Chilling: All of a Sudden, the Democratic Party thinks Protests are BAD

Health Debate Produces Angry Protests, Angry Retorts

The Earth-scorching August firefight over health care has given rise to questions about the point at which stifling civil discussion damages the democratic process.

The Democratic Party supports free speech and free assembly, but only when such activities are in support of the Party. Dissenters of course should not be allowed to speak freely or rally against opinions and policies which have been approved by our glorious leaders. Freedom only works when it is completely controlled by a One Party State.

"Organized mobs across the country are intimidating lawmakers, disrupting events, and silencing discussions about the change our country needs," one Obama campaign aide wrote in an e-mail to supporters in Michigan.

Be careful to note the inclusion of phraseology regarding content of the message of the protesters, "change our country needs." The sin, it is implied, is not in organizing mobs, intimidating tyrants, disrupting bullshit staged propaganda clambakes, or silencing one-sided speeches masquerading as "discussions," the sin is that these activities are aimed at the not-to-be-questioned "change our country needs."

But really? "Disrupting events" is now a major crime to these people?

Because, gee whiz, Democrat supporters have never, ever, ever, ever protested, or rallied, or shouted down lawmakers, or disrupted an assemblage supporting some agenda with which they disagreed, or attempted to silence discussion in any forum (well, except right here, right now on that last one). Right? I mean, I couldn't perform an internet search right now and find a single example of that ever happening, correct?

I'm not even going to get into the irony embedded in the phrase "organized mob." Hint, though, remember that mobs are by definition "disorderly." But it's the sort of colorful, somewhat sarcastic turn of phrase I might use at my most smart-assed, so I'll give them a pass.

In typical leftist fashion, though, the Democratic Party plays the victimization card for the umpteenth time here, whining about "intimidation," while at the very same time, calling their supporters to arms to show up at meetings, and to turn in information about dissenters to the White House thought-police. It's altogether amusing that the Democratic Party has attempted to portray these "mobs" as puppets of special interests and corporations, ignoring their grassroots formation, thus the in this context insulting "organized" modifier, while at the same attempting to organize their own mobs to counter these allegedly (although unproven to be) "organized" mobs.

The hypocrisy astounds.

If the Democratic Party was at all interested in legitimate discussion and brainstorming about reforming health care, why don't they invite people who oppose the plan onto the podium as well, and make it an honest debate? Hmmmmm? Why are they in such a hurry to push through the plan as currently composed while decrying any analysis of any of the specifics or details (such as the "diversity" clauses, the funding for illegal immigrant health care, etc.)?

Now, let it be known, I really have no problem with politicians of any ilk calling supporters together to promote agendas. I mean, great, involve the voters actively in the political process. Bring it to the people, and let the people respond. Get those who care strongly about an issue out of their chairs and onto the floor. But why whine about some other guy's body order when you yourself forgot to shower?

It just kind of sort of makes you look incredibly fucking stupid.

"What's legitimate dissent is something that provides for constructive dialogue in advancing the discussion on health insurance reform," [Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee] said.

Hey, motherfucker, who the motherfuck are you to tell the public what is and is not legitimate dissent? Who the motherfuck are you, you arrogant shitbrained ass, to define "legitimate" as only that which advances your agenda? FUCK YOU. Guess what? Maybe some people are not at all interested in advancing the discussion on your view of change. Guess what? Maybe some people don't trust you enough to believe you would even remotely take "constructive dialogue" into consideration. I don't think you will, honestly.

Has the Democratic Party offered anything remotely resembling "constructive dialogue" on health care?

And in case you're wondering, yes, non-constructive dialogue is as protected a liberty as constructive dialogue. And The Man don't get to pick which is which.

It's like all of a sudden, Democrats grew a flippin' conscience about how to respectfully treat lawmakers. You mean, in the new Obama-led nationalist socialist world order, I'm not allowed to draw little Hilter mustaches on Obama, or burn him in effigy, or portray his sasquatch of a wife as a demented vampiric whore, they way say liberals have done to Bush and Palin?

Maybe a quote from some ivory tower elitist bullshitter professor will help me put it all in perspective:

But the nature of the protests suggest the GOP has run out of options for fighting on substance, said David S. Meyer, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine who wrote The Politics of Protest: Social Movements in America.

"In historical context, it's a tool of the weak," Meyer said. He said it is noteworthy "that conservatives have to throw this kind of Hail Mary pass to stop health care reform" in a political system that favors that status quo.

Oh, thank the mystic beaver spirits of the River Hoobastank for the infallible unbiased enlightenment of higher educators. Weakness, in this context, Mr. PhD in dumbfuckery, is measured by who is in power, not by "substance." Does this mean that during the civil rights era, blacks were not "fighting on substance" when their only option was non-violent protest?

C'mon!

And let's just ignore the fact that rather than addressing the criticisms of the Democratic health care "reform" plans, all the attacks dogs are going after the dissenters with insults. Get it? They're going after the DISSENTERS, not the DISSENT - not the content.

I mean, I'm fine with that. I'll insult the FUCK out of you if you disagree with me. But when I do, I don't run around with a diploma in no-one-gives-a-fuck pretending I'm not doing anything other than insulting. In fact, that's why I make my insults so heavy-handed and outright mean-spirited - dipshits - so that there is absolutely no illusion when I do insult; it's instantly recognized as the low-side - the humorous, emotional, more entertaining aspect of my discussion. I don't dress it up in pseudo-intellectual, University of California leftist window-dressing. I make it fun and colorful. I mean, calling someone "weak" is pretty fucking "weak." Grow a fucking state-funded pair and come up with some real manly jabs. And get a real football team at your university before using a lame, cliche football metaphor.

People are angry and are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrat plan for "change." They are protesting what they see as tyranny, just like millions of liberals have done for decades.

..."irony is abundant" in the role-reversal for the community-organizer in chief. "It's going to be interesting to see how the community organizer president is going to respond to communities organized by his political opponents."

That's right, motherfucker. Ha!

And like before:

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at flag@whitehouse.gov, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.

Another good argument against the public funding of education

Somehow, higher education has distorted the term "academic freedom" to mean "should have taxes and student fees fund professors with absolutely no expectation that they educate or have any job performance requirements what-so-ever" as well as "they can attempt to politically indoctrinate and belittle your children all they want, with extreme bias and a complete lack of ethical behavior - GIVE ME MONEY." Taxed citizens and tuition payers of Colorado, meet the shitheadfuck you bought and paid for.

Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias.

"This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purist form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.

The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican.

If you were a high school teacher in San Francisco, and told students to write a paper undermining Barack Obama, (or say a radio host on a PRIVATELY owned radio station) you'd be labeled a fascist who abuses his position for the unethical purposes of brainwashing. But, hey, if you're being paid by state funds, and your students are a year older, then, hey, there should be no accountability at all.

Political Correctness in, Education out

Far too few people are paying attention to the liberal fascism that is going on in higher education nowadays. Thankfully, there are a still a few out there who value personal liberty over political correctness.

As it stands, and I've seen this in action at the state university where I work, affirmative action/social justice political litmus tests have been put in place in the hiring practices of faculty and staff.

As Daphne Patai puts it:
"It's hard to say just when universities ceased to believe that education was a worthwhile mission. But that they have done so is beyond question. Among many signs of this reality is the anxiety to redefine the university's task. After all, educators who no longer expect or demand serious intellectual effort from their students are bound to look elsewhere for ways to justify their existence and that of their institutions. Enter the language of "community engagement," "outreach," "social justice," and "equity" (to name just a few of the terms now used as rallying cries on many campuses)."

Read this now!

Myths and Facts About Affirmative Action, Deconstructed

Recently, race-baiting, irrational co-workers and the Affirmative Action Office at the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) condemned a janitor for reading a history book during his break about the KKK. This book, mind you, was nothing promoting the Klan in any fashion, but simply a book about one struggle against the Klan. Yet, African American employees and their kindred knee-jerkists at the AAO found the very subject of the book, regardless of content, and the very act of innocently reading the book (despite the fact that keeping aware of the unsavory aspects of American history is often encouraged by supporters of events like Black History Month), to be an incident of racial harassment. This insanity was compounded by the fact that this janitor was never given the benefit of the doubt (they even ignored his attempts to explain what the book was really about), and assumed guilty without any sort of fair hearing and in complete disregard of his own civil rights.

Now anyone familiar with the activities of affirmative action advocates and the Orwellian left-wing indoctrination techniques common today in higher education will hardly be surprised - outraged, for sure - but not shocked. The Big Brother of the diversity movement has become increasingly totalitarian and outright fascist in its desire to control and punish Caucasians for being white, and to expand power over individual thought and opinion.

What sort of justification do these bigot-nazis give for their behavior and strong-arm tactics? Take a look, for instance, at this wretched document on the website of the AAO of IUPUI, entitled The Myths and Facts about Affirmative Action, to gain some insight in their irrational thinking.

For example, they claim:

MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.

FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination.

Using the "to be" verb does not make it so. Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." Discrimination, or more specifically racial discrimination, is the practice of applying that attitude by the use of power via policy and/or oppression. Racism is the attitude that, with power, can lead to discrimination. But the attitude can exist regardless of discriminating behavior or application of power.

The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.

The last two sentences here completely annihilate the assertion made in the sentences preceding them. Regardless of how accurate or up-to-date the findings of this vaguely referred to study may or may not be - showing that "reverse racism" is not as prevalent as "forward racism" (for lack of a better term) is in no way equivalent to showing that it does not exist at all. The implication that "people of color are not in positions of power" is of course a bogus point, as there are people of color (to use their phrase) in power over others not of the same ethnicity as themselves, even whites. And, the study only seems to address non-institutionalized, direct discrimination, rather than affirmative action as institutionalized discrimination. So, the AAO is using a study that already assumes that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination to prove that there is no reverse discrimination. Convenient.

Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. ... Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.

The level playing field metaphor is an old chestnut amongst affirmative action advocates - but the problem here is that it is just that - metaphor. These people's conceptions of what constitutes a level playing field can only be described as nothing but "preferential treatment" for certain groups. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity, in their eyes, which is all a level playing field really is. Affirmative action supporters wish to rearrange the rules of the game played on the field so that one team is favored, and to do so in a manner in which individual talent, training and hard work are disregarded in favor of team preference and membership. A "level playing field" would not assume all players must play at the same level - only that the rules do not favor one team or another. They don't want a level playing field - they merely want to switch which team is favored.

Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another.

But one must, if one is truly to be equal and fair. The fact of the matter is that economic disparity is not solely caused by racial discrimination, past or present, and affirmative action only assigns group blame and preferential treatment on this one potential cause out of many for poverty. In such a systematically racist approach, all people of one race are given extra credit for their ethnic or gender status, regardless of whether or not they are of a low income. And, people of another race are assigned blame, and are punished for their status, regardless of whether or not they had any hand personally in ever engaging in any sort of racial discrimination, and, even worse, regardless of their own economic status. Poor whites - who may or may not be in that boat for racial reasons - are not given the special consideration rich blacks are. If economic disparity is truly unfair, it should only be judged on the level of the individual. Assumptions cannot be made as to who benefits and who does not based on race.

How do you divorce all these issues from one another? By treating people as individuals rather than as members of groups. Asserting connectedness based on race only furthers a racist, or group-membership, mentality.

In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions.

For the past decade, thanks to a change in California law, race and ethnicity are not considered at all for admissions - although the quota mentality is still prevalent amongst UC administrators who look for back-door alterations in the admissions process in order to achieve ethnic quota goals - using now alternative, "holistic" (i.e., bullshit) criteria to put academic success and individual achievement on the back-burner in favor of squishy "background characteristics."

Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.

Such criteria hardly benefits everyone - but of course, equating every group with every individual is the bigotted, racist failing of most supporters of affirmative action. These criteria benefit those who fall into all those specific categories. Just because they're not race-based does not mean they benefit everyone - they merely benefit a few from all ethnic groups. That's a very big difference. They're confusing subsets for the whole.

MYTH: I have a friend/brother/sister/____(fill in the blank) who was qualified for the job/college but didn't get it because the position went to a person of color or a woman.

FACT: Many of us have heard this statement or made it ourselves. It's a logical error to apply what happens to a few individuals to the entire society.

Of course, statements such as these are made to highlight the effects of societal policies upon real-world individuals - to reveal the injustice faced by real people as a result of what the entire society does.

Oddly, though, the AAO does not apply this same logical standard that they present to their own justifications for affirmative action programs. It would be a logical error, by their own claim, to assign the blame for discrimination, when it does occur, to the entire society - in other words, it is illogical to create policies that assign blame to everyone rather than anyone who directly discriminates.

When it comes right down to it, affirmative action supporters cannot see the individual, and have no regard for a person's rights - they are as racist as the Klan, seeing people only as segments of a "group," where all groups members are to be accountable for the actions of the others, and oppressed accordingly.

More Shenanigans from University Residence Life Indoctrinators

The National Association of Scholars has issued an excellent inside look at the Second Annual Residential Curriculum Institute, co-sponsored by co-sponsored by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). During one session, FIRE! (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) was accused of "hate, fear, ignorance, and stupidity" as well as having "ties to white supremacy groups." FIRE!, one may recall, did an excellent job exposing the strong-arm leftist indoctrination programs run by the militant nitwits at the University of Delaware Residence Life, as well as keeping tabs on similar attempts at brain-washing on campuses across the nation.

[One] speaker said that directors in res life should simply declare what the "learning outcomes" are for first year students. She offered a six-point model: self-awareness, inter-personal skills, diversity, citizenship, social appreciation, sustainability. Lesson plans could be created to realize each of these. Yet another participant suggested that a good learning outcome would be, "Students must acknowledge power and privilege." Still another participant pointed out that res life need not focus all its energy on proving what it accomplishes with freshmen. After all, "We keep them on campus their freshman and sophomore years, so we have a captive audience for two years."

Modern University Resident Life administrators are increasingly seeing themselves not as administrators or landlords, but as educators equal to faculty who have the right to turn living areas and student's personal time into classroom-like indoctrination centers:

Said one speaker, "We are educators, and we do not need permission [from faculty] to educate, and we certainly do not need to apologize for it."

The NAS assesses it thusly, and I agree wholeheartedly:

The mischief that ACPA invites and encourages is its prescription for a regimented combination of intrusive techniques, single-minded focus on the race-class-gender-sexual preference, and ecological friendliness of students, and a highly ideological stance to what kinds of identities and social attitudes it would like to flourish. The result is an asphyxiating microcosm of the nanny state moved into the campus dormitory.

It is an ironic outcome for many res-life officials who pride themselves on their political progressivism, but who in their workaday lives have become ardent apostles of social control. They condone without a second thought many kinds of social license that would have been anathema to an earlier generation of college officials, but at the same time they deny freedom of conscience and freedom of speech to many in their charge. Res life officials at the Frazer meeting complained about helicopter parents who remain an intrusive presence in the lives of their college-age children. But it appears to be a kind of professional jealousy, since the res lifers themselves are a constant, hovering presence in the lives of the students.

The time has come to demand "academic freedom" and individual rights for students at the university level. The purpose of higher education is to educate, not indoctrinate or even attempt to shape the personal and political beliefs of individual students. A tolerant, open environment should be encouraged for each to find and follow their own path. Counselors should be available for those seeking assistance - it should not be assumed that those that may think differently or have different agendas are necessarily in need of help, especially if they don't think the way administrators believe they should.

It simply amazes me how many times liberals in this country scream "fascist" whenever discussing right-wing, conservative or libertarian ideals, but when given a position of even the slightest power, these same liberals engage in the most totalitarian, anti-freedom activities they are able to get away with (and often many they cannot for very long).

University of California admissions process discriminates against whites and asians

The UC's current "holistic" approach to admissions is discriminating
against whites and asians, and is in clear violation of prop 209. Look no further than the new freshman enrollment numbers for UC San Diego for 2007. After remaining steady for a number of years, the number of African Americans magically jumped to 72 this year, from 44
in 2006. Mexican American numbers increased from 388 to 431. However, Asians dropped from 2,080 to 1,945; Filipinos decreased from 221 to 183; Undeclared (probably mostly white and asian) from 429 to 386. Caucasians dramatically went from 1,283 to 989. 989 is a mere 24% of
this population - it was 42% 10 years ago. Caucasians are grossly underrepresented compared to the state population proportions, high school enrollment and eligible California high school
graduates. Somehow, we are expected to believe that the system is fair and people are assessed on an objective, unbiased manner - yet, somehow, admissions evaluators managed to enroll nearly 300 less white students this year than last.

Lest we forget, 209 reads: 'The state shall not discriminate against,
or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.'

There is no clause that distinguishes between overt preferential
treatment and 'qualitative' actions specifically designed to grant
preferential treatment to certain groups. Yet, admissions officers
are intentionally reshaping admissions criteria with the declared,
expressed goal of increasing "diversity," despite that fact that to
alter the criteria for this reason violates state law. How is
reshaping the admissions process to target certain groups not
discriminatory to some and preferential to others? Academic
excellence, and verifiable evidence of academic success (test scores
and GPA) are taking a backseat to ill-defined, and mostly
unverifiable, non-academic factors. This process is given the name
"comprehensive review." In other words, biased essay readers
haphazardly assign points as they see fit, for non-academic reasons
which they cannot or are unwilling to verify. There are no real
checks and balances to ensure this process is fair or objective
across the ethnic spectrum or, as importantly, the ideological
one. There is absolutely no accountability in this current system,
and university administrators are violating the rights of California
applicants, deciding based on skin-color who deserves and does not
deserve to attend the University of California.

The UC system is clearly in danger of a lawsuit brought by white and
asian students. It will cost the state millions if this trend is not stopped.

University of Delaware Thought Police Crumble

Breaking. Looks like FIRE! has achieved something of a victory in the University of Delaware mind control scandal:

A Message to the University of Delaware Community

Nov. 1, 2007

The University of Delaware strives for an environment in which all people feel welcome to learn, and which supports intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, free inquiry and respect for the views and values of an increasingly diverse population. The University is committed to the education of students as citizens, scholars and professionals and their preparation to contribute creatively and with integrity to a global society. The purpose of the residence life educational program is to support these commitments.

While I believe that recent press accounts misrepresent the purpose of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, there are questions about its practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to evaluate these issues without a full and broad-based review.

Upon the recommendation of Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert and Director of Residence Life Kathleen Kerr, I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.

Vice President Gilbert will work with the University Faculty Senate and others to determine the proper means by which residence life programs may support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.

Patrick Harker
President

Be wary of that last paragraph, though (emphasis mine). Sounds like those cunt-sacks Michael Gilbert and Kathleen Kerr are looking for less intrusive, less obvious ways to indoctrinate. At least maybe it will be voluntary, and even less effective, the next time around. Here's a radical idea - how about leaving students alone for five fucking minutes, and not hammering them over the head with biased, left-wing, radical ideology, and worry instead about providing necessary services? With all the money blown on idiotic programs and fuckwitted administrators to come up with them, maybe you could build a little more housing for students. Or bring a band on campus or something. Stop trying to turn every fucking kid in America into zombified liberal drone-bots, and actually provide them with bit of entertainment or an environment in which to unwind. It's bad enough they have this moronic one-sided crap (masquerading as "development") shoved up their asses in just about every class they take.

Believe it or not, it is not the job of any Student Affairs organization (trust me, I work for one) to get its brainless pawns involved in the "development" of students intellect, "culture" (whatever the fuck you think that means) or ethics. In fact, Student Affairs departments in this country have proven to be so unethical in situations like this and less extreme ones, that it's insane to think they have the ability to assess and alter their own corrupt behavior much less be able to help shape the minds of university students. These are young adults, not clay to be molded into what you want them to be.

God, the hubris of my fellow university administrators. I see it all day long. Assholes.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA): How College Administrators are Learning to Brainwash Your Children

University administrators from across the country are associated with, and attend conferences put on by, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). This vile organization, made up of like-minded individuals who feel they have the right to indoctrinate college students and shape the opinions of young people and public policy, promote conferences such as the Residential Curriculum Institute, which has been tied to the recent University of Delaware dormitory indoctrination controversy. Take a gander at some of the dreadfully Orwellian language used to describe this institute (emphasis mine):

You will have the opportunity to ... practice developing assessable learning outcomes; and examine the impact this shift in thinking and practice has on you, your department, and students. Ultimately, you will learn to uncover the opportunities to deliver educational messages in every student interaction.

---

Finally, we will provide you will a number of "take-away" resources to guide you and your department through the uncovering of your "essential education" for students and the process of an inevitable culture shift.

Take a gander at the goals and mission of this organization, and keep in mind that tax-payer funds and student fees are what are providing the membership and attendance fees - and that college administrators are using their positions, often state funded, to promote, endorse and advocate certain leftist positions and policies:

The mission of ACPA is founded upon and implements the following core values:

Core Values:

• Education and development of the total student.
• Diversity, multicultural competence and human dignity.
• Inclusiveness in and access to association-wide involvement and decision-making.
• Free and open exchange of ideas in a context of mutual respect.
• Advancement and dissemination of knowledge relevant to college students and their learning, and to the effectiveness of student affairs professionals and their institutions.
• Continuous professional development and personal growth of student affairs professionals.
• Outreach and advocacy on issues of concern to students, student affairs professionals and the higher education community, including affirmative action and other policy issues.

The liberal bias here is incredible. This corrupt organization also puts on events such as a Conference on Multiracial and Multiple Identities as well as a Tools for Social Justice Conference.

Fear for the minds of our youth. And pay close attention at the subversive manner in which public policy is being shaped, and fairness and open-mindedness are being slowly dismantled by the fascist left.

Scumbag Michael A. Gilbert at the University of Delaware Responds

It did not take long for an idiot at the University of Delaware to respond to the recent controversy regarding the university's attempts to indoctrinate students. Here is an article suggesting that their programs actually ENCOURAGE free speech:

Residence life program encourages free speech

3:27 p.m., Oct. 31, 2007--The University of Delaware residential life educational program has been misrepresented and its goals distorted in a report generated this week by an advocacy group, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
----
"The central mission of the University, and of the program, is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas," said Michael A. Gilbert, vice president for student life at the University. "Far from stifling free speech, the residential life educational program seeks to encourage free speech."

Anyone who has even glanced at the "program" can see what an outrageous claim this is. The very documents used are written not to "encourage learning" nor a "free exchange of ideas," but instead encourage reprogramming of thought and a stifling of any sort of unbiased, "free" exchange of ideas. There are specific "ideas" being promoted, and a belittling of contrary, "unacceptable" ideas. This would be fine for an editorial or an essay, but it is hardly the providence of taxpayer funded administrators to endorse or promote specific modes of thought - and to viciously and systematically attack others.

And as was determined, free speech was not encouraged - were the RAs ever given the opportunity to decide upon topics, even? No, they were expected to promote a specific, and idiotic, ideology, and were expected to try to sway students to this particular point of view. There was no opportunity for free debate - students were lectured at by those in positions of power, not even educators, and told what to think.

Students who choose to participate in the residence life educational program are not required to adopt any particular points of view but are presented with a range of ideas to challenge them and stimulate conversation and debate so that students can reflect on various topics, including diversity.

Anyone suggesting that these students were presented with "a range of ideas" is a motherfucking lying sack of shit. They were presented with an extremely biased, radical, narrow set of ideas and questions - just look at the materials and first person student accounts. Was there even the slightest attempt to "challenge" students that didn't already hold the "correct ideas"? No.

"Our goal as educators is to expose students to ideas and to engage them in self-examination of the roles they hope to take in society once they leave our campus," Gilbert said.

Another lie is provided here from a braindead leftist administrator. The goal here was to expose certain students to certain ideas, not all students to different ideas. "Self-examination" was never encouraged for students that already felt the way Gilbert and his social engineering ilk feel. The phrase "they hope" here is laughable. No, it's much more about what Orwellian campus thought police - student individual hopes and conscience never entered into the equation.

Students in residence halls are not forced to participate, and certainly are not forced to agree with any particular point of view. Students are faced with questions, but the answers to these questions are their own. There are no "correct" answers.

Another lie. Students were told that meetings were "mandatory", over and over again, by university figures (the RAs). University officials promoted the program as different from "voluntary" ones. People not providing "'correct' answers" were considered troublemakers. Certain idealogical "outcomes" were expected.

"The notion that students at the University of Delaware can be coerced into any one point of view does a great disservice not only to the institution but also to the student body, which is bright, creative and represents a wide array of thought," Gilbert said.

No one claimed the students were not intelligent - enough of them saw right through this pathetic scheme to notify media outlets and FIRE! But they WERE coerced into attending these indoctrination seminars, and their rights were maliciously violated by an aggressive administration that sought to brainwash them. What's pathetic about this Gilbert fuckwit is that his very own policies and programs treat students as anything but "bright" or "creative." They were treated like sheep by a corrupt institution who felt it had the right to attack them FOR representing "a wide array of thought," and viciously attempted to reprogram this thought into a narrow, radical, leftist, homogeneous blob.

The residential life educational program, which has been developed with the express intent of helping students think critically and analytically, has had the input of student leaders, faculty and administrators and is continually assessed through feedback from individuals and through focus groups.

More lies. How are students served by being provided with a very narrow set of engagements with specific expected "outcomes" in opinion? Obviously, the people running this program are themselves INCAPABLE of critical or analytical thought. Here's an idea - leave the "educating" to the educators (faculty), which is biased enough already. Administrators and student leaders should focus on running the university and providing support services - not mind-control.

Michael A. Gilbert is deplorable scum of the worst sort, and all too typical of the mind-set of college administrators nowadays. Free thought is being replaced by "correct thought." Usually it is not so blatant, but this sort of stupidity is occurring across the nation.

Other Examples of the Orwellian Shift in Higher Education

I've been following the excellent work FIRE! has been doing for some time now. Their exceptional campaigns to protect the freedom, liberty and individual rights of students and tax-payers in higher education through increasing public awareness and direct communication with the various fascist left-wing nutwits of academia has been nothing short of impressive and admirable. Yesterday, I posted a blog entry about the chilling reeducation camps that are the dormitories on the poorly run University of Delaware campus, another case of a clear violation of individual rights by unprincipled liberal university administrators brought to national attention via FIRE!

While keeping up-to-date on this latest vileness to be spewed forth from the darkening ivory tower, I ran across another thought-provoking editorial on the FIRE! site. One thing it provides is a disquieting summary of a few of the other horrifying attempts at brainwashing by freedom hating, mind-control freakjobs infecting US university administrations and faculty which FIRE! has come across:

At Michigan State University, for instance, students were subjected to the Student Accountability in Community (SAC) seminar, a pseudo-psychological “early intervention” for students who used “power-and-control tactics,” such as “male/white privilege” and “obfuscation,” which in the eyes of the university constituted “any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people’s perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another’s disadvantage.” Amazingly, students could be required to attend SAC merely for, among other things, playing a practical joke or engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Not only were students required to participate in SAC sessions, at their own expense, or else risk being unable to register for classes, they also were forced to answer a series of questionnaires to describe how they were taking “full responsibility” for their actions, until they used language the session director deemed acceptable. Under pressure from FIRE, the university finally put an end to its controversial program in May 2007.

In another memorable recent case, FIRE exposed the fact that Columbia University’s Teachers College utilizes an ideological litmus test for its students, requiring them to demonstrate a “commitment to social justice” and to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.” Teachers College has to this point failed to heed FIRE’s suggestion that those “dispositions” be dropped altogether as a requirement for students. Columbia’s attempt at thought reform has been covered everywhere from The New York Times to, in an article written by Greg Lukianoff, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and its ultimate resolution will certainly be tracked closely by FIRE.

Other cases abound. At Washington State University, a student was threatened with dismissal from the College of Education in 2005 for espousing “incorrect” political beliefs, such as the idea that white privilege and male privilege do not exist. The university, by contrast, required its education students to demonstrate “an understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.” The student was therefore subjected to diversity training and ordered to sign an agreement to follow all program “dispositions” to his professors’ approval. Only when FIRE intervened did this chilling episode of compelled speech reach a satisfactory conclusion, as the university agreed to rescind the contract and subsequently agreed to refrain from forcing students in the future to abide by the same program “dispositions.”

Likewise, in 2005, Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work attempted to force a conservative student to publicly advocate for “progressive” social changes if he wished to continue his pursuit of a master’s degree in social work policy. In response to the student’s inquiry about a possible liberal ideological bias in a particular class, his professor admitted to holding certain biases, suggested that anyone who held views antithetical to his own might not be fit for a career in social work, and even told the student that if he found himself disagreeing with the school’s political philosophy, he should consider leaving or finding another line of work. Not only did the student receive a failing grade for a paper in which he advocated the “wrong” viewpoint, he was told that he could no longer pursue a master’s degree after he chose an internship of his liking rather than one that met the school’s ideal of advancing “progressive” policies. It is almost inconceivable that a school would intrude to such a great extent into one’s personal beliefs and ability to pursue the career of one’s choosing.

Finally, in 2003, a professor at Citrus College in California gave her students an assignment to write letters to President Bush, but only gave credit if they expressed opposition to the war in Iraq (no credit would be given for letters expressing any other views, including support for the war). As if one instance of compelled speech were not enough, the same professor required her students to again write letters with a specific viewpoint, this time to a state senator. To their credit, the college’s administration recognized the problem after being contacted by FIRE, moving quickly to remedy the situation. Specifically, they sanctioned the professor, apologized to the students, assured them that their grades would not be affected by the assignments, and vowed that such a scenario would never arise again on their campus. If only every college administration were that responsive and prudent!

Lest you think these are only a few isolated cases, check out this page, on which is compiled a much longer, more comprehensive list of links to similar cases FIRE! has dealt with. Obviously, these Orwellian policies and programs are a growing concern on our nation's college campuses - and likely in K-12 systems as well. It also makes you wonder, how many other similar attempts, perhaps smaller and more isolated, have not yet come to the attention of nation's public?

The University of Delaware VS. Freedom and Liberty

From FIRE!

For those that doubt that higher education in the United States has been shifting from being left-leaning and liberally biased to full-fledged socialist indoctrination and iniquitous brainwashing, read on:

University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation

October 30, 2007

FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

Before accusing me or FIRE! of hyperbole, I encourage you to read the entire press release. For example:

Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

I can only imagine what sort of moronic twat-faced ass-licker came up with this definition of "racist." In fact, I can think of few statements more morally reprehensible and downright bigoted than the suggestion that "the term [racist] applies to all white people." Some of those "other things" RAs were taught:

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'"

Amazing. The definition ITSELF is an example of "reverse racism," while at the same time claiming that reverse racism does not exist. It would be genius in its sheer hubris and effectiveness as double-speak, were it not so frightening and malicious.

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called "blaming the victim"). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent." - Page 3

Even more stupid than the rest. By claiming that "non-racist" is a "non-term" (and doubleplusungood!) , they're suggesting that non-whites cannot be non-racist either, because non-racism is non-existent. That's a lot of non. Non's not just a retarded Kryptonian bent on world domination.

Since we white people are used to being called "racist" every six minutes by some leftwing fruitcup, many of us are desensitized to such outwardly prejudicial language - and this sort of crap has been promoted for so long, maybe a lot of us just ignore it. But the university's attempts at reprogramming the minds of the young do not stop with their heavy handed "advocacy" of their misguided views on race relations. The University further attacks personal liberty and intrudes upon the rights of students as free-thinking individuals in the following fashion:

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?”
---
According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”
---
At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs.
---
In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

Terrifying. From this, I can only infer that The University of Delaware is run by insane zombies whose goal it is to turn the brains of their students to complete mush for easier undead digestion.

The University of Delaware is "a state-assisted, privately controlled institution." Oddly, they also claim that "the central mission of the University of Delaware is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas." Not a single public dollar should be going to this corrupt institution. In fact, maybe its administrators should be convicted of fraud and misuse of public funds. It's fraud to call this "education," and utterly unethical to be using tax-payer funds to enforce racist ideas about whites.

Another interesting assessment can be found here (at FIRE!).

Green Americans Protest Frankenstein Decoration as Offensive

OK, not really, but close enough. The hypersensitive, irrational nitwits at the NAACP don't like halloween much either. I think people really have to go out of their way to feign being offended nowadays. Or has our victimization culture mutated so much that people are completely incapable of distinguishing between overt bigotry and just about anything else? I'd like to err on the side of people not being completely moronic, but it's hard not to.

California Redefines "Sex"

Thanks to some new legislation signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Senate Bill SB777, the definition of "sex" used by the California Education system is no longer biologically/scientifically based - it's now all about your feeeeeelings. Repealed from the Educational Code is the following definition:

"Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being male or female human being.

And we are left with:

"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

I don't recall having a gender "assigned" to me at birth - for all, it is a simple, physical, undeniable characteristic - the rare physical hermaphrodite abnormality aside. But, according the politically correct totalitarians, actual genitalia and physical reality should be ignored in favor of what people WANT to be, not what they are. "Gender identity... and behavior" is of course to be seen as more relevant than real-world biology.

Some are claiming as a result of this legislation words like '"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools' and that 'every California school [has become] a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center.' I'm not convinced that the former will actually come to pass, although it is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility the way things have been progressing and the thought-police further attempt to legislate opinion. I do agree the former statement to be an accurate description, true even before these recent bills were signed. The California education public system has long abandoned common sense, rational thought and a commitment to actual education and fact-based learning. It instead has become a tool for brainwashing and conditioning children, forcing upon them ideals and modes of behavior far different than what their parents might try to instill.

More psychotic political correctness and the "religion of peace"

Michele Malkin asks "Which of these is a Crime in America?"

A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine.
B) Burning the American flag.
C) Putting a Koran in a toilet.

Anyone cynical and savvy enough to discern the double-standards, and the growing attacks on freedom and liberty, that have been sweeping the country as of late will accurately guess C.

What amazes me most about this whole thing is the lack of consistency. A lot of people who in the past have defended the rights of people to do A and B, and have even argued for publicly funding A and B, now turn around and completely ignore their own arguments for free expression, attacking a person's individual right to do C for fear it is 'hurtful' or 'hateful' to Muslims. Granted, C may be so, but to the same degree, A and B are equally hurtful and hateful to Christians and many Americans, respectfully. However, the concept that everyone should be treated the same is completely ignored by the leftist thought police, and the feelings of one group count, the feelings of others do not. In the unequal-protection-under-the-law, politically correct view, the right to free speech and expression of some people should be violated to keep another group of people from feeling slighted. But only if it is the correct group of people!!! The 'right' of Muslims to not be offended outweighs the personal liberties of everyone else - but in turn the Muslim/liberal/atheist right to free expression outweighs the 'right' of Christians and/or American patriots not to be offended. Muslims and leftists are thusly treated as a super-class, with rights far and above everyone else in this nation. And, even worse, if you're a tax-payer, you get to fund their right to offend you with public art grants and in the public education system (especially at the university level). But if you offend them, you face arrest.

In this bizarro situation, the people calling for special consideration of only Muslims' feelings are not the racists in their own eyes, it's everyone else who is, for daring to suggest that all groups be treated equally, and holding everyone to the same standard. Good Allah, if some folks aren't 'more than equal', then you're a bigot!

The world is going mad. Round is square, up is down, right is wrong, black is white, Islam is peaceful. What next?

Support Stanislav Shmulevich!

Denice Denton, Still Dead

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year

since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the

University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to

pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short

a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the

University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial

service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and

inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to

strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our

differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.

The University of California is the better for her having come our way

and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the

rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,

and it can be found at

http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/denice_denton/anniversary.asp. I

encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this

extraordinary and gifted individual.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes

President

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.