Gess there getting stuc n Irak.

Our kids are failing. Shocker.

... 75 percent of the seniors headed to Dallas community colleges can't read above an 8th grade level, and others can't add or subtract[.]

And for the Captain Obvious quote of the day:

“This percentage is much too high," said Dr. Joan Rodriguez, who teaches developmental reading at El Centro.

Ya think??

And Rachel Lucas points out a grammatical error... which has since magically been fixed in the article!

What is funny is that clearly, the reporter who wrote the article can relate to the subject matter. For example, here’s a paragraph in its entirety:

Showing over the last three years, an average of 75 percent of the DISD students enrolled in classes took at least one developmental education course.

And how about this:

…principals are given a $10,000 bonus based upon how they’re students do on TAKS scores.

Nice work there, reporter person. Maybe you could sit in on one of those remedial writing classes?

The "they're" has now been corrected to "their". Way to go, buddy.

I remember sitting in my English classes in college, listening to the professor tell me the difference between "there", "their", and "they're". I would sit there, bored, as he taught us when to use a comma or a colon. And as he would explain grammatical concepts I learned around fourth grade, I would try to figure out if it was possible to commit suicide via notebook paper. It was clearly the less painful route.

I guess they're all doomed to Irak now. Right, Jawn Carry??

UW-SC students show tolerance for opposing views on abortion.

See for yourself just how "tolerant" they are when pro-life group Pointers for Life put up a display of 4,000 crosses symbolizing murdered fetuses on campus at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Here's the story:

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point butted heads Thursday after an anti-abortion organization planted 4,000 white crosses on campus to symbolize aborted fetuses and a student responded by pulling hundreds of them out of the ground.

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

The group has come to expect minor vandalism each time it displays the exhibit, but students were shocked when Roderick King pulled up many of the crosses in protest.

"It's just so disrespectful, and it's disappointing that this comes from UWSP students. I've always thought of this campus as a tolerant place. ... Someone made these (crosses) with their own hands," said Pointers for Life member Tracey Oudenhoven.

King eventually left the site of the display after speaking with Protective Services officials, but he later returned to protest. King said his anger was not just politically charged, but also related to the anonymity of the exhibit.

"If you're not ashamed of this, then you should claim it and sign it," King said. "My student dollars are going to support this, this travesty."

Pointers for Life reserved the space but didn't indicate its sponsorship of the exhibit. At King's request, students eventually posted a sign reading, "Sponsored by Pointers for Life."

Students put up the exhibit early Wednesday. By Thursday morning, some signs had been slashed and a few crosses had been broken. King said he didn't participate in those acts.

Why bother letting someone with a different opinion than you speak out or protest?

Let's just imagine it was the other way around, and a pro-abortion group had put up a display showing their support. Some members of a pro-life student group came along and started tearing it down because they didn't agree with it. What do you think the reaction would be?

Let me guess: it would be OPPRESSION! Right Wing intimidation tactics! Christian extremists trying to silence opposing voices!

One student gets it:

Passing students paused to watch King debate the moral implications of abortion with Pointers for Life members, and even some who supported abortion rights said they supported the group's right to protest.

"You don't have to agree with this. I don't agree with this, but they have just as much right to be here as the Pro-Choice Alliance," said student Colleen Kiefer.

Only some who supported "abortion rights" thought it was OK for the pro-life group to protest? Wow, how very tolerant of them. It must be the liberal streak in them.

Michelle Malkin shows us past vandalism from pro-abortion groups on college campuses.

Who cares about free speech when an angry lefty college student disagrees with you? Free speech only counts when it fits into the liberal -- and in this case, pro-abortion -- agenda. Too bad these students never got the message.

More from Aliza Shvarts: Ranting against the "Patriarchal Heteronormative"

Oh, boy. Here's video of Aliza Shvarts, the girl I just wrote about earlier today, who made an art project out of artificially inseminating herself as often as possible, and then -- somehow -- giving herself home abortions.

Well, here's Aliza ranting against the "institution", and the "establishment", the "patriarchal heteronormative"... and a lot of other crap. Try to figure out what kind of point she was trying to make, because I couldn't figure out what she was saying. It's the definition of talking and talking without saying a word.

Is she just the definiton of a spoiled rich brat wanting to feel important or what?!

Welcome to the modern feminist movement.

Hat Tip: American Digest

There are no words.

There are no words, when something like this is considered art:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts (pictured) will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

OK, well, the "there are no words" thing is false. There ARE words.

This is disgusting, this is vile, and I cannot believe that Yale would approve this kind of thing.

Actually, well, yes, I can believe it, but it saddens me. A lot. What is happening on these college campuses? Students seem to pretty much have free reign to do whatever they feel like doing, and there sure won't be any faculty or staff to stop them -- unless, of course, it's involving a conservative viewpoint. As long as it fits into the liberal agenda, then students can do anything, no matter how depraved.

And I have to wonder how this girl's parents feel about this. They couldn't possibly be proud, could they? I mean, what would they say? "Oh, gee, well, we're so happy that our little girl is endangering her health and sanity by giving herself multiple abortions without seeing a doctor first, and then putting her blood and the videos of her home abortions on display at school. She's just so smart, we're so proud!"

Was this girl also not concerned about her health at all? Well, that's a stupid question -- apparently not, because if she was, she would have seen a damn doctor.

Is the story about the sperm donors strange to anyone but me? I mean... so, she was "artificially inseminated", but they weren't paid for their "donation". How, exactly, did she go about acquiring it? Something seems a little off there, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

In any case, this is easily the most awful story I'm going to write about today -- probably this week. Yale shouldn't be allowing this to go on. Yes, this girl has freedom of speech like all the rest of us, but no one is required to go out of their way to support that -- they just can't hinder it. The university has every right to tell her they don't want this disgusting display on their campus, but we all know they won't.

That something like this is allowed to go on -- and is considered art, no less -- is a sad indicator of what our society is like today.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Male Castration = Good; Guns = Bad

Academia shows how tolerant it is of opposing viewpoints (read: NOT LIBERAL) yet again, this time at Colorado College. For liberals, when you spout idiotic drivel that falls in line with liberal orthodoxy, it's OK. Anyone offended is supposed to just smile and take it. Lip service is given to "diversity" and "tolerance", but those values only go skin deep with libs. Diverse skin color and gender = good, diverse opinions = bad. And nowhere is this kind of attitude more prevalent than on college campuses.

Feminists especially love this kind of special treatment. They can say anything they want about men; they can slander them, smear them, and paint them all with a very nasty brush just for the "crime" of being men. Valentine's Day is cancelled in favor of "Victory over Violence" Day to somehow fight domestic abuse. Love between a man and a woman is bad; women must stick to the sisterhood! Consensual sex is likened to rape; flirting to sexual harassment. Man-hating has become synonymous with feminism, and the most radical of these harpies usually reside on college campuses. Men, meanwhile, are supposed to just grin and bear it. One joke about women is deemed sexual harassment and can get a male student kicked off campus. Double standard? Nope, it's just "fighting for women's rights".

FIRE brings us the newest example of how feminists can say whatever they want about men with no repercussions whatsoever, no matter how offensive, and men can't say anything that might be deemed slightly offensive whatsoever without seeing retaliation.

Two students at Colorado College were found guilty of violating the school's conduct code regarding "violence" after they distributed a satirical flyer mocking a publication of the Feminist and Gender Studies program. As part of their punishment, student Chris Robinson and a second student have been required to hold a campus forum discussing issues brought up by their satirical publication. The students have turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"One flyer that mentions ‘male castration' is not violence, but a flyer that makes fun of it by mentioning ‘chainsaws' is prohibited? Both should be protected, but the double standard and lack of respect for freedom of speech in this case is simply staggering," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Colorado College is brazenly violating its own promise of freedom of expression, as well as both fairness and common sense. Colorado College should reject both double standards and censorship."

In early 2008, Colorado College's "Feminist and Gender Studies Interns" distributed a flyer called "The Monthly Rag." The flyer included a reference to "male castration," an announcement about a lecture on "feminist porn" by a "world-famous prostitute and porn star," an explanation of "packing" (pretending to have a phallus), and a quotation from The Bitch Manifesto.

As a parody of "The Monthly Rag," Robinson and a second student, who wishes to remain nameless, distributed a flyer in February called "The Monthly Bag" under the pseudonym "The Coalition of Some Dudes." The flyer included references to "chainsaw etiquette," the shooting range of a sniper rifle, a quotation regarding a sexual position from the website menshealth.com, and a quotation about "female violence and abuse" of men from the website batteredmen.com.

Shortly thereafter, Colorado College President Richard F. Celeste sent out a campus-wide email about "The Monthly Bag," stating that "The flyers include threatening and demeaning content, which is categorically unacceptable in this community... Anonymous acts meant to demean and intimidate others are not [welcome]." The e-mail asked the authors of "The Monthly Bag" to come forward. When they did less than an hour later, they were charged with violating the college's values of respect and integrity.

FIRE wrote to Celeste on March 21, 2008, pointing out that any punishment would contradict Colorado College's own policies and advertised commitments to free expression. The school's Diversity & Anti-Discrimination Policy states that "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful that it may not be expressed." Celeste, a former governor of Ohio, is abroad, and other administrators receiving the letter have not responded.

Two weeks after their hearing before the student conduct committee, Vice President for Student Life/Dean of Students Mike Edmonds finally wrote to the "Coalition of Some Dudes" students on March 25, stating that they had been found guilty of "violating the student code of conduct policy on violence" and that as a punishment, they would be required to hold a forum to "discuss issues and questions raised" by "The Monthly Bag." Although Edmonds acknowledged that the intent of the publication was to satirize "The Monthly Rag," he wrote that "in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violence—or implied violence—of any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus." Apparently, according to Edmonds, "the juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality" in an anonymous parody made students subjectively feel threatened by chainsaws or rifles.

"Not only has Colorado College wrongly punished students for expression that any reasonable person would easily recognize as parody that threatens no one, but according to Edmonds's standard, countless movies, songs, and other artistic endeavors that ‘juxtapose weaponry and sexuality' are inappropriate for the adult students of Colorado College," Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, said. "Colorado College must live up to its own promises of free expression and allow its students to engage in robust debate and satire—even when some members of the campus community may feel offended."

Just so you know, the "violent" speech was this:

Did You Know...??
The Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifle has an effective range of 2000 meters?

Yes. I can see how this is much more violent than talking about male castration. Male castration = good; Guns = Bad. Porn = good; Sex tips = bad.

To see the "offensive" flier, click here. You can see the much more offensive "Monthly Rag" flier here.

Two things especially jumped out at me, based on FIRE's findings. One of the worst parts of this is that the male students are being punished because of how some students interpreted the flier!

In response to several complaints about the flyer, [REDACTED] and Robinson received notice on March 3 that the flyer "was allegedly interpreted by members of the campus community as an attempt to target certain campus populations with the intention of devaluing, intimidating, or even threatening harm."

Ginger Morgan, an Associate Dean, sent a letter to the Feminist and Gender Studies Student List giving them tips on how to fight the male students and saying she would willingly speak on behalf of "The Monthly Rag". How is that objective and non-biased?

It's just incredible to me that there aren't more people speaking out against outrages like this. Why do so many women let these harpies pretend that they speak for us? They don't speak for me, they don't speak for a single woman I know, and they don't speak for most American women. And why do men let themselves be slandered without speaking out against it? How is it that parents of students attending these schools don't do something? It's your money paying for this!

And do feminists honestly not see how harmful their man-hating attitude is? Men. Are. Not. The. Enemy.

The thing is, the liberal orthodoxy revolves around having different rules for different people, and that's the law of the land in academia. There's lots of talk of tolerance and debate and diversity, but if any accidentally manifests itself, it gets squashed immediately. Free speech is touted as mandatory, but only when it's speech that fits into the liberal mandate. Otherwise, they scream and screech about how "offensive" and "harmful" it is.

And you know what? A lot of the blame goes on us for just meekly accepting it. We've become so afraid of offending overly sensitive people that we won't speak out, we won't offer bold opinions. We won't tell crazy man-hating feminists to go shove it where the sun don't shine, because we're so afraid of being labeled as intolerant or a bigot. And that should stop. We should take a cue from FIRE and be willing to stand up for our free speech. It isn't a right for liberals only; it's for everyone.

As for women? There's no shame in loving men. Or guns. We should be standing up for the men in our lives more, too -- our husbands or boyfriends, our fathers, brothers, and sons. Staying quiet does just as much harm as the crap that the man-haters spew.

Hat Tip: Ace

Student attacked for anti-illegal immigration stance

Usually, when teachers assign politically charged homework, students are supposed to rigidly toe the liberal line. I guess Melanie Bowers didn't get the message, because she decided to do her project on anti-illegal immigration. Her poster said, "If you love our nation, stop illegal immigration." A group of latino students got angry, and jumped her in the hallways, hitting her, and threatening to rape and kill her. When Melanie reported the incident and asked to call her parents, school officials refused and told her to go back to class. Unbelievable on so many levels. Here's the story:

It was an assignment for history class--to make a protest sign for or against an issue, and Melanie said she chose illegal immigration. Her sign read, "If you love our nation, stop illegal immigration." Somehow, Melanie said the sign got passed around lunch and angered a group of Latino students.

"I didn't know any of these people," she said. One young, she claimed, jumped on her back and he put her in a choke hold. "We have brick walls in the middle school and he slammed my face on the bricks."

Melanie said a group of boys also threatened to rape and kill her. Eventually, the boys let her go and when she went for help, she was ordered back to class, and told she could not call her parents, she said.

"They handled this wrong, you know, they put a child back in danger," said J.R. Bowers. "It was a very racially motivated crime."

Athens ISD gave KLTV 7 a statement, confirming there was a disturbance in the hallway, Friday between two to three students. "We have a camera system in the building," said Louis DeRosa. "We are collecting other information and statements from witnesses and this is all the information we have at this time," he said.

Melanie and her parents said they just hope the right thing is done...and quickly.

"I won't be happy until the kids that did this are out of school," Bowers said.

There are a lot of troubling questions about this incident. First of all, why weren't there any faculty members around to break up this fight? Mr. DeRosa said that they have a camera system in the building; is it not being monitored? How was it that no one saw a bunch of teenage boys attacking a girl? How was it there was no one there to defend her?

Second, if a girl has just been attacked by a bunch of teenage boys and goes and reports it school officials, why in the hell was she sent back to class? Why were her parents not immediately notified? Why would they put her in more risk knowing what had just happened?

The students are the ones at fault her, but school officials have a lot of explaining to do. And the students responsible for this attack should be expelled, plain and simple. Anything less would be, at the very least, irresponsible -- Bower's safety will be at risk until these students are gone.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

UPDATE: Well, it turns out the girl made it all up. Way to go, honey. Way to go.

Charges are being filed against 13 year old Melanie Bowers by Athens ISD through the Henderson County District Attorney's office for filing a false report, said AISD officials today.

Bowers claimed earlier this week that she was beaten and threatened - with killing and rape, no less - by a group of students at Athens ISD last Friday, for creating a protest sign saying, "If you love our nation, stop illegal immigration."

After Melanie's accusations, administrators reviewed school survellience videotape of the incident - which, instead of showing students beating or attacking her, showed Bowers scratching herself on her arms, face, and neck, and walking through the halls of the school calmly long after she claimed the incident happened.

After Melanie's parents were presented with that information and the video, the school confronted Melanie, and she admitted that she made the story up.

The poster was indeed taken from Melanie, but she reported the incident to a teacher and was sent back to class. 3 students involved in taking Melanie's project were in 'in school suspension' for today only.

Bowers' parents have apologized to school administrators for their daughter, and Bowers' father, Gary Bower Jr., is agreeing with the charges against her. "I have reviewed the recording and agree with the charges that will need to be filed," he has said today.

Melanie's mother, Shera Bowers, released a statement which reads, "I see my daughter was not assaulted, and put the marks on her body. No gang violence as witnessed. She filed a false report."

Thanks to Wizbang commenter Thumbelina for pointing this one out. And this girl, Melanie Bowers, should get in some serious trouble for this pulling this. Kudos to her parents for not making excuses for their daughter.

Gay porn required for public high school students

No, it's not a joke. Be warned -- graphic material below. From CNS News:

Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.

Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.

"Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent.

"The fact that this was required is even more astonishing," she told Cybercast News Service.

Hauser cites numerous examples of offensive passages from the text, including the following:

Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?

(They begin to f***.)

(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)

...

Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.

After parents fought with the school for six weeks -- six weeks -- the pornographic play was moved from the required reading list to the optional reading list. And they can't legally be prosecuted as obscenity, because apparently this pornographic play has "educational value".

But this Deerfield, IL school undoubtedly won't give up. It isn't their first brush with homosexual indoctrination. The district made 14-year-olds attend a seminar on homosexuality, and were told to sign a confidentiality agreement promising to not tell their parents about it.

Angels in America won two Tony awards and was nominated for an Emmy. The author, Tony Kushner, won the Pulitzer Prize (right up there with Ted Rall!).

Are you afraid to send your kids to public school yet? On top of the crappy education that leaves us behind virtually all of western civilization, our children are constantly getting force-fed depravity. I don't have kids yet, but I can tell you that they won't be going to public schools -- no, thank you!

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin and Moonbattery

University of Maine professor asks students to burn U.S. flag or Constitution

Liberalism is nothing new in academia. Leftists seek sanctuary in the ivory tower of higher education where they can feel free to impose their liberal moonbattery on hapless college students. The less control they have over the country, the tighter their grip over academia becomes. And nothing runs more rampant on college campuses than anti-Americanism.

A University of Maine professor gives us yet another example.

A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.

On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.

"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."

In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.

"I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that," Grosswiler wrote.

...

A journalism and political science double major, McDade said the first class of her fall semester at UM began with the typical syllabus introduction and class overview. Despite repeated "liberal" comments made by Grosswiler, McDade said, she was not uncomfortable in the classroom until the flag burning comment.

"Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs, and more power to you if you are passionate about it," McDade said.

When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, McDade said the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.

At first, student Kathleen Dame said she thought Grosswiler was joking, but then he went on to explain to the class that burning the flag was not illegal. While Grosswiler approached the topic in a serious manner, Dame said she felt he used it as a tool to educate the class on the First Amendment.

"It was pretty outlandish and [he was] trying to prove a point," Dame said Friday.

...

UM spokesman Joe Carr said Friday that Grosswiler’s classroom comments were not intended to be taken literally and that extra credit would not be granted for carrying out such activities.

A second person in the class did submit a complaint about the lecture, but Carr did not know in what form it was filed.

When asked whether the university would pursue disciplinary action, Carr replied, "No."

He said Grosswiler has worked at the University of Maine since 1991, is one of the more veteran professors in the department of communication and journalism, and is a "well-respected member of the faculty."

Why would they punish a professor for bringing politics into a journalism classroom? After all, anything in the mainstream media is biased to the left anyways, so might as well get the kids used to it, huh?

See, once upon a time, it was considered a gross abuse of power for a teacher or professor to talk about politics to their students unless it was a class based in politics. But in today's more enlightened world, it's perfectly acceptable for professors to indoctrinate students with their leftist views, no matter how little it relates to the subject. And liberal messages are the favorites to drive home -- anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America, pro-abortion, etc.(remember Rosalyn Kahn?)

Far from being a place with open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas, higher education today is more remniscent of a dictatorship. Democrats vastly outnumber conservatives, speech codes have become the norm, and while liberal speakers are welcomed, conservative speakers incite near riots. On college campuses, there is one way of thinking allowed.

And that's the kind of thinking that allows a professor to tell his students that they'll get extra credit for burning the United States flag or Constitution without receiving any repercussions, and then sneering that it was "just to elicit thought about the First Amendment".

Perhaps the most telling quote from Professor Grosswiler was this one:

"If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment."

So not tolerating a professor asking students to burn the United States flag is equal to not believing in free speech?

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

Colorodo teens make the pledge politically correct

Michael Newdow must be very, very proud of these kids.

If you don't remember, he was the atheist who wanted the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance because he was (sniff, sniff) offended! He claimed it was not ok for his daughter to have to recite those two little words every day, even though the daughter in question and her mother had no problem with it whatsoever. That didn't get in the way of his shameless exploitation of her, though, because the concerned parent attack comes off much better than the intolerant liberal moonbat attack does. He also wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from all U.S. money, apparently unconcerned about the hassle (to put it mildly) it will cause for the Treasury.

If a moonbat is offended, then we all gotta pay.

With that in mind, I present to you the Boulder High School Student Worker Club:

Members of the activist club "Student Worker" are calling on students to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and rally in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge.

Club President Emma Martens, who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: "I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

Martens said her group is concerned that the traditional pledge read daily at the start of second period classes takes away from school time. She also said the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or One God," she wrote in an e-mail to the Camera.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it," Martens said between classes today. "It's disrespectful and in complete violation of the separation of church and state. It's almost religious oppression."

She said the group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that Boulder High hold the recitation — which the school must make available by state law — in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch breaks.

"That's so students can go if they want, but not everyone is required to listen to it," Martens said. "I don't want them to break any laws by not saying it. We just want them to do it so we don't have to hear it every day."

One of the first things I thought when I read this was her complaint about how reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "takes away from school time". Having hordes of students troop out to the courtyard at 8:30 to say her moonbat version, though, is apparently ok.

She also took the liberty of remaking our flag, because I guess having stars to represent each of the states in the union is not satisfactory, either. No, a peace sign is much better:



Now, lets just examine this new liberal-friendly Pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

This girl covered all of the requisite liberal talking points, didn't she? Diversity? Globalism and environmentalism? "Choice" (meaning abortion, I'm sure)? Perversion of constitutional rights? She's got every base covered!

What's almost funny, if it wasn't so sad, is how she equates the phrase "Under God" to religious oppression. If she wants to know what real religious oppression looks like, she should do some research. She could start here, or here, or even here, where she can learn about real oppression by country. People being enslaved and murdered because of their religion is real oppression. A whiny high school student crying over a centuries old phrase to get attention so that she can feel important is not opppression.

And there's of course the obligatory "separation of church and state" argument, a phrase which actually appears nowhere in the Constitution. If she wants to leave out "under God", then she's free to go right on ahead, but that's never enough for liberals. They ensure that if one person is offended, we all suffer the consequences. Besides, why should facts and respect for the beliefs of others matter? It doesn't stop any other liberal moonbat, and it sure as hell won't stop her.

Hat Tips: Moonbattery, Michelle Malkin

Joking banned at OSU

In the interest of forcing diversity down students' throats, Ohio State University has banned jokes, in a slightly chilling "Diversity Statement":

Diversity is a cornerstone of community at The Ohio State University. The Office of University Housing defines the concept as an inclusive mixture of all the differences that make the individuals at The Ohio State University unique. Through exposure, critical thinking, appreciation and interactions within our residence halls and larger university communities our goal is to empower students, staff, faculty and friends. In this, we attempt to learn from the wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world.

Our goals are to:

Increase sensitivity to differences through exposure, dialogue, and personal reflection

Address thoughtlessness that may limit our efforts

Maintain a talented and qualified staff with a commitment and conviction toward diversity.

One of the most important components of your college education is learning to respect and appreciate the lifestyles, values, ideas, cultures, and backgrounds of others you encounter. The residence hall communities at The Ohio State University are rich in the diversity of the communities. As a student in our community, you are asked to be respectful of these differences:

Do not joke about differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability,
socioeconomic background, etc.

Do not use obscene words or gestures. Oftentimes these are unwelcome and offensive to students in your community.

Listen to other students living in your floor community. If a person indicates that a behavior or action is offensive, you should stop the behavior immediately.

Actively challenge the stereotypes you have of others. Use your time to consider the new experiences you are having at The Ohio State University, instead of relying upon the past evaluations you have had of others.

When in doubt about the impact of your words or actions, simply ask.

It is the responsibility of any student in the residence halls to report incidents of racial or other discrimination or harassment to residence hall staff.

See, diversity and tolerance are the most important things in the world, even if it means stifling First Amendment rights!

For this, FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has just awarded OSU the Speech Code of the Month:

FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for September 2007: The Ohio State University.

The Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State's residence halls can and cannot say.

The Diversity Statement also contains another, quite cryptic, prohibition: "Words, actions, and behaviors that inflict or threaten infliction of bodily or emotional harm, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard, are not permitted." Could anyone at Ohio State actually explain what this prohibition means? How exactly does one threaten to inflict emotional harm? Would that mean shouting, "Hey you! Get out of here or I'm going to hurt your feelings..."? The problem with a prohibition like this one is that it is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that to avoid vagueness, a regulation must "give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). It is safe to say that no reasonable person can figure out exactly what this sentence prohibits.

For these reasons, The Ohio State University is our September 2007 Speech Code of the Month.

So, out of curiosity, how does one know when a joke is considered hurtful? Are blonde jokes out? Are all those great Gators vs. Buckeyes videos gone? This gives plenty of students license to point the finger at someone for whatever they want; but when someone can get in trouble for saying something "hurtful", there's too much doubt that can come into play. It becomes a he said-she said situation. Unless students are forced to carry around recording devices 24 hours a day, how can you really prove someone was making a -- gasp! -- offensive joke? And what if someone misinterprets a phrase or a joke? And what will the punishment be for making said offensive jokes?

Here's an even bigger question: where is that bastion of free speech, the ACLU? My guess is they're probably agreeing with OSU on this one. After all, it's done in the name of tolerance and diversity, so it's perfectly fine to trample on the free speech rights of OSU students.

I'm sure that OSU administrators have good intentions. I doubt they're sitting in their offices, cackling that they're going to make 1984 a reality. But all the same... the road to hell is still paved with good intentions.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery