Indiana University: Nobody Can Tell Us When To Stop Making Asses Of Ourselves!

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. David says:

    Wait. The WSJ does what you do– namely, call attention to the mindless reactionary thuggery of the bureaucracy of grievance — but when they do it, they're "quite probably trying to use this ridiculous and embarrassing incident to discredit legitimate dialogue about race in America"?

    Why isn't what's good for the tiara also good for the tickertape?

  2. Ken says:

    Well, the WSJ and I do not share the same editorial history. Nor did my take come laden with this sort of thing:

    This case and all its kind are worth bearing in mind for anyone pondering the hypersensitivity surrounding the issue of race today. The mindset that produces those harassment courts, those super-heated capacities for perceiving insult, is not limited to college campuses.

    Its presence is evident in this election campaign, which has seen more than a touch of readiness to impute some form of racism to all tough criticisms of Barack Obama. The deranged response that greeted Bill Clinton's remark that certain of Sen. Obama's claims were "a fairy tale," told the story. No need to go into the now famous catalogue of accusations about the Clintons' "sly racist" tactics.

  3. David says:

    But… but… "this sort of thing" consists of two points: (a) that the "mindset" you decry is evident off campus as well as on, and (b) that there is in some quarters a readiness to impute some form of racism to all tough criticisms of Barack Obama".

    Those are both points that this blog has emphasized, most recently in Patrick's controversial post about Obama's stage-setting remarks.

    In short, what do you find controversial or unseemly in the material you quoted from the WSJ above, and why isn't it equally unseemly when we make more or less the same point?

    I'll grant you the issue of editorial history. You're less predictable.

  4. Andrew says:

    I think the quote below from the WSJ piece better illustrates Ken's point about "trying to use this ridiculous and embarrassing incident to discredit legitimate dialogue about race in America":

    "There will be much more ahead, directed to the Republicans and their candidate. Some more, no doubt, about the Willie Horton ad of 1988, whose status as a quintessential piece of racism is – except for a few rare voices of reason – accepted throughout our media as revealed truth."

  5. David says:

    Good point, Andrew

  6. RK says:

    You'all confused me almost as much as the dingbats at IU. The point here could not be more simple. They're sticking to the story that his "behavior" justified their attack–even though they admit the behavior is not offensive.

    As another wag–Mike Adams, I think– put it: "He may have been 'raped' but it was his own fault because his skirt was too short."