Bruce Bawer and Europe's Response to Its Islamization

For those of you who followed Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit to the Claremont Colleges and The Claremont Independent's extended coverage of said visit, I would be remiss if I did not point to a rather excellent review of the state of politics in Europe right now. It is authored by Bruce Bawer, a writer for whom I credit with helping me see the crisis that Islam presents to Western Europe. Bawer, for those of you quick to dismiss me as a homophobe, is an openly gay American who has witnessed the Islamization of Europe firsthand as an ex pat. (While we're on the topic of homophobia, I just thought I would also direct you to a hilarious video produced by Steven Crowder on the topic of how Perez Hilton and gay activists try to attack those of us who are a little skeptical of their agenda. Yep, this one is for you, Ross.)

So as I was saying, some years ago -- it was my seventeenth birthday at an Ayn Rand conference, incidentally-- I had the good fortune of hearing Fleming Rose, the editor that printed the cars that showed how tolerant Islam is of free speech. Someone made the error of asking him whether he regretted printing the cartoons and he quipped -- he apparently says it quite often -- that, "Asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque." 

I often think of that saying when people on campus say, "how can you say that?!" My response to these people is usually, "Well, I just did. Let's talk about what your reaction is to that statement and why it's disproportionate." 

Extra Credit for Protesting? Not So Fast, Says Pitzer Student

I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand, I'm glad that Pitzer College doesn't bribe its students with extra credit, but on the other hand, I'm disappointed that someone would feel the need to lie or at the very least mislead to advance an agenda. In any event, thanks for clearing it up, reader.

Hey Charles,

I read that Claremont Courier thing on the Gilchrist debacle and I figured you'd pick up on it too.

As a Pitzer NRS student, I was really offended by the Donna Lowe quote:

"Buca[Di Beppo] felt the political pressure from the colleges for giving extra credit to any student who would show up here and protest," said Donna Lowe, co-chair of programing for Mountain View. "

I briefly saw the emails fly around about the organization of the protest in conjunction with other Claremont human rights groups, but didn't catch anything about students being able to get extra credit for going. So I contacted the Mountain View Republican Club just to find out where that info came from and very kindly, Ken Allison (the groups president) emailed me back to let me know that Donna Lowe is a private citizen who was merely expressing her own opinion of the colleges and made an assumption based upon that. What it really came down to is that they needed someone to blame for their inconvenience (rightly so) but it was a very stupid thing for her to say and was based on some radically shaky rationale that Ken enlightened me with -- if you want the details, I'll give them to you but trust me, it's ridiculous and doesn't paint the group in a very intellectual light.

I suggested that they contact the Courier and have the statement retracted or at least cleared up seeing as on the day it was published, myself and another relative who attends Mudd received a call from a family member, concerned about the 5C's academic credibility as a result of what the quote insinuates. I might point out to you that although Calderon is the main focus, their intent was to demonize all of the 5C's, not just Pitzer. I made it very clear to them that whilst some of the schools certainly advocate activism of all kinds, none of the 5C's would ever bribe students with extra credit for doing so.

So there you have it, it was fabricated based on one angry lady's opinion of the 5C's.

Just wanted to clear it up since you had asked about it in your report.

Good luck on your finals man!

[Name withheld]

Mead's "Free Wall" and the State of Campus Free Speech

I read in The Student Life about the free wall over at Mead and was stuck by this comment from a Pitzer student. Emphasis is mine.

Olivia Pollock PI ‘11 said that the free wall is supposed to be an alternative to submitting a proposal through what she called “the bureaucracy of Pitzer College.”

“The wall will make it possible for anyone on the campus to put up their work/piece of mind in that exact moment—without going through any group of editors,” said Pollock. “I understand that the Aesthetics Committee at Pitzer is extremely lenient, and the hall councils seem to be as well—in my understanding they approve mostly all requests, but I would argue against having any sort of committee for artistic approval.” Pollock said that the artwork and murals at Pitzer attracted her to the school.

Apparently, there has been a big worry that the "free wall" might expand. Oh no!

I'm sympathetic to anyone who wants to go and create something in a free space despite the wishes of the Pitzer "bureaucracy," but I worry about these so-called free expression zones. I take the view that I once heard about free expression zones that you should take a map, look at it, and see all that land been the U.S. and Mexico? Good, that's your free speech zone. It's called America.

Still, I wonder if the effort isn't an exercise in futility. By allowing anyone to paint over anything, you might hope to achieve the togetherness and content of a wikipedia page where edits can be retracted. But when someone labors to create something beautiful only to have it painted over, you cannot help but let emotions run a little hot, even at Pitzer where everyone is supposedly mellow. As I learned in the comment section of this blog, oftentimes property rights need to supersede the wish that everyone play nice in the sandbox. If you let the masses control something without giving a means of self-policing i.e. Wikipedia, you will descend into anarchy or Lol cats. Witness Claremont Confessions and the ugly turn it took. (If you're interested in that kind of stuff, I recommend Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody.)

I give the free speech wall little time.

On Hub Quiz and Freedom of Association

I'll get in trouble for this, but I have to do it anyways. Forgive me for what I am about to say and please know that I tried to do everything behind the scenes to make sure I didn't have to write this post. It's come to this.

Despite what is in my so very clearly in my best interest, Max Davison, Dan Aisaka, Jack Evert, all CMC '09 and Tina Nguyen's CMC '11 team ought to be preserved. Even though my quiz bowl team stands to win with what is some kind of weird anti-trust law, I still think it's wrong to break up a team merely because they once upon a time won a lot of the competitions.

When my quiz bowl team dissolved and one of my co-quiz bowlers joined the other team despite her promises, I was disappointed. I spent a long time in the quiz bowl wilderness, oftentimes showing up and joining just any random, spur of the moment team. We always came close and we nearly always lost to Max and co. But I resolved to build a team that could and would win again. With my friends, Bryce Gerard and Riley Lewis, we started to win and soon we often won and if we didn't, hey, well, the night was young and there might still be some fun had. I set out to win the money and the pride, but along the way, developed some great friends.

Most people don't win Hub Quiz and yet they still show up. The reason they do is the same reason that people who lose social games of poker still show up to the table: the company of their friends.

The new head of quiz bowl 's smart, organized, and disciplined (and lest I forget gorgeous). In short, she's the perfect person to run something like a quiz bowl. I only wish she hadn't misplaced the reason so many of us attend. The person who runs Quiz Bowl should reconsider breaking up Max Davison's team, if for no other reason than to deny them an excuse when they lose (again) to my team.