people are welcomed.â€
In the email, Salovey confirmed that the perpetrators violated a University policy which only permits registered student organizations to post flyers on campus [Oh, my! that is an expulsion-worthy offense for sure. –JDZ].
Yale has notified the Southern Poverty Law Center â€” which monitors hate groups in the U.S. â€” and the Anti-Defamation League â€” a Jewish group that fights anti-Semitism and bigotry â€” about the incident, according to Saloveyâ€™s email. …
On Tuesday night, a student posted a photograph of the flyer on the popular Facebook group â€œOverheard at Yale,â€ prompting heavy backlash against the perpetrators among commenters.
Students and alumni interviewed by the News condemned the flyers. Prior to Saloveyâ€™s email, at least two individuals told the News that they contacted Saloveyâ€™s office calling for the University to respond to the incident.
On Wednesday morning, Gene Lyman â€™92 also emailed Saloveyâ€™s office calling on the University to investigate the situation thoroughly, discipline any current students involved and â€œreassert Yaleâ€™s values as an inclusive and intellectually honest community.â€
â€œEven if this should prove a hoax, or someoneâ€™s sick idea of a joke, I cannot emphasize enough how unacceptable the sentiment expressed in these flyers is,â€ Lyman wrote in the email to Salovey.
Lyman said he received a response from Joy McGrath, Saloveyâ€™s chief of staff, as well as Saloveyâ€™s email to the Yale community.
Sohum Pal â€™20 sent an email about the incident to Salovey, Goff-Crews and Dean of Yale College Marvin Chun on Tuesday night. In his email, Pal called for the establishment of a Title VI office, which would enforce the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, color and national origin at educational institutions, and for a systematic change in University responses to grievances around racial discrimination. Pal said that the University should create a â€œmechanism for changeâ€ instead of releasing emails to â€œreaffirm its commitments.â€
â€œTonight, people put up these fliers around campus,â€ Pal wrote in his email. â€œI felt vulnerable â€” is it any surprise? My time at Yale has been many things â€” sometimes empowering, but more often Iâ€™ve been struck at how expendable students, faculty, and staff of color must be to the university.â€ Unlike Lyman, Pal said he received no direct response to his email.
Ashtan Towles â€™19, a former peer liaison for the Afro-American Cultural Center, told the News that while the perpetrators remain unknown, the act was â€œdone in cowardice,â€ comparing the masked individuals to Klu Klux Klan members who don masks to protect their identities.
â€œThis incident is merely one of thousands through which white nationalists have attempted to stoke fear in Black communities, but I am always in awe of the resilience and pride that exists in the Black community at Yale,â€ Towles said in an email to the News.
According to Simon Ghebreyesus â€™21, the sentiments of white pride in the flyers are a â€œsinister presenceâ€ for students of color to grapple with at Yale and across the country.
Epongue Ekille â€™21 told the News that she had generally viewed Yale as a racially inclusive place but the flyer incident â€œnegates it all.â€
â€œIt was both surprising and not at the same time. Although Yale is proud of its diversity, the matter of the fact is that the student population is majority white and wealthy,â€ Ekille said. â€œIâ€™m not surprised that people who have these opinions exist at Yale, Iâ€™m just surprised that they would publicly advertise it.â€
Evidently, the answer to speech satirizing the rhetoric and poses of African-American Identity Group activists is not actually “more speech.” The answer is to publish hysterical news stories, to refer to the “repugnant speech” as “discrimination,” and “exclusion,” and “hate,” to suggest that it constitutes a possible violation of federal anti-discrimination law, and to treat it as a proper basis for investigation, notification of national left-wing speech and thought supervisory groups, and disciplinary sanctions.
How terribly cowardly it was of those right-wing students to conceal their identities!
21 Sep 2018
Panty Raid at Berkeley, May 18, 1956.
The same establishment elite that views Larry Flint as a free speech hero, that lectured us that we were guilty of censorship if we didn’t want tax money paying for Robert Maplethorpe’s anal horse whip art, that defends flamboyantly obscene gay pride parades down main street, and that wants sex education for third graders is shocked, shocked that members of the same fraternity that Brett Kavanaugh belonged to, back in 1985, took part in pledge hijinks alluding to the 1950s college panty raids.
Diane Herbst, at People magazine, basically quotes a hatchet job from a couple of little left-wing reptiles at the Yale Daily News:
In his first year at Yale, embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, which had a culture â€œnotorious for disrespecting women,â€ according to a new report from the Yale Daily News.
Julie Klein, who graduated in 1987 alongside Kavanaugh, described the frat as an â€œanimal house,â€ while another classmate of Kavanaughâ€™s, Jennifer Lew, recalled on the YaleWomen Facebook page how frat brothers would â€œransackâ€ female studentsâ€™ rooms while they attended classes and steal â€œundergarments,â€ reports the Yale Daily News.
On Thursday, the student newspaper published a January, 1985 photo of Kavanaughâ€™s DKE frat brothers holding a flag created with womenâ€™s underwear and bras as they marched across campus. Kavanaugh, reportedly a sophomore member of the frat at the time, does not appear in the image.
Obviously what the DKE pledges were doing in 1985 was some sort of tongue-in-cheek parody of student behavior of the ancient past.
Wikipedia: Panty raid
A panty raid was an American 1950s college prank in which large groups of male students attempted to invade the living quarters of female students and steal their panties (undergarments) as the trophies of a successful raid. The term dates to February 1949.
Panty raids were the first college craze after World War II, following the 1930s crazes of goldfish swallowing or seeing how many students could fit in a phone booth. …
By the 1970s, mixed dorms and less inhibited attitudes to sexual intercourse on campus led to fading of panty raids.
But when lefties find an opportunity to smear an adversary like Judge Kavanaugh with accusations of guilt by association, the libertine left goes all Puritan on us.
03 Sep 2018
Watching the media coverage of McCainâ€™s presidential campaign against Barack Obama, I was surprised that he didnâ€™t personally beat up black orphans on stage during campaign stops. Watching the media coverage of McCainâ€™s funeral, I was surprised that he didnâ€™t rise on the third day.
19 Aug 2018
Kevin D. Williamson puts the hundreds of newspaper editorials recently deploring Donald Trump’s criticisms of the establishment media into proper perspective.
If we want a culture of open and robust discourse, then we do not want a culture in which Brendan Eich is driven from his job for having an unpopular view on gay marriage. If we want a culture of open and robust discourse, then we do not want a culture in which there is an organized-campaign-style effort to have journalists dismissed from their positions for holding unpopular views, or a boycott every time the New York Times or the Washington Post (or, I suppose, The Atlantic) adds a columnist who is not likely to please the Bernie Sanders Campaign Historical Re-enactors Society at Reed College. It is true that none of these things is a formal violation of the First Amendment, because the First Amendment is a restriction on what kind of laws the federal government may enact. But calling CNNâ€™s daily output â€œfake newsâ€ isnâ€™t a violation of the First Amendment, either.
Whatâ€™s actually at work here is a variation on â€œHeads I Win/Tails You Lose.â€ When the Left wants to stop an unpopular speaker from delivering remarks at Berkeley, then thatâ€™s just meeting speech with more speech and some firebombs. And, itâ€™s true: There isnâ€™t any First Amendment reason why you canâ€™t have a riot at Berkeley every time Ann Coulter gets invited to speak there. But there are all sorts of other reasons.
If there is going to be more to freedom of speech than â€œCongress shall make no lawâ€ â€” which is what we should want â€” then that has to be true for everyone.
Freedom of the press is not some special license granted to organizations that incorporate as media companies. There is no intellectually defensible model of free expression that protects the editorial page of the New York Times but not Hillary: The Movie. Of course, itâ€™s easy to think of a pretext for suppressing communication you donâ€™t like: If you donâ€™t like what Citizens United is saying, then you shut it down with â€œcampaign finance reform,â€ which, we should remember, worked â€” until the Supreme Court stopped it. If you donâ€™t like that oil companies fund organizations that criticize global-warming policies, then you claim that this amounts to â€œsecurities fraud.â€ If you donâ€™t like that the NRA is an effective advocate for its positions, you use banking regulations to hamstring it financially. Donâ€™t like somebodyâ€™s social or religious views? â€œHate speech.â€ Easy as that.
We donâ€™t need conjecture: Weâ€™ve seen how this goes. The Obama administration used the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers, spy on journalists, and interfere with reporting it didnâ€™t want done. Under Obama, the IRS targeted conservative nonprofits for harassment and more under the guise of enforcing the tax code â€” and it illegally disclosed private information about an advocacy group that irritated Democrats. The same people demand the power to set the terms for political debate, saying they want to â€œkeep money out of politics,â€ a claim that it is impossible for any mentally functional adult to take very seriously.
Freedom of the press does not mean extending special privileges, legal or customary, to the New York Times and CNN. And freedom of speech means a lot more than the absence of formal censorship by the federal government. Formal protections for free speech are important and necessary, but they do not amount to very much without a free-speech culture to back them up.
A must read.
25 Jul 2018
And Ned Ryun thinks all the Treason talk is pretty rich, coming as it does from the party that has generally made treason into a fashion statement and a class identifier.
The past week of Russia hysteria has me longing for the good old days. Like 2009, when a Democratic president could pull missile defense systems out of Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Vladimir Putin without facing charges of treason. Or 2010, when a former Democratic president could take a cool half-million from a suspected Russian government-backed source to speak in Moscow and that wasnâ€™t considered treasonous, either. Or 2012, when no one was screaming for impeachment when a Democratic president on a hot mic assured the Russian president that heâ€™ll have â€œmore flexibilityâ€ on missile defense systems once heâ€™s re-elected. Or when the previous Democratic administration helped Putin toward his goal of controlling the worldwide supply chain of uranium and that was really all about â€œresettingâ€ relationships.
Oh, how the times have changed!
HT: Bird Dog.
22 Jun 2018
Wendy Kaminer, in the Wall Street Journal, also reveals that the ACLU is now accepting the Hard Left notion that mere speech can inflict harm, even if one does not call someone pigeon pie and eat him up.
The American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm â€œmarginalizedâ€ groups by undermining their civil rights. â€œSpeech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,â€ the ACLU declares in new guidelines governing case selection and â€œConflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities.â€
This is presented as an explanation rather than a change of policy, and free-speech advocates know the ACLU has already lost its zeal for vigorously defending the speech it hates. ACLU leaders previously avoided acknowledging that retreat, however, in the apparent hope of preserving its reputation as the nationâ€™s premier champion of the First Amendment.
But traditional free-speech values do not appeal to the ACLUâ€™s increasingly partisan progressive constituencyâ€”especially after the 2017 white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The Virginia ACLU affiliate rightly represented the rallyâ€™s organizers when the city attempted to deny them a permit to assemble. Responding to intense post-Charlottesville criticism, last year the ACLU reconsidered its obligation to represent white-supremacist protesters.
The 2018 guidelines claim that â€œthe ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLUâ€™s core values, priorities and goals.â€ But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case â€œthe extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.â€
In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the â€œimpact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.â€ Factors like the potential effect of the speech on â€œmarginalized communitiesâ€ and even on â€œthe ACLUâ€™s credibilityâ€ could militate against taking a case. Fundraising and communications officials helped formulate the new guidelines.