Saturday, November 28, 2009

LibFascist UMinn Plans To Impose Thought Control, Exclude Independent Thinkers

And makes one wonder whether the Obamacrat Reich's Hidden Fascist Agenda is quietly moving forward...

Do read the whole thing. Basically, it exposes the UMinn as an institution thoroughly posioned with extreme left-wing dogmatic ideology and hellbent on brainwashing both staff and students therewith. And it also plans to vet applicants seeking to be teaching staff and students, grilling/interrogating them as to their current way of thinking to see whether they're "acceptable" for hire or enrollment.

It's like German Nazism, Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, Chinese Communism, etc... Under that, if one dares to think for oneself, one faces torture and execution.

Of course, I doubt that the UMinn plans to torture or execute anyone, but fascism is fascism regardless of whether the fascists are physically violent. Of course, there's also the concepts of intellectual, philosophical, emotional, etc., violence, and Leftists aren't above commiting such terrible things against people, in devout, zealous service of their Leftist faith.

Apparently, the University of Minnesota isn't a university that will teach people to think for themselves.

It's a university that requires complete, unquestioning submission to whatever it tells one.
FIRE's concern included the apparent plan for demands that teachers "discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression."


Further, the letter noted, "the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper 'commitments' and 'dispositions.'"

"Here's the kicker," Fire said in its report. "The college even realizes that its efforts to impose such a severe ideological litmus test may be unconstitutional."


"FIRE urges you to consider the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), which invalidated mandated allegiances to political ideologies at public schools," Kissel wrote for FIRE.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared: "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. "

Ironically, it's the principle behind such a ruling upon which liberals used to operate.

But now that liberals are in near-absolute power in America (until late 2010, anyway), they've abandoned their former love of the First Amendment. Now they want to abolish it, or at least ignore it, saying it's an "anachronism" that doesn't matter and that poses a roadblock to "progressive" stuff.