Friday, March 10, 2017

Academic Malpractice.

If colleges want to produce students with the virtues necessary to engage in the difficult practice of "public discourse" and even - perish the thought - share society with people they disagree with, then administrators and academics need to put away the virtue signaling and start modeling unemotional civil engagement, rather than demonstrating their real opinion that listening to the other side is a tasteless formality:

//The Speech President Patton Gave To Students

If there were any uncertainty about that, President Patton soon put it to rest. At seven minutes into the video, she took the stage and spoke for six and a half minutes. Let’s put this in present tense. Patton speaks in a somber tone, and is at pains to get across her own extreme reluctance to have Charles Murray on campus. Her points are:

Inclusiveness. “Thank you all—every single one of you—for being here.” Several times over the course of the next six minutes, Patton repeats a pledge of allegiance to diversity: “Middlebury is committed to unlocking the potential and brilliance of every student no matter their race, their class, their sexual orientation, their religious orientation, their disabled status, or any other demographic marker.”

Regret. “I’m here because if my schedule is free I always respond to the student requests.” Patton allows that college policy permits students and faculty freedom “to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them.” She sounds not one bit enthusiastic about this policy.

Repugnance. “I would regret it terribly if my presence here today, which is an expression of support I give to all students who are genuinely seeking to engage in a very tough public sphere, is read to be something which it is not: an endorsement of Mr. Murray’s research and writings. I will state here that I profoundly disagree with many of Mr. Murray’s views.”

Is every Middlebury student a repository of brilliance waiting to be unlocked? Presumably the Charles Murray of “The Bell Curve” would have doubts about that, as would anyone who takes the trouble to watch the 44-minute video, which serves as a pretty good illustration of what not-very-intelligent people look like when they succumb to a mob mentality. Patton’s list of the “demographic markers” she is eager to defend does not include political orientation. Indeed, she began her remarks by declaring, “Allow me to state the obvious. We are a left-leaning campus…”

Patton Didn’t Defend Free Expression—She Took Sides
Nowhere in her remarks was there any defense of the ideal of free expression on campus. She acknowledged that “college policy” left the door open to the American Enterprise Institute Club to invite Charles Murray, but Patton had nothing to say about why it was a good idea to let Murray or others not on the left speak.

Patton’s explicit and emphatic avowals of her disagreement with Murray were gratuitous. She cited none of his views and gave no reasons why she disagreed with those views. She merely took sides: siding with the protesters in their uninformed distaste for Murray, though not in their willingness to deny him a platform.

The underlying message to the students who showed up to protest was that President Patton felt the justice of their cause, but was determined to stick with college policy allowing controversial speakers to speak. Patton positioned herself almost identically to how Chancellor Nicholas Dirks at UC Berkeley had positioned himself prior to the Milo Yiannopoulos event. Dirks had likewise empathized his extreme dislike of the speaker’s views and his temperate allegiance to free speech.

1 comment:

Garry Umphress said...


Just been perusing the breadth of your interests listed on blog.

So many of the books, blogs and links all seem to have valuable pieces of this huge puzzle called "Christianity".

Those listed having historical evidence are always the most interesting to read and study. Here is a link to one of them which may help illustrate a point.

All of these historians correctly record what they were seeing and experiencing especially Churchill." UNKNOWN WAR". Kennan gets closer to being able to actually put his finger on the UNKNOWN WAR. But like all of the rest of the historians is not privy to know or see all of the aspects of the eternal plan.

Had they have had the chart below it would have helped them to have been able to see and record the eternal forces driving both the seen and unseen wars.

When examining the list of tribes using their original blessings as well as their behaviors and characteristics we can see better haw each was and is able to push through to world history today.

What you are seeing are the 12 tribes of Israel being sealed up under their correlating nations. these were made possible through the Catholic and later Protestant bibles which enabled the Zionist movement to use both to spread democracy and fulfill their desired goals.

In essence what we see manifesting in the news are these nations most degenerate behavior. Take Russia as an example- If one digs deep they were the tribe to have been given fore vision and to lead the other tribes. Or Israel against the blessing of Benjamin. Each nations and it's correlating tribe has throughout their related cultures many representations of these tribal characteristics.

Before digging in to this read Revelation 7:4

6 Oct 1579 OS
Union of Utrecht
13 Aug 1612 OS
Letter/Zemski Sobar/House of Romanov
21 Jun 1645 OS
Treaty of Bromsebro
29 Apr 1678 OS
Treaty of Nijmegen
7 Mar 1710 OS
Treaty of Szatmár
13 Jan 1743 OS
Treaty of Breslau/Treaty of Berlin
1 Dec 1776 NS
US Declaration of Independence
United States
10 Oct 1809 NS
Treaty of Schönbrunn
18 Aug 1842 NS
Law Change/Civil War
26 Jun 1875 NS
Decree/Revolt/Treaty of Berlin in 1878
4 May 1908 NS
Agreement/Turks leave Crete, Greeks remain
12 Mar 1941 NS
Lend Lease Treaty funds WWII
18 Jan 1974
Disengagement of Forces Agreement

Who links to me?