I have found a way to solve the problem of affirmative action

There's been a great deal of furor over at the UC San Diego campus, as well as across some of the other UC campuses, regarding a non-sponsored "Compton Cookout" event that encouraged guests to dress up like stereotypical "ghetto blacks", with the do-rags, baggy clothes, and such, during Black History Month (February, in case you forgot).

Now, lots of other people unaffiliated with the UCSD student body are in an uproar, throwing all kinds of claims around, from "hateful" and "insensitive", to "institutionalized racism" and (I particularly love this one) that the UC is not creating a "safe space" for black students. There are actually people, blacks and guilty white progressives alike, making a huge scene about how black students are now "in fear for their lives". Because of what? A Klan rally? David Duke just moved into the neighborhood? No, a party lampooning stereotypes THAT ACTUALLY EXIST. Don't tell me the folks complaining have never seen "Boyz in the Hood", or have never been to an urban area where there is a significant black population. Or, if you really want stereotypes - Detroit, Oakland, or Atlanta.

How does this all tie into affirmative action? [Here] is the press release from the Black Student Union at UC San Diego, detailing their demands. Like I mentioned before, out of context, it would appear that something fairly serious was happening, like UC funding for an Aryan Nations speaker coming to make a presentation at their "Diversity Center" or whatever the hell they're calling it. [Side note: the word "diversity" simply means "more brown/black people with more or less the same political agenda"; is there anyone calling for more "diversity" at Historically Black Colleges?] No, there was nothing serious. No threats have been made. Nobody has been assaulted. There was a party, and a lot of hurt feelings because of that party, never mind that the people who are "morally outraged" never actually WENT to the party, nor have I seen one single shred of photographic evidence documenting the "hate" and "bigotry" that was allegedly present and described in great detail by people who only saw the event description on Facebook. Someone allegedly uttered the phrase "ungrateful niggers" in response to complaints about the party. Who knew a UC education would enable one to go to parties without actually going to parties, and to turn hearsay into truth! I guess I must've fallen asleep during that part.

Now we have the BSU demanding privileges which no other group on campus enjoys: funding for ALL events (the article says "traditional and non-traditional", which might mean off-campus events, possibly involving the purchase and consumption of alcohol), make the African-American Studies and Chicano Studies minors a "priority", "three permanent designated spaces for African-American inspired art to reflect the struggle and progress for students of color on this campus", a "resource center", free tutoring (but only to African-American students) and a university-wide Affirmative Action program to increase the number of blacks in student, administrator, instructor, PhD candidate, and staff positions.

The difficulty lies herein: WHO should be considered "black" or "African-American"? How "black" does one have to be to qualify for the tutoring, being able to make use of the permanent spaces for African-American art? Half-black? An "octoroon", like my friend Bill? Shall we simply bring back the "one drop rule" of the Jim Crow days, but instead apply it to receiving special treatment? What benefits should Boer immigrants receive? After all, they too are African-American.

I suggest we use the von Luschan scale: (click for full view)



Anyone lighter than '27' is not eligible for racially-oriented "safe spaces", tutors, inflated representation, nor may they use the proposed resource center.

There, solved. No more worrying about who is "black" and who is not, and what benefits they are or aren't eligible for. We can't use "African-Americans" because that might include white people whose family has lived in Africa for centuries. Allowing quadroons and octoroons are not allowed, as they may be too white.

And if you don't like it, you're a racist for disagreeing.

Что делать о проблемой представительства? What is to be done about the represenation problem? For starters, if there are simply not enough applicants "of color" (and of course, using our handy chart to see who is "colored enough" to qualify), perhaps we should simply bring in underrepresented minorities from the community at large by lowering standards because standards are racis'. They do not account for the legacy of post-colonialism set within a Hegelian dialectic, and they only reinforce institutional racism by forcing black students to adhere to white standards. It's all racis'. Racis', racis', racis'!

[moving away from satire...]

If the black community is offended by things like stereotyping, the solution is NOT to punish and excoriate and demean those who mock them, going on witch-hunts to stamp out imaginary "racism". The solution is not to break down those stereotypes by lecturing people who already know that stereotypes are not monolithic. Would it be right of my Southern friends to be "morally outraged" when a bunch of West Coast trust-fund babies have a "redneck party", where everyone dresses in plaid and overalls, the women are all barefoot & pregnant, everyone has given themselves false gap-teeth and a stalk of wheat hanging out of their mouth? That's also some "insensitive" stereotyping, but nobody actually considers it insensitive, for a few reasons.

#1: White people are *supposed* to be made fun of, as they are overall not part of any legally protected class. Sure beats the "kill whitey" attitudes that are often present in classrooms and parts of the student body in general.

#2: Everyone realizes these stereotypes exist in real life, and they ARE goofy and ridiculous and easy to make fun of.

Maybe the black community in places like Oakland and Detroit and Atlanta - where you will actually see a lot of black people dressed in baggy clothing and gold chains, where 'nappy hair' is common, and a great many blacks DO talk far more loudly than is really necessary - should focus on actually policing their own image. Stop putting this stuff in rap videos. Stop allowing these images to become part of "African-American" or "black" culture - playing rap videos on BET isn't helping your case one whit. Stop complaining about the speck in your neighbor's eye when there's a 2x4 sticking out of your own.

I'm reminded of one of Dalton's lines from the film 'Road House':

Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a 'whore'?
Dalton: Is she?

What's the point in being offended by stereotypes, if those stereotypes don't actually exist? Often, we simply pretend they don't exist, enabling us to blame the people who make fun of them as if they were the ones who concocted the imagery with malice aforethought.

The sooner I leave this hellhole of "progressive" fascism, the better.

You'll never learn to argue well if all that you hear are things you agree with.

David Horowitz came to speak at UC Santa Cruz, a school he considers the "worst school in America". His aim was to direct the attention of the unwitting student body to the fact that opinion is being presented as fact in a majority (if not all) of the liberal arts and social "sciences" classes. No criticism of such teaching is offered. The university is now the religion-less version of seminary school, where you are certainly going to Hell if you don't believe all the world's problems are caused by rich people, capitalism, white people, men, Republicans, or the REAL troublemakers in the world - rich white male pro-capitalist Republicans. No ands, ifs, or buts.

Many of the classes center around political activism through creating a victim mentality: "you're black, so it's only natural for you to be oppressed by white people, and that means you need to do something about it because white people hate you", regardless of whether such a thing is actually occurring or not. If you don't believe me, pick up the course catalogue, or audit a class. I have run into the "whites/males/Republicans are to blame for all this country's problems" dogma in more than one of my classes here at UCSC. Criticism of such theories is truly slaughtering sacred cows. The idea that Robert Mugabe's seizure of land from white farmers and redistributing it to black Africans who have no knowledge of farming is the cause of Zimbabwe's (I still prefer to call it Rhodesia) problems of hunger and violence would be considered "racist" - a label leftists love to toss at people and ideas that threaten their comfortable political monoculture.

The university's student body has insulated itself from criticism with that jargon. A white person criticizing a black person's behaviour or policy? Racism, and you're a racist too if you don't agree with that assessment. What's that? Someone's critiquing leftism? Obviously a right-wing bigot, if you ask me.

Speaking of "racism" and other such ad hominem devices, the anti-Horowitz protesters chanted a familiar song:

"Racist, sexist, anti-gay
Right-wing bigots, go away!"

It's cute, really. If you're 12 years old and "Bushisms" still make you laugh.

Who are they calling racist? Don't they realize that their precious affirmative action programs only serve to treat minorities like children who need lower standards instead of expecting them to rise to meet the same standards as everyone else, or that they have no problem calling whites who criticize a black Presidential candidate "bigots" and black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" or "race traitors" because they don't tow the line of victimization at the hands of whites, or that the enslavement of blacks from 150 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are disadvantaged?

Sexism. How is Horowitz a sexist? By declaring that the Feminist Studies has no internal mechanism of self-critique, ignoring the works of prominent feminists who have critiqued their own movements? Ohhh, the horror! How dare you tell us that our ways are wrong!

Hint: if you're an 'enlightened progressive', there's no need for self-examination, because your enlightened nature just means that everyone else is wrong. See, if everyone adopts the mindset of the 'enlightened progressive', there would be no argument about things. We could all get along peacefully, without any of those filthy ass-backwards right-wing bigots to ruin our beautiful ideological homogeneity!

They cannot claim he is "anti-gay", either. It's a common slur used against anyone even remotely identified with the right, whether or not they have any stance on homosexuality at all. Horowitz is outspoken among conservatives in his support of gay marriage.

As I've noted earlier, "right-wing bigot" identifies everyone who threatens the monoculture. More importantly, the ending to that verse "go away" demonstrates just how open and tolerant the leftist community is to opposition. They have a monopoly on dissent, and nobody is allowed to challenge it. It is their self-proclaimed sacred right. Just watch some ProtestWarrior vids, showing how the early pro-war demonstration groups were harassed and attacked by "peace" groups, for no other reason other than their presence at the big anti-war rally in 2004. "Go away" is another way of saying "get out" or "we don't want you here", as if to say "as a speaker paid for by public funding, you should not be allowed to speak at a public university because your statements and ideas shock and offend our delicate sensibilities".

Something that amused me in a manner most hearty was a leaflet that anti-Horowitz organizers passed out to students and guests. I'll see if I can scan it and post it here, because it's really a hoot.

The main thing I noted was the lack of quotes around a statment the activists claim that Horowitz said - something along the lines of Slavery was self-inflicted by Blacks [why is 'Blacks' capitalized? Did they mean the All Blacks?] and that reparations should be stopped. Instead, Blacks should be greatful [sic] for having been brought to America through the slave trade.

They quote no actual sources - just baseless opining and conjecture. Holding an "anti-racist day of action" after accusing someone based on what may be fabricated quotes only further damages the reputation of the academic left.

The flyer then quotes Horowitz, correctly identifying the nationwide Muslim Student Associations as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group affiliated with Hamas (with whom Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are hunky-dory having non-binding talks and agreements). Pointing out this accurate connection is "racist" because Islam is a race (however that works) and associating any part of Islam with terrorism (however accurate and true it may be) is also "racism"/"bigotry"/any of the other overused leftist buzzwords.



The presentation itself was fairly civil once Mr. Horowitz got started. There were some goons banging on the windows from outside, but it was only occasionally that they did this, along with posting signs - "Kill Whitey", "Free Speech =/= Hate Speech" (the left has a nasty habit of labeling all criticism as 'hate speech'), among others. Horowitz looked quite disheveled and I could tell he was definitely not on top of his game. I'm not sure what was causing this, as numerous of his previous speeches have been much more rowdy and chaotic than this one. Maybe it was because he was deep in "enemy territory", I don't know. He verbally stumbled on occasion, and I felt his lack of anecdotal evidence (for instance, speaking with only 4 or 5 students instead of 40 or 50) and lack of ability to put forth a clear, concise and persuasive argument weakened his thesis regarding the consequences of political homogeneity in higher education.

The 'Indoctrinate-U' film by independent filmmaker Evan Coyne was much more persuasive and its "on-the-ground" approach would have made a more significant impact on the audience.

His conduct towards the hooligans outside was derisive - for instance, calling security instead of ignoring them. The left thrives on attention and martyrdom - give them an inch, and they take a mile. Another disruptor attempted to walk down towards the front of the room, holding a large sheet of paper on which was written 'Liberal Bias' with the rest of the sheet blank, as if to suggest Horowitz's claims were baseless by virtue of writing two words on paper and that blank space. If I had been the one speaking, I would have stared him down, asked him politely to explain his arguments in a civil and reasonable fashion. I would have made an example of him to the left, that shouting and theatrics do not take the place of rational discourse, but I suppose common sense is lost on too many these days. I would have told the audience "See how they react when I say things they don't like? That's what happens when you spend so much time in an environment that is only critical of everyone else. You don't learn to debate, but instead priority is placed on shouting, disrupting, and stamping out all views contrary to your own. Welcome to college, where everyone else but you is wrong." Talk about your tax dollars at work.

One girl in particular stood up during the Q&A period at the end, ranting about free speech, as if to suggest shouting matches in a crowded lecture hall where a paid speaker was trying to conduct affairs in a orderly manner was appropriate free speech. Horowitz made the point that allowing everyone in the room to stand up and start shouting just as she did would eliminate actual speech and replace it with a cacophony of unintelligible voices. I wonder if she stands up in class whenever she pleases and shouts out questions and comments when her professors are lecturing. Maybe it's different because it's "ol' racist Mr. Horowitz, who said mean things about our school in a non-mainstream news source". I think that deserves an epic 'BAWWWWW'.

Another question during the Q&A session concerned conservative favoritism at universities, but all the examples everyone came up with (including Mr. Horowitz) were private colleges, such as Pepperdine, Hillsdale, and Brigham Young. Horowitz has no problem with the existence of a private "Marx & Engels School of Revolutionary Thought", however oxymoronic such a thing would be, but when public universities not only favor leftist groups on campus, but also make it more difficult for rightist groups to obtain funding/secure a location for a lecture or meeting/etc., that is not what taxpayers should be funding. If a public institution was heavily subsidizing Christian campus groups, all the while only giving the bare minimum to other religious groups, or only giving them meeting times early in the morning or late at night, the uproar over such a thing happening at the taxpayers' expense would be enormous.

This is called a double standard. Favoritism. Hypocrisy.

Then again, did you expect any less from people who are quick to label critics of Barack Obama as "racists" yet do not consider people like Ward Connerly, Condoleezza Rice, or Thomas Sowell to be "real blacks" because they don't subscribe to the typical agenda of the black community?

After the question period had ended, most of us applauded for Horowitz (it's nice to know there are at least a few UCSC students who can be civil towards people they oppose), after which he just about bolted from the room. I made my way down the stairs to see if I could have a word with him, but he was long gone before I even got to the front of the room.

It was a fairly productive night, and the leftists who are roosted comfortably in the rafters of academia consistently fulfill my expectations of them.