The left is also now combing through history in search of people whose reputations and careers they can destroy for offensive statements they made years ago, even ones made in private. There is no such thing as a youthful indiscretion anymore. Conservative activist Kyle Kashuv learned this when Harvard University rescinded his admission because of racist posts he made on a private Google document when he was sixteen years old, even though Kashuv apologized and has never made any similar public comments.30 It’s clear that the left doesn’t believe in forgiveness and redemption.
Leftists cannot even relax and enjoy a TV sitcom without hunting for some politically incorrect transgression. Some millennials watching Friends on Netflix are shocked by the storylines, which they regard as “transphobic,” “homophobic,” and “sexist,” the Independent reports.31 Similarly, writer Angelica Florio dissects thirteen jokes from the nineties Seinfeld series that she now deems “super offensive.” “Hopefully most people can agree that comedy, even ‘edgy’ comedy, doesn’t need to alienate marginalized groups in order to make people laugh, though,” writes Florio. “Thanks to more modern understandings of what political correctness entails—and why being PC is important—it’s less common these days to find jokes like the offensive ones that often played out on Seinfeld.”32
Here we go. The joy of being offended, like so many other privileges in the leftist world, is exclusive to certain groups. The implication is that all other groups can be freely offended and have no right to complain about it. Thus leftist late-night talk shows stridently target conservatives and routinely ridicule Christians with impunity. And, no, we don’t all agree that political correctness is helpful. It is a weapon to intimidate people into silence for fear of saying the wrong thing and triggering the wrath of leftist speech enforcers.
Citing the popular Seinfeld episode “The Soup Nazi,” which centers on an irritable soup salesman, Florio claims that because “groups of Neo-Nazis have become noticeably emboldened,” it’s no longer acceptable to use the term “Nazi.” So humorless leftist scolds won’t let us joke about Nazis, but they’ll use the word freely to describe Trump supporters. Florio is also aghast at another episode in which a journalist believes Jerry and George are in a same-sex relationship. “Even if this same joke recurred in Friends years later, it’s really not funny now,” she writes. In another episode Jerry’s neighbor has visiting Japanese businessmen sleeping in dresser drawers. “That just wouldn’t fly now,” chides Florio.
The lesson is that everyone must be uptight these days, lying in wait for the next offense. Even if you believe that most stereotypical humor is offensive, is it constructive for progressives to dredge up alleged past infractions as if they are cold case detectives? If leftists seek societal harmony as they claim, wouldn’t it be better to let sleeping dogs lie? Or must everyone be made a social felon for past sins that may not have even been regarded as offensive at the time?
CLOSING YOUNG AMERICAN MINDS
Refreshingly, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is weary of the “snowflake generation.” “So many good people fought for freedom and equality,” he said, “but this generation are looking for reasons to be offended.… I don’t have to agree with what somebody thinks, who they vote for, what they voted for, what they think, but I will back their right to say or believe it. That’s democracy.”33
The Rock better not utter something like that on university campuses, which have become ground zero for political intolerance. Egged on by leftist administrators and professors, radical students howl like wounded animals when exposed to any views outside the left-wing narrative. This humorless, oppressive mentality explains why Jerry Seinfeld no longer performs at colleges.34 He says kids don’t even understand the politically correct terms they throw around. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist,’ ‘That’s sexist,’ ‘That’s prejudice,’ ” says Seinfeld. “They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.” Indeed, they project themselves as morally superior and glorify themselves as champions of persecuted people by harshly condemning others for alleged offenses against protected groups. This quest for public praise, far more than any desire to help disadvantaged people, explains the sanctimonious zealotry underlying the PC craze.
Progressive administrators, faculty, and students alike often work to silence conservative women in particular on campus. Congresswoman Donna Shalala, when president of the University of Miami, rejected the application of four female students to organize a campus conservative group. Having claimed the group was redundant, the school reversed its decision after receiving public criticism.
Karin Agness, writing for Campus Reform, describes five ways colleges silence conservative women. The first is requiring that student clubs be sponsored by a faculty member, which hampers conservative groups since the overwhelming majority of university professors are liberal. (Though the gross ideological imbalance of professors is undeniable, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos still came under attack from liberal professors for criticizing the disparity.)35 Other methods used to intimidate and muzzle conservative women, according to Agness, are operating departments and women’s centers that exclude conservative women, reporting on conservative groups unfairly in campus newspapers, attacking conservative women on social media, and protesting conservative speakers on campus.36
University campuses are supposed to be bastions of free and open academic inquiry. But leftists believe they are justified in denying conservatives a platform because, as noted, they deem conservative speech hate speech that leads to violence—a clever but deceptive tactic. In anticipation of Ben Shapiro’s speech at Loyola Marymount University, Professor Nina Lozano tweeted, “Ben Shapiro espouses hate speech, and is linked to numerous hate groups. As an LMU Professor, I will be organizing protests, and alerting the media of LMU’s decision to support hate speech—which is completely antithetical to our University Mission.”37 It is especially ironic that Lozano is a communications professor, while her tweet is riddled with misinformation. Shapiro doesn’t espouse hate speech and is certainly linked to no hate groups. One can’t say the same for the Berkeley radicals and local Antifa members who “protested” former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos’s “hate speech” during his February 2017 campus appearance by setting fires, beating attendees, and vandalizing buildings.38
To prevent “hateful” speech, campus leftists establish speech codes, which are tools for suppressing dissent and ensuring that the monolithic liberal message is unchallenged. Some colleges have created free-speech zones for dissenting views—that they are deemed necessary illustrates the severity of the problem. Unless the entire campus is a free-speech zone, the university is assaulting the First Amendment. Other devices used to silence campus conservatives are safe spaces, which are areas where students are insulated from hearing speech that offends them; trigger warnings, which involve professors alerting students that subject matter the class is about to discuss might upset them; and warnings to avoid microaggressions, which are minor, perceived slights or insults that make students uncomfortable.39
Isn’t it obvious that these concepts foster suspicion and distrust—the very things they are purportedly designed to prevent? Such hand-wringing discourages students’ intellectual development and maturation process. Why should a university encourage kids to believe they’re so vulnerable that they can’t risk exposure to ideas that vary from the university’s monolithically leftist message? This insanity has led to such incidents as Colorado State University students objecting to the use of student fees to bring conservative Dennis Prager to campus,40 though students never seem to protest the funding of left-wing speakers. It’s devastatingly ironic that universities are closing—and locking—young American minds.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education estimates that some 90 percent of colleges and universities restrict speech.41 To combat this gross offense, in March 2019 President Trump signed an executive order requiring universities to certify they are protecting free speech a
s a condition to receiving federal grants through the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Defense, and others.42
“HE DOESN’T DESERVE TO BE LISTENED TO”
Sometimes even liberal professors are subject to PC wrath. Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis presided over one of the school’s undergraduate colleges, living among students and providing them residential guidance. When students complained that Yale administrators were advising them to avoid certain Halloween costumes, Erika emailed students encouraging everyone to lighten up. “This year, we seem afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween,” Erika wrote. “I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community.… But… I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.” She noted the inequity and absurdity of imputing to students the intent to culturally appropriate—as opposed to simply fantasizing about a character whose outfit they were wearing. Faculty should trust students to work things out for themselves, she said—in other words, they should not treat students like a bunch of snowflakes.
If you’ve read this book up to this point, you can guess the reaction to Erika’s advice—a group of disgruntled students tried to remove the couple from their residential positions and expel them from campus residency.43 When Nicholas tried to explain their position, student radicals screamed and cursed at him.44 One student told another, “Walk away, he doesn’t deserve to be listened to.” Another told Nicholas, “In your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students who live in Silliman. You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?” Nicholas said he disagreed, at which point the student shouted, “Then why the f*** did you accept the position? Who the f*** hired you? You should step down!… It is not about creating an intellectual space.… It is about creating a home. Here. You are not doing that.… You should not sleep at night. You are disgusting.”45 It is amazing that students who feel so free to disrespect and insult a professor could claim they feel uncomfortable or threatened in that environment. Leftists are encouraging a generation of navel-gazing narcissists manifestly unconcerned about the feelings of anyone who rejects any part of their dogma or demands.
In a similar incident, Harvard University surrendered to a mob of student activists and fired law professor Ronald Sullivan from his position as faculty dean of Winthrop House, an undergraduate residence, because of his “trauma-inducing” decision to assist Harvey Weinstein’s legal defense team.46 Even this man with pristine liberal bona fides was crushed under the unforgiving torrent of political correctness. “Too bad Ivy League elitist bubbles have purged themselves of people with the backbone, integrity, and courage to end the madness,” commented columnist Michelle Malkin.47
Speaking of charlatan snowflakes, Princeton University’s American Whig-Cliosophic Society—touted as the university’s elite debate club and the oldest debating union in the United States—withdrew a speaking invitation to conservative law professor Amy Wax one day before her scheduled appearance. Professor Wax thought the cancellation might be a hoax, given that she was to speak at a free-speech event and she was being disinvited for stating her opinion. Among the “controversial statements” leading to the cancellation was Wax’s remark, “I’ve never seen a black person graduate at the top quarter of my class.” Wax explained that she believed the black students in her classes were at a disadvantage because they had been admitted due to affirmative action policies at the University of Pennsylvania Law School where she taught.48 How can a debate society produce the best debaters with such cowardice? Debate clubs often force students to argue positions they find contemptible. It is the nature of the beast. Shouldn’t controversial statements motivate sharp students to challenge her views rather than censor them? It’s a sad testament to the state of free speech on campuses that even debate societies can’t handle a free exchange of ideas.
If debate clubs formed to promote debating skills can censor speech, why can’t book festivals as well? We are, after all, in an era of leftist metaphorical book burning. The Tucson Festival of Books hosts panels of authors to discuss various subjects in their areas of expertise. According to a RedState report, no panel touching on political issues had any Trump-supporting (or even marginally Trump-supporting) participants.49 This one-sided arrangement doesn’t faze leftists. They expect it, and in fact, will protest if even one conservative appears. This disgrace is commonplace on university campuses.
According to leftists’ twisted reasoning, activists are justified in suppressing speech and even engaging in violence to prohibit conservative discussions they contend could suppress speech or lead to violence. Let that sink in.
SACRIFICING EMPLOYEES AT THE PC ALTAR
The left also routinely attempts to censor conservative opinions and generate boycotts of conservative shows to discredit hosts and destroy their careers. “There is… pervasive evidence showing that left-wing activists are quite content using every tool at their disposal to silence influential voices on the right,” writes Mark Hemingway.50 Fellow leftists are happy to pile on, encouraging their brethren to join boycotts. “The Tucker Carlson advertiser boycott continues, and what’s wrong with that?” asks columnist Michael Hiltzik. “Those unhappy with Carlson’s brand of exclusionary white male power should keep the boycott threat alive—and they should be considering themselves to be operating in the American mainstream.” Do you see? Because Carlson highlights the problems caused by illegal immigration, he’s a racist.
Once again, liberals themselves are not necessarily immune to the left’s attacks. Bill Maher is a reliably left-wing voice on HBO and a scathing critic of Republicans and President Trump. Yet Maher champions free speech and often denounces political boycotts, which sometimes puts him at odds with left-wing activists. When Maher criticized the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement endorsed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the congresswoman responded by suggesting her supporters boycott Maher’s show.51 So criticizing a boycott is now an egregious act that will get you boycotted.
Such Stalinist behavior pervades our society, including corporations, where employees are often assigned to sensitivity training for proper leftist indoctrination. For example, Starbucks closed more than 8,000 stores in May 2018 to train 175,000 employees and address implicit bias, promote inclusion, and help prevent discrimination—because an employee called the police on two black men who’d been denied permission to use the restroom in a franchise store in Philadelphia.52 Apparently the men were not customers, and the employee believed the store did not allow people to remain in the store without ordering something.
Though some identified the employee as an “SJW feminist of the highest order,” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz threw her under the bus and implied she acted with racist motives. It always has to be about race. It’s noteworthy that employees of Starbucks, whose founder is decidedly leftist, would need to be trained in proper racial behaviors. If leftist outlets don’t understand the strictures of political correctness after dousing us in this thinking for years, how can anyone ever learn it? And if racism was actually involved in this case at all, why couldn’t Starbucks discipline the one employee rather than subjecting all employees to an indoctrination session?
One particularly egregious example of censorship involved administrative law judge Salvatore Davi, who worked for New York’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Though he was considered an exemplary employee, the employer accused him of seven counts of professional misconduct for statements he made off the job on Facebook. Davi’s offense was disagreeing with a friend’s post that lauded the effectiveness of food stamps. Davi offered an oft-articulated conservative position that welfare programs should be temporary and
designed to help people return to the workforce. After someone shared Davi’s post with his superiors, they said that someone with such views couldn’t adjudicate disability cases impartially. For this, they charged him with professional misconduct and sought his termination. Failing that, they suspended him for six months and placed him in a position in which he couldn’t decide cases. They punished him without presenting a scintilla of evidence of his bias on the job or complaints from colleagues or claimants. His record revealed that he recommended benefits in 95 percent of the cases he handled.53
DIRTY TRICKS
Democrats habitually accuse Republicans of the type of dirty tricks they themselves commonly practice in elections. One glaring example occurred in the 2018 congressional election campaign, when Democratic operatives purchased deceitful ads on Facebook designed to suppress Republican turnout. Funded by leftist billionaire Reid Hoffman, the ads were produced and bought by American Engagement Technologies, a firm launched by Mikey Dickerson, a former Obama administration official. Crafted to look like they were sponsored by disgruntled conservatives, the ads encouraged GOP voters to stay home on election day because Republicans hadn’t governed conservatively enough.54
In the 2016 presidential election, Project Veritas revealed that Democratic groups ran an extensive dirty-tricks operation for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Their tactics included infiltrating Trump rallies to incite violence and sending mentally ill and homeless people to do “crazy stuff.” Operatives were caught on tape explaining how coordination and payments were run through myriad organizations to subvert campaign laws and regulations. “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker,” declared one of the chief organizers of the effort, Scott Foval.55
Guilty by Reason of Insanity Page 33