Our View Cartoon

Another week passes and we still have no names for several of the summonses issued on campus. While University Police continues to hide behind Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), there are more issues now that need to be explained further than “a summons was issued…” or “there is an ongoing investigation for…”

In the last two weeks, we have seen two terrorist threats as well as multiple “dating violence” reports in the university blotters. These are not topics that we can just brush away like a liquor law violation. These are threats that could put a lot of people in danger, we deserve to know what is happening.

While the names of the individuals who have been making the terrorist threats may be released, those names would be the only student names we have seen in the crime reports all year.

There have been four weeks total this semester and two weeks sequentially where we have seen  dating violence in the blotter. We at the Missourian have requested the names in the university blotter multiple times, and have been denied.

If the university is going to continue to hide behind FERPA, then we should at least get details about the crimes that are more than just the usual liquor law violation.

While there is still an argument about how students are protected by FERPA, there should be no argument in these cases. How is a domestic dispute classified as an academic record protected by FERPA? Just because the two involved are students? Two people could live off campus while still a student and have this same issue and it would not be protected in this way.

Relationship violence is a big issue today and continues to grow. If this is something we continue to hide the names of those involved, blurring the crime itself, then how do we stop it from happening again?

The argument has been that the students are being protected by FERPA because they classify these crimes as university violations, and by not putting names in the paper, the student will have another chance at pursuing a career because this was just a mistake.

This is wrong, relationship violence is a serious issue. You can not just classify it as a university violation and withdraw the names because they made a mistake and do not know better. They should know better at this point and should not be excused because this was a mistake.

Our question is, how can crimes be labeled academic records just because they are synonymous with university violations? We don’t see how liquor law violations, terrorist threats or relationship violence can be classified as academic records. They do not pertain to grades, classes, grade point average or anything in accordance with student academic progress and passing these cases through the student judicial system does not change the nature of these records. If the student were off campus; misdemeanor or even felony charges could be filed against the individual.

Potential employers deserve to know if the person they are hiring made a terrorist threat in college. They should know if their new employee has a history of domestic violence. These are big issues that can make or break a person. If they decide to do these things, they deserve to have their names in the paper and be known.

This university can not hide behind FERPA any longer, especially in cases as serious as the ones we have been seeing lately. There needs to be some action taken here. 

(1) comment

Stefan Pyles

I apologize that this post is so long, but there is nowhere else to share it. I know because I tried. This is my farewell to Northwest. It is the master's thesis I always intended to write. It is rife with contradictions and fallacies because there is no longer logical or moral continuum to Jasinski's way of thinking. He only uses nice words that seem to indicate nice ideas.

Along with this response to John Jasinski's "manifesto," I also emailed the President an exchange of emails between my adviser and I in which I outlined that I felt I had experienced discrimination and bullying, and not from my peers but from my professors. I have since ceased attending class because all the way to the President I have met only with apathy or blatant disregard. As such, I neither want nor need any resolution or "justice" or anything. I am comfortable knowing that to this point, I have eked out of nothing far more than whatever something I might have earned here.

Jasinski's response was to direct me to the Student Conduct director, who then proceeded to condescend and blame me, and this after scheduling a meeting without consulting me first.

The Student Conduct office, of which Kori Hoffman is the director claims its mission is to foster the following in students:

"the ability to develop and sustain mature relationships with others
the ability to make decisions and hold oneself accountable
the ability to manage one's personal and professional life
the ability to show respect for and accept people who are different from oneself
the ability to live a healthy lifestyle
and an ability to demonstrate a clear sense of integrity, values and direction in life."

President Jasinski's referral to that office in response to my email was not only insulting, it clearly rebuked everything I said. Moreover, I admitted to Jasinski that a few years ago I submitted a thesis in which I showed using his words and actions as evidence that he had lied about not raising tuition. I believe this too factored into his decision to carry on despite the seemingly large number of students I have encountered who are not only disillusioned but clearly have no avenue for reform.

Response to John Jasinski's "manifesto":

"If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” – Henry David Thoreau

“You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

I want to make one important point. I am a 27-year-old convicted felon and 2-time college dropout who has overcome abuse of alcohol, heroin and cocaine. My brother died at the age of 19 from a drug overdose, my father died at 42 from kidney failure, and a girl I loved died at the age of 23 in a motorcycle accident. I have been homeless, incarcerated in both jail and a state-run treatment center. I graduated high school a year early in the top third of my class, scored a composite 28 on the ACT with a high score of 32, and was awarded a full ride to this university shortly after turning 17. Also, I have a bad hip and walk awkwardly. And yet, even though I do not have a car, I walked to and from campus, 30 minutes one-way, overcoming intense social anxiety and a constant feeling of futility all the while. When I got to class covered with sweat and in physical pain, I gritted my teeth and tried.

I could mention several other realities of my life, but the point is this: I am a minority in every way but the color of my skin, country of my birth, my sexuality and shape of my genitals, not one of which is a choice I made. Do I not deserve social justice? Is this response merely cognitive dissonance in the face of the dissolution of white privilege? Am I racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and simply do not realize it? Unless skin color, national origin, genital shape, and sexual orientation are the only things about me that matter, which is by definition racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic, then I am a minority who has experienced injustice at the hands of the established authority. Therefore, Mr. Jasinski, I am the very student your policy should seek to enfranchise. I present to you now a chance to act on the principles you wish to force on the realm of your influence.

At no point in my college career was I assigned to read the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Henry David Thoreau, and they offer, in my opinion, the most rational basis for the understanding of how to participate in society not only as a citizen but as a human being.

Even more interestingly is that while the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Johns Rawls and many others provide the intellectual and philosophical infrastructure of academia, their influences are hardly acknowledged and even more rarely discussed. Revolution, Mr. Jasinski. Have you ever engaged in one? I have not, nor would I ever want to engage in revolution. Revolution has catalyzed more madness in a shorter amount of time than any religious campaign of which I am aware.

The Protestant Reformation and subsequent capitalist, nationalist, socialist, fascist, communist, and other fleetingly nuanced totalitarian revolutions culminated with the annihilation of the native populations of the Americas, the colonial enslavement of Africa and its people, and the sodomy of South America and China. The age of revolution and social change brought to every nation on Earth campaigns of terror and desperation unrivaled in the history of man. And yet, while academia continues to accept the assumptions of these thinkers without question or understanding, the ideas themselves have all shown in reality to be speculative, profoundly unreliable, and, in many cases, conceived solely to foment the sort of “social justice” you espouse superciliously. In turn, they help to explain why the same exact people in the same exact power positions continue to perpetrate the same exact prescriptions and proscriptions while expecting different results. This is the popular definition of insanity. And where are the discussions about any of this? Where are the challenges to the bias and conjecture proffered by those who regard them as absolute? Where is the skepticism or critical thinking? We still defer to Edward Gibbon’s history of Rome and yet never discuss the fact that he passionately defended the status of Jews and Muslims as inferior savages when juxtaposed with Christendom.

Regarding your manifesto, I point out that not only do you not once explain with any specificity what these reforms will entail, you encourage not one iota of criticism. You simply expect everyone, because you can force or evict them, to follow you obediently. One of the primary criticisms of Obamacare was that no one had time even to read it before it became law. And look what that incited. Is your intention to wage a culture war in a time when such bourgeois trivialities pale in comparison to the actual wars both in full-swing and percolating on the horizon?

This is typical academic behavior, derived from the worship of theory and irrational dreams rather than devotion to justice or even reason. You assume that you because hold a position of power you are entitled to serve as the absolute moral authority and therefore are in no way subject to criticism. America has promulgated this policy to the ends of the Earth and it is now returned to bite us in the ass, literally. I would call ISIS a helluva hemorrhoid. I would call North Korea an abomination of humanity for which America is half responsible.

The basis of the Bill of Rights is that government is not a moral authority, nor is a moral majority empowered to subordinate all of society to its agenda. Indeed, the 14th Amendment evidences the reason why that is the case. The same constitutional alteration that rescinded the shackles forced on Africans was used recently to justify the insane notion that corporations are people and, therefore, afforded the rights of people. Morality is a pretense facilitated by a tenuous mode of civilization, one that inexorably depends on the subjugation of others. Whenever in history democratic mechanisms could not adequately secure social justice, moral hysteria ensued to the bane of the society. Because your policy is inherently undemocratic, the sanest conclusions available is that you are fully aware of the failure of your administration.
The wars on drug and terror have both exercised this exact ideological insularity and are undeniably violations of both the Constitution and reason even Neanderthals could grasp. And both have achieved the exact opposite of their stated goals. It is important for you to understand that you stand on the wrong side of history; rather, you stand on the side of history that survived the global crucible it incited, and now expect us to believe that the same kind of thinking that created this disaster is qualified to get us out. What is farcical is how similar you are to your predecessors. The tragedy is that you are worse because your best ideas are merely reiterations of past anathemas.

Now, to business.

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” - John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

“Information or allegations reflecting negatively on individuals or groups seen less sympathetically by the intelligentsia pass rapidly into the public domain with little scrutiny and much publicity. Two of the biggest proven hoaxes of our time have involved allegations of white men gang-raping a black woman-- first the Tawana Brawley hoax of 1987 and later the false rape charges against three Duke University students in 2006. In both cases, editorial indignation rang out across the land, without a speck of evidence to substantiate either of these charges. Moreover, the denunciations were not limited to the particular men accused, but were often extended to society at large, of whom these men were deemed to be symptoms or 'the tip of the iceberg.' In both cases, the charges fit a pre-existing vision, and that apparently made mundane facts unnecessary.” - Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

(Mr. Sowell, you can add the Daisy Coleman case and Rolling Stone’s fraudulent “A Rape on Campus” to that growing list.)

“Northwest colleagues and friends,

A. We are in the middle of a history-making event where we each have a chance to shape how these events will be recorded and remembered in the years ahead. We have an opportunity, and we are going to seize the opportunity to make a difference. Significant recent events have occurred at the University of Missouri-Columbia and on our campus. I am thankful for our University Police Department and for faculty and staff who are addressing these teachable moments.

1. What we? There are many people in this community who do not feel as if recent events included them at all, or in any way represented who they are or what they believe. The Daisy Coleman case and ALL the other issues of racism, rape and school violence across the nation constitute statistical outliers in terms of the number of people involved in those environments who have no relation to the injustices whatever and to the macrocosm generally. If you suggest I somehow promoted or allowed rape, racism, or school violence to occur by my “inaction” or “apathy,” then you suggest I am as guilty as the rapist, the school shooter and the racist, which I challenge you to argue. This is the implication of your logic, whether you realize it. The truth is the truth whether anyone believes it.

2. In involving people who have no personal relation to these events, you threaten the spirit of the movement of social justice and the community in which social injustice occurred by manufacturing a schism that exists at the margins, and thus force people to take sides in a cultural and political war of attrition. This same methodology was applied in the era leading up to the Civil War. This is the same sort of absolutism the Tea Party exploited successfully to acquire political power. Is that what you want, Mr. Jasinski, a civil war, a war of fathers killing sons and sons killing fathers and blue and gray mountains of dead countrymen?

3. Or, it could be that because you are in the position of power, it does not matter what anyone else thinks. I read, “This is not only going to happen, but it is the best possible course of action despite literally every scrap of relevant evidence reaching the antithesis of my conclusion.” And yet, you yourself admit that it was not a solution arrived at democratically, which explains the complete lack of wisdom and logic guiding its proposals. Representative democracy is not, based on what I have learned, one or a few people forcing everyone to abide by historically, logically, and morally fallacious ideologies. In fact, history is the story of sweeping those people into the recycling bin of history, because, as you yourself represent, they continue to show up.

4. You wrote “how these events will be recorded and remembered.” That sounds a lot like propaganda. You did not write “how these events will unfold” or “the actions we will take.” Indeed, your words imply that something is going to happen and we can either get on board or abandon ship, because the victors write history, might makes right, and we will suffer memory damnation if counted among the defeated. Either option still requires our involvement, but what you wrote only involves us in that people must continue to do what you tell them or pack their bags and find somewhere else to get an education. Ergo, you claim without obfuscation that not only do you intend to be the victor, but that you hold all the might. This is the definition of authoritarianism.

5. In what ways specifically have the faculty, staff, and University Police “addressed these teachable moments?” Moreover, why are they teachable moments? What can anyone learn from the Daisy Coleman case or what has happened in Northwest fraternities? Is it untrue that despite the publicizing of reports of sexual assault, students continue to participate in situations that potentiate sexual assault?

6. Based on my interpretation of the facts of the Daisy Coleman case, namely that a special prosecutor, a woman I might add, from Kansas City reviewed the case and supported the decision of Bob Rice implies that there is no teachable moment. Unless, of course, you are willing to defy publically the decisions not only of Nodaway County, but of Kansas City, as well. If that is the case, then do so. Do not force the entire campus to embrace a fallacious narrative and undergo dramatic upheaval because you lack the fortitude to be true to yourself.

7. It is obvious already that you are merely attempting to counter negative media attention with vaudevillian placebos rather than to “address a teachable moment.” Suspending the fraternity on campus from which the bulk of sexual assault cases stem seems an effective solution, and yet absent any other incentive or motivation to “reform” the system diametrically, the only other logical conclusion is that you perceived the media’s actions as attacks on your personal character, and that we should all participate in restoring your ego to its pedestal.

8. Why should Northwest or anyone for that matter care what the rest of the world thinks of our school and community? Are we really going to let strangers who ejaculate moral judgments for ratings dictate our lives? Enrollment is at record highs, so based on the “data sets,” Northwest has no reason to enact such policies because the so-called “significant events” did not have the negative influence your wounded ego believes they had. You literally contradict your own logic. Moreover, you have not stood up for justice when you had the chance, which I will address shortly.

9. Are you not thankful to the students? You know, the ones who truly have had to endure the hysteria these events fomented? The doubt they might have experienced thinking they wasted their college choice on Northwest? Are we not the ones paying thousands of dollars at interest to attend a school that you would have us believe so desperately needs a complete overhaul? Leaders are supposed to be above the babel of the rabble, and yet you have kowtowed to it, vindicated its theses with your obsequy. It is often the case that arrogant leadership conscripts entire populations for its arbitrary and capricious vendettas. This is the course of history, anyway, something you seem not to grasp, or even know, which I will evidence later.

10. Additionally, perhaps one explanation for why so many victims of sexual assault, discrimination, and injustice generally do not speak out or approach authorities is that they witness time and time again how victims and their sufferings are exploited by bureaucrats, pundits, and politicians, forced to politicize and rationalize their trauma for the sake of circus, and to deal with the platitudes and invectives the reckless culture and political wars of the status quo foster. Perhaps there are on this campus at this very moment men and women of all different varieties and challenges who remain isolated and pain-stricken not by silence and apathy, but by the cacophony that inevitably ensues whenever American politics tickles itself with human misery.

B. As a University we have made some progress on diversity and inclusion, but our understanding of, empathy for and action toward diversity, inclusion and equity has not yielded enough meaningful movement toward an ideal state at Northwest Missouri State University. Northwest Missouri State University must focus forward on the issues of diversity, equity and inclusion – or more broadly, social justice.

1. I offer here Exhibit A: Professor Matt Rouch. What happened to Professor Rouch was injustice. Period. The editor of the Northwest Missourian at the time, called Trey, solicited gaily the very sort of negative media attention you rue when he broadcast callously the professor’s Facebook comments. Any educated person who read that comment not only recognized immediately the sentiment, but understood it was an expression of sarcastic exasperation.

2. However, Trey, who yearned for the limelight and often laughingly expressed that he could not wait to get out of here, exploited the incident based on the fact he knew it would spark a controversy. He is no different than the journalists who immigrated from Elsewhere to bring castigation and shame to Maryville and Northwest. He might as well have been wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. The university’s decision not to denounce publicly what happened to Matt Rouch was all the media needed to demonstrate that Maryville and Northwest have no moral courage and are so unconcerned with justice they will throw a colleague under the bus.

3. I know because I was an employee of the Missourian at the time. Shamelessly, I add that that same semester I wrote an article about Sandy Hatte, whom the police charged with child abduction, in which I predicted the court would retreat from the original charges because the legal system and the media, completely unconcerned with the facts, failed to discover what actually happened; because beyond placating the media, they had no other incentive to perform their duties. I checked the disposition in her case and I was right. That story hit national news and not one media outlet I found agreed with my position. Nor did I receive a single note of recognition from anyone on campus, a point of bitterness I overcame when I remembered from whom I desired esteem. Injustice, Mr. Jasinski, is far more than one person hating another because of ethnicity. It is also when morality degenerates into hysteria and only the good reap the fruits of the fecal fan.

4. I was vindicated by the facts, not the showcase the world watched, and yet Trey’s article brought only infamy to the school. He graduated and likely obtained a promising position in his chosen profession, as his actions demonstrated his fitness for prostituting the Fifth Estate for the sake of the First and at the expense of every other. Meanwhile, Mr. Rouch experienced humiliation, the loss of his career, and criminal charges, which were dismissed, by the way, as was the outrage of the Daisy Coleman case when reality came to roost. The irony is sickening. What a freak train you conduct.

5. Why do we not address the fact that in both the Daisy Coleman and Matt Rouch cases, the justice system cleared the alleged perpetrators, that your actions and sentiments blatantly rebuke not only the legal system but the very “social justice” your manifesto ostensibly espouses? How was what happened to Matt Rouch in any way just, fair, or even morally correct? And yet, it all happened under your watch, Mr. Jasinski. Moreover, instead of erecting a massive gymnasium and renovating the stadium, why did you not invest all that money into the infrastructure and programming you think we must have now or face devolution into “ignorance, fear and hate?” Because it was not popular at the time. Why did you not invest in non-sectarian extracurricular activities, the dearth of which this town boasts proudly? Title IX is a joke and if you do not know it, you are a fool. A 3-hour online multiple choice quiz serves only to inspire students to tune out, turn off and drop dead, and forced dehumanization only causes fight and flight. Because your policy does not teach that Indians, gays, blacks, atheists, etc. are people. Your policy teaches that they are Indians, gays, blacks and atheists; it compartmentalizes what it clearly does not understand and then whitewashes what made it different behind a threadbare veil of homogeneity.

6. Does this mean that tuition will again increase? The last time you promised not to increase tuition, you broke that promise. Now, we can certainly argue that Jay Nixon’s actions incentivized your flip-flop, but it was still a flip-flop and hardly becoming of a professional to find an external source of blame for actions no one else was empowered to take. Should we assume, based on the evidence we have, that you will behave similarly this go around? Should we accept the past decisions of leadership as evidence of how they might behave in the future?

7. An ideal state at Northwest Missouri? Okay, Plato.

8. Also, is that not what Lenin espoused in the Soviet Union while claiming to be promoting “diversity, inclusion, and equity?” Which we shall refer to as D.I.E. from this point on, because, frankly, Mr. Jasinski, your email suggests that that is what you want your detractors and the media to do. I realize that “liberty, equality and fraternity” has a morally ambiguous connotation historically, but as plagiarism is how academia sustains itself anymore, it is not the least bit surprising that an archon of academia would employ such tactics.

C. Northwest has a strategic plan, titled FOCUS, that guides and prioritizes how we move forward as a University. During the summer, we added a new objective to our plan focusing exclusively on Enhancing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Practices. You will hear us refer to this as Strategic Objective 3. The nine-member team includes Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Matt Baker as lead along with faculty and staff members Nola Bond, Steve Bryant, Dr. Jim Eiswert, Clarence Green, Dr. Joseph Haughey, Egon Heidendal, Kenna Johnson and Rebecca Lawrence.

1. Does FOCUS actually stand for anything, or does it simply refer to the fact that you want us to focus on irrelevant non-issues so as to distract us from the leader who dramatizes such issues so as to appear like a stand-up white man in the face of racism, violence, and rape? The Europeans who conquered the Americas claimed to want to “liberate the savages from the freedom of godlessness.” Western jingoists, imperialists, and evangelists helped to foment the rise of Communism in the Far East and South and Central America by forcing their religion, economic mode, and government down the throats of people who had zero desire to consume them, and all that existential bedlam for nothing more than material profit. Is the reason we import so much human capital from the Far East, Central and South America because we want, as our ancestors, to force our lifestyles down the throats of anyone who either stands in the way of our financial gain or serves as the source of our financial gain, but only if they submit completely to the will of the Leader?

2. Moreover, I am a poor American and yet I am asked to demonstrate deference to wealthy foreigners who do not appear to care whether I respect their culture or else I face public vilification as a racist, nationalist xenophobe. Or, because I am a young white male with libertarian leanings I am cast as a potential right-wing guerilla, conspiracy theorist or school shooter so the rest of society does not have to acknowledge the moral, intellectual, and historical validity of my opinions. Because to acknowledge that I am right is to acknowledge that you are wrong if we are to accept the construct of absolutism created by ideologues and zealots who refuse to compromise, such as yourself. In terms of both ISIS and American bureaucracy, I am forced to oblige for fear of denunciation and ostracism both poles of the extremist vacuum.

3. Indeed, so as not to appear racist, sexist, and whatever other fatuous label philistines assign to me, and to a bunch of strangers whose own actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the well-being of anyone, I am required to participate in my own self-abnegation and thus act against the interests to self-determination of both myself and my community.

4. This is how Islamists radicalize people. It is also how slave labor was employed in the building of America, how guano mined with Chinese slaves in harrowing Brazilian caves was transplanted, along with potatoes from Peru, to Ireland, where it succeeded for a while until evolution had its way and catalyzed the Potato Famine. Following this egregious failure of rationalism and globalization, a diaspora ensued that brought huge numbers of Europe’s orphans to American shores where the sound and fury of soap-box hosts like yourself inflamed a generation lost to a bloodbath, the sound and fury that seeks to rectify itself with carte blanche social engineering manifest as inefficient and ineffective bureaucratic inflation. Decreasing or increasing the size of government or merely reframing the abject idealism guiding its policies serves in no way to deal with the extant consequences of previous malfeasances. And yet, at the acme of education administration the same fear-mongering divisiveness persists by poisoning the well of dissent with paranoiac archetypes conceived nowhere else but in the dim popularity its representatives seek at the expense of enlightened prestige.

5. Moreover, how many foreign exchange students remain in the U.S. to employ their skills for the benefit of our society? Should we all feel moral obligation to sacrifice for those who only come here to exploit our resources for the benefit of their societies, and in exactly the same fashion as we go to their homelands to exploit their resources for our benefit? Should Chinese sweat-shop workers feel obliged to respect the dignity of American corporation-people?

6. The recent terrorist attacks in France involved terrorists blending in with waves of refugees and utilizing channels of communication unknown in the American intelligence community. Our own government admits that the consequences of our insane actions now derive from a world we do not understand, and amplify at a rate with which our reactionary fervor cannot hope to contend.

7. In fact, let us talk about school shootings and radicalization. The narrative in the media would have us believe that gun laws are the reason for school shootings and that mere ISIS propaganda is sufficient to overthrow the principles and ideals America espouses. Are you suggesting American principles and ideals pale in comparison to terrorist ideologies? Is our society doomed at the behest of the agents of desolation due to an inherent flaw in our program?

8. Laughably, the “data sets” show that these miserable rationalizations, too, are non-sequiturs that in no way represent the whole. And yet, by employing saccharine moral rhetoric, the “voiceless” become tools for exploitation by those already in a position of power. What is more duplicitous is the guise of egalitarian and tolerance with which this call to blissful ignorance festoons itself. Tolerance is begrudging, Mr. Jasinski. It is a compromise. You know, that which makes democracy function? And yet you assert that compromise is not enough, that tolerance is insufficient, which leaves only absolutism and insularity at our disposal.

9. I’m thinking of a term: In Loco Parentis, which means that when students are at school they fall under the legal and moral jurisdiction of educators. So, if there is anyone to blame based on the realities of school violence, it is at least in part the educators, the education system, and law enforcement and its agents. Why is it irrational to suggest that policies such as this one, or the beliefs and thought processes fueling them, affect negative influences on their targets? Because you believe that just because you believe your intentions are good, the consequences of your actions will be good.

10. Unfortunately, such policies derive from narrow worldviews tailored to foster delusions of superiority, such as the Dred Scott decision and Jim Crow laws, which only the wars on drugs and terror rivaled in terms of racist, xenophobic insanity, and all of which are the radioactive waste of Progressivism, which gave us Social Darwinism and in no small measure reflected the cynicism which overtook Germany, France, Russia, Italy, and so on in the first half of the 20th century. This trend shows no indication it will dissipate before it becomes the pyrophoric autoclave another global war requires.

11. Violence is just a symptom of the real problem. Stemming the access to commit a particular form of violence in no way inhibits the germination of the seeds of its fruit, and yet that seems contradictory to the brand you champion with your propaganda. What is ironic is that we all agree the education system needs serious reform, e.g. Common Core, which is not so coincidentally the antithesis of the educational mode you defend, and yet no one acknowledges that perhaps school violence is also evidence of this, a strange reality if you do not consider the incentive educators have not to admit they may be responsible for helping to radicalize young people. Which is even more ironic being that most of the radicalization that served to overthrow Europe’s ancient regimes derived almost exclusively from the halls of academia. You seem not only not to know or grasp history generally, but specifically not the history of the institution you besmirch with the bemusing nonchalance of a drug addict.

12. Why can it not be that students feel utterly powerless and disillusioned by academics, educators and law enforcement agents who do little more than complain about student laziness and stupidity, preach that Donald Trump or Mitt Romney or whatever non-Democrat happens to own the media’s attention is basically the Antichrist, and then blame everyone for allowing rape, murder and racism to continue? It seems to me that where the education system leaves off is precisely where ISIS picks up, where law enforcement befouls its mandate with dreams of Draco and Machiavelli. The success of ISIS demands in large part on the reactionary atavism of the people they wish to eradicate, which, fortuitously for ISIS, seems the first and last resort of the American people.

13. Also, the erection of a state-of-the-art gymnasium and the nth renovation of the football field are certainly no indication that the specter of egalitarianism stalks Northwest. In fact, investing in new capital at the expense of addressing the actual issues is arguably the course of behavior that has brought about the absence of both effective climate change solutions and checks on income inequality and wage stagnation. You would, like so many other impotent bureaucrats, have us all believe that if only you had more power, that if only the world were unquestioningly subservient to “experts” and “administrators” that history has unraveled seemingly not to vindicate, you would not continue to fail as miserably as you have historically to honor any one of the commitments you made to the people who pay your salary. I challenge you to rebut this. In fact, I think this should be a public conversation, not an unavoidable decree issued by a blinkered autocrat from behind closed doors that educated people in the community can only lament for its apocalyptic fragility.

14. Also, was the community of Maryville included in this policy in any way? And I do not mean the leadership, I mean the citizenry. This is their town, remember, or is that, too, but an obstruction to your agenda easily bypassed by colluding with municipal leaders, all of whom, including yourself, have nothing but incentive not to address anything democratically. Northwest students not from this area are not permitted to vote in local elections, and yet they must abide by the leaders and laws those elections generate. The powerlessness of the student body stems from two sources, and you wonder why people react irrationally. Powerlessness is arguably the single greatest motivator of violence and madness, and thus social change, in the human condition.

15. Now, you can claim that simply because you give so much to the town economically that you are entitled to do what you want, but that same logic is how corporations rob precious resources from undeveloped nations. This is neo-liberal pseudo-morality, derived from a capitalist theology that excludes humanity from its decision-making schema, and not at all unlike what Ronald Reagan implemented in the 80’s, which helped to foment not only the Dot Com Bubble, but the Housing Crisis, as well. Insane inequality is a direct consequence of the very ideology you espouse, either on Wall Street or in Russia. It is the ideology that exploits discontent for the sake of the next generation of tyrants and demagogues. Indeed, greater inequality than existed in the feudal regimes they overthrew developed in nearly all the countries that waged revolutions in the name of social justice. Even the American Civil Rights movements were characterized by riots, assassinations, and widespread confusion. An educated person would view your policy as the quickening of a new age of mayhem. Is that what you want, a pogrom to exterminate anyone who exercises the moral conscience billions of years of evolution bestowed on humans in a way your vanity cannot stomach?

16. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, perpetrated by Bill Clinton, allowed commercial and investment banks to engage once more in the sort of quantum entanglement responsible for such absurd notions as “Too Big to Fail.” If there were too big to fail, then why did we have to save them? Because power is the funereal shroud of pragmatism. Your manifesto is the "too big to fail" of a dying education system.

17. In Loco Parentis does not apply at the college level, which means an institution designed to teach people how to think and to engage in a democracy seeks undemocratically to teach people what to think and moralize them by way of forced immersion in a world your policy admits is dangerous and exceedingly difficult to navigate. I do not pay you to moralize me, nor has your morality proved to be anything but obstructive to progress.

18. Social justice is entirely a moral issue. Abortion, gay rights, immigration, are all moral issues. There is no right or wrong, but therein lies the point of education, to learn how to come to those conclusions yourself. I do not commit murder not because I am afraid of jail, but because rational self-interest informs me that to do so would threaten my ability to profit. Your policy assumes that means are irrelevant to ends, which is why it was the precursor ethos to a paradigm of mindless bloodshed.

19. Moreover, this policy assumes A) Northwest professors are unable to facilitate social justice effectively by way of instruction in logic and reason; and B) students are unable to achieve social justice without having it presented to them as fact and coupled with the fear of persecution for noncompliance. Your policy assumes that human beings are naturally racist, sexist, xeno- and homophobic, that we are savages biologically designed for warfare. And yet evolution theory mocks this cynical quackery. That did not stop Herbert Spencer. Why should anyone expect it to stop you?

20. Your policy is not just the evidence, but the proof that education has not only run out of ideas and solutions, but it can no longer even correctly identify the problems. Indeed, your policy, ironically, trumpets the death knell of policy.

D. We have a set of strategic goals and associated performance goals and metrics. Our data sets show we have gaps that must be addressed. Our strategy is driving our actions related to Strategic Objective 3.

1. What are the goals and metrics? What data sets? What gaps and in what areas? What actions? You continually make vague statements that in no way inform anyone about what is actually happening.

E. General Education. A significant amount of work has gone toward reworking our general education program that will eventually include a “Global Experiences” component.

1. Please explain Global Experiences.

2. Please discuss specifically what work you did.

F. Leadership Competencies. The competencies have been built from huge amounts of input – over 40 employee and student employee sessions dating back to last spring – and include, in part, Modeling the Northwest Way through valuing differences. Our Leadership Roundtable will address these competencies next week and training for employees will occur in early winter.

1. 40 teacher and student sessions over the course of one year constitutes “huge amounts of input?” Really? I actually laughed at this. That is hardly a fraction of the Maryville community or the academic community, or any conceivable community, and I challenge you to find a statistician not incentivized into fealty who would agree that your “data sets” are representative. This sounds like the “scientific management” espoused by Leftists. You know the kind that employed neither scientific reasoning nor tools, and that affected the grossest inefficiencies on record; you know, the ones that hundreds of millions of people wish never to have occurred?

2. Roundtable? What is that, the Soviet Vanguard? Do you, like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, and others, believe that the only way society can reach an “ideal state” is by way of a small group of unelected persons exercising absolute moral, economic, and political hegemony? I know you roll your eyes and scoff at such ludicrous associations, and yet is that not in some sense validating of my point? I’m not comparing you to Adolf Hitler. I’m only observing that ideologies share common ancestors and cousins and tend to beget the same consequences.

3. The novelist Albert Camus once observed, “An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.” Perhaps the problem with the aforementioned regimes is they resorted to madness because they were too convinced of themselves to ever doubt the rightness of their actions or the infallibility of their principles. There is a difference between you and them and people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi and Jesus. While you believe absolute power is the only way to anything, true agents of social justice know better than to believe that power can do anything but preserve and fellate itself, that reactionary reforms precipitate great social changes, and then evaporate in the swelter of helter-skelter.

4. You would have been among the Pharisees who called for Jesus to die. You would have been the British Parliament that derided Gandhi as a half-naked savage, or a priest in one the churches Dr. King and the Apostle Paul criticized as hypocrites and obstructionists.

5. Students, whom you damn with faint gratitude and weighty blame, marched to the South to enfranchise minorities. Students defied tanks in Tiananmen Square. Students flocked to public parks to protest the kakistocracy of political and financial Kalashnikovs who play Call of Duty with our future as a nation.

6. And where were the administrators and academics? They were issuing manifestos or moral judgments from the comfort of an office or a thesis or a situation room, like the Vatican that persecuted heretics or Muslims and pagans, or the Romans who persecuted Christians and the tribes of the North, or the Confederacy that proclaimed the gospel of white power as the poor and young went to die. It is always the poor and young who must yoke the beast of burden unleashed in a fanfare of pomp and negligence. You are only a decadently nuanced iteration of the arm-chair jingoism and tenured tyranny whose sole service for the last four hundred years, since the last time education changed an iota, has been the bacchanalian coup d'état of reason.

7. I am not issuing moral judgments here. As perhaps you might notice, unlike you, I offer not only evidence and specificity, but I submit my argument to the coliseum of democracy, without face to save or pockets to line, free of the abridgements infernal glory demands of higher principle.

8. However, as I have observed how the media has caused you to abdicate reason, or employ scientific tools in pursuit of actual progress, I do not dare assume you will not experience a rather intense bout of indignation. This is to be expected. Reality checks are rarely pleasurable. I know because I have had a few. You, however, appear only to react to situations that threaten your image. The reality of your tenor has evidenced not an iota of real commitment to social justice. Moreover, this policy arguably evidences that you are now becoming aware of how you have squandered my money and your power building monuments while the plains around you crumbled. If you were concerned with Maryville, or with any conceivable ideal, your actions would reflect this, but they do not and therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that you in no way represent anyone’s interests but your own.

9. I am sure the alumni and stakeholders love the idea of your brand of “social justice,” because it means more tuition dollars and a better press release. Many students are in no position to question authorities for rational fear of backlash or lack of intellectual resources.

10. Perhaps you are securing a golden parachute as you see the demise of our university approaching and are aiding and abetting its facilitation, because so often leaders have left office long after the consequences of their policies come to full fruition, and so, knowing they will not have to take responsibility, affect their own prosperity as others’ fade. In the years and months preceding the Housing Crisis, many CEO’s, fund managers, and perhaps even bureaucrats and politicians hedged against the crisis they not only knew was coming but were instrumental in bringing to fruition because of outright hubristic denial of reality. This situation also reminds me of when Vice President Biden put President Obama in a tight spot after running his mouth off to the media about his views on gay rights. Obama navigated the potential controversy by claiming his views “had evolved.” Is that what happened: because the media exploited hysteria for hysteria’s sake, you had an “awakening” about social justice, or did you get a call from the spin doctors?

G. Enhanced Infrastructure and Programming. We have provided additional support for our students of color and multicultural student organizations. We have strengthened our multicultural student success staff. We have implemented a comprehensive Title IX process, enhanced staffing associated with Title IX and implemented significant training and education programs.

1. Are there any programs in place to help the students who have suffered as a result of the actions of their peers and professors? What do the data sets tell you? You know, those customer service satisfaction survey distributed at the end of the term, the ones no student has any incentive to believe informs anyone about his or her degree of satisfaction? Is there any way to get a refund when a student believes the services he or she purchased did not meet expectations? Let us address this. Currently, students are able to withdrawal or change classes during the semester, which dis-incentivizes withdrawal or class change. The university and the federal government require students not only to earn a degree but to maintain a certain number of credit hours. If a student wants to change classes or majors within the allotted time for a refund, that student must then enroll in another class, or several, in order to remain eligible for financial aid. And yet, there is hardly a more difficult task than catching up in a college-level class that has already begun. If a student performs poorly, he or she carries that grade forward: it affects his or her GPA, class rank, and timeframe for graduation. And yet, if a professor performs poorly, they experience not an iota of ramification. Moreover, it is as rational to assert that people desire to teach because they are ineligible or unqualified for, or uninterested in, other fields, as it is to assert they do it for “the love of teaching.” This sort of self-preserving propaganda helps to account in part for the utter dearth of effective mechanisms for weeding out unfit professors. At large, the education mode currently in place not only bears the design of assumed immortality, but actively micromanages any and all attempts at reform as to render the notion non-sequitur.

2. What about the students in the fraternities who did not condone the sexual assaults, were ignorant of them, or hesitated because they had no evidence? Their lives are in upheaval now, as well, and for legitimate reasons that were in no way respected. Indeed, the system creates far more victims than it helps.

3. What about victims who only want the perpetrators subjected to justice? Is it irrational to assume that perhaps another reason victims do not publicize their sufferings is fear of unwittingly creating more, that their trauma does not eviscerate their compassion?

4. Your administration has been rife with controversies that have never been resolved and now you decide to force reform without having heard the voices of the voiceless or demonstrating even an elementary understanding of history or social justice. As a business man and politician, however, you excel.

H. Our Strategic Objective 3 Action Team is quite adamant that infrastructure must come first, before we move too deeply into programming. I agree. We do have some programming pieces in place – Heritage Month celebrations, Advantage Week and SOAR sessions, Residential Life and diversity training, Northwest Institute for Social Justice and Green Dot programming, to name a few.

1. Infrastructure as in a new gymnasium and football field? What do you mean by infrastructure? Do you mean a new entrance to the university? We got that. Do you mean a new cafeteria and meal program even more inefficient and exploitative than the previous system? Check. What about the prices of goods on campus? You claim to promote social justice and then allow Aramark to operate a monopoly at the expense of students already struggling just to afford an education? How is economic irrationality indicative of social justice?

2. More programming? Not only do students have to take multicultural classes with a diverse population, but you even stated other programming was already in place. Do you intend to include in the already unnecessarily bloated general education curricula a mandatory campfire-Kumbaya course? Will there be a mandatory online quiz testing our ability to be decent to people?

3. If the problem still persists and yet all of these instruments were already in place, then it is clear that these instruments do not work, as opposed to your bizarre conclusion that there is simply not enough of them.

4. In fact, whenever in history unlike peoples have encountered one another, the consequences have tended toward total oblivion or unilateral domination. America has disseminated this malarkey all over the world, including in America, and quite rarely have the effects been to a boon to the Great White Cause. Have you learned nothing from history? Unless you think Northwest students and Maryville residents are so blinkered by “ignorance, fear and hate” they cannot see correctly, then, let us be really real, you are simply admitting your administration is a failure in terms of social justice and now comes scorched-earth Atlantis. Of course, that assumes racism, violence and rape are actually “systemic” issues on this campus. If that is the case, why have you, as the incorruptible ambassador of D.I.E., achieved so little to this point?

I. Thus, we must focus on and invest in infrastructure. We don't have all the pieces articulated and mapped out. Nonetheless, as your president, I am issuing a clear call for further action. These must move us beyond compliance. These must be intersectional – cross-cutting. We all must be part of the work – not assign the work to a few areas. We must all take responsibility for educating ourselves. We must focus on inclusion – not simply tolerance.

1. You had the chance to invest in infrastructure, and instead you built monuments to your tenure. Like Egyptian pharaohs, Roman emperors, Gothic warlords, Catholic popes, Soviet autocrats, blah, blah, blah. You are not simply part of the problem, you are the problem. Your way of thinking, acting and believing is the problem. It is the ideology of reactionary atavism and slamming on the accelerator as the “ideal state” approaches Charybdis. It is the flaccid paternalism of a rapidly obsolescing generation still drooling over victories secured while it flooded diapers.

J. Thus, some actions of which I am expecting progress and will sponsor: Personal responsibility to ask about how we create an equitable climate – looking into the mirror and asking who I am, what I do, how I act, what I know and do not know and where do I show up in the conversations – for conversations in our classrooms, coaching and mentoring sites and offices that can help build the infrastructure.

1. We do not have conversations in our classes. You would know that if you ever sat in one, but like a capitalist who sees only revenue and spreadsheets, hears only the howls of the media and lullabies of profit, you are unaware of the conditions in your factory. It has been my experience that teachers focus solely on “getting through the material,” a phrase so often repeated it has an alarm clock signaling nap time. In fact, I have been countless times, far more often than not, or let me say, a statistically relevant number of times, asked to hold off questions in order to complete the teacher’s agenda. In several noteworthy cases, when I declined to acquiesce, my questions caused the professor to admit that he or she was wrong or did not have an answer, which would have been perfectly acceptable had they simply said, “I don’t know,” as opposed to dismissing the student as in possession of erroneous information.

2. Why not provide all information and lecture material on the web, where anyone with a smartphone can access it for free, and then reserve class time for discussion over the material? The education mode you propagate is an almost perfect waste of money, time, youthful ambition and intellectual curiosity, and the skill sets of your micromanagers. Perhaps that is why the education system is failing, because it is dictated by demagogues with capitalist whims, authoritarian modus operandi, and only the instinct to self-preservation for incentive to perform.

K. Academic leaders and the Faculty Senate to consider invoking a social justice component throughout the curriculum:
• The Strategic Objective 3 Action Team to ensure it creates a forum for creating and articulating a broad-based understanding and a shared language around the specifics of Strategic Objective 3 – diversity, equity and inclusion.
• The Strategic Objective 3 Action Team to help drive a meaningful diversity and inclusion continuing education program for employees – ongoing and as part of professional development.
• Our student leaders to help craft a more meaningful approach to multicultural student groups with appropriate representation and voice.
• The Office of Institutional Research to ensure all data sets have appropriate segmented data across fields related to diversity, equity and inclusion as appropriate.
• The Office of Human Resources to ensure we have an appropriate Affirmative Action Plan and to address needed executive level oversight for diversity, equity and inclusion.
• City and broader community leaders to be part of – rooted within – our ongoing actions related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

1. Has the world not had enough of trickle-down social engineering, of crisis resolution at the hands of the catalysts of crises? What great social change ever issued from power? Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, and just about every other positive role model affected social change from the bottom-up by persuading people with reason, logic and strong moral arguments to adopt enlightened attitudes and beliefs, rather than coercing people with dictates and moral fallacy for no other reason than profit salvation and ego redemption. Your policy template has historically been the one to catalyze social change in that social changers exhibit such policies as evidence that the system must be altered categorically rather than by piecemeal, entropy-nurturing delusion. Indeed, Mr. Jasinski, if people like you did not do what you inevitably and always do, the people that truly change the world would have nothing to go on, and so, for that, the right side of history is grateful. Irony is sweeter when it sheds the saltiness of what baked it.

2. All I see hear is Office of, Office of, Ministry of, Ministry of. Are we not talking about human beings here? You know, people? They have faces and hands, right? Thoughts and ears? This reads like a military briefing. “Alright, soldiers. We have an unidentified thinking object. Our reports indicate it is a passive entity but capable of exercising free will at any moment. We think it possesses culture and emotions, but truly there is no way to know. I want all strategic operations focused on identifying and embracing the target. If they resist or express confusion or concern for you sanity, embrace them harder. It will be dangerous and some of you may actually D.I.E. executing this mission, but that is the cost of equality, people, our lives and livelihoods. If we all cannot live in peace, then some of us need to leave.”

3. Every proposal you have directly involves none of the students you claim to seek to enlighten. Isn’t that, like, um, well, like, you know, the antithesis of education? Are we simply automata for the indoctrination? Is that it? Have power and profit distanced you so completely from reality, and the very reality you control no less?

L. Please know I am challenging myself to be the champion for diversity, equity and inclusion and ensure it remains action-oriented and visible across the University. Further, I pledge to continue the “Java with Jazz” listening sessions with students and employees as well as key external stakeholders. While focused on listening, these should address issues of diversity, equity and inclusion – culture and expectations. These likely will be hard and difficult conversations with not one of us being an expert, but exploring how we can learn about each other and ourselves and how we can contribute toward a better environment in a multitude of venues will be the path forward. I look forward to these dialogues.

1. Based on your actions and policies relative to your rhetoric, this is no rational reason to believe any of this.

2. Can we not just enjoy different music anymore without having to politicize and sexualize and moralize every facet about it? In fact, how can we appreciate music whatever when all we do is discuss the atrocities that inspired it? In fact, Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong explicitly rebuked the cynicism and politics of racism in order to create beauty, and often with no words at all. Is the soiling of beauty, culture, art and humanness with the filth of social and political division necessary in order to achieve your “ideal state”? I ask, then, what is the point of living in harmony and respect with others if there is no beauty or art or difference to enjoy for the sake of beauty and art and difference? Do you think Miles Davis would approve of using what he specifically intended as spiritual and emotional comfort as a tool of propaganda? Would Rosa Parks support this policy? Did you even consider that? Or, rather, did you, like so many swill merchants, simply assume that the minorities you hope to enfranchise would never question your motivations or policies? Isn’t that the absurdity on which Al-Qaeda and ISIS capitalized? You, like so many other “leaders” in this country, this world, and in every sector, continue to proselytize and implement the very policies that have driven society to the point that you think we need your policies. Do you want ignorance, fear and hatred to prove victorious? If not, then why do you continue to aid their amplification and diffusion with your leadership? Do you want the enemies of reason, love and democracy not to have to work to secure the utter evisceration of America?

3. Please, Mr. Jasinski. I implore you to take a hard look at my arguments. I do not think you are a bad person, nor do I harbor animosity or bitterness towards anyone. It was Dr. King who said, “I have chosen to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” When I first heard that, it changed my life. When I read the words of Jesus, “Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do,” it changed my life. When I learn of how minorities have stood against the tyranny of the state in pursuit of true freedom, it changes my life. Every day. Because it is there, everywhere, the hope the world needs. It is in the doings of those simple people who dared to eat a peach when they world proclaimed the sinfulness of fruit. You do not understand social justice because you have never experienced social injustice. You speak like someone with good intentions, and yet your actions and even your intentions evidence that the future guarantees only more social injustice and that you will retire with few, if any, financial concerns. What good is equality and diversity if we are all too poor and stupid to realize what it took to get it or, more importantly, what it takes to keep it?

M. Social justice awareness and the plan to build an equitable university benefits everyone. What is happening around us is not a threat to anyone, but an opportunity to build a stronger community – one that upholds love, respect, courtesy, character and responsibility and denounces fear, ignorance and hate.

1. What is happening is a threat to everyone. Like, are you being serious right now? Like, um, huh?

2. Ironically, the threat is from your way of thinking. I lived in a relatively diverse neighborhood growing up, but it was a small area situated in the heart of antediluvian, white, Christian wealth. I never learned of “racism” until I went to school because my black and brown friends and I never had cause to think there was anything that separated us. No policy required. Like so many racists, sexists, homophobes, and totalitarians, they simply have never had experiences with the Other outside the media and their own insular ideological frameworks. Unfortunately, I sense that this, too, is your situation. I sense that your experiences with minorities have been entirely within the professional and academic realms.

3. Have you ever sat with a black person and listened to hip-hop because it was good music and you appreciated the company? Have you ever attended been to a Native American reservation or labored in the minimum wage jobs Hispanics and many other people risk death to earn? Is your entire conception of the human race based on television and what some other entrenched and unworldly academic wrote in a book?

4. I landscaped for many years and spent many years in the “Hood”. I have made it my life’s mission not only to cultivate a rich, sharp intellect, but to indulge hedonistically in the diversity of the world. I’m wont to think the ambition you see in this work derives from my desperate longing for change and newness and variety, not the kind of sterile homogeneity you espouse, the consumerist gospel of flotsam and jetsam. I want diversity, inclusion, and equity, but not if it means I no longer even recognize the differences that make us unique and provide avenues for understanding our own cultures objectively but also with meaning, or at least from different perspectives. I lament daily that I have never traveled beyond America’s increasingly solipsistic walls, the walls erected by academics, politicians, elitists and bureaucrats who believe they know best the sorts of beliefs and ideas people should harbor.

5. You are from my parents’ generation, which is unfortunately the most spoiled, self-absorbed and unenlightened generation America or the world has produced. The Greatest Generation came and went and your generation enjoyed all the fruits of their great sacrifice. You got cheap gas and easy credit and we got climate change and mountains of debt. You ebulliently brought upheaval to the costliest peace ever afforded out of boredom and contempt for extraordinary privilege. You consented to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and we get the public slaughter of privacy, sanity, and security and the most people incarcerated per capita of any nation on Earth. You got sit-ins and protests. We get school shootings and police brutality. You got cheap education and reaped all the economic, social, political, and cultural opportunities no other generation has ever seen, and we get the seething imbroglio now, yes, in fact, very much threatening us all. Your ways of thinking served only your generation. It is my generation and the generation after mine that will be forced to deal with the holocaust of consequences the hypocrisy, profiteering, and venality your generation institutionalized and continues to hail as the Gospel despite the irony that it is at the heart of the withering away of the current state of things. The Irony! The Irony! You are Kurtz, the mad white messiah in the heart of darkness, profaning the wonder of reason with blasé metaphysics.

N. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about love. And being real. And addressing systemic issues. And focusing on bettering the human condition. And acting.

1. This is about self-aggrandizement, trying to salvage a bitter legacy, but because we are all cynics now, we imbibe merrily of the illusion of moral courage, and of the knotting of the human condition into a lobotomized and anesthetized algorithm written by the Masters of the Universe. You address not even one systemic issue in your email, nor have your actions even remotely targeted the cause of those systemic issues, assuming you even know what they are. Acting? Really? Acting like a hero while sitting in an office ordering society to change, like Abraham Lincoln, who had only speeches in the wake of bloodbath, who never sullied his hands, who only adopted the cause of eradicating slavery because political pressure from hot-headed moralists, like you are doing now and based on statistical anomalies completely unrepresentative of the macrocosm. Kennedy did not support the Civil Rights Act initially and yet he is still somehow related to social justice. This theme is present throughout history. The pen-pushing proselytizers who piddle away from the office of vacancy get lionized as social changers along with the people who actually act to change society for the better. What a joke.

O. December 1 is the 60th anniversary of Rosa Parks taking a stand on sitting. On segregation. On civil rights. She was quoted as saying, “I would like to be known as a person who is concerned about freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people.”

1. How lamentable that a great heroine of social justice should face lionization at the mouth of the Establishment that made her a criminal.

P. I believe we should, can and WILL stand for what Rosa Parks discussed. As Student Regent Shawn Dixon told me and others earlier yesterday, we have those who are apathetic and those who are charged, but love is the core that will bring us all together and move toward productive discourse and action. Other student leaders encouraged us to ensure we address “light” – bring out the positives that are in place. I am thankful to our student leaders.

1. I was wrong. You do express gratitude to the students, in a footnote and only a few of them.

Q. As such, our students are organizing a forum on campus this week. Further, we are organizing an open forum Monday, Nov. 16, at 6 p.m. in the Ron Houston Center for the Performing Arts. Student leaders have helped plan the forum and we anticipate it to be real, but lead to further productive actions. Please join us.

1. I would rather D.I.E.

This is my conclusion: “I have chosen to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I experienced what I can only call academic bullying and intellectual discrimination. I attest under penalty of expulsion, disrepute or whatever heinous moral atrocity society deems most appropriate in the event I am exposed as a liar or harboring ulterior motives, or simply for opening my mouth at all. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by employing deception, fallacy, or any other mechanism of denial or subterfuge. Indeed, my entire person is public access whether I like it. What is interesting is that, in my experience, only one professor even addressed appropriate online behavior or sought to teach students how to control their personal information. The point is that this is a real world skill almost required of participation in society now if one hopes to avoid the smorgasbord of negative consequences failure to behave rationally on the internet can provoke. However, this skill is not taught to students. In fact, on many occasions I listened to students complain that they are expected to know things they have never had cause to learn, and so, because questions are discouraged, they do not seek clarity. Moreover, that professors have office hours is irrelevant, because very few people want to look stupid or ignorant in front of people, especially academics, especially in college, especially in a classroom in which they are surrounded by peers. I myself felt many times that I should not ask questions because it tends only to make me feel as if I have wasted my peers’ time. The questions I ask are probing and often contradictory to what professors teach. Students who are already struggling with the information do not need my complicating interjections. The sign on the gateway to Northwest should read, “Abandon all hope of learning, all ye who enter here.”

Additionally, along with intellectual discrimination and academic bullying, I submit there is also religious and sex-based discrimination. Many professors harbor the Christian Faith, which does not seem to jive with the whole D.I.E. campaign. I am not a Christian, and tend not to view Christianity very favorably, and although I do not broadcast my beliefs militantly, I also do not manicure my beliefs so as not to offend the beliefs of others. Ergo, it is absurd not to factor this into my reasoning. Now, I admit that, because male professors demonstrated a number of similar behaviors, it is almost fallacious to claim that female professors practiced misandry, but it is also equally logical that, because my character stands in stark contrast to the Establishment as a whole - I am naturally intelligent, personally educated and have experience with myriad institutions, peoples, and ideologies – it stands to reason that the personal motivations of my professors to discriminate are irrelevant.

Consider any social change: the successful ones are those that do not just speak diversity, inclusion, and equity, they are the ones that practice diversity, inclusion, and equity. Indeed, the reasons people embrace any ideology or belief vary from person to person and yet they all come to the same conclusions. This is what I believe can adequately explain my experiences, and yet in no way excuses the unique motivations that coalesced into a continuum of injustice.

Again, I stake my future here at the school, and thus my ability to attend college anywhere, as well as my intellectual and moral credibility and principles, which I regard as higher than any earthly or quasi-divine reputation or ideology. We are not “given” rights by a constitution or institution and no one ever renounced hatred, ignorance or fear because they were ordered to do so. We have rights and dignity and they are either respected or disrespected, and people embrace reason or they do not embrace reason. Indeed, my tuition purchased me the service of academia, not the sovereignty of academia.

I felt upon receiving Dr. Jasinski’s response that I had reached the end of college, that it was no longer the sanctuary of security, learning, and hope it was for me when I was a boy with no friends and a broken home, when the classroom was my church and professors were my connection to Knowledge and Reason, and all despite the fact that kids made fun of me for being fat, poor, goofy-looking, and in the gifted program, from the day I entered to the moment I now leave. I never cared about their insults. I never let them get to me, because I knew my mind was what mattered in this world, and that to let their envy, bitterness and bombastic desperation cause me to succumb to mine is the most unoriginal of sins. To the courageous, everything under the sun is new and therefore beautiful, even the agony of the tyranny of others. True love, Mr. Jasinski, does begrudge its dearth in the hearts of men and women, just like the truth does not require anyone to believe it. It does not even notice when no one believes it. It is vindicated by its nature, by the very essence of what it means to those of us not yet utterly dismayed at the collapse of civilization.

I had to learn courage, but America does not teach courage. You do not teach courage. Courage is marching on D.C. just to share a dream with strangers. Courage is wandering the Galapagos in search of microscopic nuance. Courage is called Saartjie Baartman and Malala Yousafzai and Nelson Mandala and Prince Siddhartha and Jesus of Nazareth and Nikola Telsa and Galileo Galilei and Socrates and Diogenes. Courage was the hymns of Woodie Guthrie that serenaded the meals of wolves during the Great Depression, the inner monologue of Louis Armstrong that, unlike Hamlet, whose incessant bewailing in the face of injustice only brought death to an entire court of lions, reminded us that the world is beautiful, that life is beautiful, and that these truths derive from conversations with ourselves, from the place in the human heart inoculated from bubonic fatalism, where the orphans of Holden Caulfield and J. Alfred Prufrock becomes the madmen who D.I.E.

Courage is the nameless, faceless, voiceless, the anonymous human beings, not the white people or black people, or men or women, or gays or straights. Courage has no religion, Mr. Jasinski. It has no nation-state. Courage, truth and love are the orphans of this world, abandoned by their watchers for the corrosive vices of the limelight. Courage is hope, the kind of hope that bridles wrath and makes an army of peace of an audience at war. It is the metamorphosis of nihilistic doubt into skepticism and curiosity. You teach weakness. You teach people not to stand up for themselves or for justice, but to bow to authority and to expect the world to protect them, to heal them, to understand even an iota what an act so deplorable as rape, burning a cross in someone’s yard, or executing children can do to a person.

I care not what happens to me academically. I have been cleansed of the need to justify and vindicate my existence among people utterly undeserving of such an honor, something I never should have had to do in a so-called “enlightened and progressive” society. I am happy wherever I am so long as my wits and sweetheart are about me, but because I have spent a decade involved with this university and even longer at odds with America, I would disprove the notion that “knowledge is power” if I did not at least express my opinions and views. Isn’t that the point of all this egalitarian hysteria? I believe it is. I read the words of the Founding Fathers, and of creators and evangelists of religions and philosophies, and of revolutionaries and reactionaries who dared and died and those who lived to tell the world. I have studied my whole life, read more books than I count. I am educated, probably more so than any five professors here, forget the students. I realized that your degree is just a receipt for debt incurred and bullshit stomached, for time served. Well, I received my time-served papers long ago, when I met your generation’s utter contempt for reason in a cement box forged from the War on Drugs, and I just cannot justify the profligate, futile expenditure of resources, time, money and sanity for a receipt, especially now that you have publicly announced that Northwest is no longer “focused” on education, assuming it ever was.

Mr. Jasinski, you have helped to higher education into a different kind of prison system. That is what this country is doing, building more prisons and identifying more people as terrorists. America is amid the last of its identity crises. That is why it is no longer possible to discern the saints from the criminals, those who would lead us from ruin from those who lead us to Rome. The roads to Rome are all closed, Mr. Jasinski. Rome is dead. Rome is gone.

We are retreating into fear, ignorance, and hate, and you are the philosophaster-king of our sinking ship. Your language is the oratory of hollow men in a wasteland, scavenging for substance in a smirking, nebulous void. Unfortunately, this is but a fractal of America’s manifold macabre, a mere frame trapped in a reel of eternal recursion, reticulating geometrically as information loss accelerates and lawlessness sows a desolate indrajala with pyrophoric pearls,

My sincerest hope is that you will become an intellectual and champion of what you speak, shed the façade of enlightenment you don to placate the morally hysterical for the sake of the financially and politically avaricious. It is unbecoming of people of reason to behave so ridiculously, and yet you would make the propagandists and autocrats of yesteryear smile with pride. I cannot say I wish you the best, because I do not believe you wish it for yourself, and therefore I would be disrespecting your dignity as a human being to want for you other than what you want for yourself.

I pity the snake-oil salesman as I pity the leper whose only crime is want for balm.

Good night, and good luck, Mr. President.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.