Thread: College Moonbattery: PC Edition
#1 College Moonbattery: PC Edition
04-30-2014, 08:20 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
There are just so many of these stories, we would need a whole forum for them. I'm going to try to keep them on a single Moonbat thread. Let's see if that works.
Free Speech Group Says Discipline of Lewis & Clark Students Too Harsh
The pair’s crime? Tasteless race jokes at (a private) dorm party.
...In its zeal to root out racism on campus and ensure no student hears anything offensive, Lewis & Clark ran roughshod over the First Amendment and due process rights of students who were joshing around and hurt no one, Peter Bonilla, program director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told The Oregonian....
The group’s claims on behalf of the students were first reported by The Pioneer Log student newspaper.
Contacted for comment Thursday, the college’s communications office indicated that school officials did not wish to say anything.
The First Amendment group gave this account, based in part on university investigative and disciplinary documents:
Two friends of different races, both football players, joined in a drinking game at the party, held on a Saturday in November shortly after the end of football season. The African American student jokingly named his team “Team Nigga” and shouted that whenever his team scored a point.
Drawing on a long-running joke between them, the pair also had a short two-sentence exchange along the lines of “Can I get a ‘white power?’” “White power!”
No one at the party got upset or complained. But from outside the closed-door event, a resident of the dorm overheard what sounded to that student like one voice saying the N-word repeatedly and then a different voice asking, “Can I get a white power?” Upset, that student reported the incident to the dorm’s hall adviser.
An investigation and hearing ensued. Although the students were interviewed and given documents only about the events at the party, the college review board hearing also delved into other incidents in which the pair were alleged to have used racially inflammatory language.
Based on their actions at the party and earlier, both students were found responsible for all the violations with which they were charged, including recklessly causing physical or mental harm or reasonable fear thereof; creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment; and engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct.
That finding was made by the college review board, made up of students and faculty members, and upheld on appeal by administrators.
Both students had written reprimands entered into their college record, were put on five- to 13-month probation during which they could face severe discipline if they break any campus rules and are required to complete “bias reduction and bystander intervention” training.
Bonilla said he did not know, and The Oregonian could not determine, what else the two students were alleged to have said and what evidence, if any, the university presented.
Campus living director Kelly Hoover and Associate Dean of Student Engagement Tricia Brand wrote in turning down the students’ appeal, “Your use of racially charged language, intentional or not, was reckless and created an environment where others in the space felt it was necessary to correct your behavior. More broadly, your actions caused reasonable apprehension of harm to the community.”
That upset the university freedom group, which often goes by its acronym, Fire. Fire’s legal program officer, Ari Cohn, sent Lewis & Clark President Barry Glassner a six-page letter last week calling on Lewis & Clark to undo the discipline.
The college “betrayed its institutional promises of free expression and abandoned fundamental fairness in its disciplinary proceedings,” Cohn wrote.
As a private college, Lewis & Clark is not bound by the First Amendment, but it is bound by promises it makes to students in its policies and written materials, Bonilla said. And Lewis & Clark does promise students in its freedom of expression policy that members of the community are free to discuss all issues and express opinions publicly and privately, he said.
Lewis & Clark fell short, something that is common when universities feel the tension inherent between promoting civility, diversity and inclusion, and protecting free speech, Bonilla said.
“There is this creeping sense that it is a university’s job to protect its students from being offended,” he said. “It’s not. A university is a haven of free ideas. There should be a lot of room to be offended and have our ideas challenged.”
His group has gone to bat for students disciplined for handing out copies of the Constitution, but does so for those who use the N-word as well, an example of what free speech advocates sometimes call “lower value expression,” he said.
Bonilla said several underage students drank beer at the party, but he said he was unsure whether any were disciplined for that. The university communications office did not respond to that question.
Bonilla said if there was action taken against illegal drinking, it wasn’t nearly as significant as the discipline for the students’ speech.
04-30-2014, 08:22 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
The White House Joins the War on Men
Two new documents out from the White House–the Vice President’s task force recommendations and a question and answer document from the OCR–continue the assault on due process at the expense of males accused of rape or sexual assault on campus. The administration tips its hand quickly with a telltale verbal switch–referring to complainants as “survivors,” rather than as accusers.
This language, which assumes guilt and the fact of a sexual offense before any hearing, is the terminology of hardline feminists who have the ear of this administration and have made it clear that they want more guilty findings. Yet what many observers call rape is viewed by others as a growing prevalence of ambiguous and drunken encounters fueled by an anything-goes campus culture.
The administration’s thumb on the scale began with the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, which lowered requirements for a finding of guilt. Some of what the documents contain (more statistics, more transparency, clearly articulated rules and guidelines) are non-controversial. But the consistent attack on any meaningful due process for accused students means that one thing can be sure from the administration’s move: more innocent students will be branded rapists by their colleges. For an example, see this report yesterday from the University of Virginia.
And Brett Sokolow, director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, delivered a bombshell in a newsletter to members last Thursday, saying that “in the last two weeks, I’ve worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong.” No hint of miscarriages of justice like this, or concern about the rights of the accused, is found in the White House report.
08-13-2014, 04:49 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Lewis & Clark’s Racial Inquisition
How good-natured joshing turned two college football teammates into pariahs.
12 August 2014
Photo by M.O. Stevens
Has it really come to this? This spring, the estimable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reported on a case out of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, in which two friends and football teammates—one black, one white—were punished for joking about race during a game of beer pong at a private dorm party in November 2013. No one at the party was offended, but an informer in another room overheard the banter and turned them in.
The black student had jokingly named his beer pong team “Team Nigga” and would shout the name whenever the team scored. At some point, the white student—reprising a running joke on the football team, in which black students would greet white teammates with the phrase “White power!”—said, “Can I get a white power?” The black student replied, “White power!”
The noise from the party awakened a student in another room in the residence hall (no doubt, college football players of all races, creeds, and colors can be loud and rowdy while playing beer pong). She reported this exchange to the Campus Living office, and an inquisition began. Campus Living turned the matter over to the campus police, which launched an investigation into the “racial and biased comments” at the party. Learning of the comments’ origins on the football field—where not only did black players greet white players with “White power!”, but blacks and whites both used “What’s up nigga?” as a friendly greeting—the investigating officer spun into full Inspector Javert of the Left mode. As stated in his report, “I asked . . . which players . . .—naming them individually—commonly used the n-word” and “expressed hope that . . . [the black student] would shoulder the responsibility to speak up and shed some awareness to his teammates and friends about how those particularly racist comments, and other even less inflammatory biased comments, negatively affect community members of color—and the community as a whole.”
Justice was swift. Several days after the party, on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the two students were charged with inflicting “Physical or Mental Harm” and “Discrimination or Harassment,” as well as with disorderly conduct. The complaint noted that the charges were based both on the banter at the party and on “suggest[ions] that similar language may have occurred at other times . . . in the Football team locker room, and around campus generally.” The students were told to submit the names of any defense witnesses by 9 a.m. on Monday morning following the break, and directed to appear at a hearing on Tuesday.
Within days after the hearing, the two were found guilty of all charges, placed on probation, and ordered on threat of suspension to undergo “Bias Reduction Training.” The ruling stated, without any support, that their “language ha[d] contributed to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment.” They were given five days to submit “full and complete appeals.” (By comparison, appellants in court have months to prepare their cases.) The appeals were rejected in less than two weeks.
Rarely does the modern Left’s humorlessness, authoritarianism, and subversion of its own goals come together as starkly as in this case. Today’s liberals not only threaten to create a 1984 culture, in which informers who overhear private conversations turn in the perpetrators for reeducation. More troublingly, in the name of “multiculturalism,” they also seek to ban the kind of affectionate ethnic teasing between friends that for years—long before our elite liberal betters came along to lecture us on “diversity”—has allowed people in this polyglot country to break down barriers between groups and bond with one another. The upshot is that the only intercultural relationships allowed will be the phony liberal ones at food coops and faculty lounges, in which no one ever talks except to mouth hackneyed dogma and platitudes, and, in the absence of honest and unstilted conversation, increasingly Orwellian efforts are employed to ferret out “unconscious bias” and “micro-aggressions.” It’s all done in the name of a false multiculturalism that increasingly drives people apart.
I don’t know if the “Bias Reduction” brainwashing worked on the Lewis & Clark teammates, or whether, to the gratification of the Investigating Officer, they emerged to lecture their friends on the evil of their former ways. But I’m sure that if it did work, it also created a wall between them, and that their new, exquisitely polite, politically correct relationship will never approach the closeness of their previous friendship. I hope, of course, that the reeducation efforts failed, and that, like Galileo in the dock, as the Bias Reduction Trainer droned on, they whispered to each other: “What’s up nigga?” “White power, bro!”
Dennis Saffran is an appellate attorney and was recently the GOP candidate for the city council seat representing District 19, in Queens.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|