The most delicate snowflakes yet: students at Western Washington University issue a ludicrous set of “demands”, and change some spelling

March 11, 2016 • 1:00 pm

Read on about the most ridiculous group of demands I’ve ever seen issued by disaffected college students—and that’s among a huge list of colleges whose students have demanded ludicrous authoritarian-Leftist reforms of their institutions. In this case, though, it’s Western Washington University (WWU), where the student demands (in the document “Student Assembly for Power and Liberation Demands [WWU]”) is so beyond the pale that it’s come full circle to unadultrated fascism—identity politics gone wild.

The Daily Beast and Inside Higher Ed (IHE) report on the students’ shenanigans, summarizing their demands (there are many more, as you’ll see if you look at the link above). The worst is the call for establishing the regressive “College of Power and Liberation,” which sounds like something right out of 1930’s Russia. Here, verbatim from IHE, is a summary of what the Snowflakes want:

  • A new College of Power and Liberation to focus on “the study of histories and communities that continue to be mis- and underrepresented into the mainstream curriculum at Western.” In addition to the college itself, the list calls for “a cluster hire of 10 tenure-track faculty,” a new building to house the college and that the Student Assembly for Power and Liberation have “direct input and decision-making power over the hiring of faculty for the college.”
  • That $45,000 be allocated to compensate students and faculty “doing de-colonial work on campus,” which is defined as “providing space and resources to learn alternate histories, supporting students’ nonacademic work, emotional and intellectual labor that is not about publishing or service to the institution, providing often unrecognized trainings, workshops and/or interventions on behalf of students.”
  • The creation of a 15-person student committee called the Office for Social Transformation “to monitor, document and archive all racist, antiblack, transphobic, cissexist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, Islamophobic and otherwise oppressive behavior on campus.” Using a three-strike system, the committee would have the power to take disciplinary action up to and including dismissal against faculty members who receive citations for creating “an unsafe classroom environment.”
  • A mandatory online survey conducted by the faculty and administration that would “allow Western Washington University community members to confidentially express concerns of discrimination and safety.”
  • A new “multicultural residence building,” applications to which would be overseen by the new Office for Social Transformation.
  • And finally that the university provide tuition reimbursement to “any Western Washington University student who has been targeted by, harassed by or has experienced excruciating acts of violence that [were] racialized, sexualized, gendered, based on ability, employment status, citizenship and/or mental health from the university.”

Note that the multicultural residence building, for which you must write an essay to qualify, will segregate students by ethnic group—exactly the opposite of what colleges should be doing. The fascistic “Office of Social Transformation” (shades of 1984!) omits anti-Semitism as an offense, of course, and also threatens faculty members with being dismissed for creating an “unsafe” atmosphere. Since when did “safety” change from physical threats into mental challenges? And the WWU students are demanding to be paid for giving emotional attention to other students.

To appreciate the full inanity of these demands, read the full 7 pages . There you will see one of the most bizarre aspects of that document: their new spelling for two words, to wit:

As has become increasingly obvious to us since we arrive at Western, we cannot count on the University to follow through for hxtorically oppressed students. These demands come out of a long hxstory of oppression played out at all levels of schooling, and just like the events of last quarter, these demands do not come out of nowhere.

We demand the creation and implementation of a 15 persxn paid student committee. . .

These aren’t typos: they’re used repeatedly, and are apparently a misguided attempt to “de-gender” words that have “his” and “son” in them. What’s next—an amino acid called “hxstidine” and toxic compounds called “poisxns”?

Finally, the student demands at WWU end with this lovely sentence:

We expect to receive a response from the university on March 1st, 2016 at 5pm agreeing with these demands and a proposed date to meet collectively.

According to both articles, the WWU administration hasn’t agreed to these demands, and has also pointed out the numerous legal and financial strictures they’d impose on the university. But the administration hasn’t done what I’d be tempted to do: give a verbal middle finger to these students. Perhaps some of their plaints are justified, but the students are so arrogant, so entitled, that they’re ruining any chance they have to effect change.

More no-platforming on a US campus

February 23, 2016 • 2:00 pm

by Grania

When Jerry sent me an article from The College Fix to read, I shouldn’t have been surprised at the story but I was – enough to do a search to see if this wasn’t a parody site in the style of The Onion and that the story had been reported elsewhere.

The story isn’t in fact unusual, it is in fact exactly what is becoming relatively commonplace news from campuses. Zach Wood, a student at liberal arts Williams College, who organises talks for a student group called Uncomfortable Learning, where members challenge themselves to hear different points of view—including ones that they disagree with—has now become the target of bullying, abuse and accusations of “promoting ‘violent ideologies'”. The reason for this is one we’ve all heard before: he invited a speaker whose opinions other students dislike.

Even worse is that Williams College President Adam Falk himself decided to cancel the invitation that had been extended, claiming these were “extreme circumstances“.

zach-woods-with-cornell-west
Zach Wood with Cornel West

The thing is, even Zach Wood disagrees with the views of the speaker, paleoconservative John Derbyshire. As reported in The College Fix, he says

[T]he point was to have him here so we could question him and support free speech and intellectual freedom….there were even students of color on campus who said we think this is an opportunity to challenge [Derbyshire’s] views, question what he thinks, assess how he would present his arguments.

This was a great opportunity for students to do the very things that universities and colleges are there for: providing an opportunity to challenge your ideas. Now, thanks to President Falk, that won’t happen. It’s one thing to hold a particular point of view. It’s quite another thing to decide that only your point of view may be heard.

The Washington Post has an interesting quote from Falk defending his choice to de-platform Derbyshire.

To create an environment in which students learn and are challenged by challenging ideas, he said, ‘requires something more nuanced than the free-speech absolutism needed to run a country or a town. There are some things that are destructive of our community, destructive of our ability to have those kinds of complicated, nuanced conversations.’

What Falk doesn’t say is why he thinks that the views of Derbyshire who was invited by a black student for the express purpose of challenging his ideologies would damage his college’s community; but that gutting the plans and purposes of a student group would not.

If I were Falk, I would also be considerably more concerned that his students are targeting a fellow student—not for his views, which they presumably agree with—but for daring to publicly meet with someone holding different ones. That, more than anything else, could really could be destructive to his community. And how safe can any student feel if the lesson they are learning is that only certain ideas may be discussed publicly, and all dissent is to be repressed?

That is not how you build a healthy society. It’s how you build a society that fragments into groups that practice exclusion, foster a lack of understanding of other perspectives, and worst of all, eliminate the ability to reach across social and ideological divides and reach some common understanding.

[JAC: I can’t help add this to Grania’s piece, because I see it so often: college disinvite, ban, or refuse to entertain speakers, all the while insisting that they’re in favor of free speech. And their empty paeans to free discourse is always followed by “but”. . .  when they explain why in this case free speech isn’t useful. They are “free speech butters” in the same way that atheists who coddle faith are “atheist butters.” And what they mean is “We are in course in favor of free speech so long as it’s the kind of speech we like.”

 

 

A British student union defends ISIS again, no-platforms an ISIS critic

November 6, 2015 • 11:00 am

If you want to talk about the “regressive Left,” the poster child would be Britain’s university Student Unions, which have a shameful record of suppressing free speech, especially when that speech criticizes Islam. Their latest shenanigan, as reported in The Independent, The Spectator and The Tab, is banning a speech by someone who battled against ISIS:

A university and its students’ union have been accused of displaying ‘horrible prejudice against the Kurdish cause, human rights and the freedom of speech’ after an officer banned a former student from speaking about his experiences fighting Isis in the Middle East.

Head of the Kurdish Society at University College London (UCL), Kavar Kurda, issued a statement online saying he was ‘angered’ and ‘deeply offended and disgusted’ after University College London Union’s (UCLU) activities and events officer, Asad Khan, blocked Macer Gifford from speaking at an event which was being organised by Kurda.

Speaking with online student publication The Tab, Kurda claimed he was told ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’ and that Khan further defended his decision by saying there were concerns an event with a person speaking about their experiences fighting in Syria ‘could lead to others going and fighting in the conflict’.

The Tab reports more reasons given by Khan:

[Khan] said in an email: “In every conflict there are two sides, and at UCLU we want to avoid taking sides in conflicts.”

. . . Asad said the Syrian crisis is a “contentious topic” and defended his decision to block the speaker.

He told The Tab: “It is important to note the rooms these activities take place in belong to UCL rather than UCLU and we liaised with UCL, who in turn wanted to seek advice from the police.

“When they didn’t get a reply, to stay on the side of caution, UCL also leant towards not providing a platform.

“The Syrian crisis is a very contentious topic with many different groups, and although I understand YPG are fighting against ISIS the situation is far too complex to understand in black and white as expected by the student.”

Why is it “taking sides” to present someone who criticizes ISIS? Isn’t a good university one that presents several sides, and lets students decide for themselves? According to Khan, however, that’s not the way it works at University College London: these issues are simply “too complex” to be understood by students. Clearly, though, Khan understands them, and what he really understands is that ideas critical of extremist Islam are simply to be kept from students.

Khan is someone who’s clearly lost his moral compass. Seriously—equating ISIS with those who fight against them? And banning a speaker out of fear that it may inspire someone to go and fight ISIS? Let’s hope that UCL changes its mind, and that university unions across Britain stop trying to censor speakers so that students are presented with only a sanitized and approved set of views.

Screen Shot 2015-11-06 at 9.26.33 AM
Censor Asad Khan (photo from The Tab)

More college shenanigans: After refusing to pass a motion condemning ISIS, Britain’s National Union of Students votes to boycott Israel

June 3, 2015 • 12:40 pm

I’m afraid Britain’s students have surpassed those of the U.S. in demanding Special Snowflake status, as well as in showing complete obtuseness when it comes to politics. This has just played out in a breathless display of hypocrisy.

In October of last year, I reported that Britain’s National Union of Students deep-sixed a vote to condemn ISIS. As I quoted from The Tab at the time:

Hand-wringing delegates at the NUS blocked a vote to show solidarity with Iraqi Kurds and condemn Islamic State militants because they say it’s “Islamophobic”.

The bill called for the Union – which claims to represent UK students – to support unity between Muslims, condemn the bloody terror of ISIS (also known as the Islamic State), and support a boycott on people who fund the militants.

But the motion offended Black Students Officer Malia Bouattia, who said: “We recognise that condemnation of ISIS appears to have become a justification for war and blatant Islamaphobia.

“This rhetoric exacerbates the issue at hand and in essence is a further attack on those we aim to defend.”

That’s arrant cowardice. But now, according to UK Media Watch, they have, as Willard Foxton of the Torygraph predicted, gone ahead and condemned Israel, at least by supporting the BDS campaign whose ultimate aim is to eliminate the state of Israel:

The NUS executive council passed a motion put forward by the School of Oriental and African Studies students union just yesterday to boycott Israel, and voted to align themselves with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign – a movement whose leaders explicitly call for the end of the Jewish state.

(NUS has previously passed resolutions condemning UKIP [the United Kingdom Independence Party] and former Education Minister David Lammy)

As the site notes, the NUS apparently has no problem condemning Islamophobia by refusing to condemn ISIS, but can easily condemn Israel through the BDS movement, which, with their mindset (and, given the BDS’s desire to eliminate Israel) could be considered the anti-Jewish equivalent to Islamophobia, also known as anti-“Semitism.”

*******

Back in the U.S.S.A., the chilling effect of entitled and hyper-offended students on teaching is expressed in a disturbing (and pseudonymous) piece on Vox by a college teacher, “I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me.” An excerpt:

I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to “offensive” texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students’ ire and sealed his fate.  That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn’t the only one who made adjustments, either.

I am frightened sometimes by the thought that a student would complain again like he did in 2009. Only this time it would be a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme — be it communism or racism or whatever — but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that’s considered tantamount to physical assault. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis writes, “Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated.” Hurting a student’s feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.

By the way, do read Kipnis’s Chronicle of Higher Education piece, too, “My title IX Inquisition.” You won’t believe what this feminist professor at Northwestern University experienced: two formal complaints for merely writing about censorship. After her earlier essay about overly intrusive campus regulations, she heard from a lot of other faculty:

Most academics I know — this includes feminists, progressives, minorities, and those who identify as gay or queer — now live in fear of some classroom incident spiraling into professional disaster. After the essay appeared, I was deluged with emails from professors applauding what I’d written because they were too frightened to say such things publicly themselves. My inbox became a clearinghouse for reports about student accusations and sensitivities, and the collective terror of sparking them, especially when it comes to the dreaded subject of trigger warnings, since pretty much anything might be a “trigger” to someone, given the new climate of emotional peril on campuses.

I learned that professors around the country now routinely avoid discussing subjects in classes that might raise hackles. A well-known sociologist wrote that he no longer lectures on abortion. Someone who’d written a book about incest in her own family described being confronted in class by a student furious with her for discussing the book. A tenured professor on my campus wrote about lying awake at night worrying that some stray remark of hers might lead to student complaints, social-media campaigns, eventual job loss, and her being unable to support her child. I’d thought she was exaggerating, but that was before I learned about the Title IX complaints against me.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better, and the only thing that will make it better is lawsuits.

h/t: Malgorzata, Jesse