University of Chicago instructor Rebecca Journey has accused a student at the school of inciting white nationalist terrorism against her after he drew attention to a class she was going to teach entitled “The Problem of Whiteness.”
The student, Daniel Schmidt, is sophomore at U-Chicago, where he has developed a reputation as a brash conservative student activist with a budding online persona.
Part of his activism includes exposing left-wing bias at his own university, which he did quite exquisitely in November when he posted information about Journey’s proposed class on social media.
In The Problem of Whiteness, Schmidt reported, Journey’s students would learn that “whiteness had resurfaced as a conspicuous problem within liberal political discourse.”
Like most left-wing “critical inquiry” jargon, you need a translator to parse what she is actually saying. But it doesn’t take a vivid imagination to predict what the typical conversation in Journey’s classroom might look like. It suffices to ask whether Journey and her ilk would shrug off another university offering a course called, “The Problem with Black People,” or a Harvard course, “The Problem with Asians”.
Backlash to Journey’s racially charged course offering was swift, and the class was eventually pulled for the fall semester.
Now, Journey, who got her Phd in 2021, is going on the attack against the student who put a spotlight on her work.
In a discursive post at ChicagoMaroon.com, Journey claims she’s the victim of a cyberbullying campaign that “placed a target on my body and therefore on my classroom.”
Schmidt never suggested any action be taken against Journey, but some people on social media were able to find her public email address.
“I won’t spend time here characterizing the 146 and counting taunts and threats to my body, safety, and psyche that have flooded my inbox since November 2,” she writes.
She then proceeds to quote extensively from what she claims is a batch of hate mail. I know from personal experience that the emails she calls terroristic threats would be known to a conservative radio personality or a Barstool Sports podcaster as a slow afternoon.
Welcome to the Internet, Doctor.
She blithely asserts that: since someone did a tweet or sent an email she doesn’t like, therefore violence has been committed against her.
It’s a type of power move liberals invoke when they’ve been exposed for harboring or advancing radical ideas, like teaching an entire class about white people being a problem.
If they’re the victim, you see, they can’t possibly be in the wrong.
She accuses Schmidt of “weaponizing his free speech to stifle” hers — an objectively false claim, since earlier in the post she says the “Problem of Whiteness” will still be taught in the Spring, and here she is using her free speech to smear Schmidt.
Journey concludes with harsh criticism of U-Chicago’s handling of the entire affair. (Again, for someone whose free speech has been stifled by mean Tweets, she seems perfectly capable and willing to use her free speech to respond to critics and attack her employer…) But then she goes in for her victimhood coup de grâce.
“The University has permitted the opportunist to terrorize an instructor, her students, and I would also argue our campus,” she writes. “Let me spell out the nature of that terror if it is not already clear. A teacher is not free to do her job if she is fearful that an armed white nationalist, activated by a provocateur, will track her down and shoot up her classroom.
“This is not hyperbole,” she writes.
Sadly, this is what passes for intellectual debate now on a campus typically held in high regard, even by philosophical conservatives. Although Journey does attempt to defend her course offering on its merits, she can’t stop there. She instead questions the motives of her critic, levels ad hominem attacks, and accuses him of inciting white nationalist terrorism against her.
The undercurrent of her entire post, like much of modern leftist rhetoric, is that freedom of speech is a problem, and institutions like U-Chicago need to use their power to punish those who use their free speech in ways powerful liberals oppose.
“This is America in 2022,” she concludes.
Indeed.
I do not think a university should ever sanction a course that is by definition an assault on a particular racial group. “Whiteness” is not an abstraction. It is a description of the culture created by European people. The problem of whiteness is a criticism of that culture, which means it is a criticism of the spirit, the unique characteristics, and the actions of the people that created it. That should not be tolerated. Free speech is irrelevant.
Sociology has been offering critiques of many aspects of white culture for 100 years. Consumerism, inequality, social cohesion, critiques of heteronormativity, oppression,, sex, whatever. But these contemporary anti-white radicals are going right after the people themselves. They despise white people, and that is coming through in their work. They are also delusional. They refuse to see other facts that interfere with their hate. They use shaming and institutional control to cancel other sociological viewpoints.
If they are going to insist on allowing anti-white courses like this at their universities they should also allow courses such as “The Beauty of Whiteness” or “The benefits of European colonization”, or “The relative excellence of white nations”. But they will not because their side shouts much louder and does real violence, unlike the mild resistance given by this courageous Mr. Schmidt.
It is time for people with European heritage to offer an assertive defense of their people, in a confident, well-differentiated way, without criticizing any other people. All nations of people should have the right to feel good about who they are and the cultures they created. No group, whether from their own neurosis or from envy, or whatever motivation, should assault the culture of other peoples. All nations should be able to peacefully coexist and learn from each other via the free exchange of information and free trade. That is the kind of world nationalists envision.
Driving while intoxicated is a significant crime and may lead to very bad fines, incorporating prison time, charges, and also a criminal history. If you or someone you care about has been faced with drunk driving, it’s important to take into consideration selecting a criminal DUI lawyer or attorney. In this specific article, we are going to talk about the advantages of choosing a criminal DUI attorney in court.
Legal Expertise: DUI legal professionals are knowledgeable within the legal components of drunk driving cases. They can navigate the complex legal system and also have a profound comprehension of the law and court methods. This abilities could be invaluable in making certain your protection under the law are protected and that you get the perfect outcome.
Fighting Plea Deals: OVI attorneys have the knowledge and negotiation skills to negotiate plea deals for you. They can negotiate with prosecutors to cut back the charges against you or even to secure a far more lenient sentence. This could easily save you time, money, and stress.
Evidence Review: DRUNK DRIVING attorney at law can review the evidence against you to definitely see whether it had been obtained legally. In the event that verification was obtained illegally, it could be omitted from courtroom proceedings, that may tremendously enhance your odds of a great outcome.
Cross-Examine Witnesses: Attorneys are skilled in cross-examination, which will help to discredit the testimony of witnesses against you. This might weaken the prosecution’s case and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.
Sentencing Alternatives: DUI attorneys can negotiate for alternative sentences, such as for example community service or drug abuse programs, as opposed to jail time. This might provide an even more good outcome for your needs and will assist you to prevent the blemish of getting a criminal reputation.
Court Experience: DUI attorneys have extensive expertise in court and they are knowledgeable about court procedures and protocols. They understand how to dispute well on your behalf and may present a powerful protection. This might enhance your odds of a good outcome.
Representation in Hearings: DUI law firms can represent you in administrator proceedings, such as for example license suspension hearings, which will help to guard your driving liberties. This may stop you from losing your license and may ensure it is simpler for you to make it to work, school, as well as other important areas.
Protection of Constitutional Rights: DUI attorneys make sure that your constitutional rights are protected through the court process. This can include the ability to a reasonable trial, the ability to remain silent, additionally the right to get rid unreasonable searches and seizures.
To conclude, hiring a criminal DUI lawyer can offer plenty of pros in the courtroom. From legal knowledge and negotiating plea deals to protecting your constitutional protects, a lawyer can provide a powerful defense while increasing your odds of a great outcome in drunk driving case. If you or a loved one has been faced with drunk driving, it is essential to consider hiring a criminal DUI attorney to ensure your rights are protected and therefore you will get the perfect final result.
If you wish to know more more about this kind of topic area browse our internet site: criminal defense attorney harrison ohio
The “Conspiracy of Whiteness” has been so effective that people don’t even realize the concept of being “White” is a political and social brainwashing tactic. This is why title of the class is so triggering for some. They simply oblivious to the history and true meaning of the term “White”, and see it as their natural identity.