This is the time of year when many
high school seniors are applying to colleges for admission. Many of these
seniors have already undergone extensive instruction in the government-run
schools they have attended on politically correct thinking. Teachers
recommendations for college admission are often heavily influenced by their
assessments of the politically correct thinking of the candidate student.
With massive grade inflation, extra-curricular activities and teacher
recommendations become more important than any actual accomplishments of
learning and thinking in many cases. In some states, there are mandatory
requirements for public service to graduate. Even in high school, the
coercive forces pushing students into accepting and swearing allegiance with
politically correct viewpoints are massive and well beyond the ability of many
students to resist with an independent mind.
It only gets worse in colleges
today. The worst and most blatant case to my knowledge was the extremely
overt coercive reeducation program in 2007 at the
University of Delaware.
The politically correct viewpoints in force there are found on many college
campuses today, though the systematic effort to coerce students into accepting
those viewpoints is somewhat relaxed. I would strongly advise students
trying to select a college to review the freedom of conscience at a college by
reviewing its codes and requirements at the Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education or FIRE as it is
commonly called.
The reeducation program at the
University of Delaware required all students not living at home to attend
meetings in their university housing. They were required to attend a
meeting about every two weeks, managed by a Residential Associate (RA).
Among the requirements was a "diversity facilitation training"
session in which students were to be forced to acknowledge that
[a] racist
is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white
supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people ( i.e.,
people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class,
gender, religion, culture or sexuality.
This is nonsense. There
certainly are white racists, but so too are their black, Hispanic, and Asian
racists. What is more, if the definition were true, there is little value
in attending any sessions managed by any white person. What is still
worse, what is the point of any white student attending such a session if he or
she is doomed forever to be a racist anyway? Are they supposed to become
less racist, yet have no chance of being free of racism?
This definition has one purpose
only. It is to subjugate all white people by designating them as inferior
racists. Once a white person acknowledges that he is and will always be a
racist, he is supposed to become more compliant to the arbitrary wishes of
those who are defined as non-racists. Non-racist or simply non-white
people are not obliged to make any effort at all not to brand all white people
as inferior. Indeed, they are actually required to view all white people
as inferior because they are all uniquely guilty of racism and incapable of
escaping their racism.
The University of Delaware RAs were
required to ask students "When did you discover your sexual
identity?" This is certainly a question many students would not care
to answer and a violation of their reasonable privacy. What is more, at
the age of a university student, most still are developing their sexuality,
though such a fact was likely unappreciated by many RAs and even by those who
were managing them. Some of the RA-run sessions told students they had to
act as though they were gay during the sessions.
Among other purposes of the
University of Delaware program were:
- "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society."
- "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression."
- "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality."
Presumably, recognizing the benefits
of dismantling systems of oppression would require all political offices to be
held by non-whites since any white person is a racist by definition.
Every manager in every company would have to be a non-white person. All
non-commercial organizations would also have to be run by non-white
people. This is immediately the logical conclusion of accepting the
combination of all white people are racists and all systems of oppression
should be dismantled. How odd it is that people actually go to a
university for an education and to further develop their minds when the
institution holds such nonsensical ideas and is clearly in violation of its own
moral standards that all faculty and managerial administrative positions must
be filled by non-whites!
To see how oppressively the
reeducation system at the University of Delaware was operated, see this article.
Let us take a moment and examine
Brown University, from which I graduated before politically correct thought was
fully cemented in place. Brown has a very restrictive definition of
sexual harassment, as just one of its restrictions on freedom. Of course
Brown is not a public institution, but a private one, so it does have a right
to restrict student freedom in a way a public colleges would not have.
This does not mean that freedom-restrictive policies are rational and conducive
to the development of inquisitive minds, however. Brown University says:
Examples
of sexual harassment include:
*
Uninvited touching or hugging
*
Requesting sexual favors for rewards related to school or work
*
Suggestive jokes of a sexual nature
* Sexual
pictures or displays
*
Continuing unwelcome flirtation or propositions
* Obscene
gestures or sounds
* Written
notes of a sexual nature
So much for Brown students learning
to write love sonnets! As for uninvited hugs, a certain young scientist
who sometimes visits my lab, always gives me a hug. I never invited her
to do so, but fortunately for both of us, I enjoy her hugs. She had best stay
away from Brown!
Examples
of the kinds of conduct that may constitute sexual harassment include, but are
not limited to:
1.
Unwelcome sexual propositions, invitations, solicitations, and flirtations. …
3.
Unwelcome verbal expressions of a sexual nature, including graphic sexual
commentaries about a person’s body, dress, appearance, or sexual activities;
the unwelcome use of sexually degrading language, jokes or innuendoes;
unwelcome suggestive or insulting sounds or whistles; obscene phone calls.
4. Sexually
suggestive objects, pictures, videotapes, audio recordings, computer
communications, or literature placed in the work or study area, that may
embarrass or offend individuals.
…
Important:
Sexual Harassment need not be intentional. Under Brown’s sexual harassment
policies, the intent of the person who is alleged to have behaved improperly is
not relevant to determining whether a violation of Brown’s policy has occurred.
The relevant determination is whether a reasonable person could have
interpreted the alleged behavior to be sexual.
Note that intention is not of
significance in Brown's policy. Neither is an accused offender given the
refuge that he is not a sexual offender if a reasonable person might not
have interpreted the alleged behavior to be sexual. This is an important
difference which would in most cases of law be recognized. Of course
Brown is a private institution so it has the right to have the policy it has,
however irrational it may be.
How can one ever be sure that
someone you request sex from will welcome your request? People have free
will and they are complex and often hard to understand. So anyone going
to Brown really ought to be asexual and determined to pass through its
ivy-covered halls without experiencing sex. It is simply a very dangerous
proposition at Brown University. Yet Brown University has something
called Sex Week which is by all reports a time of rather free sex and at the
least a week of many sexual flirtations. Is Brown University simply a
massive example of Progressive Elitist hypocrisy?
Pennsylvania State University
and many other state universities have similar ideas of what constitutes
impermissible sexual harassment. These policies restrict freedom of
speech, the exchange of significant ideas, and learning about one of the most
complex and beneficial aspects of life on Earth. Young people in college
are still very much of an age in which their sexuality is in need of
development and understanding. In that complex process, errors will be
made. Such errors should not be too easily labeled sexual harassment and
should not be facilely made fatal. Mind you, I say this as the father of
three daughters and one who as a young man was gentlemanly to a fault with the
young ladies. In fact, much of the Brown guidelines are based on
reasonable ideas of good manners and their violations in some cases are sexual
harassment. The problem is that the package is excessive, it fails to
account for numerous reasonable exceptions, and it makes a hanging offense of petty
larceny.
Yes, Brown and the University of
Delaware are on a mission to populate the world with Progressive
Elitists. And as you know if you have read many of my posts, I see nearly
all Progressive Elitists as hypocrites. It is very difficult to find a
university these days which is not dominated by Progressive Elitists and which
does not regard its mission as the indoctrination of students so that they will
also become Progressive Elitists. To be sure, those that are highly
selective colleges try to eliminate students with very independent minds in
their admissions policies. It is much easier and a more certain outcome
is likely when the student is somewhat bright, but highly docile and easily
programmable. To Brown's eternal shame, I was neither docile, nor
programmable and at least a little too bright. With me, Brown failed in its mission.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment