Pro-Life Group Blamed for an Alleged ‘Anti-Gay Hate Crime’ by Black Harvard Democrat
“two campus LGBT leaders tried to link the attack to Harvard Law Students for Life”
For these progressive students, the person accused of the attack can’t possibly be responsible for his own actions.
The College Fix reports:
Black Harvard Democrat charged with anti-gay hate crime – peers blame pro-life group
LGBT students at Harvard University tied an alleged anti-gay hate crime attack by a black Democrat peer to the campus pro-life group.
“Naod N. Nega approached another student outside Langdell Hall on the afternoon of Jan. 23 and repeatedly punched the student, calling him a homophobic slur,” The Harvard Crimson reported on Thursday, based on police reports it obtained. “Nega has been charged with assault and battery for the purpose of intimidation — a hate crime under Massachusetts state law. He pleaded not guilty to the charge at a Jan. 27 arraignment.”
Cambridge Police Department spokesman Jeremy Warnick confirmed to The Fix that Nega is black.
Nega is a former intern for Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester and was a member of the University of Maryland College Democrats, according to his LinkedIn profile. His bio also listed his involvement in the “Harvard African Law Students Affinity Group.”
Warnick declined to provide police reports, citing a policy against releasing the documents in mental health related cases.
“According to the [Harvard University] police report, a witness believed Nega to be either under the influence of narcotics or off medication and reported Nega was in possession of a baseball bat,” the newspaper reported. The police document also stated Nega had a history of “aggressive and violent behavior.”
Despite these facts, two campus LGBT leaders tried to link the attack to Harvard Law Students for Life, which had already invited Notre Dame University professor Sherif Girgis to campus for a lecture several days later.
“Three days after the assault, anti-abortion advocacy group Harvard Law Students for Life hosted Notre Dame law professor Sherif Girgis — a prominent opponent of same-sex marriage,” The Crimson reported. This event led Gabrielle Crofford, the leader of Lambda, the LGBT law students group on campus, to “feel less safe in the context of the assault,” according to the paper.
“Someone just got attacked — so we don’t need to ask questions of, ‘What does letting homophobic thought on campus lead to?’ This is what it leads to,” she told the student newspaper. “It leads to people getting punched and called slurs on our campus.”
Another LGBT law student agreed that the university’s inaction to stop the event could have possibly contributed to Nega’s attack.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“‘What does letting homophobic thought on campus lead to?’”
Here’s a better question: What does the concept of “allowed thoughts” lead to?
At this point if you have a degree from an Ivy League I think it’s probably the safe thing for a potential employer to assume you are an idiot or a useless self absorbed trouble maker…. Probably both
“Pro-Life Group Blamed for an Alleged ‘Anti-Gay Hate Crime’ by Black Harvard Democrat”
Just my simple, bearish way of thinking but, I think this is a bit of a stretch.
“For these progressive students, the person accused of the attack can’t possibly be responsible for his own actions.”
Gee. Sounds like the progressives see them a little more than impulsive animals. Isn’t that racist?
Reminds me of President Biden claimed that gas prices were high because Russia attacked Ukraine two months after the price increases.
While the guy is obviously not wrapped too tight, the incident shows how easy it is to manipulate these people. Here’s a quote from Matt Ruff’s novel, Sewer, Gas and Electric. The novel came out in the mid-’90s, and I haven’t changed anything to make it read currently:
From Chapter 12, The Pope Of Reason:
Joan met Archie Kerrigan in November of ’03 while researching a position paper on federal regulation of the genetic engineering industry. Kerrigan was an Arkansas-born conservative, a tongue-in-cheek, right-wing iconoclast whose favorite sport was teaching stupid pet tricks to the hounds of the Lefty God. He’d first gained notoriety after a correspondent to the Harvard Crimson accused him of “oppression symbolism” for flying a Confederate battle flag from his dorm room window. Progressive students mobilized quickly to express their outrage and demand the flag’s removal only to be caught flatfooted when, at the height of their candlelight vigil, a passing political science major pointed out that Kerrigan’s racist Confederate flag was actually a British Union Jack. A photographer for National Review just happened to be on hand to catch the red-faced squirming that followed; Rolling Stone columnist P. J. O’Rourke joined in the heaping of ridicule a couple of weeks later with a piece titled “Bean Town’s Culturally Illiterate Elite: Why Johnny Can’t Tell Grits from a Crumpet.” Suspecting–a tad late–that they’d been set up, the flag-bashers reexamined the Crimson letter that had sparked their protest in the first place. It was signed “A.K.”
This bit of entrapment alone had earned Kerrigan a reserve spot in the lowest circle of Lefty Hades. Hellbound or no, though, Archie was a crack biochemistry major with inside knowledge of the gene-splicing-for-profit business: he’d worked two summers for PhenoTech, a genetic engineering firm currently being sued by the city of Boston for gross criminal negligence. Joan thought he would be a perfect background source–or devil’s advocate–for her paper. But when she went to look him up, she found the hallways outside his room jammed solid with angry women singing “We Shall Overcome.”
“What blasphemy did he commit this time?” Joan asked.
“Andrea Dworkin,” the song leader told her. “Kerrigan’s filed a complaint to block her from speaking on campus next week, and they say that he’s threatening to do the same thing if Alice Walker tries to come in December.”
“What kind of complaint? How can he block someone from speaking at a university?”
“It’s the new Sensitivity in Debate Ordinance that the Harvard Executive Student Council enacted in closed session last Thursday,” a second singer chimed in. “It bars students from hosting lecturers whose presence may create an overtly hostile environment for any ethnic, gender, physical challenge, or sexual orientation group, or other oppression category.”
“Kerrigan,” said a third singer, “is claiming that an appearance by Dworkin would create a hostile environment for white male heterosexuals.”
“And what genius thought up this Sensitivity Ordinance in the first place?” Joan asked.
“I did,” the song leader said. “It’s an important step in the evolution of progressive society, but Kerrigan’s action is a total subversion of the Ordinance’s intent.”
“Well, intent notwithstanding, if you got this beast enacted then Kerrigan is technically within his rights. Andrea Dworkin does create a hostile environment for white male heterosexuals; it’s part of what makes her so interesting. Of course a man who’s read her essay on penile infibulation as street justice might not see it that way….”
“But the Ordinance is meant to safeguard tolerance by empowering students from oppressed groups. White male students aren’t oppressed.”
“But if you make them the only group that can’t censor hostile viewpoints, they are oppressed.”
“Look,” the song leader said, “you obviously just don’t get it. If any group can veto speakers they find threatening, even speakers with the correct point of view, then pretty soon there won’t be any speakers left at all. That sort of indiscriminate use of the Ordinance renders it worthless.”
“We might even have to repeal it,” the second singer added.
“By the way,” said the third singer, jabbing an incisor-manicured finger at the rectangular bulge in Joan’s hip pocket, “don’t even think of smoking in here. It’s antisocial behavior and we won’t stand for it.”
Obviously, the tires on their circular reasoning are a little flat-spotted from being parked in one spot too long. Ruff was (is?) a prophet.
“This event led Gabrielle Crofford, the leader of Lambda, the LGBT law students group on campus, to “feel less safe in the context of the assault,” according to the paper.”
Poor widdel snowflake. A speculative effect of something that may happen in the future “threatens” her now.
Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
‘What does letting homophobic thought on campus lead to?’
I think they’re misidentifying who has the “homophobic thought’ here.
Also, a prime example of not understanding causation/correlation.