Teaching About the Events at the Capitol

by Christopher Paslay

A Chicago activist group called “Mikva Challenge” has put together a slide show about the Capitol tragedy that misleads students and serves to further divide America. (Please click on the above picture to watch the companion video which analyzes the slide show.)

The events that took place at the Capitol on January 6th were reprehensible and tragic, and schools should offer teachers resources to help their students process these events. However, they should be doing this in a way that is productive and healing, and that provides students with balanced information so that they can think critically about the events that are having a real impact on their lives. 

Unfortunately, both in the media and in America’s public schools, there are a number of teacher resources that fail to allow students to critically analyze current events in an accurate and balanced context (they do not offer a classic pro/con format), but are presented from a one-sided lens that takes a complex situation and boils it down to a simplistic, over-generalized version of reality.

In particular, a teacher resource called “Response to January 6^th DC Insurrection,” a slide-show put together by a political activist group based in Chicago called “Mikva Challenge,” is an example. This so-called “teacher resource” gives students strategically selected pictures and clips of events that do not accurately represent the larger whole of society, that do not give kids enough background information on complex issues, and seem to be designed to teach students WHAT to think, and not HOW to think.

The most concerning thing is that this particular activity is not teaching students that we, as Americans, must learn to understand each other, or that there are many sides to an issue.  It doesn’t present any universal themes that can bring us together, or reveal how at some level we are all the same. The teacher resource called “Response to January 6^th DC Insurrection” literally polarizes people into camps: Trump supporters/whites on one side, BLM/people of color on the other.

It stereotypes all Trump supporters as violent racists, and all BLM activists as saintly freedom fighters.  Of course, the reality is that the events of the past seven months have been much more complex than this. There are 74 million Trump supporters, the majority of whom are caring people with real concerns about real issues. Yes, a small faction got violent on January 6^th, which is inexcusable.

But those who have been following the news understand that there is a faction of BLM/ATIFA (about 7%) who have been violent and riotous over the past seven months, who have shot and killed police, burned-down police stations and federal court-houses, destroyed business, etc.  Much has been made about not stereotyping these mostly peaceful protesters as violent, but the violence was still real and just as inexcusable. Unfortunately, our news media is so polarized, that those who do not read a wide breadth of news from a wide variety of sources, will perceive events within a limited frame of reference. 

A more appropriate slide presentation, which asks students to process the events of January 6th, would be to show the background issues and concerns of Trump supporters and BLM protesters side-by-side. Show a slide that breaks down the issues of Trump protesters (energy independence, right to life, ending the lockdown, censorship by Big Tech, perceived voter irregularities, lack of cultural representation by the ruling class, etc.), and those of BLM protesters (racism, police brutality, healthcare, equity and inclusion). Educators could show how, although many Americans see the world through different lenses, we all basically want the same things: love, companionship, equal access to resources, and a relatively good quality of life.     

Next teachers could show a side-by-side slide of the inappropriate behavior perpetrated by the fringe Trump faction in the Capitol (the horrible violence and attack on police), and compare it to the inappropriate behavior of the fringe BLM/ANTIFA faction in the summer and fall (the destruction of businesses and people’s livelihoods, the murder of police and civilians, the destruction of Federal courthouses). In short, teachers could show how ALL violence is wrong (whether it takes place in the sacredness of Washington DC, or within a person’s neighborhood or private business in Portland or Seattle), and is NEVER acceptable. 

Again, this is not to condone what happened in the Capitol last week, or to discount or cheapen the struggle for racial justice by BLM. However, educators must refrain from oversimplifying events, smearing and stereotyping entire groups of people, and from giving students only fragments of the whole of reality in order to shape their perspectives on issues; teachers should teach children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. 

The teacher resource called “Response to January 6^th DC Insurrection” does none of this, and is quite shocking in its use of selective information and gross lack of context. 

Colorblind Racism: Why Anti-Racists Insist We Look At Skin Color

by Christopher Paslay

The concept of colorblindness has been hijacked and redefined by anti-racists, so much so that its meaning has literally been inverted and turned on its head — going from a positive that society should strive to attain to a negative that it should guard against.

A major part of anti-racism is challenging a white person’s belief in colorblindness, and how this belief serves to both obscure and perpetuate white privilege and institutional racism. Traditionally, colorblindness is a positive — a way of viewing the world not through the superficial lens of race and skin color, but through a deeper perspective, one centered on universal human values like love, compassion, tolerance, honesty, and friendship. Often times, the concept of colorblindness is associated with Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, where he famously stated that he dreamt of a time when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

But today, the concept of colorblindness has been hijacked and redefined by anti-racists, so much so that its meaning has literally been inverted and turned on its head — going from a positive that society should strive to attain to a negative that it should guard against. Within the field of whiteness studies, the concept is now known as “colorblind racism,” and anti-racist educators now call for people not to be colorblind, but to be “colorbold.” According to DiAngelo, colorblind racism is “pretending that we don’t notice race or that race has no meaning. This pretense denies racism and thus holds it in place.”  DiAngelo’s definition ties in directly with the essential question of her book on white racial literacy What Does It Mean To Be White?, which asks, “What does it mean to be white in a society that proclaims race meaningless, yet is deeply divided by race?” 

But there’s a fundamental problem with both the essential question of DiAngelo’s book and with her definition of colorblind racism. According to “An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many?”, which used data from the American Mosaic Project to test the hypotheses developed in the paper, race does matter to white people, as 74 percent of white Americans surveyed — almost three-fourths — said that their racial identity was either “very important” or “somewhat important.” 

And according to a 2016 Pew Research study on America’s views on race and inequality, 31 percent of whites admitted that being white made it easier for them to succeed, while 53 percent of whites said more must be done to bring about racial equality in America. 

It’s not that the majority of whites think race doesn’t matter, it’s that they think it shouldn’t matter; there’s a major difference between these two concepts. Nearly all Americans are aware of race, especially in light of the news media’s obsession with race and racism on television, in newspapers, and on the internet. Granted, some whites may not always be aware of the advantages race gives them in their daily life, or the ways in which race may disadvantage people of color in certain situations. But the notion that whites believe race doesn’t matter is misrepresented and overblown.

True colorblindness isn’t “pretending we don’t notice race or that race has no meaning” as DiAngelo claims. Traditional colorblindness is the filtering out of the superficial characteristics of eye shape, hair texture, and skin tone, and of connecting and interacting with others via the universal human values of love, kindness, honesty, tolerance, respect, and compassion. If all people learned to do as much, not just casually but with the very core of their beings, the world would be a different place. Racism, prejudice, discrimination, and all manner of social injustice would begin to subside. 

A major goal of anti-racist educators within the field of whiteness studies is to level the playing field and end systemic racial disparities. The purpose behind creating the term “colorblind racism” is clearly to make whites as equally aware of race and racism as nonwhites are, which will in effect “bear witness” to injustice, and help bring an end to it. But what happens then? Once everybody’s sufficiently aware of the ugly consequences of race, then what? 

Logic would suggest the next step would entail teaching people not to judge people by the color of their skin, and to connect and interact with them as fellow humans instead of treating them as “others.” In other words, it would be time to circle back and employ colorblindness. As T.S. Eliot said, We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

At its core, whiteness studies is really a battle to define and control whiteness itself.  By redefining “racism” to mean inherent white privilege and oppression, all whites become guilty by default, even those whites who are caring people free from discrimination. Thus “whiteness” becomes “racism,” which ultimately transforms the property of whiteness into the commodity of racism, and enables the politically oriented whiteness studies movement to usurp “whiteness” to use and redistribute as it sees fit.

Which is exactly why the field of whiteness studies doesn’t take the direct path and preach traditional colorblindness, and that’s because indoctrinating society to be hyper-aware of race is helping keep race at the forefront — right where anti-racists need it to be. Race and skin color are indeed invaluable when it comes to identity politics, so teaching Americans to be “blind” to it makes no sense politically, and would negatively impact race as a commodity and source of power.

Thank You, Stan Wischnowski, for Two Decades of Solid Journalism in Philadelphia

by Christopher Paslay

Despite Wischonwski’s decades of promoting diversity, reforming school violence, and holding state government accountable, he’s leaving the Inquirer amid blowback over a ‘racist’ headline.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Stan Wischnowski is resigning.  As reported by the Inquirer:

Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, has announced his resignation, days after discontent among the newspaper’s staff erupted over a headline on a column about the impact of the civil unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. . . .

It was the placement of an insensitive headline over Inga Saffron’s column in the Tuesday newspaper that may have set the stage for Wischnowski’s departure. He joined the two other top editors in signing an apology to readers and staff, characterizing the headline, “Buildings Matter, Too,” as “deeply offensive” and apologizing for it. The column had explored the destruction of buildings amid the looting that accompanied some of the nationwide protests over police violence.

Gregory Moore, co-chair of The Pulitzer Prize Board (left), presents the 2012 Public Service Prize to (left to right) John Sullivan, Kristin Graham, Sue Snyder and Stan Wischnowski of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Wischnowski, who worked at the Inquirer since 2000, believed in bringing positive change by holding all members of society accountable for their behavior and decision making, and dared look at all sides of an issue.  In 2011, Wischnowski oversaw an investigative series into the violence plaguing Philadelphia public schools—titled “Assault on Learning”—which went on to win a 2012 Pulitzer Prize in Community Service.  The series pulled no punches, taking an honest and detailed look at the violent realities of public schools and their surrounding communities.

The series not only helped reform Philadelphia School District discipline policy and school policing—ushering in positive behavior supports and restorative justice—but also called attention to systemic issues such as inadequate school funding, high teacher turnover, the underreporting of school violence, and the breakdown of the relationship between urban communities and schools.

The series is archived at the Pulitzer Prizes official website, and can be found here.  

Some of the more notable stories in the series are:

• Climate of violence stifles city schools
• Taking a closer look at the numbers behind school violence
• Underreporting hides violence
• Young and violent, even kindergartners
• Violence targets teachers, staff
• A flawed system of intervention
• Some antiviolence efforts are working
• Who is policing the Phila. school police?

The fact that this kind of honest journalism once existed is curious, as most of these stories—under pressure from political correctness and the anti-racism movement—would never run today; an investigation highlighting the violence of black and brown youth in their schools and surrounding communities is a big no-no in today’s culture.  According to Robin DiAngelo, whose book White Fragility is part of the Philadelphia School District’s anti-racism curriculum, this is known as “danger discourse” or “racetalk.”  This racetalk supposedly creates a racial “us” and “them,” and reinforces a racial hierarchy of whites as superior and dominant, and people of color as inferior and minoritized.

A racist white society, comprised of white supremacy and white privilege, is the one and only cause of inequality in America.  Privileged white oppressors target and victimize oppressed people of color, and any narrative to the contrary is rejected by an American culture obsessed with identity politics (interestingly, stereotyping all whites as “privileged” and “racist” somehow doesn’t create a racial “us” and “them”).  This is why the mantra “people over property” has emerged, despite the fact people and property cannot be so neatly separated, as multiple black lives have been lost in the looting and rioting over the past 10 days, and scores of black businesses—from Philadelphia to Los Angeles—have been burned down, many never to return.

According to “Buildings Matter, Too,” the Inquirer story beneath the headline Wischnowski is apparently resigning over:

“People over property” is great as a rhetorical slogan. But as a practical matter, the destruction of downtown buildings in Philadelphia — and in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and a dozen other American cities — is devastating for the future of cities. We know from the civil rights uprisings of the 1960s that the damage will ultimately end up hurting the very people the protests are meant to uplift. Just look at the black neighborhoods surrounding Ridge Avenue in Sharswood or along the western end of Cecil B. Moore Avenue. An incredible 56 years have passed since the Columbia Avenue riots swept through North Philadelphia, and yet those former shopping streets are graveyards of abandoned buildings. Residents still can’t get a supermarket to take a chance on their neighborhood.

Unfortunately, Stan Wischnowski veered outside the boundary of acceptable speech and thought, if only for a moment (and very likely unintentionally).  He indeed meant well, and even apologized to readers and staff publicly for the insensitive headline, rewriting it twice.  But this was not enough, not in today’s toxic, polarizing climate of identity politics; the Inquirer’s headline writing process may indeed be systemically racist, and a thorough review is underway.  Neither was his legacy of social justice, as Wischnowski doubled minority representation of the Inquirer’s editorial workforce under his watch, bringing it up to 27 percent in the past four years.  

Under Robin DiAngelo’s dynamics of anti-racism, intent is meaningless, and only impact matters.  As a white person you might mean well, but if people of color are offended or perceive any action as racist or insensitive, that’s all that matters; under an anti-racist framework, communication is one-sided, and the perception of reality only works in one direction.

Thank you, Stan Wischnowski, for two decades of solid journalism in Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia Educational Leaders Fail to Condemn Violence, Push Anti-White Curriculum

by Christopher Paslay

Philadelphia educational leaders have yet to adequately condemn the widespread violence destroying Philadelphia.  Instead, they have insulted hardworking white teachers with outlandish racial demagoguery.

For the past five days, violence and rioting have gripped the city of Philadelphia.  Late Saturday night, a Philadelphia police officer was hit by a car in Center City, while 12 other officers suffered injuries “while attempting to control crowds, make arrests, prevent property breaches, and other acts of vandalism,” according to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw.  

Police cars have been smashed and set on fire, and scores of businesses and stores have been looted and vandalized.  Several black-owned businesses have been destroyed, like Elliott Broaster’s Smoke N Things shop on Cecil B Moore.  Broaster, a Temple grad, watched what took years to build get destroyed in a matter of minutes. “When I got home alone I shed a few tears,” Broaster said.  “I saw my business down and it hurt me a lot and especially for my own community to do it to my business, that’s what really (hurt).”

The new anarchist phrase “people over property” is what his fellow community members might say if asked why they destroyed his life’s work, a mantra that has given rioters a license to wreck people’s lives and property — all in the name of George Floyd, a black man who was killed by a reckless and negligent white cop for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill.  

After the National Guard was deployed and a curfew issued, Philadelphia’s educational leaders decided it was time to weigh in on the situation.  Over the past several days, Philadelphia School District officials have sent multiple emails to teachers and staff condemning the death of Floyd and America’s white racist society, but no call for calm or to end the pointless looting and violence.  Resources were given to teachers to start conversations about anti-racism (an educational framework that teaches ALL whites have a privilege and are complicit in systemic racism), but no material to spark a dialogue about why violence is wrong, or why looting and rioting are not only disrespecting the memory of George Floyd, but also go against the teaching of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers soon followed suit with several memos to its membership, commenting on the “criminalization of blackness” by white society, and of the supposed unwarranted tear-gassing of protesters.  No mention of the cop cars being smashed and burned, or of the police being assaulted with bricks and bottles, or of stores — some of which were owned and operated by African Americans — being looted and vandalized.  This violence somehow didn’t exist, and if it did, it was written off as a “protest,” or perhaps legitimized by the mantra “people over property.”

According to Philadelphia’s educational leaders, there is only one lesson to be learned from the chaos descending on Philadelphia over the past five days: America is a racist society, where privileged whites oppress disadvantaged people of color.  According to the PFT’s Racial Justice Petition, racism “permeates every facet of our society,” and “the criminalization of blackness is an ever-present scourge on our nation.”  Likewise, the “school-to-prison pipeline is real and it threatens the futures and the lives of black and brown children every single day.”  In other words, whites are oppressing and criminalizing people of color around every corner and at every turn, especially white teachers and administrators of schools, who, despite dedicating their entire lives to mentoring and educating their students of color, are in actuality setting them up for a life of crime and incarceration.

These are the things the PFT is telling its dues-paying members.  That we must take actionable steps “to dismantle a violent system of white supremacy that has jeopardized the very humanity of the students in our classrooms, their families, and our communities.”  And how do we end this system?  Through anti-racism, as both Philadelphia School District officials and union leaders have stated.  

Addressing racism as a system of unequal power between whites and people of color, anti-racism emerged as dissatisfaction grew with multicultural education, which only superficially dealt with the issue of systemic racism. As University of South Dakota sociologist Jack Niemonen wrote in his paper after doing an exhaustive analysis of 160 peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject:

Generally, anti-racist education is understood as a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies that hope to promote racial equality by identifying, then eliminating, white privilege. . . . One of its strengths, it is claimed, is the ability to move beyond prejudice and discrimination as a problem to be corrected in individuals in order to examine critically how institutional structures support racist practices economically, politically, and culturally.

Anti-racism’s mission to eliminate white privilege is notable, in that it operates from a zero-sum mentality, and associates Whiteness with oppression and structural racism. By redefining “racism” to mean inherent white privilege and oppression, all whites become guilty by default, even those whites who are caring people free from discrimination.  However, addressing systemic injustice starts with personal accountability and action, as anti-racists call on American educators to self-reflect and personally adopt anti-racist ideologies in their lives and classrooms. Therefore, “Whiteness” solely as a systemic, non-individual entity with its own existence is a logical fallacy (see here), and when anti-racists speak of Whiteness, they can only be referring to the cultures, behaviors, and attitudes of those who identify as “white.”

The PFT has acknowledged they are committed to ongoing professional development on anti-racist practices, as has the Philadelphia School District.  Loose translation: they are stereotyping all whites as racists, and are claiming their cultures, behaviors, and attitudes are the reason why people of color suffer.  In reality, anti-racism is anti-white.

The advancement of one group should not depend on the disruption, de-centering, or dismantling of another, either individually, culturally, or systemically. Bringing positive change is a two-way street between whites and people of color, and involves cooperation and synergy; approaches which divide learning communities into political identity groups, and separate teachers and students into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” are misguided and counterproductive.  As educators, we should focus on unity over division, and refrain from stereotyping entire groups of people.

Starbucks and the Hogwash Known as Implicit Bias

by Christopher Paslay

The supposed implicit bias seen at a Philadelphia Starbucks is similar to the ‘spectral evidence’ seen during the Salem Witch Trials.

By now we know the story.  Two black men went into a Philadelphia coffee shop last Thursday in Rittenhouse Square, planning to meet-up with a friend.  One or both of the men asked to use the bathroom (amazingly, the story still lacks key details at this point), and were told by a Starbucks manager that the restrooms were for paying customers only, and were asked to leave.

The two men didn’t leave.  Or buy anything.  They sat down at a table, ignoring the manager.  The manager, a white female, called the police.  “Hi, I have two gentlemen in my café that are refusing to make a purchase or leave,” the manager said, according the the 911 call. “I’m at the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce.”

The 911 dispatcher responded: “Alright, police will be out as soon as possible.”

The police came and respectfully tried to explain to the men, for nearly 15 minutes, that they needed to leave or be charged with trespassing.  According to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, the police gave the men three chances to leave, but they didn’t move.  Finally, the two men were escorted out in handcuffs.

Why?

Not because the two men ignored the store policy and the authority of the manager (they could have simply purchased a cookie for a few dollars), and not because they ignored the polite requests by police to exit the store.  No; the two men were arrested because the police officers (one of whom is black) are racist.

Because the Starbucks manager is racist.

Not consciously racist, mind you, but unconsciously.  That’s the kicker.  The conscious intent of the store manager and police doesn’t matter here, even if they didn’t mean any harm.  Even if the manager was simply following store policy (the facilities are for paying customers only) and the police were simply following the law (it’s trespassing when you refuse to leave private property).

The verdict being rendered by social justice warriors across America is that the police and the Starbucks manager have an implicit bias.  How do we know?  Because people like Melissa DePino, an upper-middle-class white woman who does marketing for nonprofits, say so.  She took the video of the two men getting arrested.  In an article published on CNN.com, she stated:

. . . none of this attention I’m getting for tweeting the video that showed the horrific treatment of two young black men in Philadelphia just doing what we all do at Starbucks—sitting and talking quietly—should be about me or any other person who does not experience these kinds of indignities, threats of violence and discrimination every day. . . . How did these two men feel as they were arrested? Why did this incident happen? What can we do to make sure that incidents like these—and worse—stop happening?

Well, one way to stop this from happening is to respect store policy.  When a manager explains that you must make a purchase in order to remain in the store, you make a purchase or leave; this is guaranteed to keep the peace in any coffee shop in America.  As for the matter of getting handcuffed by police?  Perhaps you might want to respect their authority as well, and not completely ignore them when they tell you to exit the building.

But according to people like DePino, the two black men experienced “horrific treatment” not because of their refusal to comply with a very reasonable store policy, but because of the implicit bias of the store manager and the police (one of whom was black).  That’s their verdict—implicit racial bias.  Case closed.  The proof?  Because people like DePino say so.  Are the people who cry implicit racial bias experts in psychology, psychiatry, or applied behavioral science?  No.  Do they have any clinical training whatsoever?  Not at all.

Were the arresting officers and the Starbucks manager psychoanalyzed by a professional, or put under hypnosis?  Were anecdotal records kept of their interactions with other customers in and around the store?  Do we have any documented evidence that the Starbuck’s manger treated these two black men any differently than any other people?  (When I say evidence, I mean real, empirical data showing that the behavior of the police and store manager was biased, not speculation from latte-drinking folks like DePino, who possibly suffer from white-guilt and project their own unresolved prejudices on the world around them.)

Do we have anything like this?

Of course not.

But this doesn’t stop DePino and the social justice folk from calling the Starbucks manager and members of the Philadelphia Police Department racists, and completely destroying their reputations (and in the case of the Starbucks manager, her career).  This doesn’t stop them from claiming they have, get this—an unconscious bias—not one that the manager or police can see, but only they can see.

How do you know the Starbucks manager has an implicit bias, Ms. DePino?  How are you able to get inside her unconscious and know her racial prejudices?  Seriously?  How do you do it?  If the manager were to say she called the police because she was simply following store policy, and insisted it had nothing to do with skin color, how could you prove otherwise?  How do you know, really know, this isn’t true?  The police have already stated that they didn’t act on skin color, so are you calling them liars?  Are you a mind reader, is that it?  You know their intentions better than they do themselves?

This so-called “implicit bias” is very similar to the “spectral evidence” that was used to
convict people of being witches during the Salem Witch Trials in the 17th century.  Townspeople who had a gripe with a neighbor could claim that they were attacked by the neighbor’s spirit, and the only proof was the testimony of the victim.  Many, many people were killed until folks started to realize the absurdity of the situation—the fact that there was absolutely no conclusive way to prove such crimes.

Interestingly, there’s no conclusive way to prove implicit bias.  Project Implicit, which was founded by Harvard professors and describes itself as “a non-profit organization and international collaboration between researchers who are interested in implicit social cognition—thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control,” is a recognized expert on the subject.  You can even go on their website and take a test to see if you have an implicit racial bias.  However, the organization has posted a disclaimer.  It states, “these Universities, as well as the individual researchers who have contributed to this site, make no claim for the validity of these suggested interpretations.”

Incredibly, even the experts on implicit bias admit there is no validity for the results of their tests.  Loose translation: implicit bias is hogwash.

Granted, people are subject to conditioning and often use life experiences to make important decisions.  In addition, the way we interpret the world is based on physiological, psychological, and sociological factors.  But no one has the right to tell another person what they were thinking at the time they made a choice, nor do they have the right to claim to know a person’s intent better than that person themselves, whether conscious or unconscious.

Any attempts to do so is outrageous, and dangerously close to 17th century Salem.

10 Reasons to Skip ‘Black Lives Matter Week’ in Philadelphia

by

Christopher Paslay

If you’re thinking of joining BLM’s Action Week in Philadelphia, you should reconsider.  

My name is Christopher Paslay, a 20-year veteran of the Philadelphia School District, and I’m officially skipping the Black Lives Matter “Week of Action” planned for Philadelphia public schools. For two decades I’ve been a dedicated English teacher, mentor, and coach, and have written hundreds of articles demanding respect, equality, and justice for our children, communities, and schools.

But I won’t be wearing a BLM button or t-shirt next week, or implementing any BLM curriculum in my English classes (even though I have an M.Ed. in Multicultural Education).

Here are 10 reasons why:

1. Students shouldn’t be shunned for supporting Trump or being Republican. Ironically, although “Diversity” is the first of BLM’s 13 “Guiding Principles,” which states they are committed to “acknowledging, respecting and celebrating differences and commonalities” which include race, religion, age, gender identity, sexual identity, economic status, and immigration status, nowhere in BLM’s 13 Guiding Principles do they acknowledge accepting differing political ideologies. In other words, it doesn’t appear that conservatives and/or Republicans are welcomed by this group.

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting BLM’s website and mission, and if I am, I apologize. However, after reading BLM’s calendar of events for their planned “Week of Action” in Philadelphia, it becomes quite clear that they have no tolerance for political diversity.

In a “kick off event” titled “Courage for Racial Justice in the Era of Trump,” which was scheduled for Friday, January 13, BLM’s discrimination is quite clear. The event description reads, In this time of mass incarceration, mass deportation, anti-Muslim sentiment, profound economic inequality, and the election of Trump, all of our social justice movements are coming together to build powerful resistance to the death culture. Additionally, people of all backgrounds are becoming active for the first time and looking for direction, as many are horrified by what the election of Trump means for our country.

 The death culture? Strong words. So it’s obvious this “Week of Action” does not include any Philadelphia teacher, student, parent, or community member that voted for or supports Trump. This is quite interesting, because 105,418 people voted for Trump in the City of Philadelphia. 105,418. And apparently none of these Philadelphians are being made to feel welcome.

2. Students shouldn’t be taught to obsess over race, religion, gender, and sexuality. Sure, teens must be taught not to discriminate (consciously or unconsciously), but BLM’s fixation on race, religion, gender and sexuality is excessive and counterproductive. Teens should be taught to see people as people, and judge them by their character—not by their gender, skin color, etc. Viewing the world through the lens of various isms is unnatural and unhealthy.

For example, the BLM curriculum for Wednesday, 1/25, deals with the themes of “Queer Affirming” and “Trans Affirming,” and aims to teach teens to free themselves “from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,” and to combat “trans-antagonistic violence.” Seriously? Instead of allowing our teens to naturally interact with one another and develop relationships organically, we’re going to burden them with such intellectual concepts as trans-antagonistic violence?

3. Students don’t need more lessons in rebellion and resistance. One of the central tactics of BLM is resistance and civil disobedience, as is documented by their disruptive (and sometimes destructive) past. Although there is value in learning about political activism, Philadelphia youth should master the skills of teamwork and collaboration before being exposed to the thrills of shutting down a highway via a protest rally or march. Interestingly, BLM’s city-wide MLK march scheduled for Monday, 1/16, calls for a day of “action” and “resistance”.

4. Students shouldn’t be taught to oppose Two-parent families. One of BLM’s 13 Guiding Principles, titled “Black Villages,” states, We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

Why would BLM want to commit to disrupting the nuclear family when 40 years of educational research proves that children raised in two-parent families have higher academic achievement, better emotional health, and fewer behavioral problems than children born out of wedlock or raised “collectively” in alternative situations? I’m not sure. All I know is that BLM’s curriculum for Thursday, 1/26, addresses their “Black Village” theme which indeed calls for the disruption of nuclear families.

5. Students shouldn’t be taught to demonize those with opposing views. It’s clear that the 105,418 people who voted for Trump in Philadelphia are not accepted by BLM (or by the Caucus of Working Educators, who are co-hosting the “Week of Action”). The same goes for any Philadelphia teacher, student, parent, or community member who voted for Trump or supports him for any number of reasons. But it’s not enough that these Trump supporters and/or Republicans are rejected and ostracized, no; the various policies that they believe in and voted for must be defined as hateful.

“Join us in the necessary work to oppose policies based in hate,” states the itinerary for BLM’s city-wide MLK Day march.

6. Students shouldn’t be taught to glorify repressive dictators who violate humans rights. It’s no secret BLM glorifies Fidel Castro. According to Human Rights Watch, “During Castro’s rule, thousands of Cubans were incarcerated in abysmal prisons, thousands more were harassed and intimidated, and entire generations were denied basic political freedoms. . . . Many of the abusive tactics developed during his time in power – including surveillance, beatings, arbitrary detention, and public acts of repudiation – are still used by the Cuban government.”

What does BLM say about Castro’s recent death? “We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante,” BLM posted on the internet after his death.

7. Students shouldn’t be taught to value some black lives more than others. BLM’s selective morality is troubling. What are our youth to think when young black lives are taken on a daily basis—mostly by other young black people—and BLM remains silent? When Philly youth die at the hands of gangbangers or drug dealers, and BLM are nowhere to be found? No marches. No rallies. No nothing. Day in, and day out. What are our students to think? That these black lives don’t count? In 2015 alone, nearly 6,000 blacks were killed by other blacks in the United States, and BLM didn’t say a word.

8. Students shouldn’t be taught by a group that was built and perpetuated on false narratives. BLM came to national attention when Michael Brown was reportedly shot and killed in cold blood—kneeling on the ground with his hands up—by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. I say reportedly because after the case was properly investigated, it was discovered that Brown was actually shot after punching Wilson in the face, and trying to take his gun. The Washington Post called the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme one of the biggest lies of 2015.

 Another false narrative is the Trayvon Martin killing. After an investigation at the local, state, and federal level—and after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder did all he could to nail Zimmerman on Civil Rights violations—it was discovered that George Zimmerman indeed shot Martin in self-defense . . . after, according to multiple witnesses, Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and was pounding his head on the cement. This doesn’t stop BLM from still propagating the myth that Martin was killed in cold blood by an angry white racist, who, by the way, isn’t white but Hispanic. According to the Caucus of Working Educators website which is promoting BLM’s Week of Action, “In 2012, Trayvon Martin was gunned down by George Zimmerman and the victim was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder.”

9. Students shouldn’t be taught by a group that celebrates JoAnn Chesimard, a convicted cop killer. Black Lives Matter co-founders Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi publically praise convicted cop killer JoAnn Chesimard, a.k.a. Assata Shakur, who is currently living in exile in Cuba and wanted by the FBI for the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. Words from a letter Shakur wrote, titled “To My People,” have been recited at BLM meetings. Mumia Abu Jamal, H. Rap Brown, and George and Jonathan Jackson are also convicted cop killers that BLM activists have praised.

10. Students shouldn’t be used as political pawns. What is BLM’s “Week of Action” really about? Growing their organization by indoctrinating our city’s children with their “social justice” curriculum. Curriculum which, at the time of this writing, still doesn’t exist. I’ve looked for it on the internet far and wide—I’ve even clicked on the links provided by the Caucus of Working Educators—but it’s not there.

Perhaps it will be posted soon, so educators have adequate time to vet it. Either way, I won’t be teaching it. Nor will I be wearing the BLM buttons or shirts. I’m going to pass on BLM’s “Action Week,” and if I were a parent of a Philadelphia school student, I’d demand that my child’s teachers and principals pass on it, too.

Drexel Professor Ciccariello-Maher Must Apologize For His Racist Tweets

by

Christopher Paslay

Drexel University mustn’t let one professor’s obsession with white supremacy taint its rich history of academic excellence.

On Christmas Eve, at 10:48 PM, Drexel University Associate Professor Ciccariello-Maher tweeted his 11,000 followers: “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.”

On Christmas morning the next day, at 11:53 AM, he followed up with another tweet: “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

Not exactly the kind of tweet that will keep Drexel on U.S. News & World Report’s Best Engineering School’s list, but carefully worded and carefully timed for maximum publicity nonetheless.

Not surprisingly, Drexel issued an official statement on Christmas night addressing Ciccariello-Maher’s inflammatory tweets, saying they were “utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the university.” Drexel also said they were taking the situation “very seriously,” and that they contacted Ciccariello-Maher “to discuss the matter in detail.”

What was Ciccariello-Maher’s response? He published a statement claiming the tweet was satire, just an inside joke to mock America’s real racists and white supremacists:

On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, “white genocide.” For those who haven’t bothered to do their research, “white genocide” is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies (and most recently, against a tweet by State Farm Insurance). It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I’m glad to have mocked it.

Ciccariello-Maher wasn’t sorry or sad, but glad. Glad to have mocked it.

My question is (and I’m sure Drexel has the same question), what exactly is Ciccariello-Maher mocking? That the phrase “white genocide” is a concept invented by white supremacists to denounce multiculturalism? That’s what’s being mocked? That’s the big joke?

I guess I’m not hip to radical, left-wing code phrases, because the joke just isn’t that funny. Especially when you tweet it at 10:48 PM on Christmas Eve, a time when most people, regardless of their race or religion, are putting presents under the Christmas tree, or are at least spending quality time with their family.

Hey, dad! Can I open one present before I go to bed? Please!

No, son. I’m too busy tweeting out jokes about white genocide to all my students and Twitter followers.

But Ciccariello-Maher’s “joke” still doesn’t adequately explain his follow-up tweet on Christmas morning that celebrated whites being massacred during the Haitian Revolution, stating that it “was a good thing indeed.” Slate Magazine tried to connect the dots for Ciccariello, writing, “it seems clear that he was tweaking white supremacists for their repurposing of the term white genocide, which is disingenuously invoked nowadays to pretend that uncontroversial things like interracial dating are as threatening as the slaughter that took place in Haiti in 1804.”

Really? That’s the second punch line? An inference that white supremacists misuse the term white genocide? How is this funny? How is this an appropriate tweet on Christmas morning? The answer is that it’s not. Massacring humans, white or otherwise, isn’t a good thing. But if you look really closely at what Ciccariello-Maher is stating in his second tweet, he’s saying it is a good thing.

The Slate Magazine defense is smokescreen. According to Ciccariello-Maher, there are two kinds of “white genocide,” the real kind (like in Haiti in 1804), and the fake kind (multiculturalism threatening white culture). And which is the good kind? Why, the former, of course. Ciccariello-Maher made this abundantly clear in his Christmas day tweet: “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

How is this satirical? It’s not. And Ciccariello-Maher still hasn’t adequately explained this.

Drexel has a real problem on its hands. They have a professor who’s condoning violence against an entire group of people, and doing it on a national holiday—not sending out seasons greetings, but ranting about racism and white supremacy like a wild-eyed, 21^st century John Brown; all Ciccariello-Maher needs is a broadsword and he can start hacking people up.

“I teach regularly on the history of genocidal practices like colonialism and slavery—genocides carried out by the very same kind of violent racists who are smearing me today,” Ciccariello-Maher went on to state in his statement, apparently referring to the firestorm of reactions his inflammatory tweets provoked. “That violent racism will now have a voice in the White House is truly frightening—I am not the first and I won’t be the last to be harassed and threatened by Bannon, Trump, and co.”

Do you see the irony here? Ciccariello-Maher’s notion that “violent racism will now have a voice in the White House” is just as equally imaginary as white supremacists’ idea of “white genocide” that Ciccariello-Maher rails against. Just because a small fraction of Trump’s supporters are extremists, doesn’t mean they will have any connection to the White House.

Now if I thought like Ciccariello-Maher does (thank God I do not), I might, as a joke, tweet out a satirical message on New Year’s Eve saying something like, “All I Want for the New Year is Violent Racism in the White House.”

That would be funny, wouldn’t it? Really satirical.

As a follow-up, on New Year’s Day, I could also tweet, “To clarify: when all the black slaves were beaten, raped, and killed before the Civil War, that was a good thing indeed.”

Do you see why this deserves to be mocked, according to the Drexel professor’s warped logic? Because Ciccariello-Maher repurposes the term “violent racism in the White House,” which is disingenuously invoked nowadays by radical leftists to pretend that uncontroversial things like Steve Bannon being Trump’s senior advisor are as threatening as pre-Civil War slavery.

Ciccariello-Maher has gotten his 15 minutes of fame, and then some. However, Ciccariello-Maher admits his recent celebrity hasn’t been all roses:

What I am not glad about is that this satirical tweet became fodder for online white supremacists to systematically harass me and my employer, Drexel University. Beginning with Breitbart.com—formerly the domain of Special Counselor to the President-Elect, Steve Bannon—and running through the depths of Reddit discussion boards, a coordinated smear campaign was orchestrated to send mass tweets and emails to myself, my employer, and my colleagues. I have received hundreds of death threats.

Death threats, hmm. Never a laughing matter. A death threat from a white supremacist (however you can prove the person issuing the threat is a white supremacist) doesn’t have the same comedic undertone as white genocide, now does it? It’s kind of curious, in a karmic, self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way, that Ciccariello-Maher’s jokes about white genocide are bringing him—and the entire faculty staff of Drexel University, for that matter—dozens of death threats from supposed white supremacists. Who would have thunk it?

So what should Drexel do about the position Ciccariello-Maher has put them in? It’s obvious Ciccariello-Maher is too proud and too self-righteous for any self reflection. It’s obvious that the mass tweets, and emails, and death threats Ciccariello-Maher and his colleagues at Drexel University have received are in no way any fault of his own. And as for Drexel’s official statement calling his tweets “reprehensible” and “disturbing,” well, Drexel must be too dumb to understand the joke.

“Drexel University issued a statement on the matter, apparently without understanding either the content or the context of the tweets,” Ciccariello-Maher said in his statement. “While Drexel has been nothing but supportive in the past, this statement is worrying.”

Apparently, Drexel University, like most Americans not familiar with radical left-wing code phrases, assumed that “white genocide” meant white genocide.

Ciccariello-Maher continued: “On the university level, moreover, this statement—despite a tepid defense of free speech—sends a chilling message and sets a frightening precedent. It exposes untenured and temporary faculty not only to internal disciplinary scrutiny, but equally importantly, it encourages harassment as an effective means to impact university policies.”

Loose translation: it’s unfair that associate professors must be subjected to disciplinary scrutiny when their highly unprofessional, highly inappropriate tweets (though carefully worded and timed for optimal publicity), cause the reputation of an entire school and it’s staff to be dragged through the mud. It’s unfair that a radical, self-proclaimed communist professor with a history of racist tweets and an unhealthy obsession with white supremacy, can’t tweet out his racist, white supremacist view of the world on Christmas Eve and Christmas day without any blowback from his bosses who sign his paycheck.

Boo-hoo. Life is so hard for a white-privileged, elitist, American man with a PhD in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley.

Hey Drexel University—you don’t need this garbage. Despite the old adage, all publicity isn’t necessarily good publicity. A university specializing in math and science, a school with a prestigious engineering program, doesn’t need to delve into the swamp of radical left-wing agitprop.

So Drexel, if you’re reading this, you must demand an apology from Ciccariello-Maher. A sincere apology, not just to the university and its staff, but to the public at large. Ciccariello-Maher needs to realize that white genocide isn’t a funny Christmas Eve anecdote, and that his obsession with white supremacy is toxic and disturbing. If he doubts this reality, ask him to open his eyes and look at the turmoil he’s brought to the entire community of Drexel University.

An Open Letter to H. Sharif Williams, Goddard College Professor and Mumia Supporter

Dear Dr. H. Sharif Williams,

My name is Christopher Paslay, a frequent contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, and a longtime teacher and guidance counselor with the Philadelphia School District; I also have an MEd in Multicultural Education, and have followed the Mumia Abu Jamal case closely for the past 20 years. I’d like to address some of the points you raised in your October 5th OP-ED: “Our Students and Educational Philosophy: Working Toward a Just and Civil Society.”

You state, “Mumia Abu-Jamal, as a Goddard College alumnus (BA ’96), social critic and member of the millions of people incarcerated in the United States, represents something incredibly important in the context of our commencement ceremony. He knows what is means to obtain a degree in the face of overwhelmingly challenging circumstances.”

Before I continue, Dr. Herukhuti, let me ask you this: Do you believe in redemption? I do. And that’s the fundamental problem with your decision to have Mumia Abu Jamal speak at Goddard’s graduation. If Mumia had owned what he did, repented, and tried to make amends, I’m sure most people would have no problem with Goddard choosing Mumia as a commencement speaker; a remorseful and repentant Mumia would fit Goddard’s educational philosophy perfectly.

But Mumia has never, ever, taken responsibility for murdering another human being. He’s also never, not once, shown any meaningful sign of remorse for his actions. Now, I know what you are thinking: Mumia’s innocent. He’s a political prisoner, etc. But even if he is innocent (the evidence overwhelmingly points to his guilt), he’s still done nothing to reach out and ease the pain of Maureen Faulkner, or to help in the effort to bring the “real” killer to justice. The irony here is that you state Mumia, “knows what it means to raise troubling and provocative questions that lead one to compelling answers.”

Fine. But what about the most troubling, provocative question of them all: What happened the night Daniel Faulkner was murdered? Mumia was there, and so was William Cook, his brother, and they saw the whole thing. Why did Cook never take the stand on his brother’s behalf? Why has Mumia, who is supposedly in this unique position to open pathways of critical discussion, never clearly communicated the events of that night, and why does he refuse to even address the question in interviews? Why has Mumia never offered his cooperation in helping bring the killer of Daniel Faulkner to justice? Why has he never reached out to Maureen Faulkner in his infinite wisdom and compassion and tried to ease her plight?

I think we know why. And this is the hypocrisy of you, Dr. Herukhuti, and your educational philosophy of a “just and civil” society. Just and civil societies do not give unrepentant killers a commencement platform at the expense of grieving women (Maureen Faulkner, by the way, publicly said your decision was “disgusting”). Regardless of what you believe about his guilt, he is still a cold and callous man, who has mocked civil society, and whose refusal to discuss the night of Faulkner’s murder has tormented the friends and relatives of Daniel Faulkner, as well as the Philadelphia community.

When you speak of Goddard’s educational philosophy of a “just and civil society,” it begs the question, Justice for whom? For the grieving Maureen Faulkner? For America’s police officers? For the Philadelphia community and it’s law abiding citizens who made up the jury and found him guilty as charged? Do we not count? And if we don’t, why not? Because too many of us are white? Because we represent the establishment? Because we abide by the law and are not “radicals”?

Let’s now for the sake of argument assume Mumia is guilty of shooting Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner first in the back, and then point blank in the face. Let’s assume the four witnesses who identified Mumia as the shooter and so testified in court were right. Let’s assume the two people who signed a sworn statement that they heard Mumia say, “Yeah, I shot the mother fucker and I hope he dies” are telling the truth. Let’s assume the reason why Mumia and his brother William Cook never testified or gave a clear version of events of the night of the shooting is because Mumia did it. Let’s assume the reason why Mumia’s .38 was found at the scene with five empty shells was because Mumia actually fired it—he saw his brother getting pulled over by a white cop, lost his temper, and ran across the street and shot Faulkner in the back and then the face (which is why the bullet removed from Faulkner’s brain matched Mumia’s gun, and why the bullet from Faulkner’s gun was removed from Mumia’s chest).

Let’s assume these things are true, just as the jury did, just as every appeals court over the past 32 years—including the PA Supreme Court—have found to be true. What does this say about Goddard? It says that Goddard College supports giving a voice to an unrepentant murderer (not a man who has turned around his life and made amends), that Goddard has no qualms of giving a platform to a man who used violence—first degree murder—to build a platform for his views. This is the most extreme form of radicalism: using murder to deliver a message. That’s what Mumia has done, and Goddard has supported it.

The biggest tragedy, though, the most egregious crime against free thought and Goddard’s supposed fight for “social justice” is the fact that your school has indoctrinated its students into believing Mumia is either innocent or did not receive a fair trial. Why else would your graduates request him as a commencement speaker? If you deny this, ask yourself this question: Did you show your students both sides of the issue EQUALLY? Did you lead them back to the primary sources of the case against Mumia—the trial transcripts; the original news stories filed about the murder and trial; the literature written by Maureen Faulkner and Philadelphia syndicated radio host and columnist Michael Smerconish?

My guess is that your didn’t. My guess is that you exposed your students to pro-Mumia literature, much of which can be classified as agitation-propaganda based in conspiracy theory, questionable sources, and half-baked conjecture. As a Philadelphia public school teacher, THIS is the most reprehensible part of Goddard’s decision to study Mumia, the fact that you failed to leave it up to the students to decide for themselves, rather, manipulated them into swallowing whole ideas that support your underlying political agenda.

Your educational philosophy of “working toward a just and civil society” is hypocrisy, Dr. Herukhuti, at least in light of your callous and misguided decision to use Mumia Abu Jamal as a commencement speaker; I think it had more to do with getting free publicity for your obscure college than it did with “justice”. As a Philadelphia teacher and guidance counselor, I will from this point forward advise my students against attending a school as irresponsible and insensitive as Goddard College.

Sincerely,

Christopher Paslay
English Teacher/Guidance Counselor
Swenson Arts and Technology High School

Are 1 in 5 Women ‘Sexually Assaulted’ on Campus?

by Christopher Paslay

Rape culture orthodoxy on college campuses is the latest issue that the left has deemed off-limits for discussion.

(The following article was published today on American Thinker under the heading, In Defense of George Will.)

On the liberal left, there are certain topics that are closed to debate. Global warming is one of them, and anyone who dares question the validity of doomsday statistics regarding carbon emissions or greenhouse gases or the overall temperature of the earth (which, by the way, has gone down over the last 15 years), is bullied and ostracized and called names like “troglodyte”, “wing-bat”, and “climate change denier”.

Rape culture orthodoxy on college campuses is the latest issue that the left has deemed off-limits for discussion. Like global warming, any attempt to examine or question statistics of sexual assault on campus (which are all compiled by leftist progressives), what constitutes sexual assault (also defined by the left), and the amount of evidence needed to bring assault charges (decided by the left again), is met with vicious attacks from women’s groups, Democratic politicians, and the progressive media at large.

George Will is the latest writer to be lambasted for blasphemy. His June 6th Washington Post piece “Colleges become the victims of progressivism” dared to question the left’s narrative on sexual assault on campus, suggesting that the ever-expanding definition of “sexual assault” (dozens of colleges now consider any sexual contact between two adults under the influence of alcohol sexual assault) is causing victims to — surprise, surprise! — proliferate. He also stated that progressives have incentivized pulling the “sexual assault card,” if you will, and that they have created a certain privileged status associated with doing so:

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.

Will also questioned the numbers being put about by Joe Biden and the Department of Justice — that one in five women on American college campuses are the victims of sexual assault:

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.

(Interestingly, the “one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college” statistic is based on one — count it, one! — study conducted in 2007. The polling sample of this study?  A random survey of  students from a whopping two schools.)

Like wolves, the tolerance-and-compassion left went for Will’s jugular. The progressive women’s activist group Ultraviolet started a petition, which supposedly garnered close to 100,000 signatures, to have Will fired from the Post. Four Democratic senators wrote a scathing letter to the Post, claiming Will and the Post “trivialize the scourge of sexual assaults” on college campuses, and have “shown a fundamental disrespect to survivors,” among other criticisms.

In addition, the usual Obama sycophant media outlets blasted Will, one of which was the propagandistic, tabloidesque Huffington Post; curiously, because the Huffpost was recently forced to correct an erroneous attack on National Review writer A.J. Delgado (who also dared question sexual assaults on campus), the Huffpost tactfully took shots at Will via Arial Koren, Senior Class President of the University of Pennsylvania, who penned an emotional account of her own rape survival, stating that Will denied “the validity of the again-and-again proven-accurate statistic that 1 in 5 college women will be assaulted at school.”

When Koren says “again-and-again,” I assume she is referring to the single 2007 study of two schools?

Many readers on the Huffpost’s comment board called Will a variety of obscenities, suggested that he himself should be raped, and even claimed that the Wapo has devolved into a right-wing propaganda machine on par with FOX News (if you can believe that). To their credit, the Wapo unofficially responded by publishing a piece headlined “One way to end violence against women? Married dads,” which outlined the benefits of women not sleeping around, infuriating the women’s activist group Ultraviolet.

Will, of course, is not the only writer to exercise his 1st Amendment rights and question the left’s sexual assault narrative. As mentioned above, National Review writer A.J. Delgado has written several sensitive and articulate pieces about the topic, not only backing his points with well researched facts, but also keeping a respectful, objective tone as to not disrespect the true victims who’ve faced the brutality of sexual assault. Still, facts and compassion aside, the progressive media bullied him like they did Will, twisting his words, taking his quotes out of context, and in the case of the Huffpost (which was forced to run a correction on their attack), simply putting words in Delgado’s mouth that he never spoke.

No one is questioning that sexual assault in college (or anywhere, for that matter) is despicable, that victims’ stories must be reported and heard, and that perpetrators of sexual assaults should be punished accordingly. What must be questioned, however, is the left’s version of such assaults, their severity and frequency. If Ultraviolet, the Huffpost, and Democratic senators truly want to end sexual assault — and not merely use it to shift power to progressives and to continue to spin the “War on Women”– they would have an honest and open discussion about the following:

1. “Sexual assault” is too broad a term to be used on campus. Currently, the term encompasses everything from rape (forced oral, vaginal, and anal penetration), to unwanted sexual touching (feeling a person’s backside while slow dancing at a party), to the failure to give consent (technically, according to many college codes of conduct, hooking up with a person while under the influence of alcohol is not true “consent”). All of these are covered under the blanket of “sexual assault,” though they are very, very different. The fogginess of the term “sexual assault” is no accident. It has been made intentionally vague by the left, so as to allow the left to spin and apply the term any way they see fit. This is dangerous to everybody involved.  It trivializes rape, and opens the door for all manner of misunderstandings. If the left truly cared, they would push to have “sexual assault” specified, categorizing it perhaps as “rape,” “unwanted groping,” or “consent while intoxicated.” This would save a lot of communication problems, and is much more effective than having students sign forms before having sex, which, amazingly enough, has been proposed by liberal law makers.

2. More research needs to be done to measure the true extent of sexual assault in college. One study, surveying two schools, is not enough evidence to state that sexual assault is an “epidemic” which affects one in five women (notice it’s women, and not persons.) This research needs to be done on a nonpartisan basis, by multiple, reputable research organizations.

3. The idea that those accused of sexual assault (basically men), are innocent until proven guilty. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has put pressure on American universities to implement something known as “preponderance of evidence,” which basically means that those accused of sexual assault (men), are guilty until proven innocent. In the past, for a person (usually a woman) to accuse another person (usually a man) of sexual assault, they needed to show significant proof that it occurred — a standard of about 75 percent certainty. The Obama administration is now strongarming colleges to lower that standard of proof to 50.1 percent, which is basically her word versus his, with no burden of proof on her side. Again, this is dangerous, as it is vague and can ruin the lives and reputations of those falsely accused.

The left seems to think that they have successfully sprayed their territory, and that to question their perspective on events is to condone rape or blame the victim. In essence, they’ve successfully politicized rape. This is despicable, but it feeds nicely into their claim that conservatives have a war on women. On one hand, they can control behavior and speech codes on college campuses, indoctrinating youth with progressive agendas and all manner of P.C. rubbish in the process, and on the other hand, they can vilify anyone who dares question their conclusions, the way they’ve attempted to vilify George Will.

But this is America — not China, not Cuba, not the old Soviet Union. There is something called the 1st Amendment, and despite the left’s attempts to silence anyone who disagrees with them, the discussion will remain open.

The Obama Way: Sex In, God Out (Even for Kindergartners)

by Christopher Paslay

Under the Obama administration, the Boy Scouts, the military, and even kindergarten classes have been sexualized, while God and religious freedoms have been trampled. 

Last December, when Philadelphia School District officials announced that condom dispensers would be installed outside nurses offices in 22 high schools, I though I’d heard it all.  That was until I recently learned that Chicago pubic schools are now mandating sex education for kindergarteners.

According to CBS Chicago:

Some people may think a five-year old is too young for sex education.  Administrators with Chicago Public schools do not.  New to the curriculum this year, mandatory sexual and health education for kindergarten classes. . . .

Students will also take a look at the different family structures that exist in today’s society.

“Whether that means there’s two moms at home, everyone’s home life is different, and we introduce the fact that we all have a diverse background,” said [CPS Chief Health Officer Stephanie] Whyte.

How does President Obama feel about sex education at the kindergarten level and exposing 5-year-olds to diverse sexual orientations?  In July of 2007, speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, he said that sex ed. for kindergarteners “is the right thing to do.”

Promoting the open talk of sex and sexuality is a recurring theme under the Obama administration.  Not only does the president support age-appropriate sex education in the early grades, but he also repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the military, and stated that openly gay men and boys should be able to join the Boy Scouts.

Now, before I’m vilified as a homophobe, which I’m not (for the record, I support same sex marriage so long as this is legislated at the state level . . . furthermore, my wife and I were married via a Japanese tea ceremony performed by a gay tea master and his partner), I’d like to point out the problem with Obama’s approach with the aforementioned issues, and it is this: kindergarten classes, the military, and the Boy Scouts do not need to be sexualized.  In other words, you can be gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever.  This is your personal business, and you can live your life any way you want; America is still a free country (as of now).  And you can be open about your sex and sexuality almost anywhere you choose.

There are places, however, where talking about sex and/or openly flaunting your sexual preferences is inappropriate, distracting, and as a whole, counterproductive (and in some cases even dangerous and risqué).

Kindergarten classes, the Boy Scouts, and the military are such places—and as such should be asexual, or sexually neutral.  These are not the proper venues to openly promote sex or sexual preferences.  Again, Boy Scouts, soldiers, and friends and family of kindergarteners can engage in sex with whomever they so choose, but there is absolutely no need to publically advertise this.  This goes for straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered folks all the same.  I may be ignorant, but how is the open discussion/display/advertisement of sex and sexual orientation going to benefit soldiers in combat or training situations?  Commonsense would dictate that this would be a distraction and impact safety and performance.  How is the open discussion/display/advertisement of sex and sexual orientation by Boy Scout Leaders good for children on a camping trip?  Ditto for five-year-olds in kindergarten classes (such discussions should be done by parents in the home).

The irony here, of course, is that while Obama is encouraging such sexual openness under the guise of “freedom,” the opposite approach is being taken when it comes to faith and religion.  As gays and lesbians are being encouraged to be open and proud of their sexuality in the military, Christian troops and military chaplains are now facing court marshals if they “proselytize” or share their faith “too aggressively.”

According to USA Today:

A Pentagon ban on proselytizing has left some conservative activists fearful that Christian troops — and even military chaplains — could face court martial for sharing their faith.

In Richland, Washington, a Christian florist was hit with a lawsuit for refusing to accommodate a homosexual wedding.  In Kansas, a law was proposed to force churches to host same-sex weddings and receptions.

The most egregious violation of religious freedoms is Obamacare.  A 2012 US News and World Report article states:

Monday the Catholic Church filed 12 different federal lawsuits against the administration on behalf of 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations ranging from local Catholic Charities to parish schools, hospitals, and colleges. The lawsuits are in response to last year’s ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services, known as the HHS, which mandates all healthcare plans must provide sterilizations and abortion-inducing contraceptives for free, with an exemption for churches only, not broader religious organizations. Only churches which serve solely the members of the same faith are exempt; religious organizations which serve the general public are not covered—the most narrowly defined “conscience clause” ever adopted under federal law.

In August of 2012, the Democrats even removed the word “God” from their party platform.  In a May 2012 speech at the prestigious Roman Catholic Georgetown University, President Obama not only failed to mention Jesus once in his remarks, but also persuaded the school to cover the name of Jesus–IHS–at Gaston Hall where he made the speech; Obama did the same thing in April of 2009 when he delivered remarks on the economy at Georgetown.

In 1882, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed God was dead.  130 years later, it appears He is at least slowly dying.

Not to worry, though.  As long as religious organizations are forced to cover your birth control (and kindergarteners are well-versed in the dynamics of the homosexual family), all is well in Obama’s America.