Daily Archives: April 7, 2017

While welcoming a conference on the connections between universities and slavery, history professor and Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust apologized for her university's contacts with the horrible institution of American slavery. According to the New York Times, President Faust observed that "only by coming to terms with history can we free ourselves to create a more just world." The conference discussed reparations, and ways to abolish any historical recognition of Harvard's 18th and 19th century faculty and benefactors who practiced or defended the enslavement of their fellow human beings.

Strangely, despite Harvard's focus on global citizenship rather than the American variety, President Faust never condemned Harvard's substantial ties with Saudi Arabia, a nation-state that only came around to abolishing slavery in 1962. Should not Harvard come to terms with this history?

Nor did President Faust mention China, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco or any of the 26 nation-states representing most of humanity that abolished slavery after for some long after 300,000 Union soldiers died in large part to end American slavery.

Nor did President Faust apologize for certain 20th century Harvard faculty who defended Communist regimes that enslaved hundreds of millions. According to The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, Marxist governments killed over 80 million people in the 20th century. North Korea and Cuba add to the death toll well into the 21st century. State ownership of the means of employment, including the news media, remains a form of systematic exploitation that only Bernie Sanders, and some professors, have the mendacity to defend.

How can university-based intellectuals condemn exploitation in traditional regimes while ignoring it in "progressive" ones? Should not Harvard consider reparations for those still living victims of Marxism? Do not they merit a museum, a conference or at least a debate?

Sadly, colleges don't do debates. In my 40 years in academia, I can recall only four. As Peter Beinart reports in The Atlantic, the same week as the Harvard conference student activists at Middlebury College violently disrupted a talk by conservative American Enterprise Insitute scholar Charles Murray. His interlocutor, left-leaning political science professor Allison Stanger, landed in the hospital after escorting Mr. Murray away from a hostile mob, some wearing ski masks.

If masked Trump supporters committed this kind of violence at a rally, the news media and academia would be all over it, and rightly so. Yet save for two local affiliates in Vermont and Boston, National Public Radio, which features regular accounts portraying the Trump movement as fascist, failed to cover events at elite Middlebury, where leftist blackshirts did everything short of book burning to stop the free exchange of ideas.

What gives? Historically, as political scientist Stanley Rothman showed in "The End of the Experiment" (meaning the American Experiment), after the 1960s, New Left activists worked their way up in cultural, media and educational institutions, gaining power and developing a politically correct etiquette. Unlike prior elites, many had little support for American institutions and only conditional backing for constitutional values like free speech. Consider, for example, the attempts at 90 mainly elite colleges and universities to disinvite (mainly conservative) speakers.

Whatever their good intentions, in the same way that overwhelmingly white institutions often ignore minority concerns, the overwhelmingly left leanings of the media, Hollywood and academia make it natural for members of those cultural institutions to exaggerate threats to freedom from the right, and ignore or even defend those from the left.

Though largely unconscious, this political correctness undermines the credibility of elite institutions to judge fitness for public office, something an essentially unfit showman, Donald Trump, exploited all the way to the White House.

A Baltimore native, Robert Maranto (rmaranto@uark.edu) is the 21st century chair in leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.

Read more:

How political correctness kills credibility - Baltimore Sun

5575301

Plans to take the Easter out of an annual Easter egg hunt in Britain are under fire as an unnecessary act of political correctness.

Both the Church of England and Prime Minister Theresa May have condemned the move by the National Trust, a conservation charity responsible for organizing the annual event.

Last year it was called the Easter egg Trail. This year it is being promoted as the Great British Egg Hunt with Easter being lost in the transition.

This marketing campaign . . . highlights the folly in airbrushing faith from Easter, said an official statement from the Church of England that was sent to The Washington Post. A church spokeswoman added that senior church leaders are adamantly against the re-branding.

Some 300,000 children are expected to attend this years hunt, held at 250 sites owned by the National Trust, a charity that promotes conservation. It partners with Cadbury, the maker of the chocolate eggs for the hunt.

Finger-pointing is already underway as to who decided to remove the reference to Easter.

The National Trust is in no way downplaying the significance of Easter, a spokesman told the Telegraph, placing the blame for the growing fiasco on Cadburys board of directors who are responsible for the branding and wording of our egg hunt campaign.

Prime Minister May is a member of the National Trust, and she has not minced her criticism of the charitys decision to bow to political correctness especially since it wasnt even under any pressure to do so.

I think what the National Trust is doing is frankly just ridiculous, May told ITV Nanews. Easters very important. Its important to me, its a very important festival for the Christian faith for millions across the world.

Though Easter has been banished from all event advertising, it can be found on Cadburys website, which contains a reference to consumers of chocolate being welcome to Enjoy Easter Fun if they participate in the annual egg hunt.

Cadbury tiptoes around the Christian origins of the festival, assuring people of their multicultural bonafides in a statement that even includes atheists: We invite people from all faiths and none to enjoy our seasonal treats.

Archbishop John Sentamu of York said Cadbury is adding insult to injury by renaming the event because the companys founder, John Cadbury, was a devout Quaker who recognized the Christian significance of Easter.

To drop Easter from Cadburys Easter Egg Hunt in my book is tantamount to spitting on the grave of Cadbury, Sentamu said in a statement.

He built houses for all his workers, he built a church, he made provision for schools, Sentamu said. It is obvious that for him Jesus and justice were two sides of the one coin.

Follow David on Twitter

Follow this link:

Political Correctness Hits Annual Easter Egg Hunt In Britain - Daily Caller

By Lauren A. Wright By Lauren A. Wright April 5

Lauren A. Wright is the author of "On Behalf of the President: Presidential Spouses and White House Communications Strategy Today" and a board member of the White House Transition Project. She begins a teaching appointment in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in the Fall 2017 semester.

Donald Trumps presidential campaign almost ended with his grab them by the p y riff. Last month, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stood by his statement that We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies. Last week, on air, Fox News host Bill OReilly watched a clip of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives and then mocked her by saying, I didnt hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig.

Enough Americans voted for Trump last year to prove that his unprecedented crassness wasnt fatal to his political aspirations. King has gotten away with a series of racially inflammatory remarks (Remember calves the size of cantaloupes?). OReilly offered an apology, but instead of taking him to task, the Daily Callers Jim Treacher argued that critics were playing a racial gotcha game. CNN commentator Ben Ferguson deflected blame from OReilly by wondering aloud, about Waters, isnt she a racist for saying that the white guy, who was elected president, who had done nothing wrong, but get elected, should be impeached? And former congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) played down OReillys comments by saying, It always seems like its okay to make fun of a conservative, but liberals are off you cant touch em. Making fun of Maxine Waterss hair, making fun of Donald Trumps hair, I dont know what the difference is.

Two separate incidents involving a black congresswoman and a black White House reporter sparked outrage on social media, leading to the hashtag #BlackWomenAtWork. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Go far enough back and recall that after Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) suggested that women possess innate biological defenses against legitimate rape, former senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) still endorsed Akins 2012 Senate bid, calling him the candidate of freedom-loving Americans.

Im not naive enough to be stunned by Akin, King, OReilly or Trump, but as a Republican, I continue to be dismayed by the willingness of fellow Republicans and conservatives to overlook, rationalize and make excuses for this type of behavior. And each time I see conservatives defending, or looking away, in the face of other conservatives noxious behavior, I become less and less sure that liberals arent justified in taking the sometimes-condescending, always-disapproving politically correct approach that they do in these all-too-predictable episodes.

Maybe liberals are so P.C. because conservatives keep making excuses for bad behavior.

I didnt always think this way about liberal highhandednesstoward Republicans. I used to co-sign the typical conservative rejoinder to political correctness, which generally goes something like: Lifes not fair, so please get over yourself. My feelings on the topic were rooted in my experiences as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic graduate school environment, where my liberal colleagues routinely derided my political views.

That case against political correctness was used to great effect in the 2016 presidential election, starting at a GOP primary debate when then-candidate Donald Trump addressed the litany of derogatory statements hes made toward women by saying, The big problem this country has is being politically correct. Ive been challenged by so many people, and I dont, frankly, have time for total political correctness.

But even if theres a grain oftruth to Trumps logic, in general, its not a catchall that makes it okay when a politician or anyone takes a cheap shot thats uncivil and degrading at best, and sexist or racist (or both) at worst. Impatience with political correctness isnt a get-out-of-jail-free card for a future president to mock a disabled reporter. Ritual deployment of the supposedly un-P.C. phrase radical Islamic terrorism isnt a foreign policy.

And its not just being politically correct to publicly scrutinize the serial allegations of sexual harassment against OReilly. If even half of whats been alleged by women who say he harassed them is true, hes a disgrace, and so is any conservative or Republican who decides that what hes done doesnt merit consequences, just because OReillys shame might also be cheered by liberals. Already, 20 companies have announcedthat theyre pulling advertising from OReillys show, even though its the gold standard when it comes to cable news ratings. The question, now, is whether self-respecting conservatives and Republicans will stand on principle, or if, as former Republican Capitol Hill communications director Tara Setmayer wroterecently for Cosmopolitan, they continue to circle the wagons around him just because hes on their team.

If thats what they do, it would be pretty indecent, but it would also turn out to be bad politics.

Yes, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was rewarded for choosing expediency over morality by endorsing Trumps candidacy, even as he condemned Trumps attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiels Mexican heritage as the textbook definition of a racist comment. In doing so, Ryan confirmed an unsettling truth: When some in the Party of Lincoln witness racism, its not necessarily a dealbreaker. Indeed, the GOP won big in 2016 embracing the same rhetoric Im calling out now rhetoric we said we were leaving behind in the 2013 autopsyreportcommissioned after Mitt Romneys 2012 defeat.But antagonism is only a short-term strategy. Trump lost the popular vote with our current demographic landscape by a margin of almost 3million, and demographics are rapidly changing, not in his favor. Republicans who treat 2016 as the rule rather than the exception will come to regret it.

More important is acknowledging, before we try to beat political correctness into extinction, is that its not political correctness to expectcommon courtesy and respect. And its not a burden on a politician or anyone else to refrain from making sexist and racist remarks. Its both the right thing to do, and an approach in keeping with the values that the Republican Party issupposed to stand for, including judging all people as individuals, not caricaturing them because of their race or gender.

Its hard to deny that weve become a society where people are put out by the smallest slights, real or perceived. Conservatives are right to bristle at left-wing condescension, and liberals would be foolish to ignore that their elitism helped fuel Trumps rise. But thiscuts both ways, and every time conservatives and Republicans let an OReilly slide rather than take a stand in favor of common decency the politically correct scorn of liberals becomes just a bit more justified. Hoping that the GOP becomes the Party of Lincoln again may be wishful thinking. But if thats what we aspire to, no longer defending the indefensible would be a start.

Read the original post:

Maybe liberals are so 'PC' because conservatives keep excusing bad behavior - Washington Post

ONCE upon a time, fairy tales were a staple of children's reading material, but the traditional tales have come under fire in Victoria for promoting traditional gender roles.

A teaching aid in the Respectful Relationship program wants state school students to examine the roles of characters in classic stories like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and Cinderella and compare them to modern stories challenging gender norms.

Preschool books and toys could also be audited to determine whether they promote gender stereotypes, under the Victorian government plan to address family violence.

Member for Maranoa David Littleproud has weighed in on the debate and urged parents and teachers not to let political correctness get in the way of a good story. I

"Domestic violence is a scourge in our community but I don't think asking very young children to pick apart a fairy tale to find the sexist elements is the answer - it's simply political correctness gone too far and I don't want to see it in Queensland," Mr Littleproud said.

"Fable legends Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen's traditional fairy tales are about life lessons and convey morals but remember these were written more than 100 years ago and should be read as they are, not through an adult-enforced magnifying glass.

"Contemporary story-tellers - like Disney-Pixar's Inside Out and Disney's Frozen - are great as they explore views on mental health and shifting gender roles but they're movies and don't offer the same enrichment as reading a book.

"Reading, writing and arithmetic should be a school's foundation and domestic violence education and positive role models are key to breaking the cycle.

"Science backs up the importance of reading so please don't stop reading to your kids."

The Respectful Relationships program, which claims children as young as four can exhibit sexist behaviour, was recommended by the family violence royal commission.

Critics of the the program however claim it exposes children to gender theory and notions of gender-based violence too early.

Read the original post:

Littleproud: program is 'political correctness gone too far' - Warwick Daily News

Though there should always be legal and moral standards to how we go about exercising our freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition, political correctness does not actually infringe on anyones freedom of speech.

However, political correctness (PC) culture can contribute to social division or polarization. The contemporary philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, argues that political correctness doesnt really allow you to overcome racism. Its just oppressed controlled racism. As any culture that becomes dominant in a given area, a number of sub-cultures are bound to form in response and sometimes for the mere sake of opposition. When speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos openly state I just want to burn it down, theyre making intentional provocations that stem from the sheer desire to oppose majority thought.

On one hand, we have the ability to cultivate a space around ourselves where we dont have to hear or expose ourselves to different opinions. We can un-friend people on social media, walk away from a politically charged family dinner, and ignore reading or listening to particular media sources that do not share the same value system as ours. However, this mentality just further polarizes people, undermines inter-community relations and severely limits our own ability to grow as individuals.

To exercise our freedom, the kind that is not necessarily governed by any nation or piece of paper but that is governed by our own critical, reasoning, minds, we must question how genuine our thoughts truly are. Since context plays such a crucial role in the formation and expression of ones thoughts, whether it be in the context of PC or anti-PC culture, reasoning and introspection are necessary. As the 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said in Critique of Pure Reason, there is nothing higher than reason.

When individuals feel that their freedom of speech is being violated, they feel they cannot speak for fear of retaliation or some social form of excommunication. Jon Ronson explores the consequences and nature of our modern democratization of justice via online shaming in his novel, So Youve Been Publicly Shamed. He writes, we are defining the boundaries of normality by tearing apart the people outside it. In this vicious cycle, weve reached a level of polarization where the minds power to reason begins to stale. It becomes easier to stew in anger than to deconstruct and answer whats so righteous about that righteous indignation.

If an opinion is held solely because it dwells in an echo-chamber of whispers or because its written in stone, then the holder of such an opinion is not using their natural privilege as a human being to use critical thinking before expressing the truth, or their truth, as they believe and reason it to be. Freedom of speech is arduously protected in America and exercised in many ways, but its nothing without the freedom to reason.

Kant goes on to state, thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Therefore, sincerity in words and reasoning behind those words helps illuminate the point of solidarity, that steady point on a precarious path. To teeter from thoughts and words that are subjective truths and that hold reason far beyond intuition is where one risks falling into the trap of a narrow-minded perspective. In addition, processing words solely by their context of communication can also lead someone to succumb to that frame of mind.

Freedom of speech, as its protected by our government, allows for us, our peers, colleagues, friends, neighbors, the disenfranchised, the silent, the underrepresented, the overlooked, to have a voice. No one should be pressured or forced into quietude, not when we have both the constitutional freedom of speech and the natural freedom to reason. Every time we pick up a microphone to speak, sit behind a computer to type, or march behind a picket sign, its not just what we say, but why we say it that matters.

More here:

Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part two - Daily Sundial

FrontPage Magazine

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ... FrontPage Magazine While the Marvel-Disney monster has been ruling the box office, Marvel Comics sales have been having serious issues. One obvious factor was trying to force ... G. Willow Wilson / So About That Whole ThingG. Willow Wilson ICv2: Marvel Retailer Summit -- Day 1ICv2 Marvel VP of Sales Blames Women and Diversity for Sales SlumpGizmodo Fortune all 122 news articles »

Read more:

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ... - FrontPage Magazine