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.


Harvard Held Onto Epstein Donation, But Fired Dean Who Repped Weinstein



Jeffrey Epstein donated $6.5 million to Harvard back in 2003, according to Newsweek. A few years later, the billionaire was the subject of a probable cause affidavit for sexual exploitation of minors and Harvard’s school paper asked the school if it planned on giving the money back.

“Mr. Epstein’s gift is funding important research using mathematics to study areas such as evolutionary theory, viruses, and cancers,” Harvard said. “The University is not considering returning this gift.”

Now remember that this was after 2002 to 2005, the dates during which court documents say Epstein put together his extensive network of underage victims, but before he was indicted in 2007, before Epstein got convicted of soliciting a teen for prostitution in 2008, and before Alexander Acosta, who stepped down as Labor Secretary Friday, made a deal not to prosecute Epstein that same year.

Harvard said last week that the $6.5 million Epstein had donated was already spent, but you’ve got to wonder if that was the case in 2008. And the school’s action is particularly curious given how in May, it outright fired Ronald Sullivan, a dean who was at one point representing accused rapist Harvey Weinstein, amid pressure from students and faculty.

If this kind of deranged guilty until proven innocent and guilt by association mindset is Harvard’s standard, what does taking money from Epstein say about the premier academic institution?

Continue Reading

Yale University

Yale Scholar: Central Asians Tell Me ‘Life Was Better Under The Soviets’



Yale scholar Emily Jane O’Dell recently tweeted out “Every single person I have asked…in Central Asia (and Eastern Europe) over the past decade and a half has said life was better under the Soviets — 100 percent,” reported Campus Reform.

I’d really love to know who those people are. You had the purges, the gulags, and I mean, it’s not for nothing that there’s a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to detailing the devices and strategies people would use, as well as some of the consequences they would face, from trying to escape East Germany.

And remember that this is the same Ivy League academic who’s tweeted stuff like “the real national emergency is armed white men” and “when the revolution comes, do you want to see white men suffer or should they be given a chance to reform?” “My 70-year old female neighbor said we should shoot them. Guess there’s lots of anger about.”

Emily sure does talk to some strange people…either that, or the discourse really has moved that far when it comes to communism and inciting violence against certain groups.

Continue Reading

Oakland University

FIFA Soccer Game Racist? These Profs Think So



University of Michigan prof John Cheney-Lippold and Oakland University prof Sam Srauy argued in a study that “realism — as a design strategy — can invite platform racism into seemingly neutral code,” according to Campus Reform.

EA Sports, the developer for the FIFA video game, uses data reviewers who watch real-life soccer players and then assign scores to these players’ in-game avatars. The study’s co-authors found that these reviewers rated black athletes as stronger and more aggressive than white or Hispanic ones on average.

The professors said “Black and Latino characters tend to be overly represented in sports related video games. Moreover, this overrepresentation tends to be [in] avenues where white fantasy of supposedly extraordinary black physical ability is expressed and exploited for white enjoyment.”

Supposedly extraordinary? Are you telling me that there might be a reason other than physical prowess for why black athletes are overrepresented in some sports like basketball and football? Hey, maybe I’m a victim of discrimination.

So while John and Sam took the higher aggression and strength scores for black athletes as a sign of racism in FIFA, they were a bit surprised to find how the data reviewers scored athletes for another stat: vision, which was a stand-in for intelligence and knowledge of soccer.

They said “The mean vision score for blacks was significantly lower than either whites or Latinos. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the vision scores of whites and Latinos,” something they argued “runs contradictory to the predominant racist belief.”

Continue Reading


%d bloggers like this: