Friday, February 27, 2009

May the Fleas of 1000 Camels Infest Your Speech Code

by Mike S. Adams

I once had a dog named Jake that I liked very much. He was a well-behaved dog. When I asked him to sit, he would sit. When I asked him to shake, he would shake. When I asked him to stay, he would stay. Because he was so eager for praise and approval, it was easy to control his behavior. That old dog was a lot like the liberals who read my columns. Because I am very good at predicting the behavior of liberals, I did a very risky thing yesterday by taking credit for an email I did not actually send. It was all part of a little experiment on tolerance and diversity, which has yielded results much like I had predicted.

Those who read yesterday's column read my spoof apology for an email I claimed I had sent to the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. The email, sent under the subject line "Bin Laden Found!", had a picture attached which showed the terrorist behind a cash register wearing a "7-11" vest. The responses to my apology were predictable. Here are a few of the highlights:
"You are not a conservative, you are a rude and insensitive bigot."

"You should resign from your position as a professor immediately. Don't wait for a conviction for hate speech."

"You are a complete embarrassment to academia."

"I hope Al Quada [sic] bombs your office."

"You are an arrogant bigot."

"I bet you're not sorry you fraud. You just don't want to lose your job."

"What a childish bigot you are. You'll get what you deserve. Finally."

"You are a predicably [sic] racist Republican. Please pardon any redundancy."

Of course, these are not all of the angry emails I got. But they do summarize the general sentiments of my numerous liberal readers - people who come back to my columns constantly because they are addicted to being angry. And now that I'm about to deliver the punch line of my little joke their anger is about to reach unprecedented heights.

For those who haven't yet figured it out, I was not the person who sent the racially insensitive email to the entire department. It was actually sent by a self-proclaimed liberal and atheist who, get this, teaches a university course in race relations. And, after sending the email to the entire department, no one (myself included) responded with a denunciation. The reasons for the silence are twofold:

1. The lone conservative on the mailing list recognizes that the First Amendment protects speech that is controversial and inflammatory. If the First Amendment was meant to protect speech that is main stream and uncontroversial it would hardly be necessary.

2. The over two dozen liberals on the email list believe in the selective application of the concept of hate speech. Specifically, they only apply it to speakers they hate such as conservatives and Christians and, of course, conservative Christians. They really have no concern for the groups they claim to be protecting from offense. In other words, hate speech is an objectively meaningless concept created by ideological bigots who are incapable of defending their ideas without government intervention. That is why the same people who support the discriminatory application of speech codes also support the "fairness" doctrine.

The whole problem of speech codes could be solved if we could just find a way to make liberals happy. But that would be harder than finding Osama Bin Laden in a convenience store in New Jersey. So I think we should sue the enforcers of these codes when it is necessary to do so. And we should ridicule them even when it isn't.


Race Cowards? In Academia, Certainly

Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. In one sense, he is absolutely right. Many whites, from university administrators and professors, to schoolteachers, to employers and public officials, accept behavior from black people that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites. For example, some of the nation's most elite universities, such as Vanderbilt, Stanford and the University of California, have yielded to black student demands for separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events." Universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT and Cal Berkeley have, or have had, segregated dorms.

If white students demanded whites-only graduation ceremonies or whites-only dorms, administrators would have labeled their demands as intolerable racism. When black students demand the same thing, these administrators cowardly capitulate.

Calling these university administrators cowards is the most flattering characterization of their behavior. They might actually be stupid enough to believe nonsense taught by some of their sociology and psychology professors that blacks can't be racists because they don't have power. What about Holder's statement that America is "voluntarily segregated"? I say so what. According to the census, in 2007 4.6% of married blacks had a white spouse; less than 1% of married whites were married to a black. While blacks are 13% of the population, they are 80% of professional basketball players and 65% of pro football players. Mere casual observance of audiences at ice hockey games or opera performances would reveal gross voluntary segregation.

What would Holder propose the U.S. Justice Department do about these and other instances of voluntary segregation? The attorney general's flawed thinking is widespread whereby people think that an activity that is not racially integrated is therefore segregated. Blacks are about 60% of the Washington, D.C., population. At Reagan National Airport, which serves D.C., nowhere near 60% of the airport's water fountain users are black; I'd guess blacks are never more than 5% of users.

The population statistics of states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1% of their populations are black. Does that mean Reagan National Airport water fountains and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont are racially segregated? If Holder does anything about "voluntary segregation" at the state level, I hope it's not court-ordered busing; I'm not wild about their winters.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated. The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race."

Black illegitimacy stands at 70%, nearly 50% of black students drop out of high school and only 30% of black youngsters reside in two-parent families. Even though they're just 13% of the population, blacks in 2005 committed over 52% of the nation's homicides and were 46% of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

Much of that pathology is precipitated by family breakdown and is entirely new among blacks. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19%; in 1950, only 18% of black households were female-headed compared with today's 70%. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks. If black people continue to accept the corrupt blame game agenda of liberal whites, black politicians and assorted hustlers, as opposed to accepting personal responsibility, the future for many black Americans will remain bleak.


No comments: