Campus Free Speech

Cornell University Students Vote Against Intellectual Diversity, on Grounds It Would Harm Diversity

The movement to convince college students they are victims of systemic oppression appears to be winning on all fronts.

|

Cornell
Alex Sergeev

The dominant campus narrative these days is that left-leaning students make themselves out to be victims, and the evidence suggests this concern is warranted.

But what about conservative students? They are, after all, a minority group at elite college campuses, and often complain (rightly, in some cases) that their institutions are actively hostile toward their views and activities.

A recent op-ed in The New York Times, written by Aaron Hanlon—a former conservative student who became a liberal English professor at Colby College—warns the campus right-of-center that they are doing themselves a disservice by pretending to be victims.

"What I'm getting at is that I was never a victim," writes Hanlon. "My message to conservative students is that neither are you. The leaders and pundits who say otherwise are doing you a disservice. Sure, they're getting a lot of clicks and selling ads by framing your struggle as one of an embattled minority silenced by the overbearing liberalism of academia, but that false equivalence is not helping you prepare for the wider world."

More on Hanlon's point in a minute.

First, let me draw your attention to some recent news out of Cornell University, where the Student Assembly considered a resolution that would call for a committee to look into the matter of whether the campus lacks ideological diversity. The resolution cites the fact that 96 percent of Cornell faculty political donations are given to left-of-center candidates and causes as evidence of a problem.

Note that the resolution did not actually call for some kind of intellectual-diversity-affirmative-action, which would likely be ill-conceived and harm the university's ability to make good hiring decisions. Nor would the resolution have created an actual committee. It merely calls on the faculty to consider creating a committee, in order to study the issue of ideological diversity at Cornell.

"Common sense and research indicate that it is students on the left who have the most to gain from [exposure to different ideas]," New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt told The College Fix, in support of the resolution, "and the most to lose from spending four formative years in a politically homogeneous institution."

The resolution was defeated. The vote was tied 10-10, and SA's president dealt it the killing blow.

A conservative student who attended the meeting told The Cornell Review that the chief complaints about the resolution were this:

(1) conservatives have not been historically oppressed as have other groups; (2) spending resources on intellectual diversity diverts resources from promoting other forms of diversity; and (3) conservative students are free to speak out in class if they find something disagreeable or wish to argue their own point of view.

Point one is probably true, though it certainly depends: I'd imagine that some of the most conservative students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural backgrounds. And point three is also true, though some conservatives evidently feel that their professors will retaliate against them if they speak up (though they could be wrong about this—feelings are not facts).

But point two seems suspect, unless you believe that any and all attention being paid to intellectual diversity would be better spent on some other kind of diversity. It certainly sounds like liberal students are looking out for their own narrow ideological self-interest: no consideration of intellectual diversity, since said considerations could only decrease the overall representation of liberal orthodoxy on campus.

To return to Hanlon, is it true that conservative students are wrong to see themselves "as victims of ideological oppression," as he suggests? It's not as clear to me. They're not disadvantaged in life in general, perhaps. But they do face certain barriers on certain campuses.

That said, Hanlon is right to bemoan the rise of a "cottage industry of outrage" related to conservatives on college campuses. Whether or not their frustration stemmed from legitimate grievance, the conservative student movement is increasingly, and loudly, playing the victim—with an energy as palpable as the left's. Too many right-leaning student groups have lost interest in inviting speakers who are knowledgeable about philosophy and policy: they would rather score easy outrage points with provocateurs.

I suspect that some of this is not just a reaction to the left's hysterics, but rather, a convergence. Many of the forces that incentivize leftists to seek victim status—Title IX guidance, administrative bloat, changing ideas about safety in the K-12 system, helicopter parenting, concept creep—apply equally to rightist students.

This is all quite frustrating for those of us who want college campuses to be open to more ideas and free of hyperbolic complaints from students about how miserable and marginalized they are. But the movement to convince college students they are victims of systemic oppression appears to be winning on all fronts.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Trump Should Reject Calls for a Carbon Tax

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My first semester in a JC over a decade ago, actually my first day, my history teacher did nothing but rant about Republicans, said he would not be objective (basically write what I believe in).

    I had to check the actual article, but “it’s OK to be Republican, but it’s Hot in Hell”

    I did get a segment on Fox News for it. Wasn’t officially retaliated by the school, but that was the only class I didn’t get an A in that semester.

    1. So not playing the victim, but I took 13 classes my first year in college (2 summer, 1 winter, 5 fall and spring), and the only two non-A’s I got were in History, despite running circles around them and knowing more about History then those two little Marxists ever could, but because I refused to agree with the bullshit that is Howard Zinn.

      1. Goof for you! (no sarcasm.)

  2. (1) conservatives have not been historically oppressed as have other groups; (2) spending resources on intellectual diversity diverts resources from promoting other forms of diversity; and (3) conservative students are free to speak out in class if they find something disagreeable or wish to argue their own point of view.

    Point one is probably true, though it certainly depends: I’d imagine that some of the most conservative students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural backgrounds. And point three is also true, though some conservatives evidently feel that their professors will retaliate against them if they speak up (though they could be wrong about this?feelings are not facts).

    But point two seems suspect, unless you believe that any and all attention being paid to intellectual diversity would be better spent on some other kind of diversity. It certainly sounds like liberal students are looking out for their own narrow ideological self-interest: no consideration of intellectual diversity, since said considerations could only decrease the overall representation of liberal orthodoxy on campus.

    Point (1) also applies to Mexicans, Muslims, and other groups that were never here before. Suddenly this matters?
    Point (2) can be applied to every single group, and so boils to just “FYTW”.
    Point (3) is stupid. What if there are no conservative students to provide this service? Then liberals have no opportunity to bask in diverse ideas.

  3. Well, at first blush, I can’t find the lightning rod in this one. Let’s see what my fellow commenters think.

    1. Not me, no sir. I’ve learned that it is bad form to criticize the writers, no matter what.

      1. Debate the subject first, and then, once it’s settled, go after the author.

        1. I thought it was:
          1. Criticize the author
          2. Debate the subject
          3. Read the article.

          1. More like:
            1. Sift through the article to find the one sentence you don’t like.
            2. Shit on Robby.
            3. Call anyone who doesn’t shit on Robby a moron.

            1. I thought it was…

              !. Watch the flabby white knights crying in through a wail of salty ham tears.

              2. Revel in their sad misery

              3. Post something making fun of them.

              1. 1) Check the picture, see if there’s any tits or ass.

                2) If there are,

                A) (And they are vaguely nice)…. Drool and say you’ve got a would-eeee….

                B) (If they’re ugly)… Make sick jokes about rather humping animals or corpses

                3) No tits or ass? Make jokes about farts, boogers, poop, or Donald Trumpler (I know the last one is redundant on the first few).

  4. “But what about conservative students? They are, after all, a minority group at elite college campuses, and often complain (rightly, in some cases) that their institutions are actively hostile toward their views and activities.”

    But god forbid they record evidence of this hostility and expose it, that would absolutely be beyond the pale right Robbie?

  5. And point three is also true, though some conservatives evidently feel that their professors will retaliate against them if they speak up (though they could be wrong about this?feelings are not facts).

    Technically true, but the argument seems to be implying that liberal students do not have that right, which is false.

    1. The argument is not technically true. If students feel they can’t speak freely for fear of retaliation by professors, their professors have failed to create an open educational environment. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong to think that. The perception creates the same chilling effect on speech regardless of reality. And if that perception exists, since they are the ones with the authority to retaliate, it is incumbent upon the professors to dispel it, not the students to ignore it and hope for the best.

      1. If students feel they can’t speak freely for fear of retaliation by professors

        Even Robby acknowledged that feelings are not facts.

        1. Perception does not always accurately reflect reality. Perceptions do, however, have effects. If the students feel that they cannot speak for fear of retaliation, then they won’t speak. It doesn’t matter whether that is really true or not, the effect is the same in either case.

          So it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not. If people think it is, the effect on intellectual dialog is just as bad whether or not it is true. So the question is how do you fix that perception. Robby and Hanlon think the solution is to tell the conservative students to just shut up and take their word for it this isn’t true. Now, the conservative students are not the ones in the position to retaliate. The professors are in that position. So it is incumbent on the professors to make it clear to the conservative students they will not be retaliated against for speaking their mind.

          Think about it, what the hell kind of a professor allows a significant number of students in his class to fear being honest for fear of retaliation? And if they think that, don’t you think the professor needs to address it?

        2. And perceptions are facts themselves. The fact is that a lot of conservative students do not feel free to speak honestly in class for fear of retaliation from professors. That is a fact. Now, whether their perceptions accurately reflect what their professors really would do, is debatable. Only the professors can answer that. But that they believe that is a fact and that fact has very damaging effects on the quality of education and intellectual discourse going on on these campuses, regardless of whether their beliefs do reflect reality.

        3. Feelings are not necessarily accurate. They can however accurately reflect reality in some cases. Why are the conservatives wrong to think they will be retaliated against? How evidence does Robby offer that justifies dismissing their perceptions as invalid and untrue? None that I can see. These people think there is a hugely hostile environment for them. I don’t see how Robby is justified in dismissing their claim out of hand, which is what he does.

          1. John, spot on!

            The Trumpler has a (false) “feeling” that China is just about right now, going to blow up American cities with smuggled-in nukes… So he launches full-scale nuke war on China!

            “Mere feelings” (perceptions, whether grounded in reality, or not) have VERY real effects!!!

            1. “All feelings are valid”, say the proggies, so long as the feelings are proggy-oriented…

              Proggies will look at their intellectual enemies, say that the enemies “make them feel bad”, expect them to drop dead, and expect the administrators to pitch in and help the proggy side! Which is then waht often happens!

              And THAT is a YUUUUGE root of the problem, and Robby missed it!

  6. Hanlon reasons just like you would expect an English major to reason. Lets count the fallacies. First we have the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. Since Hanlon wasn’t a victim, he claims that no other conservatives could be victims. WRONG

    Then we get this mess of a paragraph

    Outside of college, most people don’t care about what you care about ? not because you’re a conservative but because you’re a person in a diverse world, ideologically and otherwise. The better you are at convincing people to care about what you care about, the more politically effective you will be. You know the world doesn’t love a victim.

    You don’t have to care about the same things as someone to care about them having the right to say it. So in the context of free speech, “most people don’t agree with you” isn’t a sensible response.

    And if the world hates a “victim”, then why isn’t Hanlon giving this message to the victim groups on the left as well?

    1. Then we have the classic strawman fallacy

      Exercising your voice is not forbidden, but it does take courage on a liberal campus. It won’t be easy and people will not always like you for it.

      No one is asking to be liked. They are asking not to be censored.

      Then we have a nice case of question begging

      Many conservative students denounced recent protests against the college tour of the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos as an attack on free speech. In all likelihood, those were protests against Mr. Yiannopoulos’s bullying and ridicule.

      Whether they had a right to shut down Milo is the entire question, which Hanlon proceeds to beg. Beyond that, the fact that Milo is rude or makes fun of people doesn’t deprive him of his right to speak.

      1. Then we have a nice case of question begging

        Many conservative students denounced recent protests against the college tour of the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos as an attack on free speech. In all likelihood, those were protests against Mr. Yiannopoulos’s bullying and ridicule.

        Whether they had a right to shut down Milo is the entire question, which Hanlon proceeds to beg. Beyond that, the fact that Milo is rude or makes fun of people doesn’t deprive him of his right to speak.

        Oh, the question(s) I assumed it was begging; Is F.I.R.E.’s data proprietary or secret? Is it that hard to look at everyone *except* Milo?

        It seemed very much like an English major looked at list, saw the same occurrence of someone’s name more than 5-10 times, decided ‘math is hard’ and went with the narrative he liked.

    2. Then there is this classic of circular logic

      Hostility to campus speakers will still come from the left. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education keeps a handy database of nationwide attempts to withdraw invitations to speakers, and 2016 was a record year. But almost a third of those attempts were directed at Mr. Yiannopoulos alone. That should be food for thought. Until you stop settling for what’s surely the satisfying release of Mr. Yiannopoulos’s deliberate and superficial antagonism, you can’t know whether it’s the actual conservatism that your fellow students have rejected.

      Until you start speaking in ways we will allow, you will have no right to speak.

      Hanlon is a moron and choose the editorial page of the NYT to self identify as such.

      1. I believe Hanlin is doing what lefties like to call ‘tone policing.’

  7. ?feelings are not facts

    Robby is a misogynistic hater? Who knew?

  8. Too many right-leaning student groups have lost interest in inviting speakers who are knowledgeable about philosophy and policy: they would rather score easy outrage points with provocateurs.

    The way I see it, they’re finally deciding to go the “two can play that game” route. But I could be wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if some actually flat out said so if asked.

    1. There is some of that. But there is also the fact that anyone from the right will be greeted with protest and outrage. If these baboons are going to show up to throw shit and disrupt the event anyway, why not invite someone who will throw it back?

    2. Frankly that’s one thing he said that I could agree with. Stop inviting people who are simply assholes and maybe invite some people who actually know a few things who will educate you and your class mates. They can invite whomever they wish, obviously, but I don’t see the point in inviting a guy to speak who doesn’t have anything of particular substance to say.

      1. There have been at least a few examples of protests against actual serious conservative intellectuals speaking on campus. Can’t remember where exactly.

        1. George Will has been protested down at a number of universities.

        2. Linda Chavez has been protested and had her events disrupted.

        3. Christina Hoff Sommers (who is a democrat actually) and Camille Paglia, and Janet Fiamengo. And any current or former republican elected official is as likely as not to be protested and/or disinvited.

          It’s more or less a myth that hard line progressives distinguish between bad conservatives/libertarians and good conservative/libertarians. It’s purely an abstract distinction made to make themselves seem open-minded. When push comes to shove their idea of a ‘good conservative’ is basically Hillary Clinton.

      2. Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a shit-throwing provocateur?

    3. That environment is the one the left wanted and created. While I think it’s kind of pathetic, I can’t really blame conservative or even libertarian students who figure it’s a sucker’s play to adhere to a genteel code of conduct. If throwing screaming tantrums is rewarded, then of course the other side will follow suit.

  9. Point one is probably true, though it certainly depends: I’d imagine that some of the most conservative students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural backgrounds.

    Right. Because one cannot be a minority of any stripe and a conservative. Nor can one be wealthy and a minority and a wealthy minority conservative is simply beyond any and all pales.

    Fuck you Frederick Douglas.
    Fuck you Harriet Tubman.
    Fuck you Clarence Thomas.
    Fuck you Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.
    Fuck you Ice-T.
    Fuck you James Earl Jones.
    Fuck you LL Cool J.
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

    1. Don’t forget Kanye!

  10. You were doing so good Robby, right up into the OMG conservative students invite Milo to speak and isn’t that the Worst!!

    More fucking equivocation, eh Robby.

    Fact is, until Milo can speak on campuses without lefty violence right wing students are being marginalized.

    I’d also like to point out how fucking ironic it is that universities take statements like “universities should hire X percent of conservatives” as horrifying examples of selecting sub-par candidates, but never ever see affirmative action working that way in other fields….

    1. I am still waiting for Robby to explain exactly what Milo has done to make him the worst. Does Robby have a problem with interracial sodomy?

      1. Maybe he just doesn’t like Milo? Does he really have to spell out the reasons for you?

        1. He clearly doesn’t like him. And yes he does. If he wants to make the claim, he should explain it and justify it just like any other claim he makes. It is called good argument.

        2. Except if he’s going to make his dislike a recurring theme in his writing and use it as a substantive point in his argument, it kind of makes sense that he would justify his claim if he wants us to take him as anything more important than the derelict yelling on the street corner.

          1. I guess Milo’s general behavior certainly isn’t enough on its own for anyone to dislike him.

            1. It might be that Milo’s general behavior is enough, however the point is that if an author plans to spell out that someone is horrible, they should be able to explain specific examples which support their view.

              It shouldn’t be up to the readers to research Milo; then try to discern what particular things Milo has said and/or done which might lead this author to dislike him. And then see how often those problems exist to see if it’s representational.

              Shorter version: the burden of proof lies with the one asserting the opinion/fact at hand. IE – an author asserted Milo is the worst. Therfore the author alone should be forced to provide evidence.

              See also: Lincoln – Douglas debates and “cannot prove a negative”

  11. “…left-leaning students make themselves out to be victims, and the evidence suggests this concern is warranted.”

    Uh, you’re kidding, right?

    1. Based on the entirety of the sentence you selectively quoted, Robby seems to be suggesting that that is the dominant campus narrative.

    2. “…left-leaning students make themselves out to be victims, and the evidence suggests this concern is warranted.”

      I was coming here to post the same comment and then I re-read the sentence. I think Robby may have meant that the evidence or concern for is over the martyrdom and immolation, and not that they are actual victims.

      I don’t know, I could be totally off base.

    3. Yeah I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s saying the concern over left wing vinctimhood fetish is warranted, not that the fetish itself is warranted.

  12. “I suspect that some of this is not just a reaction to the left’s hysterics, but rather, a convergence. Many of the forces that incentivize leftists to seek victim status?Title IX guidance, administrative bloat, changing ideas about safety in the K-12 system, helicopter parenting, concept creep?apply equally to rightist students.”

    No Robbie, the Conservative College students aren’t stupid, they see how successful the lefts use of victimhood has been in getting them what they want and so they are now copying the tactics. They are going to keep doing so until victimization ceases working as a way of overpowering opposition.

  13. (2) spending resources on intellectual diversity diverts resources from promoting other forms of diversity;

    That is amazingly dehumanizing to minorities. What “other forms of diversity” among human beings are there besides intellectual diversity? Diversity of appearance. That is it. These asssholes view minorities as props to bring color to how the university looks. They don’t see them as anything like actual human beings.

    1. That is amazingly dehumanizing to minorities. What “other forms of diversity” among human beings are there besides intellectual diversity? Diversity of appearance. That is it.

      This assumes that they aren’t out to actually handicap everyone.

    2. Cultural seems to be the preferred one these days … a set of beliefs about how the world does and/or should work.

  14. The resolution called for investigating the benefits of expanding efforts to ensure ideological diversity, or something similar.

    The argument against objects to efforts to expand intellectual diversity.

    They can’t even argue honestly, and the supporters of the resolution should call them out on their word change. After all, including conservatives only changes the intellectual diversity if conservatives are smarter or dumber than leftists, and one suspects they had an implication in mind.

  15. That said, Hanlon is right to bemoan the rise of a “cottage industry of outrage” related to conservatives on college campuses. Whether or not their frustration stemmed from legitimate grievance, the conservative student movement is increasingly, and loudly, playing the victim?with an energy as palpable as the left’s.

    I feel like the left has a tad more of a palpable energy, with hunger strikes and fires and all that.

    1. Whether or not their frustration stemmed from legitimate grievance,

      Someone needs to explain to Robby what the word “victim” means. If you have a legitimate grievance, you are a victim to some degree. When you really get down to it, Robby is just dumb as a fucking post. He is a poster child for the idiot Millennial liberal arts major.

    2. with an energy as palpable as the left’s.

      Find me your right-wing Melissa Click. I’ll wait.

  16. So Robby Socks. I am tired of you bitching about Milo without actually providing examples. So I followed your link and
    followed the subsequent link.

    He routinely insults women and minorities, likens feminism to cancer, mocks transgender people, and makes vile comments about people who criticize him . . . .

    His headlines at Breitbart are so offensive that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton actually read them off during a televised speech . . .

    — Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy

    — Hoist it high and proud: the confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage

    — Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer

    — Gabby Giffords: the gun control movement’s human shield

    This is what you are getting your tits twisted up about right. This is chickenshit stuff. Grow up dude.

    Although, I have to admit I rather admire the Giffords comment.

    1. He also believes that transgender people are mentally ill.

      1. so do some psychiatrists.

        given it has a suicide rate twice as high as the most-deadly mental illness (schizophrenia), it not an epidemiological stretch of the imagination or anything.

        1. given it has a suicide rate twice as high as the most-deadly mental illness (schizophrenia)

          That’s not the half of it either. They suffer abuse as children disproportionately and still commit suicide at a disproportionate rate after transitioning.

          Neither of which is their fault nor declares them universally insane but catching any disease by chance and pretending it’s not a disease or that none of these people could possibly have it or treating them without ability or even intent to cure them, is far more wicked than pretty much anything Milo has done.

          If you got up one morning and suddenly decided you were left handed or had forgotten how to play piano or drive a car, you’d legitimately be labelled as having a mental disease. Suddenly decide tomorrow that you want to dress and act like the opposite gender? Nothing to see here!

          1. you’d legitimately be labelled as having a mental disease.

            If playing piano or driving a car were part of your identity that is.

            1. What about driving a PianoCar?

              Then, you’d just be diagnosed as awesome.

        2. But which is the cause and which the effect? Or maybe they’re both effects of something else. Correlation isn’t causation.

      2. That is because they are you fucking half wit.

        1. Fuck off, John

      3. W/o looking it up I’d imagine they have an incredibly higher rate of “surgical addiction” than the non-trans population.

      4. If you want to have your genitals sliced up and sewn back together into a different shape, you are probably mentally ill.

        Disagree with that if you will, but shouldn’t be considered an outrage that some see it this way.

      5. transgender people ARE mentally ill.

        If having the mind of one sex in the body of another without any physical reason for such a thing isn’t a mental illness–a serious mental illness, then there is no such thing.

        1. The brain is physical. There are structures in the brain that give rise to things like memory, language, emotions, etc. Among these functions of the brain are things related to reproduction, like what you find sexually attractive, maternal instincts, etc.

          Why is it such a stretch to learn that there are brain structures that give rise to the sense of self as a gendered individual?

          I’d suggest “The man who mistook his wife for a hat” as excellent reading on the topic of just how much we are what our brain is. It is full of case studies of people who suffered various brain injuries that reveal discrete functions of certain areas of the brain.

          There is also the story of the conservative and very Christian Georgia man who suddenly turned (promiscuously) gay late in life. His wife was concerned and convinced him to see a doctor. Several tests later…. it seems he had a brain tumor. They took the tumor out and he returns to his prior straight self. Time passes and eventually he starts being gay again. They take him to the doctor and …. yup, the tumor is back. This time he leaves it and happily spends his last time on earth being promiscuously gay.

          The TL:DR version is this: You are your brain. Whatever you think, feel, emote, etc. All of it is your brain. Change the brain, you change who you are. So whether you want to call it a mental illness or just “who you are”, your gender is in your brain.

  17. And what is this man crush with Milo? He’s a rabble-rouser. It’s not like he is any sort of intellectual heavyweight or anything.

    If we’re going to start slobbering over people who “make the Left angry” or some such, can we at least do it with someone who actually makes cogent arguments, preferably Libertarian-minded ones?

    1. You are the dumbest person on planet earth. My old 1980s digital watch is an intellectual heavyweight compared to you

    2. It’s not like he is any sort of intellectual heavyweight or anything.

      …. you mean like robby?

      1. You missed the ‘cogent libertarian-minded arguments’ caveat.

        Robby’s beat frequently seems to be ‘whimsically libertarian-ish arguments’.

        1. No, he said someone who “makes the left angry”

          Robby is like more like a self-help audio-book for the left, with a smooth-jazz background track. something their aunt gave them for christmas which they threw in a drawer and forgot about.

          1. “The poor man’s Conor Friedersdorf”

            1. i think that’s unfair. To Conor.

    3. I loathe the guy, but the average poli sci prof produces as little substance as he does. I’ve had lecturers go on long winded, idiotic rants against the GOP or capitalism that were as pointless and offensive as Milo’s speeches and called them lectures.

      So I agree that they shouldn’t invite Milo to be their spokesman. And I also know progs have no room to complain when the sort of stuff Milo says, leftists say in the classroom (about people they disagree with or types if people they consider oppressors) only without such controversy.

  18. How’s this for a radical idea: if you don’t like what Milo says, don’t go to events where he’s speaking.

    Unlike lefty profs, you’re not required to listen to what he says to get a degree.

    Isn’t the definition of puritanism “the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time”? Leftists appear to feel the same way about someone, somewhere saying things they don’t like.

  19. (1) conservatives have not been historically oppressed as have other groups; TRANSLATION: You must belong to a protected class in order to receive this sort of consideration.

    (2) spending resources on intellectual diversity diverts resources from promoting other forms of diversity; TRANSLATION: Only racial minorities and the gender confused need apply

    and (3) conservative students are free to speak out in class if they find something disagreeable or wish to argue their own point of view. TRANSLATION: You do so at your own risk, and we will shout you down without consequences and get points for it.

    No, conservatives, independents, libertarians, and anyone who does not adhere to liberal orthodoxy should not get sucked into playing the victim. You need only have the courage to express your beliefs and withstand the challenges with honest discourse [on your part, do not expect it from them].

  20. Seems to me the conservative students see the left’s tactics winning the day, day after day, and have decided to employ those proven tactics themselves. Can’t say as I blame them.

  21. A recent op-ed in The New York Times, written by Aaron Hanlon?a former conservative student who became a liberal English professor at Colby College?warns the campus ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? right-of-center that they are doing themselves a disservice by pretending to be victims.

  22. The victim game is dangerous because it actually *depowers* you when you play the victim. Whether or not you have actually been victimized is entirely beside the point.

    1. In modern American culture, suffering is the mark of purity and innocence. He who does not suffer must be he who inflicts suffering on others.

      Suffering is a zero sum game. Just as for every poor person there is a rich person who robbed him, for every one who suffers there is a sadist in ecstasy. Any suffering, despite the sufferer’s responsibility for his suffering, is not merely proof of moral virtue, but proof of the existence of an evil cabal of emotional looters whose joy is based on the suffering of others.

      I first realized this when I saw the families of 9-11 victims demanding that no building replace the towers and that the gaping hole in Manhattan remain as a monument to their pain. No one dared question the purity of those whose suffering was caused by terrorists. Far from being unempowered, they were making insane demands with no moral opposition. The justification for these demands? They were victims.

      Without a permanent, public acknowledgement of their pain, they would lose the moral high ground and the power it provided.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.