Our Good Friends at the NEA

It's been a long time since I've written about the predominant teachers union, and all of a sudden two stories pop up!

I've believed for a long time that if you scratch a leftie, a totalitarian bleeds--and totalitarians love nothing more than killing people, because getting rid of people who don't think like they do is how totalitarians stay in power.  So it is with NEA u-bots:

A member of the board of directors of the National Education Association (NEA) posted a message to Facebook that denounced unvaccinated individuals who claim religious exemptions and asserted they deserved to die, according to the Libs of Tik Tok social media account, which shared a screenshot of the post on Tuesday. 

Mollie Paige Mumau, a Pennsylvania teacher and member of the board of directors of the NEA, appears to identify herself as an “educator, wife, union advocate, semi-pro wine drinker, LGBTQ ally, and ‘Team Pfizer.’”

You can see the screenshot at the link. 

Next, the NEA is going to bring Texas to its knees by moving (canceling?) its annual convention Nuremberg Rally:

Thousands of delegates to the National Education Association Representative Assembly will not be meeting in Dallas in July as scheduled, and the reason has nothing to do with COVID-19.

The union took the unprecedented step of canceling its Texas plans due to its displeasure with a series of bills that came out of a special session of the state legislature having to do with voting, abortion and critical race theory, internal NEA sources say. Several state affiliates had threatened not to send their delegates to the convention if it were held in Texas...

Considering the estimated 6,000 delegates involved and hotel rooms needed, it will be difficult to find another venue on such short notice. One source reports that NEA is looking at Chicago and Orlando as possible destinations. If an alternative cannot be found, the 2022 assembly will be held online...

A complicating factor is whether NEA is willing to continue down this boycott path. Will it schedule future meetings only in blue states? That could get tricky and expensive.

Gotta love all that tolerance.

Democrats Don't Celebrate Diversity

Is anything they say true?

DISPATCHES FROM THE PARTY OF DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE: The Democrats Have a Hate Problem.

Nearly a quarter of college students wouldn’t be friends with someone who voted for the other presidential candidate — with Democrats far more likely to dismiss people than Republicans — according to new Generation Lab/Axios polling.

Why it matters: Partisan divides — as each side inhabits parallel political, cultural and media universes —make a future of discord and distrust in the U.S. all the more likely.

By the numbers: 5% of Republicans said they wouldn’t be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats.

• 71% of Democrats wouldn’t go on a date with someone with opposing views, versus 31% of Republicans.
• 30% of Democrats — and 7% of Republicans — wouldn’t work for someone who voted differently from them.

Bad things happen when you make politics your substitute religion.

Given What We Know About Universities....

Does anyone think their fears are unfounded?

No safe spaces for conservative students at Columbia University

It’s not easy being a conservative student at Columbia University. In fact, it’s downright hostile, if interviews from a student and recent alum of the Ivy League school are any indication.

Brian Min, a Columbia sophomore who describes himself as fiscally conservative and socially mixed, told The College Fix he fears he will be “physically assaulted” if he wears conservative clothing or voices conservative opinions on campus.

Min already said he feels he lost his gig as a writer for the Columbia Spectator last semester because of his political views. In March, he wrote a column on the terrorist attacks that happened in Brussels. He argued for the condemnation of Islamophobia, but when his peers interpreted his argument as “blaming Belgium for the Brussels attacks,” Min said it was strongly suggested he stop writing.

Today, as a political science major, a field in which he is often asked to give his opinions in homework assignments, Min said he is concerned his grades will be marked down for voicing conservative principles.

They'll be attacked by people who celebrate tolerance and diversity.

Free Speech and Tolerance

"Free speech and tolerance were only important back when communists and gays were being gone after. Now that the worm has turned, those bourgeois values no longer obtain."
--Glenn Reynolds

I Don't Believe In So-called Hate Crimes

Remember the case of the Rutgers student who streamed video of his roommate's gay encounter(s) over the internet, and when the roommate found out he jumped to his death off a bridge? Well, the former student has been found guilty:

A former Rutgers University student accused of spying on and intimidating his gay roommate by use of a hidden webcam was found guilty Friday of all counts -- including invasion of privacy and the more severe charges of bias intimidation -- in a case that thrust cyberbullying into the national spotlight.

Dharun Ravi, 20, was also found guilty of witness tampering, hindering apprehension and tampering with physical evidence, and could now face up to 10 years in jail and deportation to his native India...

Though Ravi and Molly Wei -- a fellow student who admitted to joining Ravi to watch the surreptitious encounter that others were alerted to via social media -- were charged in the wake of Clementi's suicide, they were not charged directly with his death.

Facing two counts of invasion of privacy, Wei reached a plea deal in May that required her to testify against her friend and former high school classmate as well as to complete a three-year program on cyberbullying and do 300 hours of community service.

I've never been comfortable with the "thought police" mentality that of necessity accompanies hate crimes. Look at his list of crimes--are they not enough? Why do we need to add an amorphous additional crime, the sole purpose of which is to add more time to this man's sentence? It's too subject to whim and abuse.

Update, 3/17/12: I hope that this case shines a disinfecting sunlight on the travesty of justice that is hate crimes legislation:

A longtime gay rights activist in New York, Bill Dobbs, also was troubled by the case.

"As hate crime prosecutions mount, the problems with these laws are becoming more obvious ... how they compromise cherished constitutional principles," Dobbs said. "Now a person gets tried not just for misdeeds, but for who they are, what they believe, what their character is."

The Lesson Learned Is Clear

When you excuse and accommodate bad behavior, you get more of it:

A California school principal did not violate the freedom of speech of a group of students who wore American flags on their shirts on Cinco de Mayo when he told them to turn the shirts inside out or go home, a federal judge has ruled.

Citing past clashes between Mexican American and Anglo students over their clothing on the Mexican holiday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware of San Francisco said school officials "reasonably forecast that (the shirts) could cause a substantial disruption" and were entitled to take steps to prevent it, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Hispanic students take offense at displays of American flags on "their day", and react negatively enough--cause enough of a problem--that the school bans not their behavior but American flag shirts.

It's easy to bash Christians--no one worries that Christians will cut their heads off. Try posting a cartoon of Muhammed, though. We're allowing the trouble-makers to dictate the rules. The lesson to be learned here is that if you want your way, all you have to do is cause trouble. This way there lie dragons, not a civic society.

Update, 11/15/11: A teacher at school today made an interesting point. Would the school ban gay pride t-shirts? After all, if you have a bunch of homophobes at the school, the pride t-shirts could set them off and you'd have carnage. Best to ban the gay pride t-shirts.

The court in effect sanctioned a heckler's veto. Bad call.

Who Supports Free Speech?

Not these college students.

My favorite line: "I've got no tolerance, man."

Leftist Thugs Show Tolerance

Of course I jest.

Who Knew? I Agree With Dick Cavett.

Who'd'a thunk that I'd agree with a celebrity talk show host?

I’ve never quite understood why this word — “offended” — is so horrifying. What doesn’t offend somebody? And who wants to see, read or write anything that is simon-pure in its inability to offend those dreaded “someones”?
...
Anyone working in the media can tell you that there seems to be an always-ready-to-explode segment of the populace for whom offense is a fate worse than anything imaginable. You’d think offense is one of the most calamitous things that could happen to a human being; right up there with the loss of a limb, or just missing a parking space...

“What sort of thing offends you, Mr. Cavett?” an interviewer asked me recently. “In other words, what to you is politically incorrect.”

“Anything that is politically correct.”

Such as?

Well, the infantilism of the phrase “the n-word,” for example, and of those of less than fully formed cerebral development who have bowdlerized Mark Twain’s masterpiece because of the references to Huck’s beloved friend in the authentic vernacular of the time. I hate to spoil the fun of the benighted and alleged educators who have even pulled this great book from the school shelves, but Jim is the moral center of the story.

Not much I can add to such clarity.

Soldiers and Dogs, Stay Off The Grass

I don't know if such signs ever existed, but I heard stories about such signs when I was young. In the late- and post-Vietnam era, when respect for soldiers was at an ebb, it was said that there were such signs in public places.

I first read this story last night and cheered for the restaurant owner:

Fed up with what he views as crappy treatment from the TSA, the owner of a restaurant near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has decided to put all TSA agents on his No-Eat List.

"We have posted signs on our doors basically saying that they aren't allowed to come into our business," one employee tells travel journalist Christopher Elliott. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

She says that whenever a TSA agent attempts to dine at the restaurant, "we turn our backs and completely ignore them, and tell them to leave... Their kind aren't welcomed in our establishment."

Before we go any further, yes, it is legal. TSA workers are not a protected class like racial minorities and the handicapped are, so it's entirely legal to discriminate against them. We've all seen those signs in restaurants--"we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"--and those signs are there exactly for cases like this.

And readers of this blog know of the complete and total contempt I have for the TSA as an organization and for the people who work there. In my view, what they do is sick, it's ineffective, it's a waste of money, and it's un-American.

So when I first read the linked story, I cheered at one person's ability to strike a blow, however small, against the cretins--and make no mistake, I do believe they're cretins.

This morning, though, I'm having second thoughts about my cheering. I've written before that I don't think every single thing needs to be made into a political issue; while TSA-hatred isn't political in a partisan sense, the concept is the same--we don't really need to broadcast our beliefs every instant of the day, nor to act on every single one of them. At some point there's got to be a "go along to get along" philosophy or else society itself falls apart.

Yes, there are lines I wouldn't cross. Unlike the NEA, I wouldn't allow the local communists to meet in my cafeteria for their meetings. But there's a huge difference between communists and TSA agents. TSA agents are, at worst, losers doing a crappy job, but they're not trying to get rid of capitalism and democracy. Somewhere between TSA agents and communists is where *I* would draw the line.

I don't really want to live in a society wherein I'd have to wonder if "my kind" is allowed in a certain establishment, or where I'd have to do my homework to determine if the owners of the establishments I frequent support "my kinds" of causes. Everybody's money is green, and I'd think businesses wouldn't want to turn off entire segments of the customer population by openly espousing certain political philosophies and catering only to those who hold those philosophies. As Michael Jordan once supposedly said when asked why he didn't support a certain Democratic candidate, "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So if the issue is big and important enough, if you'd feel like a hypocrite if you served a certain type of person or did business with a certain company, then I guess you've gotta do what you've gotta do and stand by your principles. But if your principles dictate that you can only do business with people who think like you do, I'd suggest that you'd need a very strong business plan. After all, what's next--"no Democrats served here"? "Republicans not welcome"? I certainly don't agree with the Wisconsin teachers, but if I had a hotdog cart I'd sell them hotdogs at lunchtime.

The priority for any business is to make money for its owners. In fact, I'd assert that that's the only function of a business. And everybody's money is green.

I'll still write about the TSA. I'll still slam them every opportunity I get. I'll still hope that entire operation goes away. And I will not cut the workers any "they're just doing their job" slack when it comes to "just doing their job".

But I don't really want to see any "soldiers and dogs, stay off the grass" signs.

(And yes, I know the restaurant story may be a hoax. That doesn't change my sentiment.)

Not Enough "Tolerance" in Davis

I've previously referred to the nearby city of Davis, home of the University of California at Davis, as "Berkeley-lite". If I haven't offered enough prior evidence for the title, try this:

The University of California at Davis has backed away from a policy that defined religious discrimination as Christians oppressing non-Christians after more than two dozen Christian students filed a formal complaint.

The definition is listed in a document called, “The Principles of Community.” It defines “Religious/Spiritual Discrimination” as “The loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized oppressions toward those who are not Christian.”

I guess it's progress that they're "backing away" from such a policy, but imagine for a moment what the environment must be like for such a policy ever to see the light of day in the first place. That is why I call Davis "Berkeley-lite".

More On "Ethnic Studies" Courses and the Arizona Law

Last week I mentioned Arizona's new K-12 law which forbids elementary or secondary schools to teach classes that are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" and advocate "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." Today, Michael Lopez, guest blogging over at Joanne's site, shares his impressions of the law. His conclusion should give you a feel for what to expect:

And as much as I might sympathize with the sentiment behind it….. my verdict is this: sloppy, sophomoric, and not long for this world.

Ethnic Studies Classes

In addition to signing the popular (except with news people and political elites) border enforcement law, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer also recently signed another novel law:

The new law forbids elementary or secondary schools to teach classes that are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" and advocate "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people."

I dare say that it would be hard for a reasonable person to oppose such a law, but there are certain groups which oppose it.

I initially planned not to post on this topic but changed my mind today when I read this article about such programs at the university level:

Entitled "Working with Large-Scale Climate Surveys: Reducing Data Complexity to Gain New Insights," Chatman pulls data from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey that distinguish "interpersonal and diversity skills, campus climate, overall satisfaction and inclusion, and individual characteristics [religion, income, race, etc.]." The data also include the respondents' programs of study, allowing Chatman to break down student perceptions by major.

Here is what he found:

Upper-division area and ethnic studies students rated Climate of Respect for Personal Beliefs at 4.16. Humanities and social science students gave it a substantially higher 4.80, and science, engineering, math, and business students rated it even higher at 5.05. Obviously, field of study affected scores.

Chatman attributes the low climate scores in area and ethnic studies precisely to the instruction students receive in those classes. "Students in area and ethnic studies should have learned to recognize prejudicial communication and should be more sensitive to communication that might be prejudicial," he writes. Whereas a math student might hear a remark and think nothing of it, an African American Studies student might discern prejudice and stereotyping. Does this mean that students in area and ethnic studies are more perceptive and accurate in their assessment of campus climate, or have they acquired in their classes a "warped lens" (Chatman's term) that sees social life in overdone racial categories? Chatman even draws a logical possibility that might appall area and ethnic studies instruction, that is, that the climate in those fields is a lot worse than it is in engineering classes and labs. One wonders how area and ethnic studies professors would feel if they were ordered to undergo diversity sensitivity sessions themselves to try to straighten out their problems.

When you teach people to see themselves as apart from others, you shouldn't be surprised when you encounter divisiveness.

Update, 5/15/10: Here's what's going on in Tucson's ethnic studies programs.

Yale Administrators (and the students who back down to them) Are Sissies

I have to quote this from the Huffington Post. Me, quoting Huffington Post! Actually, I'm just linking to Huffington Post, but I'm quoting Greg Lukianoff of FIRE:

It started before the Harvard and Yale teams flailed against each other on the football field last month; Yale's freshman class designed and voted to produce an anti-Harvard T-shirt that actually had some literary merit. According to the Yale Daily News,

The original design, which won out over five other entries, displayed an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote in the front -- "I think of all Harvard men as sissies" -- in bold white letters. The back of the long-sleeved, navy blue T-shirt said "WE AGREE" in capital letters, with "The Game 2009" scrawled in script underneath it.

Unfortunately--and is it any surprise these days?--a couple of Yale administrators decided that the word "sissies" was too offensive because some people interpreted it as a slur against gay men. This was news to the Yale freshmen who, like me, see "sissies" as being funny primarily because it is such a ridiculous, silly, old-fashioned put down, somewhere between "cad" and "toots" as far as insults go. Besides, in context, Fitzgerald actually wrote, "I think of all Harvard men as sissies, like I used to be." Does anyone really think Fitzgerald was coming out as a success story of the ex-gay movement, or was he simply calling Harvard men, well, a bunch of sissies (modern translation: wusses, wimps, etc.)? The administrators were gearing up to ban the T-shirt, but the students backed down and changed the design.

Why do people actually pay money to attend such schools?

Come To School, Come To Jesus

Is this against the law, bad judgement, or just an excuse for some people to get their panties in a bunch?

Some parents in Frisco, Texas, are fuming because their public school district allowed Christian evangelists to provide Bibles to students on school grounds, which administrators say was done to stop even more proselytizing outside the schools.

Frisco Independent Schools allowed Gideons International to display Bibles on tabletops in all 13 of the district's middle and high schools last week. Officials say it didn't violate the law, but some parents say school is not the place to be offering the Good Book...

The Gideons are now taking advantage of a school policy that allows them to leave Bibles on a tabletop in the schools' front offices, though they're barred from interacting with students or remaining there during school hours.

So we're told directly that it's not against the law, and we've learned previously that courts have ruled that government must be neutral to religion and not hostile to it. So what, exactly, is the problem here? Is it the same problem some people have with military recruiters, namely that students might possibly have voluntary contact with people against whom the parents have a prejudice? Or am I missing something?

Lutz said she wants the freedom to raise her children as she sees fit — and without the interference of religious groups. She told FOXNews.com she worried that allowing one group to offer Bibles in the school would open the floodgates to any groups who want to reach students on school grounds.

Other groups like what, the Sacramento Veterans For Peace, for example? No, we wouldn't want them in our schools, passing out brochures.

The Gideons aren't even interacting with students; they've left the Bibles on a table, just as the anti-military brochures (at the link above) were left on a table. Take one if you want.

A spokeswoman for the school district said that a number of materials are made available to students this way, including newspapers, camp brochures and tutoring pamphlets. College and military recruitment information is available all year long. The Gideon Bibles were made available for just one day.

I'm sorry, I just can't get worked up over having Bibles on a table for a day for students to take if they want one.

What we have here is an issue of--say it with me--tolerance. Some folks should practice a little more of it.

Reading as Racial Harassment

Last March I wrote about the janitor/student who was punished by his university for reading a book while on his break--a book that co-workers claimed "racially harassed" them merely by having Klan images on the cover, despite the fact that the book was about an anti-Klan incident at Notre Dame. Watch a video about the incident.

Hat tip to NewsAlert.

Another Social Worker Student Discriminated Against Due To Conservative Beliefs

There was something familiar about this story:

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school's "liberal political machine" for being a conservative.

Ah yes, I've written about a similar incident at another social work school before. I hope the student in the Rhode Island case gets as satisfactory a resolution as did the woman in the Missouri case.

ROTC To Return To Columbia? Don't Hold Your Breath

From FoxNews:

Columbia University students will vote this week on whether to bring the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps back to Columbia's New York City campus after a 40-year ban...

Columbia's ban includes ROTC for all military branches, but this week's vote determines the future of NROTC programs because Columbia students who are Air Force and Army cadets have access to programs at nearby universities...

This week's vote is not entirely up to the students. If they vote yes, the issue will go once again before the school Senate, but ultimately it is Columbia's board of trustees that will have the final say.

The issue came up during the presidential campaign.

"Shouldn't the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?" said McCain.

"I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy, but the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren't offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake," said Obama.

McCain didn't make a strong argument, if that was his best line. He could have mentioned diversity and tolerance. And anyone who thinks that "don't ask, don't tell" is the reason people oppose ROTC on campus is naive. It would be like believing that people oppose saying the pledge of allegiance in high school because it contains the words "under God."

Pathetic High

Planners of Pride Campus never shied away from touting their proposed high school as a haven for gay youth seeking refuge from sometimes hostile traditional classrooms.

But under mounting pressure from ministers and gay activists alike, the name has changed and the focus broadened to create a school that would be one of the nation's largest to serve any students victimized by bullying and harassment.

If approved by the country's third-largest school district Wednesday, the Social Justice Solidarity High School would join several smaller U.S. campuses aimed at serving students who have been tormented for everything from their religious beliefs to their weight.

The fact that such a school is even contemplated shows how little schools are doing in Chicago to manage the anti-social behaviors of students.

"Pride Campus"? "Social Justice Solidarity High"? How about "Crappy Administration Made This School Necessary" High. Or perhaps "You Should Have Taught Your Kid How Not To Be A Bully, You Loser" High. Or if you want to blame the victim, I guess, "Thin Skin" High.

How about this for a bumper sticker: "Your cretin beat up my honorable kid, and it's my kid who had to change schools."

Laugh, or cry?

Suing Students

This is a most interesting story. Talk about a chilling effect.

After you’ve been called racist by some students, can you sue to get your reputation back?...

“When I started teaching 10 years ago, I thought universities were the quintessential market place of ideas. I was so naïve, and so, so wrong,” he said. “It’s not an open market place of ideas — I hope we can get back to that notion because our society desperately needs places where we can have truly free discussion. I just can’t say I see that in the American university today.”

The demands for Peltz to be punished and removed from teaching required courses came from the Black Law Student Association at Little Rock and from a local group of black lawyers — groups whose leaders Peltz sued and who did not respond to requests for comment either now or when the suit was filed. The complaints concerned a series of class discussions in his constitutional law course that touched in some way or another on race or affirmative action. The complaints started after Peltz participated in a campus debate on affirmative action — at the invitation of the black law students’ group — and argued against it.

I have some experience with false accusations by students and parents. Perhaps I should resort to a lawsuit....