Anti-Racism Plan at U. Oregon Includes Endorsing BLM and Defunding Police
“The school’s Vice President, Jamie Moffitt, laid out these plans in an email to the Diversity Committee”
The plan also includes using diversity as a factor in new hires. This is the progressive platform in a nutshell.
Campus Reform reports:
EXCLUSIVE: University of Oregon’s anti-racism plan considers defunding police, endorsing BLM, using diversity as employment factor
Internal documents obtained by Campus Reform reveal that the University of Oregon discussed a plan that includes defunding the police, endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement, and using “diversity” as an employment factor.
The school’s Vice President, Jamie Moffitt, laid out these plans in an email to the Diversity Committee: “If employees were permitted to post signs expressing their own personal viewpoints, the institution would need to allow signs with all types of viewpoints to be posted, even if some might be considered hurtful.”
“However, I found the discussion of whether formal UO signs could be posted that express institutional values interesting. I plan to explore this question with the relevant offices on campus to see what options exist.”
In a memo sent on Aug. 7, the Diversity Committee addressed this.
“The diversity committee did discuss issues around free speech and opposing viewpoints (e.g., All Lives Matter) and noted that the UO should specifically endorse this position (e.g., BLM), and the display of such signs.”
Diversity Committee notes from an August 20 meeting state, “We need BLM signs on campus so people can see that it is a critical value and component of our university community.”
The notes continued: “Consider an institutional point of view- an institutional campaign on values (including BLM).”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Surprised Boise State hasn’t adopted the same position (or maybe we just haven’t heard about it).
So implementing racist policies is supposed to somehow eliminate racism? Why not just revert to enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law?
Apparently their lawyers think they can get away with this. I hope they cannot.