Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

MSU discriminates against and suspends student over transgender issues

original article: MSU accused of suspending student for anti-transgender views
March 29, 2017 by Amber Athey

  • A former student is suing Montana State University for more than $225,000, alleging that he was suspended for expressing anti-transgender views in a private conversation with a professor.

  • After expressing qualms about discussing the subject in class for fear of offending classmates, John Doe claims his professor twisted his words and told a transgender student he had threatened her.

  • The transgender student filed a Title IX complaint, and Doe alleges that the subsequent investigation deprived him of basic rights like due process and freedom of speech.

A former student is suing Montana State University for more than $225,000, alleging that he was suspended for expressing anti-transgender views in a private conversation with a professor.

The student, who is choosing to identify as John Doe for fear of retaliation, says the university’s investigation on the incident was biased and violated his right to due process, and that his subsequent suspension was therefore discriminatory against him on the basis of sex and violated his freedom of speech.

[RELATED: Male student sues university, alleges gender bias in rape case]

In the lawsuit, Doe explains that he signed up for Contemporary Issues in Human Sexuality in the summer of 2016 to fulfill MSU’s diversity requirement, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports.

The course, which was taught by Professor Katherine Kujawa, required students to sign a confidentiality agreement that they would not discuss information about other students outside of the class.

When the topic of transgenderism came up on May 24, Doe, who is against transgenderism, decided not to speak during class or complete a paper assignment on the topic because he did not want to offend “Jane Roe,” a classmate who had disclosed that she was transgender in an earlier class discussion.

Doe says he met with Kujawa to explain his concerns and ask whether he could earn half-credit on the assignment, and Kujawa asked him how he would react if Roe approached him outside of class.

According to the lawsuit, Kujawa subsequently claimed that Doe responded that he would first ask Roe to leave him alone, and that if she did not comply, he would “break her face.”

[RELATED: UWM offers ‘voice feminization therapy’ to help students ‘live their gender identities]

Doe contends that this was a misrepresentation of the conversation and that he did not threaten Roe. Rather, he says, he was explaining to Kujawa that the only time he had ever had a violent incident with an LGBT person was nine years prior, when he punched a man for groping his girlfriend, and that his intended point was that he didn’t find out that the man was gay until after the incident.

Regardless, Doe alleges that Kujawa told the transgender student that Doe had threatened her, and when Kujawa asked Roe if she needed to be escorted out of the class, Roe flashed a pocketknife and said she didn’t need an escort. She later filed a Title IX complaint against Doe.

On May 26, Doe was called into the Dean of Students’ office and told he could not be on campus because the school had received a Title IX complaint against him.

James Sletten, the deputy Title IX coordinator, concluded that Kajawa was telling the truth because, as a professor, she was apparently more trustworthy than Doe. Sletten wrote that Doe had harassed Roe and created an unsafe environment for her, which Doe says is “biased” because he had never spoken to Roe before.

After a failed appeal, Doe was suspended for the fall 2016 semester, and was required to never have any contact with Jane Roe, to attend anger management and civil rights training, and to fill out a campus safety questionnaire before he could be considered for re-enrollment.

[RELATED: Student suspended for recording ‘act of terrorism’ prof]

Doe argues that the entire investigation was unfair because he was sanctioned before MSU had completed its investigation, adding that the university allowed the same individual to both conduct the investigation as well as determine guilt and punishment, and that Doe was not even allowed to question witnesses in the case.

He also says MSU treated him and Roe differently by allowing her to get away with threateningly flashing her pocket knife, and that his freedom of speech was violated because he was punished solely for expressing his anti-transgender views.

Finally, he alleges that Kujawa actually violated the intent of the very contract she had everyone sign at the start of the course by sharing his private comments with Roe.

MSU has declined to comment on the case since it is pending litigation.
abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, ethics, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, scandal, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, ethics, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, scandal, victimization

Environmental activist ‘scientist’ admits fraud in court

original article: Activist ‘Scientist’ Runs From Reporters After Admitting In Court He Has No Proof Fracking Poisons Water
March 3, 2016 by Michael Bastasch

It’s another bad day in court for environmentalists trying to prove how bad hydraulic fracturing has been for the town of Dimock, Pa.

A Cornell University engineering professor often used by activists to attack fracking ran from reporters after he admitted in court there was no proof drilling had contaminated Dimock’s drinking water.

Prof. Tony Ingraffea was forced to admit he was an anti-fossil fuel “advocate” in court Tuesday, and that he had no proof fracking done by Cabot Oil and Gas had contaminated the drinking water of two Dimock families suing the oil company, according to journalist Phelim McAleer.

McAleer, who also created the documentary “Fracknation” to expose anti-fracking myths, has been covering the trial against Cabot. He previously reported the plaintiff’s lawyer admitted they had no proof chemicals from fracking ever ended up in drinking water. McAleer confronted Ingraffea about his activism and lack of proof fracking contaminated Dimock’s water.

“It has been a rough few days for Professor Ingraffea, the anti-fracking movement’s favorite scientist,” McAleer wrote on Facebook Wednesday. “Professor Ingraffea was forced to admit that he’s an anti-fracking and anti-fossil fuel ‘advocate.’”

“He admitted that his theory contradicted the plaintiffs’ own timeline,” McAleer continued. “Under Ingraffea’s theory, the ‘contamination’ could only have started in late 2008/early 2009 because that was when the gas drilling started; however, the plaintiffs have stated repeatedly that their water allegedly deteriorated in the summer of 2008 before the drilling Ingraffea has been blaming for the past 8 years.”

“Then Ingraffea shockingly admitted that after eight years of claims and multi-million dollar lawsuits, he had no proof that Cabot had contaminated any water in Dimock,” McAleer wrote.

It was after this stunning admission that McAleer approached Ingraffea outside the courthouse, where the anti-fracking professor tried to avoid questions about his admission and even hid behind a woman’s coat.
“I wanted to know if, after admitting under oath that he had no evidence to back up his claims that Dimock’s water was contaminated, he would now take the opportunity to apologize to the people of Dimock. He didn’t. He ran away,” McAleer wrote.

Ingraffea became an eco-celebrity after he and a colleague published a report in 2011 claiming methane emissions from fracking would cause more global warming than coal. He was then taped by anti-fracking celebrities, like actor Mark Ruffalo and Yoko Ono (no one really knows why she’s still famous), for his criticisms of fracking — he and Ruffalo appeared in TIME magazine in 2011 for their activism.

Ingraffea also made an appearance in the anti-fracking film “Gasland: Part II” in 2013. In the film, he claims “industry documents” show 60 percent of all fracked wells failed, but this claim was later proven false — the document cited in the film had nothing to do with fracking on land, but instead with drilling in deeps waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ingraffea has since appeared at numerous events alongside celebrities, speaking out against fracking and fossil fuels.

“It’s sad that people such as Professor Ingraffea can make so many damaging claims, scaring people, telling them their water is poisoned, and all these years later admit in a court that he never had any evidence to back up his scaremongering,” McAleer wrote.

bias, corruption, culture, environment, fraud, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, left wing, lies, litigation, progressive, propaganda, scandal, science

Filed under: bias, corruption, culture, environment, fraud, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, left wing, lies, litigation, progressive, propaganda, scandal, science

ACLU fights against school choice; is it because of anti-religious bias?

original article: ACLU Files Lawsuit to Block School Choice for Nevada Children
August 27, 2015 by Lindsey Burke

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has just filed a lawsuit intended to block students from participating in Nevada’s groundbreaking near-universal education savings account (ESA) option. The ESA option was signed into law this spring by Gov. Brian Sandoval, R-Nev., and began accepting applications a few weeks ago.

More than 2,200 parents have already applied to participate in the ESA option, which provides students with a portion (roughly $5,100 annually) of the funds that would have been spent on them in their public school in an ESA account that they can then use to pay for a variety of education-related services, products, and providers.

They can use their ESA to pay for private school tuition, online learning, special education services and therapies, textbooks, curricula, and a host of other education-related expenditures. As the name implies, parents can also save unused funds, rolling dollars over from year-to-year to pay for future education costs.

The ACLU’s lawsuit alleges that the ESA program “violates the Nevada Constitution’s prohibition against the use of public money for sectarian (religious) purposes.” Yet ESA funds go directly to parents, who can then choose from any education option that is right for their child.

The Foundation for Excellence in Education explains that the Arizona Court of Appeals noted in a similar case in 2013,

“The ESA does not result in an appropriation of public money to encourage the preference of one religion over another, or religion per se over no religion. Any aid to religious schools would be a result of the genuine and independent private choices of the parents. The parents are given numerous ways in which they can educate their children suited to the needs of each child with no preference given to religious or nonreligious schools or programs.”

The Institute for Justice, which will be defending the ESA option, is confident it does not violate the state’s constitution.

Tim Keller, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, declared that,

“Nevada’s Education Savings Account (ESA) Program was enacted to help parents and children whose needs are not being met in their current public schools, and we will work with them to intervene in this lawsuit and defeat it.”

“The United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous state supreme courts, have already held that educational choice programs, like Nevada’s ESA Program, are constitutional. We expect the same from Nevada courts.”

Education director for the Goldwater Institute, Jonathan Butcher, had this to say,

“Every child deserves the chance at a great education and the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. Lawsuits such as this challenge parents’ ability to help their children succeed,”

“Nevada has a unique law that makes flexible learning options available to every child attending a public school and a treasurer that has committed his team to listening to public comments and designing a successful education savings account program. Opponents should give students the chance to succeed with these accounts.”

Education savings accounts are one of the most promising paths forward on choice in education. They enable families to direct every single dollar of their child’s state per-pupil funding that is deposited into their account to a wide variety of education options. Arizona became the first state, in 2011, to enact the ESA model.

Today, five states, including Arizona, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada have ESAs in place, with Nevada’s being notable because it will be available to every single child currently enrolled in a public school. It is the first program universally available to all public school students. Arizona, which has the longest-running ESA option, has had great success for participating families.

As Marc Ashton, father to Max Ashton who is legally blind and used the ESA prior to finishing high school explained,

“A blind student in Arizona gets about $21,000 a year. That $21,000 represents what Arizona spends to educate a student such as Max in the public-school system.”

“We took our 90 percent of that, paid for Max to get the best education in Arizona, plus all of his Braille, all of his technology, and then there was still money left over to put toward his college education,” Marc explains. “So he is going to be able to go on to Loyola Marymount University, because we were able to save money, even while sending him to the best school in Arizona, out of what the state would normally pay for him.”

That type of customization and innovation is what the ACLU is threatening now in Nevada. It’s a shame that special interest groups continue to threaten choice in education, when choice is what is needed so badly, for so many.

Do we need a separation between school and state?

anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bureaucracy, children, civil rights, discrimination, education, freedom, funding, government, ideology, innovation, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, spending, tragedy

Filed under: anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bureaucracy, children, civil rights, discrimination, education, freedom, funding, government, ideology, innovation, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, relativism, spending, tragedy

HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE

original article: HATE WINS: OREGON STATE ISSUES GAG ORDER AGAINST OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE
July 3, 2015 by John Nolte

In a sign of the overt fascism and religious persecution to come in the wake of a Left emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage ruling, a judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.

The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

That this kind of fascist oppression was always the endgame in the Left’s push for same sex marriage, was apparent to anyone familiar with the Left’s tactics.

The push for same sex marriage was always nothing more the Left’s sheep’s clothing in a crusade to destroy Christians and the Christian Church.

By adhering to the word of God, the Left will label Christians bigots and haters, and use the power of boycotts and the State to punish and silence us.

Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, the gay-pride flag will become the fascist banner under which any Church that doesn’t perform same sex marriages will be dismantled piece-by-piece. The tools used by the Gaystapo will include coordinated hate campaigns in the media, as well as political campaigns aimed at removing the Church’s tax exempt status.

Christians and conservatives who never believed this could happen are part of the problem.

1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake me a cake, or else.

2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.

Moreover, it is not discrimination to not want to be forced by the State to participate in and profit from what Christians correctly see as the sacramentalization of sin, which is what a same sex marriage ceremony is. Christians believe our very soul is at stake.

Besides the State, the true bigoted oppressor here is the fascist lesbian couple demanding Christians be silenced by the State, but only after demanding the State force a small business owner into celebrating their marriage.

Oh, and happy Independence Day.

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, civil rights, constitution, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, first amendment, free speech, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, civil rights, constitution, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, elitism, extremism, first amendment, free speech, government, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, tragedy

When you add sexual liberation with political correctness, what do you get?

Campus Sex: Soon a Thing of the Past?
June 5, 2015 by Michael Swartz

Even casual observers might know that a number of campus rape stories have fallen apart in a very public way in recent years. Between the Duke lacrosse case, Columbia University’s “mattress girl” and the fake Rolling Stone story about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia, one might look askance at yet another allegation. Even those who still believe campus rape is an epidemic have to admit that these stories are a setback to the cause.

We also know that campus rape does exist, with the big question being just how prevalent it is. National Review writer and attorney David French argues, “The liberal standard is, increasingly, to treat every single suspect as a rapist unless there is an unmistakable indication of actual innocence — something that isn’t even the object of either the criminal or civil justice systems. For obvious reasons, they don’t apply this standard to any other area of criminal or civil law. Would they say that every murder suspect is a killer unless there’s been a finding of actual innocence?”

The fact that campus rape exists, though, is no excuse for false accusations. In today’s poisonous environment, accusation tends to equate with conviction regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).

Complicating the situation even more is the “yes means yes” law that passed in California last year and quickly spread to other cities, states and campuses. The problem with the law is its vagueness — when asked how an accused person can prove prior consent to a sexual encounter, one lawmaker (who voted for the California bill) figuratively shrugged her shoulders and conceded, “Your guess is as good as mine.” She assumed it would be up to a court to decide.

What sort of contract would a man need to sign first? (Preferably a marriage license, of course, but that horse is out of the barn.)

In an attempt to make matters worse, California is now considering a bill to mandate that affirmative consent instruction be added to high school health classes. In a backhanded way, perhaps the state is promoting abstinence — but it’s also wrecking the perception of normal relationships.

It’s sadly ironic that leftists’ sexual revolution has produced a culture of casual, meaningless “hook ups” — sex without consequences. They have found the results unpalatable, but their “solutions” merely make matters worse. Besides, don’t they want government out of the bedroom?

Support separation between school and state

bureaucracy, corruption, criminal, crisis, culture, education, ethics, government, ideology, indoctrination, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

Filed under: bureaucracy, corruption, criminal, crisis, culture, education, ethics, government, ideology, indoctrination, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, reform, regulation, relativism, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

Progressive chickens coming home to roost in higher ed

PC Liberals Devour Their Own
June 3, 2015 by RICH LOWRY

Noorthwestern University professor Laura Kipnis didn’t set out to become a martyr to free speech when she wrote a spirited essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education pushing back against “sexual paranoia” on college campuses.

To stir the pot, yes. To outrage the sensibilities of people she thinks are more naive than she is about sex, sure. But not make an example of herself in the fight against the stultifying regime of political correctness that grips academia.

This is the chilling fact at the center of the Kipnis affair: Her university investigated her for something she wrote, and not even something that was remotely anti-feminist or traditionalist.
No one will mistake Kipnis, who teaches filmmaking, for Phyllis Schlafly. Her books include “Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, Gender, and Aesthetics” and “The Female Thing: Dirt, Envy, Sex, Vulnerability.” In a starred review, Publisher’s Weekly said an evidently pro-adultery book she wrote combined “the slashing sexual contrarianism of Mailer” and “the scathing antidomestic wit of early Roseanne Barr” (sounds delightful).

This gets to the other fact that should be chilling for any liberal blasé about the Jacobin atmosphere of college campuses: If they can come after Kipnis, they can come after anyone.

Conservatives in academia have traded stories for years of fear on campus, of keeping their heads down and watching what they say lest they get harassed or fired. Now, the illiberalism of the left is being turned against its own. It is an illustration of the basic civil-libertarian point that any regime meant to stifle opponents eventually comes back to bite its architects.

The groves of academe have gone from what are supposed to be bastions of free speech to grim prosecutorial arenas where everything you say can and will be used against you. The potential McCarthyites sit in every lecture hall and seminar room and they are children of the left, students who have been trained and encouraged to be whiny, litigious and censorious.

This is a dystopia entirely of the left’s making. Its identity politics, feminism and hysteria about campus rape are ascendant on campus. On top of this, it is the Obama administration that weaponized Title IX in response to the alleged epidemic of campus rape and made it a clear and present danger to due process and freedom of expression.

In her essay, Kipnis argued that “in the post-Title IX landscape, sexual panic rules,” and the new campus codes are “a striking abridgment of everyone’s freedom” and “intellectually embarrassing.”

Kipnis should have known that her offenses were manifold. She called a he-said-she-said case of alleged unwanted groping at Northwestern, the occasion for a Title IX lawsuit, a “melodrama.” She questioned why women are called “survivors” instead of “accusers,” even when their accusations haven’t yet been validated. She professed mystification at the proliferation of students who say they find course material “triggering.”

Her critics could have argued back and hoped one day to be able to write as well as she does. Instead, they protested Kipnis (carrying mattresses, naturally) and reported her to the authorities.

In retrospect, Kipnis might as well have been a 13th-century monk taunting the Inquisition, or a 17th-century courtier of Charles I daring the Stuart king to throw him in front of the Star Chamber. She was duly accused of violating Title IX by writing an essay questioning the excesses of Title IX.

The university’s investigation of her was about what you would expect if Kafka’s Josef K. had caught the attention of the shadowy Committee of Affairs by writing an op-ed some people found uncongenial. It was difficult for Kipnis even to find out what she was accused of, which turned out to be violating a Title IX prohibition against retaliating against an accuser — even though all she did was write about a case that had nothing to do with her.

Kipnis was eventually cleared of the charges, but, as the cliche goes, the process was the punishment. Her subsequent essay on her experience, “My Title IX Inquisition,” has caused liberal soul-searching. It’s all fun and games when Condoleezza Rice gets disinvited, or when feminist-critic Christina Hoff Sommers protested, but when a film professor with high regard for Foucault is targeted, then clearly things have gotten out of hand.

The liberal explainer website Vox ran a piece a few months ago basically arguing that political correctness is a hoax perpetuated by oppressors. In the wake of the Kipnis piece, it featured a piece by a liberal professor saying he’s terrified of his liberal students, for the same reasons as Kipnis (tellingly, he wrote it under a pseudonym).

If liberals are really going to push back against the political correct regime on campus, they will have to do a number of things they will surely find unwelcome: tell students to grow up and realize that speech they disagree with is not tantamount to a physical threat; acknowledge that campus rape, even if it’s a serious issue, is not an out-of-control plague that requires dispensing with due process and other norms; and pressure the Obama administration to rescind its notorious April 2011 letter on Title IX that has roiled campuses and caught up innocent actors like Kipnis.

As it stands now, for a university not to take every Title IX accusation seriously is to risk a federal investigation and potentially a catastrophic loss of federal funding. So the normal bureaucratic impulse is to toss common sense out the window, and with it, protections for free speech.

In its statement on the Kipnis case, the campus free-speech group FIRE wrote, “The transmogrification of Title IX into an all-purpose excuse for knee-jerk overreactions to complaints about speech — sometimes only tangentially related to sex — is an unacceptable trend that endangers freedom of expression and undermines the purpose of higher education.”
Laura Kipnis just proved it.

Further commentary:

Support separation between School and State

My Title IX Inquisition
by Laura Kipnis

I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me
June 3, 2015 by Edward Schlosser

FIRE’s Statement on Northwestern’s Lengthy, Unwarranted Title IX Investigation of Laura Kipnis
June 1, 2015 by Fire

Laura Kipnis’s ‘Title IX Inquisition’ Reveals Absurdity of the Current Campus Climate
May 29, 2015 by Susan Kruth

The Laura Kipnis Saga: Privacy Paranoia Runs Amok Once More On Campus
June 2, 2015 by Greg Piper

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

No free speech for gun rights?

original article: Lawsuit filed over NRA T-shirt at middle school
May 11, 2015 by Kate White

The mother of a teenager who wore a National Rifle Association T-shirt to school is suing the Logan County Board of Education alleging her son’s constitutional rights were violated.

Tanya Lardieri filed the lawsuit in federal court last month on behalf of her son, Jared Marcum. Marcum was charged in 2013 by police with disrupting an educational process and obstructing an officer after he was asked to turn the shirt inside out or face suspension by Logan Middle School staff. A judge later dismissed the charges.

The lawsuit seeks $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. Shana Thompson, attorney for the school board, couldn’t be reached Monday. Lardieri and Marcum are represented by Chapmanville attorney Ben White.

On April 18, 2013, the lawsuit states, Marcum, a member of the National Rifle Association, who was 14 at the time, wore a pro-Second Amendment T-shirt to the middle school.

“The shirt was an un-alarming olive green tee shirt bearing the NRA logo, which is the letters ‘NRA’ in black, the words ‘PROTECT YOUR RIGHT,’ an image of a hunting rifle and the Official NRA Logo which has an Eagle and two crossed firearms,” the complaint states.

Marcum was approached by faculty during his lunch period and asked to remove the shirt or turn it inside out. He was taken to the principal’s office when he refused. He was suspended for one day, according to previous Gazette reports.

The lawsuit claims the shirt complied with the county and school’s dress code policies at the time and didn’t display a violent or threatening image.

Marcum now attends Logan County High School. The lawsuit identifies him only by his initials, but the incident has previously been reported by the Gazette, as Marcum and his parents have spoken publicly about it. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Johnston in Charleston.

Also named in the lawsuit as defendants are: Phyllis Adkins, who was president of the school board at the time of the incident; William Davis, vice president of the board; Mark McGrew, the board’s current president; Pat White and James Frye, both board members; Wilma Zigmond, superintendent of Logan County schools; Ernestine Sutherland, principal of Logan Middle School; David Burroway, Howard Rockhold and Christopher Marcus, all teachers at Logan Middle; and the school’s secretary Anita Gore.

children, civil rights, culture, education, free speech, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, second amendment

Filed under: children, civil rights, culture, education, free speech, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, second amendment

Sotomayor: Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation

original article: Sotomayor: We’re not taking away your liberty, because we won’t force you to marry a gay person
April 29, 2015 by Ben Johnson

One moment in the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over same-sex “marriage” reveals what an embarrassment Sonia Sotomayor is as a justice.

John J. Bursch, who argued on behalf of marriage, said that the people, not five unelected justices, should be able to decide whether to redefine a pillar of society that predates the government and written history.

“This case isn’t about how to define marriage,” he said. “It’s about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts? And we’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”

The “wise Latina” immediately interrupted him with the following non-sequitur:

“I’m sorry. Nobody is taking that [liberty] away from anybody. Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation, or who to marry or not marry. I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry that there’s some gay people who will choose not to.”

I’ll pass over Sotomayor saying that “every single individual..chooses” his or her sexual preference. But don’t miss the full illuminating brilliance of her argument: The Supreme Court is not trampling on the right of 50 million people in 35 states to settle their own law as long as straight people are not forced to “marry” homosexuals.

For Sotomayor, apparently anything short of judicially mandated sodomy is within the justices’ constitutional prerogatives – a view that would surprise any of our nation’s founding jurists, whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.

This would be a laugh line if the Left didn’t keep saying it with a straight face. (No pun intended.) The Obama administration made a similar argument about the HHS mandate. In February 2012, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the conscience-destroying provision of ObamaCare strongly upheld individual freedom. “It’s important to note that our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception. Nor does it affect an individual woman’s freedom to decide not to use birth control.” (Emphasis added.)

Sebelius basically said, “Hey, be happy we’re not stuffing birth control pills down your stupid Catholic face!” Coming from an administration whose Science Czar John Holdren has justified “compulsory abortion” for American women, that comes as cold comfort, indeed.

abortion, bias, civil rights, constitution, freedom, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: abortion, bias, civil rights, constitution, freedom, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Real rape culture on campus: the war on men

Another reason to separate school and state

original article: Columbia Univ. sued for supporting fake rape allegation
April 25, 2015 by streiff

Most of you have heard Emma Sulkowicz. She’s the rather homely girl, shown above in her natural environment, who has made a college career of lugging a mattress about campus as a way of commenting on sexual assault on campus. You see, Sulkowicz claimed that she, herself, was raped and the Columbia University did nothing about it.

In fact, Columbia and other authorities have cleared the young man with whom Sulkowicz is obsessed several times and they have done this even in the feminist dominated world of academia and under the impossibly low standards of proof required to convict in the Star Chambers/kangaroo courts that universities use to investigate these matters. Both parties were subject to confidentiality agreements. The young man kept his end of the bargain. Sulkowicz, unsurprisingly as it has turned out, did not. Rather she began a campaign of harassment that has driven the innocent man from college, achieve heroine status for herself among the hairy-armpit feminist set, and she got college credit for doing it. Because carrying a mattress to protest something that didn’t happen qualifies as performance art, much like covering yourself in chocolate syrup and beans sprouts. For instance, slightly bonkers NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)2% invited Sulkowicz to be her guest at the last Obama “State of the Nation” speech.

Via the New York Times

The lawsuit alleges that Jon Kessler, the professor who is named as a defendant, not only approved the project but also “publicly endorsed her harassment and defamation” of Mr. Nungesser.

“She is actively earning course credit from Columbia for this outrageous display of harassment and defamation,” the lawsuit says, with the school aware that “Paul’s legal rights are being violated and that his well-being and future prospects are suffering immensely.”

Ms. Sulkowicz is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The suit seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial for what it calls the harm caused to Mr. Nungesser’s reputation, and his loss of educational opportunities and future career prospects.

Mr. Nungesser’s suit only involves Columbia so Sulkowicz will not be able to testify. And by filing the lawsuit, he is able to tell his side of the story, something he had been prevented to do while Columbia colluded with Sulkowicz to paint him as a rapist. The lawsuit is here. Read it. Some of it is gold. For instance, this is Sulkowicz in mating mode:

nungesser-complaint1And Sulkowicz gives public health advice:

nungesser-complaint2

Fake rape seems to be the sign of sisterhood these days. You have the pudgy Lena Dunham claiming that an easily identifiable Oberlin student raped her. You have the fabulist at UVa conspiring with a polemicist from Rolling Stone magazine to smear and slander a fraternity. You have the Duke Lacrosse case. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Conservatively, Sulkowicz is nuts and should be institutionalized. She enlisted at least two friends of hers to also accuse Nungesser of rape and she filed a false complaint with the NYPD. Columbia grossly violated its own rules in how to handle complaints and it is probably going to be an expensive lesson to them in letting political correctness and feminist-weirdoism run amok. Unfortunately, Mr. Nungesser’s life is damaged, His academic career is probably over. He will forever be the guy this promiscuous woman accused, from the Pantheon of possibilities, of raping her.

abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, ethics, false, feminism, fraud, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sex, sexism, tragedy, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, ethics, false, feminism, fraud, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sex, sexism, tragedy, victimization

When is a tool a weapon? Chicago court throws out teacher discipline case.

April 18, 2014 by Warren Richey

A veteran teacher at a Chicago elementary school has lost his bid to reverse a four-day suspension without pay because he showed an array of hand tools to his second grade students as part of a math lesson.

Douglas Bartlett displayed pliers, screwdrivers, wrenches, a pocket knife, and a box cutter in his classroom as part of the lesson. He also described and demonstrated how each tool is used by professionals.

Mr. Bartlett, who has been a teacher in Chicago for 17 years, thought he was using physical objects to help his students learn the required course material.

Instead, according to school administrators at Washington Irving Elementary School, Bartlett was guilty of wielding “weapons” in his classroom in violation of various school policies.

School Principal Valeria Bryant cited Bartlett for “possessing, carrying, storing, or using a weapon on the job when not authorized to do so.”

He was also accused of violating school rules, repeatedly engaging in flagrant acts, inattention to duty, and negligently supervising children.

The principal said the teacher had failed to obtain permission to use a box-cutter and a knife in a classroom demonstration, and failed to keep the box-cutter in a location inaccessible to the seven- and eight-year-old students.

Bartlett objected to the punishment. He complained that administrators were enforcing the student handbook definition of “weapon” in his case, even though he was a teacher rather than a student, and even though the items had been used and demonstrated as tools, not weapons.

The teacher appealed the principal’s decision. Administrators upheld the four-day suspension and the inclusion of a notation of the disciplinary action in his employment record.

Barlett filed suit in federal court, asking a judge to declare that school officials had violated his rights by failing to provide him with prior notice that the use of tools like a pocketknife and box-cutters while teaching a class could subject him to disciplinary action.

On Thursday, US District Judge Robert Dow dismissed Bartlett’s case, saying that even though Bartlett clearly disagrees with the administrator’s conclusions and punishment, “his disagreement does not give rise to a viable constitutional claim.”

Judge Dow quoted an earlier court ruling: “It is not the role of the federal courts to set aside decisions of school administrators which the court may view as lacking a basis in wisdom or compassion.”

School administrators are granted wide discretion to carry out their educational mission, the judge said, and should not question that discretion when it does not violate specific constitutional guarantees.

Judge Dow said school officials had provided due process procedures for the teacher to present his side of the case and to appeal the principal’s ruling.

He added: “Even if the use of the box cutter and knife were acceptable practices – or, at least, not barred by a clearly articulated rule – the imposition of a four-day suspension for leaving such tools in a place accessible to second grade students was within the discretion of the school administrators and did not run afoul of [Bartlett’s] constitutional rights.”

The federal complaint was filed and litigated with the help of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group.

John Whitehead, president of the institute, said Bartlett was a victim of “zealous misapplication of misguided zero tolerance policies.” He called it “zero tolerance policies run amok.”

“In an age where public schools face an unprecedented number of real challenges in maintaining student discipline, and addressing threats of real violence, surely no one benefits from trumped up charges where no actual ‘weapons’ violation has occurred and no threat is posed to any member of the school community,” Mr. Whitehead said in a statement.

“Education truly suffers when school administrators exhibit such poor judgment and common sense,” he said.

The case is Douglas Bartlett v. City of Chicago School District #299 (13cv2862).

original article: When is a tool a weapon? Chicago court throws out teacher discipline case.

abuse, education, extremism, ideology, intolerance, judiciary, law, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy

Filed under: abuse, education, extremism, ideology, intolerance, judiciary, law, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy

Pages

Categories

May 2017
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031