Censorship, American-Style

[PoliticalChic]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”

Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”


2. The article used five Ph.D. candidates as examples of those “rewriting the history of race.” Riley looked at the subject areas of the five proposed dissertations and concluded that they were “obscure at best . . . a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap at worst.”

a. It seems that her crime was that she dared argue that black studies departments should be eliminated, citing the silliness of a number of the dissertations by some of the disciplines most lauded students.

b. Riley tore apart another essay that blamed the subprime housing crash on a conspirascy by white politicians, noting that ‘those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.”



3. Many academics I know agree that black-studies programs are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics. But they won’t say so publicly, for fear of being branded as “racists.” Naomi Riley had the courage to state the obvious.

4. When 6,500 politically correct academics signed a petition demanding that she be fired, the editor of the Chronicle caved.


5. A couple of speakers noted how surprising it is that political correctness in academia is now shutting off debate in the U.S., the country where academics supposedly prize vigorous discussion and vigilantly guard against any sign of McCarthyism.



6. Nick Cohen is an atheist and former leftist who writes for the Observer and Guardiannewspapers in Britain… examines the new forms of censorship that are emerging in the 21st century….surrounding taboo subjects with a bodyguard of politically correct humbug has a profound effect on liberalism. He noted that “censorship is at its most effective when no one admits that it exists.

7. While Cohen’s warning was directed at those who stifle debate on Muslim radicalism in Europe and refuse to recognize the failure of officially imposed multiculturalism, he lost no time in telling me how appalled he was at the news of Riley’s firing. “These people calling for her head are the same ones who would scream McCarthyism if someone demanded that academics who defend Iran, excuse terrorism, or accept support from dubious Middle East regimes be called to account,”…

a. James Kirchick, a contributing editor to The New Republic :“This is precisely why I am no longer on the left. It is disturbing to see such bullying.”

b. …academics have demanded tenure, ostensibly not to secure the effectively lifetime employment it creates but to give them the freedom to voice unpopular opinions and conduct research that challenges conventional thinking.



8. Few, if any, of her critics actually tried to refute her criticisms of black-studies dissertations. Instead, they sought to shut her up, and in so doing, they sent yet another message that some liberals today have become at least as intolerant of debate as any of the fundamentalists and traditionalists they abhor.

9. After Riley’s firing, I have no doubt there will be fewer people brave enough to challenge that censorship.”
Censoring Naomi Riley - John Fund - National Review Online


It seems that John Fund made my point for me….

 

[Mac1958]

.

Political Correctness = Strategic hypersensitivity employed specifically to put your target on the defensive and thereby control the conversation.

Very effective, still.

.

 

[Two Thumbs]

hate speech laws - Yahoo! Search Results


83,700,000 results

Hate speech is free speech

Except to liberals.

but don't worry, they will be demanding the right to kill unwanted babies in the crib soon enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

Political Correctness = Strategic hypersensitivity employed specifically to put your target on the defensive and thereby control the conversation.

Very effective, still.

.

Sounds familiar...

'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.'
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

 

[MuadDib]

Interesting that some of Naomi Riley's critics branded her as a racist. Her husband is black.

 

[g5000]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”


Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

Firing someone from a job for using language not in accordance with the workplace is not evidence of a statute in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. If you cuss up a blue streak at some jobs, you can be fired. If you make sexually suggestive comments to your co-workers, you can be fired. If a bloviator calls a woman with a sense of entitlement a slut on the air, he can lose sponsors.

That does not mean free speech is against the law or that censorship exists in America. You are free to demonstrate your bigotry or hatred, but if you are stupid enough to do it at work and lose your job, don't double down on your idiocy and say that is censorship in America...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, you and the author of the opinion piece forgot to cite the statute enacted to censor this writer.

Otherwise, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a private, for profit entity, and as such may hire or fire employees as it sees fit, for any reason it desires, consequently this is not ‘censorship.’

Obviously the culture of rightwing victimhood is alive and well in conservative dogma.

 

[rightwinger]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”

Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”


2. The article used five Ph.D. candidates as examples of those “rewriting the history of race.” Riley looked at the subject areas of the five proposed dissertations and concluded that they were “obscure at best . . . a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap at worst.”

a. It seems that her crime was that she dared argue that black studies departments should be eliminated, citing the silliness of a number of the dissertations by some of the disciplines most lauded students.

b. Riley tore apart another essay that blamed the subprime housing crash on a conspirascy by white politicians, noting that ‘those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.”



3. Many academics I know agree that black-studies programs are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics. But they won’t say so publicly, for fear of being branded as “racists.” Naomi Riley had the courage to state the obvious.

4. When 6,500 politically correct academics signed a petition demanding that she be fired, the editor of the Chronicle caved.


5. A couple of speakers noted how surprising it is that political correctness in academia is now shutting off debate in the U.S., the country where academics supposedly prize vigorous discussion and vigilantly guard against any sign of McCarthyism.



6. Nick Cohen is an atheist and former leftist who writes for the Observer and Guardiannewspapers in Britain… examines the new forms of censorship that are emerging in the 21st century….surrounding taboo subjects with a bodyguard of politically correct humbug has a profound effect on liberalism. He noted that “censorship is at its most effective when no one admits that it exists.

7. While Cohen’s warning was directed at those who stifle debate on Muslim radicalism in Europe and refuse to recognize the failure of officially imposed multiculturalism, he lost no time in telling me how appalled he was at the news of Riley’s firing. “These people calling for her head are the same ones who would scream McCarthyism if someone demanded that academics who defend Iran, excuse terrorism, or accept support from dubious Middle East regimes be called to account,”…

a. James Kirchick, a contributing editor to The New Republic :“This is precisely why I am no longer on the left. It is disturbing to see such bullying.”

b. …academics have demanded tenure, ostensibly not to secure the effectively lifetime employment it creates but to give them the freedom to voice unpopular opinions and conduct research that challenges conventional thinking.



8. Few, if any, of her critics actually tried to refute her criticisms of black-studies dissertations. Instead, they sought to shut her up, and in so doing, they sent yet another message that some liberals today have become at least as intolerant of debate as any of the fundamentalists and traditionalists they abhor.

9. After Riley’s firing, I have no doubt there will be fewer people brave enough to challenge that censorship.”
Censoring Naomi Riley - John Fund - National Review Online


It seems that John Fund made my point for me….

You actually think you can't be fired for what you say or write?

 

[Mac1958]

.

This seems like an appropriate occasion to once again ask for a big favor.

Could the PC crowd launch a web site in which we are instructed as to which words and phrases we are currently allowed to use? Also a list of banned topics would be helpful too. This way we can stay up to date and not risk "offending" anyone. Also this way we could enjoy what's left of our freedom of speech without being concerned about losing our jobs, being branded "racist", and stuff.

You'll probably need to hire someone to keep it updated as allowable words change, which would certainly help the unemployment situation. That's a win-win right there.

I appreciate your consideration.

.

 

[blackhawk]

It's interesting what happens when someone decides not to tow the P.C. line remember Juan Williams and NPR?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you and the author of the opinion piece forgot to cite the statute enacted to censor this writer.

Otherwise, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a private, for profit entity, and as such may hire or fire employees as it sees fit, for any reason it desires, consequently this is not ‘censorship.’

Obviously the culture of rightwing victimhood is alive and well in conservative dogma.

Now, torte, why continue to pretend that there is not a censorship alive and well among the Liberal establishment?

I must admit, I'm not certain that you are merely pretending to be dense...
...you may actually be dense.


Here, let me advance your education, as it appears that the usage of the term is impalpable to you:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. "
Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, my obtuse friend, it appears that when I said "I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship , and you pretended that there is only one form of censorship....

....you were....

....and continue to be in so very many ways....

...wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”


Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

Firing someone from a job for using language not in accordance with the workplace is not evidence of a statute in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. If you cuss up a blue streak at some jobs, you can be fired. If you make sexually suggestive comments to your co-workers, you can be fired. If a bloviator calls a woman with a sense of entitlement a slut on the air, he can lose sponsors.

That does not mean free speech is against the law or that censorship exists in America. You are free to demonstrate your bigotry or hatred, but if you are stupid enough to do it at work and lose your job, don't double down on your idiocy and say that is censorship in America...

"Firing someone from a job for using language..."

Assuming that your post is in any way related to the OP....

....would you be good enough to cite the "language" for which Ms. Riley was fired?


If you are not able, you would, it seems, be self-identified as one who hides bad behavior by pretending to misunderstand....as torte tried to do.

The "language" you refer to?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”

Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”


2. The article used five Ph.D. candidates as examples of those “rewriting the history of race.” Riley looked at the subject areas of the five proposed dissertations and concluded that they were “obscure at best . . . a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap at worst.”

a. It seems that her crime was that she dared argue that black studies departments should be eliminated, citing the silliness of a number of the dissertations by some of the disciplines most lauded students.

b. Riley tore apart another essay that blamed the subprime housing crash on a conspirascy by white politicians, noting that ‘those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.”



3. Many academics I know agree that black-studies programs are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics. But they won’t say so publicly, for fear of being branded as “racists.” Naomi Riley had the courage to state the obvious.

4. When 6,500 politically correct academics signed a petition demanding that she be fired, the editor of the Chronicle caved.


5. A couple of speakers noted how surprising it is that political correctness in academia is now shutting off debate in the U.S., the country where academics supposedly prize vigorous discussion and vigilantly guard against any sign of McCarthyism.



6. Nick Cohen is an atheist and former leftist who writes for the Observer and Guardiannewspapers in Britain… examines the new forms of censorship that are emerging in the 21st century….surrounding taboo subjects with a bodyguard of politically correct humbug has a profound effect on liberalism. He noted that “censorship is at its most effective when no one admits that it exists.

7. While Cohen’s warning was directed at those who stifle debate on Muslim radicalism in Europe and refuse to recognize the failure of officially imposed multiculturalism, he lost no time in telling me how appalled he was at the news of Riley’s firing. “These people calling for her head are the same ones who would scream McCarthyism if someone demanded that academics who defend Iran, excuse terrorism, or accept support from dubious Middle East regimes be called to account,”…

a. James Kirchick, a contributing editor to The New Republic :“This is precisely why I am no longer on the left. It is disturbing to see such bullying.”

b. …academics have demanded tenure, ostensibly not to secure the effectively lifetime employment it creates but to give them the freedom to voice unpopular opinions and conduct research that challenges conventional thinking.



8. Few, if any, of her critics actually tried to refute her criticisms of black-studies dissertations. Instead, they sought to shut her up, and in so doing, they sent yet another message that some liberals today have become at least as intolerant of debate as any of the fundamentalists and traditionalists they abhor.

9. After Riley’s firing, I have no doubt there will be fewer people brave enough to challenge that censorship.”
Censoring Naomi Riley - John Fund - National Review Online


It seems that John Fund made my point for me….

You actually think you can't be fired for what you say or write?

Is that what you believe the OP is about?


Try to read it a bit slower....

....commensurate with your ability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's interesting what happens when someone decides not to tow the P.C. line remember Juan Williams and NPR?

And, along the same lines, from Dr. Phyllis Chesler, her book "The Death of Feminism,"...

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

Lack of promotion is censorship, as well.

I contend that the is a clear and evident element of censorship in those bastions controlled by Liberals.

Universities, colleges, institutions, mass media publications, foundations, museums, etc.


The provenance can be seen here:


a. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.

b. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

c. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.” Ibid p. 53

d. “The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict.” Rothman and Lichter, “Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left,” p. 392-394
Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them.


The Left abhors opposition of any kind.

I wonder if our pretend law-expert wrote to Rush Limbaugh's sponsors.....

 

[JoeB131]

Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

.

How did I know this is what you were going to be whining about.

Sorry, I think it's hilarious you Young Conservatards think it's perfectly okay to fire hundreds of working people so a rich douchebag can make a profit, but you make a bunch of offensive statements and get shown the door, and she's a martyr to you people.

 

[blackhawk]

Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

.

How did I know this is what you were going to be whining about.

Sorry, I think it's hilarious you Young Conservatards think it's perfectly okay to fire hundreds of working people so a rich douchebag can make a profit, but you make a bunch of offensive statements and get shown the door, and she's a martyr to you people.

But yet when the insulting and offensive statements come from someone on the left you dumbocrats can't stand up and defend them and claim free speech fast enough. The word hypocrite seems to apply here.

 

[JoeB131]

Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

.

How did I know this is what you were going to be whining about.

Sorry, I think it's hilarious you Young Conservatards think it's perfectly okay to fire hundreds of working people so a rich douchebag can make a profit, but you make a bunch of offensive statements and get shown the door, and she's a martyr to you people.

But yet when the insulting and offensive statements come from someone on the left you dumbocrats can't stand up and defend them and claim free speech fast enough. The word hypocrite seems to apply here.

Not A Democrat, guy. Just a Republican who realizes that you've let religious idiots and bloodsucking parasites take over your party.

And I had no problem with Fox News firing Glenn Beck or MSNBC and CurrentTV firing Keith Olberman. It's their sandbox, they get to make the rules.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”

.

How did I know this is what you were going to be whining about.

Sorry, I think it's hilarious you Young Conservatards think it's perfectly okay to fire hundreds of working people so a rich douchebag can make a profit, but you make a bunch of offensive statements and get shown the door, and she's a martyr to you people.

A file of your insane posts would be so thick one could stand on it to change a lightbulb.

 

[zzzz]

So, you and the author of the opinion piece forgot to cite the statute enacted to censor this writer.

Otherwise, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a private, for profit entity, and as such may hire or fire employees as it sees fit, for any reason it desires, consequently this is not ‘censorship.’

Obviously the culture of rightwing victimhood is alive and well in conservative dogma.

Now, torte, why continue to pretend that there is not a censorship alive and well among the Liberal establishment?

I must admit, I'm not certain that you are merely pretending to be dense...
...you may actually be dense.


Here, let me advance your education, as it appears that the usage of the term is impalpable to you:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. "
Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, my obtuse friend, it appears that when I said "I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship , and you pretended that there is only one form of censorship....

....you were....

....and continue to be in so very many ways....

...wrong.

Censorship is not liberal -v- conservative but an attempt by any entity or person to suppress speech or views. Many countries practice censorship including the US but government censorship, while intolerable, is not the most insidious proprietors of censorship. The media, which historically has been the main avenue of information and dissemination of viewpoints (talking heads), as a private entity has practiced censorship throughout history.

As Americans we take the words "free speech" quite literally, yet today do we really have free speech , the right to say anything? No, there are limits and those limits are being redefined every day.

Companies have the right to terminate whoever they wish for views expressed that run counter to their public image. Many Americans will be fired in the coming years for expressing views against their employers or fellow employees on social websites or even on rumors.

 

[rightwinger]

So, there was a thread about censorship, and arrests over anti-Semitic comments in Enland….and I pointed out that there exists a kind of censorship in this country with respect to certain protected groups….

…and it seems that I discomforted one of our pretend-law experts…who said:

“No, no reason for you to further exhibit your ignorance.

There are no statutes in the United States prohibiting the use of any word or term. You’re free to demonstrate your hatred of other races and religions with impunity.”

Interesting obfuscation,....

So…I thought it was worth examining....
...and found this:


1. “Earlier this week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the trade paper for faculty members and administrators in universities, fired Naomi Schaefer Riley, a paid blogger for its website. Her crime? She had the courage to respond to a Chronicle story called “Black Studies: ‘Swaggering Into the Future,’” which stated that “young black-studies scholars . . . are less consumed than their predecessors with the need to validate the field or explain why they are pursuing doctorates in their discipline.”


2. The article used five Ph.D. candidates as examples of those “rewriting the history of race.” Riley looked at the subject areas of the five proposed dissertations and concluded that they were “obscure at best . . . a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap at worst.”

a. It seems that her crime was that she dared argue that black studies departments should be eliminated, citing the silliness of a number of the dissertations by some of the disciplines most lauded students.

b. Riley tore apart another essay that blamed the subprime housing crash on a conspirascy by white politicians, noting that ‘those millions of white people who went into foreclosure were just collateral damage, I guess.”



3. Many academics I know agree that black-studies programs are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics. But they won’t say so publicly, for fear of being branded as “racists.” Naomi Riley had the courage to state the obvious.

4. When 6,500 politically correct academics signed a petition demanding that she be fired, the editor of the Chronicle caved.


5. A couple of speakers noted how surprising it is that political correctness in academia is now shutting off debate in the U.S., the country where academics supposedly prize vigorous discussion and vigilantly guard against any sign of McCarthyism.



6. Nick Cohen is an atheist and former leftist who writes for the Observer and Guardiannewspapers in Britain… examines the new forms of censorship that are emerging in the 21st century….surrounding taboo subjects with a bodyguard of politically correct humbug has a profound effect on liberalism. He noted that “censorship is at its most effective when no one admits that it exists.

7. While Cohen’s warning was directed at those who stifle debate on Muslim radicalism in Europe and refuse to recognize the failure of officially imposed multiculturalism, he lost no time in telling me how appalled he was at the news of Riley’s firing. “These people calling for her head are the same ones who would scream McCarthyism if someone demanded that academics who defend Iran, excuse terrorism, or accept support from dubious Middle East regimes be called to account,”…

a. James Kirchick, a contributing editor to The New Republic :“This is precisely why I am no longer on the left. It is disturbing to see such bullying.”

b. …academics have demanded tenure, ostensibly not to secure the effectively lifetime employment it creates but to give them the freedom to voice unpopular opinions and conduct research that challenges conventional thinking.



8. Few, if any, of her critics actually tried to refute her criticisms of black-studies dissertations. Instead, they sought to shut her up, and in so doing, they sent yet another message that some liberals today have become at least as intolerant of debate as any of the fundamentalists and traditionalists they abhor.

9. After Riley’s firing, I have no doubt there will be fewer people brave enough to challenge that censorship.”
Censoring Naomi Riley - John Fund - National Review Online


It seems that John Fund made my point for me….

You actually think you can't be fired for what you say or write?

Is that what you believe the OP is about?


Try to read it a bit slower....

....commensurate with your ability.

So much education....so little understanding of one of our most basic rights

What a waste of our educational system