Daily Archives: May 3, 2021

A medical student at the University of Virginia for the past several years has had to battle against an establishment of political correctness for simply asking a question at a presentation.

This week, Judge Norman K. Moon gave Kieran Bhattacharya approval for his lawsuit to proceed against the University of Virginia.

"Bhattacharya sufficiently alleges that Defendants retaliated against him. Indeed, they issued a Professionalism Concern Card against him, suspended him from UVA Medical School, required him to undergo counseling and obtain "medical clearance" as a prerequisite for remaining enrolled, and prevented him from appealing his suspension or applying for readmission by issuing and refusing to remove the [no trespass order]. Because a student would be reluctant to express his views if he knew that his school would reprimand, suspend, or ban him from campus for doing so, the Court concludes that Bhattacharya has adequately alleged adverse action."

In a saga highlighted by Reason, it was in October 2018 when Kieran Bhattacharya went to a microaggression conference at the University of Virginia medical school where he attended. The entire event was recorded including exact question Bhattacharya asked assistant dean Beverly Cowell Adams.

"Just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?"

Adams said no. This led to a short back and forth between the two, as Adams had defined in her presentation that microaggressions were "negative interactions with members of marginalized groups."

What happened next spiraled into eventually suspending Bhattacharya from school. Sara Rasmussen, an assistant professor and the events organizer, thought Bhattacharya came off as "antagonistic" and angry in his questioning of the presentations dogma. "I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members. It worries me how he will do on wards."

An official complaint of sorts was filed that obliged Bhattacharya to directly clarify that he wasn't mad at all. "I simply wanted to give them some basic challenges regarding the topic. And I understand that there is a wide range of acceptable interpretations on this. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further."

It escalated. A gentle reminder to "show mutual respect" evolved into a requirement that Bhattacharya had to be "psychologically evaluated" before hed be allowed back to his classes.

On November 14, 2018 the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee wrote to him, "The Academic Standards and Achievement Committee has received notice of a concern about your behavior at a recent AMWA panel. It was thought to be unnecessarily antagonistic and disrespectful. Certainly, people may have different opinions on various issues, but they need to express them in appropriate ways."

Within a matter of two weeks, the school pushed forced counseling onto him. In response Kieran said, "Who exactly will be present? Do you normally just give students 3 hours to prepare after indirectly threatening to kick them from medical school? Why exactly is my enrollment status up for discussion?"

Whenever he pushed back against the accusations made against him, the school used that as an excuse that Bhattacharya was displaying aggressive behavior.

View original post here:

UVA lawsuit allowed to proceed over punishment for medical ...

Contributor: Claudia Cooney, Lead Director - RightTrack Learning | Published: 2 May 2021

Claudia Cooney, Lead Director - RightTrack Learning30 April 2021

A poll carried out by leading training provider RightTrack Learning has revealed that 51% of people associate the term Equality, Diversity and Inclusion with political correctness.

Out of the 1,242 people surveyed, only 49% believe the term holds positive associations and feel it represents an opportunity for change. In the context of the workplace, this data shows that in every team of ten, as many as half have not yet bought into the diversity and inclusion conversation.

As a training provider specialising in the EDI arena, RightTrack Learning believes this survey shows there is still a long way to go to drive positive, long-lasting change.

Claudia Cooney, Lead Director at the company, comments: When people do or say the right thing to be politically correct, the outward behaviour may look good, but the motivation behind the words and actions can be less than desirable. The results imply that more than half of people display inclusive behaviour in the interests of toeing the line, rather than a true desire to contribute to an inclusive society.

The poll revealed another surprising statistic: 55% of people are too scared to talk about Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace for fear of saying the wrong thing.

When asked about the new data, Claudia says: It shows we are instilling the message that discriminatory behaviour is not ok and there will be consequences. But, we must be mindful of how we are driving change. To change stereotypes and broaden perspectives, open conversations are imperative. Fear of saying the wrong thing is a barrier we must dissolve. Its no good staying in our own bubbles and being too afraid to delve into uncomfortable topics; we must instead nurture a culture of curiosity.

Despite the results, they present valuable insight and a learning opportunity. Realising that some of the language around Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training triggers negative associations, RightTrack Learning has started to introduce new language such as Conscious Inclusion Training, which sounds fresh and engaging.

Claudia adds: There are so many ways we can change the conversation and encourage people more to be at ease with Diversity and Inclusion from taking advantage of national awareness days, to facilitating informal activities in team meetings, or investing in experiential training solutions that encourage open dialogue between peers.

The key to changing the narrative is consistency in our messages, in role modelling behaviours, and in keeping the conversation going.

Visit link:

Over 50 percent still think diversity and inclusion is 'political correctness' - The HR Director Magazine

As graduation looms, my son Gideon has been named both salutatorian and Wittiest Boy of the Cornersville (TN) High School Class of 2021.

(I myself did well academically back in the day which even then was about 15 years after the hoary phrase back in the day had applied for Medicare. I also absorbed comedy vibes from Steve Martin and Monty Python and made good use of the copy of 10,000 Jokes, Toasts and Stories that belonged to my father another salutatorian. I just wanted you to know that Gideon comes by certain predispositions honestly. And that I go by my fathers axiom, Blessed is he who tooteth his own horn, else it might not get tooted.)

The salutatorian honor looks good on college applications (although nowadays even Listen up, dean I dont think a diploma from your institution is worth anyone except Uncle Sam paying for and if you beg nicely, Ill allow the graduate assistants to mow my parents lawn is not necessarily a deal-breaker), but the long-term prospects for Wittiest seem more questionable.

Oh, I agree this vale of tears will always need bon mots, wry observations, sly jabs, satirical barbs, clever turns of phrases, outrageous puns and slapstick pratfalls; but will it always appreciate people with a sense of humor?

Granted, there will always be a place for the umpteenth permutation of Thats what she said or knee-slapping glory days reminiscences of all the butts that were kicked and all the bras that were removed under the influence of copious amounts of alcohol; but will genuine cleverness and originality survive?

I have enjoyed driving Gideon to school and engaging in fast-paced verbal jousting based on current events or sights along the road. Up until my recent crisis of confidence, I have believed that the ability to think on your feet is a skill worth developing. Now I fear that most people, metaphorically speaking, would rather zone out while getting a pedicure.

A push for inclusiveness will rob jokes of their spontaneity and simplicity. There may be a future Oscar Wilde or Will Rogers out there, but how many humorists will tolerate requirements of checking all the right boxes? (A priest, a rabbi, a minister, a mullah, a warlock, an atheist, a shaman and approximately 15 other people from somewhere along the spirituality spectrum start to walk into a bar but realize the bar doesnt have any Cro-Magnons on the payroll, so instead they wait around on the sidewalk for a stranded-on-a-deserted-island anecdote to develop.)

Once upon a time, Shakespeares Polonius assured us that Brevity is the soul of wit. Now that advice would be greeted with The word soul is so problematic

The self-deprecating humor of a Rodney Dangerfield wannabe is triggering, too. (Youre guilty of Myron McGillicuddy of Weasel Spit, Wisconsin shaming.)

Dont get me started on the prospects of artificial intelligence making human jokesters obsolete. (Alexa, give me another of those rib-tickling Yo mommas algorithm is so fat jokes.)

No matter how politically correct you make your wisecracks, theres always another hurdle. (We have several people with untreated ADHD in the audience. Maybe instead of one-liners, you could deliver some HALF-liners.)

Perhaps someday Gideon will moonlight from his proposed engineering career and gamely continue this column.

Yes, son, Id be honored for you to fill my shoes. No not the pedicure bath! My shoes!

*Sigh*

Danny Tyree welcomes email responses at tyreetyrades@aol.com. His weekly column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons Inc. newspaper syndicate.

View original post here:

Political correctness is going to kill comedy - Bainbridge Island Review

opinion

Howard Simon| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to sign House Bill 233, abill that requires the State Board of Education and each of Floridas colleges and universities to conduct an annual assessment related to intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity.

According to the bill, the Board of Education must select or create an objective, nonpartisan and statistically valid survey to measure the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and whether students, faculty and staff feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom. Under the bill, the first survey mustbe published on Sept.1, 2022.

This all sounds benign; it even sounds protective of the free exchange of ideas on campus.Butis it a predicate to an assault on higher education?Does the legislation address a genuine problem?Or does it merely vent a judgment by some far-right conservatives that college liberal arts courses are all driven by woke" political correctness?

The claim that a liberal arts education is valueless and unconnected to postgraduate education or to a meaningful postgraduate career is obviously absurd. And the claim that a liberal arts education is just woke" political correctnessis insulting to the nations professors. (Full disclosure: for nearlynine yearsI taught philosophy to undergraduates at two universities in the Midwest.)

More: EDITORIAL: Sen. Baxleys Bright Futures bill deserves a dim future

Apparentlysome conservatives have concluded that Americas universities are dominated by professors whose political leanings are liberaland thereforeprovide an intellectually biased education. But are colleges and universities really able to block competing ideas and perspectives on campus?

There is, after all, the First Amendment. Recall that just a few years ago University of Florida lawyers fearing a lawsuit accusing UFof violating the First Amendments constitutional protections convinced the school's presidentto reverse an initial decision denying alt-right firebrand Richard Spencer, the leader of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, the right to speak on campus.

Unfortunately, House Bill 233 will not be the first piece of legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature that is based on unexamined anecdotes that someone heard about. It's funny how unexamined anecdotes are regarded as impermissible hearsay in courts that operate by rules of evidence for determining violations of law yet it isstandard fare for theFloridaLegislature to rely on them when creating and adopting laws.

The Legislature now wants to dump this into the laps of the Board of Education and Floridas colleges and universitiesand force them spend time figuring out how to implement what seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

But lets presume, for the sake of argument, that theres something to the stereotype that college students and university faculty members are more liberal than conservative in their values and political viewpoints. If the mandatory survey assessing viewpoint diversity confirms this, how willthe information that the state government collects be used going forward? And lets not be nave: information collected by government is information that will be used by government.

Will the assessment of viewpoint diversity involve an assessment of each member of the faculty? Will they be asked to characterize or divulge their personal political orientation? What if they refuse? Will students or the administration provide the characterization of the faculty members political leanings?Does anything seem more un-American? To paraphrase the legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel's question regardinghis pitiful 1962 New York Mets team, Dont anyone around here remember the McCarthy years of the 1950s?

Could the survey be the basis for future hiring decisions? For example, let's say that a university's chemistry department has seven professors who are conservative and four who are liberal. Will that mean that the university must hire more liberal professorsin order to achieve properviewpoint diversity on its campus? Who knows? House Bill 233contains no prohibitions on how the information willbe used.

Given that there is so much potential mischief in House Bill 233 and so little protection for academic freedom it certainly wouldn't take long for Florida's lawmakers and university communities to regret yet another legislative mistake.

A resident of Sanibel Island, Howard Simon served as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1997 to2018.

The rest is here:

'Viewpoint' bill is an assault on Florida higher ed - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

The creator of the HBO series"Entourage," which ran from 2004 to 2011, says streaming service HBO Max is refusing to promote old episodes of the showdue to a "wave ofrighteous PC [political correctness]culture."

I resent it tremendously, Doug Ellin told Yahoo Newsin an interview published Tuesday.

For a while, we were hiding in, like, wish-fulfillment shows, Ellin added. We were nominated for the Emmys or the Golden Globes almost every single year, so to not put us on the must-see comedy list was pretty bizarre.

Even during its original run, "Entourage" was accused by critics ofencouraging a misogynist "bro culture" in Hollywood thatcame under deep scrutinyfollowing the rise of the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements, which saw women in the film and TV industries level accusations of sexual misconduct against numerous Hollywoodstars, including Jeremy Piven of "Entourage."

Ellin says that his show faces a double standard over its depiction ofyoung up-and-coming men in the entertainment industry.

Nobody says that about 'The Sopranos,' where they murder people, that maybe we should readdress whether murdering people on TV is OK, he told Yahoo, adding, I dont want to sound obnoxious or that I'm looking at 'Entourage' as high art, but it was a pretty accurate portrayal of how people [acted] at that time in Hollywood.

"Entourage's" final season concluded nine years ago; a feature film based on the series starring the same cast was released in 2015, but was a commercial flop.

I don't think 'Entourage' was this vulgar boyfest that people like to paint it as now,Ellinsays. When we came out, The New York Times said we were the smartest show on television! If we did reboot the show, its not that I would make it any more PC, but I would write it to the best of my abilities to reflect the reality of the world right now."

The Hill has reached out to HBO for comment.

Visit link:

'Entourage' creator: HBO not promoting show due to 'wave of righteous PC culture' | TheHill - The Hill

Howard L. Simon| Florida Times-Union

Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to sign HB 233. The bill requires the State Board of Education and each of Floridas colleges and universities to conduct an annual assessment related to intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity.

The Board of Education must select or create an objective, non-partisan and statistically valid survey to measure the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and whether students, faculty and staff feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.

The first survey shall be published on Sept.1, 2022.

This all sounds benign, even protective of the free exchange of ideas on campus or is it a predicate to an assault on higher education?

Does the legislation address a genuine problem? Or does it vent a judgment by some far-right conservatives that college liberal arts courses are all woke political correctness?

The claim that a liberal arts education is valueless and unconnected to post-graduate education and a career is obviously absurd; that it is just woke political correctness is insulting to the nations professors. (Full disclosure: for almost nine years, I taught philosophy to undergraduates at two mid-western universities.)

Apparently, some conservatives have concluded that Americas universities are dominated by professors whose political leanings are liberal and, therefore, provide an intellectually biased education.

Are colleges and universities really able to block competing ideas and perspectives on campus? There is, after all, the First Amendment. Recall that just a few years ago, fearing a lawsuit accusing the University of Florida of violating the First Amendments constitutional protections, University lawyers convinced the President that he had to reverse an initial decision denying alt-right firebrand Richard Spencer, leader of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, the right to speak on campus.

This will not be the first piece of legislation adopted by the Legislature that is based on an unexamined anecdote that someone heard about. Funny how an unexamined anecdote is regarded as impermissible hearsay in courts that operate by rules of evidence for determining violations of law, but is standard fare in Floridas Legislature for adopting those laws.

The Legislature has dumped this in the lap of the Board of Education and Floridas colleges and universities. They will have to spend time figuring out how to implement what seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

But lets presume, for the sake of argument, that theres something to the stereotype that college students and university faculty are more liberal than conservative in their values and political viewpoint. If the mandatory survey assessing viewpoint diversity confirms this, how will the information state government collects be used going forward? And lets not be nave: information collected by government is information that will be used by government.

Will the assessment of viewpoint diversity involve an assessment of each member of the faculty. Will they be asked to characterize or divulge their personal political orientation? What if they refuse? Will students or the administration provide the characterization of the faculty members political leanings? Does anything seem more un-American? To paraphrase Casey Stengel about his pitiful 1962 New York Mets, Dont anyone around here remember the McCarthy years of the 1950s?

Could the survey be the basis for future hiring decisions? The Chemistry Department has seven conservatives and four liberals, so in order to achieve more viewpoint diversity on campus the next few hires should be liberals? Is that where this is going? Who knowsthe legislation contains no prohibitions on how the information will be used.

There is so much potential mischief and so little protection for academic freedom in this legislation, it certainly will not be long before state government and university communities regret yet another legislative mistake.

Howard Simon served as Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida from 1997 2018.

Go here to read the rest:

Guest column: Targeting Floridas colleges and universities - The Florida Times-Union

Its a strange time for the relationship between Republicans and big business.

Important figures in a party that usually toes the pro-business line are instead throwing jabs at the corporate world. The critics include several potential 2024 presidential contenders.

Their barbs will not be well-received in boardrooms or the Chamber of Commerce. Democrats will roll their eyes and allege opportunism. But an anti-elite GOP base that grew even more populist during former President TrumpDonald TrumpHow the United States can pass Civics 101 Elon Musk asks Twitter for skit ideas ahead of 'Saturday Night Live' appearance States now flush with cash after depths of pandemic MOREs time in the White House could reward the pugnacious tone.

Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzGOP wrestles with role of culture wars in party's future Maher on Biden's trillion plans: 'Thank God we got Mexico to pay for that wall' Overnight Defense: Gillibrand makes new push for military sexual assault reform | US troops begin leaving Afghanistan | Biden budget delay pushes back annual defense policy bill MORE (R-Texas), in a phone interview for this column, ramped up his rhetoric, lambasting major corporations for what he sees as a leftward drift in executive suites.

If you look at the CEOs of the Fortune 100, there are very, very few who you could even plausibly characterize as right of center, Cruz told The Hill. They are almost uniformly Democrat. And they have made the decision to enlist their companies in the political agenda of todays Democratic Party, which is controlled right now by the radical left.

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioWill DeSantis, Rubio and Scott torch each other to vault from Florida to the White House? Senate Intel vows to 'get to the bottom' of 'Havana syndrome' attacks Bipartisan Senate group calls for Biden to impose more sanctions on Myanmar junta MORE (R-Fla.) who, like Cruz, ran for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination said in an email: For the past several years, I have been making the case that far too many American companies were prioritizing short-term financial windfalls at the expense of Americas families, communities and national security. More and more people are coming around to that viewpoint, both in the Republican Party and around the country.

Rubio had previously argued, in an April 25 New York Post op-ed, that it was time for a rebuilding and rebalancing of the relationship between corporations and the national interest.

The comments underline how Republicans, and conservatives generally, are grappling with unusual dynamics eddying back and forth between the white working-class element of their support and wealthy, corporate America.

For a start, the dominant figure in the GOP is still a billionaire former president who has portrayed himself as a champion of working Americans since he launched his first campaign from his golden Manhattan skyscraper.

Meanwhile, much of the electorate is deeply distrustful of elites across the board. The pandemic's financial effects, as well as longer-term problems of economic insecurity and wage stagnation, afflict GOP voters as much as their Democratic counterparts. And corporations increasingly weigh in on fractious social issues as well.

Cruzs comments to The Hill were building upon a critique he had laid out in a prior Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Condemning the corporate reaction to the voting law recently passed in Georgia, Cruz wrote that he would no longer take donations from any corporate political action committee.

Liberals argue the Georgia law is de facto voter suppression. Conservatives vehemently disagree and bridle about the fierce corporate backlash, which they see as symptomatic of a larger problem. To their eyes, corporate America is submitting to the same liberal mores that they believe dominate popular culture, Hollywood and much of the media.

I will commend the left. They play this game deadly seriously, Cruz said. About a decade ago they realized there is enormous power in big business and that if they could weaponize corporate America, it would be a powerful tool for enforcing their agenda. And we are seeing that more and more and more.

The Texas senator told The Hill that there were no caveats to his declining corporate PAC donations.

I dont intend to take even a single penny from them, he said. Asked whether he hoped his party colleagues would follow suit, he replied, I did in the op-ed. I encouraged other Republicans to do the same.

Rubio, asked by reporters at the Capitol if he would follow Cruzs lead on corporate PAC money, declined. If they want to support us, that's great. I don't think anyone's contribution guarantees I'm supportive of them, he said.

Still, the chorus of criticism of business is growing.

In addition to the charges from Cruz and Rubio, Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyGOP wrestles with role of culture wars in party's future Washingtonkeeps close eyeas Apple antitrust fight goes to court TikTok names new CEO MORE (R-Mo.) is pushing legislation that he says would break up the big tech companies and impose tough new penalties on companies that violate anti-trust laws.

There are at least three tectonic plates moving beneath the surface of the GOPs internal debate.

One is the nature of the changes wrought by Trump; a second is the nations ongoing culture war; and a third is the possibility of a significant political realignment.

Trumps populism encompassed protectionism on trade, Twitter attacks on corporate figures who displeased him, and an often-expressed view that working Americans had been screwed over by rich elites.

Cruz, in the phone interview, contended that Democrats exhibit awealthy, arrogant condescension to working men and women [that] is palpable. And in many ways, Donald Trumps election was the direct outgrowth of working men and women saying, Enough is enough. Even Trumps at-times overheated rhetoric is a direct manifestation of just how fed up so many Americans are with Washington trying to destroy their livelihoods.

As for the culture war, issues like wokeness and cancel culture are becoming todays equivalents of political correctness and family values words whose very meaning is debated, but that also serve as signposts to deeper fault-lines in American society.

Seeking to explain why there is intensifying friction between conservatives and big business, Rubio said: Part of that is because these corporations, their CEOs and their boards seem eager to weigh in on behalf of every woke, left-wing social priority.

The Florida senator added, The other part is that people understand that many of these companies are more interested in gaining access to Chinas consumers than being part of thriving American communities.

Beyond all that, the GOP could reap rich electoral dividends if it were to boost its working-class support, especially if it could do so across racial and ethnic lines.

On election night last year, Hawley tweeted: We are a working-class party now. Thats the future.

Rubio soon afterward told Axios: The future of the party is based on a multiethnic, multiracial working-class coalition.

Cruz in Fridays interview contended that the future of the Republican Party is fighting for the working man and woman.

Acknowledging that the rising populist movement on the right was a more recent phenomenon, Cruz added: I think the most important political change of the last decade has been a socio-economic inversion. Historically the caricature, at least, was that Republicans were the party of the rich and Democrats were the party of the poor. I believe that is precisely opposite to where we are today. Democrats today are the party of rich coastal elites and Republicans are the party of blue-collar workers.

Democrats are scornful of such notions.

They accuse Republicans of simply putting a populist sheen on corporatist policies and opposing moves that would improve the lives of working Americans.

When President BidenJoe BidenFires, smoke, floods, droughts, storms, heat: America needs a climate resilience strategy Sen. Susan Collins pushes back 28 percent corporate tax rate, saying jobs would be lost Biden economic adviser frames infrastructure plan as necessary investment MORE and the Democrats passed their COVID-19 relief bill in March a measure that included $1,400 checks for millions of Americans they got zero Republican votes.

Even the purported GOP populists such as Cruz, Rubio and Hawley supported Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which benefittedcorporations and the wealthy though Rubio expressed misgivings about the legislation's drastic reduction of the corporate tax rate. Cruz and Rubio have opposed minimum wageincreases, though Hawley in February pushed to mandate a $15 an hour figurefor companies with annual revenues of $1 billion or more.

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who served as campaign manager for Howard Deans 2004 presidential campaign, snorted derisively when asked about the supposed populist shift in the GOP.

Wait a minute do they still support all those tax cuts? Trippi said. They opposed the $1,400 checks for relief for people. They voted for big corporate tax cuts. And they dont like Biden raising taxes on people who earn over a million dollars. Good luck with that!

Exit polls from recent elections suggest there may be some shifting around of demographic trends concerning income, education and social class. But a true sea-change may still be a distance away.

Trump, in both 2020 and 2016, did a bit better with voters earning less than $50,000 per year than his two Republican predecessors had done.

In 2020, Trump won 44 percent of that lower-income demographic, whereas Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRomney booed during speech to Utah GOP convention Trump drama divides GOP, muddling message Moderate Republicans leery of Biden's renewed call for unity MORE and the late John McCainJohn Sidney McCainSunday shows preview: Biden hits the road to promote infrastructure proposals; US begins withdrawal from Afghanistan Mark Kelly: I didn't hear plan for border in Biden speech Cindy McCain talks about Hunter Biden, sacrifices and Meghan in new interview MORE had each scored just 38 percent in 2012 and 2008 respectively.

Trump did significantly better with non-college graduates than with college graduates in both his presidential contests. In November, Trump prevailed by two points among non-college graduates but lost college graduates to Biden by 12 points.

There are clearly opportunities and dangers for Republicans in those figures.

But Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, said the kind of epochal shifts seen in the 1930s, when President Franklin Roosevelt enacted the New Deal, or in the 1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson pushed for The Great Society, were not apparent yet.

Political scientists and pundits have been looking for a fundamental realignment now for 50 years. I dont know what the Mark Twain phrase would be rumors of a realignment can be greatly exaggerated? Reeher said.

Despite the common narrative that Democrats had been abandoned by the working class, the data doesnt actually support that, Reeher asserted. Trump is able to peel off some of those people by redirecting the anger and frustration they feel. But that is different from saying he has realigned the parties. You are looking at significant but marginal changes.

The political stakes in all of this are huge. And Republicans may be trying to thread too fine a needle in their efforts to be both champions of free enterprise and critics of corporate overreach.

But the rhetoric keeps heating up, inflamed by culture-war moments like the recent decision of Major League Baseball to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta in protest at the Georgia voting law.

Those kinds of moves. according to Cruz, put a lot of Americans in a frustrating place. Look, I dont want to boycott baseball. I like watching the Astros. So I am just pissed off that giant companies that should be focused on providing goods or servicesare instead playing politics.

Woke politics trumps doing their jobs, Cruz added.

The Memo is a reported column byNiallStanage

View original post here:

Exclusive Cruz, Rubio ramp up criticisms of big business | TheHill - The Hill

The term cancel culture, like political correctness before it, is a comical expression for an ugly cultural pathology. To be canceledan older, closely related term is blacklistedis to have your public persona or influence assailed, typically by a sizable mob, for some real or perceived offense against progressive orthodoxy, whatever that orthodoxy may hold at the moment. For that to happen, you must possess some form of authority in the first place: an academic post, a political office, a role in the entertainment industry, employment with a mainstream media organization, a voice as an intellectual or imaginative writer.

But the targets of cancellation, having derived their legitimacy from consensus left-liberal culture, are typically not very good at defending themselves, or even understanding what happened to them. Often they apologize, despite having said or done nothing wrong, which only emboldens the cancelers. Or they fall back on pieties about free speech and the marketplace of ideas, as if their tormentors still believed in those principles.

One target of cancellation who is able to speak intelligently about it is Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto clinical psychologist, YouTube lecturer, and author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018) and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, published in March.

If youre an ordinary curious person, Mr. Peterson wont strike you as a likely target for moral outrage. He brings together a dizzying array of texts and traditionsJungian psychoanalysis, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, Frederick Nietzsche, Sren Kierkegaard and much elseto formulate basic lessons, or rules, about how humans might overcome their natural tendency to lassitude and savagery. His books, podcasts and lectures are impressively argued, frequently insightful and occasionally abrasive presentations of various principles of wise living.

I dont share some of Mr. Petersons philosophical premises and find in his work points of disagreement, but there is much to appreciate and nothing sinister in them. Twenty years ago very few people would have considered him the intellectual subversive and moral monster many now claim him to be. A few rules from his latest book: Do not do what you hate, Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens, Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible.

See original here:

The Man They Couldnt Cancel - The Wall Street Journal

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

We are frequently asked to go to nonsensical lengths nowadays so as not to offend others with the words we use in everyday conversation and in our writing. New words and phrases are added to our vocabulary almost everyday to reflect a more politically correct (PC) attitude. And occasionally (but not always) these changes are for the better.

For example, to acknowledge both men and women in their ranks, firemen and policemen are now more properly known as firefighters and police officers. But all too often modifications made in the name of political correctness do nothing but suck the very life out of our precious language. Many of the new PC expressions are awkward euphemisms for the more precise words and phrases they have replaced, thereby marginalizing those words.

For example, the word bum has been replaced by the term, homeless person. God forbid we refer to someone as a bum implying that person is a freeloader, a deadbeat, or too lazy to work for a living. But calling him a homeless person removes that stigma while suggesting he would be just like one of us if only social services would give him a house. Come to think of it homelessness might also be referred to as mortgage-free living.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Meanwhile, it seems the word fairy has been deemed too homophobic. Fortunately, the ever-imaginative language police hit upon the much more acceptable phrase petite airborne humanoid which possesses magical powers while further recommending the word fairy be avoided when referring to these mythical beings no matter how gay they may appear.

Accordingly, the word fat might soon be replaced with the phrase enlarged physical condition caused by a completely natural, genetically-induced hormone imbalance. This is not only difficult to say it is almost impossible to remember. So its quite likely most people will not use it at all. It seems the problem with the term fat is that it is all altogether too explicit, to wit, pinpointing the reason that an obese persons skin appears so swollen is due to a buildup of large amounts of, well, fat.

A secretary is now called an Administrative Assistant. Its interesting to note that the word secretary comes from the Latin, secretarius, meaning confidential officer which for some mysterious reason is now considered a disparaging designation. A swamp is now known as a wetland. Swamps, you see, are full of horrible things like alligators, insects and all sorts of disease. Lets face it; if various environmental groups went around urging people to Save The Swamps we would think they were bonkers. Come to think of it, this might be the very reason the designation rainforest has replaced the word jungle.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Another thing: we dont argue any more, we share feelings. The term deferred success has replaced the word failure. A sex-change is now defined as gender re-assignment. The expression food insecurity has replaced the word hunger. If something is false it is now seemingly not entirely correct and if you are dead you are metabolically different.

Needless to say, our ability to communicate clearly is eroding with many of these ambiguous politically correct phrases. Our conversations today frequently call for a meticulous selection of neutral nouns, peaceful pronouns, and accommodating adjectives. I believe this approach is all too often misguided. To which the language-police might reply, Its not misguided, Terry. Its simply differently logical.

God help us.

Terry serves up a little food-for-thought each and every week and welcomes your comments:countrysunshine@xplornet.ca

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See more here:

Twists and turns on the road to enlightenment - The Kingston Whig-Standard

How unsurprising to learn that the assistant minister to the attorney general, Amanda Stoker, raised objections to the Australian Human Rights Commissions Racism, It Stops With Me campaign because it mentions anti-racism, which the senator said is associated with critical race theory (CRT). Stokers intervention, which led to the tender for the campaign being temporarily pulled, signals the Australian rights agenda to join the war on CRT.

While this latest battle in the culture wars might appear to be about academic freedom witness for example the French states attack on academic research on race as flouting the values of the Republic the ultimate aim of the anti-CRT warriors is to destroy the anti-racist movement. It was following the unprecedented enormity of the Black Lives Matter protests around the world in 2020 that the right redoubled its attempts to discredit its demands for justice for Black people by writing them off as the musings of an out-of-touch postmodernist academic elite.

As with the moral panics of the 1990s, which conjured up the strawman of political correctness gone mad and, in Australia, the Black Armband view of history, todays folk devil critical race theory is touted as irrational and dangerous. The core of the rights misrepresentation of CRT is that it preaches hatred of white people to impressionable young people in schools. CRT, it is claimed, contributes to further dividing an already incohesive society, splintered by too many years of misguided multicultural policies which were foisted upon well-meaning publics by minorities determined to live segregated lives. As one of the founders of CRT, Professor Cheryl Harris put it, the aim to discredit and ban CRT, is a ploy intended to gin up the idea that anti-racist work is itself racist against whites.

Of course, these myths cover up the truth, that Australia continues to be dominated by white elites, that systemic racism as manifested both in the out of control incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their deaths at the hands of the state, as well as the everyday discrimination experienced by racialised people across all domains of life, is rife. The attacks on CRT are in lockstep with a white nationalism determined to hold on to power. By representing CRT not only as anti-white but also as encouraging racial separatism, the right cleverly positions itself as the real opponent of racism, determined to give everyone an equal chance in a meritocracy rather than giving racialised people what are painted as demeaning hand-outs.

We can see how this way of presenting things seems like commonsense in a liberal society where, despite all evidence to the contrary, the dominant belief is that, as Scott Morrison put it, if you have a go, you get a go. However, you dont have to look very far in Australia as elsewhere, especially during Covid, to see that the fair go while certainly a nice idea, would be nicer if true.

What is referred to as CRT has little to do with the scholarship actually done in its name. Critical race can be thought of as a toolbox of ideas rather than the rigid ideology that the right portrays it as. Originally developed by mainly African American legal scholars to draw attention to the fact that the law was not colourblind, CRT demonstrates that racism is not a matter of individual attitudes but of systemic arrangements. As Harris puts it, it is baked into the current political, economic, and social system so that racial subordination is reproduced through normal operations, often without regard to intent.

CRT negates the notion of race as a natural biological phenomenon. Rather it is produced and imposed on groups of people who are designated as races. We call this racialisation. Race is best understood as a set of processes and projects of rule. In Australia, race is a key technology of colonialism that justifies the elimination and exploitation of Indigenous people and lands for the benefit European domination.

The attacks on CRT and the argument that it returns us to an earlier era of racial division are part of the refusal to accept the ongoing reality of racist stratification and to insist that any attempt to theorise and teach the facts is to play the race card.

Far from this being the case, it is in fact the opponents of CRT who prefer to keep racial arrangements as they are and to thwart progress on racism which requires a dual approach of systemic change and increased literacy in the history and sociology of race that CRT enables.

Rightwing attacks on CRT, much like the moral panics about the teaching of gender which Stoker also provokes, hold that CRT has become the orthodoxy in the leftwing hegemony of their overactive imagination. In fact, CRT is far from being widely taught at universities in Australia, never mind schools. To start inching towards greater justice in a society founded on racial colonialism, we need more, not less critical thinking about race.

Alana Lentin is Associate Professor of cultural and social analysis at Western Sydney University. She is a Jewish woman who is a settler on Gadigal land. Her latest book is Why Race Still Matters (Polity 2020)

Debbie Bargallie is a postdoctoral senior research fellow with the Griffith Institute for Educational Research at Griffith University. Debbie is a descendent of the Kamilaroi and Wonnarua peoples of New South Wales. Her new book is titled Unmasking the Racial Contract: Indigenous voices on racism in the Australian Public Service (Aboriginal Studies Press 2020)

More here:

We need more, not less, critical thinking about race in Australia - The Guardian