People need to know what words are approved and who you can bully. That’s what campus inclusion is all about. Defining the protected classes, all of whom have to think one way and one way only. Failure to comply will result in “discipline” regardless of race, sex, age, or gender.
Being special is contingent on ideological purity. Failing the test opens you to any abuse imaginable.
Last year Amherst College Republicans were harassed with flyers claiming they were the KKK. Stereotyping and discrimination are common from the left. So is using force to compel speech and action. So, it could not have been surprising that Amherst College announced a “common language document.”
The Amherst guide was pulled immediately, but it’s still out there (and here) will have average American’s shaking their head.
Much like the UNH Bias-Free language guide (which I went on about recently, here) the culture that saw a need for it and created it isn’t going anywhere.
- The “white savior complex,” defined as “an attitude or posture of condescending benevolence based on the idea that white people inherently should, are in a position to and are qualified to ‘save’ people of color.”
- …fragile masculinity is “a state of requiring affirmation of one’s masculinity and manhood in order to feel power and dominance … For example, men being hesitant to cry is an example of fragile masculinity.”
That is the sort of thinking that results in cases like this. Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. Oberlin is an intellectual dead-end. A repository for hate-hoaxers, and the institutionally aggrieved. So, when three people of color were caught shoplifting (a crime that is not contested according to reports) Oberlin’s students and staff black-listed the bakery.
They protested and spread flyers labeling the white family that owns it as racist for stopping shoplifting students of color. It affected their business, and they are suing the College and select staff who they claim abetted the defamation.
Was it free speech? That will matter at trial but not this: the diversity movement is an enemy of free speech.
Just look at the Amherst College Speech Guide. It’s a real page-turner and a shared vision on the campus left. But one with what we might consider contradictions.
- Discrimination: Action based on prejudice. When we act on our prejudices, we are discriminating
- Prejudice: is a learned prejudgment that is Simplistic where assumptions are made and
projected onto everyone from that group. - Stereotypes: go beyond necessary and useful categorizations and generalizations in that they are typically negative and are based on very little information or inaccurate information.
Then there’s this.
- Reverse Oppression: There is no such thing as reverse oppression. Oppression is OPPRESSION predicated upon access to institutional power. Marginalized communities do not have access to institutional power.
So, College Republicans (for example), a marginalized minority community on the Amherst College campus (on just about every campus), is incapable of being oppressed. It is also impossible to prejudice, discriminate, or stereotype them. Why? Ideological purity.
The guide may be officially verboten, but it exists. The people, thinking, and teaching behind it continue. The minds corrupted by it will leave college and enter the real world where they do real damage to liberty and free speech. This worldview is not compatible with the constitutional republic.
Amherst College Common-Language-Guide_March-2019https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/previewing-gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-social-justice-free-speech-or-defamation/
