From Protesting Vietnam to Demanding “Safe Spaces” – What Happened to America’s College Kids?

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 11.38.29 AM

I grew up hearing stories of protest. About those years, a decade or so before I was born, during which America’s youth rebelled against the prevailing establishment, and forever changed the nation’s course in some meaningful ways.

Of course, many of you will accurately state that not much about the imperial state has actually changed since those days of protest, and that in fact, the out of control abuse of power both abroad and at home has gotten far worse in the subsequent decades. I will concede this point, but want to add a caveat. Certain things really did change, particularly with regard to racial discrimination in these United States. Not to say things are perfect, but to discount the significant gains achieved in this regard would be unfair.

Nevertheless, as far as the “shadow government” is concerned, not much has changed. Other than the fact that the status quo learned important lessons from those years of rebellion, and was forced to operate even more secretly than it did before. As an example, the military-industrial complex learned that it couldn’t have genuine journalists running around war zones after images taken in Vietnam shocked the nation and helped turn popular sentiment against it. As such, reporters in war zones these days are nothing more than propagandists and imperial shills. Indeed, increasingly effective propaganda and a captured corporate media has probably been the single most important tool used by the shadow government to maintain and consolidate control over all these years. In a nutshell, people have been dumbed down, as well as mentally and emotionally castrated, to the point of being almost unable to rebel against anything of real importance.

Which brings me to the point of this post. The reason I brought up the civil disobedience and activism of the 1960’s, is because it did at least represent a true conflict with that generation’s status quo, and it did in fact attempt to tackle some of the pressing issues of power, justice and freedom that existed at the time. This is in stark contrast to what passes as “activism” on college campuses today, which essentially amounts to “pro-censorship” students vigilantly defending an entirely invented and unconstitutional right to “not be offended.” Whereas the 60’s movements, for all their failings, were at least ostensibly about freedom (of the mind and body), today’s college movements are strikingly focused on shackling the mind, and turning campuses in unintellectual, zombie-filled wastelands.

Of course, while someone like myself might be tempted to just laugh off such infantile and pathetic “activism,” it is in fact one of the most dangerous trends facing modern American society. You’d think that a culture in which the most vibrant source of college protest centered around the defense of a non-existent right to not be offended, would be one where all other issues of national importance had been successfully addressed.

You’d never know there was an ongoing surveillance state panopticon systematically spying on everyone and trampling their constitutional rights. You’d never know that the U.S. government has special forces in 135 countries as it launches new wars almost every other week. You’d never know that the Federal Reserve, Washington D.C. and Wall Street had colluded to redirect all wealth into the hands of a few oligarchs via a centrally planned, criminally corrupt economic and financial system. You’d never know any of this, because America’s youth are focused on creating safe spaces for their precious feelings.

So this begs the question. Does intent matter? For all its failings, at least the 60’s protesters actually attempted to confront real issues, and sometimes even paid the highest price for doing so. Today’s college youth are not only not confronting any of the pressing issues of the day, but they aren’t risking anything at all, because they are the establishment.

For example, in almost all cases where coddled, thin-skinned students claim their feelings are hurt, school administrators bend over backwards to appease them, legality notwithstanding (see: Speechless – UCLA Engages in Absurd, Anti-Intellectual and Dangerous Attack on Campus Free Speech). In fact, if anyone is being discriminated against, it’s those rare and courageous professors who publicly stand up to this unconstitutional nonsense. Which brings me to today’s post about an ongoing incident at Yale.

As the always excellent Lenore Skenazy explains in her post: Mob of Yale Students Scream Profanities about Halloween Costume Insensitivity:

Halloween message signed by 13 college administrators asked Yale students to be sensitive about the costumes they chose, so as not to demean, alienate or “impact” any groups or individuals.

But when the associate Master (faculty head) of one of the dorms on campus, early childhood educator Erika Christakis, wrote her own note to students suggesting that maybe we don’t want the authorities deciding what costume is or is not sensitive enough, you’d think she’d endorsed genocide.

Students, hundreds of them, insisted they  longer felt “safe.” They protested. They screamed. They demanded her ouster,  even though in her letter, Christakis bent over backwards to say that she knows that the costume guidelines came from “a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense.” What’s more:

I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect…on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

…As a former preschool teacher…it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably “appropriative” about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day….

Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense – and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes– I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?

Well said, but here’s what happened next…

Over 700 angry Yalies (my alma mater) signed a petition saying that Christakis’ “offensive” letter “trivializes the harm done by these tropes” (stereotypes) and “invalidated” those hurt.

As the days passed, the outrage mounted, a until a mob surrounded Christakis’ husband, the sociologist/doctor/professor Nicholas. He is seen in this video being screamed at by a student swearing at him and insisting he and his wife step down, because their job is not to create an intellectual space, but a “safe space” for students.

Watch the video:

Did you hear that? She claimed, in a completely unhinged rant, college “is not about creating an intellectual space.”

I have a two week year old infant at home, and I’ve yet to see him throw a temper tantrum anywhere in the ballpark of that student’s performance. Which confirms my belief, that my new role as father is the most important job I’ve ever taken on in my life, and one I take very seriously.

As such I want to leave you with the following question:

With students being coddled in a fantasy world of “safe spaces” and fear of “micro-aggressions,” can we really expect them to grow up to be adults capable of confronting real issues of money, power and imperial aggression?

For related articles, see:

Speechless – UCLA Engages in Absurd, Anti-Intellectual and Dangerous Attack on Campus Free Speech

Rutgers University Warns Students – “There is No Such Thing as Free Speech”

A Professor Speaks Out – How Coddled, Hyper Sensitive Undergrads are Ruining College Learning

Statists Declare War on Free Speech – College Students Banned from Handing Out Constitutions in Hawaii

California Student Banned from Handing Out Constitutions on Campus

A Winter Wonderland of Fear – Cities Across the U.S. Move to Ban Unregulated Sledding

Brave New World Revisited…Key Excerpts and My Summary

Here We Go…Slate Magazine Bashes the First Amendment

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

23 thoughts on “From Protesting Vietnam to Demanding “Safe Spaces” – What Happened to America’s College Kids?”

  1. The Whitehouse Secret: We Lied:

    This past week the Whitehouse admitted: The greatest threat to the survival of modern civilization is a SOLAR EMP; NOT AGW.

    http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/white-house-prepared -for-emp-that-would-wipe-out-power-render-cellphones-and-internet-useless_11062015

    Today Dr. Kenneth M. Towe of the Smithsonian acknowledged sending the following factual information on Earth’ source of heat to the Whitehouse:

    https://www.researchgate.net/messages/attachment/690249_Solar%20storms%20and%20global%20warming%3F.png

    That is why the Whitehouse admitted to the public: The greatest threat to modern civilization today is a SOLAR EMP, not AGW!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    8 November 2015

    Reply
  2. I think they must be teaching insanity at the nations colleges. Oh my where will their safe spaces be when they get out into the big bad world. Grow up lil kids. Remember life’s a BITCH. Get used to it, expect it.

    Reply
  3. Poor baby, she longs for the ultimate safe space: her mother’s womb.

    I don’t think this mindset is the fault of the nation’s colleges. She being a freshman for only a couple months, she obviously has had this view since high school.

    Reply
  4. I think the real issues of money, power and imperial aggression will implode under their own weight before your son comes of age. I see something in my nine year old and even in my two year old that makes me very hopeful for the future. These children were raised in an age post family breakup. They want peace and stability at any cost and recognize immediately any BS that perpetuates war. I think this includes political correctness where the oppressed becomes the oppressor. As my daughter said “I know you want me to be happy.”

    Reply
  5. Mike, can we have a space safe from sounds and pictures disgusting to the senses? Or at least put a warning that there is going to be a temper tantrum worse than that of a baby before the video comes in. Thanks.

    Reply
  6. I think that young woman should transfer out of Yale immediately…to nursery school. At least she will be in a safe space. But someone should remind her that when you throw a temper tantrum in nursery school, you don’t get any cookies.

    Reply
  7. Ah, the “Socially Conscious Millenials”, today’s useful idiots filling the ranks of the march to tyranny.

    You’re not wrong Mike when you say that your role as a father is your most important job. The Liberty Blitzkrieg — the lighting skirmish — is lost, I’m afraid. The dominant hordes baying to be protected from offense are the last wave of this tyrannous onslaught. We are now in the times of the Liberty Resistance, and how we raise children today will decide whether their children will see a Liberty Renaissance.

    Reply
  8. Hate to say it, but the boomer protesters of the 60s were no less infantile and deluded in their priorities, especially in California in the 1962-1964 period. The student sitdown strikes often had no purpose except to skip class. Certain groups were able to teach strikers to make meaningful demands, but that seemed to only follow legitimate questions as to what the strikers wanted

    Reply
  9. “Does intent matter?”
    Worse yet, I would say, does inference matter?
    Why should I be held responsible for the way in which others infer my speech? I find people getting attacked by ignoramus’ who assert that the other person offended them when no such implication was made. Like students who don’t get the gist of school, and teachers who claim that their number one priority is the safety of their students. If that indeed were their job, their training would be woefully inadequate.

    Reply
  10. Michael, I enjoy reading your blog and usually agree with your perspective on things. However, I wish you would stop saying we have special forces in 135 countries around the world. I’d like to see a reference for that. I have been to over 60 countries around the world and fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I will grant you, that both wars were a grand waste of US taxpayer dollars and US lives. However, I can assure you we, do not have special forces in 135 countries. You need to drop it. It makes you less credible.

    Reply
    • From the Independent:

      American special operations forces have been deployed to 135 different countries in 2015 alone, according to reports.

      As reported by Nick Turse in TomDispatch, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spokesman Ken McGraw says that US special operations soldiers have been dispatched to 135 countries in 2015, or around 69 per cent of all the countries in the world.

      You can go ahead and take it up with the Independent newspaper, and Nick Turse if you’d like: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-special-operations-forces-have-been-deployed-to-135-countries-this-year-alone-10516157.html

    • How is Mike less credible just because he posts something you don’t agree with? That’s the whole point of this site. To post information people may not be aware or and/or agree with. Otherwise, there is no evolution.

    • In the above article you say the US has special forces in 135 stationed in countries around the world. I stand by my statement. This is not true. You did provide a reference, but the spokesman says, Spec Ops has deployed to over 135 countries around the world. I will grant you that that is probably a 101 countries too many, but by no means -means they are there now or on a continual basis. Just trying to help you be accurate in your reporting that is all, Michael.

      As for Sallae, facts are what are important to me. That is it. I just don’t agree with things that are blatantly not true. Exaggerations and falsehoods don’t help evolution.

  11. Soon U.S. women will be subject to selective service just like U.S. men in return for voting rights. Feminists and SJW’s want safe spaces and believe women should be allowed to serve on the front line during war. Will they complain to Putin in a war with Russia, that artillery fire is creating an unsafe space on the battlefield? Will they say they feel all triggered by the bullets zipping past?

    Reply

Leave a Reply