Education and intelligence are not the only victims of colleges and universities; freedom and presumption of innocence also die there if one is even remotely accused of doing something sexually bad, and this is the case for one student at Dartmouth University.
 
The student, a black athlete (his race will be relevant to this story) who opted to be referred to as only John Doe, is alleging that Dartmouth University “discriminated against him based on his sex and race when he was suspended for two years based on the allegations of a female student,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
The story goes as follows: John Doe was asked by the female student, referred to as Sally Smith in court documents, to walk her home following a party on campus. Reportedly, Sally called John because she “didn’t know where she lived,” and John was sober as he is not one to consume alcohol. John agreed to walk her home, and once there, the two allegedly sat in her dorm room and talked for a while, before John eventually asked Sally if she wanted to have sex. According to John, Sally had said “yes” twice and the students proceeded to do the deed.
 
The following day, Sally asked John to meet with her and she had a friend of hers secretly hearing the conversation. In this meeting, Sally reportedly told John that she hadn’t wanted to have sex with him and had asked: “Do you think I was in the right mindset to say yes?” Days later, Sally reported the incident to Dartmouth’s Title IX office, claiming John had sexually assaulted her.
 
The school eventually determined that John had slept with Sally “without her valid consent.” Thing is that they also found that she was not incapacitated, which is necessary for one to determine if consent can even be given. The school also made that earlier determination despite John’s claim that she twice consented to it.
 
So basically, the school found that Sally was not intoxicated or incapacitated enough to qualify for not having been able to give valid consent, but they still punished John as if she did meet that standard requirement, according to the school itself. What a load of crap.
 
At any rate, John is suing the school and his attorney wrote in the suit that “Sally may have misremembered the night due to her intoxication”, according to The Daily Wire, though Dartmouth found her to not be at the level of intoxication of being unable to consent. Not remembering having given consent is not the same as not having been conscious enough to give consent.
 
John also notes in his suit that the school’s Title IX administrator, an unnamed white woman, showed “implicit racial and sex-based bias” against him.
 
According to the Concord Monitor: “For example, Doe said he had asked Smith if her roommate was home to see why she hadn’t called her when Smith couldn’t remember where she lived, but the investigator said he was ‘casing’ her living quarters.”
 
The lawsuit says: “Many of the inferences the Investigator drew from the evidence were based on this underlying biased and stereotypical view of (the plaintiff) as an aggressive, hypersexual Black male.”
 
But at any rate, there is no mistaking here the injustice that is being done to the male student. The school is punishing him for allegedly “sexually assaulting” a girl who was not so intoxicated to the point where she couldn’t give consent. That she ended up regretting it later, or forgetting giving consent, is not the same as having not given consent.
 
Now, allow me to make two important points here.
 
First of all, they shouldn’t even be having sex in the first place. Sex outside of marriage is wrong and a sin, regardless of whether or not one believes that is the case.
 
But even if one is of the belief that sex outside of marriage is okay, it is still best to not have sex outside of marriage in the first place. One of the biggest reasons so many babies are aborted is because of one-night stands that often lead to pregnancy. People this young should not be having sex if they are not yet ready for the responsibilities of parenthood. Not to mention that adults who are ready for such responsibilities also should not be doing this outside of marriage either. It’s not just scared high school and college girls who get abortions, sadly.
 
And even if abortion is not what the girl ends up choosing, the responsibilities of parenthood (regardless of if the father stays in the picture, though it is easier if he is) are still going to be life-altering for the parents. Again, they need to be ready for the responsibility of parenthood, and pretty much no college-aged person, male or female, is ready for it.
 
Of course, a child is not present in the picture of this case, but one of the results of sexual intercourse is reproduction. This is more than just about this one particular young man. Everyone ought to adhere to this line of thinking.
 
Furthermore, even ignoring a child being one of the potential results of sexual interaction, it’s still a good idea to abstain from sex because it becomes far more difficult for sexual assault to be alleged, or at least, for severe punishment to be given.
 
Which brings me to my second point: it’s a massive issue that schools operate under a “believe all women”, “to hell with presumption of innocence” system because sexual assault can be alleged of just about anyone, even if nothing happened, and punishments can be doled out.
 
While that may seem contradictory to what I had just said about abstaining from sex, allow me to repeat myself: it becomes far more difficult for sexual assault to be alleged if one abstains from sex. That doesn’t mean impossible, but it helps in one’s case, for sure.
 
If a girl wanted to maliciously accuse a random guy of raping her, she certainly could do it, but the evidence is on the guy’s side if he generally abstains from sex.
 
The problem, again, comes with how the schools are opting to work with these cases. One of the tragedies of the “#MeToo” movement was that presumption of innocence was thrown out the window. We are to “believe all women” even if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that sexual assault of any level actually occurred.
 
The schools go along with this because they are Leftists and love punishing the innocent (and taking money from the government which would likely defund them if they didn’t do this crap), so they dole out suspensions and expulsions like TicTacs to all who are accused of something so egregious, regardless of evidence.
 
Case in point, the one we just talked about. The guy was suspended for TWO YEARS, not because there is evidence that he sexually assaulted the girl, but because the girl simply made the claim.
 
The punishment would have been the same regardless of whether or not her statement was true (though, arguably, if it was true, he could stand to be expelled, but that he was suspended for two years is an outrage and injustice).
 
This does a massive disservice to a bunch of people, from innocent men who legitimately want to do right by women to actual survivors of sexual assault. It sets the standard that one’s own liberties and rights can immediately be stripped away if someone merely gives out an accusation of something terrible.
 
One of the reasons the French Revolution saw 16-17,000 people being sent to the guillotine is because people accused one another left and right of treason and “sympathetic beliefs towards the French nobility and royal family.”
 
Setting aside the fact that that was a clear violation of free speech (a right given to mankind by God, not by governments’ constitutions), it showed the most extreme extent of what presumption of guilt, as opposed to innocence, can do.
 
Those people were accused of holding “treasonous” beliefs, whether or not that was true, and were sent to the guillotine. According to Britannica, the Reign of Terror “entailed the arrest of at least 300,000 suspects, 17,000 of whom were sentenced to death and executed while more died in prisons or were killed without any form of trial.”
 
Again, this is presumption of guilt in its most extreme form because the standard for law-breaking leading to a death sentence was relatively low. Merely dissenting from the Jacobins was punishable by death.
 
In the case of sexual assault in college campuses, the punishments are lesser and standards fairly higher, but are egregious and unjust nonetheless.
 
Holding dissenting opinions doesn’t suspend you from college (as of yet, at least), but simply being accused of committing a hard crime like sexual assault can net some form of punishment, regardless of its veracity.
 
I can understand the desire of protecting the accusers, as it’s not always going to be the case where a girl just maliciously accuses a random guy, but punishing the accused on the presumption that he is guilty is not right at any capacity. Take measures to protect the accuser, sure, as it is possible that the accused actually did it and stands to be a threat to the accuser, but it should never be at the expense of the accused’s right to defend himself and be presumed innocent.
 
As William Blackstone expressed in his seminal work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in the 1760s, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
 
It’s far better for the justice of mankind that there be a standard where ten people who are guilty of crimes are found not guilty than for there to be a standard where even one innocent person can be found guilty.
 
Of course, no country and court system lives up to that standard, but that doesn’t mean that that standard should be disregarded, discarded, or that we shouldn’t strive to achieve it to the best of our ability.
 
If John Doe really sexually assaulted Sally, despite the evidence to the contrary, then let him be found guilty in court according to the necessary standard for guilt. Until then, he shouldn’t be punished, and certainly not this severely.
 
Again, I can understand the desire to protect the accuser and help her feel comfortable and safe, but her safety and comfort shouldn’t come at the expense of the accused’s own rights and liberties.
 
I hope that the young man receives rectification for this injustice done to him and that, even more than that, we leave behind the systems which promote and incentivize the presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence.
 
Philippians 4:8
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

It might be cliched to compare this stuff to George Orwell’s “1984”, but one can hardly avoid making the comparisons, seeing as the Left has taken that book as an instruction manual for how to operate. But it’s not just the elected Left which employs this junk. Leftists in the private sector and in academia also operate much like Big Brother, in some cases even issuing “newspeak” whenever they see fit.
 
This is what the University of Michigan has done recently, and this is far from the only time I have talked about that craphole of an “institute for higher learning.” In the past, they have both had black students self-segregate and had faculty organizing a “whites-only” café. Now, their Ministry of Truth, the “Words Matter Task Force”, has issued a list of “inclusive language” terms for the purposes of replacing current terms they deem “offensive.”

The following image shows this list:

​There is plenty here for me to go over, but I will only talk about a few of them, so as to not make this article needlessly long.
 
First, of course, there is the replacing of “man” and “men”, as well as “girl/gal,” and “boy/guy.” Because these people want to do away with the biological fact that there are only two genders, they replace those natural words with “people” and “person” or just the man or woman’s name. Nothing different from what we have seen before, but it’s egregious that I am this accustomed to the destruction of objective fact for the purposes of wokeism.
 
Then, there are things like “blacklist/whitelist” and “black-and-white thinking”, which I assume are only on this list because they include the colors “black” and “white”. The thing is that neither of those terms are in reference to race. “Blacklist” comes from the 1610s, and was in reference to disgrace, censure or punishment. In 1884, it was largely used by employers to make lists of workers they considered to be troublesome, usually due to union activity. It has nothing to do with black people in general, and “whitelist” has nothing to do with white people.
 
The same applies to “black-and-white thinking”. That phrase is about thinking in absolute extremes, such as thinking that one is “absolutely perfect and flawless” or “is the devil in the flesh.” It’s usually used in the context of people saying “reality isn’t so black-and-white,” meaning that it’s not as clear-cut as someone is alleging it is. For example, most fairy tales and stories are pretty black and white, because you know who the good guys are – and such people always do good things – and who the bad guys are – and such people always do bad things. Again, nothing to do with race.
 
Not that it matters, of course. Leftists often think along superficial lines, and see the terms “black” and “white” always in the context of race and not the colors themselves, even if their actual context is not within race.
 
The term “brown bag” is likely also a result of this line of thinking. They ban it because they think of brown people when they think of a brown bag (which tells you how racist these people are), instead of the fact that the phrase “brown bag” is in reference to lunch and how lunch is often times carried in a paper bag which happens to be brown. Maybe lunch should now be carried in silver plastic bags so as to not offend these snowflakes, but then they would whine at you for “killing the planet,” so you really can’t win with these people.
 
There is also the term “grandfathered”, which is seemingly due to the grandfather clause used in the Jim Crow south to give white people an advantage when voting over black people, but there is a very clear issue with this line of thinking: if that term can be connected with that clause, then couldn’t the actual familial relationship of a grandfather – and thus, the concept of a grandfather – also be problematic?
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left started pushing for that idea – that grandfathers are problematic – largely because of both the gender of grandfathers and the age (the Left hates old people, as evidenced by Cuomo and Whitmer’s acts against them in their states).
 
Later on, there is also the terms “honey, sweetheart, sweetie”, possibly because the Left has no idea of the concept of love and seemingly hate pet names.
 
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with “honey” or “sweetheart”, etc.? Sassy black women and gay men tend to mock those they disagree with by saying “oh, honey,” so wouldn’t this list be an attempt at limiting their vocabulary?
 
By the same token, why is “long time, no see” problematic? Its origin is in Chinese Pidgin English, supposedly from a short story in 1892 where a Chinese girl, during a conversation with someone, said “I think I go see my mamma today. Long time no see.” Is it problematic because of its origin or because of the kind of broken English you sometimes stereotypically hear from Chinese migrants? I’m willing to bet it’s for that reason, but frankly, no one means any sort of offense by saying it.
 
Even I did not know of its Chinese English origins until I looked it up, so I doubt most people would know about it and willingly be trying to mock Chinese migrants with it. Either way, it’s ridiculous that the University of Michigan would be banning these words and phrases. I guess they want to cull even phrases originated by migrants, much like they have culled the accomplishments of black people by getting rid of Aunt Jemima from the company’s products.
 
There is also the term “native” which is rather funny for me to see here. I can only imagine ignorant college students attacking Christopher Columbus for “killing” the Built-in Americans, or the Innate Americans. They clearly were largely talking about things, and not the race of Native Americans, but they were making this change because of the race, not in spite of it, so I can’t help but make that funny little connection. In order to not offend Native Americans, these people thought it would be wise to call other things which are not in relation to Native Americans (which, by the way, is a term created by the Left to replace the word “Indians” or “Indian Americans”, so they are trying to replace a term that THEY created to REPLACE ANOTHER TERM) because they thought it would offend those people.
 
Makes sense, considering their relentless attack on the Washington Redskins, who ultimately caved and embarrassingly are comfortable with having the temporary name of “Washington Football Team,” even though the vast majority of Native Americans did not have an issue with the name to begin with. Woke people do “good” things for minorities, even if the minorities don’t want those things.
 
Finally, there is the term “picnic”, which is also a bit of a headscratcher as to why it’s here. The UK Daily Mail suggests that the reason that term is here is because of “false suggestions on the internet that it originates from the racist, extrajudicial killings of African Americans.”
 
So these apparently “anti-racist” people chose the term “picnic” because it kind of sounds like “pick a n-word?” The term’s actual etymology is 17th century France, where the word “pique-nique” is used to describe social gatherings in which people contribute some amount of food… like a typical English picnic, in other words.
 
These Leftists really can’t help but see race in everything, even the most mundane and innocent of things like “picnic” just because, to the mind of a Leftist, it sounds like “pick a n-word” for the purposes of lynching them. Before today, I had never made that kind of connection, but then again, I’m not an insane Leftist who is outright conspiratorial about the meaning and etymology of certain words and phrases.
 
Maybe we should also ban the words “black” and “white” outright, despite them simply being colors, because they can be used in relation to race. Maybe we should also ban the word “person” because it has “son” in it. Maybe we should ban the word “window” because it has “win” in it and that promotes a spirit of competition and capitalism.
 
Who knows what other “newspeak” these Leftists will come up with to further choke freedom of speech? And you know that that’s the end goal. The UK Daily Mail noted that “It’s not clear if there will be any penalties for staff who don’t abide by the recommendations.” However, that’s hardly the point. The point isn’t to penalize staff for not using it – it’s to shift the entire culture to ensure that they are used and that punishments will be dealt by people, not official authorities.
 
For example, it’s not outright necessary to mandate the use of masks everywhere, because those who wear masks will, at least in some cases, outright yell at those not wearing masks and shame them into wearing one. Such people are not concerned with the inefficiencies of masks – matter of fact, they will 100% believe that masks work because that’s what “the experts” and “science” are saying, and anyone who doesn’t listen to them is an “ignorant science denier” at best and a “dangerous, lunatic serial killer” at worst.
 
Seriously, these lunatics will get right into people’s faces to yell at them to social distance and wear a mask. They carry measuring tape with them to make sure people stay 6ft apart (and such measurements can only be taken by breaking that guideline themselves, but they will never acknowledge that hypocrisy).
 
Maybe the university will issue punishments for members of their staff, and maybe even their students, for not adjusting to their “newspeak”, but that’s hardly the long-term goal. The purpose of this is to shift an entire culture towards doling out the punishments themselves, leading people to snitch on each other not unlike in “1984”.
 
As outright funny as it is to find some of the items on that list, what’s not funny is the blatant attempt at censorship by these groups of people. What’s worse is their push for making it so normal and “righteous” that they lead normal people themselves to be the gatekeepers and guardians of these rules.
 
Big Brother was only as powerful as it was because it managed to convince just about their entire populace to accept their new rules as being “just” and “fair” and “good”. The period before the “revolution” is regarded, even by those who question BB, as having been filled with injustice and unfairness. And those who do question BB are treated as outright traitors by the people.
 
Similarly, the Left’s aim is to convince just about the entire populace to accept their new rules, which they claim are “just” and “fair” and “good,” and are in direct opposition to this supposed period of “injustice” and “unfairness.”
 
Again, it may be cliched to compare the current situation with Orwell’s work, but one can hardly avoid doing so when they see these very things happening. I see the Left attempting to become Big Brother, doing many of the same things BB did, so I can’t help but note the parallels here.
 
We are obviously not quite there yet, as my own opposition to this sort of Big Brother is allowed to exist and I am not being sent to a secretive reeducation facility to “admit” to my “crimes” and to make me “love” Big Brother “again”. But there are a lot of similarities here with that work of fiction, which I can clearly see some people want to bring into reality.
 
Here’s hoping we can put a stop to all of that before it’s too late.
 
Acts 5:29
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”

​Over the years, I have written plenty about how God-awful colleges in this country are not merely for their Marxist indoctrination programs but simply because they are where education goes to die altogether. And sometimes, colleges do such idiotic and nonsensical things that I cannot help but to point them out and laugh at them.
 
This is one of those times.
 
You see, the University of California recently submitted student race and ethnicity data to the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which they (and all other colleges) are required to do every year if they want to participate in federal student aid programs. The university gathered the data, but the data itself is not what I care to discuss here (largely because it’s nowhere to be found in the PDF I wish to talk about). I couldn’t care less about the demographical makeup of the college, since that hardly tells us anything other than perhaps some attempts at forcibly diversifying the campus via affirmative action.
 
What I care about, however, is roughly the way the college went about gathering said data. For the different races, the school had to sort of identify where each region fits for each race. For example, for those who are Hispanic/Latino, the school understandably pointed out that those who are of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other descent are all under the race of “Latino.”
 
This makes perfect sense and there’s really nothing peculiar about this.
 
For African Americans/Black, it is a bit more vague: they just have “African American, African, Black Caribbean” and “Other African American/Black.” To be fair, someone who is from Africa is most likely going to be considered Black or African American (if they are Americans), so it still holds up.
 
In the Asian category is where things start getting a tad bit strange, though not as much as in the White category, but we’ll get to that one in a moment.
 
In the Asian category, we find some fairly common types of people that we would recognize as being Asian: Asian Indian (this one is a bit of an asterisk since Indians kind of are their own thing, but I will let it pass for this one since they technically are, in some way, Asian), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese/Chinese American, Filipino/Filipino American, Hmong (a group of people in South East Asia), Indonesian, Japanese/Japanese American, Korean/Korean American, Laotian, Malaysian, Other Asian, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese/Taiwanese American, Thai, Vietnamese/Vietnamese American.
 
Now, you might be asking yourself: “Freddie, this looks perfectly normal. What’s the weird part?” A fair question. You see, I omitted the weird nationality from that original list for added effect.
 
The nationality that is in that Asian category that I omitted is: Pakistani.
 
Yep, Pakistanis are considered Asian by the University of California. Now, I understand that Pakistanis are not exactly the darkest of people (an excuse that will not be usable in a moment), but it’s a bit of a stretch to clump them in with Asians. And while I can somewhat understand including Indians here (though I’ve already kind of explained how they can be a separate ethnicity), the two really aren’t all that similar to the point where one could say that Pakistanis are reasonably Asians.
 
Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s part of the Muslim world. It’s pretty far east, considering it borders both India and China, but Afghanistan also borders China, as do Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and no one would reasonably consider them to be Asian countries.
 
And while earlier in the PDF file where I found this data it says, “The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins,” meaning they are not trying to redefine what each ethnicity is in terms of race, they still decided to organize them the way that they did, for some reason.
 
Keep in mind, this isn’t the strangest part of the entire debacle, we still have another race to go.
 
Finally, it’s in the category of White that we find the most head-scratching ethnicities put into this category.
 
They have the standard “European/European descent”, as well as Caucasian, which makes sense… and that’s where the logic ends because we find the following nationalities under the category of White:

• Afghan
• Algerian
• Armenian
• Assyrian/Chaldean
• Azerbaijani
• Bahraini
• Berber
• Circassian
• Djiboutian
• Egyptian
• Emirati
• Georgian
• Iranian
• Iraqi
• Israeli
• Jordanian
• Kurdish
• Kuwaiti
• Lebanese
• Libyan
• Mauritanian
• Moroccan
• Omani
• Palestinian
• Qatari
• Saudi Arabian
• Somali
• Sudanese
• Syrian
• Tunisian
• Turkish
• Yemeni
• Other North African
• Other Southwest Asian

 
Now, I can excuse a couple of them, such as Georgians since they are pretty light-skinned (and largely associated with Russia because of Stalin), and Israelis for also being rather light-skinned, but what in the world is JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST DOING HERE!?
 
Take a look at this picture:

​These are Somalis. Yep, definitely look white to me!
 
Are you really trying to tell me that Ilhan Omar is white, University of California? Is she Elizabeth Warren-ing us?
 
You’re telling me that Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, is white?
 
No one in their right mind would consider any of these nationalities to be under the category of White. Look at that picture of Somalis again. Who would classify them as being White? The same goes for the vast majority of the ethnicities in that list. Sudanese are just as dark-skinned as Somalis, and everyone else is fairly dark-skinned as well, up to a point.
 
Again, I can understand Georgians and Israelis to an extent, but the ENTIRE Middle East?!
 
Like I said, it’s not like they are trying to redefine what it means to be White or Asian or whatever else and they are not trying to make a scientific argument (yet, at least, considering the scientific fact of two genders is being so heavily challenged because of woke-ism). But they are still classifying such people in such categories and are still gathering this data the way that they are.
 
In the Legend for the chart, they say that Pakistani was “Collected as ‘East Indian/Pakistani’ prior to 2010,” so they used to have a different section for that ethnicity, but they still decided to add it in Asian anyway and decided to omit an entire section to “Middle Eastern” which would’ve made a good amount of sense and would’ve spared them the mocking that I am delivering.
 
(As a side note, they have a “Pacific Islander” section as well, and the strangest one there was “Hawaiian”, seeing as it’s a State, but I can understand their logic for that one).
 
They also do not make any such clarification for all the Middle Eastern nationalities that they put under the category of White, so what’s their excuse there?
 
Now, one could try to argue that they are just trying to make classifications for race, not for nationality, but there are several problems with that.
 
First of all, they include, like I said, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaskan Native. That denotes to location more than skin color or race.
 
Secondly, the PDF is literally titled: “Student Ethnicity Collection and Reporting at UC,” with “ethnicity” being synonymous with “nationality.”
 
Thirdly, again, LOOK AT THE SOMALIS! If this were strictly about classifications of race, someone REALLY screwed up big time somewhere along the way because no one can tell me that those people are white by race.
 
I have no idea why it is that the University of California decided to make this hilarious list of nationalities according to race, or rather, why they did it the way that they did, but I cannot help but to laugh at them. Again, it’s not that they are trying to redefine what these terms mean or try to make a scientific argument about it, but they still decided to collect their data in this manner, classifying people from the Middle East as either being White or Asian, and that is hilarious to me.
 
I just hope they aren’t telling their Middle Eastern students, particularly the more dark-skinned ones, that they are actually white according to their own data-gathering methods.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

In this day and age, people will find racism where none is to be found. They will make stuff up just to push the narrative that this nation is inherently racist and must be culled and changed fundamentally. Hoax after hoax pops up alleging some racial incident that never occurred (see: Jussie Smollett and Bubba Wallace).
 
When it’s not a hysterical, Leftist black person making up a racial hoax, it’s hysterical, Leftist white people who randomly claim racism to have happened where and when it did not happen, supposedly “admitting” benefiting from “white privilege” or some such nonsense and asking for forgiveness for it.
 
That is nothing but virtue signaling, which Leftists are experts at. However, these things don’t always go how these radical Leftists expect.
 
Recently, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber essentially admitted to there being racism on his college campus, saying the typical virtue signaling bullcrap like “Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persists at Princeton as in our society… racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”
 
Basically, he alleges that there is racism happening on his own college campus and is going through the rounds trying to virtue signal to BLM Inc. and other Leftist organizations that “he is one of the good white people.” “I am an ally,” he is trying to say.
 
Well, despite this obvious attempt at virtue signaling, the response he received for it was probably unexpected: A Department of Education investigation.
 
See, it’s one thing for someone like LeBron James to allege that there is racism in America, or even in the NBA (not that he does, considering alleging such a thing would probably risk his ability to make some money). It’s one thing for Joe Biden and elected Democrats to allege there being racism in America. It’s one thing for them to make such broad allegations. But it’s an entirely different thing for a university president to allege there is racism not only in America but in his very own campus.
 
As a result of this admission, the Department of Education sent the following letter to Princeton University, declaring that the school would be investigated, stating the DOE was “concerned Princeton’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity assurances in its Program Participation Agreements from at least 2013 to the present may have been false.”
 
“Based on the facts, the Secretary of Education may consider measures against Princeton for false Program Participation Agreement nondiscrimination assurances, including an action to recover funds. Also, she may consider measures against Princeton for making substantial misrepresentations about the nature of its educational program, including a fine proceeding… the serious, even shocking nature of Princeton’s admissions compel the Department to move with all appropriate speed.”
 
The Washington Examiner, in covering this story, noted that “Such an admission from Eisgruber raises concerns that Princeton has been receiving tens of millions of dollars of federal funds in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which declares that ‘no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
 
This entire thing is just absolutely hilarious to me. The college’s president probably had no clue that virtue signaling could come back to bite him in the rear this badly.
 
Now, assuming that the guy was just virtue signaling and there really is no actual case of such foundationally systematic racism to be found in the school, not much will come of this, other than the guy getting utterly humiliated and outright proven wrong. He will come off as an idiot and his narrative will be pushed back against, which won’t accomplish much.
 
But let’s assume for a second that there is something to be found. The guy would be found to have been right, but as university president, he had the power to keep it from happening and he failed. This attempt to virtue signal, if it is ironically found that there is some validity to the guy’s claim (and no, I don’t think he was admitting to anything; I think he was just attempting to virtue signal everybody), could cost the guy his job and the university much of their funding.
 
Best case scenario, the guy comes off as a virtue signaling idiot and the narrative he tried to assert gets pushed back a little. Worst case scenario, the guy loses his job and the university loses much of its funding, and a larger investigation could be launched as well, depending on how much the DOE uncovers.
 
Don’t you just love it when the Left’s attempt to do anything, particularly virtue signal, backfires on them so badly?
 
FYI, this kind of behavior from the university’s president is not at all surprising. Back in July, Princeton professor of classics Joshua Katz wrote a column criticizing the BLM movement on campus, where he brought up the Black Justice League and their outrageous demands that people “acknowledge, credit, and incentivize anti-racist student activism”, or, in other words, racist political terrorism, and Katz even went as far as to outright call them a “small local terrorist organization”.
 
Despite how awesome that professor is, and how the country would be in a far better place if there were more university professors out there like him, Eisgruber lashed out at his professor and defended the small terrorist organization.
 
So to see this same college president declaring that there is unabated racism in his campus (which there was, if the Black Justice League was operating there, considering they are black supremacists) and virtue signaling to everybody about it is not at all surprising or unexpected. This is the behavior of the hysterical Leftist, particularly the white hysterical Leftist.
 
They so want to “prove” to black people that they are their “allies”, despite the fact that they support the eugenics practice that is abortion (and will often argue that it is a good thing for black women to get abortions) and despite the fact that Leftism has been black people’s number one enemy for centuries.
 
The hysterical white Leftist will raise their fist in “solidarity” (submission) with hysterical black Leftists and will willingly literally lick the boots of these hysterical black Leftists (and ironically, will call Trump supporters “bootlickers” for supporting the guy).
 
There is no greater racist than the Leftist, who makes skin color the basis of their entire rationale (if one can even call it that).
 
To see such a racist Leftist’s virtue signaling backfire so much is simply delicious. The guy very well might lose his job and cost his university a ton of funding because of his attempt to “be an ally” to BLM Inc.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”