Connect with us


Pro-Life On Campus? Prepare To Get Punched, Have Signs Kicked In, Chalk Erased




Are you a pro-life student? You might want to prepare to get punched, have your signs destroyed, and your chalk erased.

The first weekend of December marked the latest instance of left-wing intolerance to pro-life student demonstrators. Fifteen-year-old pro-life student Purity Thomas was praying and advising women in front of a Planned Parenthood when she was punched in the face, reported The Daily Caller.

If that’s not shocking enough, the police didn’t arrest this criminal. Now, Thomas knows who punched her but “she was not disclosing the identity of her assailant because the woman had just had an abortion and she wants her to heal instead of receive harassment.”

“I feel super sorry for her and I want her to know that we’re not violent, we actually care about her,” said Thomas. “Being punched was nothing compared to what those babies are feeling when they are aborted…and honestly, I would take a million punches if it saved one child.”

Texas State University student Ian Ramos kicked and punched in pro-life signs on campus. He stated the signs did not constitute free speech, which is a tad surprising for a history and government student. Ramos is pursuing a teaching certification, as of April 2017.

California State University, Fresno professor Gregory Thatcher erased pro-life chalking on campus, even after a student told him she had gotten permission to chalk in the vicinity. Thatcher will participate in First Amendment training and has to pay $17,000 for a court settlement, but Thatcher’s insurance company will be paying the fee and the professor “did not, in any way, admit to any wrongdoing.” Ramos, who destroyed the signs, received no punishment, and is unrepentant, saying he would do it again. Welcome to 21st century universities, where exercising free speech has its consequences, but prevent it, and you’ll be A-OK.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill




University of North Carolina faculty and TAs who are unhappy with the school’s decision to construct a $5 million building for a Confederate statue torn down by protesters — instead of, I guess, removing it from campus entirely — are going on a “grading strike” and withholding grades from their students in protest, reported Campus Reform. But it seems like UNC provost Bob Blouin, at least, is taking a stand.

He wrote an email to the school’s deans saying “Our students are entitled to receive their grades in a timely manner. It is especially critical for the students preparing to graduate next Sunday, as well as the thousands of students whose scholarships, grants, loans, visa status, school transfers, job opportunities, and military commissions may be imperiled because lack of grades threaten[s] their eligibility….The proposed strike exposes the University and individuals who withhold grades to legal claims for the harm they cause to students.”

Bob threatened “serious consequences” for instructors who do withhold grades. And that’s very good. You have to remember that these people aren’t the compassionate little angels they’d have you believe. No. These are single-minded ideologues who are prepared to sacrifice the scholarships, the job opportunities, and the general peace and sanity of their fellow students and faculty to get what they want, in this case, the removal of a symbol representing North Carolina’s history. Now the provost also mentioned that some UNC instructors are asking their students to take a position on the strike.

He said “such actions have been interpreted as coercion and an exploitation of the teacher-student relationship and in fact are a violation of students’ First Amendment rights as well as federal law.”

Yeah I don’t think I’d be too comfortable going on the record about the statue to someone who has control over my grade and, ergo, my future livelihood.

Continue Reading

New York University

NYU Shoots Down BDS Resolution



New York University’s student senate voted to divest from companies like Caterpillar and General Electric that do business with Israel, reported Campus Reform. But as we saw with the University of Michigan, students can pass a BDS resolution, but that doesn’t mean the administration will give two hoots.

This was a secret ballot vote and before we go any further, let me just say that I really don’t understand secret ballot votes. You’re electing student senators to represent you and your interests. If you don’t know how these senators voted — particularly on such a contentious topic as Israel — how will you hold them accountable?

NYU’s Black Student Union supported the resolution, suggesting that both Palestinians and American blacks fight against white supremacy. The group said “we continue to see a linkage between the Palestinian oppression and the struggle for Black liberation. Israel’s pervasive use of detention and imprisonment centers evokes similarities to police violence and the carceral state in the U.S. that targets and criminalizes Black communities.”

Notice the disingenuous framing of law enforcement as an institution that punishes people not for crime, but for the color of their skin. Anyway, remember George Mason University professor Noura Erakat? You know, the one who takes issue with people calling Palestinians a “mob” but doesn’t seem to have a problem with the term being used to describe Israelis? Well, she praised the passing of the resolution as part of a building of a “path for human rights,” but it doesn’t look like any of this even matters because NYU’s administration controls the cash flow and ISN’T a huge fan of the resolution.

An NYU spokesman said: “The University opposes this proposal….It is at odds with the Trustees’ well understood position that the endowment should not be used for making political statements.”

As for the left, isn’t it just a bit ironic that the same people who want money out of politics don’t want politics out of money?

Continue Reading

Minnesota State University

Prof Says Virgin Mary Didn’t Give Consent



We’re used to seeing #MeToo in Hollywood and the media. But the movement broke into a whole new institution recently when a professor suggested that the Virgin Mary did not consent to Jesus Christ’s conception. #MaryToo?

Minnesota State University professor Eric Sprankle suggested that “the virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays,” reported Campus Reform.

It’s not clear whether Dr. Sprankle has actually read the Bible. Luke 1, Verse 31 has an angel telling Mary “behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.” Mary’s response comes in Verse 38, when she says “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

One Twitter user pointed this out to the professor, but Dr. Sprankle was not having any of it. He said “The biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying ‘no’ negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.”

You know, I think it’s finally time for a challenge. Name one, ONE domain that social justice has not yet infiltrated. It started off in the confines of social sciences and humanities, but look where it is today. It’s reached the most technical of subjects with Princeton offering a “science after feminism” course, it’s hit the world of comedy, and it’s even trickled into the video game industry with scandals like #GamerGate.

It makes sense for religion, ordinarily viewed as a bastion of purity, to be the last stop for progressive, PC cancer. But something tells me you won’t find Dr. Sprankle criticizing consent when it comes to Islam.

Continue Reading


%d bloggers like this: