COLLEGES BECOME THE VICTIMS OF PROGRESSIVISM

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.” Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.

The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.

Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of afemale who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.

Now academia is unhappy about the Education Department’s plan for government to rate every institution’s educational product. But the professors need not worry. A department official says this assessment will be easy: “It’s like rating a blender.” Education, gadgets — what’s the difference?

Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.

It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/06/09/colleges-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/

Creationists vs. Evolutionists: Here’s Where Americans Stand on God’s Role in Creation

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising.

This latest update is from Gallup's Values and Beliefs survey conducted May 8-11. Gallup first asked the three-part question about human origins in 1982.

The percentage of the U.S. population choosing the creationist perspective as closest to their own view has fluctuated in a narrow range between 40% and 47% since the question's inception. There is little indication of a sustained downward trend in the proportion of the U.S. population who hold a creationist view of human origins. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who adhere to a strict secularist viewpoint -- that humans evolved over time, with God having no part in this process -- has doubled since 1999.

Religiousness, Age, Education Related to Americans' Views

Historically, Americans' views on the origin of humans have been related to their religiousness, education, and age.

• Religiousness relates most strongly to these views, which is not surprising, given that this question deals directly with God's role in human origins. The percentage of Americans who accept the creationist viewpoint ranges from 69% among those who attend religious services weekly to 23% among those who seldom or never attend.
• Educational attainment is also related to these attitudes, with belief in the creationist perspective dropping from 57% among Americans with no more than a high school education to less than half that (27%) among those with a college degree. Those with college degrees are, accordingly, much more likely to choose one of the two evolutionary explanations.
• Younger Americans -- who are typically less religious than their elders -- are less likely to choose the creationist perspective than are older Americans. Americans aged 65 and older -- the most religious of any age group -- are most likely to choose the creationist perspective.

Americans Less Familiar With "Creationism" Now Than in 2007

Americans' self-reported familiarity with evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth has stayed roughly the same over the past seven years. Seventy-nine percent of Americans say they are very or somewhat familiar with it, leaving 19% not too or not at all familiar.

However, significantly fewer Americans claim familiarity with "creationism" than did so seven years ago. In 2007, 86% were familiar, including 50% who were very familiar. Now, 76% are familiar, with just 38% very familiar. In short, even though the adherence to the creationist view has not changed over time, familiarity with the term "creationism" has diminished.

Sixty-four percent of those who are very familiar with the theory of evolution choose one of the two evolutionary explanations for the origin of humans, compared with 28% among the smaller group of Americans who report being not too or not at all familiar with it. The majority of those not familiar with evolution choose the creationist viewpoint.

These relationships do not necessarily prove that if Americans were to learn more about evolution they would be more likely to believe in it. Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view and to be least familiar with evolution, but it's not clear that gaining more education per se would shift their perspectives. Many religious Americans accept creationism mostly on the basis of their religious convictions. Whether their beliefs would change if they became more familiar with evolution is an open question.

Implications

Between 40% and 47% of Americans over the past 32 years have said the creationist explanation for the origin of human life best fits their personal views. These Americans tend to be highly religious, underscoring the degree to which many Americans view the world around them through the lens of their religious beliefs. Those who adopt the creationist view also tend to have lower education levels, but given the strong influence of religious beliefs, it is not clear to what degree having more education or different types of education might affect their views.

A number of states have been embroiled in fights in recent years over the degree to which evolution and creationism should be included in their public school curricula. Residents in the South are more likely to believe in the creationist view of the origin of humans than are those living in other regions, making it clear why the fights to have creationism addressed in the public schools might be an important political issue in that region.

Still, few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

The progressive worship of mediocrity and equality Latest Progressive Buffoonery: “Hurt Feelings” Trump Excellence!

Competition and excellence are as American as baseball and apple pie. The idea is that one should take optimum advantage of God-given talents and abilities by striving to be the best possible so as to achieve important goals and objectives.

That notion, so the story goes, will help prepare one for the rigors and challenges of the real world where one’s abilities and performance are carefully scrutinized in order to select the “best candidates” for employment and for promotion and salary opportunities.

Indeed, when employers look to hire, the object is to find the most qualified prospective employee.  Scant little time is spent in HR offices or corporate board rooms fretting over “hurt feeling

The business of professional sports is an excellent example. Baseball scouts search high and low for young players who can run the fastest, throw the ball the furthest, and whom can hit a baseball with the greatest power and accurac

Rarely does a big-league baseball manager take a budding superstar aside and counsel the young man:“Your batting average and home run production is depressing to some of the other players with more average talents.  You should strike out more often, hit with less power, and stop running so damn fast! Do it for the team!”

Likewise, a high-tech team leader in Silicone Valley is unlikely to say the following to “techies”  assigned to develop an innovative, new product line:

Unfortunately, this sort of progressive buffoonery is creeping into our education system.

For instance, concerns about the “exclusive nature” of the annual honors night at Archie R. Cole Middle School in Rhode Island have caused school officials to scrap the tradition.

Instead, students who would normally be recognized at the annual spring tradition will be honored during team-based recognition ceremonies and graduation.

Thus, out-of-touch liberals at the school have implemented the progressive worship of mediocrity and equality, especially at the expense of excellence.

Parents with children who attend Archie R. Cole Middle School should move, with haste, to transfer their offspring to schools that will encourage and reward excellence.

Perhaps equality-driven progressives could level the playing field a bit by having a “Hurt Feelings” awards ceremony for the less accomplished students?  Call it a gathering of “Future Democrats!”

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63446?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=43fb19cf04-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-43fb19cf04-297703129

5 Ways Liberal Race Hustling Is Bad For America

Calling someone a "racist" used to mean that a person disliked certain people because of their skin color.

Today, MOST OF THE TIME, it means something entirely different.

Now, if someone is better and smarter than a liberal, a liberal cries "white privilege."

If a liberal is failing and he doesn't know what to do about it, he yells "racism."

If a liberal doesn't know how to counter your argument, he calls it "racist."

If liberal can't counter your political argument, he screams out "bigot."

So, if you're conservative, it's almost a backwards compliment at this point. "You're just too good for me and this is the only way I know how to deal with it!"

Of course, it's still irritating to be falsely accused of racism. Additionally, it does a lot of real damage to the country that's just shrugged off and brushed aside by the shameless, selfish people who view crying "racism" as nothing more than a big political game.

1) It creates a victim mentality that turns people into losers: If you're Hispanic or black and you really believe all the liberals who say America is hopelessly racist, why work hard, go to school, and try to get ahead? How are you going to make it in a society that's 63.3% white, if all those white people are going to hate you for the color of your skin no matter what you say or do? How many black and Hispanic Americans have given up on making a good life for themselves and have settled for a mediocre life of dependency because they falsely believe that life in America is stacked against them?

2) It does more to promote real racism than the KKK: Most people, after being convinced that someone hates them, detest them back. If you're black and you believe most white people are no different than George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Robert Byrd, why wouldn't you be racist? If most black Americans were actually hateful, anti-white mooches like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who could blame white people for being racists? Liberals spend a lot of time trying to turn people against each other based on the color of their skin and they undoubtedly create racism in the process.

3) It has led to both political parties treating minority voters like an afterthought: Democrats get roughly 90% of the black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote. In return for that incredible loyalty from important constituent groups, they call Republicans racist non-stop. Republicans respond to that by incessantly trying to prove that we're not racist. What this means is that ultimately, neither party does anything of significance for minorities. Democrats feel like they have minority voters in the bag and Republicans feel like they will be branded as racists no matter what they do; so what motivation does any politician have to actually try to make the lives of their minority constituents better?

4) It takes the focus off of our real problems: Even if you think racism in America is a serious problem, it's still small potatoes compared to the other challenges we face as a people. It doesn't matter what color you're talking about, how much of an impact does racism make versus jobs, crime, or out-of-wedlock births? Yet, we hear about racism incessantly because Democrats believe it helps them at the polls. Maybe it does. But, does it ever make anybody's life better? Does it make any neighborhoods safer? Does it put people to work? Does it keep families together? Is there ever a point when the big issues impacting people's lives get addressed or twenty years from now, is everyone still going to be mired in the same place, yelling at each other over the next "Trayvon" or "Donald Sterling?"

5) It creates the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" effect:One of the problems with crying "racism" every time someone criticizes Obama, knocks the Democrat Party, or just doesn't do whatever liberals want him to do is that it masks real racism. Because of talentless wastes of space like Toure and Eugene Robinson whose whole careers revolve around pretending the world hasn't changed since the sixties, minorities who are really discriminated against because of their skin color often have to overcome deep skepticism about their motives after they've been wronged. Just as false cries of "rape" hurt women, false cries of "racism" hurt minorities in this country.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/05/31/5-ways-liberal-race-hustling-is-bad-for-america-n1845701/page/full

MSNBC Host Alex Wagner on 'Today': 'Every Time Lewinsky is Mentioned, It is Good for Hillary Clinton'

During a report on Thursday's NBC Today about Monic Lewinsky's article in Vanity Fair magazine, correspondent Peter Alexander touted liberal spin that the former Bill Clinton mistress speaking out would actually help Hillary Clinton's political prospects: "Clinton watcher Ruth Marcus argues Lewinsky has done Hillary a big favor." A soundbite followed of the Washington Post columnist proclaiming: "Now if there's a Hillary Clinton campaign for president in 2016, we can move on from the Lewinsky scandal of yore."

In a discussion segment that followed Alexander's report, co-host Matt Lauer wondered to  MSNBC host Alex Wagner: "How does this article, this essay, impact Hillary Clinton should she run for office in 2016?" Wagner argued: "Every time Lewinsky is mentioned, it is good for Hillary Clinton. It reminds everybody of her major accomplishments on the world stage. And people tend to be more sympathetic to Hillary Clinton than Monica Lewinsky because she is the woman scorned." [Listen to the audio]

Wagner's declaration was reminiscent of Washington Post reporter Dan Balz parroting Democratic talking points to NBC political director Chuck Todd on Monday's MSNBC Daily Rundown that the Benghazi scandal "could actually be good for Clinton."

Appearing with Wagner on Thursday's Today, Republican strategist Nicolle Wallace rejected such crass partisan spin:

I'm really uncomfortable looking at this in only political terms. And so, I'm going to refrain from offering a political analysis. And I think this article reminds us that there was a 22-year-old woman, Monica Lewinsky, whose life was irreparably altered by her encounter with the Clintons.

Earlier in the exchange, Lauer highlighted Lewinsky denouncing the feminist movement for not supporting her during the 1998 scandal: "...given the issues at play – gender politics, sex in the workplace – you'd think they would have spoken up..."

Wagner responded by gloating:

...we think, you know, the narrative written about this moment in American history favors Bill Clinton, to be truthful about it. I mean, Monica Lewinsky has spent the last twenty years effectively being kryptonite. Here is a man who has ascended to the highest levels of, you know, global profile, and Monica Lewinsky has not been able to restart her life. And it does prompt questions about, you know, who – if she was a victim, whether she was given her due.

Wallace replied: "And it's amazing to me that even when this article came out this week – I think the full article is out this morning – the only people that are getting blamed or muddied by it are Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton was involved too." Lauer added: "And gets a pass on this." Wallace remarked: "Always."    

Here is a full transcript of the May 8 segment with Wagner and Wallace:

7:33 AM ET

MATT LAUER: Alex Wagner is the host of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner and Nicolle Wallace served as White House communications director for George W. Bush and a campaign advisor to Senator John McCain. Hi, ladies. Good morning.

ALEX WAGNER: Hey, Matt.

NICOLLE WALLACE: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Lewinsky's Legacy & 2016; What Does Article Mean for Possible Hillary Run?]

LAUER: Why do you think Monica Lewinsky wrote this essay now?

WAGNER: I feel like there's been a lot of Lewinsky in the air. Whether it's Senator Rand Paul and his comments about Bill Clinton being a sexual predator, I feel like, you know, there is constant Hillary talk that only is going to ramp up as we get closer to 2016. And this is a woman who feels like she's been sidelined and marginalized.

LAUER: She says she's written it only for herself, not for anyone else. Lynne Cheney thinks the Clintons had a hand in this, in the timing, so they can get this out of the way now, before a run for Hillary Clinton.

WALLACE: Yeah, listen, political operatives are never quite as scheming as people give them credit for being. I think that what she writes is the truth. She's been waiting for a moment when the Clintons aren't on the national political stage and realizes that they will be on the national political stage for infinity. So if not now, then when?

LAUER: Let's talk about the "what" in the essay now. She writes about the relationship with then-President Bill Clinton, "It was an authentic connection, with emotional intimacy, frequent visits, plans made, phone calls and gifts exchanged. In my early 20s, I was too young to understand the real-life consequences and too young to see that I would be sacrificed for political expediency." Doesn't that take the Clintons out of having a hand in this right off the bat?

WALLACE: Yeah, this is not a good story for the Clintons. And this is not a story that they can get over and get past. If voters decide they want to hear more about it, that will determine the arch of the story more than anything else.

WAGNER: I feel like I disagree with that. I mean, I think Monica Lewinsky is an accepted truth about the Clintons. And this is a woman who spends a lot of time in that article trying to get past the trauma of her early twenties and move on and talk about the online harassment that plagues many young people today.

LAUER: I want to get your – both of your take on this. When she talks about at the height of the scandal, quote, "I sorely wish for some sign of understanding from the feminist camp...given the issues at play – gender politics, sex in the workplace – you'd think they would have spoken up...I understood their dilemma: Bill Clinton had been a president 'friendly' to women's causes."

WAGNER: I mean, I think in retrospect – I'd love to get Nicolle's view on this, too – we think, you know, the narrative written about this moment in American history favors Bill Clinton, to be truthful about it. I mean, Monica Lewinsky has spent the last twenty years effectively being kryptonite. Here is a man who has ascended to the highest levels of, you know, global profile, and Monica Lewinsky has not been able to restart her life. And it does prompt questions about, you know, who – if she was a victim, whether she was given her due.

WALLACE: And it's amazing to me that even when this article came out this week – I think the full article is out this morning – the only people that are getting blamed or muddied by it are Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton was involved too.

LAUER: And gets a pass on this.

WALLACE: Always.

LAUER: As she puts it, he comes out – they come out, the Clintons, "as one of the most celebrated powerful political couples of our time." And she has, "a scarlet albatross around her neck."

Real quickly, how does this article, this essay, impact Hillary Clinton should she run for office in 2016?

WAGNER: Every time Lewinsky is mentioned, it is good for Hillary Clinton. It reminds everybody of her major accomplishments on the world stage. And people tend to be more sympathetic to Hillary Clinton than Monica Lewinsky because she is the woman scorned.

WALLACE: I'm really uncomfortable looking at this in only political terms. And so, I'm going to refrain from offering a political analysis. And I think this article reminds us that there was a 22-year-old woman, Monica Lewinsky, whose life was irreparably altered by her encounter with the Clintons.

LAUER: Nicolle Wallace, Alex Wagner, thank you ladies. Appreciate it. You can catch Now with Alex Wagner weekdays at 4 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/msnbc-host-today-every-time-lewinsky-mentioned-it-good-hillary-clinton

Chris Matthews Warns GOP’s ‘Nasty’ and ‘Insidious’ Politics on Benghazi Could Backfire Like ‘Watergate’

MSNBC's Chris Matthews slammed Republican policies like voter ID laws and a special investigation of the Benghazi attacks as an "insidious plan" that could backfire like "Watergate."

"Let me finish tonight with this insidious plan to scare up right-wing voters and scare off the votes the of those who tend to vote Democratic," Matthews ranted at the end of Thursday's Hardball. "The trouble with nasty politics like the kind we're getting from the House leadership is it makes you look nasty," he continued. [Audio here.]

He added the Democratic talking point that Republicans are profiting from the Benghazi attacks: "It makes it look like you're moneygrubbing on the deaths of those four American diplomats, like you're ready to kill a little more faith in government to get a few more votes."

And Matthews warned that "I've watched how exactly this kind of stuff blows up in your face," like with Richard Nixon "when he took a sure win for re-election and turned it into Watergate."

Below is a transcript of the May 8 Hardball segment:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this insidious plan to scare up right-wing voters and scare off the votes the of those who tend to vote Democratic. This is just the kind of campaign mentality that leads to trouble on the part of those who pursue it. Everyone knows the Republicans are heading for a good election night this November. They are poised to win the Senate. Poised, at least, and to pick up five to ten seats in the House of Representatives. You know it. They know it. Believe me, smart Democrats know it.

So why this plan to roll up the score, to bring out the crazies on the right and to drown out the progressives, including many minorities who will be intimidated by the new Republican-pushed voter laws. I've watched how exactly this kind of stuff blows up in your face. It did with Richard Nixon several times in 1950 when he called his senatorial opponent pink right down to her underwear and in 1972 when he took a sure win for re-election and turned it into Watergate.

The trouble with nasty politics like the kind we're getting from the House leadership is it makes you look nasty. It makes it look like you're moneygrubbing on the deaths of those four American diplomats, like you're ready to kill a little more faith in government to get a few more votes. It's a rotten deal, and the people who play it will pay for it. Maybe not this year, but in the years to come. You can't build a brand by painting a bathtub ring around your rivals. Why? Because people, voters, are watching when you do it. So is the media. Nobody wants somebody in the White House who got there through scare tactics and keeping people from voting.

http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-warns-gops-nasty-and-insidious-politics-benghazi-could-backfire-watergate

COURT RULES MASSACHUSETTS ATHEISTS FAILED TO SHOW WORDS 'UNDER GOD' HARMED THEIR CHILDREN

BOSTON, May 9 (UPI) -- An atheist Massachusetts couple failed to prove their children had been harmed by the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the state's highest court ruled Friday.

The couple, identified only as "John and Jane Doe," argued their children's rights were violated by the voluntary recitation of the pledge -- including "Under God" -- in the public schools in the Acton-Boxborough district. But the Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously they failed to make their case, saying they had not proved the children had been subjected to bullying, ostracism or any other punishment or mistreatment for refusing to say the pledge or for keeping quiet while everyone else was saying "Under God."

The couple sued in state court under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue.

Chief Justice Roderick Ireland, who wrote the opinion, also said school officials in the district -- which includes two wealthy suburbs northwest of Boston -- do not track students' patriotism, or lack thereof.

"The fact that a school or other public entity operates a voluntary program or offers an activity that offends the religious beliefs of one or more individuals, and leaves them feeling 'stigmatized' or 'excluded' as a result, does not mean that the program or activity necessarily violates equal protection principles,'' Ireland said.

The Does, Acton residents, got legal backing from the American Humanist Society for the lawsuit filed in Middlesex County. Another Acton couple, Daniel and Ingrid Joyce, weighed in on the other side, with support from the Knights of Columbus.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/09/Court-rules-Massachusetts-atheists-failed-to-show-words-Under-God-harmed-their-children