Category Archive 'Liberal Intolerance'
20 Jan 2020
Jessica Custodio, at Campus Reform, reports:
While Yale University has been pushing for an increased diversity of staff based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, some faculty members are speaking out about the lack of political diversity.
The Yale Daily News spoke with professors at the Ivy League institution for their perspectives on data from the schoolâ€™s Office of Institutional Research showing that faculty diversity is on the rise when it comes to gender and culture.
Many criticized what they claimed to be a lack of effort to have a faculty body surrounding the current political ideology seen throughout the nation. The publication referenced a 2017 survey revealing that close to 75 percent of Yale professors self-identify as liberal with less than 10 percent identifying as conservative.
â€œYale talks a lot of diversity, but basically all that diversity means here is skin colorâ€¦ thereâ€™s definitely no diversity here when it comes to politics,â€ said history professor Carlos Eire.â€
â€œThe liberal point of view is taken to be objective-not an opinion, not a set of beliefs, said Eire, adding that his own views are nonpartisan, â€œThereâ€™s an assumption that goes unquestioned that if youâ€™re not part of the herd groupthink thereâ€™s something wrong with you.â€
â€œ[Itâ€™s] not helpful if you want to have an open society with creative and productive political dialogueâ€¦ if everything you say is immediately invalid because you are not virtuous then thereâ€™s no dialogue,â€ Eire added.
Computer science professor David Gelernter agreed with his colleague, saying that the political diversity at Yale is â€œ0 percentâ€ and that there are â€œfew conservatives, including prominent ones.â€
â€œOf course, not many conservatives exist in most academic fields. But thereâ€™s no competition to get them either,â€ Gelernter added.
English professor Mark Oppenheimer spoke of his experience attending Yale as a student and compared it to the state of affairs today.
â€œMy sense today is that the social cost that one would pay for having certain conservative views is very strongâ€¦ and that effectively is a form of censorship, because to say people can say what they want, but they might pay for it by having far fewer friends, or being shunned, is not really to say that they can say what they want.â€
04 Sep 2019
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
When the liberal American establishment sets a new record in craziness, it’s usually in California.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on Tuesday declaring that the National Rifle Association is a domestic terrorist organization. The officials also urged other cities, states and the federal government to follow suit.
District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani wrote the resolution and shared her thoughts on the NRA with KTVU. “The NRA has it coming to them,” she said. “And I will do everything I possibly can to call them out on what they are, which is a domestic terrorist organization.”
After citing some statistics about gun violence in the United States â€“ like that there’s been more than one mass shooting per day in the country in 2019 â€“ Stefani got local with how gun violence has impact the Bay Area.
She cited the shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival on July 28, referencing Stephen Romero, Keyla Salazar and Trevor Irby, who were killed by gunman Santino William Legan in what she called a “senseless act of gun violence that day.”
Later in the resolution, which the board passed unanimously, the NRA is blamed for causing gun violence. “The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence,” the resolution reads.
The resolution also claims that the NRA “spreads propaganda,” “promotes extremist positions,” and has “through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism.”
In addition to calling the NRA a domestic terrorist organization, the Board of Supervisors called on the city and county of San Francisco to “take every reasonable step to limit … entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business” with the NRA.
How about that, boys and girls? We’ve got around five million (the NRA’s membership) terrorists at large in America these days. Me, I’m a Life Terrorist. And we can boast of nine US President terrorists: Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
Well, if the NRA was a real terrorist organization, we know that SF Board of Supervisors would be out there defending it and kissing its ass.
My father used to shake his head and say, when he read this kind of news of major left-wing lunacy emanating from the Left Coast: “The continent slants, and all the fruits and nuts roll out to California.”
28 Apr 2019
Kate Smith statue outside Xfinity live!.
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
–George Orwell, “1984”
01 Apr 2019
Yale Law School
After the Yale Federalist Society invited an attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a prominent Christian legal group, to speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, conservative students faced backlash. Outlaws, the law schoolâ€™s LGBTQ group, demanded that Yale Law School â€œclarifyâ€ its admissions policies for students who support ADFâ€™s positions. Additionally, Outlaws insisted that students who work for religious or conservative public interest organizations such as ADF during their summers should not receive financial support from the law school.
On March 25, one month after the controversy, Yale Law School announced via email that it was extending its nondiscrimination policy to summer public interest fellowships, postgraduate public interest fellowships, and loan forgiveness for public interest careers. The school will no longer provide financial support for students and graduates who work at organizations that discriminate on the basis of â€œsexual orientation and gender identity and expression.â€
Yale based its decision on a unanimous recommendation from the schoolâ€™s Public Interest Committee. The committee explained: â€œThe logic of our broader recommendation is that Yale Law School does not and should not support discrimination against its own students, financially or otherwise. Obviously, the Law School cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates, but that is not a reason why Yale Law School should bear any obligation to fund that work, particularly if that organization does not give equal employment opportunity to all of our students.â€
The law school also thanked Outlaws for raising this issue.
Discriminating against Christians and Conservatives who do not accept the Party Line on Gender and Sexual Orientation Equality, on the other hand, is morally obligatory.
05 Oct 2018
Joel Kaplan sat at the left, two rows back, during the Kavanaugh hearing.
The NY Times reports that a Facebook VP being a friend of Brett Kavanaugh’s has led to outrage at the California company.
â€œI want to apologize,â€ the Facebook executive wrote last Friday in a note to staff. â€œI recognize this moment is a deeply painful one â€” internally and externally.â€
The apology came from Joel Kaplan, Facebookâ€™s vice president for global public policy. A day earlier, Mr. Kaplan had sat behind his friend, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trumpâ€™s nominee for the Supreme Court, when the judge testified in Congress about allegations he had sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in high school. Mr. Kaplanâ€™s surprise appearance prompted anger and shock among many Facebook employees, some of whom said they took his action as a tacit show of support for Judge Kavanaugh â€” as if it were an endorsement from Facebook itself.
The unrest quickly spilled over onto Facebookâ€™s internal message boards, where hundreds of workers have since posted about their concerns, according to current and former employees. To quell the hubbub, Facebookâ€™s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, last Friday explained in a widely attended staff meeting that Mr. Kaplan was a close friend of Judge Kavanaughâ€™s and had broken no company rules, these people said.
Yet the disquiet within the company has not subsided. This week, Facebook employees kept flooding internal forums with comments about Mr. Kaplanâ€™s appearance at the hearing. In a post on Wednesday, Andrew Bosworth, a Facebook executive, appeared to dismiss the concerns when he wrote to employees that â€œit is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the company you work for.â€ Facebook plans to hold another staff meeting on Friday to contain the damage, said the current and former employees. …
The internal turmoil at Facebook â€” described by six current and former employees and a review of internal posts â€” illustrates how divisions over Judge Kavanaughâ€™s nomination to the Supreme Court have cascaded into unexpected places and split one of the worldâ€™s biggest tech companies.
Mr. Kaplanâ€™s show of support for Judge Kavanaugh hits a particularly sensitive spot for Facebook. It has been weathering claims from conservatives and Mr. Trump that Facebook is biased against right-wing websites and opinions. The company has denied this, saying it is a neutral platform that welcomes all perspectives. By showing up at Judge Kavanaughâ€™s side, Mr. Kaplan essentially appeared to choose a political side that goes against the views of Facebookâ€™s largely liberal work force.
Many employees also viewed it as a statement: Mr. Kaplan believed Mr. Kavanaughâ€™s side of the story rather than Dr. Blaseyâ€™s testimony. That felt especially hurtful to Facebook employees who were also sexual assault survivors, many of whom began sharing their own #MeToo stories internally.
The tensions add to a litany of other issues that have sapped employee morale. In the past few weeks alone, the company, based in Silicon Valley, has grappled with the departures of the co-founders of Instagram, the photo-sharing app owned by Facebook, plus the disclosure of its largest-ever data breach and continued scrutiny of disinformation across its network before the midterm elections.
â€œOur leadership team recognizes that theyâ€™ve made mistakes handling the events of the last week and weâ€™re grateful for all the feedback from our employees,â€ Roberta Thomson, a Facebook spokeswoman, said in a statement on Thursday.
Western Society has reached the interesting point at which fashionable class solidarity within capitalist organizations will punish ideological deviationism with as much alacrity as last century’s totalitarian regimes.
21 Apr 2018
Kevin Williamson discusses his short career at The Atlantic.
In early March, I met up with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, at an event sponsored by the magazine at the South by Southwest conference in Austin. He had just hired me away from National Review, the venerable conservative magazine where Iâ€™d been a writer and editor for 10 years.
â€œYou know, the campaign to have me fired will begin 11 seconds after you announce that youâ€™ve hired me,â€ I told him. He scoffed. â€œIt wonâ€™t be that bad,â€ he said. â€œThe Atlantic isnâ€™t the New York Times. It isnâ€™t high church for liberals.â€
My first piece appeared in the Atlantic on April 2. I was fired on April 5.
The purported reason for our â€œparting ways,â€ as Mr. Goldberg put it in his announcement, had nothing to do with what Iâ€™d written in my inaugural piece. The problem was a six-word, four-year-old tweet on abortion and capital punishment and a discussion of that tweet in a subsequent podcast. I had responded to a familiar pro-abortion argument: that pro-lifers should not be taken seriously in our claim that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life unless we are ready to punish women who get abortions with long prison sentences. Itâ€™s a silly argument, so I responded with these words: â€œI have hanging more in mind.â€
Trollish and hostile? Iâ€™ll cop to that, though as the subsequent conversation online and on the podcast indicatedâ€”to say nothing of the few million words of my published writing available to the reading publicâ€”I am generally opposed to capital punishment. I was making a point about the sloppy rhetoric of the abortion debate, not a public-policy recommendation. Such provocations can sometimes clarify the terms of a debate, but in this case, I obscured the more meaningful questions about abortion and sparked the sort of hysteria Iâ€™d meant to point out and mock.
07 Apr 2018
I think Jonah Goldberg did the best job of putting Kevin Williamson’s rapid firing by The Atlantic (after a single editorial) in the appropriate perspective.
Michael Anton, who penned â€œThe Flight 93 Electionâ€ back when he was hiding behind a pen-name, articulated very well in an exchange with me what millions of conservatives believe to be true:
The old American ideal of judging individuals and not groups, content-of-character-not-color-of-skin, is dead, dead, dead. Dead as a matter of politics, policy and culture. The left plays by new rules. The right still plays by the old rules. The left laughs at us for it â€” but also demands that we keep to that rulebook. They donâ€™t even bother to cheat. They proclaim outright that â€œthese rules donâ€™t apply to our side.â€
I disagree with Antonâ€™s prescription â€” to surrender to identity politics and cheat the way our â€œenemiesâ€ do â€” but I cannot argue much with this description of a widespread mindset. Many on the right are surrendering to the logic of the mob because they are sick of double standards. Again, I disagree with the decision to surrender, but I certainly empathize with the temptation. The Left and the mainstream media canâ€™t even see how they donâ€™t want to simply win, they want to force people to celebrate their victories (â€œYou will be made to care!â€). It isnâ€™t forced conversion at the tip of a sword, but at the blunt edge of a virtual mob.
I could go on for another 2,000 words about all of the double standards I have in mind. But letâ€™s stick with the subject at hand: Kevin Williamsonâ€™s views on abortion put him outside the mainstream. And he was fired from The Atlantic merely for refusing to recant them.
Meanwhile, extreme views on the left are simply hot takes or even signs of genius. Take the philosopher Peter Singer. He has at least as extreme views on a host of issues, and he is feted and celebrated for them. He is the author of the Encyclopedia Britannicaâ€™s entry on â€œEthics.â€ He holds an endowed chair at Princeton. He writes regularly for leading publications. And he argues that sometimes itâ€™s okay to kill babies, as in his essay â€œKilling Babies Isnâ€™t Always Wrong.â€ â€œNewborn human babies,â€ he writes, â€œhave no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.â€ He cutely asks whether people should cease to exist. (He ultimately and grudgingly answers â€œNo.â€) Oh, he also argues in favor of bestiality.
And heâ€™s been profiled favorably in the pages of The Atlantic.
And thatâ€™s okay. I canâ€™t stand his utilitarian logic-chopping and nihilistic view of humanity, but at least going by Nockâ€™s Ark of the Covenant rules, he should be free to make his arguments anywhere willing editors want to publish them. We have a right to be wrong.
But thatâ€™s not the point: Singerâ€™s work does not render him anathema in elite circles, it earns awards, praise, and celebration for its ruthless consistency and edgy provocation. He is not fired for what he writes never mind what he thinks. I have no doubt some people donâ€™t think this is a perfect example of a double standard, and I could come up with some objections to it myself. But if you canâ€™t see why some people â€” fellow American citizens â€” see it as a glaring double standard, you are part of the problem.
Kevin was hired by The Atlantic because he is among the best of the homeless conservatives in the Trump Era. Thatâ€™s why Bret Stephens went to the New York Times, and itâ€™s probably why Iâ€™ve gotten my share of strange new respect from some liberals. But what Goldberg â€” or his boss â€” and countless others fail to appreciate, I think, is that the Trump Era is merely one facet of the larger age of tribalism that we live in. In an age when evangelical Christians and constitutional conservatives can overlook the sins of a Roy Moore, itâ€™s easy to see how people could mistake a Trump critic as a useful voice in their chorus. But Kevin isnâ€™t one of them. He sings from his own hymnal and he stands athwart the tribalisms of Trumpism and the tribalisms that gave us Trump. He is in The Remnant (which Nock described in, of all places, The Atlantic). And I am honored to be a happy warrior by his side, hopefully at National Review once again.
It seems to me that The Atlantic disgraced and embarrassed itself so badly that it really did far more damage to itself than to Kevin Williamson.
01 Apr 2018
John Gray is dismayed at the way the politics of identity has replaced Liberalism with intolerant and totalitarian hyper-liberalism.
It would be easy to say that liberalism has now been abandoned. Practices of toleration that used to be seen as essential to freedom are being deconstructed and dismissed as structures of repression, and any ideas or beliefs that stand in the way of this process banned from public discourse. Judged by old-fashioned standards, this is the opposite of what liberals have stood for. But what has happened in higher education is not that liberalism has been supplanted by some other ruling philosÂophy. Instead, a hyper-liberal ideology has developed that aims to purge society of any trace of other views of the world. If a regime of censorship prevails in universities, it is because they have become vehicles for this project. When students from China study in Western countries one of the lessons they learn is that the enforcement of intellectual orthodoxy does not require an authoritarian govÂernment. In institutions that proclaim their commitment to critical inquiry, censorship is most effective when it is self-imposed. A defining feature of tyranny, the policing of opinion is now established practice in societies that believe themselves to be freer than they have ever been.
04 Mar 2018
David Brooks notes the paradox in which conservative Republican America is able to win at the ballot box, but commonly loses anyway because the Left controls the culture.
Republicans control most legislatures. To get anything passed, I thought, it would be necessary to separate some Republicans from the absolutist N.R.A. position. To do that you have to depolarize the issue: show gun owners some respect, put red state figures at the head and make the gun discussion look more like the opioid discussion. The tribalists in this country have little interest in the opioid issue. As a result, a lot of pragmatic things are being done across partisan lines.
The people pushing for gun restrictions have basically done the exact opposite of what I thought was wise. Instead of depolarizing the issue they have massively polarized it. The students from Parkland are being assisted by all the usual hyper-polarizing left-wing groups: Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Womenâ€™s March. The rhetoric has been extreme. Marco Rubio has been likened to a mass murderer while the N.R.A. has been called a terrorist organization.
The early results would seem to completely vindicate my position. The Florida Legislature turned aside gun restrictions. New gun measures in Congress have been quickly shelved. Democrats are more likely to lose House and Senate seats in the key 2018 pro-gun states. The losing streak continues.
Yet I have to admit that something bigger is going on. It could be that progressives understood something I didnâ€™t. It could be that you can win more important victories through an aggressive cultural crusade than you can through legislation. Progressives could be on the verge of delegitimizing their foes, on guns but also much else, rendering them untouchable for anybody who wants to stay in polite society. That would produce social changes far vaster than limiting assault rifles. …
[P]rogressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed. The boundaries are being redrawn across society.
As Andrew Sullivan noted recently, â€œworkplace codes today read like campus speech codes of a few years ago.â€ There are a number of formerly popular ideas that can now end your career: the belief that men and women have inherent psychological differences, the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, opposition to affirmative action.
Whatâ€™s happening today is that certain ideas about gun rights, and maybe gun ownership itself, are being cast in the realm of the morally illegitimate and socially unacceptable.
Thatâ€™s the importance of the corporate efforts to end N.R.A. affiliations. Itâ€™s not about N.R.A. members saving some money when they fly. Itâ€™s that they are not morally worthy of being among the affiliated groups. The idea is to stigmatize.
If progressives can cut whatâ€™s left of the conservative movement off from mainstream society, they will fundamentally alter the culture war. We think of the culture war as this stagnant thing in which both sides scream at each other. But eventually there could be a winner. Progressives have won on most social issues. They could win on nearly everything else.
There are obviously plenty of conservative intellectuals. Conservatives at universities are, frankly, smarter than liberals. Conservative ideas, conservative critiques of Progressivism are more substantive, more rigorous, and more serious.
The Left always wins, it seems, by a combination of appeals to sentimentality and emotionalism communicated by simplistic, manipulative slogans which obfuscate and commonly totally misrepresent the issue and the facts. Their final victory comes by making their preferred position a class identifier and a fashion statement. Once that happens, the entire elite establishment is committed and on board.
Standing in opposition to the edicts of the God of Fashionable Opinion is undignified, uncomfortable, and has recently become a very possibly career-limiting decision.
Conservatives are perfectly able to win the debate. We can even win elections. But we seem, as David Brooks recognizes, totally impotent at affecting the Culture or having the slightest influence on Fashion.
Why is this the case? How can it be possible that the better ideas consistently lose in the marketplaces of ideas that matter the most? Any thoughts?
10 Feb 2018
The Tweet comment by Charlie Kirk above provoked this response from author Jesse Farrar:
Tweet subsequently removed by Twitter.
Farrar’s Tweet in turn prompted conservative commentary and criticism, so now Farrar is using his homebase at Vice to explain why he is really the victim here.
A newfound object of vitriol from conservatives all around the internet, Farrar received a deluge of death threats and harassment. One Twitter user replied to a picture he tweeted of his dog by saying, “I’d like to drown that dog.” Another man messaged him his home address, daring Farrar to try to drown him. “I will beat that ass until all your liberal snowflake friends can’t even recognize you,” the man threatened.
So many people reported Farrar’s tweet, his account is now restricted (meaning he can’t tweet) for the next seven days. I called up Farrar to ask about his newfound infamy, and whether or not he has any regrets:
VICE: Can you tell me about the Twitter interaction with Charlie Kirk yesterday that led to this madness?
Jesse Farrar: It’s a mythical idea to begin with, that colleges are a bastion of left-wing thought. Even if that were true, the idea that they were like, “Oh that guy has an American flag on his shirt, he gets an F now” is just so dumb. I was just sitting around, and I think I probably phrased it pretty badlyâ€”um, I think that’s fair to say. I maybe did not turn the most delicate phrase when I said that conservative students should be drowned. Well, I said their heads should be held underwater until they stop breathing, which, not to split hairs, but it’s not exactly the same thing.
I didn’t say I was going to do it, which seems to be a big misconception. I don’t have access to that much water or college campuses. It would be a logistical nightmare for me to pull that off.
IJR was the first place to write about your tweet. But then FOX & Friends picked it up. Did they ask you to be on the show?
Nah. One guy asked from a campus college magazine [asked me for comment], and I told him I was the president of VICE, but he didn’t print that. Also, that’s not true. Nobody has asked me anything or said anything to me at all. It’s very strange. Either it’s the death threats, or it’s my friends saying, “Wow, that sucks.” But it’s not really anything in the middle.
It’s kind of ironic that you’re getting threats for making a death threat joke.
I would say so.
21 Sep 2017
As they disbanded the independent editorial board for publishing editorials dissenting from the Progressive Social Justice Warrior party-line.
The College Fix:
The first conservative-leaning editorial that caused controversy came last fall, when the board criticized the womenâ€™s center for programming that solely advanced a radical feminist ideology.
Sarah Sakha, the current editor in chief of the Princetonian who led the decision to disband the board, had written an op-ed at the time denouncing the boardâ€™s criticism.
â€œThe Board fails to acknowledge and recognize the valid intersectionality of racism and sexism. In fact, by branding such programming as singularly liberal, the Board perpetuates the harmful politicization of basic questions of human dignity and identity, which lie at the core of these issues,â€ Sakha wrote last fall.
Sakha, who also contributed to the Princeton Progressive, the Ivy League institutionâ€™s left-leaning political publication, became editor in chief of the mainstream Princetonian in February of this year.
Since then, the independent editorial board continued to publish right-of-center opinions.
In March, an editorial agreed upon by a majority of the board defended free speech and critiqued â€œcollective punishmentâ€ in the wake of a scandal in which the menâ€™s swimming and diving team was suspended for â€œseveral materialsâ€ deemed â€œvulgar and offensive, as well as misogynistic and racist in nature. …
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Liberal Intolerance' Category.