The publicly-funded University of Lethbridge suspended professor Anthony Hall after he suggested that Israel was responsible for Islamic terrorism like 9/11 and ISIS. But the school has now reinstated him.
In an article for his website, Hall says “the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks were not a group of Islamic jihadists acting alone out of no other motivation than religious zealotry.” He added, “rather, the dominant group directing the 9/11 false flag event was composed primarily of Israel First neoconservatives who sought to demonize Muslims.”
The article is called “9/11 And The Zionist Question,” a question which Hall notes is “a contemporary extension of what Karl Marx and others used to refer to frequently in European literature as the Jewish Question.” It is a bit odd that Hall leaves out the most memorable promulgator of the Jewish Question, Adolf Hitler.
Hall repeatedly uses the term “Islamophobia” to cast genuine concern and criticism of Islamic extremists as irrational backlash against a marginalized group. What’s really curious, though, is that just a few months before the professor’s nearly 17,000-word screed, the UK government official who popularized the term “Islamophobia” distanced himself from it, stating, “for a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape.”
“I should have known better,” the UK official concluded.
Joshua Blakeney, a graduate student of Hall’s, received a $7,714 scholarship essentially to study 9/11 conspiracy theories. Apparently, the “ongoing financial commitment of the Province of Alberta” made this possible.
The University of Lethbridge paid Hall during at least part of his suspension and reinstated him entirely just last week. The school said it would address the professor’s activities “in the context of the faculty handbook,” but did not explain how. Campus Unmasked asked the school what it believed constituted academic freedom, as well as some questions regarding Hall’s tenure, but the university did not elaborate, citing legal implications.
But what about scholarly implications of reinstating the professor? Taxpayers are waking up to the fact that they are funding indoctrination mills and colleges’ opportunities to operate in the shadows are becoming slimmer and slimmer.
Prof Argues Dodgeball Is ‘Legalized Bullying’
The Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences is happening in Vancouver this week and lucky attendees got to hear from University of British Columbia professor Joy Butler, who told CTV News that school dodgeball “is tantamount to legalized bullying.”
Joy’s study argues that “the hidden curriculum of dodgeball reinforces the five faces of oppression defined by [another scholar] as marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.”
Hmmm…I don’t know if you can call dodgeball violent, I don’t think many kiddos play with baseballs or anything too damaging. As for the dominance part, yeah, it IS an exercise in dominance. And it’s important we teach our kids that many things in life — dodgeball, getting a job, buying a house, etc. — does involve competition, does involve hierarchy, things despised by cultural Marxists or blokes like Joy’s co-author and fellow professor David Burns, who probably didn’t do too well on the court, if I had to speculate.
It’s likely the case with a lot of social justice “scholarship” that you have “academics” who are projecting their personal struggles out onto society at large.
‘Critical Becky Studies’ Conference Comes To Toronto
You might be surprised to learn that “Becky,” an insult used to describe a basic white woman, has trickled into academia. Earlier this month, the Metro Toronto Convention Center held a symposium called “Critical Becky Studies: Critical Explorations of Gender, Race, and the Pedagogies of Whiteness,” reported Campus Reform.
What’s next? Critical cracker studies? Holistic honky analysis? Would this be acceptable for any other race? It also kind of poisons the well just a bit. Imagine purporting to give an objective presentation on Trump’s White House and the title is “Inside America’s Fascist Regime.”
Anyways, the description for “Critical Becky Studies” says “In the tradition of speculative fiction, parable, and counterstorytelling” — don’t think that’s a word — “within critical race theory, this session aims to problematize the characterization of ‘Becky,’ a term specific to white women who engage whiteness, often in gendered ways.”
If this Becky conference were about Starbucks or putting quotes from The Office in dating profiles, I’d be like OK, maybe there’s something to this. But it’s just more “intersectional” bollocks with a slightly more menacing angle. You see, progressives use their language very purposefully. If they’re talking about trans people, they make sure to get the pronouns right. Illegals? It’s undocumented immigrant or even just immigrant. Whatever’s the most respectful, normalizing term possible. But no such courtesy, in fact, just the opposite, for white women — who used to be the vanguard of feminism, by the way. Who will these rabid ideologues turn on next?
Canadian Student Journos NOT HAPPY With Doug Ford
One of the biggest problems we have here on American campuses is that students often have to chip in to support groups about which they couldn’t care less. What usually happens then is the university or student government gets a pot worth six or even seven figures and they distribute those funds to various student groups. But that money often goes overwhelmingly to funding left-wing organizations, probably partly due to most student activists being left-wing and partly due to a biased student government or college administration.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s new policy looked to fix that by only requiring students to pay fees for stuff pertaining to academics, health, counseling, recreation, and athletics, with individual colleges — so not the government — individual colleges getting to decide if students cover the other fees. But the Canadian University Press, a nonprofit owned by dozens of Canadian student newspapers, was less than thrilled, saying:
“Most of our member papers rely on student fees to fund their work. Without access to this funding, Ontario student publications will not be able to operate. The jobs they provide to students will be gone.”
The jobs they provide students…I don’t know about you, but at my school, the University of Virginia, we didn’t get paid to do student journalism. Working for the student paper was just like any other extracurricular activity.
Anyway, the Canadian University Press continues, saying student journalists’ “important role of holding governing bodies, whether student unions or university administrations, to account will go unfulfilled.” The group also calls Ford’s policy a direct assault on freedom of the press and free speech.
OK so first of all, how can students expect you to provide truthful coverage of student government or administrators when it’s the student government that decides how much funding you get and the administrators that sometimes have to give their stamp of approval? Seems like a conflict of interest to me. You can still publish stuff if you’re not getting paid, so this isn’t an infringement on your free speech, and freedom of the press also doesn’t entitle you to other students’ money, sorry.