Guilty of plagiarism? Princeton profs publish "anti-racism" demands

Seems like just yesterday [It was just yesterday! Ed.] Walt told you about the ridiculous list of demands made by the Faculty Association of California State University (not to be confused with the University of California) to combat the "systemic racism" which exists in their alleged university, as well as American society generally. See "Reverse racism demanded by California State U faculty", WWW 8/7/20.

Many of those demands, including a "dedicated black-only student space" (read: segregated housing) on campus, have started to pop up at universities across the country, including Princeton, which just last month bowed to the anti-racist mob by voting to remove the name of former President (of both Princeton and the USA) Woodrow Wilson from its School of Public Policy and International Affairs.

The Daily Princetonian reports that over 350 faculty members at the once-prestigious Ivy League university have published an open letter charging the school for its alleged "anti-Black racismL, and demanding "anti-racist action" and "diversity in decision-making". But the target is not just Princeton, but the whole world! "Given Princeton's influence," the signatories write, these "principled steps" are designed to "move the dial further toward justice for...the world."

Let's have a look at the 48 "anti-racist" demands. Some of them seem, errr, kind of racist, but you be the judge.

The letter calls for non-white faculty (only) to receive extra sabbaticals, extra pay and extra awards to compensate for the "invisible work" they do. Such as what? The letter states that minority professors are called upon to "chiefly and constantly 'serve' and 'represent' [racial diversity] in the interest of administrative goals."  Back in the `60s some people called that "hiring a niggler to sit beside the door."

The authors complain that just 7% of tenure-track faculty are non-white. How do they know? In South Africa, in the apartheid days, they measured people's lips and checked the texture of their hair. Anyway, the writers suggest giving those oppressed few "a full year of course relief" (meaning no teaching) so they can seek out and recruit more faculty of colour.

More ominously, an "outside committee of academics, law professors, artists, and cultural advisors from communities of color" are to be brought in to make decisions about "race, racism, anti-racism, and racial equity" that will impact the entire campus, while an "internal committee of faculty and students of color" must be appointed to hold the university accountable for carrying out these outsiders' orders.

The university's departments will be rewarded for making diversity hires, but those who don't will be punished! The letter-writers want Princeton to "enforce repercussions" for those departments that "show no progress in appointing faculty of color." Any hiring process that shows "no evidence of a concerted effort to assemble a diverse candidate pool" is to be quashed, and (presumably) the HR people re-educated.

The push for de facto segregation -- let's not beat about the bush here -- includes paying minority students to mentor underclass(wo)men of their own race. Administrators are to hold "semesterly open conversations" only with "students, faculty and staff of color" – no whites allowed!

The Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity is ordered to work with individual departments to devise tailored plans for "anti-racist research, teaching, hiring, and retention", to ensure that no discipline can squirm out from under its responsibility to redress centuries-old grievances.

All faculty must undergo anti-bias training, and standardized testing should probably be abolished because it's "strongly correlated with the underrepresentation of people of color on college campuses."

Princeton's website must include a line on its homepage acknowledging that the campus is built on "indigenous land". But wait, there's more....

The letter-writers want a faculty committee -- themselves??? -- tasked with "investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty." Sounds like an Orwellian type of thought police to enforce the parody of tolerance that has become the new normal in academia, the media and liberal politics. See "Noam Chomsky on the 'Crisis of Democracy'", WWW 1/7/20.

But let's give credit where credit is due. The authors of the letter suggest that Princeton "acknowledge, credit, and incentivize anti-racist student activism". To start with, there should be a "formal public University apology to the members of the Black Justice League" and other sometime students provoking, orchestrating and taking part in the wave of "anti-racist activism" -- complete with riots, vandalism and violence -- that is now sweeping over America's universities, and indeed, the Excited States of America itself.

Further reading: "Now It's Woodrow Wilson's Turn", by Patrick J. buchanan, Taki's Magazine, 30/6/20. "The cultural revolution has come to the Ivy League..."

Hong Kong government ramps up violence vs pro-democracy protesters

As I write, in the wee hours of the morning, Hong Kong time, the city is relatively quiet. Pro-democracy protesters, the majority of them high school and college students yesterday, are licking their wounds -- literally -- after a day filled with violence and terrorism, perpetrated by the Hong Kong police to quell yet another day of anti-government protests.

For over thirteen weeks now -- a quarter of a year -- the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region of China" has been convulsed by sometimes violent protests and mass demonstrations, in response to a proposed law by the Communist-backed administration of CEO Carrie Lam that would allow people suspected of crimes on the mainland to be extradited to face trial in Chinese courts.

Today was supposed to be back-to-school day in Hong Kong, but yesterday over 100,000 students chose to go on strike to force the puppet government not just to withdraw completely the extradition bill, but guarantee the people of Hong Kong the democratic freedoms they were promised under the "one country two systems" provisions of the agreement between Britain and China when the Brits handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997.

The student demonstrators tried to make their point peacefully -- chanting and holding up signs -- while at the same time obstructing the flow of traffic in the city-state's streets and around the airport, one of the world's busiest. Hong Kong police responded by using pepper spray against travellers on the city's Mass Transit Railway (MTR), beating them with batons regardless of whether or not they were involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations.

Radio Free Asia reported that police began beating individuals indiscriminately at the Prince Edward MTR station, attacking them with pepper spray which they were sitting quietly on trains. RFA cited video which showed that "the police, who wore the black, armored uniforms of the 'raptor' special forces, appeared to be in pursuit of protesters, but instead attacked passengers indiscriminately, the footage showed. One was a small boy who was left with head injuries." Footage appeared to show individuals, including protesters, trying to stop police from beating innocent bystanders but largely failing to prevent the violence.

Just a few minutes ago, Reuters reported that Ms Lam, speaking in last week to a group of businesspeople, said she has caused "unforgivable havoc" by igniting the political crisis engulfing the city and would quit if she had a choice. But she doesn't. Under Hong Kong's current political set-up, the Chief Executive is chosen indirectly, by a group of electors (not unlike the American Electoral College!) chosen in elections rigged to favour pro-Beijing candidates.

At the closed-door meeting, Ms Lam told the group that she now has "very limited" room to resolve the crisis because the unrest has become a national security and sovereignty issue for China amid rising tensions with the United States. "If I have a choice," she said, speaking in English, "the first thing is to quit, having made a deep apology."

She suggested that Beijing had not yet reached a turning point, and had not imposed any deadline for ending the crisis ahead of China's National Day celebrations scheduled for October 1. And, she said, China had "absolutely no plan" to deploy People's Liberation Army troops on Hong Kong streets. World leaders have been closely watching whether China will send in the military to quell the protests, as it did a generation ago in the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing.

Ms Lam noted, however, that she had few options once an issue had been elevated "to the national level" -- meaning the Communist Party Pollitburo in Beijing -- "to a sort of sovereignty and security level, let alone in the midst of this sort of unprecedented tension between the two big economies in the world."

Walt, spent the better (?) party of two years in Hong Kong and its twin across the bay, Shenzhen, is watching too, and is in complete sympathy with the protesters. Will our leaders, who preach democracy and freedom (except of course in their own countries) do anything to help the people of Hong Kong in their struggle to avoid total domination by the Chinese Communists? I'm sad to say I think the chances are slim and none. But stay tuned.

Do not forget the martyrs of Tiananmen Square

In the People's Republic of China (aka Communist China), foreign teachers of English, History or any subject are forbidden to teach about, talk about or even mention the "Three T's". The first two are Tibet (as in "Chinese occupation of" and "genocide") and Taiwan (which stubbornly refuses to admit that it is and has always been a province of China). The third "T" is the Tiananmen Square massacre, an atrocity perpetrated by China's Communist rulers 30 years ago today. The story is encapsulated in this single iconic image.

In China, the massacre of student protesters is referred to (when mentioned at all) as "the June Fourth Incident" or "Six Four". Student-led demonstrations in Beijing in mid-1989 inspired a popular (except with the Red government) national movement called the "`89 Democracy Movement". In response to the protests, the Communists declared martial law and sent in the military to occupy central parts of Beijing. People's Liberation Army troops armed with assault rifles and accompanied by tanks fired at the demonstrators, killing perhaps as many as 2500 and wounding 1000s more.

The international community and human rights organizations condemned the Chinese government for what can only be called a massacre. Western countries imposed arms embargoes on China. The Communists made widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press, strengthened the police and internal security forces, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. Some of those arrested died in prison, and some languish there even today.

The suppression halted the "open and reform" policies of liberalization instituted by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. Considered a watershed event, the protests set the limits on political expression in China up to the present day. Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China. Even now, as noted above, foreign teachers are forbidden to mention the massacre, on pain of instant dismissal and deportation.

Foreign visitors do well to feign ignorance of "the June Fourth Incident". Real ignorance, however, is inexcusable, which is why Walt is posting this reminder. In Hong Kong there is still -- for a limited time only -- some liberty to speak out for democracy and freedom of expression. Here we see a student at Hong Kong University cleaning the monument memorializing the Tiananmen Square massacre. We in somewhat free countries must not forget what happens when you dare to oppose a repressive totalitarian government like that of Communist China or... some other country....

Further reading:
"Encroaching Totalitarianism in The West", by E. Jeffrey Ludwig, in American Thinker, 4/6/19
Harrison Salisbury: Tiananmen Diary: Thirteen Days in June, Little, Brown & Co., 1989