Black privilege and free speech at the University of Missouri

Summary. Recent events at the University of Missouri (MU) threaten to harm it for years to come. The loss in one day of the President of the Four-Campus System and the MU Chancellor by forced resignation was bad enough –who of any competence would want those jobs? But the remedies proposed by the black student protesters would further bring the University down the path of political correctness gone amuck, with accelerated erosion of the academic values of truth, open debate, and honest respect. There is no racism on the MU campus. Many students, taught by faculty radicals, believe it is everywhere, sustained by an ether-like substrate of white privilege. Their claims largely result from indoctrination and hurt feelings, not the real racism faced by their grandparents and earlier generations. It is simply astonishing that baseless protests could so quickly bring down the administration and hurl the campus into chaos. This could only happen if MU’s core were not weakened and corrupt. MU is on the path to becoming a transuniversity, a radical political organization believing it is really a university. The protesters are well aware of their power and have issued further demands concerning sexism, homophobia, transism etc., echoing the litany of progressive grievances. The two resignations demonstrate once again that successful revolutions will hunt down their insufficiently radical members. One wag commented that MU has gone from Animal House to Animal Farm.

This is sad, very sad.

For more discussion, click the link and read on.  Continue reading


Political quickie: four Ferguson follow-ups

The protests are diminishing. So is it not beyond time for calming statements from our politicos? Not a chance. If anything their statements have stirred the pot, not calmed it. And the news media supinely parrot the flawed findings of the Department of Justice (DoJ) report on the Ferguson Police Department. Our previous posts are here, here, and here.

Now Heather MacDonald has written another of her perceptive articles refuting the claims of police misconduct such as racial profiling. In Fueling cop-hate: how politicians fan the flames she highlights the half-truths and deceptions of Eric Holder:

The Brown report should have forced a massive reconsideration of the virulent anti-law-enforcement campaign that sprang up in the wake of the shooting. Instead, Holder paved the way for the report’s marginalization by calling, a few days before its release, for a lower standard of proof for civil-rights cases. Implication: Only an artificially high standard of proof prevented Justice from prosecuting Wilson.

After she demolishes the DoJ report accusing the Ferguson PD of systematic racism because the report lacked proof and misused statistics, she inculpates President Obama for stoking resentment with more untruths:

President Obama echoed the Holder spin two days after the reports’ release. “We may never know exactly what happened” to Michael Brown, he told students at South Carolina’s Benedict College. Actually, we do know what happened. Numerous credible witnesses and the forensic evidence confirmed Wilson’s account. But Obama presented the case as a subtle standard-of-proof problem: “The finding that was made was that it was not unreasonable to determine that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Officer Wilson.” He then blasted the Ferguson PD: The overwhelmingly white force was “systematically” biased, he said, placing minorities under its care into an “oppressive and abusive situation.” Such rhetoric guaranteed that the purges of Ferguson officials in the wake of the second Justice report would fail to satisfy the protesters.

Meanwhile, following on the Holder-Obama provocations, the group “MU 4 Mike Brown” demonstrated the night of March 12 in front of the home of the Chancellor of the University of Missouri (MU.) (What does a university over 100 miles from Ferguson have to do with Mike Brown anyway?) It was reported that one demonstrator said of the Chancellor: “Call him out…for not doing anything.” Demonstrators carried signs proclaiming: “End racism now” and “We back; we black.” MU long ago erected an quasi judicial structure designed to punish infractions against diversity and equity, along with sexual-assault kangaroo courts and other tokens of politically correct sincerity. Since no level of racial pandering is ever enough, the demonstrators evidently believe that since racism runs rampant on campus, why doesn’t the Chancellor stop it just like that? That they seem to be protesting for its own sake more than for anything specific shows, we think, the extent to which the organizers of the racial games are able to keep the pot of racial resentment at boiling level.

Perhaps the demonstrators want institutional change of the kind advocated by MSNBC’s resident radical Ed Schultz:

What about disarming the police? What about just having them carry nightsticks and the authority to arrest? It would take a brave person to do something like that. But there are places on the face of this earth where there are police officers that don’t carry firearms. I know the right wing’s gonna think I’m crazy for saying that but if you really want change, you have to institutionally show it to the people that you want to do this.

We recently heard a talk by a St Louis pastor who grew up in Ferguson. Until age 18 all he heard in school and on the street was that white people hated him. As he dabbled with Black Muslim practices he began to encounter white people for the first time and these experiences turned out positive, to his surprise. This cognitive dissonance – forgive us this academic term – eventually led him to think his way out of the PC box, to Christ, and to an unfortunately retrograde evaluation of Ferguson similar to ours.   Troglo


The flawed and controversial Department of Justice report on Ferguson

The report may be read here. It was clear last summer that Officer Wilson acted appropriately and could not reasonably be charged with any crime. But news media hyperbole and non-stop coverage kept the pot boiling. Under pretext of possible civil-rights violations, the race hustlers at the Federal Dept. of Justice (DoJ) started an investigation of Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. The motivation was political gain and perhaps ideological blinders. No surprise then that the findings regarding the Ferguson PD are scandalously flawed.

The findings of “racial bias” are bogus and the methods used to show them are so crude and wrong-headed they would not pass muster in an undergraduate term paper. A further problem is that the media will not mention these criticisms. Apparently anyone who disputes the findings is unenlightened at best and racist at worst. All we heard was that the report was characterized by adjectives like “scathing.” There was no effort to report the other side, because when it comes to race, there is no other side. Did you hear that the report is “controversial?” Neither did we. (We slipped this term into our title just to catch your attention.) ‘Controversial’ is only used for reports and points of view the left does not like. Ours, for example.

The biggest flaw in the DoJ report is the use of the legal doctrine of ‘disparate impact,’ which, as has been pointed out time and again, for example here and notably by Heather Macdonald here, is logically and statistically invalid and inconclusive.   Continue reading

Ferguson, Missouri: the path forward

A few facts about Mike Brown and Officer Wilson.

That fateful day Brown, having robbed a convenience store, was deliberately violating the unwritten compact between the police and the community that jaywalking would be tolerated, but not walking in the center of the street.

  • When told by Officer Wilson to move to the sidewalk, Mr. Brown reacted violently, slamming the police car door shut so Officer Wilson could not get out
  • He then punched the officer in the head and reached for his service weapon
  • The officer managed to fire two shots inside the car
  • Brown was intoxicated on marijuana, with an elevated concentration of 12 ng/ml in his blood. This may help explain his rage and self-destructive behavior
  • Brown ran away, but then turned around charging the officer as if to make a football tackle or wrestling takedown
  • In a fight Mr. Brown could easily have overwhelmed the much smaller Officer Wilson
  • Brown was shot when he was dangerously close, less than 10 feet from the officer
  • If Officer Wilson had not fired, he would have suffered severe bodily injury, possibly death
  • Wounding in the leg or arm was not an option; police training emphasizes that multiple torso shots are sometimes needed to neutralize the threat of an enraged criminal
  • In these situations Missouri law authorizes the use of deadly force
  • In the ordinary course of events this open-and-shut case would not have been brought to a grand jury

Liberals and radicals will not be persuaded by facts. For them somehow Mike Brown must be declared innocent and someone or something else guilty of his death. Thus the emphasis on non-issues such as that Mike did not deserve to die. (The issue is not deserving death, but that his own actions put him in jeopardy of death.) Thus the Brown family is pursuing a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Officer Wilson. Thus the President is calling this a matter of civil rights. Liberals are accustomed to conservatives cowering at the threat of being labelled ‘racist,’ but react with bullying outrage when their ‘facts’ are challenged.

Are we not permitted to be as blunt as the liberals and the protestors? Responsibility for his death belongs to Mr. Brown himself and responsibility for the riots belongs to the black community and its supporters. Pointing out self-inflicted wounds is not blaming the victim. Rewarding bad behavior (see here) leads to more of it, just as paying ransom for a kidnapping leads to many more.

Justice for Mike Brown? What injustice has he suffered? There was no injustice. He is responsible for his death. Nor is there anything relating to civil rights. The Eric Holder investigation is a sham. It is a truism that prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. Civil rights laws have been stretched to the point at which they are used to coerce behavior that the government desires, under threat of prosecution by hundreds of ‘Justice’ Department attorneys. If Officer Wilson is indicted, it would be a violation his civil rights, the consequence of black racism and the crime of policing while white.

Continue reading