Campuses all across America are being overrun by hordes of snowflakes that are simply emotionally incapable of functioning in a free and open marketplace of ideas. Some people blame the public school system or even the parents who raised the little snowflakes. I disagree and have decided it is best to blame the universities themselves. I arrived at this conclusion last fall after speaking with one of the skinny blonde chicks that had just gone through freshman orientation here at UNC-We Are Constantly Offended. Please go grab a beer unless you are below the age of 21 (or if you are a Baptist currently in the presence of other Baptists). I have a story I would like to share.
The aforementioned skinny blonde chick enrolled at UNCW after being urged to do so by her father who is an avid reader of my column. When she attended freshman orientation, she encountered three very interesting events that go a long way toward explaining why chronically offended adolescents overrun our campuses. The events follow in no particular order of absurdity:
1. Incoming students were warned that there is often preaching on campus that might be offensive to some students. Although I certainly favor telling students that they might actually encounter offensive speech on campus I am perplexed by the example chosen. The people running freshman orientation didn’t warn students that they might be offended by the UNCW English professor who has published fantasies about having sex with dead women. (I am not making this up. For verification, see my recent posts on www.RightlyOffended.com). Nor did they warn students about the equally sexually obsessed campus feminists who publicly talk about their orgasms and their genitals while performing skits in The Vagina Monologues. Instead, they warned students about preachers who might cast judgments against things like fornicating with dead people and talking about your genitals in public. Sounds fair and balanced to me.
2. Students were shown a film called “What Kind of Asian are you?” in order to explain the concept of micro-aggression. In case you don’t know what a micro aggression is, let me sum it up succinctly. Micro-aggression is a concept used to legitimize the idea that those who are obsessed with identity politics have a right to trump other people’s ideas by pretending to be offended by speech that was never intended to be offensive.
Example: A very tall black woman named Michelle Offended (pronounced owe-bomb-uh) pretends to be upset when a short white woman asks her for help getting an item off the top shelf at a local grocery store. The request was made because Michelle is tall. Yet Ms. Offended pretends it was because she is black and therefore assumed to be a lowly employee at a grocery store.
(Author’s Note: In reality Michelle Offended is a Harvard educated lawyer who thinks hourly wage earners are her social inferiors. In other words, her claim to be a victim of racism is in fact a deflection of attention from her own rude imposition of classism).
3. Students were forced to recount stories of victimhood in a public setting. After being taught what a micro-aggression is, UNCW freshmen were specifically taught how to use the concept to falsely accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia, or some other form of insensitivity. This was accomplished by asking students to write down an example of how each had been a victim of micro-aggression and then read it aloud before other members of the orientation group. When pressed, the aforementioned skinny blonde chick recounted an incident in which someone had called her a “stupid blonde chick.” After she read it aloud, the UNCW administrator running the orientation session responded roughly as follows: “It must have been hurtful that they assumed you identified as a female.”
As any reader with an IQ above room temperature can discern, the skinny blonde chick was not offended by being called a “chick.” She was offended by being called “stupid.” Unfortunately, the administrator in charge of orientation is not paid to point out the obvious. The well-funded grievance industry pays her to promote identity politics by teaching young people to be offended in new and innovative ways.
Under the guise of protecting them, these whores of diversity earn a living turning impressionable students into ideological weapons. Unfortunately, they also turn them into unemployable narcissists. In the final analysis, both taxpayers and students are victimized by ideological macro-aggressors posing as legitimate educators.