There are a few things happening on our college campuses when taken individually, are direct affronts to several of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution – but as is historically true of progressivism, the individual acts must be viewed in combination to see the larger strategy at play. While the Tischler Law always applies – Marxists always lie (#MAL) – there is a corollary that exists. That is that the true aim of progressivism is never about a particular situation, it is that particular issues must be understood as incremental parts of the overall progressive goal.
As aforementioned, let us look at the happenings in an academic environment generally considered to be under the institutional control of progressives. These situations immediately come to mind:
- The attempts of the progressives to protect the perpetually offended by criminalizing words (abolishing “he” and “she” for example), symbols (deeming the American flag is “offensive” and destroying Civil War monuments) and censoring conservative leaning college newspapers has been rightly identified as an attempt to stifle the First Amendment right of free speech.
- Prohibition of religious clubs, associations and expression on campus (again, violating the First Amendment).
- Banning guns on campus (violating the Second Amendment).
- “Battling” the fictitious “rape culture” on college campuses with kangaroo courts, thereby violating of segments of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments.
One wonders why progressives fight tooth and nail for the “rights” of terrorists at GITMO and illegal aliens while ignoring the rights of male college students. It is true that certain “out of favor” citizens have fewer protections than terrorists or illegal aliens. Part of being accepted to college is NOT signing away the right to constitutional protections – but then again, none of this is really about rape, college students or due process. This is about mainstreaming and legitimizing a politically correct, cultural Marxist process of “social justice”.
For some, the term “cultural Marxism” may not be meaningful – cultural Marxism can be defined as an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Because they argue that gender is nothing but a social or cultural construct, the current attempts to abolish gender as defined by natural law (according to the fallacy that sex and gender are simply cultural constructs) can also be defined as a cultural Marxist goal.
Cultural Marxism is the epitome of the idea that the ends always justify the means. Our modern Bolsheviks – the SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) – do now and have always believed that two wrongs do make a right (as long as that “right” gives them power).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with any organization deciding to develop rules it deems sufficient to guide its members in behaviors that are necessary to the function of that organization but when a crime is committed – and rape is in fact, a crime recognized by the state – the organization has no jurisdiction over the state in the investigation, adjudication and punishment of said crime. It cannot simply decide that it can strip constitutionally guaranteed rights from a defendant simply because it wishes to favor one sex over another, one group over another or it has a predetermined outcome it desires to achieve as it seeks “social justice” rather than true justice.
Out of the four ongoing situations existing in academia, the one that is the most disturbing and is the unifying aberration is the last one – the attempt to establish an extra-legal system of “justice” that ignores Constitutional protections for the accused and turns procedure, adjudication and punishment over to what can be summarily and accurately defined as a politburo. Essentially, this is an arbitrary and capricious system of “the law is what we say it is, it only applies when and to whom we say it does, and we decide who is guilty”.
Remember the definition of cultural Marxism. It’s the new black[livesmatter] this season.