The issue of Saida Grundy’s “anti-White” tweets has received extensive coverage on FOX News and in the Washington Times, and David Horowitz has predictably weighed in to bemoan still further evidence of the Far-Left bias in higher education.
The website driving the outrage at Saida Grundy’s tweets is SoCawlege, the purpose of which has been articulated by Nick Pappas, the creator of the site, in a recent appearance on FOX News: “Mr. Pappas told the network that he hopes to ‘show the rest of America how nasty people on the far left can get at colleges.’” Pappas is identified as a student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
The bias in this relentless pursuit of bias is very evident in SoCawlege’s monthly listing of the top ten campus controversies. Apparently there are no controversies involving Far-Right bias on any of our campuses. Here is the list from March 2015:
10. Journalism Student at Ohio University Says Women Can’t Be Sexist
9. There Are “Too Many Babies”
8. Professor Claims Whites Suffer From “Fragility”
7. Privilege Shaming Bulletin Board
6. Bard College Students Want Forced Social Justice Training
5. Eating Meat Is “Speciesism”
4. Professor Attacks GOP in Email over Policy Disagreement
3. Christopher Columbus the Criminal
2. Students Opposing Mandatory Training Viciously Attacked
1. UC Irvine Flag Controversy
The Washington Times article on Saida Grundy’s tweets that quotes Pappas is available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/9/saida-grundy-boston-university-professor-white-mal/
By the way, although what follows does not indicate anything whatsoever about Saida Grundy’s tweets, it does, I think, indicate quite a lot about the nature of the outrage at those tweets.
At the bottom of the page on which the Washington Times article is posted is this “Hidden Playbook” slideshow: “These Voluptuous Vixens Love to Show Off (54 Photos)”:
Here are the rest of the “Offers and Articles” and “Photo Galleries” on that page:
And before those on the Far Right castigate me for pointing to advertisements on the website as if they were “content,” let me point out that the newspaper has accepted the advertisements and has placed them on the page with this particular content. Moreover, it has itself deliberately blurred the distinctions between “content” and “advertisements” in its presentation of these items.
So it seems that very questionable taste is, at best, only very marginally superior to poor taste.