Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Political Correctness Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 19, 2014 20 Comments
Some privileges are permissible topics for discussion on campus and in the media. For example, White Privilege is the obsession of some faculty and students. George Will pointed out that there is another privilege on campuses -- false or contrived claims of victim status.  Will did not argue that real victims, be it of actual racism or sexual assault, share some special privilege, but rather, that there are people who contrive or encourage others to falsely create victimhood where none exists. We see it in theories such as microaggression, where in the absence of proof of actual racism, critical race theorists find racism in routine everyday interactions where the participants do not even realize they are being "racist," much less have any racist intent. We see it in repeated instances of fake, self-inflicted "hate crimes" in which the victim is, in fact, the perpetrator. We also see it in the lowering of the standards of proof and definitions of what constitutes sexual assault. I think everyone agrees that sexual assault as used in the criminal law deserves condemnation and punishment. But colleges, under pressure from the Justice Department and supposedly feminist groups, have started using definitions of sexual assault that can reach absurd results.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 18, 2014 49 Comments
From WaPo:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.” The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed. “This victory was a long time coming and reflects the hard work of many attorneys at our firm,” said lead attorney Jesse Witten, of Drinker Biddle & Reath. Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 09, 2014 14 Comments
We covered the "tranny" controversy at the University of Chicago in the Saturday Night Card Game, When everyone shuts up, we will have reached the “safe space”. The short story is that the student speech police attacked liberal gay activist Dan Savage for using the word "tranny" in discussing at a forum why he no longer uses the word "tranny."  More than that, they demanded that the word be banned from use at U. Chicago's Institute of Politics, where the event took place. Savage responded to the controversy (h/t Instapundit), by noting that the activists who attacked him refer to "trans" people as "it" -- a characterization Savage says is particularly offensive to the "trans" community.  I don't know if that's right or wrong, but it's a point. Andrew Sullivan writes, surveying this all this:
Yes, this occurred at the University of Chicago! Now, I’m not interested in defending Dan, because he can defend himself. And John Aravosis is right that there’s a potent and destructive strain in the LGBT world that aims more hate at someone like Dan Savage than at Rick Santorum (tell me about it). What I am interested is condemning this pathetic excuse for a student. This plea in a university to be free of hearing things that might hurt, offend, traumatize or upset you is an attack on the very idea of education itself. And don’t get me started about “trigger warnings.” So many things worth thinking about, grappling with, and chewing over can be offensive at first or second blush. That’s what a real education is about: offending your pre-existing feelings and prejudices with reason and argument and sometimes provocation. Education is not and never should be about making you more comfortable and more safe within your current worldview. It should not be about accusing someone with whom you might disagree of a hate crime.

Posted by Adam Kissel on June 07, 2014 12 Comments
Earlier this year the University College London student government, the UCL Union, banned the Nietzsche Club and resolved to prevent it from organizing on campus because the Union deemed Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other philosophers too “fascist” to tolerate. Yesterday morning here at Legal Insurrection, I called out the UCLU for claiming the study of Nietzsche is a direct threat to safety. (Here is an audio version of the post on YouTube.) Well, in a new statement last night, the UCLU Trustees responded. They have vowed to keep suppressing Nietzsche and “fascism” wherever they might find it. The Trustees are legally and morally bound by their promises to uphold such fundamental freedoms as free speech and freedom of assembly. Yet in their new statement, they stay on the attack:

Posted by Adam Kissel on June 06, 2014 13 Comments
In the name of “a socialist transformation of society,” intolerant students at University College London (UCL) have violated the rules of their student union by banning a group calling itself the Nietzsche Club, after German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The official resolution speaks for itself and might even violate British law. According to Union Policy UP1343, passed earlier this year and available at the Union’s website, the UCL Union (basically the student government) officially believes that the Nietzsche Club “is aimed at promoting a far-right, fascist ideology” and must be stopped at all costs. In case there was any question, UCLU adds that “there is no meaningful distinction to be made between a far-right and a fascist ideology” and that “fascism is directly threatening to the safety of the UCL student body.” What is so threatening? Fearsome posters on campus—which “advertise a study of the philosophers Nietzsche, de Benoist [no friend of capitalism], Heidegger and Evola.” The horror! Posters inviting students to study philosophers and their ideas! What a direct threat to safety! UCLU officially believes that these people “are on the extreme-right, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, homophobic, anti-Marxist, anti-worker and have had connections, direct or indirect, with Italian fascism and German Nazism.” Then the socialism comes in:
“fascism is used by the ruling class to divide workers and students … to split them and thus weaken their effectiveness as a force and undermine their resistance to … consequences of the crisis of the capitalist system.”
Then the intolerance comes in:
“any attempts by fascists or the far-right to organise on campus must be met with unconditional resistance.” Unconditional! Thus the Union has resolved to “ban and otherwise prevent the installation of any further publicity of this group … prevent any attempts by this group to hold meetings and organise events on campus … [and] reject any attempts by this group to seek affiliation and official recognition.”
Then the socialism comes back:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 26, 2014 30 Comments
The attacks on a University of Virginia law professor for expressing legal views not in keeping with the views of some LGBT activists and much of the political establishment has created a stir in legal academia. In Jamaica, a somewhat analogous case is developing regarding a recently retired professor who was fired from his continuing HIV/AIDS research position after filing an accurate, but politically incorrect, expert report in a highly contentious case in Belize (h/t Blazing Cat Fur). The case has received almost no attention outside the Caribbean press, and none in the U.S. as far as I can tell. The background is that the Belize Supreme Court is considering a court case seeking to overturn Section 53 of the criminal code, which bans some forms of homosexual behavior, specifically male-on-male sodomy. Argument was held in May 2013 but there has been no decision as of this writing. The highly charged nature of the case pits a coalition of international gay rights activists against some Christian churches and groups. Enter Dr. Brendan Bain, who retired as a Professor in 2013 from the University of West Indies.  While still a professor, in 2012 Dr. Bain submitted testimony in the form of an Expert Report in the case (embedded in full at the bottom of this post). Dr. Bain is one of the pioneers in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean, as detailed in the introduction to his Expert Report, and in the numerous news reports referenced later in this post. [caption id="attachment_87310" align="alignnone" width="454"]Dr. Brendan Bain by Steve Shapiro for the 2011 Caribbean HIV Conference (Dr. Brendan Bain,by Steve Shapiro for the 2011 Caribbean HIV Conference, used under an Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license.)[/caption] Among other things, even after his retirement as a professor Dr. Bain was director of the U.S.-funded Regional Coordinating Unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART), which he helped create.  Here is his bio from 2013 from the CHART website:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 26, 2014 27 Comments
This video comes a little round-about. It started with a post by Dr. Helen Smith (h/t Instapundit) regarding some feminists trying to blame the Pick-Up Artist community for the mass murder by Elliot Rodger. Revelation No. 1: There's a " Pick-Up Artist community"? Do they have rights? Revelation No. 2: A reference to a 2012 incident in Toronto with which I was not previously familiar:
Perhaps it is the feminists and their supporters who block funding and education going to boys’ and men’s issues that are to blame. Case in point? Warren Farrell tried to give a talk in Toronto about suicide in young men and other topics and was accosted by nasty feminists who did not want him to speak.
The link is to this video about Warren Farrell: Here's some more videos about the protest (Language Warning):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 25, 2014 28 Comments
Whether it's Trigger Warnings, disinviting campus speakers, or the Shut-Up Culture, the closing of the campus mind is a frequent topic here. Among many topics as to which the debate is closed on campus is anything related to LGBT issues. No deviation is allowed. Differ even as to constitutional or other legal analyses, and you will be attacked with the fury visited on non-academics such as Brendan Eich, and before him, the law firm of King & Spalding, Mormons, and Chick-fil-A, among others. And now a University of Virginia Professor is in the cross-hairs for arguing that an Arizona law proposed to accomodate religious objections to performing some types of services was a lawful extension of the existing federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That caused LGBT students to target the professor and file a FOIA request for his emails, as detailed by UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge The Purge Arrives at the University of Virginia: PC Thugs versus Douglas Laycock (quoting in part from a local Virginia newspaper report).
Through the activist group Virginia Student Power Network, GetEQUAL found two UVA students willing to take up the cause of calling out Laycock: rising fourth-year Greg Lewis and now-alum Stephanie Montenegro. Last week, the pair sent an open letter to Laycock asking him to consider the “real-world consequences that [his] work is having.” They also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking e-mails between Laycock and various right-wing and religious liberty groups. Lewis said they’re not trying to smear Laycock, and they’re not trying to undermine academic freedom. They just want a dialogue, he said.
Bullshit. You don't start a dialogue with FOIA requests. This is a blatant effort at deterring public participation by anyone who does not hew 100% to the most radical version of the gay rights movement.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 24, 2014 34 Comments
We previously addressed The dead-end Case for Reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ backwards looking road to nowhere:
Coates never gives the answer as to who gets what and how. And that’s ultimately the problem with reparations arguments that are not based upon the people causing the harm paying the people directly harmed by specific conduct soon after the conduct is remedied.
As Coates explained his views to Melissa-Harris Perry this morning, it became clear that there is no sense at all of holding the guilty accountable in the sense we normally do, or compensating actual victims. There is a complete disconnect between cause and effect -- anyone with a particular skin color is presumed to be a victim of policies even from generations earlier. It's a simplistic and non-evidentiary approach which generalizes anecdotes and ignores the myriad of factors that influence success or failure in life. Rather, this is a societal redistribution, in which the not actually guilty pay, and the not actually injured get compensated, via the power of government to redistribute wealth. It's just redistribution with a different justification.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 22, 2014 106 Comments
The 15,000+ word essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic, The Case for Reparations, is getting completely predictable reactions. It's looooong, which gives it a perceived weight which just is not there.   In fact, there's not much new there, except for historical anecdotes shedding detail but not light on what we already knew to be the history of slavery, segregation and discrimination:
... the crime with which reparations activists charge the country implicates more than just a few towns or corporations. The crime indicts the American people themselves, at every level, and in nearly every configuration. A crime that implicates the entire American people deserves its hearing in the legislative body that represents them. .... No one can know what would come out of such a debate. Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.
Coates never gives the answer as to who gets what and how. And that's ultimately the problem with reparations arguments that are not based upon the people causing the harm paying the people directly harmed by specific conduct soon after the conduct is remedied.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 18, 2014 16 Comments
The fragile college student mind is getting more fragile by the day. As if the normal run of political correctness were not enough, we now have "Trigger Warnings" -- the notion that students need to be warned that the material they are about to read in class may "trigger" emotional upset. The concept has been growing on campuses over the past couple of years.  The New York Times reports:
Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans. The warnings, which have their ideological roots in feminist thought, have gained the most traction at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the student government formally called for them. But there have been similar requests from students at Oberlin College, Rutgers University,the University of Michigan, George Washington University and other schools. The debate has left many academics fuming, saying that professors should be trusted to use common sense and that being provocative is part of their mandate. Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace. The warnings have been widely debated in intellectual circles and largely criticized in opinion magazines, newspaper editorials and academic email lists. “Any kind of blanket trigger policy is inimical to academic freedom,” said Lisa Hajjar, a sociology professor at the university here, who often uses graphic depictions of torture in her courses about war. “Any student can request some sort of individual accommodation, but to say we need some kind of one-size-fits-all approach is totally wrong. The presumption there is that students should not be forced to deal with something that makes them uncomfortable is absurd or even dangerous.”
Of course, how the trigger is defined says much about the theory behind the movement -- it almost always serves left-wing critical race and gender theories, as at Oberlin, as the Times further reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 17, 2014 5 Comments
From Mark Steyn, The slow death of free speech - Must we celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity?
What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: ‘“Shut up,” he explained.’ A generation ago, progressive opinion at least felt obliged to pay lip service to the Voltaire shtick. These days, nobody’s asking you to defend yourself to the death: a mildly supportive retweet would do. But even that’s further than most of those in the academy, the arts, the media are prepared to go. As Erin Ching, a student at 60-grand-a-year Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, put it in her college newspaper the other day: ‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’ Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.... In the internal contradictions of multiculturalism, Islam trumps all: race, gender, secularism, everything. So, in the interests of multiculti sensitivity, pampered upper-middle-class trusty-fundy children of entitlement are pronouncing a Somali refugee beyond the pale and signing up to Islamic strictures on the role of women.... I’m opposed to the notion of official ideology — not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘climate change’ and ‘marriage equality’. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, ‘gender fluidity’ — the more you delegitimise the political system....
Accessibility by WAH