Monday, March 20, 2017
Friday, March 17, 2017
Academic Fascism by Transgender Activists
Students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, derailed an event featuring University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson on Friday evening.That’s right. A crime. The act in fact does not literally say that, but in the hands of enforcement bureaucrats, failing to call a person with a penis “she” or even “ze” if that’s what he wants will quickly be considered “discrimination.” That is already the case in New York City.
The event, which Peterson claimed was originally scheduled to feature a panel of three speakers, was whittled down to just himself after the school received threats for hosting the event.
Peterson was thrust into the spotlight after a video of him engaging with students over a controversial piece of Canadian legislation which would have made it a crime to address transgender individuals by anything other than their chosen set of personal pronouns.
As a precaution before the event at McMaster University, Professor Peterson had students guard the fire alarms around the building so that protesters couldn’t set them off in an attempt to derail the event.
On Friday evening, Peterson was unable to speak at his scheduled event McMaster University due to a group of students who shouted and blew horns. The students shouted “shut him down,” and “transphobic piece of sh*t” in unison, with one student leading the cheer through a megaphone, making it nearly impossible for Peterson’s voice to be heard over their noise.
This is so depressing. I weep for the future. @jordanbpeterson at @McMasterU.— Lalo Dagach (@LaloDagach) March 17, 2017
cc: @joerogan @SamHarrisOrg @RubinReport pic.twitter.com/s3lkEDnd8N
Talking About Race and IQ
So that makes him a racist who should be shut up, according to the politically correct left.
But what is the result of that sort of thinking? A fair number of people, and especially people who don’t just go along with the crowd, are going to be sympathetic to Murray.
Further, if the notion of black racial inferiority can’t be discussed, it takes on the character of a dirty little secret. People generally try to stifle discussion of ideas they consider dangerous, and people have to suspect that the most dangerous ideas are the ones that are disapproved, but true.
Thus, stifling discussion of supposed black racial inferiority actually gives a certain legitimacy to the idea. Further, since most people (at least outside academia) instinctively side with people being bullied (and not the bullies) the sort of thing that happened a Middlebury gives Murray a certain legitimacy. Since evil people hate him, he must be one of the good guys.
Murray is, in fact, a good guy in many ways, but that doesn’t mean his ideas on race and intelligence are valid.
Evading the IssueSuppose, instead of trying to shut Murray up, people who disagree with him actually debate him? Try to show how his evidence and logic are deficient?
One suspects that, deep down, the campus social justice warriors believe that he might be right, and his beliefs are the “awful truth” that must be concealed, else it undermine their political agenda.
Further, since certain ideas have been ruled “out of bounds” even for discussion, the campus leftists would not begin to know how to refute Murray. So all they have is blind intolerance.
Confronting the IssuePeople who are open minded enough to actually look at the evidence are perfectly able to refute Murray’s ideas on race and intelligence with data and logic. Consider, for example, a 2007 article by journalist Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker.
Gladwell points to something known as the “Flynn effect:” human intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, has been increasing markedly for at least the last 100 years. It is implausible that the genetic endowment of humans has changed much during that time, and indeed, the eugenicists of a hundred years ago believed that the “less intelligent” groups were breeding faster than the more intelligent, which would imply the genetic inheritance of humans was degrading over time.
Suggested reasons for this increase have included “improved nutrition, a trend toward smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity.” Note that all of these factors are environmental. While nothing about this disproves black genetic inferiority, it does prove that environmental factors matter.
More relevant evidence is provided by racial differences in IQ broken down by age. Gladwell discusses a debate between Flynn and Charles Murray:
Murray showed a series of PowerPoint slides, each representing different statistical formulations of the I.Q. gap. He appeared to be pessimistic that the racial difference would narrow in the future. . . .Note the irony here: while the social justice warriors at Middlebury seek to shut Murray up (and ironically, he was not even talking about race and intelligence there) in a debate with a capable opponent, he was successfully refuted.
Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.
That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail . . . .
Gladwell goes on to provide further evidence:
When the children of Southern Italian immigrants were given I.Q. tests in the early part of the past century, for example, they recorded median scores in the high seventies and low eighties, a full standard deviation below their American and Western European counterparts. Southern Italians did as poorly on I.Q. tests as Hispanics and blacks did. As you can imagine, there was much concerned talk at the time about the genetic inferiority of Italian stock, of the inadvisability of letting so many second-class immigrants into the United States, and of the squalor that seemed endemic to Italian urban neighborhoods. Sound familiar? These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion. “Did their genes begin to mutate somewhere in the 1930s?” the psychologists Seymour Sarason and John Doris ask, in their account of the Italian experience. “Or is it possible that somewhere in the 1920s, if not earlier, the sociocultural history of Italo-Americans took a turn from the blacks and the Spanish Americans which permitted their assimilation into the general undifferentiated mass of Americans?”The answer, of course, is “the latter.” The conclusion has to be that IQ differences of the magnitude of those that separate black and whites can be explained by environmental factors.
Gladwell goes on to explain that people who score poorly on IQ tests are not necessarily stupid. They merely have not been socialized to see the world through what Flynn calls “scientific spectacles.” That is to say, they have not been assimilated into the ways of dealing cognitively with the environment that characterizes advanced industrial and post-industrial societies. But socialization is not heredity.
ConclusionThe bullies at Middlebury are, to the cause of anti-racism, what the Inquisition was to the cause of Christianity. Trying to forceably suppress and shut up bad ideas is ultimately a foolish and counter-productive enterprise. The people who will confront the issue of race and IQ with data and logic play the same role as the great Christian apologists (G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, just to name two) who show that engagement, and not suppression, is the way to deal with ideas one believes are mistaken.
Much Cheaper Ways to Get That Result
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
How White Folks Can Reject Their White Privilege
This is a real thing that people share seriously. pic.twitter.com/EqbfsEpVHX— neontaster (@neontaster) March 12, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
Indoctrination on Wage Gap: Feminist Instructor Tells Student to Use Only Feminist Sources
Monday, March 06, 2017
Sunday, March 05, 2017
Former Stanford Provost: Intolerance a Threat to Higher Education
But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves.Nice words, and when Etchemendy was actually serving as Provost, he made some comments that, in context, have to be interpreted as chastising the politically correct leftists on campus.
This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve.
It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.
The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate.
But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one’s own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.
I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow.
Unfortunately, your average university President / Provost / Chancellor is craven in the face of demands from intolerant leftists, or Federal bureaucrats demanding that speech be silenced as “harassment” or that males accused of sexual assault be convicted by kangaroo court proceedings. We are not aware that Etchemendy was any better than other university bureaucrats on these issues.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Finally: New York Times Cares About Anti-Semitism
Of course, since they can’t actually quote Trump saying anything anti-Semitic, they have to resort to that evasive verbal formula.
Thus the mainstream media has enthusiastically reported a spate of anti-Semitic attacks and threats against Jewish institutions.
But similar attacks have happened for years under Obama. And they have gone virtually unreported.
Thus the website of the Jewish newspaper The Algemeiner explains how “Making the New York Times Care About Antisemitism” is “Trump’s Big Achievement.”
President Trump has been in office for barely a month, but he already deserves credit for at least one major accomplishment: He’s gotten the New York Times to discover a new interest in intensively covering antisemitism.Then, following, is a long list of ant-Semitic incidents during the Obama Administration that the New York Times failed to report, or reported summarily with no attempt to tie them to any larger theme.
What am I talking about?
Consider the following brief recent history of vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and their coverage, or lack of it, in the New York Times.
To summarize: Ten Jewish cemetery desecrations, of which two — one of which was outside the US — were covered by the New York Times. Both times the Times bothered to cover the attacks, the newspaper did so in a way that minimized the potentially antisemitic aspect of the attack.Yes, the media report what fits their preferred narrative.
In November of 2016, Donald Trump was elected president.
In February 2017, there were two attacks on Jewish cemeteries. About 200 tombstones were affected at a graveyard near St. Louis, Mo., and about 100 at one in Philadelphia, Pa.
The Times responded in a markedly different way than it did to the earlier, pre-Trump attacks, which it had either ignored or minimized. One Times news article about the Missouri attacks carried the bylines of two Times reporters and was accompanied by two images shot by a Times-commissioned photographer. The article prominently noted that critics said the attacks “were an outgrowth of the vitriol of last year’s presidential campaign and Mr. Trump’s tone during it.” The Times reinforced this point with not just one, but two op-eds commenting on the attack, both of which were accompanied by additional photographs and carried headlines reaching speculative conclusions about the motive: “The New American Anti-Semitism” and “When Hate Haunts a Graveyard.”
What happens when something radically contradicts their preferred narrative? They minimize or downplay it. Thus when the perpetrator of several of the phone threats against Jewish institutions was discovered to be an anti-Trump leftist, ABC News failed to report that.
And of course, the mainstream media have been little concerned about anti-Semitism where is is most overt, and most mainstream: on college campuses.
[Update]Likewise, CNN completely failed to report the leftist, anti-Trump political views of the perp.
Friday, March 03, 2017
You’ll need to go forward to 41:15 to see Rick Graber read the citation, and 47:36 to see our speech.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Alan Colmes Dies: Fox News Twitter Followers Respond
UpdateIn contrast, the liberal online journal Slate posted a nasty obituary just hours after Colmes died.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Warrior Blogger Receives Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick Award
The award will be presented Friday night at CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference).
According to the Foundation:
McAdams was selected for his outspoken criticism of political correctness on college campuses.Actually, one campus (Marquette) which led Marquette to attempt to fire us.
“Professor McAdams is a fearless defender of free speech and open inquiry, and a martyr to political correctness,” said Richard Graber, President and CEO of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which supports the Kirkpatrick Award. “His dismissal from Marquette University flies in the face of the traditions of academic freedom.”And now the really good part:
The award carries a $10,000 stipend and honors the memory of Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who was known for her outspokenness in hostile environments, her clarity and determination in the midst of oppression, and her fierce dedication to American ideals and academic freedom.Kirkpatrick earned the enmity of the academic left by being an anti-communist. Further, she claimed that “moderate autocrats friendly to American interests” were better than communist (or other totalitarian) regimes which entirely suppressed civil liberties and where hostile to U.S. interests. History has proven her right, but at the time, leftist academics claimed that any less-than-fully democratic government might as well be replaced by a communist (or Islamist) regime.
We, of course, are not nearly as important as Jean Kirkpatrick, having done nothing but defy an attempt by a nominally Catholic (but actually secular and politically correct) university to fire us.
But we’ll accept the award anyway.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Being Blunt About Being a Bigot
I don’t like white women.We first were about to label this tirade “politically correct,” but it turns out it’s not.
Whenever I say that, white women look at me like I just decapitated Taylor Swift. If I’m being honest, their reaction is part of the reason I say it. But rest assured, it’s not the only reason.
I don’t like white women because I’m not particularly fond of the construct of whiteness or what it represents. I also don’t appreciate those who are complicit in my oppression and benefit from it. When I say I don’t like white women, it’s not in reference to any specific white woman (aside from maybe Taylor Swift). It’s a declaration that white women pose a very real threat to my existence, and I don’t have to embrace that threat with open arms. You have to earn my fondness. This goes for several other groups, obviously, but for some reason white women seem the most baffled by it. Whenever I meet a white woman who’s not baffled by it, we instantly become friends. Those are the white women I like.
It turns out the author rejects “intersectionality,” a term that means, roughly, you’ve got to make common cause with all the other politically correct victim groups.
That, of course, includes “women,” but not the women of the real world. In that real world, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump in 2016. It only means feminists.
But even in the Trump-hating “Women’s March” this writer feels alienated.
There is a bit of wisdom here. The writer understands that the white feminists who claim to speak for all women don’t. But the wisdom is buried under a huge racial grudge.
Monday, February 20, 2017
The “Living Constitution:” Trashing the Social Contract
This brings us to the opposition to President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who The New York Times actually calls a “Nominee for a Stolen Seat.” In reality, the Times advocates a perversion of judicial philosophy that long ago had stolen Americans’ birthright.We don’t think the judges should literally always rule according to “original intent.” Sometimes previous Supreme Courts have made such a mess of the law that doing that would be like trying to unscramble an omelet. But what judges should not ever do is base their decisions on their policy preferences, violating each and every defensible rule of construction. That is indeed what most of the “landmark” decisions of the late 20th century did. We don’t need more of that. We should, in fact, never vote for a presidential candidate who promises judicial appointees who will do that.
The paper complains that like Justice Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch “is an originalist, meaning he interprets the Constitution’s language to mean what it was understood to mean when it was written….” Leftists prefer the Constitution be considered a “living document,” interpreted to “suit the times” (and the Times). This just guarantees a dying republic.
Why? Consider: Imagine I violate the language of a contract to which you and I are party. You take me to court, but the judge determines that the contract can be interpreted to suit the times. You may object and say the “times” are being interpreted to suit me, but the judge is in my pocket.
Oh, he justifies this by saying he’s a “pragmatist.” Feel better?
The analogy is apt because, in essence, the Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. It specifies the rights (of the people) and powers (of the different governmental arenas) of those party to it. It does have one significant flaw, however.
For it to work as intended, people must actually abide by it.
When they don’t, our very rights are in jeopardy.
Another analogy was drawn by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he said his job was only “to call balls and strikes.” Expanding on this, judges can in fact be likened to baseball umpires, while the players are the people, the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book the Constitution.
Now, if a rule is thought inadequate, it’s the ruling body’s role to change it. Of course, the players, umpires or anyone else may lobby passionately in that regard. What, however, if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, “With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes”?
He’d be fired. And would it help his cause if he added an intellectual veneer to his cheating, saying “You don’t understand! I’m not a radical like those originalists! I’m moderate — a pragmatist”?
No, he’s a bad umpire — and he’d be history.
Likewise, all the terms describing justices — constructionist, originalist, moderate, pragmatic — are part of a pseudo-intellectual rationalization obscuring a simple truth: There are only two kinds of justices, good justices and bad justices. Good justices rule based on the founders’ original intent.
Bad justices don’t.
They put a spin on the Constitution to prove “by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white,” as satirist Jonathan Swift put it, so they can impose their agenda from the bench.
Some will say we mustn’t be hamstrung by a 200-year-old document. This gets at the big lie. There is a lawful way to make the Constitution “live:” the Amendment Process.
Yes, it can be long and difficult. This ensures that before our national contract is altered, the vast majority of those party to it (the people) agree on the change. “Living-document” judges, with an intellectual veneer and a sneer, usurp this power. The people are to decide when and how the Constitution will live — not five unelected lawyers.
Those who trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers, to facilitate an unconstitutional agenda, tread a dangerous path. Their corruption of the establishment has led to precisely the kind of anti-establishment movement we see today. After all, if a game is judged and won or lost fairly, both sides can accept the outcome. But what happens when the vanquished know the judges fixed the contest for the other side?
That is the stuff revolutions are made of.
The living-document lie can be gussied up as “pragmatism” or something else, but it’s not a legitimate legal philosophy. We can have a living constitution or a living constitutional republic — but we cannot have both.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Friday, February 17, 2017
The Utopia of the Politically Correct
She walked up the subway stairwell, smiling. Atop the Fifth Avenue sidewalk landing, a crowd had already gathered. Cheers broke out as the first glimpses of her were caught by the impatiently awaiting audience. Once on the sidewalk, she gracefully and confidently approached the prepared lectern and waived to the gathered masses. Her smile slowly faded.The author goes on to take a swipe at the Trump movement, although he is fair minded enough to admit that:
“Our country is fallen,” she began. “The legacy of colonialism and racism still haunts our communities. From small towns to big cities, police brutality is destroying lives and ruining families. Hate crimes are on the rise. Our Muslim and LGBTQIA brothers and sisters are traumatized by hate speech on college campuses and in the media. White, straight, cisgender men are bringing racism, they’re bringing sexism, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” These apocalyptic images were followed by a few more depicting rampant bigotry and oppression and the all-consuming fires of capitalism.
“But today,” she continued, her voice brightening, “we say no more! Today will be remembered as the day when we all came together and dealt the first blow to the heteropatriarchy! Just as the spirit of our movement has inspired people throughout the land to resist fascist oppression by violently opposing the Nazis who question the self-evident truths of affirmative action and affirmative consent, so today I announce that it has inspired me to run for the highest office in the land.”
This never-before-encountered brand of leftist politics was a breath of fresh air to many — especially the multicultural cosmopolitans living on the coastal areas of the country. Lately, it seems, they had been forgotten by a nationalist regime beholden to backward interests such as the religious right, gun owners, soon-to-be-obsolete polluting industries such as oil and coal, and, of course, garden variety “racists,” “sexists,” and “Islamophobes.” In their new candidate, the coastal masses, heretofore unheard by the right-wing power-holders, saw a savior who would clean up the nativistic, nationalistic infestation at the nation’s capital and in the country.
As time went on, once-unquestioned assumptions about free speech and due process were attacked into oblivion. The candidate insisted that not only will her administration punish racists and sexists themselves — it will also punish their family members if they do not report their bigoted siblings, parents, and aunts and uncles to the soon-to-be established “Department of Hate and Bias Reporting.” Universities were likewise threatened with the withholding of funds if they deigned to allow student groups to invite controversial speakers who might “microagress” against vulnerable students, faculty, and administrators. The Department of Homeland Security was called upon to create an “online harassment taskforce” that would monitor citizens’ private and public communications for hateful rhetoric directed at minorities, government officials, and even abstract concepts such as “intersectionality.” The candidate even went as far as shaming specific yoga studios and Asian restaurants run by non-Asians for “cultural appropriation.” Death threats were leveled and the businesses closed.
And yet, the more the candidate spoke, the more popular she got. Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives who seemed horrified by the implications of the candidates’ policies were quickly drowned out with rally chants such as “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, right-wing bigots go away,” to the smirking approval of the candidate. Journalists and correspondents who dared to question the candidate’s contention that the country is overrun by bigots by invoking actual statistics on the matter were either ignored or had their sources maligned as “fake stats.” The candidate, meanwhile, boasted her “Ivy League” credentials and insisted that her education and subsequent experience as an activist shielded her from any and all accusations of being illiberal and despotic.
. . . Trump’s support is to some extent undergirded by authoritarianism (though perhaps it is grounded more in nationalism and anti-elitism) . . .But his main target is the authoritarian left.
As in any good dystopia, the picture he paints merely starts with current trends and takes them to their logical conclusion, which typically is not that far from where we are now. His ranting presidential candidate is not that far from Hillary Clinton raving about a “basket of deplorables” or Barack Obama talking about “bitter clingers.”
And the idea of a Stazi tasked to ferret out and punish any politically incorrect thoughts is almost perfectly representative of the bias incident reporting systems on college campuses. Indeed, college campuses, being dominated by the left, are the places most like the dystopia that Gorelik has described.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Taking Provost Myers to Task: Young Americans for Freedom
Last week, the Young Americans for Freedom at Marquette held a wildly successful talk featuring Ben Shapiro. Two lecture halls were filled beyond capacity, even as Marquette staff attempted to sabotage the event behind the scenes.What does it say that, on the Marquette campus, it is usually conservatives who arrange debates, but the Marquette administration arranges only one-sided programs? It must mean that, deep down, the people running Marquette sense that they would be at a disadvantage in an open, balanced debate.
The first time any Marquette administrator publicly addressed students about the Shapiro talk was in an editorial in the campus newspaper on February 14. Provost Dan Myers —who once carried a sign that labeled conservatives as homophobic, transphobic & biphobic—penned an op-ed pleading for “critical thinking” when considering conservative speakers like Shapiro.
His message was simple: the conservatives who came to hear from Ben Shapiro failed to think critically.
According to Myers, Shapiro’s visit “produced some controversy.” In reality, it was university staff that ginned up the controversy. Myers argues that campuses “should not avoid controversy.” Instead, he wants the campus to challenge “controversial” views. Myers, as the second in command at Marquette, has made it his duty to challenge exclusively conservative views the few times they are allowed to be heard on campus.
Interestingly, Myers did not even attend Shapiro’s lecture, but this did not prevent Myers from responding (presumably, he watched the video provided by YAF).
In his contradictions of Shapiro’s assertions, Myers leans heavily on fallacies. When Shapiro remarked that “institutional racism” is no longer the norm, Myers wrote that targeting “legacy” students is racist. He continued, asking whether the legacy advantage “replicate[s] that racism in the next generation.” That is, Myers believes recruiting students who are more likely to attend Marquette because of a prior family connection is racist. Surprisingly, Myers never mentions Marquette’s expressed desire to slant the admissions process in favor of Hispanic students, despite the fact that he himself supports a policy which would require Marquette’s racial demographic to reach at least 25% of all enrollments.
A quick recap of Myers logic reveals a troubling conclusion:
To recruit legacy students, those whose parent or sibling attended Marquette University before them (regardless of race), is institutional racism. But to set a goal of creating a Marquette where 25% of the population is Hispanic (potentially at the expense of other qualified minority students) in order to seek federal funds is not institutional racism.
That’s right Marquette alumni: The provost of your alma mater does not want to recruit your kid, younger sibling, or grandkid in the name of some warped version of Jesuit social justice.
Marquette’s desire to welcome more Hispanics is laudable – but not through this scheme. Skewing numbers to fleece the feds and pander to progressive pieties will throw off other diversity metrics, including socioeconomic status, religion, sex, and many more. Note that intellectual diversity is never part of any initiative promoting inclusion on the campus of Marquette University.
Doubling down on his accusations, Myers argues that Ben’s promotion of the Brookings Institution’s Three Simple Rules to Join the Middle Class is also racist: Graduate from high school, avoid early pregnancy, and get a job. Myers says not all races have equal opportunities to finish high school, get into college, or, evidently, avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Myers offers no solutions to address this broad institutional charge of racism. For decades, conservatives have advocated school choice that would benefit minority students. Yet progressives dramatically opposed Betsy DeVos for the Department of Education, despite her plan to expand to expand choice for impoverished children.
Milwaukee Public Schools (serving the residents who live around Marquette) have been run into the ground by progressive unions for decades. Perhaps left wing unions are the example of institutional racism Myers was seeking?
Myers writes, “Healthy skepticism is at the very foundation of active learning.” If Myers is genuinely interested in interaction with active learning, perhaps the Young Americans for Freedom might bring Shapiro back for a debate.
In fact, Young America’s Foundation has a strong reputation of supporting dialogue on Marquette’s campus. The Foundation has sponsored Attorney General John Ashcroft, Speaker Newt Gingrich, John Stossel, Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, Allen West, Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Christopher Horner, and many more.
Additionally, the Foundation has sponsored two debates at Marquette. Marquette’s own liberal theologian Dan Maguire backed out of a debate on pro-life issues with conservative Mike Adams.
The Foundation also paid for Liz Cheney to debate Howard Dean prior to the 2012 election. Marquette was one of only a handful of campuses to host such a debate. The Foundation paid for both speakers.
Non-progressives are left to wonder if Myers is planning to write a similarly scathing op-ed after Shaun King appeared on campus this week, or well-known domestic terrorist Angela Davis appears next month. We won’t hold our breath. As Myers pointed out in his op-ed, a “variety of speakers” were on campus last week. Myers singled out the conservative.
If they were confident of their views, they would welcome having those views be shown to be superior in head-to-head competition.
No doubt they are confident of their moral righteousness. But somewhere deep down they know that there are things they don’t want aired, else people start having doubts about the “social justice” agenda.
[Update from YAF]
YAF-Marquette chairman and adviser reached out to Provost Myers for a meeting. Through his chief of staff, Myers denied the request because he was too busy. Myers’ office said they could direct the YAF chapter to another person on campus. At this point, Myers is unwilling to defend his actions directly to conservative students.We can’t imagine Myers refusing to meet with representatives of any politically correct victim group. But he refuses dialogue with conservative students. That’s the Marquette version of “inclusion.”