Students at Louisiana State University have started an online petition urging the establishment to change its “Tigers” mascot, claiming it’s the symbol of “white oppression”.
The petition, which has so far attracted 450 signatures, says the mascot was picked by “powerful white males” in tribute to “a Confederate regiment called Louisiana’s Tigers,” who were “known for their propensity for violence on and off the battle field.”
“Louisiana State University named their mascot the Tigers, and they named it during the height of Jim Crow South. This was a time when black men feared for their lives, and were treated as sub human. This symbol is the most prevalent confederate symbol in the United States,” the petition’s opening reads, Campus Reform reports. –Heat Street, based on Campus Reform reporting
Comment: This is worse than silly. Here’s why.
Jim Crow laws did real damage for decades.
People suffered, and brave people fought to overcome those laws.
They fought for real and important things, from the right to sit at a lunch counter to the right to vote.
The triviality of this petition and its vacuous rationale mocks those real struggles for civil rights.
Remember when a couple of faculty members who supervised a Yale dorm were run out of their position by screaming bullies? (The supervisory position was called “College Master” until recently. That term was dropped because students said it reminded them of slavery. You can’t make this up.)
Remember what the bullies were so mad about? It was an email from the College Master who gently told them they could choose whatever Halloween costumes they wanted and, if they saw others wearing costumes they didn’t like, they should try to shrug it off.
Sensible advice? If you think that, you clearly have no moral compass. You are certainly not fit for today’s Yale.
The “Halloween episode” occurred in 2015, and, when the students bullied, Yale’s most senior leaders immediately buckled. The bullies won.
Now, it has doubled down on its mistake. It has showered the bullies with honor. They were recognized and rewarded for their “exemplary leadership.”
Yale has awarded them the Nakanishi Prize for the “two graduating seniors who, while maintaining high academic achievement, have provided exemplary leadership in enhancing race and/or ethnic relations at Yale College.”
You can easily imagine the committee that picked the winners.
Burgwell Howard, Chair, Assoc. Vice President for Student Life, Dean of Student Engagement
Risë Nelson, Assistant Dean of Yale College; Director, Afro-American Cultural Center
Kelly Fayard, Assistant Dean of Yale College; Director, Native American Cultural Center
Eileen Galvez, Assistant Dean of Yale College; Director, La Casa Cultural
and so on
If you think these administrators want to stop the screaming and bullying in the Holy Name of Social Justice, you would be sadly mistaken.
They have just demonstrated they wish to honor it. They think it “enhances race and/or ethnic relations at Yale College.”
If they knew the intellectual heritage of their position–a doubtful proposition–they would trace it to the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism, which teaches that speech can and should be suppressed for a higher goal, that of staunching the power of existing elites and ultimately overthrowing them, violently if necessary (as it surely will be), to create a better society.
“Who determines this better society?” you ask. “Who determines who get to speak?”
Yale Cements Its Line in the Academic Sand by Awarding the Student ‘Truthtellers’ Who Bullied Faculty
In 2015, an email over Halloween costume propriety prompted a public debate over free speech and race. Its conclusion is telling.
The professors being bullied were Nicholas and Erika Christakis, masters of Silliman College at Yale. The low point came when a student mob surrounded Mr. Christakis, not to engage in rational discourse but to demand an apology:
Of the 100 or so students who confronted Christakis that day, a young woman who called him “disgusting” and shouted “who the fuck hired you?” before storming off in tears became the most infamous, thanks to an 81-second YouTube clip that went viral. (The video also—thanks to its promotion by various right-wing websites—brought this student a torrent of anonymous harassment). The videos that Tablet exclusively posted last year, which showed a further 25 minutes of what was ultimately an hours-long confrontation, depicted a procession of students berating Christakis. In one clip, a male student strides up to Christakis and, standing mere inches from his face, orders the professor to “look at me.” Assuming this position of physical intimidation, the student then proceeds to declare that Christakis is incapable of understanding what he and his classmates are feeling because Christakis is white, and, ipso facto, cannot be a victim of racism. In another clip, a female student accuses Christakis of “strip[ping] people of their humanity” and “creat[ing] a space for violence to happen,” a line later mocked in an episode of The Simpsons. In the videos, Howard, the dean who wrote the costume provisions, can be seen lurking along the periphery of the mob.
Of Yale’s graduating class, it was these two students whom the Nakanishi Prize selection committee deemed most deserving of a prize for “enhancing race and/or ethnic relations” on campus.–James Kirchick in Tablet
Here’s one of the videos, of Shrieking Girl. This is not just a terrible viewpoint, backed not by reason but by emotion.
It is simply bullying, cloaked in the impregnable armor of victimhood-as-moral-righteousness.
She yelled “who the fuck hired you?”
A better question would be to the admissions department.
The Simpsons captures this zeitgeist perfectly:
Comment: This is Boolah Bull Shit. To honor it is worse than disgusting.
It shows the people who run this university do not understand the most basic feature of a serious educational institution has to be the right to speak and inquire freely and to dispute others’ views through rational discourse, not shouting and bullying.
That the heads of student affairs and various victims’ studies departments don’t understand this is not surprising. That’s par for the course on college campuses these days. They either agree with the shouting students or don’t want to risk irritating them and imperilling their jobs.
What’s shocking is that senior administrators at Yale let this continue. Worse, they actually defend their spinelessness with transparently false statements that they support free speech. They don’t.
A voluntary student organization at a liberal-arts college was rejected by the student government because some students had watched a movie recently screened by the organization, “Can We Take a Joke?” and answered “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!! We cannot.” They said they were “triggered” by it, whatever that means. The story is here at Campus Reform.
What being triggered means in this case is grabbing an ideological hammer and smashing in the heads of everyone who disagrees.
Surely, some adults will step in. And they did . . . to help with the suppression.
In a campus-wide email two days earlier, however, Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion Dr. Kimberly Barrett supportively acknowledged the “understandable anger” that students felt, adding ominously that she was “certain” that the issue would affect the prospective club’s application. –Campus Reform
Quick Tip: Vice Presidents for Diversity and Inclusion are Kafkaesque creatures. They oppose diversity of thought. They are all about excluding the people they don’t want. They are essentially union-reps for rent-extraction politics on campus, giving special benefits to approved groups and helping them crush others.
Special moment of Irony: Lawrence University is in Appleton, Wisconsin, the home of Joe McCarthy. They have adopted his tactics of fear and smear. It’s no more appealing from the left than it was from the right.
Since [the riots protesting a planned but cancelled speech by Milo Yiannopoulo], the Berkeley College Republicans’ property has been destroyed, the group cancelled a speech by conservative activist and Berkeley alumnus David Horowitz after the administration threw up numerous roadblocks, and now it has been told that conservative commentator Ann Coulter may not speak as planned due to the danger posed by potentially violent protesters.
This is a chilling and dangerous precedent. –FIRE
FIRE has it exactly right, as usual. They are a politically-neutral organization that supports free speech and does more than any organization to promote it.
Hecklers should never receive a veto. NEVER.
At Berkeley, the hecklers and rioters not only have a veto, they have established an effective deterrent threat. They can merely threaten to go berserk and prevent speech they oppose.
The rights (and limitations) surrounding the First Amendment should apply fully on campuses, even at, gasp, the University of California, Berkeley.
The three keys:
Universities need to state strong free speech principles. Those are essential, and it is essential to state them without weasel words. But even the best principles are not enough. Berkeley falsely stated its commitment to free speech in cancelling speeches.
Universities need to enforce those on the ground through its deans and safety officers
Students and outsiders who violate those rules need to face sure and serious punishments.
Comment: Mitch McConnell won’t let it prevent Gorsuch’s confirmation. For D’s in purple and red states, this opposition is perilous. Their base loves it, their donors love it, but the general public does not.
◆ Republican House bill on healthcare would allow states to tailor some requirements, including whether to require able-bodied adults to work or engage in some substitute, such as volunteer work or education.
Here is how the Washington Post headlines that news. You be the judge if this is a fair headline:
Many forms of public assistance, including food stamps, require recipients to work, look for work, volunteer or participate in vocational training. The work requirements vary from one program to the next and have varying requirements vary by the program and traits of the recipients, such as their ages and whether they have children.
Yet when it comes to health insurance, such requirements would be nearly impossible to enforce, conservative and independent experts on the Medicaid program said Friday. –Washington Post
Comment: If you wondered what Harry Reid is doing after retirement, he’s writing headlines for the Washington Post
The analysis, released late Monday afternoon by the Congressional Budget Office, predicts that 24 million fewer people would have coverage a decade from now than if the Affordable Care Act remains intact, nearly doubling the share of Americans who are uninsured from 10 percent to 19 percent. The office projects the number of uninsured people would jump 14 million after the first year –Washington Post
Democrats highlighted President Trump’s campaign promises to provide “insurance for everybody,” saying the bill falls woefully short.
“The CBO’s estimate makes clear that TrumpCare will cause serious harm to millions of American families,” Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) said in a statement. –The Hill
How does the CBO get these numbers?
The CBO estimated that 24 million people would become uninsured by 2026 under the bill, largely due to the proposed changes to Medicaid. Seven million fewer people would be insured through their employers over that same time frame because some people would choose not to get coverage and some employers would decline to offer it. –The Hill
Comment: The numbers create obvious political problems for Republicans, and the Democrats will exploit them.
Here is how I figure Republicans will respond, at least publicly:
The basic problem with the CBO score is that it compares the new program to Obamacare, as if the ACA will continue to exist and cover people. But it won’t. Obamacare is collapsing financially, so those people will actually lose coverage if we don’t repeal it and replace it with something sustainable. Even if Obamacare totters on for another year or two, insurers are dropping out and, as they do, monopoly providers will raise rates, forcing more people off Obamacare insurance.
CBO projections are often wrong, and they certainly have been about healthcare costs and coverage.
Even if 24 million fewer are covered, some of them may choose not to buy coverage since, unlike Obamacare, it is not mandated.
By law, the CBO can only score the bill in front of them. For technical reasons (related to Senate reconciliation rules), we cannot include key measures that will reduce insurance costs and thus attract some of those 24 million to purchase insurance. The main measure will be sale of insurance across state lines and, secondarily, reform of costly tort laws.
◆ A quote to celebrate spring training: Bob Uecker’s thoughts on catching Phil Niekro’s knuckleball:
The way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up. –Bob Uecker
◆ The “progressive left” makes a regressive argument for stamping out speech…and they get to decide which speech.
Comment: The article is an artful scam, making its argument by allusion and demonization, without confronting serious counter-arguments.
It says some speech is bad and “informal rules” ought to limit it, without explaining who gets to set those rules and what criteria should be used. Then, it notes that our Constitution does permit some restrictions on speech. That’s right, but it is a good reason to say, “Let the First Amendment set the restrictions, not Slate magazine writers.”
The article goes on to attack Trump, Bannon (whom it explicitly calls racist), William Buckley (too religious), and others loathed by Slate readers.
It concludes, “The purveyors of logic, of facts dutifully checked and delivered to the public, lost big league in November.”
Why is that an argument for shouting down Charles Murray? It’s not.