Today's Colleges and the Tyranny of the Minority

Today’s youth clearly needed to be raised better.   The spoiled brats I have seen on television lately have no regard for free speech, good grammar or proper language.  Instead, they will shout about their right to be heard, but God forbid anyone dare speak an opposing position.  That brave soul who dares take the negative in a debate is accused of every foul crime from matricide to the nebulous term “hate speech.”
Hate speech is evidently any opinion with which our current crop of rude louts disagree.  I would have thought that hate speech meant using crude, profane or threatening language (which, by the way, they use in abundance).  But, no.  Today’s youth don’t want to have to justify their positions with proven and observable fact, so they limit what they don’t want to hear to generic labels that no one can disagree with.   
            Lout:  “Are you in favor of hate speech?”
            Reasonable Person:  “No.”
            Lout:  “Then stop disagreeing with me because that is hateful.”
These collegiate louts (no, I refuse to call them students—students would be studying and showing the results of that study) also seem to think that the “f” word is a mark of punctuation.  They use it liberally through every sentence.  They shout down people who are trying to speak—even the people who are agreeing with them.  They are led like sheep, yell, demand, protest, spit on people, claim they are always in the right and anyone they don’t like is always in the wrong.  And, of course, they keep using that “f” word that immediately brands the speaker as an ignorant, belligerent bully who is trying to substitute sexual harassment for logic. 
But, I digress.  What I really wanted to talk about was a class that every one of these louts should have to take.  We should start the classes in middle school, and require refresher courses in high school and as part of your freshman requirements in college.  It is a class in parliamentary procedure. 
Parliamentary law balances the rights of individuals or groups with those of the entire body.  They protect the minority, but they also guard the rights of the majority.  You see, in this modern era of rule by spoiled brat, there is an assumption that the majority have no rights.  That idea is as wrong as the opposite assumption that the minority have none.  Thanks to the brainless and superficial rules of political correctness, there is a prevailing idea that minorities are, by definition, always right.  Majorities are always wrong.  Minority veracity is never to be questioned.  Majority veracity is always to be denied.  Minorities are always “owed” something.  Majorities are not to even be acknowledged.  All of this, of course is nonsense.
What I love about parliamentary law is that it acknowledges—even promotes—the following:
1)     The rights of the majority;
2)    the rights of the minority;
3)    the rights of individual members;
4)    the rights of those absent;
5)    the rights of all of these groups together

Ultimately, the will of the majority decides matters, but only after full and free discussion.   The rights of all must be protected.  While all members of the body have the right to speak, and not to be persecuted for that speech, the body still has the right to rule against them.  This runs counter to what the brats want.  They want all of their demands met with neither scrutiny nor deliberation.
If you want your side to win, have better arguments, not a louder voice, a more intimidating demeanor, or constant, constant, constant use of that cursed word!
Honor the majority and keep the faith.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Generation of Serfs

  On October 25, 1415, Henry V of England laid some serious hurt on the French at the Battle of Agincourt at Pas-de-Calais, France.   Part of the success of this campaign was due to Henry’s use of the longbow, but part of it also goes to the creative use of military indentures.   These legal contracts required all the English captains to provide specified amounts of men, material and time to the King’s cause.             An indenture was a document, written in duplicate and then torn along a jagged line, like little teeth ( dents ), in the paper.   One portion of the contract was in possession of each party and when the required conditions and period of service were fulfilled, the parts reunited, and the debt was considered paid.   Many of the people who first came to this country from England came as indentured servants, worked off their debt and became the backbone of the country.             Today we are creating a nation not of indentured servants, someone with a carefully
Read more

Our Beautiful Constitution and its Ugly Opponents

 The Constitution is our anchor of stability in a turbulent world!   We can withstand a bad President and a petulant Congress (for the short term, at least) because our Constitution both guides and limits.   If someone asked me to provide proof of a loving God, I would simply ask them how else so many geniuses in the matter of human governance could have been clustered together in the right time and place to create both our country and the means to govern it.    Our founding fathers had the vision to devise a way to not only govern themselves, but govern a country that they could not imagine, yet believed would prevail. The constitution of the United States is like a good parent.   It has allowed us to grow up as we have grown older, with the result that the United States of America is the oldest living democracy in the world.   The miracle of this document is that it lives, breathes and moves with the times.   The three branches of our government work together while standing alone
Read more

"You Didn't Build That:" Part I

Late in the day on Friday, July 13 th , President Obama mounted the stage of Historic Firehouse Number One in Roanoke , Virginia .   The room held around 800 people but it was hot and several people fainted.   In front of a carefully screened group of supporters he gave one of the most important speeches of his reelection campaign.    It was not meant to be a major speech.   That will come in the even more carefully scripted Convention Hall in Charlotte , North Carolina this September in front of adoring media and rabid political supporters.   But this speech in Roanoke is crucial to the 2012 election because on Friday, in Virginia , President Obama went off message.   Whether through error or hubris, he abandoned his script and spoke off the cuff.   And in so doing, he showed us the man behind the curtain.   The angry but controlled, insecure yet charismatic, market fearful, socialistically inclined man that Barrack Obama really is. I am speaking, of course, of the now famou
Read more