Alf Siewers | asiewers@bucknell.edu

According to European scholars in The Black Book of Communism, 80 to 100 million people were killed by communist regimes in the last century, ranging from victims of labor camps to those of “food terror” famines.
​
This year marks the notorious centennial of the Russian Revolution, which gave birth to this phenomenon. The Black Book notes that the deadly global phenomenon of Communism had a direct genealogy from ideology and practices that grew out of the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and also helped inspire Nazi death camps and methods.

On our secular and leftward-tilting campus there are no solemn remembrances or critical examinations of this communist phenomenon scheduled currently. On the contrary, occasionally there are displays of Red Army and communist images by faculty with apparent approbation, as one faculty member quoted Lenin seemingly approvingly in a discussion, all without remark.

Nazis ideas and insignias understandably are taboo, given the horrible record of the Nazi regime, to the extent that even a quarter-sized swastika drawn on a bathroom stall prompts campus-wide soul-searching (as should be the case), and periodically campus hosts remembrances and critical examinations of the Holocaust (as should be the case). But why the silence in the case of communism?

While understandably there is criticism in US history of McCrthyism, sometimes an hysterical and needlessly damaging search in Cold War America for Communist enemies within our society, and a demonizing of people so labeled, today some of the same spirit arguably infuses the loose categorizing by the Left of people as fascists or by other labels.

Yet totalitarian movements are dangerous in the willingness of individuals to devote themselves to ideology as a kind of new religion without God, in which paradoxically the ultimate autonomy of the individual leads to servitude to an ideological cause without moral restraint. The release of information from Soviet and US intelligence archives in recent years has revealed that there indeed was a widespread Communist spy network in the US, knowledge of which was kept from the public by US intelligence agencies. Its extensive nature ironically largely was missed in McCarthyite politics.

And if someone was known to have been a Nazi ally, would that justify blackballing or expecting public repentance, given the atrocities of that system’s deadly acts? If so, why not for a Communist after some of the atrocities of that system had become known? 

The philosopher and Jewish exile from Nazism Hannah Arendt noted in her classic The Origins of Totalitarianism that totalitarian movements and regimes on both the Left (Communism) and Right (Nazism) had a common core: Terror identified with isolation. Both involved the categorization of people and quotas for their persecution, often immersing them culturally according to Arendt in a social identity fostering the mentality of being able to embrace being both persecutor and thought/identity criminal simultaneously. In the case of Nazism it was racial genocide, in the case of Communism class and cultural genocide. 

Our blindspots often tell as much or more about ourselves as our ideals.

My children are the first in a few generations in their family line able to be publicly baptized and express their faith identity. Millions of my faith community were killed or tortured or silenced under Communism, as many are today in the Middle East by radical extremists acting falsely under the banner of Islam. The memory of the Communist persecutions is a trauma still within the warp and weft of our tradition, and those slain dwell within our transgenerational and living memory continually in our services and homes, and in what we call the “joyful sorrow” of the martyr saints who form a part of our extended family.

Defending both free expression and opposing the hateful categorization of people for quota-style persecution, from the Right or Left, is the best way to remember the tragic centennial of the Russian Revolution.

This is indicated strangely by two of the most critically acclaimed  films of the Western genre that typified American myth-making in the twentieth century: High Noon and Rio Bravo. High Noon was made according to its script writer, a former Communist who was later blacklisted, as an allegory critiquing McCarthyism, although its director, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, saw it as an allegory for the dangers of appeasing Hitler. Rio Bravo was made as a response to High Noon, to emphasize how average Americans could stand up against Communism. The common denominator: Bravery and decency in the face of bullying by  power-hungry and violent organized crime, which in their allegories rightly equate with totalitarian systems.

Today, both films remain classics, even as their precise political contexts have faded in the minds of twenty-first-century audiences for classic 1950s Western films. What remains in them is a lesson of virtue from the battle against totalitarianism on both the Left and the Right in the last century: The importance of moral courage, free expression, resistance to objectifying one’s self or others in the name of ideology, and an active love for community and other human beings—all in the struggle to be an authentic person. They remind us of the biblical dictum for love of country and community and human beings versus totalitarianism: “Greater love hath no man than this, to give up his life for his friends.” Not to give up life for ideology, Big Brother, or the deep state.

To such virtue-lessons I would add discernment of the dangers in our secular age of replacing God with worship of an idea or ideology, turning toward power. The historically unprecedented mass killings of the twentieth century were committed in the name of humanity, not God.

The Russians have a saying in their church funerals: “Memory eternal.” It forms the end of Dostoevsky’s classic book The Brothers Karamazov. Its purposeful ambiguity means both a call to keep those departed in memory and a prayer for God to remember them—really an affirmation that we are all related to each other in the larger mystery God’s memory, beyond whatever any categories and objectifications that mortal ideologies might impose 

Madison Cooney | madison@thecounterweight.net

The election of President Trump into office has seen many things for the country, but also for Bucknell. One of the biggest things that Bucknell’s campus has seen is the rise of a new group called B.A.D., or Bucknell Alternative Delegation.  I affectionately call this group Babies Against Donald, which fits their acronym and their purpose on campus. Since the founding of B.A.D., Bucknell has seen an absurd amount of unnecessary protests and many students have learned just how entitled our peers feel. 
​
Bucknell was first introduced to B.A.D. through an open letter that was sent out to all of the student body that was full of demands. While the letter provided some things that may have been legitimate talking points, I lost respect for those who wrote it from the very beginning. The fact that the students felt so entitled that they could demand things from the President and the University was astonishing to me. I have never seen such a sense of entitlement. Who are they to demand things? Request things, sure, but to demand something requires power and that is the kind of power that students do not and should not have. If these students have such a problem with the way the University is being run that they feel as though they can - and need to - demand things, they should really consider going to school that has already implemented their demands.   No one is making them stay. 

This letter started off by demanding “Bucknell become a sanctuary for all marginalized community members who have chosen to pursue their education here.” Almost anyone should be able to pursue an education at Bucknell, not just the marginalized community members. The key phrase in that demand is “chosen to pursue,” meaning that the students they are demanding sanctuary for chose to go here full well knowing what the university was like. The demands have subsections and one subsection that I found appalling was the section that stated the Bucknell should provide financial support for the undocumented students because they cannot receive federal funding. It amazes me that this is not common sense to students on our campus. There are intelligent people on this campus who think that Bucknell should be providing support because undocumented students are unfairly kept from federal funding. Of course undocumented students are kept from federal funding because they are not in accordance with the laws of the federal government. Why should Bucknell support someone’s illegal activity? 

There are many other problematic subsections under the first demand, such as the demand for “the right to live, party, and mingle in a space distinct from university housing restrictions and limits of conduct.” The only spaces that are distinct from university conduct violations are the downtown houses. I know conduct violations take place in Fraternity houses on a regular basis, but Bucknell does not willingly let that happen. If misconduct happens and the University is made aware of it, they address it. The only place to be mostly free from University conduct policies is in downtown housing and even then, some University conduct rules still apply So why would Bucknell give something to this organization that they do not give to everyone else? 

The second demand states, “the university become a sanctuary for open dialogue of political discussion and practice regardless of ideology, barring hate-speech, personal attack, and/or threat to the safety of individuals and groups.” While this would be great, it is almost completely unattainable, mostly because of the members of B.A.D. or other students who signed the letter. It is not the Conservatives on campus who have problems engaging in dialogue , it tends to be the regressive liberals, as I know from personal experience and more than one death threat from people of that political persuasion  on campus. This demand is also problematic because the use of the phrase hate-speech which has a loose definition that has never been clearly defined. When it is defined, almost anything said on campus should be hate-speech so should we just stop engaging in dialogue because heaven forbid we offend someone.  If B.A.D. has a problem with campus political discussion, they should address it within their own community, not as a campus-wide discussion. 

The Bucknell Alternative Delegation has since that letter caused many disruptions on campus for seemingly no other purpose than to disrupt campus business. They have held two student walkouts and a day of protest, but the only thing I see happening throughout those events is those students  losing out on class time and the significant amount of money they pay to be in class. While peaceful and nonviolent protest is absolutely their right, I simply do not understand what change they think they are causing on Bucknell’s campus by doing so. It is not as though the national news is going to notice the protests that are happening and applaud some Bucknell students for it. 

It is my firm belief that one of the most problematic element of the campus activities initiated by B.A.D. is the open support they have from faculty. I think it is great that Professors want to support their students and should freely speak their opinions on political matters, but not to the detriment of other students in their classes. There have been many instances where Professors have canceled class and all but forced their classes to participate in the protests through their actions of following their classes outside. If B.A.D.’s entire purpose is for everyone to have the freedom to speak, then Bucknell students who do not support them should not be forced by Professors to attend these protests and students who do not support these actions should not be academically harmed because their Professor decided to not have class. I completely support a freedom of expression in almost whatever form you choose but I wish that the Bucknell Alternative Delegation would wake up and see they appear as entitled babies to those who do not agree with them.

Alex Suss | alex@thecounterweight.net

Dear Professor Hanlon,
​
I read your article, “Advice for My Conservative Students” (The New York Times, February 16, 2017) with interest and anticipation caused by my belief that taking advice from people who know more and have greater life experiences is a wise course of action. I will start with full disclosure; I must admit that I do consider myself  “conservative.” First, to follow Socrates, I know how little I really know to assert my philosophical or political credo with a substantial level of certainty.   Second, because the other option, “progressive” was not intellectually attractive to me. Walter Lippmann, described it best, “The collectivists […] have the zest for progress, the sympathy for the poor, the burning sense of wrong, the impulse for great deeds […]. But their science founded on a profound misunderstanding […] and their actions, therefore, are deeply destructive and reactionary.”  His words resonate with me deeply.  In the ancient and ongoing struggle between Emotions and Reason, I am firmly on the side of Cogito. 

To start I must acknowledge that, at Bucknell, where I have taken classes lead by professors from both sides of the political or cultural spectrum, I have not experienced anything but fairness and support as  you mentioned in the closing lines of your article. 

My second comment concerns your passage, “What I am getting at is that I was never a victim.”  I agree with you, I don’t feel that I am a victim.  There are much bigger and greater issues at stake where the “victimology industry,” the brainchild of the “progressives,” causes immeasurable damage.  Victimization is present in our culture in great many manifestations.   It is a tool widely and skillfully used to divide and conquer.  Regrettably its emotional power resonates with many. You assert, “You know the world doesn’t love a victim.”  I would love to believe  that, yet every day I read the papers, books or hear on television a monotone monologue about victims.  Concepts like social justice, access to healthcare or education, and immigration are fully loaded with – yes, victims.  We have past victims, present victims, victims in the making, and of course future victims.  If that is not the case in Maine, I am transferring to Colby! 

Furthermore, I agree with your observation that “conservative leaders and icons have largely abandoned traditional conservatism.” So did vast segments of our culture, and most importantly academia.  The shift is seismic – you can get a degree in literature from some of the most prestigious universities and never read a word of Shakespeare. For every book written by a conservative there are ten published by authors with opposing views.   For every academic with conservative views there are eight who do not.  Sowell wrote about it better than most. 

Lastly, I wish you would have written advice to a different audience, and I urge you do so.   Advice to progressive students is needed more than ever.  It is their desire to shut down ideas and words that are “hurtful.”  It is their need for “trigger warnings” and “safe harbors” that is antithetical to the very definition of a university student and college should be.  How do you discuss Sowell or Noonan if trigger warnings go off?  Should conservative students insist on their own warnings when we read Marx, Sartre, or Foucault?  Where does negating open dialogue and  arresting and stifling free exchange of ideas lead?  This is clear and present danger.  Those who promote and produce climate of intellectual intolerance would benefit from your advice greatly. 

Best regards,
Alex Suss
Bucknell University

Kevin Chabrier | kevin@thecounterweight.net

On February 1, 2017, a UC Berkeley event featuring notorious media personality and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was shut down by masked, “anti-fascist” thugs. This flagrant display of ideological intolerance and intellectual infantilism was the latest in a string of incidents in which protesters have shut down speeches, damaged property, assaulted conservatives, blocked traffic, and committed a litany of other offenses. These individuals, emboldened by the Left’s deplorable approval of such criminality, are gradually blurring the line between a legal protest and an illegal riot. What is equally problematic is the Left’s proclivity to justify the violation of the speech and property rights of others, under the banner of social justice. 
​
Leftists, on the whole, believe in the existence of systemic iniquities, mystical forces like “white privilege” and “the patriarchy,” designed to oppress minority groups for the benefit of straight, rich, white, Christian, able-bodied, cisgender males. Basing your policies and proposals on this core premise necessitates that politics be viewed through the lens of victimhood. Consequently, when you indulge a generation of minorities with the idea that they are perpetual victims of bigotry, they are trained to feel as if any action, no matter how illegal or immoral, is justified, so long as it is committed in response to racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, ableists, or any -ist or -phobe in the book. 

This philosophy illustrates perfectly why professors like Marcellus Andrews believe it to be professional and acceptable to libel conservative students, and make nuanced threats against them. This mentality also explains why feminist students seem to think they are entitled to rudely and audaciously interrupt Christina Hoff Sommers, for committing the cardinal sin of presenting a viewpoint with which they disagree. Last year, there were numerous instances of vandalism, in which posters advertising an event featuring Milo Yiannopoulos were torn down or stolen. These individuals recognize that under a left-leaning administration, in a vastly and incontrovertibly left-leaning institution, their odds of facing disciplinary action for offenses perpetrated in the name of “social justice” are slim to none. While these are just a few examples of inappropriate conduct toward conservative students and speakers at Bucknell, they pale in comparison to the utter felonies that are committed – and justified – elsewhere. 

America noticed a resurgence of violent protests in the wake of a number of police killings in late 2014. The Black Lives Matter movement has instigated innumerable protests, marches, and riots, many of which have devolved into outright chaos, resulting in empty stores and tens of thousands of dollars in property damage. BLM leader DeRay McKesson has since begun teaching a course at Yale University, entitled “In Defense of Looting,” in which he describes looting as “a righteous tactic.” It’s no secret that American universities are hotbeds of Leftism. But the fact that such a prestigious university has introduced looting and rioting into the realm of defensible forms of a First Amendment right underscores the extent to which the Left is prepared to justify felonies in response to perceived injustices. 

This brings us to the incident at Berkeley, which illuminates the dichotomy between the Left’s views on free speech in the 1960s and those of today. Berkeley, once known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, has decayed into a Leftist breeding ground of speech codes and ideological bigotry. Leftists persisted in their display of intolerance of opposing viewpoints, as Yiannopoulos’ event was quickly and violently shut down, such that Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated from the building by his cohort of security guards. Even more troubling, a few days later a collection of editorials appeared on the website of The Daily Californian, Berkeley’s student newspaper. The titles of some of these pieces included “Condemning Protesters Same as Condoning Hate Speech,”  “Violence Helped Ensure Safety of Students,” and “Check your Privilege when Speaking of Protests.” The existence of a contingent of Americans willing to advocate for physical violence in response to a mere speech, and to equate feelings of offense with bodily injury is, if not unsurprising, particularly disconcerting. 

The Left is increasingly adopting this philosophy, as exemplified by the debate over the battery of Richard Spencer, in which reputable media outlets like The New York Times legitimately entertained the notion that you can punch a Nazi for what he says or believes. This is how free speech dies. 

Fortunately, we haven’t yet reached that point, but the idea of violence as a reaction to speech is insidiously gaining traction among the Left. In one of The Daily Californian editorials, Nisa Dang asserted, “As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.” The fundamental claim behind such absurdity is that physical retaliation against verbal expression is justifiable based on the content therein. That is to say, it is permissible to brutalize anyone with whom you disagree, so long as you claim that you were offended by their words. This would officially mark the death of free speech in America, and alarmingly, it’s not as preposterous as it once would have seemed. 

All of the nonsense and lawlessness connects back to the idea of social justice. The impetus behind such a tremendous spike in violent protests and riots is the Left’s continuous assurance that, because minorities are oppressed by evil white men, they are justified in retaliating against perceived instances of bigotry. When you combine that notion with the culture of victimization, with microaggressions, trigger warnings, and safe spaces, which encourage individuals to seek out evidence of bigotry in innocuous words and actions, this phenomenon perpetuates, and it manifests in ways that affect all of us. 

There was no justification for Professor Andrews’ cowardly libel of conservative students. Had he actually attended the speech, he would have found that Yiannopoulos, whom the “racists and fascists” invited, acknowledged the historical discrimination of African-Americans, and argued that “they are still owed something.” Similarly, the conduct of a number of students, and a professor, during Christina Hoff Sommers’ lecture was downright rude and indefensible, and I highly doubt that similar behavior would have been condoned during Anderson Cooper’s event. All of this can be resolved by restoring basic standards of decency and civility, and actually disciplining those who act improperly, irrespective of race, gender, or religion. 

As Voltaire so eloquently said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If you oppose somebody’s ideas or find them offensive, rather than attempting to quash his right to speak, or relying upon physical intimidation, criticize and refute the arguments themselves in an honest debate. Free speech is one of your most fundamental and inalienable human rights. Use it.

Josh Hunter | josh@thecounterweight.net

 “I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.”
                 ~Karl Popper

Since the election of Donald Trump there has been an uproar on colleges and universities nationwide. There have been numerous walk-outs, teach ins, strikes and safe spaces. All done with the purpose of giving a middle finger to the current administration. These actions are the height of group thought and as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard would describe “the herd mentality.” However, It should be known that they all share common shortcoming. They all fail to provide the thing that given our current state of partisan politics is needed most, genuine debate.

The current antics of those on the left are how ESPN analyst Will Cain describes “those who have never had to win an argument in eight plus years.” Rather than using this election as wakeup call that there are many who do not accept the current liberal agenda, many on the left have viewed this election as a “whitelash” or further proof of systemic racism and white supremacy. And have amplified their old tactics. Whether it be making a new year’s resolutions video for white guys, or stopping prominent conservative speakers from lecturing on college campuses one thing becomes clear: the left is not ready to come to the debate table and make a legitimate case.

As I attended the opening rally for the “Bucknell Day of Action,” on February, 17  one question came to mind. What is the point of all of this? Throughout the day I often heard the word “change” being used. But as I looked around the rally of people with very similar political views I had to stop and wonder, who were they hoping to change? Does the person with the microphone honesty believe that things have changed simply by preaching to the choir?

The point of these rallies, walkouts, teach ins, and safe spaces are not to make a change, but, they are so that people can have their views validated. If these events were advertised as spaces to have dialogue with those who share similar thoughts, I would have no complaint. As a conservative who attends conservative lectures regularly, I must say I have no problem with this. Spending time with those with similar views can often be a worthwhile experience. However, I believe that none of these forms of action should be mistaken for any sort of platform of honest debate or discussion.

Often times at these rallies the viewpoints that are brought up are talked about as if they should simply be accepted by everyone. You can make claims backed by no facts and receive applause and snaps from your peers around you, even if the statement made is a complete oxymoron. For example, during the day of action, the following statement was made, “there is a gender pay gap, men earn more than women.”  There was no correction by the professor by the end of this statement. There was just a room full of smiles and nods. There was no statement of how we gender discriminate. Or who specifically gender discriminates. There was simply an acceptance of false presumption that continues to be disproven daily.

Similar behavior was seen on February, 9th when Christina Hoff Sommers came to Bucknell.  Ms. Sommers considers herself an equity feminist, however she does not believe in what she calls feminist “myths.” The point of her lecture was to provide insight into her beliefs on the origins of some of these myths, as well as debunk them. After Ms. Sommers had completed her lecture she opened up a question and answer session. During this event she was asked very pointed questions intent to prove that she must have a lack of compassion; for those who have personally experienced sexism in their lives. I recall only one student reciting any sort of facts to dispute the claims made by Ms. Sommers. Other than that most of the arguments contained statements such as “I know a person who…,” or “In my life…”.  The basic argument turns out being “ I have seen/experienced something; therefore you rejecting that this happens on a large scale makes you ignorant or insensitive.” 

First off, this is ironic because this is an example of attacking the person and not the idea. It is a violation of the “safe space” many of these students claim they adhere to. Secondly, these statements suggest a lack of ability to debate on the points they wished to convey. If the gender pay gap is so real one person rejecting its existence should not result in shock. Instead, it should be easy to prove that  person wrong.

This lack of willingness to engage in honest debate is something that needs to change. If you believe in white privilege, prove it. Explain how a young white male living in a trailer park in rural Pennsylvania enjoys certain privileges over all blacks. If you believe in the gender pay gap prove it. Show graphically why something that was outlawed over forty years ago still occurs today. 

Those are just two of the many controversial topics that need to be discussed. However, often times these conversations are difficult to have in the first place because of the PC culture in college life. Which makes it so that  you have to constantly worry about not marginalizing or offending anyone. By constantly policing the way in which the other person phrases his statements, we shift the purpose of the debate from the original topic to the morality or “wokeness” of the other person. This is why PC should be disregarded during open debates. While respect is needed during debates, moral policing is a bully/stall tactic that has no other purpose than to hurt the credibility of the other person. It would be far more effective to discredit the other person through use of factual evidence.

Throughout human history, debate was needed to convince people of things we now consider common knowledge. Concepts like gravity and even notions that earth is not flat were not ideas that were easily accepted. It took evidence and debate to persuade people that these ideas were correct. No political idea or concept is so flawless that it should be accepted by everyone immediately. So I challenge all students who want to make a difference to engage those who disagree with you in debate. 

Don’t shout, slander or shame. Engage, convince and change. 

Sasha Carpenter | sasha@thecounterweight.net

I am a woman of Chuvash-Tartar (Mongolian) descent, adopted from Russia, with a mild form of Cerebral Palsy that affects my walking. I have six adopted, special-needs sisters, some of color, with ethnic backgrounds including: Hispanic, Russian-Ukrainian, Asian, and Roma Bulgarian. I am also an Evangelical Christian and Conservative Republican who voted for President Trump.
​
In light of the election and recent events across college campuses, such as UC Berkeley and NYU, I have been surprised at the reaction within the Bucknell community. Perhaps most surprising to me is the assumptions both my peers and professors have made about me and my views. From before the election, to the days following it, I decided to not share my political views with others unless specifically asked. I sat silently, while most friends, professors, and peers rarely stopped to ask my opinion.

One day after the election, while working on a project, a group of faculty discussed the results right behind me. One member said:  “The racists came out to vote last night in Ameri-KKK-a.” Another member said: “I have not felt this bad since 9/11.” As someone who is a Russian minority, with sisters from other countries, I politely shake my head in disagreement with those who might call me a racist. In regard to the latter comment, I felt it very disrespectful to those affected by 9/11, particularly considering it was Veteran’s Day. 

That being said, I understand if these are your thoughts and I believe you have a right to express them. However, that means equal coverage should be given to conservative/libertarian viewpoints. I noticed on social media a campus article about students who participated in the Women’s March - and that’s great! But where is the article about the March for Life, or about women, like myself, who voted for President Trump on November 8th? Becoming more aware of unbalanced reporting combined with a lack of conservative/libertarian views presented on campus has made me question in new ways where my voice fits into the Bucknell community.

These events have gotten me thinking: What if people knew my opinion? If this is what they are saying in front of me now, what would they do if they knew where I really stood? Yet, I don’t think it occurs to people that I would be anything but progressive. After all, I am a minority, an immigrant, a female, and I have a disability. According to my “identities,” I should be a progressive.

Sitting in the audience when Christina Hoff Sommers came to speak at Bucknell, I agreed with much of what she said, particularly about oppression. According to the progressive viewpoint, I have plenty of reasons to consider myself oppressed. Yet, in my opinion, as a college-educated American woman, I have no right to complain of oppression. Rather, oppression is the lack of opportunities I would have had as a disabled orphan in a Russian mental institution. 

There has been a lot of conversation since Sommers came to Bucknell. What I saw during the open Q&A session was such a lack of respect, that it prompted Tom Ciccotta, organizer of the event, to call out them out. People were yelling and interrupting, making it appear as though their true interests lay in proving Sommers wrong, not engaging in a peaceful exchange of different opinions. This was disappointing to me as a student.

Bucknell has a focus on promoting campus diversity, which is a good thing. The campus Diversity Statement says, “An essential component of Bucknell’s commitment to academic excellence is our commitment to fostering an inclusive, diverse campus community.” However, I suggest that Bucknell needs to consider whether their treatment of conservative/libertarian viewpoints is truly inclusive. 

The assumption that I, because of my background and “identities,” should be progressive is concerning because it is the opposite of being open-minded and inclusive. My recent experiences have shown me that many on campus, both students and faculty, consider my viewpoints worthy of ostracization, far from the diversity and tolerance I am assured of as a student. I simply want the equal opportunity to express my opinions and be heard with respect, without the fear of ostracization by the university.

​Alexander Riley | atriley@bucknell.edu 

A not so funny thing happened at Middlebury College on March 2nd.  Charles Murray, a mild-mannered fellow at the American Enterprise Institute with a PhD in Political Science from MIT and author of several best-selling books that explore inequality in American society, arrived to give an invited talk and was violently prevented from speaking by a riotous agglomeration of shouting, belligerent youth.  While Murray stood patiently at the podium, these individuals, allegedly students at the college but giving no obvious evidence of their claim to this title beyond their age, drowned out his efforts to speak with a barrage of witless couplets and unfounded accusations, e.g.,: 
         
        “Charles Murray go away, racist sexist anti-gay!”
         “Who is the enemy?  White supremacy!”
         “Your message is hatred, we cannot tolerate it!”

The placards they brandished gave more evidence of the same degree of scholarly refinement: 
     
        “F*#k white supremacy”
         “F*#k eugenics”
         “Respect existence or expect resistance”
         “Charles Murray is fake news”

Let us be clear:  this was not a protest.  It was, in the words of Bill Burger, the Vice President for Communications, “a mob,” a frightening sea of youthful faces twisted into crooked, self-righteous sneers, chanting robotically, twitching spasmodically in their raging moral superiority, looking for all the world like strangely large-bodied two year olds in the midst of a collective temper tantrum, denied the cookie and reacting by throwing themselves precipitously and limply to the ground in order to demand the attention of the adults in the room, who in this case were not present, and so the primal fit continued for a half hour.  The video is online, and everyone interested in intellectual freedom on American campuses should see it in its entirety, however difficult it may be to stay the course all the way through this wretched document of the depths into which some parts of the American intellectual world have plummeted.

This was a thoroughly thuggish action, complete with assaults of both Murray (whose car was attacked as he tried to leave campus) and the Political Science professor on hand to critically question his work (the day after she was wearing a neck brace, injured by a rioter who pulled her hair).  Had any of the bellowing ruffians in that horde read even a full paragraph of Murray’s work?  Doubtful.  I would wager that not one member of that anarchic assemblage would have been capable of accurately summarizing the essence of any of Murray’s books, nor would they have felt it important to be able to do so.  And yet they were utterly assured of the meaning of intellectual work that they had not troubled to read, and of its supreme malevolence, and of the need to trample on a college’s sacred policy of protection of free expression and civil debate in order to forcibly prevent those ideas from being expressed.

Just as startling as their behavior was the absence of any effort to practically defend the college’s principles.  There were no security officers in sight, and no calls were made to bring in the experts trained in the only language rioters understand.  Although the mob was reminded prior to Murray’s ascension to the podium of the possible sanctions for efforts to stop him from speaking, they acted nevertheless, and with apparently complete impunity.

 What could make young people so recklessly and stupidly certain of the righteousness of an action so manifestly despicable and contrary to the life of the institution in which it took place, and so seemingly certain that the authorities would not have the courage to stop or punish them?

The baleful ignorance of those shrieking at Murray had received a potent material contribution from the failure of numerous professors and administrators at Middlebury to do their own homework and adhere to the tenets of their professional calling.  Some of those paid to teach did not do their jobs and thereby effectively set the benighted, belligerent tone for their students.  The college president, Laurie Patton, gave introductory remarks in which she went out of her way to distance herself from Murray.  She claimed to vehemently disagree with “many” of his conclusions, though these were not named, and my suspicion is that if she had been made to name them, it would have taken Murray a few minutes to demonstrate that he had not himself reached those conclusions and that the fact that she believed him to have reached them was proof that she could not possibly have carefully consulted his work before negatively caricaturing it.  She repeated several times the college’s commitment to all students “regardless of race, class, sexual orientation, religious orientation, disabled status, or any other demographic marker,” and reminded them that they “all belonged [t]here,” as though Murray’s mere presence were a threat to that commitment or their belonging.  Although it lukewarmly invoked the college’s policy protecting free expression and debate, Patton’s introduction, situated as it was in scarcely concealed contempt for whatever misunderstanding of Murray’s ideas she holds, can scarcely have represented to the mob any serious moral check on their illiberal intentions.

Patton, a religious scholar, can perhaps be excused for knowing nothing of substance of Murray’s work (though she should therefore have refrained from commenting on it).  The same cannot be said of Sociology/Anthropology Chair Michael Sheridan, who was widely quoted in local media after a public radio interview concerning Murray’s visit.  Sheridan called Murray “a scientific racist pseudo-scientist” who “is not engaging the rest of his own discipline,” whose work is “not peer-reviewed and when it does get post-publication peer review, people tend to find that it is full of claims that are not well supported, misinterpretation of data, methodological problems in how social statistics get converted into conclusions.” 

I know Charles Murray’s work fairly well, having read several of his books and a significant amount he has written online.  Sheridan is correct that many academic social scientists ignore his work, and some others are clearly hostile to it, but there is an ocean of important unspoken background in those points.  If I had a dollar for every time I have heard or read someone in a social science discipline speak or write negatively about something he disagreed with on ideological grounds but that it was patently obvious he had not read, I could comfortably retire today.  More, in my own discipline of sociology at least, it is common knowledge that there are many journals in which the vaunted process of peer review consists first and foremost of an ideological sniff test, and if your work does not pass this test, if it leads even potentially to observations or policy proposals not consonant with leftist politics, it does not matter how rigorous the analysis, how robust the data, how elegant the prose--you will not be published in that journal. 

Murray produces serious research for a largely but not entirely non-scholarly audience, in popular presses that do not operate according to academic peer review, and it is true enough that this is a publication process that differs from the typical peer review process in the social sciences in a number of ways.  However, the idea that this means by definition that his work is less rigorous or less subjected to intellectual criticism than the typical scholarly article published in some minor social science journal with a clear ideological tilt by someone who has colleagues/friends on the journal’s editorial board, or who can count on her submission being read by a friend simply because the sub-field is so small and insular, is risible.  Murray’s work is read by far more readers, and far more professional social science readers, than will ever set eyes on the typical academic peer-reviewed social science journal article, which is initially evaluated by a mere handful and consulted even cursorily post-publication in most cases by only a slightly larger number of people.  One must have absolutely no knowledge of how intellectual opinion and peer review work in much of the social sciences to say or believe what Sheridan says here, and he must know how dishonest a framing this is, unless he is wholly professionally incompetent. 

Even where social science peer review works relatively rigorously and non-ideologically, one typically has to be working in the relevant sub-field to fully understand and comment knowledgeably on work in that field, and differences in theoretical or methodological orientation can produce significant difficulties for mutual comprehension even within substantive sub-fields.  A quick glance at Sheridan’s own meager publication record and his areas of scholarly expertise give no reason to be confident that he is remotely capable of accurately evaluating the supposed methodological weaknesses in Murray’s work, given that he does not write or teach in any of the areas and topics with which Murray’s work deals. 

Sheridan presents his personal disdain for Murray’s work (bolstered by no concrete references to any specific arguments or evidence presented by Murray) as though it were self-evident that it is uniformly shared by his colleagues.  Prior to listening to Sheridan’s comments, I had never bothered to see what, if anything, is made of Murray’s work in the academic social science review journals.  Within five minutes, however, I was able to find several reviews of probably Murray’s most controversial book, The Bell Curve, in the sociology journals, and none of these reviews even remotely suggested that the book was not a legitimate and intellectually respectable entry into the scholarly discussion on the subjects with which it deals.  As an example, the book was reviewed in one of the most venerable such journals, the American Journal of Sociology, by an eminent scholar who, though critical of the book’s argument on numerous points (show me the wholly uncritical book review and I will show you a bad book review), nonetheless characterized it as “an effective book…well written, clearly argued, lively, engaging…a model of how to write an effective social science book aimed at a general public.” 

Whence then comes Sheridan’s claim that there is broad consensus on this book and the rest of Murray’s work regarding its position outside the boundaries of respectable research?  Perhaps he has heard this from colleagues and taken it as fact.  But if this is the case, it would have taken him but a few minutes to check the claim before speaking publicly about it.  It is unflattering to him in the extreme that he did not bother to do so, and nonetheless he did not refrain from uttering his groundless opinion as if it were established fact.  Sheridan failed woefully at a basic requirement of modern intellectual life:  the recognition that what you think is the right way to pursue a set of questions might not be the only legitimate way to do so, and that the fact that other researchers arrive at conclusions you do not like is not a sufficient ground for eliminating their work a priori from the conversation.  While Sheridan did not call for banning Murray, he did viciously, ignorantly defame him in a manner that reveals how poorly Sheridan fulfills his intellectual responsibilities, and that provided useful cues to the members of the mob as to how to approach Murray’s appearance on campus.

Sheridan’s libelous commentary on Murray’s work was directly invoked by a group of four students who wrote an open letter, signed by more than 600 other “members of the Middlebury community,” in which they engaged in an interpretive travesty even more spectacularly dishonest than Sheridan’s.  After reading of Sheridan’s mischaracterization of his work, Murray wrote a 2500 word response published by the Middlebury Campus online site the day before his visit.  The four Middlebury students were apparently aware of Murray’s response, as they referenced it in their letter, but they could not conceivably have read or understood it, to judge from their bizarre characterization of the exchange.  They described Murray’s detailed summary and defense of the argument in The Bell Curve on the relationship of race and IQ as “dismissive” of Sheridan’s “critique” (because it showed that the “critique” was based on fallacies?) and as constituting evidence that he “is not willing to engage in discussion about his ideas” (because…it obviously constituted an engagement in discussion about his ideas?  Perhaps by “engage in discussion about his ideas,” the students mean “fully acknowledge that a malicious, mendacious ‘critique’ made in a ten minute radio interview constitutes a crushing refutation of a scholar’s lifework”?).  Sheridan’s insulting “critique,” which consisted solely of ad hominem denunciation and factually incorrect categorization of Murray’s work as something all ‘respectable’ social scientists reject, is described incredibly by these students as “a gateway to productive discourse.”  One scarcely knows whether to laugh or cry at such a preposterous effort at summary of this intellectually entirely one-sided exchange.

The Middlebury mob gives the lie to the assertion that is made on the left, sometimes ingenuously, sometimes with malign motivation, about the nature of campus protest of ‘hate speech.’  Aaron Hanlon, a Bucknell alum and former BUCC member, makes this claim in a recent New York Times op-ed, opining that if only conservatives would stop inviting those who “belittle” students of leftist sensibilities and extend invitations instead to those engaged in “teaching and learning,” there would be no riots such as those which took place recently at Berkeley and Middlebury, only civil if vigorous debate.  Hanlon’s example of the “belittling” kind of speaker is Milo Yiannopoulos, an admittedly provocative figure made even less easily defensible by the recent revelation of his comments regarding homosexual relationships involving adult men and boys. 

I knew and liked Aaron Hanlon while he was at Bucknell, and I have no reason to doubt that he goes in the category of the ingenuous defenders of this idea that students and professors with radical ideological axes to grind will naturally arrest the concept creep of their moral denunciations at speakers like Yiannopoulos.  The evidence from Middlebury makes clear however that Hanlon is wrong on this point, even if he is not malicious in intent, and the mistake is important.  Where has Charles Murray “belittled” those who silenced him at Middlebury, or anyone else?  He has made book-length arguments, bolstered with evidence, that inequality is almost certainly a more difficult social problem to resolve than the stock leftist defenders of the Blank Slate/’everything caused by oppression and poverty’ vision of human nature would have us think (their proffered solution is simple, if limited in effect:  redistribute, redistribute, redistribute, and then redistribute some more until there’s nothing left to redistribute).  One can disagree with Murray’s arguments, but one can hardly reasonably see them as “belittling” individuals who are literally not described by the statistical analyses and macro-sociological data in Murray’s work.  And how can one seriously charge that Murray is not dedicated to “teaching and learning,” if one can be bothered to watch any of the videos online of his many appearances at similar events at campuses and other intellectual venues?  If Hanlon is correct, why are leftist student mobs now reacting to Murray in exactly the same way they reacted to Yiannopoulos?

 The truth is that the circle of ‘hate speech’ is ever-expanding.  As soon as one enemy is targeted and liquidated, one has to find others.  If the definition must be stretched still further to find those new enemies, this is an easy matter to accomplish.  There exists a whole network of zealously ideological sources that, despite the haphazard, often scandalously unscientific methods that drive the production of their ‘data,’ are uncritically accepted by many on the left as objective and non-partisan, sometimes even by college professors who should be immunized against this credulous perspective by their training.  Such sources effortlessly paint potential enemies in precisely the colors required to produce riotous mobs slavering radical sanctimony and virtue signaling.  

How far can the circle be expanded?  Just as far as the Southern Poverty Law Center and other such regressive left organizations decide to expand it, and few seeking to dispatch enemies by labelling them as racists instead of understanding and criticizing their arguments will ever bother to inquire into the fact that such organizations count basically any individual who has e.g., been publicly critical of post-1965 American immigration policy as a de facto racist and white supremacist. The regressive left online media have, in the wake of Middlebury, giddily taken up the task of transforming Murray into a member of the Ku Klux Klan by fiat of simply referring to him over and over, with no mention of anything he has written or said, as “the racist Charles Murray.”  This is what they do, and the process is undeniably effective at convincing people who cannot be bothered to think for themselves what ‘right-minded folks’ ought to believe and what they ought to do when ‘racists’ appear on their campuses.

What could the speakers who preceded Murray at the Middlebury event have conceivably said to the mob to change their minds?  Perhaps nothing.  The primitive emotional power of the mob can effortlessly override much rational communication.  Still, I might have liked to have a shot at this.  What would I have said to them?  Something like this:
​
“I’d like you to do me a favor, before you get involved in the emotionally satisfying, sanctimonious work of shutting down the most basic function of a college.  Please, calm yourselves a moment.  I won’t keep you long.  Just one favor, in keeping with the claim that you are students.  You do say you are students, do you not?  Well then.  If you are students, here is some homework:  go learn about the Red Guards during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China.  Study how they comported themselves, how they endeavored to bring about changes they desired in Chinese educational institutions and society.  Study closely, spend enough time to get a sense of their motivations and of the social and human costs of their actions.  Reflect on the relationship of that action to a true understanding of the workings of the world.  Got it?  OK.  Now watch the video of yourselves in the event you are currently creating here, once it is posted from the phones recording it to YouTube and other sites.  What do you see?  And who, after all, are the totalitarians?”

Justin Pinard | justin@thecounterweight.net

You’ve seen it before: every six seconds, someone, somewhere – on television, Facebook, Twitter, in a newspaper, news conference, or in person – is branded a “Nazi”, “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, or “Hiterlite”. People, in great numbers, have been accused of fascist sympathies, secret membership in various neo-Nazi political parties, and of having a shrine to Hitler in their bedroom (yours truly included). You can help these unfortunate victims of actual hate and ignorance – no, not by donating twenty-five cents – but by understanding what fascism actually is.

Fascism, surprisingly,  is not defined as “a policy proposal or general political ideology one disagrees with.” Fascism is not just a form of government wherein the state maintains a grasp on a great deal of power. Fascism is not temporarily banning - or restricting, for that matter - immigration or visitation, for whatever reason, from seven countries with a recent history of political instability, civil war, or international terrorism. 

Fascism is not the ideology to which the current President (whether in the years of Bush, Obama, or Trump) subscribes. Fascism is not nationalism, and vice versa. Fascism is not wanting a strong military. Fascism is not social conservatism. What fascism is is a highly complex political ideology that has not been seen in the real world in over seventy years, and likely will never be seen again.

The education system – or, perhaps more accurately, the public education system – from kindergarten through the twelfth grade does a spectacularly poor job of educating our students on the history of the twentieth century – and, clearly, the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and the radicalization of Japan in the 1920s and 30s, both fall within that category. It might be easy to say that the driving force behind the March on Rome and the Nazi electoral victories in 1932 and ’33, and the following Machtergreifung (“seizure of power”), was anti-Semitism. 

Hitler and his ilk promoted the belief that the Jews were behind the German defeat in the First World War, and caused the economic (and moral) collapse of Germany in the early 1920s and again in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929. In Japan, starting in the late 1920s, politics took a trend toward extremism, which culminated in the dissolution of all political parties, except for the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, which espoused its own fascist ideologies and policies with a Japanese tinge. It spoke of the united cause of all East Asian people against the West, while simultaneously speaking of Japanese racial superiority over the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, and others, thereby “justifying” the government’s terrible oppression of those groups. While all of this is true, this is not the defining characteristic of fascism.

Perhaps the best way to get a simple (if somewhat superficial) definition of fascism is to read from the man that created the ideology itself: Benito Mussolini. The Duce of Italy famously wrote, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and ‘30s espoused a deep rejection of liberalism, republicanism, and mainstream conservatism; similarly, it looked with horror (humorously enough) at the totalitarian communist system being imposed in the Soviet Union at the time by Josef Stalin. 

Fascists hated - and continue to hate - capitalism as much as communism; they would spit on the graves of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman as much as they would on those of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. To fascists, both of these models have been tried – and both have failed. To Mussolini, people needed a third path. His solution was fascism, an ideology that brought about the most destructive war in world history, killing three percent of the world population in six years and all but destroying dozens of countries.

Fascism does more than promote racial purity and a new “third position”. Fascism seeks to mobilize the choice racial or ethnic group – in Germany, the “Aryans”; in Italy, the Italian “Romans”; in Japan, the Japanese – into doing all that it takes, and sacrificing everything if need be, in the name of the nation, the state, and the national leader. Mussolini’s proclamation of “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” echoes his demands for the state – the government – to be all-encompassing, for the state to have no opposition, for the national leader to be hailed as the savior of the nation’s ethnic pride and dignity. The government plays a game of realpolitik, taking what it can at the expense of other nations, without outright invoking war – after all, Hitler did not expect the British or French to declare war on Germany, as they ended up doing, when he invaded Poland.

Fascism’s opposition to capitalism was expanded upon during Hitler’s early days as leader of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party in German), as seen in the party’s 25 Point Program, which, among many other things, demands: the nationalization of trusts and corporations; wide-reaching land reform; an expansion of welfare and pensions; the abolition of child labor; an expansion of public educational opportunities; and increased taxes on heavy industries (this all literally comes out of the Party Program, which can easily be Googled. The Nazis implemented much of this after they came to power). 

Gregor Strasser, a noted early Nazi before being executed by Hitler in 1934, went further, demanding the abolition of social classes in what was eerily reminiscent of communist rhetoric. At the same time, the 25 Point Program outlined the racist tendencies of the ideology, stating that “only a member of the race [“Aryans”] can be a citizen …. no Jew can be a member of the race,” and “every public office [may] be filled only by citizens.” With this information - excluding the racially-charged bits - I could more easily support the statement “Bernie Sanders is a fascist,” than the statement “Donald Trump is a fascist.”        
    
This brings me to my final point. My point is not to ramble on about the history of the founding of fascism. Rather, it is to tie into present-day politics the politics of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, and to reveal a glaring lack of understanding on the part of many people. 

When people want to compare politicians they don’t like to something, they compare them to Hitler. It sort of makes sense in most regards: no man or group of men have so shaped world history, politics, and culture through more terrible acts than Hitler and his cronies in the Nazi Party leadership. However, not all analogies were made equal. Sharing a NowThis or Occupy Democrats video on Facebook titled “How did Hitler rise to power?” which insinuates some vague similarity between the Nazi persecution of the Jews and Trump’s immigration policy – and therefore Trump’s alleged neo-Nazi sympathies – not only does a disservice to those that suffered through the Holocaust, it reveals an underlying layer of intellectual laziness, ignorance, and irresponsibility that border on the immoral. 

Is Donald Trump a fascist for nominating Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan), Nikki Haley (born a part of an Indian Sikh family), Ben Carson (born into a black family from Detroit, a city destroyed by outsourcing and high taxes under decades of Democratic leadership), Steve Mnuchin (a Jew), and others to his Cabinet?

Is Donald Trump a fascist for promoting gay rights since before Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton publicly supported them? Is Donald Trump a fascist for opposing the outsourcing of jobs, which most leftists similarly opposed before June 2015? Is Donald Trump a fascist for being the most pro-Israel presidential candidate in the 2016 race, and perhaps being as pro-Israel as George W. Bush (who was noted for his particularly strong pro-Israel stance)? Is Donald Trump a fascist for temporarily restricting people from coming to the United States from seven countries for 120 days, a similar length of time as when a similar policy was implemented by Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter?

​You decide. 

Alex Suss | alex@thecounterweight.net

Most observers and historians of the political scene would agree that this election has no precedence.  Few would agree on what makes this political season so tragically unique.  First, both parties delivered the most improbable candidates to the highest office in our land; candidates who should never have passed the pre-primary stage of the election process. This statement assumes that observers, analysts, and commentators employ a rational predisposition and bias free attitude while analyzing the 2016 campaign.  Second, the level of public discourse has, in recent years, reached frightening levels.  The responsibility for this highly lamentable state of affairs is evenly distributed among most of the players - participants in our political process and the media.  The sins of mass media are well known and documented.  They range from sensationalism to ineptness in both reporting and commentary. Moreover, “news organizations” in this election cycle dropped the last, however thin, veil of impartiality and objectivity.  

Trump is guilty of many blanket pronouncements unbecoming of a political figure on most stages.  Clinton’s campaign is implicated in the deployment of tactics that make Nixon’s “dirty tricks” child’s play (Creamer, Foval, Woodhouse).  Consequently, public debate instead of focusing on profound issues facing our nation and the world is preoccupied with – on the one hand; groping, lewd remarks, and insensitive statements.  On the other hand, vulgar and insensitive comments, tax returns, number of business bankruptcies, and morality of tax deductions.  The last item was a subject of a recent article in the New York Times enumerating how much public good could have been accomplished if Trump’s businesses did not take tax deductions!  Once again, this is a shining example of how many in our media are working hard to elect Hillary.

On a far more serious level, what makes this election particularly important is the state and shape of our country and the world in which American political, economic, and cultural power plays a critically important role.  The almost eight years of the Obama presidency have, across the board, little to show for.  

On the economic front, the pain experienced daily by the shrinking middle class is well known and documented.  The affluent hear voices advocating more and more taxation of all kinds coming from all levels of government.  Obama enlarged the national debt by an unimaginable seven trillion dollars.  The “war on poverty” celebrating six decades and trillions of dollars have little to show for as the poor are growing in numbers.  Where did the money go?  The U.S. military - at a time when safety and national security are very much in the forefront of public concern – has been greatly downsized.  Many procurement programs were put on hold or canceled, and troop levels significantly reduced.  The power grid, highways, waterways, or bridges all need massive infusion of capital.  Public infrastructure has not benefited from  Obama’s trillions.  Furthermore, an out of control immigration situation brings serious concerns to many voters.  The Obama presidency not only did very little to improve race relations – it contributed to a climate of conflict, mistrust and fueled the grievance industry greatly, adding a great deal of anxiety and pain.  Cultural wars of different sorts continue to divide American society.  

Terrorist attacks, the Middle East in bloody chaos; Putin reviving Russia’s imperial ambitions (Ukraine); not to mention North Korea or China, and many other hot spots across the globe, do not paint a rosy picture.  Obama gifted Iranian lunatics not only with billions of dollars but effectively open the door for them to acquire nuclear weapons.  All these issues, to one degree or another, are of serious concern and contribute to highly elevated levels of chaos and disorder in the international arena. 

These are good reasons for the public to pay attention to who will lead the country on domestic and international fronts. Yet the leading parties presented an impossible choice by nominating candidates unfit for public office, not to mention, the U.S. Presidency. 

Trump’s lack of political experience is a minor issue in comparison to him not having well thought out and articulated philosophical positions on most of the principal issues facing our country and the world.  He offers slogans and vague, broad and repetitive statements, thus betraying a lack of deep and broad command of many important subjects or issues.  Moreover, there is little evidence that Trump can and wants to learn.  There is also ample data pointing to serious character issues that his statements and actions revealed.  Among them, speaking without thinking; combativeness for the sake of winning; and propensity to exaggerate, portraying a personality that does not inspire a great deal of confidence.  Trump’s use of crude and rude remarks as well as vulgarities does not deserve any comments!  

Clinton, a career politician, suffers from a very poor career record, both as New York Senator and Secretary of State, spanning over thirty years.  She has been embroiled in many scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky, Benghazi, The Clinton Foundation, etc..) which for any other politician would mean the end of their political career.  Moreover, character issues speak for themselves: a long list of glaring and shameless lies coupled with duplicity.  Clinton’s deceit is best illustrated by her self-proclaimed role as a “champion of women’s issues.” Hillary defended her husband’s well known and well documented sex scandals taking place in Arkansas, the White House, and in Chappaqua.   Not only that she stands by her husband, Hillary viciously attacked women who made all sorts of statements about her husband’s actions.  She actively participated in a public farce when the former president appeard in front of the camera - angrily and repeatedly denying any improper involvement with his intern, Monica Lewinsky.  It was Hillary – self proclaimed champion of feminism - who for years tolerated Bill’s behavior classified by most women, not to mention feminists or progressives, as deplorable and beneath any self-respecting women.  It is well documented that the Clinton Foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from the most oppressive abusers of human rights!  Duplicity and farce; avarice and shamelessness are at full view.

Yet, for Clinton, it seems, basic moral principles do not exist or matter.  What matters to Clinton is the utility and advantages that power, lies, and dirty money provide.  It is mind boggling that the pundits do not see what is so obvious and transparent.  Indeed, it is beyond comprehension that anyone, not mention women, would want this individual to be a historical figure – first American female president!   

How is it possible that voters of this cultural and economic superpower are left with candidates who possess credentials that would barely meet the standard suitable for a mediocre “banana republic” president?  The real, important question then, is how did we get here?  What happened to our ability to think rationally and objectively? Indeed, what happened to our culture?  These questions - of paramount significance for the future of our republic - are for another day.  In the meantime, we face a real Cornelian dilemma - we know that on November 8th either Clinton or Trump will win… and the rest of us will lose! 

Madison Cooney | madison@thecounterweight.net

The phrases “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” have become commonplace on a college campus like Bucknell. A trigger warning, introduced to the world by four psychologists: Ferenczi, Abraham, Simmel and Jones, started out as a way to warn soldiers returning from war if they were about to enter a situation that may bring their post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the surface. Psychologists did not want the soldiers to enter a situation that could harm the progress they were making at becoming reintegrated into society, and justifiably so. 

Now trigger warnings have become a way for students and faculty to facilitate a suffocation of intellectual discussion for fear of offending someone around them. In doing so, they turn the once serious, and necessary phrase “trigger warning” that was related to soldiers, as well as others with PTSD into a joke; leaving soldiers without this line of defense when returning home from war. Making trigger warnings commonplace means that soldiers may not be able to distinguish between something could seriously harm their mental state versus something that might upset a college student.

Along the same line of thinking are safe spaces: another so-called defense mechanism against “offensive ideas.” In practice, however, a safe space is nothing more than a place where like-minded individuals can go to affirm each other’s ideas instead of challenging themselves.  

Creating such spaces oftentimes prevents true intellectual discussion and challenging of ideas, thus creating a lack of intellectual diversity on campus due to students being unwilling to hear thoughts that oppose their own. This creates a dangerous atmosphere on college campuses; a place where challenging oneself intellectually should be a part of the everyday campus experience.

Earlier this semester, the University of Chicago sent a letter to their incoming class stating that they do not believe in making safe spaces or providing trigger warnings on their campus. In part, the letter stated, “We’ve been deeply committed to the notion that we’re here to learn from one another and to learn from the world and to study things and to figure out the answers. And the best way to do that is to hear all sides of everything.” 

How is one to learn anything or to truly be challenged if they hear the same ideas repeated over and over in every class, by almost all their professors? All too often, this is what we find within Bucknell faculty, where only approximately 6% of its members are registered as Republicans. 

Instead of creating well-rounded students who will enter the real world as highly functioning adults, you are creating students who think they deserve to be catered to without knowing how to handle points of view that challenge their own. College is most students’ last chance to challenge themselves and grow before they enter the real world, where talking about politics at work is taboo at best and against company policy at worst. 

Not only is the prevalence of safe spaces and trigger warnings detrimental to students, they also potentially infringe on a student’s right to freedom of speech. On campus, safe spaces have extended beyond being a place to get away from uncomfortable ideas; they have become about students and faculty trying to silence the voices of other viewpoints. Students are not only afraid of hearing certain viewpoints, they want to make sure those viewpoints are not said at all; as if oppressing them will make them go away. 

Bucknell’s website says “we know that providing an excellent education to all students requires a firm and demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusiveness at all levels of the institution.” What they truly mean to say is they have a commitment to diversity at every level except for the level that truly counts, intellectual diversity. 
Bucknell as well as universities across the country should follow the actions taken by the University of Chicago and publicly discourage safe spaces and trigger warnings in intellectual settings. By facilitating their existence, colleges are hindering their students’ learning and ability to critically analyze opposing viewpoints, leaving many woefully unprepared for the realities of the world beyond campus walls.