Connect with us


Dartmouth Disavows But Keeps Prof Who Justifies Violence





A Dartmouth professor is currently on a nationwide tour in support of his new book and will donate half of the money he gets from book sales to Antifa.

Dartmouth professor Mark Bray’s new book, “Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook,” chronicles the history of the antifascist movement and Bray will contribute half of the books proceeds to a fund for Antifa’s medical, legal, and personal expenses, reported Campus Reform.

In a tweet, the Dartmouth professor stated, “to me, physically stopping a neo-Nazi group before they come to you is self-defense, b/c neo-Nazism is a threat to humanity.”

But it’s not self-defense if you strike first and who is a Nazi? With psychology professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Jewish author Ben Shapiro getting branded as Nazis and Antifa protesting them, you’d think Bray would want to define his terms, as well as give the antifascists even a little bit of scrutiny, particularly when the Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s activities “domestic terrorist violence.”

Bray isn’t the only Antifa supporter in the ivy towers. There’s Eric Clanton, the former Diablo Valley College professor who bust a bike lock on a Trump supporter’s head. There’s also George Ciccariello-Maher, the Drexel University professor who said all he wanted for Christmas was a “white genocide” and who blamed the Las Vegas and Texas massacres on white “Trumpism.”

In a statement, Dartmouth president Philip Hanlon said, “we condemn anything but civil discourse in the exchange of opinions and ideas…the endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values.” Yet more than 100 of Bray’s colleagues in academia want Hanlon to retract the statement, saying Bray didn’t call for violent protest. Conversely in the same statement those same colleagues ceded that Bray called for self-defense against violent fascists…except Bray never said the so-called fascists had to strike first.

Continue Reading

Georgetown University

Georgetown Sides With Acosta Against Trump



The White House revoked Jim Acosta’s press pass after a heated exchange he had with President Donald Trump, but CNN sued Trump to get it back. And now a Georgetown University law institute has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Acosta, reported Campus Reform. Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection said that “To dislike Acosta’s and CNN’s reporting is President Trump’s prerogative; but to retaliate against them by revoking Acosta’s White House security credentials (sometimes called a ‘hard pass’) tramples on the Constitution.”

So, the core argument here is whether Trump banned Acosta because of his viewpoint or because of his behavior. Let’s be honest: CNN and the president don’t tend to agree on a whole lot of things, but during that press conference, Jim would just…not…shut…up. It’s kind of like the difference between protest and disruption on college campuses. Acosta was arguably infringing upon the rights of other reporters by refusing to let them speak.

The Georgetown law institute said that “such retaliatory action not only harms CNN and Acosta but also aims to chill the constitutionally protected speech and newsgathering activity of other journalists whom the public depends upon to question government officials vigorously and to report candidly on the responses.”

Again, wasn’t it Acosta doing the chilling by not letting others speak? It’s a kind of cringe cliche, but the jobs vs. mobs dichotomy does seem to be at play here. One side wants to address facts and figures and have an actual discussion, whether it’s in the classroom, on social media, or in the White House. And the other side is perfectly content to throw civility out the window.

Continue Reading

Emporia State University

Student Gov. Tries To Impeach Student Who Said ‘Illegal Alien’



Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach lost the gubernatorial race last week to Democrat Laura Kelly and now Michaela Todd, one of his supporters on campus, may be losing her seat as vice president of Emporia State University’s student government. Michaela posted about Kobach’s stance on taxes, abortion, welfare and immigration, saying “Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens….The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day,” according to Campus Reform.

Pretty mild take, right? A nation’s own people before everyone else? But the school’s Multicultural Greek Council, as well as some students/former students, weren’t too pleased.

She called using the term “illegal aliens” “dehumanizing” and suggested it went against the student government oath of office. But here’s the thing: “illegal alien” is a term used in federal law. It’s used in Section 1252(c) of the “Aliens and Nationality” part of the US Code and Section 1365: “Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals.”

This is federal law — we’re not in Kansas anymore, Kayla. The Supreme Court has used “illegal alien” in at least two different cases, De Canas v. Bica, which concerned the hiring of “illegal aliens,” and Arizona v. U.S., which addressed Arizona’s immigration law. And as we all know, President Donald Trump is a yuge fan of the term. That’s the third branch of government so yeah I think we’re PRETTY covered in terms of precedent.

Get this: Michaela removed “illegal alien” from her post and apologized for using it, but the student government tried to impeach her. It was unsuccessful, but the group’s diversity and inclusion committee has called for her to resign. Michaela’s not willing, but they may just make her. Such are the wages of not using the most current version of the Newspeak dictionary.

Continue Reading

University of California at Berkeley

Christian Student Senator Refuses To Resign



Isabella Chow was the only UC Berkeley student senator not to vote “yes” on a resolution condemning Trump’s proposal to change Title IX so that gender is the same as biological sex, according to Campus Reform.

She didn’t vote against the resolution, but simply abstained from voting, saying “I cannot vote for this bill without compromising my values and my responsibility to the community that elected me to represent them. As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right and true.”

Now Isabella said she opposed discrimination and harassment and, provided that’s true, this seems to be a case of actions speak louder than words because think about it: what exactly is the proposed Title IX change going to do? Cut down bureaucracy. The government typically only keeps track of people’s immutable characteristics or things that can be objectively determined, like race, age, income, etc. Biological sex is one of those; you’re either a man or a woman. Asking the government to account for self-determined gender identity is kind of like asking it to account for personality: it’s messy and open to interpretation.

But back to Berkeley. Isabella’s own party, the Student Action group at UC Berkeley, wasn’t too pleased with the student’s choice to sit that vote out. It said “as a party, we are committed to ensuring that the rights and dignity of the Queer and Trans community on this campus are guaranteed. As a party, we are committed to establishing and defending access to reproductive health services….That is why we, as a party have resolved to part ways with ASUC Senator Isabella Chow.”

There have been calls for Isabella to resign from student government. The student senator refused and tried to submit an op-ed to the campus paper to explain her point of view. But The Daily Californian said her piece “utilized rhetoric that is homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.” When Isabella asked how she could modify it, the paper said that “the submission as a whole doesn’t meet the newspaper’s editorial standards.”

You know, standards like providing a platform only to progressive orthodoxy.

Continue Reading


%d bloggers like this: