It’s not really a new thing, but this is the latest indication that most universities aren’t. They clearly want a diversity in everything except opinion.
[Update a few minutes later]
“I blame Rice as much as the bullies. By withdrawing, Rice sends a message to other campuses that the tactic works.”
Sadly, yes.
So, I was reading this article about how people shouldn’t start a response to a question with the word, “so.”
I’ve noticed this trend for the past few years, and it seems to be on the increase.
I have been known to do that in blog posts, but a new blog post actually is a change of subject.
Stop doing it when publicly responding to questions. Just stop.
The White House joins it.
I wouldn’t send my son to public schools, and I’d think twice about paying for a college education, at this point.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And then there’s all the politically correct absurdity.
“How I know they will win.”
Shocker: It’s not rich conservatives who run the world:
There you have it: A wealthy Democratic donor admits he funds candidates to improve his bottom line. And yet I hear from the Senate floor no denunciations of his attempts to buy American democracy, no labeling of him as un-American. I have not received a piece of direct mail soliciting donations to fight David L. Cohen’s hijacking of the political process, nor do I wake up every day to investigations of the Cohen political and charitable network. Why?
It’s a rhetorical question, of course.
[Monday-morning update]
Related thoughts from Ed Driscoll.
Welcome to the Paradise of the Real:
The Nation yesterday published a hilariously illiterate essay by Raúl Carrillo, who is a graduate student at Columbia, a Harvard graduate, and an organizer of something called the Modern Money Network, “an interdisciplinary educational initiative for understanding money, finance, law, and the economy.” All three of those institutions should be embarrassed. Mr. Carrillo is the sort of man who thinks that 40 pieces of candy can be divided and recombined in such a way as to arrive at a number greater than 40. His essay, “Your Government Owes You a Job,” argues that the federal government should create a guaranteed-job program, “becoming our employer of last resort.” Mr. Carrillo’s middle-school-quality prose must be read to be appreciated — “Would jobs for all skyrocket wages and prices, spurring inflation? Such unfounded belief holds the jobless hostage to hysteria” — but his thinking is positively elementary. It does, however, almost perfectly sum up the symbolism-over-literal-substance progressive worldview: “You need dollars to eat,” he writes, “and unless you steal the dollars, you generally have to earn them.”
But you do not need dollars to eat. You need food to eat. Experiment: Spend six months locked in room with nothing other than a very large pile of dollars; measure subsequent weight loss.
Mr. Carrillo’s intellectual failure is catastrophic, but it is basic to the progressive approach. Mr. Carrillo argues that a guaranteed-job program would “pay for itself,” mitigate deficits, empower women, strengthen communities, liberate us from Walmart and McDonald’s — I half expected him to claim that it would turn a sandwich into a banquet. But the question he never quite gets his head around is: Jobs doing what? Americans in guaranteed government jobs “needn’t construct trains or solar panels,” he writes. Instead, they could be employed in “non-capital intensive” sectors such as “child-care, eldercare, and” — focus in here, kids — “community gardening.” Experiment: Offer for sale at a price of $250 a voucher entitling its bearer to one year’s worth of meals at McDonald’s, one year’s worth of groceries at Walmart, or one year’s worth of produce from your local community garden; compare sales figures.
Read the whole thing.
…and other college lies. Questions you should be asking before spending tens of thousands of dollars on a university or college.
[Afternoon update]
Time to toss out abusive college administrators:
Events like these call into question both the judgment of academic administrators and the existence of campus police forces as a separate institution. In his book, The Fall of the Faculty, Johns Hopkins Professor Benjamin Ginsberg talks about the profusion of “deanlets” that has overtaken higher education. But it’s even worse when those deanlets not only eat up the substance of institutions, but also command armed force. It’s extremely doubtful that any outside law enforcement agency would have responded to any of the “threats” listed above, but campus police, called in by insecure deanlets, have little choice. This sort of behavior, though, is unfair, bad for morale, and likely to spur expensive and embarrassing litigation. (Note that some of these cases were resolved when the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an academic civil liberties group, intervened and posed a threat of legal action.)
As with the morons running public schools, no judgment is required, apparently.
The Left has been rewriting history for decades, since it took over academia in the sixties.
Example #15437.
The cop should be charged with false arrest, and the school officials should be sued within an inch of their lives. This kind of idiocy will continue until it causes pain for the idiots.
SCOTUS has stricken a blow against decades of institutionalized racism by the Left.