RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/10/calling-out-the-head-cheerleader-for-cop-killers/

During the George Floyd riots, Weber State University criminal justice professor Scott Senjo posted tweets that displeased the school’s bosses. Senjo apologized, resigned, then rescinded his resignation. Weber State then placed him on leave and now announces that Senjo is “no longer employed at the school.”

North of the border, University of British Columbia board of governors chair Michael Korenberg “liked” tweets by Dinesh D’Souza, a tweet wishing Donald Trump a happy birthday, and a tweet critical of Black Lives Matter. The Antifa-affiliated “UBC Students Against Bigotry,” protested Korenberg’s “likes” and he duly resigned, issuing a groveling apology and a statement that he supports Black Lives Matter. 

In such a totalitarian environment, it might be instructive to focus on a university professor who made statements of utter depravity yet managed to keep his job with the full approval of the administration. This takes us to Davis, California, a short stretch down Interstate 80 from the state capital of Sacramento. 

On January 10, 2019, convicted criminal Kevin Limbaugh gunned down Natalie Corona, 22, a rising star in the Davis Police Department. The community hailed Corona as a hero who paid the ultimate price for her service. Thousands of people, including police officers from across the country, attended a memorial for the slain officer. 

Over at UC Davis, on the other hand, one professor openly supports the murder of police officers. 

That would be Joshua Clover, a full professor of English and comparative literature, whose publisher Verso Books describes him as a Communist. Born in Berkeley in 1962, Clover is an alumnus of the prestigious Boston University and the Iowa Writers Workshop. He once bagged an NEA grant as well as the Walt Whitman Award from the Academy of American Poets.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-challenger-of-the-woke-company-policy-11594405846?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

“There are, Mr. Loury stresses, many aspects of American life “in which race will assert itself. And I want not to seem to be failing to acknowledge that.” There is certainly some discrimination in policing and the courts, he says. “But it can explain maybe 15% or 20% of the gap between black and white incarceration rates, not the whole thing.” Most of the difference, he insists, turns on the behavior of people.“If you want to call that racism, then you’re calling everything racism.”

Next spring Glenn Loury will teach a new course on freedom of expression to students at Brown University, where he’s a professor of economics. “We’ll read Plato, Socrates, Milton, John Stuart Mill, George Orwell and Allan Bloom, ” he says, stressing that Bloom’s best-known work, “The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students,” is as relevant as it was when published in 1987.

Mr. Loury is thinking about adding “the Paxson letter” to his syllabus, so that his students might critique it. That June 1 missive to “the Brown Community” from Christina H. Paxson, Brown’s president, asserted that “oppression, as well as prejudice, outright bigotry and hate, directly and personally affect the lives of millions of people in this nation every minute and every hour.” It committed the university to “programming, courses, and research opportunities” that promote “equity and justice.”

Mr. Loury scorns the letter as Ms. Paxson’s “company policy” and “the Black Lives Matter view of the world reflected from the Brown University college president’s office.” On June 5, he published a rebuttal in City Journal. Ms. Paxson’s letter was signed “by everybody,” from deans to the general counsel and even the investment manager for Brown’s $4.2 billion endowment, Mr. Loury tells me by Zoom from his home in Providence, R.I. “That made it an official policy,” he says. “I don’t think universities should have official policies about contentious political issues.”

If they do—“if we foreclose debate over contentious issues by declaring that there’s only one way for a decent person at this university to think about them”—“how can we fulfill our mission of teaching our students to think critically?” Scholarly inquiry ought to consist of an exploration of the evidence, the “moral commitments,” the political issues and the historical context. The Paxson letter makes these “hard questions” more perilous to ask.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/506762-trump-tells-treasury-to-review-universities-tax-exempt-status

“Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but that were villains,” Trump continued.”

President Trump on Friday threatened the tax-exempt status of and funding for universities and colleges, claiming that “too many” schools are driven by “radical left indoctrination.”

“Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues,” Trump tweeted. “Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!”

Trump did not name specific institutions whose tax-exempt status he wants the Treasury Department to review. Most private and public colleges and universities are exempt from taxes because they qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations.

It would fall to the IRS, a bureau of the Treasury Department, to conduct the review that Trump described. However, federal law prohibits the IRS from targeting groups for regulatory scrutiny “based on their ideological beliefs.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/07/27/the-closing-of-the-american-mind%e2%80%88/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_

The media and the universities have mostly lost interest in fair debate

Cheers, but just two of them, for this special issue of National Review on the defense of America’s heritage and heroes.  

Following the murder of George Floyd on May 25, it was inevitable that a strong reaction would take place. All elements of American society joined in condemnation, from the president, to members of Congress, to the black leadership, to the population at large. Protests ensued, directed first at the police and then at targets indifferently charged with a measure of blame, from the federal government, to the nation’s historical legacy, to the newly minted abstraction of “systemic racism.” Dismissing the plea of Floyd’s girlfriend to remember that George “was about love and about peace,” and the assertion of Floyd’s brother that his family is “peaceful” and “God-fearing,” mobs soon formed within and alongside the protesters, bringing arson, violence, murder, and the widespread destruction of property, estimated to be among the most costly ever for an eruption of civil unrest. Mass iconoclasm against monuments, statues, and symbols of the West became the order of the day, as the lawless made a jubilee of the suspension of police enforcement.

Assembling important thinkers to set straight the historical record of America is assuredly a good thing. It should help make clear that Christopher Columbus, though a harsh commander, was a brilliant and dauntless explorer; that George Washington, rumored to have chopped down a cherry tree, was a man of extraordinary skills of leadership; that Thomas Jefferson, for all his moral shortcomings, was a statesman of unparalleled intellect; and that Abraham Lincoln, coming from a deprived background, succeeded in keeping the Union together and emancipating the slaves. These persons merit recognition for the good they did for the nation, which is certainly more than what the woke today, who celebrate their superiority by claiming to live lives without flaws, have contributed. 

Why then not go ahead and extend a full three cheers to this special issue? If there is a reason, it is the premise that if only the real facts are made known, the false reasoning and deceptive narratives behind so many of the ideologically tinged historical accounts of our time will eventually come tumbling down. The truth will set us free. But the reality is more dire than many suppose. America is now well down the road to losing its capacity to respond to argument. Let’s be clear about terms. Arguments are encountered everywhere today, filling almost every nook and cranny of intellectual space. But a repetition of arguments is not the same as the willingness and ability to argue, or the same as cultivating a disposition to consider alternative viewpoints. American society is now arranged from top to bottom, institutionally and sociologically, to suppress the encounter with different ideas and to fix thoughts automatically on set positions.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/the_academic_marketplace_of_ideas_is_dead.html

Academics are now refusing to make accurate information public lest any conclusions run counter to the leftist narrative.

In 2019, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (“PNAS”), a peer-reviewed journal, published a study from two psychologists showing that American police were not shooting blacks as disparate rates compared to other races. In the most recent issue of PNAS, the psychologists withdrew the study, not because it was wrong, but because they objected that conservatives were using the study to challenge the Black Lives Matter narrative.

The psychologists, Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland, studied 917 instances, from 2015 through 2019, in which police fatally shot civilians. They were trying to determine whether race could be a factor in predicting shootings. They found that it could not.

Heather MacDonald cited the article when she appeared before Congress in September 2019 and wrote about it in a City Journal article. Regarding that article, it’s essential to know that MacDonald noted that two Princeton political scientists challenged the study, but that both Cesario and Johnson stood by their original findings.

The fact that MacDonald used peer-reviewed data to show that American police are not systematically massacring blacks upset academia so much that Michigan State demoted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for the research. (Michigan State, by the way, is home to Christina Wyman, the associate professor who wrote an opinion piece about racism that is so stupid, to paraphrase Billy Madison, we are now dumber for having read it.)

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/penn-state-retracts-statement-saying-conservative-voices-are-important/

Penn State University recently made a surprising statement about intellectual diversity, only to retract it after outrage from left-wing students.

“Dear conservative students. Your viewpoints are important,” the announcement read, referencing the isolation and self-censorship many conservative students experience on left-wing campuses. According to the schools Director of Strategic Communications, it was part of a statement aimed at creating a supporting and inclusive environment for students.

A survey conducted at the University of North Carolina found that over two-thirds of conservative students self-censor themselves in the classroom.

The message of inclusivity was swiftly met with fire by left-wing students who, according to the school newspaper, “found the Tweet harmful towards students of color and ignorant of the systemic issues that oppress people of color in the United States today.” A number of the offended students statements were then published in the Collegian, where the message was called “disgusting” and a “humiliation for communities of color.”

https://quillette.com/2020/07/08/a-declaration-of-independence-by-a-princeton-professor/

In Congress, on July 4th, 1776, came the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Signed by 56 men, many of whom were considered national heroes just a few minutes ago, it opens with a long and elegant sentence whose first words every American child knows, or used to: “When in the Course of human events…” In Princeton, New Jersey, on July 4th, 2020, just two hours after my family and I sat around the festive table and read the Declaration aloud in celebration, a group of signatories now in the hundreds published a “Faculty Letter” to the president and other senior administrators at Princeton University.

This letter begins with the following blunt sentence: “Anti-Blackness is foundational to America.” One important difference between the two documents might wrongly be dismissed as merely cosmetic. In 1776 there were “united States” but there was not yet the “United States”; in these past two months, by contrast, at a time when we are increasingly un-united, “black” has become “Black” while “white” remains “white.”

I am friends with many people who signed the Princeton letter, which requests and in some places demands a dizzying array of changes, and I support their right to speak as they see fit. But I am embarrassed for them. To judge from conversations with friends and all too much online scouting, there are two camps: those cheering them on and those who wouldn’t dream of being associated with such a document. No one is in the middle. If you haven’t yet read it, do so now. Be warned: it is long.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/penn-state-retracts-statement-saying-conservative-voices-are-important/

Penn State University recently made a surprising statement about intellectual diversity, only to retract it after outrage from left-wing students.

“Dear conservative students. Your viewpoints are important,” the announcement read, referencing the isolation and self-censorship many conservative students experience on left-wing campuses. According to the schools Director of Strategic Communications, it was part of a statement aimed at creating a supporting and inclusive environment for students.

A survey conducted at the University of North Carolina found that over two-thirds of conservative students self-censor themselves in the classroom.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/campus-culture-seizes-the-streets-11593973851?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

How did radical ideas like abolishing or defunding the police move from the fringes to official policy seemingly overnight in cities like Minneapolis, Los Angeles and New York? And after George Floyd’s killing by police touched off protests, why did so many prominent journalists and intellectuals rationalize looting and violence? For an answer, look to the nation’s politicized college campuses.

A well-known professional standard for college professors warns against “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own.” That statement, from the American Association of University Professors, dates from 1915 but is still in force.

Most campuses have similar rules of their own. Yet across the country, these categorical prohibitions are now ignored. Academia has become politicized from top to bottom.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/_the_devils_pitchfork_seeking_the_origin_of_our_present_troubles.html

The progressivist campaign to destroy America is three-pronged, the tines of the devil’s pitchfork, namely: de-individuation, de-historicizing, and what I’m tempted to call pre-eminent domain (the power of the state to take more than one’s physical property). In other words, it is a war against three intimately related phenomena: self-governing personhood, historical memory, and the possession of property, whether intellectual or private property as understood by John Locke.1 Thus our ideas are no longer our own but state-injected bromides, history has been co-opted in the service of a political fantasy, and ownership is the prerogative of the state.

It is clear that the entire sensibility of the age, and certainly of the coming era, has changed dramatically, not only as the result of the onslaught of lethal political and cultural viruses like democratic socialism, “social justice,” postmodern relativism and radical feminism, but of the “Information Revolution” and its carrier, the Internet, in particular the social media platforms run by a cabal of corporate oligarchs. The ideological trifecta appears to be irresistible:

The contours of the reflective and stable self, as mediated in the family and local communities, are disintegrating by the day. As I’ve written previously, the individual, in the classic sense of a coherent center of cognitive awareness and moral responsibility, actuated by the conviction of individual responsibility for self, family, and nation, has become the relic of a vanishing tradition. The inclination is to identify with presumably benevolent but actually savage abstractions. In today’s ‘enlightened’ world, the pastoral fantasy — aka socialism — a dead idea embalmed with the illusion of vitality, has once again assumed massive and destructive proportions. The thinking, self-aware, common-sense individual is its prey, persuaded or coerced to surrender his autonomy to the false comfort of an all-embracing collectivism that spares him the anxiety of choice and risk.
Genuine scholarship is almost extinct and historical memory seems to malinger in a condition of permanent lockdown. There are many ways to abolish history: toppling and defacing cultural monuments (as we see happening today); re-writing the historical record (Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States2 or the New York Times’ 1619 Project, for example); and replacing the faculty of intellectual curiosity regarding origins — the historical imagination — with rote-learned slogans and dogmatic teachings, the program of modern education from kindergarten to graduate school. What we are observing is a chronosectomy in progress.