Well, the nonsense continues on college campuses, but first the good news: a letter to friends and alumnae of the University of Colorado from its President, Bruce Bensen. Referring to pushback for hosting a video “seminar” by fugitive/whistleblower Edward Snowden, Bensen reaffirms UC’s principles of free speech. This is heartening, but after you’re heartened, read about the two incidents below the letter (sent to an alumna, Robin Cornwell, and published with her permission):
Now the bad news: two incidents on college campuses involving the melting of Snowflakes:
An Op-Ed by Catherine Rampell in yesterday’s Washington Post describes the consequences of a party at a notorious authoritarian school, Bowdoin College in Maine. A student there, apparently of Colombian descent, threw a birthday party for a friend, with the invitations saying this: ““the theme is tequila, so do with that what you may. We’re not saying it’s a fiesta, but we’re also not not saying that :).” Among the booze, games, and other festivities was the presence of tiny sombreros, a few inches across. Some of the partygoers were photographed wearing the miniature headgear, the photos appeared on social media, and all hell broke loose. As Rampell reports:
College administrators sent multiple schoolwide emails notifying the students about an “investigation” into a possible “act of ethnic stereotyping.”
Partygoers ultimately were reprimanded or placed on “social probation,” and the hosts have been kicked out of their dorm, according to friends. (None of the disciplined students whom I contacted wanted to speak on the record; Bowdoin President Clayton Rose declined an interview and would not answer a general question about what kinds of disciplinary options are considered when students commit an “act of bias.”)
. . . Within days, the Bowdoin Student Government unanimously adopted a “statement of solidarity” to “[stand] by all students who were injured and affected by the incident,” and recommend that administrators “create a space for those students who have been or feel specifically targeted.”
The statement deemed the party an act of “cultural appropriation,” one that “creates an environment where students of color, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, students feel unsafe.” The effort to purge the two representatives who attended the party, via impeachment, soon followed.
Again, I’m not sure that I would have furnished tiny sombreros were I throwing the party, but even such “cultural appropriation” isn’t deserving of this kind of severe opprobrium. (Do read the “statement of solidarity“.) It’s madness! What’s worse is the hypocrisy of the university evidencd by its own hosting of a different party
. . . The school’s reaction seems especially arbitrary when you learn that — on the very same night of the “tequila party,” just across campus — Bowdoin held its annual, administration-sanctioned “Cold War” party. Students arrived dressed in fur hats and coats to represent Soviet culture; one referred to herself as “Stalin,” making light of a particularly painful era in Slavic history.
What principle makes one theme deserving of school sponsorship and another of dorm expulsion? Perhaps race is the bright line, but not long ago people of Slavic heritage weren’t considered white either. Does intent matter? What about distance (geographic or chronological) from the culture being turned into a party theme?
Why can you appropriate Russian culture, and even represent yourself as Stalin, but can’t wear a miniature sombrero? Is it “punching down” to do the latter, but “punching up” to wear Russian headgear and coats? Isn’t that “ethnic stereotyping” as well? After all, not all Russians wear fur hats and coats.
And at the University of Pittsburgh (“Pitt”), a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor of Breitbart, a conservative, and an anti-feminist, caused similar pandemonium. I’m not a fan of Yiannopoulos, though sometimes I think he’s being deliberately provocative, inciting controversy and drawing attention by saying things he doesn’t really believe. But what he does say is often repugnant. Nevertheless, his views deserve to be heard, as they challenge current liberal ideology.
When he spoke, though, all hell again broke loose. Today’s Pitt News reports the reaction (remember, his talk was open to students, but they weren’t forced to go). First, Yiannopoulos spouted his usual blather:
Yiannopoulos, a controversial conservative writer and activist who tours colleges to speak about the need for free speech, spoke at Pitt Monday evening to a crowd of about 350 students, some of whom protested the lecture. The Board had allocated funding to Pitt College Republicans, who had invited Yiannopoulos to campus.
During his talk, Yiannopoulos called students who believe in a gender wage gap “idiots,” declared the Black Lives Matter movement a “supremacy” group, while feminists are “man-haters.”
The Student Government Board (SGB), which apparently paid for part of Yiannopoulos’s expenses, said that it was forced by its statutes to air a diversity of views, but they were “hurt” by Yiannopoulos’s talk. Some students even felt unsafe!:
Marcus Robinson, president of Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, said after leaving the lecture on Monday, he felt unsafe on campus for the first time.
“So many of us shared in our pain. I felt I was in danger, and I felt so many people in that room were in danger. This event erased the great things we’ve done,” Robinson said. “For the first time, I’m disappointed to be at Pitt.”
Robinson suggested that the University should have provided counselors in a neighboring room to help students who felt “invalidated” or “traumatized” by the event.
Counselors only? What about the balloons, Play-Doh, and puppy videos?
Of course students have the right to feel or react however they want, but seriously—they felt in danger because of what Yiannopoulos said? What kind of world is this? It is, of course, a world of victimization, a world in which free speech that you don’t like is demonized as “hate speech” and “violence.” It’s a world where you signal your own virtue by overreacting. And so it went:
While SGB focused on the issue of championing free speech in its release, students argued the lecture was “hate speech” and should not follow the same rights.
“This is more than hurt feelings, this is about real violence. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country. That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright,” Claire Matway, a social work and urban studies major, said.
I’m sorry, but I have real trouble empathizing with those students who felt that they were in “literal physical danger” (as opposed to metaphorical physical danger). Snowflakes like these must learn to live in a world where they won’t always hear what they like. (It’s too much to expect them to realize that they should actually seek out views they don’t like.) And, after all, nobody had to attend Yiannopoulos’s talk, and if you did, you’d have a pretty good idea in advance about what he was going to say!
I saw this tw**t the other day, by Freddie DeBoer:
“A white person completely avoiding what’s defined as cultural appropriation is functionally identical to the habits of a white supremacist.”
Great point!
‘Anti-racism’ as practised by the Campus Left and Regressive Left is as much a movement of racial essentialization as white supremacy.
It explains thier venomous dislike of ex-Muslims, because even Islam is racially classed in Critical Theory.
There must be complete equality: Tiny sombreros for some, tiny violins for the rest!
…and people wonder why Donald Trump is increasingly popular with those who believe they have been denied a voice.
Yup. I see this nonsense and my reaction is, this must be the conspiracy to elect Donald Trump at work.
sub
“Act of bias”
Let the Snowflakes cry HAVOC! And let slip the dogs of bias.
“Point on the doll where the culturally appropriated tiny sombrero hurt you.”
They should see the cartoon Mexicans on our local Mexican restaurant. Owned and run by actual Mexicans
sub
Yiannopoulos is a provocateur first and foremost. I don’t think he actually holds most of the conservative positions he espouses nor do I think he’s nearly as clever as he thinks he is, but at this point I think he’s enormously valuable person in the pushback against the regressives.
Edward Snowden is in fact one of the few true American Patriots. His critics on the Left and Right notwithstanding. Our government security apparatus must be held accountable with transparency and oversight. That can only be accomplished with whistleblowers like Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
If he is such a true patriot, I suggest he return to the US and (after he is arrested), face the music. He then can fight the system in court and if convicted, he will be a martyr to the cause. Instead, the coward hides in the bosom of one of our political enemies. Former PFC Manning should have been convicted and shot, but that’s another story.
I generally agree, but I think that even if Snowden wants to return to the USA, he will not be able to. I mean, it is unlikely that he will ever be allowed to leave Russia alive.
To me, he reminds another (low-tech) whistleblower: Bowe Bergdahl.
Why the hell should Snowden return to face a kangaroo court? Would you say that all Russian defectors in the Cold War should have been returned to face the KGB?
cr
There is a difference. About the Russian defectors, everybody – including the defectors themselves – said that their goal was to undermine and, if possible, to destroy the Soviet system of government. Nobody tried to present himself as an idealistic communist running to the sworn enemies of USSR in order to work for a better, more perfect USSR.
On the other side, Snowden, Manning and their supporters claim that their goal is to improve and strengthen the American system of government. However, the net result is the same as that of successful enemy spying: the enemy gets US confidential information.
“the enemy gets US confidential information.”
Like the confidential information that the CIA/NSA are illegally spying on everybody…?
cr
http://news.yahoo.com/britain-pulls-spies-moscow-cracks-snowden-files-011744817.html
That is not an argument. Snowden and Manning’s intent was obviously to let Americans know what their country was doing. By your measure, any whistleblower who publicly criticizes the US is helping the enemy and should be punished. It is very clear that the US government wants to be able to violate their own laws with impunity, and lie about it, when it serves their interest.
It is disturbing that some commenters call these whistleblowers “cowards”. They knowingly gave up almost everything they held dear to make these revelations, in the hope that public pressure might make their country more just and transparent.
Perfectly put!
We do not know Snowden and Manning’s intent.
About making their country more just and transparent… If “transparent” means the enemy knowing your confidential information, yes. But just? At least, I do not see the USA even the slightest bit more just after the revelations.
What I see is Americans hating and distrusting their government even more, and liking Putin’s Russia even more. Well, not exactly liking, but decided to let it do whatever she wishes, which from practical point of view is the same.
It is true that those two “knowingly gave up almost everything they held dear”. I think this is the problem of our civilization – we who like it want too badly to have good lives, while its enemies are self-sacrificing, such as Snowden, Manning, Atta, the youths going to fight for ISIS etc.
In a democratic country, holding government to an unrealistically lofty standard has as a result a paralysis of government.
“In a democratic country, holding government to an unrealistically lofty standard has as a result a paralysis of government.”
So, you would just let the government (or rather, it’s unsupervised, uncontrolled apparatchiks) do whatever they want, unchecked?
That certainly worked fine for, oh, just about every dictator you like to think of. I don’t even have to name them.
cr
I’d say, limit their legal ability to act on the information they obtain by the spying they apparently love so much. Remove their levers to harass and punish people because of expressed opinions or, say, having done an abortion.
I’d say that would be a worthwhile measure in itself.
However, the ‘intelligence’ services have repeatedly shown their contempt for any legal restrictions, which was the point of Snowden’s revelations. They would still find ways to harass and persecute anybody they disliked – including intentional ‘leaks’ (it’s okay when they do it, just not when someone else does it). Or, more insidious and corrupt, to lean on legislators to do what ‘intelligence’ wants them to do.
cr
I’m sure you’re aware that he was trapped in Russia when the US government revoked his passport as he was passing through. He didn’t intend to stay there.
Perhaps you’re also aware that he’s repeatedly said he’ll return if the US government allows him to argue in court that he was attempting to serve the public interest. But the government refuses to allow him to even attempt that defense.
The US government should allow this defense to him, so that everyone can see what the Russians will do. Unfortunately, these positions in the US government apparently aren’t occupied by very smart people. If they were, the situation would never appear in the first place. There would be no wide-scale illegal spying, hence there would be less classified information but it would be more relevant; and, perhaps most important, people like Snowden and Manning would never-ever get access to it.
“If he is such a true patriot, I suggest he return to the US and (after he is arrested), face the music. He then can fight the system in court and if convicted, he will be a martyr to the cause.”
I agree, and I’m not even necessarily convinced what he did was unjustified. I’d like to see a jury, with access to all the facts, make that decision.
Whatever makes you think he’d get a fair trial? It’s not just that he has mortally offended the spook establishment, it will be absolutely necessary for them to make a hideous example of him pour encourager les autres.
They’d get him one way or another.
At least in Russia he’s probably safe for the moment from, what is it, ‘extraordinary rendition’ and ending up in Guantanamo.
cr
“Whatever makes you think he’d get a fair trial?”
He’ll get a fairer trial than most people given that money will be no object. If what he did is justified because he was a whistleblower, then prove it.
From what little I know he went well beyond leaking material necessary to expose wrongdoing, if that isn’t the case he’ll have the opportunity to make his case to a jury, and the public.
The problem is that if he returned and underwent a trial for treason, the position of the Government as to admissible evidence would be that none of the evidence which supports the assertions which Snowden makes should be allowed into evidence. It is all too likely that the judge would agree and, in effect, Snowden would be denied the right to defend himself. In other words, it would be a show trial, much like the trials of alleged traitors held in the former Soviet Union. Any lawyer worth his salt would advise Snowden to stay put.
Government security apparatus with transparency seems like an oxymoron.
+ 1
A beautiful statement from the U of Colorado president. That letter is worth keeping as a tempered and balanced explanation of what is at stake here.
The first incident in particular stands in such stark contrast to the letter that it is hard to believe it occurred in the same country. It is the perfect example of the problem.
First they came for our little Oriental paper umbrellas that we put in mixed drinks…
Can’t use the word Oriental anymore, that is apparently culturally insensitive as well, as I was sternly informed a number of years ago. Which surprised me at the time, I always assumed Occident and Orient were somewhat dated geographical terms.
Then they came snatch away our upbeat and inane fortune cookie fortunes, like this one:
‘You will always have good luck in your personal affairs’.
Next thing you know, we won’t be able to use Septentrio or Meridies, either!
But we can still name baseball teams the Yankees.
If you think that’s bad, prior to the Milwaukee Braves moving to Atlanta in 1966, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium hosted the Atlanta Crackers.
Or football teams the Redskins.
Years ago I saw a good article by a Native American activist titled something like “To My African American Athlete Brothers”, explaining (and I think correctly) that those who played for the Braves, Indians and (especially) the Redskins were playing for a team called the equivalent of “niggers”. It is rather remarkable …
I sat down and listened to an interview with Yiannopoulos the other day, because up until then I had never read anything of his or heard him speak and I was cautiously curious.
Turns out the guy is not a bogeyman nor is what he writes or says “hate speech” by any stretch of the imagination. He’s intelligent, very articulate, witty and charming. He’s also deeply arrogant and self-assured and appears to be attracted to attention in whatever form it takes.
His ideas range from the completely reasonable and unremarkable (he actually is not against feminism, only its more rabid iterations) to the risibly outlandish (there’s no such thing as lesbians except for the ones that are).
I think he loves being the center of attention and rather fancies himself as an agent provocateur and will probably say things just to get a rise out of people.
If his opponents fear him for anything, it is his unwavering self-confidence and apparent immunity to conventional shaming tactics rather than because they actually believe either he of his ideas are dangerous. He’s as menacing as an over-exuberant Border Collie. If he has a problem it’s that he has a familiar difficulty with Twitter: he doesn’t know when to stop.
I think you pretty much nail the Yiannopoulos phenomenon. I think his most outrageous statements have been his remarks about trans women, a relatively small and vulnerable minority, although even then I understand the uncritical mentality he is trying to discomfort.
He’s a necessary evil is my view.
President of my Alma Mater, the University of Minnesota, gave the state of the university speech last night and he included this:
Rock on, President Kaler. It warmed my heart to hear this clip on the radio this morning!
I do not understand the “statement of solidarity” and the “impeachment proceeding”. Indeed, English is a foreign language to me, but nevertheless… It’s Newspeak!
First, kudos to the U of C!
As for the other ‘incidents’, I can hardly believe it. I dislike most hats, but I think Russian fur hats look great, and very practical in winter. And sombreros are cool (literally). I’d happily wear either, and if some wally started going on about my choice of what to wear I’d regard them with the same baffled have-you-lost-your-marbles stare I normally give to people who people who preach out loud on street corners.
cr
“Russian fur hats look great”
Yeah! I bought myself one at a market in St Petersburg whilst on a Baltic cruise a few years ago. I’d wanted one ever since I saw Arnie wearing one in ‘Red Heat’.
Never had any problem in wearing it, and have never been accused of “cultural appropriation”. I wore it when going through Russian immigration control on the way back to the ship, with no comment from anyone, except a quick glance at it from one official – and she was probably thinking “Bloody tourists!”.
‘she was probably thinking “Bloody tourists!”.’
On the other hand, she may have been pleased that you had spent some money thereby helping the local economy.
cr
I read the ‘Statement of Solidarity’ and noted the phrase:
Will the religious be able to invoke their ‘identity’ to shut down legal atheist debate? Will atheists be able to invoke their ‘identity’ to shut down legal religious debate? Nasty and dangerous.
Benson’s letter ought to be required reading for every administrator, lecturer and student at every institute of higher learning throughout the USA. I do not know what all the functions of a President of the USA may be but were he to have this disseminated with a cover letter commending its principles and objectives he would be doing an immense service to the country and to those who one day will need to assume the duties of responsible citizens in whatever fields of endeavour they may come to enter.
Next, students may be expelled for playing mahjong or chess.
This whole debate about free speech impeding student’s Safe Spaces has me thinking of that ridiculous movie Idiocracy. If the thinking that pervades student bodies manifest by the Statement of Solidarity, then the make believe future posited in the movie may, sadly, be realized.
The link to the statement of solidarity is actually http://students.bowdoin.edu/bsg/bsg/statement-of-solidarity-re-tequila-party/.
Apt point on the Slavs, but, of course, the whole movement is a cultural appropriation of Stalinism. Just be glad the snowflakes are still in training and don’t compose the managerial class (yet).
Personally, as a person of English extraction, I am deeply offended and threatened by the outrageous cultural appropriation shown by Hollywood’s blatantly false depictions of Englishmen, reinforcing stereotypes about tea and cricket and ‘Jolly good show, chaps’.
I think all such depictions should be banned.
There is one snag. I would, for credibility’s sake, have to stop laughing at Peter Sellers’ depictions of Indians (The Party) or Frenchmen (Inspector Clouseau), or the crazed triggerhappy American Otto in A Fish Called Wanda, or ‘Allo ‘Allo which lampoons stereotypes of the French. And Germans. And Italians. And escaping British airmen of the ‘Jolly good show, chaps’ ilk. Oops.
I think on the whole I’ll just have to suffer in silence through unfunny Hollywood ‘veddy Bwitish’ characters, so I can then laugh in culturally inappropriate fashion at everyone else.
cr
An older view of banning “inappropriate” depictions:
“We will not then allow our charges, whom we expect to prove good men, being men, to play the parts of women and imitate a woman young or old wrangling with her husband, defying heaven, loudly boasting, fortunate in her own conceit, or involved in misfortune and possessed by grief and lamentation — still less a woman that is sick, in love, or in labor… Nor may they imitate slaves, female and male, doing the offices of slaves… Nor yet, as it seems, bad men who are cowards and who do the opposite of the things we just now spoke of, reviling and lampooning one another, speaking foul words in their cups or when sober and in other ways sinning against themselves and others in word and deed after the fashion of such men. And I take it they must not form the habit of likening themselves to madmen either in words nor yet in deeds… Are they to imitate smiths and other craftsmen or the rowers of triremes and those who call the time to them… It will be forbidden them even to pay any attention to such things… A man of the right sort, I think, when he comes in the course of his narrative to some word or act of a good man will be willing to impersonate… the good man when he acts steadfastly and sensibly, and less and more reluctantly when he is upset by sickness or love or drunkenness or any other mishap.”
Plato, Republic, 395-396. Naturally, he never tried to write a play depicting only “good men acting steadfastly and sensibly”.
(I was of course being ironic when I said ‘banned’… )
But your point is quite relevant re the SJW’s
cr
A really cringe-making example was the ‘Englishman’ Higgins (played by an American actor, I believe) in ‘Magnum, PI’.
Come on Hollywood, we Brits don’t really hold garden parties to celebrate Queen Victoria’s birthday.
I would watch Magnum PI ‘if it was on’ and I was very mildly irritated by Higgins’ pseudo ‘Englishness’, though not to the extent of not-watching. Obviously YMMV and different examples of pseudo-English will annoy us differently.
The fact that John Hillerman was American didn’t bother me in the slightest. I don’t the least mind cross-national actors.
(Here in Auckland Renaissance Pictures produced ‘Hercules’ and ‘Xena’ TV shows and the same group of mostly Maori / Pacific Islander extras portrayed everyone from ancient Britons to Roman legionaries to Arab tribesmen to Mongolian horsemen to Japanese warriors, and everything in between. They would have had the Sombrero Police in paroxysms of outrage. If PacRen had even attempted ‘ethnically correct’ casting they’d never have got an episode made).
cr
As a stark counterexample, I was having beer with a coworker today, he of Pakistani Indian descent and I, a white American. My previous jobs involved working on deicing systems for military and civilian aircraft, including drones. We joked about how the area he is from isn’t prone to ice so I wasn’t killing his villagers at least. Both of us found the conversation hilarious, while still understanding the very serious issues masked by our sarcasm. Of course, we’re abrasive New Yorkers and this sort of thing can still get a pass here; I can only imagine the uproar at such a conversation at one of these “safe space” universities. The anecdote above was only the tip of the iceberg.
And where are these SJW’s marching in the streets to denounce drone attacks and actually risking getting themselves tear-gassed?
(Or, nearer to home, demonstrating against Trump’s notional ‘wall’ or the US ‘war on drugs’ that has turned parts of Mexico into collateral damage?)
The contrast between real, serious humanitarian problems and the SJW’s bickering over tiny sombreros is striking.
cr
Well said!
I’d like to see a student of Dutch-Colombian extraction throw a party where he handed out tiny wooden shoes filled with cocaine. The administrators wouldn’t know where to begin and their heads would explode.
A lot would probably depend on whether the administrators were ever invited to those sort of parties.
In the short term this will be remembered as the decade of snow(flakes). Hopefully only a decade.
An idea: the rich alumni of crazy universities should stop funding them, gather together and found a new university in a city with cheap real estate (Detroit?). Teachers and first students can be recruited from those kicked from crazy universities because of sombreros and other similar “offenses”. The campus must include only buildings used for teaching, as in poor countries. Students must manage their accommodation and meals themselves with the help of private providers in the city. Nobody will care what students do outside the classrooms. This will greatly reduce the size of administration and, hence, tuition fees.
Here’s my speculative idea, I’ve probably mentioned before. People understand situations through analogies and metaphors. A species of them are called conceptual metaphors which can be thought of as analogy-generators for speakers, and understood by listeners through their underlying (generating) principles.
Cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff documented many of them like “time is space” (“looking forward to it”; “let’s put this behind us”), or “argument is war” (“this is indefensible!”; “weak argument”; “attacking a position”). There are countless more.
Now, with Social Justice Warriors I observe two things that seem strangely related.
{1} They tend to be the most prominent members in the club of AWFUL, Americans Who Figuratively Use ‘Literally’. It could be a linguistic quirk where “literally” sounds more dramatic and is preferred.
{2} They tend to conceptualize disagreement as a form of violence. Again, this could be a histrionic quirk, making things appear more dramatic than they are.
But both things together, and the wide-spread, moral-panic-like situation may suggest that their whole “Rape Culture” idea or, “oppressor vs oppressed” dichotomy is really shaping the way they see things. The generating conceptual metaphor is elusive to me, but it suggests a starkly split worldview where some people are victims, and some are predators (everyone else is invisible and doesn’t matter, until they pick a team or get assigned to one).
Here are the terms sprinkled over their text:
“Rape Culture” is good example of a metaphorical-sort-of-literal-use. On the one hand, it’s a metaphor for a culture that is exploitative in a rape-situation kind of way: one group abusing the other against their will, phrased as “oppression”. They could have picked any number of other metaphors, but this reveals its origin in postmodernist-feminist “-studies” departments (probably through Critical Race Theory) and nicely contains many “helpful” assumptions or stereotypes like men as oppressors.
On the other hand, it’s often meant nearly literal, the alleged attitude that rape was somehow accepted and more literal in another way, that white people had colonies and were slavers in the US history (which reveals this as US centrist) and literally exploitative.
To me, it’s a form of vulgar postmodernism all over again. Often trivially true, but concealed in academese and seemingly profound insights, where we find a third typical feature of social justice warriors: the use of metaconcepts and nominalizations.
This all seems to be a helpful conceptualization for authoritarians who are activated like their Republican counterparts by the changing times, but are of a different tribe — which may explain why it seems to explode (there are a number of other takes, so I don’t propose this as the one and only — see Campbell and Manning’s proposal of a victim culture, discussed by Jonathan Haidt here for another but probably complementary take).
Apparently, then, Pitt is being criticized for even allowing him on campus. It was not enough that attendance was optional. But even more, it provides another bullet in the extreme right’s gun: further proof that universities are liberal hotbeds. Always suspect, with each new such incident they become more so.
Of course I doubt that even if the university could point to a record of presenting politically balanced views in the lecture series (for every Sanders a Trump), it would not make a difference to the extreme right.
[Please delete the word “not” from my final sentence above.]
Somehow, I suspect that the sort of social work that Matway (the given name is ambiguous as to gender, whatever that is) will be doing will not put them in “literal physical danger” of being stabbed with an AIDS patient’s set of works for not handing over wallet, phone and car keys. And clothes.
The experience might be educational for the (presumed) anthropoid.
It’s hard for me to imagine how tough life is going to be foe these poor oppressed students once then leave university. What a pathetic bunch.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the most extreme of them do not leave university: they will follow the academic route, and become professors teaching their very own “race and gender studies” courses. A self-perpetuating cycle of snowflakes…