The Wall Street Journal reveals the unspeakable suffering of leftwing students at an Ivy League college:
The demonstrators had a 72-point manifesto instructing the college to establish pre-set racial admission quotas and a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum for all students. Their other inspirations are for more “womyn or people of colour” faculty; covering sex change operations on the college health plan (“we demand body and gender self-determination”); censoring the library catalogue for offensive terms; and installing “gender-neutral bathrooms” in every campus facility, specifically including sports locker rooms.
We rarely sympathise with college administrators but we’ll make an exception for Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon, an accomplished mathematician who for some reason took the job last year. The occupiers filmed their confrontation and uploaded the hostage video to the web, where Mr Hanlon can be seen agog as his charges berate him for his “micro-aggressions.” Those are bias infractions that can’t be identified without the right political training.
Mr. Hanlon left after an hour and told the little tyrants that he welcomed a “conversation” about their ultimatums. They responded in a statement that conversations - to be clear, talking - will lead to “further physical and emotional violence enacted against us by the racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist structures at Dartmouth.” They added: “Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack.”
The mighty student ‘occupiers’ were also rendered tearful and distressed on discovering that their behaviour had been described as “threatening.” You see, the students’ threats of further “physical action” should be heeded and obeyed but not recognised as threats. That too would be a “micro-aggression.” Dartmouth’s annual tuition of $65,133 has evidently failed to deter fits of delinquent psychodrama by checkers of privilege whose own colossal sense of entitlement somehow escapes detection.
As noted previously, this kind of obnoxious and narcissistic behaviour is regarded as a credential by many students on the left, as somehow self-validating, something to be proud of. It’s what elevates them within their own immediate peer group. They’re achieving their in-group status, their imagined radical chic, by imposing on others – people about whom they simply don’t care or for whom they show outright contempt. It’s more than a little symbolic that the disruption and clearing up are always at someone else’s expense. Despite the guff about “social justice,” their behaviour is fundamentally parasitic.
And hey, think of how well they’re using that $65,133 a year. Think of the message they’re sending to potential employers. Who wouldn’t want to hire someone who wants to abolish capitalism, who hallucinates “white supremacy,” who dismisses dialogue as “racialized and white” and “gendered and masculine” and therefore invalid, and who threatens “physical action” if their absurd demands aren’t met?
There are many statistical disparities between the sexes in our world, but only some become the subject of widespread concern. Ones that are perceived as favouring men are labelled “gaps,” while those that favour women are simply facts. Outside the workplace, men are arguably disadvantaged in a variety of arenas, whether in terms of health and longevity, crime and violence, domestic relations, or education. In the workplace, men are far more likely than women to be killed and to work long hours. None of these disparities is generally viewed as a “gap” deserving of intervention, however. Men earn a disproportionate number of Ph.Ds in some fields, while women earn a disproportionate number in others. Only the former set of disparities, however, is typically viewed as a “gap.”
And Theodore Dalrymple casts an eye over Oxfam and its moral credentials:
Oxfam claims that for every £1 donated, 84 pence is spent on emergency, development, and campaign work, 9 pence on support costs, and 7 pence on investment “to generate future funds.” A look at Oxfam’s annual report for 2011-2012 suggests that this is a very charitable way of interpreting its own activities. It raised £118.5 million ($196.7 million) by voluntary donations that year, but spent £101.8 million on staff salaries - £59.5 million on British staff alone…
Nor would most contributors suspect where the majority of Oxfam’s money comes from: government, in other words, from the forced contributions of taxpayers in various countries. Such funds amounted to £170.1 million as against £118.5 million of genuinely charitable contributions. An organisation so financially dependent upon forced contributions cannot be called a charity at all, in fact, unless taxation under threat of prosecution if not paid be regarded as charity.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets below. [ Updated via the comments. ]