The scariest thing some people saw this Halloween wasn’t a new movie, or a charity haunted house, or even the song list for the new Barbara Streisand album. It was political correctness, political correctness that has gotten so out of control it’s led to intelligent adults acting out of fear rather than reason and discourse.
A new story from The College Fix highlights the problem, as members of the College of Charleston (South Carolina) have been told by the Administration that they must undergo “diversity and inclusion training” because five students – all members of the softball team -- were insensitive enough to pose as “Hispanics and Immigration Agents”, then post a picture of themselves on Twitter.
Shortly after the picture was noticed, college Vice President Steve Osborne issued a lengthy statement, and who can fault him? After all, issues such as race and immigration tightness/looseness have become explosive, so explosive, in fact, that to not respond would likely invite criticism of the school. The question is, what would one do if he were in the VP’s place? What would one do if faced with such a brouhaha?
Said VP Osborne, in part:
Yesterday, some members of the College of Charleston softball team wore Halloween costumes on campus that were racially and culturally insensitive. This poor decision-making by some of our student-athletes causes harm on our campus and in the greater community. This incident does not reflect our university’s core values of diversity, community and respect for the individual. I am severely disappointed in these student-athletes and that something like this has, once again, happened at our university.
If a government-subsidized, public college such as the College Chareleston is to be “open and diverse”, how diverse is “diverse”?
Does that mean that students who aren’t Hispanic can pose as such for Halloween? Does that mean that students who aren’t Border Patrol cops can pose as border cops? Is one to infer a message from the photo of these non-Hispanic, non-cop softball players that tells the viewer they are for, or against, or ambivalent about, the issue?
Should the students be mandated to attend “diversity” training? Many people bristle at the mere mention of the word, and many college students don’t take such “training” seriously anyway. It’s become a token gesture, mere window dressing, to many people.
Said VP Osborne:
The softball team has written an apology to Athletics Director Matt Roberts and me, which is attached so that our entire campus community can read it. I accept their apology, but now comes the hard part: where we put action to words and make meaningful change. In line with that, the softball team will be undergoing diversity and inclusion training beginning next week.
And, again, who could complain, even if one rails against the idea of “diversity training”? After all, the students voluntarily decided to attend the school.
But something isn’t being seen here.
It’s not the divisive immigration issue.
It’s not whether one suspects racism.
It’s not about positions regarding supposed “law and order”.
It’s not even about potential hurt feelings on campus or whether the administration is being too fearful about those emotions.
What’s not seen here is the taxpayer. No one, not a single person, is discussing the fact that, despite all the varying opinions and feelings about the photo, the costumes, and the reaction by the Administration at the college, The College of Charleston is funded by a lot of taxpayer money.
The college is actually one of the oldest in the nation, and is known as a “public sea-grant” “public space grant” college, meaning it gets federal funding from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association and the feds for space-related research.
That means you and I, and people not yet born are on the hook for its funding, because, of course, the US government is in the red so badly, people are born into tax slavery to keep the immoral system going.
Private funding would see institutions of higher learning rise or fall based on how folks who attended and/or donated really felt, so if people were really offended – by the costumes, or by the reaction of the Administration to them -- then they could withhold their money, and the Administration would suffer financially. On the flipside, if the Administration performed well, they would fair better.
Have people become so accustomed to being forced to pay for things that they can’t see the other option, the ethical option, that allows for freedom of association and the revelation of ethics?
It seems so. And that’s one of the most frightening things one can recognize in this strange story from Halloween.