Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Political Correctness Tag

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 28, 2015 8 Comments
I invite Legal Insurrection readers to pour an ice cold brew and celebrate "Human Achievement Hour", slated to start today at 8:30 pm local time. The event is promoted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute; its website offers the background on today's festivities:
  • Human Achievement Hour is the counter argument to Earth Hour, which is an event where participants symbolically renounce the environmental impacts of modern technology by turning off their lights for an hour...
  • Symbolically or not, Earth Hour does little to protect the environment and is a misguided effort that completely ignores how modern technology allows societies around the world to develop new and more sustainable practices that help humans be more eco-friendly and better conserve our natural resources.
  • Instead of looking to the “dark ages,” as Earth Hour might suggest, Human Achievement Hour promotes the idea that we should be looking to technology and innovation to help solve environmental problems..
CEI would like supporters to share their favorite human achievements on Twitter using @ceidotorg and #HAH2015. There is also a Facebook page for the event.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 24, 2015 20 Comments
California's seven Supreme Court judges have voted unanimously to prohibit state judges from holding membership in the Boy Scouts of America; the ruling is based on the grounds that the Scouts discriminate against gays. California is one of several states that has rules on the books banning judges from holding memberships in groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; the court, however, also carved out an exception for non-profit youth groups, including the Boy Scouts. Everything changed, however, when an ethics advisory committee recommended the ban last year. The San Francisco Gate has the history:
California has been among 23 states with an ethical code that prohibits judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the state’s Supreme Court in 1996 approved an exemption, unique to California, for “nonprofit youth organizations” to accommodate judges affiliated with the Boy Scouts. The Bar Association of San Francisco and other legal organizations sought to repeal that exemption in 2003. The court refused, and instead instructed judges to disclose connections to the Boy Scouts when they heard cases involving gay rights and related issues, and to disqualify themselves for any conflicts of interest. At the time, the Scouts also barred gay youths as members, a policy the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld in 2000. The organization repealed that ban at a national meeting in May 2013, effective the following January, but maintained the prohibition on gay and lesbian youth leaders. “The people of California have a right to an impartial and unbiased judiciary,” Richard Fybel, a state appeals court justice in Santa Ana and chairman of the high court’s ethics advisory committee, said Friday. “This is important to accomplishing that.”

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 22, 2015 10 Comments
Just when you may have given up entirely on the Golden State, news comes about a newspaper in one of the deepest blue enclaves fighting political correctness.
A California newspaper will continue to use the term "illegals" to describe people who enter the U.S. without permission, despite an attack on its building by vandals believed to object to the term. The Santa Barbara News-Press's front entrance was sprayed with the message "The border is illegal, not the people who cross it" in red paint, sometime either Wednesday night or early Thursday, according to the newspaper's director of operations, Donald Katich. The attack came amid wider objections to a News-Press headline that used the word "illegals" alongside a story on California granting driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. ....In addition to the writing on the building, graffiti espousing a no-borders mentality was scribbled on the walkway through Storke Placita and the sidewalk near Santa Barbara City Hall. Police were braced for a protest in front of the paper later this week. Jan said hundreds could show up, and the Police Department is aware of the call for a protest.
Here's the offending paper: You may recall that another of California's newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, jettisoned the phrases “illegal immigrant,” “illegal immigration” and even "undocumented immigrant."

Posted by Hans Bader on January 08, 2015 3 Comments
Can federal officials declare you in violation of the law, not for actions that flout the text of a statute, but for failing to parrot the agency’s controversial views about how the statute should be applied in hypothetical situations? Recently, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) did just that to Harvard Law School. OCR, where I used to work, found Harvard Law School in violation of Title IX for its failure to recite at length OCR officials’ views about the optimal handling of Title IX sexual harassment claims. Ironically, these views were expressed in “guidance” from agency officials that had expressly claimed to “not add requirements to applicable law.” As I explain at this link, this is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Although the new procedures were adopted precisely to appease the Education Department, OCR nevertheless found them in violation of Title IX, not for what they did, but what they failed to say: For failing to make assertions about sexual harassment made in OCR’s own sexual harassment guidance which are seldom found in any real-world sexual harassment policy, including about obscure procedural or jurisdictional matters that seemingly had nothing to do with any specific harassment case that actually occurred at Harvard Law School. (Title IX is much shorter and less complex than other civil rights laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but employers routinely win sexual harassment lawsuits under Title VII despite having a sexual harassment policy that runs only a few sentences, and recites none of the assertions that OCR faulted Harvard for not reciting)....

Posted by David Gerstman on December 16, 2014 15 Comments
A Baltimore City police officer was shot and seriously wounded at a traffic stop Sunday night. At a press conference outside the hospital as the officer was being treated, Baltimore City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said, "I'm not caught on the irony of the timing of the situation. We've had marches nationwide over the fact that we've lost lives in police custody. I wonder if we're going to have the same marches as officers are shot, too." (The remarks are at about 1:25 in the video embedded below.) According to one news report the Baltimore Police Department has gone to great pains to point out that during the whole episode the police on the scene did not fire their weapons at all.
A man in the back seat refused to comply with an order to show his hands, police said. "One officer advised him that if he didn't comply he would be tased. At some point, there was the discharging of the firearm and the firing of a Taser, exactly which event happened first is under investigation," Baltimore City police Maj. Stanley Branford said.
Three shots were reportedly fired and one struck the officer in the abdomen, below his bulletproof vest, injuring him. His partner took him to the hospital. (According to news reports, officers in Baltimore are authorized to take injured colleagues to the hospital and not wait for ambulances. The nearest hospital is about three miles from the scene of the shooting.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 12, 2014 25 Comments
College Insurrection and others recently reported how the President of Smith College apologized to the student body for using the term "All Lives Matter" rather than "Black Lives Matter." A Cornell engineering student just tweeted to me about a similar statement from the Chief of the Cornell University Police, Kathy Zoner, in an all campus email. https://twitter.com/TTimeOnThe19th/status/543545839927693312 I checked my own email, and sure enough, there it was: Cornell Police #ALLLIVESMATTER That original message from the week before was:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on December 09, 2014 8 Comments
God bless Texas. Last year, the Lone Star State passed a bill that allows schools to say things like, "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hanukah" without retribution. Co-authored by Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston) and Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), the bill, "allows students, parents, teachers and administrators the freedom to acknowledge these traditional winter holidays without fear of litigation or punishment and restores common sense by placing Supreme Court precedent into state law," according to the law's official website.
More ABC US news | ABC World News

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 19, 2014 22 Comments
Vermont ice cream maker Ben and Jerry's drew the ire of the political correctness brigade when they released "Hazed and Confused," a concoction of chocolate and hazelnut deliciousness. Part of their new Core series, "Hazed and Confused" is injected with a chocolate, hazelnut, fudge core. "Hazed and Confused" being a play off the hazelnuts and famed Led Zeppelin song "Dazed and Confused." "Dazed and Confused" was also an early nineties movie that gave us Matthew McConaughey, and is therefore one of the best movies in existence.

Posted by Robert Shibley on October 17, 2014 17 Comments
WAJ: This is a guest post by Robert L. Shibley, Senior Vice President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). As "Yes Means Yes" mania sweeps across college campuses, and the lives of innocent men falsely accused are ruined in a witch hunt atmosphere, the FIRE once again is at the forefront of standing up for the individual. ----------------------------------- On Monday, Vox co-founder Ezra Klein penned an op-ed about how he firmly supported the affirmative consent bill recently passed in California despite his candid acknowledgment that the bill was in fact “terrible.” The general tenor of his column, which I discussed in The Daily Caller yesterday, was that you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs—the eggs being people unjustly found guilty of rape. Critics on the left and the right were equally appalled, as well they—or anyone concerned with civil liberties—should have been. Under this barrage of well-deserved criticism, Klein returned with a longer piece yesterday, attempting to justify his candid-yet-horrifying position on California’s law. He fails. In fact, despite his column’s title, “What people get wrong about the Yes Means Yes law,” he fails to even get basic facts about the law right. Klein does the same thing that so many other supporters of the law have done, which is to present the law and the campus environment in inaccurate ways that just happen to make due process abuses seem less grievous. So allow me to present a mini-Fisking of the article, and you can be the judge of who’s right. I won’t address every line of Klein’s long, doomed attempt at self-justification, but I will hit the highlights (or perhaps lowlights). There are plenty of them. Klein opens thusly:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 17, 2014 30 Comments
I've seen people writing and tweeting about #GamerGate. I have no idea what that is, still. Looks like it has something to do with Gamers and Liberal Feminists (image below of Christina Hoff Sommers, who has confronted liberal feminists herself): I received the email below, which intrigued me. I'm too caught up in #Ebola to research #GamerGate, so I'm issuing a cry for help -- What is #GamerGate?
This might look like another inconsequential Twitter war, but it intersects with issues you find relevant and is gaining traction. Gamergate is a growing movement by (don't laugh) video game enthusiasts who are fed up with: 1) favoritism within the $90 billion gaming industry, namely game journalists who have essentially become king-makers and who use their influence to benefit friends and patrons to the detriment of objectivity in reporting, the financial prospects of respected upstarts, and most of all community trust.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 16, 2014 30 Comments
I've written previously about California's new "Yes Means Yes" law, which codifies a strict definition of "affirmative consent" as it applies to students on college campuses. It's a terrible bill, but some liberals are touting its absolute failure to address any real problems as its greatest achievement. A group of professors at Harvard Law School recently published a joint letter in the Boston Globe begging the university to rethink its implementation of a similar standard:
We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community. The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom.
28 professors from one of the finest law schools on the planet believe that these laws go to far. They're not just a change in policy; they redefine the meaning of "sexual assault," and "consent." They're a gross overreach into the lives of students that flies in the face of the basic concepts of justice and due process. Chief Voxsplainer Ezra Klein recently penned an article explaining why he believes affirmative consent regulatory overreach---and subsequent overregulation of the sex lives of young Californians---will eliminate the alleged culture of "sexual entitlement" on college campuses. In Ezra Klein's illiberal utopia, we achieve that goal by making examples out of men whose only crime is that they are male:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 15, 2014 76 Comments
We previously wrote about the deer sterilization program run by the Village of Cayuga Heights, NY, which borders the Cornell University campus and has large deer and faculty populations. After years of bitter debate, Cayuga Heights decided that the deer population would be controlled through sterilization at enormous expense: The Cayuga Heights deer control was mostly a failure because, you know, deer move around, so sterilizing deer in Cayuga Heights didn't prevent new deer from coming into the area.  And so on. As far as I know, no plans were made to control the faculty population. I was not aware that Cornell had its own sterilization program.  I was aware that deer are all over campus. The Cornell sterilization program combined on-campus sterilization with off-campus/regional hunting. What possibly could go wrong? As the Washington Post reports (via Ithaca Voice), just about everything, Trying to limit the number of deer, with surprising results:
Accessibility by WAH