Watching prime time news reports, viewers are easily deceived. We see raucous college students led by idiot liberal professors as they demand safe spaces to escape imagined microaggressions from privileged white people.
The illusion is that the minds of all college students have been infected with the cultural Marxism virus and that the epidemic is beyond control.
While a disproportionate number of college dweebs are sucked into the regressive vortex, there remains a significant number of college students whose minds seem pathologically repellent to the abject stupidity of left-wing nonsense.
It’s a throwback to the late 1960s when college campuses were fuming with anti-war nerds decked in their non-conformist hippie uniforms of tie-dyed shirts, stringy hair and, for the males among them, unkempt beards accented with granny glasses. (See most any era-dated photo of John Lennon as an example, sans the psychedelic Rolls Royce.)
When a thousand or so students would riot or occupy an administration building, tipped-off-in-advance news crews would be on the scene with monstrous television cameras chronicling the student revolution. Scenes of tear gas, riot police and — in extreme cases such as Kent State University — The National Guard flickered across our bluish black-and-white TV screens while the oh-so-astute Walter Cronkite led us to believe that the anti-war movement was all pervasive.
What the Cronkites of the era failed to mention were the tens of thousands of students who boycotted the protests, preferring to attend classes. Media magnates also ignored the coarse reality that for every hippy tripping out during a campus revolt were a thousand young patriots bearing arms in Vietnam.
The media illusion was that everyone of college age was well entrenched in the far-left’s anti-war peace movement and were ready to riot to prove their pacifist credentials.
What was true then is true today: The media misrepresents college kids as leftist loons who wholeheartedly embrace every viral infection implanted in their brains by nutty professors.
The campus cry-baby movement that compels college kids of color to stake out safe places on school grounds is simply not as pervasive as the media would have us believe. Granted, such goofballs tend to come in hordes, but there are thousands more who focus on getting degrees and are frustrated by the media’s broad-brush painting and tainting.
Particularly, free-minded students are angered by the cry-baby movement’s efforts to shush free speech.
• In Britain, for example, an online community of conservative-minded students has taken up the task of challenging college censorship. Spiked-online.com has gone aggressive, encouraging students to get involved. The community advocates free speech activism through campus debates, poster distribution, and recruiting a network of informers to provide real-time feedback to the web site.
They have also launched a No to “No Platform” program intended to assert an initiative to counter the trend of shushing those who expose the illogics of leftist thought. See their stuff here.
• Back in the USA, CampusReform.org is informing us that “American Univ. students are ‘f—ing sick” of conservatives speaking on their campus,’ and “Liberal students want to ban liberal Ben & Jerry’s from campus over Israeli ties.”
In short, CampusReform.org is a conservative exposé of liberal idiocy on campus.
• In Missouri, adults have taken notice of the campus cry baby movement’s efforts to stifle free speech.
State Rep. Dean Dohrman has proposed legislation that would require students pass a class on free speech as a prerequisite for graduation at all state colleges and universities. Entrusting the encrusted brains of lunatic liberal professors with the task of teaching free speech may not be the best approach to remedy the problem. It is, at least, a step in the right direction. [See more here.]
• A 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll revealed this week that Dohrman is attuned to the mindset of most Americans.
When asked to prioritize, 70 percent of those polled said colleges should foster diverse points of view compared to 26 percent who believed colleges should foster a place where students feel safe.
As encouraging as that may seem, 60 percent of those polled believe people who engage in hate speech are more dangerous than those who silent hate speech.
The implication should be apparent: “Hate speech” is relatively interpreted and can be easily used as a pretext to censure free speech.
Here are two examples:
In Europe, where hate speech is illegal, British prime minister David Cameron was accused of bigotry last week when he had the audacity to refer to a group of migrants as “a group of migrants.”
In Denmark politician Mogens Camre was slapped with a fine after comparing Muslims to Hitler on Twitter.
If the viral shushing trend spreads beyond our campuses, Americans may all find themselves in the loo with Cameron and Camre.