That is so awesome. I love the idea of His Majesty. That's excellent. I'm not in favor of PC nonsense, but if that's what lead us to having people identified as His Majesty, I will switch my thoughts. I'm dead serious.
Thank you for giving me a new opportunity to leverage the research I did on this bit of sensationalist journalism before:
That is so awesome. I love the idea of His Majesty. That's excellent. I'm not in favor of PC nonsense, but if that's what lead us to having people identified as His Majesty, I will switch my thoughts. I'm dead serious. That would be awesome. I would settle for Sir FranchiseBlade, Monseigneur de FranchiseBlade, Lord FranchiseBlade, Comte FranchiseBlade, Baron FranchiseBlade, Viscomte FranchiseBlade, Chevalier FranchiseBlade, Duc de FranchiseBlade. Any of those would work and be spectacular.
Like I told CW, the leftists in the United States have become like the basiji's in Iran. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8199
Janet Napolitano, Obama's first term Homeland Security czar and the current president of the University of California system has written an article on political correctness on campus. This phrase: “The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas," is creepy in the extreme to me and almost makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Making students safe for ideas? That sounds potentially quite ominous, especially coming from a leftist like Janet Napolitano. Also, it is nice that she expresses concern about speakers being dis-invited and faculty being vilified, but then comes the punch line - "and administrators like me are constantly asked to intervene." This is obviously a problem, as it puts administrators between a serious rock and a hard place here. From an administrator's perspective, this has to be a stone-cold nightmare, regardless of your political preferences. Now if we had a final code of "political correctness" that was published that they could refer to, it might well be a different matter. But most of these protests and objections are extremely short sighted and self-serving, the sorts of positions that will come back and bite the defenders of these teary-eyed 'protestors' right in the rear end just a little bit further down the road. This is not a sustainable arrangement for these university administrators, giving control of acceptable speech on campus to a bunch of late-adolescent, hyper-sensitive "Social Justice Warriors," even though it still appears that some of them have not realized this yet. A couple of other things on disinviting speakers. First, the University of California board of regents dis-invited Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard, from speaking at UC Berkeley in 2007, because of certain politically incorrect statements he made about women. Second, it is spectacularly rude and inconsiderate to dis-invite someone to almost anything for any reason. If you do not want to invite someone to an event, the time to make that decision is before the invitation is issued. Surely Janet Napolitano realizes this. Dis-inviting people will frequently reflect worse on the people doing the disinviting that the person being dis-invited. And as well it should. Napalitano's statement not withstanding, does anyone believe that the University of California would invite Larry Summers to speak today? I don't agree with much of what he thinks, but he is a substantial and well credentialed public figure, who is a thought leader in our country, who no doubt has a voice that most college students would benefit from listening to. So should he be excluded as a persona non grata because he does not perfectly comply with the Democrat left's current standards of 'political correctness'? Or what about Dick Cheney? Should he be excluded, because he is not regarded as politically correct? I would many of the same arguments about him as for Summers. However, in all likelihood, the policy at UC is going to focus on being extra careful not to invite 'politically incorrect' speakers. But as far as an actual policy that prohibits disinviting speakers of disciplining teachers who fall afoul of their students, while she seemed to be critical of these practices, Napolitano did not actually advocate a policy opposing those practices. This is worth keeping an eye on. At the bottom of the last page of this thread, this issue of voluntary gender selection and "self-identification" was touched on in the case of Grant Stroble at the University of Michigan, who has chosen his gender prefix to self identify by as "His Majesty," and apparently has successfully registered that change with the University of Michigan. This whole line of thinking is also unsustainable and it is absurd in the extreme. That Janet Napolitano is "self-identifying" herself with this 'politically correct' nonsense confirms for us how far off the rails she actually is on this subject. So she has nothing critical to say about segregation based on race, which is now being advocated and practiced at certain universities across the country, under the banner of 'political correctness'. But she does actually state that she thinks certain types of 'safe spaces' are a good idea, although she does try to soften her position by staying a bit vague about this. She actually appears to be more of an advocate of safe spaces in public place than a critic. {to be continued....}
{continued from above....} Here she seems to be telling these kids that trying to silence speakers or trying to stop invited speakers from coming to speak is wrong and that she does not support that. This is smart, because this is a loser for leftists, as these sorts of tactics, which have been used most notably around the country by Black Lives Matter groups, make leftists look like a bunch of anti-social thugs. This is not working. It appears that Napolitano realizes this is backfiring and that these sorts of protests have to be accomplished another way. If I am reading that right, she is correct. Well done Janet! Again, she is vague on the trigger warnings. Notably, she offers no criticism of the overuse and misuse of these practices around the country. It will be worth watching to see how this plays out on UC campuses in the months ahead. So, the University of Chicago letter telling students that this nonsense was not going to be accommodated there, is in her words, "free speech Darwinism". Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought leftists were advocates of Darwinism. Apparently not in this instance. Again, this is ominous and creepy. If the alternative to this so-called "free speech Darwinism" is not speech regulated and controlled by her cabal of academic 'political correctness' monitors, someone is going to have to tell me what the alternative is, because I really don't know. I have no objection to this conclusion by her, but based on the rest of her comments, it is hard not to be skeptical about how this plays out in the real world, on university campuses not only in California, but across the country.
The big irony of this thread, is its critiquing mostly young "hysterical" people, when there are older people in THIS thread that, mostly the ones presenting the evidence, who should actually be well-adjusted but they exhibit traits JUST as bad, the exact same, if not WORSE than the SJW's Its people who constantly fan flames to get a riss, that are pointing out flame fanners [Old But : I know this was in response to a last year statement of "Black Racism More Acceptable > White Racism ] You have to define "racist" for this comment to make sense. Someone that is an actual recipient of bad treatment because of race and chooses to speak out on it, and an actual RACIST who practices hate against other races, that is 2 different things. Your comment basically says that ANY person who actually says something about racial mistreatment past the year 2000, they automatically get labeled a "racist" because their mistreatment was "non-existent" and "imaginary" in the FIRST place because it doesn't happen how our ancestors got it. So the act of speaking about it actually shows that THEY are the RACE HATERS and its actually the ONLY/TRUE intention of them talking, to bite at the other race, not as a fair statement with aim of better treatment.... That doesn't mean Black racism is good, its just seems its dismissing people with an actual gripe lumping them with ones who are Haters-Only (Sorry if I read it wrong)
I suppose that's true, if people don't know the definition of the word, they might not understand it. Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Another definition is that it is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. When race baiters spew their nonsense about how white cops are out murdering black people in the streets, they are selling racism.....and these days people are buying that BS up like they haven't done in decades. The fact that their racism is loosely based on actual events is as irrelevant as it was when white racists were selling the BS that black men were running around raping white women. There was examples of that then just as there are examples of cops shooting black people today, but it doesn't justify the racist BS.
I see what you're saying. I think that's fair, calling the race baiting tactic on all sides. I still think it puts an unfair view on any person who mentions an issue involving their race as being a "race-baiter", meaning the fact that they even mention race AUTOMATICALLY DISCREDITS them, because surely there's NO reason for them to even talk that, it just HAS to be an "agenda", not fair treatment. If anyone can't see the judgmental insensitivity of that, perhaps its THAT person that has the same "bias" in NOT wanting to listen. Though examples YOU mention are definitely the loud voices that go well beyond "regular" approach, the kind I tend to have a VERY skeptical view on. (I just chose to NOT ignore the small RIGHTFUL voices. Why? Because its a BLOODY SHAME that extremists RUIN things for WELL-MEANING people. Thats the crime in all of this. Cant allow self-boosting disagreement against rabble rousers to detract focus from the ACTUAL worthy causes. )
[Another Year-Later Post] I do think that's a part of it. I aslo think INTERNET in itself is a BIG coincidal element to it all. Internet was first thought to be a proliferation of information and OBJECTIVITY to go against establishment where the TRUTH and "good" word can FINALLY get spread. Unlike big media with inherent biases to only show stories and issues that help their financial motives. Internet Era has brought the counter-examples to big media. BUT what ALSO happened is Internet just REINFORCED even MORE what people ALREADY are. Online, people can ONLY go to SOURCES that ALREADY ALIGN with their views. Even MORE, Internet allows worldwide outreach for people to ASSEMBLE into groups with the same views. If there are 50,000 online documents and 50,000 people that support your view, why a need to even look at anything different when you can bathe in the support of your own ideals? Also, Internet ANONIMITY in itself IS a "Safe Space". In real life you have to face differences head-on and adjust your behavior to others. Online you can GET AWAY with a SH** ton more vile opinions and behavior. Yes others will call you out on it online, but they cant PHYSICALLY take anything from you. Young people have been RAISED in Internet and this freedom to BOTH be extremely EXPRESSIVE AND be extremely PROTECTED (similar to what young people want) It all creates the "echo chamber" effect where people assemble with the comfort of anonimity and support of others. (Finally) I think the unfortunate Internet revelation is that bloggers/ social media users / websites, they actually ALL now use the SAME BIG MEDIA TACTICS and have the same aims, they ALL use SENSATIONALIZED headlines to GENERATE TRAFFIC and ATTENTION. (The "CLICK-BAIT" culture). ITS EXACTLY like you said, its ANYTHING even SLEAZE to get bottom line RESULTS. The SIMILAR approach of media and POLITICS is the same shameless tactics everywhere. Because people realized that just being "regular" and "moderate" does NOT get you results, you have to be HARD-HITTING and EXPRESSIVELY aggressive to get movement out of people. Some of it has to trickle into real life you'd think
It's a sad period for me to think of how illiberal attitudes on speech has become at universities in particular. I tend stoop lower when I think another person isn't being an honest thinker, but I generally try to uphold the principles of discussion for all sides even when I agree with the majority. What's going on in campuses isn't only a generational/technological consequence, but also a matter of sheer size (25-60k students). Demographics are largely different than 20 years ago, and with the rise and fear of gun violence, the stakes seem a bit higher for a crowd who is mainly there for the intention of learning and ****ing. Our cultural shift towards STEM and finance over the humanities likely contributes to overall tensions because whether one values the liberal arts or not, those classrooms were the primary hotbeds for the kinds of intense discussions that spill over on campus grounds. From the admin standpoint, the speed information travels makes brushfires too volatile to anticipate. Cheney is a toss up. I think him showing up at a time when he'd have the most influence sending kids the same age as those students would be a neccessary moment. It'd be highly explosive but it's something that builds up a university's stature. What Summers said about women in STEM wasn't only politically incorrect, it was shrouded in pseudo science that he could've easily verified at the time. While m/f ratios among Caucasians in STEM fields were 2:1 at the time he made those remarks, among asians it was 0.9/1. That likely indicates cultural factors over physiological. Since then, women continue to outpace men in college enrollment and graduation. With that context, I thought it was perfectly fair for Summers, in his capacity as Harvard President, to be disinvited because his comments that he clearly overreached would've distracted from whatever else he would've intended to say. Those same comments robbed him of any credibility outside the economic realm, where he earned his bona fides in the public and academic sector. Where we disagree on comments by public figures should be sanctioned (through withdrawals and cancellations) is whether they're founded or unfounded. Christopher Hitchens was one of the most incendiary and respected commentators in the last 30 years. A lot of what he said was un-PC, yet you couldn't fault him without going through the several layers of sources that grounded his opinion. Nor did he use his authority to leverage his opinion into credibility. Certain groups loathe him for his pointed barbs, but there was a respect for his willingness to debate over it. I don't know how long this trend will last. I have seen co-workers engage in it (with an overly tolerant management), and I can't see how it'll work in the long term. Napolitano has to deal with alumni pressures though, and I hope this trend is one of those generational things people will get a hangover and question their sanity the morning after. The UC system has been trying to court black students since California banned Affirmative Action among their campuses. AFAIK, they haven't mimicked Cal State's idea of racially "preferred" housing, but they will pursue policies to make black students feel more welcome on campuses. I don't think this is an issue for the UC system, nor do I think what they endeavors they pursue for racial diversity should be taken as a proxy for the rest of the nation. I hope this safe space BS is more a blindside to sudden diversity rather than the new normal, but who knows?
Hit the 10k word limit too... Liberalism and speech should be about more than hearing what you want to hear. That's it's core appeal, to assume that the other person's ideas are deeper and carry its merits at its own time and place. There will always be fear among the smaller demographics in campus for getting beat up for saying things other people don't agree or approve. That college administators do is more reactive than proactive, but I think Napoletano is saying this for genuine interest rather than calculation or optics, since she doesn't really have to say anything about it. In the general context, Darwinism was originally a evolution v. Creationist debate. It doesn't have much to do with being a leftist, though it could be that many leftists also believe in evolution. Social Darwinism has been a term associated with Survival of the Fittest (where strength doesn't mean to have more children). That mantra is usually coined by people who aren't leftist but rather social pro-business laissez faire conservatives. If I were to guess what Napolitano is meaning, her idea of free speech Darwinism is more like Survival of the Loudest. She doesn't want minority voices to be silenced, though your idea of minority may be different than hers. She can't act much as president of a multi-college, so this is her pulpit on what she would try to drive to the other chancellors. It's easy to be skeptical because nothing's certain. While I was at college, there were intense public debates over the Iraq Invasion. I was for the war, and looking back I can't say my thoughts were as well developed now because this was my fourth or sixth interest as a college student. There was even the occasional black protests where they felt marginalized by the other races on campus. With smartphones, you don't have to put yourself in that position, whereas before it's easier to hang around the commons through common boredon, smoke some cigarettes and was forced to get along with random people to pass the time. Now with smartphones and digital memories, it's easier being the odd duck out or get online shamed for whatever silly mistake you do. Times are a changing and it seems pretty tough to avoid learning and accepting your nascent and stupid mistakes. Almost anxiety inducing. Safe zones promote that avoidance and put that learning curve deeper into professional life.
Of course I do not agree with you on every point, but I think we have both explained our perspectives well enough. In any case, your tone and thoughtfulness were way above what I am normally accustomed to seeing here on this board. Very well said. I really enjoyed reading your posts.
Private schools can accept as many brats as they like, same as a Trump casino or a Wal-Mart. What's your beef with Yale? Public schools have to deal with Mommy and Daddy's brats because it is their purpose to do so. Don't like the kids America sends to public schools? Make better kids.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May adresses the issue of "safe spaces" at universities in the UK during Prime Minister's Questions: Exactly right.
NYU Professor Michael Rectenwald is being ousted from the classroom for disagreeing with and daring to talk back to the PC Culture that increasingly dominates university campuses across the US, including at NYU. Once again, we see that no dissent will be tolerated and that the first amendment to these people only applies to them and not to those who dare to disagree. The penalty is apparently to destroy the man's career. Of course this is nowhere close to the first time we have seen this, either on campus or among scientists who desire to put forward ideas that contradict the PC left's extremist AGW agenda, or on a whole host of other issues. Joseph Stalin would be so proud.
