Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: The New New Soviet Man Non-Gender Specific Person…
First, a little bit of mood music:
Carrying on…
So much for the Constitution being the “supreme law of the land“…
“[Student Body President of UC Berkeley] claims that the university is not bound to the constitution, but only to the ‘code of conduct which denounces hate speech'”
Why?
Because UC Berkeley even in part hinted that they allowed doubleplusungood speakers to say doubleplusungood things…
Well, there’s only one way to combat “H8” speech…
… one had to go beyond full Orwellian to the point of denying the language itself…
“Worried that ‘xenophobia and nationalism are on the rise,’ organizers of a recent academic conference invited presenters to ‘decenter English as the de facto language’ of academia.
“Specifically, the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) invited presenters at its Annual Meeting—held in Boston from August 30 through September 2—to hand in research papers in languages other than English to promote ‘linguistic pluralism.'”
And to complete this trans-Orwellian future, there is, of course, a requite pledge to “diversity and inclusion“…
“Iowa State University has added new language to its job applications that requires prospective employees to pledge they will ‘demonstrate their contribution to diversity and inclusion’ once hired.
“Calling itself a ‘global and culturally diverse university committed to providing an inclusive, equitable, and diverse environment for both learning and employment,’ the new language stipulates that the ‘university has an expectation that all employees will demonstrate a contribution to diversity and inclusion as embodied in Iowa State University’s Principles of Community.’
“Those principals state in part that the public university affirms ‘the right to and the importance of a free exchange of ideas at Iowa State University within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect.’
“The principals, however, are vague in their wording and do not spell out how administrators define what a free exchange of ideas looks like within the bounds of ‘courtesy, sensitivity and respect.'”
TTFN.
