Now Calhoun's Replacement at Yale is Under Fire from Leftist racists

Calhoun College — which for decades and without incident paid homage to John C. Calhoun — was recently ordered by Yale University to revise its name to placate the demands of campus moral do-gooders. But the purging isn’t quite the victory some envisioned. As it turns out, Grace Hopper, the woman selected as Calhoun’s replacement, has yet another grievance group crying foul. The consternation this time is even more peculiar — Hopper, a female who rose to the impressive rank of Naval Admiral and greatly expanded the field of computer science, is considered a feminist paragon. But for the ever-evolving snowflakes of today, the color of her skin, ironically enough, creates a big problem.

In a Facebook response, The Yale Women’s Center began by voicing support. “However,” the dissenters continue, “we had hoped for a name change that acknowledged the years of activism by students of color and New Haven activists. We feel the decision to change the name from a white supremacist to a white woman, as amazing as she may be, is an act of whitewashing.” The group also complains “the decision to rename the college after another white person seems like an attempt to end this discussion on the history of white supremacy and its active and continued role in this institution and on our campus.”

HeatStreet reports on additional objections: “A PR person for the women’s center, Vicki Beizer, told the student newspaper that the administration let them down by ignoring names that would have ‘carried the dialogue further,’ and that ‘renaming the college after a white woman doesn’t put the cork in the bottle.’ Members of the organization also published an op-ed for the Daily to argue that ‘white femininity has often been used as a tool to enforce racist and colonialist structures,’ and that naming the college after Hopper was a ‘continuous perpetuation of white supremacy.’”

This is the problem with revisionist history and inculcating those who seek to erase or modify America’s heritage, and also with moral relativism, for that matter: Once you go down that path, there’s no knowing when to stop. There’s no question the U.S. had (and has) its problems, and slavery undoubtedly tops the list. But if the purveyors of political correctness are looking for icons who are pure and blameless, well, good luck with that. It’s a futile effort. Then again, their very definition of pure and blameless is grossly distorted. They think the only righteous path is to idolize someone who’s not white.

SOURCE 





Why Professors Object to Being Recorded

After the election of Donald Trump as president, a professor at Orange Coast College in California, Olga Perez Stable Cox, went into an extended hate rant against the president-elect. Among other things, she described Trump’s election as an “act of terrorism,” labeled him a white supremacist and called Vice President-elect Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

And this wasn’t even a political science class in which one might expect political talk, no matter how irresponsible. Cox is a professor of human sexuality.

When a student who recorded the diatribe posted the recording on social media, the professor’s union, the Coast Federation of Educators, AFT local chapter 1911, said on Facebook: “This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student will be identified and may be facing legal action.”

According to the union, the recording “violated the professor’s course syllabus, the Coast Community College District Code of Student Conduct, and the California Educational Code (sic), section 78907, which (exists) to provide a robust, learning environment for all students irrespective of their opinions.”

The aforementioned California Education Code section states, “The use by any person, including a student, of any electronic listening or recording device in any classroom without the prior consent of the instructor is prohibited.”

The American Association of University Professors has long opposed unauthorized recording and public posting of what professors say in classrooms.

As it happens, I taught for two years at Brooklyn College. I recall students asking me whether they could record my lectures. And I remember thinking, “Why on Earth would I say no?”

I wanted whatever I said in a classroom to be heard by more than 50 people. “Who wouldn’t?” I wondered.

Here, then, is my theory as to why most professors who object to their class lectures being recorded do so: They fear having what they say exposed to the general public.

Our colleges and universities (and an increasing number of high schools and elementary schools) have been transformed from educational institutions into indoctrination institutions. With the left-wing takeover of universities, their primary aim has become graduating as many leftists as possible.

The vast majority of our colleges have become left-wing seminaries. Just as Christian seminaries exist to produce committed Christians, Western universities exist to produce committed leftists. Aside from the Christian-leftism difference, universities differ in only one respect from Christian seminaries: Christian seminaries admit their goal, whereas the universities deceive the public about theirs.

Thus, in the “social sciences” — disciplines outside the natural sciences and math — a large number of college teachers inject their politics into their classrooms. And if they are recorded, the general public will become aware of just how politicized their classroom lectures are.

But there is another reason.

Most professors objecting to being recorded know on some level that they are persuasive only when their audience is composed largely of very young people just out of high school. They know that if their ideas are exposed to adults, they may be revealed as intellectual lightweights.

Students therefore need to understand that when professors object to being recorded, it is a statement of contempt for them. The professors are, in effect, saying to their students: “Listen. I can get away with this intellectually shallow, emotion-based propaganda when you are the only people who actually hear it. You aren’t wise enough to perceive it as such. But if people over 21 years of age hear it, I’m toast.”

All rules governing the recording of conversations without permission should apply to a professor meeting privately with a student.

But when professors stand in front of a class, they are in the public domain. Moreover, the public pays at least part of these professors' salary at virtually every university. We therefore have a right, and even a duty, to know what professors say publicly in classrooms.

In fact, I would encourage every student who cares about truth and intellectual honesty to record what their professors say in class. I would also encourage every parent to find out for what they are paying. And I would encourage professors to record themselves in order to protect themselves against doctored material.

Any professor who is not ashamed of what he or she is saying in class should welcome being recorded.

And any student taking a class with a professor who objects to being recorded should know that this objection is almost always equivalent to the professor saying: “I want you to hear what I say in class because I’m quite confident that you can’t differentiate between instruction and indoctrination. But if what I say goes public, people who do know the difference will expose me as a propagandist.”

SOURCE 





Educating Our Student Athletes: Giving Them Too Much Safe Space Leaves Them with Too Little Knowledge

If Cleveland Cavalier basketball player Kyrie Irving's revelation about the planet upon which we live reflects the kind of education our young people are receiving in 21st century America, recently confirmed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos most definitely has her work cut out for her.

While obviously the beauty of a free society is one is allowed to say what one thinks, Irving's recent observation should give us pause to ask: Are we guilty of failing to teach our young people even the basics of what is necessary to intellectually survival?

In a podcast discussion with his teammates, Irving announced his belief-and this is not a joke-that the Earth is not round. He adheres to the position advocated by the Flat Earth Society (most recently resurrected in 2004) our planet is flat!

In his own words, Irving stated, "This is not a conspiracy. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat."

Interestingly, as Irving typed this, he and his teammates were on a flight-providing them with a vantage point, he suggested, that proved his claim. Alluding to a dubious group he would only identify as "they," Irving wrote, "It's right in front of our faces. I'm telling you. It's right in front of our faces. They lie to us."

Continuing with his otherworldly explanation, Irving said, "What I've been taught is that the earth is round. But if you really think about it from a landscape of the way we travel, the way we move and the fact that, can you really think of us rotating around the sun and all the planets aligned. Rotating in specific dates, being perpendicular with what's going on with these planets."

Irving attended Duke University where he was a freshman basketball phenom. He left in 2011 after only one year to play professional ball. So, in all fairness, "Earth is Not Flat 101" could have been a course Duke University reserves for its upperclassmen. (As a University of North Carolina graduate, the author could not pass up the opportunity to pick on Duke.)

Nonetheless, after six years in the real world, if Irving still believes the Earth is flat, one can only assume, not only did Duke University provide him with too much safe space while attending, but that the Cleveland Cavaliers have done the same.

Irving acknowledges although he has seen photographs taken by astronauts clearly depicting a round planet, he remains unconvinced. It would be interesting to learn what he then thinks our astronauts observe as they orbit underneath a flat Earth. Or to query him on how a ship can depart a port, like Miami, head off in one direction and return to it from a different direction without ever backtracking.

When Irving left Duke, he made his father a promise he would still pursue a degree from the school and earn it within five years. He failed to do so, blaming the time commitment he had to give to play on the 2012 U.S. Olympic basketball team and his professional team.

Like Master Po sharing knowledge with his young student training to become a Shaolin monk in the 1970s television program "Kung Fu," Master Irving shared his wisdom with his teammates, "Anytime you have a specific question, like, ‘Is the Earth flat?' or ‘Is the Earth round?' I think you need to do research on it."

But one only wonders how much research Master Irving has responsibly done on this issue. He clearly chooses to ignore observations of a respected "been there, done that" expert on the matter. In 1972, the last man to walk on the moon, twenty years before Irving was born, was the late Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan. As one critic points out, Cernan informed all doubters at that time: "I know we're not the first to discover this, but we'd like to confirm...that the world is round."

Irving is most likely a benefactor of an education system in our country that places more merit on athleticism than knowledge. His outlandish flat earth claim is a good example of why we need to take a serious look at the system and the special privileges given athletes that prevent them from obtaining a solid education.

Studies already show the U.S. lags behind other countries in scores students are obtaining in math and the sciences. Thus, student athletes already suffering knowledge deficiencies from an ailing education system are even being denied the most basic knowledge about the world around them. In Irving's case, his whole world revolves around a basketball court. It has failed to teach him, just because his world is flat, does not mean ours is.

Sadly, the fact Irving's claim is even generating a national discussion is worrisome. It suggests he may not be the only one our education system has shortchanged.

SOURCE