The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Heather Mac Donald on Campus Mob Rule

From City Journal:

Get Up, Stand Up
All who cherish free expression, especially on campuses, must combat the growing zeal for censorship.

Heather Mac Donald

April 9, 2017

Where are the faculty? American college students are increasingly resorting to brute force, and sometimes criminal violence, to shut down ideas they don’t like. Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action, though they have themselves been given the extraordinary privilege of tenure to protect their own liberty of thought and speech. It is time for them to take their heads out of the sand.

I was the target of such silencing tactics two days in a row last week, the more serious incident at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, and a less virulent one at UCLA.

The Rose Institute for State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna had invited me to meet with students and to give a talk about my book, The War on Cops, on April 6. Several calls went out on Facebook to “shut down” this “notorious white supremacist fascist Heather Mac Donald.” … (My supposed fascism consists in trying to give voice to the thousands of law-abiding minority residents of high-crime areas who support the police and are desperate for more law-enforcement protection.)

… The massive hall, where I was supposed to meet with students for dinner before my talk, was empty—the mob, by then numbering close to 300, had succeeded in preventing anyone from entering. The large plate-glass windows were covered with translucent blinds, so that from the inside one could only see a mass of indistinct bodies pounding on the windows. The administration had decided that I would live-stream my speech in the vacant room in order to preserve some semblance of the original plan. The podium was moved away from a window so that, as night fell and the lights inside came on, I would not be visible to the agitators outside.

I prefaced my speech by observing that I had heard chants for the last two hours that “black lives matter.” I therefore hoped that the protesters were equally fervent in expressing their outrage when five-year-old Aaron Shannon, Jr., was killed on Halloween 2010 in South-Central Los Angeles, while proudly showing off his Spiderman costume. … And though it was doubtful that any of the protesters outside had ever lost a loved one to a drive-by shooting, if such a tragedy ever did happen, the first thing he or she would do is call the police.

I completed my speech to the accompaniment of chants and banging on the windows. I was able to take two questions from students via live-streaming. But by then, the administrators and police officers in the room, who had spent my talk nervously staring at the windows, decided that things were growing too unruly outside to continue. I was given the cue that the presentation was over. Walkie-talkies were used to coordinate my exit from the Athenaeum’s kitchen to the exact moment that a black, unmarked Claremont Police Department van rolled up. … We sped off to the police station.

The previous night, I actually succeeded in delivering a talk on policing to the audience who had come to hear it; such heretofore ordinary circumstances are now noteworthy. My hosts, the UCLA College Republicans, had titled my presentation “Blue Lives Matter,” which campus activists viewed as an unspeakable provocation. …

To my knowledge, the UCLA administration has not addressed the disruption of my presentation and interaction with students. …

Last week’s events should be the final wakeup call to the professoriate, coming on the heels of the more dangerous attacks on Charles Murray at Middlebury College and the riots in Berkeley, California, against Milo Yiannapoulos. When speakers need police escort on and off college campuses, an alarm bell should be going off that something has gone seriously awry. …

It is not enough for professors to sign statements in support of free speech (and surprisingly few have actually done so). When word goes out of a plan to “shut down” non-conforming political views, that plan must be taken deadly seriously. Claremont McKenna took obvious pains to protect my talk, but they were not enough. I will not second-guess president Chodosh’s decision not to arrest the mob blocking access to the Athenaeum. Administrators and campus police are loathe to do anything that might necessitate the use of force against student darlings, as the deplorable passivity of the UC Berkeley campus (and Berkeley city) police during the anti-Milo riots on February 1 revealed. But if arrests are all but foreclosed, enough police manpower must be summoned to maintain open access through sheer command presence.

Before a planned blockade, the faculty must reaffirm in their classes the campus’s belief in free expression. And the faculty must show up to the threatened event itself to give meaning to the ideal of free speech; they must shame the students trying to prevent their fellow students from hearing ideas that challenge campus orthodoxies. …

Retroactive punishment for violating school rules is necessary, as Charles Murray has persuasively written. President Chodosh should follow through on his promise to hold the censors accountable; if he does, it will be a first, since punishment violates the consumerist ethos of American higher education.

… The resort to brute force in the face of disagreement is particularly disturbing in a university, which should provide a model of civil discourse.

But the students currently stewing in delusional resentments and self-pity will eventually graduate, and some will seize levers of power more far-reaching than those they currently wield over toadying campus bureaucrats and spineless faculty. Unless the campus zest for censorship is combatted now, what we have always regarded as a precious inheritance could be eroded beyond recognition, and a soft totalitarianism could become the new American norm.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of The War on Cops.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    ROTFL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Never let it be said that iStevers reflexively support whites. It's clear here that the family of color-- and the Jewess and the libertarians backing them-- are in the right, and the white power structure is moonbat crazy. But what do you expect from a city named after a cheap prole beer from over the border?

    I remember walking a mile to school in second grade. Okay, that was Honolulu. No big deal.

    But in fifth grade (we moved frequently in those years) I did the same, along railroad tracks, in a small Appalachian town, and later that grade, on the edge of a Big Ten city. In the latter, I was almost killed by a black girl. (Oh, alright, that was on the soccer field. She was in goal, older, and three times my size. But it was a potentially tough neighborhood.)

    What's the first thing you notice about snowflakes? Why, they're all white!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/heather-mac-donald-on-campus-mob-rule/#comment-1836684
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.
    , @Alec Leamas
    It's all kabuki - campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s. The rioters give them the "security" fig leaf they need to maintain some pretense of commitment to open discourse.
    , @Desiderius
    Their connections are to the communists.
    , @Almost Missouri
    College admins are not stuffy old conservatives, they are stuffy old radicals. They are on the same side as the student rioters/censors, they just lack their energy, but they fully back the violence/censorship program.
    , @Marty
    You usually make very insightful comments - what happened today?
  3. Yeah, the idea that these social justice jihadis might someday be our leaders is unsettling. This is why someone needs to take action to make serious changes in our universities. If you think about it, all this campus insanity looks like the harbinger of a sharp rise in political violence – led in part by elite whites – over the next few years. Kind of reminds me of The Iron Heel in a weird way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    The government has to start going after the schools financially. Make them guarantee their own loans, reduce or eliminate tax deductions for donations, they could also refuse to fund degree programs that won't give graduates meaningful employment opportunities. Hitting the schools financially is the only way the will even consider reforming.
    , @epochehusserl
    Eventually, there will be violence over these issues. The discontent is rising. We live in relatively prosperous times, but I don't see people really wanting to put up with these things if if there is another economic downturn. Especially over the transgender bathroom issue.
  4. It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray’s apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be “can’t we all just get along?”. It is obvious at this point that liberals won’t self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.

    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.

    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960′s.

    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    Read More
    • Agree: Barnard, JohnnyGeo
    • Replies: @27 year old
    >worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    We've got plenty of guys with the brains to tell other people how to do it though
    , @Anonymous

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.
     
    For a decade or more, I have been hearing rants against Alinsky and 'Alinskyite tactics' from those we now call cuckservatives and establishment conservatives. Invariably, I immediately would respond: "Have you read Alinsky?"


    No. Not one. Not ever. And they won't.

    I tell them that until they read it I don't want to hear any more tommyrot about it.

    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff's Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it's available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you're a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Excellent comment!
    , @CK
    I am sure that the only thing conservative college students need to get right on this is another leader to manage the peons doing the photography and arranging the mailings.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.
    , @Desiderius
    You are the person you've been waiting for.
  5. HMac is a national treasure. I was disappointed three months ago she was not appointed to anything by Trump.

    Now he is careening toward becoming a more boorish version of W. NBC claims to have multiple sources saying Trump is considering a preemptive attack on North Korea:

    –The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.–

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

    Could Trump be that stupid? Of course!

    The guy who got Trump to dump Bannon off the NSC wants to send 10 to 50 thousand ground troops to Syria to fight Assad. And what about the 2500 Russian troops fighting in Syria for Assad?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/trump-said-no-to-troops-in-syria-his-aides-aren-t-so-sure

    On domestic policy, Trump wants to try again with a repeal of the ACA and is considering an illegal move to withhold payments to exchange insurers. His buddy Paul Ryan, however, has ruled out even considering a bill to start building a Mexico wall until 2018.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    Agreed on Heather M. I am impressed by her intellect and clarity of her writing. She is a deep and clear thinker. and yes, Trump should have found some kind of advisory position for her. She is underrated and she should have a wider audience.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Another Lot post breathlessly asserting "facts" based off of MSM agitprop full of anon sources.

    In other news, sun rises in the east. Lets see if this makes it past Steve's Lot filter.
    , @Bill Jones
    Here's the bigger issue that never gets discussed. For fifty years prior to WW1 ( ah, the war to end all wars) The British army really had only fought poorly armed illiterates peasants.

    The shock of fighting Germans and the death toll involved was considerable.

    The dumb Yanks should avoid the Russians in Syria.
  6. The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    Unfortunately, Trump has fallen into the old Republican trap of looking outwards on policy, and focusing on traditional matters like taxes/economy.

    Most of America's enemies are cultural, and domestic.
    , @Nico

    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.
     
    I think I have just found my pet cause.
    , @Random Dude on the Internet
    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don't expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn't just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).
    , @biz
    It is a bad idea to tie loans to graduation rates. These low-tier universities would simply make requirements to graduate even easier than they already are. It will be a race to the bottom (morso than curently) to fill the curriculum with courses like "How to watch television" and "Your friend the decimal point."
    , @International Jew

    restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates.
     
    Those conditions are found at the elite schools, and they produce more, not less, than their share of professional SJWs and future mulatto cabinet secretaries and federal judges.
    , @Bill Jones
    State governments continue to pour billions down the hard left rat-hole, even those states where the Governors and both State Houses are Republican.
  7. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    Unfortunately, Trump has fallen into the old Republican trap of looking outwards on policy, and focusing on traditional matters like taxes/economy.

    Most of America’s enemies are cultural, and domestic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Yeah, the MOAB should have been dropped on Congress or Harvard. America's real enemies.
  8. Earlier you’ve suggested that this is about preserving social class boundaries. And I suppose using violence to preserve class status is a strategy thousands of years old.

    But unlike the England of the War of the Roses with its knights, I get the feeling the American upper classes are people who are terrible at actual physical violence. Especially when this happens at the sort of small private elite universities that don’t have good sports programs. So, this could get very interesting if it keeps escalating and keeps feeding resentment against these rich kids.

    Read More
  9. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    I think I have just found my pet cause.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    @Lot


    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

     

    I think I have just found my pet cause.

     

    Perhaps, but in the upside down world which we inhabit, a President withholding funding and nonprofit status for Universities that don't do what a University does and which participate in or passively accept the muzzling of speech would be considered by many an intolerable violation of the First Amendment right to speech and academic freedom.
  10. @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    >worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    We’ve got plenty of guys with the brains to tell other people how to do it though

    Read More
  11. @Lot
    HMac is a national treasure. I was disappointed three months ago she was not appointed to anything by Trump.

    Now he is careening toward becoming a more boorish version of W. NBC claims to have multiple sources saying Trump is considering a preemptive attack on North Korea:

    --The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.--

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

    Could Trump be that stupid? Of course!

    The guy who got Trump to dump Bannon off the NSC wants to send 10 to 50 thousand ground troops to Syria to fight Assad. And what about the 2500 Russian troops fighting in Syria for Assad?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/trump-said-no-to-troops-in-syria-his-aides-aren-t-so-sure

    On domestic policy, Trump wants to try again with a repeal of the ACA and is considering an illegal move to withhold payments to exchange insurers. His buddy Paul Ryan, however, has ruled out even considering a bill to start building a Mexico wall until 2018.

    Agreed on Heather M. I am impressed by her intellect and clarity of her writing. She is a deep and clear thinker. and yes, Trump should have found some kind of advisory position for her. She is underrated and she should have a wider audience.

    Read More
  12. @Jason Liu
    Unfortunately, Trump has fallen into the old Republican trap of looking outwards on policy, and focusing on traditional matters like taxes/economy.

    Most of America's enemies are cultural, and domestic.

    Yeah, the MOAB should have been dropped on Congress or Harvard. America’s real enemies.

    Read More
  13. @Lot
    HMac is a national treasure. I was disappointed three months ago she was not appointed to anything by Trump.

    Now he is careening toward becoming a more boorish version of W. NBC claims to have multiple sources saying Trump is considering a preemptive attack on North Korea:

    --The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.--

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

    Could Trump be that stupid? Of course!

    The guy who got Trump to dump Bannon off the NSC wants to send 10 to 50 thousand ground troops to Syria to fight Assad. And what about the 2500 Russian troops fighting in Syria for Assad?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/trump-said-no-to-troops-in-syria-his-aides-aren-t-so-sure

    On domestic policy, Trump wants to try again with a repeal of the ACA and is considering an illegal move to withhold payments to exchange insurers. His buddy Paul Ryan, however, has ruled out even considering a bill to start building a Mexico wall until 2018.

    Another Lot post breathlessly asserting “facts” based off of MSM agitprop full of anon sources.

    In other news, sun rises in the east. Lets see if this makes it past Steve’s Lot filter.

    Read More
  14. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    For a decade or more, I have been hearing rants against Alinsky and ‘Alinskyite tactics’ from those we now call cuckservatives and establishment conservatives. Invariably, I immediately would respond: “Have you read Alinsky?”

    No. Not one. Not ever. And they won’t.

    I tell them that until they read it I don’t want to hear any more tommyrot about it.

    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff’s Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it’s available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you’re a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.

    Read More
    • Agree: CK, TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff’s Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it’s available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you’re a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.


    Have you ever noticed that people on the Left are very quick to dismiss Saul Alinsky and laugh at the idea of him whenever people on the Right bring him up?
  15. @Jason Liu
    Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    In 1973 Yale suspended 11 students and withheld the diploma from another for leading the disruption of a debate between William Rusher of National Review and William B. Shockley, early race realist.

    In suspending the students, the executive committee said the students' actions placed them "outside the voluntary association of persons dedicated to the free expression of all views."

    The suspensions last Friday mark the first time that Yale has used disciplinary measures since November 1969. At that time, 47 students were placed on probation following a building occupation.
     
    The current Yale administration would never take such measures.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/13/yale-suspends-11-for-halting-debate/
    , @Daniel H
    >>I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.

    Chicago is America's best university. There is no grade inflation there either. What gets you an A at Yale or Harvard will likely get you a C at Chicago.
  16. Richard Spencer to the rescue.

    The odious attention seeker shopped around for a campus where he could rent a place to speak so that he could arouse protests and thus bring Heather and Charles down into his little scheiss stew.

    What a sick little drama queen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WGG
    What is it you oppose about Spencer's ideas? They are quite sensible. Your instinctive ethnic revulsion and fear at one who advocates for his people, who are different from your own people, proves his point. Ethnostates work, multiculturalism does not.
  17. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don’t expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn’t just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).

    Read More
    • Replies: @cynthia curran
    Probably true, the income gap between college and non-college has to do with management jobs. Most business prefer to hire college grads for management but there is a lot less management jobs out there, so you get lots of BA folks working in a call center instead of making big bucks. In fact Donald Trump had a lot of higher income blue collar workers but the media and sometimes here likes to paint his followers as down and out blue collar workers. More were Truck drivers that made over 50,000 than laid off Coal workers. This is one reason why the liberal tech companies are always trying to eliminate truck driving jobs instead of maid's jobs.
    , @Anonymous
    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don’t expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn’t just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).

    Please stop with this "Boomer" talk. It's stupid. You do realize that Boomers are not a monolithic group? The Boomers that you dislike are probably a rather small number of individuals, and I fail to see how these Boomers that you speak of differ so greatly from young SJW's. By vilifying Boomers, you're causing division among people who could otherwise be on the same team. I'm sure there is a much better way to describe those who you oppose. Using the word Boomer is lazy and sloppy.

    When did this anti-Boomer hysteria get started anyway?

  18. University administrators and faculty won’t defend meaningful free speech that’s been shut down because: (1) the lawful use of force against students acting in violation of law frightens them, (2) they do fear bad publicity that may threaten to attract the attention of the federal government and clueless alumni donors, (3) campus police may not be regarded as competent, (4) they hope the controversy, as with so many other university controversies, will just go away, (5) they’ve mentally conceded an essential Black veto over some inquiry.

    Free inquiry and the spirit of free inquiry are probably dead letters at many of our universities, not just on public topics but also on academic questions. The profs at my nearby Podunk Tech are lecture machines just marking time until the summer break or retirement. The big problem for the public that foots the bill for a lot of this rubbish is that you have to have significant expertise in specific subject matter to know when the academy is peddling quack academics.

    Read More
  19. Anyone who has a hard time envisioning how the various leftist people’s revolutions always turn into repressive dictatorships ought to take note of the the tactics and instincts we see on college campuses today.

    At the core, the instinct of the progressive left is a religious belief in the indisputable righteousness of their views which is paired with a desire to impose their system of values on the entire population but whatever means are necessary.

    I am not much of a fan of Trump, but if he is the price of keeping power out of the hands of people like these, so be it.

    Read More
  20. @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    Excellent comment!

    Read More
  21. @Flip
    I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.

    In 1973 Yale suspended 11 students and withheld the diploma from another for leading the disruption of a debate between William Rusher of National Review and William B. Shockley, early race realist.

    In suspending the students, the executive committee said the students’ actions placed them “outside the voluntary association of persons dedicated to the free expression of all views.”

    The suspensions last Friday mark the first time that Yale has used disciplinary measures since November 1969. At that time, 47 students were placed on probation following a building occupation.

    The current Yale administration would never take such measures.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/13/yale-suspends-11-for-halting-debate/

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    But not everyone did that. Six months earlier Harvard canceled a different Shockley debate: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/13/archives/innis-and-shockley-to-debate-genetics-dec-4-at-princeton.html
    That debate was to be on “I. Q. Differences, Heredity and Dysgenics: a Debate.” plus ça change ...

    The Shockley debates in 1973-74 are a good parallel for today. More:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/05/archives/shockley-debates-montagu-as-innis-angrily-pulls-out-tests-called.html

    Dr. Montagu, who had been reached in advance by the student society as an alternative speaker for Mr. Innis, echoed the many critics of Dr. Shockley by contending that the intelligence tests upon which Dr. Shockley based his arguments were biased against the social and economically deprived.

    “These studies are irrelevant to the moral question we face,” Dr. Montagu said, “which is, Does a human being regardless of his ability have the right to the fullest realization of his potentialities?
     
    Back then the NYT appeared to believe in free speech a bit more: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/16/archives/the-shockley-case-in-the-nation.html

    But, that kind of opposition really questions Dr. Birenbaum's judgment and policy in inviting Dr. Shockley to speak. Even if that was an unsound decision, it ought not to be remedied: at the expense of anyone's rights under the First Amendment.

    That amendment unequivocally allows Dr. Shockley to propound his repugnant doctrine whenever and wherever he has reasonable opportunity. Those, who don't want to hear it don't have to; those who want to challenge it can; but those who try to suppress it can only give it more notoriety, and the trappings of a cause.
     
    Much more like this is available by searching for "1973 debate shockley new york times" (or 1974).
  22. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Heather needs to remember that the professoriate is a major reason why many students have the ideas they have and a major reason things are the way they are on campus. The left only gave a d*mn about free speech when it was their speech they wanted to protect. Asking most professors to help support true free speech, even things they disagree with, is like asking Gloria Steinem to support equal treatment for men in custody and divorce proceedings.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @MB
    Exactly. As smart as she is, the first thing that comes across reading her article is "it's the faculty that is ultimately responsible here, sweetheart".

    And while I wouldn't have advertised the speech as "Blue Lives Matter" - hey if you wanted to be really incendiary, it would have been titled "The Big Lie of the Black Lies Lives Matter Bowel Movement" - she needs to focus some of her analytical mojo on the issue.

    Ultimately black crime is the problem, not blue, black or white policemen, (notwithstanding our overall trend toward an E German police surveillance state); the guilty white liberal progressive teachers are the problem, not their apprentices/understudies.

    IOW a big miss, but even Homerina nods.

  23. @Jason Liu
    Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s. The rioters give them the “security” fig leaf they need to maintain some pretense of commitment to open discourse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.

    I think if you look into it, you'll discover the median year of birth of tenured faculty is around about 1963 as we speak, and that of college presidents around about 1952. The quondam anti-war protesters were all born prior to 1955 and will retire in about a half-dozen years. The situation has been getting worse and worse even though those troublesome cohorts have been heading out to grass for a dozen years or more.
    , @Gunnar von Cowtown

    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.
     
    Yup. I love Heather's work, but her response to the black bloc tactics was hopelessly naive. To 97% of collegiate faculties, Civil Rights Reenactors and/or anti-fa shutting down any speaker to the right of Michael Moore is seen as a feature not a bug. They will never change this willingly.

    Broke: appeal to classical-liberal ideals
    Woke: right-wing death squads

    This is the future they chose.
  24. @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    I am sure that the only thing conservative college students need to get right on this is another leader to manage the peons doing the photography and arranging the mailings.

    Read More
  25. @Nico

    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.
     
    I think I have just found my pet cause.

    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    I think I have just found my pet cause.

    Perhaps, but in the upside down world which we inhabit, a President withholding funding and nonprofit status for Universities that don’t do what a University does and which participate in or passively accept the muzzling of speech would be considered by many an intolerable violation of the First Amendment right to speech and academic freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    It would be quite chaotic if that were to happen, however, I would rather have short term pain for long term gain than the opposite. The free exchange of ideas on campuses without the fear of being bludgeoned over the head is worth the fight.
  26. What is there left to say: the universities are now completely Stalinized. Only the certified Bolsheviks not only get to speak, but get the red carpets rolled out.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/04/isit-possible-to-shame-whoever-is.html

    Read More
  27. @Alec Leamas

    @Lot


    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

     

    I think I have just found my pet cause.

     

    Perhaps, but in the upside down world which we inhabit, a President withholding funding and nonprofit status for Universities that don't do what a University does and which participate in or passively accept the muzzling of speech would be considered by many an intolerable violation of the First Amendment right to speech and academic freedom.

    It would be quite chaotic if that were to happen, however, I would rather have short term pain for long term gain than the opposite. The free exchange of ideas on campuses without the fear of being bludgeoned over the head is worth the fight.

    Read More
  28. The faculty do nothing because they do not disapprove of what these youngsters are doing. When you add up all the vectors at hand, these crybullies are implementing institutjtional policy, which is why they are not punished. It would be status-lowering in the faculty rathskellar to object publicly to the antics of these juveniles. In any case, the faculty care about their own privileges, and nothing else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes

    In any case, the faculty care about their own privileges, and nothing else.
     
    Bingo!

    These appeals to the faculty to do the right thing and support free speech simply fall on deaf ears. Paycheck protection, and being non-controversial (non-confrontational) are what matter for most people. If administrators or faculty wanted to be crusaders they'd be in a different business.

    The culture at-large has inculcated this tolerance (with agreeable speech)/intolerance (with disagreeable speech) dichotomy. This attitude doesn't spring up de novo on campus, arriving students have brought it with them. Their high schools (and media, culture) urge them to become activists, community organizers, and SJWs in the mold of Obama, e.g. Steve's recent bête noire Ziad Ahmed.

    If universities had been hot beds for germinating this conduct, it wouldn't have sprung up just two years ago. It's students who turn over on a yearly basis, not staff.
  29. @Alec Leamas
    It's all kabuki - campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s. The rioters give them the "security" fig leaf they need to maintain some pretense of commitment to open discourse.

    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.

    I think if you look into it, you’ll discover the median year of birth of tenured faculty is around about 1963 as we speak, and that of college presidents around about 1952. The quondam anti-war protesters were all born prior to 1955 and will retire in about a half-dozen years. The situation has been getting worse and worse even though those troublesome cohorts have been heading out to grass for a dozen years or more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    In their solipsism, they hired sycophants as their successors.

    On the bright side, that doomed the long-term success of their project. On the not-so-bright, that long-term isn't quite here yet.
  30. There is no “War on Cops”. There is a war by cops against the American people.

    Read More
  31. @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.

    The donors don’t care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, “Serves them right!”

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it’s taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don’t have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you’ve got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you’re tougher and meaner than them, you’ll win. If you’re not, or if you’re outnumbered, you’ll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be “talked down?” Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left..."

    No, Conservative donors in general adhere to the terminology and framework of the ideology they espouse.

    "are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies."

    They will "defeat" their enemies within those individual ideals and behavioral codes.

    "The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it’s taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations."

    Groups which include the Left, the Alt-Right, Jews, Conservatives, etc. are dead set with acquiring power. In this "game", the Left has gained an advantage in those institutions.

    "They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born."

    Yes. Whites had a great run while it lasted.

    "The Left don’t have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed."

    Replace "The Left" with "The Radical Left and Radical Right, i.e. the Coalition of the Fringe groups" and you would be onto something.

    "If you want to stop violent Leftists, you’ve got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you’re tougher and meaner than them, you’ll win."

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

    "The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference."

    The radical Left.
    , @Sam
    That is why you target the other half. The point isn't to go red pill cuck donors. The point is to show that universities are antagonistic towards particular hot-button issues of the individual donor. Bureaucrats care about donations because that is what they live by.

    In addition the goal should also be to get the students riled up and engaging in violence. If I were a millionaire I would pay Milo, Spencer, Coulter and other provokers to go on a university tour. I would pay the Republican or other non-liberal group to host them. Then I would pay photographers to record everything and pay Charles Johnson's Wesearcher to identify the worst rioters and post/promote their names and send it along to police, family, friends. Make them pay a social cost as well.

    Ultimately the lack of such a obvious plan comes down to the cucks on campus lacking Fire in the Minds of Men. The Alt-Right is the only exception on the right and they are too few but they could create a template for cucks to follow.
    , @Art Deco
    So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, “Serves them right!”

    Some of them do. Donors as far as I've been able to see are largely organization men, and, in any case, their interest is served by propping up the 'good-will' incorporated into their degree, which bad publicity would damage. Charles Sykes gave his book about Dartmouth the title The Hollow Men. He was referring to the trustees. Trustee nonfeasance is the scandal in higher education. Donation streams are generally very insensitive to these scandals.
    , @Art Deco
    which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out.

    MacDonald is not amiable and with little doubt people like MacDonald, Murray, and Anthony Esolen are fairly pessimistic about the situation and trying to navigate it the best they know how.
    , @Regor
    Unfortunately, the means for the civilized solution of much of our societies` problems have been removed. While the mainstream right should not openly advocate for violent reciprocity, at the very least they should turn a blind eye to adequate responses against the volunteer enforcers of the Left.

    When they complain about "neo nazis" undermining our society, remind them of their black blocs. They will not be convinced of their hipocrisy but at least they will know they are no longer recognized as a moral authority.
    , @Stan Adams
    It's Mac Donald, not MacDonald. The extra space symbolizes the void between her ears.
  32. Where are the faculty? American college students are increasingly resorting to brute force, and sometimes criminal violence, to shut down ideas they don’t like. Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action

    They’re not missing in action. They’re in the background egging it all on.

    Remember one of my world-famous axioms:

    Whenever you see a mass of young men wearing the same clothing and armed with the same accouterments taking a hill by force, you are safe in assuming that there is an old man with five stars on his helmet behind it. Likewise, whenever you see a mass of young people shouting down a college campus speaker, you are safe in assuming that there is an old person with tenure behind it.

    Read More
  33. @Alec Leamas
    It's all kabuki - campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s. The rioters give them the "security" fig leaf they need to maintain some pretense of commitment to open discourse.

    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.

    Yup. I love Heather’s work, but her response to the black bloc tactics was hopelessly naive. To 97% of collegiate faculties, Civil Rights Reenactors and/or anti-fa shutting down any speaker to the right of Michael Moore is seen as a feature not a bug. They will never change this willingly.

    Broke: appeal to classical-liberal ideals
    Woke: right-wing death squads

    This is the future they chose.

    Read More
    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It's not 97%. It's more like 40% of the arts-and-sciences, visual-and-performing arts, teacher-training, and social work faculties. The rest in these faculties are status-conscious and say nothing, because the willingness to say something demarcates in-groups and out-groups on the faculty. Read the blogging of the Mercatus Center crew if you want to see examples of faculty members with this mentality. The other faculties pretend it has nothing to do with them.

    See Allen Bloom on what happened at Cornell in 1969: the professional school faculties took the position that the disputes had nothing to do with them and involved arts-and-sciences only. The natural science faculties were perfectly feckless and expected the other departments to harbor any incompetent students admitted for reasons of political patronage. The humanities faculties were perfectly irresponsible and supported student protests. The resistance, such as it was, was to be found in the social research faculties. Well, they cannot be bothered anymore.
  34. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    It is a bad idea to tie loans to graduation rates. These low-tier universities would simply make requirements to graduate even easier than they already are. It will be a race to the bottom (morso than curently) to fill the curriculum with courses like “How to watch television” and “Your friend the decimal point.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wouldn't it be better to tie federal funding (for grants, etc. ) to certain behavior and policies, such as allowing free speech?
    , @Anonymous
    Wouldn't it be better to tie federal funding (for grants, etc. ) to certain behavior and policies, such as allowing free speech?
  35. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left…”

    No, Conservative donors in general adhere to the terminology and framework of the ideology they espouse.

    “are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.”

    They will “defeat” their enemies within those individual ideals and behavioral codes.

    “The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it’s taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations.”

    Groups which include the Left, the Alt-Right, Jews, Conservatives, etc. are dead set with acquiring power. In this “game”, the Left has gained an advantage in those institutions.

    “They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.”

    Yes. Whites had a great run while it lasted.

    “The Left don’t have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.”

    Replace “The Left” with “The Radical Left and Radical Right, i.e. the Coalition of the Fringe groups” and you would be onto something.

    “If you want to stop violent Leftists, you’ve got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you’re tougher and meaner than them, you’ll win.”

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

    “The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.”

    The radical Left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody's favorite Moderate.

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

     

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/42175669941375af8sx2.jpg

    http://www.cheriberens.net/uploads/2/6/0/1/26019726/_3579679_orig.jpg

    Defense of self and nation is well within the bounds of Orthodox and Catholic Christian doctrine.
  36. a soft totalitarianism could become the new American norm.

    “Could” become. I think that shipped arrived years ago.

    Speak the truth, and you very easily could lose your job and never get hired in that field – or possibly any field – again. Oh, and you’ll likely get ostracized by the community.

    Let’s face it. We live in theocracy, not this could become a theocracy. We’re there. What seems to be happening now is the great priests are trying to decide if they’ll even allow the open practice of another religion. At the moment, it’s allowed, though often punished harshly. A few heretics like Steve can eke out a living – plastic red cups and all – but they’re causing trouble so it might be time to shut them down.

    Read More
  37. @Gunnar von Cowtown

    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.
     
    Yup. I love Heather's work, but her response to the black bloc tactics was hopelessly naive. To 97% of collegiate faculties, Civil Rights Reenactors and/or anti-fa shutting down any speaker to the right of Michael Moore is seen as a feature not a bug. They will never change this willingly.

    Broke: appeal to classical-liberal ideals
    Woke: right-wing death squads

    This is the future they chose.

    It’s not 97%. It’s more like 40% of the arts-and-sciences, visual-and-performing arts, teacher-training, and social work faculties. The rest in these faculties are status-conscious and say nothing, because the willingness to say something demarcates in-groups and out-groups on the faculty. Read the blogging of the Mercatus Center crew if you want to see examples of faculty members with this mentality. The other faculties pretend it has nothing to do with them.

    See Allen Bloom on what happened at Cornell in 1969: the professional school faculties took the position that the disputes had nothing to do with them and involved arts-and-sciences only. The natural science faculties were perfectly feckless and expected the other departments to harbor any incompetent students admitted for reasons of political patronage. The humanities faculties were perfectly irresponsible and supported student protests. The resistance, such as it was, was to be found in the social research faculties. Well, they cannot be bothered anymore.

    Read More
  38. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    That is why you target the other half. The point isn’t to go red pill cuck donors. The point is to show that universities are antagonistic towards particular hot-button issues of the individual donor. Bureaucrats care about donations because that is what they live by.

    In addition the goal should also be to get the students riled up and engaging in violence. If I were a millionaire I would pay Milo, Spencer, Coulter and other provokers to go on a university tour. I would pay the Republican or other non-liberal group to host them. Then I would pay photographers to record everything and pay Charles Johnson’s Wesearcher to identify the worst rioters and post/promote their names and send it along to police, family, friends. Make them pay a social cost as well.

    Ultimately the lack of such a obvious plan comes down to the cucks on campus lacking Fire in the Minds of Men. The Alt-Right is the only exception on the right and they are too few but they could create a template for cucks to follow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The point is to show that universities are antagonistic towards particular hot-button issues of the individual donor.

    I suspect you'll find it's difficult to locate a well-to-do (non-leftoid) individual who has hot button issues, at least any which would be addressed in a campus setting. Think of Christine Todd Whitman and her husband. Their hot button issue was their property tax bill. I think you'll also discover that part of the problem is that this same type has gotten the idea in their head that it's bad taste to have an articulate and antagonistic disposition to the identitarian tripe peddled by black particularlists, feminists, and sundry. The best you'll do is find some midlevel corporation executive who will complain that the institution won't 'stay in it's lane'.


    These folks have been around for about 20 years:

    https://www.goacta.org/about/mission

    Not sure what they've accomplished in that time.

  39. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, “Serves them right!”

    Some of them do. Donors as far as I’ve been able to see are largely organization men, and, in any case, their interest is served by propping up the ‘good-will’ incorporated into their degree, which bad publicity would damage. Charles Sykes gave his book about Dartmouth the title The Hollow Men. He was referring to the trustees. Trustee nonfeasance is the scandal in higher education. Donation streams are generally very insensitive to these scandals.

    Read More
  40. @Moshe
    Richard Spencer to the rescue.

    The odious attention seeker shopped around for a campus where he could rent a place to speak so that he could arouse protests and thus bring Heather and Charles down into his little scheiss stew.

    What a sick little drama queen.

    What is it you oppose about Spencer’s ideas? They are quite sensible. Your instinctive ethnic revulsion and fear at one who advocates for his people, who are different from your own people, proves his point. Ethnostates work, multiculturalism does not.

    Read More
  41. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out.

    MacDonald is not amiable and with little doubt people like MacDonald, Murray, and Anthony Esolen are fairly pessimistic about the situation and trying to navigate it the best they know how.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    MacDonald is not amiable
     
    It's all relative.

    Compared to your average weaponized snowflake, she's Mary Poppins.
    , @NOTA
    Yeah, Murray has had several perfectly normal speaking gigs since the embarrassing fiasco at Middlebury. If the university wants to, they can maintain order. It doesn't even take all that big a threat--just actually arrest people for disturbing the peace or trespassing, and actually expel students whose protests cross the line into violence or disruption. Do this once or twice, and the problem will resolve itself, because shouting down Charles Murray (whose books you are never going to read, because geez have you seen how thick those things are?) isn't worth spending s weekend in jail or getting expelled from school.
  42. @Corvinus
    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left..."

    No, Conservative donors in general adhere to the terminology and framework of the ideology they espouse.

    "are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies."

    They will "defeat" their enemies within those individual ideals and behavioral codes.

    "The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it’s taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations."

    Groups which include the Left, the Alt-Right, Jews, Conservatives, etc. are dead set with acquiring power. In this "game", the Left has gained an advantage in those institutions.

    "They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born."

    Yes. Whites had a great run while it lasted.

    "The Left don’t have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed."

    Replace "The Left" with "The Radical Left and Radical Right, i.e. the Coalition of the Fringe groups" and you would be onto something.

    "If you want to stop violent Leftists, you’ve got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you’re tougher and meaner than them, you’ll win."

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

    "The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference."

    The radical Left.

    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody’s favorite Moderate.

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/42175669941375af8sx2.jpg

    http://www.cheriberens.net/uploads/2/6/0/1/26019726/_3579679_orig.jpg

    Defense of self and nation is well within the bounds of Orthodox and Catholic Christian doctrine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody’s favorite Moderate.
     
    LOL. Gooey is perfect given the tar baby aspect of interacting with Corvinus.
    , @FPD72
    George Henry Boughtom's 1867 painting of pilgrims going to church shows each of the men armed with muskets to defend against possible Indian attacks.

    While some Protestant sects are pacifist, most are not. Those with a Reformed/Calvinist bent (such as our pilgrim founders) in particular recognize not just the right but the duty of self defense.
  43. @Bill P
    Yeah, the idea that these social justice jihadis might someday be our leaders is unsettling. This is why someone needs to take action to make serious changes in our universities. If you think about it, all this campus insanity looks like the harbinger of a sharp rise in political violence - led in part by elite whites - over the next few years. Kind of reminds me of The Iron Heel in a weird way.

    The government has to start going after the schools financially. Make them guarantee their own loans, reduce or eliminate tax deductions for donations, they could also refuse to fund degree programs that won’t give graduates meaningful employment opportunities. Hitting the schools financially is the only way the will even consider reforming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The government has to start going after the schools financially."
     
    The government not only should penalize the schools financially, it is sworn to go after the perpetrators in the schools legally! The government's fundamental legal, statutory and constitutional role is to protect the civil rights of the citizens. This isn't an opinion, this is the whole purpose of government. And freedom of speech is not some interpolated-penumbra-of-an-emanation right, it is an explicit fundamental right.

    The federal government is already comfortable issuing threats to universities for insufficiently enthusiastic compliance with such pseudo-rights as avoidance of "disparate impact", mandatory athletic gender equality and tranny deference. Threats, prosecutions and penalties for violating actual rights should be routine and definitive.

    Are you listening, President Trump and Secretary DeVos? This is a layup.
  44. @Harry Baldwin
    In 1973 Yale suspended 11 students and withheld the diploma from another for leading the disruption of a debate between William Rusher of National Review and William B. Shockley, early race realist.

    In suspending the students, the executive committee said the students' actions placed them "outside the voluntary association of persons dedicated to the free expression of all views."

    The suspensions last Friday mark the first time that Yale has used disciplinary measures since November 1969. At that time, 47 students were placed on probation following a building occupation.
     
    The current Yale administration would never take such measures.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/13/yale-suspends-11-for-halting-debate/

    But not everyone did that. Six months earlier Harvard canceled a different Shockley debate: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/13/archives/innis-and-shockley-to-debate-genetics-dec-4-at-princeton.html
    That debate was to be on “I. Q. Differences, Heredity and Dysgenics: a Debate.” plus ça change …

    The Shockley debates in 1973-74 are a good parallel for today. More:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/05/archives/shockley-debates-montagu-as-innis-angrily-pulls-out-tests-called.html

    Dr. Montagu, who had been reached in advance by the student society as an alternative speaker for Mr. Innis, echoed the many critics of Dr. Shockley by contending that the intelligence tests upon which Dr. Shockley based his arguments were biased against the social and economically deprived.

    “These studies are irrelevant to the moral question we face,” Dr. Montagu said, “which is, Does a human being regardless of his ability have the right to the fullest realization of his potentialities?

    Back then the NYT appeared to believe in free speech a bit more: http://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/16/archives/the-shockley-case-in-the-nation.html

    But, that kind of opposition really questions Dr. Birenbaum’s judgment and policy in inviting Dr. Shockley to speak. Even if that was an unsound decision, it ought not to be remedied: at the expense of anyone’s rights under the First Amendment.

    That amendment unequivocally allows Dr. Shockley to propound his repugnant doctrine whenever and wherever he has reasonable opportunity. Those, who don’t want to hear it don’t have to; those who want to challenge it can; but those who try to suppress it can only give it more notoriety, and the trappings of a cause.

    Much more like this is available by searching for “1973 debate shockley new york times” (or 1974).

    Read More
  45. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody's favorite Moderate.

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

     

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/42175669941375af8sx2.jpg

    http://www.cheriberens.net/uploads/2/6/0/1/26019726/_3579679_orig.jpg

    Defense of self and nation is well within the bounds of Orthodox and Catholic Christian doctrine.

    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody’s favorite Moderate.

    LOL. Gooey is perfect given the tar baby aspect of interacting with Corvinus.

    Read More
  46. What Heather McDonald doesn’t understand is that the “professoriate” is not homogenous or a protected class. Sure there are some tenured radicals out there, but most “professors” these days don’t have tenure and never will. They’re teaching on one- or three-year contracts that are renewed at the sole discretion of the unaccountable administration.

    Don’t assume that you know what the precarious pseudo-professors are thinking, but also don’t expect them to take a stand. In any fight with administration, the adjunct faculty lose.

    Read More
  47. @Sam
    That is why you target the other half. The point isn't to go red pill cuck donors. The point is to show that universities are antagonistic towards particular hot-button issues of the individual donor. Bureaucrats care about donations because that is what they live by.

    In addition the goal should also be to get the students riled up and engaging in violence. If I were a millionaire I would pay Milo, Spencer, Coulter and other provokers to go on a university tour. I would pay the Republican or other non-liberal group to host them. Then I would pay photographers to record everything and pay Charles Johnson's Wesearcher to identify the worst rioters and post/promote their names and send it along to police, family, friends. Make them pay a social cost as well.

    Ultimately the lack of such a obvious plan comes down to the cucks on campus lacking Fire in the Minds of Men. The Alt-Right is the only exception on the right and they are too few but they could create a template for cucks to follow.

    The point is to show that universities are antagonistic towards particular hot-button issues of the individual donor.

    I suspect you’ll find it’s difficult to locate a well-to-do (non-leftoid) individual who has hot button issues, at least any which would be addressed in a campus setting. Think of Christine Todd Whitman and her husband. Their hot button issue was their property tax bill. I think you’ll also discover that part of the problem is that this same type has gotten the idea in their head that it’s bad taste to have an articulate and antagonistic disposition to the identitarian tripe peddled by black particularlists, feminists, and sundry. The best you’ll do is find some midlevel corporation executive who will complain that the institution won’t ‘stay in it’s lane’.

    These folks have been around for about 20 years:

    https://www.goacta.org/about/mission

    Not sure what they’ve accomplished in that time.

    Read More
  48. Talk about a pile of goop. Showing two pictures of soldier bois with crosses on their neck and clergy in their hip pocket is other than substantive evidence. Considering you are a lawyer by trade, and a low T male to boot, I understand fully why you would go to such short lengths to project your virility through Weasel Zippers style war porn.

    Now, before you get your jackboots in a twist, anyone who gets punched in the face has the liberty to defend themselves from the aggressor.

    HOWEVER, there is a larger issue here. Those on the left AND right will make that declaration their ideological rival as a whole is “evil”, an “enemy” that must be rooted out out of “defense of self and nation”, which puts on the table the use of force.

    So, you will have to offer a cogent argument as to how and why Leftists are an “enemy”, one that therefore justifies the employment of violence in a “war”. Recall that there is no explicit just war theory in Eastern Orthodoxy. Furthermore, how does your individual congregation view your advocation of self-defense in light of you unilaterally declaring the Left as your ideological and social enemy? Are they on board? Will you, and they, take up this noble fight and work to curb stomp lefty men and women, along with their impressionable offspring?

    Read More
  49. @Bill P
    Yeah, the idea that these social justice jihadis might someday be our leaders is unsettling. This is why someone needs to take action to make serious changes in our universities. If you think about it, all this campus insanity looks like the harbinger of a sharp rise in political violence - led in part by elite whites - over the next few years. Kind of reminds me of The Iron Heel in a weird way.

    Eventually, there will be violence over these issues. The discontent is rising. We live in relatively prosperous times, but I don’t see people really wanting to put up with these things if if there is another economic downturn. Especially over the transgender bathroom issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    ...but I don’t see people really wanting to put up with these things if if there is another economic downturn. Especially over the transgender bathroom issue.
     
    Yes, retrofitting older buildings with single-user restrooms can be quite expensive. As Target Corp is about to find out.
  50. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    Unfortunately, the means for the civilized solution of much of our societies` problems have been removed. While the mainstream right should not openly advocate for violent reciprocity, at the very least they should turn a blind eye to adequate responses against the volunteer enforcers of the Left.

    When they complain about “neo nazis” undermining our society, remind them of their black blocs. They will not be convinced of their hipocrisy but at least they will know they are no longer recognized as a moral authority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Unfortunately, the means for the civilized solution of much of our societies` problems have been removed."

    Utterly ridiculous. Perhaps you would offer your opinion on this matter in light of Aarfy's, I mean Anti-Gnostic's, comments.

    There is a larger issue here. Those on the left AND right will make that declaration their ideological rival as a whole is “evil”, an “enemy” that must be rooted out out of “defense of self and nation”, which puts on the table the use of force.

    So, are you able to offer a cogent argument as to how and why Leftists are an “enemy”, one that therefore justifies the employment of violence in a “war” in light of the fact that there is no explicit just war theory in Eastern Orthodoxy (AG's faith of choice).

    Furthermore, how would your individual congregation view advocation of self-defense if you had unilaterally declared the Left as your ideological and social enemy? Are they on board? Will you, and they, take up this noble fight and work to curb stomp lefty men and women, along with their impressionable offspring?
  51. @res

    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody’s favorite Moderate.
     
    LOL. Gooey is perfect given the tar baby aspect of interacting with Corvinus.

    I feel like Yossarian with Aarfy.

    Read More
  52. @Random Dude on the Internet
    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don't expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn't just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).

    Probably true, the income gap between college and non-college has to do with management jobs. Most business prefer to hire college grads for management but there is a lot less management jobs out there, so you get lots of BA folks working in a call center instead of making big bucks. In fact Donald Trump had a lot of higher income blue collar workers but the media and sometimes here likes to paint his followers as down and out blue collar workers. More were Truck drivers that made over 50,000 than laid off Coal workers. This is one reason why the liberal tech companies are always trying to eliminate truck driving jobs instead of maid’s jobs.

    Read More
  53. @WGG
    What is it you oppose about Spencer's ideas? They are quite sensible. Your instinctive ethnic revulsion and fear at one who advocates for his people, who are different from your own people, proves his point. Ethnostates work, multiculturalism does not.

    U <3 Cucks

    Read More
  54. @Jason Liu
    Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    Their connections are to the communists.

    Read More
  55. @Art Deco
    which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out.

    MacDonald is not amiable and with little doubt people like MacDonald, Murray, and Anthony Esolen are fairly pessimistic about the situation and trying to navigate it the best they know how.

    MacDonald is not amiable

    It’s all relative.

    Compared to your average weaponized snowflake, she’s Mary Poppins.

    Read More
  56. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates.

    Those conditions are found at the elite schools, and they produce more, not less, than their share of professional SJWs and future mulatto cabinet secretaries and federal judges.

    Read More
  57. @Art Deco
    It’s all kabuki – campus administrators and faculty are the baby boomer campus radicals of the 60s.

    I think if you look into it, you'll discover the median year of birth of tenured faculty is around about 1963 as we speak, and that of college presidents around about 1952. The quondam anti-war protesters were all born prior to 1955 and will retire in about a half-dozen years. The situation has been getting worse and worse even though those troublesome cohorts have been heading out to grass for a dozen years or more.

    In their solipsism, they hired sycophants as their successors.

    On the bright side, that doomed the long-term success of their project. On the not-so-bright, that long-term isn’t quite here yet.

    Read More
  58. University administrators agree with the protestors and do not support free speech. This is increasingly evident. So, don’t appeals to university administrators to honor their fictive statements in support of free speech seem pathetic? It is not as though these administrators will allow a dissenting opinion if there is a colorable way to avoid it such as, for example, arguing that dissenting speech is dangerous in itself to their students, or will lead to a dangerous situation.

    For the administrators it’s a heads-I-win-tails-you lose game: “We honor freedom speech (and thus we are virtuous), but we can’t let you exercise it because a dangerous situation may arise and we must protect the students (and thus we are virtuous).

    Read More
  59. Is college tuition paying for essentials, or lavish amenities?

    http://college.usatoday.com/2014/05/19/colleges-or-country-clubs-students-discuss/

    When you charge lavish prices for lavish amenities, expect your customers to behave like the kind of brats that pay lavish prices for lavish amenities.

    The tuition also has past pension liabilities in it, so the kiddos are paying employee expense from before they started matriculating.

    Read More
  60. @Sam
    It is quite incredible that how cucked conservatives are. Charles Murray's apologetic defence of Middlebury administration indicates just how toothless they are. Their attitude seems to be "can't we all just get along?". It is obvious at this point that liberals won't self-police their radicals and they have had decades of this sort of stuff so it ridiculous that non-liberals are still participating in this charade. As Gary North pointed out recently, the goal of speaking at a university is not to disseminate ideas but to attract protests:

    The goal is to expose the universities as the gutless left-wing institutions that they have always been. A protest helps you do this.
    ...
    Always bring somebody along to take videos of what is going on. Then, before the evening is over, have the other person upload the video to YouTube.
    ...
    A conservative who gets protested at a university can probably cost that university several million dollars in lost donations. This should be the #1 goal of going to speak.

    The goal is to expose these people for what they are, and what they have been since the 1960's.

     
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/16321.cfm

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.

    Every college republican group should get a list of the donors. If possible they should identify particular donors pet issues that are non-liberal. Then invite the most provocative defender of this issue and intentionally promote on campus to create hype. The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power. This could easily be done systematically on colleges throughout the country. The worthlessness of conservatives lies in the fact that none of them have the stomach for this or any type of subversion.

    You are the person you’ve been waiting for.

    Read More
  61. Read More
  62. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    Considering how right-wingers rail against Saul Alinsky you would think they would read his work.
     
    For a decade or more, I have been hearing rants against Alinsky and 'Alinskyite tactics' from those we now call cuckservatives and establishment conservatives. Invariably, I immediately would respond: "Have you read Alinsky?"


    No. Not one. Not ever. And they won't.

    I tell them that until they read it I don't want to hear any more tommyrot about it.

    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff's Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it's available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you're a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.

    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff’s Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it’s available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you’re a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.

    Have you ever noticed that people on the Left are very quick to dismiss Saul Alinsky and laugh at the idea of him whenever people on the Right bring him up?

    Read More
  63. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Random Dude on the Internet
    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don't expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn't just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).

    It will never happen because of the Boomer mentality that every child needs a college education in order to succeed. I don’t expect Trump or DeVos to touch the student loan con game that is going on right now. Which is a shame because so many problems would take care of themselves if they didn’t just hand tens of thousands of dollars to any pud who knows how to sign their own name (if even that, being able to sign your own name may be considered discriminatory).

    Please stop with this “Boomer” talk. It’s stupid. You do realize that Boomers are not a monolithic group? The Boomers that you dislike are probably a rather small number of individuals, and I fail to see how these Boomers that you speak of differ so greatly from young SJW’s. By vilifying Boomers, you’re causing division among people who could otherwise be on the same team. I’m sure there is a much better way to describe those who you oppose. Using the word Boomer is lazy and sloppy.

    When did this anti-Boomer hysteria get started anyway?

    Read More
  64. Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action, though they have themselves been given the extraordinary privilege of tenure to protect their own liberty of thought and speech. It is time for them to take their heads out of the sand.

    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).
    , @Art Deco
    Dated figures from 2003 indicated that about 30% of college faculty at that time were teaching no more than 4 hours a week. A great many part-time instructors are clinical faculty who have other work.
  65. @Art Deco
    The faculty do nothing because they do not disapprove of what these youngsters are doing. When you add up all the vectors at hand, these crybullies are implementing institutjtional policy, which is why they are not punished. It would be status-lowering in the faculty rathskellar to object publicly to the antics of these juveniles. In any case, the faculty care about their own privileges, and nothing else.

    In any case, the faculty care about their own privileges, and nothing else.

    Bingo!

    These appeals to the faculty to do the right thing and support free speech simply fall on deaf ears. Paycheck protection, and being non-controversial (non-confrontational) are what matter for most people. If administrators or faculty wanted to be crusaders they’d be in a different business.

    The culture at-large has inculcated this tolerance (with agreeable speech)/intolerance (with disagreeable speech) dichotomy. This attitude doesn’t spring up de novo on campus, arriving students have brought it with them. Their high schools (and media, culture) urge them to become activists, community organizers, and SJWs in the mold of Obama, e.g. Steve’s recent bête noire Ziad Ahmed.

    If universities had been hot beds for germinating this conduct, it wouldn’t have sprung up just two years ago. It’s students who turn over on a yearly basis, not staff.

    Read More
  66. I love Heather MacDonald! Consider this wonderful paragraph:

    If the one-in-four statistic [regarding campus rape] is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

    Give this lady one of those Genius Grants! (Full article here: https://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html)

    Read More
  67. @Anonymous
    Heather needs to remember that the professoriate is a major reason why many students have the ideas they have and a major reason things are the way they are on campus. The left only gave a d*mn about free speech when it was their speech they wanted to protect. Asking most professors to help support true free speech, even things they disagree with, is like asking Gloria Steinem to support equal treatment for men in custody and divorce proceedings.

    Exactly. As smart as she is, the first thing that comes across reading her article is “it’s the faculty that is ultimately responsible here, sweetheart”.

    And while I wouldn’t have advertised the speech as “Blue Lives Matter” – hey if you wanted to be really incendiary, it would have been titled “The Big Lie of the Black Lies Lives Matter Bowel Movement” – she needs to focus some of her analytical mojo on the issue.

    Ultimately black crime is the problem, not blue, black or white policemen, (notwithstanding our overall trend toward an E German police surveillance state); the guilty white liberal progressive teachers are the problem, not their apprentices/understudies.

    IOW a big miss, but even Homerina nods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Ultimately black crime is the problem,

    The crime can be dealt with up to a point (though you're invariably going to have sorely elevated homicide rates in slums, and somewhat elevated general crime rates). How black crime differs is that you have a collection of politicians, academics, journalists, lawyers, and foundation-sector functionaries running interference for black hoodlums, disrupting the work of law enforcement, and defaming law enforcement. They don't do this on behalf of white hoodlums.

    You can see the results. In New York, where Giuliani and Bratton charged ahead Sharpton be damned, the worst homicide rates in the city (In Bedford-Stuyvesant and Ocean Hill / Brownsville) have been running at 18 per 100,000 (with Harlem and Morrisania and adjacent at 8.5 per 100,000). The slum neighborhoods around Chicago have rates in the neighborhood of 47 per 100,000. The police in Chicago are as amply staffed as they are in New York. They're demoralized and not using best practices.
  68. @Jason Liu
    Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    College admins are not stuffy old conservatives, they are stuffy old radicals. They are on the same side as the student rioters/censors, they just lack their energy, but they fully back the violence/censorship program.

    Read More
  69. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @biz
    It is a bad idea to tie loans to graduation rates. These low-tier universities would simply make requirements to graduate even easier than they already are. It will be a race to the bottom (morso than curently) to fill the curriculum with courses like "How to watch television" and "Your friend the decimal point."

    Wouldn’t it be better to tie federal funding (for grants, etc. ) to certain behavior and policies, such as allowing free speech?

    Read More
  70. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @biz
    It is a bad idea to tie loans to graduation rates. These low-tier universities would simply make requirements to graduate even easier than they already are. It will be a race to the bottom (morso than curently) to fill the curriculum with courses like "How to watch television" and "Your friend the decimal point."

    Wouldn’t it be better to tie federal funding (for grants, etc. ) to certain behavior and policies, such as allowing free speech?

    Read More
  71. Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Interesting development re the above:

    https://twitter.com/wokieleaks1/status/853357069268914176
  72. @Barnard
    The government has to start going after the schools financially. Make them guarantee their own loans, reduce or eliminate tax deductions for donations, they could also refuse to fund degree programs that won't give graduates meaningful employment opportunities. Hitting the schools financially is the only way the will even consider reforming.

    “The government has to start going after the schools financially.”

    The government not only should penalize the schools financially, it is sworn to go after the perpetrators in the schools legally! The government’s fundamental legal, statutory and constitutional role is to protect the civil rights of the citizens. This isn’t an opinion, this is the whole purpose of government. And freedom of speech is not some interpolated-penumbra-of-an-emanation right, it is an explicit fundamental right.

    The federal government is already comfortable issuing threats to universities for insufficiently enthusiastic compliance with such pseudo-rights as avoidance of “disparate impact”, mandatory athletic gender equality and tranny deference. Threats, prosecutions and penalties for violating actual rights should be routine and definitive.

    Are you listening, President Trump and Secretary DeVos? This is a layup.

    Read More
  73. @Flip
    I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.

    >>I remember reading that the University of Chicago expelled illegal protestors during the 1960s and never had the problems that other schools did as a result.

    Chicago is America’s best university. There is no grade inflation there either. What gets you an A at Yale or Harvard will likely get you a C at Chicago.

    Read More
  74. @Anonymous
    Put simply, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals are Part I and II of the Cliff’s Notes for Mein Kampf.

    If you are going to fight the enemy, you had best read his playbook if it’s available. And it is.
    Otherwise, you’re a poser, and an especially lazy one at that.


    Have you ever noticed that people on the Left are very quick to dismiss Saul Alinsky and laugh at the idea of him whenever people on the Right bring him up?

    Haven’t noticed that. Do you have a link?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't watch TV much, but I've seen it in the past on various news channels. When a conservative brings up Alinsky, liberals never allow it to gain any traction. They usually seem to react to the mention of him with amusement or casual indifference.

    Unfortunately, I don't have a link. I might be able to find one. It's been awhile since I saw this - probably in Obama's first term.

  75. @The Anti-Gnostic

    The point is to induce students, administrators, teachers to oppose. Then capture all of their opposition on film and send it to donors along with the procedures and suggestions for how the donors could assert power.
     
    The donors don't care. Half the population, placed disproportionately in economically powerful cities, skews Left. Trump barely limped into office. So half the donors look at people like Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray and think, "Serves them right!"

    The other half, Conservative donors, most of whom accept the terminology and moral framework of the Left, are more concerned with adherence to individual ideals and behavioral codes than defeating their political and cultural enemies.

    The Left is single-mindedly concerned with acquiring power, which is why it's taken over the institutions: universities, government bureaucracies, and publicly traded corporations. They have demographics on their side as well: a million legal immigrants a year and higher TFR from the Latinos already here. The future has already been born.

    Conservatives still think their ideas will carry the day, which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out. The Left don't have facts or logic on their side which is why they use violence, and the implicit threat of a total breakdown of the civil order to keep Conservatives cowed.

    If you want to stop violent Leftists, you've got to punch them in the mouth. Literally. If you're tougher and meaner than them, you'll win. If you're not, or if you're outnumbered, you'll lose. Does anybody think MS-13 or ISIS can be "talked down?" Of course not, which is why we hire cops and soldiers with overwhelming firepower to deal with them. The Left is cut from the same cloth just with lower time-preference.

    It’s Mac Donald, not MacDonald. The extra space symbolizes the void between her ears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Looking forward to your next trade book and your next university press book on public policy.
    , @Stan Adams
    I thought I deleted this comment ... it was meant to tie into a Heathers joke that I decided wasn't funny or clever enough to warrant the coveted "Stan Adams" imprimatur. It was not meant to disparage Heather Mac Donald.

    So, uh ... let's say that Tiny Duck hijacked my handle, and leave it at that.

  76. Just remember that when kulturkampf goes kampfkampf, Heather will be right there with Murray and the others on the “Respectable Right” tripping over themselves to label the AR types fighting back as Nazi thugs.

    Read More
  77. Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/JamesEdwardsTPC/status/852990840507117570
  78. @Seamus Padraig

    Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action, though they have themselves been given the extraordinary privilege of tenure to protect their own liberty of thought and speech. It is time for them to take their heads out of the sand.
     
    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.
     
    Don't know what your source is on this, but even if your figures are accurate, what they mean is that 24.48% (i.e., 48% of 51%) of all college teachers are tenured--a rather small minority.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).
     
    That might be true of tenured, full-time profs, but I can guarantee you that no adjunct makes anywhere near that amount of money--a lot of them qualify for food stamps, in fact. And we can be relatively sure that you're not talking about adjuncts here, because they are not paid per annum, but per semester hour. And if it's f/t tenure profs you're talking about here, see my above paragraph.
    , @Desiderius
    My sense is that those numbers are heavily skewed toward older faculty - i.e. the younger the adjunctier, which means that the "defunding of the Left" is already ongoing, in its ham-handed way.

    The money "saved" however has not gone back to the taxpayers nor toward traditional authentic education (better full-time faculty) but rather to ever more extravagant admin/diversity/student affairs bullshit.

  79. @Stan Adams
    It's Mac Donald, not MacDonald. The extra space symbolizes the void between her ears.

    Looking forward to your next trade book and your next university press book on public policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    I'll send you autographed copies of both, as soon as I write them.

    My debut novel, Haven Can Wait: How Jackie Coakley Spent Her Summer Vacation, should be in print as soon as I can afford to pay off a vanity publisher.

    Other titles soon to be written by me include:

    * The Backfire of the Banalities, an unauthorized biography of Sabrina Rubin Erdely with lots of stuff that I made up
    * Meshugenah, a novel about a buxom blonde homicidal shiksa who targets old Jewish guys living in a rundown Art Deco hotel in 1980s Miami Beach
    * Mommie Dearest II: The Bitch Is Back, a semi-autobiographical work
  80. @Seamus Padraig

    Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action, though they have themselves been given the extraordinary privilege of tenure to protect their own liberty of thought and speech. It is time for them to take their heads out of the sand.
     
    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    Dated figures from 2003 indicated that about 30% of college faculty at that time were teaching no more than 4 hours a week. A great many part-time instructors are clinical faculty who have other work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    If you're an adjunct with only 4 semester hours a week, you would need another job in order to survive.
  81. @Jason Liu
    Leftist activism needs to have consequences. It just takes a few hard-nosed administrators to expel some kids and set an example.

    If college admins really are stuffy old conservatives who got the job because of connections (like so many college kids claim), then they should have no problem bringing the hammer down on campus communism, including the professors who advocate it. Or are they just soft?

    You usually make very insightful comments – what happened today?

    Read More
  82. @MB
    Exactly. As smart as she is, the first thing that comes across reading her article is "it's the faculty that is ultimately responsible here, sweetheart".

    And while I wouldn't have advertised the speech as "Blue Lives Matter" - hey if you wanted to be really incendiary, it would have been titled "The Big Lie of the Black Lies Lives Matter Bowel Movement" - she needs to focus some of her analytical mojo on the issue.

    Ultimately black crime is the problem, not blue, black or white policemen, (notwithstanding our overall trend toward an E German police surveillance state); the guilty white liberal progressive teachers are the problem, not their apprentices/understudies.

    IOW a big miss, but even Homerina nods.

    Ultimately black crime is the problem,

    The crime can be dealt with up to a point (though you’re invariably going to have sorely elevated homicide rates in slums, and somewhat elevated general crime rates). How black crime differs is that you have a collection of politicians, academics, journalists, lawyers, and foundation-sector functionaries running interference for black hoodlums, disrupting the work of law enforcement, and defaming law enforcement. They don’t do this on behalf of white hoodlums.

    You can see the results. In New York, where Giuliani and Bratton charged ahead Sharpton be damned, the worst homicide rates in the city (In Bedford-Stuyvesant and Ocean Hill / Brownsville) have been running at 18 per 100,000 (with Harlem and Morrisania and adjacent at 8.5 per 100,000). The slum neighborhoods around Chicago have rates in the neighborhood of 47 per 100,000. The police in Chicago are as amply staffed as they are in New York. They’re demoralized and not using best practices.

    Read More
  83. @eah
    https://twitter.com/faith_heritage/status/852973584385527808

    Read More
  84. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @TomSchmidt
    Haven't noticed that. Do you have a link?

    I don’t watch TV much, but I’ve seen it in the past on various news channels. When a conservative brings up Alinsky, liberals never allow it to gain any traction. They usually seem to react to the mention of him with amusement or casual indifference.

    Unfortunately, I don’t have a link. I might be able to find one. It’s been awhile since I saw this – probably in Obama’s first term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Ah, ok.

    I've used Alinsky in classes. He's most useful for anyone wanting to perforate the administrative law state, which used to be leftists and is now rightists. I never read Reveille for Radicals; worth it?
  85. @Regor
    Unfortunately, the means for the civilized solution of much of our societies` problems have been removed. While the mainstream right should not openly advocate for violent reciprocity, at the very least they should turn a blind eye to adequate responses against the volunteer enforcers of the Left.

    When they complain about "neo nazis" undermining our society, remind them of their black blocs. They will not be convinced of their hipocrisy but at least they will know they are no longer recognized as a moral authority.

    “Unfortunately, the means for the civilized solution of much of our societies` problems have been removed.”

    Utterly ridiculous. Perhaps you would offer your opinion on this matter in light of Aarfy’s, I mean Anti-Gnostic’s, comments.

    There is a larger issue here. Those on the left AND right will make that declaration their ideological rival as a whole is “evil”, an “enemy” that must be rooted out out of “defense of self and nation”, which puts on the table the use of force.

    So, are you able to offer a cogent argument as to how and why Leftists are an “enemy”, one that therefore justifies the employment of violence in a “war” in light of the fact that there is no explicit just war theory in Eastern Orthodoxy (AG’s faith of choice).

    Furthermore, how would your individual congregation view advocation of self-defense if you had unilaterally declared the Left as your ideological and social enemy? Are they on board? Will you, and they, take up this noble fight and work to curb stomp lefty men and women, along with their impressionable offspring?

    Read More
  86. @Lot
    The President actually tightly controls US universities, even private ones, because they all rely on student loan funding.

    Obama used that power mostly to advance left wing feminist policy. Trump should sinply broadly restrict funding of loans to students going to schools with high graduation rates and low default rates. The bottom half of US colleges are scammy SJW jobs programs run by professors who hate taxpaying white Americans, as well as sleazeball millionaires running for profit colleges that pay commissioned salesmen to get student loan eligible people with 80IQs to enroll. They should be simply shut down, which will happen within a few weeks of the end of taxpayer funded loans to them.

    DOE has broad authority to cut off low performance schools, and under Obama took some slow baby steps in this direction. I predict Trump will reverse these small positive changes, mainly because my most pessimistic and cynical worries about him are rapidly being realized.

    State governments continue to pour billions down the hard left rat-hole, even those states where the Governors and both State Houses are Republican.

    Read More
  87. @epochehusserl
    Eventually, there will be violence over these issues. The discontent is rising. We live in relatively prosperous times, but I don't see people really wanting to put up with these things if if there is another economic downturn. Especially over the transgender bathroom issue.

    …but I don’t see people really wanting to put up with these things if if there is another economic downturn. Especially over the transgender bathroom issue.

    Yes, retrofitting older buildings with single-user restrooms can be quite expensive. As Target Corp is about to find out.

    Read More
  88. @Lot
    HMac is a national treasure. I was disappointed three months ago she was not appointed to anything by Trump.

    Now he is careening toward becoming a more boorish version of W. NBC claims to have multiple sources saying Trump is considering a preemptive attack on North Korea:

    --The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.--

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

    Could Trump be that stupid? Of course!

    The guy who got Trump to dump Bannon off the NSC wants to send 10 to 50 thousand ground troops to Syria to fight Assad. And what about the 2500 Russian troops fighting in Syria for Assad?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/trump-said-no-to-troops-in-syria-his-aides-aren-t-so-sure

    On domestic policy, Trump wants to try again with a repeal of the ACA and is considering an illegal move to withhold payments to exchange insurers. His buddy Paul Ryan, however, has ruled out even considering a bill to start building a Mexico wall until 2018.

    Here’s the bigger issue that never gets discussed. For fifty years prior to WW1 ( ah, the war to end all wars) The British army really had only fought poorly armed illiterates peasants.

    The shock of fighting Germans and the death toll involved was considerable.

    The dumb Yanks should avoid the Russians in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The British Empire fought Boer farmers and took quite a beating before finally winning through unsporting strategies.
  89. Yet when such travesties occur, the faculty are, with few exceptions, missing in action…

    No, they’re not. They’re quietly cheering on the other side.

    They’re not cowards, they’re traitors.

    Read More
  90. @Stan Adams
    It's Mac Donald, not MacDonald. The extra space symbolizes the void between her ears.

    I thought I deleted this comment … it was meant to tie into a Heathers joke that I decided wasn’t funny or clever enough to warrant the coveted “Stan Adams” imprimatur. It was not meant to disparage Heather Mac Donald.

    So, uh … let’s say that Tiny Duck hijacked my handle, and leave it at that.

    Read More
  91. @Anon
    ROTFL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49rMWLMA5CU

    Never let it be said that iStevers reflexively support whites. It’s clear here that the family of color– and the Jewess and the libertarians backing them– are in the right, and the white power structure is moonbat crazy. But what do you expect from a city named after a cheap prole beer from over the border?

    I remember walking a mile to school in second grade. Okay, that was Honolulu. No big deal.

    But in fifth grade (we moved frequently in those years) I did the same, along railroad tracks, in a small Appalachian town, and later that grade, on the edge of a Big Ten city. In the latter, I was almost killed by a black girl. (Oh, alright, that was on the soccer field. She was in goal, older, and three times my size. But it was a potentially tough neighborhood.)

    What’s the first thing you notice about snowflakes? Why, they’re all white!

    Read More
  92. @Art Deco
    Looking forward to your next trade book and your next university press book on public policy.

    I’ll send you autographed copies of both, as soon as I write them.

    My debut novel, Haven Can Wait: How Jackie Coakley Spent Her Summer Vacation, should be in print as soon as I can afford to pay off a vanity publisher.

    Other titles soon to be written by me include:

    * The Backfire of the Banalities, an unauthorized biography of Sabrina Rubin Erdely with lots of stuff that I made up
    * Meshugenah, a novel about a buxom blonde homicidal shiksa who targets old Jewish guys living in a rundown Art Deco hotel in 1980s Miami Beach
    * Mommie Dearest II: The Bitch Is Back, a semi-autobiographical work

    Read More
  93. @Bill Jones
    Here's the bigger issue that never gets discussed. For fifty years prior to WW1 ( ah, the war to end all wars) The British army really had only fought poorly armed illiterates peasants.

    The shock of fighting Germans and the death toll involved was considerable.

    The dumb Yanks should avoid the Russians in Syria.

    The British Empire fought Boer farmers and took quite a beating before finally winning through unsporting strategies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FPD72
    "Breaker Morant" was an excellent movie that showed some of the "unsporting" strategies that the British used. It starred Edward Woodward of later "Equalizer" fame.
  94. Even the Chicago Tribune, now a standard-issue Left-wing rag, printed HM’s piece. But it won’t do any good. Most faculty and administrators share the Neo-Stalinist attitudes of the students. The last thing they’re going to do is call off their attack dogs.

    Read More
  95. I would remind this crowd that there is a general social expectations that people keep their viewpoints on contentious political issues somewhat private. Most people in the workplace or at a college obey this normal expectation and don’t express their political viewpoints in public.

    While I agree with the presented op-ed it presents a picture that people go to college to express political views, when that is not accurate.

    Read More
  96. @Anonymous
    Wouldn't it be better to tie federal funding (for grants, etc. ) to certain behavior and policies, such as allowing free speech?

    Yes, absolutely.

    Read More
  97. @Art Deco
    which is why amiable punching bags like Murray and MacDonald keep wandering into riots expecting a debate to break out.

    MacDonald is not amiable and with little doubt people like MacDonald, Murray, and Anthony Esolen are fairly pessimistic about the situation and trying to navigate it the best they know how.

    Yeah, Murray has had several perfectly normal speaking gigs since the embarrassing fiasco at Middlebury. If the university wants to, they can maintain order. It doesn’t even take all that big a threat–just actually arrest people for disturbing the peace or trespassing, and actually expel students whose protests cross the line into violence or disruption. Do this once or twice, and the problem will resolve itself, because shouting down Charles Murray (whose books you are never going to read, because geez have you seen how thick those things are?) isn’t worth spending s weekend in jail or getting expelled from school.

    Read More
  98. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Another heaping post of gooey, tautological marshmallow fluff from everybody's favorite Moderate.

    So, how does your stance coincide with your alleged Orthodoxy beliefs?

     

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/42175669941375af8sx2.jpg

    http://www.cheriberens.net/uploads/2/6/0/1/26019726/_3579679_orig.jpg

    Defense of self and nation is well within the bounds of Orthodox and Catholic Christian doctrine.

    George Henry Boughtom’s 1867 painting of pilgrims going to church shows each of the men armed with muskets to defend against possible Indian attacks.

    While some Protestant sects are pacifist, most are not. Those with a Reformed/Calvinist bent (such as our pilgrim founders) in particular recognize not just the right but the duty of self defense.

    Read More
  99. @Art Deco
    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.

    Don’t know what your source is on this, but even if your figures are accurate, what they mean is that 24.48% (i.e., 48% of 51%) of all college teachers are tenured–a rather small minority.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).

    That might be true of tenured, full-time profs, but I can guarantee you that no adjunct makes anywhere near that amount of money–a lot of them qualify for food stamps, in fact. And we can be relatively sure that you’re not talking about adjuncts here, because they are not paid per annum, but per semester hour. And if it’s f/t tenure profs you’re talking about here, see my above paragraph.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That comes from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 edition. I don't find 25% to be a 'small minority'. It is a considerable minority, and it's a mean which includes faculty at commercial schools and faculty at community colleges. A 'small minority' would be 6%. Keep in mind, 30% of faculty are p/t professors who teach < 5 credits a term; it's a reasonable inference that those faculty make their primary living doing something else, or are semi-retired, or are not the primary earners in their household.


    Again, the salary data incorporate full-time faculty and any part-time faculty who are on campus for two semesters or three quarters. It includes faculty at 2-year and 4-year institutions. It includes faculty at state schools, philanthropic schools, and commercial schools. What it does not include are p/t faculty who are not on year-round contracts. The metric is limited to cash salary and does not include fringe benefits.
  100. @Steve Sailer
    The British Empire fought Boer farmers and took quite a beating before finally winning through unsporting strategies.

    “Breaker Morant” was an excellent movie that showed some of the “unsporting” strategies that the British used. It starred Edward Woodward of later “Equalizer” fame.

    Read More
  101. @Art Deco
    Dated figures from 2003 indicated that about 30% of college faculty at that time were teaching no more than 4 hours a week. A great many part-time instructors are clinical faculty who have other work.

    If you’re an adjunct with only 4 semester hours a week, you would need another job in order to survive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That's my point. The lawyer who teaches a clinic at the local law school, the accountant who teaches a course at the local business school, the RNNP at the teaching hospital who also teaches at the appended nursing school, the high school music teacher and high school math teacher who tutor at the local college.

    I'm not defending the labor situation in higher education and do not care for it. I'm pointing out that much of the discussion of it is overstated and a good fraction of the adjuncts have more independence than it seems at first glance.
  102. @Art Deco
    In reality, the vast majority of college instructors now are actually just low-paid adjuncts who would loose their jobs in a hurry if they ever spoke out against the SJW mobs. Tenured professorships are increasingly rare nowadays.

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).

    My sense is that those numbers are heavily skewed toward older faculty – i.e. the younger the adjunctier, which means that the “defunding of the Left” is already ongoing, in its ham-handed way.

    The money “saved” however has not gone back to the taxpayers nor toward traditional authentic education (better full-time faculty) but rather to ever more extravagant admin/diversity/student affairs bullshit.

    Read More
  103. @Seamus Padraig

    75% work for 4-yr institutions
    51% are f/t (this applies to the sum of faculty at 4-year and 2-year institutions)
    48% of f/t faculty have tenure.
     
    Don't know what your source is on this, but even if your figures are accurate, what they mean is that 24.48% (i.e., 48% of 51%) of all college teachers are tenured--a rather small minority.

    Mean cash salary for those on 9-month contracts is $80,000 per year as we speak (a figure which includes the f/t faculty and some of the p/t faculty).
     
    That might be true of tenured, full-time profs, but I can guarantee you that no adjunct makes anywhere near that amount of money--a lot of them qualify for food stamps, in fact. And we can be relatively sure that you're not talking about adjuncts here, because they are not paid per annum, but per semester hour. And if it's f/t tenure profs you're talking about here, see my above paragraph.

    That comes from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 edition. I don’t find 25% to be a ‘small minority’. It is a considerable minority, and it’s a mean which includes faculty at commercial schools and faculty at community colleges. A ‘small minority’ would be 6%. Keep in mind, 30% of faculty are p/t professors who teach < 5 credits a term; it's a reasonable inference that those faculty make their primary living doing something else, or are semi-retired, or are not the primary earners in their household.

    Again, the salary data incorporate full-time faculty and any part-time faculty who are on campus for two semesters or three quarters. It includes faculty at 2-year and 4-year institutions. It includes faculty at state schools, philanthropic schools, and commercial schools. What it does not include are p/t faculty who are not on year-round contracts. The metric is limited to cash salary and does not include fringe benefits.

    Read More
  104. @Seamus Padraig
    If you're an adjunct with only 4 semester hours a week, you would need another job in order to survive.

    That’s my point. The lawyer who teaches a clinic at the local law school, the accountant who teaches a course at the local business school, the RNNP at the teaching hospital who also teaches at the appended nursing school, the high school music teacher and high school math teacher who tutor at the local college.

    I’m not defending the labor situation in higher education and do not care for it. I’m pointing out that much of the discussion of it is overstated and a good fraction of the adjuncts have more independence than it seems at first glance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The point is however that the universities are swimming in ridiculous, and in many cases ill-gotten, amounts of cash and little of it is going to faculty compensation.
  105. @Art Deco
    That's my point. The lawyer who teaches a clinic at the local law school, the accountant who teaches a course at the local business school, the RNNP at the teaching hospital who also teaches at the appended nursing school, the high school music teacher and high school math teacher who tutor at the local college.

    I'm not defending the labor situation in higher education and do not care for it. I'm pointing out that much of the discussion of it is overstated and a good fraction of the adjuncts have more independence than it seems at first glance.

    The point is however that the universities are swimming in ridiculous, and in many cases ill-gotten, amounts of cash and little of it is going to faculty compensation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Well, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that gross output of educational services is $329 bn per year, as we speak, and that 55% ($180 bn) is devoted to employee compensation. I do not believe that includes the public sector in education, but I'm not sure.

    The National Center for Education Statistics does have some data on institutional expenditures, but the functional categories it makes use of do not differentiate between employee compensation and other expenses and do not distinguish between the compensation paid to faculty, staff, or administration. They do indicate that about 42% of the expenditure at public colleges & universities is devoted to 'instruction', 'research', or 'academic support' and that about 52% of all expenditure at philanthropic institutions is devoted to these purposes.

    The NCES has it that tertiary institutions of all types are spending about $430 bn a year. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total wage and salary bill for post-secondary teachers is about $125 bn, or 30% of institutional expenditures. Not sure if these data streams are compatible enough to be made use of in this manner.
  106. @Anonymous
    I don't watch TV much, but I've seen it in the past on various news channels. When a conservative brings up Alinsky, liberals never allow it to gain any traction. They usually seem to react to the mention of him with amusement or casual indifference.

    Unfortunately, I don't have a link. I might be able to find one. It's been awhile since I saw this - probably in Obama's first term.

    Ah, ok.

    I’ve used Alinsky in classes. He’s most useful for anyone wanting to perforate the administrative law state, which used to be leftists and is now rightists. I never read Reveille for Radicals; worth it?

    Read More
  107. @eah
    https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/852721981740929024

    Interesting development re the above:

    Read More
  108. @Desiderius
    The point is however that the universities are swimming in ridiculous, and in many cases ill-gotten, amounts of cash and little of it is going to faculty compensation.

    Well, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that gross output of educational services is $329 bn per year, as we speak, and that 55% ($180 bn) is devoted to employee compensation. I do not believe that includes the public sector in education, but I’m not sure.

    The National Center for Education Statistics does have some data on institutional expenditures, but the functional categories it makes use of do not differentiate between employee compensation and other expenses and do not distinguish between the compensation paid to faculty, staff, or administration. They do indicate that about 42% of the expenditure at public colleges & universities is devoted to ‘instruction’, ‘research’, or ‘academic support’ and that about 52% of all expenditure at philanthropic institutions is devoted to these purposes.

    The NCES has it that tertiary institutions of all types are spending about $430 bn a year. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total wage and salary bill for post-secondary teachers is about $125 bn, or 30% of institutional expenditures. Not sure if these data streams are compatible enough to be made use of in this manner.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.