Two Ethics Dunce University Presidents Who Should Be Fired

Hateful!!!!

They are…

Western Connecticut State University  President John Clark, who asked for the community’s help identifying students—if they were students— who distributed what he called “hate filled flyers and inscriptions on our university property.” These were more of the 4Chan-inspired “It’s OK to be white” and “Islam is right about women” trolling devices.

“I wanted to assure you that a full scale police investigation is underway,” Clark wrote, stating that the FBI, state police and municipal police were reviewing surveillance footage iand grilling those  “who may have witnessed any of this despicable and utterly unacceptable behavior.” In full grandstanding and virtue-signalling mode, Clark declared that any WCSU community members identified as responsible for  the flyers  “will be subject to the severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions.”  He described the flyers’ message as “disgusting,” “hateful,” “virulent,” “sick and outrageous.”

“It’s OK to be white.”

The Horror.

To be fair, the news media is encouraging the kind of mind-boggling rhetoric Clarke is spewing; for example, a local TV station called the flyers, “hateful and racist.”

“It’s OK to be white.”

Wait: where’s the hate? What part of that statement is racist?

Well, you know: journalists.

Then there is East Tennessee State University  President Brian Noland, who  wrote that the same “racist flyers…identical to those placed on college campuses across the country by white supremacist groups in an attempt to seed division and discord”  were the object of a university investigation seeking information “that could lead to the identification and prosecution of the perpetrators of this crime.”

Both of these administrators and university leaders demonstrate by their ignorant and inflammatory statements that they are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights and neither understand nor support the values of free speech and expression. Their hysterical comments also suggest that they don’t comprehend the English langugae, which I would think should disqualify them from any position of influence in education, from kindergarten up. “It’s OK to be white” is no more a white supremacist slogan than the Flower Drum Song lyric “I enjoy being a girl” is sexist. Sure, it is designed to tweak “woke” demagogues and hypocrites, and obviously does the job well, as does the other flyer, “Islam is right about women.”

Mere words cannot constitute a crime unless they are intended to spark a riot. These words are especially harmless, except in the sense that  political correctness zealots don’t have the wit to respond to them, and that injures their self-esteem. The rants of both Clark and Noland are embarrassments to their respective schools, and show they lack the judgment, objectivity and erudition to lead their institutions.

As an aside, I would like to see those who posted the flyers come forward and take credit for the deed—with their lawyers and the ACLU flanking them, of course, if the ACLU has a shred of integrity left.

________________________________

Source: College Fix 1, 2

24 thoughts on “Two Ethics Dunce University Presidents Who Should Be Fired

  1. Pointing out cultures and communities encouraging anti-white rhetoric and action as well as concerns about misogyny in non-majority groups is very dangerous in the woke world.

    Be careful Jack. If you keep this up, you’ll get blocked from…

    Nevermind.

  2. The two flyers in tandem seem to produce an interesting conundrum. Are they both sarcastic, both honest, or is it a split and which one is sarcastic and which one is honest? Explain.

      • It’s fascinating (in a worrisome way) the times in which we are living. It used to be that words had meaning. Now, it seems to me, words don’t have meaning, the speaker has meaning.

    • The actual beliefs of the flyers’ authors are beside the point. They’re designed to expose certain Motte-and-Bailey style arguments of the Left.

      They can do this because a rhetorical motte, unlike its physical counterpart, can serve as the common refuge for many different rhetorical baileys. For instance, the principle of the equal human validity of persons of all races serves as a motte for both vicious white racists (for instance, consider “the 14 words”) and for anti-white racists. By claiming the motte in a way that telegraphs it’s been occupied by “the enemy”, the more vicious and less savvy denizens of the Leftist bailey are provoked into attacking their own motte.

      • [Moat: Middle English mote, mound, moat (since both mounds and moats form part of fortifications), from Old French, mound; akin to Medieval Latin mota, perhaps of Germanic origin and akin to English mud.]

        For instance, the principle of the equal human validity of persons of all races serves as a motte for both vicious white racists (for instance, consider “the 14 words”) and for anti-white racists. By claiming the motte in a way that telegraphs it’s been occupied by “the enemy”, the more vicious and less savvy denizens of the Leftist bailey are provoked into attacking their own motte.

        OK, so you have ‘vicious white racists’ and you are opposing them to ‘upstanding white racists’? Or ‘the white racist next door’? Of the ‘good racists down the block whose boy mowed my lawn’?

        And the 14 Words could only be understood or valued by the ‘vicious’? That is an interesting ‘motte’ you have established there!

        (I am completely aware that you and no one else here could allow yourselves to have an open conversation about race and many other things, but that means, to me, *you* do not inhabit an upstanding nor intellectual ‘bailey’.

        Haven’t you stepped into the sort of fallacy that the author you referenced describes? Haven’t you possessed the term, or employed the term, like the motte is employed? Where is your ‘bailey’?

        It seems to me that in actual point of fact — in sincere intellectual and philosophical conversation, conducted in fair terms — that a genuine, honest and productive conversation could result from one dedicated to arriving at the ‘bailey’ (as it were) within the topic you are — obviously — encumbered in having. What encumbers you? Well, that you can only approach the topic through fallacious argument.

        Could not the argument in favor of what the 14 Words advocate have substantial validity? And why not?

        I do not mean to pick on you specifically since no one, in conventional environments ruled by the false-doctrines of pseudo-conservatism and centrist cowardice (heh heh) can have an honest and open conversation about these highly important topics. There is a whole range of things that are absolutely forbidden to discuss. But want I want to point out is that you are asserting, unless you are wizard-like ironical, that you inhabit an intellectual ‘bailey’ when this assumption … is questionable.

        You could very well be down in a ‘motte’ if your predicates were revealed honestly.

        Is it fair for me to press in this direction? Will I be condemned for doing it?

        [I do understand your point about ‘trolling’ those of questionable predicates with formulations that cause hilarious short-circuits.]

        • I don’t know if you think putting words in my mouth somehow makes you sound erudite, but I can assure you it doesn’t. If the is something in my argument you wish to engage with, feel free, but if you prefer to argue with your own imagination, there’s no need to involve me.

          I never characterized the racists of the Left as “upstanding”, and certainly they can be just as vicious as their counterparts. I correctly identify the self-defensive theme of “the 14 words” as the motte of a motte-and-bailey fallacy only because I have seen it deployed again and again to justify explicitly offensive aggression against non-threatening persons of color. I’m sure you have some long-winded philosophical treatise somewhere on how a gang of skinheads curb-stomping a Sikh shopkeeper are really just defending the existence of their race, but while I have eyes to see, I must call things as I see them. Racism. Viciousness.

          • I correctly identify the self-defensive theme of “the 14 words” as the motte of a motte-and-bailey fallacy only because I have seen it deployed again and again to justify explicitly offensive aggression against non-threatening persons of color. I’m sure you have some long-winded philosophical treatise somewhere on how a gang of skinheads curb-stomping a Sikh shopkeeper are really just defending the existence of their race, but while I have eyes to see, I must call things as I see them. Racism. Viciousness.

            You have no concept of what threatens and does not threaten because you live in a self-sealed box. You have no idea of the structured and sound arguments of those who take positions in defense of racial and cultural integrity and you would never take the time to investigate them. For this reason, in my view, your entire position is within a ‘motte’, not the ‘bailey’ you pretend to.

            Got it? It is not that hard.

            For Heaven’s sake stop. The entire ‘argument’ you present is a motte, and you employ the fallacious example that you have grabbed — I do not doubt that such a thing has happened — to support your view. But nearly the entire structure of the present expresses a terrifying anti-whiteness and this is having serious and devastating effects everywhere. There are viscious ideological battles to keep this understanding from crystalizing. But your victim-Sikh is given precedence. And what? That cinches your argument?

            My point is that you cannot see how you are entrenched in tendentious views which you really & truly believe are a ‘bailey’. That’s all.

            My point is utterly clear. It just makes no sense to you because of your entrenchment. And that is why you feel justified responding in a snotty fashion.

            I do not at all void the arguments or discredit the arguments of those of any race and culture who employ defensive postures to protect their physical and cultural being. Exactly the opposite. I guarantee you that that position is a far stronger and defensible ‘bailey’ than your miserable excuse for sound reasoning that you tart up with self-righteous posture. You employ the term ‘racist’ exactly in the same manner and for the same purposes as the Left uses ‘Nazi’ and all their lexicon of condemning terms.

            All that I try to do is to interject and contradict your certainties, because I regard them as fragile and also having a destructive element.

            I am not a fan of David Lane, nor particularly of the ’14 words’, but I am certain that I understand the developing defensive posture among those groups who seek to protect themselves from destruction.

            I hope that clarifies things for you.

  3. What if it is modified to:

    It’s kind of OK to be White

    It’s mostly OK to be White

    It’s sometimes OK to be White

    Still quite dangerous:

    It once was OK to be White

    or:

    Better White than dead

    There are many exciting and provocative options!

    Monday, Wednesday and Friday it’s great being White! On Tuesdays and Thursdays, less so. The Weekends? Black or brown-face and with a Hitler mustache for me & mine!

  4. There’s nothing new here. These two guys are just intent on keeping their high paying jobs. They are pandering to their faculties and their diversity administrator overlords. God forbid these two featherbedders should do anything to cross these groups.

  5. I know quite a few college presidents and would bet everyone would react to these signs in some manner similar to these two college presidents. The mere fact that no college administrators college call out these two is evidence that most believe the signs are evidence of racism.

  6. I’d like to see the opposites of these flyers, “It’s OK to be Black” and “Islam is Wrong About Women” posted everywhere as well. I imagine the response for the first one from the media would be universal praise for the stunning and brave statement. The second one, probably a bunch of screaming about Islamophobia .

  7. Please, let the perpetrators be found, prosecuted, jailed, and, most importantly…

    Possessed of a good bunch of lawyers who know they can win serious damages in a lawsuit.

    Please, God…

  8. I read the linked article. Yes, the school administrations are embarrassing. However, check out the sentiments behind this declaration from a senior:

    “We’re not going to be quiet and just sweep it under the rug,” said senior Chantel Williams. “We’re going to address it, and we’re going to be in your face about it and we’re not just going to let it go to the side.”

    That is an amazing thing for a senior to say, in that is shows about zero sense of nuance or critical thinking. Let’s consider one of the statements::

    “It’s OK to be white.”

    That is a simple statement, no? It is declarative; it is clear, and it is unobtrusive. It is not “in your face” and nor is it a “dog whistle to the racist hordes.” So, why do Ms. Williams and the university take offense? The statement is either true (“it’s ok to be white”) or it’s not true (“it’s not ok to be white”). Either way, that statement sticks a pin in the eyes of the woke. So, what is Ms. Williams not going to sweep under the rug or not let go to the side? Does she declare that it is “not ok to be white”? If that is her position, she is an avowed racist.

    jvb

    • Well, just when you thought it was safe to go back to college, we get this:

      https://www.ntdaily.com/unt-assistant-general-counsel-resigns-a-the-day-after-saying-the-n-word-at-a-free-speech-event/?fbclid=IwAR3rv-Si4HLBn7AAvevwpIhhi6kb1YYTHq3HBRMtKYda9zHJY-knd9N0oqw

      A University of North Texas assistant general counsel by the name of Caitlin Sewell, resigned her position effective immediately. The reason? Check this out: At the “When Hate Comes to Campus” event Thursday night, Caitlin Sewell, the UNT System assistant general counsel said the “n-word”, according to multiple sources and a recording given to the Daily. She was giving a talk about

      “If I said something offensive … you know, you can say a lot of offensive things in here because it’s impossible to talk about the First Amendment without saying horrible things,” Sewell said. “Um, you know, ‘You’re just a dumb n____r* and I hate you.’ That alone, that’s protected speech.”

      The outrage was quick and thorough: She resigned. The university said this: “We strongly believe in a culture that embraces, and vehemently defends, inclusion,” UNT Chancellor Lesa Roe and the UNT President Neal Smatresk said in the statement. “While Ms. Sewell was trying to make a point about First Amendment speech, the references used are never condoned in our community, which prides itself on our diversity and caring nature.”

      Roe and Smatresk said that counseling resources are available for all UNT students, faculty and staff should they need it.

      “In the coming days and weeks, it is our intention to engage in a dialogue with student and campus leaders regarding ways we can continue to foster a culture of diversity that is UNT,” Roe and Smatresk said in their statement.

      Resignation and apologies were not enough. The UNT Student Government Association issued a list of demands** for action, which included:

      The five demands are listed below:

      1. We DEMAND that the UNT System creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all faculty, staff and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff and faculty of color.

      2. We DEMAND that the university institute a mandatory cultural competency course required of all students either in a first year seminar or a standalone course integrated within Orientation and Transition Programs.

      We DEMAND that the university creates a specific outline to address diversity and inclusion practices in the strategic plan that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.
      We DEMAND that by the academic year 2021-2022 the University of North Texas increases the percentage of black, brown and other marginalized identities among the faculty and staff campus-wide to match the demographic representation of our student population.
      We DEMAND the university will allocate new financial resources towards the expansion of the multicultural center and the entirety of the Division of Equity and Diversity. We believe our students deserve a building just like the Greek Life Center to accommodate the needs of individual minority groups.

      SGA followed up their statement by tweeting out a link to a petition on Change.org asking for a more inclusive UNT. As of 2:11 p.m. on Nov. 11, the petition had 322 signatures.

      *Ed. Note: Yup. She actually said “nigger,” the word that can’t be said – ever – in the context of a First Amendment presentation to adults and university students. Got that? The news reports of the incident refuse to say or write “nigger” because of its loaded, community and soul crushing impact. Lenny Bruce used to say it repeatedly i the 1960s. I guess his screed caused the collapse of the entire system. Look at where we are now.

  9. [IGNORE THE ABOVE COMMENT – IT IS INCOMPLETE. MY KEYBOARD HAS BEEN SACKED]

    Well, just when you thought it was safe to go back to college, we get this:

    https://www.ntdaily.com/unt-assistant-general-counsel-resigns-a-the-day-after-saying-the-n-word-at-a-free-speech-event/?fbclid=IwAR3rv-Si4HLBn7AAvevwpIhhi6kb1YYTHq3HBRMtKYda9zHJY-knd9N0oqw

    A University of North Texas assistant general counsel by the name of Caitlin Sewell, resigned her position effective immediately. The reason? Check this out: At the “When Hate Comes to Campus” event Thursday night, Caitlin Sewell, the UNT System assistant general counsel said the “n-word”, according to multiple sources and a recording given to the Daily. She was giving a talk about

    “If I said something offensive … you know, you can say a lot of offensive things in here because it’s impossible to talk about the First Amendment without saying horrible things,” Sewell said. “Um, you know, ‘You’re just a dumb n____r* and I hate you.’ That alone, that’s protected speech.”

    The outrage was quick and thorough: She resigned. The university said this: “We strongly believe in a culture that embraces, and vehemently defends, inclusion,” UNT Chancellor Lesa Roe and the UNT President Neal Smatresk said in the statement. “While Ms. Sewell was trying to make a point about First Amendment speech, the references used are never condoned in our community, which prides itself on our diversity and caring nature.”

    Roe and Smatresk said that counseling resources are available for all UNT students, faculty and staff should they need it.

    “In the coming days and weeks, it is our intention to engage in a dialogue with student and campus leaders regarding ways we can continue to foster a culture of diversity that is UNT,” Roe and Smatresk said in their statement.

    Resignation and apologies were not enough. The UNT Student Government Association wasted no time and issued a list of its five demands** for action, which included:

    1. We DEMAND that the UNT System creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all faculty, staff and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff and faculty of color. (Ed. Comment: I guess they only want faculty of color to vet this program; students and staff of color are not necessary.)

    2. We DEMAND that the university institute a mandatory cultural competency course required of all students either in a first year seminar or a standalone (sic) course integrated within Orientation and Transition Programs. (Ed. Comment: Cultural competency is not defined. What is that anyway?)

    3. We DEMAND that the university creates a specific outline to address diversity and inclusion practices in the strategic plan that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training and promote a more safe and inclusive campus. (Ed. Comment: Ugh!)

    4. We DEMAND that by the academic year 2021-2022 the University of North Texas increases the percentage of black, brown and other marginalized identities among the faculty and staff campus-wide to match the demographic representation of our student population. (Ed. Comment: Is it OK to be white?)

    5. We DEMAND the university will allocate new financial resources towards the expansion of the multicultural center and the entirety of the Division of Equity and Diversity. We believe our students deserve a building just like the Greek Life Center to accommodate the needs of individual minority groups. (Ed. Comment: Is that all? Just a building?)

    SGA followed up their statement by tweeting out a link to a petition on Change.org asking for a more inclusive UNT. As of 2:11 p.m. on Nov. 11, the petition had 322 signatures.***

    jvb

    *Ed. Note: Yup. She actually said “nigger,” the word that can’t be said – ever – in the context of a First Amendment presentation to adults and university students. Got that? The news reports of the incident refuse to say or write “nigger” because of its loaded, community and soul crushing impact. Lenny Bruce used to say it repeatedly i the 1960s. I guess his screed caused the collapse of the entire system. Look at where we are now.

    **Ed. Note: Remember, this is from a university student government office. The writing is awful, and the demands are infantile.

    ***Ed. Note: At press time, there are now 668 signatures and counting.

    https://www.change.org/p/unt-system-unt-demands-for-inclusivity

    • Free and inclusive speech for everyone, except for those with whom we disagree or wish to exclude because they are not monolithic in thought, word and deed with us. (They’re the dangerous ones.)

      Critical thinking, apparently, is asking way too much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.