Mike Adams spoke last night at UNC-Chapel Hill on the ridiculous, self-defeating nature of campus speech codes, and earlier in the day a new group called “the Committee for a Queerer Carolina” demonstrated the ridiculous, self-defeating nature of a federal hate-speech investigation into Elyse Crystall’s attack on her student for his “violent” “hate speech” that’s a “perfect example” of what a “white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male” would say.
Chase Foster, one of the CQC said, “We think it’s absolutely ridiculous that referring to a white heterosexual male is considered discrimination.” While I disagree with Foster’s white-washing of Crystall’s comments, I certainly agree that they should not be actionable by the feds. Especially since the chancellor, the head of the English Dept. and numerous other officials have made it crystal clear that she exhibited exceedingly poor judgment for a university instructor.
Sooner or later, the other shoe has to drop, and it did:
The committee argued that existing anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies based on race, gender and sexual orientation could be rendered meaningless as a result of the federal investigations.
So let me get this straight: Referring to someone by his race, gender, sexual orientation and creed is “not discrimination” if he is a “white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male,” and investigating it for discrimination hurts the policies based on race, gender and sexual orientation by “rendering [them] meaningless.”
Thank you, Committee for a Queerer Carolina, for proving Mike Adams right: Such codes “exist for one reason: to be applied in a discriminating fashion against conservative speech.”
