Rutgers Law School SBA Tried to Force Student Organizations to Host Events on Critical Racial Theory

Fortunately, the SBA backed down after FIRE intervened.

|

In November, the Rutgers Law-Camden Student Bar Association (SBA) adopted a constitutional amendment regarding student organizations. First, all members of the executive board must complete "the SBA's provided diversity & inclusion and cultural competency training." Second, all organizations that receive more than $250 in funding, "must plan at least one (1) event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency."

Fortunately, Nick DeBenedetto, the Federalist Society Chapter President, reached out to FIRE. I've known Nick since he was a 1L. He has hosted me for several events, and always worked hard to promote his chapter in a hostile political climate. We are fortunate that Nick is on campus. His actions were prudent.

On May 17, Zachary Greenberg from FIRE wrote a demand letter to the Rutgers administration. (Yes, the same Zachary Greenberg who successfully challenged Pennsylvania ABA Rule 8.4(g)). The letter argued that the SBA policy imposes an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination:

Like the ban on funding a student group because it "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality" struck down in Rosenberger, the SBA's policy similarly uses ideological criteria to limit funding for student groups. As explained in Rosenberger and Southworth, this viewpoint-discriminatory condition is antithetical to the First Amendment's requirement of viewpoint neutrality when public universities distribute student activity fees to their student groups. The First Amendment deficiencies of this requirement are not alleviated by the SBA's allowance that groups may choose their own "topics" for discussion through this lens. The viewpoint-discriminatory nature arises from the "lens" itself because the requirement cannot be satisfied by events critical of the perspective offered by, for example, Critical Race Theory. Moreover, there are no objective criteria against which student organizations—or, more importantly, the SBA—can evaluate a discussion in order to determine whether it sufficiently adopts the "lens" of "diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency." The SBA may not condition student group funding on such a requirement.

Greenberg also explained that the SBA policy compels student organizations to speak on a specific topic from a specific viewpoint.

The SBA's mandate puts student organizations in the unenviable position of deciding either to falsely affirm their belief in an ideological proposition with which they disagree or on which they simply prefer to remain silent, or to forgo accessing university resources. This amounts to compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. . . .

Student groups like the Federalist Society, which may seek to host only events featuring topics outside the lens chosen by the SBA, are forced to choose between their institutional beliefs and university funding. The imposition of this choice amounts to compelled speech. It requires groups to declare certain political beliefs—beliefs that may run afoul of their institutional mission—in order to access greater university funding for their activities. While the SBA can exhort groups to host such events, it may not shut off funds to those who refuse to do so.

CRT is an ideology. Diversity and inclusion are political concepts. These orthodoxes are contestable. People can and should be able to criticize these doctrine without being tarred as white supremacists. Last week, I was on a panel in which another professor said my method of measuring time was "white supremacist." Yes, we are through the looking glass. Words no longer have any meaning.

FIRE gave Rutgers 10 days to abandon the policy. And on May 23, the SBA rescinded the amendment. The SBA co-presidents explained their position:

Members of our present and future SBA Executive-Board, including Presidents Elena Sassaman, Ashley Zimmerman, and Diversity and Inclusion Representatives Yusef Shafiq and Basma Qazi, met with administration to address the letter and to discuss alternatives. Unfortunately, due to the strict deadline and the constitutional issues presented, the solutions discussed were not feasible and therefore, we felt that the best course of action at this time was to remove the contested language from the SBA Constitution entirely. 

We hate the idea of backing down, just because the "other guys" say so, and we hate that we have to factor in those that oppose measures to foster diversity and inclusion, we do. We think-- and we hope, we can still create change, still fight for what is right, and pass this amendment, or something similar again. But right now, we know that if we dig our heels in now, this way, we run the risk of never being able to accomplish what we set out to do.

The "other guys"?! I shudder to think what these students are learning about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is most valuable to protect minority speech. And minority speech does not always mean speech of racial minorities. On college campus, criticism of CRT is minority speech. Yet, the SBA would see fit to compel student organizations to accept this ideology.

I am grateful the SBA relented at this state institution. But private colleges, that are not bound by the First Amendment could impose such policies.

Generally, Federalist Society chapters receive the overwhelming majority of their funding from the national organization. $250 is barely enough to buy pizza for 30 people. In the future, I suspect that FedSoc chapters will simply decline to accept SBA money. Of course, the SBA adopted this policy to cow FedSoc into espousing CRT. The "other guys" cannot dissent. The next step will be to force all SBA-approved organizations to host CRT events. The future of free speech on campus gets bleaker and bleaker.

NEXT: Announcing A Tri-Journal Note Exchange Between the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, and the Texas Review of Law & Politics

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. ” The future of free speech on campus gets bleaker and bleaker. ”

    You will always have Wheaton, Grove City, Biola, Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, Franciscan, and Liberty, Prof. Blackman . . . and dozens, or hundreds, like them . . . why so glum?

    1. And the great thing about it is that those schools are looking more and more like more appropriate recipients of public funds than the public universities.

      As the public schools continue to adopt the CRT religion and make themselves ineligible for public money, we have to spend it somewhere, right?

      1. This was foolish and unconstitutional but exponentially < impinging on academic freedom/speech than what goes on at those institutions.

        1. Would you be saying the same thing if they were having weekly Klan meetings???

            1. There is a growing body of evidence that Antifa is going over to the middle east and training with terrorists over there.

              And then employing what they have learned in places like CHOP/CHAZ, etc.

              1. There is literally zero evidence of any such thing, you warthog faced buffoon.

                1. You must not have the access that I do — nor the ability to do a basic Bolerian search.

                  https://gellerreport.com/2020/08/antifa-members-trained-with-islamic-terrorists-in-syria-using-obama-program-cash-featured.html/

                  As an aside, the A-10 is a highly effective aircraft….

                  1. “You must not have the access that I do”

                    True enough. YOUR access to YOUR imagination is unparalleled.

                    “As an aside, the A-10 is a highly effective aircraft”

                    Depending on what role you assign to it. Try using it as an interceptor or as an air-superiority fighter, and you’re going to be disappointed with the results. The A-10 is a tank-killer, which is very effective at anti-armor missions. If you’re fighting someone that doesn’t have any tanks, then the A-10 isn’t quite so useful.

                  2. I think you meant “Boolean”? Unless you do your searching while listening to the Bolero, of course.

                    Naturally, people who can’t admit Antifa is a terrorist organization, or even that they were rioting last year, aren’t going to want to admit they train with terrorists. Remember: No enemy to the left!

                  3. Like I said: there is literally zero evidence of any such thing.

                    You cite a fourth-hand report of a report saying that seven people “identified with various far-left causes” — no mention of “Antifa” — “have personally visited Syria to fight alongside” — not “train with” — “Kurdish factions” — not “terrorists.”

                    I am betting that far more than seven people identified with various far-left causes have visited Disneyworld; I’ll bet at least one or two got hit with a DUI while down there. That is not evidence that “Antifa is going down to Orlando and driving drunk.”

              2. “There is a growing body of evidence that Antifa is going over to the middle east and training with terrorists over there.”

                And the body of evidence will continue to grow as long as you keep manufacturing it.

        2. “This was foolish and unconstitutional but exponentially < impinging on academic freedom/speech than what goes on at those institutions."

          That's not a valid comparison. This was only a portion of what goes on at Rutgers. And I'm not convinced that what goes on at Rutgers is less impinging on academic freedom/free speech than what goes on at the institutions Arthur mentioned.

    2. “We hate that we have to factor in those that oppose measures to foster diversity and inclusion, we do.”

      Maybe if some of the Law students had gone to one of those schools they would have learned standard English, Arthur.

      1. Your familiarity with standard English seems weak. Take a class or two. Focus on capitalization. Why not try to become a better person?

        1. “Why not try to become a better person?”

          Because all the better people are malignant assholes like you, Arthur.

          1. Arthur is a Commie. He shoulx shop the Caracas apartment. Come 2024, he better run.

    3. Savagen Nazi behavior.

      “Can’t you see? The Emperor’s clothes are beautiful! Only the stupid cannot see that!”

      I have no comment on CRT. I am sure it may have some merits worth discussing.

      But the danger in the power of censorship isn’t that “the wrong guys are wielding it.”

      The danger is that anyone wields it.

    4. Chinese Commie propaganda should be banned. The slightest diversity course should get the treason indoctrination camp shut down. Zero tolerance for Chinese Commie propaganda.

    5. Tu quoque’s don’t get one very far imo.

      1. Quoque woque. This woke stuff started after the Commies burned our cities. The home of the school administrators should be visited.

        1. But don’t forget how opposed we are to “cancel culture”!!!

    6. You will always have Wheaton, Grove City, Biola, Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, Franciscan, and Liberty, Prof. Blackman . . . and dozens, or hundreds, like them . . . why so glum?

      Why do you think that these schools should be held up as a model?

      Rutgers is a public university. It shouldn’t be run like Liberty.

      1. Heaven forbid that the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply to a public university….

    7. If your ideas are self-evidently correct, why force other people to believe them? Why not persuade with all the evidence you must have?
      How can you justify forcing others not just to believe your ideology, but to actively support it? Are you ignorant of the history, going back to the beginning of human civilization, of the brutal tyranny that such a requirement creates? Do you just deliberately ignore it because you think that your cause is just?

      1. An ever more widespread viewpoint on the left is that their own (ever mutating!) views are so obviously right that only sheer evil can cause somebody to reject them.

        So the opposition actually deserves to be subject to a brutal tyranny. You punch the Nazi because Nazis deserve to be punched, and everybody who disagrees is a Nazi.

        And since second thoughts about this position would identify YOU as a Nazi, refusing to follow this logic becomes very difficult, and potentially dangerous.

        1. “An ever more widespread viewpoint on the left is that their own (ever mutating!) views are so obviously right that only sheer evil can cause somebody to reject them.”

          But Brett! That’s what YOU do! How long have you been on the left?

  2. “The “other guys?”
    Indeed, those who disagree with me are sub-human and should have their citizenship revoked.

    1. “The ‘other guys’?”

      You know. Those people.

    2. Isn’t that sexist?

      1. No, it is racist.

        1. Why can’t it be both?

          1. James, for you it can be anything that you’d like.
            For thinking people “guys” is gender neutral

    3. That’s the Rev’s attitude in a nutshell. And I bet he prides himself on being tolerant!

      1. Bigots have rights, too. But not the right to avoid being described as bigots.

        1. And you most certainly are a bigot, “Rev”

        2. You are a Commie. Zero tolerance for Commies.

          1. Are you using the word “Commie” to mean “people who are smarter than you are”?

  3. The amendment did not only apply to groups that actually received money from the SBA — the requirement would have applied “[i]f the organization requests or receives $250 or more in total allocations from the Student Bar Association”.

    1. What will come next is it applying to any group that uses school resources, e.g. meeting rooms. The Federalist Society is probably the only outfit with enough friends in the real world to fight back.

      1. It is an important value to the current Right that they should have the ability to use other people’s stuff if they want to, even if the owners of that stuff don’t want them to.

        1. Technically, if you’re a student it’s “other people’s stuff you’re paying to use.

  4. ” But private colleges, that are not bound by the First Amendment could impose such policies.” I don’t quite understand this. If a school accepts any sort of Federal funds, are they not bound by the 1st amendment? Accepting the strings of Federal funds is why we have schools as mentioned by Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland. What schools on the left are there that don’t accept (whore after) Federal funds.

    1. They are not bound by the First Amendment. Congress could attach that as a condition on the money, but to my knowledge, has not yet done so.

      1. Bored Lawyer is correct, see this post.

        1. Doesn’t California’s Leonard Law do this on a statewide basis?
          And couldn’t the other 50 jurisdictions do likewise, if their legislatures should so chose?

        2. So there really is such a thing as federal money with no 1-A strings attached. That clears up a lot of misconceptions. That link was very helpful.

          1. Here are the strings on the Federal money — and a MAGA Congress and friendly POTUS could add an additional law for free speech.

            Now if ED-OCR would enforce it any more enthusiastically than they are enforcing ADA, well, that’s another issue…

            “The Office for Civil Rights enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sex discrimination is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and age discrimination is prohibited by the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.”

            https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html

      2. ” Congress could attach that as a condition on the money”

        Congress “gives” money to schools in one of two ways… by funding research and by funding students. Neither avenue provides a handy way to attach conditions for the school.

        1. Paging Hillsdale. Paging Hillsdale.

    2. Unfortunately the D Congress would never attach such conditions

      1. Not one of the R Congresses ever did. because that would have applied to the schools that are expressly Evangelical.

  5. No one should be surprised that something like this would happen in the People’s Republic of NJ. This ideological pall is being cast all over in NJ elementary schools, NJ high schools, NJ county community colleges, and NJ state colleges. That is happens with one-party states.

    I will be glad to leave.

    1. Same in Minnesota.

    2. Tightest lockdown. Highest death rate. Go woke. Die.

  6. “diversity” here is used its its full Orwellian context.

    I don’t understand why people think that bullying and inquisitorial tactics are is an effective.

    1. Because they think that they have “the power.”

      1. Don,

        You mean the state legislators in paces like TX and ID, who are banning CRT, don’t think they have “the power?”

        In Texas they want to teach “traditional history.”

        What do you think that means?

        From the same article:

        “It’s based on false history when they try to look back and denigrate the Founding Fathers, denigrate the American Revolution,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said last month as he announced his demand that the state’s board of education take on the issue.

        No denigrating the Founding Fathers, no matter what.

        It’s precisely this sort of crap that prevents me from taking people like Blackman and Volokh seriously as free speech advocates. Blackman is right there in TX and he’s raising hell about some SBA business in NJ, and ignoring the idiocy in his home state.

        1. Yes what hypocrites!

          I mean the fact that one concerns elementary and junior high education, that is the official curriculum of the school, while the other concerns a law school, made up of supposed adults (indeed college graduates), who are forming their own student organizations to discuss and learn more about particular topics of interest, has nothing to do with it.

          1. So the official curriculum shouldn’t mention unpleasant facts, or those that reflect poorly on our Great Men?

            1. So the official curriculum shouldn’t mention unpleasant facts

              A swing and a miss. Your straw men aren’t any less weak and stupid than your other arguments.

              1. Calling it a straw man doesn’t make it one.

                1. Calling it a straw man doesn’t make it one.

                  I never claimed it did, which…funny enough…makes your response a straw man as well.

                  What made his comment a straw man was that it argued against a position that was never taken by his opponent by pretending that it was. But of course you know that, you disingenuous twat.

            2. bernard11, let me take a proverbial stab at it and answer you this way. The official curriculum should tell the objective truth, and that includes the unpleasant fact that many Founders were slaveholders. I personally would go further than that and explain how their worldview and beliefs provided various justifications for slaveholding as well. I learned those things in more detail in AP US history during my high school years.

              So I think there is an age component here, and I think there is additional foundational component that is needed (i.e. a basic high school US history/civics class) by students before emphasizing those ‘unpleasant facts’. We do ourselves no favors by ignoring or distorting history.

              1. Historically, we have used tenure to preserve commitment to truth. In recent news, we’ve seen this corrupted, by denying tenure to people who might say something truthful but unpopular with some elements of government.

            3. There is no question that the founding fathers mostly look bad by modern standards. And I assure that we’ll mostly look bad by the standards of a couple hundred years from today, and probably on the basis of some outrage we’re committing that some people are complaining about today, even as there were abolitionists at the founding.

              It’s hard to say what they’ll despise us for. Abortion? Burial of people who could have been saved if they’d simply have been frozen? Exhausting helium reserves built up over millennia to inflate party balloons? It will be something, anyway.

              The founding fathers did not totally overcome and reject the values of their age. They could not have, and still been influential, really.

              But the thing about standing on the shoulders of giants, is that you owe your elevated vantage to the giants, even though they stood beneath you.

              They didn’t fully live up to the principles they articulated, but the did so at least in part, and if they hadn’t done so, we wouldn’t be up here looking down at them.

              Now, that’s more nuanced than, “The founding fathers were monsters who should be erased from history!” So, all the (Literal!) iconoclasts will hear is, “The founding fathers weren’t monsters.”, and conclude that whoever would say that is, themselves, a monster, and deserving to be erased from history, too.

              And they’re out to accomplish that erasure by any means necessary. I think we need to stop them, or the failure to stop them will head the list of things people in the year 2200 will despise us for.

              1. “There is no question that the founding fathers mostly look bad by modern standards. And I assure that we’ll mostly look bad by the standards of a couple hundred years from today, and probably on the basis of some outrage we’re committing that some people are complaining about today, even as there were abolitionists at the founding.”

                You’re conflating “having flaws” and “looking bad”. all humans have flaws. Even (gasp!) the Founders.

                1. No, I’m decidedly not conflating having flaws with looking bad.

                  As you say, all humans have flaws. “Looking bad” is about somebody else’s opinion of you.

                  Just as we look back at the founding fathers, and consider that the involvement some had in slavery reflects badly on them, in the distant future people will look back at us, and think something we’re doing today reflects badly on us. This is apart from flaws, it’s less about our failures, than what we deliberately do.

            4. Bernard, would it be acceptable for a school district in Texas to teach that all blacks are dumb, lazy, violent – whichever racist stereotype they choose?

              That’s what CRT does in the other direction.

              History needs to be balanced and accurate. The 1619 bullshit is every bit the politically influenced clap trap as only teaching “patriotic” history. And the central tenet of CRT is racism.

          2. To add to that, most elementary and junior high school students have no practical choice but to go to public schools of the government’s choosing due to economic considerations coupled with truancy laws.

            No one is required or even coerced by law to go to a public university, let alone a public law school.

        2. It’s precisely this sort of crap that prevents me from taking people like Blackman and Volokh seriously as free speech advocates.

          Your fundamental ignorance regarding the issue…which you’ve put on display repeatedly here…prevents you from even comprehending their free speech advocacy.

          1. Their free speech advocacy focuses is partisan and practical — designed to support those on the wrong side of history and the losing end of the culture war — rather than principled.

            They are entitled to advocate in that manner. Others are free to mention the hypocrisy and to criticize the poor choice of political positions and playmates.

            Until they are censored, at least.

            1. “Until they are censored, at least.”

              Something which you look forward to with relish.

              Don’t forget, Trotsky’s Mexican villa is still up for sale. Hurry while you can get it.

              1. I have mixed views about Prof. Volokh’s censorship.

                It blocks expression. It demonstrates hypocrisy (vividly and usefully). It is partisan and paltry. It is the proprietor’s right to impose a ban or to vanish certain words.

                A mixed bag.

                1. Volokh does not like sexual vulgarity. You get an email on good manners. There no censorship.

                  1. There is no spoon.

        3. I’m shocked at you quoting and using a word derived/adjacent to the “letter between m and o” word!

          Anyway, technically the public schools are just agents of the state, so the state IS entitled to to direct them as to what they shall and shall not teach. The clubs in question here are NOT agents of the school.

          1. “The clubs in question here are NOT agents of the school.”

            Wrong message. If they aren’t agents of the school, then they aren’t bound by the First Amendment, and they can impose any limits on groups who seek their funding they like.

            1. You have stood that on its head. IF the clubs were agents of the school, the school could regulate their speech in the context of that agency, just as it can tell the Calculus teacher not to teach statistics in his class, because that’s not what he’s being paid to teach.

              It is the fact that the clubs are NOT agents of the school that puts them outside its reach.

        4. And it is statements like yours which prevents me from seeing CRT as anything less than the bullshyte which it is — dangerous bullshyte.

          Maybe it is time to start again saying “America — love it or leave it.”

          1. “Maybe it is time to start again saying ‘America — love it or leave it.'”

            Maybe it is. GET OUT.

        5. “You mean the state legislators in paces like TX and ID, who are banning CRT, don’t think they have “the power?”

          Here’s what ID is banning. I haven’t looked at TX. I don’t see anything wrong with it:

          “(3) In accordance with section 6, article IX of the constitution of the state of Idaho
          and §67-5909, Idaho Code:
          (a) No public institution of higher education, school district, or public school,
          including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to
          personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:
          (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently
          superior or inferior;
          (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex,
          race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or
          (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
          national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past
          by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
          national origin.”

          1. Do you think this law bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory. If so, why is that a good idea? If not, why was the law passed?

            1. “Do you think this law bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory. If so, why is that a good idea? If not, why was the law passed?”

              The law has legislative findings that these are tenents of CRT. I’m not sure it’s relevant whether that’s correct. Maybe that’s just the non-academic definition of CRT.

              I suppose they passed the law because they don’t want public institutions to compel people to affirm those things. I’m not sure why anybody would oppose that.

              1. If it doesn’t ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory, it makes no more sense than passing a law that forbids public schools from compelling people to affirm that the Earth is flat. There would be no opposition, but why bother in the first place?

                1. Presumably, the Idaho Legislature bothered because they were concerned that public schools would compel students to affirm those things. I think they were correct YMMV.

                  But the claim that bernard11 and others isn’t that the Idaho Legislature was wasting its time, it’s that they were infringing on academic freedom, preventing people from teaching unpleasant facts, etc. At least with respect to Idaho, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

                  1. YMMV is an understatement. I do not find it credible that the Idaho legislature believes there is a concern that schools would compel students to affirm those things (unless they believe that teaching Critical Race Theory does so). So assuming the law doesn’t prevent the teaching of Critical Race Theory, my mileage indicator says the legislature was virtue signaling to its political base.

                    1. IMO, the Idaho legislature is being more realistic in this than you are, by recognizing the diversity of educators.

                      There are educators who are thieves, rapists, even murderers. Why would you think there are none who’d teach what this law prohibits? Does a teaching job magically backstop your morality?

                    2. “IMO, the Idaho legislature is being more realistic in this than you are, by recognizing the diversity of educators.”

                      Idaho isn’t known for the diversity of its population. There’s a reason so many white supremacists set up shop in Coeur d’Alene.

        6. Yup, bernard. Legislatures big and small try to do what they can get away with.

        7. There is no interpretation of the First Amendment that I am aware of that prevents the legislature from controlling the government’s own speech.
          Teaching in schools is government speech by government employees paid for that speech by government funds.

      2. 65 million gun owners owning 300 million guns.

        1. Only 4.6 per person, on average? Slackers.

          1. Gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties. When the predictable backlash from their betters puts them on a short leash, America will improve.

            1. The shorter you keep that leash, the closer to your shin the dog’s teeth will be.

              1. All-bark little doggies are among my favorite compliant, impotent culture war losers. You can nip at your betters’ ankles a bit, And whimper al you like, but you will comply.

                1. “All-bark little doggies are among my favorite compliant, impotent culture war losers. You can nip at your betters’ ankles a bit, And whimper al you like, but you will comply.”

                  Just so we’re clear, in this thread the Rutgers Student Bar Association are the all-bark little doggies, and the Federalist Society are the betters, correct?

                  1. I’m reminded of my favorite line from Army of Darkness

                    Better? Inferior? I’m the guy with the gun.

                  2. The funniest part is that he thinks that multiple decades of continuous wins by the pro-2A side (carry and other firearms laws are now more favorable to us than ever before, and have been steadily following that trend) somehow makes that side “culture war losers”.

    2. It’s not about being effective. This is about righteousness. They are not concerned about actually achieving their goals. If they were, they wouldn’t be pursuing CRT in the first place. They simply believe they’re right, everyone else is evil, and anyone who opposes them in their righteousness should be steamrolled.

      It’s fundamentally why McWhorter labels this a religion.

    3. I don’t understand why people think that bullying and inquisitorial tactics are…effective.

      Oh, they’re effective alright. It’s all a question of attitude. If you’re convinced that your goals are righteous, and those who oppose you are scum who deserve no pity, you’ll bully and torture and burn like there’s no tomorrow…

      1. There is no evil greater than those who think they know what’s “best” for everyone, for they will commit the greatest atrocities with a clean conscience.

        1. Are you familiar with CT-related legislation in TX, ID, FL, and elsewhere?

          Sounds a lot like people who think they know everything.

          1. You keep posting as though teaching CRT and not teaching CRT are comparable. They’re not. CRT is propaganda – it teaches kids that their country is a horrible place, that by being free it’s racist. Anything blocking that garbage is actually enforcing people’s rights, and is a net-positive.

            1. I think that addressing the role of race in US history is an important part of teaching that history. If that includes some unpleasant facts then so be it.

              Would you rather teach kids that the slaves danced and played the banjo all the time?

              1. CRT has nothing to do with “unpleasant facts”.

                And read the bill first. Comment second.

              2. Would you rather teach kids that the slaves danced and played the banjo all the time?

                Your reliance on idiotic grade school-level fallacies just gets worse and worse.

              3. “If that includes some unpleasant facts then so be it.”

                Can you point to what part of the bills prevents teaching of any facts?

              4. “Would you rather teach kids that the slaves danced and played the banjo all the time?”

                Disney tried this in 1946, and “Song of the South” is still in the Disney Vault.

                1. “Would you rather teach kids that the slaves danced and played the banjo all the time?”

                  Disney tried this in 1946, and “Song of the South” is still in the Disney Vault.

                  “Song of the South” was based on the Uncle Remus stories, a collection of African-American folktales, and is set during Reconstruction…y’know…after Abolition. Try again.

    4. I don’t understand why people think that bullying and inquisitorial tactics are is an effective.

      What makes you think inquisitorial tactics aren’t effective? You don’t see many witches anymore (certain political creatures excepted), do you?

      1. And if you carry an onion, it keeps elephants away. Haven’t seen one in years.

    5. The bullying is the goal. Bullies maintain their power and status by using that power and status to bully. It’s effective any time it isn’t completely resisted.

      Presumably a secondary goal is getting their people paid for organizing or participating in the events they are mandating.

  7. Nothing shows the weakness of an idea more than the fact that the people asserting it feel the need to use force and authority to require others to espouse it.

    1. Politics and religions are not just similar phenomena, they are the exact same one.

      They are memeplexes — large groups of memes, or ideas, adding new ones, dropping some, changing others, evolving to spread to as many people as possible.

      Why? As an accelerant to rate of spread.

      See, there’s the brass ring of power to be grabbed. Once your memeplex has enough hosts (human minds), it gets the power to force itself onto new hosts rather than having to rely on mere persuasion.

      The buffons joyous at this miss the bigger picture. You are caught in the early stages of borgification.

      They think because they wield it, everything is a-ok!

      Except that history is replete with untold millenia of savagery as this impetus is misused.

      They whistle past the graveyard. How sad humanity briefly toyed with freedom befor another bloated, burning demon rose up.

      1. Enemy at the gate? No. The enemy never left the grounds. It is the same one as for thousands of years. It just changed clothes, a few words to induce masses to dictatorial control with their conscience clear.

    2. Indeed. This goes not only for CRT but for leftism in general.

    3. I agree.

      Now, what does it mean when people opposing an idea “feel the need to use force and authority” to prevent it being discussed?

      1. Now, what does it mean when people opposing an idea “feel the need to use force and authority” to prevent it being discussed?

        Your question means that you don’t understand the difference between prohibiting state-sponsored pushing of an idea vs. prohibiting discussion of it.

        1. I understand the difference perfectly.

          It’s pretty much irrelevant here. Or are you claiming it’s OK for the state to prohibit discussion of some idea in state-sponsored institutions, but not to require discussion?

          Can the state ban CRT from the curriculum, but not require that it be included? That makes no sense.

          1. I understand the difference perfectly.

            That claim is directly contradicted by your comments, like this one:

            Or are you claiming it’s OK for the state to prohibit discussion of some idea in state-sponsored institutions

            There are no prohibitions…in force or in the works…on the “discussion of” CRT in state-sponsored institutions. There are proposed prohibitions on the teaching of CRT as part of the curriculum in some state-run/sponsored schools, but none that would prohibit the mere “discussion of” it.

            Can the state ban CRT from the curriculum, but not require that it be included? That makes no sense.

            Nobody is claiming that the state cannot require inclusion of CRT in school curricula, nor is that the issue at hand, so what makes no sense is your question. The issue at hand is whether or not schools can compel student organizations to teach CRT. That you can’t even figure out the difference between school curricula and student organization activities should be sufficient cause for you to withdraw from the discussion completely.

            While you do so, perhaps you might ponder the difference between preaching the tenets of one or more religions as part of a class curriculum (which is prohibited in public schools) vs discussions *about* those religions (which is NOT prohibited…and is indeed widely practiced….in public schools) as that difference relates to this issue.

            1. The issue at hand is whether or not schools can compel student organizations to teach CRT. That you can’t even figure out the difference between school curricula and student organization activities should be sufficient cause for you to withdraw from the discussion completely.

              Maybe you could withdraw instead, since I made it plain that I thought the Rutgers requirement was foolish, and was commenting on other matters.

              1. I made it plain that I thought the Rutgers requirement was foolish, and was commenting on other matters.

                You are completely and utterly full of shit. You were attempting to make a “what about” argument based on nothing but your own persistent ignorance about the issue at hand as well as proposed prohibitions on the teach of CRT as part of public school curricula. Even on your best days you tend to make a fool of yourself, but you’re really going for the gold today.

          2. “I understand the difference perfectly.”

            No, you don’t. You don’t even understand it imperfectly.

          3. You might want to actually read one on the bills you’re commenting on.

  8. So if an organization receiving funding cannot be required to adopt anti bias training and education, as it would be viewpoint discrimination, wouldn’t the converse necessarily be true? Banning anti bias training and education in organizations receiving funding is also viewpoint discrimination. But conservatives seem ok with the prohibition of CRT (whatever that means) in schools receiving government funding, and many conservatives argue that the federal government should not allow funding to institutions that teach so called CRT.

    1. 1: I can not require you to kill other people. I can require you to NOT kill other people.

      2: Requirements about what a school can teach are an inherent part of funding the schools.

      That’s entirely different from requirements about what students are allowed to do on their non-class time.

      You’re really having a hard time grasping the difference here? That’s pretty sad

      1. A rule that bans the discussion of some topic is just as much censorship – maybe worse – than one that requires it.

        While the rule in question is obviously silly, a rule prohibiting student organizations from having an “event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency,” would be just as bad.

        1. A rule that banned student groups from discussing CRT in their non-classroom time is nothing at all like a law banning schools from pushing CRT on students as part of their indoctrination, I mena “education”.

          Adabsurdum is attempting to conflate the two.

          1. Not entirely different; Student groups have finite time and resources, forcing them to do something they didn’t want to do deprives them of time and resources they could have spent doing something they DID want to do.

            So you really can prohibit doing something, in the limit, by mandating doing something else, causing resource starvation.

            That is, after all, how the government effectively prohibits most people from sending their children to private schools… By taxing them to support its own schools, which are then offered ‘free’, so that anyone who wants to utilize a private school is forced to pay twice for the education.

          2. A public school may ban the teaching of CRT because the government is permitted (and even expected) to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in its own speech. However, if the state bans a private school from teaching CRT, that would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. Even if the state conditioned funding of the private school to a ban on teaching CRT, that too might be unconstitutional depending on the nature of the funding.

        2. To put it more simply:

          A public school may not teach “Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord.”

          A public school may not ban student groups that operate on the belief that “Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord.” And it may not force those groups to have talks on “why “Jesus Christ is not the Risen Lord.”

          These are well established rules, and I question the motives of anyone who tries to conflate them

          1. Are you going to question my motives if I point out that the Establishment Clause may be doing some work there that might not apply to other things that might be taught?

            1. Greg just might do that with decent reason. (I would)
              But he should answer

              1. The entire reason a public school cannot teach ‘Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord’ is the Establishment Clause. And that’s not been applied to non-religious ‘ideologies.’

                1. Wokeness is a religion. It has dogmas, priests and punishes heretics.

                2. Should be, though; The difference between “ideology” and “religion” is pretty minor at times.

                3. The entire reason a public school can not teach that is because we as a society have explicitly chosen to structure the system such that they cannot teach that.

                  We can continue to structure the system accordingly.

                4. I’m curious? Do you just jump in to threads without bothering to find out what the thread is about?

                  Adabsurdum was whining about Republican State Legislatures banning CRT, and trying to compare it to this situation.

                  So I was pointing out the many ways that argument is manifestly stupid

                  The point of the religious example was that’s it’s a clear set of rules where everyone on the Left believes it’s perfectly reasonable to block a school from teaching X, while it’s solidly established SC precedent (to the point that University of Iowa Administrators don’t get qualified immunity) that you can’t force student groups to have the school’s opinions of X.

                  Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

            2. The distinction is still valid. There is a vast difference between setting the official curriculum of a school (or a school jurisdiction, like a county or state), and forcing private groups to adopt an ideology. Just as there is a difference between teaching children and adults (which, ostensibly, make up the student body of a law school).

        3. A rule that bans the discussion of some topic is just as much censorship

          Cite for us any rule…proposed or in force…that “bans the discussion of” CRT. And no, prohibitions on inclusion of something in the curriculum of state schools is not a “ban on the discussion of” it.

      2. So it’s ok to prohibit the teaching of a topic but not to prescribe it? That can’t be correct.

        1. “So it’s ok to prohibit the teaching of a topic but not to prescribe it?”
          Who said that? Read the Merriweather decision

          1. “Requirements about what a school can teach are an inherent part of funding the schools.”

            1. Cherry-picked quote. Read the entire decision. Time and time again it refutes your comment.

              1. Queen was quoting Greg J, not Meriwether.

                1. No, Queen was demonstrating something between stupidity and dishonesty.

                  What I was pointing out was that there’s not the slightest bit of congruence between “establishing rules for what a school can teach”, and “forcing student groups to tout your message.”

                  It’s rather amazing that this is a difficult concept. But I guess that when you’re a fascist, the idea of indiviudal freedom is just entirely out of one’s mental map

        2. 1: It’s perfectly allowed for a funding body, State / Federal Constitution, and / or State / Federal law to prevent a school from teaching a topic, or from teaching it from a particular point of view

          2: It is a violation of the 1st Amendment for any State school to force student groups to adopt / honor the ideology of the people in charge of that school.

          3: Comparing a law blocking State paid teachers from teaching CRT, to a rule forcing student groups to pledge allegiance to CRT if they want student activity funds, is an action only carried out by the dishonest, stupid, or utterly ignorant.

          Is that clear enough for you?

        3. Look, do you genuinely not understand the difference between teaching about, and teaching that?

          These laws we’re discussing do not in any way, shape, or form, prohibit teaching about. They prohibit teaching that.

          Under these laws, the schools can still teach about CRT. They can have discussions of it. What they can’t do is demand people accept it, teach people that it is true.

          Rather like a comparative religion class in a public school can teach you about the Nicene creed or the Shahada, but can not require you to declare either to be your belief.

      3. “1: I can not require you to kill other people. I can require you to NOT kill other people.”

        fuck the draft.

        1. You’ve never head of “conscientious objectors”?

          You can be forced to join the military. You can’t be forced to kill

    2. OK, I have a way out: end all government funding of schools / colleges. (I am not joking.)

      1. Good luck persuading modern Americans — especially those who are educated, accomplished, reasoning (rather than backward, superstitious, and bigoted) — with respect to your position on education, Ed Grinberg.

        Hopeless misfits have rights, too — mostly involving the right to sputter impotently and mutter bitterly about being forced to comply with the preferences of the modern mainstream.

        1. It’s amazing how all these people who are “massively successful because of their great education”, would not be willing to themselves pay to educate their children.

          It’s almost like your story line is complete BS

      2. “OK, I have a way out: end all government funding of schools / colleges. (I am not joking.)”

        Then take all the intellectuals out to the killing fields and shoot them. There’s a place for you in the Khmer Rouge.

    3. But conservatives seem ok with the prohibition of CRT (whatever that means) in schools receiving government funding, . . . .

      The only prohibitions I’ve seen proposed is the prohibition of CRT in government schools.

      But if you want to talk about private schools that receive government funding, and you think there’s a problem with banning them from receiving government funds, I’d be curious to know whether you would have a similar problem with a prohibition on funding private schools that teach white supremacy.

    4. anti bias training and education

      Sleight of hand. Typical.

    5. “Conservative” strawmen certainly present easily refuted arguments.

      1. Indeed. They’re only marginally better than the real ones.

  9. “We hate the idea of backing down, just because the “other guys” say so, and we hate that we have to factor in those that oppose measures to foster diversity and inclusion, we do.”

    Translation: It sucks that we have to consider the sub-human scum who disagree with us

    “We think– and we hope, we can still create change, still fight for what is right”

    If they were trying to do what was right, they would oppose CRT. So this is a clearly false statement

    1. Seems to me the more natural reading of ‘other guys’ here is ‘those on the other side of this issue’ than the dehumanization angle you’re taking.

      1. Seems to me the more natural reading of ‘other guys’ here is ‘those on the other side of this issue’ than the dehumanization angle you’re taking.

        Interesting that you chose to use a definition that they didn’t use rather than the one they DID use:

        “those that oppose measures to foster diversity and inclusion”

        1. That’s how those cocksuckers work. There are plenty of reasons to support “diversity and inclusion” why specifically opposing their chosen methods. But that’s not how the CRT folk work. You’re either with them or Satan.

          1. …(while) specifically…sigh…EDIT!

          2. ” That’s how those cocksuckers work. ”

            Be careful, MP. Prof. Volokh (claims, at times) he enforces civility standards. I would hate to see him ban you.

            (If you are a conservative, aiming your profanity and vitriol toward the liberal-libertarian mainstream, you likely can disregard this point.)

      2. “and we hate that we have to factor in those that oppose”

        They HATE that they have to allow people who disagree with them to matter.

        They want “diversity” and “inclusion” and “respect for the Other”, unless you are different from them.

        Then they want to completely ignore your desires and crush you like a bug, and are very unhappy that they can’t get away with that

        1. When, in your judgment, will conservatives have a chance to begin to reverse the tide of the culture war? A month? A year? A decade? A half-century?

          1. In the next 4 years

  10. At the private school I went to, student groups could not use university facilities unless they were recognized by the official body regulating student activities and included all the required politically correct language in their charters. At the time the mandate had fairly mainstream policies like agreeing not to discriminate in the ways that were prohibited by university policy, most of which were also prohibited by law. But they could have said no rooms for you unless your leaders join in a ritual sacrifice under the full moon.

    If I recall correctly, the school banned pornography by granting the exclusive charter for movie showing to a group that agreed not to show porn. A classmate arranged an illegal showing of Deep Throat in protest.

    1. I went to a public university where someone ran for student association president on the platform of showing Deep Throat in the Science lecture hall (where the student association or whatever it was called showed a movie every Saturday night). They won. We got Deep Throat. The World Did Not End!

  11. “must plan at least one (1) event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”

    And my chosen topic is that “CRT, DIE, and cultural competency are all racist garbage.”

    Hold the event. Make sure every single panel has a majority opposed to the racist evils, with a moderator ready to shut off the mic of the lone racist CRT/DIE supporter allowed on, whenever that racist tries to talk over the non-racists.

    Let the student gov’t try to do anything about it

    1. “Let the student gov’t try to do anything about it”

      The anything they can do is to cut off the funding spigot. And, it can indirectly cause all your events to go dry. (the law school I went to got insurance coverage for events from the student activities group, and the college didn’t allow alcohol to be served at any event that didn’t have insurance to cover the school’s premises liability. Because the law reviews weren’t open to all students, they weren’t allowed to be recognized student groups and couldn’t have on-campus activities with alcohol, so the end-of-the-year party was off-campus.

      1. If they try to pull away previously allocated money on illegitimate grounds (which is what they would be doing), you sue, and get an injunction to stop them

        Because their policy is entirely unconstitutional, by well established law

  12. FWIW, when I was at USC Law School, we had diversity week, but the Federalist Society participated and critiqued diversity.

    The error here was the word “lens”. It’s perfectly possible to have a week where a law school explores critical race theory. They just have to make it clear that all points of view- including opposition- are welcome.

    1. “They just have to make it clear that all points of view- including opposition- are welcome.”
      That would be a perfectly reasonable point of view for an admin to take.

    2. They just have to make it clear that all points of view- including opposition- are welcome.

      The following quote makes it abundantly clear that opposing points of view would NOT be welcome, and that the intent of the measure was push only pro-CRT discussion:

      “we hate that we have to factor in those that oppose measures to foster diversity and inclusion”

  13. “Inclusion Representatives Yusef Shafiq and Basma Qazi”

    Very inclusive to have both “Inclusion” representatives be [apparently] Muslim.

    “Inclusion Representatives” are like représentant en mission I bet.

    1. “Very inclusive to have both ‘Inclusion’ representatives be [apparently] Muslim.”

      Neither one of them is named “Mohammed”, so you’re guessing on that point, which you [apparently] reluctantly admit.

  14. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

    1. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any conservatives who think this kid should be punished for a satirical email. So I don’t know what you’re implying.

      1. Some FedSoc student apparently does and affirmed as of a week ago he wants Stanford to proceed with the investigations. “YOUR RULES!!!!” is not a particularly admirable ethos.

        1. “YOUR RULES!!!!” is not a particularly admirable ethos.

          Wrong.

          The law is about following precedent. “Your rules” is about forcing on the Left the precedents they have established in attacking the rest of us.

          If you actually value the rule of law, rather than the rule of dictators who are bound by nothing other than their personal desires, and what they think they can get away with, then “Your rules” is the most admirable ethos there is.

          If you don’t like it coming your way, you should be fighting your side when they try to send it our way

          1. What a silly argument.

            1. “Respect for precedent” is a “silly argument”?

              You must not be a lawyer. Or else you might be an evil, oath breaking, Democrat one

        2. I note for teh record that you’re not disputing his characterization of the situation as “Your rules”

          You’re just upset that the Left might have to follow the rules they impose on the rest of us.

          I don’t know if that makes you stupid, or evil. But it is pretty disgusting, either way

          1. So Greg, how did playing they’re game work out here? Stanford already caved. Maybe the point of principles are that you stick by them no matter whom is effected. But even if you want to be a cynical jerk without principles, let me direct you to a reason why that tactically doesn’t work:

            “ I understand the desire of some conservatives to gleefully shout “Your rules!” and watch the carnage, but that kind of eye-for-an-eye-ism is both morally illiterate and poor strategy, inasmuch as the Left can bear a great many more losses in academia, media, and culture than we can. Tit-for-tat is a profoundly stupid strategy when you are profoundly outnumbered.”

            https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/keeping-up-with-nikole-hannah-jones/

            1. “Maybe the point of principles are that you stick by them no matter whom is effected.”

              The point of principles is NOT to only give their benefits to those who ignore them.

              Which is what you’re arguing for.

              The problem with the moron from NRO’s “argument” is that the Left isn’t going to stop cancelling, just because we refrained from doing so.

              What is “morally illiterate and poor strategy” is to allow evil doers to do whatever they want, at no cost to themselves.

              We arrest kidnappers. Someone who is morally illiterate would say “that’s kidnapping! How dare you repeat their crime!” They’d probably write it at NRO, too

            2. “So Greg, how did playing they’re game work out here?”

              Stanford’s now on record that you can’t be punished for writing satire. So the next time the woke thugs go after a conservative at Stanford for writing satire, the student will be able to point to that policy, and tell them to F’off.

              Looks like a win to me

    2. I was just about to post this. Whiny, censorious law students come in all flavors.

    3. Not sure what A has to do with B, but whatever.

    4. You’re comparing a complaint by a single student with a mandate by a school’s extracurricular organization governing body?

      1. No. I’m comparing the non-response by the Conspirators to this incident to their constant complaints about left-wing censoriousness, and suggesting that the free speech posturing is not the whole motive behind those complaints.

        1. What non-response? Eugene made a separate about it.

        2. No. I’m comparing…

          Since my response wasn’t to any post of yours I’m not sure why you think you’re relevant to my question about what someone else is saying.

    5. Shameful behavior by Stanford. Probably violates the Leonard Law.

      1. Following the lead of the Trump DOJ, which tried to unmask a Devin Nunes parody twitter account.

  15. Critical theory, including “critical racial theory” is based in Marxism. This constellation of ideologies is marked by a propensity to become violent extremely quickly, and is generally an abhorrent antithesis of liberty.

    When you point out such things, sometimes you’ll get a response like, “Wow you don’t even know what Marxist means and you just call whatever you don’t like Marxist.” But while most Americans never heard the term “critical race theory,” those who spend a moment thinking about it readily understand this. So who makes this kind of objection? Are they purposefully trying to distance themselves from what they perceive as a negative brand name by denying the truth, or are they just fooling themselves?

    1. So? I find that a losing argument. CRT has its own structural foundation. It’s relationship to Marxism is tangential and ultimately irrelevant. It’s a complete failure on its own merits. Bring up Marxism simply pollutes the discussion.

      1. It’s helpful for the average American, as well as the average college grad, to trace the development of these ideas so as to better understand it. Most people have little understanding of anything.

        It’s not ultimately irrelevant. There are important parallels and commonalities, both in the conceptual frameworks and in the grounded historical facts, that help explain their characteristics and results, such as why these ideologies are so quick to yield violence. From your comment, it seems as though you may be too focused on the critique of a theoretical “structural foundation” in the abstract, rather than a grounded historical analysis.

        With that said, you are right in the sense that merely pointing out that CRT is rooted in Marxism does not prove that CRT is wrong. Nor that Marxism is wrong, for that matter. It may pollute the discussion for some, but logically it shouldn’t. It depends more on the context of the discussion and how it’s brought up.

    2. “Critical theory, including ‘critical racial theory’ is based in Marxism. This constellation of ideologies is marked by a propensity to become violent extremely quickly, and is generally an abhorrent antithesis of liberty.”

      Ah yes, the old “everything I don’t like is Marxism” argument. surprised it took this long to show up.

      1. Thanks for proving my point. Do you really not understand Marxism or are you just pretending?

  16. There needs to be real world consequences for these little cultural marxists wanna-be social justice wankers. Their names need to be put on publicly available lists and widely circulated. Employers who hire them should be shamed and people who associate with them should be called out. Social media pressure and boycotts must be used until it is enough of an incentive to finally get these people to STOP.

    Gone are the days where pulling a stunt like this results in a mere slap on the hand from a “watchdog” like F.I.R.E. Time to “salt the earth” with these marxist peasant’s land….

    1. That sounds remarkably like the existing cancel culture from the left.

      Not that you’re wrong, btw, but one of the regular commentators will be incoming in 5…4…3..2.1…. with some tu quoque accusation.

      1. Yeah that was sort of my point, but no one took the bait. Oh well….

        That said, I think there is a more virtuous and moral case to “cancel the cancellers” than what the leftist version of “cancel culture” has for its bogus reasoning.

        1. Looks like someone took the bait anyway!

    2. “There needs to be real world consequences for these little cultural marxists wanna-be social justice wankers. Their names need to be put on publicly available lists and widely circulated. Employers who hire them should be shamed and people who associate with them should be called out. Social media pressure and boycotts must be used until it is enough of an incentive to finally get these people to STOP.”

      We have to do all these things to put an end to “cancel culture”…

  17. Progressives are straight up racists — they always have been and sadly always will be.

    Racism = evil … you do the math.

    1. There used to be an objective definition of “racism” and “racist” but those have been out the door now since the 90’s when the “anti-racist” people pushed an inherently definition that co-opted those terms. Now it just general means a set of behaviors that all white people possess, based purely upon their race, that even saying you don’t have in of itself is a way of being identified as falling within the definition. Nice “catch-all” term that is rendered practically and objectively meaningless.

      So stop using “their” vocabulary to describe their behavior. It will never work. Instead just call them what they are which is un-American cultural marxist finks who hate the concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

      1. Racism exists and has a definition, attempts to obfuscate or redefine the term in order to hate on white people notwithstanding.

        The racism that modern progressives push is just as hateful and destructive and dangerous as the one they practiced at the turn of the last century. The fact that they scream louder does not change that — truth will out.

      2. “There used to be an objective definition of ‘racism’ and ‘racist'”

        The problem was that people (they know who they are) wanted to be able to do and say racist things without being called racists, so they had to muddy up the water.

    2. “Racism = evil … you do the math.”

      What racism is mostly is stupid. Asking racists to do the math is a waste of time.

  18. I was worried that the mute function was broken, but turns out I just wasn’t logged in. Won’t let that happen again.

  19. Students are the ‘widgets’ made in factories called schools.

    And there is no reason for the widgets to have a say, or a vote.

  20. Like most “diversity” councils the SBA executive council isn’t very diverse is it?

    Bolsheviks all of them…f them

  21. They mention Critical Race Theory but don’t define it.

    So…can any *supporter* of Critical Race Theory provide a definition? Or do we have to adopt it to find out what’s in it?

    1. “can any *supporter* of Critical Race Theory provide a definition?”
      It’s that thing (this week) that gets Conservatives all panty-twisted.

  22. And who is fighting these communists..a good Italian boy…not surprised…its often “ethnics” as old Pat Buchanan would say who fight the internal marxists..always has been.

    1. Pat Buchanan is an antisemitic asshole.

      1. But he’s THEIR antisemitic asshole, and that’s all that matters.

        1. Buchanan hasn’t been the Republicans’ asshole since 1999 at the latest. That was when he left the Republican party. He later came crawling back, but was largely ignored.

  23. Still waiting for the comments about the Nicholas Wallace situation at Stanford.

    I don’t seriously expect Blackman or EV to weigh in, but I can’t wait to hear the rationalizations from others.

    1. Look up higher my dude.

    2. Still waiting for the comments about the Nicholas Wallace situation at Stanford.

      And we’re still waiting for you to acknowledge the stupidity of your comments on this issue. I’m betting we’ll both be here a while.

Please to post comments