Category Archives: Political Correctness
by John Liechty
The 19 January Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled ‘Teacher Wants to Expel Huck Finn,’ with the tag line: “An African-American is about to be inaugurated as president. That leaves John Foley to wonder whether students should still read books that depict black men as ignorant, inarticulate, and uneducated.” Teacher Foley is quoted as having “a lot of passion” for Huckleberry Finn. His complaint is that every year the book “seems a tougher sell to the kids.” That is likely as valid as the complaint that every year, nourishment seems a “tougher sell” to kids. Yet there remain miscreants among us who persist in believing our children’s taste for molded nuggets of salt, sugar, and fat does not eliminate a duty to induce them to eat food. Such miscreants tend as well to believe that our children should read books – real books.
Huckleberry Finn usually offends those prone to offense for either “religious” or “racial” reasons. Foley’s main gripe involves the latter. Twain’s novel hosts a character called Nigger Jim, and according to Foley, now that “Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States, novels that use the ‘N-word’ repeatedly need to go.” (Note the English teacher’s dubious placement of the adverb.) Poor Mark Twain. If he’d only had the prescience to call his character N-word Jim, the tender buds of America could carry on reading. That Twain may have named his character in accordance with a reality he was endeavoring to depict… That Twain’s character may appear “ignorant, inarticulate, and uneducated” because Twain legitimately chose to depict a man who appeared ignorant, inarticulate, and uneducated… (Incidentally, Jim is uneducated but no one who’s understood Huck Finn would dare call him ignorant or inarticulate.)… That Twain may have said: “Our Civil War was a blot on our history, but not as great a blot as the buying and selling of Negro souls…” But the obvious is not good enough for Foley, who grieves that many of his students “never get past the demeaning word Huck uses to refer to his friend.”
By: Susie O’Brien
DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.
Such positive discrimination — treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups – is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls.
The laws are also expected to protect the rights of people with criminal records to get a job, as long as their past misdeeds are irrelevant to work being sought.
Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had “been the big success story in business and goods and services”.
“Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised,” she said.
“Let’s open it up so everyone can have a fair go.”
Victoria’s peak business body expressed concern yesterday about the need for the proposed laws, and questioned if they would undermine the right of companies to make legitimate business decisions.
At present, individuals or bodies wanting to single out any race or gender for special treatment must gain an exemption from VCAT.
Companies and public bodies accused of discrimination can only be held to account after a complaint has been made.
But the proposed changes go much further, allowing the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed.
Businesses and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint had not been received.
Original Article Continues HERE
by Walter Block
For those of you who are new to this story, and have not been following the story of my adventures at Loyola College of Maryland, I was accused of racism and sexism for explaining the male-female, and the white-black wage gaps. Here is a bit of recapitulation of this thread:
Electronic Media has offered the following: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Here and here are two very different takes on this episode from my own school. For my own viewpoint on this episode, see here, here, here, here, here and here.
The present chapter in this saga consists of several sections. In the first, there are letters to the editor of the Times Picayune, the major newspaper of New Orleans, and my replies to them. The letters are reprinted below, but may be found here (Soublet), here (Doheny), here (Quant), here (Baker) and here (Father Wildes, S.J., president of the Loyola University New Orleans). (I have previously reported on my longer correspondences with Quant and Wildes; what appears below breaks entirely new ground.)
These five published letters to the editor of the Times Picayune were in response to James Gill’s “Loyola economist is off-base on productivity,” 12/1/08, that reported on a speech I gave at Loyola College Maryland. I asked the editor for a reply of 800 words, the usual length of an op-ed. That was denied. In return, I was then offered 250 words, which I duly sent off the editor of this newspaper. This was rejected on the ground that the context of my reply was unclear. Well, yes, it is difficult to respond to five letters in so few words. In what follows, I reprint these letters, followed by my non-truncated, well, greatly expanded for this venue, responses.
In section II I offer an exchange with a professor from the Baltimore area who attended the lecture. He is the only attendee, at least so far, who has written me about this issue. Section III is devoted to my attempt to become, of all things, a theologian. I conclude in section IV with some reflections about my experiences.
Original Story Continues HERE
A lawsuit has been filed against two officers at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune Marine base for banning a civilian worker – a 25-year Marine whose son was a victim of the U.S.S. Cole attack – from publicly condemning Islamic terrorists.
The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Jesse Nieto after base officials first ordered him to remove bumper stickers from his private vehicle then banned the vehicle from all federal installations nationwide.
In a statement e-mailed to WND, base spokesman Nat Fahy said the action against Nieto was pursued based on “third party complaints regarding the offensive nature of Mr. Nieto’s stickers.
Article Continues HERE