Displaying posts categorized under

EDUCATION

SFSU Student Paper Reports on Freedom Center Campus Posters Exposing the truth about SJP’s ties to anti-Israel terrorism.

In a short, remarkably (particularly for San Francisco State University) neutral piece titled “Campus posters allege student group ties to terrorists,” the school’s student-run Golden Gate Express reported on the David Horowitz Freedom Center campus campaign to distribute posters on campus identifying student group connections to anti-Israel terrorism. The article is reposted below:

The David Horowitz Freedom Center distributed posters on campus today as part of a campaign criticizing Students for Justice in Palestine of being puppets for Hamas terrorists.

The posters, also posted on Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus website run by the Freedom Center, portray the SJP as servants to Hamas.

The campaign comes as part of the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s fight against schools that provide “financial and institutional support” to student members of Students for Justice in Palestine and other campus organizations that “support the agendas of these terrorists and spread their propaganda lies,” according to the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s public statement. Both posters contain the hashtag #NoSupportForCampusTerrorists.

“Our poster campaign has a dual purpose,” said Freedom Center founder David Horowitz in a public statement. “It exposes the truth about SJP’s ties to anti-Israel terrorism and its glorification of terrorists like Rasmieh Odeh and it challenges the administration at San Francisco State to defend speech that deviates from the typical anti-Israel narrative that dominates on campus.”

The David Horowitz Freedom Center ranked SF State seventh in a “Top Ten College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment” list last Fall. The report accused the University of “continuing to promote SJP on their campuses while actively working to suppress speech that exposes the truth about SJP and its ties to terrorism.”

The website claims that the posters will be distributed at all 10 of the listed campuses including nearby University of California, Berkeley.

Shilling for Hamas, Censoring Dissent by Sara Dogan

“Now that Saint Louis University has cancelled a scheduled October speech by conservative activist David Horowitz, it joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only.” – Cary Nelson, president, American Association of University Professors.

Editor’s note: Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has identified seven campuses in its report on the “Top Ten College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.” Today, we continue this series with Saint Louis University and the University of Minnesota. These two schools join Brooklyn College (CUNY), Tufts University, Brandeis University, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, San Francisco State University, and Vassar College in sharing this dubious honor. These campuses provide financial and institutional support to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech exposing the truth about Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States.

Last night, the Freedom Center placed posters exposing the links between the terrorist group Hamas and SJP on both campuses. These posters serve as an important source of information for students and as a challenge to the SLU and Minnesota administrations to uphold the First Amendment, even when doing so means accepting speech that deviates from the anti-Israel narratives that dominate on campus.

Saint Louis University: Campus Administration

As the only Catholic university on our list, it would be understandable if St. Louis University exercised a somewhat greater degree of involvement in the selection of speakers who appeared on campus than its public counterparts to ensure that such events are compatible with the Catholic faith. But in fact the administration of St. Louis University is one of the most shameless promoters of anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish Islamic hate mongers. It has welcomed campus speakers and organizations that promote Islamic supremacism and support the anti-Israel terror group Hamas while defaming pro-Israel speakers as racist and Islamophobic and banning them from campus. In recent years, it has hosted events designed to indoctrinate students in Hamas propaganda and train them to support anti-Israel terrorism.

In 2012, Saint Louis University hosted a three-day training and strategy conference for the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, formerly named the International Solidarity Movement, a hate group that spreads Hamas propaganda and promotes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. SLU also promoted the BDS movement at a 2011 event held at the Busch Student Center called “An Introduction to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: Nonviolent Resistance to Stop the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.” The event featured Fulbright scholar Sandra Samaan Tamari, a member of the Saint Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

In 2015, the university hosted a seminar by a group named #MyJihad which was formed by Ahmed Rehab, the executive director of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with extensive ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood network. The seminar aimed to whitewash the concept of jihad for American audiences.

But while repeatedly opening its doors to Hamas sympathizers, SLU has taken extreme measures to ban speech and organizations critical of anti-Israel terrorists on campus. In October 2009, Freedom Center founder and CEO David Horowitz was invited to speak at SLU by the campus chapters of the College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation about “Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights.” But administrators told the student organizations sponsoring Horowitz’s appearance that they must either disinvite him or radically alter the format of the event to include a second speaker who would interpret Horowitz’s views in light of “Catholic teachings,” stipulations that had never been placed on appearances by several pro-Hamas speakers who appeared at SLU. Ultimately, school administrators cancelled Horowitz’s speech.

University Sit-in Results in Administration Caving to All Demands By Rick Moran

Borrowing a tactic from the 1960s college protest movement, the University of California at Santa Cruz African-Black Student Alliance occupied the administration building and presented four demands to school officials.

In the 1960s, most administrators were made of sterner stuff than the spineless, groveling bureaucrats who run schools today. Back then, intelligent administrators might negotiate a settlement. Stupid authorities would get the police to expel the students by force.

But university officials at UC Santa Cruz caved in completely to the black activist demands, setting the stage for a repeat of the occupation by some other group at a later date.

Anyone figure out how much all of this is going to cost?

Santa Cruz Sentinel:

• UCSC committed to extending up to a four-year housing guarantee to all students from underrepresented communities who applied to and live in the Rosa Parks African American Theme House.

• UCSC committed to converting the first floor lounge area of the Rosa Parks African American Theme House from housing back to a community lounge space.

• USCS committed to painting the exterior of the Rosa Parks African American Theme House in the Pan-Afrikan colors red, gold and green.

• USCS committed to delivering a mandatory “educational diversity” orientation to all incoming freshmen and transfer students.

Lest anyone think the fearless leader of UCSC had any intention of standing up to the bullies, here’s how he decided to “confront” the protesters:

Two hours earlier, an agreement that would end the three-day occupation did not seem likely. About 3:30 p.m., members of the Alliance leadership announced through a bullhorn that Blumenthal had declined to meet at Kerr Hall, citing concerns for his safety.

Instead, Blumenthal sent members of his administration, including campus diversity officer Linda Scholz, to speak with the students at the entrance of Kerr Hall. Surrounded by hundreds of chanting, screaming students, Scholz invited the leadership group of the Alliance to speak with Blumenthal in the nearby Thimann Labs building.

It initially appeared as if the Alliance would decline to speak with Blumenthal and, instead, insist the chancellor meet on their terms. However, the leadership group eventually accompanied the administrators to Thimann Labs.

After more than an hour in conference, the Alliance leadership and Hernandez-Jason returned to Kerr Hall to announce the university’s decision and allow the students to celebrate their victory.

Got that? The chancellor thought it was too dangerous for him to meet with the protesters but had no qualms about sending some of his staff. They were screamed at and threatened with bodily harm for their troubles.

No word on how that private meeting between the chancellor and the protesters went but you can bet there was a lot of screaming and threats. CONTINUE AT SITE

The New York Times and Upper West Side Segregation By Robert Weissberg

In the PC world of the New York Times, it is better not to offend certain sensitivities or raise uncomfortable questions than honestly address educational disasters. One can only be reminded of proper Victorians struggling to discuss venereal diseases as if sex never happened.

Of all of the taboo topics in today’s political landscape, absolutely nothing is more fraught with danger than race. Recall the old joke about how people dance at a nudist camp — carefully, very carefully. Everything from vocabulary to tone of voice must be carefully calculated and the slightest mistake can be career-ending.

A complex etiquette per se is not, however, the problem. Civil society would collapse if everybody spoke bluntly. The question is whether taboos blind us from serious problems that demand forthright, honest discussion.

A perfect illustration of how the race taboo undermines honest discussions of serious social problems can be found in recent New York Times articles (and here) about redrawing school district lines in Manhattan’s über-liberal Upper West Side. These articles abound in euphemisms and omissions guaranteed to obscure awkward truths.

Manhattan’s Upper West Side is home to a multitude of affluent white liberals and large numbers of poor blacks and Hispanics residing in public housing. Some schools, all overwhelmingly white, excel academically. Not surprisingly, “white” schools in this neighborhood have long waiting lists for prospective enrollees. But, often only a few blocks away, are schools with large poor black and Hispanic enrollments plagued by fights (often involving weapons), classroom disorder, and appalling academic outcomes. The polite nonracial euphemism for these schools might be “schools with low test scores.”

For those with school-age children who strongly care about their education, school district demarcations are vital. Having one’s offspring attend a stellar grade-school with bright classmates is seen as the first step to admission to an elite college. Equally crucial is safety — not even the most rabid Bernie Sanders fans would risk their children’s well-being, including the danger of acquiring bad habits (drug use, thievery, a penchant for violence, a rotten work ethic and similar underclass inclinations). As one education-minded parent said about these “diverse” schools, “My husband and I support public school education but not at the expense of our children’s educational and physical well-being,”

There are also major financial costs for parents in a lousy school district. For apartment owners, residing in a “bad school” attendance zone can substantially reduce the value of one’s residence, while the private school alternative can cost upward of $30,000 per child each year. If a private school is unaffordable, the remaining option is relocating to the suburbs, hardly appetizing to many Upper West Side liberals.

Now, what happens when a Department of Education bureaucrat announces that junior may be bounced from his nearly all-white (and often-overcrowded) high-test score school, and instead sent to the nearby “diverse” school that, say the bureaucrats, offers junior a chance to benefit from diversity since “studies show” that such a racial/ethnic mixture is essential mastering today’s multicultural world?

Ironically, these well-educated, affluent “good thinking” Manhattan (white) residents now confront the same tribulations faced by down-market white Southerners over court-ordered integration post Brown v. Board of Education (1954). But, unlike these bigoted Rednecks, white liberal New Yorkers, aided by the racially hypersensitive New York Times, need not block the doorway of junior top-flight nearly all white school and shout, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow….” while the federal government orders the New York City’s police to forcibly enroll residents of nearby public housing as junior’s classmates. These white liberals are expert at walking on eggshells (I’m not a racist but….”) and playing politics to keep their kids in white schools; there is even a website on how to game the system.

Your Friends in Public School The lengths they’ll go to deny kids and parents an education choice.

A California appellate court has unanimously rejected an attempt by the Anaheim Elementary School District to throw out a petition by parents to convert a failing school into a charter using the state’s parent trigger law. The district wasted two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting parents. Can the parents sue for damages?

California’s 2010 parent trigger law allows a majority of parents whose kids attend a failing school to catalyze reforms. In January 2015, Palm Lane Elementary School parents with the help of the law’s author Gloria Romero and education activist Alfonso Flores filed a petition with the school district. The teachers’ union abetted by district officials then used dirty tricks to thwart parents, including accusations of bribery. When intimidation failed, district officials tried to reject the petition on technical points, every one of which was dismissed by the appellate court.

The district claimed Palm Lane didn’t qualify as failing because California had obtained a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education that exempted schools from Adequate Yearly Progress benchmarks for the 2013-2014 school year. Yet Palm Lane had failed to meet those benchmarks for nine of the prior 10 years.

The appellate court affirmed the findings of Orange County Superior Court judge Andrew Banks who in July 2015 ruled in favor of the parents on all counts and blasted the district for being “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unfair.” The school district appealed.

Maybe district officials were hoping that parents, who were represented pro bono by Kirkland & Ellis, would drop the case once their kids moved to middle school. But in the two years that the case has sat on appeal, the district and parents have racked up more legal expenses. And students have continued to be deprived of a quality education.

The appellate court ordered the district to cover the parents’ legal fees, but that won’t make up for the lost education. The district will merely pass on the costs to state and local taxpayers including Palm Lane parents who own homes in the district. The outrage is that this disgrace generates no outrage.

Universities competing in race to the bottom By Carol Brown

There’s stiff competition among our bastions of higher education. The race to the bottom is fast and furious. Toward that end, the University of California at Berkeley recently honored student Juan Prieto with an award for outstanding service to “undocumented” students. Juan then sent out the following tweet: “Let’s celebrate 5 de Mayo by going to Dolores Park and beating the shit out of white people, in the spirit of La Batalla de Puebla.”

But don’t worry. Juan didn’t mean it. It’s just Twitter and he often posts “dumb s*** on Twitter all the time.”

Oh, ok. I see.

Meanwhile, Florida Memorial University, a historially black college that produces a large number of teachers, announced it will be awarding a posthumous degree in Aeronautical Science to Trayvon Martin.

Also in the past few days, Emory University will cover tuition for all their students that are in the country illegally, while Mira Costa College in southern California will be offering scholarships to students who say they are “transgender.”

As I said, the race to the bottom is fast and furious. Which institution will move the bar to the lowest point imaginable remains to be seen. But, again, don’t worry. It’s only the future of America that’s at stake. Viva President Preito!

Hat tips: The Geller Report, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, The Daily Wire, The College Fix

Another day, another capitulation to the threat of force on a University of California campus By Thomas Lifson

It’s so normal now for universities to surrender when confronted with the fear of force coming from the left that what follows is only local story on Channel 8 in Salinas:

Students protesting what they believe is a “hostile climate” toward black students at the University of California Santa Cruz were locked inside an administrative building for three days until they scored a sweeping victory Thursday.

Members of the university’s African/Black Student Alliance organization took over Kerr Hall Tuesday, locked all of the doors, covered the windows with slogan-filled posters, and vowed to not leave until their demands were met.

“If the university fails us, there will be no business as usual,” A/BSA told the university’s newspaper.

That’s a pretty explicit threat of disruption by force.

But don’t worry: a heroic surrender was on the way.

Despite fearing for his safety, Chancellor George Blumenthal sat down at a negotiating table with 10 protesters at 4 p.m. Thursday.

Blumenthal declined to meet protesters inside Kerr Hall because he had received threats. Instead, the meeting was moved to the biology building, and Blumenthal agreed to meet all four of the group’s demands.

The student’s primary demand was over the Rosa Parks African-themed house, as well as combating racism at the university.

As far as the Rosa Parks residence house, some of what was demanded could have been discussed and probably achieved with much less trouble. They wanted control of the lounge. Fine. Just ask. They wanted the university to repaint the house in their own bright colors. How about offering to repaint it yourselves, instead of demanding that the university spend a lot of money hiring people to do it? You’ll get it done the way you want it, and self-reliance is a virtue that even Kwanzaa pays lip service to.

Emory University rewards law-breakers By Carol Brown

Emory University will now fund 100% of financial aid to students who are in the United States illegally. It means that if you are in the country illegally, you are rewarded for breaking the law, while Americans who are working hard to attain a college education receive no such blanket aid.

Like so many things these days, it’s inverted, upside down, and backwards.

Breitbart reports:

“Emory meets 100% of demonstrated financial need for undergraduate Undocumented Students (with or without DACA) who are admitted as first-year, first-degree-seeking students, and who graduated from a U.S. High school through a combination of grants and scholarships, institutional work study (DACA students only), and institutional loans. Undocumented Students without DACA status may receive an institutional loan in place of the typical work study award,” the university’s website states.

Speaking to The College Fix, Megan McRainey, a spokeswoman for Emory, claimed that providing full financial aid relief to undocumented students reflects the university’s commitment to welcoming students from diverse backgrounds. [snip]

International students, who are not afforded the same aid privileges as undocumented students, will be forced to foot a $70,000 per year tuition bill if they wish to attend the prestigious Georgian university.

“Diversity!”

It’s one of the left’s favorite buzzwords which they pull out of the proverbial hat to rationalize all manner of insanity.

(Also, noticed how the university’s statement capitalizes the term “undocumented students,” elevating them to new heights (as if giving them a free college education isn’t enough.)

Taking a short walk down memory lane, readers may recall that last year some students at Emory University were traumatized by the words “TRUMP 2016” written in chalk on the pavement. Their “safe space” was violated, they were “in pain,” and they demanded action! Which they got, when university administrators pledged to get to the bottom of who wrote the “controversial markings.” The drama was of epic proportions, with protestors chanting the words of a cop killer as they ranted about their pain and, ironically, their commitment to fighting for freedom (here and here).

So this is Emory University. Where illegals get a free ride, Americans pay through the nose, and chalk is a dangerous weapon.

Congressmen Call On CUNY to Revoke Invite to Anti-Israel Linda Sarsour Lawmaker: Taxpayer-funded university’s commencement speaker ’embarrassing’ by Brent Scher

United States congressmen are turning up the heat on the City University of New York (CUNY) over its decision to have anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour deliver its commencement address next month.

Reps. Daniel Donovan (R., N.Y.) and Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.) are both urging CUNY to revoke its invitation to Sarsour, citing numerous inflammatory comments directed towards Israel and arguing that students and their families should not be subjected to this type of speaker on graduation day.

Donovan, who was born in New York City, sent a letter to CUNY chancellor James Milliken earlier this week calling the taxpayer-funded university’s decision to honor Sarsour an “embarrassment,” citing her history of anti-Semitism and sexist remarks.

“I could not disagree more with the CUNY administration’s decision,” Donovan wrote in his letter. “It is, in my opinion, an embarrassment to the university to host a speaker with a history of derogatory, sexist, and anti-Semitic remarks to deliver the 2017 commencement address.”

Donovan argues in his letter that it would be different if Sarsour was invited to speak at CUNY for an academic event, but inviting her to headline what is supposed to be a celebratory event is crossing a line.

“A distinction exists between a university allowing those with alternative—even incendiary—viewpoints to express their positions free from obstruction, and actively embracing deeply controversial positions by forcing hateful rhetoric upon students who wish to attend their graduation ceremony,” Donovan wrote.

“Academic institutions have an obligation to permit intellectual exploration, and that includes allowing speakers to peacefully express their ideas,” he wrote. “But commencement speeches are flagship events representing the culmination of years of studies for students and their families.”

“In my opinion, it is disrespectful to taint an otherwise celebratory event by subjecting students who wish to take part in their own graduation ceremony to such a vitriolic and disparaging speaker.”

“The invitation for Linda Sarsour to be the CUNY commencement speaker should be revoked,” Zeldin told the Free Beacon. “This is an individual who has called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ‘a waste of a human being,’ and has encouraged terrorism, among many more controversial and disgusting statements.”

“This is a special and very hard earned day for the graduates and their families and to force all of them to listen to someone so controversial and objectionable shows an extreme lack of concern on the part of the university,” Zeldin said.

Potemkin Universities Behind the facades, universities have broken faith with a once-noble legacy of free inquiry. By Victor Davis Hanson

College campuses still appear superficially to be quiet, well-landscaped refuges from the bustle of real life.

But increasingly, their spires, quads, and ivy-covered walls are facades. They are now no more about free inquiry and unfettered learning than were the proverbial Potemkin fake buildings put up to convince the traveling Russian czarina Catherine II that her impoverished provinces were prosperous.

The university faces crises almost everywhere of student debt, university finances, free expression, and the very quality and value of a university education.

Take free speech. Without freedom of expression, there can be no university.

But if the recent examples at Berkeley, Claremont, Middlebury, and Yale are any indication, there is nothing much left to the idea of a free and civilized exchange of different ideas.

At most universities, if a scheduled campus lecturer expressed scholarly doubt about the severity of man-caused global warming and the efficacy of its government remedies, or questioned the strategies of the Black Lives Matter movement, or suggested that sex is biologically determined rather than socially constructed, she likely would either be disinvited or have her speech physically disrupted. Campuses often now mimic the political street violence of the late Roman Republic.

Campus radicals have achieved what nuclear strategists call deterrence: Faculty and students now know precisely which speech will endanger their careers and which will earn them rewards.

The terrified campus community makes the necessary adjustments. As with the German universities of the 1930s, faculty keep quiet or offer politically correct speech through euphemisms. Toadies thrive; mavericks are hounded.

Shortchanged students collectively owe more than $1 trillion in student-loan debt — a sum that cannot be paid back by ill-prepared and often unemployed graduates.

Test scores have plummeted. Too many college students were never taught the basic referents of liberal education. Most supposedly aware, hip, and politically engaged students can’t identify the Battle of Gettysburg or the Parthenon, or explain the idea of compounded interest.

Many students simply cannot do the work that was routinely assigned in the past. In response, as proverbially delicate “snowflakes,” they insist that they are traumatized and can only find remedy in laxer standards, gut courses, and faculty deference.

“Studies” activist courses too often are therapeutic. They are neither inductive nor Socratic, and they rarely teach facts, methods and means of learning without insisting on predesignated conclusions. Instead, the student should leave the class with proper group-think and ideological race/class/gender fervor of the professor — a supposed new recruit for the larger progressive project.

Universities talk loudly of exploitation in America — in the abstract. But to address societal inequality, university communities need only look at how their own campuses operate. Part-time faculty with Ph.D.s are paid far less than tenured full professors for often teaching the same classes — and thus subsidize top-heavy administrations.

Graduate teaching assistantships, internships, and mentorships are designed to use inexpensive or free labor under the protocols of the medieval guild.

One reason that tuition is sky-high is because behind the facade of “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and “culture appropriation” are costly legions of deputy associate provosts, special assistants to the dean, and race/class/gender “senior strategists” and facilitators (usually former faculty who no longer teach).

The way to ensure student confidence and self-reliance is not through identity-politics courses that emphasize racial, sexual, and religious fault lines.