October 07, 2003

College is Still Liberal

I have a great rant for today (but it's REEEEEAAAAALLLLY long, so don't say I didn't warn you). I was sitting outside the auditorium and waiting for my Communications lecture to begin, and I decided to actually read the chapter that we were going to be learning about.

Well, as it turns out, the very first page made me so angry that I decided to write about it on SIT. I can't write it verbatim because that might violate some copyright law, but I can post a summary of what the intro to the "Legal Controls and Freedom of Expression" chapter says. It begins by talking about September 11 and describes the battle of free speech that followed.

If I can briefly quote (again, I'm not sure about the laws, but I'll credit the book at the end), it says "...the normal conditions of freedom of speech and press became a casualty of chest-thumping patriotism."

Do you hear that? It's the sound of a brainwashed liberal idiot banging the keys of his computer until something anti-Bush comes out. Kinda like that "infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters" thing. If you give a liberal a computer and a deadline, he will write something that bashes President Bush.

The book then talks about three journalists that were fired for criticizing Bush after 9/11, and it uses Bill Maher's infamous "the terrorists were brave because they died for their cause, but Bush is a coward because he uses missiles" comment and the subsequent criticism of Maher as an example of "attacks on dissenting views."

What? He said something idiotic and was criticized for it. Why is that a restriction of free speech? In any case, I find it ironic that a guy who calls himself "politically incorrect" constantly does the politically correct thing, which is, in this case, criticizing the president. Don't act surprised at that. Everyone knows political correctness is a tool of the left.

And then, of course, the book quotes a journalist from the San Antonio Express-News, who writes, "Somebody pinch me. I'm beginning to think that this is 1954 and that Sen. Joe McCarthy is alive and well and running roughshod over the Bill of Rights."

That's asinine (I like that word). If people criticize you, it doesn't mean they're taking away your First Amendment rights. I don't remember seeing anything in the Bill of Rights about freedom to say whatever you want without fear of criticism.

In any case, if you criticize the government, you've basically given everyone else the right to criticize you. Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and a ton of other people need to realize this. If you criticize, you will be criticized back.

That's called democracy. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, then SHUT THE F**K UP! That's the best solution I can think of. I'm not even close to being done with this rant, by the way.

The best part of this intro is the picture that accompanies it. On one page, there is a big photo of John Ashcroft with one of those topless statues behind him (I just thought I would mention that). The caption on the next page says, "On previous page: U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has restricted many civil liberties in response to the September 11 attacks."

Do you people ever actually pay attention to the news, or do you just go to your little conspiracy theory sites and listen to people calling Ashcroft a fascist? Since when is John Ashcroft guilty of "restricting civil liberties?" Name one example, and I'll give you the contents of the Box of Mystery. OOOOOOOOO! What could it be?

That was dumb. I apologize. Seriously though, accusing Ashcroft of restricting civil liberties is not a good way to start off the chapter. In any case, this was, without a doubt, the most blatantly biased thing I have ever read in a textbook. Ever.

In my 18 years of life, I have never seen any so-called "educational material" that's so obviously left-wing. What I find ironic about this whole thing is the whole "Rushgate (good word, isn't it?)" thing going on right now. Rush Limbaugh said something on the air that could be interpreted as racist, so he was forced to resign.

Interesting. So, if Bill Maher calls the president of the United States a coward, he's exercising his First Amendment rights, but if Rush Limbaugh says something that SOUNDS-repeat-SOUNDS racist, he's a big fat idiot and has to resign. I want you to think about that for a second. Don't say or do anything. Just think. Maher=hero, Limbaugh=racist. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that?

I'm not going to write about this anymore, because I'm on the verge of ripping that textbook to shreds. This doesn't end with the textbook though. We talked about the whole "patriotism" thing in class, and the professor (who is actually moderate in his political views, if you can believe that) asked if questioning the government could be considered unpatriotic.

One girl decided to take the typical moonbat position, and she said something like, "it's our duty to question the government if they do something wrong. We're just as patriotic for protesting the war as we are for agreeing with it."

Now, she actually said something dumber, but I decided to paraphrase it so it would be intelligible to right-wing nuts like me. Basically, she thinks that you're patriotic if you question the government.

Now, I'll agree that the First Amendment gives us the right to question, but she apparently thinks that you're only patriotic IF you disagree, and that people who think the government is doing a good job are just going along with the crowd (again, I didn't capture her exact quote here, so it seems less harsh).

I can say a few things about that position. Yes, questioning government is healthy, but who the crap said that you have to disagree? The reason we ask questions is to arrive at an intelligent answer. You don't pull a Janeane Garofalo and just protest because it's trendy.

Hey, I questioned the war when it started, but I eventually decided that it was a good thing after analyzing all aspects of it. I spent the better part of last year questioning my religion before I came to the conclusion that Christianity is true. You question so you can take the right position.

It becomes unpatriotic when you compare Bush to Hitler and say that you hope Saddam wins. That's anti-Americanism no matter which way you look at it. If you don't like it, move to Iraq.

I probably could've phrased this argument better, but you get the point. There's a difference between exercising your constitutional rights and just being an a-hole.

Amazingly, this isn't the end of the post. I want to talk about something else that caught my eye in today's edition of "The Daily Orange," SU's student newspaper. Aside from the front page photos that show a gay student dancing and two lesbian students kissing at the "Big Gay Dance," the headline at the top of the page just screamed "liberalism."

It says, "Study Says Race a Minor Factor in Admissions." Now, any logical person would think, "that's a good thing. College admission should be merit-based." Keep in mind, however, that this is a college newspaper.

I read a little bit more, and I found out that I was right. The opening paragraph reads, "Although many colleges pride themselves on their efforts to increase diversity, a recent national survey suggests that some admissions offices may not take race into account enough when admitting students."

WHAT WHAT WHAT?! That's a bad thing?! Race-based admissions policies are racist, you idiots! What are you thinking? According to the article, "Only about one-third of universities and colleges actually consider race and ethnicity in their admissions policy..." That's terrible. There shouldn't be any consideration of race and ethnicity.

A couple paragraphs later, it says that Syracuse's "...general criteria for admission are high school course load, high school profile, standardized test scores, personal essay, recommendations, extracurricular activities, special talents, good character and competition with other applicants."

This is seen as a problem? That's what it's supposed to be based on, you racist liberal...okay, I need to calm down. Here's the best quote of the article. According to one student they interviewed, "If they didn't [consider race and ethnicity], our schools would be very white." Can you imagine a conservative saying, "well, with these policies, our schools are too black." That guy would be stigmatized for the rest of his life!!!!!!

Another interesting fact from the article: "...74 percent of the surveyed schools use specific recruitment tactics to increase application and enrollment of underrepresented racial and ethnic populations."

That's wrong. You should recruit smart people. If minorities meet the criteria, then by all means let them in, but don't push white people aside just because some "underprivileged" student whined about it.

Let me tell you, race-based admission policies make me sick. You can't force diversity on people. Instead of trying to create a diverse environment, people should learn to interact with whatever group they're placed in. If it's 14,995 white people and 5 black people, they should learn to interact. If it's a mixed group, those people should learn to interact.

You can't create some idealistic environment of diversity because it fits your racist worldview. I really don't understand how people can see this as a good thing. It's blatantly racist. Blatantly. Unfortunately, racism is apparently nonexistent unless it comes from a white person (other than Michael Moore).

Honestly, I feel insecure as a white male in today's society. I feel like people are going to blame me for all the world's problems and call me a racist if I complain. That's not right. I really think I've written too much, but I needed to get this out.

Why can't we move on to a colorblind society where character takes precedent over the color of your skin or the place where you were born? How long are we going to linger in this reverse racist limbo where racial and ethnic discrimination masquerade as diversity? When will it end?

I hope you read that whole thing, because I spent a lot of time on it. I have about 10 pages worth of essays to write today, so that was a good warm-up. By the way, I'll end my race rant with an interesting observation. My roommate (who still doesn't know I have this blog) walked in when I was about halfway through this post and turned on the TV.

In an extremely lucky coincidence, he turned to Comedy Central, and they were showing Saturday Night Live. The sketch was the one with "Sparkle-Brite" toothpaste, if you know it. It's the one where they advertise toothpaste by showing Tim Meadows (black) kissing Molly Shannon (white) for a really long time.

The ad execs are very uncomfortable watching it, and when they hear that the commercial is going to be shown at the Country Music Awards, they blow up the advertiser's car.

I've never understood why this sketch is funny. Really. It was made in the mid 90's. Was anyone still uncomfortable with interracial couples by this time? It seems like that sketch might have been funny in the 60's or 70's, but why did anyone think it would be funny in the 90's?

This implies that race is still the first thing people look at, and that a decent amount of people still see something wrong with interracial marriage. That makes no sense. And that's what I'm saying here.

We need to realize that not everybody is the same color, but if we happen to be in an environment where a lot of people are white, it doesn't mean that racism is to blame. It might just be because there are a lot of white people.

Think about it. Republicans oppose affirmative action because it treats minorities as inferiors who need a helping hand. Democrats support affirmative action because, unfortunately, the right has been stereotyped as the "evil white patriarchy," and minorities are portrayed as victims of millennia of oppression. That may be true of the past, but this is the 21st century, and we're beyond racism. Let's start acting like it. Have a nice day.

Textbook quotes taken from "Media and Culture-an Introduction to Mass Communication," by Richard Campbell, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Copyright 2004 by Bedford/St. Martin's of Boston, Massachusetts. Specifically, chapter 16, "Legal Controls and Freedom of Expression," pages 536-538. There, now it's all nice and legal.

Newspaper quotes taken from "The Daily Orange" for October 7, 2003. Article is "Study Says Race a Minor Factor in Admissions," by Jean Stevens. By the way, happy Math Literacy Week.

Posted by CD on October 7, 2003 12:40 PM
Semi-Intelligent Comments

Amen. It seems that racism doesn't exist when it's directed at us white kids. Even my Civics teacher (who is white, by the way. Or red, depending on what kind of a mood he is in) seems to hate white Christians. We're studying "Civil Rights" and such, and every time I turn around it seems that he's showing us yet another example of how white Christians have made other people's lives hell. I mean, come on! Just because *some* extremists were a bunch of a**holes in the '60's doesn't mean that the rest of us are Jew-hating, racist a**es with a secret agenda to turn America into a redneck haven behind their backs.

Sorry to rant on you like that. But I just wanted to say that I totally understand where you're coming from.

Posted by: Hanakin at November 20, 2004 01:31 AM

a professional, fast and reliable wow power leveling and wow gold company has been created for years. cheap wow power leveling, When you first start a game of World of Warcraft, wow gold, you will be taken to your race's starting area. Cheap World of Warcraft Power Leveling, All the races except trolls and gnomes begin in a unique location. wow power leveling Those two races have to share starting locales with the good orcs and dwarves, respectively. wow powerleveling, After watching a brief in-game cutscene introducing your race, you are set loose upon the world.

Posted by: wow power leveling at March 3, 2008 10:24 PM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >