Evergreen Students Speak Out

Wednesday, June 7, AD 2017


Leftwing students, often acting like a violent mob, have tossed Evergreen State College into chaos the past few weeks.  Go here to read about it.  A handful of Evergreen students are fed up and are brave enough to sign an open letter:




To the world with their eyes towards Evergreen,
We will open this message by stating that we are not attempting to discard or discredit legitimate concerns of racism throughout society, however attention to rectifying these issues has been detracted from due to the events at Evergreen during the last two weeks. These events have not only damaged the credibility of those who want to address racial issues, but have also put a greater portion of the student body, staff and faculty at risk of bodily injury. Addressing the real issues has been made much more difficult due to a tendency for those disagreeing with the protesters or their methods to be labeled as being racist, which stifles expression and dissent while diluting and perverting the meaning of the term. Through abundant use or threat of the racism label, and an unwillingness of various individuals to contest such claims, the protesting group has held a stranglehold on the administration, which the protesters have used in an attempt to avoid responsibility and enact their agenda.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Evergreen Students Speak Out

  • One of these days there will be a reckoning. Yes. A reckoning. That is what is needed here to put these riotous students and professors in their place.

  • Evergreen University is a microcosm of America since atheism, imposed by the government, has removed the love of “their Creator”, “divine Providence” and good will for the common good from our public square. Working at a public university I was called “white meat”, my son was called “white boy”, I was spit upon because I was a white woman in a black neighborhood. My best friend at the university was a black woman whose father was a minister and she never failed to inquire of my health and well being. We shared many beautiful times together.
    Threats of violence are infractions and violations of peaceable assembly. Violent protesters ought to be handcuffed and dragged off to the big house no matter what color they are. A good police record ought to slow their progress to revolution. Perhaps they ought to be sued for defamation of character and slander.

  • Most states have excess inventory in higher education. Washington state can clear some of theirs by closing Evergreen down and auctioning off its plant and equipment. The place is hopeless and not amenable to reform. Of course, the Democratic Party (which currently controls the executive and (barely) both houses of the legislature) would never countenance that as it would injure the economic interests of one of their principal clients. One thing you have to remember about the Democratic Party is that they have no compunction about taking tax money (or settlement money) and funneling to various sorts of truculent political advocates.


Being Student Commissars for Fun and Profit

Sunday, May 21, AD 2017





This has raised a firestorm:


The University of Arizona is paying students $10 per hour to assume the responsibilities of “Social Justice Advocates.”


According to an online job description, Social Justice Advocates, or SJAs for short, “will be responsible for instituting monthly programmatic efforts within the residence halls that focus specifically on social justice issues,” such as setting up “bulletin boards in the halls” and hosting “social justice modules once a month for the RAs.”


Successful applicants will be expected to “report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff” in addition to hosting bi-semesterly “Real Talks” with dorm residents.


“The position also aims to increase understanding of one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency, and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of differences,” the job description elaborates, noting that the ultimate goal of the position is to “increase a student staff member’s ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences, and confront diversely insensitive behavior.”


Notably, SJAs are paid an hourly rate of $10, and are expected to work an average of 15 hours per week, meaning students who fill the position can expect to make about $150 per week for promoting “inclusive communities through positive interactions.”

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Being Student Commissars for Fun and Profit

  • Excellent video. This last week a training course was being delivered to 20+ somethings and will be continuing all this next week. The subject matter is regulatory driven, yet without exception these young people all recently graduated from Academia with either the basic BS degree or an advanced degree (a few with an MS and one with a PhD) are liberal leftsts. Conversations on break or in the hallway easily reveal this to be the case. These people are completely consumed with the idiocies of anthropogenic global warming, gender as a spectrum, social justice as morality, feminism as female equality in function, etc. One must tread very carefully in this mine field. There was in fact an incident (not caused by the instructor) where a Manager had a talk with the students of that class about diversity and inclusivity and tolerance. Fathom that sort of thing having to be done in a course devoted strictly to scientific nuclear regulations.

    I hate, loathe, abhor, detest, despise, and hold in utter disdain and contempt liberal progressive feminist leftism. Not the person holding those views (often because of brain washing in college), but the ideology itself. The person needs serious prayer.

  • Isn’t that just like demented liberals (redundant for clarity)? Isn’t that akin remaking college campuses into re-education/indoctrination centers?

    Anyhow, It’s time spit on one’s hands, to hoist the black flag, and begin to repudiate the fabricated/fictional moral and fake intellectual supremacy, which have always been lies.

    Their caricatures of “social justice” represent collective guilt and punishment, which is injustice. Individuals only can be praised or punished for the good or evils they did.

  • The faculty don’t have the stones to put these characters out of business, because faculty are fundamentally other-directed people and making a stink about these sorts of patronage programs is status-lowering. The trustees don’t have the stones to put an end to this because they’re generally negligent and hollow at nearly every institution. The institution needs a good financial crunch at which point some of these zero-marginal-product positions may disappear.

  • I know that this will make some people”s heads explode but this sounds like Ayn Rand’s semi auto-biographical novel ” We the living “. I recounted her experiences going to university just after the Russian revolution. Whatever you may think about her philosophy it provides with a rather bleak is accurate picture of the future if we continue on the road we are on now .

  • It is the ten dollars and hour for being a good citizen. Virtues cannot be bought or paid for and citizenship or patriotism is a virtue exercised for the common good.

  • One well written law allowing future employers to reject any student whose resume includes attending any university that tramples upon free speech ought to do the job.

  • Don L & Mary De Voe…..Amen!

  • ne well written law allowing future employers to reject any student whose resume includes attending any university that tramples upon free speech ought to do the job.

    They can do that now. What sort of people end up as trustees? Corporate executives and lawyers, that’s who. The President of the Duke Board of Trustees while Richard Brodhead was revealing himself to the world to be a weasel with terrible judgment was Robert Steel, later CEO of Wachovia and a subcabinet officer in George W. Bush’s Treasury department. It’s doubtful these types give a rip about this, not when they’re acting as trustees, not when they’re acting as recruiters, and not when they’re selecting places for their youngsters to study.

    These incidents are pus. They tell us the patient is facing a severe infection.

  • Hegel is rather good on the politics of virtue: “Virtue is here a simple abstract principle and distinguishes the citizens into two classes only—those who are favourably disposed and those who are not. But disposition can only be recognized and judged of by disposition. Suspicion therefore is in the ascendant; but virtue, as soon as it becomes liable to suspicion, is already condemned.”

    He reminds us that “Robespierre set up the principle of virtue as supreme, and it may be said that with this man virtue was an earnest matter.”

Red Fascists Riot Tonight in Berkeley

Wednesday, February 1, AD 2017

It is beyond hilarious that the left calls their opponents Nazis.  A typical example of the left using violence to shut up a political adversary is occurring tonight at Berkeley:

Protesters with armed with bricks and fireworks mounted an assault on the building hosting a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos Wednesday night, forcing the event’s cancellation.

Yiannopoulos was making the last stop of a tour aimed at defying what he calls an epidemic of political correctness on college campuses.

With masked activists joining the already large group of protesters gathered in the area between Sather Gate and the north end of Telegraph Avenue as night fell, campus police were holding their positions near the entrance of the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union building hosting the event.

Protesters began throwing bricks, lit fireworks and rocks at the building. Some used police barriers as battering rams to attack the doors of the venue, breaching at least one of the doors and entering the venue on the first floor.

In addition to fireworks being thrown up onto the second-floor balcony, fires were lit outside the venue, including one that engulfed a gas-powered portable floodlight.

At about 6:18 p.m., UC campus police announced that the event had been canceled. Officers ordered the crowd to disperse, calling it an unlawful assembly.

Police then announced that they would lock down the entire campus, though authorities initially remained stationed near the student union building and did not move to force the protesters to disperse.

Protesters began throwing bricks, lit fireworks and rocks at the building. Some used police barriers as battering rams to attack the doors of the venue, breaching at least one of the doors and entering the venue on the first floor.

In addition to fireworks being thrown up onto the second-floor balcony, fires were lit outside the venue, including one that engulfed a gas-powered portable floodlight.

At about 6:18 p.m., UC campus police announced that the event had been canceled. Officers ordered the crowd to disperse, calling it an unlawful assembly.

Police then announced that they would lock down the entire campus, though authorities initially remained stationed near the student union building and did not move to force the protesters to disperse.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Red Fascists Riot Tonight in Berkeley

  • Unless there are arrests, prosecutions, and serious sentences handed out, this has official permission. The ‘red fascists’ are agents of the school’s administration and the municipal establishment and the cops are simply there to limit the damage to physical plant not covered in the University’s current budget.

  • Doesn’t anyone realize that these protests are being funded by Russia and the communists are doing this unrest on purpose to get the country to be unsettled. We are americans and we love our freedoms. When you start hurting people and destroying property, then it becomes terrorism.

  • If you go to youtube and type in Milo, it will show you in the De Paul University case that when several black lives matter people stopped this man from speaking, security did virtually nothing and since the sponsering student organization couldn’t afford the security, Breitbart had chipped in a thousand dollars. The police never came and security guards were yelled at by the whole audience…” do your job…do your job”. And Milo eventually said he would talk to each person down at the bottom of the stage. Milo is politically conservative but morally he is way off the reservation being admittedly a promiscuous active homosexual….who oddly believes he is guaranteed to go to heaven.
    He is pro Trump and an editor at Breitbart. But I guess the left have a hard time linking him to a wider group that they hate since he also likes Trump but not republicans.
    My research at youtube simply leads me to pray for his soul. Because he is sexually no rules, perhaps he draws many college audiences and is an odd threat to the Left because the young attend his talks and thus break the left group think dominance.

  • They are Nazi brownshirts in every way. I’m watching it now live. They’re moving from bank to bank (and the occasional Starbucks) smashing and looting. And, yes, they’re even shouting anti-semitic slogans – “Fuck the Zionists!”

  • It does no good to arrest these hooligans. It does no good to bring them to court becaus the courts are stacked with judges who have the same mentality as these hooligans do. Civil war is coming. I write that not in advocacy but as a warning. And I advise everyone to stay away from college campuses and inner cities. Those places are where the rot resides.

  • I have seen this insanity before, in Berlin. Trump needs to add to his vetting of overseas travelers. He needs to look for problem children coming from Europe. TR.

  • Textbook liberal mob that Ann Coulter writes about in Demonic. Her comparison in the book is the American Revolution to the liberal mob of the French Revolution.

  • Another example of the “Left” and it’s form of tolerance being displayed.

  • Anyone who breaks the law should be arrested and tried. Arrest and trial is a deterrent. Not arresting lawbreakers encourages them. I firmly believe that the Trump/Pence Administration will clean federal judicial house wherever feasible. Locally it is up to the states. The flap over a Time story about Trump’s phone call with the Mexican president that he would send US troops to take care of the bad hombres is a leak from some Obama holdovers. In fact there are reports of a conspiracy of these holdovers in federal employment who will sabotage policies by stonewalling, leaking and work stopping to undermine the Trump Administration. This is the Obama/Sorros legacy. Pray!

  • Milo is politically conservative but morally he is way off the reservation being admittedly a promiscuous active homosexual….who oddly believes he is guaranteed to go to heaven.

    Well Bill, Milo does claim to be Catholic. (References can be provided later when I’m at my desk.)

    I admit to laughing at the thought of him and the Pope going on a speaking tour together. It might be good for Francis to get a look at how the young people today behave.

  • CAM…I agree. However there are other tactics. The West German Polizei took to arming certain Officers with tank sprayers that squirted a dye. A dye that marked the trouble makers for long periods of time. TR.

  • I’m watching FOXBusiness and every mother-loving Democrat is making excuses.

    If, God forbid, the fascists ever again get control, I know what I am prepared to do. Only no camera, no evidence and and no witness. Today, I am addressing my insufficient inventory (1,000+) of .223 cal. FMJ and honing my K-Bar.

  • Feb 4 I ought to be scraping carrots for my chicken soup. “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”, in our First Amendment, guarantees a sovereign people the right and freedom to submit their needs, not their wants, to the people for ratification and change.
    Good will for the common good cannot include burning of the American Flag, the symbol of FREEDOM for all citizens in joint and common tenancy, unless informed consent is gotten from all citizens, the American people. Burning the American Flag as freedom of speech imposes the rioters force over the peaceable man. It must be proven that removal of the American Flag, that belongs to all persons, will benefit the common good. Burning the American Flag without the informed consent of the America citizens is NOT freedom speech, but terrorism against the people.
    Outlaws are ignorant. Causing fear and inciting to riot are crimes against the First Principle of peaceable assembly, required “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” How many riots were run amok at the signing of The Declaration of Independence?
    It is the presumption by the ignorant outlaws and villains that our civil rights, abused, will not be defended and good will for the common good as stated in The Preamble, is not a requirement of the citizen to maintain his sovereign personhood and citizenship.
    Civil Rights as specified in our Founding Principles are not being acknowledged, shared or inculcated in our younger generations, our Constitutional Posterity, by academia. This is the crime of dereliction of duty by the citizen of one generation to the coming generation, all future generations, our Constitutional Posterity.
    Rioting in the streets, life threatening situations and violations of private property are criminal, the result of ignorance and choreographed by Satan himself, a violation of peaceable assembly, the civil right to which all sovereign citizens are guaranteed by Government of the people.
    No, my carrots are still not scraped. I began to write that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,…” in moral and legal innocence, the standard of Justice for the state and sovereign personhood that institutes the sovereignty of the nation from the very first moment of existence…that our “Creator” and only our “Creator” gives life and existence…and the rest are lies and perjury in a court of law…that Dred Scott, baby Roe, 60,000,000 aborted souls, and Terry Schiavo are wards of the Court crying out for Justice…and ignorant communists are rioting in the street to impose their fraudulent form of tyranny.
    The chicken soup has no carrots.

  • From on the ground here in the SF Baytheist Area, it is important to note a few things, confirmed by direct witnesses at the 2/1/17 Berkeley ‘Milo’ Riot.

    Ken Bastida, long-time KPIX Channel 5 TV affiliate anchor, while watching the riots live, identified many of the violent protestors as previous participants in similarly threatening BLM and Occupy! protests in SF, Oakland, and Berkeley. However, having seen some of these–esp. the black-clad, masked, armed group called “Black Rock”, most of these people are not UC students at all. UC students don’t have serious time for rioting, and don’t want to endanger their status at the university. Most of these are much older, dangerous, violent sociopaths that many of us in the SFBA are very familiar with.

    So, I wasn’t at all surprised when one of the Black Rock people who bragged on Twitter about beating bloody a pro-Trumper, even showing photos confirming his “kill”, turned out to be a UC Berkeley employee, a long-time IT writer, and about 40-50 years old, “Dabney Miller”:


    There are a lot of people like him who seem to be well-situated in government and academic-complex jobs, who aren’t noticed when they aren’t at work, and have lots of time and money in this costly area to do nothing—but riot.

    If the City of Berkeley and the UC administration wanted to I/d the rioters, it would be very easy just by checking the Facebook and Twitter feeds of the Black Rock group—as Ken Bastida said, having checked, they all communicate on these sites. But little interest in the leftist ruling complex to find out these things.

  • Daily Mail UK, 2/8/17:
    “This week, another BAMN organizer proclaimed she had “no regrets” about the violent protest that took place last week.

    “Anti-fascists” started several fires, smashed windows and ATMs, looted downtown stores, attacked cars, and assaulted dozens of MILO fans, male and female, who they falsely accused of being “Nazis.”

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that rioters caused around $100,000 in damages at UC Berkeley, while the damage to downtown Berkeley was reported to be around $400,000 to $500,000.”

    ““We are happy with the results,” the San Francisco Chronicle reports Ronald Cruz, a former student at the college, told them. “We were able to meet Mr. Yiannopoulos’ fascist message with massive resistance.”

    He went on to proclaim that his group and others “were united in shutting down the Milo event,” adding, “Everyone played a part.”

    “Some engaged in breaking windows — others held signs and made sure that the fascists and the police did not attack anyone,” he explained. “This was self-defense. Windows can be replaced. People can’t be.”

    After being made aware that the Berkeley College Republicans were attempting to invite MILO back to deliver his speech, which was shut down before it started after left-wing protesters set fires around the school, smashed windows, and stormed the venue, Cruz warned that his group would take action again if necessary.

    “I would be surprised if he tries to after his humiliating defeat,” he declared. “But if he wants to be defeated again, he will be if he tries.”


  • By the way Ronald Cruz’ facebook site is:


    BAMN means “By Any Means Necessary”, FYI, a guide to the perplexed.

  • In June 2016, BAMN initiated a violent riot against an alleged neo-Nazi group:

    ” In 2016, BAMN attended a counter-protest against a rally held by the Traditionalist Workers Party, a white nationalist group, outside of the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Violence at the protests resulted in ten people being hospitalized with stab wounds. According to police, and verified by video taken by BAMN members and bystanders, the violence was initiated by BAMN members.”

    Serna, Joseph (27 June 2016). “Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”. Los Angeles Times.

Unborn Lives Don’t Matter at DePaul

Thursday, October 20, AD 2016



I couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the fact that the Catholic Left is basically the same as the Secular Left in this country:

While “Black Lives Matter” posters hang on DePaul administrative office windows, President Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider has banned College Republicans from hanging their “Unborn Lives Matter” posters on campus, despite the school being the largest Catholic university in the United States, allegedly backing the Catholic tenet (and science) that life begins at conception. According to the university president, these three words are rooted in “bigotry” and might “provoke” other students. 


As relayed by College Republicans Vice President John Minster to The Daily Wire, the conservative group designed the “Unborn Lives Matter” poster to promote their pro-life views and their meeting times. Following standard protocol, the group then submitted their design for approval prior to hanging them up around campus. In a disturbing twist, the “controversial” pro-life posters were pushed all the way to President Holtschneider, who declared that he would prohibit them in order to shield his students from “bigotry” under the “cove of free speech.”

Yes, the word “bigotry” was just used to describe pro-life posters by the president of America’s largest Catholic university.

In an act Minster categorized as an exercise in “shaming” College Republicans, Holtschneider sent out a signed letter to the entire campus on Friday to address what he deemed to be  unacceptable pro-life poster. 

“By our nature, we are committed to developing arguments and exploring important issues that can be steeped in controversy and, oftentimes, emotion,” Holtschneider nonsensically claims, two sentences before banning “controversial” speech. “Yet there will be times when some forms of speech challenge our grounding in Catholic and Vincentian values. When that happens, you will see us refuse to allow members of our community to be subjected to bigotry that occurs under the cover of free speech.”

“In fact, you have seen this in past months, as we have declined to host a proposed speaker and asked students to redesign a banner that provokes the Black Lives Matter movement,” continued Holtschneider, presumably alluding to the banning of Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and Breitbart News’ Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus. 

Linking to DePaul’s Guiding Principles on Speech and Expression literature, Holtschneider then asks students to reflect on the following sentence, which seemingly lumps in the pro-life message with speech “inconsistent” with “Catholic values”:

“We accept that there is a distinction between being provocative and being hurtful. Speech whose primary purpose is to wound is inconsistent with our Vincentian and Catholic values.”

Hilariously, Holtschneider maintains that he is not “unfairly censoring” to “appease a crowd.”

“Some people will say that DePaul’s stance unfairly silences speech to appease a crowd. Nothing can be further from the truth,” he states. 

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Unborn Lives Don’t Matter at DePaul

  • Shame! If this doesn’t wake people up to hippocripal stupidity, I don’t know what will. Thank you for posting this, and I think every blogger could do the same!
    UNBORN Lives Matter: should be eveyone’s slogan.

  • A disaffected traditionalist priest of my acquaintance offered this (somewhat nutty) view of the hierarchy: “It’s like the masons; you don’t rise in the organization unless you commit crimes”. That statement looks a great deal less nutty today than it did when he uttered it in 2004. The church-o-cracy and ‘catholic’ academe are largely populated with parasitoid wasps. They’re actually worse than the secular left because they make more use of subterfuge.

  • “. . . parasitoid wasps.” Art, I love you, man!
    No wonder the people are filled with confusion and doubt.
    I haven’t seen a whole bunch of evidence that unborn lives matter at the Vatican, either.
    Today, the choice for Catholics is crystal clear. A vote for Crooked Hillary is a vote for abortion (packed Supreme Court) and oligarchy. The SJW rationales are comparative trivia and FYI unadulterated b*!!$#@+.
    That fetus you want to kill is a gestational human being. It is not a bacterium. It is not an amoeba. It is not a guppy.
    Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning. Those people use it as a guide.

  • The late Clare Booth Luce once quipped to Bishop Fulton Sheen that Hollywood is where Satan sleeps, because he has no more work to do there.
    If she were alive today, I’m quite certain she would have to include many of our once stalwart Catholic colleges in Satan’s ever-growing list of safe resting places for the diabolical, though I suspect they now have moved lower than even that level of degradation and could now be safely called Satanic nurseries.

  • The poster is classified as bigotry.
    Shame on DePaul.

    When Christ asks the 60 million unborn to describe Rev.Holtschnider’s use of the word bigotry in this matter, only one word will sound from them.


  • Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ offered about a dozen years ago the opinion that 55-60% of those he began Jesuit formation with in 1974 had no interest in the faith; they were homosexuals hiding in the tall grass. I do wonder what the deal with the Vincentians is.

  • “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION” Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, tells us that a sovereign person exists in the womb from conception, that is scientific fertilization, with undeniable DNA.
    Holtschneider denies the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, a dogma proclaimed in 1854. Holtschneider self-excommunicates himself and takes the students with him and our federal tax money., What a liar. What a swindler, What a heretic…No one, not even the devil himself, is free to inflict his heresy on an innocent person. The diploma from depaul is a free pass to hell.

  • Theodore Hessberg is another president of a Catholic college, Notre Dame, who despises the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.

  • For the most part, “Catholic” education in the United States is crap, from elementary schools through colleges. I won’t waste a dime of my money on any of it.

  • If the College Republicans at De Paul were smart, they’d slap a picture of a black baby on a black lives matter poster accompanied by the statistic that an average of 1876 black babies are aborted everyday and contrast that with the daily homocide average (whatever that is -—not gonna look it up).
    Then they should step back and watch heads explode.
    Hope they pop enough popcorn.

  • Ernst.

    You da’ man.

    Great idea.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Just imagine what you would do if you were Pope for a day. Automatic excommunication would become instantly operative and the list of offenders would include everyone who did not subscribe to the basic historic doctrine of the Catholic Church and vigorously promulgated it. This would probably result in reducing Church membership by 75% or more. Would this be charitable? Yes, as it gives folks a chance to reform before Christ comes again and makes it permanent.

  • Mr. Dowd, My first thought is that that man would have been expelled from the seminary on day-one.
    Evidently, unborn lives don’t matter with Cdl Dolan and the NY Archdiocese lower-archy. If, in fact, faith and morals mattered to any of them, corrupt, incompetent Hillary would not have been invited to the “Al Smith Dinner.” Obama had her pegged in 2008: see the video tapes.
    When President Trump quipped that HRH Hillary was successfully pretending that she doesn’t hate Catholics, the audience’s pro-abortion, useless liberal tools booed.
    I’m pretty sure you are either an idiot or a despicable person if you would contemplate a vote for Hillary. Odds are that person won’t be getting into Heaven, either.

  • Souls falling into hell are not remembered not even by themselves.

  • “Black Lives Matter” is a colossal non-sequitur, making no sense whatever. High time Catholcs look carefully. what is Catholic enough to spend $30’000 or more annually. Totally chaotic logic.

  • Pingback: Catholic University says Unborn Lives Don’t Matter | It's Not The Tea Party
  • Pingback: Catholic University says Unborn Lives Don't Matter – American Thinker | Bankingre
  • Pingback: Catholic University says Unborn Lives Don't Matter – American Thinker | Bcst Connect
  • Pingback: Catholic University says Unborn Lives Don't Matter | | Reclaim DC
  • Pingback: Catholic University Says Unborn lives Don’t Matter (Guest Post) | Flopping Aces

Special Snow Flakes Afraid of Democracy

Wednesday, March 23, AD 2016




I really wish this was take from Eye of the Tiber:


Students protested yesterday at the Emory Administration Building following a series of overnight, apparent pro-Donald Trump for president chalkings throughout campus.

Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad. Peraza opened the door to the Administration Building and students moved forward towards the door, shouting “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

After approximately ten minutes outside from the start of the demonstration, the gathered students were ushered into the Quad-facing entrance to the Administration Building and quickly filled a staircase to continue their demonstration. Pausing in the staircase, a few students shared their initial, personal reactions to the chalkings.

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.

A short time later, students moved into the Henry L. Bowden Board Room, surrounding the long table that dominates its center, the students themselves surrounded by portraits of Emory University’s former presidents.

“What are we feeling?” Peraza asked those assembled. Responses of “frustration” and “fear” came from around the room, but individual students soon began to offer more detailed, personal reactions to feelings of racial tension that Trump and his ideology bring to the fore.

“How can you not [disavow Trump] when Trump’s platform and his values undermine Emory’s values that I believe are diversity and inclusivity when they are obviously not [something that Trump supports]” one student said tearfully. “Banning Muslims? How is that something Emory supports?” asked yet another.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Special Snow Flakes Afraid of Democracy

  • This is my alma mater. This is why, no matter what, I would never give a red cent back to that school. The special snowflakes have never tolerated any dissent from liberal orthodoxy. I still remember Ward Connerly rudely being shouted down during a talk because he committed the sin of being African-American and anti-affirmative action.

  • I suspect one of the reasons university administrators tend to accommodate
    the special snowflakes, and knuckle under to their crybullying, is that the
    administrators share their politics. The snowflakes’ absurd protests give the
    administration the pretext it needs to treat campus conservatives the way
    it already wanted.

  • What a bunch of nincompoops. If one of my sons acted the way these ninnies act, he would get a boot up his keester.

  • The movie “PCU” comes to mind far too often these days.

  • “..we have nothing to loose but our chains.”
    Times Square is preparing for an era of “freedom,” snowflake style. Celebrate child sacrifice and bisexual hookups….celebrate Baal.

    Elijah is shaking his head, God bless him.


  • Phillip, your comment got me thinking and I tracked back the links. Forgive me for stealing your idea and running with it:

    Look, I oppose ISIS as much as the next guy. Their murderous rampages, their open war with Western Civilization, their direct assault on Christianity and Christians, rape, murder, child sex slavery… I mean, what is there to commend?

    On the list of ISIS evils is the destruction of cultural heritage sites and the destruction of Palmyra will rank high on the list of idiotic and criminal acts they have committed. One does not have to have an affection for the faith of a people to want to preserve the past. However, one must tread lightly in honoring that past, lest one end up worshiping the gods of the past, in the effort to preserve humanity’s history.

    This effort cuts awfully close to the line:


    I don’t see anyone involved in the project seeking to restore the devotion to Baal but it isn’t like Jews and Christians have no experience with or tradition opposing the worship:

    1 Kings 16:31,18:19-40, 19:18, and 22:53
    2 Kings 3:2, 10:18-25, 17:16, 21:2, and 23:4-5
    Jeremiah 2:8, 7:9, 11:13-17, 12:16, 23:13, and 32:29-35
    Judges 6:25-31
    Numbers 22:41
    Zephaniah 1:4
    Hosea 2:8

    Looking at the Bible as our story, Baal is no minor antagonist to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Baal was a sort of evil doppelganger to the God of the Old Testament for, like God, he was supposed to bring life or destruction to the world. Unlike God, his favor was bought through human sacrifice, particularly of infants, and sexual license.

    Worshiping Baal was the bane of Jewish life, it was the thing that tripped them up, time and time again. It was the reason that the Children of Abraham were commanded to drive the Caananites from the Promised Land. Failing to do so, made falling into sin all the more likely for our Jewish ancestors.

    So, while those replicating the Baal temples are likely not worshipers of Baal, there is simething eerily familiar in their erection, at this point in Western History. As we turn, so decisively from the worship of God to the worship of licentiousness, to the abandon of human want and desire, there is something entirely appropriate about rebuilding places of worship to the god that our civilization buried in the sand.

  • +1 David Spaulding. The movie “Idiocracy” also comes to mind.
    The poor, little darlings can’t brook argument because they can’t win.
    Interesting insights from Edw. Gibbon (Decline and Fall . . .).

    “The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

    Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;

    Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;

    Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;

    Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;

    Increased demand to live off the state.”

  • People say a Hitler-like regime couldn’t happen here, but I expect that these snowflakes would have no problem locking up those who disagree with them.

  • @David Spaulding.

    Please don’t apologize.
    Your insights and the NYT article is interesting.

    As you say, “…least one ends up worshipping the Gods of the past.”

    That David, has been growing and growing in this Nation. O’bummer said it; “We are not a Christian Nation, but a country of many beliefs..” ( from memory, might not be exact.)

    Hold FAST as this storm that is bearing down is one for the ages!

  • I’ve read that the “young” demographic tends to be for Socialist Bernie Sanders. As a kid from the Cold War era – a true child of the sixties – I think THAT should frighten them — and everybody else.

Home, With Propaganda, For the Holidays

Friday, December 18, AD 2015




This is beyond parody.  Harvard decided that it would be a grand idea to give students talking points for the holidays so that they could follow the politically correct line on various topics.


Harvard has advised students to lecture their non-Ivy-League relatives on liberal values in a bizarre set of holiday placemats to take home over Christmas.

The laminated cards raise some likely hot topics that lesser-educated family members may raise at the dinner table, then offers a suggested response. 

Covering such complex issues as police brutality, racial divisions, and the Syrian war, one of the sections tells students to say: ‘Racial justice includes welcoming Syrian refugees.’ 


One question to be braced for is: ‘Why are black students complaining? Shouldn’t they be happy to be in college?’

In response, the worldly scholars should ‘calmly’ explain: ‘When I hear students expressing their experiences on campus I don’t hear complaining.’

Students are also told what side to take on the issue of murdered black teenager Tamir Rice in 2014 – an issue which continues to divide the country. 

To make it through the spate of pesky questions, Harvard advised, students should ‘breathe’ and ‘listen mindfully’. 

After a furor was raised about it, Harvard made “a sorry we were caught” response:

Thomas Dingman, dean of freshmen, and Stephen Lassoed, dean of student life, said in a letter to students on Wednesday: ‘We write to acknowledge that the placemat distributed in some of your dining halls this week failed to account for the many viewpoints that exist on our campus on some of the most complex issues we confront as a community and society today.

‘Our goal was to provide a framework for you to engage in conversations with peers and family members as you return home for the winter break, however, it was not effectively presented and it ultimately caused confusion in our community.’

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Home, With Propaganda, For the Holidays

  • Yeah, I saw this yesterday.

    I graduated in 1995, a 25 year old veteran. As early as that PC was beginning to effect administration. I experienced this in the form of losing out on a Resident Assistant position. When I asked why I was “not qualified,” I was told that my age, military experience, and presodency of the pro-life organization suggested to the Resident Life Director that I would be too rigid to be able to deal with undergraduates. I asked if something was wrong with the interview and was told that the committee gave me universally high marks but that the Director had “experience” with people like me and would not sign off on it.

    That was at an ostensibly Catholic college so God knows what it was like at secular ones even then.

  • My responses:
    Yale / Student Activism: You are in college to learn and not to be an activist. You are a student because really, you don’t know anything. Shut your freaking trap and learn so that you can successfully graduate, get a job and not be a burden on the taxpayer.
    Islamaphobia / Refugees: If you commit an act of terrorism, then regardless of your religion or where you are from, you will be shot dead. Got that? And in the United States, we have this thing called the US Constitution. So take your Sharia Law and shove it wwhere the sun does not shine.
    House Master Title: I pay the mortgage and the property taxes, not you. If you don’t like my rules, then move the heck out. I am the master and you are not. Only my wife gets to override me. Period.
    Black Murders in the Street: If you commit a crime, then whether you are black, brown, white, red, yellow, purple, orange or green, you should expect to be shot by the police. And if you are a policeman or policewoman and you purposefully shoot an innocent person, then you can expect to go to court and face the full penalty of the law.
    And for the kicker, Social Justice: You want social justice? Wait till God Almighty gives it for the unborn. Then you will get more social justice than you can possibly handle.

  • Thankfully there was such a huge backlash from both Harvard students AND parents, they’ve got their tails between their legs and since had to apologize.

    The Harvard Republican Club came up with their own response. It’s great. Check it out:


  • That placemat would make a nice target for the range. I can visualize a four inch grouping on that plate right now.

  • Mike Rowe is right.

    Higher education has become indoctrination for the Left. It is reinforcement for the nonsense shoved at them in public school. I would rather my sons learn to be electricians or auto body shop owners than saddled with a semi useless degree.

  • @Elizabeth Fitzmaurice.

    Great find. Common sense placemat.

    @Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

    Your response is appreciated too.
    All of them. Especially the Social Justice remark. When the politically correct face this horrible social injustice at the foot of Almighty God, then and only then, will they finally see the harm they have caused by supporting and promoting abortion on demand. The war on women is nothing until the women wade through miles of rotted corpses, the collateral damage they caused, in their war. Then they will understand why Pro-Life folks value each and every life. Then they will know they were the gas chambers, the starvation bunkers and firing squads in this war on women. They will then understand it was truly a war on humanity, and they were the oppressors.
    Rant is over.

  • Which is more pathetic, the assumption that Harvard students are emotional cripples who need to be coached through the process of having a normal discussion, or the assumption that a particular position on a set of issues is the Harvard position?

  • I know, I know, I’m stating the obvious, but still: what if a particular student has heard students expressing their experiences of racism and considered it complaining? Should that student say that he didn’t? Were the authors of this piece unable to conceive of the possibility that someone had considered it complaining? Even if you believe that there is one Harvard position on this issue, do you also believe that there’s one Harvard experience on it? If asked to suggest the Catholic position on an issue, say on abortion, I could give you a fairly generic three or four points to hit, but I wouldn’t think of telling you how you should describe your feelings on it, or what you’ve experienced. That’s because Catholicism is nowhere near as rigid and doctrinaire as Harvard.

  • I vote that the idea they have to be coached (take a breath) thru how to converse with their “loved ones” is by far the most pathetic.

  • Pingback: Courage to Say, “Jazz Is Not a Girl”; Year of Mercy, Pray for Daesh and Much More. . . . | The Guadalupe Radio Network

Shut Up, They Explained

Thursday, June 4, AD 2015




I do love schadenfreude first thing in the morning.  A leftist college professor wails about the closed minds of his leftist students:

The press for actionability, or even for comprehensive analyses that go beyond personal testimony, is hereby considered redundant, since all we need to do to fix the world’s problems is adjust the feelings attached to them and open up the floor for various identity groups to have their say. All the old, enlightened means of discussion and analysis —from due process to scientific method — are dismissed as being blind to emotional concerns and therefore unfairly skewed toward the interest of straight white males. All that matters is that people are allowed to speak, that their narratives are accepted without question, and that the bad feelings go away.

So it’s not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period. Engagement is considered unnecessary, as the immediate, emotional reactions of students contain all the analysis and judgment that sensitive issues demand. As Judith Shulevitz wrote in the New York Times, these refusals can shut down discussion in genuinely contentious areas, such as when Oxford canceled an abortion debate. More often, they affect surprisingly minor matters, as when Hamsphire College disinvited an Afrobeat band because their lineup had too many white people in it.

Go here to read the rest.  Most revolutions eventually eat their own, and that is what is happening today.  Case in point:

Laura Kipnis is a feminist professor at Northwestern University — and not just any feminist. She’s long been one of the few professors in American public life who are capable of making news with their scholarship, find their books reviewed by the most elite newspapers, and help start elite “conversations” about academe’s favorite topics: sex, power, and identity. She’s liberal, certainly (well known for her sympathetic views of pornography), but she’s a free thinker. And that is intolerable.

 Earlier this year she wrote an essay entitled “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe” for the Chronicle of Higher Education. In the piece, she decried bans on students’ dating professors, declaring, “If this is feminism, it’s feminism hijacked by melodrama.” Students were being taught to “regard themselves as exquisitely sensitive creatures.” Their “sense of vulnerability” was “skyrocketing” as a result of the “melodramatic imagination’s obsession with helpless victims and powerful predators.” She warned that “the climate of sanctimony has grown too thick to penetrate,” with any dissenter labeled “antifeminist, or worse, a sex criminal.

Predictably, her words prompted a campus backlash, with mattress-carrying protesters demanding that the university immediately and officially condemn Kipnis’s essay. They used adjectives such as “terrifying” to describe the traumatic effect of her words. Kipnis shrugged off the protests — after all, when you’re a feminist professor writing on pornography, you’re used to a bit of negative public attention. But she couldn’t shrug off what happened next. Two students filed Title IX complaints against her, claiming that she’d violated federal law with her essay and a subsequent tweet. In essence, they were claiming that her writings on matters of public concern constituted unlawful gender discrimination. What happened then should be familiar to anyone who has ever been embroiled in the Star Chamber that is academic “justice.” Rather than laughing the claims out of the university — which would have been the appropriate response — the university retained an outside law firm and launched an investigation. The university not only denied Kipnis legal assistance during the formal proceedings, but its investigators also initially refused to even describe the nature of the charges against her, insisting on interviewing her before she knew precisely what she’d been accused of doing. According to Kipnis, she’d “plummeted into an underground world of secret tribunals and capricious, medieval rules, and I wasn’t supposed to tell anyone about it.”

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Shut Up, They Explained

  • We should recognize contemporary liberalism/progressivism for what it is: fascism.

  • Do Title IX Coordinators have any discretion to dismiss frivolous claims? One of the complaint against Kipnis was brought by a signal student on behalf of the entire universtiy community. To which the proper response would be, “Nice try, kid.”

  • The whole procedure set up for these claims Thomas seems to be at war with any concept of due process that I am aware of. The below links to a satire which accurately reflects how these inane complaints are treated at most colleges and universities.


    Real courts are bad enough as the law and fairness and common sense are frequently not on speaking terms, but Kangaroo courts like these make regular courts appear by comparison to be tribunals of eternal light.

  • Laura Kipnis is getting what she created.

  • OK, it’s funny, to a degree. But when a feminism teacher defends the right of students to “date” their teachers, you realize what that’s really about, right? She’s not envisioning her female students finding nice young men in the faculty and building Christian families.

  • Interesting juxtaposition of two posts today. In the “Doublespeaque” post from
    Motley Monk we read about legal consequences facing those Catholic universities
    which have largely abandoned their Catholic identity in the name of “academic
    freedom”. And here we have a post about universities which have fallen over
    themselves to abandon academic freedom, where fundamentalist believers in
    various ‘pelvic issues’ can silence others and deny them due process, even
    drive them from their jobs.
    Seems to me that these leftist/feminist/LBGTQ fundamentalists our universities
    have been encouraging all these years are a far, far worse threat to academic
    freedom than maintaining a vigorous Catholic university identity ever was or ever would be.

  • “OK, it’s funny, to a degree. But when a feminism teacher defends the right of students to “date” their teachers, you realize what that’s really about, right? She’s not envisioning her female students finding nice young men in the faculty and building Christian families.”

    Who cares? On a college campus she should not be subject to a Title IX inquisition for this.

  • “but its investigators also initially refused to even describe the nature of the charges against her”…”I wasn’t allowed to tell anyone”

    Wow, I had a very similar experience in academia; ultimately it didn’t go anywhere, but in the hyper political world of academia, of course it had some ramifications. I feel kind of validated to see that this is commonplace though – misery loves company.

  • A possibly ‘final solution’ to all of this is for the Federal Government to stop giving money to colleges and universities as there is probably little free market demand for this nonsense.

Triggers for the Bard

Thursday, May 29, AD 2014

 “Don’t step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere.”

Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

One of the more ludicrous current fads on the academic left is the demand for trigger warnings.  Apparently some precious snow flake might recall bad memories by being exposed to literature much beyond twitter scrawls, hence the demand that, for example, Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, be prefaced by warnings that it might trigger bad memories in those still in recovery for those told to “Shut up and sit down !” at Catechism or Sunday School back when they were seven, or that Satanists might have memories of insults tossed at them by Christians intolerant of those who worship absolute evil.  Of course all of this is being done as yet another way of ensuring that the political shibboleths of the moment of the left will never be forgotten for a nano second, especially when perusing literature that might engender political heresy.

Doni Wilson at The Federalist helpfully suggests nine trigger warnings for Hamlet:

1) If you have ever seen a ghost, and were scared out of your mind even though smart enough to get into a university (hey, Horatio and Hamlet were getting all smartened up at Wittenberg!), then YOU MIGHT WANT TO SKIP ACT ONE SCENE ONE because maybe a ghost appears.  Now I don’t really believe in ghosts, and I have never seen one, but maybe you have, so obviously I cannot relate to your level of trauma, and I have no idea if you will get all pale and speechless while reading this scene, never to be the same, so here is your trigger warning.  You’re welcome.  I am super relieved we are not reading Oedipus Rex.

2) Although you might think Hamlet is really obsessed with his mother and Ophelia and how they behave, if you have been in a war, heard of a war, object to war, fear war, or have even been in favor of a war, you might not have caught this, but those night-time security guys are awake ALL NIGHT because Denmark is, how shall I say it?  They are having a martial conflict with Norway.  If you don’t know what “martial” means, then you have probably not been traumatized.  If you thought I wrote “marital,” then you might have been, but that is a whole different trigger warning.  I am getting to them as fast as I can.  War is horrible, and in Hamlet most of it is off stage, but still.  You need to know.

3)  If your Mom married your wily uncle pretty quickly after your Dad was murdered, and you thought that was kind of, well, unseemly, then this might not be the play for you.

4)  If you, as an American, have been to France, and had French people be really rude to you, there is this little moment where Laertes actually asks permission to go back, and so that might just be too much for you.  Just sayin.’

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Triggers for the Bard

  • I could have used a few trigger warnings in my day as an English major. Warning: This class will assign literature and criticism that is offensive to good taste, lovers of language, logical thinkers, those with common sense, and anyone who holds Western culture in high esteem. Proceed at your own risk.

  • … or the msm could place one in the top left corner of most of what is reported!

  • Fortunately I have not had such problems as a Dickinson undergrad thus far, Mrs. Z. I’m on my way to being an English major and I have had thoughtful, challenging classes from brilliant professors. In my most recent class, we read Shakespeare’s sonnets, Forster’s A Passage to India, Othello, and a large amount of literary theory and criticism, from Brooks to Said. Everyone in our class talked during discussions, and we all wrote formalist and new historicist papers as well as critical editions. The English department at my college is first rate.

  • Trigger warnings for graphic scenes depicting various forms of sexual assault make sense.

  • Glad to hear it, Rodney. There were really only a few classes that would have required my warning. Many of my courses were great, and blessedly a political.

  • “…hence the demand that, for example, Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, be prefaced by warnings that it might trigger bad memories in those still in recovery for those told to ‘Shut up and sit down !’ at Catechism or Sunday School back when they were seven…”

    I was told at certain meetings at 28 years of age to take the cotton out of my ears and stuff it in my mouth. No one cared if my tender feelings were hurt, and my mentor actually took some pleasuring in ensuring that I actually felt something instead of the mere the numbness that comes with being the intoxicated recipient of constant sentimentalism. His mentor was a Franciscan priest and my Confessor who agreed with this approach 100%.

The End of Debate

Wednesday, May 21, AD 2014



A popular tactic on the left today, and for the past several decades in this country for that matter, is to strong arm adversaries and shout them down.  Faithful readers of this blog will recall the “feminist studies” professor Miller-Young who went berserk when confronted with a group of young pro-life women peacefully presenting  information on abortion at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  Go here, here and here to read about it.  The following is an account by one of the pro-lifers present, Mairead McArdle, a student at Saint Thomas Aquinas College:



One part of the story that is not as widely known is what happened prior to the professor’s theft and assault. I can tell you about it. I was there.

I was among 13 pro-life students who exercised our right to free speech on that sunny afternoon in March. I was actually the first one to speak with Professor Young.

When the incident began I was using the sign in the “free-speech zone” to start conversations with people passing by. I began a calm, rational conversation with Professor Young, asking her what her thoughts were on our position and our sign.

She immediately raised her voice and spoke condescendingly, accusing me of using “fear tactics” to coerce women.

“I have a PhD, three degrees more than you do!” she yelled, smiling. At one point, she threw the pamphlet I had handed her at me.

“Do you even go here?” she asked me. “There’s no way you have the right to be here.”

I told Miller-Young that she could ask the administration whether we had the right to promote our cause on campus. She refused, saying she knew we had no right to remain.

After about 10 minutes of Miller-Young talking over me and yelling obscenities, a group of about 15 students gathered around us and watched the spectacle, as the professor continued her rant.

Before Miller-Young had begun, some of the students had been having reasonable discussions with us, but now they joined the professor and, following her example, mocked us and our work.

Professor Young started waving her arms, and walked back and forth between us and the students, insisting to them that we were liars.

Each time I tried to speak to Miller-Young, she would interrupt to yell at me. I also talked to at least three of the students who had gathered around. Because the situation was already hostile, however, and they threw insults me.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The End of Debate

  • “I have a PhD, three degrees more than you do,” she shouted. Degrees from today’s liberal academia include:

    BS = bull s….
    MS = master s…
    PhD = piled higher and deeper
    DD = dirty diapers

    As my 2nd sponsor in a 12 step program once told me, “A thermometer has degrees and you know where you can stick that.”

    PS this is a commentary solely on today’s academia and not on those readers here who earned their degrees the old fashioned way.

  • This woman used her PhD as her license to have the right to impose her opinion judgement of how life a should be. People with or without PhD s use their position as justification. In some groups this self assertion just comes down to who is toughest. What this wrangling points out to me is that is not about ideas – more primal than that. It is just about dominance. And narcissism, no respect for others, God or man.
    Not about ideas so no discussion or debate.

  • and this is what the students are taught from the first day at secular college, that they are better than the rest of the community. Lord of the Flies by William Golding comes to mind. Beelzebub is translated Lord of the Flies.Unfortunately, when the students assume this posture, they miss truly being better than the community.

  • If Miller-Young, PhD were not a professor of utterly useless spucatum tauri, she would, as her students soon will be, intimately familiar with KFC as employer.

    Lower primates fling their feces at each other. Birds of a feather . . .

  • For the defenders of Truth;
    $29.95 Liberalbegone Spray.
    When reason and manners are absent from dialog, and aggressive behavior ensues, break out your last defense…Liberalbegone!

    Fire a warning shot first. Spray at violent extremities that are flalling about.
    If aggressive behavior continues, one rapid spray in the red facial area should be enough to subdue the 3 x PhD in her tracks.

    To easy. I know. What is on the horizon? Hate speech crimes exist.
    NSA phone records infringement.
    The War on virtue decency and purity is taking place. St. Michael defend us in battle.

  • Here she is:


    Unless UC Santa Barbara is eccentric with titles, she’s been awarded tenure. Santa Barbara is a research university, not a lower-tier private college; you need to publish if you want to keep your job. This woman is 38 years old. Its a reasonable guess she began working on her dissertation 10 years ago. In the intervening years, her published work has amounted to…her dissertation edited for publication. At the liberal arts college I know best, a publication record like that gets you a pink slip; melanin will not help you avoid such a fate if you’re up short to that degree.

    Here’s a precis of her sicko research here:


    This history department in any institution is not the site of practical learning. It’s liberal education, which is to say education for leisure. People use their leisure-time viewing the smut she studied without the need for an academic guide.

    She was awarded a doctoral degree in “American History” for puzzling over disgusting mass entertainment products produced after 1966. What does this suggest?

    1. New York University and UC Santa Barbara, the sites of said travesty, should be reduced to rubble by aereal bombardment.

    2. The hiring committee who inflicted her on the students of UC Santa Barbara, the tenure and promotion committee who further inflicted her, her dissertation committee and she herself should be tarred and feathered and forced to run around Washington Square Park in Manhattan until they drop from exhaustion.

  • Miller-Young is being charged with misdemeanor theft, battery, and vandalism.
    Amazingly, she has pled “not guilty”. UCSB does not appear to have conducted
    an internal investigation of its own in the matter, and the Associate Professor has
    not been suspended from teaching, even though she is being charged with
    battery on a 16-year-old girl.
    It doesn’t surprise me that there are Miller-Youngs out there– the world is full
    of crazy, vicious people. What truly astonishes me here is that this university is
    so complacent about leaving this woman in her teaching position considering
    the nature of the charges against her.
    Back in March, Michael Young, the UCSB vice-chancellor for student affairs, issued
    an email to all UCSB students regarding the issue. In it, he denounced
    demonstrators who “peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims”,
    and referred to them as “anti-abortion crusaders” and “evangelical types”. In
    short, while he never mentioned Miller-Young, he seemed to blame the 16-year
    old girl she assaulted. But rest easy, the vice-chancellor assured students in
    his email that he cherishes open debate and affirms that “our Founding Fathers–
    all white men of privilege, some even slave owners– got it right when designing
    the First Amendment of the Constitution”.

  • She’s a real credit to her institution, her profession, and all the ideals they both purportedly stand for.
    By the way, Donald, what do you mean “is developing?” That totalitarian mindset is rather fully developed by now, don’t you think?

Outside Agitators

Wednesday, April 2, AD 2014



Hattip to Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.  Remember Mireille Miller-Young, an associate professor of “feminist studies” at the University of California Santa Barbara, who is currently charged with assault, battery and vandalism in regard to taking a sign from a teenage pro-lifer?  Go here to read all about it.  Now you would think that an institution supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of learning would have something to say about a professor who is apparently unable to control herself when confronted with views that she despises.  Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at UCSB did address it in this open letter to students.  He comes out in favor of free speech, but somehow does not name the professor, the incident, and, echoing segregationists of the past, seems to blame the problem of intolerance on campus on outsiders:



Dear Students:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims. Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs. During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive. We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of “fear,” “hate,” “intolerance,” and “discord” here at UCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bears repeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. If that were the case, then only those in charge — those holding power — would determine who gets to speak and whose views are heard.

Second, freedom is not free. The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expression — “yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre,” for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathers — all white men of privilege, some even slave owners — got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesn’t mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personal agendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our time — fundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community — revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism.

And now we are tested once again, outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas. If we take the bait, if we adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior, then they win and our community loses.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Outside Agitators

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 (First,… and Second,…) are rather rational, given that the rest of the letter is a heap of trash.

  • Oh how this godless liberal states, “Our Founding Fathers — all white men of privilege, some even slave owners — got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

    What is wrong with being white? Or a man? Or having privilege when it is earned? And since when does a person who keeps minorities shackled to the teat of the public treasury get to decry the slave owners of a bygone era? The Founding Fathers pointed the business end of their muskets at those who decried and ridiculed freedom, and pulled the trigger. Pray that doesn’t happen again.

    PS, My Bride loves that I am a white man. I love that she is a Filipino woman.

    I despise Michael D. Young’s liberalism with all my being.

  • Pingback: When the Government Takes Your Children - God & Caesar
  • “Our Founding Fathers – all white men of privilege, some even slave owners…” He left out that most were also – ugh – Christian!
    I also like “The price of freedom for all to speak is…allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own.” Nice to know that the price of freedom has come down over time. My stupid Catholic forebears died for freedom of speech Argh – we Catholics always pay retail!

  • All persons are participants at a public university supported by tax money. They cannot be described as ” outside agitators”. The teachers do not own the university any more than the teachers own the students or guests. In fact, Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church states: “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…”
    Guests have not been forbidden as the tax payers own the university in joint and common tenancy.
    In fact, the pro-life persons may return at will. However this action is being taken by Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at UCSB to rouse mob mentality and animus against the pro-life opinion. If the students have really been educated to think for themselves, they will choose to let all opinions to be heard, especially those opinions that have the backing of scientific fact of the unique DNA or give the unborn the benefit of a doubt. Something that the Supreme Court for the United States of America ought to have done. That is, if the students are more than clones and indoctrinated.

  • “My stupid Catholic forebears died for freedom of speech Argh”
    CatholicsRock!: You seem to have inherited their genes.

  • “If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.”
    You know Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at UCSB was speaking to Mireille Miller-Young.

  • Mary DeVoe – ha ha good one!

  • what an indicator of institutionalized liberalism.

    …which as one of my favorite commentors here is wont to remind us, is a SIN!

  • I figure all good Catholics should have been advocating the separation of School from State for years and years already–for reasons that include the ones for which this nation’s forefathers wisely protected the Church from State interference via the First Amendment.
    The State of California should get out of the university business. Without the state’s wasteful subsidies, the Grievance Studies departments at 13 UC campuses and twenty-something CSUs would be shuttered PDQ.

  • I have attended a state run university and the anti-Catholicism is rampant. I was writing in my notebook in a class about WWII and the opinion of the instructor that Pope Pius XII was helping Nazis and disagreeing about it and the instructor saw it. I did pass the class, but from then on I was labeled a “Catholic ” ( the implication was that I was disruptive, and verbally combative.) I was approached by a Muslim man to see if I agreed about multiple wives, and since I did not, was left pretty much alone. To my relief. A university campus used to be a place to learn how to think independently and logically, but they do not even teach logic anymore. Philosophy classes that I observed pretty much became classes about sex practices, and that it is okay to do anything your little heart(or mindless body) wants to do.

  • “what an indicator of institutionalized liberalism. …which as one of my favorite commentors here is wont to remind us, is a SIN! ”
    Catholics pay taxes. Catholic tax money has the same value as atheist tax money. If liberalism is being indoctrinated at state run schools but not logic, then Catholics are not being represented for their tax money. Again, taxation without representation.

  • One thousand one hundred fifteen words of leaden prose defending an indefensible position. Methinks the groves of academy are choked with noxious weeds.

Galloping Historical Illiteracy

Friday, April 19, AD 2013
Remember Laura Curry, the Adjunct Professor, who went berserk at a pro-life display at the University of Buffalo?  Go here to read all about it.  Six of her colleagues, two professors of history, one associate professor of history, one assistant professor of history, one American studies assistant prof, and one assistant professor of “global gender studies”, decided to write in to the student newspaper, The Spectrum, to demonstrate that they too could make public asses of themselves.  Herewith is the letter and my fisk:

Dear Spectrum:

We are writing to condemn the message of the anti-abortion protest that took place outside the Commons this week.

Yes, we certainly wouldn’t want to give anyone the impression that a modern university is a place where opposing viewpoints are welcomed and debated.

In particular, we are disturbed by the equation of those who support women’s reproductive rights with those who lynched thousands of African American men and women in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is an unfair comparison.  Between 1882-1968 approximately 3,446 blacks, along with 1,297 whites, were lynched in this country.  That is less than a morning’s work in the abortion clinics of this country.

We do not condemn the protest itself; in fact, we believe that the right to peaceably assemble is one of the foundational rights of American citizenship.

I am sure there is a “but” coming.

However, as historians, we feel it is imperative to speak out against this crass, uninformed and dangerous misuse of history.

Yep, I am certain it is the purity of History, and not voices raised against your right to slay your offspring, that has your knickers in a twirl.

From the end of the Civil War through the mid-20th century, white lynch mobs throughout the United States, although mostly in the South, deliberately and with extraordinary malice, terrorized and murdered African Americans under the pretense of “protecting” white womanhood from the supposed threat of rape by black men.

Actually, lynch mobs had various motivations.  In regard to blacks, one of the chief motivations immediately after the Civil War was to ensure that black Republicans did not vote, lynch mobs often acting as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, the party of abortion today.  The Republicans in Congress and in the White House made attempt after attempt to pass federal legislation against lynching, some 200 bills being introduced between 1882 to 1968.  Each time the legislation was blocked by Southern Democrats in the Senate.


Of course, this mock chivalry was just a ruse. Lynchers could not imagine a world in which a white woman might choose to love a black man, and no doubt some of those lynched were guilty only of crossing the South’s prohibition against consensual interracial sex.

Lynchings involving accusations of rape were almost always based upon a white woman making the charge of rape.  Of course that is an inconvenient fact for the professors, so they don’t mention that.

Others were simply guilty of owning their own land or trying to make a way for their families. Regardless, all of them paid the price for the white South’s brutal effort to control not only black bodies but white female ones, as well.

Oh give me a break.  The idea that white females making accusations of rape were merely pawns in the hands of male lynch mobs is feminist clap trap and has virtually no basis in the historical record.

The inability to see women as capable of making decisions about their own sexuality. The use of violent, inaccurate, and misleading imagery. The pretense of protection. Anti-abortion protesters appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching.

Only if one views history as through a glass, darkly, combined with a bad case of feminist stigmatism.  Pro-lifers of course wish to stop the slaughter of black babies just as they wish to stop the slaughter of all babies.  No doubt the professors would view the main problem with Kermit Gosnell as being, not that he slaughtered hundreds, maybe thousands, of nearly full term black babies, but that his case threatens the sacred rite of abortion.

We applaud vigorous, thoughtful debate and protest.

Sure you do, so long as the debate and protest agrees with you.


It is the lifeblood of democracy. However, this kind of political action requires much deliberation, which unfortunately was missing from yesterday’s anti-abortion protest.

I would certainly hope that anyone undertaking political action engages in much more deliberation than you put into this letter.

If students wish to learn more about the history of racial and sexual violence, including lynching, we welcome them to take any of our classes.

Thanks for closing on a humorous note.


Susan Cahn, Professor of History

Carole Emberton, Assistant Professor of History

Theresa Runstedtler, Assistant Professor of American Studies

Lakisha Simmons, Assistant Professor of Global Gender Studies

Victoria Wolcott, Professor of History

Jason Young, Associate Professor of History

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Galloping Historical Illiteracy

  • Students comments give great hope for tomorrow. Profs are empty and should be ashamed at themselves.

  • Someone needs to forward this reponse to the school news paper and hope the publish it!

    Well done!!

  • Thank you my brother of the bar!

  • You really have a lot invested in this “Democrats as the party of Jim Crow” thing. A good amount of the Democrats in the South who turned on the national party from 1964 on were probably not too keen on abortion, and vice-versa for members of the liberal wing like McGovern. People are complex ‘n all that. I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.

    of course this has nothing to do with both being moral evils but when it comes to people who come down somewhere in between the choicer absolutism quoted and the pro-life position, probably better to argue why abortion is wrong in and of itself rather than drawing analogies between two very different phenomena.

  • “You really have a lot invested in this “Democrats as the party of Jim Crow” thing.”

    It is called fidelity to the historical record JDP, a record studiously ignored by most of the contemporary partisans of the party of the Jackass.

    “I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.”

    George Wallace, like almost all of the major segregation figures in the South, lived and died a Democrat. He last ran as a Democrat in 1983, winning the governorship of Alabama, and the Democrats had become the party of abortion by that time. Married three times, his last two marriages ending in divorce, I think Wallace fit right in with the contemporary Democrat party, especially since he had embraced affirmative action by his last run.

  • Actually, JDP, many of the southern Democrats who clung to the party were fairly more left-leaning than people assume. For instance, the Klan which dominated in the early part of the 20th century consisted of self-styled Progressives and Populists who would have been sympathetic with the Occupy Movement. Further, as Sean Trende has written, the southerners who wound up switching to the GOP earliest were those who had much more tolerant views on race, meaning that the ones who stayed in the Democratic party were the old guard, Jim Crow crew.

  • “I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.”

    Wallace started out in Alabama politics as a protege of James Folsom, Sr., a populist agreeable to the social democratic and union tendencies in the national democratic party and with little inclination to play white against black. Wallace re-invented himself as a fire-eating segregationist after losing a primary election in 1958. Alan Crawford, in his brief assessment of Wallace published in 1979, quoted an observer of Alabama politics of the time (I believe an official of the Alabama Chamber of Commerce) thus: “he was the leading liberal in the legislature; a lot of people regarded him as downright pink”. A better description of Wallace might be sociopathic opportunist.

    (His treatment of his 1st wife did not incorporate adultery but in other respects makes John Edwards look downright gallant).

    I think if you rummage through it you will discover that quondam segregationists (Jimmy Carter comes to mind) were very hit and miss on social questions. The most prominent defenders of life in the Democratic Party after 1973 tended to be ethnics like Robert Casey and John LaFalce, who had no segregationist past.

  • the southerners who wound up switching to the GOP earliest were those who had much more tolerant views on race,

    In federal elections, the peripheral South abandoned the Democratic Party before the Deep South. IIRC, as late as 1985, Southern Republicans tended to be quondam Bourbon Democrats, people who had fewer points of conflict and competition with the black population than did the remainder of the Democratic electorate.

  • many of the southern Democrats who clung to the party were fairly more left-leaning than people assume

    I think it might confound rather than illuminate to put the old South on a left-right spectrum.


  • Caterine-
    Your capitalization is NOT loud enough for the women who continue to see this as “their right.”
    I scream with you.

  • You guys are right that you can’t necessarily fit all this neatly into a left/right deal. I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy, should be brought up in arguments about the modern parties. Not to whitewash the past or anything, because obviously important Democratic coalitions like FDR’s were partially built on tolerance of the Southern wing, but because it’s not relevant to anything today, there’s no ideological lineage between Dixiecrats and the current Democratic establishment. “Fidelity to the historical record” should include recognizing the shifts on this country’s politics over time and not a view that treats the parties and coalitions like monolithic entities.

    I know it’s not the point of the post, just that this particular argument is intellectually unserious and symptomatic of a partisan desire to fit all historical wrongs on the other ideological side.

  • “I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy, should be brought up in arguments about the modern parties.”

    It most certainly should be when Democrats routinely bring up the charge that Republicans are racist. Additionally the Democrats are still using their time honored tactic of race baiting in order to win elections. Recall this gem from Biden last year?

    Democrats have shifted the colors of their racial appeals, but the use of race to divide Americans for cheap political advantage remains a key part of the Democrat strategy.

  • “It most certainly should be when Democrats routinely bring up the charge that Republicans are racist”

    So what? Just refute/brush off the charge, this type of historical revisionism is not necessary. Republicans like Rand Paul are not going to convince blacks that what Southern Democrats thought back in the day is at all relevant to what the national party did from 1964 on no matter how hard they try. For him specifically making that argument’s kinda ironic since he holds a slightly Goldwater-ish libertarian view against part of the Civil Rights Act.

    “Democrats have shifted the colors of their racial appeals, but the use of race to divide Americans for cheap political advantage remains a key part of the Democrat strategy.”

    a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement. On the same subject, you mentioned affirmative action upthread, which arguments can be made against while acknowledging it was initially seen as an attempted correction and not drawing strained analogies to Jim Crow.

  • “this type of historical revisionism is not necessary.”

    Not revisionism JDP, simple historical fact.

    “on no matter how hard they try”

    Accurate history is always relevant JDP, especially when a distorted view of it is being propounded by the Democrats.

    “a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement.”

    Race baiting and appeals to racial paranoia are in a special low class all by themselves JDP. Whenever someone like Biden engages in it, they need to be called on it hard. Forner Congressman Artur Davis was right on target last year:

  • a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement.

    You mean there is not much to bother about in Biden’s remarks but that a private citizen reciting historical fact is troublesome. Your slip is showing.

  • . I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy,

    Care to refute it with evidence instead of assertion?

  • “Care to refute it with evidence instead of assertion?”

    Do you view Southern Democrats of the time as hardcore leftwingers in the mold of Nancy Pelosi? I don’t and I think it’s pretty silly to. This is “accurate” in a very limited sense — the Democratic Party as a party that used to include segregationists in its coalition — that doesn’t take into account ideology, doesn’t take into account the divide between Northern and Southern Democrats at the time and doesn’t have a ton of relevance to today. It’s not like the black Republican vote dropped in 1964 out of nowhere.

  • *more dramatic dropoff should say.

  • Your serial exercises in press agentry are tiresome, JDP.

    And it is relevant. Partisan Democrats have for a generation been trafficking in fraudulent history, useful story. Black electorates have proven highly responsive to opinion leaders therein, gesture, and myth. Much of the myth has to do with what Republican politicians did and did not do over a thirty year period and what they do and do not intend today. An aspect of that is a ‘look over there’ diversion. The Democratic Party was very dirty and very tainted by the civic and social system of the South. The Republican Party had nothing to do with that.

    One of the things that has proved impossible over the last 40 odd years has been the erection of a system of natural liberty – equal liberty and careers open to talents. There is no structural impediment to this. It is just that the Democratic Party’s reflexive modus operandi is to manufacture patron-client relationships mobilize elements of the population on ethnic lines. These have lately been complimented with another social impulse: putting all human relationships under the superintendency of lawyers. All this is tarted up with judicial opinions and agency rulings and the bushwah in which politicians, journalists and public interests lawyers traffick. Here is a nice example of the nuttiness of some of it:


    In 1945, we lived in a world where talented Southern blacks could not get medical training, because the state universities they might have attended to get it did not admit them. Now, we live in a world where politicians insist we have to subsidize higher education for illegal aliens, to please the public interest bar and professional ethnics. Officers of the same political party are responsible for both sets of nuttiness.

  • Do you view Southern Democrats of the time as hardcore leftwingers in the mold of Nancy Pelosi? I don’t and I think it’s pretty silly to.

    No, nor have I inferred that they were save to allude to their populist economic jargon. However, it would be even sillier to claim that many of them, particularly the most virulent Klan members or Klan protectors were exactly Reaganite conservatives. Read some histories of the Klan and tell me which party, in toto, would appeal to Klan ideology.

    As Art said, this is important because the left has whitewashed history and presented a false narrative of American political development, implying that the Republican party has been taken over by a bunch of southern racists who pine for the days of Jim Crow.

  • “No, nor have I inferred that they were save to allude to their populist economic jargon. However, it would be even sillier to claim that many of them, particularly the most virulent Klan members or Klan protectors were exactly Reaganite conservatives. Read some histories of the Klan and tell me which party, in toto, would appeal to Klan ideology.”

    OK I agree with this. my point isn’t to say racism is inherently right-wing. I also think it’s fine to clear up any misconceptions people might have about Republican policies in the past — of course people talk about the Southern strategy but that was electoral politics, not policy.

    and we agree that the people we’re discussing aren’t leftists. So again…clearing up misconceptions and simplified “Republicans and Democrats switched places” narratives is fine, but I still don’t see the point of lumping George Wallace (who I assume saw himself as nonliberal considering the amount of cracks he made about ’em) in with Pelosi-Reid-Obama like it means anything, any more than someone like Nelson Rockefeller means anything to GOP politics today.

    i am not trying to defend the current Democratic Party (really,) I just think it can be criticized on its own terms, without trying to lump its post-’60s incarnation and earlier, more coalitional state together.

  • — of course people talk about the Southern strategy but that was electoral politics, not policy.

    No, they utter the term “Southern Strategy” as a mantra. They would not know Nixon’s actual campaign literature from a toilet paper ad.

  • but I still don’t see the point of lumping George Wallace (who I assume saw himself as nonliberal considering the amount of cracks he made about ‘em) in with Pelosi-Reid-Obama like it means anything,

    Why not ask who Wallace was trying to mobilize and what his methods were and then have a look at the other three shnooks.

    any more than someone like Nelson Rockefeller means anything to GOP politics today.

    GOP policy wonks begin with the world wrought during those years and attempt to whittle it down. ‘Fraid he means a great deal.

  • There seem to be a lot of professors around. Is this the American equivalent of the English term ‘lecturer’?

  • Someone earning 18,000 a year and no job security is graced with the title adjunct professor in this country John.
    This wikipedia article explains the American system of profs here, profs there, profs everywhere!


  • Is this the American equivalent of the English term ‘lecturer’?

    ‘adjunct’ is a generic which refers to a menu of peripheral faculty.

    1. Modally, the term ‘lecturer’ in this country refers to a faculty member who has an open-ended term of appointment or an indefinitely renewable term of appointment but is paid by the number of courses taught. In arts and sciences faculties, they are most common in foreign language departments teaching the lower level courses. As a rule, lecturers do not participate in faculty governance structures.

    2. An ‘adjunct professor’ is commonly someone employed elsewhere (as a working professional or as a teacher) who has a contract to teach a partial or full load for a limited term, for a renewable term, or for an open ended period. These also usually do not serve on faculty committees.

    3. A ‘visiting professor’ (modally ‘visiting assistant professor’) is generally someone on a limited-term contract (one to six semesters) to fill a vacancy because a regular faculty member is on leave or has retired or has departed. However, there are sometimes prestige appointments where the institution cadges an established scholar for a limited period (who is on leave from his home institution).

    4. A ‘clinical professor’ is generally a working professional who teaches courses at a training academy, usually the most practical courses. You see the term in medical and law schools, not elsewhere much.

    Most aspirant faculty spend several years as visiting professors or adjunct professors or lecturers before landing a tenure-track position and many remain in these short-term position until such time as they give up on academic employment. Those in the hard sciences often spend years as ‘post-doctoral fellows’, who typically do not have teaching duties but are expected to publish.

    Faculty who are tenured are referred to as ‘professors’ or ‘associate professors’. The former have higher salaries and more prestige than the latter. A small selection of faculty have endowed chairs which come with a research stipend and a reduction in course loads. The titles these professors hold typically commence with the donor’s name, as in “Ralph and Rita Raffles Professor of Literature”. There are visiting professorships that are endowed as well and similarly styled. An ‘assistant professor’ is a candidate for tenure. An ‘instructor’ is an assistant professor who has yet to complete his dissertation. Fifty years ago, institutions commonly hired scholars still working on their dissertation; now it is rare. The British term ‘reader’ is never used in this country.

  • It is up or out for assistant professors. You are accepted on the permanent faculty or you are gone. Visiting professors are commonly around for no more than three years. The other sorts of faculty are generally around for indefinite periods depending on funding, the preferences of the permanent faculty in a given department, and the preferences of the peripheral faculty in question. Every institution is a bit different, though. One place I worked had a corps of professors called ‘category i faculty’. They were on three year contracts, renewable indefinitely. They taught anywhere from one to four courses (not the standard five) and were paid accordingly. Otherwise, they were treated like regular faculty. A few who produced interesting research or who had a political connection in the institution were granted tenure after a mess of years.

  • Pingback: Monday Update on Kermit Gosnell Trial - Big Pulpit

De Paul Knows Who the Real Enemy Is

Saturday, March 2, AD 2013

De Paul


Founded by the Vincentians in 1898, De Paul University in Chicago likes to tout itself as the largest Catholic university in the nation.  It is a university and it is large, but after the debacle described below I suspect that “Catholic” might be open to question:

DePaul University has punished a student for publicizing the names of fellow students who admitted to vandalizing his organization’s pro-life display. The student, Kristopher Del Campo, has been placed on probation after being found responsible for multiple conduct violations, including one that absurdly brands the publication of the names as “disorderly, violent, intimidating or dangerous.” The Foundation for Individual Rights In Education (FIRE) has intervened in his case.

“Kristopher Del Campo’s group was the victim of a politically motivated crime—and yet DePaul University is punishing Del Campo for naming the people who committed the crime,” said FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley. “Unfortunately, this utter disregard for student rights has become par for the course at DePaul and too many other college campuses.”

On January 22, 2013, the DePaul chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), having attained the required permits, erected a pro-life display consisting of roughly 500 pink and blue flags planted in the ground of the campus quad to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. That afternoon, numerous DePaul students vandalized the display by tearing the flags from the ground and throwing them in trash cans around campus. Del Campo, YAF’s chairman, reported the vandalism to DePaul’s Department of Public Safety, which investigated.

With the investigation completed, DePaul Assistant Dean of Students Domonic Rollins provided Del Campo with a report from the Department of Public Safety, containing the names of 13 DePaul students who had admitted to vandalizing YAF’s display. On February 5, the national YAF organization posted this document on its website. On February 8, DePaul notified Del Campo that he was suspected of violating DePaul’s Code Of Student Responsibility—including a charge of “Disorderly, Violent, Intimidating or Dangerous Behavior,” which encompasses “creat[ing] a substantial risk of physical harm,” “causing significant emotional harm,” and “bullying.”

“Punishing a student for naming those who committed a crime against him or her sets a very dangerous precedent,” said FIRE’s Shibley. “For example, would DePaul punish a female student for telling her friends to avoid a person who admitted to sexually assaulting her?”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to De Paul Knows Who the Real Enemy Is

  • “… Rollins provided Del Campo with a report from the Department of Public
    Safety containing the names…”

    It’s my understanding that police reports are public records. Anyone could
    access that DPS report and publish it. What could possibly be the logic of
    threatening Mr. Del Campo for posting information that is not confidential,
    but already available to anyone who cares to contact the DPS?

  • This is a summary of the Ed.D dissertation of the Dean of Students at DePaul, one “Art” Munin:


    I realize the conventions of faculty hiring and tenure create insuperable problems for Catholic college presidents, but what is his excuse for the discretionary hire of this political sectary?

  • Not to mention that the fellow seems unable to express himself except in gibberish jargon and political cant:

    “The dominant hierarchy does not mind and in fact encourages the status quo to change, just as long as positions of power remain constant; the only concern is for the overall context (Hall, 1977). The struggle for social justice has seen marked progress in gaining rights and recognition for many targeted groups and yet, remarkably, amidst all of this ‘progress’ the hegemony has not come close to being subverted (Allen, 1997; Zinn, 2003). The ‘rules of the game’ may change but the dominant population is always set up to win more often than not in society. Understanding oppression and hegemony is crucial if one’s agenda includes discovering ways to disrupt its power.”

    Positions at what we laughingly refer to as Higher Ed are too often filled by politicized fools.

  • That he ever cited Howard Zinn as an authority should have been a deal-breaker.

  •  “Some critics contend that many “Catholic” colleges and universities are faithless.  Rubbish I say to that!  The powers that be at these institutions are filled with faith!  The problem is that the faith they are full of has almost nothing to do with Catholicism.”

    True that! I see it firsthand and it is an eerie thing to experience–I have never even seen an evangelical group more in lock-step with the “truths” of their operating faith. It is at once revolting and frightening. Revolting because here are admittedly very smart people, whom are supposed to be open to and capable of, reason and debate, yet they all reduce themselves to the same simple, curt, talking point on any given subject, making them look like brainwashed twits.
    Frightening due to their positions and numbers, and their utter complete adherence and allegiance to the progressive, Marxist “faith”.
    Very disturbing to witness this day in and day out.

  • Pingback: Feast Day of St. Agnes of Bohemia
  • To Guest-
    Impostor faith.
    Other than prayer, how can these once great Faith universities be captained by true faith Catholics?
    What is the solution and the estimated time table to regain the fullness of Faith in said universities?

  • All for abortion should be asked, “Why, really, why did not your mother and/or father abort you?” It is a fair question. Ask it again. After the answer, then ask, “What would have justified your mother and/or father aborting you?” Ask it again. These are 2 serious reasonable questions that anyone promoting abortion should be asked over and over.

  • It is obvious. The staff at DePaul is out to crush authentic catholicism. They would rather promote the “church of dissent.” Unfortunately, many parents paying tuition for this institution are unaware of the trap they have placed their own children into. Meanwhile, Beelzebub just smiles.

  • Philip, the way I see it is that we should refuse to send our children to these CINO institutions. Since before I was in college (so, over 20 years ago) the saying was something like you have more of a chance to lose your faith in a Catholic college than a secular one. For my children, my sights are set on Franciscan, Belmont Abbey, or Christendom. If they can’t get in, I’d send them to community college & hope they get a job doing something they love, or let them take online college courses to get their degrees. I have no interest in sending them to any of the colleges or universities on my ever-growing list of “absolutely not.” My husband did just fine entering the military after high school, then going to “online” colleges to get his degrees. I think my parents were appalled that I married someone who didn’t have a degree from the outset, but I’d rather my kids get to Heaven then be bombarded with the stuff that’s out there. Why PAY to undo everything that I’ve been working so hard to do (I home school)? Money talks, so if enough real Catholics stand up, things will hopefully change.

  • Missy-
    Great answer. It is going to have to come from Great parents making informed and righteous decisions.
    Thank you and God bless you and parents like you who value the Soul.
    Some investments are more important than others.

  • I seem to recall that the political science department and one superordinate review committee at DePaul were all set some years ago to grant tenure to one Norman G. Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky’s malicious pet pitbull. Finkelstein is notable for a complete absence of scholarly publication, so what the political science faculty at a supposed research institution fancied it was doing in granting him tenure is a matter of conjecture. Wiser heads intervened, including the university president Dennis Holtschneider, and saw to it that Finkelstein was hustled off campus when his contract expired. The trustees did not do the obvious and remove political science from the list of subjects taught in the college of arts and sciences and then discharge that faculty; it would have been grand if they had. You have to figure many of their academic departments are sewers.

  • He would have been granted tenure but for the unending stink that Allen Dershowitz put up about it.

    “You have to figure many of their academic departments are sewers.”

    Yep, politicized sewers.

  • I read your link Art Deco most of it and it made me cross-eyed and then Donald McClarey’s comment made me laugh. Yes of course, With the enemy communicating like that – no wonder Marx is yelling from hell.

  • He would have been granted tenure but for the unending stink that Allen Dershowitz put up about it.

    Quite possible. Other critics of Finkelstein have noted that he has a sensibility very discordant with the residual Vincentian ethos of the campus and that counted against him with the upper administration.

    The thing was, a decision against tenure for Finkelstein should not have been a controversial. DePaul is a full-bore university with 20,000+ students which educates to the terminal degree – i.e. has apprenticing professors knocking about its departments working on their dissertations. Liberal arts colleges with a degree of selectivity have made a point of requiring scholarly publication for a generation now; universities like DePaul, much longer. Finkelstein calls himself a ‘forensic scholar’ because he produces no original research. He is assigned by Chomsky to read other people’s work and write defamatory articles about them. His dissertation, completed in 1988, was on political theory. He has written nothing on political theory since, or on international relations, or on comparative politics; neither is he a student of American domestic politics. He does not have the language skills to be a Near East area specialist and does not make enough use of primary sources to ever call himself a historian. The DePaul political science department simply threw out their rule book in order to hire this man and keep him on their faculty. It is a deep deep scandal.

  • Clinton said it best when he said that the names are already in the public domain. All the empty chest thumping only reveals their bullying. Get it on record. It comes in handy in a lawsuit. De Paul is using the law to persecute Del Campo. It is the only language they understand.

  • These so-called Catholic colleges and universities need to have their charters revoked by their local ordinaries, the USCCB, and/or the Holy See itself. Most of the Jesuit run schools do not promote authentic Catholic teaching and have not done so since Vatican II. what we need are more schools like Christendom College, University of Dallas, Wyoming Catholic College, etc. so that Catholic parents can be sure that their children will receive a truly authentic Catholic education and formation.

Why Most Academic Histories Today Are Rubbish

Thursday, February 2, AD 2012




As longtime readers of this blog know, I have a deep and abiding passion for history.  I lament the fact that most histories produced today by academic historians are usually politicized drek, often written in a jargon that makes them gibberish to the general reader.  Historian K C Johnson has a superb post lamenting this situation:

The study of U.S. history has transformed in the last two generations, with emphasis on staffing positions in race, class, or gender leading to dramatic declines in fields viewed as more “traditional,” such as U.S. political, constitutional, diplomatic, and military history. And even those latter areas have been “re-visioned,” in the word coined by an advocate of the transformation, Illinois history professor Mark Leff, to make their approach more accommodating to the dominant race/class/gender paradigm. In the new academy, political histories of state governments–of the type cited and used effectively by the Montana Supreme Court–were among the first to go. The Montana court had to turn to Fritz, an emeritus professor, because the University of Montana History Department no longer features a specialist in Montana history (nor, for that matter, does it have a professor whose research interests, like those of Fritz, deal with U.S. military history, a topic that has fallen out of fashion in the contemporary academy).

To take the nature of the U.S. history positions in one major department as an example of the new staffing patterns: the University of Michigan, once home to Dexter and then Bradford Perkins, was a pioneer in the study of U.S. diplomatic history. Now the department’s 29 professors whose research focuses on U.S. history after 1789 include only one whose scholarship has focused on U.S. foreign relations–Penny von Eschen, a perfect example of the “re-visioning” approach. (Her most recent book is Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War.) In contrast to this 1-in-29 ratio, Michigan has hired ten Americanists (including von Eschen) whose research, according to their department profiles, focuses on issues of race; and eight Americanists whose research focuses on issues of gender. The department has more specialists in the history of Native Americans than U.S. foreign relations.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Why Most Academic Histories Today Are Rubbish

  • In my business, we talk about “fairy tale value” (versus fair value) and “mark-to-make-believe” (vs. mark-to-market) when we discern questionable asset accounting and valuations.

    Once, I thought intellectuals studied their subject areas to discern truth, as close to truth as fallen man can approach.

    Now, similar to the guys that put together subprime mortgage securitizations, I think they data-mine, distort, exaggerate, manufacture false comparisons, omit material that doesn’t support the issue to advance ideology.

    I would not waste a second of my numbered days with any of it.

    Saturday, I read a WSJ book review of a some thing on or about the Spanish Inquisition. The reviewer (not sure about the author) went into a Bush Derangement Syndrome tripe-fest stating something about “both depended on anonymous denunciations” (not true) and “at least the inquisitors understood they were torturing people”, WTF? Arguably, someone with knowledge of the Inquisition would identify numerous other false comparisons.

    “The truth is that which supports [fill in the blank].” What is that stuff? Is it history? Is it allegory?

  • The book you are refering to is God’s Jury by Cullen Murphy T.Shaw. He is not an academic historian but an editor at large at Vanity Fair. He wrote the scripts for years for the Prince Valiant comic strip which his father drew. I assume that he got his comic book level view of history from this experience. He is a liberal Catholic with the emphasis always on liberal. His book allowed him to bash the Church and the Bush administration, a twofer.

    A good review of this worthless tome:


  • ” . . . the ideological conformity of most history departments in this country, and the constant resulting focus on race, gender and class, is destroying the ability of academic historians to perform their traditional function of giving readers access to the world of the past in order to aid them in making sense of the present.”

    At $35,000 a year plus state subsidy. How? I find no conclusion that can be delivered kindly.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Blogger and philosophy prof Lydia McGrew has said that it’s an open secret that universities advertise for race and gender specialists because that’s how they’re likely to get more minority and women applicants. I wouldn’t be surprised that this process completely transforms history.

    Check out the 1982 interview with Norman Dodd, who headed one of Congress’ McCarthy-era investigations of the charitable foundations. He found evidence that the foundations were packing elite history departments with their partisans even back before WWII.

  • As the author of three books of military history and a lifelong student of history the decline of the teaching of history at every academic level has concerned me since my own contact with college level history programs in the late 1970’s. At the time I realized, since I didn’t want to teach, history would be an avocation rather than a career. On the positive side there are very good histories being written, including military history…the problem is that very few of them are being written by academics and as a result very little of the real history is being included in textbooks or taught in universities.

  • College education excepting specialised degrees such as engineering or medicine are chock full of Whiggish propaganda. It takes quite a few years to understand that the professors had ruined one’s mind in preparation for our role as minions of the state or the Commisariat – enlightenment dawns from the age of thirty onwards – this leaves one embittered for years afterwards. This is particularly so in matters concerning Catholic history.

  • “On the positive side there are very good histories being written, including military history…the problem is that very few of them are being written by academics and as a result very little of the real history is being included in textbooks or taught in universities.”

    Quite right dcb.

  • Not only college credentialed cretins, semi-literate idiots that populate so-called journalism spin the news to support the progressive, libertine narrative.

    African-American studies, Gender Studies, GLTB Science, Why-I-Hate-America: anyone know what was Obama’s college major?

Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  In modern society those who prate the most about tolerance often tend to be the most intolerant.   Case in point, what is happening to Jennifer Keeton, a grad student at Augusta State College, studying to be a school counselor.  She is a Christian and believes that homosexual conduct is wrong.  Her faculty has decreed that she must undergo “sensitivity” (read re-education a la the Red Chinese) training to alter her views on homosexuality.  It was suggested that she go to a local gay pride march among other activities.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the same group representing Dr. Ken Howell, who ran afoul of the thought police at the U of I, is representing Keeton.  Go here to read about the lawsuit they have filed on her behalf.

Shockingly, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a grad student, Julea Ward, at Eastern Michigan University who was faced with precisely the same situation facing Keenan.  Go here to read the details at the blogprof.  Go here to read the Alliance Defense Fund’s, which represented Ms. Ward, overview of the case and their intent to appeal the decision.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

  • This society is in for a rough ride and it may be a good thing. We will have to see.

  • Professional schools are becoming notorious for this kind of thing. Future educators, doctors, lawyers, and counselors beware!

  • Things haven’t really changed that much from what I recall. Liberal college profs (a bit redundant) always try to push their view and punish those who disagree. Professors did not really want you to think, they just wanted you to spit back what they vomit out to you. Most were there just for a piece of paper to get a job anyway, so it went in one ear, onto the test paper, and out for good. So much for their “indoctrination” attempts.

  • First, ‘it’ was illegal.

    Then, “not that there’s anything wrong with ‘it’.”

    Then, ‘it’ became sacrosanct.

    Next, ‘it’ will be mandatory.

  • Wow, nice strawman you set on fire. The standard is not that counselors cannot hold a negative opinion of their clients’ behaviors.

    The person in question holds the belief that homosexuality is a personality disorder along the lines of sociopathy. This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community. Persons wishing to graduate from a counseling program must evidence that they understand and work within the psychiatric community. She is more than welcome to be christian or prolife or conservative, but defining something as a personality disorder that is not a personality disorder disqualifies her from receiving accreditation from this program.

    As for “it” will be mandatory, give me a break! I promise you that gay stormtroopers in lavender uniforms will not be breaking into your bedroom to force you to have gay sex and abortions until 2013 at the earliest. Calm down.

  • The pschological communicty did view homosexuality as a disorder until the (?) 80’s. Changed their view not so much on solid evidence as changing social norms. Much the same as medical societies opposed abortion until it became the social norm.

    Up till now, medical societies respected the conscience of individuals in regards to abortion and contraception. This is changing now, particularly with the support of the Obama administration. May very well be that the psychological community also will seek to impose their perspectives on practitioners.

    Though with the Nov. elections, the political ability to affect this will probably change. So it won’t be 2013. Likely later when the Dems have a solid majority again.

  • The person in question holds the belief that homosexuality is a personality disorder along the lines of sociopathy. This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community. Persons wishing to graduate from a counseling program must evidence that they understand and work within the psychiatric community.

    Do you think that prior to 1970 people who didn’t believe that homosexuality was a psychological disorder shouldn’t have been able to be psychiatrists?

  • Personal Failure: How can you make such a promise?

    Anyhow, it was a joke. They can take our money. They can take our lives. They can’t take our religion.

    Anyhow, anyhow, gay stormtroopers will have to fight their way past the pooch – slobbering all over their trendy clothes.

  • “…slobbering all over their trendy clothes.”

    Well that should stop them. 🙂

  • This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community.

    In order to diagnose someone as ill, you have to have a conception of what it means to be well, which requires an assessment of proper dispositions and behaviors. The question arises as to why the norms favored by the current cohort of the mental health trade are properly enforceable on the rest of the society through state licensing. Why cannot state legislatures properly declare their own norms? (Or, perhaps, shut down the licensing boards and incorporate into law the idea that the ministrations of these characters will be compensated by re-imbursements from insurers when clergymen are so compensated).

  • The standard is not that counselors cannot hold a negative opinion of their clients’ behaviors.

    That is exactly the standard they’re employing. Can you imagine a school coming up with a re-education plan for someone who thought that gender identity disorder is no such thing? Yet it’s on the DSM-IV list.

  • The APA reclassification was due to political pressure, not any change in the medical facts. Much like the ACOG position on the necessity for late term abortions.

  • College counseling programs rely for foundational medical and scientific credibility on the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

    Removal followed a two year campaign Newsweek described as ongoing disruptive, chaotic attacks on psychiatrists and physiologists. Yet throughout these disruptive attacks, no academic papers were presented at conferences refuting any research previously done. Eventually attacks forced sufficient abstentions and apprehensive responses for a third of APA’s 17,000 plus membership to vote removal.

    After this decision a new task force was established to ensure perpetual sanctity for the APA action. No research papers would again arise to confirm initial therapy success rates of 30% to 60 %, substantiating that 7 of 10 homosexuals could eventually walk away from the lifestyle forever. This task force would set peer review standards mandating pre-ordained theses, acceptable flexibility in design definitions, and acceptable human data points. Psychology and Psychiatry chose to abandon scientific rigor in exchange for popular societal and political acclaim.

    Psychology and Psychiatry have always had a tenuous hold on claims they were sciences with the standing of Chemistry and Physics. On the scale of intellectual rigor, their research more often resembles oral history, and seldom, if ever, approaches the determinism found in a Chemistry laboratory.

    Developments in statistics should have enabled them to a least determine there is a marginal or significant propensity for a particular disorder, for its behaviors, and for selecting methods of treatment. Responsible research would also acknowledge those pesky humans, who in spite of their genetics and upbringing, decide to live positive lives without APA professional help.

    Instead, Psychology and Psychiatry have chosen to abandon all pretense of scientific rigor in exchange for popular societal and political acclaim. The barriers erected to meaningful research about homosexuality remind me of Genesis 3:23-24. In these verses the Lord God banished humanity from the Garden of Eden and placed an angel in the Garden to keep humanity away forever. By their actions, Psychology and Psychiatry appear to consider the accoutrements of a religion to be more attractive than those of a science.

    When Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers seek counseling degrees they find their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion threatened by college departments. For many followers of desert religions, who seek degrees homosexual behavior is unacceptable. Instead it resides among the myriad sins entrapping humanity that lives in a fallen world with a fallen nature. These college professors cannot accept any position, which might contradict their embrace of what is essentially a secular humanist religious position.

    For believers foundational scholarship concludes homosexual relationships separate believers from God. The Old Testament, holy to “People of the Book”, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is spoken of as masculine, and all humans become feminine in relation to Him. In addition to creating all things, God created the single institution of heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the relationship of absolute unity and love He seeks with each person. Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and identifying with God in the spiritual dimension. Spiritual life for these, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers means any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must proceed from that basic understanding in order to be a valid derivation. Therefore after this ruling, when believers reject homosexuality in counseling rolls or in common life expressions, they become guilty by popular acclamation of at least cultural prejudice, if not criminal behavior.

  • This has been going on for years: what you can’t pass in law because of constitutional rights and protection create in policy and enforced that as law bypassing constitutional representation, rights, and protection. If it interes with inaliable rights and liberties the policy should not be permitted to stand and incur tort. Policies are judicially standing without civic representation. You see this in police enforcement, schools, jobs, etc…the courts are using this avenue to circumvent our executive branches of govt. to create policies and illicitly enforcing them as laws in our judicial branches…this stinks of treason and Masonic manipulations. So the court dismiss or refuse to hear the case a departmental policies are created in the private sector by individuals without representational election becomes law…ludricrous…

  • Last time a society became tolerant of those engaged in Sodomy, Hitler and his SA (that’s German for Sodomite Army) were elected.

    Tolerance is merely the nice way to get you to go along with evil. I for one am happily intolerant – what are you gonna do about it?

  • Pingback: Faculty Committee Finds That Dr. Howell’s Academic Due Process Rights Were Denied « The American Catholic