Combating Progressive Ethics Rot On Campus: How Hard Is It? THIS Hard…

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

NYU canceled 13 culture, identity and faith-based graduation ceremonies last week.

This was a sane and necessary move, though NYU’s weenie administrators blamed the decision on the “current political climate” rather than making the important,unequivocal statement that all graduating students are the same in the eyes of the school, and that splitting up graduations by tribes, nationalities, races and sexual orientation is divisive, destructive and irresponsible.

Now student groups are demanding that NYU rescind the order. Good job, NYU! You did this. You indoctrinated them to think this way.

As it stands, there will be a single graduation celebration at the school’s Paulson Center.“There can’t be stoles or alumni speakers, all of these things that would typically be part of a graduation can’t be a part of that end-of-year celebration,” a member of the affected LGBTQ+ Affinity Group. “To me, that’s a pretty startling restriction of student speech.” 

That’s because you haven’t learned what restricting student speech means. Go look up the Supreme Court decisions. Show us the rulings that say a university has to promote the fragmenting of the graduating class in official group, tribe, or religious ceremonies.

Students who don’t want to celebrate their graduation with those evil whites, those bigoted straights, those mean Christians, those genocidal Jews and toxic males have organized an activism group called “Our Stories, Our Stage” to lobby the school to reinstate the events. There is also a petition with garnered 1,400 signatures, claiming that the cancellations are an attempt “to appease the current administration.”

“Whether you’re in your first or last year of your undergraduate or graduate degree, faculty, alumni, or ally, the cancellation of the affinity groups is setting a dangerous precedent for anyone associated with NYU, or other higher educational institutions,” the petition reads. “NYU has now shown it is willing to throw its students under the bus in exchange for money.”

Boy, what a damning, biased, illogical petition. Showing students that the school supports unity, comity and mutual respect among all Americans and human beings is “throw[ing] its students under the bus.”

NYU did not respond to requests for comments. My comment is that this sick and corrosive culture has been allowed to flourish on campuses for decades, and purging it is a massive if not a hopeless task.

From the Ethics Alarms “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Files…

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Let me moderate that: the above comparison of Variety headlines about deceased artists (over two articles by the same writer) “speaks for itself” in that it vividly demonstrates the familiar biases and double standards warping values and analysis in the news media, progressive bubbles, and the realm of entertainment especially.

But allow me to add a few observations:

1. No artist’s political participation or views should “overshadow” his or her legacy, reputation or success in a creative field. I know I have written about this often, perhaps too often, but it seems to be a concept most people have a hard time accepting. I hold that the same principle applies just as strongly to an artist’s personal life and character. Our most brilliant comedians and comic actors, for example, with a few exceptions, were terrible human beings when they were not performing.

2. Chuck Norris was nowhere near as outspoken as Reiner regarding politics; he also was a lesser star in Hollywood’s firmament. His was a narrow genre, and one mostly favored by conservatives. Like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, his public stance on many issues was consistent with what one would expect from one of his characters. I have found that in such cases, the public opinions are frequently part of the artist’s calculated myth-making.

3. As I have noted before, I love many of Reiner’s films and regard him as, if anything, an under-rated director. He also made some of the most idiotic statements about political matters that I have ever heard or read, including from brain-damaged social media users. (Riener’s Ethics Alarms dossier is embarrassing. EA has never mentioned Norris except with this post.) That doesn’t change my assessment of his achievements as an artist any more than the certifiably demented pronouncements and rants by Robert DiNiro, Bette Midler, and Morgan Freeman (among many others) cause me to enjoy their talents less.

4. The fact that so many progressives seem unable to function this way is, in a word, sad. It also is strong evidence that the left side of the ideological divide is emotionally ill.

_______

Pointer: Chris Martz

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Jump Ball” (or “Brilliant Guest Post by Ryan Harkins”)….

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Yesterday, in near shock that a good and once wise friend posted on Facebook the head-exploding meme by a simple-minded activist named Jenny Carter, above, I challenged Ethics Alarms readers to perform the thorough defenestration of that smug brain-garbage it deserves. I had neither the time nor energy. Responding to my metaphorical Bat Signal, erudite veteran commenter Ryan Harkins came through like a champ, authoring the masterpiece below, a Comment of the Day if there ever was one. Here is his rebuttal, really a guest post in length and quality, in response to the post, “Ethics Jump Ball”:

Dear Jenny,

You can make strawmen of our principles all you want, and argue all day against them, but all that will gain you is a smug feeling and “likes” from your friends, and make absolutely no inroads with the MAGA crowd whatsoever.  But I know that your entire intent is to make me waste my time answering you.  So, perhaps foolishly, I will oblige.

To begin, a little groundwork.  A dilemma is only a dilemma if you really only have the two options.  If there is any other alternative, such argumentation falls apart.  Second, if you are going to address our principles, maybe you should determine what those principles actually are.  For example, being pro-Second Amendment is not about shooting people.  It is about the right to bear arms against, especially, an overbearing, tyrannical government.  Being pro-life does not mean that you believe that no one should die, ever.  Third, in any given situation, there may be more than one principle in play, and to ignore that to score rhetorical points is arguing in bad faith. 

So let’s get into it.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Jump Ball…

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

A Facebook friend posted the above dishonest, fallacy and false-fact riddled meme as if it was discovered truth. I broke my recent rule of not responding to such garbage by saying, as nicely as I could, “You know, re-posting illogical appeals to emotion like this doesn’t help.” I almost wrote, “I know you’re smarter than this. Why did you post it?” I then listed a few of the logical and factual disconnects in the screed, but didn’t have the energy to be thorough.

I’m hoping one of you does. I think I count 14 factual and logical fallacies, but there may be more. This is how social media makes the public dumber and makes productive discourse impossible.

Another challenge: which is the most ludicrous of those statements? My vote, I think, goes to “If people being executed in the street is fine, it was never about pro-life.” It’s hard to make dumber statement than that.

Most Inexcusably Incoherent Statement In A Report: The Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The sentence:

“The correct ask in this report is not the ask of an institution being condemned. It is the ask of an institution being held to its own standard by people who still believe it can meet it.”

That authentic frontier gibberish—I’m still not sure what it means, and I’ve read it a dozen times—is in “A Narrowing Gate, Jewish Enrollment at Harvard and its Peers | 1967-2025,” a report by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance. The report found that that Jewish undergraduate enrollment at Harvard University has dropped to about 7% in 2025, its lowest level since before World War II and the lowest among Ivy League schools with reliable data.

I was going to write about the report itself, but if Jewish alumni of Harvard end up writing like that, maybe its a good thing not as many Jewish students are attending Harvard.

This is the Executive Summary. The report seems to be implying that anti-Semitism at Harvard has to be the reason for the unexplained drop, because none of the other possible factors it identifies explain it. Apparently Jewish applications to the school haven’t fallen off sufficiently to cause a 50% reduction, though I don’t know why. On national television Harvard’s then-president Claudine Gay told a Congressional committee that she considered anti-Jewish demonstrations in Harvard Yard to be acceptable free speech, and was unable to articulate a basic truth, which is that anti-Semitic demonstrations on a college campus constitute unethical and intolerable conduct that creates a hostile environment for Jewish students. Gay’s eventually firing for scholarly misconduct (not mealy-mouthed acceptance of campus enmity toward a minority) could not have provided aspiring Jewish applicants much confidence.

We also learn from the report that Jewish alumni had to gather the data for the report because Harvard no longer compiles data on Jewish students.

All of that is interesting, but when I read that statement, I lost interest in examining the report further, and lost any confidence in the people who prepared it. Maybe it’s a hangover from listening to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden for four years and Donald Trump for a decade, but if someone can’t communicate clearly, I can’t have confidence that they are thinking clearly either.

The Women’s History Museum Mess

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Ugh. I won’t call it an ethics train wreck, because this is really another subset of the nation’s victim-mongering/tribal/white male vilification problem as well as the already running “DEI Ethics Train Wreck” and the “Trans Activism Ethics Train Wreck.”

Of course we have to have a Women’s History Museum. There are four historically “marginalized” groups, and women are the largest and longest suffering of them all. D.C. already has huge museum dedicated to African Americans, and there is a Smithsonian museum called the National Museum of the American Indian. Women have every right to feel snubbed in the current obsession with group identification. You know an LGBTQ+ museum on the Mall will be next: how could it not be?

Conservatives who argue, as one did in the comments to a recent online item about the museum, “[The museum] continues to foment the balkanization of America. The accomplishments of women are just that: accomplishments. Their fruits are enjoyed by all, not just by those of the gender/race/religion, etc of the person who made the accomplishment” are trying to lock the barn door after the horse has escaped and won the Kentucky Derby. This is “National Women’s Month.” The Democrats had a national convention celebrating “The Year of the Woman” (with Bill Clinton as a keynote speaker, but never mind…). Half of the arguments for voting for Hillary and Kamala was their lady-parts. We’re stuck with U.S. women seeing themselves as a special, separate, aggrieved and superior group for the foreseeable future, probably forever.

But there is a problem: the party that at least pretends to be the “party of women” can’t figure out what a woman is. This week House Democrats blocked legislation to establish the “Women’s History Museum” because of an amendment attached by Republicans stating, “The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.”

Pages: 1 2

California Apparently Doesn’t Believe in Following the Constitution

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is unethical. I wonder how the state got that way, and if anything can be done about it?

ITEM: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out to the state that its obviously First Amendment-violating ban on firearms advertising was illegal, and now California must pay more than $1.3 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs. The law was virtue-signalling to California’s gun-phobics; I doubt any honest Constitutional law expert anywhere thought it could pass judicial scrutiny.

Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571) prohibited “firearms industry members” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from advertising, marketing or promoting any firearms or “firearms-related products,” in a manner that is “designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” Wow, how about that statutory drafting?

Safari Club International and the other plaintiffs filed suit arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague (Ya think?), a Due Process violation, and that it discriminated against a legal industry and makers of legal products. The rulings agreeing with them are here and here.

ITEM: Voters in California, according to a poll conducted by the Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research, support a proposed “wealth tax” on billionaires with 50% of California voters in favor of the measure and only 28% objecting to it. The concept comes from the Marxist brain of Bernie Sanders, who insists that people who resent other American having more money than they do should be able to just take it.

This scheme probably violates state and federal laws as well as the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments block uncompensated “takings.” California’s 0.4% cap on personal property tax would seem to be a problem. The law also looks like an illegal bill of attainder, targeting specific individuals.

The California Communists who are pushing this bill seem to believe that the state’s billionaires will just be good little proles and hand the cash over. Gavin Newsom, who has no discernible principles, thinks the proposed law will make him look bad when he runs for President, so he says he’s against it.

Maybe all the billionaires, millionaires, entrepreneurs, companies and American citizens will abandon the Golden State to the illegal immigrants, shop-lifters, assorted criminals and censors, leaving California to emulate the dystopian Manhattan of John Carpenter’s “Escape from New York.” Surely there must be a less draconian remedy, but I have no idea what it is.

“Going Out Like A Lamb” Open Forum

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

It was time for EA to do its annual March posting of my favorite Saturday Night Live performance. Hearkening back to this week’s contentious debate about the ethics of wasting one’s life, which began here, I give you John Belushi. I’m still furious with the troubled comic for robbing the world of all the laughter and entertainment his gifts would have provided had he managed to survive his 30s.

In case you’re interested, my March came in like a Woolly Rhinoceros and is going out like a sea slug.

And on the topic of comedians, how did you like President Trump joking about Pearl Harbor to the Japanese Prime Minister? If you are minimally culturally literate, this classic comic performance should have come to mind…

But I digress. Please proceed to the ethics aisle…and you can certainly talk about the war.

From the EA Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Yeah, I think the ethical values of this popular reality show star are…wanting. I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that.

Taylor Frankie Paul, the TV reality star who had been tapped by…Disney! You know, that paragon of virtues that parents want their children to be inspired by?— to lead the new season of “The Bachelorette” slated to premiere this weekend, was featured in a viral video sent to social media showing her attacking the father of one of her children. She is facing a domestic violence investigation; Paul had previously pleaded guilty to aggravated assault years ago.

Annette Funicello she isn’t.

Disney made the decision to pull the premiere. Good call.

It amazes me that popular culture has reached such depths that a women capable of behaving like this could be a star of a television show, even one as stupefyingly cretinous as “The Bachelorette.”

In 1958, Edward R. Murrow gave an eloquent and angry speech about how the TV networks were failing the American public, society and the culture, and how a great opportunity was being squandered. Near the end, Murrow said,

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

The hilarious part, and also the tragic part, is that the television fare that Murrow was deriding in 1958 looks like “King Lear” compared to the “Three Stooges” level of culture being offered today, and the 1958 schedule was loaded with crap like insipid panel shows, too many Westerns and lame sitcoms with names like “Love That Jill.” (Disney also offered a series called “Annette.”) TV news, naturally the main focus of Murrow’s aspirations and lament, today has sunk to the Disney sponsored muck of “The View.”

NASCAR Goes Full Woke On Daniel Dye

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

NASCAR announced this week that Truck Series driver Daniel Dye has been suspended indefinitely in response to “homophobic comments” made by Dye on that cretinous live stream above. Dye has also been suspended by his team, Ram Trucks factory partner Kaulig Racing.

Both suspensions are wildly excessive reactions to dumb banter that was not “homophobic” but rather simple, juvenile foolishness. Race car drivers tend not to be deft wits. “He plays for the the team” is at worst Seinfeld-speak for “he’s gay,” and if there’s nothing wrong with being gay, then saying someone is gay isn’t homophobic. As for Dye’s pathetic attempt at a “gay voice,” his version isn’t within a mile of a gay voice, and I know gay voices.

When someone has affected an ostentatiously stereotypically gay manner of communicating, they should be no more immune from impressions or parody than Jack Nicholson (whom Tom Cruise imitates in “A Few Good Men”), James Cagney (Frank Gorshin’s specialty) John Wayne or Johnny Carson (both mastered by Rich Little). For that matter, those political correctness warriors who are offended by various riffs on foreign accents, the realm of Sasha Baron Cohen and Danny Kaye, among others, can bite me.

I have no clue how David Malukas really sounds, but if you want to know what a “gay voice” is like, here’s Sirius/XM’s Seth Rudetsky talking the way he does on his various shows, doing his best to make sure no “cis” males come within ten miles of a musical theater production. Seth is a (talented) performer, and he can “butch up” when he chooses, but here is how he normally talks—his insufferable interviewer finally lets him get a word in edgewise about two and half minutes into the video:

Seth makes Nathan Lane in “The Bird Cage” seem like Hulk Hogan.

Pages: 1 2