Thursday, August 18, 2016

A Standard Of Non-Standards

     The non-standard – a completely subjective, define-it-as-we-go rationale for punishing members of some disfavored groups – is being institutionalized:

     Oregon State University is developing an online course centered on “social justice” that new students will soon be required to take....

     Oregon State’s course, as proposed, would consist of five online modules that include a primer on “social justice efforts in Oregon and at OSU,” instruction on how campus diversity advocates define “an inclusive and equitable university community,” details on how students can “incorporate the pursuit of social justice within their university experiences,” and information on how to “explore opportunities for engagement in ongoing social justice learning.”

     Oregon State is no stranger to social justice training. Last year, the public university spent $11,500 on three racially segregated social justice retreats for students that examined topics such as white privilege, racism and oppression, according to financial records obtained by The College Fix through a public records act request.

     Today, a decent American who hears the term social justice should immediately go for his guns. The contrapositive notion of discrimination, which is deliberately kept nebulous and accuser-defined, has become the principal stick with which the Left seeks to beat us into submission. Moreover, there’s no forgiving the “social justice warriors” for this outrageous abuse of justice, for they know exactly what they do:

     As for OSU’s new online course, the modules will remain under development through the fall, an effort led by a committee of students and faculty who have worked throughout the spring and summer to gather feedback on content from campus community members to finalize the finished product, according to Angela Batista, Oregon State University’s interim Chief Diversity Officer, in an email to The College Fix.

     Asked to expand on the “expectations for an inclusive and equitable university community,” Batista said the committee is still finalizing these guidelines, but that in general, “we feel that every student has a role to play in creating and sustaining an equitable and inclusive university community – one that is defined by shared respect for diverse backgrounds, perspectives, ideas and the ways that individuals live.”

     Asked how Oregon State defines social justice, Batista said that is also a work in progress.

     I’ve said this before: To define is to limit. A defined offense is one that’s been specified adequately that anyone of adult mental capacity can know whether he’s violated it or is on the verge of doing so. An offense whose occurrences exist solely in the opinions of others is undefined; one cannot know when one is in violation, and so one can be indicted and tried for it to one’s complete surprise.

     But wait; there’s more! OSU isn’t interested in educating its incoming students about “social justice;” it seeks to train them, the way one might train a puppy. It wants them to react with unthinking horror and opposition whenever one of their masters points and says “Bad!” This, of course, is a vital necessity for the enforcement of a non-standard: the cannon fodder must not think or reflect; it must charge whenever the vanguard commands it. To achieve this end, the Left seeks to suppress any critical examination of the core concepts under discussion. Therefore, it cannot allow discussion in the Socratic pattern; it must instill reflexes that the reason cannot countervail. Robby Soave at Reason thrusts for the heart:

     A student has no method of dissenting during an online training session on the necessity of complying with the university's diversity dictates. Indeed, students might reasonably fear that agreeing with the ideology of the trainers is a precondition of coming to campus.

     Students are no longer merely required to grapple with leftist ideas in the classroom—they increasingly must live, sweat, and breathe "oppression studies." It is no wonder that so many of them have developed a healthy disrespect for the principles of the First Amendment. They are being trained—not taught, but trained—to think everything that offends them is a bias incident.

     Touché! But even this, as piercing as it is, is incomplete.


     I’ve written several essays on the importance of discrimination as a legal right and social corrective. Here’s what I consider the key element of my position:

     There is only one countermeasure to the Left’s steady elimination of every right except the rights to sodomy and abortion. It’s a costly one, one that most persons – even most persons reading this screed – will recoil from, on the grounds of self-preservation.

     We must rehabilitate and reinvigorate discrimination.

     To discriminate is to apply a standard and make a consequent choice. It’s to say “That isn’t acceptable,” and to act on one’s verdict. It’s the ultimate expression of individuality, for no one can set your standards for you but you.

     It’s vital that men of good will recognize the magnitude of the threat. If discrimination is assumed to be inherently wrong, then individuality has been criminalized. For individuality consists of nothing more than the possession of individual capacities, tastes, and standards. A society in which discrimination is forbidden, whether by law (as in the case of the odious Civil Rights Acts that effectively abolish private property in industry and commerce) or by social pressure (as the Left seeks to do whenever it accuses someone of “racism,” “sexism,” “lookism,” “ableism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” or any of its other shibboleths) is a completely collectivized society in which the “law” is whatever suits those at the levers of power.

     Men of good will determined to remain at all free must not kowtow to such dictates any longer. That’s why I so frequently say, plainly and openly, to the snarling minions of the Left:

  • I am a racist.
  • I am a sexist.
  • I am a lookist.
  • I am an ableist.
  • I am a homophobe.
  • I am an Islamophobe.

     I’ll own all of that cheerfully.
     Try finding someone I’ve actually harmed.
     Come back when you’ve got something new.

2 comments:

  1. Fran, I must have missed a memo somewhere but I have no idea what a "lookist" is. Educate me, please.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (chuckle) I suppose that one isn't quite as firmly embedded in our contemporary lexicon, Derald. It refers to those of us who discriminate on the basis of appearance, especially us heinous Y-chromosome bearers who prefer pretty girls to plain or outright ugly ones.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.