'Bout Dern Time!
I still have stuff sitting on my desk, but I can cover that stuff later because this article is just too good. The only way to see how great it is is simply to read it, so go ahead and enjoy...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040924-120619-1344r.htm
By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
An English professor at the University of North Carolina illegally subjected a student to "intentional discrimination and harassment" because he was "a white, heterosexual Christian male" who expressed disapproval of homosexuality, the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights has ruled. Professor Elyse Crystall violated student Timothy R. Mertes' civil rights, the agency said, by improperly accusing him of "hate speech" in an e-mail sent to students after a class discussion in which Mr. Mertes said he was a Christian and felt "disgusted, not threatened" by homosexual behavior.
"The e-mail message not only subjected the student to intentional discrimination and harassment, but also discouraged the robust exchange of ideas that is intrinsic to higher education and is at the very heart of the Constitution's protection of free speech," Alice B. Wender, the Education Department's southern regional director of civil rights concluded in a letter to UNC Chancellor James Moeser on Wednesday. The ruling was hailed by Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, who requested a civil rights probe five months ago after learning about the student's plight from a Raleigh talk-radio show. "This vindicates this young man's First Amendment rights to speak out, as he has acknowledged, as a Christian," Mr. Jones said. "So I'm going to look at this as a victory for students in this country who feel that they have a right to express themselves. If you don't have that right in a collegiate classroom, what rights do you have?" The department's letter said no penalty or further action was necessary because Ms. Crystall had apologized for her actions and the university had convened faculty workshops to discourage race and sex discrimination against white, male, Christian undergraduates. Mr. Moeser, Ms. Crystall and Mr. Mertes did not respond to inquiries yesterday. The federal ruling comes as Mr. Moeser and UNC administrators at the Chapel Hill campus have moved this month to shut down a male Christian fraternity there, Alpha Iota Omega, on the grounds the student group is violating the university's anti-discrimination policy because it excludes non-Christians and self-professed homosexuals from membership. The fraternity has filed a federal lawsuit against UNC to protect its membership policy from university interference. "This adds another example to what is a problem at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and also, I believe, it's a problem across this nation," Mr. Jones said of the UNC effort to shut down the fraternity. There have been similar efforts against Christian student groups at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., the Pennsylvania State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Oklahoma and Southwest Missouri State University. The civil rights probe of UNC involved "a discussion seminar on diversity issues — required for graduation" for which Ms. Crystall was the professor, according to Ms. Wender's 11-page letter announcing the agency's decision. In a session in February, students told investigators that they were discussing one author's views "that society affords whites, males, and heterosexuals privileges that others, for example, blacks, women and homosexuals, do not have," the decision letter stated. A topic of the session was "whether heterosexual men felt 'threatened' by homosexual men." Toward the end of the class, Mr. Mertes stated that " 'threatened' was the wrong word to use." According to the letter, Mr. Mertes cited the example of "a friend in California who is a Christian and who was propositioned by a gay man. He got a love letter from this man, and he felt dirty and disgusted, not threatened." Mr. Mertes told the class "that, as a Christian, he felt the same way," the letter said. "He would not want to have to explain to his 6-year-old why two men are kissing at a ballgame. [Mr. Mertes] ended his remarks in the classroom by saying that the only way to regard this activity as a 'threat' is that homosexuality could be a threat to life, e.g., reproduction or procreation." Mr. Jones said Ms. Crystall "didn't challenge [Mr. Mertes] in the class," but instead afterward "went around the environment of the classroom and e-mailed every student" to attack Mr. Mertes by name. The attack caused him to receive personal threats, and his car was vandalized, the congressman said. In her e-mail, Ms. Crystall told students: "I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, and/or heterosexist comments in my class. What we heard Thursday at the end of class constitutes 'hate speech' and is completely unacceptable, it has created a hostile environment. I am deeply sorry and apologize to those of us who are now feeling that the classroom we share is an unsafe environment, for those of us who feel vulnerable or threatened. I will do my best to counter those feelings and protect that space from further violence." Naming Mr. Mertes in the e-mail, Ms. Crystall wrote: "What we experienced, as unfortunate as it is, is, however, a perfect example of privilege, that a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible." The department ruling said Ms. Crystall "went beyond a permissible reference simply describing the student" and illegally targeted him for a charge of "hate speech" because he is "white and male."
"The e-mail message not only subjected the student to intentional discrimination and harassment, but also discouraged the robust exchange of ideas that is intrinsic to higher education and is at the very heart of the Constitution's protection of free speech," Alice B. Wender, the Education Department's southern regional director of civil rights concluded in a letter to UNC Chancellor James Moeser on Wednesday. The ruling was hailed by Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, who requested a civil rights probe five months ago after learning about the student's plight from a Raleigh talk-radio show. "This vindicates this young man's First Amendment rights to speak out, as he has acknowledged, as a Christian," Mr. Jones said. "So I'm going to look at this as a victory for students in this country who feel that they have a right to express themselves. If you don't have that right in a collegiate classroom, what rights do you have?" The department's letter said no penalty or further action was necessary because Ms. Crystall had apologized for her actions and the university had convened faculty workshops to discourage race and sex discrimination against white, male, Christian undergraduates. Mr. Moeser, Ms. Crystall and Mr. Mertes did not respond to inquiries yesterday. The federal ruling comes as Mr. Moeser and UNC administrators at the Chapel Hill campus have moved this month to shut down a male Christian fraternity there, Alpha Iota Omega, on the grounds the student group is violating the university's anti-discrimination policy because it excludes non-Christians and self-professed homosexuals from membership. The fraternity has filed a federal lawsuit against UNC to protect its membership policy from university interference. "This adds another example to what is a problem at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and also, I believe, it's a problem across this nation," Mr. Jones said of the UNC effort to shut down the fraternity. There have been similar efforts against Christian student groups at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., the Pennsylvania State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Oklahoma and Southwest Missouri State University. The civil rights probe of UNC involved "a discussion seminar on diversity issues — required for graduation" for which Ms. Crystall was the professor, according to Ms. Wender's 11-page letter announcing the agency's decision. In a session in February, students told investigators that they were discussing one author's views "that society affords whites, males, and heterosexuals privileges that others, for example, blacks, women and homosexuals, do not have," the decision letter stated. A topic of the session was "whether heterosexual men felt 'threatened' by homosexual men." Toward the end of the class, Mr. Mertes stated that " 'threatened' was the wrong word to use." According to the letter, Mr. Mertes cited the example of "a friend in California who is a Christian and who was propositioned by a gay man. He got a love letter from this man, and he felt dirty and disgusted, not threatened." Mr. Mertes told the class "that, as a Christian, he felt the same way," the letter said. "He would not want to have to explain to his 6-year-old why two men are kissing at a ballgame. [Mr. Mertes] ended his remarks in the classroom by saying that the only way to regard this activity as a 'threat' is that homosexuality could be a threat to life, e.g., reproduction or procreation." Mr. Jones said Ms. Crystall "didn't challenge [Mr. Mertes] in the class," but instead afterward "went around the environment of the classroom and e-mailed every student" to attack Mr. Mertes by name. The attack caused him to receive personal threats, and his car was vandalized, the congressman said. In her e-mail, Ms. Crystall told students: "I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, and/or heterosexist comments in my class. What we heard Thursday at the end of class constitutes 'hate speech' and is completely unacceptable, it has created a hostile environment. I am deeply sorry and apologize to those of us who are now feeling that the classroom we share is an unsafe environment, for those of us who feel vulnerable or threatened. I will do my best to counter those feelings and protect that space from further violence." Naming Mr. Mertes in the e-mail, Ms. Crystall wrote: "What we experienced, as unfortunate as it is, is, however, a perfect example of privilege, that a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible." The department ruling said Ms. Crystall "went beyond a permissible reference simply describing the student" and illegally targeted him for a charge of "hate speech" because he is "white and male."
I'll say it again, this is good. Here's may take on a couple parts of the article:
This poor student was submitted to "intentional discrimination and harassment" because he was "a white, heterosexual Christian male." At first glance, one may think, 'this is a joke, right.' unfortunately, though, this is becoming more and more common especially on Liberal college campuses (much like Shepherd). I find the entire idea disgusting. This is just another prime example of the 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality of lefties across the globe. This woman who 'discriminated and harassed' this boy for being a white, heterosexual Christian male is the same kind of individual who would tell you that we are all equal and that everybody has the right to be who they are and think how they think without fear of discrimination. I agree completely--and that is why it's so important the the ruling came on the side of this boy. It is about damn time that we white, college-aged, straight, Christian individuals get a little respect too. All the boy said was that homosexuality made his friend, " [feel] dirty and disgusted, not threatened." He went on to say, "As a Christian, he felt the same way. He would not want to have to explain to his 6-year-old why two men are kissing at a ballgame." He also said that the only way he felt threatened is that homosexuality could be a threat to life, e.g., reproduction or procreation." Frankly, somebody needed to say this. Homosexuality does not make me feel threatened or scared, but as a Conservative Christian it does make me feel disgusted. I completely understand how the boy feels. Shepherdstown, often noted for its large homosexual population, is infested with this people. They do not scare me, but, as I said before, they do disgust me. I am tired of seeing signs for ALLIES (Alternative Lifestyles Living in Everyday Society). I am tired of going to 'sensitivity courses' where I have to hear that 'being gay, lesbian, etc. is ok' because the bottom line is, "IT'S NOTE OK!" I'm tired of seeing the "Celebrate Diversity" rainbow pins on people's back-packs. I am tired of the "Gay Rights are Human Rights" rainbow pins. I am tired of gays, lesbians, etc. I am TIRED OF IT!
Moving on... Ms. Crystall wrote: "What we experienced, as unfortunate as it is, is, however, a perfect example of privilege, that a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible." I have a couple of thoughts on this. First of all, let it be known that all white, Christian males are not born into privilege. I am not poor. I am not unhappy (unless I'm dealing with a liberal). I am don't want for much (if anything). However, I am certainly not 'privileged.' I have worked my butt off for everything I have. I have worked my butt of to become everything I am. I wasn't born a member of a collegiate band. I wasn't born the HHS Striving for Excellence award recipient. I wasn't born Student Council President. The insinuation that we 'white folks' have worked for nothing makes me sick to my stomach. Secondly, nothing that the boy said was "violent." what he said was "heterosexist" but he was sharing his feelings. He wasn't saying he'd discriminate against gays/lesbians. He wasn't saying he'd hit them. That chick needs to just take a chill pill and relax before she pops a gasket. Thirdly, to me, saying "[making remarks like his] and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible] is, in itself, a threat. To me, this woman is basically saying "if you are a white, Christian male and you state your views, you will be punished. You make think you're above punishment, but you're not." This is insane. The woman just needs to shut up.
Today's Moral: Is this proof that things are getting better? Nobody can truly say. I saw a bumper sticker today which made me laugh. I was thinking about how in the world I could incorporate it into my next post. I wasn't sure exactly how I'd do it, but now I know. The bumper stick said, "Annoy a Liberal: Work hard and be happy." This is applicable to this case if we look at the final point of my argument. Liberals honestly believe that people are incapable of being 'self-made' any more. The Liberals honestly believe that we can have nothing without their help. We are unable of earning anything. This is just one case, folks. We have to continue to fight back and defend people who hold morals. I'm not saying that only white people have morals. I am not saying that only straight people hold morals. I'm not even saying that only Christians hold morals. What I am saying is that heterosexual Christians are the core of moralistic people here in the United States and that every time one of us losses a battle with immoral, homosexual, liberals, we are loosing the moral clarity that makes this country great. Keep fighting folks. We're going to win in the long run...
posted by Jeff @ 9:30 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home