53percenter's Blog

I’m going to put this up front, just in case someone decides to misreport what I write: No, the University of New Orleans is not banning Valentine’s Day cards over fears of sexual harassment.

The university’s speech code, however, could include Valentine’s Day cards as evidence of sexual harassment if someone reports they received a “suggestive” card from someone they do not like.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education each month highlights the speech code of one university. In February, the organization is highlighting UNO because its broadly worded sexual harassment policy includes and list of examples that include “[s]ending suggestive or obscene letters, notes, or invitations.” Such things may be found on Valentine’s Day cards, and given this country’s current moral panic over sexual assault and sexual harassment, a simple card could leave some lovestruck Lothario – or even a decent guy who misread some signals – on the wrong side of a campus kangaroo court.

[T]he “Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation” policy at the University of New Orleans says examples of sexual harassment include “[s]ending suggestive or obscene letters, notes, or invitations,” among other types of conduct. The policy’s list of examples fails to note that individual examples are only punishable when they actually meet the legal standard for peer hostile environment harassment in the educational setting, as set forth by the Supreme Court. As a result, those examples look like they’re prohibited when standing alone, creating a chilling effect on protected expression.

FIRE’s Laura Beltz writes that many colleges and universities write their speech and sexual misconduct policies this way, “providing a definition of harassment (to varying levels of success at tracking that Supreme Court’s harassment standard), but then listing out a multitude of examples that include speech that wouldn’t meet that standard when standing alone.”

Beltz notes that its helpful for schools like UNO to provide examples of what could be considered sexual harassment, but writes that policies must make clear that each example is not “banned across the board and punishable on its own.”

As an example, Beltz points to the University of North Florida, which notes in its policies that individual examples of misconduct could be punishable on its own if severe and pervasive enough, but typically must be part of a larger pattern that meets the school’s definition of harassment.

Good advice for students this Valentine’s Day: Be careful what you write on cards or notes or letters, as what may seem innocuous to one person may seem harmful to another.

The card could be used to punish a student for sexual harassment, even if the card was not intended as such. Being in a committed relationship doesn’t make this any less of a problem, as cards can be saved for future accusations.

We’re living through a moral panic where all it takes is an accusation for someone to be considered a victim. There are many people out there who are socially awkward and may be misreading signals from a potential partner. Be very careful this Valentine’s Day.

On Monday, perhaps sensing the backlash unleashed at Grand Canyon University, a Christian university, for denying Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro the chance to speak on their campus, Gonzaga University, a Jesuit school, rescinded their previous decision to bar Shapiro from speaking on campus, announcing that he would indeed be permitted to speak.

As KXLY reports, Gonzaga President Thayne McCulloh responded to a University Event Policy appeal launched by the Gonzaga University College Republicans (GUCR), who had proposed bringing Shapiro to speak on the campus in spring 2019. That proposal was rejected by the Vice President of Student Development, who had consulted with colleagues including those in Campus Security and Public Safety. They decided that safety concerns regarding Shapiro’s speech overrode Shapiro’s right to speak, assuming his presence would trigger a hostile environment for some members of the university’s community.

In December, GUCR appealed the decision, which was reviewed in early January.

McCulloh stated:

I appreciate that the students worked through the University’s appeals process as set forth in the Events Policy to address issues regarding safety and campus security, as well as engaged in discussion about the focus of the event. As a comprehensive, faith-based and mission-centered university, we are committed to facilitating exposure to a broad range of intellectual ideas and debate, even as we simultaneously strive to uphold the values reflected in our mission statement. This process is reflective of our efforts to do both

Some conditions have been set for Shapiro’s appearance; it will be held at the McCarthey Athletic Center (MAC), as GUCR nixed the smaller and less expensive Cataldo Hall location because of attendance capacity limitations.

The university also made sure to state, “As indicated in the Events Policy, the University’s decision to invite a given speaker in no way implies approval or endorsement of the views expressed by the speaker or any aspect of the event. The University nonetheless strives to encourage even difficult or controversial topics in the context of civil discourse. The authorization granted to the Gonzaga University College Republicans, to invite Mr. Shapiro to campus, is made with the understanding that his remarks while at Gonzaga will be respectful of the University, its members, and of the values reflected in our Mission Statement.”

On Friday, defending its decision to ban Shapiro, Grand Canyon University wrote:

We believe in many of the things that Ben Shapiro speaks about and stands for, including his support for ideals that grow out of traditional Judeo-Christian values and his belief in a free market economy. Our decision to cancel Shapiro’s speaking engagement is not a reflection of his ideologies or the values he represents, but rather a desire to focus on opportunities that bring people together …

As a university, we encourage thoughtful discussions and rational dialogue in our classrooms about the issues affecting our society, and we encourage students to put greater emphasis on actions that produce positive change in our society. By working together, we have shown that real partnerships can create real programs that produce real results in our community. We hope it is a model that is emulated by others and builds strong communities where people can live and prosper in harmony, no matter their differences.

Based on the response we have received from some within the Grand Canyon community regarding the decision involving such high-profile speakers as Ben Shapiro, we have obviously disappointed and offended some of you. We know that if we had made a different decision, we would have disappointed and offended others within the same community. It was not our intent to disappoint or offend anyone. It was, rather, to use our position as a Christian university to bring unity to a community that sits amidst a country that is extremely divided and can’t seem to find a path forward toward unity.

An increasingly common talking point to emerge among Democrats opposed to President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is to dismiss such a structure as terribly outdated — “medieval,” even — and ineffective at preventing illicit cross-border traffic.

One Democrat who has embraced that particular anti-wall talking point is 2020 candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris, who emphasized the term in discussing Trump’s proposal during her recent town hall-style event on CNN.

Asked about a potential trade of permanent protections for enrollees in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — better known as DACA — in exchange for border wall construction funding, Harris exclaimed of DACA recipients and the wall, “This administration has decided to vilify them and to trade on them for the sake of this president’s medieval vanity project called a wall.”

Harris is certainly not alone in characterizing the proposed border wall as “medieval” — something from times past that has no place in the here and now –but there is something else rather “medieval” that Harris and her leftist comrades don’t want to talk about: the re-emergence of terrible communicable diseases that had been nearly wiped out in the modern age.

Case in point is a major outbreak of typhus in the Los Angeles area, a horrific and potentially fatal disease that was widespread from ancient times to the Middle Ages — the “medieval” period, if you will — up until the age of the pioneers in American history, according to The Daily Wire.

TRENDING: Watch: Jeep’s Stunning, Patriotic Super Bowl Ad Already Stole the Show

Beginning back around October, there have been at least 57 reported cases of typhus in the downtown Los Angeles area, up from only six in the summer of 2018. In all, L.A. public health officials reported at least 120 cases of typhus throughout 2018, and there is no sign of the disease’s spread slowing down anytime soon.

The bacterium which cause the disease are carried by fleas and found in feces, and while most of those who initially contracted the out-dated and nearly wiped out disease prevalent from the “medieval” era were those classified as “experiencing homelessness,” the disease has begun to spread to some non-homeless people who live or work near areas frequented by the large and growing homeless population in the L.A. area, including local government workers.

The local NBC affiliate reported that the infectious disease appeared to have spread from homeless encampments to City Hall, where several workers had contracted the disease and experienced the high fevers and horrific headaches that accompany it.

One of those workers is Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood, who told KNBC, “It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck.” She added, “Who gets typhus? It’s a medieval disease that’s caused by trash.”

Indeed, and trash has been piling up around the city of Los Angeles, especially in and around the many homeless encampments that have popped up in recent years, including one that is right next to City Hall. As noted, the disease is carried by fleas, who in turn are carried by the rats that scurry back and forth between the trashy homeless camps and City Hall, where the workers then contract the disease from the infectious fleas.

The city government, led by Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti, began to try and clean up the voluminous amounts of trash on L.A. streets in the fall of 2018, but that appears to be a losing or stalemated battle, as new piles of trash appear just as quickly as they can be picked up.

Aside from the increased pick-up of trash around the city, some major local government offices have been fumigated — such as the L.A. Police Department’s Central Division office and main headquarters — but for some reason, the City Hall buildings have yet to be fumigated as well.

One of the worst places for typhus in L.A. that has become a focal point of concern is the infamous area known as Skid Row, which has long been frequented by the homeless. The epidemic hit that area so bad that it has now been dubbed the “typhus zone” by city officials.

Skid Row is most certainly not the only large homeless encampment in L.A., though, as the Los Angeles Times recently reported that the population of homeless individuals in and around L.A. has exploded by as much as 75 percent over just the past five years.

RELATED: Kamala Harris Shouldn’t Be President, But Not Because She Isn’t ‘Eligible’

Officials estimate upwards of 60,000 homeless people in and around L.A. on any given day, who spend their time hanging out in a multitude of makeshift encampments, including one right by City Hall. Public health officials noted in October that there were at least 222 known homeless encampments in the area, including at least 50 such encampments that were “home” to 30 or more people at a time.

Obviously, the inhabitants of such camps aren’t exactly living a clean and healthy lifestyle, and the trash, rotting food and human feces that accumulate in those camps provide sustenance for the flea-covered rats that proceed to spread the infectious disease to the homeless and non-homeless alike.

If Kamala Harris is so concerned about preventing the return of “medieval” wall systems to defend the border, perhaps she ought to take a closer look at the equally “medieval” infectious diseases like typhus that are spreading rapidly among the growing homeless population in her own state, lest she be accused of hypocrisy and partisanship more than she already has been.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

A baker in Washington state recently came under fire from leftists and the perpetually offended for a border wall-related Valentine’s Day cookie he had baked as a joke and placed on display in his small bakery, but now he is pushing back against those critics with a message to “lighten up.”

KING-TV reported last week on the controversy that arose over a heart-shaped frosted cookie which read “Build that Wall” in the display case of the Edmonds Bakery, which is owned and operated by a baker named Ken Bellingham.

The cookie had been spotted by a would-be customer named Ana Carrera — daughter of Mexican immigrants — who took offense to the border wall message on the cookie and posted a photo of it to Facebook, where it went viral and prompted angry messages and threats of a boycott against Bellingham’s business.

“People were just going off,” Bellingham explained to KING at the time. “They don’t know anything about me and supposedly I’m some horrible person.”

In response to the controversy, Bellingham initially issued an apology on Facebook for his “mistake,” and vowed to never make such cookies again.

TRENDING: Watch: Jeep’s Stunning, Patriotic Super Bowl Ad Already Stole the Show

He told KING that the single cookie had merely been meant as a joke and not a political message, and even said he didn’t necessarily endorse the idea of a border wall, as “I don’t think building a wall will solve our problems.”

“I guess the joke is on me,” he said of the “Build that Wall” cookie. He added, “If I wanted to make a political statement, I’d put it on a sign. And march up and down the street. But I put it on a cookie for heaven’s sake.”

Fast-forward one week and everything had changed for Bellingham, who has now issued an “unapology” for the controversial cookie and stated that he intends to bake more of them, as he had received an outpouring of support from across the country after the initial controversy had gone viral.

In an interview with KOMO News, Bellingham said, “The phone messages saved has like 40-or-50 messages that I can’t even respond to from people all over the country wanting me to ship them cookies.”

Though he had initially apologized for offending anyone with the politicized cookie, following the support he received he is now “unapologizing” for the tasty border security-related treat and has resumed baking them, this time by the dozens for sale to anyone who wants them in the local area.

In another Facebook post explaining his reversal just days after the first post, Bellingham alluded to his First Amendment-protected right to free speech, which would include writing whatever he wants on the cookies he bakes in his own bakery.

Bellingham wrote, “Am I supposed to be quiet because I can’t write what I want, or I can only write what they want or makes them happy? No. That’s not how it is. They can write whatever they want on their own cookie and I can do that on mine.”

To be sure, Bellingham still insists that while he supports increased border security measures, he doesn’t go as far as supporting a wall along the entirety of the border, and reiterated that the cookies bearing the border wall message were intended as a joke, not a political message.

RELATED: Washington Democrat Pushes for Citizens To Become Trees After They Die… Seriously?

He told KOMO that his decision to resume baking the cookies was a business decision — obviously, as they proved more popular than unpopular — and had nothing to do with politics.

As for those who insisted on being offended by the message inscribed with frosting on a cookie, Bellingham said, “People should lighten up,” as he proceeded to write “Lighten up” on a heart-shaped cookie he was finishing.

This baker felt the wrath of the left over a simple cookie that read “Build that Wall,” and nearly gave in to the online mob that descended upon him.

That is, until he also received an outpouring of support from others all across the country, which gave him the strength to metaphorically tell the perpetually offended what they could do with the humorous cookies they found so offensive, and that is just awesome.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.