Daily Archives: April 30, 2017

In his second term as governor some 20 years ago, Fob James stepped into the hallway after speaking to Dothans Kiwanis Club and met a crowd of residents for an impromptu question-and-answer session. There had been a kerfuffle involving some confusion over religion and public schools, and many parents were concerned.

Our band cant even play Christmas music at the Christmas concert, one parent complained.

If they try to stop em, James replied, his eyes twinkling, Ill call out the National Guard!

The people in the crowd burst into applause for their governor.

James was nothing if not a wily politician who knew an opportunity to grandstand when he heard it; this was a slow-pitched lob, and he knocked it out of the park. James knew that theres a big difference between state-sponsored religious speech and a band playing O Holy Night, and was counting on cooler minds to prevail without the National Guard.

James would have felt right at home in the House Education Policy Committees meeting last week. The committee approved a bill that would educate students on traditional winter celebrations and allow the display of Nativity scenes as long as they were displayed with secular symbols such as reindeer or Santa Claus. The bills sponsor, Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, said its purpose is to fight political correctness.

Some of his colleagues pointed out that nothing prevents those symbols from being displayed at schools now, or stops people from saying Merry Christmas or Happy Chanukah. Another colleague suggested that the measure would allow the display of Islamic symbols, and that the body would then be passing laws to prevent that.

We understand Rep. Butlers disdain for political correctness, but the rise of Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas is more an effort by Madison Avenue to make retailers more inclusive to those who spend money during the traditional gift-buying season, not an attack on any particular faith.

Public schools, as governmental entities, cannot promote one set of religious ideals to the exclusion of others. What Rep. Butlers measure would codify is not currently disallowed, making the bill unnecessary beyond its symbolism.

The House should not spend time combating political correctness when it has very real challenges to address, with precious little time to do so.

More here:

Fighting political correctness - Dothan Eagle

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Many years ago, I witnessed what happens when people who prevent others from speaking are not dealt with promptly.

During a Firing Line taping with William F. Buckley at Bard College in New York state on the topic of Resolved: The ACLU is full of baloney (the short answer is yes), two female activists stood up and started chanting women of color have no voice.

The moderator, a well-known liberal (well, okay, it was Michael Kinsley, who did an otherwise fine job), asked them politely to stop so the debate could continue, but the protesters refused. At this point, he could have motioned to the campus cops to remove them, but instead let them go on ad nauseam. I leaned over and whispered to then-ACLU President Nadine Strossen, Nadine, do something. Theyre your children. I meant her ideological offspring, of course. And she did try to reason with them, to no avail.

Unlike some recent incidents, the debate finally went on after Mr. Kinsley gave in to the protesters tantrum and let them read a list of nonsensical left-wing ultimatums.

Im not sure how much of this made the eventual PBS broadcast, but it showed the folly of giving in to the hecklers veto. Thats when, in the name of free speech, someone silences someone else. Courts have made it clear that the hecklers veto is not protected speech under the First Amendment, no more than falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Since President Trumps election, the left has been in full hecklers veto mode, egged on by the same progressives who cheered the violent Occupy mobs in 2011 and 2012 and the goons disrupting the Trump rallies last year.

This past week, protesters threatened violence against Republican Party participants in the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade in Portland, Oregon, and managed to get the event canceled. An anonymous email promised that two hundred or more people would rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out . police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely.

Last Wednesday, amid threats of violence, conservative author Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at the University of California, Berkeley. In February, the campus had suffered $100,000 in property damage when black-clad leftist rioters stopped iconoclast Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking.

In March, sociologist Charles Murray was forced to change venues at Middlebury College in Vermont during a mob attack in which a female professor was injured. Middlebury itself may be failing to teach about constitutional rights, if a letter signed by 450 alumni prior to Murrays appearance is any indication: This is not an issue of freedom of speech. In this case we find the principle does not apply.

Well, okay then. Disagree with us and you lose your rights.

In early April, hundreds of activists blocked an auditorium at Claremont McKenna College in California to prevent author Heather MacDonald from speaking. Ms. MacDonalds analysis of crime statistics blows away the media narrative about racist cops spun by the Black Lives Matter movement. No wonder they wanted her silenced.

For the left, the issues themselves matter less than a show of force. As author Angelo M. Codevilla has observed, The point of PC [political correctness] is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself.

In State and Revolution (1918), Vladimir Lenin wrote, The replacement of the bourgeois (middle class) by the proletariat state is impossible without a violent revolution it is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush its resistance.

Even if none of this involves something you hold dear, the mobs will get around to you if youre out of step. A byproduct is the chilling effect it has had on discourse in general.

I recall when liberals and conservatives could agree to disagree during, say, a party, and leave as friends, or at least not as enemies. But whens the last time you went to an eclectic gathering and heard genuine views exchanged? Nobody dares anymore. The lefts scorched-earth tactics have poisoned the well.

In Massachusetts, an editorial at The Wellesley News on April 12 openly advocated attacking anyone who fails to bow to left-wing orthodoxy. Their definition of what will not be allowed includes racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.

The good little Maoists (who are punctuation-challenged) went on to declare, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. Later, they denied that this meant engaging in violence.

Incidentally, Hillary Clintons alma mater charges about $63,300 annually for tuition, room and board. Apparently, that buys the finest brainwashing against the bourgeoisie that a campus can conjure.

Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.

Read more here:

Political correctness silences unpopular opinions - Washington Times

With rise in both the scope and prevalence of Matthew 24s visits to the West Chester University academic quad, I felt that it is time to open a real dialogue on political correctness on WCUs campus.

While I have personally never felt that my right to speak freely has been threatened, I do not have many, if any, opinions that need to be protected by the First Amendment. For me, the right to speak is more of a leisure, a protection that reinforces my ability to form my own thoughts, regardless of what any government, religion or other human says.

Before I formally begin this article, though, I feel that a definition of terms is in order. When I define myself as progressive, I do so with the knowledge that, to me, progressivism is about moving society forward in social, economic and cultural ways.

I champion social democracy, equal rights and free speech. I understand that many issues are more nuanced than right and wrong and have an open ear to alternative opinions, as long as they are argued from a place of genuine care for solving the issues.

The other definition of significance is political correctness.

This is a loaded word in discussion, and many will shut down any openness to conversation immediately when confronted with the topic. In the context of this article, PC refers to the use of things such as safe spaces, as well as the use of outrage as a form of censor or shield from opinions ranging from controversial to outright reprehensible. I must stress that I am not referring exclusively to the social justice movement.

Everybody has a sacred cow, an opinion that they seek to protect from dissent. It may be something as simple as, This movie is the best and you are simply wrong if you disagree, but it exists in all of us to some extent.

Let me also establish something regarding Matthew 24, the group I shall use as an example in this article. I believe that they are entirely reprehensible individuals, and I think that they are making their God very unhappy.

However, although I do not think they believe the things they say they do, this article will assume they are truly faithful in the way that they describe.

Now that weve defined those terms, lets begin to discuss the implications that political correctness has on college life and culture.

Political correctness is, in theory, a good thing. Who doesnt want a society free of hate, unified in goal and sure in purpose? The premise of PC culture, the idea that we should strive to be tolerant of those who have been subjugated, is a respectable one, but it is unrealistic.

Prejudice exists in the real world; people are a hateful breed. There are those whose ideals are hurtful for no reason other than ignorance and fear. But censoring these ideals will not solve the problem for reasons that will be made clear later on in this article.

But if thats the case, you may ask, how do we ensure that our society is fair, just and tolerant? I dont think the answer to this is as complex as many think it is. If you believe that someone with a toxic ideology is wrong, tell them. Argue reasonably and truly, in an open forum, and prove them wrong.

Even if their opinion doesnt change, the opinions of those around you, or those who review the argument in passing, may. Instead of telling Matthew 24 to simply leave, do what one man did; read passages from the Bible, the very book that they defend their views with, to contradict them.

This is where the beauty of free speech lies. By allowing someone to speak their mind, you expose their ideological blind spots, and then may defeat them.

In a time littered with fake news, its integral to a proper understanding of the world around us. Shutting someone down without proving why theyre wrong does not help your own argument or hinder theirs.

This brings me to the issue with political correctness, and why I, as a staunch progressive, am perfectly content with Matthew 24 protesting on campus. If one silences the voice of a bigot, their bigotry is given a quasi-victim status.

They are able to rally support from moderate non-contenders, those who wish to have nothing to do with the entire issue. The debate itself goes from being one of ideas to one of free speech. This is why the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has defended both sides, from Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan.

As stated in an ACLU Ohio brochure, The principles of the First Amendment are indivisible. Extend them on behalf of one group and they protect all groups. Deny them to one group, and all groups suffer.

This is where all of these issues come together. When one denies anyone, even a bigot, the right to speak, they are able to use that denial as evidence of an oppression that might not even exist.

This will make it easier for them to gain power in the eyes of both the apathetic and the uninformed. Ensuring an open forum attacks the ideas, not the rhetoric, and as such is a much stronger technique to fight against toxic ideologies.

I mean, thats what Id say. Chances are youre either disregarding this because Im a liberal regressive or disregarding it because Im a privileged white male.

I understand both criticisms, but responding this way to criticism just proves the argument Im making. We all, regardless of politics, need to have a completely open dialogue on free speech and ideas, because what were doing now isnt working at all

Dean Cahill is a first-year student majoring in English literature. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

See original here:

The Quad : Political correctness on campus - Quad (subscription)