The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

College Snitches


An SJA at work on campus:
“I heard what you said!
You’re horse meat now!”
Next year he’ll join Antifa.

The
National Review ran a short piece, which, at first, I thought was a satirical
piece by Katherine Timpf in the spirit of the Harvard
Crimson
: “
U-Arizona
is hiring-students-to tattle on others for ‘bias-incidents
.’”
The University of Arizona is hiring students to be
“social-justice activists,” [SJAs] and the job description demands that they
“report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff.”

In other words: These kids are being paid to tattle on other kids for anything
they might consider to be a microaggression, and any students who gets these
jobs should probably identify themselves so that other students will know to
never invite them to their parties.
According to the university’s
website, the official title of the position is “social-justice activist,” and
it pays $10 per hour. They can expect to work about 15 hours per week, which,
as the Daily Caller notes, means that they will be making roughly $600 per
month to behave like self-righteous, meddling nightmares.

Before I blinked twice and realized Miss Timpf was reporting a fact, and wasn’t
trying to be humorous, I wondered if the $600 a month stipend would go to
reducing a student’s federal and/or state college loan, which will typically run
in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, depending
on the campus.

Soon to be flashed by a student
snitch or informant at U. of Arizona,
a “fingerman” ID badge

But, no, Miss Timpf was dead
serious.
The SJA would not act as an
ombudsman to negotiate resolutions between triggered emotionally hurt students
and steely-eyed truth tellers. Nor would he act as a
blockwart,
which was a Nazi rank below gauleiter. He
would be, frankly, a paid, contemptible snitch. 
His job would be to turn in and stamp out individuals, not whole
populations.
The University website, “Social Justice
Advocates Recruitment Information
,” informs us:
The Social Justice Advocates (SJA) Position is one
that is grounded in the multicultural competency framework and allows student
staff to gain the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary to work
effectively with students and residents across cultures and identities. The
position calls for an understanding of social identity groups, experiences,
histories, and practices as it relates to everyday life and life at the
University of Arizona.
The position also aims to increase understanding of
one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and
intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency and allyship
as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding and acceptance of
differences. Finally, this position intends to increase a student staff member’s
ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences and confront
diversely insensitive behavior. 
The position also requires in a student an eagerness
to accumulate brownie points in correct socialization in all spheres of human
encounters, especially in those that wield political clout. In short, it asks
the job applicant to become an informant, a spy, a back-stabber. It would also demand
a requisite taste for instilling in fellow students a quantum of fear for
having said something like “You guys!” instead of “You humanoids!” To instill
fear in others, is to taste totalitarian power.
And this is something in rigid lockstep with the
perilous and frightening trend on American campuses to discourage and suppress
freedom of speech. The Europeans are veterans of the snitching rule which we
Americans are getting accustomed to it. In Germany,
France,
Sweden,
Britain,
Austria, the Netherlands,
and now even in Canada,
a citizen can be hauled before a “human rights” commission or a magistrate or
some other kangaroo court and charged with “hate speech” if his words have been
reported to the “authorities” by politically correct “fingermen.”
Mark Steyn’s Canadian
experience is a teachable one. He can be assessed a hefty fine or taken to jail
or both in addition to racking up a fortune in legal fees. It’s either that or
the authorities will search for “fingerable” words spoken in a coffee shop or
on the Internet. Totalitarian, bureaucratic drudges must find something to do
to justify their salaries.
Daniel Greenfield on May `12th penned a first-class
article on how the miasma of speech codes and “permissible” speech is turning
universities into totalitarian indoctrination camps (and expensive ones, too),
The
College Blueprint for a Totalitarian America
.”
On campus, as in prison, there is safety in an identity
group. Only the group has the power to protect you. But even within the group
there is never any true sense of security. Intersectional tribalism is always
being negotiated and renegotiated. The microaggression you condemn might very
well turn out to be your own. No matter how oppressed you are, someone is
always more oppressed.
The wrong joke, costume, idea, inference or even lack of eye
contact can make you a criminal.
Innocence is not an option. The very concept of white
privilege indicts you for crimes that you had no idea you were even committing.
At worst, your very existence is an affront. And ignorance is no excuse.
Whiteness, masculinity, femininity, heterosexuality and even Americanism are
pre-existing crimes that require an endless process of atonement which by its
very nature will always be incomplete.
You oppress by existing. To defend yourself is to further
oppress your accusers by rejecting their pain. As in all totalitarian systems,
your claims to innocence only deepen your guilt by challenging the moral
authority of your accusers. The safest response is to confess and learn to love
Big Intersectionality.
For the longest time, I was ignorant of the meaning
of the term “intersectionality.” It was a bizarre neologism that meant little
to me, except that perhaps it meant “transgenderism” to identify whether or
not  one thought one was male or female
or any one of fifty-odd other “genders.” But I found its loaded, top-heavy
postmodern meaning on Wikipedia
and wasn’t too surprised to learn that:
Intersectionality is a term coined by
American civil rights advocate Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw to describe
overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression,
domination, or discrimination.
Intersectionality is the idea that multiple identities intersect to create a
whole that is different from the component identities. These identities that
can intersect include gender, race, social
class
, ethnicity, nationality,
sexual orientation, religion, age, mental
disability
, physical disability, mental
illness
, and physical
illness
as well as other forms of identity. These aspects of identity are
not “unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather…reciprocally
constructing phenomena.” The theory proposes that individuals think of
each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other
elements in order to fully understand one’s identity.
That covers just about every class of contemporary “victimhood”
but that of the multi-sexed lunar icecap-man. But if you are white and also are
mentally disabled or mentally ill or have a speech impediment, then you’re
excluded from the global “includability” class. And then you may be berated,
sneered at, harassed, lambasted, or beaten up by an Intersectional Creature or
by an Illegal Alien from Titan.
Greenfield goes on:
Microaggressions, safe spaces, tone-policing, identity caste
systems, no platforming and the end of truth aren’t just some silly campus
nonsense. They are the blueprint for the future of the United States.
Violence against free speech migrated from the campus to the
city street. The rejection of truth and facts climaxed with rejecting the
outcome of a presidential election. 
Imagine what tomorrow’s leaders would be like if they all
got an education in North Korea. That’s the crisis we face today. The leaders
of tomorrow are coming of age in the totalitarian campus states of today. When
one of those polls emerge showing that 7 out of 10 college students want to ban
offensive speech, it’s not a generational phenomenon so much as it is
environmental indoctrination.
The left’s experiment in college totalitarianism has
normalized an environment in which free speech and individual rights don’t
exist, in which truth and facts were invented by imperialists, and in which a
single cultural misstep can have shattering consequences for anyone who isn’t
part of the right identity clique.

If a U. of Arizona SJA shows you this badge,
you will no longer be allowed to wear a Mexican
poncho at a fraternity theme party. You  will
be reported so you can get your mind
“right.”

But is it campus nonsense? The injection of speech
controls and identity politics into campus life is not nonsense; it is deadly
serious, and intended, savored, and promoted by the Marxist postmodernists in
schools and in academia to prepare young minds to obey and parrot and refrain
from “triggering” anyone by opening his mouth about reality. It is introducing
a constant neurosis of fear as a normal element of existence in daily life. The
mind- and speech-managers want students whose minds have been made “right.”
A student who would want to be an SJA is one whose mind has already been made
“right,” by his grade and high school teachers.
Aristotle wrote that all men are born tabula rasa, that
is, with minds that are blank slates until the man or his teachers write what
is on the slate, from infancy through adulthood. The minds of modern American
students have been scratched on or filled up by his collectivist teachers, with
the main themes being contempt for rationality together with a necessity and
desire to “belong.” Belong to what? To the group, to the collective, to the
herd, whose mind would be a kind of gestalt, with no mind standing alone and
separate from all others.
John Locke, the English philosopher, elaborated in
Aristotle’s observation. Britannica
writes:
A new and revolutionary emphasis on the tabula rasa
occurred late in the 17th century, when the English empiricist John
Locke
, in An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1689), argued for the mind’s
initial resemblance to “white paper, void of all characters,” with “all the materials
of reason and knowledge” derived from experience.
Those 7 out of 10 college students who don’t want to
ban “offensive speech” mentioned by Greenfield are exceptions to the rule
today. They are, by the new campus standards, “fascists,” or “racists” or some
other deplorable species of human being to be despised, ostracized, physically
attacked, and even sneered at and punished by their teachers. They will be the
principal targets of the SJAs.
Melanie Phillips
writes of her experiences trying to speak at American and British universities
in “Universities
have caved in to dogma and thuggery
.”
According to a survey by Spiked magazine, more than nine
out of ten British universities restrict free speech in some way, clamping down
on ideas, literature or guest speakers that fall foul of one shibboleth or
another. The Wall Street Journal reported that in a survey of 800 US
college students, 51 per cent supported speech codes. Dozens of people invited
to speak on campus have had their invitations withdrawn or their presentations
disrupted, while university staff have been harassed with accusations of racism,
micro-aggression or cultural insensitivity.
Overall responsibility for this anarchy rests with
faculty members and university authorities. Many universities have stopped
being crucibles of reason and knowledge and turned instead into ideological
battlegrounds on which protected groups promoting the demonisation of white
society or other presumed “oppressors” suppress any challenge to their dogma.
Tabula Rasa

University authorities have actively assisted the
culture of zero tolerance for opposing views. Lecturers have been disciplined
for teaching ideas that fall foul of prevailing orthodoxies. Universities have
cravenly given in to violence and intimidation. On many US campuses students
are limited to small “free speech zones” in which to exercise the right to
express their views. Failure to observe the limits of such zones can result in
disciplinary action and even arrest….

In their book The Shadow University: the Betrayal
of Liberty on America’s Campuses
, Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate write
that the “shadow university” hands students a “moral agenda upon arrival” and
subjects them to “mandatory political re-education”. Free and unfettered debate
has been replaced by “censorship, indoctrination, intimidation, official group
identity and group-think”.
The universities have steadily
replaced education by the enforcement of dogma and then washed their hands of
the intolerant results. The loss of freedom on campus is nothing less than the
eclipse of reason, intellectual integrity and moral spine.
The U. of Arizona SJA should, as a successful
applicant, fit right into the eclipse of reason, and, as a bright young thing,
do well enough to be promoted to a position of directing that eclipse on campus
and composing his own “moral agenda” to hand to freshmen. He’s got nothing to
lose by being so obedient and eager, because there is no longer anything there
to lose.

Previous

Europe’s Death Wish

Next

Monsters are the Real Victims

2 Comments

  1. Edward Cline

    From a reader who wasn't able to post a comment:

    "The position also aims to increase understanding of one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding and acceptance of differences. Finally, this position intends to increase a student staff member’s ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences and confront diversely insensitive behavior."

    In other words, a re-education camp guard job at 10 bucks an hour. Sort of a combination whore, snitch, and thug, which should be treated with appropriate contempt and defiance. Except that when mommy and daddy are shelling out 40 grand annually to send you to this glorified Ivy League version of a Moonie "love-bombing" weekend, Scientology e-meter "auditing", or, as Greenfield aptly points out, North Korea, the healthy impulse to poke a sharp stick in the eye of some little twit trying to coerce you into "difference discussions" to "confront diversely insensitive behavior" is, unfortunately, likely to be inhibited. In other words, they have got you where they want you.

    Since most of the administrators and faculty members assumed leadership positions in this cult long ago and have no interest in defending the right of their students to think and speak freely — which should have been a primary concern of their institutions — it's going to be up to rational parents to determine which colleges and universities are relatively free of this ideological tyranny and refuse to foot the bill for their offspring to attend 40 grand a year postmodernism brainwashing sessions. If too many of them punt this responsibility the future appears rather bleak.

  2. Doug Mayfield

    At the end of 'A Man for All Seasons', Paul Scofield
    as Thomas Moore rebukes John Hurt as Richard
    Rich, saying (words to the effect) 'A man should not
    sell his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?'

    (Having just given false testimony to send Moore
    to the executioner's block, Rich is wearing the chain
    of office for his newly obtained position, Attorney
    General of Wales).

    These people are selling their souls for $10 an hour.

    Doug

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén