Slashdot Mirror
America's Ten Most Oppressive Colleges
An anonymous reader writes: A new review of free speech on campuses across the United States has listed the country's ten most oppressive colleges, with examples of why they earned this odious status.
The first link is the actual report, while the second provides a good quick summary. In either case, the behavior of college officials in attempting to squelch dissent is quite disgusting. Far more horrifying and worrisome for the future were the number of cases where the students themselves moved to stamp down on opposing views. They are the future, and that future does not look pleasant. In South Carolina students are suing their college for interrogating them for daring to hold an event in support of free speech that offended some students.
The first link is the actual report, while the second provides a good quick summary. In either case, the behavior of college officials in attempting to squelch dissent is quite disgusting. Far more horrifying and worrisome for the future were the number of cases where the students themselves moved to stamp down on opposing views. They are the future, and that future does not look pleasant. In South Carolina students are suing their college for interrogating them for daring to hold an event in support of free speech that offended some students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have no right not to be offended.
Shove your idea of "microagressions" right up your ass. So it can be near your brain.
'Oppressive' seems a bit over-the-top. Even TFA article doesn't use that word.
Next up: "America's Most Genocidal Colleges"!
So let's be clear: pretty much all of these situations are completely unacceptable, and most disturbingly they show a tendency for much of these sorts of problems to occur on the left, what essentially amounts to the "illiberal left" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/. However, FIRE's own biases are coming into play in this list, in that every example they decide to include is on the left or has no political aspect. But there were a lot of rimilar activities with an apparently right-wing bent, such as the situation at Wheaton College https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/06/wheaton-illinois-moves-fire-professor-who-wore-hijab. It may be that FIRE's top list is still more of an issue for legitimate reasons because many of these universities are large, public universities and thus engaging in trampling on free speech is even more serious, but it does seem like FIRE's own biases may be having a role in what they've decided to highlight.
However, the general upshot should be clear: trampling on free speech is not ok. And we should support free speech whether or not it is speech we agree with. Universities must be bastions of free expression for them to effectively do their jobs. And groups of all sorts should remember that even if they have power now to censor others, they may not always be the ones in power.
The John William Pope Center is a mouthpiece for a right-wing think tank, and is no friend of higher education.
That having been said, some of the incidents described are pretty egregious. But then university administrators have been cowardly autocrats since universities began.
I expected this SJW shit at Berkley. But now it's poisoning even public state colleges in red states. Scary shit.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Religious universities have doctrinal statements you sign when you enroll. If that offends you, don't go there.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I dare say that all the professors losing their jobs and students getting expelled for saying the wrong thing would view it as more than a "spat."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The "source" is one of the heads of FIRE, which is a civil liberties organization specifically devoted to issues like protecting the free speech rights of students and faculty from everything from overly broad speech codes, to not getting tenure because the professor fails to hold the right views. Chances are that if you are a university student or professor who has been victimized by campus commissars of political correctness, you will be represented by FIRE if you aren't doing it by yourself.
Your whole comment just screams "ad hominem" because it focuses on one particular source cited when the writer is the head of a different organization that has an excellent record at defending the rights of students and faculty from campus autocrats. And yes, that is "ad hominem" in the true sense. Hey folks, don't believe it because damn dirty right wingers are involved, even if they are arguing that college campuses are trampling the rights of political minorities.
You're mostly right. Most of these jackoffs complaining about being censored or oppressed are just are really just complaining about not being able to say whatever comes to mind and suffering zero criticism for it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
When so many people started talking about the importance of "trigger warnings" and how they had developped "PTSD" from encountering divergent opinions from theirs, I just shrugged and. When my younger brother transitioned to female and started raving hard about all things Social-Justice-y, I was stupefied. When she started talkign about her anxiety attacks over the mere mention of the word "rape" (she has never been sexually assaulted nor witnessed any rape except on TV), I started digging into the science of anxiety fits to see what there really was about it.
It turns out that one can indeed teach one's own brain to develop PTSD over any kind of stimuli at all. All you need to do is to foster a sense of being threatened every time you encounter the stimulus of your choice. For example, you start thinking about people trying to beat you up, of menacing predators pouncing, of natural disasters closing in on you, whenever the stimulus is there. You can also jsut go and read detailed testimonies of aggressions - the more expressive and vivid, the better. You then reinforce and validate this self-inflicted perception of threat by expressing to other people how you feel threatened by the stimulus of your choice, and have the other people agree with you. Basically, this retrains your amygdala into stimulating your cingulate cortex so that it activates the limbic axis for fight-or-flight response. With enough practice, you can push yourself deep into somatization, and develop identical symptoms to that of genuine PTSD-sufferers, to the point where you will have nausea and dizziness just from thinking about the stimulus.
The interesting thing is, it's the kind of the reverse of desensitization therapy for actual PTSD: if you have a rape victim with severa agoraphobia, you can slowly train their amygdala into NOT stimulating the cingulate cortex and thus not triggering panic attacks by desensitizing them to open spaces or the outside, until the link between "outside" and "being attacked" ceases to exist in the brain.
That, IMO, is how SJWs make themselves sick, and make others around them sick, with an acquired mental disorder.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
There are two classes of school policies that should be resulting in the prosecution of public school officials who implement them: zero tolerance policies and any sort of speech code that goes beyond upholding basic legal tenants like not creating a public disturbance. Enough of this bullshit about how the laws of our society don't apply in the one part of government most young people can't avoid (K-12) by law and at most of the universities they can afford.
As for private schools that promise free speech and renege, they should be fully liable for breech of contract, payment of legal fees and whatever else is necessary to make the student whole if they go after them in violation of their stated policies and values.
Your university is responsible for his 'ascension' so no, it's not a good university. They must have known what he was like when they gave him the job.
I feel there needs to be some sort of consequences for inflammatory speech.
One of the problems is the definition of "inflammatory". Another problem is that some people are just way too sensitive.
It's enough if 1-2 lose their jobs for the remaining 1000 to get the message, be scared and not open their mouth any more. Censorship is most successful when a system is established in which people self-censor for fear of negative consequences if they actually use their right to free speech which they still have on paper.
A few lost jobs is all it takes to make people self-censor and to be a serious threat to freedom. SJWs are a far greater threat than many people think and should be fought accordingly
And if they catch you at it, you get what you deserve. Falsifying a personal document is generally grounds for immediate dismissal in ANY business. Don't want to sign on the dotted line ? Then don't. And look elsewhere for employment. . .
Everyone knows racism, sexism, etc don't count against straight white cis males.
Unless you're the only white guy in a black social studies or women lit class. Then you bear the responsibility for 400+ years of racism (American slavery) and 6,000+ years of sexism (Adam's rib). Fortunately, my instructors protected me from being lynched or castrated by my fellow classmates.
No, they don't. They have doctrinal statements for faculty and staff, and may have stricter conduct codes, but they are generally willing to enroll students of any faith/non-faith who are will to abide by the conduct codes
I graduated college back in 2009. Went to a small Baptist university in rural North Carolina that had only recently broken from the Southern Baptist Convention. They had chapel every Thursday morning a students were basically required to go to at least some of them while you attended (you had to attend a certain number of events such as chapel, plays, and concerts but unless you went to every single play and concert you had to go to some chapels because you wouldn't have enough events). But even there we still had comparative religion classes, there were class trips (purely historical and sightseeing) that went to places like Tunisia.
What is the whole purpose of going to college if not to challenge not only you, but also the way in which you view the world. Is that not how you learn and grow as a person? Just as you can't win a debate by shouting down your opponent (although Trump seems to think that counts as a victory), stifling every opinion that differs from your own doesn't mean that your side is right. Instead it simply shows that either your side or your own beliefs are so weak that any challenge of them will bring the whole thing crashing down. I'm afraid we will eventually get in a situation where a whole generation of people will be unable to cope with challenging or dissenting viewpoints, and instead of trying to defend their own beliefs will simply do the equivalent of holding their hands over their ears while shouting "la la la, can't hear you".
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I work at a Catholic university. When I first started here, I was extremely cautious about my agnostic views, but over time learned that most of the people here are open to and nice about alternative views. I've even become friends with the campus ministry and they know of my leanings. I think part of it is that I'm as respectful of their views as they are of mine and we work together with common purpose. I know Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and even atheists on staff and in faculty, and have never witnessed any kind of retribution against anyone because of their religious beliefs.
If you don't like free speech, then why don't you go to any one of the number of countries where it doesn't exist?
I am a millennial, born in 1987, and let me tell you, the stereotype is true. Most of my generation are soft, squishy, and hypersensitive. Those are the best definitions I've ever heard, and I thank you for them. Most of my people CAN'T handle the real world. And people who use the term "inflammatory speech" are the soft, squishy types who can't handle the real world.
If someone says something you don't like, YOU IGNORE THEM. Ignoring the blowhards is the easiest way to get them to stop. You don't fight with them, it just causes them to double down on their opinions. And remember, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. You sound EXACTLY like one of these millennial pukes of my generation who are the special snowflakes who can't handle ANY kind of criticism or ANY kind of opinions that fall outside of or make them question their worldview. The fact that you invoke Donald Trump just proves my point.
I want a country of 300 million people, all speaking their minds, and all understanding that not everyone will agree with them at every turn. The fact that Donald Trump (since you brought him up) has so many supporters just tells me that there is a large swath of the population that is disenfranchised, and that contrary to popular belief, they seem to fall across all racial, demographics, and educational boundaries. People who are taxpaying members of society just like you and me who deserve to have their voice heard. Whether or not I agree with them. But you would have them silenced, because their opinions aren't the correct ones. They aren't "falling in line" with what YOU think is right. That's not freedom. Period.
You see, that's the beauty of a free society, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about you. You don't have to "fall in" with the party line. You can stand up and give the finger to whoever you want, and you AREN'T PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. Punishing people for speech, as you are advocating, is dangerous and tyrannical. And I don't understand why people just don't get it. Freedom is the best thing to ever happen, and the soft squishy types like yourself only seem to want to put it back in the bottle. It makes me sick.
I have the opposite view -- I feel there needs to be some sort of consequences for inflammatory speech.
Careful there. You are correct that free speech does not (and should not) equal consequence free speech except where Constitutionally defined. HOWEVER sometimes what is considered inflammatory by some is considered ordinary by others. Just because an opinion is unpopular doesn't mean there should always be consequences. It wasn't that long ago that saying something like "man evolved from apes" or "interracial marriage is ok" could get you into some serious hot water. Heck there are still parts of this country that (technically) you cannot hold public office if you say you don't believe in god. Always having consequences for spoken ideas can result in things like Jim Crow laws if you aren't careful. It can easily become a tyranny of the majority or of the powerful.
Besides the fact the article is lacking in its method to rank the schools, they forgot about Wheaton College.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
willing to enroll students of any faith/non-faith who are will to abide by the conduct codes
The code of conduct is misleading, for serious students they're usually not that onerous, just focus on your studies and you probably will never have disciplinary issues. But you can't live some place for 4+ years and be a castle, particularly not with modern group-based education practices. My sister went to Liberty, I don't know why, but I hear-tell if you are even mildly catholic, never mind some heathen non-Christian religion, you won't feel very welcome. I don't know how it is now that Falwell is gone, but I felt it clearly standing there during graduation. There's a secret handshake in the vocabulary they use, and the interpretations they use.
Unless there is some very compelling reason to be at a religious university, I think it's just not worth pretending to be someone you are not. There are plenty of good secular schools. In the US at least most of the secular schools offer both better educations and better reputations anyhow, with a few exceptions I can think of.
When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished for saying it?
If you are on an American campus, it probably hasn't been long.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Full-disclosure: I attended BYU and actually really enjoyed my time there. Brigham Young University should be on that list. Student's will be expelled (and their transcripts locked so they can't transfer credits either) if they convert from Mormonism to any other religion while a student. You can literally get academically disciplined for profanity or criticizing LDS leaders. It isn't just student's though. Faculty can also get in serious trouble for what they say. For example, a BYU professor and historian (Michael Quinn) was strongly pressured to leave after he published honest histories of the LDS church's history with polygamy. He had been an excellent professor as evidenced by the fact that one of his years at BYU the graduating class voted him the best professor on campus. BYU is absolutely not a place where you can talk about the LDS church honestly and openly without getting kicked out (at least if you want to talk about large parts of history that the church tries to bury).
I caused a minor revolt and pissed off the ultra-leftists (the sane leftists sympathized with my views) when I publically accused our micro-aggressions indocrnitator that she was being culturally insensitive and that it was absolutely unethical and a violation of university policy for her to conflate cultural idioms with aggressions. Something like "When speaking a rural Appalachian dialect is a microaggression, you have banned my culture" and then quoted our "cultural diversity" statement. Itw as funny. The indoctrinator was red faced and puffy. The ultra-leftists went off on their screed, the sane leftists argued with them, and then the hour allotted was over. I'm sure I'll be summoned to the dean's office again, and I think I'll have the EO complaint written.
This sounds an awful lot like that weird hyper-capitalism argument used to shut down debate about anything. "Don't like Microsoft? Just don't buy their products!"
This is a very strange but often successful attempt to shut down a conversation. There's usually an implication that the person making the original observation was suggesting that something should be illegal; there is no such implication here that I'm aware of. The point is that the anti-freedom perils of ultra-conservative universities might be worth mentioning alongside the anti-freedom perils of ultra-progressive universities. Granted, the former wears its heart on its sleeve much more prominently, but I'm concerned about young people growing up in either environment.
the problem for me is where does freedom of speech end and freedom of association begin.
we've got digital lynch mobs effectively punishing individuals for political views. brendan eich.
it's troubling, i don't want anyone to suffer for sharing their political views, in any context. That way lies madness. but again, freedom of association means that they're all well within their rights as individuals to force the man out of his job.
That's because it's a Catholic university and not an Evangelical Christian university like Liberty U. Catholics have long been very tolerant of other religions that way (they had some real problems back in the time of Galileo, but they've had centuries to improve), and have long been big promoters of education. Catholic grade schools are much the same: they take kids of all (or no) faiths and aren't real pushy about the religion angle.
You're mostly right. Most of these jackoffs complaining about being censored or oppressed are just are really just complaining about not being able to say whatever comes to mind and suffering zero criticism for it.
These people are not being criticised, they are being expelled or fired. People can say whatever comes to their minds and people can criticise them for it, but they can not retaliate against them what would be in violation of the law.
Berkeley, the town, is as hardcore liberal as ever. Berkeley, the University, transitioned some years ago to overachiever central. Everyone over at Cal is too busy studying and working hard to get their science, engineering, business, and law degrees to have time for SJW-ism. UCSC has taken up the kookiness mantle lately. But they get less press because they don't have the historical notoriety of Berkeley.
Imagine all the people...
You're still not getting into the coven.
Ordered as presented, ranking not given. Read the article for why.
Mount St. Mary's University
Northwestern University
Louisiana State University
University of California, San Diego
Saint Mary's University of Minnesota
University of Oklahoma
Marquette University
Colorado College
University of Tulsa
Wesleyan University
No, they don't. They have doctrinal statements for faculty and staff, and may have stricter conduct codes, but they are generally willing to enroll students of any faith/non-faith who are will to abide by the conduct codes
I attended Brigham Young University (owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Tithing from the faithful subsidize students' education, so members of the faith pay a lower tuition (like how residents pay less at state universities). Faculty and students must sign the Honor Code and receive an Ecclesiastic Endorsement on a yearly basis. In essence, you promise to live up to dress and grooming standards, live the Word of Wisdom (no alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, or illicit drugs), follow moral rules (no extra-marital sex, no men in the ladies dorms [or vice verse] after midnight), etc. This does not exclude students from other religions - or even atheists - but most students are LdS.
I attended & worked at a Catholic college; the head of the Philosophy department (of all departments!) was not Catholic (something Protestant, I do not recall specifically - well after the fact, he told me of being approached for the position - he was floored to be considered not being Catholic, but they told him they would rather have a better qualified non-Catholic than a less-qualified Catholic). A friend of mine in the nursing department was Mormon & I new various other people of various other faiths (I was Catholic at the time).
That said, Catholics may be more open-minded than some deep-south Baptists (please don't flame me if you are Baptist in the deep-south - I have many friends that are as well, but institutionally IME they tend to think Catholics, Mormons and others are basically 'the devil'). YMMV, etc
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I took a bit too much LDS once...the pretty colors and the walls melting were fun, but man...it was a drag coming down off that stuff!!! Stayed awake for like 28 hours....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Could you please share some of the sources you got this info from? I would like to read them for myself.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
"Hate speech"-- now there's a term that shouldn't exist in a free country.
Indeed. Look at Thailand and disrespectful speech about the monarchy. Same kind of thing.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I wonder how tolerate a Muslim university would be?
If caught looking at a girl walking by....chopping hands off as an easy first offense?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The problem in these instances is the one that is attacking all western society since the turn of the century. For some strange reason, people now think they have the right to feel offended and that people that offends them must be shut up
There is this sense of self entitlement fed by the media going around, that if someone says something against any particular aspect of some social justice cause, you deserve some kind of punishment. You are essentially bared from contesting any kind of argument about any aspect of say, feminism, black empowerment, religion and a few other. No matter how idiotic is the specific pro argument for one of those issues, if you point that out, you are automatically dismissed and any public forum will do its best to shut you up.
Sharia Law is to Muslim as Catholic is to Christianity. They are certainly tangentially based on the original source materials, but they took centuries of refinements to build up a set of strange nonsense rules that represent their original source version of things. Looking back at the rules they form, and one has to question why they were ever made. Plus, Sharia itself doesn't have a central authority to dictate, so maybe something like like the collage of baptist faiths would be a better analogy.
Secondly, much like described above, since all Muslims don't believe in the Sharia, why would you ever assume that a Muslim university (especially in the US) would espouse it?
Bye!
I really don't like vegan pizza. Vegans aren't really all that tasty unless you dip 'em in bacon grease first.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Being a theist may be a fundamental belief, but I'm not sure the same applies to atheism. If the majority of humans believed in unicorns and I had to state that I believed in unicorns as well to get a job (which does not involve any equines, horned or otherwise) I wanted, I would happily lie about believing in unicorns without feeling I've "betrayed a fundamental belief".
You ever get the urge to go trolling in real life? 'Cause, I have that urge now.
I'd like to sign up for a university, I'm sure I'll get accepted. Then, I'd like to say some of the most outlandish things - each time ensuring to not actually break the rules. I imagine I could have some fun with it. See, I'm mixed racially... Part of that mix is Black African. "Oh no, I don't dislike all black people, I just dislike black women." My other races are Amerindian and Honky. I wonder if I can get away with saying phrases like, "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck."
I suppose they could then kick me out and I could sue 'em - except I don't want their money. No, I think I'd sue for a public apology from everyone involved - and make them call me a "Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck" right in their apology. And publish it in all the school papers and the local papers - and maybe on television. While calling me a Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck. In fact, they can call me Mr. Mohawk scalping, spear chucking, redneck if they want.
Yes, I hate idiots and ignorant people to and I do wish they'd shut up. However, I wish they'd shut up of their own volition and not because of force. Yes, I just wish they'd learn something and how to express their ideas without being offensive. The important part is that I want them to learn. I don't want the government, or agencies funded by the government, preventing speech.
It's really bothersome that there are people who will stand by each and every one of these actions. There are people who don't actually value their liberties. It disheartening as they appear to be growing in number and they come from all ends of the political spectrum.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Liberty U is very tolerant of other views - as are most Christian Schools - being a core element of their beliefs.
Bullshit.
From every job listing for Liberty
Disclaimer Statement: Liberty University's hiring practices and EEO Statement are fully in compliance with both federal and state law. Federal law creates an exception to the "religion" component of the employment discrimination laws for religious organizations (including educational institutions), and permits them to give employment preference to members of their own religion. Liberty University is in that category.
That particular entry I pulled out at random was for a Network Engineering job. If you aren't a Baptist you can't even plug in network cables there. I've personally known people who have lied about their religion to get a job there, and people who got rejected for being Catholic. Employees sign a "Way of Life" contract.
Tolerant my left nut.
Most places don't ask such questions
Most places are not religious institutions.
I'd love to see those idiots if people were allowed to refuse them service because of their religion.
This is already true. A church is free to refuse service to muslims. A mosque is free to refuse service to christians.
No, you would only have betrayed your integrity.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You are confused. Giving a hiring preference to ones Religion is no different than giving Veterans a hiring preference and certainly does not imply that one is not tolerant.
Sometimes I am surprised to hear about some of the speakers at Liberty. They have hosted a lot of speakers with a variety of backgrounds and beliefs and you never hear about any nonsense or disrespect. Contrast that with some of your "progressive" minded schools where conservatives are protested, interrupted and out right banned....
My observation is Liberty places more value on free speech than most so called "liberal" institutions. But perhaps you missed the content of the article. Me thinks that is what they are trying to point out.
That's what happens when you send a Vulcan to Berkeley.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I've been in college before, studying engineering, and I didn't see much "indoctrination" like many claimed that colleges have. I saw hints of it with groups speaking on campus, flyers hung on billboards, but nothing in class. While in engineering I felt largely insulated from the liberal nonsense that I was told would surround me in college. In engineering we were there to solve practical problems such as accurately simulating a circuit, estimating the yield of a manufacturing process, and properly encoding a message and then decoding it on the other end.
My how things have changed now that I'm studying statistics and computer science. In one statistics text an example was made on the Bush v. Gore election fiasco in Florida, it showed how Bush "stole" the election. That same text likes to give examples on how global warming is affecting the ice pack, water levels, and so forth. If the other examples had not tipped me off on the left leaning authors I might not have thought much about the study they highlighted on HPV vaccines. If they are going to pick on Presidents named Bush, oil companies, then why not pick on those that advocate abstinence and put an HPV vaccine study in there.
I had a computer science professor spend half of a class lecturing us on how war is bad. She had to know that it is quite likely that half of her class will end up working in the "military industrial complex" that she was speaking about. Not all of them are going to be coding iPhone apps and online shopping websites. Quite a few of them are going to be designing crypto communication systems, deadly accurate navigation, ballistic prediction software, and what not.
I've had other courses that discussed probabilities, algorithms, and so forth like these statistics and computer science courses. What they didn't do is work politically loaded examples into the coursework. Examples on statistics and probability while in engineering involved problems of fruit flies interbreeding, noise in a communications channel, cards/dice/coins, letters in the alphabet, and just generally examples that were practical to getting a job done or curiosities of physics.
Why give a statistics example on Bush v. Gore? Why not choose something like people's favorite ice cream flavor? Perhaps give examples in astronomy, biology, a manufacturing process. Instead we get to look at climate change, election results, income inequality, gender roles, and so on.
These statistics and computer science courses are just as much about creating the next generation of social justice warriors as it is about teaching practical skills.
At least my math and music courses haven't tried to indoctrinate me into a way of thinking. At least not yet. Courses on calculus, matrix algebra, and numerical analysis might not be conducive to social justice indoctrination. My music lessons are on folk songs and Christian hymns, which might have something to do with a long shared history between "Western" music and Christian churches. All the instruments we commonly play, and the way we note music, in the "Western World" draws from a time and place where Christianity was prevalent. If you are going to learn to play the piano then you are not going to find a lot of pieces to play that the "diversity police" can impose upon you. While I would not be opposed to learn some music from around the world at least I know I won't be considered "insensitive" for wanting to play a Christmas hymn for my semester end recital.
There are some things I'd like to discuss in class but I fear I might be considered being "micro-aggressive" if I speak up. This can be stressful and I feel like I have to just shut up and keep my head down or I might find myself being retaliated against. Oh, I'm a white Christian male that also happens to be a veteran of the US Army. Being that I'm quite tall I kind of stick out in a crowd, people remember me.
Since I'm considered disabled because of an injury while in the Army I am considered a "minority", it's not a very visible disability, I just walk with a bit of a limp. I get the e-mail announcements from the "office of diversity" or whatever its called that invite me to certain events. I have not yet gone to any events because I doubt I'd be welcomed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My integrity is very accommodating in this regard, it only really pays attention when it matters. My attitude towards mythical creatures falls in the same category as white lies.