You Can’t Say That Here!

F. Roger Devlin, American Renaissance, January 17, 2014

The campaign against free speech on campus.

Greg Lukianoff, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, Encounter Books, 2013, 294 pp., $25.99.

In 1998, Prof. Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silvergate published an exposé of violations of free speech on college campuses. The Shadow University was a best seller, and readers responded with so many horror stories and pleas for help that the authors established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in order to protect free speech.

In 2001, Greg Lukianoff was appointed the organization’s director of legal and public advocacy, and he became the president in 2006. Unlearning Liberty is his account of 11 years with FIRE, during which he reviewed thousands of cases of campus censorship and represented hundreds of students and faculty.


A uniquely Western achievement

Mr. Lukianoff points out that what he calls the “system of free speech, public disclosure, and active debate” is not universal, but a historical achievement specific to Western civilization. It is the fruit of many centuries, and is still vulnerable. Free speech rests on two principles:

First, no one gets the final say; we all must accept that no argument is ever really over, as it can always be challenged if not disproved down the line. Second, no one gets special, unchallengeable claims of “personal authority.” No one individual is immune to the criticism of others and none can claim to be above intellectual reproach. No one is omniscient or infallible, so we are all forced to defend our arguments with logic, evidence, and persuasion.

Mr. Lukianoff reports that today’s students often do not understand the importance of this system. They are more likely to think that people should be muzzled if that is what it takes for groups from different backgrounds to get along. One 2004 survey of high school students reported that they were “far more likely than adults to think that citizens should not be allowed to express unpopular opinions, and that the government should have a role in approving newspaper stories.”

University speech codes have been struck down nearly every time they have been challenged in court—more than two dozen times since 1989—and this has created a false impression that the issue has been resolved. However, new speech codes spring up faster than old ones are struck down—often on the same campuses.

FIRE reports that 62 percent of American institutions of higher learning have at least one policy that “clearly and substantially” restricts freedom of speech. In most other schools the situation is ambiguous. Only 3.7 percent clearly protect freedom of speech. Many speech codes contain vague prohibitions against “incivility,” “disrespect,” or “offending” or “embarrassing” anyone.

Colleges often use a very loose interpretation of the legal concept of “harassment” as a way to control speech. As Mr. Lukianoff points out, the Supreme Court has limited “harassment” to only to cases in which:

unwelcome discriminatory behavior, directed at a person because of his or her race or gender, is ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.’

Universities, however, consider trivial things to be “harassment:” “stereotypic generalizations,” “words that interfere with another person’s comfort,” “expressions deemed inappropriate,” “jokes that demean a victim’s culture or history,” “inappropriate gender-based activities, comments or gestures,” and “use of generic masculine terms to refer to people of both sexes.”

This last category means that to say, “Every student should park his car in lot B” could be harassment. If policies like this were enforced, nearly all students would be guilty every day. Of course, the policies are not enforced consistently, and as Mr. Lukianoff points out, the students most likely to be charged are those who criticize or joke about the administration: “As any First Amendment lawyer knows, the first thing to go is any speech that criticizes or annoys those who decide which speech is free.” When a member of the student government at Michigan State University sent out e-mail criticizing decisions by the administration, the school punished her, declaring that “the University’s e-mail services are not intended as a forum for the expression of personal opinions.” Of course it was for expressing personal opinions; just ones that did not criticize the university.

St. Augustine’s College in Raleigh, NC, was hit by a tornado in April, 2011. Two days later it announced that classes would resume the next day. Many students complained since they were still without power. When the administration announced a public meeting to discuss the matter, a senior posted a comment on the college’s Facebook page urging students to come with “supporting documents to back up your arguments.” He was handed a letter barring him from his graduation ceremony because all students “are responsible for protecting the reputation of the college.”

Many cases of censorship are ideological. The Tufts University campus newspaper published an ad paid for by a student who thought the school’s “Islamic Awareness Week” painted too rosy a picture of Islam. The ad quoted verses from the Koran such as: “Therefore strike off their [unbelievers’] heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” It mentioned the punishment by death of homosexuals in some Muslim countries, and quoted an Islamic theologian’s opinion that “marriage is a form of slavery; the woman is the man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience.” Another student filed a harassment complaint, and Tufts “made free speech history by being the first institution in the United States to find someone guilty of harassment for stating verifiable facts directed at no one in particular.”

Administrations invent rules so they can go after student groups they don’t like. One Florida community college stopped a Christian group from screening The Passion of the Christ on the grounds that the film was “controversial” and “R-rated.” It soon came to light that the college had sponsored an R-rated movie just the previous year, and was hosting a production of Fucking for Jesus, described as “a piece about masturbating to an image of the Christian messiah.”

Students and faculty can be punished merely for referring to guns or violence, on the grounds that such talk is a “threat.” One student who gave a class presentation on the benefits of concealed-carry laws was reported to the police by his professor.

One popular technique for squelching speech is to designate an area on campus as the “free speech zone.” Such zones are often obscure corners of the campus. At Texas Tech, which has 28,000 students, the “free speech zone” is a tiny gazebo. A waggish mathematician computed that if all students wanted to use the gazebo at the same time, they would have to be crushed down to the density of Uranium 238.

Many universities inculcate students with propaganda about race and sex during orientation. In some cases, freshmen march through something called the “Tunnel of Oppression.” They walk through the rooms of a house where they watch live dramatizations of such themes as: “religious parents hate their gay children,” “Muslims will find no friends on a predominantly white campus,” and “white people believe all black women are ‘welfare mommas.’ ” One witness said freshmen come out with “hopelessness and shame” on their faces—no doubt exactly what the Tunnel of Oppression is designed to achieve.

The best known student “orientation” of this type was the University of Delaware’s mandatory Residence Life Program. It was called “treatment,” and included the following goal:

Each student will recognize that systematic oppression exists in our society . . . will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression . . . [and] will learn the skills necessary to become a change agent for social justice.

Freshmen were also asked highly personal questions, such as whether they could be friends with a homosexual, a black or a Middle Easterner, or whom they would be willing to date. The indoctrination was carried out by upperclassmen called Resident Assistants (RAs), who were put through intensive screening and training during the summer. Mr. Lukianoff writes that any qualms about the program were “met with hostility, intimidation and outright threats.”

RAs also got “confrontation training” in case they got resistance from freshmen, but they seldom had to use it. Investigators found only one clear case of a student who had resisted the “treatment.” When asked about her experience of oppression, she joked that people threw rocks at her because of her taste in opera. When her RA asked her, “When did you discover your sexual identity?” she replied, “That is none of your damned business.” The RA filed an “incident report” against her.

Mr. Lukianoff reports that RAs got other unusual training:

If an RA heard students discussing politics or religion (and some other topics), the RA would intervene and take control. The RA would give each student the chance to state his or her opinion and then tell the students to disperse. There was to be no questioning, no back and forth, no exchange, no probing, no explanations. RAs said they had been trained to quash such discussions as being uncivil.

When FIRE publicly criticized Delaware’s Residence Life Program in the fall of 2007, the university president suspended it, but Katherine Kerr and Jim Tweedy, who designed it, still work for the university. Dr. Kerr, who is still Executive Director of Residence Life & Housing, has tried to start it up again many times.

The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) gave the Residence Life Program an award, and has continued to hold it up as a model since it was suspended. Dr. Kerr later became president of the ACPA.

Katherine Kerr

Katherine Kerr

A few months after the program was suspended, the ACPA held a confidential meeting that was reported by a sensible infiltrator. A former program administrator lit a large candle “to represent the knowledge and responsibility that we have as student affairs and residence life professionals.” Next to it she placed several smaller candles to represent the students to whom “we pass on that light.” Mr. Lukianoff reports what happened next:

Suddenly, she blew out the large candle. She dramatically looked at the audience and said that in the fall 2007, ‘Our light went out,’ and it was ‘hate, fear, ignorance and stupidity’ that caused it to go out. ‘With this conference, we relight the candle . . . and hate, fear, ignorance and stupidity will not snuff it out [again].’ She relit the candle and continued in this vein, concluding, ‘Journey with me towards our revolution of the future.’

Students accused of violating vague behavior codes are often denied due process. College judicial procedures have been around for a long time, but were mainly about cheating on exams or plagiarizing papers. They have grown steadily in power and scope, and can now punish students for things many people consider normal. And on many campuses, open procedures and clear rules are considered an obstacle to the pursuit of justice.

Mr. Lukianoff writes about a presentation describing Michigan State University’s Student Accountability in Community (SAC) program at a national conference in 2002:

Before the session started, the presenters placed a graph on the whiteboard. At the bottom was listed ‘practical jokes’ and at the top was ‘assault’ and ‘rape.’ I thought to myself, ‘Please tell me they aren’t going to say that people who commit rape often start with practical jokes, so we should sentence practical jokers to “accountability training” as early as possible.’ Lo and behold, that was pretty much what they said.

Examples of offences for which a student might be sentenced included “a girl slamming a door after a fight with her boyfriend” or “a student being rude to a dormitory receptionist.” As punishment, students paid $50 for four discipline sessions. They also filled out a questionnaire about their offense—often several times, until they got the “correct” answers.

Students were handed a list of varieties of “violence,” and had to decide which they were guilty of. These included “putting someone down,” “using white privilege,” “any action that is perceived as having [not ‘that has’] racial meaning,” and even “using others to relay messages.” The student then had to acknowledge “full responsibility.”

The federal government makes things worse. In April 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights decreed that all colleges that receive federal money—virtually all of them—must now rule on accusations of “harassment” according to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This is the lowest judicial standard, equivalent to “50 percent probability of guilt plus a feather.” The reason for this change was that student judicial procedures covering harassment could include the serious crime of sexual assault. However, the usual principle in law is that standards of evidence must be higher the more serious the offence: “clear and convincing evidence” (75-80 percent confidence) or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (99 percent confidence). The Obama administration is telling schools: “since sexual assault is such a serious crime, you must be more reckless about whom you find guilty.” And as Mr. Lukianoff points out, students can be found guilty of “harassment” because of trivial acts.

The same new DOE regulations require schools that allow appeals of convictions also to allow accusers to appeal a “not guilty” verdict. This, of course, is double jeopardy, prohibited under the Fifth Amendment.

Campus discipline can run parallel with court proceedings—and reach different results. In 2005, Charles Plinton, a graduate student at the University of Akron, was accused by another student of dealing drugs. The case against him was weak, and a criminal jury took only 40 minutes to find him innocent.

A campus judiciary proceeding, after the jury trial, using the “preponderance of evidence” standard, voted to suspend him. He could not afford a lawyer to fight the charges, and killed himself later that year.

“Discrimination” has been redefined to stop students from forming groups around shared beliefs. The original targets were Evangelical Christian groups, which were forced to accept non-Christian members, but this means any group is vulnerable to subversion by opponents who join because they want to harm or destroy it. Yet in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that universities may enforce this novel concept of “discrimination” against any student group.

More administrators

One of the consequences of intrusions into free speech has been the dramatic expansion of the administrative class:

Between 1975 and 2005, the number of colleges, professors, students, and BA degrees granted all increased in the neighborhood of 50 percent. [But] during the same time period the number of administrators increased by 85 percent, and the number of administrative staffers employed by America’s schools increased by a whopping 240 percent.

In 2005, an important milestone was reached: The number of full-time administrators outstripped the number of faculty. The trend has accelerated. Many administrators have minimal qualifications and even less general culture, but have increasingly been usurping powers that belonged to the faculty.

Administrators are paid well, and their salaries have helped drive rises in tuition. Between 1981 and 2011, tuition at private colleges tripled (adjusting for inflation), while tuition at public universities quadrupled. In 2010, student loans overtook credit cards as the largest category of personal debt. Many economists think the half-trillion-dollar-a-year higher education industry is coming to resemble a financial bubble.


Fewer opinions

Mr. Lukianoff notes that for more than 10 years, sociologists have reported that students hesitate to express opinions. Unlearning Liberty suggests why. The author explains that students themselves have no idea they have the right to express unpopular views, and that in the “overwhelming majority of cases” other students don’t care when speech is squelched.

Students have heard of free speech, but may misinterpret the concept. Students who muzzle others sometimes say they were just exercising their own constitutionally protected freedom of speech!

The disappearance of debate affects the intellectual climate. Without free speech and discussion, students have only prejudices, clung to emotionally but never examined. Few people can defend their positions, so when they are attacked, their only response is anger and hostility.

A student described another consequence: “It’s as though there’s no distinction between the person and the argument, as though to criticize an argument would be injurious to the person.”

Robert Frost famously defined education as “the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” In this sense, education has virtually disappeared from American campuses.

American citizens—so long as they are not on college campuses—enjoy greater freedom of speech than the citizens of any other Western country, but failing to exercise this freedom is the first step toward losing it. The author quotes Judge Learned Hand:

A popular belief in the importance of the values inherent in the U.S. Constitution may be more important than the Constitution itself. If citizens are promised certain rights by law but nobody knows they have them—or enough people believe they shouldn’t have them—the law ends up mattering little.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

F. Roger Devlin
Dr. Devlin is a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly and the author of Sexual Utopia in Power.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • The Politically Correct crowd was doing this at UCSC 25 years ago. I was told by one campus admin that my punishment would not be official, so I followed her home from work and advised her that my retaliation wouldn’t be “official” either.

  • Lewis33

    “Many administrators have minimal qualifications and even less general culture, but have increasingly been usurping powers that belonged to the faculty.”

    I can vouch for this one. I have a immediate family member who recently got hired as a sort of “publicity officer” by a large state university. She is dense and overbearing and believes everything she is fed by her friends in the MSM (where she worked previously, shocking I know!) I can say honestly that her mental capacity hasn’t improved since tenth grade (still uses lots of “ahs” and “like.”) I’m guessing one of the reasons she got hired is that she was a attractive young lady but now has the “Maddow” haircut and goes out of her way to look “frumpy”. This is how you prove yourself to the cause, I guess.

  • Spartacus

    “Examples of offences for which a student might be sentenced included
    “a girl slamming a door after a fight with her boyfriend” or “a student
    being rude to a dormitory receptionist.” As punishment, students paid
    $50 for four discipline sessions. They also filled out a questionnaire
    about their offense—often several times, until they got the “correct”

    Students were handed a list of varieties of “violence,” and had to
    decide which they were guilty of. These included “putting someone down,”
    “using white privilege,” “any action that is perceived as having [not
    ‘that has’] racial meaning,” and even “using others to relay messages.”
    The student then had to acknowledge “full responsibility.”


    This actually isn’t as bad as it sounds. Breivik wrote about things similar to this that happened to him, and of how they radicalized him. It could be that insanity such as this might work in our favor .

  • Rhialto

    There is nothing new in this article for me, except for the fact that Muslims in the US are now Liberal classified as a protected minority. This puzzles me. Islamic doctrine is anti-Feminist, and most Muslim men are as well. Why do the Feminists who are (the most?) powerful element of the Liberal coalition allow this preferential treatment for their enemies? Are the Feminists afraid of the Muslims? Is this an alliance that will last until a common enemy is destroyed? Are the Feminists just ignorant of the dangers that Islam will be to Feminism? I don’t know!

    • John Ulfsson

      Muslims are protected because they aren’t white. In their view of reality it’s all non-whites versus whites, hence P.O.C

      • Yummy_Prosciutto

        That pales in comparison to the blind feminist support for blacks, who are the disproportionate leaders in female harassment and assault.

    • David Ashton

      In Britain in the 1970s I started to keep close personal tabs on the New Left’s “race, gender, class” agenda-networking which has spread through schools, colleges and academic publishing, and into our other institutions with minimal informed resistance. One of the “multicultural” lecturers at the London University Institute of Education explained to her supposedly captive audience that the priority was to ensure the maximum immigration from the non-white world, and to ensure the maximum suppressio of any opposition to this process, to break down English national identity and cohesion. One relcitrant teacher then innocently asked how it would help the world revolutionary process if we had too many Muslim immigrants in view if their general hostility to atheism and women’s liberation. She explained to us that this was essential to “destroy British ‘racism'”, but when that was achieved, we would later have to deal with Asian ‘sexism’. It hasn’t worked out quite as neatly as this communist harridan from South Africa expected, but it is clear that the white leftists see Muslims as “underdogs” and their enemy’s enemy. “A common hate extinguishes mutual contempt” (Spengler).

      • tlk244182

        Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly. Lk 23:12

      • WR_the_realist

        So even 40 years ago leftists admitted that they favored massive third
        world immigration precisely for the purpose of breaking down national
        identity and cohesion. The leadership of the left is nothing if not

        1) Very long term in their thinking.

        2) Unrelenting in their action.

        3) Thoroughly evil.

        That combination makes the left very, very dangerous.

        • David Ashton

          In Britain, they were not responsible for the initial small Caribbean influx, but quickly latched on to it. One of their own “academic” journals, “Patterns of Prejudice”, to which I have subscribed for years past, has spilled the beans in detail; apparently the Indian Communist Party people here were also promptly involved. I infiltrated the anti-“racist” educational groups myself in the 1970s and have kept tabs on the whole process all along.

          But the general problem arose with the “non-Soviet” left guided by Herbert Marcuse & comrades, using “women, blacks, immigrants, sexual minorities and students”, quite explicitly, as the white working class breadwinners, especially in the USA, were not interested in communist revolution. The way that their aims locked into “liberalism”, and the complacency or stupidity of the non-socialists (in the UK above all, for the French and Americans have had a well-informed conservative “intelligentsia”), are a long story, better told by others.

          I shall try to put my own knowledge in two books I have begun, very slowly, to write.

          I agree with your view on the danger of this combination.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      “Are the Feminists just ignorant of the dangers that Islam will be to Feminism?”

      Yes, at least the rank and file ones. They’re being taught by more powerful feminists that Islam is a religion of peace and love that is pro-women and that anyone who dares to disagree is a horrible, evil, racist white supremacist. The more powerful feminists are teaching them this because it fits in with the liberal agenda: every other group banding together against white, straight, Christian males.

      It’s so funny to see them defending the very men who would love nothing more than to stone them to death for having sex out of wedlock and not wearing a veil.

    • jackryanvb

      Yeah, I noticed that contradiction – feminists, lesbians and extremists Muslim immigrants on the same team as PC victim groups.

      This is straight out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. “All Animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

      And in 1984, the PC party powers that be were implementing a new language “Newspeak” that would make politically incorrect speech impossible, people were trained to hold two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time, just by force and terror they would agree.

      So here we have Leftist feminists administrators forcing regular students to accept fundamentalist extreme Islam as compatible with feminism, extreme gay rights. It takes the Muslim immigrants a little bit to figure out how this is possible, then they learn that it’s all about power, bashing straight White males.

    • MartelsGhost

      The simple answer is that all the groups defined as “liberal”, share a hatred of all that is Christian.

      All the little fleas have united in their attempts to bring down the Big Dog.

      Of course if Christianity is removed the feminist/athiest/homosexual/black/liberals will all be at the mercy of islam.

      Our best approach is to understand that these different “tribes” can easily be divided. Any time you meet a DIEversity libtard direct the questions towards making them disagree with whichever segment their “tribe” would naturally have animosity towards. Feminists vs. islam. LGBT vs. blacks/islam. Atheists vs. everything.

      Divide and conquer.

  • curri

    You have to wonder if the First Amendment has much meaning when a public college/university is free to regulate the passing out of handbills in cases where that activity would not disrupt class or work.

  • sbuffalonative

    Second, no one gets special, unchallengeable claims of “personal authority.”

    In recent years, I’ve noticed that people are being denied the opportunity to express their opinion if their opinion is considered outside their field of education. Think of William Bradford Shockley Jr. who invented the transistor but whose genius came into question when he began discussing race and intelligence.

    Apparently only a proper education allows you to have an opinion and then it must be the correct opinion.

    We’re lucky this didn’t apply to Da Vinci, Galileo, or even Einstein who is said to have done poorly in math.

    Not all education comes from a textbook or classroom. Real life observations by ordinary people have advanced science and math and given us many ubiquitous inventions.

    • Tarczan

      Einstein wasn’t poor in math, just some of the other physicists were better at it.
      It’s relative.

      • Tom_in_Miami

        It would be more correct to say that some mathematicians were better at math than Einstein was. Einstein was no slouch.

    • TheCogitator

      It did happen to them. Galileo was threatened with torture. He recanted because he knew the church had burned Bruno at the stake for claiming the earth rotated around the sun.

      Those who are rulers like it to stay that way. Anything that threatens that power will be dealt with in the harshest way possible.

      We have always been ruled by evil people. There are no good guys running the show. Never, never forget that.

      • tlk244182

        I wasn’t aware that Galileo recanted. But he should have, since his argument was weak. The “church” was demanding proof of his conclusion and Galileo didn’t have any. Egotism is not science. He could have presented his work as a theory and the “church” would have been fine with it, but instead he insisted that his flawed model be accepted on the strength of his reputation. Ironically, it was the Church championing reason in this case, as She usually does; “Post proof or retract,” as we would say nowadays. She didn’t burn Copernicus or let the Lutherans burn Kepler, since it was error which She feared, and not a heliocentric solar system.

        • TheCogitator

          While I’m not aware of the flaws you suggest, heliocentrism was a way better model than the earth at the center of everything.

          I stand by my statements regarding the evil of our rulers.

          • MikeofAges

            The story is more nuanced than you make it out to be. Not only that, but there are many contemporary cases of established scientists tormenting people who have made discoveries the scientific establishment is not ready for quite yet. Sometimes the victims are graduate students, whose careers are then destroyed before they even start.

            Interestingly, in the United States the only entity that stands in favor of any outside control over graduate and professional admissions and programs is the NAACP. Politics does make strange bedfellows sometimes. I hope you join the cause.

        • MikeofAges

          More hokum in the history of science than you can possibly imagine. One of the favorites is the story of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, co-developers of the theory of evolution. Listen the what you are or were likely to be taught in college or read in popular history and you would think that Wallace was some poor tortured man.

          In actuality, if Wallace was a tortured figure, no one in the day knew it. Darwin was from a wealthy family and Wallace was not. But Darwin actually helped Wallace financially. Wallace became a widely known and very popular figure whose books sold well At least one them was still in the San Jose State University library in the 1970s. Apparently, it had been used as a general textbook in the early 20th Century.

      • Sick of it

        We’ve had honorable rulers from time to time, historically speaking. Not in living memory.

      • Dutch

        Running the show is followed by ruining the show, never forget that either.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      Sometimes they’re denied the opportunity to express their opinion even when that opinion is within their field of education. Remember when James Watson got Watsoned (this is where the phrase comes from) for expressing his opinion that Africans could not be helped much because our social policies are based on the idea that they’re as intelligent as us, but according to intelligence tests, they’re not?

      He’s the co-discoverer of the double helix! But even he was not immune to liberal whining about being “out of his field of education” for daring to express an opinion on genetics (the implication of his comment being that blacks are genetically unintelligent). Some liberals justified this by saying that only Anthropologists should be saying their opinion on the differing abilities of different races, but we all know that no one in Anthropology would be safe to say it either.

      What liberals mean by “you’re out of your field” is “you’re expressing an opinion that is damaging to our ideology and if you don’t stop we will do everything we can to destroy your career and life.”

      • Small correction: Even if you do stop it, we’ll still destroy your career and life. And don’t bother apologizing, because it only makes us thirstier for your blood.

        Leftist intimidation brooks no apologies. Once someone acquires the scarlet R of racism, their professional life–in Leftist circles, anyway–is through. It serves as a warning to other speakers of hatefacts and crimethink.

        • David Ashton

          It is almost always a folly to “apologize”, though protecting one’s wife and children must be a consideration. The past “victims” have now become the “totems”. We are the “Rebs” who must hang together, so that we do not hang separately!

    • WR_the_realist

      I am not aware of any evidence that Einstein ever did poorly in math, whether in grade school or later. I think that’s one of the myths that people like to tell each other so as to feel a little better about their own poor performance in math class. (“Sure I got a C in algebra, but maybe later I’ll discover a fundamental new theory in physics, like Einstein did.”)

  • ViktorNN

    There is very little of the “old school” kind of discrimination that the left was fighting against 40 or 50 years ago. Almost any example of real discrimination already has laws on the books forbidding it, and thus any gripe is about enforcement – not that our society systemically discriminates.

    So what is all this politically correct stuff like speech codes on college campuses about?

    It’s about the non-white left and their white liberal dupes taking power for themselves. Regulating speech is one of the ways the far left discriminates, and regular middle class white people are their #1 targets. We are to be dispossessed and replaced and they are hellbent on coming up with “legal” forms of discrimination in order to make it happen.

    • rightrightright

      This superfluity of college administrators, they wouldn’t be affirmative action enrichers, would they?

      If you can’t teach, tick boxes and administrate.

  • JohnEngelman

    During the Cold War conservatives inhibited free speech with loyalty oaths, black lists, and investigations into Communist influence in teaching and Hollywood. This was wrong. Now liberals are doing the same thing with opinions they dislike.

    Liberals used to champion free expression.

    • curri

      There was a liberal-left “Brown Scare” that targeted imaginary fifth columnists during the period leading up to US entry into WWII. . See articles by Justin Raimondo: “The Return of the Witch-Hunters,” ”Tale of a ‘Seditionist’–The Lawrence Dennis Story” and “Why I Hate Harry Truman.” Also see “Father of the Committee: Rep. Samuel Dickstein and the Origins of HUAC” at blog. ecu (DOT) edu/ and “Terror Begins at Home” by Philip Jenkins at theamericanconservative (DOT) com.

      • David Ashton

        Thanks for these references. Worth adding: Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” (rehabilitating McCarthy) and David Dallin’s “Soviet Espionage” on the influence of the communists who supported the Soviet enemies of free speech in the USA.

    • MBlanc46

      Absolutely, John. It’s often occurred to me that the climate in this country is in many ways the mirror image of the early Cold War era.

      • NoMosqueHere

        Ok, but the South was unified and willing to fight; they were defeated, but fought nobly. Today, whites in America are not unified and certainly won’t fight back. The republican party is a joke. I sense deep frustration by many on this forum.

        • MBlanc46

          The frustration level is is probably 7 out of 10 (where 10 is heading for the barricades).

    • John Ulfsson

      “During the Cold War conservatives inhibited free speech with loyalty oaths, black lists, and investigations into Communist influence in teaching and Hollywood.”

      They should have tried harder. Letting the ‘free market handle it’ has gotten us to the point in the first place. The Soviet Union didn’t have this level of ideological subversion because they simply didn’t allow it.

      • JohnEngelman

        The Soviet Union did not last either.

        I enjoy a free market for opinions and facts. I love political arguments. The only people who find such an environment intimidating are those who cannot justify their opinions in a civil debate where facts and logic matter. They have strong emotions, but weak minds.

        • John Ulfsson

          >civil debate where facts and logic matter.

          Did you watch the presidential debate? Nobody cares about facts and logic, they don’t matter. Demeanor, attitude and social skills matter. A person can be making great points, and as long as the other party dismisses them casually enough and makes efficient appeals to emotion he’ll win.

          90% of people are more effected by emotion (I.E. the Communist subversion that they were trying to prevent) than some stodgy conservative rambling in monotone about the constitution and principles.

          • JohnEngelman

            I agree with you that in a presidential debate what is said matters less than how it is said. This is frustrating to me. I would like immediate fact checking and a format more conducive to decisive victories and defeats.

            During the 1980 debate between President Carter and Ronald Reagan, Reagan said if he was elected he would cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting popular middle class entitlements.

            During the 1984 presidential debate it should have been easier for Walter Mondale to draw attention to the failure of Reagan’s fraudulent economic policies.

            The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than one way to operate a representative democracy. It is vaguely worded. Those who rely on the Constitution do so because their arguments are otherwise untenable, and because most of the voters disagree with them.

          • John Ulfsson

            “I agree with you that in a presidential debate what is said matters less than how it is said. This is frustrating to me. I would like immediate fact checking and a format more conducive to decisive victories and defeats.”

            Even then, I think you’re overestimating the average person, even the average white person. Most people are driven by emotions and passions.

            “The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than one way to operate a representative democracy. It is vaguely worded. Those who rely on the Constitution do so because their arguments are otherwise untenable, and because most of the voters disagree with them.”

            I don’t think the premise of the US is a bad one, but obviously in the context of the modern world – encroaching globalism, ethnic immigrants, modern popular culture, etc – I honestly think a more authoritarian system would serve the white race better. The white race will obviously thrive regardless of the system, whether it’s abysmal like feudalism or more ‘progressive’ like the early US.

          • WR_the_realist

            The problem is that when you say you want a more authoritarian system you fail to take into account that people like Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, or people even worse than them, will wind up as the authorities.

          • John Ulfsson

            Weren’t those people elected in a representative democratic system? Seems like the wisdom of the mob isn’t much better.

          • WR_the_realist

            One one advantage of those lesser beings being elected is that they eventually get out of office (we suffer for a maximum of 8 years, in the case of the presidency). If any of them were your fuhrer you’d be stuck with the bastard for decades.

          • Geo1metric

            The Federalist Papers are a good, and original, source of information on the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution.

            There are significant differences between a “representative democacy” and a Constitutional Republic.

          • JohnEngelman

            The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us…

            The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government…

            My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise.

            – Thomas Jefferson, from Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, August 26, 1816

          • JohnEngelman

            The false dichotomy between a republic and a democracy was invented during the 1950’s by the John Birch Society. Members of that organization had hoped that President Eisenhower with Republican control of both houses of Congress would repeal the reforms of the New Deal.

            Eisenhower did not do so because he knew that those reforms had broad, popular support. When the leaders of the John Birch Society came reluctantly to agree with Eisenhower about the popularity of the reforms of the New Deal, they composed the misconception that “The United States is a republic, not a democracy,” in order to claim that the will of the majority was morally and legally insignificant.

            A republic is a government in which the heads of state are not hereditary. At one time this an important distinction. In an age when a number of democratic governments have figure head monarchs, it is not.

            A representative democracy is one where the voters elect their rulers.

            There is no contradiction.

            Those who say, “The United States is a republic, not a democracy,” are really saying, “The will of the majority does not matter. What matters is my interpretation of the Constitution.”

          • WR_the_realist

            It was never intended by the founders for the U.S. as a whole to be a direct democracy. That’s why senators were originally selected by state legislators and why we have the bizarre electoral college. (It was originally intended that the electors would make real decisions, not just blindly follow a party rule based on the popular vote.)

            The Constitution is not nearly as ambiguous as advocates of big government pretend it to be. But the plain meaning goes against what the statists want, so statists always find some loophole in their “living constitution”. Consider, for example, the first sentence of Article I, section 10,. It begins with, “No State shall…” and then lists a number of things states are not allowed to do. Among the forbidden actions is: “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Clearly and unambiguously states are required to use gold and silver coin as their money, for anything owed to or by the state. But every state today accepts federal reserve notes as payment for taxes, and in turn pays its debts to its creditors in those same federal reserve notes. This is a part of the Constitution that is simply ignored, it is not a matter of there being sensible alternative interpretations of the relevant clause.

            My point is not whether we should go back to a gold or silver standard. My point is that for states the Constitution requires they use a gold or silver standard, and if that’s now a poor or irrelevant system of money the Constitution should have been amended appropriately. But it wasn’t. The problem is that when you just ignore parts of the Constitution that you find inconvenient, you have no grounds to complain when parts of the Constitution you like, such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, are violated. Starting with the War on Drugs but getting much worse with the War on Terror, the Bill of Rights is now under steady attack.

          • JohnEngelman

            When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 it did not meet to weaken the U.S. government, but to establish a stronger U.S. government. The Articles of Confederation, which had been ratified in 1781, had been proven to be too weak for an independent country.

          • WR_the_realist

            They wanted a stronger federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed, but that doesn’t mean they wanted the behemoth we have now.

          • JohnEngelman

            The U.S. government has grown in response to popular demand. A government that was appropriate for several million is not appropriate for several hundred million.

          • WR_the_realist

            I agree. In a democracy politicians win by promising people free stuff. Of course the stuff is always paid for by a combination of explicitly higher taxes or the implicit tax of inflation. Government schools encourage children to see the government as the benign provider of social justice and free stuff. So we get lots of Obama supporters among the college crowd. None of this is sustainable, so this just shows that democracy is inherently unstable.

            I would prefer a government limited to its Constitution and the powers explicitly granted to it in that Constitution. That would at least force the social engineering to be done at the state level. Since states can’t print their own money they are forced to face the consequences of foolish policies much sooner than the federal government.

          • JohnEngelman

            The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Democratic presidents raise taxes on the rich and spread the wealth around. Consequently, since 1920 there has been more economic growth under Democratic presidents, and more jobs created per year. Even the stock market has grown more.

            (Factual assertions documented upon request.)

          • WR_the_realist

            Democratic presidents neither raise nor lower taxes. Nor do Republican presidents. Congress does. So I hope your documentation has the political composition of the House and Senate.

          • JohnEngelman

            The president submits a budget to the Congress that proposes tax increases or tax cuts.

          • Geo1metric

            Not a “stronger U.S. government”, but a stronger central government. The Articles of Confederation were not “proven to be too weak for an independent country”, but were not giving the “federalists” the strong central government that they wanted. Well, now we have that strong central government.

          • David Ashton

            As I am on this thread, I would point out that the founder of the JBS wrote a fully annotated manuscript suggesting that Ike was a communist agent. However, some of the JBS contributors made a much more substantial contribution. It is very naive to take “democracy” as its face value – read the political scientists like De Jouvenel or Michels, or the recent less well-known modern writers – right, left and centre – who have exposed the degeneration of the political system into a racket based on entertainment, advertising, financial corruption and election fraud.

          • JohnEngelman

            The best justification of democracy I ever heard came from William Buckley. He said, “Democracy is not an intelligence test. It is a means of saying ‘No’.”

            Candidates I vote for often lose elections. Nevertheless, I have more confidence in the electorate than in any elite however it is chosen.

          • WR_the_realist

            Well, Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute talk with the average voter. Way too often the average voter says “Yes”.

            Candidates I vote for always lose elections. I don’t trust any small group of self perpetuating elites to rule the country either. I think the only way to make a country as big and heterogeneous as the United States work is to strictly limit the power of the central government and let states go their own way. Massachusetts can have its Romneycare and the rest of us can stay out of Massachusetts.

          • JohnEngelman

            Winston Churchill also said this: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

          • WR_the_realist

            Under a pure democracy 51% of the people can vote to take away your free speech rights, take all your property, and toss you into prison without a trial. Do you want that?

          • JohnEngelman

            No, but it would be more likely under a dictatorship.

          • WR_the_realist

            And you are insisting upon the false dichotomy between democracy and dictatorship. I advocate democracy limited by strict constitutional constraints, not dictatorship. It’s the neo-Nazis here who fantasize about the latter.

          • Luca

            Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb.

          • JohnEngelman

            A problem with limited government is that it insufficiently limits global capitalism.

            When local governments compete for jobs by offering companies the lowest taxes, the fewest and weakest regulations, and the highest business subsidies, there is a race to the bottom. The people everywhere lose.

          • WR_the_realist

            Please tell me what a wonderful job our current big government has done in limiting the depredations of global capitalism.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Republican Party stands in the way of what needs to be done: we need higher taxes on the rich; we need more business regulations.

          • WR_the_realist

            The Democrats want more immigration, illegal immigration, and anti-white discrimination. See what a lovely choice democracy has given us?

          • JohnEngelman

            The Republicans want lower wages.

            Some posters on this website want Orientals and Jews to be discriminated against, and perhaps deported.

          • WR_the_realist

            Given their stand on immigration it is clear that the Democrats want lower wages too. The extreme views that some of the posters here have towards Jews and Asians is irrelevant to the issue being debated here — to wit, whether we should have unfettered democracy or a democracy limited by strict constitutional bounds, and whether the Republicans, Democrats, or neither deserve our support. (On the latter issue, I of course say “neither:”.)

          • JohnEngelman

            Many Democrats are delusional enough to think that a high rate of immigration is consistent with increasing wage levels.

          • WR_the_realist

            That’s one of those matters where you and I can agree.

          • JohnEngelman

            A high rate of immigration conflicts with nearly everything else that liberals want to achieve. It contributes to the growing income gap. It depletes the environment. A diverse work force is more difficult to organize into labor unions than a homogeneous work force.

          • WR_the_realist

            I have no argument with you there. In some ways I would be classified as a liberal. In addition to being antiwar and pro-Bill of Rights, I am in favor of policies that stabilize our population so we can protect our environment and reduce that amount of economic inequality in this country. Our immigration policies are anti-labor and anti-environment. But just try to convince the average “progressive” (other than John Engleman) of this.

      • The Soviet Union did have that level of ideological subversion.

        It’s just that their ideological cult was communism.

        • John Ulfsson

          “It’s just that their ideological cult was communism.”

          Then the US didn’t provide a proper ideological cult to battle the subversion of Communism. At least the Nazi state provided the people with an ideological fight to battle Communist subversion.

          Either way, the free market failed to fix it.

          • I would have loathed either a Communist or a Nazi master. My take on these situations is “Let’s go get it done.”

    • Bunky

      Why were investigations into communist influence in Hollywood wrong?

      • JohnEngelman

        Because Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers have as much right as you do to propagate their opinions and to try to win others to their way of thinking.

        Democracy works best when the voters are exposed to diverse ways of thinking.

        • Bunky

          So investigations into communist sympathizers do not expose their diverse way of thinking?

        • Luca

          Except when you have masses of low IQ, indoctrinated people as voters.

          • JohnEngelman

            Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they are indoctrinated.

          • Luca

            Whether or not they agree with me is immaterial. As a champion of high IQ you know full well that low IQ people are impressionable and make poor decisions based on emotion rather than well thought out reasoning.

            Communists, socialists, progressives etc. thrive on a majority population of low IQ masses who are easily swayed with class warfare indoctrination and propaganda. That is why when Communists take over a country they frequently execute or jail intellectuals who oppose them.

            For you to pretend that I was talking about people who disagree with me was both disingenuous and puerile.

          • JohnEngelman

            In the United States the American Communist Party has never had much of a constituency among the poorly educated.

            During the Great Depression poorly educated whites were more likely to belong to the Klu Klux Klan.

            During the War in Vietnam Marxism was fairly limited to college campuses of the more elite universities. The Progressive Labor Party had chapters on Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley.

          • Luca

            Once again your response reflects tactics out of a Liberal playbook. I never mentioned the poorly educated or the American Communist Party. So you are responding to points I never made and are deflecting to other topics.

            When Liberals do this, it tells me they have no response and just move along to something else to try to appear responsive.

            Nice try. So let’s move along to your topic.

            The leaders and key players in Socialist/Communist/Progressive/Marxist movements have always been elites and were usually well educated people who have known how to indoctrinate and lead their useful idiots. You mentioned poorly educated but my topic was low IQ.

            Most notable communist leaders were wealthy elites:
            Vladimir Lenin: wealthy, lawyer, part Jewish.
            Karl Marx: Wealthy, Univ of Bonn , Univ. of Berlin, Jewish
            Leon Trotsky: born Leontyevich Bronshtein to wealthy Jewish farmers, University of Odessa.
            Fidel Castro: Son of a wealthy farmer, Roman Catholic, Boarding school, prep school, U of Havana, lawyer.

            Also, I am curious where you got all those figures of everyone’s educational background for the entire KKK during the Great Depression.

          • JohnEngelman

            My initial point, which I repeat, is that the American Communist Party has the right to exist, and members have the right to express their opinions.

          • Luca

            I never disputed your point, my point was that democracy does not work when you have masses of low IQ, and/or indoctrinated people who are no longer using reason or intellect in the voting booths.

            The Liberal-progressive-Marxists have been doing a methodical job taking control of school curriculum, labor unions, media, politics and Hollywood. In the meantime they are importing and will soon legalize low IQ immigrants who are groomed as victims, listen to the propaganda, take the entitlements and vote lockstep for Democrats.

  • ncpride

    While I was discussing the Mandela assignment with my son’s Social Studies teacher, she claimed that she loved it when students ‘take a stand’ on the topics they cover, but I politely ask her how can they do that when they are only taught a one-sided version? I then went on to say that in school and colleges today, expressing a different opinion from the liberal playbook often means, (at best) terrible harassment, horrible name calling and being ostracized, to severe punishment and expulsion. I told her I had real fears and concerns of the direction this country is headed, and she couldn’t really make an argument or dispute me.

    • Sick of it

      Unlike what some have said here, quite a few teachers agree with you and sympathize. Especially in the more conservative parts of the country.

      • ncpride

        I hope that’s true, and I have seen a glimmer of truth to this, especially at my daughter’s HS. She had a wonderful U.S. history teacher last year, and thankfully has her again this semester for a different class, and she often slams liberalism and political correctness and judging from other comments she has made, I believe she is a closet race realist.

        My daughter also had an English teacher who was great as well. He often brought up controversial topics for the class to debate, encouraged them to think for themselves, and NEVER gave his own personal opinion or try to influence them in any way, although he would play devils advocate once in a while. That’s a good teacher in my opinion.

    • itdoesnotmatter

      Standing ovation, ncpride. I was hoping you would give us a follow up on the story of your son, the teacher, and her one-sided “mandela” assignment.
      [Cannot bring myself to capitalize his name].

    • Garrett Brown

      What was her actual response?

      • ncpride

        Well, she repeated that she loved it when students take a stand on topics they cover, and assured me *she* would never punish a child for a differing opinion, but she never did address my complaint about the one-sided version of Mandela history they were told about. The subject was changed after that, so I let it go. However, I now know to keep an eye on what is being taught in that class, especially with black history month coming up…..Ugh.

        • Garrett Brown

          Good for you.

          Yes, I wonder if she would support differing opinions on race and if people in her class believed there were differences.

          Universities are all “pro science” when it comes to doubting a deity and evolution for basic animals but they leave one very important, very complex one out: Homosapiens.

  • Irishgirl

    So “harassment” includes “use of generic masculine terms to refer to people of both sexes.” This leads to the grammatically incorrect statements such as “each person has their own ideas,” which irritates me to no end.

    • dd121

      When I went to 8th grade saying “his” as the pronoun was referred to as “unmarked” gender”. In other words the actual sex could be male or female since there was no pronoun such as “hizer”. Now “his” is a campus crime. My God!

      • IstvanIN

        language has become so odd and cumbersome. When I was in junior high his, he and man were all properly used to mean either a male individual or people in general, depending on context. Now we are supposed to use the cumbersome his/her or some other contrivance. Sometimes articles are written using either her to refer to both sexes, which can cause misunderstandings to those of us taught standard American English or they alternate between his and her, which may be worse.

        I also miss the use of words like actor/actress, aviator/aviatrix, and other sex-specific nouns. Language has been so dumbed down. And to further complain I hate that gender is now used in place of sex. We were taught that sex meant “male or female” and that gender meant “masculine or feminine”, such as boats and ships are referred to in the feminine (she) and not because they are female. This just burns me up.

        • dd121

          I think you’re right on all points. When the PC folks got involved in these questions they never invented a seamless way to improve on the old forms of standard English. The old way of doing it still seems like the best to me.

        • GeneticsareDestiny

          I still like to use he, him, his, and man gender neutrally. It makes liberals angry and it’s correct, so it’s a win-win.

          I think actress is still commonly used, as is waitress, but aviatrix has definitely been purged from the average person’s vocabulary. It’s a shame.

          I try to refrain from using “gender” where “sex” would be a more accurate descriptor. The turn towards “gender” is an attempt to divorce women and men from their biological sex so as to usher in the era of “transgender rights,” like unisex bathrooms. We cannot allow this to happen.

          • IstvanIN

            We are supposed to user “server” instead of waiter/waitress and heaven forbid we say steward/stewardess. And have you seen the term “fisher” instead of fisherman? Ugh, I saw that for the first time in a Scientific American article.

          • GeneticsareDestiny

            Really? Wow, I thought I was up-to-date on my Newspeak, but I didn’t know “waitress” had been retired too. I did hear about “fisher.” It sounds even stupider than most of the new “gender neutral” forms of old words.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            Wouldn’t fisherperson not be the “correct” form, just like chairperson instead of chairman?

          • IstvanIN

            Apparently the fishwives who run things they have decided fisher will be the proper term. I know of a government agency here in NJ that uses “chairman” for their head, regardless of sex. Chair however, seems to be more common than chairperson. Humbug, I’ll use chairman/chairwoman for committee heads and chair for furniture.

          • MikeofAges

            You’ve invented a new insult and you don’t know it. “Fishhusband”.

          • RileyDeWiley

            “Gunman” is still with us, though. But “gunwoman” and “knifeman” are not. Go figure.

          • I see “knifeman” used quite a bit in the British media.

        • Tarczan

          The worst has to be “gentlelady” as used in Congress.

    • Spartacus

      Proppa gramma be rayciss dawg !

      • You forgot the “Gnome sayin?”

        I got game, dawg; I be representin. You best recognize! Gnome sayin?

        I don’t even know what that means. Probably nobody else does, either.

    • WR_the_realist

      You hit that nail on the head. When people use “their”, “them”, or “they” as singular pronouns it is like fingernails scratching on a blackboard. Why do people do this? Because they fear the wrath of the professional feminists.

  • Spartacus


  • Geo1metric

    The incredible irony that the “free speech movement” started at Berkley!(sp)!! But I date myself.

    • JohnEngelman

      By the late 1960’s Berkeley radicals were shouting down speakers they disagreed with. They interrupted classes of Arthur Jensen, and made death threats to him. Sometimes he needed police protection.

      • I once received death threats via email for comments I posted here under the old non-Disqus system. I taunted and abused them, saying “bring it”. I am not afraid of death, because death is certain. I am not afraid of it hurting, because that is also certain. Being afraid of a certainty is just silly.
        I once buried anti-tank mines underneath antipersonnel mines. While a wounded soldier can be demoralizing to his platoon, so can one being blown into a thin red mist. The AP device sets off the AT version. We hoisted an unexploded aircraft bomb into a tree and were careful to conceal the det cord and time fuze. Over 22 years later, I still feel bad about that poor tree.

      • emiledurk16

        unbelievable…..definitely a cheap form of censorship.

      • WR_the_realist

        The motto of the left: Free speech for me but not for thee.

        • JohnEngelman

          That is the motto of anyone on either end of the political spectrum who believes that the expression of some ideas is dangerous, and who has the power to suppress those ideas.

          On this website several posters have expressed the opinion that Communist Party members should not be allowed to propagate their ideas.

      • Geo1metric

        Typical “progressive” behavior when their totalitarian “slip” is showing.

    • emiledurk16

      Nothing wrong with that, my friend. I think it goes something like if you’re young and not a lib, you got no heart, if your older and still a lib, ya got no brains.

  • MBlanc46

    Neo-Stalinism has won in American academia.

    • Yes, until enough Whites decide to simply stop funding it. Forever.

      • MBlanc46

        As Larry O’Brien once said, “no final victories”. I hope that he was right.

    • emiledurk16

      That’s right Mel. Exception being loss of job instead of Siberia for any dissidents.

  • itdoesnotmatter

    Excuse me, Mr. Binion. She is NOT a worker. She is an Associate!!

  • John Ulfsson

    They are. At least fascists support nationalism and racial identity.

    • NoMosqueHere

      I don’t think so. The Nazis did not support white rights; they supported Aryan rights. They deemed non-aryan whites to be inferior.

  • Geo1metric

    Many whites do not want to fund universities anymore, but to the extent that taxes fund them, what choice do we have?

    I have told the two universities that I attendedthat they get no funding from me as long as they discriminate against Whites.

  • Geo1metric

    Do not allow the pc jerks to alter your speech patterns!

  • NoMosqueHere

    I hate to say it, but we’re in a new cold war of sorts. The free speech rights of whites (and whatever allies they have) are significant portion of the stakes of this war. And — I also hate to say it — whites are losing the war.

    • I don’t think we are losing. Please consider that the opposition can’t abide our freedom of thought and speech, That suggests that they are terrified of it. An honest opponent would welcome civilized debate so as to convert the middle-ground and make us hard-core types waver.

      I think the liberal left has some useful arguments, such as legalized abortion, but they have clearly overreached and this current nonsense about “hate” speech online illustrates their desperation.

      • MBlanc46

        You’re surely correct that they fear us. They fear any opinion that strays from the party line by even a hair’s breadth. But we’re still muzzled in mainstream debate.

        • How are we muzzled? The internet is our freedom! My FBI file says “firearms expert, explosives expert, chemist, ex-mercenary”, but I haven’t been silenced. My favorite song is the “Mull of Kintyre”, played on bagpipes. Nobody can get that out of me, either.

          • MBlanc46

            Our views rarely are presented on network television or the national newspapers, and when they are, it’s almost always to vilify them. Our views are almost never allowed in the educational system, except to be mocked and ridiculed. You’re right that you no longer have to own a newspaper to make your views known to more than your immediate circle, but we’re certainly ghettoized, and when we attempt to escape the ghetto and, say, comment on a corporate media Internet item, it’s often deleted and we’re often banned.

    • emiledurk16

      Right now we might be losing the battle, NMH, but I think, maybe beyond my time, we can win the war.

  • That’s because nobody ever really gets out of high school. For a lot of adult men, their glory days were on the high school football team. So we just have to keep that mentality alive, even if what they’re doing as part of their “team” is pushing paper and pushing keys on keyboards.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Our founding fathers would not be impressed with this argument. America was founded as a constitutional republic; which is MUCH better than fascism. The problem is american whites have been demoralized as a result of the black rights movement; and european whites were devastated by the results of the nazi movement. Hence, whites lost their sense of identity or outright want to expunge it. I am pessimistic about the future of our great nation; but I cannot betray Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison and all our other founding fathers and accept the fascist form of government.

    • I would never support anything like fascism. What happens when the Big Guy isn’t right in the head?

    • Sick of it

      Fantastic – Now get other “Americans” to actually fight like those men did. You know, like real Americans.

      • How do “real Americans” fight? I missed that lesson. I liked ambushes and explosive booby-traps. I was never a boy scout, but I brought my own entrenching tool. I could see the way the grass was bent. If birds went off a neighboring woodland, I knew we were being stalked. When something flashed in my eyes, I was being watched with sunlight behind me and I dropped.

        • Sick of it

          We had quite a few guerrilla fighters during the American Revolution. They didn’t worry over things like rules of engagement when foreign scum were telling them what to do.

    • By today’s impossible standards, our founding fathers were fascists.

      We definitely know they were ethnonationalists.

      • WR_the_realist

        Fascists advocate for a powerful central government, and so do Democrats and RINOs. Our founding fathers did not. I’m with Thomas Jefferson on this one.

    • Andy

      I am not fond of fascism myself, but I think that our circumstances as a people have changed since our republic was founded. The American people could hand a democratic republic at that point. I’m not so sure they still can.

    • John Ulfsson

      >european whites were devastated by the results of the nazi movement.

      You’re such a coward. Go look up what Germany was like post-WW2 and the number subversive types and blatant Marxists were doing on it. Don’t blame Germany for reacting to it you spineless ass.

  • mikefromwichita

    Parents – don’t waste your hard earned money sending your kids to these ‘schools’ to be mentally corrupted. 70% or more even of White kids do not have the IQ for a real University to be within their abilities. The Reality that over 50% attend ‘college’ is proof positive that the ‘education’ is worthless at best. Need a venue to learn employment skills? Consider an online college or a local trade school. The product is more affordable and of better quality. Those PC obsessed hell hole colleges are day by day going the way of the dinosaur thanks to the net.

    • DaveMed

      If they’re going for the liberal arts degree, I agree. But we need more Whites pursuing graduate-level education.

      • MBlanc46

        The liberal arts are great. Analysis and critique are at their core. But they’ve been taken over by dogmatists who treat them as propaganda. We need to take them back.

    • MBlanc46

      I think we’d be better off if we put the bit back in the mouths of the educators and got them back under control.

      • mikefromwichita

        Can’t disagree with that, but its still true that a real University education is not something that more than a third even of White kids can benefit from receiving.

        • MBlanc46

          I don’t know how you could ever establish a number like that. Everyone will profit from some higher education, and many people profit from a great deal of it.

          • mikefromwichita

            The thing you are thinking of as ‘higher education’ has challenging content on a par with an OK high school of 50 years ago. The ONLY reason that many ‘college’ students benefit is the Reality that their four years of high school were wasted.

          • MBlanc46

            There has certainly been some dumbing down and that is an issue that has to be addressed. To the best of my knowledge, the white high schools in my area–near western Chicago suburbs–still do a pretty good job. Most of those students would almost certainly benefit from a good general higher education. The young people that I know of in higher education at present seem to be doing so. To the extent that they’re being fed PC dogma, a disservice is being done them, and we need to do something about it.

    • John Smith

      Your kids are going to be forced out of the job market by work visa holders, so just buy your kids a house instead so they’re not paying someone elses mortgage or paying a hundred K in intrest on their own mortgage.

  • I think nobody needs censorship. Who hires the censors, and what qualifications should they have? We write here, and have a moderator, but are otherwise quite free. AmRen is a voluntary association, so writing here isn’t remotely like what Spartacus or I say out on the streets of Bucharest or Colorado Springs.

  • Jon

    Free speech has all but been squashed for White people because someone could take what we say out of context and get us banned. I was banned on Face book for not saying anything mean but stating facts about black on white crime and someone got their feelings hurts then reported me. I am blocked for 12 hrs because of it so much for free speech.

    • emiledurk16

      Getting banned from facebook (my face as Belechick calls it) I think is a badge of honor.

      • Back in the day, I was once banned from here. It seems I don’t like Islam very much. The point is to stay in the game. When I was almost killed, I thought of some very nice songs and kept firing until it was nearly dark. My friends came and got me.

        • DaveMed

          ? Sounds like an interesting story…

  • emiledurk16

    “words that interfere with another person’s comfort,” …you gotta be kiddin me.
    Didn’t go to college, but can imagine the environment.
    I sometimes speak to my friends nieces and nephews who graduated, and it’s absolutely maddening. A nice, well manner, demure niece of my friend utters” probably a rich white person.” I politely say to the young lady: “I don’t know about being rich, but I can assure you, there’s nothing wrong with being white.”
    God dam silence as if I was just blasphemous.
    Just really mad………couple of Heinekens and “The Political Cesspool” tonight might work wonders.

    • DaveMed

      Keep making those comments. They’re only stunning because they’re heard so rarely.

      We must make them the norm.

    • I went to Univ of Florida for a Master’s degree for 4 years. Their educational system, in my experience, was completely objective. We were trained to think logically and make conclusions based on the evidence. Unfortuantely it turned out that my profession is one that is really hated by the US Government and is slated for elimination. I’m a scientist/ engineer and my degree was in Chemical Engineering.

      This is one area where the US must absolutely import Iranian / Indian/ Chinese Engineers, even for critical defense work, because US scientists are just no good.

      Also maybe the ability to investigate things is what led me to AmRen as well as my learning about racial identities. That started about 2 years ago.

  • DaveMed

    I think it’s becoming fairly clear that the best way to inoculate your children against the filth of the educational system is to impart racial and cultural realism to them starting at a young age.

    Not in a hateful way, but with firmness and seriousness.

  • DaveMed

    Yes – for our mandatory diversity seminar last year, the leader was a black lesbian woman. A complete moron.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Black + woman + lesbian + liberal = the worst combination for the white man!

      • DaveMed

        Well, I can’t say that I mind women too much 😀
        But your point is well-taken. It was an “air your grievances about the successes of white men” session.

  • MikeofAges

    Only the post office ever got it right. “Postman” became “letter carrier”. Worked like a charm.

    Heard once of a female coach of a softball team who told a young male reporter in no uncertain terms: “The person who play third base on my softball team is called the ‘third baseman'”.

  • I was told by one manager that I should be part of the “team”. I told him to go eff himself. I am not and never will be part of someone’s “team”.

    • Or, what you should have asked is:

      1. What position will I play?
      2. Where will I be on the depth chart?
      3. How long until I’m vested into the collective bargaining agreement?
      4. Are offseason OTAs optional or “optional?”
      5. What about weed? Do they really test for that?
      6. Am I now exempt from legal consequences of rape and drunk driving?

    • The moderator did a poor job on that.

  • Cecil Henry

    I find it interesting that those ‘Asians’ in the re-education look a lot less Asian than real Chinese people do.

    What’s up with that???

    • IstvanIN

      Propaganda that Maoism would make them all attractive?

    • Paul

      it’s true, it seems the only way to make them more attractive is to ‘Europeanise’ them

  • WR_the_realist

    One 2004 survey of high school students reported that they were “far
    more likely than adults to think that citizens should not be allowed to
    express unpopular opinions, and that the government should have a role
    in approving newspaper stories.”

    Does anyone here still need a reason to get his kids out of public schools?

    If “inappropriate gender-based activities” are harassment, who decides which gender-based activities are inappropriate? The man hating lesbians in the Womyn’s Studies Department?

    Also deemed harassment is ” “use of generic masculine terms to refer to people of both sexes.” In other words using proper grammar, as I did in my first sentence, is now a punishable offense.

  • drattastic

    Whatever happened to the youthful rebellious streak against authority ? Today’s White youth seem to be sheep .

  • Epiminondas

    I saw a sociology professor declaim that he wanted to force white men to watch a black man have sex with a white woman and then give the viewers an electric shock each time they had a negative reaction. This was back in 1970 at a university in a part of the US where this sort of thing was definitely not popular. And it was a required course. I’ve often thought that I had a front row seat at the genesis of the cultural devolution of the USA. It’s going to get worse.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    The idea of having a designated “free speech area” on a college campus of all things is pretty sick. “Higher learning” indeed.

  • ben no

    “marriage is a form of slavery; the woman is the man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience.”

    I don’t think Muslims have to be married to control women.

  • John

    The phenomena described in the above article is also apparent on this web site when criticisms of certain ethnic minorities, even when absolutely factual and verifiable, is disallowed.

  • serious123

    Maybe there is a reason administrators have increased at a greater rate than faculty. In many instances administrators have been the ones to keep tuition rates down, e.g. by hiring part time teachers at $1200 per class while tenured professors are making $180,000 year for doing squat. It takes a lot of admin time to process and hire these part times but it sure keeps tuition rates down. Obviously the profs are outraged at their little scam coming to an end. So do not get too upset until both sides of the story are heard on this particular point.

  • PouponMarks

    The Soviets had Commissars to make sure everyone had the correct political attitude and expressed same. These people are Communists/Marxists and want to take us to that system and culture. Why are they employed and able to effect this?

  • better_times

    One comment identifies the location of this desecration & places the time in 2012: “This is the Commonwealth War Memorial Cemetery (WWII Allied Troops) in Benghazi, Libya. The f**king mu_zzies did this because of the Qu_oran burning in Af_gha_nistan.
    At least Ghaddafi honored the cemetery…”

  • Jon

    This form of censorship only applies to white people because we are the ones getting censored. I do not see colleges and Universities changing anytime soon because the take over of them is already complete.