Four days ago I put up a video and some commentary about a woman student at the University of California at Riverside (UCR) who stole a conservative student’s “Make America Great Hat” off his head. Rather than giving it back, she launched into a nine-minute tirade about how wearing that hat was the same as promoting genocide. She was wrong about that, and what she did was clearly theft. The student was criticized by UCR as violating community standards and suppressing free speech, which was an appropriate reaction from the University. I’d prefer they call her in and give her a lecture, but I doubt they’ll do that. In the meantime, there were reports she’s been threatened, so I didn’t give her name.
Below that post was a comment by chrisbuckley80, calling attention to how other students not only defended her behavior, but are now using it to issue the tiresomely familiar set of “demands” to the University. Here’s a screenshot of those demands, which you can go to by clicking on the screenshots. The woman’s name is now public since she posted the video proudly on her own Facebook page, her fellow students are circulating the demands below in her name, and articles naming her are widely circulated. I see no further need to withhold her name. Nobody on this site, I trust, would engage in threats.
Here are the inevitable demands that this incident led to. Note too that when a hijab is snatched from the head of a Muslim woman, something that’s equally reprehensible, the Left gets all up in arms. But when the hat is a MAGA hat, they applaud the snatcher and call for her protection—even for her rent to be paid. Note how the demands fall into the familiar ranks, like soldiers lining up to march:
Note the claim that free speech is used as a “dog whistle for the protection of white supremacist violence.” It was a HAT! Can you get any more hyperbolic than that?
I doubt that Macias will face any sanctions by UC Riverside, but the College Fix reports that the owner of the hat, Matthew Vitale, is filing criminal theft charges against her. Of course the students who signed the petition (I can’t find any names, because of course they’d be cowards) characterize her actions as “student dissent” in a “toxic political climate.”
Yes, it’s always dissent when “our” side does it.
h/t: Chris, Diane G
Did the hat have a built in dog whistle? Just askin’. As a college student from 1964 to 1972 and having been present at SF State during the riots (so I know the smell of tear gas, for example) I can be nothing but appalled at how shallow these students are. Hey, we were really shallow back then, but at least we were protesting the Viet Nam war, misogyny, and for economic and civil rights for minorities and women.
These people are protesting fucking hats!
A Chicago Neighbor
Are you certain you were protesting misogyny from 1964-1972? I participated in protests against the war from ’70-’74 and I just can’t recall the word or even the concept coming up. I recall occasional discussions about the Equal Rights Amendment and also a t.v. commercial for a cigarette with a jingle that said, “You’ve come a long way baby to get where you got to today, You’ve got your own cigarette now baby, You’ve come a long long way”. I suppose today the tobacco companies would also develop a cigarette specifically for “trans” too. I’m curious why the unsigned writers of the demands want to extend protection to queer and trans “students”, but “workers” of color. Queer and trans “workers” along with Students of “color” must be quite miffed. Being left out surely violates their right to safety from the emotionally and physically taxing feeling that stems from marginalization.
How depressing. Civilization is such a fragile construct, and human nature resists it.
How the hell do these kids find time to study.
I think this is the real mystery.
asy access to student loans combined with the desire to give *everybody* a degree is probably filling campuses with people who don’t really have a reason for being there.
Some months ago I opined that too many people go to university. The place exploded in rage.
I think you’re right. The standards are too low and the commitment needed to actual study and work ethic is also too low. I say that as someone with a chemistry degree (and I’m no genius). I can only imagine how trivially easy it is to get through 50% of the degrees…
If the hat stealer is representative,there clearly are no standards at UC. The “F” word is her favorite and she does not know the meaning of either genocide or stealing. Add to that her statement that she “hates this country” and you have a low-life ignoramous who should be asking, “Do you want fries with that?”
She is a pig….
They don’t study. They demand accommodations such as not being penalized for overdue work.
As a professor at a public university in the U.S., I can attest that “education” is low on anybody’s priorities, either administrators, politicians or a fair amount of students.
Also depressing.
On the bright side as long as such reactions are confined to University campuses the rest of the population don’t have to suffer it.
On the dark side some of the hat protesters will become embedded in real life jobs later on and carry their prejudices forward. The long march through the institutions anyone?
Just seeing this and the post from Monday. It isn’t clear to what extent Macias and her family are in danger. That’s concerning. It also seems like an extreme reaction from the other student to file criminal theft charges. Macias brought this on herself, though. The third request “…to support Macias through accommodations for late school work…” made me think of the word coddled. I doubt the school will implement any of these.
I think pressing charges is the right thing to do. She doesn’t understand what she did was wrong and she needs to learn.
I agree, taking anyone’s personal property is theft, and is not justified by a political belief. It’s also just a stupid, immature thing to do.
I agre with you and ploubere.
I also find the way these students always “demand” rather than ask intensely annoying. Who the fu€k do they think they are? Whatever happened to common courtesy?
She “ hates this country” for heavens sake. Can’t we buy her a one way ticket to a more suitable destination?
Unlike some earlier statements of this kind, the word “demand” is never used, rather “we urge”.
If I were in the admin, I would do all of the following:
1) refuse to admit I was involved in “tacit endorsement of harassment”
but….
2) concede on #4, and issue a statement condemning white supremacy and WS violence, and perhaps even consider sanctuary measures.
3) partially concede #3, at least on providing counseling.
but I would not concede much on 1 or 2.
On 2) I might consider issuing Macias a pardon but worded in such as way as to make clear it was a real violation of the student conduct code. Obviously, the University is not able to protect anyone from legal charges.
On 1) perhaps provide Macias with extra campus police security, and initiate strong investigation into harassers, but the housing request seems excessive.
I too thought #4 was ok, provided that the condemnation be one against calls for imminent violence from the right.
Unless the college has previously supported white supremacy there’s no reason for it to disavow it in response to this idiocy.
Id agree that some of the students seem to require psychiatric care but it is necessary to identify the causes and nature of of the problem. That problem isn’t trauma caused by white supremacy.
“Unless the college has previously supported white supremacy there’s no reason for it to disavow it in response to this idiocy.”
Exactly right. And there is also no justification for condemning only one species of violence (“right wing”), especially when the only violence that has occurred in this matter is from the “left wing”.
UC Riverside was founded in 1907, but did not graduate its first black student until 1958. You’d be hard-pressed to find many US universities without a history of segregation. For example, our host’s undergraduate alma mater (mentioned in the next post) was an all-white institution for the first 245 years of its existence (1718-1963). Some US universities had to be desegregated at the point of a bayonet. And at most US universities, the integration of faculty and staff is a much more recent phenomenon.
If it’s “previous support for white supremacy” you’re looking for, you needn’t look far.
Except the current faculty and administration of UC Riverside is made up of the people who successfully protested against segregation in US colleges. The people who are in charge have no blood on their hands, they are if anything to far in the “anti-racist” direction politically.
This is starting to sound like a Ship of Theseus riddle. If over time you replace the entire staff of an organization that could at some point in the past have been described as racist, is it still indelibly racist forevermore? My gut says no.
I was merely responding — as a factual and historical matter — to “Speaker to Animals” conditional regarding whether “the college has previously supported white supremacy.” I’m not trying to justify what’s currently occurring on the UC Riverside campus.
“Demand” is there. It’s in the part about accommodation.
Simple. Since these guys like Islam so much, chop off the hand that stole the hat. It won’t happen again.
Saw this on a blog called: Ask the Past. Maybe UCR can adopt this statute.
“We order and decree that teachers and students who are wearers of indecent garments, brawlers, drunks, nighttime ramblers, pimps, thieves, frequenters of taverns and other filthy places, players of dice, scoffers or trespassers of the statutes and commands of the Rector and the University, arrogant abusers of privileges, and especially aggravators of the citizens and committers of other scandalous misdeeds, if they do not desist after fair warning… shall be entirely excluded from the community of the University.”
Copenhagen University Statutes, 1479
Ha! Certainly arrogant abusers of privileges should be entirely excluded.
This seems like a great “teachable moment.” Let the university show these students that they are grossly misinformed about the way the world and democracy work. On another note, the link to the document allows you to sign, and leave comments(!), but there doesn’t appear to be a way to see who has signed, or view the comments.
The world is beginning to work that way, at least in the ‘enlightened’ West. The agents of this rot have given us Sweden as an example of where we are headed. Swedish academics have learned that keeping your mouth shut is the only way to keep your job. The Swedish public are subject to the same tyranny. There is only one acceptable opinion on social issues and you don’t dare utter anything contrary to the narrative for fear of ostracism or getting fired.
The conceit of what remains of the rational Left is that this is a fringe movement. It isn’t. The H Clinton Democrats are steeped in this shite. This is the mainstream in Social/Gender Studies and it has been for a long time. The Feminists have had their activist hooks into the legal system for decades and have been using their influence to erode due process rights for men. The regressive movement is anti-Western, anti-male, anti-White at it’s core. Gay men are now being included in the privileged enemy category. To these people, there is no such thing as truth, only narratives supporting power structures, and they are hell bent on promoting their narrative. They cannot accept a contrary opinion because all narratives are about power and it is a zero sum game to them.
Normally I would not want to see a prosecution for such a thing. “The law does not concern itself with trifles.” But her actions, the failure of the school, and the reactions of these students have elevated this beyond a trifle. It is time for adult intervention, and this is the only such available.
I mentioned in the Title IX threads that it was absurd for colleges to act in what should be legal matters but this letter shows a similar absurdity in assuming the college can prevent a legal prosecution.
Rapes are not for colleges to prosecute and thefts and assaults are not for them to dismiss.
Not only is it absurd, it is also questionable as to whether Title IX should apply to sexual assault. They used their usual bogus statistics to turn sexual assault into an issue of discrimination. This is why they scream so loudly and divert when the factual basis of their narrative is challenged. The house of cards would start to collapse if the fakery of their so-called research were exposed. The intent of the activists was to allow ‘survivors’, a prejudicial term in itself, an easy option to punish the accused with the added benefit an end run around the rules of discovery if the ‘survivor’ decided to move on to a criminal case.
I see that Edith is a “they”.
I suppose being charitable (not that I’m sure they deserve it) the bit about the university “protecting” a student from “legal charges” would mean spending university resources on her legal defense if necessary. Yes, that’s the charitable reading. The prosaic reading is these children think schools are magical places that can shield them from real world law and consequences.
The idea that UC should pay for her family’s housing is what seems really insane to me
It is kind of odd to discuss the idea of what sort of place the world would be if these folks had the full power of the law to enforce their beliefs, and simultaneously be holding a discussion on the merits of turning in all of our guns.
I have never been one to worry about being oppressed here in the US, but these are very scary people. I can absolutely envision them, should they have the power to do so, rounding the rest of us up and sending us to the camps.