Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Ben Shapiro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Stalin-Esque Show Trial At Tufts University
by Ben Shapiro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


On Monday evening at Tufts University, I attended a long, grueling show trial -- the kind of show trial that doubtless will be repeated at campuses across the United States. This show trial was convened with the sole purpose of punishing The Primary Source, Tufts' lone conservative periodical.

What was The Source's sin? On December 6, 2006, The Source printed a tasteless parody carol entitled "O Come, All Ye Black Folk." The carol was written from the perspective of an admissions officer, admitting students solely based on racially discriminatory stereotypes: "All come! Blacks, we need you, / Born into the ghetto. / O Jesus! We need you now to fill our racial quotas." The point of the carol, the editors later said, was that affirmative action is inherently degrading to racial minorities. After the carol was misinterpreted, the editors repeatedly apologized for printing it.

In the April 11, 2007, issue, The Source printed a page entitled "Islam: Arabic Translation: Submission." The page carried quotes from the Koran juxtaposed with facts about certain adherents of Islam -- their involvement with terrorism, discrimination against women, and the slave trade, among others.

This material is clearly political speech. Though Tufts is a private university, the student handbook explains that "the university is committed to free and open discussion of ideas and opinions."

Well, not that committed. "Harassment involves attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack, or physical assault," says the handbook. "Harassment is prohibited at Tufts and may result in disciplinary consequences." And being offended, according to the Committee on Student Life (CSL), constitutes harassment.

Such policies incentivize victimology. Predictably, one David Dennis, a self-described gay black student, brought a complaint of harassment before the CSL averring that the carol constituted a "psychological attack by causing any black student to question their own intelligence and capability as a student at Tufts based solely on their skin color." Meanwhile, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) similarly claimed that the "Islam: Arabic Translation: Submission" piece was "a deliberate attack on the Muslims on campus and is clearly meant to provoke us."

So the CSL held a hearing to determine whether The Source ought to be punished. The show trial was closed to outside media; I was only present because members of The Primary Source editorial board asked if I would give a closing statement on their behalf.

And a show trial it was. The room was filled to capacity with Dennis and MSA allies, who cheered, on cue, for Dennis and his MSA compatriot, Shirwac Mohamed. Dennis and Mohamed called witness after witness to complain of emotional distress: a lesbian student who whined that The Source opposed the homosexual agenda; a black female student who complained that she had -- horror of horrors! -- been engaged in a dialogue about the carol during one of her classes; a member of the MSA who carped that the quotes from the Koran were not placed "in context." Not one witness showed documented evidence of psychological harm.

And the CSL swallowed this gibberish whole. Barbara Grossman, the radical left chair of the CSL, compared printing the carol to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue. Another CSL member stated that labeling Islam violent was unacceptable in any way, shape or form.

The process was a mockery. After an initial request for silence, the crowd was allowed to cheer for the complainants and razz The Source. The CSL board allotted twice as much time to Dennis and Mohamed than they did to The Source. They granted Dennis and Mohamed extra time, while clocking The Source to the second. Dennis was allowed to slander members of The Source as racists, stating that the conservative agenda was "lower taxes, less government, hate black people."

Around midnight, I gave my closing statement, explaining that diversity of thought means protection of unpopular political views. Then Dennis took the floor to attack The Source. "We don't like you. Nobody likes you," he said. "There should be consequences."

Dennis and Mohamed will likely receive what they want from a board so biased it makes Castro's judiciary look like a haven of open-mindedness. If you're against affirmative action -- if you feel, as Justice Clarence Thomas does, that it is inherently degrading -- you may be guilty of harassment at Tufts. If you believe that Islam is linked to violence, you may be guilty of harassment at Tufts. On the Tufts campus, forget defending your views or listening to others' views: Victimology trumps all.

Just the latest incident in the ongoing Stalin-esque ideological purge on America's college campuses.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Pathetic all the way around
The Tufts show trial is truly pathetic--an unpleasant blast from the Stalinist past. My reaction is at least as negative as Shapiro's, and I'm a liberal academic and Democrat.

However, I took at look at The Primary Source parody Christmas carol parodies (December 6, 2006)[ http://tuftsprimarysource.org/?p=568 ]and it's pretty pathetic as well. The parodies are tasteless and offensive--to anyone who has the slightest wit, much less any poetic sense.

My real problem is this: The students who write for campus conservative papers so often think that trenchant political commentary is contained in these foul and inept exercises in lame poetry. I can't imagine why. If the only thing a young conservative intellectual can do is offend, his conservative mentors have done a lousy job of educating him for the big, bad world. Whoa! The Tufts boys and girls can say unkind and tasteless things and pass them off as political commentary. Cool.

I don't want to see garbage like this censored, or the people responsible for it punished in any way by Tufts. The best way to deal with it is to ignore it. A complete lack of official heavy breathing and student government legalese, indeed, a defeaning silence from those offended by these little right wing wimps would be far more effective.

I didn't like drivel like this when left wing wimps started publishing it in precious little left wing student papers in the 1960s. It sucked then, when poetically challenged left-wing illiterates did it, and it sucks half a century later when their right wing clones do it.



correction
of course, that's a "deafening" silence I'm seeking. Not that I'm going to get it.

The Blatant Bias of Madame Chairwoman
Barbara Grossman (a known supporter of all causes liberal and wife of the former National Chairman of the DNC) should be ashamed of herself. By falling prey to her own liberal bias, the Chairwoman of the CSL allowed what should have been a simple referendum on free speech to become a partisan circus. If I were on the Source's defense team I would have probably just walked out. Bravo for their professionalism.

Tufts needs to adopt NBC-CBS Stylebook
CBS-NBC Get A New Style

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/


NEW YORK – In what industry insiders say was an unprecedented display of cooperation and collaboration between two giant competitors, CBS and NBC announced today sweeping changes to be made to their Stylebooks. Stylebooks are the internal “rules of the road” that publishing, media, and broadcasting companies develop to achieve uniformity throughout their publications and broadcasts. They and also attempt to head-off potential legal issues by regulating terminology. What makes the CBS-NBC partnership so unusual is that Stylebooks typically are unique to an organization and help in creating a “brand identity”.

The surprise announcement, made just weeks after both CBS and NBC fired radio personality Don Imus and producer Bernard McGuirk for on-air comments jokingly referring to the Rutgers girls basketball team as “some hardcore hos”, appear to be a rapid response to a comment made yesterday by McGuirk on The Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes show. In the Fox interview, McGuirk claimed that the whole controversy could have been avoided but that he “never got the memo that the word ‘ho’ was no longer allowed or I would have said ‘The H-word’ instead.”

Released copies of the revised CBS-NBC Stylebook state the following new rules:

“Effectively immediately, ONLY the following approved words and phrases may be used by CBS-NBC staff in ANY and ALL broadcast, published, telephone or face-to-face conversation, whether of a personal or professional nature:”

A.) “The A-word”; “Al”
B.) “The B-word”
C.) “The C-word”
D.) “The D-word
E.) “The E-word”
F.) “The F-word”
G.) “The G-word”
H.) “The H-word”
I.) “The I-word”
J.) “The J-word”
K.) “The K-word”
L.) “The L-word”
M.) “The M-word”
N.) “The N-word”
O.) “The O-word”
P.) “The P-word”
Q.) “The Q-word”
R.) “The R-word”
S.) “The S-word”; “Sharpton”; “SHAMCO”; “Sharpton Management, Inc."
T.) “The T-word”
U.) “The U-word”
V.) “The V-word”
W.) “The W-word”
X.) “The X-word”
Y.) “The Y-word”
Z.) “The Z-word”

“Alternatively, the employee may forgo the long version, substituting with alphabetical abbreviations”

In an attempt to clarify the new Stylebook rules, NBC President, Steve Capus released the following statement:

W A NBC C T P A H V O S J A D I T W P, T W D I N T C T H SB I C W CBS. W W T T Al Sharpton F H T W I P C R. S A T B A Al Sharpton I H E, NBC A CBS W D $1,000,000 T Sharpton Management, Inc.

TY,

SC
P NBC

Industry analysts predict that the Stylebook changes may present some challenges to the two networks in their television broadcasts but were optimistic that the newly announced NBC and CBS News Text Message broadcasts may find a market niche with younger audiences.

Gestell
Points well made.

Freedom of speech does involve the possibility of offending or being offended. One word concerning any freedom/right. Responsibility.

I wonder how many of the Tuft's crowd leaped to the defense of the two bloggers that briefly worked for the Edwards' campaign.

Tuft's Travesty
It seems to me that David Dennis(self described black gay guy--I wonder if he's muslim too) and the islamic dude are guilty of what they accused the conservatives of.

Also, I would think the first amendment would be enforceable against Tuft's. How many Federal dollars do they accept? Since they accept Federal funding, shouldn't they be just as liable to follow the Constitution as a public university? Is Tuft's willing to forego all those Federal dollars, including all the Federally guaranteed financial aid to their studients?

The big problem here though is the current belief among the left, and their adherents in higher education that they should be free from being offended while remaining free to offend those with whom they disagree.

Kilroy

Superb satire -- BRAVO!

Bigbelly
I haven't heard or read that high schools in the U.S. are not teaching the holocaust or that female students are being required to wear head coverings. Are you sure about this? Where did you get your info?

Like Islam
Liberalism, like Islam, is an intellectually weak worldview that cannot stand opposition so it seeks to silence opposing views.

Learning from Goebbels
Portraying every slight as a crime against humanity was one of the many tactics Nazi propaganda minister Goeggels perfected.

My point is not to compare TH columnists to Nazis but to show how wrong it is for them to portray liberals they don't like as Stalinists. The Tufts liberals did not kill the authors of the racist nonsense.

VOTE coming up TOMORROW
Remember, the vote for on the Hate Crime legislation is coming up in the House TOMORROW. It is HR 1592. If you do not want it, and I do not think you do, please contact your representative.

Sue the B'stds....
> Dennis was allowed to slander

And he should be sued for this, sued in Middlesex County Superior Court. It is time to start holding some of these people accountable.


Liberalgoodman
It is quite observant of you to say "Portraying every slight as a crime against humanity was one of the many tactics Nazi propoganda master Goeggels (sic) perfected". It is precisely the tactic used by Tufts University to silence anyone who dares to express an opinion which is not in lockstep with their agenda.

The point of the carol which, by the way, contained no forbidden words, was that affirmative action is inherently racist. The idea that blacks and other minorities are intellectually inferior and require a lower standard in order to be accepted to a university is racist. It is also a liberal concept.

So, the actions of Tufts University are not only Stalinist, they are also racist. Are you sure you want to defend them now?

O Come All Yee Black Folk" has merit....
The first time you see it happen you think you must have missed something, the second and third you shake your head, and then your blood boils.

You are with a group of students and some overpaid university schmuck walks up and makes a big show of pandering to the black student amongst your group. You are in a class of 30-40 and the only student of concern to the instructor is the black one.

You think that maybe the black kid (who often is mortified by all of this) knows the admin or prof from somewhere but no, the (often) white leftists are just pandering to any visible black face they can see.

I can see how a few students of color could write something like "O Come All Ye Black Folk" -- the administration makes it very clear where they are going and how much they are willing to pander and people who wish to be valued on their individual merits find it quite offensive.

This isn't a Stalin-esque
trial but something more closely resembling a muslim trial. In some muslim countries a woman can be stoned or killed by her family in an honor killing for not resisting hard enough while being raped. It was reported some months back that a woman was sentenced to death for killing the man who was trying to rape her. It's a case of damned if you do and damned if you do.

-Kilroy
I understand that the news organizations are having their legal departments look into the posibility of adding REVEREND Jackson, REVEREND Sharpton and the names of any liberals currently elected or running for elected office. They hope to have this fair and balanced format added to the stylebook prior to the 2008 elections.

Liberal Intolerance
It's too bad that universities seem to be the last place you can go for true open mindedness. Why are liberals the most closed minded when it comes to conservative thought?
Kevin Howard

Bigbelly
I'm waiting. I really would like to know where you got this info.

Another school without standards
Just like Virginia Tech, apparently Tufts has foregone any rational standard for the reading and writing of the English Language, as evidenced by the absolute muppetry displayed by these "conservative" kiddies in their campus newspaper. How on earth do people achieve such exalted positions on an internationally known campus when they are unable to write a coherent English sentence, paragraph or rhyme (this stuff is not poetry, by the way; it is verse. There's a difference. Look it up.) Where are the people who can write the kind of prose (or even poetry) that will bring the people cheering to their feet? Who taught them that "You Suck!" is rhetoric?

When Generation Whine finally sees the last Boomer Executive Secretary leave her position for more salubrious climes, it will be exposed to the world as the most ignorant, untutored, vapid and vulgar group of people to achieve positions of power in the history of the United States. Without someone who was educated before the Sixties to cover up their shocking ignorance, they're doomed.

Personally, I plan to sit back and enjoy their humiliation.

Hey, Ellison
You said: As for Affirmative Action, It was quite clever of you to mention Clarence Thomas. However, I am sure you noticed that Clarence Thomas does not speak for all of African Americans/ Latino Americans/ Chinese Americans/Arab Americans/European American Women/etc. According to a Pew Research Center finding, The vast majority of African-Americans see these programs as good (87%), and two-thirds of other nonwhites agree (67%). Over three-fourths of Hispanics (77%) like them. More white women than white men see affirmative action in college admissions programs as a good thing (by a margin of 60% to 49%).

Also, The general question of it ­ with and without the reference to "special preferences" ­ found greater support for affirmative action than in 1995. That means support has RISEN for Affirmative Action.

Well, I teach on a college campus and talk to lots of students. I don't hear a lot of support for affirmative action except from the people who are benefitting from it. Also, polls can be misleading and get the answer they are looking for depending on how the questions are asked. So, since you were so intent on making the students who wrote the satire look bad by publishing the entire thing, why not publish the questions used in the poll and let us make up our own mind as to whether or not the numbers really mean anything. You also seemed to slam the conservative students for making a mountain out of a molehill because there were so few black students at Tufts. I believe the students have the right to comment on the broader issue of affirmative action which is a hot button topic in this nation. It is certainly not a settled issue as you would like us to believe.
And finally, as a lawyer, let me say this: the Constitution guarantees equal protection. Affirmative action is an affront to equal protection, and has put a target on the front and back of white hetero males. And, you pointed out that Tufts is private. You do not waive your constitutional right to equal protection by going to a private school. Your arguments are bogus and SPECIOUS.

Hey, AudiR10
I agree with you with the exception that I intend to continue pointing out their humiliations. Give me something to do to keep my mind sharp and avoid Alzheimer's.

Burn on LiberalGoodDouche
Nice burn, Bad Boy. Only immature pseudo-intellecutals and aging baby-boomers with at least the onset of Alzheimers are liberals...

RE: liberalIDIOTman
"My point is not to compare TH columnists to Nazis but to show how wrong it is for them to portray liberals they don't like as Stalinists. The Tufts liberals did not kill the authors of the racist nonsense."

Funny, racist admissions policies are A-ok to the likes of you, but when you are exposed as the racists you are, you desperately try to say others are the racists. You twits are so disingenuous, it is no wonder you aggressively are working to ban any and all contradictory thought. You MUST ban any dissent from your ridiculous notions because you and your ilk KNOW that if people actually are able to show the flaws in your "reasoning", nobody whose IQ exceeds their hat size would buy into your garbage.

If the silencing of any and all contrary thought is not the DEFINITION of Stalinist activity, then NOTHING is.

Ellison
Where you as critical of the students at Columbia when they interrupted a sponsored talk by the Minutemen Project?

Can a lawyer not argue points on which there is disagreement?

Inquiring minds and all that.


Carol
BigBelly had the wrong country. It's the UK and not the US where they've stopped teaching about the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslims.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015892.php

Evil has taken over the Colleges
I was struck by the Duke University Hate 88 and how many of them had positions tacching hate at Duke University. Their departments are called "Women's Studies" or "Black Studies" or some other euphamism that amounts to professing hatred against white men. Duke is a long way from unique. Tufts University has official "hate whitey" departmetns too. The left wingnut professors and administration can't stand real political debate because their hate programs are so contradictory to the lies they tell themselves. They pretend to be accepting to all, the great liberal lie, but in truth they are actively working to prevent any and all other opinion. Tufts can't tolerate a voice that opens a door into the hypocricy and hate that "Afirmative Action" or "Diversity" really is.

The conservatives made a large mistake appologizing for printing the truth about black students on campus. Its always a mistake to apologize for speaking the truth. It only gives fuel to the hate mongers.

At Virginia Tech we have seen the wages of "Diversity" admissions policy. They bring in unqualified minority students who don't, won't, and can't fit into the campus life. The Source printed truth, and shone a little light on the bigots who run the campus, and were crucified. They violated their own contract with the students. I hope they are sued in a real court. Its the kind of case that free speach organizations like The FIRE like to take and let a real judge explain contract law and free speech to campus anti-white-men bigots.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/



Ellison: Really?
+ Sadly, the poem was in bad taste. Just as tasteless as the ant-male venom that eminates from any campus "Women's Center." Just as tasteless as any university-sponsored, campus rendition of the misandric "V*g*na Monologues." T

Secondly, Admission to Tufts University is highly competitive and extremely selective; In 2007, the university accepted 26.6% of 15,381 applications to its undergraduate class of 2011. Only 4,095 students were admitted. At best, 380 students were African American. OK Benny, Tufts sure is turning into Howard. LOL!

+ Really? Speaking as someone who graduated from a Service Academy, i.e., an even more competitive & selective school than Tufts (my Alma Mater had a 5% acceptance rate at the time of my graduation,) I think that I can speak about “affirmative action” in an authoritative manner.

+ While at the Academy, I was introduced to my second experience (the first is another story) with institutional racism while on “recruiting leave”: admission points given to “deserving” minority students which allowed said students to be admitted with average SATs 250-300 points lower than their white (this practice occurs at all elite schools) counterparts. Ironically, SATs are the greatest indicator WRT how a student will perform their freshman year. Needless to say, 90% of the minority students in my class either flunked out, burned out or were allowed to remain a 5th year (unlike their white male counterparts) IOT graduate with a less academically rigorous degree, e.g., management, political science, etc. Majors dominated by women and minorities. In contrast, I graduated in the middle of my class with a BS in Electrical Engineering- probably the most academically challenging of all undergraduate degrees.

+ Additionally, as an upperclassman, I had to endure playing “babysitter” to a group of minority candidates that had the privilege of attending a“minority-only” summer enrichment (Engineering) program. Most were conceited, upper-middle class “hyphenated-Americans” who were fully aware of their privileged status- they all drank the affirmative action/entitlement “Kool-Aid” they received from their parents. Their academic backgrounds were “racially normed” against other prospective students within their ethnic groups(s). Very few would have qualified for admission based upon their individual merit.

+You think that the majority of the “theoretical” 380 were actually qualified? LOL!

Benny also said,

“Such policies incentivize victimology. Predictably, one David Dennis, a self-described gay black student, brought a complaint of harassment before the CSL averring that the carol constituted a "psychological attack by causing any black student to question their own intelligence and capability as a student at Tufts based solely on their skin color." Meanwhile, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) similarly claimed that the "Islam: Arabic Translation: Submission" piece was "a deliberate attack on the Muslims on campus and is clearly meant to provoke us."

So Benny, what incentive does this student gain from this experience. Why the use of the word “Predictably”? Why did you have to point out the student’s sexual orientation as a matter of contention? Are you trying to prove a point? Nice Benny!!

+ “Predictably” was employed to imply the existence of “victim industrial complex” franchise on the Tufts campus.

As for Affirmative Action, It was quite clever of you to mention Clarence Thomas. However, I am sure you noticed that Clarence Thomas does not speak for all of African Americans/ Latino Americans/ Chinese Americans/Arab Americans/European American Women/etc. According to a Pew Research Center finding, The vast majority of African-Americans see these programs as good (87%), and two-thirds of other nonwhites agree (67%). Over three-fourths of Hispanics (77%) like them. More white women than white men see affirmative action in college admissions programs as a good thing (by a margin of 60% to 49%).

+ So this is news? Wow. The majority of females polled are “female-chauvinists” & the majority of hyphenated-Americans polled are “racialists” who basically admit that they can’t compete w/ their white male counterparts on an even playing field w/o special help? Where’s the surprise? Additionally, I can only assume that because a plurality of idiots support institutionalized sexism & racism (i.e., affirmative action) that makes that policy “FAIR” to all concerned parties? Is that what you’re trying to imply with this pedantic line of reasoning? Oh I see: Marxism as an economic model is an abject failure, but is an appalling success as a tool of social engineering. LOL!

Also, The general question of it ¬ with and without the reference to "special preferences" ¬ found greater support for affirmative action than in 1995. That means support has RISEN for Affirmative Action.
+Really? It is surprising given the fact that the overwhelming majority of ADULT voters in both California & Michigan voted against affirmative action policies. Don’t you think that both states are representative of the nation’s attitude WRT affirmative action? But I guess you lend more credibility to some obscure Pew Research poll that conforms to your ideology.

+As a non sequitur, I can only say that I thoroughly enjoyed stomping Tufts runners in cross-country meets & invitationals.

Ellison: Really?
+ Sadly, the poem was in bad taste. Just as tasteless as the ant-male venom that eminates from any campus "Women's Center." Just as tasteless as any university-sponsored, campus rendition of the misandric "V*g*na Monologues." T

Secondly, Admission to Tufts University is highly competitive and extremely selective; In 2007, the university accepted 26.6% of 15,381 applications to its undergraduate class of 2011. Only 4,095 students were admitted. At best, 380 students were African American. OK Benny, Tufts sure is turning into Howard. LOL!

+ Really? Speaking as someone who graduated from a Service Academy, i.e., an even more competitive & selective school than Tufts (my Alma Mater had a 5% acceptance rate at the time of my graduation,) I think that I can speak about “affirmative action” in an authoritative manner.

+ While at the Academy, I was introduced to my second experience (the first is another story) with institutional racism while on “recruiting leave”: admission points given to “deserving” minority students which allowed said students to be admitted with average SATs 250-300 points lower than their white (this practice occurs at all elite schools) counterparts. Ironically, SATs are the greatest indicator WRT how a student will perform their freshman year. Needless to say, 90% of the minority students in my class either flunked out, burned out or were allowed to remain a 5th year (unlike their white male counterparts) IOT graduate with a less academically rigorous degree, e.g., management, political science, etc. Majors dominated by women and minorities. In contrast, I graduated in the middle of my class with a BS in Electrical Engineering- probably the most academically challenging of all undergraduate degrees.

+ Additionally, as an upperclassman, I had to endure playing “babysitter” to a group of minority candidates that had the privilege of attending a“minority-only” summer enrichment (Engineering) program. Most were conceited, upper-middle class “hyphenated-Americans” who were fully aware of their privileged status- they all drank the affirmative action/entitlement “Kool-Aid” they received from their parents. Their academic backgrounds were “racially normed” against other prospective students within their ethnic groups(s). Very few would have qualified for admission based upon their individual merit.

+You think that the majority of the “theoretical” 380 were actually qualified? LOL!

Benny also said,

“Such policies incentivize victimology. Predictably, one David Dennis, a self-described gay black student, brought a complaint of harassment before the CSL averring that the carol constituted a "psychological attack by causing any black student to question their own intelligence and capability as a student at Tufts based solely on their skin color." Meanwhile, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) similarly claimed that the "Islam: Arabic Translation: Submission" piece was "a deliberate attack on the Muslims on campus and is clearly meant to provoke us."

So Benny, what incentive does this student gain from this experience. Why the use of the word “Predictably”? Why did you have to point out the student’s sexual orientation as a matter of contention? Are you trying to prove a point? Nice Benny!!

+ “Predictably” was employed to imply the existence of “victim industrial complex” franchise on the Tufts campus.

As for Affirmative Action, It was quite clever of you to mention Clarence Thomas. However, I am sure you noticed that Clarence Thomas does not speak for all of African Americans/ Latino Americans/ Chinese Americans/Arab Americans/European American Women/etc. According to a Pew Research Center finding, The vast majority of African-Americans see these programs as good (87%), and two-thirds of other nonwhites agree (67%). Over three-fourths of Hispanics (77%) like them. More white women than white men see affirmative action in college admissions programs as a good thing (by a margin of 60% to 49%).

+ So this is news? Wow. The majority of females polled are “female-chauvinists” & the majority of hyphenated-Americans polled are “racialists” who basically admit that they can’t compete w/ their white male counterparts on an even playing field w/o special help? Where’s the surprise? Additionally, I can only assume that because a plurality of idiots support institutionalized sexism & racism (i.e., affirmative action) that makes that policy “FAIR” to all concerned parties? Is that what you’re trying to imply with this pedantic line of reasoning? Oh I see: Marxism as an economic model is an abject failure, but is an appalling success as a tool of social engineering. LOL!

Also, The general question of it ¬ with and without the reference to "special preferences" ¬ found greater support for affirmative action than in 1995. That means support has RISEN for Affirmative Action.
+Really? It is surprising given the fact that the overwhelming majority of ADULT voters in both California & Michigan voted against affirmative action policies. Don’t you think that both states are representative of the nation’s attitude WRT affirmative action? But I guess you lend more credibility to some obscure Pew Research poll that conforms to your ideology.

+As a non sequitur, I can only say that I thoroughly enjoyed stomping Tufts runners in cross-country meets & invitationals.

Somebody yelled FIRE!
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has become involved in the Tufts case. They have sued numerous colleges and universities across America over the past several years. According to the one cartoon in the Journal of Higher Education, shouting "FIRE" in a university administration convention is sure to start a total panic. Tufts has violated their own published policy, and therefore their contract with their students. FIRE has begun the process of legal action to explain the facts of contract and free speech to the left wing anti-white-men hate mongers who are now running the campus. You can read more of the initial work by FIRE at their web site here http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7981.html

It is likely that Tufts will eventually have to pay damaages and legal fees and apologize to the students who run the Source.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


Ellison
"A new optimism under Ronald Reagan and the neoconservative wave had replaced the Nixon-Carter malaise of the 1970s."

You mean THESE folks, Ellison? The ex-Trotskyites?

-------------------------------

What Happened to Conservatives?

The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?

One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.

True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives- a name they gave themselves- are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President’s closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative.

Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views, but they generally can be described as follows:

-They agree with Trotsky’s idea of a permanent revolution;
-They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss;
-They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power;
-They believe in a powerful federal government;
-They believe the ends justify the means in politics- that hardball politics is a moral necessity;
-They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive;
-They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public;
-They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends;
-They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism;
-They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals;
-They scoff at the Founding Father’s belief in neutrality in foreign affairs;
-They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many;
-They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party;
-They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government;
-They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds.

Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong- and I believe they are- we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst071403.htm

Fight on All Fronts!
Ben Shapiro points out that universities proclaim their support for all kinds of "diversity" (ethnic quotas mainly) but fail to acknowledge the only kind of diversity that truly matters: intellectual.

We win the battle, folks, when we fight on all fronts, including the use of humor.

Thus, I'm soliciting suggestions for a continuing series on my blog (click on name above) that deals with campaign slogans for all presidential candidates. From my childhood, I remember "I like Ike" and Goldwater's "In your heart, you know he's Right." I don't have any that good yet, but my first one appeared today: "Dennis Kucinich for President: Why Not a Dwarf?" My second, almost Ike-like one will appear tomorrow: "Yo Mama Loves Obama!"

So far, so good, but . . . Fred Thompson? Mitt Romney? Mike Gravel? Yikes. Help. Put your suggestions in my blog's comments section or e-mail me at TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks, this should be fun for all.

steve

BEWARE
Ellison advocates Hate Crime Legislation that has been used in other countries to:

In Canada:
- A Christian was fined $6,000 for refusing to print stationery for homosexual activists. A newspaper was fined $6,000 for accepting his ad.
- A Christian printer was fined $5,000 for refusing to print stationery for homosexual activists. He was bankrupted after spending $171,000 contesting the charge.
- A Christian was fined $35,000 for distributing "hate literature" -- tracts critical of homosexuality.
- Church school administrators were forced to hire a known homosexual, under threat of prison.
- A pastor was told it's a "hate crime" to hand out gospel tracts, punishable by prison.

In Australia:
- Two Christians were indicted for criticizing Islam; another for criticizing Zionism.

In Britain:
- Two political activists were indicted, facing 7 years in prison, for describing Islam as a "wicked faith". A filmmaker was threatened with arrest for using the term "homosexual" rather than "gay".

In Sweden:
- A pastor faced prison for reading from the pulpit Scriptures critical of homosexuality.

In Holland:
- It's now a "hate crime" to criticize fornicators and adulterers.

In Germany:
- A Catholic priest faces jail for the "hate crime" of publicly criticizing abortionists.

H.R. 1592 will be voted on TOMORROW in the House of Representatives. Please contact your reps.

Liberty
On this one, you are right on!

Those writing this bill wish to punish us for what we say and think!

The rule of unintended consequences will occur if this is passed. A follower Al Sharpton could charged for using the term "cracker".

We Are Doomed
If the Academy cannot be taken back from the Stalinists, then we are doomed.

Free college
My daughter will be attending a highly ranked private university next year. I hope and pray that she writes for their conservative rag and that the university then seeks to punish or censor the writing. Why? Because then she can sue the university for violation of her first amendment rights and she will get her education for free!

Oh, if someone slanders her, I will gladly pay the legal freight to see that they are sued back to the stone age.

Censorship
You really need look no further than this site.

Express yourself, but if what you say does not register in the minds of the neocons and pretenders who cannot see beyond their noses or what Rush said, expect slurs, name calling and invitations to leave your own country. Talk about tolerance.

JFP
I know that. My point is we have to be careful - when a conservative makes a bone-headed statement like that it just gives the left ammunition and makes us look like a bunch of hysterics.

HES
Hustler you posted. What is your point? Is Townhall = to Tufts. There was no censorship.


Hustler

Criticism is not censorship.

Tolerance is allowing another to have their opinions, it does not require acceptance of those opinions.

Here is an example of "tolerance "demonstrated on another website :

"Hey pvt Garcia, you are just a grunt who is serving our country. It is not yours to decide for our nation. That is for the citizens of the USA, and the citizens have spoken. You might like being over there and killing little girls, but the rest of the country doesn’t want our military there. You are ruining our country’s prestige. So if you go over there, you should stay there. "

Speaking of invitations.




steve
Another for Kucinich " the people on my planet love me"

Pave the way for Gravel!

Romney, the more-men the merrier!

Clinton - tons of fun with Clinton!

Edwards, mirror mirror on the wall, " Damn 'I;m looking good!

Ted Kennedy , another Chivas please.

your right this is fun.

Dangerously stupid liberals
As usual it's the liberals that are against free speech and freedom. At our universities and in government they are constantly attempting to take our freedoms away. They practice totalitarian tolerance; only tolerant of what they believe in.

Liberty/ALL
Y'all catch the article on the price of corn shooting up 700% in SOCIALIST Zimbabwe?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_re_af/zimbabwe_corn_hike

Any idiot that espouses Socialism should be beaten and forced to write a million times:

"I will not be stuck on stupid. Socialism sucks."

bostguy112
We determined on another thread yesterday that Kucinich is proof positive that aliens visited Earth and had sex with weasels. Obviously Waxman is proof that they boned sewer rats as well.

GunnyG
We should pitty the poor people in Zimbabwe and other countries for that matter. If we continue to steal the world's corn supply to make auto fuel, to save the planet, they will undoubtly starve. If we don't steal the corn they will eat but the world will come to an end, and they will die, because of either global warming, polution or some other U.S. caused catastrophy. They just can't seem to win.

Kraut
I read the other day where some libidiot egghead claimed that the Earth was reaching the limits of photosynthesis and couldn't support much more crops. Like sunlight is regulated?

WTF are these moonbats smoking?

GunnyG
In the name of saving the world they should stop cultivating whatever it is they are smoking. Just thing of all the food crops that could then be raised.

On top of that, how is Al going to get his carbon offsets if he can't plant more trees?

Kraut
Indeed!

With Summer coming, The Goreacle is gonna have to buy more carbon credits in order to effectively cool his 28,000 sqft mansion.

Gunny
We need all those palnts to consume the excess CO2. OOPS maybe I'm having an O2 overdose from all the plants!

Ellison
You posted that "Comparing disgruntled students, faculty, and liberal activists to Joseph Stalin is very insulting."



So it's insulting. So what? A socialist is a socialist. The students and faculty at Tufts and elsewhere will eventually, given the power, start the same pogroms Stalin did.

Tufts U. is apparently turning out a bunch of Stalinist wanna-be's who are simply honing their socialist skills.

And you, Ellison, will be right there, cheering them on.

Liberty
"H.R. 1592 will be voted on TOMORROW in the House of Representatives. Please contact your reps."

I did, they'll be supporting it, as ordered.
I also won't be voting for Ron "cut and run" Paul because he clearly doesn't understand the war on terror.

Good luck...

May day plus1
Comrade,,, the conservitive menace at TUFT's is being delt with well. We were able to silence the Capitalists by claiming our feelings were hurt when they put out a tasteless song. But comrade chairman I have some questions for you,,,

Can they also not claim thier feelings are hurt by the stuff in our classes- afro studies,,, womens studies,, etc.
-NO my young CADRE,, the ACLU supports us and has determined that from past injustices it is OK to now discriminate against the capitalists (white males). But chairman what about some minorities that do quite well.... how about asians chairman...go to any engineering Dept. or math or such other on any campus in AMERICA and it appears that the minorities asians are even doing better than the capitalists. These groups are in smaller numbers than our (mostly loyal) black followers
and came to this country after others... IF RACISM WERE SUCH A FACTOR THEN WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE GHETTOS AND NEED HELP TOO??? Why don't the capitalists perform the racism against asians?
-MY young CADRE questions like that will make you an enemy of the state and perhaps sent to a reeducation camp or worse...(probably paid by the NAACP which would then be out of a job)

My beloved chairman can we not also go after rebels who claim that HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin. Are not these traitors also in danger of hurting our beloved party members feelings.
-Of course my young follower, you are learning quickly.
But chairman I am concerned about the effects of a judiciary that can legislate from the bench and legalize homosexual marriage (adoption acceptance, etc.)and not the elected legislators.
-Why my young CADRE would this be upsetting?
I have a young family, and worry that some judge somewhere in the future may determine from his bench that NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is OK, that they are being discriminated against... that all citizens are now adults from say 8years old on or any age... and are thus having thier civil rights trampled on... Perhaps some future judge will now term anyone this age and older as a "young adult" and can thus have sexual relations with todays "child". You see they can even claim to (love) each other.... it's all about love.
-My young cadre this is still many years down the road.. 20 years ago the homosexual movement was then what NAMBLA is today,, . So YOUR children are OK for now,,, besides anything we can do to weaken traditional families is in our interest-- for the family is an ENEMY OF THE STATE. And you are now going to written up as an agitator against the state for assuming that your family is YOURS and not property of the state... (did you not read Hillarys book--it takes a village)....
Chairman,, my deepest apologies,,


Packrat
Maybe if we got rid of the liberals, it would not only cut down on hot air and C02 but also overcrowding and traitorous acts by fifth columnists.

Liberty not Equality, stupid
If we want to continue to aim for Life, Liberty, and Happiness, we cannot let adminstrators or popular opinion decide what that happiness is. If the adminstration of Tufts decides to censor speech, they are undoubtedly rejecting liberty and claiming to have knowledge of happiness. I fear for my life.

reply to Demosthenes
YOur post makes me wonder if you're some kind of leftist troll, writing here so liberals will remain convinced that all conservatives are racists. If you're not, I know you didn't pick up your racism at whatever service academy you graduated from; you brought it with you. It's pathetic. I hope you're never in a position of command in a racially mixed unit. Those black guys will know precisely what you think of them, their intelligence, their character, and their abilities. So much for unit cohesion.

Ironic at heart
The Primary Source is arguing that affirmative action is a racist policy and Mr. Dennis, a self proclaimed black gay male, is arguing that The Primary Source is racist for arguing against racism. Phew. I am glad I am not in the middle of this one.

Only the courageous have free speech
It is far past time that those who believe in 'freedom of speech' to understand this....
Freedom of speech is a matter of an individual's moral courage.
No rejime can truly guarantee this right, since most folks are moral cowards at heart.
Yes the left wishes to silence and intimidate this function, since socialist regimes need a conformity to the party agenda.
If the Periodical at Tufts wishes to continue, they need to go pro active.
Move off of Campus
Stage Public Protests
Face getting arrested and their day in Court
Be willing to do Jail time
Remember what it cost the Late Reverend Martin Luther King Junior.
Compliance with the silencers is cooperation with the slave keeper as he fastens the shackles on you.
Get tough or die.

Alright
How did people start talking about how much socialism sucks? I'm pretty sure that's not the issue here.

1. I go to Tufts.
2. I am a Christian straight white male.
3. I am not a liberal.

Alright. Yes, it's kinda silly that the Primary Source is getting in trouble for this. They should be able to say what they want and people should be able to ignore them as much as they want. That is free speech.

As stated in the article: "Harassment involves attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack, or physical assault," says the handbook. "Harassment is prohibited at Tufts and may result in disciplinary consequences."

It is arguable that some of the Primary Source's writing could fit under this. If we have a problem with this, then it is the handbook that needs to be changed. Attacking the people as Stalinists who think the writing constitutes harassment is a straw man: you should be angry at the handbook, not the people.

Yes, it is also offensive to the memory of the millions killed by Stalin to compare a possibly disciplinary action against a poorly-written article to what the dictator did. If you can't realize that, you lack an enormous amount of perspective.

Feel free to argue that the trail is silly and unnecessary: I'll join you. But by bringing Stalin into this you lose credibility and look foolish and reactionary, similarly to how many liberals look when they compare those against hate crime legislation to Nazis. Just don't do it; it's juvenile.

So basically let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not a purge. This is the possible disciplinary action against a possibly harrassing article. To state that I personally as a Tufts student will, consequently, start a pogrom, is idiotic. To imply that there is a communist agenda behind this is laughable. To suggest that the students who brought the issue to the panel should be sued is pathetic.

I can personally attest that a strong proportion of the Tufts Political Science department leans conservative. Moreso for Economics. I have never felt pressure to tow a liberal line. I have never received a lower grade for something because I took a stance that differed from the professor's.

Let's keep our heads and keep a hold on perspective here.

Alright
How did people start talking about how much socialism sucks? I'm pretty sure that's not the issue here.

1. I go to Tufts.
2. I am a Christian straight white male.
3. I am not a liberal.

Alright. Yes, it's kinda silly that the Primary Source is getting in trouble for this. They should be able to say what they want and people should be able to ignore them as much as they want. That is free speech.

As stated in the article: "Harassment involves attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack, or physical assault," says the handbook. "Harassment is prohibited at Tufts and may result in disciplinary consequences."

It is arguable that some of the Primary Source's writing could fit under this. If we have a problem with this, then it is the handbook that needs to be changed. Attacking the people as Stalinists who think the writing constitutes harassment is a straw man: you should be angry at the handbook, not the people.

Yes, it is also offensive to the memory of the millions killed by Stalin to compare a possibly disciplinary action against a poorly-written article to what the dictator did. If you can't realize that, you lack an enormous amount of perspective.

Feel free to argue that the trail is silly and unnecessary: I'll join you. But by bringing Stalin into this you lose credibility and look foolish and reactionary, similarly to how many liberals look when they compare those against hate crime legislation to Nazis. Just don't do it; it's juvenile.

So basically let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not a purge. This is the possible disciplinary action against a possibly harrassing article. To state that I personally as a Tufts student will, consequently, start a pogrom, is idiotic. To imply that there is a communist agenda behind this is laughable. To suggest that the students who brought the issue to the panel should be sued is pathetic.

I can personally attest that a strong proportion of the Tufts Political Science department leans conservative. Moreso for Economics. I have never felt pressure to tow a liberal line. I have never received a lower grade for something because I took a stance that differed from the professor's.

Let's keep our heads and keep a hold on perspective here.

Alright
How did people start talking about how much socialism sucks? I'm pretty sure that's not the issue here.

1. I go to Tufts.
2. I am a Christian straight white male.
3. I am not a liberal.

Alright. Yes, it's kinda silly that the Primary Source is getting in trouble for this. They should be able to say what they want and people should be able to ignore them as much as they want. That is free speech.

As stated in the article: "Harassment involves attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack, or physical assault," says the handbook. "Harassment is prohibited at Tufts and may result in disciplinary consequences."

It is arguable that some of the Primary Source's writing could fit under this. If we have a problem with this, then it is the handbook that needs to be changed. Attacking the people as Stalinists who think the writing constitutes harassment is a straw man: you should be angry at the handbook, not the people.

Yes, it is also offensive to the memory of the millions killed by Stalin to compare a possibly disciplinary action against a poorly-written article to what the dictator did. If you can't realize that, you lack an enormous amount of perspective.

Feel free to argue that the trail is silly and unnecessary: I'll join you. But by bringing Stalin into this you lose credibility and look foolish and reactionary, similarly to how many liberals look when they compare those against hate crime legislation to Nazis. Just don't do it; it's juvenile.

So basically let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not a purge. This is the possible disciplinary action against a possibly harrassing article. To state that I personally as a Tufts student will, consequently, start a pogrom, is idiotic. To imply that there is a communist agenda behind this is laughable. To suggest that the students who brought the issue to the panel should be sued is pathetic.

I can personally attest that a strong proportion of the Tufts Political Science department leans conservative. Moreso for Economics. I have never felt pressure to tow a liberal line. I have never received a lower grade for something because I took a stance that differed from the professor's.

Let's keep our heads and keep a hold on perspective here.

Alright
How did people start talking about how much socialism sucks? I'm pretty sure that's not the issue here.

1. I go to Tufts.
2. I am a Christian straight white male.
3. I am not a liberal.

Alright. Yes, it's kinda silly that the Primary Source is getting in trouble for this. They should be able to say what they want and people should be able to ignore them as much as they want. That is free speech.

As stated in the article: "Harassment involves attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack, or physical assault," says the handbook. "Harassment is prohibited at Tufts and may result in disciplinary consequences."

It is arguable that some of the Primary Source's writing could fit under this. If we have a problem with this, then it is the handbook that needs to be changed. Attacking the people as Stalinists who think the writing constitutes harassment is a straw man: you should be angry at the handbook, not the people.

Yes, it is also offensive to the memory of the millions killed by Stalin to compare a possibly disciplinary action against a poorly-written article to what the dictator did. If you can't realize that, you lack an enormous amount of perspective.

Feel free to argue that the trail is silly and unnecessary: I'll join you. But by bringing Stalin into this you lose credibility and look foolish and reactionary, similarly to how many liberals look when they compare those against hate crime legislation to Nazis. Just don't do it; it's juvenile.

So basically let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not a purge. This is the possible disciplinary action against a possibly harrassing article. To state that I personally as a Tufts student will, consequently, start a pogrom, is idiotic. To imply that there is a communist agenda behind this is laughable. To suggest that the students who brought the issue to the panel should be sued is pathetic.

I can personally attest that a strong proportion of the Tufts Political Science department leans conservative. Moreso for Economics. I have never felt pressure to tow a liberal line. I have never received a lower grade for something because I took a stance that differed from the professor's.

Let's keep our heads and keep a hold on perspective here.

hm
haha sorry internet cut out and i guess refreshing means reposting. my bad.

Response to K
I also go to Tufts and the "large proportion" of conservatives that you are talking about is only in comparison other departments here. In reality, conservatives are in the minority in the poli sci department and in any other department on campus. The least represented minority happens to be conservatives. The Economics Department is very liberal as far as economics departments are concerned. The difference with the political science department is that they actually have conservatives. Which is shocking for most students here: How could somebody know anything about politics and be conservative?

While calling the trial "Stalin-Esque" might be a little too extreme, the jury is undoubtedly left. I am willing to bet that not a single conservative is on the CSL (minus those who had to recuse themselves). I have personally interacted with several of the members prior to the hearing and they have explicitly told me that they do not like The Primary Source. And now a little time for vengeance.

The students here are out of reality and would rather foster a paternal environment than a liberal one. A ruling against the Source will invariably restrict the liberties of students on campus.

What does it mean?
....to say you are conservative?
What is it you are trying to conserve?
Jesus Christ our True God was hardly a 'conservative'.
the most radical idea that followed the early days of the Church was Christian Monarchy and having a God-Anointed Soveriegn and Defender of the faith.
The French Revolution and "rights of man" brought a new or rather stale old Idea back to the fore.
IE, that man can govern through the use of natural reason, without the blessings of God.
If to be 'conservative' means to defer to God's law and traditions then it has some merit, but otherwise, I think it is a tired phrase of mixed meanings or definitions, depending on who claims the title/designation.

In those days there was no King in Israel:
Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Book of Judges: Old Testament

Response to adsf
I'm not going to get into an argument about specific teachers, but the majority that I have had in three years have been moderate to conservative. And there are certainly more conservative PS professors than racial minority PS professors, so I wouldn't call them the "least represented minority". Obviously someone can know something about politics and be conservative. I might question whether someone can know something about politics and be neo-conservative, but let's not get into that one.

And yeah, calling the trial "Stalin-Esque" is definitely a little too extreme. All it is is an eye-grabbing phrase meant to draw people in and convince them that they're under attack. It's shameless and dishonest and fear-mongering.

Let's face it. The Primary Source does not have a good reputation on campus because they always have to push the envelope in order to get noticed. Even within the Primary Source there are plenty of people who don't like much of what is published under their name.

Let's hope that the trial is fair despite the leanings of members. But remember, if the Primary Source is found guilty of harassment, then maybe it has more to do with the handbook and less to do with a communist conspiracy among trial members. After all, they should be interpreting, not rewriting.

It is also clear (to anyone who knows more than what they’re told about the subject) that the vast majority of the Tufts campus does not want to censor the Primary Source. Most of the students who disagree with what was written still respect the Source's right to print it. The students making a fuss are a clear minority (of opinion), so it is unfair to classify an entire student body according to their views. The majority of Tufts students want the Primary Source to be able to print what it prints, even when they might disagree with what it says or would prefer they say it in a less purposefully-inflammatory way.

Winning isn't everything,
it's the only thing. This is the reason that Orwellian double-think prevails on every campus. Conservatives always think that the left is idealistic. Conservatives behave as if truth will out and the better angels of their nature will be awakened to decency if only we clearly point to the contradictions, the double standards, the hypocrisies that bleed forth from Stalinesque hate speech trials and Maoist re-education coursework.

One commenter here wants to cavil that the trials are not Stalinist since nobody is executed at the end of the day. Well, not yet. For now reputations and careers are tarnished, freedom of speech is silenced. The tactic of soft totalitarianism is working, it is unnecessary to shed blood, for now. Soon however, these home grown U.S. Hitler Youth/Red Guards will begin to demonstrate for us that they are not averse to other methods, indeed, that the intelligentsia actually relish the chance for righteous rage.

Indeed, they write openly of how they long to apply the ultimate sanction to leaders they despise, to groups that challenge their views, they are eager to correct thoughtcrimes and speechcrimes.

They are expertly versed in the sliding scale of values, fully adept in mental splicing, redacting, expunging reality, marinated in the dialectic of 2 plus 2 equals 5. Truth is whatever anti-Americanism and radical leftist dogma says truth is, there is no objective truth or absolute moral standard. Absolutists and moralists are doubleplus ungood.

The Delphic soviets, the Leninist stategems, and Alinsky's tactics are sufficient to ensure ultimate, inevitable victory. Especially when the only opposition is from idealistic, sophomoric conservatives who still think that these dangerous intellectual poseurs and commissars actually have ideals that weigh more than a featherweight in the scale of truth and justice.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.