Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dinesh D’Souza Teaches Amherst Progressive a Vivid Lesson
If Ricochet followed the standard Internet headline format, I would have titled this post “Watch Dinesh Destroy SJW Hypocrite!” Instead, I respectfully ask you to enjoy this cathartic video from Amherst College. It’s most likely the best lesson this student will receive in his four-year program of study.
Published in Education
I wish Dinesh’s spirit could inhabit Trump’s body.
The great David Horowitz toured the country’s colleges a few years ago to address student organizations, and I was asked to film his presentation at Michigan State University. About half the students attending were leftists, and Horowitz argued with them eloquently, but then he demanded that a female faculty member turn off her video camera, as he had not authorized her to tape the discussion. She blew a fuse, and in her enraged and awkward flouncing from the room, dropped her very expensive (she had told everyone earlier) camera on the floor -twice. She reported an outrageous version of the encounter to authorities, and attempted to sue, unsuccessfully, I believe.
Sometimes I think there must be a bully-lady school somewhere, churning these women out, and dispatching them to events like these.
I believe it’s in the Netherlands.
Like Pigford?
AWESOME!
I knew where this was going the moment D’Souza said “everyone wants to militate against their own morals” or something to that effect. The thing really got going there are the end.
All things considered, though, it was a good exchange -complete with all the twangs and tics (“I’m only engaging you because you’re engaging me” -dude, pull your pants up and argue, for God’s sake) that I try to wring out of my own students -for the standards of the university today.
I’m actually quite fine with the other faculty member “egging him on.” D’Souza made clear early on that he wanted a discussion, and if a faculty member has to prod the student to engage the speaker, I’m fine with that.
Nonetheless, I knew where D’Souza was going the moment he said “everyone wants to excuse their own moral problems” (or whatever -I paraphrase). Even after the exchange, I suspect the audience still thought the point was hypocrisy, rather than the actual point D’Souza was making: that the discussion and self-flagellating references of privilege exist not to correct the historic injustices, but to deflect from current and existing privileges, because those privileges are hard to defend from claims of injustice themselves.
I don’t know. There would be no conversion or changing of minds.
Reparations are not misguided because this young man may or may not be wiling to yield his place. In fact he may be more convinced of the righteousness of his cause, and with education and opened doors granted by his opportunity may be in a situation where he could ‘help’ personally.
They are misguided because the Treaty of Versaille was misguided. Milosovich was misguided when he brought to mind the injustices of the past as a means of arousing support. In fact both instances worsened the situation and had a part in the events that came later.
The failure of Detroit and the murder rate in chicago have far more to do with contemporary political events and structures than what happened 65 years ago. I would have challenged the young man to identify who is in charge of the dysfunctional cities and recognize that his proposal is one and the same as what is already nurturing the social dysfunction. Why would a smart young man be supportive of policies that after half a century have had little success?
He could have been talking about blacks not being allowed into certain universities. I’m not aware of the federal government denying benefits to black veterans.
That’s what internet search reveals – that the program itself was not discriminatory, but there was a barrier to using benefits to the extent that mortgage providers and schools discriminated. The description of the issue (as provided by the student) as I recall it from the video therefore seems misleading.
I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt that he was confused rather than deliberately misleading. He seems confused about a lot of things.
I would have taken a different tack: point out that black people in America are not materially poor. They are richer, in terms of stuff that they own, square feet per person, air conditioning, etc etc, than the vast majority of humanity today. Add up the benefits… Many inner city unemployed blacks get 100k per year for a household.
The problem is cultural. In other words, it is in the mind. And giving people things does not fix that problem.
Brilliant — as usual, Sabrdance.
So right!
Another great approach to this.
I have the same question. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this charge.
Dinesh scattered the seeds. Some will land on rock and find no purchase. Some will land amid weeds and be choked off. But the ones that land in the good soil of intellectual honesty and rigorous self-appraisal …
You’ve got to figure that not all the kids going to Amherst are prog zombies already.
I agree, there seemed to be no guile in this young man. In fact, despite the nonsense I was impressed with his manners, his ability to think (such thinking as it was) on his feet, and the respectful tone with which he treated the guest speaker.
I say these things because I was pretty much just a lump at that age.
Yeah. I’m really glad cameras weren’t ubiquitous when I was in college. Or grad school.
I find it anything but comforting that such intelligent, well-spoken people have such incoherent thinking and such broken moral compasses — at any age.
At his age, I wouldn’t have had the audacity to give voice to my misguided opinions in a public forum. I think this is somewhat new, and due mostly to the fact that the faculty which has been indoctrinating these kids sits nearby and cheers them on.
It’s appalling. And tragic. And more than a little diabolical on the part of these lefty professors.
Not only excellent points, but a much better description for my own reticence (or maybe it’s just because I actually was just a lump).
I keep pondering a post -now that finals are over -about my students’ final papers, and the sheer amount of gullibility present in the papers. Some of it is just youth and inexperience (the people who reviewed books about Kennedy getting taken by the magic bullet theory is understandable, since rebutting it requires specific knowledge of where Connolly was sitting relative to Kennedy), but some of it any competent reader should have caught. I can’t think of an example, but it is a rare thing when anyone criticizes a book negatively -they always tend to assume that just because the book said it, it must be true.
Open-borders advocates do the same thing to me all the time.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that this student, who wants to characterize everyone with white skin as privileged by history and thus morally defective, is appalled by Trump’s proposal to put a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country. That’s the real hypocrisy here. Those who accept the leftist narrative that paints one race and one sex as the privileged oppressors, have paroxysms of fury if anyone applies the same “broad brush” standard to any other race, sex, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference.
There are some people whose grandparents had a bit of good luck. And there are some people whose grandparents had it much worse than life without the GI Bill. These two groups can not be distinguished from each other by simply glancing at their skin. The real hypocrisy of the left is in constructing an entire world view based on racial stereotypes, while also claiming to be shocked and dismayed that other people hold racial stereotypes different than their own stereotypes.
A few years ago one of the young women at the office where I worked said she thought the Indians (American) should be given some compensation for the land ‘we’ stole from them. So I asked her, “How much should the part of me that is Cherokee get from the part of me that isn’t Cherokee?”
There is no one anywhere who doesn’t have ancestors that were mistreated by someone. And nothing we can do could fix that.
Yup. I figure she’s a prof of victim studies. And the Amherst crowd were magnificent. I could tell the current was against DD, but it was mostly babble & brook.
I’m reminded of an experience I had in grad school. I was in a class of about 100 students. The professor asked a question and then, looking at the class roll, called on me by name. I gave my best answer. He replied, “Interesting. Does anyone see this differently?” Every hand in class went up.
Oh, boy. I loved those classes. Really got my gladiatorial juices flowing. What a rush to take on an entire room!
I wish that were what happened. Unfortunately, I was just as wrong as I could be.
I’d like to introduce our Amherst progressive–make that all Amherst progressives–to the collected works of Thomas Sowell.
If anyone really wants to understand where advantages come from, simply start with Sowell’s latest, the carefully researched and closely reasoned Wealth, Poverty and Politics. Then move on to Basic Economics, because absolutely everyone needs to read this book at least once.
That ought to do it.
The kid was nice and respectful. The snapping is obnoxious. Can’t stand snappers.