"Cal State LA offers segregated housing for black students"

‘A safe space for Black CSLA students …’

The arrangement comes roughly nine months after the university’s Black Student Union issued a set of demands in response to what its members contend are frequent “racist attacks” on campus, such as “racially insensitive remarks” and “microaggressions” by professors and students. One demand was for a “CSLA housing space delegated for Black students.”

“[It] would provide a cheaper alternative housing solution for Black students. This space would also serve as a safe space for Black CSLA students to congregate, connect, and learn from each other,” the demand letter stated.

The newly debuted Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community “focuses on academic excellence and learning experiences that are inclusive and non-discriminatory,” Cal State LA spokesman Robert Lopez told The College Fix via email.

"Yale undergraduates demand the right to be ignorant"

From Cannon Fodder: 

In New Haven, Connecticut, a group of undergraduates have just come up with a groundbreaking proposal. Their petition calls on Yale University’s English department to abolish a course on major writers and poets. The curriculum includes such figures as Geoffrey Chaucer, John Milton, and William Shakespeare. “It is unacceptable,” the screed declares, “that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors.”

The trouble with the demand is not its petulance but its timidity. If the canonical English bards, novelists, and playwrights are to be minimized—or banished entirely—why stop there? If the protestors want to “decolonize the course, and focus the curriculum” to “deliberately include literatures relating to gender, race, sexuality, ableism and ethnicity,” why not decolonize the entire university catalogue?

Manifestly, this purification of Western culture would have to include music. Out goes J.S. Bach, who was not only Caucasian but German, deeply religious, and straight (two wives, 20 children). The Teutonic Franz Josef Haydn, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Johannes Brahms would join him on the proscribed list, along with the Austrian Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and such Italians as Giacomo Puccini, Giuseppe Verdi, and, it goes without saying, Antonio Vivaldi, the redheaded priest.

The dominant figures in painting and sculpture must also be scrubbed from the picture, just as Josef Stalin ordered “counter-revolutionaries” airbrushed from photographs. Arrivederci signors Michelangelo and Da Vinci; adieu messieurs Cezanne, Renoir, and Toulouse-Lautrec (though the latter might be squeezed in under the ableism statute). Bon soir Monet, Manet, Picasso et. al.

Inventors must also be purged. Benjamin Franklin—who discovered electricity when he was not part of a government that employed slaves—Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, and all other heirs of white privilege, no matter how impoverished their beginnings, will vanish from the textbooks, available only to antiquarians.

But the statues that throw the longest shadows are those of scientists. These icons must be smashed head to toe. The Catholic Church couldn’t make Galileo disappear, but the petitioners are proudly—majestically—uninformed about history. Surely the statue of the astronomer can be knocked off its pedestal, and the entire pantheon spray-painted with progressive graffiti. Archimedes, who founded the study of physics; Rene Descartes and his mathematical formulae; Louis Pasteur and his germ theory; Charles Darwin and his writings on evolution; Isaac Newton; Albert Einstein; Enrico Fermi; Sigmund Freud, and so many others who built Western civilization—pale males from the colonizing nations, every last one.

"A professor was subjected to a lengthy Title IX investigation for her article about how there are too many Title IX investigations"

You can learn more about Kipnis’s “Inquisition” over at The Torch.

Response tweet: "buy my book to find out how to end capitalism"

It's on. Tonight me and @paulmasonnews are both doing talks in Berlin, at the same time. Let's get the audiences together to end capitalism!

— Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) April 5, 2016

Former Social Justice Warrior in his own words

Reddit archive: Changing was a long process. I initially got into SJW groups sort of through popularity- feminism was supposed to be THE thing for equality, and I wanted everyone to be treated well, so I joined a bunch of feminist forums, which branched into more garden variety SJW circles. Initially I had no idea there was a dark side to it.

I had some weird views before; I think in a lot of ways I was a stereotypical white knight. I was depressed at the time, and being applauded for being progressive definitely was an ego boost. Fighting people I perceived as bigoted made me feel better about myself. My SJW tendencies were based mostly out of self loathing- I felt weird, like an outcast, had never had a girlfriend, hated myself, and thought that I was fixing myself by jumping deep into feminism. I armed myself with a lot of bad statistics (like the 1 in 4 rape stat) and felt smart because of it.

After a while it becomes second nature; you just sort of convince yourself that you're on the right side and see your opponent as a stereotype out of reflex. That can happen here too, but SJW's actively encourage it. You become utterly convinced that you're part of an elite, enlightened group fighting an aging generation of uneducated racists and sexists.

But eventually I started to realize that I had incomplete information. I lost a lot of arguments to people I'd stereotyped as being dumb. The people I called allies just jumped to ad hominem attacks and semantic arguments, and that made them secure in their beliefs. That's how they operate; when they lose, their mental gymnastics aren't supposed to convince you. It's to convince themselves, to justify not changing their sources or beliefs. And it's very effective at that. It worked for me for a while.

But eventually it wasn't enough for me. I started trying to revise feminist arguments with new, accurate sources. I'd correct people on my own side on forums and whatnot. They hated that, and jumped right to calling me a rape apologist and a woman hater. I was blown away, it contradicted my notion that we were the logical side.

At the same time I started college, my grades were pretty awesome and college was way less stressful for me than high school had been. I had so much more time I took an active interest in learning some real skills for the first time. I'm making my own indie game now in between my regular job, based on the skills I learned my first couple years of college in my free time. I also got a girlfriend for the first time. She was (and is) amazing, best thing that ever happened to me.

This stuff gave me a little bit of pride that was extremely harmful to the communities I was in. Whereas before when someone generalized most men as rapists, it had given me an opportunity to feel superior to other men while still hating myself, now all of a sudden it offended my new-found self worth. Their communities thrive on self loathing disguised as elitism. And then the womens' studies class I took in college cited people absolutely insane- like Andrea Dworkin. Even as indoctrinated as I was at the time, I still knew that class was too far.

I still find it funny that, though most of the class started out conservative and was roped into SJW mentalities, I started out SJW and by the end of the class it had practically ruined feminism for me. Because I'd been a part of it before. I knew when the professor was wrong. I knew how hollow the "peace and acceptance" spiel they preached was. I knew the counter points to their sources. It felt like a bad joke to me at the time; I knew how my classmates felt, I'd felt the same way months earlier. But I was powerless to actually explain that to anyone, they just demonise and talk in circles until the argument goes away. As I had done months earlier. At first I felt bad, ashamed, for going against everything. I wanted to be convinced again, I wanted to be a good SJW again. And all of a sudden I realized it wasn't going to get better. I was in a university class about feminism, overrun with SJW's, and they had worse arguments than I'd seen online. There was no smarter next level to feminism that I was just too stupid to see. That was it. I was at the top and our arguments still sucked.

The last straw was when I made a desperate, ditch effort to convert my brown female girlfriend to feminism with me. It failed; she said feminists in her country were crazy. We argued a bit. Finally it felt like a curtain was being pulled back and I realized the ridiculousness of it all. I was a stupid white knight arguing with a brown girl that she should be more feminist. I deconverted on the spot. I stopped being ashamed of myself, a lot of things changed about the way I see myself and the world. Ironically, I stopped seeing every situation as a men vs. women or race vs. race binary. SJW's insist their goal is to make everyone equal, and for a long time I believed it, but their communities actually enforce factionalism and division.

I know this post makes me look bad, I cringe every time I think about the things I used to believe and say. I feel bad about the good people I insulted and wrote off. The good news is, I'm not the same person as I was in my mid-late teens. My life actually functions and has a purpose now, so that's nice. I try to see every situation in terms of individuals now, not sides. I'm not depressed any more, I have a regular decent paying job, I'm developing a game on the side, and I'm about to marry my wonderful fiance'.

Sorry for the tl;dr, it ran way longer than I expected. Once I started typing I felt like I needed to get it off my chest.

"Harvard Law dean puts ‘microaggressions’ in the same league as sexual assault"

The College Fix: Dean Martha Minow recently addressed graduating students at her alma mater, the University of Michigan, for the school’s winter commencement, The Harvard Crimson reported.

Telling students to be “upstanders” – those who intervene when they see injustice – Minow compared apartheid and forced segregation of public schools to … accidentally offending someone:

“Taking even seemingly small acts in one’s own school can build the culture that prevents violence, bullying, sexual assault, and racial microaggressions,” she said.

...the University of California was telling faculty that saying “America is the land of opportunity” was a microaggression.

"University administrator says federal statute trumps the Constitution"

"[The Constitution] doesn't supersede it," Cook said. "Title IX is a federal compliance policy. Those policies supersede anything else."

The statement from Cook comes after a student satire paper, the Daily Bull, published an article titled "Sexually harassed man pretty okay with situation." The article included a list of "Signs that she wants the D," that contained such entries as "she only screams a little" and "she's underage and you're 21."

Disgusting? Yes, both for the nonchalant treatment of male harassment victims and the rape jokes aimed at women. But does it rise to the level of actual harassment or hate speech not protected by the First Amendment? No. 

Meantime... Federal student loans balloons over a trillion dollars.  There is just very little good news out there today.

"Casting of white actor as Martin Luther King prompts outrage from playwright"

"Ohio university production of Katori Hall’s The Mountaintop featured a white and black actor as King, which Hall says was ‘disrespectful’ and a ‘disservice’"

The casting of a white actor as Martin Luther King in an Ohio university production of Katori Hall’s acclaimed play The Mountaintop was “a disservice to not just Dr King but an entire community”, the playwright has said.

Hall wrote an essay for the African American cultural website the Root on Monday about Kent State University’s production of her play, which dramatizes the night before King was assassinated in 1968.

Hall told the Guardian that director Michael Oatman’s decision to double-cast the six-show production with a black actor and a white actor as King went “deeper than just casting a white man in the role of MLK”.

“I just really feel as though it echoes this pervasive erasure of the black body and the silencing of a black community – theatrically and also, literally, in the world,” she said.

Oatman, who like Hall is black, said in a statement in August promoting the play that he chose a white actor for the production “to explore the issue of racial ownership and authenticity”.

“I didn’t want this to be a stunt, but a true exploration of King’s wish that we all be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin,” Oatman said. “I wanted the contrast … I wanted to see how the words rang differently or indeed the same, coming from two different actors, with two different racial backgrounds.”

Oatman did not respond to a request for comment...

"Missouri football players strike amid campus racial tensions"

"More than 30 black football players at the University of Missouri have said they will boycott team activities until the school's president is removed over his handling of racial tensions on campus. The players said on Twitter Saturday night they would not participate in practices or games unless president Tim Wolfe resigns or is sacked."

"The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe 'Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere'," the statement read, quoting slain black civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. "We will no longer participate in any football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students' experience. WE ARE UNITED!!!!!"

Racial tensions have been brewing for some time now at the University of Missouri. Here is a photo below of the University president Tim Wolfe, nearly a month ago, choosing not to confront the protesters, possibly believing meeting with them would only aggravate an already tense situation.

On Oct. 10, with the LBC abuse still fresh in their minds, Butler and 10 other African American students interrupted Mizzou’s homecoming parade by surrounding Wolfe’s gleaming red convertible. “We will be here until we are heard,” Butler shouted into a megaphone as Wolfe and his wife sat awkwardly on top of the back seat, “and our people are protected and they feel safe on this campus.” 

When Wolfe didn’t hear them out, Butler (the student now on a hunger strike) became even more frustrated. 

“I thought, ‘What else do I have to do to prove my humanity’?” Butler told The Washington Post. “What else do I have to do, just because I’m a black person, to prove to you that I deserve to have a good experience on campus? That’s when I started to think about the action of the hunger strike.” 

Then, two weeks later, Mizzou’s racial tensions flared again when someone used their own feces to smear a swastika on a communal bathroom wall in a brand new residence hall... For Butler, the disgusting incident, and the university’s response, was the last straw. On Nov. 2, he tweeted out a letter announcing that he was going on hunger strike.

"Yale SJWs screaming at professor...

...because he isn't making the university enough of a "safe space" by denouncing offensive Halloween costumes."

(UPDATE) Here is the email that supposedly got the student panties in a twist... link

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween­wear. I’ve always found Halloween an interesting embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach a class on “The Concept of the Problem Child,” and I was speaking with some of my students yesterday about the ways in which Halloween – traditionally a day of subversion for children and young people – is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics, or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now, we’ve grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably “appropriative” about a blonde­haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween, anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I’ve always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica. When I lived in Bangladesh, I bought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others’ cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.

Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense – and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin­revealing costumes – I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience;increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity – in your capacity ­ to exercise self­censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you? We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs. liberal values (“liberal” in the American, not European sense of the word).

Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.

But – again, speaking as a child development specialist – I think there might be something missing in our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment?

In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I know that.

Happy Halloween.

"What happens to your brain when you overdose on grievance feminism"

"The struggle to be taken seriously in the age of subtle sexism"

I identify as female. I am apparently a conventionally attractive student-athlete at UNC-Chapel Hill. I grew into my ears a few years back. I have lighter eyes and darker skin, and with the exception of a bit of an eyebrow discrepancy, my face is generally symmetrical.

Writing this now, I feel my stomach drop. In a culture that regularly exploits sexuality, it’s ironically unacceptable when women openly acknowledge it themselves. But hear me. The following is a string of subtle and routine occurrences that make me feel less human and should take their rightful place among the larger narrative of sexism in contemporary America.

When I wake up at 6 in the morning for practice, I put on spandex that will ride up and allow my legs to chafe. I know this is because I don’t have a thigh gap like most of the distance runners on my cross-country team. I eat an easily-digestible carb and make a note of the calorie count.

After “a good early-morning chafe,” as I call it, I change into dry workout clothes, this time being careful not to wear too much “Carolina gear.” I do this so as not to give my professors and peers another reason to discount me.

I head to a study space. I sit with a classmate – a good friend of mine since freshman year. He identifies as male. Another male-identifying friend approaches. They engage in a “bro dap”: a sort of masculine greeting ritual. The newcomer, my friend, acknowledges me second with a nod of his head: “What’s up, Blake?”

I check my email. My student government group co-director, who identifies as male, has taken it upon himself to send a mass email to our organization and relevant tangential members to schedule a meeting. I am CCed along with four others. They are not co-directors. The body of the email bounces between “I” pronouns to set an agenda for the first meeting of year. It concludes with his signature. The first reply thanks him for “getting this started.”

I go to class. We are discussing Islam in modern society. I chime in. A neighbor, who identifies as male, leans over from across the aisle: “You can’t be pretty and smart.” He thinks he’s giving me a compliment. There is an awkward pause as he waits for me to meekly deny my sexuality. I do not comply. He turns away. I’m not sure he actually listened to anything I said. (read more of that here)

I guess I should be happy I'm not in an expensive school and that I'm a guy?

"College Professor Bans Student From Class For His Views On Rape"

"The 19-year-old told BuzzFeed News that his professor, Pancho Savery, warned him repeatedly that his views made his classmates uncomfortable before he told him in a March 14 email that he was no longer welcome to participate in the “conference” section of his Humanities 110 lecture-seminar class."

“Please know that this was a difficult decision for me to make and one that I have never made before; nevertheless, in light of the serious stress you have caused your classmates, I feel that I have no other choice,” Savery wrote in the email, obtained by BuzzFeed News.

True, whose Facebook page says he studies “How to Annoy People” at Reed, takes pride in challenging his classmates’ opinions. (read the whole thing)

Via twitter