A left-wing coach and professor at the University of New Hampshire is actually offering his students class credit for recording themselves accusing someone else of racism or bigotry.
Damien Fisher reports for NH Journal:
A UNH professor requires students to find someone to accuse of being racist, homophobic, or ableist and “call them out” in order to get credit for a communications class at the state-funded college.
Edward Reynolds, a communications professor and weight lifting coach, gained notoriety this week on social media when one of the requirements for his class hit the ‘Libs of TikTok’ account.
Because nothing says “perpetuate the lie” and “foster artificial division” better than having a tax-subsidized, propagandist professor offer carrots to students to parrot his idiocy.
It seems that this “communications prof” might not have realized how people can use contemporary communications systems to expose really bad ideas.
According to the course work posted online, Reynolds requires his students to record the interaction they have with the person they are ‘calling out’ for alleged bigotry and submit the recording in order to get graded.
And, in case students didn’t get a handle of his absurd, holier-than-thou, cultural-Marxist “anything is offensive and an attack” stance…
'Call in someone on their ableist, racist, or homophobic use of language, for microaggressions (or an act of racism) towards a person of color, homophobia against LGBTQI+, or ableism against a disabled person,' the course description states. 'You must also record calling them in, in order to get credit.'
So, can they record HIM, and get the credit?
And how about recording the government of New Hampshire commanding people to pay this guy’s salary, and subsidizing the University System of New Hampshire to the tune of $100 million in 2021 alone.
Fisher reports that State Rep. Joe Alexander (R) said:
As far as I’m concerned the public has a right to know why tax dollars are being spent on student witch-hunts. Make no mistake, New Hampshire institutions of higher learning are not immune to the sort of ‘woke-ness’ that is prevalent in the swampiest parts of this country. The public needs answers.
As laudable as Representative Alexander’s statement is, it also puts a prettier mask on the assumptive nature of government, as he describes what HE says the “public” needs.
What each person “needs” is up to that person, and the act of demanding their tax cash prevents people from making their own decisions with that money, whether they want to spend it on education for themselves, or others, or they want to spend it on something else, or save it to loan. Politicians – even astute politicians such as Rep. Alexander -- make the basic, first-step error of “assuming” for others, be it about this, or about anything.
Related: Oregon Public School Might Fly BLM-Rainbow Flag As Official Policy | MRCTV
It might, at first, appear to be a minor quibble, but it’s philosophically and economically important, and leads to this kind of nonsense at UNH. Some folks might want a professor to do something like this, but that foundational error of assuming that the state can take money from people in order to fund an “education” system means that not all taxpayers will be pleased by how their money is spent.
Of course, it’s possible that by saying “public,” Representative Alexander truly meant the “public” (as in the government) as opposed to “private” (that which is not tied to the government).
After all, the NH legislature last year took steps to try to stop this kind of “identity politics” within the halls of government bureaus. But the statute doesn’t apply to the tax-fed university system.
Last year, New Hampshire’s legislature banned public employees from teaching that any person or group is superior or inferior based on their race, creed, or sexual identity. However, that law specifically excludes the state’s public college system. A proposal introduced this year, HB 1313, would apply the anti-discrimination law to New Hampshire colleges.
That seems sensible, but the problem of forced payments will remain, and as long as that force is applied, some people will find that their ideas and beliefs are left out, “discriminated against,” to use the parlance.
How about an alternative that avoids all of this?
How about not forcing people to pay?
Related: Baltimore Schools Will Now Advance Failing Students To 'Avoid Punitive Approach' | MRCTV