The Campus Coddle Prod Gets Brandished: Conservative Columnist Axed From College Paper
The campus culture has become so suffused with the notion that there is one correct point of view -- the SJW one -- and that even uttering or printing anything with a different view is akin to boiling a pot of kittens.
Newspaper editors and writers used to trot out a line -- about "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." That was supposed to be a mission in journalism.
Not for the new pups in the arena.
At Mizzou, they've just fired a conservative columnist from the paper. Mark Schierbecker writes at The College Fix that the Editor-in-Chief, Jared Kaufman, explained the firing of conservative columnist Chris Vas like so:
"We did not dismiss him from our staff over a difference of opinion. We fired him because we cannot have members of our staff actively seeking to spark controversy rather than foster healthy discussions."
Yes, this is a newspaper editor:
"...We cannot have members of our staff actively seeking to spark controversy rather than foster healthy discussions."
Kaufman explains in the student paper:
Last week, The Maneater published a column written by Chris Vas called "Column: Black Lives Matter is addressing the wrong problem," in which Vas says the movement should focus on strengthening black families instead of protesting police brutality. This semester, his first with the paper, Vas has written about transgender bathroom access policies and Donald Trump's candidacy.It came to my attention that Vas had coordinated with a friend in the MU Social Justice Network Facebook page to have them post his columns on that page with inciting language.
That "inciting lanuage" -- via the College Fix piece -- was simply this:
"Look at this," MU College Republicans member Abigail Hoer wrote Friday. "Why is our campus newspaper publishing hate speech?"
Not exactly language out of, oh, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In fact, in a sane world, this would be positive "incitement" -- an opportunity for discussion.
Kaufman protests to The College Fix:
Kaufman said he had learned "that Vas had coordinated with a friend in the MU Social Justice Network Facebook page to have them post his columns on that page with inciting language....Kaufman suggested that the Maneater had been getting heat from readers who thought Vas's column was speaking for the paper as a whole.
And these tender little bunnies absolutely can't bear that they might have to say something along the lines of, "Well, I don't agree with him, but..."
Or suggest that people who disagree with him write op-eds in response.
That's what a free-speech-fostering environment would lead to.
But, instead, "freedom of the press" is wasted on people who think "Free speech" means "free to echo exactly what we think."
In 20-25 years, we are going to be voting for these clowns to run the country. We are so screwed.
Nick at September 26, 2016 5:42 AM
That is a truly horrifying thought.
Amy Alkon at September 26, 2016 5:49 AM
Forget it Amy, it's Mizzou.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 26, 2016 6:02 AM
Maybe it's time for Kansas to return the favor of when Quantrill burned Lawrence to the ground. Please, please, please come burn Columbia! You know you want revenge!
James Armstrong at September 26, 2016 6:35 AM
It goes to motivation. Liberals are willing to believe that liberals who commit a wrong were not motivated by malice, but conservatives who commit a wrong are. Therefore, the punishment of the conservative must be worse, in keeping with the malignant motivation.
That's why Bill Clinton can rape women and not be called on it by liberal media, but Bill Cosby must be made an example and publicly drawn and quartered. His motivation is wrong. Both men deserve to be punished or at least tried. Both sets of women deserve to be heard.
Don Jr. uses Skittles as an analogy for terrorists hiding among refugees and he must be publicly excoriated, but liberals use M&Ms in an analogy for rape culture and it's edgy and insightful.
Even after the similarity of the two analogies is made known, liberals insist there is no similarity and Don Jr.'s ad was hateful while the feminist M&Ms ad wasn't. Two sets of rules used to be called hypocrisy. Now it's called inclusive.
Conan the Grammarian at September 26, 2016 7:09 AM
Because the best way to prepare kids to function in a diverse, free and unshielded society is to first put them in a protective cocoon and eliminate any exposure to controversial thoughts or ideas.
Jay at September 26, 2016 7:29 AM
I'm confused by the editor's explanation. He explains how The Maneater draws a bright line between opinion columns and news--with zero staff crossover--but he doesn't say why he believes that is relevant here. (Did Vas pass his column off as a news piece when he had his friend post? It doesn't appear so.)
http://www.themaneater.com/blogs/the-newsroom/2016/9/19/columnist-dismissed-maneater-staff/
Insufficient Poison at September 26, 2016 7:36 AM
Apparently, people on social media were blaming the paper for holding the views expressed in the column, confusing it with the news the paper publishes.
Fox and MSNBC had the same problem they put their personalities (opinion show hosts) in as hosts for the election night coverage. When the opinion hosts expressed an opinion, people argued that it was biased reporting of the election results, not analysis.
Conan the Grammarian at September 26, 2016 7:52 AM
I see.
I checked out a couple of his columns. They're pretty tame by my standards. (Black Lives Matter is worried about the wrong issues. Obama shouldn't interfere re the trans bathroom issue.) I see more incendiary stuff on Facebook and even on TV every day. The worst thing I can say about him is that he's a middling writer.
Anyway, I never knew a controversial columnist who didn't thirst for controversy.
Our campus paper had two columnists that made Vas look like a lightweight. They absolutely did intend to stir up rage, which resulted in our building being surrounded with shouting protesters more than once, so bad that we were afraid to exit. I also believe they attracted thousands of readers (big campus) who opened the paper just to hate-read.
One was a politically conservative Ann Coulter type, and I thought she was extremely brave. I don't think I could have stood up to the harassment she faced on campus. She did a piece criticizing a university program that admitted under qualified minorities, stating that a large percentage of them end up dropping out, and I worried she was going to be assaulted. People would tail her to class, mocking her and calling her names. The Cultural Center claimed that a couple of the stats she incorporated were incorrect, and the paper used that as a reason to fire her.
The other didn't have any political affiliation that I could discern, but he wrote columns tearing apart his various ex-girlfriends and published their actual photos. THAT guy never got fired, even when the women wrote complained to the editor saying they'd been libeled.
Insufficient Poison at September 26, 2016 8:37 AM
"People would tail her to class, mocking her and calling her names."
The BEST indication of the value of your beliefs is the behavior of those who address it.
Act like scum, you are scum, and your ideas are nasty, too.
-----
In other news, I note that apparently, people who need a "safe space" are appearing on the nation's highways. Brake for oncoming headlights in the other lane, brake for trees as you approach them on the road, stop passing the semi once near the front because its engine and drivetrain are noisy, etc.
It is to weep.
Radwaste at September 26, 2016 8:52 AM
“There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.”
“You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right?…Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, to the incinerator.”
Fahrenheit 451
lujlp at September 26, 2016 9:35 AM
1. The editor's an idiot.
2. The fired writer can (and probably should) start his own campus publication, whether a paper edition or online.
3. Once again, I'll remind that these people did not arrive at school as blank slates; this sort of thinking (or nonthinking) comes first from the home.
4. One of the two best decisions I ever made was dropping out of college — and avoiding academia ever since.
Kevin at September 26, 2016 10:12 AM
'Coddle prod'
Inspired word-play. I'd tip my hat, if I had one on. More like this, please.
llater,
llamas
llamas at September 26, 2016 11:37 AM
Well, it's Mizzou, as someone else pointed out. And it's rapidly gaining a reputation of as the most fascist institution of higher learning in the country.
Ironically, Mizzou is supposed to be known for its journalism.
By the way, the article at "The College Fix" you cite is, as you point out, written by Mark Schierbecker. Schierbecker is the same student reporter who was assaulted by Melissa Click.
Conan writes: That's why Bill Clinton can rape women...
Gee, that's a pretty serious allegation. Do you have proof of this?
Patrick at September 26, 2016 12:26 PM
As much proof as is apparently needed these days, someone accused him of it.
And even Bill's wife says a woman accusing someone of rape should be taken seriously.
Conan the Grammarian at September 26, 2016 12:36 PM
Conan: And even Bill's wife says a woman accusing someone of rape should be taken seriously.
Oh, she said worse than that. Hillary seems you have a right to be believed. Which would place those who allege they are rape victims on a higher standing than anyone else who accuses someone of a crime.
Patrick at September 26, 2016 12:39 PM
Oh, she said worse than that. Hillary seems you have a right to be believed.
I know she said that, so I'm not disbelieving you. But I double dog dare you to find that position stated on her official web site.
That got put down the ol' memory hole just as soon as some wise guy muttered Juanita Broaddrick. That's the person Trump should have invited.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 26, 2016 2:21 PM
Which would place those who allege they are rape victims on a higher standing than anyone else who accuses someone of a crime.
Patrick at September 26, 2016 12:39 PM
_____________________________________
I don't follow. Insurance fraudsters obviously exist, but hardly anyone will suspect you of being one just because you claim that your house was robbed. (Not the best analogy, maybe, but a fair one.)
Unless, of course, you already have a reputation of serious dishonesty. Which the average woman does not.
lenona at September 26, 2016 2:36 PM
Lenona, Hillary said that a person who claims to have been raped has a right to be believed. No one has a right to be believed when they accuse someone else of a crime. The accused carries the presumption of innocence; the burden of proof is on the accuser. And rape is not the exception.
Perhaps insurance companies require a very low standard of proof. And in some cases, because certain insurance companies were so overwhelmed with claims that they didn't have the time to investigate them all, that they simply took people at their word (to their detriment), but no one has the right to be believed.
Patrick at September 26, 2016 3:05 PM
OK, so I was thinking of the social right to be believed, not the legal right. (I was also thinking of the general public, not insurance companies.)
But it's possible that Hillary was thinking of the same.
lenona at September 26, 2016 3:13 PM
Lenona: OK, so I was thinking of the social right to be believed, not the legal right.
But there is a danger in that, too. If you assume that a woman has the right to be believed, then you're assuming that the person she's accusing is a rapist.
Patrick at September 26, 2016 5:19 PM
I think anyone who claims to be a victim of a crime has the right to have their claim taken seriously insofar as to be investigated fully and dispassionately.
But given the sheer number of implosions in high profile cases women have squandered the right to be taken at their word.
And I think feminists have done women a disservice (no surprise there) by including things like regretted drunken hookups in the definition. It muddies the waters and people lose empathy
lujlp at September 26, 2016 5:36 PM
lujlp nailed it for feminism and many other current "crisis".
Take away personal responsibility and paint everything w/a broad brush (don't drop the gun, get shot by a person of your own race, riot against ???), and people w/their own troubles lose interest.
Buy into the "they (men) are all against me" stuff and people w/other stuff going on lose interest.
Complain about aggressive police action and police lose interest. Then you can complain about police not solving the crimes being committed by, you guessed it, people in your neighborhood. It's not like you have a responsibility to provide tips or "snitch". That's not your job right?
If you explained it to them (don't drink until you pass out unless you have a trustworthy buddy) you are "blaming the victim".
"Victims" don't play in traffic except at college and in "black" neighborhoods.
Next stop. "No-go zones" in the "safe spaces" because you know, everyone is against me.
Bob in Texas at September 27, 2016 6:04 AM
OK, but at least we need to ask why it's not really polite to assume (even privately) that the average stranger, quoted in the newspapers, is a liar when it comes to the burglary scenario, but it's somehow OK to assume (even behind her back) that there's at least a 50-50 chance that a woman in a news story on rape IS a liar when we don't even know whether she has a reputation for lying or not - or even what her age is. Teens are probably more likely to lie than adults.
(Of course, the victim of a burglary or even a home invasion often couldn't see the criminal's face and cannot easily identify the criminal, but false accusations against individuals can and do happen in those cases, whether due to mistaken identity OR insurance fraud.)
It appalls me the way some people who have never even met Bill Cosby continue to insist his accusers are liars, when, to my knowledge, none of his accusers has a bad reputation in the honesty department, never mind a reputation for framing people for violent felonies. Doesn't an honest reputation count for ANYTHING these days? Even if 10% of those women are lying for who knows what reason, that still leaves more than 50 victims.
I will say, however, that since compassion fatigue and cynicism among the masses are unfortunate facts of life, if one really hopes to get all the sympathy and support possible from one's friends and family when one is robbed or viciously attacked, one might choose to look up the statistics on how, when and where those crimes happen - and then do what one can to avoid becoming a statistic. As in: Decide how much money one is willing to spend as a taxpayer to help protect against crime. Plus decide on whether certain things are really grown-up behavior in the first place - whether it's binge drinking or taking home a strange woman who could easily kill you for your wallet. (Walking down the street at night is clearly part of the taxpayer category. We NEED the freedom to travel by all means.)
Oh, and it's clearly every parent and teacher's responsibility to make sure kids are growing up ethically, even if means having to reform kids older than 10 with psychiatric drugs. No one laughs at the idea of making kids learn not to lie, steal, cheat, set fires, torture animals, tell racist jokes, commit hate crimes, or drive drunk - even if they already have long records in those areas. Obviously, it helps to check and make sure, starting on day one, that they're actually learning the meaning and importance of empathy. Plenty of kids are covert Jekyll-Hydes, so adults have to do extra work to uncover them. Compassion fatigue also applies, after all, to those parents who "should have known better" and didn't.
lenona at September 27, 2016 9:48 AM
"It appalls me the way some people who have never even met Bill Cosby continue to insist his accusers are liars, when, to my knowledge, none of his accusers has a bad reputation in the honesty department, never mind a reputation for framing people for violent felonies."
Two points:
1 - the sheer number of offenses makes them difficult to believe. How can so many be so stupid as to put themselves at risk like that? How can a comedian beat President Clinton in the coercion game?
2 - "violent felonies" is misnamed because of the horror of being used for sexual purposes. If there was even so much as a bruise on a victim, it didn't get reported stridently enough to result in an arrest.
Twenty years later looks like regrets at the high-school reunion.
Radwaste at September 27, 2016 12:33 PM
Doesn't an honest reputation count for ANYTHING these days?
Better ask Crystal Gayle Magnum, or Jackie, Lena Dunham, Elizabeth Coast, Kelly Harwood, Lynette Lee, Rhiannon Brooker, Gemma Gregory, Linsey Attridge, Cori Lynn Osiecki, or Biurny Peguero
lujlp at September 27, 2016 12:49 PM
lujlp, forgive my lack of intellectualism, but I only recognize two of those names.
Did all of them have a reputation for Apollo-like honesty?
Rad, if someone's unconscious, sex counts as violence.
lenona at September 27, 2016 1:08 PM
Lenona,
The thing you are missing is we don't take people at their word that they were robbed. They report the crime to the police. The police investigate (or not as the case is most of the time).
On the personal as opposed to the societal level, if you say you were raped most everyone used to believe you. But now that the definition of rape has been expanded so much people have to ask what do you mean when you use the word 'rape'. Are you talking about someone urinating in public or are you talking about forcible sex? Feminists have so expanded the word it is now meaningless.
As for your unconscious sex is violence, it is clear that only women can be raped. Remember the report about the guy who was passed out drunk who was fellated by a girl? He was determined to be the rapist and kicked out of school.
See the issue with expanding the definition of rape?
Ben at September 27, 2016 1:47 PM
Remember the report about the guy who was passed out drunk who was fellated by a girl? He was determined to be the rapist and kicked out of school.
______________________________________
Duh, obvious that was injust. We need to make whatever changes in the law we can - but NOT so people can assault the unconscious!
If a man had done that to an unconscious man, anyone knows what the outcome would likely be.
lenona at September 27, 2016 7:01 PM
If a man had done that to an unconscious man, anyone knows what the outcome would likely be.
They both would have been expelled because all men are guilty?
lujlp at September 28, 2016 6:31 PM
Don't play dumb. Of course not. But we clearly need to figure out how to stop courts from charging unconscious people with assault - just as men shouldn't have to pay for children who aren't theirs or children born by a statutory rapist.
lenona at September 29, 2016 2:27 PM
But we clearly need to figure out how to stop courts from charging unconscious people with assault
COURTS dont, college star chamber tribunals do
lujlp at September 30, 2016 7:18 AM
Leave a comment