Appalachian State Student Newspaper Apologizes for Column That Criticized Social Justice
“Eye-for-an-eye social justice hurts innocent people.”
There are some things on campus which you’re just not allowed to criticize. This is one of them.
Campus Reform reports:
Campus paper apologizes for anti-social justice op-ed, cites JOURNALISM ETHICS
Appalachian State University’s student newspaper apologized recently for publishing an op-ed by one of its writers, titled, “Eye-for-an-eye social justice hurts innocent people.”
Written by student Connor Hughes, the original op-ed in The Appalachian is a thorough discussion of what Hughes finds to be fundamental contradictions between social justice and American jurisprudence. In the piece, Hughes admits that while well-intended, social justice is reliant on “flawed logical and philosophical arguments” that directly conflict with core American principles.
Hughes goes on to claim that American jurisprudence aims to provide justice for the individual, as opposed to groups, which he alleges social justice addresses. The student cites social justice attempting to hold the descendants of slave owners accountable and provide reparations to the descendants of slaves.
Hughes argues that this notion is in opposition to the American justice system’s protection and advancement of individual rights.
“The classic eye-for-an-eye approach to social justice is also irrational,” the student claims. “The only way to make up for an act would be the act itself. Do we want a society that swaps historical injustices?”
Hughes’ piece elicited mostly negative feedback from readers.
Appalachian State student Taylor Gibbs insisted the article “expresses borderline white supremacist views,” claiming that group justice is sometimes necessary. Other users called the piece “garbage fire” and suggested that Hughes, a political science major, would make it on the Supreme Court because of his white skin.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Our institutional leadership are the largest bunch of cowards that have ever existed.
And our social justice zealots are some of the worst bullies and tyrants that have ever lived. Especially when you realize how little actual power they have compared to tyrants of history.
“expresses borderline white supremacist views,”
Bulls***. And to even claim so means you’re a lying sack of excrement or an imbecile (in the clinical sense).
God for Connor Hughes for taking on the mob! And standing for Western Civ!
The student cites social justice attempting to hold the descendants of slave owners accountable and provide reparations to the descendants of slaves.
Really? All the versions I’ve found would bail-in very widely, with an intention essentially to maximize white-to-black cashflow. Even though most of the whites and everyone else have no slaveowning ancestors.
I will post a letter I sent to Joe Walsh’s show just before he hinted at running
First, be prepared for the discussion to change to “civil rights” from
slavery. It will happen.
A starting point, who should be liable for reparations for slavery?
Immigrants and their descendants who entered the US after slavery
ended? And who shouldn’t get such reparations, why should this include
people and their descendants who came here after the end of slavery?
OK, so next, who not only profited from slavery, but demanded slavery
even if they were elected from, and purportedly represented, areas
where the institution of slavery was illegal but the Democratic Party?
Certainly not the Abolitionist Party, who was eventually formally
named the Republican Party. And while some Whigs supported slavery,
with the disbanding of that party they were left with the Abolitionist
party or the Democratic Party.
Hint, when referring to pre-Reconstruction Era Republicans it was
common then, and should be used by Joe now, to call them abolitionists
and the abolitionist party as at that time it was the platform and the
only plank of the party so is accurate and much less plausible for
demands for reparations from those people.
If Joe doesn’t want the argument to hinge on Party, he could easily
make it about States.
Why should States where slavery was never legal from the founding of
the US of A, or the state did not exist yet, be liable for slavery
reparations? And if it becomes an argument that before the Revolution
that the Crown allowed slavery, then it becomes an appropriate
counterpoint that all the early forms were indentured servitude that
had an end point, and volunteers accepting indentured servitude that as an acceptable condition to get here.
Oh, and it wasn’t the US residents, slave owning or not, who captured
Africans to bring them here, but African neighbors, neighboring
villages, and African Royals responsible for selling them to the
almost exclusively Arab slave traders who sold the slaves to the
Spanish, then, Dutch, French, and last British slave-ships (then Pres
Obama and his family toured the slave pens and auction site in the one
country where the African King sold direct to slave ship masters) to
transport to the New World. Especially with the claimed mortality
rate, why are none of those people responsible for any of the