Free Markets, Free People

Love, inclusion and diversity in academia

In reality the left is everything it condemns and is apparently not bright enough to know it:

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad! . . .

Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the “determined vilification” of others, and have “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy.

Wow … irony anyone?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to Love, inclusion and diversity in academia

  • Lovely person, I’m sure.

  • I understand that the piece has now been retitled to Can’t We All Get Along.

    I kid you not.

    And the answer is NO! We can’t.

    • Her arguments suck – as one example….
      imagine!!!! We “bludgeoned” a married President, over his sexual behavior, in the Oval Office, during business hours, with a young impressionable woman who worked for him. Good Lord! We need to learn to be less certain that sort of thing is wrong, we need to be more ambiguous about the whole sex thing except when we’re trying to smear a Republican maybe.

      Imagine holding the President, any President, to a dogmatic rigid standard like that!
      What were we thinking?

    • and actually it’s ‘We can’t all just get along’ –

      She’s justifying her hatreds, not remorseful over them.

  • Bruce, absolutely. I’ve been saying it for decades now. It’s nice when these little object lessons come along so clearly.

  • At a certain point we’ve long since passed, the word “hypocrisy” becomes meaningless.

    • more to the point, at some point the word hypocrisy becomes a way of life. Anything for the I say, that has always been what we’re dealing with.

    • I’ve always said that Ghandi would have been trampled by these Progressives.
      Non-violent action and hypocrisy require the willingness to be shamed, when appropriate, which these folks are incapable of every feeling.

  • We must learn to be more sensitive to diversity. For example, the author of this piece is from Georgia. However, it would be insensitive to call him a “cracker”. Instead, the term “saltine American” should be used.

  • Alex, I’ll take, “People who slept through the Bush presidency for $100.”

  • Just so this “educator” notes- it’s a pretty clear (and not as far as you’d think) path from ” its ok to hate Republicans” to “its ok to smash hateful leftist academic bigots with a brick”

    if this is how they want the game to be, there won’t be a shortage of players.

  • Imagine she had said, “It’s OK to hate Democrats.” She’s be out on the street faster than you can say, “tenure revocation hearing.”

    • Possible the same result if she had said it’s okay to hate anyone except the groups they think are synonymous with “Republicans” – Christians, Conservatives, tea-partiers, gun-owners…

      • On some of those grounds, she could be in actual violation of legally protected variables (race, creed, religion, etc). By using dog-whistles like “Republicans” she makes it an excercise in soft power. The soft power in Academia agrees with her completely, so completely that her career would be totally sidelined (if not defrocked) were she to unrepentantly promote Hate against Democrats.

        • Nah, Christians are always white males of European descent, no doubt looking to control her reproductive abilities. Regardless of the gender of said Christian. No protection for those oppressors!

          You don’t get into trouble for discriminating against ‘Christians’ because privilege or something and besides they’re racists anyway.
          I’m not sure when Christians became white European descended males only, but the way the media frames the use of the word Christian it’s obvious that’s what it means, and that applies to female Christians as well. Any woman straying from the feminist herd isn’t really a woman (oh wait, I just implied feminists are cows I think….but it’s okay, I’m a white male, it’s expected of me).

          I see no protections for conservatives, tea party members, gun-owners or Christians in the legally protected variables list.

          • It’s like the Sony thing. No making fun of NoKo or Islam but there will always be plenty of white, conservative or Christian villians….

          • “N ah,Christians are always white males of European descent….”

            Does that mean I am in a same-sex marriage? Have I just been outed? Am I now a protected species? I am so confused!

          • You’re only confused because you’re trying to think about this logically.

            Stop that!

  • First they came for the Republicans …

    • And that made professor Susan J. Douglas very happy.

    • Given time, they will feed on each other. I believe outside influence has kept that from happening. The outside influence will one day disappear

  • Equally foreign to the mission of a university is the idea that students are to be protected from “discomfort” or so-called “microaggression” when they are exposed to beliefs that differ from theirs, or when the university does not accede to demands that it prosecute their moral and political crusades. Discomfort is another word for tolerance. It is the price we pay for living in a democracy and participating in the open exchange of ideas.

  • More from the bowels of the universe, the University of Michigan:

    The student, Omar Mahmood, wrote the op-ed titled “Do The Left Thing,” a piece attacking the concept of “trigger warnings” and ridiculing the overly sensitive nature of minorities that see “white privilege” everywhere they look.

    Mahmood’s satire was written from the perspective of an aggrieved left-handed person who saw slights perpetrated against him by every right-handed person he met.

    Saying that society needs to “do the left thing,” Mahmood wrapped up his piece with the following satirical proclamation: “No longer will I persevere in patience. No longer will I suffer in silence. I am a left-handyd individu@l, and my humanity needs be respected! The next time someone tells you to Do the right thing! turn around and flick them off with your left middle finger.”

    But as soon as the piece was published in the Michigan Review, an unidentified staffer from the school’s official paper, The Daily, claimed that she felt “threatened” by the op-ed and demanded that Mahmood apologize for his piece.

    • Just one more data point that when the left howls about minorities and their rights, they don’t really mean it.

      It’s first, foremost, and always about politics and power. Any challenge to their collectivist orthodoxy means your race, gender, or anything else they claim to care about simply doesn’t count anymore.

      • Check your privilege!

        (c) the mindless collective.

      • And Collective is the operative word. So long as you view the world through the multilense eye of the collective you’re okay.

        Start seeing it as an individual and you’re traction under the wheels.

  • You kind of hope one day that they would go so far trying to top each other that the veil would come off. And maybe, just maybe, the people who vote (D) because their daddy did and his daddy before him did would wake up a little and realize these people are off their nut and do not have their best interest in mind.

    I think that day is coming soon and if it doesn’t it never will.

  • Just a footnote, ‘Communications’ at U of M includes Journalism.

    • Have not looked at a college catalog in a long time, but based on behavior of recent J-school graduates, I’m guessing the first required course towards a journalism degree is “Gullibility 101”.