Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Political Correctness

by -

After being accused of sexual misconduct and facing punishment by the university without fair trial, Thomas Klocke committed suicide, according to a lawsuit by his father.

Thomas Klocke, a student at the University of Texas at Arlington, killed himself on June 2, a few days after the university punished him for allegedly making anti-gay comments to a fellow gay student. 24-year-old Klocke repeatedly denied the accusations at that time and claimed he was the one being harassed but never received a fair hearing.

“This is a case that highlights the really epidemic problem that we’re seeing across the country about what happens when a college violates the legal rights of a student who’s been accused of misconduct,” said Kenneth Chaiken, an attorney for the deceased’s father, Wayne Klocke. “The accused student can really suffer life-altering consequences — in this case of the most tragic form, which was the decision to take his own life.”

Under the pretext of Title IX, the Obama administration forced universities to deny male students their due process rights when they’re accused of sexual misconduct.

The lawsuit was reported by Watchdog.org and alleges that UT-Arlington was unsuccessful in complying with the watered-down due process protections ensured by Title IX and judged on its own policies. It also claims that Thomas was the one discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

A spokesperson for the university, Teresa Schnyder said the university “followed its policies and procedures.” However, she refused to give any details regarding the lawsuit.

“This is a tragic situation and we express our deepest condolences to the family for their loss,” Ms. Schnyder said. “The welfare of our students is our highest priority. Any loss is a heartbreaking one for our entire community.”

Thomas was only one credit short of graduating at the time of the incident. Fellow student Nicholas Watson accused him of typing “gays should die” on the web browser of his laptop in the middle of a May 19 class. Mr. Watson then responded on his own laptop, typing, “I’m gay.” To this, Mr. Watson says, Thomas faked a yawn and said, “Well then you’re a f—t.”

Following this exchange of words, Mr. Watson says he asked Thomas to leave the classroom, to which Thomas allegedly replied, “You should consider killing yourself.”

Thomas refuted these claims in a meeting with a university administrator on May 23. He explained that Mr. Watson made sexual advances, stared at him continuously and called him beautiful, even after he typed into his laptop, “stop ­– I’m straight.” Thomas says he had a hard time concentrating after that and moved to the opposite side of the classroom.

He rejected Mr. Watson’s allegations that he ever typed “gays should die.”

The lawsuit alleges that the rejected sexual advances may have compelled Mr. Watson to make up the story, possibly fearing the university’s policy against sexual harassment. In addition to the lawsuit against the university, Nicholas Watson is also being sued for defamatory statements.

by -
Wait, I didn't do anything!

Caitlin Jeffers, a Northern Arizona University English major is reportedly facing academic repercussions for the use of word “mankind,” instead of the more gender neutral “humanity” in an essay.

While most dictionaries define “mankind” as “the human race,” which is considered to be gender inclusive, Professor Anne Scott at the Northern Arizona University is sending a message to the student, for having used the word Scott believes is sexist, and “has a history of holding women down.”

“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott wrote in an email to the Caitlin Jeffers about her grade. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”

Professor Scott cites the use of “mankind” as the reason why Jeffers lost a mark out of 50 on her recent English essay in her “Critical Reading and Writing in the University Community” course. She also said that the Modern Language Association (MLA) is working to get gender-neutral guidelines implemented on a national level.

Miss Jeffers claimed that Professor Scott asked students to not use gender-specific terms at the beginning of the semester. However, Jeffers says that she wanted to test the policy to see if Professor Scott would actually penalize her for the use of gender specific language.

After receiving the grade on her essay, Miss Jeffers claims she requested a meeting with Professor Scott to discuss her decision regarding docking a mark off her grade for not abiding by the gender-neutral language guidelines set.

“She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it does refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong; ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class,” Jeffers claimed.

Professor Scott, however, offered Jeffers the chance to correct her essay to increase her grade, specifically asking Jeffers to remove the word “mankind.”

“I will respect your choice to leave your diction choices ‘as is’ and to make whatever political and linguistic statement you want to make by doing so,” the professor wrote. “By the same token, I will still need to subtract a point because your choice will not be made in the letter or spirit of this particular class, which is all about having you and other students looking beneath your assumptions and understanding that ‘mankind’ does not mean ‘all people’ to all people. It positively does not.”

Reportedly, Scott also sent an email to her class, informing that she will continue to dock marks off students’ essays if they use gender-specific terms.

by -

Put down the burrito. Put down the sushi. Apparently, eating them makes you a racist–at least, according to liberal feminists.

The liberal opinion site, Everyday Feminism, has put together a convenient guide to let you know what foods a white person is allowed to eat. It’s called, “The Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative,” and yes, it’s as ridiculous as it sounds.

The guide’s author, Rachel Kuo, an Asian-American, laments how “frustrating” it is when her native culture “gets consumed and appropriated as both trend and tourism.”

To fix that, basically, white people are supposed to abstain from wanting to eat any sort of ethnic food, lest it become too popular.

Kuo explains that “cultural appropriation is when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed. The dominant culture can try the food and love the food without ever having to experience oppression because of their consumption.”

Basically, if you haven’t been “oppressed,” how dare you enjoy wontons.

Kuo adds, “Food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks – start to fetishize or commercialize it.”

In Kuo’s mind, if you’re seeking “authentic ethnic food,” you’re guilty of “cultural appropriation.” She specifically excludes Western European food, because “ethnic food has become reserved only for ethnicities that are perceived as exotic and foreign to White folks.” (Sorry, Italians; your food is eaten by everyone, but you’re too white to qualify for “cultural appropriation,” according to Kuo.)

You’re also guilty if you have a “person of color” act as your personal “food expert.”

Over the last few years, politically correct culture has run amok. It used to be that American culture was a giant melting pot–we eat pasta and pizza because large numbers of Italian immigrants introduced their native foods to the masses.

But now that other cultures, like Asian cultures, have seen their food growing in popularity as their own numbers increase, the PC police have taken offense–and are trying to tell you that, basically, if you’re open to new experiences and willing to try different food from a different culture, you’re a big old racist.

So put down those chopsticks!

by -

In a direct confirmation of the “slippery slope” theory, opponents of history are not content with the removal of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia from the public’s eye. No, removing the Confederate flag from retailers, video games, television, and state capitals isn’t nearly enough historical revisionism for the radical left. In true Orwellian fashion, they are now going after monuments and actual buried remains of Confederate soldiers.

Liberty News Now previously reported on the hysteria over the flag and the movement to raze monuments. Efforts have escalated since then, and last week the Memphis City Council voted not only to take down a monument to Confederate hero Nathan Bedford Forrest, but to actually exhume his remains (and his wife’s) and get them out of the city.

Like so many other censorious movements in recent times, this hysteria is driven by the left god of PC. “It is no longer politically correct to glorify someone who was a slave trader, someone who was a racist on public property,” said City Council member Myron Lowery, who sponsored the resolution.

Forrest had an interesting military career, becoming the only soldier in the Civil War to enlist as a private and be promoted to the rank of general, a rapid rise that took him a mere 12 months. He proved to be a gifted tactician, so much so that his tactics are still taught at West Point today. Union generals Sherman and Grant both opined that Forrest was underutilized by the Confederacy.

After the war, Forrest reportedly joined the fledgling Ku Klux Klan, and this affiliation is what raises PC hackles. Forrest himself, though, denied involvement with the KKK in an 1868 newspaper interview and again in 1871 testimony before congress.

Until recently, Tennessee was proud of Forrest’s success, and in fact state law marks July 13 as Nathan Bedford Forrest Day. There are dozens of statues, monuments, and museums to the man around the state. The fact that Forrest is so embedded in the state’s history makes the resolution problematic to many locals.

“Memphis history should not be distorted, taken down or covered up,” said Lee Millar of the local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. “It’s very disturbing to want to dig up the graves of one of our military veterans and his wife.”

Lowery admits the resolution was spurred by the Charleston shooting carried out by Dylann Roof, an exploitation that Millar described “disgusting” and “misguided.” Another city councilman, Edmund Ford, Jr., asked maybe the most pertinent question: “Even when all the flags have been taken down and when all the artifacts have been moved, what do we do next as a people?”

Forrest himself provided the outline in his farewell address to his troops.

“Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men.”

Such words of conciliation are lost on today’s radical left, which continues to seek the destruction of everything deemed offensive. Fortunately, the forces of sanity are fighting back, and they will not allow our history to be erased.


Heightened Tensions

CBS News anchor Scott Pelley, who is being replaced as anchor chair by the news channel, took, what is being called “parting shot” at...