Straight male student commits suicide after gay male student accuses him of hate speech and the university denies him any and all due process rights.
Gay student sexually harasses straight student. Gay student reports straight student as the sexual harasser. University repeatedly violates its own rules to find straight student guilty.
Straight student kills himself days after learning his new disciplinary record could keep him out of grad school.
Note to John Cho: This actually is a direct result of an environment that Barack Obama created by telling university’s to interpret Title IX so as to assume all white male students accused of sex or bias crimes are guilty even if proven innocent.
I would hope that the gay student who initiated this (as well as the university bureaucrat who railroaded the guy) feel horrible for the rest of their lives; but I somehow doubt they will.
A student is in trouble for recording a professor’s anti-Trump rant and releasing it on social media.
In the video, you can hear the professor call the election of Donald Trump an “act of terrorism,” and Trump himself a “white supremacist.” She also went after Trump’s cabinet, describing Vice President-elect Mike Pence as “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”
The teacher’s union is demanding that the student be expelled for revealing what is taught in this class; which by the way, was not a political science class but a “human sexuality” class. To a reasonable person, the election of Trump would seem to have nothing to do with ‘human sexuality.’ (A sane person might even wonder why such a class is even offered.) But one of the key efforts of the left is to “Politicize all the things!.
This what not a “discussion,” (as apologists characterize it), it was pure hysteria on the part of the instructor. The part I want to take issue with is professor Olga Perez Stable Cox characterization of VP-Elect Mike Pence as “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.” Really? More anti-gay than the Muslim Imams calling for the murder of homosexuals?
Is Mike Pence even anti-gay? No. The Gay Left case for this smear campaign rests on two flimsy pieces of evidence. One is Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act — which would have harmed zero gay people — and the debunked talking point that Mike Pence wants to electrocute the gay out of teenagers. And the third part of it is, anyone who isn’t a Democrat, and/or who isn’t cheering loudly enough for everything the gay left supports right now … is “anti-gay.”
Her defenders say that as part of the professoriat, she has a right to say whatever she wants in her classes. All right, but if what she is saying is total bullshirt, shouldn’t it be exposed to the full measure of criticism is deserves.
They are going to reinforce the walls of that bubble with adamantium. An Asylum of Higher Education in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts has banned the American flag so it can concentrate on its core mission of indoctrinating students in homophilia and Islamophilia.
“We will not fly the U.S. flag or any other flags at Hampshire for the time being,” Lash said in a campus-wide email, according to Campus Reform.
While acknowledging that getting rid of the flag may be “especially painful” for military veterans and their family members, Lash said he hoped doing so would “enable us to instead focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”
The cost of residing in this asylum is $62,000 a year. Forbes College ranking notes, “Hampshire College is known for its alternative curriculum and joie de vivre.”
I can think of a lot better ways to get “joie de vivre” out of the quarter-million dollars a degree from Hampshire College costs.
Let’s catch up on how the left-wingers’ feared Climate of Hate is doing. Most of this is via Instapundit.
- President Obama in 2013: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”
Obama today? Kinda silent.
- Those lefties harrassing the Electoral College to get them to vote Hillary are doing it right… for Trump. Oh, so right!
“They attack my religion, they attack my politics, they tell me that I must be a terrible father, I must be a terrible American, they use foul language — every swear word,” reported one. By the way, Politico published the list of electors.
- Americans’ confidence in Trump is growing. Coincidence?
- One libertarian has the right idea: He treats all this as a Teaching Moment to explain gun ownership and self-defense to liberals.
- The incomparable Mark Steyn rounds up a lot more. “Just a thought, but, if you keep insisting that half your fellow citizens are haters, maybe you’re the hater.”
And, to give credit where it’s due: Tom Hanks Breaks from Hollywood Pack and Says He Hopes Trump Does Well.
“This is the United States of America. We’ll go on. There’s great like-minded people out there who are Americans first and Republicans or Democrats second,” Hanks told THR. “I hope the president-elect does such a great job that I vote for his re-election in four years.”
UPDATE: Good read from J.C. Bourke, Why All The Hippies Morphed Into Campus Fascists.
Oh, Good Lord.
Responding to Donald Trump’s shocking presidential victory, several Cornell professors across departments cancelled class Wednesday, citing personal distress and concern for students’ emotional well-being.
Prof. Jane-Marie Law, Asian, Near Eastern and religious studies, said she cancelled her “Introduction to Japan and Religion” lecture, because she was “so upset and worried I would break down, thinking about how dangerous the move the American electorate — half of them — made last night is.” ….
Quoth a Snowflake:
“We should’ve died in 2012 while we still had the chance,” added Mitch Laski ’17, echoing several students who said they fear a Trump presidency will be the end of equal rights for minorities and free speech in the United States.
Karl Deinninger (have no idea who he is, but he says it best) responds:
If you are in a meltdown because Hillary lost then you’re unfit to adult. You’re unfit to hold a job. You’re unfit to evaluate the cost of credit to buy a car — or a house. You’re unfit to choose what to eat, or to evaluate various options for treatment of a medical condition. You’re unfit to carry on the daily requirements of living on your own, independently, making your own decisions and being responsible for them — including voting.
You are in fact an emotional infant, no older than 2. You are throwing a crybully tantrum, exactly as a 2 year old does when their parent refuses to give them the second bite of chocolate they want. And if you are if fact older than 2 by more than a few years the responsibility for your frail emotional state is on you, not someone else. To the extent you stuck that tantrum out in public where others can see it they are perfectly within their rights to deduce that you’re unemployable, you’re emotionally unstable and thus you’re unsafe to be around in any capacity.
It is perfectly fine to decide that if an election goes the “wrong” way you are going to alter how you live and decisions you make. I did that after Obama was proved to be a clown car brigade, and went even further after the 2012 elections.
But you didn’t see me crying, or whining, or having a full on psychotic break, unable to handle ordinary life and needing an “excuse” from an exam, from work or simply from functioning in an everyday manner.
Snowflake, meet flamethrower. He’s called “the real world” and when, not if you melt — tough crap.
The Democrat-Run college campuses of the United States have made a conscious decision to become hostile environments for males.
On campus, toxic masculinity is often blamed for sexual violence, body shaming, a “hyper-masculinized sporting culture,” acts of domestic terrorism and much more.
“How has the concept of masculinity contributed to the perpetration of violence in our society?” asks the UNC Men’s Project website.
Duke University started a program this semester for male students to reflect on topics such as patriarchy, male privilege, rape culture, pornography, machismo and “the language of dominance,” Fox News reported.
At a mandatory freshmen orientation training at Gettysburg College in August, male students had to watch a documentary which stated in part that the “three most destructive words” a boy can hear growing up is “be a man.”
The “Thrive” club, part of the Claremont colleges consortium which meets as a “safe space” to talk about mental health, advertises that “masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to preform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it.”
Women, of course, are never taught to self-criticize or self-examine, for they are blameless, holy creatures, who are never wrong. And because women are never in error, any setback or disappointment ever suffered by any woman anywhere is entirely the fault of The Patriarchy, unless her name is Sarah Palin (who doesn’t count because she’s a Republican who didn’t abort her Down’s Syndrome baby).
Maybe men will be better off if fewer of us go to college and opt for trade school. We will learn actual skills, be employable, and not saddled with a mortgage worth of debt.
In which an academic explains how the Academic Elite became absolutely obsessed with the sexual predilections of a tiny minority of people and elevated them to become the central focus of the humanities.
The TLDR version is this. In the 1990’s, a bunch of liberal white college professors seized on gay rights as a way of taking up or re-living the black civil rights cause of the 1960’s. One-upmanship followed as professors tried to prove they were more into the cause than their colleagues. Over time, ‘Queer Theory’ became the dominant mode of all academia; because it was trendy and liberal professors wanted to be perceived as “with it.”
From this 30-year vantage point, the intrepid idiom and bold disclosures that thrilled and emboldened the 1990s faculty look less descriptive than hortatory. Take away the magnification and we have a more modest and accurate assessment of parts of our culture—and a less thrilling and theoretical one. Only when we define queerness as anything outside simple and straightforward heterosexual behavior, and only when we interpret homophobia as anything less than full political and personal support of homosexuality, do the sweeping contentions of queer theory hold up. Without that extension, queerness slips back into the margin—not by an act of power, but as the consequence of relative lack of interest.
That’s what we see today, the fatigue that afflicts any theory once the universal claims lose their emotional force, as inevitably happens over time and with repetition. The enclave of humanities research has always had its rituals and taboos, and they lead inhabitants to think that what holds true and proper within also holds without. Reading queer theory and attending queer lectures is to enter an impassioned universe fraught with sexual complication and risk. But most people don’t share the outlook. Representations of sexual variation are common in higher education today, not to mention in movies, TV, and the news, but the vast majority of Americans are firm in their basic sexual aims and selves, and homosexual impulse and homophobic fear and hate aren’t part of their condition. We still have heteronormative attitudes. They are the natural result of nearly all Americans having heterosexual feelings. Queerness is part of the human condition, a small part. Queer theory began with an exaggeration, an overestimation of homosexuality and anti-homosexuality, and the emotional and political and institutional contexts of its origination allowed the exaggeration to stand uncorrected. Queer theory is now a part of American intellectual history, but it will be remembered more as an advocacy effort than as a school of thought. [Emphasis added]
Pale Penis-Bearer is hit with a “gender misconduct” complaint for referring to himself as handsome.
“The University’s Gender-Based Misconduct Office contacted us because they received a complaint about your behavior towards your Elementary Chinese II professor. It is important we meet to discuss this as soon as possible.”
I met with my dean the next afternoon. She told me the same thing my professor had: I had called myself handsome and this was unacceptable. My dean tried to make me agree that I would never do this again. I flat out refused. I laid into her about how upset I was about the situation and I said something along the lines of: “If you’re asking me to not be myself, then I guarantee I will end up back in your office again.”
I was then put in touch with a case manager from the Gender-Based Misconduct office, who set up a “re-education” meeting in his office for the following Monday. I remember this frightening little office was located outside of Columbia’s west gates, where no one can hear you scream (it may have moved since then).
The office was empty; it was just me in the waiting room: Ben “Gender Misconduct” Sweetwood. For the first few minutes of our meeting, the case manager launched into an edifying speech on how my white privilege was playing a major factor in my lack of clarity into the depravity of my actions. Then I shot back with a plea for sanity, in much the same way I had done with my advising dean.
I won’t spoil the ending. Suffice it to say, it partly involves a gay dude in a worthless bureaucratic taxpayer-funded job created for social justice wankers with no marketable skills. Read the whole thing.
The University of Michigan Asylum of Higher Learning has jumped on the Trendy “Do-It-Yourself-Gender-Identification” Bandwagon and, as a matter of policy, lets students choose their own pronoun to be addressed with (thus objectifying them as a gender, rather than a person), because denial of reality is now seen as the height of enlightenment.
Failure to address a delusional student by their preferred gender or made-up pronoun can be considered a microaggression — one thousand of which can be redeemed for an actual aggression. Disciplinary action can result for failing to indulge the student’s denial of reality.
OK, said University of Michigan student Grant Stobl, if I get to choose my own pronoun, I choose “Your Majesty.”
In an interview with The College Fix, Strobl said that “I have no problem with students asking to be identified a certain way, almost like someone named Richard who would like to be called Dick. It is respectful to make a reasonable effort to refer to students in the way that they prefer.”
However, he added that he does have a problem when the university institutionalizes the use of pronouns that are completely arbitrary and may possibly sanction people for referring to someone different than their preference.
Strobl continued, “So, I henceforth shall be referred to as: His Majesty, Grant Strobl. I encourage all U-M students to go onto Wolverine Access, and insert the identity of their dreams.”
It is no less delusional for a student to insist that he is a hereditary monarch than it is for a person with a penis to insist that he’s a woman.
According to Ms. Laura Parson, a “Teaching and Learning, Graduate Student” at the University of North Dakota, the reason more women aren’t pursuing STEM fields is because the scientific method relies too much on facts and logic and not subjective perspectives. I am not making this up.
Syllabi promote the positivist view of knowledge by suggesting that there are correct conclusions that can be drawn with the right tools:
- “A critical thinker considers all available evidence with an open mind and uses appropriate techniques to analyze that evidence and reach a conclusion (Lower level geology).”
- “The main goal is to attain knowledge and comprehension of major concepts and techniques of organic chemistry (Upper level chemistry).”
As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. This is further reinforced by the use of adverbs to imply certainty such as “actually” and “in fact” which are used in syllabi to identify information as factual and beyond dispute (Biber, 2006a; 2006b). For example, “draw accurate conclusions from scientific data presented in different formats” (Lower level math). Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make (sic) the correct decision.
See, you may think water boils at 100C, but that’s just what the Patriarchy *wants* you to think, and they reinforce their tyranny by insisting that everyone learn the “fact” that water boils at 100C they exclude feminist perspectives, such as the perspective that “fire can’t melt steel,” from the STEM fields, thus reinforcing them as a preserve of sexism and misogyny.
It’s the intersectionalities, you guys!
Brown University (Annual Cost of Attendance: $68,000 per year) is, like most universities these days,
an insane asylum.
Brown University’s student body president will be hand-delivering menstrual products to all nonresidential bathrooms on campus, including men’s rooms, with the help of 20 other students.
“Low-income students struggle with having the necessary funding for food, let alone tampons.”
By putting menstrual products in women’s, men’s, and gender-inclusive bathrooms, Nguyen aims to “set a tone of trans-inclusivity, and not forget that they’re an important part of the population.”
So, students can afford to pay $68,000 a year in tuition and expenses, but can’t scrape up $10 a month for tampons.
And just exactly how and in what way are they “an important part of the population?”
Or are y’all just being trendy with your virtue signaling and whatall?
$68,000 a year to be taught that girls have penises and boys have vaginas.
People are paying $33,000 a year in tuition for this:
A small college in Vermont is kicking off the new school year by encouraging students to wear special pins declaring their pronouns, so nobody accidentally uses the wrong one.
“Hello, my pronouns are Xe/Xem/Xyrs,” one button declares. Another expresses a preference for “They/Them/Theirs,” even when referring to a singular person. There’s even a pin declaring “Hello, my pronouns are fluid. Please ask me!” available for those whose gender identity and accompanying pronouns allegedly change over time….
This cultural obsession with the 0.03% of the population with a trendy mental health issue is probably going to continue until some other “oppressed group” becomes trendy. Because it’s very, very important for middle-aged white women to be able to virtue-signal their tolerance and awareness of social trends.
Oh, Good Lord.
A University of Iowa professor is asking the athletics department to make the university’s mascot, Herky the Hawk, display friendlier facial expressions, arguing that his angry grimace is traumatizing students.
“I believe incoming students should be met with welcoming, nurturing, calm, accepting and happy messages, ”Resmiye Oral, a clinical professor of pediatrics, wrote Tuesday in an email to athletic department officials, obtained by the Iowa City Press-Citizen….
And in case you suspect that Resmiye Oral was a middle-aged liberal woman, you are correct, sir.
First, they brought back segregation in the form of minority-only lounges and dorms. Now, an American university is bringing back prohibition.
Stanford University has banned all hard liquor at undergraduate parties in an effort to reduce binge drinking on campus.
The new policy comes after Brock Turner, a former Stanford swimmer, received a six-month sentence for sexual assault after a night of heavy drinking, which triggered national outrage and launched a several months long discussion a Stanford about student alcohol consumption.
Well done, Stanford. Your stern stance against alcohol use will doubtless accomplish what your stern stance against sexual assault failed.
Grad students are still allowed to possess liquor (see how generous your bureaucratic masters are) subject to strict regulations about container size, keeping it in the original container, buying it from a state approved source, and consuming it only within strict guidelines set by the university.
See, you still have your freedoms, provided they are exercised in strict compliance with the regulations of the state, the violation of any one of which will result in severe penalties unless your last name is ‘Clinton.’
Remember when we used to live in America? Good times.
“Specifically there were two topics of debate that triggered them and personally felt like an attack on their identity (GodHatesFags.com: is this harmful? Is this acceptable? Is this Christianity? And Gay Marriage: should it be legal? Is homosexuality immoral as Christians suggest?)”
The student, whose name is redacted and who is referred to as “they” in the report, complained that “other students are required to watch the in-class debate and hear both arguments presented.”
“I do not believe that students should be required to listen to their own rights and personhood debated,” the student wrote. “[This professor] should remove these topics from the list of debate topics. Debating the personhood of an entire minority demographic should not be a classroom exercise, as the classroom should not be an actively hostile space for people with underprivileged identities.”
The University Asylum of Missouri covers itself in glory, yet again.
A vigil Monday planned by several University of Missouri student organizations was supposed to honor victims of Sunday morning’s deadly shooting rampage in a popular gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. It turned into a blame session against Mizzou’s LGBTQ community for not being intersectional enough. Latino activists, including a Mizzou official, scolded the mostly white gathering for ignoring racial issues.
Memo to Gay People: The people you think are your allies are not really your allies. The people you think are your enemies are not actually your enemies.
This was an actual academic article; because people in the Asylums of Academia really believe that ‘Queer Studies’ is an actual worthwhile endeavor.
The following article introduces the hobosexual as a concept in queer materialism. Mapped at the intersection of not-for-profit hobo sex and labor practices historically, the hobosexual collapses the apparent impasse between the material and the symbolic so prevalent in queer studies. The concept represents the redeployment of queer as anti-capitalist practice; highlighted are the non-normative hobo practices of nonproductive expenditure, but also the recognition that these abnormalities are organized by capitalist systems of normalization designed to engender profit. The article also considers the degree to which industrial capitalism affected both hobo mobility and hobo anti-capitalist practice in the 19th century. Generated out of hobo history and queer as anti-capitalist practice, the hobosexual represents resistance to capitalist systems of normalization and enables connections, not necessarily between identities, but between anti-capitalist practices generated out of difference.
Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopulous, and Steven Crowder
walk into a bar tried to give a talk on the value of Free Speech at the Massachusetts Asylum at Amherst. Apparently, the talk was so outrageous that it caused Chris Farley to rise from the dead, dress up like hipster Lena Dunham and scream obscenities at them.
Also, Melissa Click — who was fired from the Asylum of Missouri after threatening students with violence for trying to ask questions of #BlackLivesMatter protesters — now whines that the only reason she was fired was because she’s a white woman. (She’s sort of right, the Asylum’s Chancellors wouldn’t have dared fired a black woman no matter how outrageous her behavior.)
“This is all about racial politics,” she said in a profile published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. “I’m a white lady. I’m an easy target.”
In the fawning profile of Click in the Chronicle, Click says that even though she may have gone too far, it should be all right, because Social Justice. She is proud of her involvement in what she thinks was a legitimate protest against systemic institutional racism.
Never mind what she was really involved in was an overhyped temper tantrums over relatively minor “racial incidents” of highly dubious provenance.
An LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarian) social justice wanker decided to make some sort of point about gay suicides or something by hanging nooses in rainbow colors from a tree at an Asylum of Higher Learning in Tennessee. However, some of the other inmates got all scared and offended and stuff.
“At Austin Peay University in Tennessee, the campus erupted in outrage when rainbow nooses were discovered hanging from a tree. Social media exploded and every social justice warrior on campus felt the need to express their displeasure. But later, it was discovered that the nooses were an art project by a student looking to draw attention to the high number of suicides in the LGBT community.”
Yeah, not even the wankers can understand each others’ points any more. Besides, isn’t it cultural appropriation for an LGBTQAA69IAXXXYZ artist to use nooses in a display?
Would the nooses have been okay if Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz had been hanging from them?
I’m not really sure how hanging rainbow colored nooses in a tree was supposed to help suicidal gay folk, but whatever.
DePaul University has banned sidewalk chalk; because cisnormative microaggression triggers.
“While these chalk messages are part of national agendas in a heated political battle, they appeared on campus at a time of significant racial tension in our country and on college campuses. DePaul is no exception,” Depaul’s vice president for student affairs Eugene Zdziarski wrote in a campus-wide email obtained by Campus Reform. “The university has been addressing campus climate issues in an effort to provide an inclusive and supportive educational environment. In this context, many students, faculty and staff found the chalk messages offensive, hurtful and divisive.”