Sensitivity police's war on honesty claims another victim

If America’s freedom of speech is the envy of the world, then political correctness must be its bane. Some political candidates and news commentators this election season are finding that out the hard way. Just last week, the monster of political correctness raised its ugly head and resulted in the firing of Juan Williams by National Public Radio.

Williams, a long-time civil rights advocate, told Bill O'Reilly that "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality… when I get on a plane… if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”

Is this not the same thought also shared by many frequent airline travelers? Yet because of the perceived offense, it was a thought NPR execs believed best kept out of the public arena, so they fired him.

But was it really a wise move in a time when the divide between the political left and right has never been greater? NPR reported that Williams' presence on “Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.” Why? NPR is known for its eloquence and dialogue, but instead of fostering communication between the two sides, they fired an accomplished ambassador for the left. Even as William’s actually warned O’Reilly against painting Muslims with broad brushstrokes, NPR painted him with a broad brushstroke and fired him. So the cold war of ideology continues.

What thinkers on both the left and right can agree upon is that the war radical Islam has declared on the West has kindled the fears of many, and has sometimes led to intolerance and bigotry toward Muslims who don’t subscribe to violence. But the war on ideas and politically incorrect opinion by the speech patrol has wider ranging consequences. We should insist upon respect and high standards of dialogue, but don’t we expect our leaders and analysts to tell us the truth? Or are some thoughts just too offensive to be aired publicly? Juan Williams is no Bobby Seale. Nor was he advocating the burning of the Koran. So why was he lumped in with extremists?

I have a friend in Belgium who has decried political correctness in Europe for years. It is now a rare individual who speaks out against radical Islam. And for those who do—including journalists who caricature Mohammed, they face death threats. If they are willing to come out of hiding, then they face legal proceedings from a society so steeped in political correctness that it has lost its ability to think or respect individual thought.

A new Rasmussen Reports released on Oct. 19, found that 74 percent of Americans regard political correctness as a problem in the United States today. Rasmussen also found that 63 percent blamed political correctness for preventing “the U.S. military from responding to warning signs that could have prevented Major Nidal Malik Hasan from massacring 13 people and wounding many others at Fort Hood, Texas.”

When the whitewashing of language and laundering of ideas leads to collective stupidity, then it’s time to reevaluate. When political correctness out of fear of offending someone or some group eviscerates civil discourse, what have we gained? Respect and tolerance have always been and always should be benchmarks of civil discussion and standards by which any media should live by. But as George Orwell once said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

It’s time as Americans to assert that we still have the right to restate the obvious. Hopefully, the rest of the media will join us.

Politicizing Christmas has deep roots

The governor's recent debacle calling for a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree underscores how politically charged Christmas has become in recent years and how the negative current from an unhappy electorate can shock the starch out of one's political socks. Of course, Gov. Beshear backpedaled in his decision faster than Ebeneezer Scrooge after being visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future.

Gov. Beshear argued that Christmas shouldn't be politicized--even in the midst of politicizing it. That is already old news, I know. He repented and we should forgive, for sure. But it seems that a government steeped in political correctness and a people mired in an identity crisis of sorts can learn something in the brouhaha over contemporary Christmas politics.

Those on the sidelines in this PC equivalent of a snowball fight will insist that Christmas is all about exchanging gifts, family gatherings, good food and drink, church plays with kids dressed up as donkeys and sheep, and seasonal carols. Of course, they're right, Christmas is all these things. but even while some may forget what to call the green tree strung with ornaments and bright lights we find in living rooms across the country at this time of year, we should remember what it is we celebrate--an easy thing to lose sight of in the shadow of Black Friday.

Central to Christmas is celebration of the Christ, the one the prophet Isaiah spoke about 700 years before the shepherds found him wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a Bethlehem manger. It's probably the least favored holiday today for those who embrace identity politics and worship at the altar of multiculturalism. Some wish Christmas away, or at least any official recognition of it. In Leesburg, Virginia, not only is the Christmas tree off limits this year, but so is the Crèche and Menorah. In Manitowac, WI, for the first time since WWII, the nativity will not be allowed on the county courthouse lawn. When the seasonal grinches and scrooges can't ban crèche's from the public square, they superimpose other holidays and invent myriad other reasons for celebration.

Perhaps the politicization of Christmas began with Isaiah's prophecy when he said the "government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end." Can't this be interpreted to be a political statement as much as a theological statement? At least Herod thought so, that's why he set about to butcher every male baby in Judea. Isaiah's prophecy brings us full circle to why Christmas is still marginalized by some government officials today. They aren't interested in sharing the stage with another king, least of all, the King of Kings as Christians recognize Jesus to be.

So enmeshed are political implications in the first Christmas story that we're still dealing with the aftermath today--both on courthouse lawns and in the realm of public morals. In fact, what better backdrop than the first Christmas to review the moral and philosophical battles we face today? After all, Jesus was born to an unwed, teenage mother. Mary was maybe 14 or 15 years of age. Amidst the rumors of sexual immorality, her betrothed husband Joseph considered divorce. Neither of them buckled. Mary didn't abort, as she'd be encouraged to today. Joseph didn't push for divorce and took on the responsibility of fatherhood. What seemed like a mess for the young couple turned into the most beautiful story of all history--the incarnation of God who came to save sinners.

The prevailing political tide may continue to whitewash the public square of any Christmas references and politicians may refuse to call a Christmas tree what it is. But regardless of what any government does, they cannot sweep away the real import of Christmas, and the joy in the hearts of those who celebrate it.

Another report from one of our higher reeducation camps (a. k. a. our colleges and universities)

Mary Grabar describes her experience as an adjunct English professor trying to teach, like, English--which is now apparently declasse in our higher re-education camps:

I’m an adjunct English professor. When the subject of adjunct faculty comes up, the predictable calls for unionization and “social justice” are often voiced by my tenured colleagues enjoying light teaching loads and by administrators enjoying comfortable salaries overseeing “multicultural” programs. But I know that I would not be among their intended beneficiaries were they made aware of my political views.

It’s not that I sought to be political when I returned to school in the 1990s to earn my Ph.D. I soon discovered, however, that political neutrality—even in literary studies—is suspect. In the academic world, the belief that great literature conveys universal, timeless themes is generally taken as evidence of an imperialistic outlook. The same holds for history, where the reliance on factual evidence and focus on major events are deemed offensive to women and those from non-Western cultures.

My fellow graduate students tailored their programs for the job market: studying African-American and gay writers, and applying the trendy postmodern, deconstructivist literary theories. Since 2002, when I earned my Ph.D. in English, the field has gotten even stranger, with such additions to the ideological postcolonial, African-American, and critical theory courses as “fat studies” and “trauma studies.” An upperclassman can enroll in “Introduction to Visual Rhetoric”—and then presumably in “Advanced Visual Rhetoric.” But how does my study of Plato and Cicero prepare me to teach these classes? ...

Read the rest here.

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part V

Tax and tuition dollars to teach abortion and "involve students in activism" for Planned Parenthood?

Joanna M. Badagliacco is Associate Professor of Sociology, and Director of UK's Discovery Seminar Program. Dr. Badagliacco examines women's lives with respect to issues of reproduction, family planning, abortion, poverty, genomics, social justice, and social inequalities. Her current research focuses on homeless mothers in Kentucky. Dr. Badagliacco is a Fulbright Senior Specialist in teaching and methods. She is also the chair-elect of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood of the Bluegrass. One of her life passions is gardening, and she is certified by the state of Kentucky as a Master Gardener. She devotes many hours to community service.

As director of UK’s Discovery Seminar Program, Dr. Badagliacco “involves students in research and activism through internships and volunteer opportunities.”

Salary = $54,494

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

Meet the Faculty at the Gender and Women's Studies program at UK: Part IV

Tax and tuition dollars for teaching "cross-gender ventriloquism"?

Jan Oaks is Full-Time Lecturer of Gender and Women's Studies and English. Dr. Oaks directed the University of Kentucky Women Writers Conference for four years, and has special interests in the novel as a peculiarly female enterprise and the performance of gender in literary works by women. Her current scholarship involves cross-gender ventriloquism in early American novels and the intersection of feminist theory and pedagogy.

Salary = $33,083

"The Gender and Women's Studies Program at the University of Kentucky investigates gender broadly conceived and the cultures and contributions of women worldwide from feminist/womanist perspectives. The purpose of the program is to develop and coordinate an interdisciplinary curriculum in Gender and Women's Studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels; support critical research, teaching and public programming in Gender and Women's Studies that take into account various beliefs about gender, race, class, and sexuality; and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. The Gender and Women's Studies Program aims to serve the University and the Commonwealth through promotion of equity and commitment to excellence."

The Tolerance Police get another one wrong

Roger Clegg at Phi Beta Cons points out that in the New York Times' recent story on the National Science Foundation study finding that there is no gap in average math scores between boys and girls got Lawrence Summers wrong. The story claims that the study repudiates Summers, the former president of Harvard University who was run off from the university in a fit of ideological uniformity when Summers had the audacity to point out that males and females are different.

Summers had noted that boys and girls have different math capabilities, but, Clegg points out, not that their average scores were different, as the New York Times suggests. What Summers had said was not that the average scores of boys were higher than that of girls, as the National Science Federation study apparently found (at least that is what the Times' story seems to suggest), but that, while girls' scores are clumped in the middle, boys scores fell out on the extremes: that boys are both the best at math and the worst.

The moral of the story is that, if you question any of the central dogmas of the Tolerance Police, you can count on the fact that they won't care whether their charges have any basis in reality or not.

UK drops ten spots in major college ranking

For Immediate Release
July 31, 2008

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

The University of Kentucky dropped in U. S. News and World Report's national college rankings from 112th in 2007 to 122nd in the 2008 rankings and was near the bottom of top-tier schools in the percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students. "This is one more indication that President Lee Todd and those running the university may not have their priorities in order," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation.

When UK was challenged on its attempt to implement health benefits for the live-in partners of its staff last year, the university defended itself by saying that it needed such a program to pursue top-20 status, prompting The Family Foundation to point out other, more important factors such as class size and lagging faculty salaries that were being ignored in favor of special interest social policy.

"The University of Kentucky needs to figure out whether it is there to serve students who have to foot rising tuition bills or whether it is going to continue dabbling in special interest politics through its employee benefits policies and its increasing emphasis on social and political activism in some of its departments," said Cothran. "If it started putting first things first maybe it would begin rising in the rankings instead of falling."

The U. S. News and World Report College Rankings are the most well-known college rankings.

The CJ looking the other way

Anyone notice that in the growing fraud scandal at the University of Louisville over federal education money that was apparently lining the pockets of Education Department Dean Robert Felner, e-mails pretty clearly indicated that not only was Felner engaging in financial fraud, but he was apparently doing it with his gay lover who was getting a cut of the money in his bogus nonprofit Illinois organization.



One of Felner's e-mails to Tom Schroeder in Rock Island, Illinois, his partner in crime, begins "Hi Honey." And several end with "Hugs".

Does this mean that the Felner scandal is an indication that gays are more likely to engage in financial fraud? Of course not. But what is interesting is that in today's story in the Louisville Courier-Journal, which has been a day late and a dollar short trying to keep up with the breaking story in the blogosphere, didn't even mention the gay angle on this story.

Now when was the last time the media failed to mention a sexual angle in a scandal story? If Felner has been engaged in a heterosexual relationship with a co-conspirator in this case you know darn well they would be all over it. But as it stands, not only does the CJ look like it is protecting James Ramsey and his increasingly ridiculous administration at U of L, but it also looks like it is running interference for the gay community--just like they did during the last election.

Let's see how long it takes the CJ to acknowledge the Felner/Shroeder relationship in this case. We're starting the clock now...