Uncategorized

Seattle councilman criticizes plan to hose excrement off sidewalks because it’s racially insensitive

Several judges and a sheriff who work at the King County Courthouse in Seattle have requested help with unsanitary conditions outside the courthouse, but one councilman has objected to the cleaning plan, claiming it is racially insensitive.

The blocks surrounding the King County Superior Court are home to most of Seattle’s homeless shelters and social service buildings, and the sidewalks in the area emit a strong stench of urine and excrement, according to the Seattle Times. Employees at the courthouse say the area is also unsafe and that several jurors and half a dozen employees have been attacked outside the building.

Judges Laura Inveen and Jim Rogers asked the county on Tuesday for help with the area, requesting that the courthouse be cleaned with a daily power-wash to get rid of the human waste stench along with taking measures like removing bus stop benches in the area to decrease crime.

I’ve never seen it this bad,” Rogers told the Metropolitan King County Council’s committee on government accountability and oversight Tuesday morning.

Although the council did not come to a conclusion on how to reduce crime in the area, they did discuss amping up the current cleaning schedule, but not all council members were in agreement. The Times noted one councilman’s head-tilting response.

Councilman Larry Gossett was concerned that power-washing the feces and urine off the sidewalk would bring back images of the civil-rights era when black civil rights activists were hosed by local authorities, though he offered no evidence to back up the concern.

Gossett’s objections did not halt the cleanup process, however, and county administrative officer Caroline Whalen and the facilities manager promised an increase in cleanup of the area.

Gossett did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

From theblaze

Education

Prof calls whites ‘inhuman assholes,’ says ‘let them die’

A professor at Connecticut’s Trinity College seemingly endorsed the idea that first responders to last week’s congressional shooting should have let the victims “fucking die” because they are white.

“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system. #LetThemFuckingDie,” Trinity College Professor Johnny Eric Williams wrote in a June 18 Facebook post.

 

Read the whole story at Campus Reform

Uncategorized

Hecklers at Town Hall Meeting Boo Opening Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance

As U.S. senators and representatives took a brief recess this week, visiting their home states for town hall meetings with constituents, one senator ran into some issues with a tough crowd. Bill Cassidy, a first-term Republican senator from Louisiana, was meeting with a crowd of constituents in Metairie yesterday, but as Louisiana State chaplain Michael Sprague begun to recite an opening prayer, the crowd immediately began to heckle him.

One man interrupted Sprague’s first words to shout, “Amen! Let’s get on with it.” Another person added, “Pray on your own time. This is our time.” Meanwhile, a group of people began to chant repeatedly, “Separation of church and state.” Here’s a video of the interruption of the opening invocation:

But the disruptions didn’t end there. As a local veteran took the microphone to lead the crowd in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, the jeering continued, with one man audibly yelling, “Do your job.” Here’s the video footage of this bout of heckling:

Read more at National Review

Education

Another Professor, Another Mob

by ELLIOT KAUFMAN

Evergreen State College, a small liberal-arts school in Washington State, has long had an interesting tradition. Each year, there is a “Day of Absence” on which students and faculty members of color meet off campus to hold solidarity-building activities, leaving the remaining community members to recognize the absence — and thus the value — of their peers. Later there is a “Day of Presence,” with similar activities but for the entire campus community.

But this year, the event changed. On the April 12 Day of Absence, minority students and faculty remained on campus, while whites were asked to leave. According to the local student newspaper, the decision reflected concerns following the 2016 election that students of color no longer felt comfortable on campus. This was to be their chance to reassert their right to belong on campus . . . by asking everyone else of a particular skin color to leave.

One liberal biology professor, Bret Weinstein, took issue with this change. Weinstein wrote a powerful e-mail to his colleagues on March 15. Deeply respectful and generous in tone, he made a simple point:

“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and underappreciated roles . . . and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.

You may take this letter as a formal protest of this year’s structure, and you may assume I will be on campus on the Day of Absence.”

For this fundamentally liberal argument and act of protest, Professor Weinstein has been pilloried. More than that, those words — words forming as reasonable a dissent as any — incited a mob on Tuesday. Students occupied and barricaded the campus library, and accosted Weinstein outside his classroom. As you can see in this video, the mob surrounded him, yelled at him, swore at him, and openly admitted they did not want to allow him to respond.

In the video, Weinstein nobly seeks to engage in “dialectic” with the student protesters, hoping to use “disagreement to discover the truth.” For a professor of biology, this is rather impressive stuff. But he misjudges the mob. “We don’t care what terms you want to speak on,” one student explains to supportive cheers. “This is not about you. We are not speaking on terms — on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.”

Read the entire article at National Review

Education, Uncategorized

Yale Cements Its Line in the Academic Sand by Awarding the Student ‘Truthtellers’ Who Bullied Faculty

By James Kirchick

Yale’s Nakanishi Prize is awarded every spring to “two graduating seniors who, while maintaining high academic achievement, have provided exemplary leadership in enhancing race and/or ethnic relations at Yale College.” Normally, the bestowal of an undergraduate award, even at an august institution like Yale, is of interest to no one beyond the recipients, their classmates, and their families. This year’s prize, however, should trouble anyone concerned with the imperiled fate of free inquiry and rational dialogue at our nation’s institutions of higher learning: on May 21, Yale recognized—out of a graduating class of some 1,300—two individuals who did more than most of their peers to worsen race relations on campus.

Our story begins in the fall of 2015, when a mob of students surrounded professor Nicholas Christakis in the courtyard of Silliman, the residential college of which he used to be Master, a term used to describe head faculty members who oversee undergraduate life (more on this later). Christakis, a world-renowned sociologist and scientist, was there to answer complaints about an email sent by his wife, Erika, in response to a campus-wide message distributed by a Yale College dean of “student engagement,” Burgwell Howard, warning students away from wearing Halloween costumes that “threaten our sense of community.” For her mere suggestion that Yale undergraduates—adults who can legally vote and fight and die in the nation’s wars—be entrusted with the responsibility to choose their own Halloween costumes (and, furthermore, be entrusted to share whatever discomfort they may have about potentially “offensive” costumes with their peers, rather than encouraged to whine to overpaid, utterly superfluous, administrative busybodies), Erika Christakis was denounced by hundreds of Yale students, faculty, alumni, and countless off-campus agitators as an incorrigible bigot and “white supremacist” whose job should be taken from her.

But Nicholas Christakis was doing more than just defending the honor of his wife that afternoon in the Silliman courtyard. As video of the several hours-long ordeal revealed, Christakis was defending the most fundamental principle of higher education: that the university should serve as a place of free inquiry where individuals can respectfully engage with one another in the pursuit of knowledge.

At least, that’s what places like Yale claim to stand for. Not anymore.

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. Hectoring bullies quick to throw baseless accusations of racism or worse; cosseted brats unscrupulous in their determination to smear the reputations of good people, these individuals in actuality represent the antithesis of everything this award is intended to honor. Yet, in the citation that was read to all the graduating seniors and their families on Class Day, Yale praised the latter student as “a fierce truthteller.”

This, for a hysterical liar who accused one of the university’s most distinguished academic minds of inciting “violence” upon his own students. And the chair of the selection committee? Burgwell Howard.

The Orwellian veneration of racial agitators as racial conciliators is the logical conclusion of Yale’s craven capitulation to the hard left forces of identitarian groupthink. From the very beginning of this ordeal, the Yale administration refused to state some simple but necessary truths: that the missive Erika Christakis wrote was entirely appropriate; that the “demands” issued by protesting students (such as an “ethnic studies distributional requirement”) were ridiculous; and, most important of all, that the rude and insubordinate treatment to which Nicholas Christakis was subjected rose to the level of a disciplinary offense. (It was not so long ago that mobbing a professor, physically threatening him, and screaming in his face, for hours, would result in expulsion).

Read the entire article at Tablet

Freedom of the Press

No, Gov. Dean, there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

By Eugene Volokh

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean writes:

This leads me to repeat what I’ve said before: There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans. As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the First Amendment’s tradition of “protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’ ” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” viewpoints. (The quote comes from the four liberal justices, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, but the four more conservative justices would have entirely agreed with this, though also extended it to university-recognized student groups’ freedom to exclude members, and not just their freedom to express their thoughts.)

Read the whole story at Washington Post

Political Correctness

Study: Describing Breastfeeding as ‘Natural’ Is Unethical Because It Reinforces Gender Roles

By Jillian Kay Melchior

It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics.

“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.

The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”

“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.

Read the whole story at Heatstreet

Education, Freedom of Speech, Political Correctness

Students who avoid making eye contact could be guilty of racism, Oxford University says

By Camilla Turner

Students who avoid making eye contact with their peers could be guilty of racism, according to Oxford University’s latest guidance.

The university’s Equality and Diversity Unit has advised students that “not speaking directly to people” could be deemed a “racial microaggression” which can lead to “mental ill-health”.

Other examples of “everyday racism” include asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told.

Oxford University’s Equality and Diversity Unit explains in its Trinity term newsletter that “some people who do these things may be entirely well-meaning, and would be mortified to realise that they had caused offence.

“But this is of little consequence if a possible effect of their words or actions is to suggest to people that they may fulfil a negative stereotype, or do not belong”.

Universities have been accused of pandering to the “snowflake generation” of students, who are seen as over-sensitive and quick to take offence.

Dr Joanna Williams, a lecturer in higher education the University of Kent, said the guidance was “completely ridiculous” and will make students “hyper-sensitive” about how they interact with one another.

“Essentially people are being accused of a thought crime,” Dr Williams told The Telegraph. “They are being accused of thinking incorrect thoughts based on an assumption of where they may or may not be looking.”

Read the whole article at The Telegraph

Uncategorized

Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

A truly vile blog entry published by Huffington Post by some wacko feminist that wants to deny white men the right to vote, redistribute wealth and other such far left insanity.

By Shelley Garland

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

You can read more of this vile article at Huffington Post

Uncategorized

There’s a Hysterical, Paranoid War on Fatherhood – and It Hurts All Of Us

By Martin Daubney

In the past two days, two stories of respectable, loving fathers accused of impropriety around their own children have crystallised something pernicious in our culture.

Namely, the poisonous atmosphere of fear and mistrust that exists around ordinary fathers, and perhaps all men.

First, we have the tawdry tale of Craig Darwell, a widower accused by hotel staff of being a paedophile because he booked a hotel room with Millie, his 13-year-old daughter.

Darwell, 46, who was treating Millie to a trip to Thorpe Park, discovered police were already on their way after a Travelodge manager confronted him and demanded he prove he was her father.

“He said it was company policy and I had to go onto Facebook to show messages I’ve sent to her,” says Darwell, from Leeds.

“It was bizarre and really offensive. It took them about two seconds to realise he had got the wrong end of the stick, but it ruined the weekend for me”.

Faced with a PR disaster, Travelodge has launched an investigation, extolling how concerned it is with protecting children – but, clearly, not their fathers.

The next day, it emerged that dad-of-three Matt O’Connor, 50, had been told by a waiter it was “inappropriate” to hug his son during a family meal.

“We were having a cuddle,” O’Connor told me. “I’m a very tactile person. Then a waiter came over and said it was ‘inappropriate’ and could make other diners uncomfortable.

“I thought he was winding me up. But he was deadly serious. I left sharpish. I was fuming.”

O’Connor, who also runs the Fathers 4 Justice pressure group, said: “Once, dads were respected and loved. Now they are demonised. It is a reverse of 100 years ago, where maladjusted dads couldn’t show affection. Now, if we do show affection, we’re judged for it.”

I know how O’Connor and Darwell and feel. Shortly after my boy, Sonny, started school, while trying to get a glimpse of him through the school fence, a snarling man confronted me and told me to, “F***ing do one”.

The experience shook me to the core, and I’m still angry about it now.

Read the whole story at Heatstreet