NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: GreyGeek on December 15, 2014, 08:57:11 PM
-
A study in tolerance on the campus of the University of Michigan.
Below is a satirical column penned by University of Michigan student Omar Mahmood, who writes for both the mainstream campus newspaper The Michigan Daily and the conservative independent publication the Michigan Review. Or at least he did.
After his column was published last week, Mahmood tells The College Fix: “I received a call from the editorial editor [of the Daily] telling me that I had created a ‘hostile environment’ among the editorial staff and that someone had felt threatened because of what I had written … The issue had been taken to the editor in chief who procured a bylaw by which I was given an ultimatum to leave the Review or leave the Daily within a week. I was not allowed to know the name of the offended individuals.” He added the newspaper’s leaders are “forcing me to write a letter of apology as a condition for staying on the Daily” and suspended his regular column in the Daily.
Mahmood has written for both the Review and the Daily concurrently for this fall semester, but after this controversial column was published the Daily’s editors decided “Mr. Mahmood’s involvement with the Michigan Review presents a conflict of interest. Our bylaws say that once a determination is made that a conflict of interest exists, the person in question will have one week to resign from either the Daily or the organization causing the conflict of interest,”
...
Mahmood added that the political environment on campus is radically left-wing and intolerant.
“Almost all student clubs have ‘social justice’ wings… some use violent rhetoric, shameless rhetoric, to promote their ideology, and call it ‘liberation.’ They call it ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’ and ‘creating a safe space’ -- which is all very ironic,” he said.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20236/ (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20236/)
-
I found the story amusing, although a tad annoying.
How anyone could find it threatening is beyond me.
-
The expression of thoughtcrime has been forbidden for some time now on college campuses, as well as many workplaces, with what constitutes thoughtcrime being defined by the high seers of liberalism. This is one among many manifestations of liberalism having been imposed on us as a de facto official state religion: you can curse our Savior Jesus Christ all day and not get in any trouble, but express thought that has been forbidden by the high seers of liberalism and you face the threat of expulsion, termination, and excommunication. The fact that this sad situation has been allowed to stand for so long shows that we have indeed become a nation of cattle. The future for our kids doesn't look good.
-
Thought crime... and something that's hinted at in the story --
Many Universities and such have their own extra-legal environments where your 'rights' are far different than they would be under city/county/state/federal levels.
A prime example in this context - the author had an ultimatum issued against him without knowing his accuser.
-
It's been awhile since I've attended school, but I've seen people fired for expressing thought that has been forbidden by liberalism. And that was on construction jobs where a sentence is not considered complete or grammatically correct unless it has at least two expletives (or one compound expletive). The one accused was considered guilty unless proven innocent. As I understand it, this thoughtcrime enforcement came from our caring big brother in Washington; the contractors did not want to fire the ones accused of thoughtcrime but had to because of an expensive lawsuit that would follow if they didn't. What I don't know is, why can't we get those who talk about forcefully disarming civilians fired since many of us consider that offensive. And the same thing should apply in schools: if liberals can get people kicked out for expressing forbidden thought, why can't patriots get people kicked out for un-American activity like proselytizing for civilian disarmament? If safety is a criterion, a good case can be made for the danger of civilian disarmament. It looks to me like a double standard that has created a pecking order, with those who have resisted liberal indoctrination on the bottom.