by Kevin Fenchak and Vincent Cucchiara
Penn State's university-sanctioned panel discussion on September 5th, titled “Charlottesville: What Happened? What Now?” put left-wing hysteria front-and-center for any who cared to attend. While the turnout consisted of an entirely unsurprising coalition of minority students and self-flagellating whites, the narrative presented by the panelists was at once completely predictable and stunningly honest as to their views and intentions.
The panelists, drawn from the university's professional grievance departments (think anything ending in “Studies”), were completely open about their disdain and even hatred for this country's history, culture, and people. The overarching theme, expressed in a multitude of ways throughout the “discussion”, was that America's base composition was one of thinly-veiled White Supremacy. White Americans, it was stated, possessed an unfounded sense of “White Grievance” against other groups, compounded with “White Fear” of displacement and reduced political clout. Why these emotions must be connected with the adjective “White” is a good question – likely, because it's easier to dismiss valid concerns when they can be dismissed as pathologically racist.
Cynthia Young, head of the African American Studies department, offered a rationale for considering right-wing extremists a clear and present danger to national security: In a given amount of time, she said, 48 Police Officers were killed by right wing extremists, while 45 were killed by Radical Islamists. One doesn't need to possess a comprehensive knowledge of demographic statistics to understand why Professor Young does not head the Mathematics department. You might also wonder why an accounting of left-wing violence was not forthcoming, but of course inconvenient circumstances like the attempted mass shooting of GOP Congressmen don't deserve mention in this context. She then ascribes to normal white Americans a whole host of “phobias”, and rails against their refusal to see themselves as “problematic” or accept a demographic minoritization that she states herself will happen by 2050 at current rates.
Courtney Morris, possessing a similar pedigree of professorships in miscellaneous identity politics spheres, declared that there could be no “White Disavowal”, that is, no distancing of yourself from supposed “Bad Whites” who are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. She demands and end to “Whiteness” entirely, because all white people participate in this supposed White Supremacy. Somehow, in a claim baffling even to the editors of this publication, even the University leadership participates in White Supremacy. Hiring an entire swathe of faculty whose only purpose seems to be denigrating and shaming white people must all be a part of the Nazi Party's secret program to establish Global White Supremacy, directed from their Antarctic submarine base. Snore.
The other panelists did not do much better. Beyond extravagant claims that White Supremacy is woven into the whole fabric of American society – begging the question of whether or not national identity is morally acceptable for any other groups – they did not offer much in the way of argument. Abraham Khan, Assistant Professor of African-American Studies, created in typical leftist fashion a metaphor between the constitutionally-guaranteed right to expression and the right to purchase alcohol. If the university is a marketplace of ideas, he asked, why should the community not decide “what is for sale?” The answer, Mr. Khan, is that your ability to control the speech of others ends when they refuse to obey your petty tyranny over expression of ideas. To put it to a tried and true Americanism, don't let your mouth write checks your behind can't cash, because if you think you can successfully restrict political speech on campus you've got another thing coming.
Khan also spoke of how “speech is a form of action”, and his point rested on the idea that the goal of speech is action from others and, therefore, that the speaker is responsible for the actions taken by his audience. This type of rhetorical double speak is very common from the more nonsensical leftists, amounting to a complete and total denial of personal agency and responsibility. This belief is unsurprising, given that the modern Progressive movement is populated by people with poor impulse control and massive egos, who project their own personal weakness onto others. These people are the subjects of the well-established genre of “leftist meltdown” internet videos, and are routinely coddled, excused, and rationalized by the left's academic vanguard.
At any rate, a full account of the complete insanity emanating from the concentration of six leftist academics in one room is quickly going to become tedious. Whether it's Khan's assertion that the University has a responsibility to ban anyone he declares a “Fascist” or Jeanine Staples' declaration that “White Supremacist Patriarchy resides in the heart of almost every single American”, the actual words being spoken increasingly take a backseat to the driving force behind them.
Behind these expressions of disdain for the traditional American nation lies a deeply troubling insight into the beliefs of the far-left. Having insinuated themselves into influential and completely useless positions in universities and public offices, they have gone to work constructing utterly fantastic notions of “White Supremacist Patriarchy”. Now, we see from their own statements that they also believe they have the right to determine who can and cannot speak their mind. One hot topic of discussion was what the assembled agitators would “do about” the possibility of Richard Spencer or the like coming to speak at PSU. Beyond vague promises of “mobilizing several departments” in opposition or using a “range of tactics”, Professor Morris expressed sentiment that sometimes, activism required “not using the hammer”, that is, not using violence against ideological opponents, not because it is wrong but because it is tactically unwise. A powerful undercurrent of anti-White racial animus pervaded the entire affair, the constant bashing of anyone of European descent underscoring the hysteria and fanaticism with which they demanded the destruction and replacement of American history and society.
To spell it out simply: this ideologically radical, rabidly anti-White caucus demands the right to shut down any manifestations of “White Supremacy”, makes a few quibbles about using violence, and reserves for themselves the right to determine what so-called White Supremacy is. In addition to this, these supposed professors of higher learning are perfectly willing to demonize everything that has ever historically-constituted the American nation. One may wonder, in what sense are rights to expression guaranteed? If leftists continue to have their way in academia, that question may be answered only with an ominous silence, or perhaps with the arrival of a Communist cudgel to ensure that such troublesome questions are no longer asked.
Let the reader be asked: How long do you believe the increasingly absurd demands of these radical academics and their followers can be accommodated? And at what point do you believe they will be satisfied?
From this two-hour immersion in delusion and resentment alone, some light may be shed on these questions. Their demands have reached fever pitch: “Decolonization” of education, to wipe out any remaining sense of American identity. Removal of public monuments, to eliminate the physical reminders that we constitute a people with our own history. Absolute control over public discourse and academia, to throttle voices of dissent. They cannot be tolerated any longer. They will never be satisfied until they dance on the grave of this nation. While the vast majority of students will remain happily unaware of the hatred festering in officially-sanctioned University departments, make no mistake that their objective is and always has been power. Once they take enough of it, ignorance of their demands will no longer be possible. Perhaps our only hope is that their ignorance of just how insane they will sound to others will cripple them, once their views become public.