How can Free Speech be conditional? (Photo: Michael Barera Wikimedia Commons)
“The intellectual battlefields today are on college campuses, where students’ deep convictions about race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation and their social justice antipathy toward capitalism, imperialism, racism, white privilege, misogyny and “cissexist heteropatriarchy” have bumped up against the reality of contradictory facts and opposing views, leading to campus chaos and even violence.”
— Michael Shermer
We have explored the toxic effects of postmodernism; the change in culture and left-liberal politics toward infantilism; the influence of cultural narcissism and the role of social media in shaping the younger generations. Now, we’ll have a look at how all these various factors are producing a singular form of millennial activism in our universities and colleges.
Social Justice, it seems, has gone the same way of so many traditional beliefs and traditions in society in that it doesn’t necessarily refer to upholding justice at all. Rather, it has become another way to virtue-signal and reinforce a tribal grouping above and beyond reason and facts. After observing this phenomena over the past several years it is still stunning to behold this level of cognitive degeneracy when faced with the vocal and often violent forms of this new activism – the Social Justice Warrior or SJW.
A term which began as a positive description of young activists was later used as a pejorative term by their detractors. It describes those who prefer emotion and group-think over reason and truth, whilst claiming the latter. They are the natural – often well-intentioned – product of all that’s been discussed hitherto. This umbrella term is equated with left-liberal issues which typically include (what used to be) socially progressive views such as 3rd wave feminism, multiculturalism, gender equality, identity politics, sexism, racism etc. Unfortunately, all of these issues are riven with assumptions, myths and opinion which have been propagated as fact by the MSM.
SJWs gained notoriety in the wake of the Trump election for their inability to accept the result and engaging in monumental hissy fits as objective reality came crashing down. The fact that this was, in all probability one of the rare occasions that democracy actually functioned made no difference at all; it didn’t match their reality so a collective tantrum ensued and the pathology of the SJW was seared into public consciousness. The Trump election acted as one collective macroaggression that triggered all those fully invested in a social justice that was based on a misreading of reality. It didn’t matter that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and sociopath, Trump was the personification of everything that the left loathed – the facts be damned. Therefore, nuance and Deep State realities were irrelevant, if knowledge of these issues even featured at all. As one mainstream media presenter commented after the result: “Everybody is crying and so upset – it is the end of their world.”
Or as another feminist pundit put it: “Get your abortions now, because we going to be fucked and we are going to have to live with it.”
We then have the radical left and “anarchist” group Antifa who sit alongside SJWs and have about as much to do with true anarchism as reality TV has to do with talent. Both are utterly bereft of any semblance of creativity and thrive on sensation. This group therefore represents the subversion of true activism and civil disobedience which, until the coming of age of millennials, was still relatively focused, even as recent as 2010. No longer. The dark side of the left has been fully unleashed and has remained on show ever since. Now that the Dark Triad appears to have successfully taken over, it’s no wonder that so many are re-evaluating what “progressive” and “left” really means today.
This video from Dave Rubin summarises the sea-change in political awareness and the confusion that so many liberals must feel as they realise common ground with moderate conservatism:
Whilst a legion of YouTube videos have surfaced to offer a mix of juvenile and sometimes amusing clips from gloating right-wing commentators the rise of SJWs and Antifa is disturbing for two major reasons. 1) These people are provably out-of-touch with reality and often exhibit borderline personality disorders 2) Two distinct tribes have been created which has effectively produced a culture war. None of this can benefit anyone but the Establishment.
We’ll come back to this sad fraternity of angstivists later on.
Meantime, let’s reiterate the point that our young generations do not solely comprise of screaming radical left nut-jobs and socially inept, porn-numbed narcissists. There are many fine, upstanding individuals for whom hope springs eternal in their actions and thoughts. Our future lies with them. But there is also undoubtedly a surfeit of analysis and commentary out there bashing young people without looking at the root causes. It shouldn’t be about targeting young adults and verbally destroying their existence. It’s merely pointing out the dominant themes and symptoms before asking what can be done?
For instance, you can say that millennials are very ambitious and hard-working – they are not necessarily slackers at all. But the ambition often comes with a sense of entitlement, as though the Universe owes them something. When the ideal doesn’t arrive defence mechanisms become even more pronounced and/or breakdown occurs in similar fashion to the shock of Trump claiming the Presidency. They may also respect authority in a way that Baby Boomers did not. Yet, this can reflect the same rise in conformity – whether left-leaning or conservative. They may be well prepared in terms of technological know-how but ill-prepared when it comes to practical realities outside of those skills. They are the best educated generation around right now with a 35 percent jump in enrollment in higher education between 1995 and 2010. But since our education system is a product of a wider structural and ideological corruption, it means that being the best educated doesn’t equate with being the best suited or the best equipped to handle the real world, especially when it revolves around mere market productivity and GDP. 
Rightly singing the praises of this generation as a perceived balancing act of positive encouragement is all well and good, but we miss the deeper dynamics of what is going on here: that it is largely based on a technology as a saving grace and tainted by the same old Elite pathology. As we have seen, social media is a double-edged sword, a strength and weakness that appears integral to millennials’ existence. Generation X lived through a pre-internet world and are able to compare then and now, which means it may be easier to evaluate the pros and cons of these rapid changes. Millennials do not have this luxury and are inside the technocracy; a fragile platform upon which so many are dependent. Take this away and one wonders how the majority of young people would cope.
A recent national survey by the Fund for American Studies ( TFAS) showed 9 out of 10 millennials support freedom of speech and religious freedom.  The Fund’s president Roger Ream claimed:“There’s a vast, silent majority of millennials who embrace these freedoms and those are the young men and women we are seeing in our programs.” In contradiction to the above, millennials in the survey (aged 18-34) believed that we need MORE government, though with more emphasis on safeguarding freedom rather than security which means their idea of free speech is misunderstood and/or conditional.
The breakdown follows:
- Almost 6 out of 10 millennials would choose liberty (60%) over security (40%) as opposed to individuals age 55-64 who are evenly split in their support for security (49%) and liberty (51%)
- 54% of millennials support “more government” over “less government” (40%) as opposed to non-millennials who support “less government” (51%) over “more government” (45%)
Political parties and their attitudes toward liberty and security:
- Republicans support security (57%) over liberty (43%)
- Democrats support liberty (64%) over security (36%)
- Independents support security (60%) over liberty (40%) 
All of the above, at first glance, is encouraging and bespeaks a “silent majority” that values freedom and freedom of expression yet, this doesn’t address the deeper definitions of a) interpretations of free speech – is there a common historical and cultural understanding of why it is under threat? b) cultural narcissism and its deeper effects c) what “safeguarding freedom” really means for free speech i.e. is there comprehension of the implications of a blanket of “safe spaces”, the rules of which are extending out into society? d) how the mechanics of freedom might work in a system of law that is tied to the State and a deformed version of “social justice” as the dominant enforcer of change.
The Brookings Institution offered up another poll in September of 2017 underscored the ignorance regarding the above questions and in relation to America’s Constitutional First Amendment rights. The national survey included a proportion of 1,500 geographically diverse and current undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities, with respondents from 49 states and the District of Columbia. In summary: “40% of students said the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech. 50% said that the proper way to deal with upsetting speech is to shut it down. 19% said physical violence is an acceptable way of shutting it down.” 
There are many other surveys and studies which show less deceptive data compared to the TFAS survey quoted above. And the ignorance about the First Amendment and the distinctions between free speech and hate speech is a serious problem across all generations in American society. However, it seems the misinformation and twisted logic presently engulfing our culture is mostly spewing from university academia and their students exposed to privilege and postmodernism. And it is they that will become our new movers and shakers of the “free world”. That’s a chilling thought. (Assuming of course they can get on the first rung of the corporate ladder).
Supporting and calling for more State intervention to ensure more liberty and less security is oxymoronic. The State’s remit is to limit freedom by default. It also depends on how we define “liberty.” Forms of egalitarianism is the province of postmodernists after all, whilst double-speak and group-think are redefining principles and the language of ethics and morality from which millennials derive their micro and macro-social meaning.
The dilution of free speech is gaining ground not from the more sober millennials who are navigating successfully through the jungle but the paramoral minority who are managing to effect the whole. They are able to do this precisely due to a common misunderstanding about the role of government and the nature of Deep State influence that pulls its strings. Therefore, such surveys only provide a mixed snapshot of left-liberal and conservative opinions divorced from context rather than a holistic capturing of reality. Free speech and constructive discourse is most obviously not occurring despite such polls and exclude the deeper sociocultural influences as explained in Jean Twenge’s Narcissistic Epidemic.
Supporting free speech on paper is easy. Speaking up for the unassailable model of freedom for ALL is another matter.
Interestingly, rather than Student Unions, it is university administrations in the UK and US who are actively fuelling this devolution, with 9 out of ten that “restrict free speech.”  This was presumably in response to Student unions just two years before that were actively censoring speech. So, we have a complete reversal in a short time which has even resulted in multiple journalists being detained in the last year simply for asking students questions on campus.  The reason: postmodernist professors pushing equality of outcome and identity politics into young minds and claiming “social justice”.
One would think this desperate foisting of social justice on everyone else means the elevation of tolerance for all? Apparently not – only for those that think alike. This is presumably where the “warrior” in “Social Justice” comes in and why the promotion of peace and unity through violence and division seems so popular. It creates belonging and meaning through anger, largely from those devoid of both.
Instead of teaching the skills needed to exist in this complex world, we have had a major shift from class conflict to identity politics where the quality of one’s character and example has now been replaced by a bio-reductionism which places exclusive importance on sexual orientation, gender, race and any “-isms” that serve to cleave rather than include. Most activists who have been brainwashed by this nonsense are defined by their non-replicable research, subjective analyses and lack of rigorous, scientific data and a blanket gullibility. Healthy discussion and debate is shunned in favour of marches and screaming matches. Postmodernist professors teach that objective truth is an illusion and everyone has been socially constructed from birth to be racist, bigoted and privileged. Smash the white patriarchy! As a result, we have the perfect philosophy/ideology predicated on infinite criticism that never finds solutions; to express entitlement averse to resolution and to get high on the drama of opposition – the antidote to an eternal emptiness, insecurity and the shame it induces. This means that life become an endless opportunity to be perpetually offended rather than to seek solutions, and the more there is to be offended about – however idiotic – the more emotional capital can be extracted to maintain that mask of self-righteous, social responsibility.
Let’s have a broad look at some of the things at which college students, administrators and some teachers have been encouraged to take offence and protest accordingly over the last few years:
Vandalism and defacement of Monuments and Memorials
In August of last year, sparked by the protests against a nationalist rally in Charlottesville, where a 32 year-old woman died, American Civil War monuments of Confederate generals were targeted by sometimes violent SJWs in various cities across the United States. They did so in the mistaken belief that trashing history is a statement of revolution against racism and acts of racially-motivated terror. Other memorials and monuments in the area were also singled out for defacement and vandalism. Astonishingly, some city councillors jumped aboard the hysteria-train and called for Confederate-era monuments to be torn down. One of these included Baltimore City Councilman Brandon Scott who demanded: “..the immediate destruction of all Confederate Monuments in Baltimore.” 
In South Carolina, Charleston, at least 60 publically-funded symbols have been removed or renamed according to the Los Angeles Times after the shooting of nine African-American Church-goers by a white supremacist early in 2017. The city of New Orleans in particular has set about removing monuments throughout last year:
- April 24th – Liberty Place Monument New Orleans
- May 11th – Statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis New Orleans
- May 17th – Monument to P.G.T Beaureguard New Orleans
- May 19th – Statue of Robert L. Lee Which had stood for over 133 years New Orleans
- August 14th – Confederate statue named “old Joe” – Gainesville Florida
- August 14th – A 15 ft. statue of a Confederate soldier was toppled with a rope lasso by protesters in Durham N.C. 
Since then Confederate iconography and symbolism in some states are now being removed, though there is also resistance to the idea by an equal number of city councils and state legislators who have passed bills to prohibit the removal of “architecturally significant” buildings, memorials, memorial streets or monuments.
This isn’t due to generational trauma but collective virtue signalling and the appeal of victimhood as a means to vomit your issues onto the world at large. It is also a symptomatic of the decline of history and the importance of learning from our past. The understanding of history is crucial because it allows us to discern the patterns of behaviour that lead to cultural malaise and most importantly, the entry points for ponerological infection. As the well-known quotation by George Santayana reminds us: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. or Winston Churchill’s paraphrasing of the same: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And no where are we seeing the frame of reference narrowed to nothing than in the perceptions of many university activists today.
The study of history is in decline at universities. Anthony Furey of the Toronto Sun, makes a vital connection on this point by highlighting respected historian Niall Ferguson’s October 2016 lecture entitled The Decline and Fall of History. Furey offers some of Ferguson’s findings in this regard and they are illuminating in the context of history’s unpopularity with millennial SJWs. Enrolment numbers and courses have changed over decades: “History departments neglect the defining events of modern world history in favor of topics that are either arcane or agitprop, sometimes both. The result has been a sustained decline in history enrollments. The long-term effects on the elite who are educated at top American universities are unlikely to be positive. The ‘United States of Amnesia’ will get no better at learning from history if the people who end up running the republic know next to no history at all.” Furey states: “The share of history and social science degrees has dropped from 18% of all undergraduate degrees at U.S. schools in 1971 to 9% in 2014. This doesn’t tell the full story either. Because the type of history being studied has changed alongside these declining numbers.”
And what do you think has replaced it?
Ferguson notes: “The data reveal a very big increase in the number of historians who specialize in women and gender, which has risen from 1% of the total to almost 10%,”…”As a result, gender is now the single most important subfield in the academy.” 
The neo-Marxist, femininst, postmodernists and gender studies crowd have been making serious inroads into education and we are now seeing the toxic results. The rejection of good science is bad enough, but when history is subject to denial and wilful ignorance how can generations learn? How can we learn these lessons of sacrifice and pain and the wisdom gained if we pretend it has no relevance? When history’s lessons are ignored we full headlong into the shadow of the very abyss against which our forefathers and ancestors urge us to comprehend. But human beings have short memories and even shorter threshold for contemplation.
If we consign history to a one-dimensional text book analysis we deny our very psycho-spiritual heritage and the ability to read its compass in everyday life. How are we to use out time if it is not to remember and recapitulate the past so that that the present is truly, vibrantly real? The poet and author Robert Penn Warren said: “You live through that little piece of time that is yours, but that piece of time is not only your own life, it is the summing-up of all other lives, that are simultaneously with yours…What you are is an expression of History.” 
What do you express? A history of wisdom borne from the hard lessons of the past? Or a subjective revisionism based on opinion and entitlement?
Re-interpreting language and law to fit left and SJW ideology
Outside the rejection of history – though it is obviously intimately connected – the erosion of free speech through gender pronouns is perhaps the most worrying development of all. Gender fluidity has all but become a religion and if you happen to have an alternative view this is tantamount to declaring heresy. Even to question the science behind this dogma or the “old-fashioned” notion that there are only two genders, expect to be driven off campus with verbal pitch-forks and a fire of sometimes physical and emotional abuse. It seldom dawns on these SJWs that such actions are the very embodiment of that which they so despise. But no. Resistance is futile, you are a cultural fascist if you disagree.
Madeleine Kearns wrote an essay for The Spectator in August of 2017 which provides an instructive window of student life whilst studying journalism at New York University. She details the oppressive nature of institutionalised group-think that is appearing in higher education and which we can expect to infect British universities. And you know what they say: everything that happens in American culture eventually happens here.
Kearns describes her “Welcome Week” where she was presented with “a choice of badges indicating … preferred gender pronouns: ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘they’ or ‘ze’?” After a year on campus she felt unable to speak freely or critically:
“Although it doesn’t apply to my own course, friends have told me about ‘trigger warnings’ that caution they are about to be exposed to certain ideas; the threat of micro-aggressions (i.e. unintended insults) makes frank discourse impossible. Then there is the infamous ‘safe space’ – a massage-circle, Play-Doh-making haven – where students are protected from offence (and, therefore, intellectual challenge). […] …academia is losing its way. It is riddled with paradox: safe spaces which are dangerously insular; the idea of ‘no absolutes’ (as an absolute); aggressive intolerance for anything perceived as intolerant; and censorship of ideas deemed too offensive for expression. It’s a form of totalitarianism and it’s beginning to infect British universities, too.”
“…the university experience in America is now not one that will adequately prepare students for real life. […] In real-life democracy, people disagree – and normally they don’t die or suffer emotional injury because of it. In normal life, there’s no reason not to like someone with whom you disagree politically. On campus, opinions are often ontology: you are what you think. But this is dangerous logic: if I hate what you think, I must hate what you are.” 
She’s right. And there certainly seems to be a lot of SJW hate projection toward those they perceive to be peddling hate speech. The irony is painful.
In 2017, to the delight of the deluded, compelled speech came to that bastion of politically correct diktats: Canada. The Senate’s Bill C-16 means that Canadians who refuse to use the correct gender pronouns like “ze” and “hir” could be charged with a hate crime, fined or even jailed. As part of Canada’s hate crime legislation, the new law includes “gender expression” and “gender identity” as part of Canada’s Human Rights Code.
Perhaps one of the most famous advocates for free speech and the rejection of gender pronouns is professor of Psychology at Toronto University Jordan Peterson who gained notoriety when he began posting his videos on YouTube to warn us about these impending threats to free speech. For those still scratching their heads at all this legal hoopla you can educate yourself by watching the following videos below first published on The Dave Rubin Report in November of 2016. Peterson lays out the dangers we face when we allow educational and political ideologues to mess around with language. We might then see why left-liberal and progressive values have now become something decidedly fascist in scope.
Over a year later and things have got much worse, as Peterson warned. This has meant that even showing the professor’s videos from his YouTube channel can cause reprimand or censoring by LGBTQ / Left authoritarians as graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsey Shepard discovered.
As a teaching assistant in a first-year Canadian Communication in Context class Shepard aired a televised debate involving Peterson and Nicholas Matte, a lecturer in sexual diversity studies at the University of Toronto as background to her grammar lesson and to further discussion regarding gender pronouns in the English language. Shepard insists she remained neutral in her views and showed both Peterson’s and Matte’s viewpoints equally. Yet, due to alleged complaints by a student(s) she was hauled in front of the faculty.
You can listen to excerpts from the secretly recorded meeting between Wilfrid Laurier University faculty and Shepard below. The voices are of Shepherd, her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, professor Herbert Pimlott and Adria Joel, manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support at the school. Further analysis, audio and full transcripts can be found here.
“[They told me] the only acceptable way that I could have done what I did, was to completely condemn it before I even start playing the video …They told me that there’s no debate. They told me that this is not something that you can even discuss. And I find that dangerous. I find it dangerous to think that here’s a prominent figure in Canada that’s in the news every single day, Jordan Peterson – I find it dangerous to think that there’s no debate about that.”
— Lindsey Shepard
Unsurprisingly, this appears to be the tip of the gender pronoun iceberg causing psychological and administrative mayhem from teachers and students alike. Authoritarian diktats target our insecurities and latent guilt about all manner of things past and present. And if they aren’t there, the SJW’s job is to make sure they are bludgeoned into your being through emotional terrorism. The desire for most of us to at least be seen as decent people means that this mind programming is becoming so successful – it preys on human frailties connected to group think and ostracisation, ironically perpetrated by those who are fearful of losing the exactly the same thing since they have little of their own hard-won integrity and therefore substance of their own.
Even the fear of losing profits can feature in this Orwellian disease. For example, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights have managed to put their PC boot into businesses which ‘fail to address customers by their preferred gender pronouns,’ and could face fines up to $250,000. Although we have Mayor Bill de Blasio to thank for that one, he is by no means the only one.  Meanwhile, the business of marketing has been pulled into the University of Kansas drive to “urge” students to accept gender pronouns by offering little pronoun alert buttons as a guide for those not yet fluent in Newspeak. Part of the university library “You Belong” initiative – which presumably seeks to make everyone comfortable, loved and cared for whether student or gold-fish – the buttons come in three snappy versions: “He him his,” ”She her hers” and, for gender fluid folks, “They them theirs.” On a placard in the library one can read the same postmodernist dogma now so familiar: “Because gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual,”…”Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns, and we encourage you to ask before assuming someone’s gender. Pronouns matter! Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful, and invalidate someone’s identity.” 
The validating identity buttons are now appearing at Vermont’s Champlain College, recently inflicted with a new Women and Gender Centre. Students and teachers at the University of Vermont and the University of Michigan have also succumbed to wearing their buttons with pride. Librarians, Teachers and students can choose whether or not they want to wear the buttons. But one can envisage a time where the mere absence of these ridiculous buttons will cause untold offence and said librarians will be fired, teachers will be hounded from their jobs and students will flee for their lives, a button cloud spiralling in their wake…
And it’s already happening. At least, ideological connections are beginning to meet from an array of directions – even if buttons aren’t the primary focus.
The University of Tennessee was the second higher education institution to officially promote “inclusivity” by switching to gender-specific pronouns “he” and “she” to “xe” and “ze”. According to The Independent, Donna Braquet, director of the Pride Center at the university in Knoxville, helpfully posted advice to respect the fact that some students may identify differently to the gender assigned them on the register. She stated: “The more we make sharing of pronouns a universal practice, the more inclusive we will be as a campus,” …”When our organisational culture shifts to where asking for chosen names and pronouns is the standard practice, it alleviates a heavy burden for persons already marginalised by their gender expression or identity.” 
Braquet has adopted the hopelessly impractical and silly mindset of the LGBT pronoun police without offering a clue as to which gender the person identifies. Apparently, students (and eventually all of us, if we follow Canada’s example) will be compelled by law to navigate through pointless mental gymnastics by deciding in a few seconds of meeting whether it is “he” or “she”, “ze” or “xe”. For “him” or “her”, it could be “them” or “they” or it could be “zem” or “xir” or “hir”. So, “I can see zem” or “Have you seen xir?”.
Sadly, this gobbledygook isn’t satire or parody. How on earth can society be expected to adopt a “standard practice” when common sense and logic are absent and where the very foundations of its use are based on ideology, emotional reflex and fiercely debated science?
Ivy League University of Princeton has been sucked into the gender fluidity malestrom by trying to pretend the word “man” shouldn’t exist anymore. In an attempt to make campus more inclusive, the university’s HR department delivered a four page policy memo requesting students and staff to replace the word “man” with human beings, individuals or people. Clearly, when the highly-respected Princeton University urges us to stop using “gender-binary” hate Speech Like “Freshman” then you know – much like California’s University of Berkley – that such respect is no longer worthy of anything but the trash can.
It seems prestigious universities in the UK are no different.
Cambridge and Oxford University are both “urging” students to use gender neutral pronouns such as “ze” instead of “he” or “she” in a bid to cut down on discrimination and causing offence to transgender students. Oxford University’s student union distributed leaflets to that effect in accordance with the university’s behavior code, which states that the repeated use of the wrong pronoun to define a transgender person is an offence. If it is an “offence”, then the line between compulsory and voluntary is very blurred where social conformity is concerned. This doesn’t appear to have any bearing on the university’s drive to extend this “advice” to seminars, lectures and social life on campus generally. (And for a university that has apparently shown to generate £7.1 billion to the world’s economy no amount of controversy that would impact that worth is going to be…tolerated).
Not everyone may identify as male or female. However, the giant elephant in the room is the fact that the majority in society is being compelled to conform to the personal beliefs of a very small minority. These minority rights are elevated to an abnormal level of influence through the activism of SJWs and ideologically driven academics and administrators who believe that ultra-deference to hyper-sensitivity and comfort is a determining factor in education and learning. When a minority can feel protected and comfortable only by turning the world into a vast safe space which conflates this with endemic prejudice before the fact, then we are facing totalitarianism.
According to The Guardian Hull University was accused of “linguistic policing” when it was discovered that students could lose marks on their submitted essays if they did not employ “gender-sensitive” language. Focused on the religious activism course in the university’s school of social science ( a classic nesting ground of PC authoritarianism) legislative documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act revealed unequivocal advice that students needed to accept the new consensus since “language is important and highly symbolic” and therefore, students should be “aware of the powerful and symbolic nature of language and use gender-sensitive formulations”. The advice continued: “failure to use gender-sensitive language will impact your mark”.
The Guardian further reports: “Cardiff Metropolitan University’s code of practice on language has a ‘gender-neutral term’ checklist, giving alternatives for words or phrases, including using ‘efficient’ for ‘workmanlike’ and “supervisor” for ‘foreman’. Bath University encourages neutral alternatives to ‘mankind’ such as ‘humanity’, ‘humans’ or ‘people’. Two years ago, the University of North Carolina handed out a gender-inclusive language guide, which encouraged students away from using words such as ‘mailman’ , ‘policeman’, “man-made” and other terms, giving alternative titles or descriptions, such as ‘postal carrier’.
“Language is powerful and we place a high emphasis on gender-neutral language on our courses. Should any student use language which is not deemed gender-neutral, they will be offered feedback as to why. Deduction of marks is taken on a case-by-case basis.”
— Senior lecturer in religion at Hull University, The Guardian
It seems that universities are no longer places to value the quality of its learning. Their “great value” is measured by “diversity” and safe spaces. In other words, whether or not prospective students’ feelings are coddled and LGBTQ rights replace academic excellence. Resisting prejudice and respecting people’s sexual orientation is right and just but it appears to have gone way beyond the mean.
Just perusing the universities and colleges listed by greatvaluecolleges.net a wide range of initiatives and programs have been allocated considerable time and money, including Safe Zone programs; Safe Space Programs, Diversity Fellowships; Diversity Services and Training Programs; Secular Safe Zone Programs; Safe Space Ally Training; Safe Space Initiatives; Safe Space Workshops; Safe Space Allies Network; Multicultural Houses; Breaking Ground Programs (multiple diversity trainings) and Campus Inclusion/Climate committees. There is now just everything available to make LBGTQ and everyone claiming terrestrial identity terminally welcome whilst creating a new industry of virtue-signalling employees.
Apparently, at Cleveland State University, having gone through the Safe Space Program and been “certified” fresh, you’ll be “available to help LGBT students make connections and find resources.” And even more important, you’ll be able to “display the Safe Space symbol on room and office doors to notify students that the faculty or staff member has received the Safe Space resource manual and is committed to increasing their knowledge of and sensitivity to LGBTQ issues.” At Armstrong State University in Savannah, Ga., after completing Safe Space workshop and absorbed the “recognition of appropriate and inclusive language regarding sex, gender and sexual orientation” you will be permitted to “receive a Safe Space decal to display at their workplace, letting students, faculty and staff know that they are supportive allies.
Or what about Loyla University Chicago whose Safe Space Workshops over the chance to become “allies” to the LGBTQIA community on condition that the participant completes the induction on “LGBTQIA identity development; skills to interrupt heterosexist and sexist behaviors and attitudes; and resources for the LGBTQIA communities.”
Ah, the joy of knowledge.
But if you really want to sharpen your SJW teeth and be verbally armed for the next assault that will surely arrive, as part of the Office of Student Diversity & Multicultural Affairs the Ramblers Analyzing Whiteness (RAW) group, “…aims to create a closed space on campus for white students to engage in dialogue about their own racial identity.” Presumably, this is to ensure that because you are white you need to inculcate yourself with guilt and self-loathing so that you are suitably tenderised in the face of minority authoritarianism.
The University of Tampa’s definition of a safe zone or a safe space is: “a place where all people feel safe, welcome and included. It may be a room, a car, or an entire college campus.” Or how about a State? A Country? The world? reality itself?
I imagine that’s the point.
Only Colorado Mesa University had something close to addressing those suffering with genuine trauma through the auspices of Green Zone training “designed to increase awareness and sensitivity to issues that may face students who have served in the military.”
Language policing in Schools
This fruition of cultural Marxist “safe space” mentality has also travelled down from higher education into the heart of some British schools. It is simply not true that students, children or any of us are becoming more racist as these social engineers would have you believe. Institutional initiatives like “diversity training” and a legion of similar “educational” programs have warped the minds of young people and children and the notion of learning itself with a pernicious form of indoctrination. It is no coincidence that both the US and the UK are the worst affected (perhaps the exception of Scandinavia, Sweden in particular. Please read my article on Common Purpose to gain an overview of these World State visions).
The UK civil liberties group Manifesto Club campaigns for free speech and end to unlawful censorship and undue government interference. Data collected by the group has discovered an alarming rise in reports of so-called incidences of hate speech or “prejudiced-related” behaviour. Josie Appleton of Manifesto Club said: ‘Particularly worrying is the expansion of incident recording and reporting to ever-greater categories of prejudice, which seem limited only by the strange imagination of education officials.” She stated further: “One primary school pupil calling another a girl suddenly becomes a sign of gender image prejudice, subjected to recording requirements more thorough than accompanying most burglaries. A reality check is urgently required.” 
According to the mailonline: “In 2012-13 – the latest available statistics – 4,348 incidents were reported to the 13 LEAs. Of the 1,909 incidents where the age of children involved was specified, over half were in primary schools and astonishingly, four were in nursery schools. In one case, at a Brighton school nursery, a child aged three or four was the subject of an incident report and given counselling. Looking at pictures of people with different eye colours he had said ‘yuk not black’ and discarded all the black faces.” This data revealed that “alleged offences by some 4,000 pupils were logged in just 13 council areas” with teachers told to “keep a log of insults such as ‘doughnut’ and ‘fat bucket of KFC’. Obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the Manifesto Club found that even calling a pupil a ‘girl’ can be classified as abuse. 
These reports are logged and passed to both local education authorities and Schools inspectorates OFSTED as part of an assessment of bullying. Yet, the careful filing of what is deemed hate speech appears to be nothing more than the rough and tumble world of school-children being … School-children. Are we in Stalinist Russia or the Stasi’s East Germany where even infants can be classed as bigots?
Incidences of teachers asking students to use gender neutral pronouns continues (much to the ire of parents). An elementary school teacher in Tallahasee, Florida, sent a note to parents asking children to use gender-neutral pronouns. Instead or Miss, or Ms., she requested in the note to be addressed as “Mx. (pronounced Mix)” going on to write: “Additionally, my pronouns are ‘they, them, their’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers,’”. Parents were “furious” The individual in question was promptly removed from her post teaching fifth graders and transferred to a classroom teaching adults.  Disturbingly, this teacher wasn’t even transgender. She just wanted to be referred to in a certain way based on whim, and more importantly riding on the coat-tails of an ideology that potentially a serious attack on language.
One British teacher was even suspended from his job after undergoing a disciplinary hearing for “misgendering” a transgender pupil, referring to the student as a girl rather than a boy. According to The Independent: “Joshua Sutcliffe, a maths teacher at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said the complaint arrived after he unintentionally said ‘well done girls’ to the boy and another student during a lesson. The report further stated that: “…he refused to use the pronouns ‘he’ or ‘him’ when referring to the student and instead chose to use the pupil’s adopted male first name for professional reasons.” 
Distressing for the “boy” perhaps, but does it merit a wholesale re-engineering of the education system which then requires disciplinary action because a teacher used the wrong pronoun? This is more evidence that language is being weaponised reminiscent to 1984.
“Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a fictional totalitarian state ruled by the Party, who created the language to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc). In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four … Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the regime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thoughtcrime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy.”
Both US and Canada are moving move closer to prosecute violations under the LGBT Senior Bill of Rights, or Senate Bill 219, with a punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine under certain circumstances. Although some right-wing reporting was deemed sensationalist, jail time and fining is nonetheless, a reality. Meanwhile, the University of Minnesota becomes the latest to bin the traditional Homecoming King and Queen titles and replace them with the gender-neutral “Royals”. Officials claimed the move was to extend the policy of “gender inclusivity.” 
The latter ruling would no doubt have pleased administrators at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor who have a new campus policy of their own: to permit students to select their own personal “preferred pronouns”. Not only is there a list of these gender neutral list but students and staff can actually write in their OWN customised pronouns. Students and teachers alike are obliged to conform to this new policy with suitable punishments meted out should individuals disobey. An email sent by The Ministry of Truth administrators to students and teachers reads:
“The University of Michigan is committed to fostering an environment of inclusiveness. Consistent with this value, the University has created a process for students to designate pronouns with the University and have those pronouns reflected on class rosters this fall. Faculty members play a vital role in ensuring all of our community feels valued, respected and included. …These changes give students the ability to tell the University what pronoun they identify with for use in our communications and interactions with them. Asking about and correctly using someone’s designated pronoun is one of the most basic ways to show your respect for their identity and to cultivate an environment that respects all gender identities.” Therefore, if I wanted to change my pronouns to “Bananaman-Fruit-Loop-Licker” on campus, then students and staff would be obliged to accept it. 
There seems to be no end to this linguistic abyss. What is more, there doesn’t have to be any specific incident or threat to change our language or normal protocols. It’s all going ahead anyway. Idiocy like this is given time and energy while students attempting to exercise their right to involve themselves in some old school, sensible, practical real-world activism have been singled out for daring to be…Well, NORMAL? What’s “normal” one might ask?
Well, it certainly isn’t what passes for free speech these days.
In Canada, Generation Screwed is an activist group which focuses on government debt and economic issues. A product of The Canadian Taxpayer Federation’s (CTF) student initiative, it has also come under fire from SJWs who sought to impose its rules by censoring the group’s activities.
Part of Generation Screwed’s remit is the CTF debt clock which is taken to public spaces across Canada in a bid to raise awareness of the issues surrounding government debt and fiscal policies. It is only on campuses that the initiative has run into problems. Christine Van Geyn of thewriting in the Huffington Post explained: “Within five minutes of bringing the clock onto campus at Laval in Quebec, for example, Generation Screwed and the debt clock were successfully kicked off campus for engaging in “unsanctioned activism.” 
That’s right. Activism that was “unsanctioned.”
This is, of course, the whole point about activism in a democracy, so-called – that you can protest and demonstrate in a peaceable manner. Apparently, not for the new “progressive” mindset of the Student Union at Guelph who took umbrage at the name of the initiative, claiming that the word “screwed” might be considered “oppressive.”
When the notion of victimhood is only limited by the imagination, then literally anything can become offensive – the very stuff of totalitarianism by stealth.
 ‘Millennials And ‘Their Destruction of Civilization” Forbes/Valley Voices, Brian O’Malley, April 25, 2016.
 ‘New National Survey: Vast, Silent Majority of Millennials Overwhelmingly Support Religious and Social Freedoms’ tfas.org/May 1st, 2017
 ‘Students Aren’t The Only Ones Who Don’t Understand Free Speech’ Brian Miller, Forbes, September 20th, 2017.
 ‘Spiked: nine out of 10 UK universities ‘restrict free speech’ By John Elmes, Times Higher Education, February 11, 2017.
 ‘Journalists handcuffed, barred from U.S. college campuses’ By Nikita Vladimiro, Campus Reform, 19 Dec 2017.
 ‘Councilman formally calls for Baltimore’s Confederate monuments to be destroyed’ By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun, August 14th, 2017.
 ‘List of Confederate Monuments Being Removed| Los Angeles Times – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUuR9Uiry5g
 ‘The decline of history at schools is furthering the SJW madness’ By Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, April 2017.
 Penn Warren, Robert World Enough and Time (reprint: 1999) Published by National Book Network.
 ‘ Safe spaces and ‘ze’ badges: My bewildering year at New York University’, By Madeleine Kearns, The Spectator, 25 Aug 2017.
 ‘Policing of speech: NYC to fine businesses for not using the correct gender pronoun’ By Claire Bernish, The Free Thought Project, 20 May 2016.
 ‘She Her Hers’: Pronoun pins handed out at University of Kansas’ NBC News, 30 Dec 2016.
 ‘University of Tennessee switches gender-specific pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’ for ‘xe’ and ‘ze’ to promote inclusivity ‘ -Proposal has been met with a mixture of praise and criticism over ‘lack of common sense’ By Jess Staufenberg,
 ‘Use gender-sensitive language or lose marks, university students told’ By Caroline Davies, The Guardian, 02 Apr 2017.
 ‘Branded bigots at the age of THREE: How thousands of children are being blacklisted by schools’ Daily Mail / Mail Online By Sarah Harris, 1st January 2015.
 ‘Call me Mx,’ the teacher told students. Parents aren’t sure what to make of that’ September 22, 2017.
 ‘Claims mislead about California forcing jail time for using wrong transgender pronoun’ By Chris Nichols, September 26th, 2017.
 ‘Teacher suspended for referring to a transgender pupil as a girl rather than a boy’ By Maya Oppenheim, The Independent, 14 November 2017.
 ‘Gender Inclusivity’? University of Minnesota drops homecoming ‘King and Queen’ — replaces with genderless ‘Royals’ By Dominic Mancini, The College Fix, 14 Mar 2017.
 ‘We All Pay The Price For Runaway Political Correctness On Campus’ By Christine Van Geyn, Ontario Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation, The Huffington Post, 11/30/201.