Collegiate Times

For starters, no one has proposed limiting/censoring free speech for the sake of political correctness. If anything, liberals want others to speak freely because it shows that racism is still a relevant issue. And isn't it the freedom of speech that enables those liberals to call others racist? You can't deny that some of Obama's opposition has been race based. Not most, but some of the tea-bagging protesters held signs of Obama dressed up as an African witch-doctor and labeled it 'Obamacare', or something similar. Rush Limbaugh played 'Obama the Magic Negro' on his show. Countless people think the President was born in Africa. These are examples of racism that is around today. Freedom of speech means the freedom to call a duck a duck.

Thank you, Brooke, for telling it how it is; great article. There is nothing wrong with addressing truly hateful speech, but it has gone way too far. Now, somehow, it's become that the very patriotic act of dissent for government has to be "racist" since we have a black President? Well then what about blacks who criticized Bush when he was in office, was that racist? It does us no good and the battle keeps us from focusing on real issues.

Respecting one's neighbor is a true value that I support, one that existed long before anyone felt they were entitled to say anything. Quite frankly, freedom of speech exists so that we can speak out against our government, not so you can call out the President like a petulant middle schooler, or generalizing groups of people because, 'that's just how it is'. I am white and male, but I have to say...I am not surprised this crap is coming from a white person. Of course p.c. agendas bother you. No one has a legitimate slur for your identities. The word 'cracker' could hardly be compared to faggot or the 'n' word, which I won't even write because quite frankly I have the class not to do so. This is about being accountable for your words.

The root of the argument is good, but why only call out the left? This would be a much stronger article to talk about the issue in general rather than using the issue as a thinly veiled attempt to bash the left/liberals.

You are not black but you voted for obama...WOW. If that doesn't say it all...you really are afraid of being called a racist.

Wow, "Get a grip", are you sure you're allowed to say such sharp words on the net?

The real problem, as I see it, is that the term 'racist' generally tends to be thrown out (like its cousins 'homophobe' or the more general 'bigot') when the left runs out of reasonable arguments and seeks instead to discredit the deliverer of the message rather than the message itself. Not to say that the right doesn't do the same thing (questioning one's patriotism is a prime example) - but it just so happens that the left is nominally in charge at the moment. Now, nobody is going to argue that racism 'is dead.' So long as different races exist, there will be people who seek to assert the superiority of their own race over all others. However, that doesn't necessarily translate to the conclusion that opposition to Obama's policies is inherently part of a deep-seated racism on the part of any individual. Personally, I think the man has been a sham of a President who has bungled pretty much everything his hands have touched - but it has nothing to do with his race. I fundamentally disagree with the direction he wants to take the country - and that's a reasonable thing for two people of any combination of races to disagree about.

Incidentally, John, the "Obama the Magic Negro" song played on Limbaugh's show was an adaptation of the title of an op-ed which had originally been featured in the San Fransisco Chronicle (I think - if I feel like it I'll find the citation later - it was definitely a West Coast paper of repute, though) - written, I believe, by a liberal editorialist. It's easy to point out the racism featured on a handful of signs at the TEA protests (Taxed Enough Already is the acronym, by the way - you make your argument look foolish when you resort to name-calling, especially when you can't come up with your own names to call), but it's just as easy to point out that large swaths of the populace admittedly voted for Obama in November SPECIFICALLY because they wanted to be able to say 'they voted for the first black President.' That is every bit as much racist sentiment as anything else - and if we're going to have a reasoned discussion about racism in America, that's something that has to be included.

One final point - I don't see why you consider it racist to believe that Obama was 'born in Africa.' Since the man publicly considers himself to be African-American, you'll have to explain why it's not racist for him to assert that he is simultaneously African and American but it is racist for anyone else to do so. I've long thought that the term African-American is ridiculous in the first place - if you're here (legally), you're American. What's more, not all African-Americans are black! I recall a news story a couple years ago where a South African immigrant applied for and won a scholarship to a midwestern school. When he arrived to claim the scholarship, he was denied the money - because he was a White South African, and the group giving the scholarship "had really meant that it was for black kids." Shameless.

One incident in which a white person was deprived of a scholarship, that definitely stands in stark contrast to the countless ways in which America discriminates against people of Color and LGBT individuals. What a bunch of pretty white kids with problems.

To say that this article is somewhat one sided would be a HUGE understatement. Saying that the left/liberals are the ones who have become name callers is so hypocritical it makes me sick. Politics has become all about name calling these days. The right wing media is probably the worst when it comes to blatant name calling. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Glenn Beck, these are the kings of name calling and blatant lying. They have tried to distract the public by humiliating the president, his office, and the democratic controlled congress. Also, the reason that left leaning politicians use such words as 'homophobic', and 'islamophobic' is a direct response to comments that right wing supporters, politicians, and media figures use blatantly. When Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talks about how much they can't stand the gay lifestyle or plays "Obama the Magic Negro" on their show, isn't that blatant racism? I'm not saying that only the right wing brings out these horrible comments, but I am saying that they do it more than anyone and in the most disgusting manner.

Want to know where 'Obama the Magic Negro' started? The LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story The link contains an op-ed written by David Ehrenstein with the aforementioned title. "Barack the Magic Negro" was a satirical song written and performed by Paul Shanklin, which received ample airtime on Limbaugh's program. Incidentally, homosexuality is not a 'race,' per se, so it can't really be called 'racism' to voice opposition to the gay lifestyle. It's further presumptive to assume a 'fear' of homosexuality or Islam on the part of people who oppose the extension of particular privileges to either of those classes - so homophobia and Islamophobia are really misnomers.

To the anonymous poster, let me thank you for proving my point. You bypassed the substantial argument that I made (that individuals on both ends of the political spectrum hurl ad hominem insults at others when they run out of intellectual counterarguments to make) and skipped straight towards making blanket accusations about my character and intellect. It isn't very intellectually honest to insist that only people who have experienced systemic discrimination are 'qualified' or 'entitled' to have an opinion on the topic - reasonable people can and do disagree about the extent to which racism, sexism, and bigotry exist and permeate our current culture. You'll have to explain to me what it means to be 'treated like an American,' since I personally generally treat pretty much everyone I meet equally. I can't say I really remember being 'destroyed' by the author of a pro-gay-rights column here, but my general position which I have explained time and time again is that marriage and sexuality are not really tied to the government by anything other than contract law, and I find it highly dubious that the government at any level ought to interject itself into private contracts of any sort made by individuals.

The bottom line is that I don't really care about your race, or your sexual preference, or pretty much anything else about you. Certain things just aren't relevant to civil discourse and day-to-day activities - the problem comes when people define themselves by their sexuality or their race, and these are the people who effectively debase their entire rights-based movements in the first place. That's not to say it shouldn't be PART of who you are - clearly it is - but it doesn't DEFINE who you are. The things you make, the actions you perform, the discussions you have, and the manner in which you generally live your life do that for you. I'm not really sure where all your hatred is coming from, but I'd be more than happy to have a reasoned discussion with you.

Way to go Kyle someone has to keep these white guilt burdened libs in check. You're owning these intellectual lightweights. A lot of the problem with political correctness is that it isn't a set standard every race has it's own set of rules. Imus got thrown off the air for calling black girls nappy headed hoes, but a rap station can say nigg3r all they want. I'm not saying that the right doesn't have their own version of this bull, but lately attacks on free speech have been coming more from the left.

It's always puzzling to see a privileged person claiming to be oppressed. I'd like to see some specific examples of how the author has been oppressed, instead of vague references to liberal talking heads.

I love it when white people say, I don't care about race or I am color blind. The fact of the matter is, whether you accept it or not, race/gender/class/sexual identity...all these things are going to be a part of people's perspectives and have an indelible impact on the decisions people make. You cannot get around these things in America and it is a white person's way of avoiding the truth by denying it. By the by, I am white and male, and agree with anne f. What SPECIFIC examples that occur every day effect white men in such a harmful way? White people are almost exclusively shown in both mainstream television/ads/pron/literature and so are heterosexuals. If these things don't matter then why is the evidence everywhere? White people never have to be afraid of behind underrepresented.

Kyle Minor, how is it that someone can NOT be homophobic or xenophobic...whatever...bigoted if you will...if they actively move against giving those people the mandated rights they are entitled to? What ulterior motive could they have other than the desire to subjugate them or turn them into 'others'? The only reason a person would have that desire is out of a fear toward that group. You are among the most systemically misinformed individuals on the planet. Note that your only allies are white heterosexuals.

Kyle is also allied to a majority of the world that disagrees with gay marriage. Which is an issue that is rejected by a majority of every race not just whites. If you remember it was mostly blacks that ended gay marriage in California. It's also incredibly ignorant of you to assume that no one can object to the issue without being homophobic.

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you, actually. I'm in what I'd consider to be a true minority, globally and locally, of people who believe that the government doesn't belong in contracts between private citizens in the first place. Marriage ought to be a social institution, not a legal one. And herein lies the notion of 'rights' versus 'privileges.' Government do not, and indeed cannot, bestow rights upon people. Governments exist with the specific and narrow purpose of protecting the innate rights of the individual - those which are marked to be 'inalienable' by our Declaration of Independence. Governments shouldn't, but usually do, bestow privileges upon their citizens - usually in the form of restricting a citizen's right without having him realize it. Think about it this way - sans government, you as an individual could join up with whomever or whatever you want and call it a marriage. A union of two, three, more, people, animals, objects, whatever you want - since you're the one applying the term to it, you get to decide. But when a government steps in and begins dictating the conditions which must be met for the legal contract of marriage can occur, it infringes upon the paramount ideal of liberty with which we are all endowed.

Now, all that having been said, and recognizing that my point of view is probably more idealistic than is realistically possible, I view things in light of the US Constitution, and specifically amendments 9 and 10 which reserve rights not explicitly granted to the government to the people and the states, respectively. The point here is that, if 'some government' needs to regulate what constitutes marriage, the Federal government surely isn't allowed to do so because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it as a particular function of that echelon. The Constitution is very, VERY specific about the role of the Federal government in the daily life of the individual - and it's really very minimal. Because it was set up to facilitate global diplomacy and otherwise manage disputes between states.

Lastly, I'll provide you an example for the remainder of your argument. Hate crime legislation is, in my opinion, among the most egregious abuses of legal authority that could ever possibly be crafted because of the way that it classifies certain segments of the population as 'protected,' and further creates a new echelon of 'thought crime' which is unnecessary as motive is already considered in criminal trials. Affirmative action is similarly offensive, because it creates a system in which certain groups of people are inherently treated differently because of innate characteristics of those people. That's a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment - and for that reason I oppose, VEHEMENTLY, both of those legislative initiatives. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think so - in my opinion, homosexuals aren't any more or any less special than anyone else, and black kids don't deserve any more or any less help than anyone else getting into school. Equal protection means just that - the law can't apply to you or me or anyone else differently than it does for EVERYONE else. It's why I'm adamant about deporting Illegal Aliens - the law is what it is, and the expectation in this country has to be that everyone plays by the rules.

But like I said originally, governments don't create or bestow rights - only dictatorships can do that, and dictatorships don't qualify as governments because they don't govern under the pretense of 'the consent of the governed.' Lastly, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your comment about my 'allies.' I don't keep an active tally of who agrees with me and who doesn't - it's an intellectual discussion, not a math problem. There isn't a right answer, there's my point of view and your point of view and and individual point of view for every other person in the world. General consensus about a conclusion doesn't lend that conclusion any real validity - just ask all the guys who thought the Earth was flat . . . .

Um...everyone doesn't play by the rules. The point is this country has a history of preferential treatment toward certain individuals. And you would be right if people did play by the rules. But they do not. Now...whether you like it or not some people believe that amends have to be made for the equally egregious 'affirmative action' given to white people, heterosexuals, men...of any class, Color, or creed...whatever...the point is people are treated differently in this country so your argument, like you said, is far too idealistic to have any relevance or bearing. I do not say that to put you down but honestly...how can anyone not living under a rock in this country believe that there is a level playing field? Please, really consider that...all of you.

So if I understand your premise correctly, you hold that the fact that discrimination existed in the past (and was morally heinous then) makes it morally acceptable to introduce a 'new discrimination' in the present in order to make up for past transgressions. That logic seems a little tenuous - if for no other reason than that the fact that it is the government which promotes this new sort of discrimination has the direct effect of breeding expectations among the protected classes. The point here, ultimately, is that past transgressions don't give the Federal Government the authority to enact legislation to 'make up for past offenses.' The government is really only allowed to act for the people it currently represents, and is endowed with the responsibility to ensure that equal protection under the laws is extended to each of its citizens (no such protection need be extended to non-citizens by the way). I'd like someone to explain to me, just once, how the premise that I'm a white male directly leads to the consequence that I must enjoy some sort of privilege - unless your ultimate point is that 'all white men think alike,' which is an assertion I hope you realize is utterly bogus, there isn't a whole lot in current culture to reinforce the idea of the dominance or privilege of being a white male. . .

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that bias and bigotry don't exist. The fundamental argument here is that it isn't the government's responsibility to ensure that individuals treat each other the way they should, ideally, be treated. No just government can 'compel' you to think or act a certain way - but once legislation starts being passed which gives certain benefits, or certain protections, to certain select groups of people, the government starts on a path of denying appropriate protections to OTHER groups of people. It's a question of 'why do governments exist - ' if you feel that they exist to solve problems at all levels, then we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. So if you respond, please include some indication of 'why the government must be involved in this process.'

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but I will say that Mr. Minor needs to get off of his computer every once and awhile.

Kyle you really enjoy directing conversations. I am not going to explicate why government should be involved because one, I do not have to and two, it has little to do with what I am concerned with. Your being white and male, just as I am, has much to do with how you are treated in this country. I suggest you read a popular essay called, "The Invisible Knapsack", I think it was written by a woman named McIntire. The title should be enough. Your identity dictates how others view you and treat you. You willingly admit that discrimination exists today. And you enjoy stating what governments can and cannot do. But whether or not you accept it they do what they please and without your consent. The government does not have a right to dictate marriage and make it a club. But it does. It never had a right to deprive any human being the vote. But it did. It does not actually have a right to turn immigrants away because American was had by imperialism - and based on the very rights you believe to be inalienable, it was stolen from Mexicans and Native Americans. Our disagreement is not about the government but about what I recognize as a common truth and what you view as a tragic relic in America's past.

This will be my last post. My advice to you is to wake up and smell the coffee. Your arguments are circumlocutory at best and again, have no bearing since they deny a very real social phenomena that exists not only in America but all over the world. And please...stop playing the victim. Merely because you have an incident or two where your whiteness has in some way impeded you hardly means you are a discriminated group on par with people of Color or the gays for that matter.

But does that necessarily mean that discrimination in the reverse, which is every bit as much bigotry as any other form of discrimination, is a morally acceptable means of achieving social reform? Racism and bigotry are most certainly alive and well - but the contention that certain groups of people are 'allowed' to harbor resentment against other groups because of certain transgressions doesn't really make any sense. I wasn't a slave owner - should I be held responsible for the fact that other Southern Whites were 150 years ago? I didn't legislate and enact Jim Crow laws in the middle part of the 20th century - so should I be held responsible for the actions of those who did? Individuals, not races, make history, and individuals are ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their actions - they, and they alone, deserve the credit or disdain they receive on account of what they do.

I disagree. I believe in collective responsibility. And while you reference acts that transpired 150 years, which make you feel less guilty, you forget that your parents were probably alive when defacto discrimination was still at its best. You have heard about the fifties and sixties correct? Back then white people had a much better hold of resources and we know things carry over from generation to generation. If even going back as far as the 1930s we find that whites had much more power and privilege than black people then we can rationalize affirmative action with the knowledge that legacy favors largely white people because it requires ancestry in college, something black people did not have access to back in the day.

Now while reverse discrimination in the form of vehement bigotry is not acceptable, to claim that you do not understand why certain groups harbor resentment is a bit of a cop out and only furthers my suspicions that you delude yourself of your white privilege. Resource allocation makes luck easier to come by and resource allocation 50 years ago makes a big difference on wealth today. And the only reason you state that individuals make history and not groups is so that you can obfuscate your privilege further. It is a cop out to state that too, because we know people can act collectively, and as nation states we often do. Again, have some accountability.

Brooke Leonard ignores the fact that right-wing entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck often refer to Obama's policies as socialist and even his recent supreme court nomination as racist. Although I did not find specific examples of liberals trampling on the free speech to debate issues, Fox news offers more trite name-calling that diverts intelligent discussion than the idea that being PC somehow nullifies all arguments.