Tuesday, August 4, 2015

TCU's Contemptable Code of Conduct

  The Texas Christian University, TCU, is ostensibly a learning institution that embraces some attributes of Christianity. Why else include the religious designation? The school’s founders; Randolph and Addison Clark, wanted to create an institution that included a Christian environment and instruction; to compliment the standard secular academic studies. The founding Trustees belonged to the Disciples of Christ denomination; later named “Christian Church”.  That rubric was successfully followed for many years without incidence.  So how did a once obscure and tepid institution rise to national prominence? Answer: Pursue a punitive Progressive agenda that unintentionally exposes the school’s student Code of Conduct to the public.  TCU’s Code of Conduct is an intentionally nebulous, intellectual repressive, bigoted, and discriminatory word and thought restriction policy.  The policy is punctuated with specific content directed towards students TCU considers problematic. 

Enter Mr. Harry Vincent. Mr. Vincent is a non-descript, average, white, male student who loves his country, respects right and wrong, and, unfortunately for him, had the temerity to express himself on a social media site having no affiliation with TCU.  TCU suspended Mr. Vincent and threatened severe punishments for the comments made on the media site.  TCU directed Mr. Vincent to admit and confess his “sins” – or else the school would make his discipline more intense, more diverse, and inclusive.

The Vincent Matter unmistakably reveals the Christian designation at TCU disturbs its faculty and administrators.  They, like a majority of university professionals, are products of various enlightened, secular, institutions who believe they needn’t concern themselves with the stigma of religion; or the stigmata of Christianity specifically.  Christianity and religion are anathema to contemporary academic protocols where despotic directives and subjective humanism augment a totalitarian oppression reminiscent of the techniques the Stasi utilized to identify subversive elements in East Germany.  Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot adopted similar policies to re-educate their citizens, and instill the acceptable diversity perspective.  The Vincent Matter unveiled thought and word restrictions opposing reason, conspicuous academic debate, protections in the US Constitution, and an assortment of civil liberty regulations that legally affirm Freedom of Speech. These only obtain at TCU if the student belongs to an officially recognized “sanctioned group”.  

An exceptional element distorts the veracity of the allegations leveled at Mr. Vincent.  The “offensive” comments occurred on a social media site.  Student Harry Vincent did not associate his remarks with TCU.  His profile lists he studies at TCU.  The comments made by others (not students at TCU) that inspired Mr. Vincent’s objections, defamed the United States, and unambiguously declared the US deserved the 9/11 attacks. The comments also excused the recent mob violence, murders, and lawlessness in Baltimore, Maryland. Lastly, the comments inferred illegal immigration is a “right” that supersedes Constitutional and state laws.  The inflammatory comments that incited Mr. Vincent inferred alternative beliefs and views are held by knuckle dragging, ignorant, right-wing extremists – to use vernacular appropriate for this site and topic under discussion.  The person who posted the provocative comments encouraged other like minded souls to contact TCU and alleged offense. TCU chose to act upon their complaints against a student.

The crime of Offense, hurt feelings, emotional distress, owed to a verbal or written insult, typically inflicted by a stranger, is a subjective and circumstantial personal affront which cannot be explicitly defined, nor precisely gauged for impact, or consequence, due to the infinite number of potential human interpretations.  Offense is purposely selected as the causal device for untold, and irreconcilable grievances specifically because it affords an accuser unlimited latitude when framing the offense and the motivations of the perpetrator. 

To evaluate the details of this predicament, Mr. Vincent’s personal information is needed.  Harry Vincent is male, nineteen years of age, and White.  That combination is like religion, anathema to a majority of university faculty.  This assertion is not gratuitous or cavalier.  Educating three children delivered considerable insight with university admission policies.  My two sons faced curious and unjustified obstacles in their admissions. Their academic performance and accomplishments were not problematic. Their grade point averages and SAT scores were above their chosen university’s published acceptance requirements, and, similar publications that rank and define acceptance criteria nationwide. 

My oldest son’s application was rejected. I verified through the school his application was complete and proper.  The reason for his rejection was unspecified.  My son entered the university as an independent student, not a member of a matriculating class.  Curiously, the subsequent autumn, he was assigned to the matriculating class.  How? A considerable number of students the university, students accepted over my son, dropped out or were dismissed from the institution - due to poor grades, and other behaviors not conducive to the university’s “objective standards”.  We learned by investigation a number of the students unable to attain a passing grade received grants and scholarships.  Obviously, the aid and assistance afforded them was not owed to their superior academic acumen.  These students shared an absence of academic proficiency and other traits. They shared the same race, were female, or both.  My son went on to graduate Cum Laude using his God given talents and acquiring a considerable loan debt.

My youngest son is brilliant. He ranked in the top five percent of applicants – based upon the university’s published numbers.  No grant, nor a scholarship, was forthcoming, despite his significant academic accomplishments.  He was also a gifted athlete. A different (Ivy League) university offered him acceptance to gain his athletic prowess. (Ivy League schools don’t offer pure athletic scholarships.) My son preferred to attend the same university as his mother and father.  Our family holds a legacy relationship with the university, the state, county, and community. My wife’s family resided in the state where the university operates over 200 years.  The family paid taxes, and contributed in other ways, towards the development of the state and community for a very long time. They were Catholic. Through that affiliation they donated more effort, time, and money to improve the church, community, and state.  These significant contributions were not considered in the university admission policies.  Race, sex, and an obligatory “need”, were ancillary considerations for acceptance.  The school’s published demographics confirm the assertions. 

Comparatively, my daughter, who sought to attend the same university, had a GPA and SAT score slightly below the published acceptance averages. She was quickly accepted and added to the matriculating class. 

Affirmative action policies in higher education are profuse. The policies work to assure incompetence and inability are afforded every opportunity to fail.  They fail despite a plethora of tutoring and financial set-asides.  These are specifically designed to assist the incompetents enrolled utilizing any criteria except merit.  Comprehensive scholarships are available to certain targeted student groups who meet criteria having nothing to do with, and in contradiction to, the university’s declared mission - elite education.  The university claims the benefits attendant diversity and multiculturalism motive their actions.  That is a blatant falsehood.  Money is made available by the federal and state governments for scholarships, academic assistance, to erect buildings, and to subsidize activities that isolate the targeted diverse groups from their peers.  That money prompts the university’s diversity and inclusion programs. When diversity students wash out, the university keeps the scholarship and grant money. Then, should another diversity student replace the previous one, the university double dips.  The university is thus enabled to garner double tuition, double book sales, double room and board, etc.

White Christian males hold a distinction in academe. They are persona non grata. Universities adopted several uniform policies and created departments specifically to intimidate and suppress the performance the white male students.  The unwritten objectives and motivations in the Vincent Matter are dedicated to racial and sexual prejudice, discrimination, and uniform outcomes.  TCU’s purpose in funding and operating a Diversity and Inclusion department is to overtly bully students who enjoy qualifications the university abhors: white, male, Christian.

It is confounding the group that pay over 1/3 of the university’s tuitions, books, room/board, and add significant revenues in other areas: sports tickets, team clothing, food and beverages at games; the same group sitting atop the university’s donation solicitation list, are considered racist, vile, Untermenschen. Untermenschen is the term used by Nazis to classify the objects they murdered in Concentration Camps.  Untermenschen are not human; nor are they worthy of that designation – hence the term.  White males are an unfortunate complication the university must negotiate, until a time arrives when they no longer need to compromise, or conceal their true objectives. 

Segregation and affirmative action laws share a common designation and duration.  Segregation lasted 60 years.  Affirmative action nears eclipsing that mark.  If academic parity is possible, the duration of affirmative action is sufficient time to obtain it.  If a debt was owed (as some assert) it is paid in kind and term.  There is no longer a valid argument for the unconstitutional discrimination that suppresses and eliminates the comparative standard generated by white, Christian, males.  

Thought restrictions that insult Christian virtues and morality are antithetical to an organization claiming a Christian designation, TCU.  The Code of Conduct adopted defies civil rights protections – irrespective of the cowardly tactic the university employed (slinking behind the private university moniker) to avoid admitting the school’s policies are what they are, and their nefarious intentions unambiguous.

TCU does not enjoy the reputation or size of its academic competition.  Bluntly, comparatively speaking, TCU is an academic also-ran.  A lack of significant accomplishments in the faculty notwithstanding, TCU administrators have ambitions. Their actions in the Vincent Matter declare they are “Fellow Travelers”, and the equal of any Progressive institution where humanism and subjective assessments indulge and promote behavior and policy antithetical to religion, morality, and traditional American values.  They produce and preside over academic rigors that no longer include, nor tolerate, alternative views.  Extremists and enmity - masked as learning, oppress and indoctrinate students to promulgate their world view. Unfortunately, TCU is not alone.  TCU policies are scribed by a Progressive collective cabal that disseminates content across the nation to obtain a universal, zero-tolerance, student Code of Conduct; with special provisions for white, male, Christian students. TCU and other institutions need and want their white male Christian students cowed and fear filled. Parents, alumni, religious leaders, and concerned citizens, must act to end the defamation, distortions, and threats composed to ruin the careers of white, male, Christian children.  These policies have but one objective - to generate a uniform deception and promote the assertion, the Big Lie: “Everyone is Equal in Every Way”.  

No comments:

Post a Comment