There is a new controversy at Claremont McKenna College in California after the disclosure of a list by the activist group CMCers of Color of people who were viewed as insufficiently supportive or even questioning of protests over racism. Various minority students and teachers were listed as “shady person[s] of color” in a document that demanded various changes from the removal of the college dean to the creation of “safe spaces” for minorities. Critics have charged that such list of minority students engaged in protests would have produced calls for expulsions and investigations. I think that there is a danger of overblowing such an incident but there is a legitimate concern over differential treatment in such controversies that we have previously discussed.
There have been protests over alleged racism at the college this year. One version of the list of demands however included the list of “SPOCs” — Shady Persons of Color. The names were arranged as members of a royal court: King, Queen, Prince, “Ignorant” and Court Jester. The “King” SPOC was Brandon Gonzalez, the assistant dean of admissions, and the “Queen” SPOC was Hannah Oh — the editor-in-chief of the Claremont Independent, the campus paper. Oh merely criticized the protesters’ tactics in an op-ed.
One student newspaper said that the term “SPOC” has been used on campus for some time to ostracize minority students critical of the protests. Indeed, the newspaper quoted students who said that “Pomona’s new Latinx club was actually planning on creating a ‘SPOC calling-out’ committee” to target Latino students who were viewed as critical or unsupportive.
The question is what standard to apply to such incidents. Would Claremont have remained silent if the list was of “persons of color” who were seen protesting racism? What should be the response of the school to such lists in your view?
Jill, they are not dedicated to freedom. They are dedicated to an authoritarian state that they control to force Ideological conformity.
I get paid £85 every hour from online jobs. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my friend HM is earning £9k /monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website..U3…..
——— http://WWW.Review80.COM
I find it interesting that a supposed group dedicated to freedom takes a page out of the book of the surveillance state. Persons of interest? Suspicions? Taking down their information? I see no reason for this type of action. I think making a list is itself creepy and the fact that the listed students are given a nasty name shows that this isn’t about “knowing your enemy”, it’s about going after people who won’t conform.
While this group has every right to engage in this really fascist behavior I’m going to exercise my free speech to condemn them. They have no idea what creating “safe” space is. They just obliterated “safe” space for their supposed “enemies”. Way to go freedom fighters!!!!
Jeesh, is the NSA recruiting these jerks? If not, I’ve got a list of potential recruits for them!
Jill – this is a Saul Alinsky tactic.
“minors” was supposed to be “minorities.” Darn auto correct.
The response needs to be fair and equal.
Minority conservatives are well used to the double standard, and racist taunts thrown at them by other minors when they don’t toe the line and subscribe to the Democrat Party. Sound familiar? If you’re African American, and you don’t obediently follow Democratic beliefs, you will endure racist taunts and be ostracized. Same thing with women. “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women”, unless those women are conservative.
We should encourage free thinking, independent thought, and different opinions. With all our foremothers went through during the Suffrage Movement, women should be pleased that we now can speak our minds and disagree on politics. With all the slave endured, the African American community should celebrate that they now have diverse opinions. No one should EVER try to force an African American to follow any opinion, believe, or political party. The very thought should be anathema.
But that’s not the reality in the Democratic Party, is it? Moderates see this divide, but the ultra Left gleefully encourages behavior that they would absolutely howl about if the GOP tried to force minorities to their party.
Where did they get the list SPLC? They already keep a list of white people with bad racist and sexist etc type ideas, bad muslims, bad flag wavers and anti homos, bad nativists, bad republicans, bad christians bad catholics and why not throw in bad black people too? Because SPLC tells us who is a hater and who isnt. Hate is bad, unless you are hating who SPLC tells you too.
Witch hunts never cease.
“Can’t bust a hero if that person is not in fact a hero.”
Of course you can. That’s part of the fallacy. Might want to read up on it.
Agua deOro
“Rousseau’s philosophy was one of the single greatest advances in man’s moral thinking.”
Historian Paul Johnson’s book “Intellectuals” exposed Rousseau as an habitual liar who exploited those around him shamelessly.
He was ” vain, egotistical and quarrelsome” and his ingratitude and boorish behavior were of epic proportions; ” he was the first intellectual systematically to exploit the guilt of the privileged. And he did it, moreover, in an entirely new way, by the systematic cult of rudeness. ” “He admitted he was ‘uncouth, unpleasant and rude on principle. ….”I do not care twopence for your courtiers. I am a barbarian.’ Or again: ‘I have things in my heart which absolve me from being good-mannered.’”
His writings were full of deliberate lies. “It gradually emerges that no statement in the Confessions can be trusted if unsupported by external evidence. Indeed it is hard not to agree with one of Rousseau’s most comprehensive modern critics, J.H. Huizinga, that the insistent claims of the Confessions to truth
and honesty make its distortions and falsehoods peculiarly disgraceful: ‘The more attentively one reads and re-reads, the deeper one delves into this work, the more layers of ignominy become apparent.’‘
He was described by Diderot as “deceitful, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical, and full of malice.”
He saw himself as a expert on the upbringing and education of children although he abandoned all his own children.
He treated his foster-mother and benefactress, Madame de Warens terribly.
“She had rescued him from destitution no less than four times, but when he later prospered and she became indigent, he did little for her. By his own account he sent her ‘a little’ money when he inherited the family fortune in the 1740s, but refused to send more as it would simply have been taken by the ‘rascals’ who surrounded her.39 This was an excuse. Her later pleas to him for help went unanswered. She spent her last two years bedridden and her death, in 1761, may have been from malnutrition.”
Among other hobbies he enjoyed exposing himself to women and masochistic sex.
Quite the hero you admire.
Mr. Fleming, You said I was Hero-Busting. Can’t bust a hero if that person is not in fact a hero. You slipped up. Check.
Norm Ornstein, of the AEI, (that’s the American Enterprise Institute, Nick, a right wing think-tank funded by the Koch Bros) was right about you guys when he said that you deny fact-based evidence and deny the legitimacy of opposing views. That’s why Trump would still get your vote if he shot someone on Fifth Ave. Even Trump is mocking the rightwing.
Agua deOro – in your futile attempt to defend Hillary you have yet to supply any fact based evidence. BTW, Bernie won in West Virginia yesterday. Hillary is not a closer.
Me: “I’m not a Randian.”
Agua deOro: “So you admit that Ayn Rand is your hero.”
Logical fallacy: Mala fides.
Keep up the good work.
Right on cue. LOL!
Mr. Spinneli, I’m rather new to this thread, yet you express your opinion with such conviction that I wonder what else you’re wrong about. Like PC (What PC?).
And any talk of progress policy hurting Hillary. At this point, only shooting someone on Fifth Ave can hurt her chances.
Olly, Can’t handle the truth. And had you asked anyone here, I’m sure they would have warned you about those marketing posts. Hope you didn’t get taken for much.
Mr. Schulte, She describes Hickman as the ‘Ideal Man” in her writings. Otherwise, yeh, there’s no way of knowing who she was referring to.
Mr. Fleming, So you admit that Ayn Rand is your hero. Plus, Rousseau’s philosophy was one of the single greatest advances in man’s moral thinking.
The rightwing is the party of enslavement. Enjoy the Trumpery, beware the Trump slump.
Agua deOro – Rand talks about using parts of Hickman as the basis of a character in a short story in 1926. It is part of her journal. She is 23 years old and has never published anything. Now it is clear that Hickman is a sociopath, but so are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is a sociopath with the same traits she admired in Hickman. She probably would have admired Bill and Hillary if she were 23 and they were around.
All of this insane PC and leftist fascism hurts Hillary and helps Trump.
Aqua is an old timer w/ an obsessive hatred of Ayn Rand and anyone not on the far left. He is not worth your time folks. He’ll go away.
Occasionally “The Onion” captures a bit of life perfectly:
“College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea …
Students, Faculty Invited To Freely Express Single Viewpoint”
http://www.theonion.com/article/college-encourages-lively-exchange-of-idea-38496