2018 MIDTERMS: What’s At Stake?

/in , , , , , /by

Midterm elections are normally as exciting as watching grass grow. A handful of people usually show up to elect dog catchers and the like. Democrats tend to avoid it like the plague, failing to see the significance of it in comparison to a presidential election. However, in the Age of Trump and the Resistance, the 2018 midterm elections have been electrified and we may very well see some record voting numbers for such an election. This, of course, represents a bonanza for the news media who reaps the financial harvest by whipping the populace into a frenzy.

The media is quick to tell us the party in power normally loses during a midterm election. I would remind them, these are unusual times and we have a President who doesn’t play by their rules and is only interested in results, not history.

Elections are meters of our morality. This is where we collectively determine what direction we would like to see the country go. It defines our priorities and values; what is right and what is wrong. To illustrate:

COURTS

This election will determine what kind of Supreme Court we want: Republicans want justices to interpret the Constitution, and Democrats want them to enact law from the bench. Whereas the former is perceived as conservative, the latter represents a liberal approach. This also applies to the Federal benches as well.

This same phenomenon applies to State Supreme Courts. For example, in Florida three vacancies are awaiting to be filled. Should Democrat Andrew Gillum win the governor’s race, the three justices will likely be liberal; should Republican Ron DeSantis win, the justices will take a conservative approach.

This aspect alone is highly significant to the midterm elections. In terms of morality, should justices simply interpret law, or pave the way for new laws outside of the scope of the Constitution?

CONSTITUTION

The midterms will also have an impact on the mechanisms embedded in the U.S. Constitution. For example, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and rely totally on the popular vote to decide the victor of presidential elections. On the other hand, the Republicans want to keep the Electoral College “as is” in order to maintain parity between urban and rural America. From a moral standpoint, which is the fairest approach? Should the Electoral College be eliminated, the interests of rural America will be neglected, causing candidates to only focus on the needs of urban areas.

Another area under consideration is the eligibility to vote. Whereas Republicans want all legal citizens to vote, Democrats want to give illegal immigrants and criminals the right to vote. There is also discussion regarding the lowering of the voting age to 16. The question is, what kind of person should be allowed to vote?

THE RULE OF LAW

Some people believe the law should be applied equally to everyone. Others believe exceptions should be granted, that some people are above the law. Republicans believe a person is “innocent until proven guilty” and there should not be a double-standard that allows otherwise (“guilty until proven innocent”). To enforce this, there should be “due process” to entitle citizens to fair and consistent treatment under the law.

The Rule of Law includes Amendment I of the Bill of Rights whereby Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Peaceably is the keyword here. This certainly doesn’t support the concept of anarchy as advocated by some people in this country today.

So, the moral question becomes, do we believe in adhering to the Rule of Law, or do we prefer mob rule?

SOCIOECONOMICS

The United States was founded as a free enterprise system which is an economic system where government places few restrictions on the types of business activities or ownership by citizens. This is based on the concept of Capitalism which is a celebration of the individual’s right to try and succeed, requiring a sense of risk. In contrast, the Democrats are embracing Socialism which concentrates on the rights of the group overall, controlled by government, thereby suppressing individual initiative and risk. Unlike Capitalism which allows for failure, there is no such sense of loss in Socialism, nor sense of victory. Essentially, everyone receives a trophy, win or lose. The two socioeconomic programs are as different as night and day, and are simply incompatible.

Under Capitalism, the individual is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor, such as financial rewards. This is an important benefit derived from risk. Under Socialism, there is no such concept, and instead of the individual benefiting, the wealth is evenly distributed to the work force, regardless if they earned it or not. In other words, a weak worker benefits at the same rate as a strong worker.

Democrat Socialists believe in free entitlements for everyone, such as college education, food and housing, transportation, health care, and jobs. This may sound enticing, but they have no clue as to how to pay for all of this other than higher taxes, thereby causing a redistribution of the wealth, which is anti-Capitalist.

The moral question thereby becomes, which system should America embrace? Republicans defend Capitalism, Democrats prefer Socialism.

GLOBALIZATION VS. NATIONALISM

This election is also about adopting a position of Globalization or Nationalism. Globalization, as supported by Democrats, involves the cultural integration of trade, capital, and immigration among the countries of the world. This tends to force countries to lose their identity and become subservient to others. Consequently, we are seeing a push back in the form of Nationalism as in President Trump’s policy of “America First,” and “Brexit,” representing the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.

Nationalism respects the sovereignty of a country, meaning their ability to manage their own affairs independently. Globalization loosens these restrictions to promote equality of nations and cultures, a form of Socialism. Nationalism respects the rights of the citizen, Globalization respects the rights of everyone, regardless where they are from. Consequently, this has led to the immigration problems plaguing the United States and Europe. In a nutshell, it means caring for anyone crossing our borders. Whereas under Nationalism, immigrants must lawfully apply to be accepted, respect the rule of law, and adapt to society, Globalization is just the reverse.

So, the question becomes do we want to be a sovereign country, where the rule of law is respected, or do we want to have open borders and an amalgamation of cultural laws? Add on to it, the provision for housing, education and healthcare for anyone on our shores.

As mentioned, politics is morality in action, as it leads to the the laws, rules, and regulations of a body of people, thereby representing their interpretation of right and wrong. To learn about politics and government is to learn morality. The founding fathers felt strongly about this. So much so, in 1828 the text book, “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States” by Arthur J. Stansbury, was introduced to teach students government and morality. Having the students learn their rights and freedom was considered important in the early days of this country.

Republicans believe government exists to serve the people. Democrats believe the citizens are subservient. This, of course, represents conflicting interpretations of morality.

On November 6th, we will again determine what is right and what is wrong.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLE: 4 Democratic Midterm Ads That Spectacularly Backfired

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. This column with images is republished with permission.

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 96.1 percent of University of Texas administrators, 93.5 percent of faculty donated to Dems

/in , , , /by
  • A Campus Reform analysis has found that an overwhelming majority of faculty and administrators at University of Texas schools contributed financially to Democrat candidates and causes from 2017-2018.
  • System employees donated a grand total of $642,693.43 during this time frame, 94.7 percent of which went to Democrat candidates and causes.

Campus Reform analyzed the 2017-2018 political donation records of employees at the University of Texas (UT), using publicly available records from the Federal Election Commission, in order to determine the political leanings of faculty and administrators at the college.

According to the Campus Reform analysis, 96.1 percent of all UT system administrators who donated to political candidates or causes gave a total of $36,852.20 to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, such as Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke and New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations…”    

In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, while just 5.3 percent of the donations were made to Republican politicians or Republican organizations.

In total, 917 faculty members, specifically, donated a total of $481,853.56 to politicians or political organizations. They contributed 93.5 percent of the money to Democrat politicians or organizations, such as the Texas Democrat Party and End Citizens United. Just 6.5 percent of donations went to Republican politicians or Republican causes.

Of 140 UT administrators, 137 donated $36,852.20 to Democrat political candidates and politicians. Three UT administrators gave a total of $1,500 in donations to Republican politicians or organizations from 2017-2018.

Act Blue and It Starts Today received the highest amount in donations in the Democrat and Democrat category while Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Ted Cruz for Senate received the highest amount in donations in the Republican category.

For the purposes of this data, Campus Reform defined “faculty” as employees of the college that have direct instructional contact with students, such as professors, teachers, and instructors. “Administrators” were defined as employees who manage programming or are responsible for students and faculty, such as department chairs, deans, presidents, and provosts.

Campus Reform sorted individual donors using their self-stated position at the college. For example, if the individual donor noted that they were a “professor of literary theory,” they were designated as a faculty member. If an individual noted that they were employed as an “executive director,” they were designated as an administrator.

In the event that an employee’s title was ambiguous and could not be confirmed, they were marked as a general employee, but not sorted into faculty or administration categories. Campus Reform did not account for retired UT System employees who made political donations. Campus Reform used 180 variations of keyword searches to cull data specific to UT employees at all 14 institutions listed on the University of Texas System’s website.

Campus Reform used the most recent FEC donor records from Jan. 1, 2017 to Oct. 22, 2018.

COLUMN BY

Grace Gottschling

GRACE GOTTSCHLING

Investigative Reporter

Grace Gottschling is the Investigative Reporter for Campus Reform. She is a recent graduate of The College of New Jersey and has experience traveling across the country to engage and train others in pro-life apologetics. Grace manages research and Freedom of Information Act records requests for Campus Reform.

RELATED ARTICLES:

100 percent of Univ. of Oregon admin, 99.95 percent of faculty donate to Dems

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 100 percent of SMU administrators, 98.8 percent of faculty donate to Dems

VIDEO: Beto O’Rourke supporters can’t name any of his accomplishments

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

NYU student senate plans Israel BDS vote … in private

/in , , , /by
  • New York University’s student senate will vote on an Israel Boycott, Divest, and Sanction resolution in private.
  • The scheduled vote comes amid rising tensions between Jewish and Palestinian groups on campus.

NYU student Senator-at-Large Rose Asaf tweeted that student senators would propose a Boycott, Divest, and Sanction resolution (BDS) against the state of Israel at the university senate meeting on Nov. 1.

“Whilst we understand that the heated nature of the discussion around the issue has led to threats of violence in the past, it does not change the fact that if the vote is held in private, it is impossible for students to know what their supposed representatives are voting for.”    

This proposal comes on the heels of a resolution, passed last semester, which urged the university to “review its nondiscrimination policies for Palestinian, Middle Eastern, and other affected students traveling to the State of Israel and attending NYU Tel Aviv,” according to NYU Local.

The final vote on the resolution is scheduled for Dec. 6 and votes will be cast anonymously, with only NYU students permitted to attend. During this time, those opposing the resolution will only be given two minutes to speak.

This resolution comes at a time when conflicts between Israel and Palestine continue to rise with student groups often clashing on campuses throughout the country.

“This resolution is explicitly posed as part of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement,” Asaf and fellow Senator-at-Large Bayan Abubakr told Washington Square News, NYU’s student-led newspaper. “A lot of the times at other universities, they’ll try to separate it from the BDS movement and say this is just divestment. We are explicitly saying that this is a result of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.”

BDS “is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice, and equality” that “upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity,” according to the movement’s website.

“This resolution is not about divesting from Israel,” Asaf told Campus Reform. “It is about divesting from corporations that aid Israel in its abuse of Palestinian human rights,” although the specific contents of the resolution have yet to be released to the public.

The proposal of this resolution has alarmed students across the NYU campus, particularly within the Jewish community. Adela Cojab, who currently serves as president of NYU Realize Israel, indicated that she sees a problem with representation in student government. Cojab, a past senator, alleged that when students found out she was part of Realize Israel, she was then discriminated against on campus.

“It’s very alarming that an entire demographic [of pro-Israel students] is excluded from representation on student government, and the resolution is being presented that affects that group directly,” Cojab told Washington Square News.

“The total absence of action on states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China, where human rights abuses are common, shows an undue bias against Israel,” NYU College Republicans Secretary Nicholas Suri Campus Reform, saying that he does not believe the resolution itself to be anti-Semitic.

“The singling out of Israel for this action likely makes some Jewish students feel unwelcome on campus,” Suri acknowledged.

The College Republicans secretary cited the fact that NYU recently received a #9 ranking among worst schools for Jewish students.

“I do not believe a boycott/divestment would be beneficial for improving the climate in the NYU community,” he told Campus Reform. “I personally believe that this goes against NYU’s commitment to have members of all communities feel safe and welcome on campus, and will disenfranchise some students.”

“The private nature of the vote is an act of cowardice and totally prevents students from holding their senators accountable,” Suri continued. “Whilst we understand that the heated nature of the discussion around the issue has led to threats of violence in the past, it does not change the fact that if the vote is held in private, it is impossible for students to know what their supposed representatives are voting for. This makes a mockery of any supposed democracy that gives these people legitimacy.”

But Asaf defended the Student Government Association’s decision to hold a private vote.

“The vote will happen by way of the secret ballot because of McCarthyist websites like Canary Mission that try to inhibit our ability to speak freely and try to scare us into self-censorship. Student safety is my first priority,” the Student Senator-At-Large told Campus Reform

NYU did not respond to a request for comment in time for press.

COLUMN BY

Andrew Logan Lawrence

ANDREW LOGAN LAWRENCE

Campus Correspondent

Andrew Lawrence is a Georgia Campus Correspondent, and reports on liberal bias and abuse for Campus Reform. He studies Political & Social Sciences at University of Georgia, and is currently working on the Brian Kemp for Governor campaign.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More than 50 NYU groups pledge to boycott Israel

College: Prof’s refusal to write Israel letter ‘disappointing’

UMich punishes prof who denied Israel recommendation

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Armenians Brawl with Blacks and Hispanics in California High School

/in , , , /by

Armenians?

You learn something new every day.

Did you know that the center of the Armenian immigrant community in America is located in Glendale, California and that we are still bringing Armenian ‘refugees’ to the US to be placed mostly, where? in California, in and around Glendale where there are obviously ethnic and racial cultural clashes going on.

According to wikipedia, Glendale has the highest concentration of Armenians in the US.

Glendale, just a few miles away from Downtown Los Angeles, has a population of about 200,000, of which, according to some estimates, 40% is Armenian.

Thanks to reader ‘ganjagrandma’ for sending this story from the Atlanta Black Star.

It is several weeks old, but this news about racial and ethnic tensions at Glendale’s Hoover High sure didn’t make the national news.

So much for the mythical American melting pot!

Shocking Video Shows Brawl Parents Described as a ‘Race Riot’ at California High School

Several students have been disciplined after shocking footage of what concerned parents called a racially-motivated melee between dozens of teens at a Glendale, California high school.

Students involved in last Wednesday’s brawl at Hoover High School were remanded to separate rooms Monday and spoke little during “restorative circle” sessions with school counselors, according to KTLA.

The fight reportedly erupted during lunch period Wednesday, starting as a dispute between two students and quickly growing to involve dozens. That’s when police arrived to restore order, as the fists continued to fly.

No serious injuries were reported.

Parents said their kids tell them there’s been mounting racial tension on campus between Armenian students, the largest ethnic group at the school, and members the football and baseball teams who are mostly Black and Latino, among other ethnicities.

Ah, the joys of diversity.

More here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and videos is republished with permission. The featured image is courtesy of NBC News KTLA.

Washington Post Advice Columnist Gets it Right on Irrational Fear of School Shootings

/in , , , , , , /by

These days the cynical adage “if it bleeds, it leads” seems as applicable to the news media as ever. This is all the more reason that Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax should be applauded for a recent piece where she sought to quell her readers’ out-sized fears about school shootings. Titled, “Apply the empirical method to your school-shooting anxieties,” Hax urged her readers to take a moment to look at the facts about school shootings before succumbing to fear.

In the column, a parent of a kindergartner told Hax, “I am just a wreck every time I see news about a school shooting.” The Parent went on to explain “I know there are daily risks in life (getting in a car, etc.) but I am having a really hard time with the possibility that something fatal could happen to her at school,” and asked “I’d love to hear thoughts on how to deal with this anxiety.”

In the opening of her response, Hax didn’t mince words, writing, “Throw facts at your anxiety, because it is in fact irrational.” Hax explained,

Something fatal can happen to all of us anywhere — and does, eventually — but the likelihood of any U.S. child dying by any cause is very low. When something bad does happen, it is typically accidental; you brush past the “daily risks” but the numbers are much grimmer for that car trip than for any school day. School shootings are more terrifying because they’re outside our daily risk trade-offs — such as, do we stick only to places we can walk, or accept the risk inherent in vehicle travel?

The simple truth is that school shootings are extremely rare.

In another excellent piece published in the Washington Post last March, Harvard Instructor David Ropeik explained just how vanishingly rare such incidents are. Walking readers through the numbers, Ropeik noted,

The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000.

As one writer for the New York Times put it, “A school can expect a shooting once every few thousand years.”

Moreover, despite the prevailing news media narrative, school shootings are not becoming more common. In fact, according to research from Northeastern University Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy James Alan Fox, schools are safer than they were in the 1990s.

A February piece for Northeastern.edu that summarized Fox’s work quoted the professor as follows,

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said. “There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents.

The trouble many Americans have in accurately evaluating the prevalence and risks of violence extends beyond school shootings. Polling routinely shows that Americans believe crime is worsening, even as it has trended downwards.

Given the obvious difficulty many have in evaluating risk, and much of the news media’s alarmist bent, it is incumbent upon those who have been exposed to the facts to share their knowledge with others. Hax’s call to reason should help some to better understand the realities of school shootings, and in a small way help inject some much needed sanity into the school safety debate.

Florida Schools: Transgender Children’s Choice Must Be Hid From Parents

/in , , , , , /by

A Florida school superintendent in very conservative coastal Sarasota County is implementing a radically leftist transgender policy without public input or a vote of the School Board, a policy that among other things strips parents of their right to know what their child is doing in school and turns over a fundamental right of parenting to the government.

At the recommendation of the Sarasota County School District’s LGBTQI Task Force, School Superintendent Todd Bowden is issuing “guidelines” today to govern how the district’s more than 50 public schools handle transgender and gender questioning students — starting as young as kindergarten.

This surreptitious radicalization of local policy comes at the very moment that the Trump administration is considering rolling back the Obama administration’s baseless, un-scientific and lawless expansion of Title IX, the federal civil-rights statute that bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Obama also did that very quietly in 2014, on his own, after Congress failed to get it changed to Obama’s satisfaction.

These are called “guidelines” presumably because an actual policy would have to go through the School Board and be subject to public hearings and public input. (The tactic is akin to when President Obama created a treaty with Iran over nuclear weapons, but called it an “agreement” to bypass the need for Senate ratification.)

Superintendent Bowden appears to be using the Obama playbook on the issue.

But while called guidelines in practice it is a policy, and it implements a full-blown transgender protocol allowing students to use whichever bathroom and locker room corresponds with the gender they “identify” as, forces everyone else to use the pronoun of the students’ choice — including “their” if they are just not sure— and checks the box of everything LGBTQI activists want.

The policy also says that parents must not be informed of their child’s decision to identify as a different gender. The student’s gender identity will be accommodated entirely in the school, which activists and some school leaders claim is a “safer” environment than the home.

If John wants to be known as Sue, his teachers and all staff must call him that. But the parents cannot be informed. John/Sue can use the girls’ bathroom, the girls’ locker room, and participate as a girl in extracurricular activities. But the parents cannot be informed. It’s all up to the child and school.

The just-released document obtained by The Revolutionary Act, entitled “Creating Safe Schools for All Students:  Gender Diverse Student Guidelines,” reads: “It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity.” No parents allowed.

This policy was intended to be quietly rolled out Friday to principals overseeing 43,000 students, until one courageous School Board member was so outraged that she went public with it.

“That is completely stripping the rights of families, parents and/or guardians to be a part of this discussion,” said School Board Chairman Bridget Ziegler. “The district has no place in cutting out parents.”

If a student needs an aspirin, they need parental permission. If they want to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance, they need written permission of the parents. But if their son wants to change his gender and identify as a girl at school and use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, then the parent must not even be told.

Remember, there was no vote or discussion by the elected Board, and no public or community input — in a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats 130,000 to 93,000 as of the 2016 election and that Trump won in a landslide. It was meant to be such a quiet rollout that many parents would not even be aware of it. (Part of this is due to the peculiar breakdown of the so-called “non-partisan” Board, which is 4-1 Republican, but 3-2 puppet-like supporters of the superintendent.)

Here are the core controversial parts of the new policy. Read the language. These are not guidelines, they are policy rules.

PRONOUNS: “A transgender student shall be addressed by the name and gender requested. All relevant teachers and administrators and staff shall be informed of a transgender student’s name and gender pronoun. The student’s name and gender pronoun does not need to correspond to the student’s birth certificate and other official records. It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity. In the case of elementary-age students often the student and parent are involved, however, this is on a case by case basis.”

At the elementary level, the parents are involved only if the child informs them. School leaders are blocked from doing so.

BATHROOMS: “All students, who want to use the restroom in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.”

Of course, this is a serious problem all on its own. But implementation will also be problematic, because in the open-ended forms of gender identity allowed in the guidelines there is “non-binary,” which “refers to anyone who does not exclusively identify as male or female. This term can include multiple gender identities, not limited to gender fluid.”

So apparently any bathroom can be used, based on the feelings of the moment?

LOCKER ROOMS: “All students, who want to use the locker room in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.”

FIELD TRIPS: “Day field trips and overnight field trips are opportunities for educational endeavors and social engagements and it is important to make sure that transgender students have both components. This can require some planning to ensure affirmed name, gender pronouns, room assignments, chaperones and showers are accurate and aligned with the student’s core gender identity. School administration will directly guide the process. Administration will review case by case to determine how to work with all parties involved.”

Because the School Board elections were just completed in the Florida primary, there is little that can be done to overturn this superintendent-driven policy. But expect a strong reaction from the conservative community on the loss of parental rights with their own children.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission.

Harvard Law course looks at ways to ‘push back against’ Trump strategies

/in , , , , , /by
  • A spring 2019 Harvard Law course description asserts that Sen. Mitch McConnell, President Donald Trump, and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh present “challenges for democracy under law, for human rights, and for fact-based government.”
  • The course will allegedly “explore ways of using constitutional law and politics to push back against those strategies.”

A course offered by Harvard University Law School for the spring 2019 semester will focus on ways to “push back against” strategies employed by President Donald Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Harvard professor Laurence Tribe will be teaching the course, titled “Constitutional Strategies For the McConnell/Trump/Kavanaugh Era.”

“This seminar will assess the challenges for democracy under law, for human rights, and for fact-based government posed by the successful strategies of [Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch] McConnell, Trump, and Kavanaugh — and will explore ways of using constitutional law and politics to push back against those strategies,” the course description states.

The Ivy League professor has previously been outspoken with his views on the Trump administration.

“The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice,” Tribe stated in an op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post amid the firing of former FBI Director James Comey in 2017.

Tribe also coauthored the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, which, according to Amazon’s description of the book, discusses “when and whether to impeach a president.” During an interview with Time in June 2018, Tribe told the magazine that he’s never specifically called for the immediate impeachment of the current president.

“Law students who are interested — from whatever ideological perspective — in what the current political and legal landscape might mean for the litigation and/or legislation they may consider becoming involved in (whether defensively or offensively) after they graduate deserve well-informed guidance as they navigate this complex new terrain. My new seminar is designed to offer that guidance,” Tribe told Campus Reform in an email.

Harvard did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The course offering comes amid rising political tensions at the university since the Kavanaugh hearing. Students, enraged by the prospect of Kavanaugh – a former visiting lecturer at Harvard – returning to the classroom, protested on campus.

Students held signs with messages like “boys will be held accountable” and “I still believe Anita Hill,” written across them during the Kavanaugh hearing. Students demanded an investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh for sexually assaulting multiple women and pushed for his resignation, according to the Harvard Crimson. Several students at the University filed Title IX cases against Kavanaugh to bring attention to his sexual assault accusations.

These events preceded the resignation of Kavanaugh who was slated to continue teaching law courses in January.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court associate justice on Oct. 6.

COLUMN BY

Sarah Gass

SARAH GASS

New Jersey Campus Correspondent

Sarah Gass is a New Jersey Campus Correspondent and reports on liberal bias and abuse for Campus Reform. She attends Drew University, where she studies Political Science and serves as the Secretary for Drew College Republicans. Additionally, she is a writer for Prager University. More By Sarah Gass.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOJ not buying Harvard’s defense in affirmative action case

Harvard’s last sorority crumbles in face of new sanctions

This is what democracy looks like! (OPINION)

EXCLUSIVE: Gonzaga panelist tackles SUICIDE at cultural appropriation event

VIDEO: Why Do Millennials Like Socialism? Betsy DeVos Cites Lack of Civics Education

/in , , , , /by

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos spoke to The Daily Signal this week about her efforts to restore local control of education, the Trump administration’s priorities for higher education, and the rising support of socialism among young people. An edited transcript of the interview is below. Full audio of the interview is available on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Rob Bluey: For the past five decades, we have seen the federal government’s involvement in education increase. Now, under the Trump administration, you’ve taken some steps to restore some of that control back to local communities. Can you outline some of the highlights?

Betsy DeVos: Yes, I’d be happy to.

It started with rolling back a number of regulations that were very broad overreaches on the part of the former administration. But it also goes to the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which Congress passed in the end of 2015, but it’s really only getting implemented this year.

And I think that the Democrats were counting on Hillary [Clinton] being in the White House because they, in the previous administration, wrote a whole bunch of regulations in addition to the actual statute that were going to place undue and overreach burdens on states. So that was all rescinded, rolled back, right at the start of this administration.

And we are on the proactive side of things, pointing out to states and local communities the inherent flexibilities that Congress wrote into that statute. So very important opportunities that we’re urging states and communities to take advantage of.

We’ve produced a parent guide to, again, bring the focus back to … These are parents’ decisions and parents have to be integrally involved in these discussions.

Bluey: I know one of the issues that goes alongside that is school choice and giving parents the flexibility to choose the best situation for their children. What is the Trump administration doing with regard to school choice?

DeVos: Sure, and I should have mentioned on your previous question the extension or the broadening of 529 savings plans, which, of course, provides a huge opportunity for families to take advantage of, for now, K-12 education as well. And as we are continuing to look at ways to complement what the states are doing, states really have to take the lead on this and policies within each state.

There are now over 54 different choice programs that have been implemented in states and over a half-million students taking advantage of them.

There are now over 54 different choice programs that have been implemented in states and over a half-million students taking advantage of them. But we have to look for ways not for the federal government to step in and in any way take over what states are doing, but anything the federal government does should No. 1, not be a mandate, and No. 2, complement or have the potential to complement and augment what states are doing.

Bluey: One of the reasons that parents like that flexibility is the concern about what their students, their children, are learning in schools. And we’ve seen recently some polling to indicate that socialism is on the rise in terms of a belief system that many young people seem to be clamoring for. And you even see it in some of the Democratic politicians in our country.

Do you believe this is a cause of the education system and some of the beliefs that are being taught to students? Or is there another factor why they are gravitating toward such a destructive force like socialism?

DeVos: I think it’s really a combination of things. I think, No. 1, students aren’t getting the kind of foundation in civics and government that I recall getting as a student in K-12 education. And they’re coming then into higher education without the background to even know and understand competing ideas, and then without the ability to discuss and debate them.

No. 1, students aren’t getting the kind of foundation in civics and government that I recall getting as a student in K-12 education.

I recall visiting a classroom not too long ago where one of teachers was wearing a shirt that said, “Find Your Truth,” suggesting that, of course, truth is a very fungible and mutable thing instead of focusing on the fact that there is objective truth and part of learning is actually pursuing that truth.

So roll it back, there is a very important need for students to know the foundations of our country and the ideas around which our country was formed. And to then have the ability to discuss and debate those ideas freely on their K-12 campuses and on their higher ed campuses.

Bluey: You mentioned higher ed. Under your leadership, you’ve tried a few things to make improvements in the higher ed environment. Can you outline what the Trump administration’s priorities are when it comes to higher education?

DeVos: This administration is very focused on expanding the pathways to higher education. We’ve had almost a singular focus for decades on four-year college or university as being the only path to a successful adult life. We know that not to be true.

This administration is very focused on expanding the pathways to higher education.

We know today there are 6.7 million jobs going unfilled that require that some kind of learning beyond high school, and yet there’s a mismatch. Students aren’t finding out about these opportunities, and they aren’t pursuing them because everything is very siloed when it comes to post-secondary education.

We are focused on expanding those pathways on reforming accreditation and other regulations that really have constrained higher ed across the board from innovating in the higher education arena.

I talk with those who have been innovators in higher ed, and they say the biggest impediment is the antiquated accreditation system and all of the regulations surrounding that. We’re going to be undertaking rule-making in that regard, and we’re going to continue to push and encourage the opportunities that these creative individuals have to meet students where they’re at and meet them for the needs of the 21st century.

Bluey: And on that note, final question for you today is regarding college cost because we hear about student debt and all the issues that they face once they get a degree. What is the Trump administration doing, and are there innovative things that you’ve seen in higher ed where you can address some of these issues when it comes to the high cost of a higher education?

DeVos: Well, one of the things that we’re doing is taking the framework for Federal Student Aid and modernizing it. We’re calling it Next Gen FSA. And we have taken, first of all, the FAFSA application and put in on a mobile device. You can now complete your FAFSA form on your smartphone.

And we’re going to be continuing to add more relevant information to that app so you’ll be able to know exactly what your student loan outstanding balance is. You will be reminded along the way of options you have for repayment to encourage you to take responsibility for doing so.

 You will be able to access the College Scorecard, which is going to have programmatic data for all colleges and universities so you can ahead of time determine whether you want to pursue a specific program based on what the results are for students that have pursued that program.

So that, plus a lot of other information that’s going to be at your fingertips, hopefully will help cultivate a lot more financial literacy around higher ed and the costs associated with that.

And then on the other side of things, again, opening up the opportunities for creativity and innovation in higher education is going to continue to change the cost calculations.

My visit to Georgia Tech a couple weeks ago gave a very current example of that. They have implemented a master’s of computer science program, which they were hesitant to do because they felt it was going to bring some, perhaps, negative implications to their on-campus programs.

Actually, what happened was they have several thousand students who will be graduating with their master’s in computer science. They’ve been able to take their classes and do the programming as it worked for their schedules and doing it, a master’s, all for about $7,000.

Bluey: Thank you for sharing that story. It’s the stories like that we like to highlight at The Daily Signal, and we appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today.

DeVos: Thanks, Rob, it’s a pleasure.

COLUMN BY

Professor lectures about ‘honorary whites’

/in , , , , /by
  • Amherst American Studies professor Pawan H. Dhingra lectured on the belief that there are three racial categories: whites, “honorary whites,” and “collective blacks.”
  • The City University of New York Graduate Center insists that it “promote[s] serious learning and reasoned debate.”

The City University of New York Graduate Center hosted a lecture on Friday analyzing minority individuals that scholars consider to be “honorary whites.”

Titled “The Place of Honorary Whites: Asian Americans and New Conceptions of Race,” the lecture was given by Amherst American Studies professor Pawan H. Dhingra and examined “race beyond the black-white binary.”  More specifically, Dhingra will focus on people he considers to be “honorary whites.”

“Race matters even as, and arguably especially when, some groups appear to threaten whites’ privileged status.”    

Dhingra’s presentation was based on a belief previously articulated by Duke University Sociology Professor Eduardo Bonilla Silva, who said that there exist three racial categories: whites, “honorary whites,” and “collective blacks.”

“Honorary whites” include light-skinned Latinos, Americans of Asian descent, and Middle-Eastern Americans. These individuals are considered “honorary whites” because they “approximate or even surpass whites in terms of many measures,” according to the event description.

During his lecture, Dhingra addressed the “meaning and relevance” of race for this category of individuals, how “honorary whites” perceive “racial structure,” and whether they assimilate or suffer from racial discrimination.

“Such groups blur the boundaries of whiteness and create significant separation from other minorities,” the event description says. “But, it is a mistake to interpret such trends as signaling the declining significance of race or of white supremacy. Race matters even as, and arguably especially when, some groups appear to threaten whites’ privileged status.”

“The Graduate Center sociology Ph.D. program hosts a regular colloquium where speakers with differing perspectives engage with doctoral students and faculty on a wide range of topical research issues,” the center told Campus Reform  in a statement.

“As an institution that specializes in doctoral-level, advanced research and teaching, we promote serious learning and reasoned debate and offer programming that draws upon and contributes to the diverse communities of New York City and beyond,” the statement added.

COLUMN BY

Celine Ryan

Celine Ryan

California Senior Campus Correspondent. Twitter: 

University announces ‘White Awake’ safe space for white students

Cal Poly admins plot to reduce white enrollment

NYU hosts Marx birthday bash…during the wrong month

/in , , /by
  • NYU is scheduled to host a two-week “festival” to mark communist philosopher Karl Marx’s 200th birthday.
  • Marx was born in May, but the school is hosting the commemoration months later.
  • The event will include a “dance party,” a professor-led lecture on “racial capitalism,” and a performance highlighting socialism.

New York University is hosting a two-week celebration of Karl Marx’s May 5 birthday Oct. 17-28.

NYU Skirball, formally known as the Jack H. Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, will host a two-week celebration of the communist philosopher in commemoration of his 200th birthday.

“The birthday bash, titled ‘On Your Marx,’ will feature a number of performances and events, including a ‘dance party,’ a professor-led lecture on “racial capitalism,” and a performance highlighting socialism.”    

The birthday bash, titled “On Your Marx,” will feature a number of performances and events, including a “dance party,” a professor-led lecture on “racial capitalism,” and a performance highlighting socialism.

Admission to these events will be free, and students will be instructed to “pay-what-you-think-it’s-worth,” according to the NYU Skirball. Attendees will receive a note featuring the cost of every facet of production and can then decide upon the production’s value, representing its demand, a process that the event description suggests will help artists learn how to earn money.

This structure is based on Marx’s philosophy encompassed in a quote featured on the event website: “The writer must earn money in order to be able to live and write, but he must by no means live and write for the purpose of making money.”

NYU held the premiere event, titled “P Project” on Wednesday. Audience members were given cash if they participated in performances with Ivo Dimchev, a Bulgarian-born performing artist.

“P Project (2012) is an escalating, interactive performance where actual cash fuels participation based on several P words, such as Piano, Pray, Pussy, Poetry, Poppers, and so on,” the description reads. “The People will be offered several opportunities to Participate in the P Project, for which they be [sic] Paid quite well.”

NYU’s Tamiment Library will host a “racial capitalism” lecture, led by NYU faculty professors Arun Kundnani, Michael Ralph, and Nikhil Singh, on Thursday.

The school is hosting “Let Us Eat Cake” in honor of Marx on Friday. DJ AndrewAndrew, a New York City-based creativity team will be “spinning the finest Marxist tracks” and there will be “readings from the masterworks Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto,” according to the event page.

The two-week celebration will also include a number of discussions on a wide range of topics, including labor, aesthetics, and consumption. NYU faculty members Lisa Daily, Dean Saranillio, and Jerome Whitington will lead a discussion on climate change and global capitalism in the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis on Oct. 23.

As the celebration draws to a close, NYU will host an event titled “Courtesy the Artists: Popular Revolt” on Oct. 26.

“As we free fall into fascism, let’s imagine alternative moves. In this collectively produced performance, the assembled performers take socialism as a ‘fake it ’til you make it’ proposition,” the event description says. “Popular Revolt addresses an increasingly distracted public with the riotous, rebellious power of liveness. Popular Revolt re-invests revolutionary urgency into historic models of Marxist theater to dismantle Neoliberalism, the global economic force shaping our every day.”

Several NYU Office of Communications representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

COLUMN BY

Andrew Lawrence

Andrew Lawrence

Campus Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Prof writes book calling for ‘Marxist Education’ in K-12

Group has ‘issues’ with Marxism, but Antifa not ‘terrorist’

Profs develop a tool for flagging ‘social media prejudice’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Berlin – March 2017: Karl Marx wax figure in Madame Tussaud’s museum.

UMaine ‘bars’ prof who set up anti-Kavanaugh DC trip (Update)

/in , , /by
  • Update: The University of Southern Maine “barred” the professor who promoted and organized an anti-Kavanaugh pop-up course.
  • University of Southern Maine diversity and inclusive programming coordinator Gabriel Demaine floated the idea of offering a free credit to students who join “social justice organizations” in meeting with Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
  • Collins was a swing vote in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

UPDATE: The University of Southern Maine has “barred” Dr. Susan Feiner, a now-retired USM professor, from teaching after she promoted and organized the anti-Kavanaugh “pop-up” course that offered college credit to students if they bussed to Washington, D.C. to protest Senator Susan Collins.

As reported by the Press Herald, according to a statement released Wednesday by USM President Glenn Cummings, Feiner was using the course to “advanc[e] her personal political agenda.”

“We are embarrassed by and apologize for the rogue behavior of a former colleague,” Cummings said. “In response to her inappropriate actions Dr. Susan Feiner has been notified that she is now barred from teaching at the University of Southern Maine, a prohibition that will be upheld by the other campuses of the University of Maine System as well.”

Campus Reform is awaiting further comment from USM and will post developments as warranted.

“Students can earn 1 credit FREE for enrolling…requirements of the pop-up include: busing overnight to Washington, D.C. to join activists, political action groups, and social justice organizations to meet with Sen. Collins.”    

Original story below

The University of Southern Maine halted a proposed pop-up course offering a free credit to students to travel to Washington, D.C. to join “social justice organizations” in meeting with Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a swing vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

USM’s diversity and inclusive programming coordinator Gabriel Demaine floated the idea of the credit offering to Peter Witham, an administrative specialist at the school, in an email obtained by the Maine Republican Party. But the school’s president and provost ultimately scrapped the offer.

“This pop-up-course was hastily arranged, without the knowledge of the Provost or myself,” USM President Glenn Cummings said via a post on the Maine Republican Party Facebook page. “It was not appropriately reviewed nor went through proper channels.”

“As soon as the Provost and I were apprised of the course, we immediately pulled the one-credit offering. We also made sure that no USM monies were being used for the trip,” Cummings added.

“Students can earn 1 credit FREE for enrolling in this Pop-Up course on ‘Engaged Citizenship,’” Demaine said in the email. “The requirements of the pop-up include: busing overnight to Washington, D.C. to join activists, political action groups, and social justice organizations to meet with Sen. Collins.”

“Rally up around the FBI investigation of the Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh,” the email added.

[RELATED: Maine offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants statewide]

A survey link was included in the email which asked students to “check” off statements that applied to them. Statements included, “I am interested in civil disobedience/willing to get arrested (Bail is about $50/arrest. Please have a plan)” and “I am a survivor and willing to share my story to the public (Livestream, rally, press).”

The diversity and inclusive programming coordinator noted that the bus was scheduled to leave Portland, Maine at 9 p.m. on Wednesday and arrive in Washington, D.C. on Thursday morning. The students were scheduled to travel back to Portland on Friday morning.

“This Pop-Up Course is Tuition FREE for all matriculated USM undergrads,” Demaine noted. “Tuition fees waived at completion of course.”

Collins lambasted President Donald Trump after he imitated Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than 30 years ago, for her inability to remember certain details of the alleged incident.

“The president’s comments were just plain wrong,” Collins told reporters, according to The Washington Post.

Cummings said that university policy explicitly states that taxpayer-financed schools must be impartial with regard to religious, political, and social issues that fall outside USM’s research, education, and public service objectives.

“While I think getting student[s] involved in politics and use their freedom of speech, it is important to not use taxpayers’ dollars or student tuition to do so as there are other ways to do the same thing. If students want to say something they’ll find the way,” University of Southern Maine student Makenzie Baber told Campus Reform.

“As a college student, I’ve worked hard for ways to reduce college tuition. [A] one-credit class would be an excellent idea but not on other people’s dime. I support the University’s decision to withdraw from offering this opportunity as it an unfair use of my money and many others. While I think [sic] the faculty’s support for students to be engaged the money should’ve come from one funder or the students going on the trip,” Baber added.

COLUMN BY

Rob Shimshock and Grace Gottschling 

Campus Reform Reporter

Follow the authors of this article on Twitter: @ShimshockandAwe and @Grace_Gotcha.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos is republished with permission.

University of Chicago pres. slams ‘privileging of feelings’

/in , , , /by
  • Robert Zimmer, president of the University of Chicago, defended his school’s approach to free speech to the City Club of Cleveland.
  • He bashed those whom he says inhibit speech out of “self-righteous, moral, or political indignation, an agenda driven by such moral or political views, and comfort.”

The University of Chicago president defended his school’s commitment to free speech in an address to the City Club of Cleveland.

University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer said during a speech on Oct. 3 that “challenging one’s assumptions inevitably creates discomfort, but a discomfort that is necessary for growth, understanding, and achievement.” Zimmer continued by describing what he believed to be three contributing causes of a decreased commitment to freedom of expression across U.S. universities.

“Privileging feelings, to the extent that a child feels they are always entitled to feel good and comfortable, and that the world should be organized around this, is not helpful in this regard.”    

“Some people are trying to keep certain views unexpressed out of self-righteous, moral, or political indignation, an agenda driven by such moral or political views, and comfort, arrogating to themselves and those they agree with the right of speech, while denying it to others,” Zimmer said, outlining the first cause.

The second contributing cause, according to Zimmer, is that universities are suppressing free speech in the name of fighting against the exclusion of historically marginalized groups. He makes the case that freedom of expression is necessary for fostering an environment of inclusion.

Zimmer cited “the privileging of feelings” as a third cause: “Privileging feelings, to the extent that a child feels they are always entitled to feel good and comfortable, and that the world should be organized around this, is not helpful in this regard. And what we are seeing in some cases within high schools and universities is an expectation, and then demands, for such privileging, and then the inappropriate acquiescence to such demands.”

The University of Chicago president concluded his speech by stating that “creating a sanctuary for comfort is not fulfilling our responsibility. It is only through an environment of intellectual challenge and the free expression and open discourse that provides this challenge, that we are fulfilling our obligations to students, their future, and the future of our society.”

The University of Chicago has been known for its embrace of freedom of speech. It released a policy report in 2015, known as the “Chicago Statement,” which expressed the school’s commitment to the ideal. Since then, at least 35 schools have adopted the same policy, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed,” the Chicago Statement reads, in part.

COLUMN BY

Kenneth Nelson

KENNETH NELSON

Kenny Nelson is an Intern and Campus Correspondent, and reports on liberal bias and abuse for Campus Reform. He attends Colorado State University, where he co-founded the Battering Ram, a student-run newspaper. Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @knelson1776

RELATED ARTICLES:

UChicago reminds freshmen that it doesn’t do safe spaces

Chicago students demand ‘diversity and inclusion’ grad requirement

Ole Miss prof: Senators ‘don’t deserve your civility’

Rutgers re-invites conservative Lisa Daftari amid ‘confusion’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

The Daily Signal Podcast: Betsy DeVos on Giving States More Power in Education

/in , , , /by

Betsy DeVos received heaps of scorn from the left when she became education secretary, but since taking office last year, she’s accomplished much—and given a good deal of power back to the states. In this episode, Rob Bluey, our editor-in-chief, sits down with DeVos to talk about the progress being made. We also talk to Morgan Walker about what it’s like to be at a major Trump rally.

Also on today’s show:

  • Saudi officials prepare to admit to the killing of a missing journalist, as the U.S. considers punitive options.
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., takes that long-awaited DNA test and finds she’s only 1/1024th Native American. But that doesn’t stop her from asking President Donald Trump to cough up $1 million for charity.
  • Florida Panhandle struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael.
  • A case of fetal homicide raises the question: Is it life, or isn’t it?
  • A biological male claims the championship title in women’s track cycling, giving us a glimpse into what transgenderism means for female athletes.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.

If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show!

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This podcast is republished with photos with permission. The featured image is of education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Stanford University: Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted by Leftist-Fascist

/in , , , , , , /by

This incident is one of many recent indications of the fact that the increasingly authoritarian Left, having comprehensively lost the public debate, is more and more resorting to violence in order to intimidate those whom it hates into silence. Then, taking a page from their jihadist allies, Leftist thugs turn around and claim victimhood, as we see from the predictable piece in the egregious Stanford Daily, “Change my mind: SCR’s only concern with violence is how to use it,” by Justin Wilck.

In that article, young Wilck claims that the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that the violence was directed against them, and the additional fact that they have never called for violence or approved of violence, are the real violent ones. They did this also when Stanford student Hamzeh Daoud vowed to physically assault supporters of Israel on campus. It’s a total inversion of reality, and it’s ideologically based: these Stanford Leftists are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they think that if a victim of a crime is an ideological enemy, and the perpetrator a comrade, then the true victim must be the perpetrator, and the true evildoer the one who suffered the injury.

Instead of being taught how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and determine the truth and falsehood of an assertion, Stanford students are being taught that adherence to the Leftist ideology and all that matters, and those who dare to dissent can justifiably be physically assaulted as well as libeled.

And so Justin Wilck, in the time-honored fashion of the Stanford Daily, can’t talk about the Stanford College Republicans without including a lie about me: “Did SCR care last November when Robert Spencer published students’ personal information and his followers sent them threatening emails?” I did not, of course, publish any students’ personal information. In reality, I responded point-by-point to attack pieces, most of them loaded with libels about my work and my character, written and signed by Stanford students. If these students hadn’t wanted their names known, they should have written the pieces anonymously. But in a civilized world of genuine rational discourse, which is, of course, quite far from what takes place at Stanford today, those who disagree have discussions based on evidence, and one side doesn’t start whining that “personal information” was published if the other side responds to attacks.

This is, however, the level of discourse that one would expect from Stanford students today. My event there last November was forcibly disrupted by administrators and fascist students, and the Leftists there still crow about their destruction of the possibility of genuine discussion and free discourse. The Left doesn’t want discussion or debate. Leftists want to silence their foes, by violence if necessary. We see that in arenas small and large, from Melinda Hernandez’s assault of John Rice-Cameron here all the way to the Stalinist gulags. In Stanford, the next generation of gulag guards is being trained now.

“Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted at Pro-Kavanaugh Event,” by Kristina Wong, Breitbart, October 10, 2018:

Stanford College Republicans said Tuesday that John David Rice-Cameron, its president and son of former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, was assaulted that day at a event at Stanford University, where he is a sophomore.

“Today, SCR experienced the violent and totalitarian behavior of the unhinged Stanford left. During a ‘Change My Mind’ tabling event regarding the presumption of innocence and the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, SCR’s President was assaulted by Melinda Hernandez. A sophomore at Stanford, Hernandez approached our President, hit him in chest and forcefully pushed him back,” the group posted on Facebook.

“Our President is pressing full charges against Hernandez. Violence is completely unacceptable, and we will not allow anyone to get away with it. Throughout the day, our signs were vandalized and destroyed, and we will be posting more video and photos shortly. Stay tuned,” it said.

The group posted pictures, including of sheriff’s deputies on the scene and a torn up poster.

Later, the group posted video of three students attempting to vandalize the table the Stanford College Republicans had set up.

“In addition to having our President assaulted by the violent and unhinged Melinda Hernandez, SCR members were harassed at yesterday’s ‘Change My Mind’ table throughout the day. Leftists vandalized and destroyed our signs, threw paint and water at our members, and hurled insults and profanities for hours. This is the state of poltical discourse at Stanford University: defined by the violent and childlish [sic] antics of the unhinged left.”

…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video was originally published on Jihad Watch.

Five Questions to Ask Yourself Before Doing a Public Speaking Engagement

/in , /by

Nowadays, a lot of people get up on stage to talk about something before an audience. Their listeners range from a jam-packed local bar to an arena-sized crowd. These people who love to listen to public speaking engagements have different motives. Some want to get inspired, while others are looking to learn something new.

Most speakers, on the other hand, are looking for a story to tell their audiences or to promote their business or to entertain their listeners. Along the way, you’ll meet smart and bright public speakers to boring ones and all types in between.

If you want to become a brilliant public speaker, it’s a must that you know the basics of public speaking. For a start, you should know the five questions to ask yourself before you get on stage for your first public speaking engagement.

Who are My Listeners?

In any speaking engagement, whether addressing a small or large crowd, it’s crucial that you know the people you’re speaking to. You should learn what they already know about the topic you’ll be discussing. It will also help you a lot if you consider their knowledge gaps and their motives why they choose to listen to you.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Feel During and After My Talk?

Of course, you should think about how you like your listeners connect with your topic. If your motivation is to provide them with inspiration, you need to ask yourself what are the speaking strategies you should do to attain this goal?

If your purpose is to entertain them, what material do you have to offer to achieve it? Considering what the audience will feel and think during and after your talk is essential to connect to them successfully.

What Tone Would Be Ideal for Your Listeners?

The tone of your public speaking should achieve a friendly and conversational tone. In this way, you can captivate your audience and make them engage freely with your ideas.

However, it’s crucial to strike a balance. Most of the time, it’s a must to adopt a more authoritative tone in your talk. Taking this tone of public speaking will make your ideas believable, especially if the goal of your speech is something that calls for an action.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Say about the Topic of My Presentation?

You should always have in mind how your talk can cause your audience to discuss it after your presentation. If you want your listeners to remember your topic and your strategies of public speaking, it’s a must that you highlight the facts, statistics, and the ideas to make them easier to remember for them.

What Do I Want My Listeners to Do After Your Talk?

Any public speaker will surely want their listeners to do something after giving a talk. This characteristic is common among motivational speakers and visionaries.

So, if you’re to change the listeners’ perspective and make them act on what you’re saying, you should see to it that you craft your material in a way that it’s calling for real action. There are strategies for you to achieve this goal. If you want to learn public speaking, you can reach out to organizations like Talent Bureau for that purpose.

Takeaway

If you want to be an excellent public speaker, you should see to it that you know what to do before you get up on stage. For instance, you should know the type of audience you’re addressing, how you should make them think and feel about your talk, how to make them act, and what tone will be ideal to them.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.