ADVERTISEMENT

A degree from Missouri is now not worth a bucket of warm spit

SpaceRaider

Blue Raider Legend
Gold Member
Jul 22, 2001
78,523
7,955
113
God's Country
"Tim Wolfe, the president of the University of Missouri—known as Mizzou—resigned early today, brought down by…well, it’s kind of hard to say.

A helpful timeline of the case indicates that it started with two cases in which black students at Mizzou said they had racial epithets shouted at them, and one in which a swastika was scrawled on the wall of a bathroom in a university building. In all three of these cases, nobody knows who did it or why. But they were taken as proof of “systemic racism” at the university, and protesters howled for Wolfe’s resignation. Throughout the case, Wolfe issued condemnations of racism, acknowledgements of the justice of the protester’s cause, and apologies for not seeming to take them seriously enough—which, as we should know by now, are all the signs that he’s doomed and will eventually be forced to resign.

Wolfe was targeted, as one protest group put it, because he was “‘not completely’ aware of systemic racism, sexism, and patriarchy on campus.” I love the “not completely.” It reminds me of the old rule about totalitarian revolutions: first, you go after the counter-revolutionaries, then you go after the insufficiently enthusiastic. So Wolfe had to be removed for failing to show immediate and total compliance toward their political agenda.

This reaction makes sense only as a raw power play, as student agitators demonstrating that they can get rid of anybody they want to, that they run this place.

The Mizzou case, along with others like it, raises a question about whether our institutions of higher learning even deserve to exist—not because they are really “systemically racist,” which no one actually believes, but because of their inability to assert any kind of rational response to the student agitators. If administrators don’t have the nerve to re-assert the actual educational purpose of the institution, this makes a pretty good case that it’s time to burn the universities to the ground (metaphorically speaking, of course) and start over from scratch...."

article link
 
posted by a friend on facebook:

"am I the only one who thinks it ironic that the charges of racism at the University of Missouri have been met with so little interest in their validity in a state nicknamed the "Show Me State"?

Something here doesn't quite feel right. Maybe it is just my overwhelming sense of cynicism but thanks to all the fakery that exists in matters such as these, I tend to view situations like this with a jaundiced eye.

Think about it - the Duke lacrosse team, Mattress Girl, UVa Frat rape - so many of the alleged crimes on college campuses have been proven false and so many other campus "hate" incidents have been proven hoaxes - that it would seem these charges at a university once possessing one of the best journalism schools in the country would merit investigation.

Shouldn't the groups Concerned Student 1950 and the Legion of Black Collegians be investigated to understand their motives? According to their website, the LBC has not one white student in their leadership (http://lbc.missouri.edu/about/lbc-exec/). If they are alleging a culture of racism at the university, is not their racial diversity a valid question?

At the recent homecoming parade, members of Concerned Student 1950 "blocked the street and university president TIm Wolfe’s car for about 15 minutes, chanting and making speeches, until they were dispersed by police. Some students watching the parade also joined in on the protest in support. No protesters were arrested for disturbing the parade." Is it not possible that this group is making an ass of itself to get attention and the animosity directed toward them has more to do with their a-holery than race?

The aforementioned are the reasons that make the validation of a racist culture at Missouri necessary.

I must admit that have no personal knowledge of the reality of the situations alleged - two separate incidents of some random white person allegedly calling black students "n******" and one incident of a swastika drawn using fecal material on a wall in a bathroom - but I find it interesting that 1) the "perpetrators" are nameless and faceless white people, 2) the witnesses are all members of the aggrieved groups, 3) there is minimal independent verification of the "crimes" by any third party and 4) kicking Planned Parenthood off campus is racism (really?).

According to the Office of the Chancellor at the university, one of the uses of the the racial slur "******" is being investigated:

"Last night, with the help of the Mizzou family, MUPD identified the person who disrupted the LBC Royalty Court rehearsal and whose behavior and racist remarks made members of our community feel hurt and angry.

The individual has been moved from campus by the Office of Student Conduct, pending the outcome of the conduct process."

I don't condone the use of slurs but this student committed the "crime" of making "members of our community feel hurt and angry"? This person is definitely a bigoted a-hole but are these incidents cause for the resignation of a university president? Now being "hurt and angry" makes one a victim?

This student has already been punished by being "removed from campus". Suppose he is proven innocent. Paraphrasing Raymond Donovan, which office does he go to to get his reputation back?

My point is that we have a presumption of innocence as the basis for our system of justice for a reason. Innocent until proven guilty protects people from spurious and false charges. As in the myth of "rape culture", colleges today have adopted the converse - guilty until proven innocent - and by doing so have empowered pressure and grievance groups with weaponized propaganda. It appears the leadership University of Missouri prefers cowardice to truth and by this preference, they legitimize the Alinsky-like tactics employed by these groups.

Serious allegations deserve serious scrutiny. Real crimes deserve real punishment. Real inquiry is the only way to find out what is serious and real. At this point, we don't know what is real - and that is the problem." - Michael Smith
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTBig Blue
This whole situation is sickening. It pisses me off a little more each time when another one of these so called "discrimintation" stories come out with little or no validity to them. It's getting to where I don't even watch the news anymore because of this right crap right here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbadjohn45
Conservative Review Editor in Chief Mark Levin weighed in on the Mizzou situation in the first hour of his program today. The entire first hour will be worth a listen when his podcastbecomes available.

The following clip is a sampling of the commentary Levin provided on what is happening at Mizzou (Missouri University). Where the Chancellor of the Campus and the University System President both resigned over an alleged “poop swastika” being plastered on campus. As Levin argues the “spoiled brats” who effected the firing have not proven said poop swastika exists.

Levin went on to highlight how the vice president of the Mizzou student body said today on MSNBC that the First Amendment to the constitution shouldn’t trump her right to not be offended. It is well worth the listen (click web address below).

While you listen to the clip picture the scene at the “situation room” at Mizzou’s student government. Imagine if you will a handful of students sitting around, and one hugging a teddy bear because she is so distressed. Oh wait you don’t have to imagine it. The Mizzou student government tweeted out the picture for you.

Finally, Levin made one of the most astute observations of the entire Mizzou controversy. He pondered, that if the federal government paid for the “poop swastika” wouldn’t it just be considered art?

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/mark-levin-nov-10
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT