We recently discussed the allegations of a conservative college newspaper at Dartmouth that “Black Lives Matter” protesters burst into the Baker-Berry Library on the university’s campus in Hanover, New Hampshire and yelled racial epithets and prevented students from studying. The incident was partially caught on videotape and showed protesters abusing students. At the time, I questioned why the university seemed so silent and reticent about allegations of racist statements and even physical threats reported by other students. According to some reports, the university has now acted . . . to apologize to the students who burst into the library, prevented other students from studying, and allegedly yelled racial epithets.
The Dartmouth reports that the university has taken no action because no one has filed a criminal complaint. On its face, this is odd since there is a videotape of the disruptive protest and there are Dartmouth students being quoted as saying that they were confronted with protesters chanted phrases such as “F**k you, you filthy white f**ks!” “F**k you and your comfort!” and “F**k you, you racist shits!” If such reports existed of student yelling racist remarks about black students, would the university wait for a criminal charge to investigate?
Instead, The Dartmouth says that Vice provost for student affairs Inge-Lise Ameer “apologized to students who engaged in the protest for the negative responses and media coverage that they have received.” I have not been able to find any statement from Ameer denouncing the protesters who abused Dartmouth students or a call to determine if these protesters hurled racist insults at students. Indeed, I have not seen any such statement from the school as a whole or from President Philip Hanlon.
Ameer is quoted as saying that “There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not being very nice” and dismissed the incident as nothing more than a “peaceful meeting” turned “political protest.” It is hard to imagine the same response had the alleged racial epithets and the blocking of students were directed at minorities at the school.
Ameer was just appointed this year and is not quoted as expressing any criticism of the protesters in their actions toward other students who simply wanted to study.
There is a rising concern of the double standard that is taking hold on our campuses, a concern that I share. We have been following the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women. Thrin Short, 16, and her sister Joan, 21, filed complaints and Miller-Young was charged with criminal conduct including Theft From Person; Battery; and Vandalism. Miller-Young was convicted and sentenced in August. Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. She has kept her job when many have asked if battery committed by a male professor against pro-choice advocates in the same circumstance would have rallied the university and resulted in the same approach.
Likewise, we have discussed racist remarks published by academics that have been dismissed by universities while statements viewed as discriminatory toward minorities have led to calls of termination. Again, there is a concern of the standard being applied.
This conflict was readily apparent in a confrontation where a faculty member at Yale was surrounded by hostile students because he merely questioned the campaign to stop students from wearing a variety of Halloween costumes and voiced the countervailing view of free speech. The controversy was triggered by his wife. In response to a campaign against wearing “culturally unaware and insensitive” costumes, Erika Christakis, a faculty member and an administrator at a student residence, wrote an email to students living in her residence hall about some students who felt “frustrated” by the official advice on Halloween costumes. She asked “Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”
That seems a legitimate point to raise but the response at Yale was to call for her to be fired. Her husband was then surrounded while walking across campus. Nicholas Christakis, a faculty member who works in the same residential college, faced a large group of students demanding that he apologize. He remains calm and reasoned while students tell him to shut up and yell at him in this videotape:
I find the abusive conduct of the student, particularly the woman at the center of the video, to be shocking and antithetical to the academic environment. Yet, again, there has been virtually no condemnation of such behavior. Peter Salovey, the president of Yale, met with students and expressed how “deeply troubled” he was in speaking with students of color who were “in great distress.” I certainly understand that concern but how about the faculty members who are facing attacks and demands that they be silent or resign or be fired?
The response at Dartmouth is only the latest in this troubling trend. When a college or university remains silent in the face of such allegations (including racial epithets and trapping students), we are facing a serious crisis in our schools. I can understand if the school wants to investigate the allegations. However, it appears that the school has confined its attention to whether criminal charges have been brought — a focus not seen at schools like Missouri in forcing the resignation of the President in the face of allegations of racial epithets directed at black students. It would seem sufficient that your campus newspaper has interviewed students who say that they were prevented from studying, calls racist names, and in some cases not allowed to leave.
There is a growing intolerance and orthodoxy that is taking hold on our campuses. Faculty are chilled by scenes like the one at Yale where faculty are told to “be quiet” and accept public shaming for questioning certain policies or practices. We need to look at these conflicts before we lose essential elements of free speech, civility, and academic freedom that have long been the foundation for our academic institutions.
UPDATE:
The college republicans have sent the following letter to the University President:
An Open Letter to President Hanlon and the Trustees of Dartmouth CollegeIt is with great sadness and the utmost disappointment that we find ourselves having to write this letter. As the Dartmouth College Republicans, we often feel discriminated against by the administration and unwelcome on this campus. As conservative students, we have often felt marginalized in this community. In light of an especially toxic campus environment, a seriously concerning incident has come to our attention: at a recent public event held on the evening of Monday, November 16, Vice Provost Inge-Lise Ameer stated, “There’s a whole conservative world out there that’s not very nice.” Furthermore, students at that meeting repeatedly violated Dartmouth’s Principle of Community by referring to conservatives by slurs such as “f***ing racists,” which Ameer did little to stop.Unfortunately, her recent comments and actions are only the latest manifestation of a campus culture that dismisses conservative voices. We are now at the point where the vast majority of conservative students on campus do not feel comfortable expressing their views. Even selfidentification as a conservative can invite serious backlash. Many of us have been called bigoted, racist, and homophobic — among other epithets — for simply stating our opinions. Thus, it is especially concerning that a senior administrator would casually encourage a culture of prejudice against conservatives on this campus.At the same public event, Vice Provost Ameer also stated, “If you’re feeling unsafe and you’re not feeling like you are getting responded to then contact me directly and we will deal with it because that is not right.” We feel unsafe, and we feel that we are not being responded to. The same resources made available to the Black Lives Matter protesters, including regular meetings with senior administrators, should be made available to conservative students on campus. An open and polite dialogue is essential to any college campus. It is difficult enough to be a conservative on any college campus, and it is simply unacceptable that any administrator would reinforce such a hostile climate.We urge Vice Provost Ameer to condemn the actions and words of protesters and to send an open and public apology to all of campus, retracting her previous statements on conservatives and reaffirming the need to respect conservative students and their opinions.
His “purported” father may have become a citizen in 2005, but, do you know, with any degree of certainty, that he is and/or was his father? We know, for a fact, that his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth. Easily documented. Establishment of paternity is quite another issue. After all, Cruz has openly admitted that his purported father left the family for some period of time before eventually returning. Not unreasonable to insinuate that there may have been some marital discord and a question regarding paternity.
I get it. Rules are rules. No argument from me, only some curiosity. Are you as concerned that we’ve had a two-term, Nigerian-born, President and traitor in the White House?
Getting tired of smug college professors and crazy students gone wild?
Meet Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, net worth is about $38 billion.
Abraham Lincoln on “multiculturalism” –
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
“Campus unrest and inner city riots and looting produced Richard Nixon as President in 1968. The most Nixon like candidate I see is Cruz. Just sayn’.”
If I may, I’d like to briefly touch on these two subjects separately.
Richard Nixon actually won the Presidency in 1960. Joe Kennedy and his Mob colleagues stole the election for his son John. The Kennedy (Camelot) and Johnson administrations should have never occurred. The Mob wasn’t paid off the way it expected and the Shadow Government was treated very badly, in deed, at the Bay of Pigs so these two loosely affiliated entities, in a combined op, reneged on the deal – conducting a coup de etat by .30 caliber.
Ted Cruz is not eligible as a candidate for the Presidency because his father did not become a U.S. citizen until 2005. Cruz was born in 1970. Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” with 2 parents who were citizens at the time of his birth. The definition of “natural born citizen,” which the framers used, comes from Vattel’s Law of Nations, 1760, the legal text and reference of the era, which the American framers kept in their hip pockets, during the period when George Mason said “…the common law of England is not the law of these states” and “We can establish what government we please.” Chapter XlX, Section 212 states, “…born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Clearly, Cruz who had one parent as a citizen at the time of his birth, is merely a “citizen” and only eligible for Senate and Congress and inferior offices.
To wit,
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.
“Natural born citizen” is the requirement for President.
“Citizen” is the requirement for Congress and Senate.
“Natural born citizen” is born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens.
“Citizen” is born in the U.S. of one parent or naturalized.
The Washington/Jay Letter, 1786, raised the requirement for the presidency to
“natural born citizen” from “citizen” as a “strong check” against foreign
allegiances by the “Commander In Chief.”
************************************************************************************************
Section 1, Article II, U.S. Constitution
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.”
*******************************************************************************************
“Law of Nations”
Chapter XlX, Section 212
“…born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights.”
***********************************************************************************************
Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending
him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations
Another founder of our nation and framer of our Constitution, Benjamin
Franklin, was also quite familiar and well versed with the writings of
Vattel. He had his own personal copy prior to the advent of the Revolution.
And in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas an editor and journalist in the
Netherlands and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest
edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that
his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the
Continental Congress meeting in 1775. Dumas was the Editor for the newly
published 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations (in the original French)
in the Netherlands. Franklin and most of the founders were fluent in French
which was the diplomatic language of that time. Dumas also made comments in
his writings to Franklin about Vattel’s enlightened writings and vision for
a new form of government for a nation where the people were sovereign and
the unique opportunity for its application to the affairs in America in the
colonies splitting from Great Britain. The words found in our Declaration of
Independence mentioning the “Laws of Nature” and the phrase
mentioning unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”
are right out of Volume 1 of Vattel. As are the words of seeking a more perfect
union in the Preamble of our Constitution were also inspired by the
teachings and writings of Vattel who wrote that government should always be
striving to perfect itself to better serve the people. Thus it is quite
evident that the founders read and used Vattel extensively. Here is a
reprint of the letter from Franklin to Dumas thanking him for sending the
books.
***************************************************************************************************
George Mason –
“The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
“We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than
perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties
and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis.
We can establish what government we please.”
__________
THURSDAY, June 19, 1788.
George Mason –
“…Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to
the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It
is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred
and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In
that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had,
for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their
persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The
common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the
immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a
more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have
it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken,
firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But
by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great
government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such
thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common
law of these states.”
As an outsider from another Planet it is odd to see the dispute between these humans. Why does “race” matter. Someday they will have the same alma mater yet they will be at odds. I heard that there used to be one race only colleges in America– white only, or black only. Is it going back to that? Jim Crow wants to know. Jim is a guy who drinks in the bar that I attend in New Orleans.
Speaking of race, it is very interesting to note that the most predominant venue for racism is our prisons, and it is self inflicted.
The prisoners segregate themselves into gangs based on race – Chicanos, Caucasians, African Americans, and Native Americans, for the most part. If they do not join their own race gang, then that gang will punish them severely for not being “loyal.” Then, after spending years and years in this racially self segregated system, they get released into the world.
Jim22:
“To me, there is something quite ironic (or moronic) about a cause that has a core principle that they do not feel safe, and their method of displaying this is to make other innocent students feel unsafe. Seems these misguided individuals need to take a logic class.” You are right. This reminds me of the riots that follow protests against police brutality. I’ve always felt that these were just people who wanted to loot and burn, and were happy for an excuse. They didn’t want to change anything for the better, as obviously looting and burning down businesses are not going to improve the local economy or jobs outlook. Perhaps these aggressive, bullying protestors are just looking for a good time. They’re bullies, and they think it’s fun to harass people, and this is the ideal excuse. Because, obviously they’re not logical (clearly they do feel safe if they feel secure in physically threatening other people on campus), or ethical (as they are openly racist). They’re just bullies and this is their excuse.
So, are there any questions now that our education system has been completely taken over by Liberals who apply a bold double standard to racism? Are totally intolerant of conservative viewpoints? Excuse and encourage racism and harassment against whites? Allow their professor of women’s studies to assault and silence young women speaking their opinion? Allow a communications professor to ask for “muscle” to physically assault or remove a journalist covering a protest on campus?
Professor Turley is correct. If these protestors burst into the library, hurled racial epithets like the “n” word at the African American students, and prevented them from studying, there would be riots, protests, sobbing, concerts, new songs, viral videos, T-shirts, and lots of politics.
If it’s not OK when one race does it, it’s not OK for any race to do so.
This is our fault because we have not taken the trouble to check them. Their degrees still have cache, so parents overlook these failings. If parents voted with their dollars, the universities would quit this behavior overnight.
Paul, I mentioned earlier, Nixon being elected when the “silent majority” spoke in the voting booth. Now, I am not a Nixon fan. Up until this current President, I considered Nixon the most lawless President in my lifetime[I go back to Truman]. There are MANY level headed, hard working, serious minded students and young people. They don’t speak up on campus because they are vilified. But, they will graduate and they will be the successful people. These bozos are “peaking,” as it were, in college. They’ll be govt. workers and disability recipients when they become adults.
Wow, these are our next generation, soon to be peers and leaders. So sad.
Isaac, We have found a topic on which we are in 100% agreement. I’ll bookmark it.
Lyrics:
Sur le pont d’Avignon l’on y danse
l’on y danse
Sur le pont d’Avignon l’on y danse tout en rond.
1. . . . Les beaux messieurs font comme ci
et pui encore comme ca.
2. . . . Les belles dam’s font comme ci . . .
3. . . . Et les soldats font comme ci . . .
4. . . . Les cordonniers font comme ci . . .
S. . . . Les blanchisseurs font comme ci . . .
6. . . . Les musiciens font comme ci . . .
Back when I was a human in a prior life in Ferguson Junior High School, I took French class from Mrs. Finney. It has been 53 years. The lyrics sort of came to me so I looked them up on Google. I know that this is off topic but it is relevant. The BLM movement is not the reverse of the KKK movement. The relevant thing is the use of initials to promulgate a racial program which is directed against another race. BLM will go the way of KKK– went in dumb, come out dumb too. But if the KKK comes back it will be because of the BLM.
When the girl started screaming and dropped her backpack and took a step forward, in the ghetto that would have got her a fast pimp-slap. The weak-handed cracker kept his cool though, since he’s working for the Capitalist Overlords and is in charge of coddling these unruly children.
Colonel Kurtz knows how to handle all these problems. Liberalism is dying fast! It was always just a false ideology for capitalism and now that the white population has its thumb in the screws, expect the “fabric of society” to start coming apart at the seams.
So… I guess they won’t be tapped for Skull & Bones..
Lol! That was Rick, not DBQ.
Apologies.
DBQ
One nut in a nut distribution center.
Lol!
More like part of a cluster¥^€k.
These are EXPENSIVE colleges. Who is paying for the tuition, room, board, supplies for these students? I am going to hazard that most of the Black Lives Matter twits are subsidized and are getting free rides either through Affirmative Action or other racially motivated scholarships. Some as we know are actually from extremely wealthy backgrounds.
Here is the deal. When you get something for free, something that you personally have not earned by good grades, hard work….or which has been given to you by your parent’s hard work. ….you do not value that which has been gifted to you. (BTW: where are the parent’s who are sacrificing their own financial welfare to put these students through school? Are they NOT incensed at this disruption to their children’s education? I would be all over this if it were my kid being harassed in the library. ALL OVER IT!)
If you don’t pay for it or work for it, it doesn’t have the intrinsic value that it should have. That goes with education, cars, Iphones and everything else in life. You didn’t earn it so you don’t value it or take care of it. Why not. Someone is going to give you more.
They think they are entitled and imagine that they are discriminated against. They don’t KNOW real discrimination. I’m old enough to remember the segregated South in my childhood. Ask the people who were adults then, if they think that these poor put upon students in elite expensive colleges are being discriminated against. They would laugh, if it weren’t so sad.
Greg @ 8:21 makes a good point.
1970, I’m attending college in San Francisco in the middle of the hippie era and the height of the Vietnam protests. Carrying a full academic load AND working a 40 hour a week schedule so that I can afford to live and eat. At that time, I worked an evening shift at Ma Bell because it paid time and half. Of course, I didn’t have much of a life because I was working, went home to bed, got up went to school for about 6 hours, went home took a nap, studied, went to work, and had not much time to do frivolous things.
So, I’m on my way to a class that I needed and there was a test that day, and here are all the dirt bag, useless protesters blocking my way. I’m in a hurry….damn it! get out of my way. I made it to the class and on the way out ….still more protesters… GET OUT OF MY WAY…I’m going to be late for work. Many of those protesting the Vietnam War, or whatever they were protesting, didn’t even go to the college, yet they have no problem with disrupting my education, making me late for work, missing the bus. It was all about THEM and their ideology. Screw everyone else…..right? So, then. This will be my attitude from now on. Screw them.
This is the same thing going on now, and I have no patience for these self entitled, selfish, fools.
Life is going to rise up and smack them in the face someday. I want to see them face some real discrimination so they can wake up to just how stupid they are now. I wish I could see their shocked faces when they realize that 1. they are not entitled and 2. no one cares about your feelings and 3. what they wasted and threw away in their youth.
issacbasonkavichi
Now it has become obvious that Ameer has outed herself as inept and/or a coward.
She is neither of these things. She’s a far left political / social activist using her position to foster the crazed antics of other far left political and social activists. She has this job not despite being a far left activist but rather because she is a far left activist. President Hanlon also misstated reality in much the same way as Ameer demonstrating she isn’t some lone nut in the forest. She’s one nut in a nut distribution center.
Her only ineptitude was allowing those outside the academy a clear glimpse into their priorities.
How interesting that the onus has been placed upon the students–you know, the ones who were confronted, surrounded by barbarians, intimidated, threatened, disrupted during quiet study, cursed at and called every racist and hateful name? Yes, those same students. They are now being called upon to be the ones that are responsible, in that no wrong could’ve possibly been committed unless there was an official complaint filed, generating a police report. Ah, yes, the old proof that no harm occurred is found in the absence of an official police report. The video be damned. No need to rely upon that. Imagine, this is what passes as a logical and cogent explanation in the hallowed halls of Dartmouth. Who in his and/or her right mind would willingly expose himself and/or herself to the expected onslaught of threats from these beasts and possible physical harm which would be the result of filing such a complaint? No one, that’s who, and the school knows that. Knows it quite well. The condemnation, however, shouldn’t be limited to just a few at the top. Ameer’s head should roll, but there are layers of blame here. She doesn’t act in a vacuum. Her behavior is either implicitly or explicitly condoned by those to whom she reports. The benefactors and contributors have a voice–they could demand action. I assume that they will remain cowering, silently–frightened of being painted as intolerant of blacks. And, so it goes.
The university admin are cowards
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org