We dissent


#1

[FONT=inherit]The student protests that have swept through Claremont McKenna College (CMC) over the past few days—and the ensuing fallout—have made us disappointed in many of those involved.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]First, former Dean Mary Spellman. We are sorry that your career had to end this way, as the email in contention was a clear case of good intentions being overlooked because of poor phrasing. However, we are disappointed in you as well. We are disappointed that you allowed a group of angry students to bully you into resignation. We are disappointed that you taught Claremont students that reacting with emotion and anger will force the administration to act. We are disappointed that when two students chose to go on a hunger strike until you resigned, you didn’t simply say, “so what?” If they want to starve themselves, that’s fine—

We Dissent | The Claremont Independent

As the article pointed out this situation could have been handled better if those in charge remember that just because a few students led by an agitator speak that does not mean they reflect the views of the majority.

To many times have we seen some place hit by dissent by a lone voice or a small minority which ends up telling everyone they must abide by their wishes. Stories of businesses shut down by a few sometimes with an agenda.

It is good to hear voices speak out against this type of nonsense.[/FONT]


#2

College kids…

And people wonder why I dislike them (in general).


#3

[quote=“Devilneck, post:2, topic:47716”]
College kids…

And people wonder why I dislike them (in general).
[/quote]I do not want to sound discourteous to college students but unless they are older adults, Rush Limbaugh calls them kids full of mush and they believe the tripe coming from leftist professors.


#4

Why WOULDN’T they believe it? They’ve been indoctrinated to believe it from Kindergarten, after all…often without ANY dissenting opinions from their own parents.


#5

Group think long ago overtook critical analysis on many of our college campuses. Why should we be surprised by the latest events?


#6

I didn’t believe it. I could tell they weren’t being balanced in their viewpoint, weren’t trying to encourage critical thinking, and that they knew less of history than I did.

But then, maybe I had it easy. A Greek economics’ professor stating “What’s wrong with Socialism? It works great in my country!” doesn’t take a very knowledgeable person to discount. Just one who occasionally hears the news.


#7

This.

I went to University and took a number of Humanities and Sociology courses (most were mandatory). Being from a poor family myself, I heard a great number of arguments of how the poor had it tough and the reasons for it, to disagree would place a target on your back. I agreed with the first part of the discussion that the poor have it tough, the second part I disagreed most of the time, and in particular with the responses/solutions. Having a laissez-faire, right leaning opinion was always unacceptable during my University years, and in particular, it is unacceptable in Canada where many (usually those working for the state) deemed right leaning opinions as “dangerous”, because, well, you know, “this would force the government to be smaller, more efficient and OUT of the lives of citizens. This would allow the free market to reign, based on talent and competition”. Very few if any will say it, but if you dig deep enough into someones discourse (I generally start with “what do you do or a living”) you will understand why they have that position.

During an MBA class a female professor was explaining to the class why women should work hard to be leaders in the corporate world, she said it was the only way to “change the prevailing male dominance in business”. When I asked her what her thoughts were on women starting businesses and innovating NEW businesses and corporations, her response was “well so many new businesses fail so that’s not the best approach”. Huh? That’s the attitude coming from an MBA prof, you can imagine how the person from the sociology department feels.

I recall my Aunt being so proud of me when I graduated with Honours, as she put it “you have really done well considering where you came from”. I responded that where I came from didn’t matter, where I was going was the important point, the application of my abilities should lead to success. I too realized early the crutch that people would provide and the arguments AGAINST free markets, Individualism (at least in Canada) and globalization. The desire to take more from those who had, while expecting nothing more at all from those who need and should be working hardest to achieve. I absolutely disagreed except for a few instances, such as my professors right to strike, which they did, and in which I still went to school and even approached one of the professors who was picketing to let him know, in essence, “I support your right to strike, I need to come to school and do my work as I don’t have the luxury of falling behind”.

These college students are setting themselves for failure. Instead of working hard and demanding equality based on the inequality of talent, which would ensure the best and brightest are awarded as they apply themselves, they want Communism. They won’t use the words such as Socialism or Communism, but that is what they want, without even knowing that this is what they want.

Oh. For the record. I am currently working in a job I don’t like, among much younger and unprofessional employees. I am doing this as my wife have to pay our mortgage and make ends meet, it is what it is for the moment. I hear some at work complain about the low wages we get and the hard work (which it is). I agree with them, but I also say, “no one is forcing us to be here”. It has become more clear to me that Canada isn’t a place where talent and effort is rewarded as it should be, and my wife and I have discussed leaving for greener pastures. Your colleges are becoming like our Universities, which doesn’t bode well for the next generation of Americans. This is why I have a strong affinity to the words Carson and Rubio speak, they understand the dangers of socialism (and worse) by living through those difficult circumstances and still being able to see the forest through the trees…


#8

[quote=“shockedcanadian, post:7, topic:47716”]
This.

I went to University and took a number of Humanities and Sociology courses (most were mandatory). Being from a poor family myself, I heard a great number of arguments of how the poor had it tough and the reasons for it, to disagree would place a target on your back. I agreed with the first part of the discussion that the poor have it tough, the second part I disagreed most of the time, and in particular with the responses/solutions. Having a laissez-faire, right leaning opinion was always unacceptable during my University years, and in particular, it is unacceptable in Canada where many (usually those working for the state) deemed right leaning opinions as “dangerous”, because, well, you know, “this would force the government to be smaller, more efficient and OUT of the lives of citizens. This would allow the free market to reign, based on talent and competition”. Very few if any will say it, but if you dig deep enough into someones discourse (I generally start with “what do you do or a living”) you will understand why they have that position.

During an MBA class a female professor was explaining to the class why women should work hard to be leaders in the corporate world, she said it was the only way to “change the prevailing male dominance in business”. When I asked her what her thoughts were on women starting businesses and innovating NEW businesses and corporations, her response was “well so many new businesses fail so that’s not the best approach”. Huh? That’s the attitude coming from an MBA prof, you can imagine how the person from the sociology department feels.

I recall my Aunt being so proud of me when I graduated with Honours, as she put it “you have really done well considering where you came from”. I responded that where I came from didn’t matter, where I was going was the important point, the application of my abilities should lead to success. I too realized early the crutch that people would provide and the arguments AGAINST free markets, Individualism (at least in Canada) and globalization. The desire to take more from those who had, while expecting nothing more at all from those who need and should be working hardest to achieve. I absolutely disagreed except for a few instances, such as my professors right to strike, which they did, and in which I still went to school and even approached one of the professors who was picketing to let him know, in essence, “I support your right to strike, I need to come to school and do my work as I don’t have the luxury of falling behind”.

These college students are setting themselves for failure. Instead of working hard and demanding equality based on the inequality of talent, which would ensure the best and brightest are awarded as they apply themselves, they want Communism. They won’t use the words such as Socialism or Communism, but that is what they want, without even knowing that this is what they want.

Oh. For the record. I am currently working in a job I don’t like, among much younger and unprofessional employees. I am doing this as my wife have to pay our mortgage and make ends meet, it is what it is for the moment. I hear some at work complain about the low wages we get and the hard work (which it is). I agree with them, but I also say, “no one is forcing us to be here”. It has become more clear to me that Canada isn’t a place where talent and effort is rewarded as it should be, and my wife and I have discussed leaving for greener pastures. Your colleges are becoming like our Universities, which doesn’t bode well for the next generation of Americans. This is why I have a strong affinity to the words Carson and Rubio speak, they understand the dangers of socialism (and worse) by living through those difficult circumstances and still being able to see the forest through the trees…
[/quote]These are typical reactions of people who are basically common-sense folks when exposed to the utter LACK of common-sense among those in academia. I pursued an undergrad degree in Sociology because, at the time, I was a police officer and my academic “advisor” encouraged that “discipline”. At that time, I was ALSO intending to make law enforcement my career–despite the fact that it was NOT known to be terribly well-compensated monetarily. I always respected the law–in particular the Constitution. I made it my business to study it, what it says and what the intent was of those who wrote it. I acquired copies of The Federalist and studied IT in minute detail. I was accepted at the FBI’s Law Enforcement Academy and was scheduled to begin studying in Quantico in January of 1975, but made what may have been my WORST career mistake by allowing myself to be persuaded by the Mayor and City Manager to LEAVE the PD and take a job as an assistant to the City Manager. Since I was no longer a commissioned officer, I was therefore ineligible for the FBI Academy and missed out on that opportunity. During my pursuit of my bachelor’s degree, I managed to obtain enough non-sociology credits to graduate with a double major–including business administration. In my sociology classes, I was required to read some pretty militant stuff…“The Autobiography of Malcolm X” and “Custer Died For Our Sins” among them. I was fortunate enough to have professors who were willing to accept my deep criticism of socialism as a political system and understand how I found it to be unworkable under our Constitutional Republic system. Their attitude was rapidly replaced in the 1970’s by one of INtolerance towards any opposing point of view. Remember that this was in Texas which has ALWAYS been pretty conservative–even when it was majority Democrat. We even had a GOP Senator in those days–John Tower, who was a shrimpy little guy, by the way–about 5’4" or so–and had to stand on a box to see over the average lectern.


#9

Walking away from a potential career as an FBI agent is a big decision, all things happen for a reason I suppose. There are a few security agencies I respect not out of their successes alone, but out of their desire to adapt, admit fault when needed and work ethically towards success while protecting their nations laws. The FBI are one such agency. I could compare the way they operate and hold other municipal agencies to task (such as the NYPD and LAPD) to some of the larger security agencies that we have in Canada but it would be an embarrassment. Plain and simple. The FBI are hands down the more trustworthy of the lot, there is hope Trudeau will try and change these severe short fallings in Canada, we all have our fingers crossed…

Ironically, it isn’t always the honest and loyal police agent that can make the big difference, it is also the person involved in politics who with their decisions and leadership can held mold and define these agencies for the better. So, I hope your experiences in city management was for good use, especially with your studying of the Constitution.


#10

No. The FBI’s Law Enforcement Academy was designed to train law enforcement officers in the details and techniques of law enforcement and then send them back to their home departments to train others…not to become FBI Agents themselves. At that time, to become an FBI field Agent, one had to either have a Law Degree or be a CPA. I was neither a lawyer nor an accountant and would not have been considered for an FBI Agent’s position. I think those qualifications have changed since, but that’s what they were at that time…a holdover from the Hoover years.


#11

Oh I see. Yes, the Hoover years…I assume a great deal has changed with the FBI since then, many changes for the better.


#12

…and not a few for the WORSE. Hoover had no tolerance for immorality among his agents and being caught in a drunken sex party would get you canned in a heartbeat, just as an example. Don’t believe ANY of that nonsense about him being homosexual or a cross-dresser. It’s all BS dreamed up by some doofus woman who wrote an unauthorized “biography” of Hoover. After his death a woman’s dress was found in his closet and SHE, and others, jumped to the conclusion that it must have been Hoover’s own because he’d never married. She put two and two together and came up with eleven.