CUNY Failed to Protect Students During Palestinian Protests

Recent Developments in Campus Civil Rights: The Case of CUNY

The City University of New York (CUNY) has recently been under scrutiny following a series of investigations by the U.S. Department of Education, which found that the institution failed to adequately protect Jewish students from discrimination. This has raised significant concerns about the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

The investigations were prompted by incidents that occurred in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas. These events led to a surge in campus activism, which, according to some Jewish students, fostered an antisemitic climate. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) concluded that both CUNY and the University of Michigan did not comply with Title VI requirements to investigate whether the protests created a hostile environment for students.

In one reported incident at the University of Michigan, a Jewish student's request for conflict resolution was denied after they reported harassment on social media. The university's response, citing free speech, highlights the complex balance between protecting civil rights and preserving freedom of expression. Similarly, at CUNY, the OCR found that the university did not take appropriate action regarding reports of antisemitic discrimination, leading to resolutions aimed at addressing these failures.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona emphasized that hate has no place on college campuses and acknowledged the challenging moment for school communities across the country. The commitments made by CUNY and the University of Michigan to improve training about antisemitism and reevaluate past allegations are seen as a positive step forward.

Specific Incidents at CUNY: A Closer Look at Campus Civil Rights Issues

The City University of New York (CUNY) has been the focus of several federal complaints alleging a failure to protect students from discrimination. These incidents have brought to light the challenges that institutions face in maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all students. Here are some specific incidents that have been reported:

1. Brooklyn College: In the fall of 2020, white and Jewish students in the Graduate Program for Mental Health Counseling reported being bullied and labeled as "privileged." When a student raised a complaint, they were allegedly advised by the deputy director of the program to "keep quiet" and "keep their heads down".

2. Hunter College: During two Zoom sessions of a Hunter College course in 2021, students and professors reportedly hijacked the meeting to read a statement calling for the decolonization of Palestine and demonizing Israel. This incident left several students expressing fear in the Zoom chat. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that Hunter College concluded without interviewing students present that the disruption did not deny access to education.

3. CUNY Law School: A video from 2020 showed a CUNY Law School student holding a lighter flame close to a sweatshirt with the emblem of the Israel Defense Forces, claiming she was going to set it on fire. The complainant alleged that this constituted antisemitic harassment and that the response from the Law School was inadequate.

These incidents, among others, prompted the U.S. Department of Education to investigate and conclude that CUNY did not comply with Title VI requirements to investigate whether the protests created a hostile environment for students. The resolution agreements require CUNY to reassess their policies and practices to better protect students' civil rights.

The settlements and the ongoing federal monitoring are steps toward ensuring that CUNY addresses these issues adequately. It is a reminder of the importance of vigilance and responsiveness from educational institutions to uphold a safe and inclusive academic environment for all students. The details of the settlement and the specific steps that CUNY will take to actively address discrimination are crucial for the university community and will be closely monitored by stakeholders and civil rights advocates.

This situation underscores the importance of clear policies and proactive measures to protect students from discrimination. It also serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for vigilance and responsiveness from educational institutions to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students.

The resolutions agreed upon by the universities will require them to reassess their policies and practices to better protect students' civil rights. These agreements serve not only to rectify the current issues but also to set a precedent for how similar incidents should be handled in the future.

As the conversation around campus civil rights continues, it is crucial for universities to engage in open dialogue with their communities, establish clear guidelines, and provide adequate resources to address and prevent discrimination. The actions taken by CUNY and the University of Michigan will be closely watched as indicators of the broader commitment to upholding civil rights in higher education.

Sources:

Probe finds Michigan, CUNY failed to protect Jewish, Muslim students - The Washington Post

Michigan, CUNY failed to protect Jewish students, Education Department investigation finds - JNS.org

CUNY and University of Michigan mishandled Gaza protests: Feds (usatoday.com)

SCOTUS Knocks Down LGBT Tyranny & Student Freebies

The Supreme Court is on a roll this week!  First, they knocked down Affirmative Action which is on its face racist and discriminatory, and now has affirmed the first amendment matters. The Court in a 6-3 decision ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer who refused to create a website promoting so-called "same-sex marriage." She was of course sued on the pretense of discrimination. 

In the past, Christians became the target of gay couples who were seeking to make an example out of them when the odds were in their favor. Back then, more liberals controlled the court and legislated from the bench. They often decided in favor of the LGBTQIA community setting aside the text of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, in favor of inferences that made no legislative or rational sense when compared to the Constitution. 

Well, things are different now. The Court decided to protect the First Amendment rights of Christians and overall conscience rights. Immediately the left cried out "Second-class citizenship!" In other words, they feel the LGBTQIA community will not be seen as second-class citizens. Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissent,

"Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”

There is speculation that Sotomayor herself may be a lesbian due to her passionate responses whenever the other justices decide against the LGBTQIA community. What she and other leftists fail to realize is that one party cannot force another party to go against their beliefs whether religious or not. No one is being denied service. Cakes, pizzas, and websites can be made for the LGBTQIA community, but not ones with content that goes against the provider of the service. This should be common sense to anyone who has reasoning skills. For example, one cannot ask a Jewish caterer to create Nazi theme meals or a Muslim-run business to create something that contains pork. Not only is it disrespectful, but an affront to the person's conscience rights.

The Supreme Court also gave a huge blow to President Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness program which sort to erase all or most of the debt students have accrued during their studies in college. The plan was welcomed by many students who feel that student loans are like owing money to a Mafia loan shark. However, many others protested the idea believing it to be fiscally irresponsible and teaching students in college to be irresponsible. The reason they go to college is to earn a degree so as to get a better-paying job to pay for living expenses including debts and mortgages. Paying off their student debt with taxpayer money sends the message that they do not have to pay back debts. It creates an atmosphere of irresponsibility. Students can study on loans and then not pay them back while relying on the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay back loans. The idea sends the wrong message.  

What is next? Will people who owe rent or mortgages demand the government uses taxpayer dollars to bail them out?  Some may bring up the 2008 bailing of banks, but that situation was different. Banks are important in a capitalist society. They need to be up and running, not failing and collapsing. The bail money they were given was not free money either. They had to pay it back to the taxpayers. Paying student loans is way different. No one is paying taxpayers back if this plan took hold in the united states. This decision was also a great one.  President Biden is now assuring students in debt of a "plan b" approach in order to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. 

Are we starting to see the Supreme Court actually upholding the Constitution? It sure looks like it.  It looks like the majority of the justices are interpreting the Constitution as it is and not inferring on it what it does not state. We saw this with the Dobbs decision last year which knocked down Roe vs Wade. Roe vs Wade was decided on the premise that women had equality and the right to privacy. How does this even add up to abortion?  Where does abortion even fit in this?  It made no sense and had to be overturned.  Similarly, cases like Obergefell were decided on claims that equality exists and enumerated rights are granted, therefore same-sex couples can marry.  The Constitution does not even mention marriage or abortion!  

Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States continues on this path and will eventually overturn Obergefell restoring marriage as only being between one man and one woman.  Today's ruling ended "Pride Month" on a sour note for the LGBTQIA community.  

You can read the Court's opinions here:

21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

22-535 Department of Education v. Brown (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

22-506 Biden v. Nebraska (06/30/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

What do you think?  Post your comment below. Remember to follow the rules so your comment can be posted. 

Source:

Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist (yahoo.com)

Supreme Court Just Marked ‘Gays and Lesbians For Second-Class Status’ Declared Sotomayor In Scathing Dissent: ‘Profoundly Wrong’ (msn.com)

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Web Designer Who Refuses to Promote Gay Weddings (mediaite.com)

Supreme Court injustice: ‘legal innocence’ is not enough (msn.com)

'Embarrassing': Sotomayor slams SCOTUS decision that marks 'gays and lesbians for second-class status' (msn.com)

'Nuclear hypocrisy': Legal experts stunned by SCOTUS' 'weird' ruling in LGBTQ rights case (msn.com)

A Huge Win for the First Amendment (msn.com)

'Loaded gun': Expert suggests LGBTQ ruling paves way to return to 'Whites-only' luncheonettes (msn.com)

Biden unveils new student loan forgiveness plan after Supreme Court defeat (usatoday.com)

June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden's student loan plan and limits LGBTQ protections (cnn.com)

What Will Happen to Your Student Loans Now - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Roberts scolds liberal justices for demonizing rulings they don't like: 'Disturbing feature' of dissents (msn.com)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/opinion/affirmative-action-supreme-court-repeal.html

Atheist Gunmen Kills Christians at Umpqua Community College

Once again there was a mass shooting in the United States of America.  It is reported that 10 people were killed and over 20 injured.  The gunman was identified as Chris Harper Mercer.  Some sources stated that he was 20 years old, others say he was 26.  He is dead.  Apparently, Mercer was an atheist who targeted Christians.  Witnesses state that he went through classrooms asking students if they were religious or believed in God. Those who stated that they were Christian were shot in the head execution style.  Those who said no or did not answer were shot in the legs.

This new incident counters atheist claims that somehow they do not commit evil things in the name of atheism.



I will update this post as I learn more. Stay tuned.



Source:

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/shooting-reported-at-oregon-community-college/

Tax Payers Have to Pay for College Promiscuity??

Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown recently went before a House Democratic committee to voice her concerns regarding Contraception coverage.  She claimed that it costs over $3,000 a year for women to have sex.  She wants tax payers to support women who go to college by paying for their contraception use.

When I saw her on the news at the hearing, the first thing that came to mind was, "this lady is crazy... how can she expect American taxpayers to pay for students to have sex?"    The audacity that this lady has to request money to have sex is beyond absurd.

This of course reached the ears of Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh who went on air mocking this student and called her a "slut."   He is facing backlash because of this comment.  I am not condoning what he said, but I can see where he is coming from.

Sandra Fluke is presenting the college woman as an uncontrollable nymphomaniac.  She is doing a disservice to women.  Who has so much sex that he/she racks up a $3,000 a year contraception bill??

This of course is just a push for contraception to be paid for by taxpayers.  It is part of the Radical Feminist agenda which seeks to have everyone swallow their irrational views on sexuality.

Ironically, Sandra Fluke holds degrees in Feminist studies and sexuality.  This speaks volumes of her mental schema.

I am against Contraception.  I think it degrades people and takes away from the beauty of procreation.  It is "me" centered.  It closes the door to life in place of sexual pleasure.  However, I understand not everyone will agree with me.  Nevertheless, no one should have to pay for the sex lives of another.

Feminists often cry out the fallacious term "bodily autonomy" and in reply I shout, "wallet autonomy!"

To Sandra Fluke and other Feminists,  Be responsible for YOUR own decisions.  DO NOT rob us of our tax dollars to "fix" your sexual urges.  


Source:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rush-limbaugh-democrats-demonizing-sex-comments/story?id=15834374

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sandra-fluke-says-she-expected-criticism-not-personal-attacks-over-contraception-issue/2012/03/03/gIQAJq1UpR_story.html


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-fluke-s-3000-contraception-testimony-factual-despite-9-month-birth-control-pills

NYPD Occupies "#Occupy Wall Street"

This morning after weeks of disturbing the peace, creating unsanitary conditions at privately owned Zuccotti park, the pseudo-rights movement that has called itself "Occupy Wallstreet" has been evicted.  This movement literally took over a privately owned park in order to show support for the so called "99%" while at the same time protesting banks.

At first, many saw this movement as a voice for Americans who are going through a hard economic recession.  However, as time went on all began to see that this gathering was nothing more than a modern "Woodstock" of young college age people imitating the counter-culture revolutionaries of the 1960's that called themselves "Hippies."

The group did not seem to have a clear message or goal. It was a mix of Anti-Capitalists, Anarchists, Students upset with tuition hikes, the Unemployed, and just people who wanted to present other progressive issues of the Pro-abortion and LGBT variety.  

The park became an encampment where people squatted, squandered, defecated, urinated, dumped garbage, had sex and even committed crimes against each other such as theft and sexual assault.

The neighbors complained greatly.  One business had to fire employees because no one was doing business with them.  Residents complained of the smell, unsanitary conditions, loud drumming, music, and commotion heard when large crowds form.  

Why this was all allowed to go on is beyond me.  Mayor Bloomberg gets a big F for that.  Had it been Mayor Giuliani, he would have had the water cannons aimed and ready to wash those crowds away.

It appears Michael Bloomberg misinterpreted the First Amendment by thinking that "Freedom to Assemble, Freedom of Speech and Expression" meant to take over a park, and set up an encampment to squat, disturb the peace, commit crimes and pollute.

The First Amendment does not mention the right to pitch a tent in a park or break laws as free speech.  This Amendment does not mean people have the right to do whatever they want at the expense of others.
This Amendment was an answer to the hardships early settlers faced in Europe where they could not speak freely, express themselves freely, assemble freely, or even have their own religion freely.

I understand that the world is going through a recession.  I understand that people are unemployed, prices for basic things are too high, things are a mess; however, taking over a park, sleeping in it, making noise and polluting a neighborhood will not fix anything.

Kudos to NYC, and the NYPD for finally taking action to defend the Common Good.

Imagine if someone went into your backyard and set up a camp in the name of "Free Speech and Assembly?"  How would you feel?

These ideas unfortunately are irresponsibly instilled in young people.  It is not news that most Colleges and Universities foster an atmosphere of Dissent, Liberalism, Progressivism, and that Professors far too often pontificate to students on these views rather than educate them.

College courses should be about the curriculum, not the Professor's views.  We do not pay high tuition to hear a professor try to convince us why Liberalism is better than Conservatism, why Pro-Abortion and Pro-LGBT rhetoric is more reflective of a civilized society rather than Pro-Life or Traditional Family views; or why Humanism and Secularism should replace "archaic bronze age" religion and ideas about God and morals.  I will touch on this issue in future blog.

My advice to Occupy Wall Street or "#OWS is to be patient.  When things hit the bottom, there is only one way to go and that is up.  This nation and this world will come around sooner or later.

We are Americans and no challenge is too great for us.  We often say with pride that we are the Land of the Free, but we forget that we are also the Land of the Brave.  So hang in there, we will defeat this recession.  America and the world economy will bounce back.  Just have Faith, it can move mountains.