Tag Archives: culture

Doublespeak

Posted on by
Reply

MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth, the school’s Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans say they’re doing away with the DEI commitment the school had been requiring of prospective employees as a hiring criterion. Through a university “spokesperson,” they told the New York Post,

Requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT[.]

Kornbluth expanded on that.

…compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression…they don’t work.

And more of her expansion:

We can build an inclusive environment in many ways….

There’s the doublespeak with which we’re so used to coming from the mouths of the Left. Kornbluth and her MIT management team will continue their DEI hiring criteria; they just won’t be up front about them regarding loyalty pledges.

Teachers Union Audacity

Posted on by
Reply

The Chicago Teachers Union wants a new contract. Among other things, CTU President Stacy Davis Gates wants salary increases of 9% per year over the next five years, through 2028. That would bring these teachers’ salaries to $144,620 per year.

Ordinary residents’ current income is $65,250 at the 50th percentile and $143,550 at the 90th percentile.

These top 10%-er wannabes aren’t producing commensurate with their current incomes, though.

…only 21% of the city’s eighth graders being proficient readers, according to the last Nation’s Report Card….

Gates again [elision in the original]:

It will cost $50 billion and three cents…. Yes it will, and so what, that’s audacity.

No, that’s teachers union greed. But since it’s negotiating with itself—formally they’ll be negotiating with Chicago’s government—it’ll get all of what it’s demanding.

A Coward’s Copout

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the Los Angeles police response to the disruptions and outright riot on the UCLA campus, there was this bit of attempted deflection:

Some universities and officials have blamed outsiders for coming to schools to escalate the protests.

This is a coward’s copout. It’s true enough that some outsiders are involved and fomenting some of the agitation. However, the students are voluntarily choosing to be agitated and choosing, on their own initiative, to participate in the pro-terrorist support, the antisemitic bigotry, the vandalism, the explicit threats of violence that are at the core of the disruptions.

The presence of outsiders in no way absolves these students of their participation in these…disruptions…and in no way mitigates their responsibility for their choices and actions.

A Statement of Responsibility…and of Consequences

Posted on by
Reply

‘Way back in 1969, the University of Notre Dame’s then-President Father Ted Hesburgh had this to say about the consequences of student disruptions [emphasis in the original]:

Now comes my duty of stating, clearly and unequivocally, what happens if…. Anyone or any group that substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist…. If they do not within that time period cease and desist, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce these will be suspended from this community as not understanding what this community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace on private property and treated accordingly by the law.
After notification of suspension, or trespass in the case of non-community members, if there is not within five minutes a movement to cease and desist, students will be notified of expulsion from this community and the law will deal with them as non-students.
There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere.

It must be noted that Hesburgh’s consequences are just as applicable to today’s crop of school professors who participate in such disruptions.

It’s too bad that today’s school administrators lack Father Hesburgh’s clarity and moral courage in executing the duties attached to school administration.

Yet Another Example…

Posted on by
Reply

…of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s disregard for our Constitution. This one comes from the supposedly independent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Biden’s Executive Branch (we know what the statute says; we also know who appoints EEOC commissioners). The EEOC’s latest rule

elevates gender identity as a protected class under discrimination laws like race, sex, and religion.
Prohibited harassment includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering) or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity,” the new regulatory document declared.

This is the Federal government attempting to dictate to Americans operating private enterprises what they must say. This is a direct contradiction of our Constitution’s 1st Amendment requirement that Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…. Of course, this limit applies to the Executive Branch, also.

Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R, NY) emphasized the Biden administration’s hypocrisy in her own response to this…overreach:

They can’t tell you [that] you have to say the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the flag. And so forcing someone to actually use pronouns that they don’t choose to use, and then holding your employer liable, to me, is going to have First Amendment problems.

It’s also a contradiction of our Constitution’s 10th Amendment which is even clearer:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In our Constitution there are no powers conferred on the Federal government authorizing it to compel particular speech. Indeed, compelling speech is the same as abridging speech, since forced words take the place of barred words.

And none of this even begins to approach the idiocy of setting gender ideology above the facts of biology.