Labels used to be a useful marketing tool.
They have become a political tool, and that’s a tragedy.
It’s no longer about “I beg to differ” or “I must join issue with you” because of this or that reason. It’s now you’re (select from a long list of available and accepted – if not acceptable – descriptions, all of them meant to be derogatory).
And, of course, those who are guilty the most use these labels to attack others the most, precisely for misbehaviour (or crime?) they are guilty of themselves.
That’s the easiest method how to change a rational debate into a mud-slinging match. This non-debate has been useful beyond the wildest imagination of its perpetrators: mainstream media (MSM for short) employs people who wouldn’t know journalism if it saved their lives, but who like controversial headlines that stir emotions without even touching upon the subject matter at hand.
In addition, the MSM employees (they really aren’t journalists at all, most of them, anyway) wouldn’t understand the subject matter for the lives of them, so, it doesn’t really matter.
Slogans and labels is all they like (they don’t understand them, either, but they love them more than their expensive gadgets, and that’s saying something).
David Horowitz used to be a flaming leftist in his younger years. He meets the definition attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: those under 30 years of age aren’t leftists have no heart. Those who remain leftist after age 30 have no brain.
David Horowitz has a lot of grey cells in his brain. And he upsets his former ideological comrades no end: he knows their ways and byways, knows how to define them, and he knows where to look for them and how.
He also was one of the first North American political analysts to recognise the danger that would become known as the Frankfurt School (die Frankfurter Schule in German).
A group of Marxists who had fled Nazi Germany, properly and correctly scared of Adolf Hitler and all his works, landed in Great Britain and, especially, in the United States (the latter country was safer, out of reach for Hitler’s missiles).
It took them some time, but by the early 1960s they had managed to worm their way into America’s education system. It began with higher learning institutions (colleges, universities). These days, their influence extends all the way to kindergartens.
Abusing democracy by using their own version of drivel about democracy, they claimed they had the right to say (and teach) whatever thy wished, and, anyway, those who didn’t agree with them and their ideas were just a bunch of village idiots who didn’t understand their lofty concepts.
This is the crowd that would develop political correctness. Apparently a system that would guarantee that nobody could be insulted or otherwise hurt or injured in the course of a heated debate, this has become the perfect tool for censorship: they, and only they, would decide which line of enquiry can be annoying (to them), and they would ban it with gusto.
The so-called “cancel culture” and “woke culture” have developed directly from political correctness.
David Horowitz Freedom Center has decided to do something about it.
The first step must be to expose Marxism as a criminal idea, both literally and in its consequences.
The second step must be to expose American campuses most guilty of the crime of indoctrinating young minds with the criminal idea of Marxism (in whatever of its many shapes).
The David Horowitz Freedom Center exposes “Top Ten Most Racist Colleges and Universities.” These educational institutions enforce policies and programs that they call “anti-racist.”
Checked out, these schools in reality promote racial discrimination and a return to Jim Crow. For those who had been educated in recent years and aren’t aware of their country’s history, a brief description: Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. They were in force until 1965.
A person named Jim Crow who would be involved in these activities never existed: it was a caricature that first appeared in the 19th century and has survived till these days.
Canada’s hallowed halls of academe haven’t fallen too far behind. Just check them out.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center list is shocking in and of itself.
Herewith one of the most disgusting examples:
Viewed as America’s most prestigious university, this Ivy League school has been accused of deliberately using discriminatory and stereotypical ratings of Asian applicants’ personalities as “lacking” and “one-dimensional.” The idea is to reduce their chances of obtaining admission.
A coalition named Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard in federal district court in 2014. The cause: alleged violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This document prohibits all schools which receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race.
Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants in undergraduate admissions decisions, the lawsuit stated. It has been using an admissions formula that hinders Asian applicants’ chances of admission by consistently giving them a low “personal rating” — a subjective measure of personality traits such as kindness, courage, and likeability. Through an examination of Harvard’s previously secret admissions data, SFFA was able to show that Asian-American applicants to Harvard face rampant racial discrimination.
A Duke University economist, Peter Arcidiacono, testified in court on behalf of SFFA. His testimony showed that the lawsuit had merit by proving that Asian-American applicants have the lowest chance of admission to Harvard out of all races even though they score the highest in all objective measurements of achievement.
Arcidiacono was very specific: a male Asian-American applicant, not disadvantaged, ends up having a 25 per cent chance of admission. Changing the race of this applicant to white, with all other characteristics untouched, would increase his chance of admission to 36 per cent. A Hispanic candidate, again, everything else remaining the same, would have a chance of admission at 77 per cent. An African-American’s chance of admission, with everything else remaining unchanged, equals 95 per cent.
Arcidiacono went straight to the point: “Despite being more academically qualified than the other three major racial/ethnic groups (whites, African Americans, and Hispanics), Asian-American applicants have the lowest admissions rates. In fact, data produced by Harvard show that this has been true for every admissions cycle for the classes of 2000 to 2019.”
Students for Fair Admissions concluded: “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”
And here’s an interesting part: The United States Department of Justice under President Donald Trump joined SFFA, filing an amicus brief arguing that Harvard University racially profiles its applicants during the admissions process and imposes “a racial penalty by systematically disfavouring Asian-American applicants.”
The original David Horowitz Freedom Center list links this information to a Wikipedia page. A simple click shows that Wikipedia found the topic too uncomfortable for its leftist tastes. So, the link takes readers to a spot that says such a page doesn’t exist, and try elsewhere. That would be another link that says no such entry exists.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2020 refused to overturn an earlier ruling in favour of Harvard.
As of February 2021, SFFA has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
No word yet but …