Connecting the Dots

Mike Adams
|
Posted: Oct 12, 2017 12:01 AM
Connecting the Dots

Francisco Salinas is the Director of Student Diversity and Inclusion at Boise State University (BSU). He is perhaps the most intellectually constipated college administrator working west of the Mississippi and outside of the State of California. Due to his relative obscurity, his mendacity was well hidden until he decided to lash out at BSU Professor Scott Yenor. I am writing today in Yenor’s defense.

The motivation for Salinas’ vicious attack on his colleague was that Professor Yenor decided to write an article in which he criticized feminism in general and gender identity politics in particular. In other words, he decided to provide an alternative point of view in an otherwise fossilized marketplace of ideas. In case you haven’t noticed, diversity and inclusion directors don’t like that sort of thing.

In contrast, reasonable people read Yenor’s article and find much of it to be axiomatic. In fact, most of his statements about the motivation of the feminist movement are things feminists would readily admit to if simply asked. You can read his article here and decide whether his writing is some kind of outlandish extremism that threatens diversity and must, therefore, be excluded in the name of “inclusion.”

Because it is an unwritten part of his job description, Francisco Salinas could not miss the opportunity to condemn someone for engaging in an act of unauthorized ideological non-conformity. So he wrote a rebuttal called “Connecting the Dots” in response to Yenor’s Daily Signal piece. He then published it on the BSU website. Below are some notable highlights indented and in italics. My comments can be found in between:

“Folks that contacted me were concerned about the content of the article that they characterized (I think correctly), as derogatory of feminists, the LGBT community and people generally concerned with issues of justice related to gender. This issue arose just the day before the tragic events in Charlottesville, Va. became a national moment of attention. There is a reason that these things happened in succession and their proximity in my attention is no accident.”

This is simply shocking intellectual recklessness on Salinas’ behalf – even judging him by the lower standards demanded of “diversity” experts. If Yenor had written about race shortly before the Charlottesville tragedy, there would be no basis for blaming Yenor for the attacks, which took place all the way on the other side of the country. But Yenor was not even writing about race. He was writing about feminism and gender identity politics. Salinas is simply attempting to exploit Charlottesville in order to justify his role as an overpaid administrator. This is nothing short of intellectual whoredom.

“His piece is easy enough to dismiss on logical grounds, but serves as a very telling peek into the pathetic fear of change gripping those that patronize such sources as the Heritage Foundation.”

I can recall a time when people identified the logical flaws in arguments and then exposed them with sound counter-arguments. Of course, no counter-argument is necessary if you are a “diversity” expert. You have the vision of the anointed. People can trust you because you feel things they don’t feel because of your experiences as a minority. In fact, the demand to supply evidence is really just another form of oppression.

Not every person who agrees with Yenor’s piece is likely to become an espoused Neo-Nazi, but likely every Neo-Nazi would agree with the substance of Yenor’s piece.”

This is a vicious and nasty game, which anyone can easily play. Let me show you how:

“Not every person who agrees with Francisco Salinas’ rebuttal is likely to become an espoused communist, but likely every communist would agree with the substance of Salinas’ piece.”

“Not every person who disagrees with Yenor’s defense of traditional morality is likely to become a pedophile, but likely every pedophile would disagree with the substance of Yenor’s piece.”

And so on…

This is simply not the way rational, intelligent people argue. It is the way “diversity” experts argue when they are trying to shame people for daring to offer a little intellectual diversity within an ideological echo chamber.

“I realize that some would call me alarmist for identifying such an association at all, but as someone that has grown up in the rural west, I just don’t know how you can deny the logic that reducing the impact of toxic seeds by identifying them helps us to ultimately control the character of what we will inevitably have to sow.”

And there you have it. Francisco Salinas grew up in the rural west. I am not sure what that means. But the next portion of his semi-literate run-on sentence is crystal clear for those of us who happen to be conservative and working in academia. Let me offer a translation:

“I just don’t know how you can deny the logic that reducing the impact of divergent ideas by shaming the people who espouse them helps us to ultimately control all political opposition.”

Fortunately, Francisco Salinas does not have the power to fire Scott Yenor who is a tenured full professor. But Salinas does possess another form of power. He can use his position as Director of Student Diversity and Inclusion to single out people who refuse to conform and attack them publicly – even by comparing them to Nazis.

By posting Salinas’ vicious attacks on the university website, the BSU administration endorses the tactics of a narrow-minded bully. They also send a powerful message to students about the consequences of nonconformity.

This is what they call diversity and inclusion. It’s what the rest of us call fascism.