Black Lives Can't Be Bothered - Protest Against Williams College Safety and Security Fizzles Out

WILLIAMS COLLEGE, MA - In one of the more humorous stories in this week's Williams Record is a brief article which describes how the previously all consuming effort to restrain and investigate the supposedly racist Williams College Campus Safety and Security (CSS) department has evaporated like steam on a dry sunny day.

Laughably, only five participants showed up at a recent listening event regarding the CSS. According to the Williams Record staff reporter, Lucy Walker, the meeting was stacked with pro-CSS students, most of them had come in order to listen to those with differing opinions. In fact, one of the major takeaways from the pro-CSS student's comments was their "...frustration with what they perceived to be the tendency of debates on campus to be one-sided. The majority of the participants had come hoping to change that culture and provide an opposing perspective."

The pro-CSS students asserted the CSS cared about the student body and was just trying to do its job. “I’ve worked with them for three years now. I think what some students don’t understand is that their only concern is the safety and well-being of the students,” said Nick Landry ’21. “They have people who work there who are retired and come in part-time because they genuinely enjoy doing what they do.”

This was pathetic denouement for a cause which black students on campus had tightly embraced, seeking to establish hatred for the Williams College CSS on par with what outside activists had ginned up through the Black Lives Matter movement.

For example, Isaiah Blake ’21 described the POC community as a “magnet” for CSS, at a Black Student Town Hall event in November 2018.

Blake, as you may recall, was the high-visibility CARE Now student leader who this year became frustrated at a CC meeting because of the rules and regulations which he perceived slowed down the fulfillment of a simple request which he artfully described as: "To have niggers sit in the fucking quad and eat hot dogs."

In a pale imitation of the Black Lives Matter protests, black students complained that they felt "unsafe" around CSS officers. According to an earlier report in the Williams Record, "Some examples of alarming behavior that attendees gave included POC-organized parties, where room capacity was arbitrarily and significantly lowered on more than one occasion, as well as examples of condescending and rude tones some CSS officers have taken with POC."

The listening event was part of a larger effort to solicit student opinions regarding CSS which was conducted by Margolis Healy, a campus security consulting firm, hired to conduct an external review process of the College’s campus safety and security (CSS).

On student, Eli Cytrynbaum ’20, a member of Minority Coalition’s (MinCo) steering board, explained away the failure of anti-CSS students to gin up much support this year for their cause as due to the fact that "...people are very tired from last year and have issues from their home communities to deal with,” he said.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

 

This Week in Pictures - Williams College Edition

 

Press Record: Williams College CC Townhall Reveals Alarming Extent of Open Animosity Against White Male Students

WILLIAMS COLLEGE, MA - This week's Press Record podcast was a frightening revelation of the extent to which the campus climate is overwhelmingly biased against white men. At a special townhall meeting, members of the beleaguered College Council solicited comments from a crowd of about 40 students - many of whom were reportedly drinking beer or White Claw ® which is a hard seltzer that combines seltzer water, gluten free alcohol, and a hint of fruit flavor.

The most vocal complaint was that the College Council had too many whites on it and that too many of those whites were men. This complaint is similar to an earlier complaint by black student activist Isaiah Blake '21 who famously complained that following established procedures and CC's rules is "like sucking white dick everyday." Part of the problem, as I see it, is that black students like Blake have been requesting funds for what appears to be personal consumption expenses at black only events. Both personal use of funds and socially exclusive use of funds violate CC expectations.

This policy, enforced by the white male students, interferes with Blake's request: "We want some money to fucking cook some fried fucking chicken and be niggers for once."

Consistent with Williams Liberty's earlier prediction that black students would be pushing for more free money some participants in the townhall meeting went so far as to say that black and low-income students should be paid to sit on the student council. One student yelled out that the existing arrangement was "...bullshit, unfunded labor..." This trope was part of a common theme scene at Williams College and elsewhere in which black students assert they deserve more financial resources (free money) to compensate them for the extra costs they supposedly take on by simply being black in a predominately white institution.

There were calls, as well, for the CC to abolish itself. However, even this suggestion was used to further debase white men. It was even suggested that little progress would be made if the students transferred power from white male student leaders on the CC to white male administrators. Listening to the broadcast, it is clear that demonizing young white men is the order of the day at Williams College. Creating a hostile, anti-white male climate appears to be socially popular and informally enforced.

Personally, I found the comments at the townhall were chillingly reminiscent of the vicious anti-white tirade directed against white male students at the April 9, 2019 College Council meeting.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

RealClear Politics Reports Williams College Among Worst of the Worst for Free Speech

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - The stifling, repressive, backward educational environment at Williams College has again risen to national attention. This time a survey of free speech experts (mostly conservatives) rated Williams as among the worst of the worst for free speech.

RealClear Politics asked its 22 panelists for their opinions on which U.S. colleges and universities have the best climate for free speech, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry. Likewise, they asked them to say which schools had the most room for improvement in these areas. Finally, we asked panelists to share their thoughts on how free speech, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry relate to the proper mission of a university. (Click here todownload a full report on the RealClear Politics survey.)

Among the worst of the worst was Yale University which has shocked the nation with its politically correct nonsense including the ouster of a professor from his position as a college master, the contentious renaming of a residential building, and the removal or destruction of controversial artwork. Yale was followed by Harvard University, Williams College, Oberlin College, Liberty University, DePaul University, and Brown University among schools identified most often by the panelists as in need of improvement.

According to RealClear Politics, "Our panelists include professors, journalists, lawyers, and scholars who work in the areas of higher education or First Amendment law and policy." The group included a number of folks with practical experience covering or speaking at Williams College including Gregory Lukianoff – president, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Charles Murray – scholar, American Enterprise Institute, and Jennifer Kabbany – editor, The College Fix.

As Charles Murray, the co-author of The Bell Curve, said: “The telos of the university is truth. It cannot have a second telos. There is no such thing as a university that fully supports the search for truth and also pursues a social-justice agenda, for example — or, for that matter, also pursues a limited-government agenda.”

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

Butthurt: Feckless Williams College Student Journalist Smears the Beloved Dr. Drew

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - I woke up this morning to discover that a lame Williams College journalist, Samuel Wolf  '21, had smeared me this morning in a bizarre story about an ex-Williams College philosophy professor who has been busted for banging his students back in the early 1990s.

Williams College professor David
Weisbord remembered 30 years
later for having sex with his students. 

The primary aim of the article was to tell a creepy backstory regarding Joe Biden. Biden was planning to attend a 2020 campaign fundraiser hosted by a lawyer who changed his name after having an affair with a student while he was professor at Williams College. David Sanford, formerly named David Weisbord, and his wife were listed as the hosts of a Biden fundraiser in Bronxville, New York.

According to press reports, Sanford - then David Weisbord - was an associate professor of philosophy at Williams College from 1989 to 1991. A unnamed former student said she had a months long sexual relationship with Sanford as Law & Crime reported in May. Sanford told Law & Crime that he changed his name for "private, family reasons" unrelated to the complaint from the former student. 

The woman in question has gone public and refers to him as an "unscrupulous predator." The irony of this complaint is that Sanford is now a prominent #MeToo activist who is making money going after colleges and universities. 

My name popped up, gratuitously, as a far-fetched example of the how women were treated callously back in 1989. Wolf cited a letter to the editor from April 25, 1989 which went after me for my comments on a radio talk show I did with the honored and courageous John Berger '89 on the topic of abortion. The full text of the letter is below. You should be able to read it better if you click on the image. 

I remember the American Inspiration radio show with great pleasure. John and I worked hard on it every week and included taped comedy bits, political observations, and critiques of the campus left. 

This particular show was a Morton Downey Jr. style broadcast which discussed the pro-life perspective, which was a topic that most at Williams College students and professors were loathe to discuss. In the letter to the editor, the authors suggest, without any quotes or other evidence, that I made what would appear to be a ridiculous statement to the effect "every time a woman enters into a sexual relationship with a man it is willingly." 

Since I was one of the few political scientists in the nation interested in the topic of child abuse and neglect and the sex abuse of children, it seems implausible that I ever said anything to that effect. Even if I did, it would be a bizarre stretch to suggest that I was unaware at the time of the existence of either rape or date rape which, of course, are all rape anyways. 

I don't remember much of what I said on the radio that evening. At best, I might have said something to the effect that women can control whether or not they get pregnant and that there are better ways to practice birth control that aborting your baby. The letter to the editor writers appear twist that sentiment in to the bizarre suggestion that I was unaware of the reality of rape. In all fairness to the letter writers, they appear much more angry at my on-the-air personality than anything I had to say about either abortion or consent in sexual relationships. 

Nevertheless, the feckless Samuel Wolf uses this 30 year-old letter to the editor as a piece of evidence designed to characterize the Williams College culture in which the administration and the Board of Trustees was perfectly okay with male professors banging their undergraduate students. As Wolf writes: 

The College did not explicitly prohibit student-faculty sexual relations at the time, and only officially amended the Faculty Handbook to prohibit such relationships in all cases in spring 2018. Nevertheless, during Sanford’s time at the College, three professors were fired for sexual misconduct with students, and faculty misconduct was a source of campus discussion. A Record article published in 1988 drew attention to male professors at colleges nationwide who coerced female students into sex (“Women suffer peer harassment,” Nov. 15, 1988). A letter to the editor in 1989 critiqued one professor for implying that every sexual encounter between a woman and a man is consensual (“Drew’s behavior on radio show inappropriate,” April 25, 1989).

The actual text of the letter to the editor does not support Wolf's bizarre insinuation that I approved of faculty members banging undergraduates or that my radio performance was some how sexually inappropriate. Logically, my view at the time was most likely that professors (who were overwhelmingly Democrats) should not be having sex with their students because this might cause even more abortions.

Dr. Drew at his home in Williamstown MA with his Oxy
friend Gil Roeder. 

I suspect that Wolf's one sided smear - I was never contacted for a comment - is a sign of desperation among Democrats seeking to get rid of Donald Trump and hide information on their own hypocrisy. As far as I can tell, Wolf is a New Yorker who is well connected with Democrat party officials. He has worked this summer as an intern for U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) and last summer as an intern in the office of the president for the leftist Brennan Center for Justice.

In a larger sense, however, this article is an attempt to harm the interests of white male students on campus by smearing me, one of the few conservative, Republican, white male professors who ever taught at the school. It is an effort to smear one of the folks who resisted affirmative action and then paid a steep personal and profession price for following his convictions, convictions which have not changed 30 years later.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

This Week in Pictures - Williams College Edition

Too Many Rules, Too Many White Guys? Williams College Student Leaders Seek to Abolish College Council

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - For most of the world, the bigoted hate speech directed against white male representatives at the April 9, 2019 Williams College Council meeting illustrated how identity politics has created an environment of open antagonism. For key student leaders, however, that tirade has provoked a sincere desire to scrap the College Council all together.

What would replace it would probably be a new student organization which would limit the influence of white students and allow the no-strings attached distribution of cash grants to black students.

This is, after all, the demand which apparently ignited the angry anti-white tirade in the first place. The complaint of the black students who viciously attacked white male representatives was that being forced to politely ask for money and justify its use was so unfair that it was the equivalent, as Isaiah Black '21, said of "sucking white dick." In this case, Isaiah Blake indicated “We want some money to fucking cook some fried fucking chicken and be niggers.”

In this case, Blake's request apparently violated at least two of the key rules supposed to be enforced by the College Council including stipulations that

1. All events funded by College Council must be free to attend and open to the entire campus.
2. College Council funds cannot be used for personal items, food for non-all-campus events, alcohol & other regulated substances, or direct donations to charity.

From the nature of Blake's comments it is perfectly clear that he was trying to establish a black only event and that the use of the money would be to purchase food for a black only event.

Instead of looking for ways to limit the verbal abuse of white students, a number of student leaders have turned instead to a new approach with would junk the existing bylaws along with the rules and procedures which are in place to avoid self-dealing, corruption, and the misuse of scarce College Council funds. In other words, these student leaders are looking to create a governing system which would resemble the corrupt big city systems which have enriched corrupt black leaders for years.

This development follows years of concern among student leaders over the abuse of CC funds by student groups including groups which stockpiled the money they received instead of spending it as they promised. See,

Transparency in College Council Funding (2011)

In 2018, good government activists on the College Council caught the group's treasurer violating at least three of their bylaws. In response, however, the members of the College Council ended up protecting the feckless treasurer and censuring the student leaders who led the effort to clean up his mess. See,

Following investigation, College Council votes to retain treasurer; censures co-presidents

Predictably, the anti-accountability, anti-rules, anti-CC activists are also worried that having bylaws, rules, expectations and accountability gives too much power the white guys on campus, the ones who - out of common sense not racism - are skeptical of the advisability of giving out large amounts of cash to their fellow students without much oversight. As two leftist student leaders noted earlier this year:

...College Council continues to reproduce the biases of the administration. For instance, last week, College Council engaged in blatant anti-Blackness disguised as strict adherence to constitutional rules and bylaws. When Black femme organizers requested funding for Previews programming aimed at creating space for Black pre-frosh, they were met with an onslaught of questions. This interrogation fixated on the presumed exclusivity of Black Previews and failed to reckon with the fact that Black Previews is not about exclusivity, but about inclusivity and belonging. Black students have taken on the extra labor to independently fill a gap in Previews programming that the administration and Office of Admission has overlooked. Notably, the barrage of questions came primarily from white men and non-Black members of color on College Council. 

As the school year progresses, readers of Williams Liberty are advised to look out for changes in student government which would increase the likelihood of corruption, that is practices which would make it easier for students to line their own pockets with money that is supposed to go for activities which benefit the entire campus. In particular, they should look out for practices which are disguised as beneficial to the community which, instead, provide opportunities for students to spend CC resources on themselves by prohibiting standard accountability measures including collecting receipts, sticking to request guidelines, and following the CC's bylaws and procedures.

Unfortunately, traditional anti-corruption measures are now seen as "anti-Blackness." This attitude is supplemented and encouraged by the post-modern view that corruption is perhaps just as good as clean government. Clean government is seen as a white cultural attitude which has no more authority or moral standing that the idea that it is okay to loot public or government resources to benefit one's own race or oneself.  In this context, the misappropriation of student funds may be interpreted as a means of creating equity, that is taking resources from whites and giving it to blacks as a matter of justice.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

WIFI Scandal Results in Williams College CC Loss of Power to Approve Student Groups

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - It looks like the most interesting Williams College news is now coming from the interviews done on the Press Record podcast.

In this latest podcast, Rebecca Tauber '21 interviews College Council (CC) co-president Ellie Sherman '20. Sherman reveals a number of interesting things that haven't gotten much attention in the Williams Record including a nascent movement for the CC to abolish itself. You can hear the whole podcast along with its nifty jingle by clicking on the link below.

https://soundcloud.com/williamsrecord/101119-restructuring-college-council

Most alarmingly, Sherman interprets the bigoted anti-white male tirade that marked the April 9, 2019 CC meeting as merely a conflict over funding for Black Previews. In contrast, most of the world saw this as an egregious example of the sort of anti-white harassment that is apparently routinely dished out to, and passively accepted by, white male students at Williams College.

Sherman indicates that a campus poll revealed that the student's top demand of the CC was the call for the abolition and restructure of the CC itself. Sorting through the code words, it looks like the aim of the abolition and restructure effort is to further advantage black students seeking free money by loosening the rules for obtaining funding and reducing the power of the white males who have apparently been standing in the way of dishing out the free money. According to Sherman, the CC is already working with "consultants" on this issue.

From the context of her comments, it is clear that these consultants are seeking ways to advantage black students like Isaiah Blake '21 who demanded money for a Black Preview event which would allow him and his associates to "fucking cook some fried fucking chicken and be niggers for once." Blake's complaint was that he did not like having to ask for this money, asserting it "is like sucking white dick every fucking day."

Apparently, Sherman and her fellow leftists fail to see that the CC would be better off hiring consultants to advice them how to properly conduct a meetings, maintain order, and implement thoughtful measures to guard against corruption. The CC, after all, has been the scene of highly questionable financial dealings in the past regarding the hoarding of CC money by student organizations and the failure of its treasurer to properly handle the CC's financial arrangements last summer.

Later, Sherman indicated that the CC had completely lost its power to approve or disapprove student organizations after the massive conflict over the approval of a student group called Williams Initiative for Israel which resulted in a Title IX investigation of Williams College.

The Press Record podcast also included some of the comments from anonymous students. They were asked what should be the biggest priority of the CC? The answers were interesting:

"Allocating funds."

"Rewriting the bylaws."

"CC should focus on abolishing itself. Rebuilding its foundations to be better in the future." 

"I want them to equally fund all student groups."

"Inclusion and diversity. No diversity, equity." 

"Abolish CC" 

"What does CC stand for?"

Songify the News: Buy a Shotgun

I am a big fan of music videos like this. I should learn to play the ukulele. Here are some examples that I could listen to all day. If readers can inform me of other examples as fun as these, please let me know and I'll post them below.

I got interested in this genre thanks to the musical and artistic genius of Matt Kresling. He's a liberal, of course, but I can tolerate that when he does work this great. 

Here is another one that is funny and includes more thrilling ukulele as well as some common sense. 

This Week in Pictures - Williams College Edition