the
Counterweight
Fight Words with Truly Inclusive?
Words, not Fists abled, minority, immigrant
What I have seen as a dis-
LITERALLY HITLER The Call
The Obsession with
Accusations of Nazism
LITERALLY HITLER
The Obsession with Accusations of Nazism
Justin Pinard
justin@thecounterweight.net
Youve seen it before: every six
seconds, someone, somewhere
on television, Facebook, Twit-
ter, in a newspaper, news confer-
ence, or in person is branded a
Nazi, neo-Nazi, fascist, or
Hiterlite. People, in great num-
bers, have been accused of fascist
sympathies, secret membership in
various neo-Nazi political parties,
and of having a shrine to Hitler
in their bedroom (yours truly in-
cluded). You can help these unfor-
tunate victims of actual hate and
ignorance no, not by donating
twenty-five cents but by under-
standing what fascism actually is.
Fascism, surprisingly, is not
defined as a policy proposal or
general political ideology one dis-
agrees with. Fascism is not just a
form of government wherein the
state maintains a grasp on a great
deal of power. Fascism is not tem-
porarily banning - or restricting,
for that matter - immigration or
visitation, for whatever reason,
from seven countries with a re-
FOLLOW US
THE OTHER HALF OF YOUR BALANCED EDUCATION
A1
cent history of political instabili-
ty, civil war, or international ter-
rorism.
education system from kinder-
Poster of Trump as Mussolini by
Sabo. Can be ordered as a print or
button at unsavoryagents.com
Fascism is not the ideology
to which the current President
(whether in the years of Bush,
Obama, or Trump) subscribes.
Fascism is not nationalism, and
vice versa. Fascism is not want-
ing a strong military. Fascism is
not social conservatism. What
www.thecounterweight.net
conservative at Bucknell
A4
THE ETERNALLY-EX-
PANDING CIRCLE OF
to Debate HATEFUL RACISTS THE
A6
fascism is is a highly complex po-
litical ideology that has not been
seen in the real world in over sev-
enty years, and likely will never
be seen again.
The education system or, per-
haps more accurately, the public
with a Japanese tinge. It spoke of
garten through the twelfth grade
does a spectacularly poor job of
educating our students on the
history of the twentieth century
and, clearly, the rise of Mussolini
and Hitler and the radicalization
of Japan in the 1920s and 30s, both
fall within that category. It might
be easy to say that the driving force
behind the March on Rome and
the Nazi electoral victories in
1932 and 33, and the following
Machtergreifung (seizure of pow-
er), was anti-Semitism.
Hitler and his ilk promoted
the belief that the Jews were be-
hind the German defeat in the
First World War, and caused the
economic (and moral) collapse of
Germany in the early 1920s and
again in the wake of the stock
market crash of 1929. In Japan,
The Counterweight
SPRINGVolume
2017XVIII
Issue II
A4
A2
The Counterweight
Spring 2017 Edition
Volume XVIII, Issue II
starting in the late 1920s, politics
took a trend toward extremism, Literally hitler | A1
which culminated in the dissolu-
tion of all political parties, except The Eternally-Expand-
for the Imperial Rule Assistance ing Circle of the Hate-
Association, which espoused its ful Racists | A2
own fascist ideologies and policies
the united cause of all East Asian TRULY INCLUSIVE?| A4
people against the West, while
simultaneously speaking of Jap- Fight with words, not
anese racial superiority over the fists | A4
Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, In-
donesians, and others, thereby An Open Letter to Pro-
justifying the governments ter-
rible oppression of those groups.
fessor Aaron Hanlon | A5
While all of this is true, this is not
the defining characteristic of fas- THe Call to Debate| A6
cism.
Perhaps the best way to get a Memory Eternal| A6
simple (if somewhat superficial)
definition of fascism is to read
What does B.A.D. Really
from the man that created the
ideology itself: Benito Mussoli- Stand for? | A7
ni. The Duce of Italy famously
wrote, Everything within the Mission Statement and
state, nothing outside the state, Contributers | A8
nothing against the state. Fascist
- Continued on A5 -
@BUConservatives
A2 The Counterweight Spring 2017
THE ETERNALLY-EXPANDING CIRCLE OF THE
HATEFUL RACISTS
Alexander Riley
atriley@bucknell.edu
A not so funny thing hap-
pened at Middlebury College
on March 2nd. Charles Murray,
a mild-mannered fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute
with a PhD in Political Science
from MIT and author of several
best-selling books that explore
inequality in American society,
arrived to give an invited talk and
was violently prevented from
speaking by a riotous agglom-
eration of shouting, belligerent
youth. While Murray stood pa-
tiently at the podium, these indi-
viduals, allegedly students at the
college but giving no obvious ev-
idence of their claim to this title
beyond their age, drowned out
his efforts to speak with a barrage
of witless couplets and unfound-
ed accusations, e.g.,:
Charles Murray go away, racist
sexist anti-gay!
Who is the enemy? White su-
premacy!
Your message is hatred, we can-
not tolerate it!
The placards they brandished
gave more evidence of the same
degree of scholarly refinement:
F*#k white supremacy
F*#k eugenics
Respect existence or expect resis-
tance
Charles Murray is fake news
Let us be clear: this was not a
protest. It was, in the words of
Bill Burger, the Vice President
for Communications, a mob, a
frightening sea of youthful faces
twisted into crooked, self-righ-
teous sneers, chanting roboti-
cally, twitching spasmodically
in their raging moral superiori-
ty, looking for all the world like
strangely large-bodied two year
olds in the midst of a collective
temper tantrum, denied the
cookie and reacting by throw-
ing themselves precipitously
and limply to the ground in or-
der to demand the attention of
the adults in the room, who in
this case were not present, and
so the primal fit continued for a
half hour. The video is online,
and everyone interested in in-
tellectual freedom on American
campuses should see it in its en-
tirety, however difficult it may
be to stay the course all the way
through this wretched document
of the depths into which some
parts of the American intellectu-
al world have plummeted.
This was a thoroughly thug-
gish action, complete with as-
saults of both Murray (whose car
was attacked as he tried to leave
campus) and the Political Science
professor on hand to critically
question his work (the day after
she was wearing a neck brace, in-
jured by a rioter who pulled her
hair). Had any of the bellowing
ruffians in that horde read even a
full paragraph of Murrays work?
Doubtful. I would wager that
not one member of that anarchic
assemblage would have been ca-
pable of accurately summarizing
the essence of any of Murrays
books, nor would they have felt
Charles Murray at Middlebury College on March 2nd, 2017. Source: YouTube
it important to be able to do so.
She claimed to vehemently dis- his own discipline, whose work cess that differs from the typi-
And yet they were utterly assured
agree with many of his con- is not peer-reviewed and when cal peer review process in the
of the meaning of intellectual
clusions, though these were not it does get post-publication peer social sciences in a number of
work that they had not trou-
named, and my suspicion is that review, people tend to find that it ways. However, the idea that
bled to read, and of its supreme
if she had been made to name is full of claims that are not well this means by definition that his
malevolence, and of the need to
them, it would have taken Mur- supported, misinterpretation of work is less rigorous or less sub-
trample on a colleges sacred pol-
ray a few minutes to demonstrate data, methodological problems jected to intellectual criticism
icy of protection of free expres-
that he had not himself reached in how social statistics get con- than the typical scholarly article
sion and civil debate in order to
those conclusions and that the verted into conclusions. published in some minor social
forcibly prevent those ideas from
fact that she believed him to I know Charles Murrays work science journal with a clear ideo-
being expressed.
have reached them was proof fairly well, having read sever- logical tilt by someone who has
Just as startling as their behav-
that she could not possibly have al of his books and a significant colleagues/friends on the jour-
ior was the absence of any effort
carefully consulted his work be- amount he has written online. nals editorial board, or who can
to practically defend the colleges
fore negatively caricaturing it. Sheridan is correct that many count on her submission being
principles. There were no secu-
She repeated several times the academic social scientists ignore read by a friend simply because
rity officers in sight, and no calls
colleges commitment to all stu- his work, and some others are the sub-field is so small and in-
were made to bring in the experts
dents regardless of race, class, clearly hostile to it, but there is sular, is risible. Murrays work is
trained in the only language riot-
sexual orientation, religious ori- an ocean of important unspoken read by far more readers, and far
ers understand. Although the
entation, disabled status, or any background in those points. If I more professional social science
mob was reminded prior to Mur-
other demographic marker, and had a dollar for every time I have readers, than will ever set eyes
rays ascension to the podium of
reminded them that they all be- heard or read someone in a social on the typical academic peer-re-
the possible sanctions for efforts
longed [t]here, as though Mur- science discipline speak or write viewed social science journal ar-
to stop him from speaking, they
rays mere presence were a threat negatively about something he ticle, which is initially evaluated
acted nevertheless, and with ap-
to that commitment or their be- disagreed with on ideological by a mere handful and consulted
parently complete impunity.
longing. Although it lukewarm- grounds but that it was patently even cursorily post-publication
What could make young peo-
ly invoked the colleges policy obvious he had not read, I could in most cases by only a slightly
ple so recklessly and stupidly
protecting free expression and comfortably retire today. More, larger number of people. One
certain of the righteousness of an
debate, Pattons introduction, in my own discipline of sociology must have absolutely no knowl-
action so manifestly despicable
situated as it was in scarcely con- at least, it is common knowledge edge of how intellectual opinion
and contrary to the life of the in-
cealed contempt for whatever that there are many journals in and peer review work in much
stitution in which it took place,
misunderstanding of Murrays which the vaunted process of of the social sciences to say or
and so seemingly certain that the
ideas she holds, can scarcely have peer review consists first and believe what Sheridan says here,
authorities would not have the
represented to the mob any seri- foremost of an ideological sniff and he must know how dishon-
courage to stop or punish them?
ous moral check on their illiberal test, and if your work does not est a framing this is, unless he is
The baleful ignorance of those
intentions. pass this test, if it leads even po- wholly professionally incompe-
shrieking at Murray had received
Patton, a religious scholar, can tentially to observations or poli- tent.
a potent material contribution
perhaps be excused for knowing cy proposals not consonant with Even where social science peer
from the failure of numerous
nothing of substance of Mur- leftist politics, it does not matter review works relatively rigor-
professors and administrators
rays work (though she should how rigorous the analysis, how ously and non-ideologically, one
at Middlebury to do their own
therefore have refrained from robust the data, how elegant the typically has to be working in
homework and adhere to the te-
commenting on it). The same prose--you will not be published the relevant sub-field to fully un-
nets of their professional calling.
cannot be said of Sociology/An- in that journal. derstand and comment knowl-
Some of those paid to teach did
thropology Chair Michael Sher- Murray produces serious re- edgeably on work in that field,
not do their jobs and thereby ef-
idan, who was widely quoted in search for a largely but not en- and differences in theoretical or
fectively set the benighted, bel-
local media after a public radio tirely non-scholarly audience, methodological orientation can
ligerent tone for their students.
interview concerning Murrays in popular presses that do not produce significant difficulties
The college president, Laurie Pat-
visit. Sheridan called Murray a operate according to academic for mutual comprehension even
ton, gave introductory remarks
scientific racist pseudo-scientist peer review, and it is true enough
in which she went out of her way
who is not engaging the rest of that this is a publication pro-
- Continued on A3 -
to distance herself from Murray.
We accept letters to the editors!
Send them to editor@thecounterweight.net
 A3 The Counterweight Spring 2017
The Counterweight @BUConservatives
- Continued from A2 -
within substantive sub-fields. A
quick glance at Sheridans own
meager publication record and
his areas of scholarly expertise
give no reason to be confident
that he is remotely capable of ac-
curately evaluating the supposed
methodological weaknesses in
Murrays work, given that he
does not write or teach in any of
the areas and topics with which
Murrays work deals.
Sheridan presents his personal
disdain for Murrays work (bol-
stered by no concrete referenc-
es to any specific arguments or
evidence presented by Murray)
as though it were self-evident
that it is uniformly shared by
his colleagues. Prior to listen-
ing to Sheridans comments, I
had never bothered to see what,
if anything, is made of Murrays
work in the academic social sci-
ence review journals. Within
five minutes, however, I was
able to find several reviews of
probably Murrays most contro-
versial book, The Bell Curve, in
the sociology journals, and none
of these reviews even remotely
suggested that the book was not
a legitimate and intellectually
respectable entry into the schol-
arly discussion on the subjects
with which it deals. As an ex-
ample, the book was reviewed in
one of the most venerable such
journals, the American Journal of
Sociology, by an eminent scholar
who, though critical of the books
argument on numerous points
(show me the wholly uncritical
book review and I will show you
a bad book review), nonetheless
characterized it as an effective
bookwell written, clearly ar-
gued, lively, engaginga model
of how to write an effective social
science book aimed at a general
public.
Whence then comes Sheri-
dans claim that there is broad
consensus on this book and the
rest of Murrays work regarding
its position outside the boundar-
ies of respectable research? Per-
haps he has heard this from col-
leagues and taken it as fact. But
if this is the case, it would have
taken him but a few minutes to
check the claim before speaking
publicly about it. It is unflatter-
ing to him in the extreme that
he did not bother to do so, and
nonetheless he did not refrain
from uttering his groundless
opinion as if it were established
fact. Sheridan failed woefully at
a basic requirement of modern
intellectual life: the recognition
that what you think is the right
HOW TO STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE COUNTERWEIGHT:
way to pursue a set of questions
might not be the only legitimate
way to do so, and that the fact
that other researchers arrive at
conclusions you do not like is not
a sufficient ground for eliminat-
ing their work a priori from the
conversation. While Sheridan
did not call for banning Mur-
ray, he did viciously, ignorantly
defame him in a manner that
reveals how poorly Sheridan
fulfills his intellectual responsi-
bilities, and that provided useful
cues to the members of the mob
as to how to approach Murrays
appearance on campus.
Sheridans libelous commen-
tary on Murrays work was di-
rectly invoked by a group of four
students who wrote an open
The Middlebury mob gives the lie to the asser-
tion that is made on the left, sometimes ingenu-
ously, sometimes with malign motivation, about
the nature of campus protest of hate speech.
letter, signed by more than 600
other members of the Mid-
dlebury community, in which
they engaged in an interpretive
travesty even more spectacularly
dishonest than Sheridans. After
reading of Sheridans mischarac-
terization of his work, Murray
wrote a 2500 word response pub-
lished by the Middlebury Campus
online site the day before his
visit. The four Middlebury stu-
dents were apparently aware of
Murrays response, as they refer-
enced it in their letter, but they
could not conceivably have read
or understood it, to judge from
their bizarre characterization of
the exchange. They described
Murrays detailed summary and
defense of the argument in The
Bell Curve on the relationship of
race and IQ as dismissive of
Sheridans critique (because it
showed that the critique was
based on fallacies?) and as con-
stituting evidence that he is
not willing to engage in discus-
sion about his ideas (because
it obviously constituted an en-
gagement in discussion about his
ideas? Perhaps by engage in dis-
cussion about his ideas, the stu-
dents mean fully acknowledge
that a malicious, mendacious
critique made in a ten minute
radio interview constitutes a
crushing refutation of a scholars
lifework?). Sheridans insulting
critique, which consisted solely
of ad hominem denunciation and
factually incorrect categorization
of Murrays work as something
all respectable social scientists
reject, is described incredibly
by these students as a gateway
to productive discourse. One
scarcely knows whether to laugh
or cry at such a preposterous
effort at summary of this intel-
lectually entirely one-sided ex-
change.
The Middlebury mob gives the
lie to the assertion that is made
on the left, sometimes ingenu-
ously, sometimes with malign
motivation, about the nature of
campus protest of hate speech.
Aaron Hanlon, a Bucknell alum
and former BUCC member,
makes this claim in a recent New
York Times op-ed, opining that if
only conservatives would stop
inviting those who belittle
students of leftist sensibilities
and extend invitations instead
to those engaged in teaching
and learning, there would be no
riots such as those which took
place recently at Berkeley and
Middlebury, only civil if vigor-
ous debate. Hanlons example of
the belittling kind of speaker
is Milo Yiannopoulos, an admit-
tedly provocative figure made
even less easily defensible by
the recent revelation of his com-
ments regarding homosexual re-
lationships involving adult men
and boys.
I knew and liked Aaron Han-
lon while he was at Bucknell, and
I have no reason to doubt that he
goes in the category of the in-
genuous defenders of this idea
that students and professors with
radical ideological axes to grind
will naturally arrest the concept
creep of their moral denuncia-
tions at speakers like Yiannopou-
los. The evidence from Middle-
bury makes clear however that
Hanlon is wrong on this point,
even if he is not malicious in in-
tent, and the mistake is import-
ant. Where has Charles Murray
belittled those who silenced
him at Middlebury, or anyone
else? He has made book-length
arguments, bolstered with evi-
dence, that inequality is almost
www.thecounterweight.net
certainly a more difficult social
problem to resolve than the stock
leftist defenders of the Blank
Slate/everything caused by op-
pression and poverty vision of
human nature would have us
think (their proffered solution
is simple, if limited in effect: re-
distribute, redistribute, redistrib-
ute, and then redistribute some
more until theres nothing left to
redistribute). One can disagree
with Murrays arguments, but
one can hardly reasonably see
them as belittling individuals
who are literally not described
by the statistical analyses and
macro-sociological data in Mur-
rays work. And how can one
seriously charge that Murray is
not dedicated to teaching and
learning, if one can be bothered
to watch any of the videos online
of his many appearances at simi-
lar events at campuses and other
intellectual venues? If Hanlon
is correct, why are leftist student
mobs now reacting to Murray in
exactly the same way they react-
ed to Yiannopoulos?
The truth is that the circle
of hate speech is ever-expand-
ing. As soon as one enemy is
targeted and liquidated, one has
to find others. If the definition
must be stretched still further
to find those new enemies, this
is an easy matter to accomplish.
There exists a whole network
of zealously ideological sourc-
es that, despite the haphazard,
often scandalously unscientific
methods that drive the produc-
tion of their data, are uncriti-
cally accepted by many on the
left as objective and non-parti-
san, sometimes even by college
professors who should be immu-
nized against this credulous per-
spective by their training. Such
sources effortlessly paint poten-
tial enemies in precisely the col-
ors required to produce riotous
mobs slavering radical sanctimo-
ny and virtue signaling.
How far can the circle be ex-
panded? Just as far as the South-
ern Poverty Law Center and
other such regressive left organi-
zations decide to expand it, and
few seeking to dispatch enemies
by labelling them as racists in-
stead of understanding and crit-
icizing their arguments will ever
bother to inquire into the fact
that such organizations count
basically any individual who has
e.g., been publicly critical of post-
1965 American immigration pol-
icy as a de facto racist and white
supremacist. The regressive left
online media have, in the wake
of Middlebury, giddily taken up
the task of transforming Murray
into a member of the Ku Klux
Klan by fiat of simply referring
to him over and over, with no
mention of anything he has writ-
ten or said, as the racist Charles
Murray. This is what they do,
and the process is undeniably ef-
fective at convincing people who
cannot be bothered to think for
themselves what right-minded
folks ought to believe and what
they ought to do when racists
appear on their campuses.
What could the speakers who
preceded Murray at the Mid-
dlebury event have conceivably
said to the mob to change their
minds? Perhaps nothing. The
primitive emotional power of
the mob can effortlessly override
much rational communication.
Still, I might have liked to have a
shot at this. What would I have
said to them? Something like
this:
Id like you to do me a favor,
before you get involved in the
emotionally satisfying, sancti-
monious work of shutting down
the most basic function of a col-
lege. Please, calm yourselves a
moment. I wont keep you long.
Just one favor, in keeping with
the claim that you are students.
You do say you are students, do
you not? Well then. If you are
students, here is some home-
work: go learn about the Red
Guards during the Great Prole-
tarian Cultural Revolution in
China. Study how they comport-
ed themselves, how they endeav-
ored to bring about changes they
desired in Chinese educational
institutions and society. Study
closely, spend enough time to get
a sense of their motivations and
of the social and human costs of
their actions. Reflect on the re-
lationship of that action to a true
understanding of the workings
of the world. Got it? OK. Now
watch the video of yourselves in
the event you are currently cre-
ating here, once it is posted from
the phones recording it to You-
Tube and other sites. What do
you see? And who, after all, are
the totalitarians?
A4 The Counterweight Spring 2017
TRULY INCLUSIVE?
What I have seen as a disabled, minority, immigrant conservative at Bucknell
Sasha Carpenter
sasha@thecounterweight.net
I am a woman of Chuvash-Tar-
tar (Mongolian) descent, adopted
from Russia, with a mild form
of Cerebral Palsy that affects
my walking. I have six adopt-
ed, special-needs sisters, some of
color, with ethnic backgrounds
including: Hispanic, Rus-
sian-Ukrainian, Asian, and Roma
Bulgarian. I am also an Evangel-
ical Christian and Conservative
Republican who voted for Presi-
dent Trump.
In light of the election and re-
cent events across college campus-
es, such as UC Berkeley and NYU,
I have been surprised at the reac-
tion within the Bucknell commu-
nity. Perhaps most surprising to
me is the assumptions both my
peers and professors have made
about me and my views. From be-
fore the election, to the days fol-
lowing it, I decided to not share
my political views with others un-
less specifically asked. I sat silent-
ly, while most friends, professors,
and peers rarely stopped to ask my
opinion.
One day after the election,
while working on a project, a
group of faculty discussed the
results right behind me. One
FIGHT WITH WORDS, NOT FISTS
Kevin Chabrier
kevin@thecounterweight.net
On February 1, 2017, a UC
Berkeley event featuring notori-
ous media personality and provo-
cateur Milo Yiannopoulos was
shut down by masked, anti-fas-
cist thugs. This flagrant display
of ideological intolerance and
intellectual infantilism was the
latest in a string of incidents in
which protesters have shut down
speeches, damaged property, as-
saulted conservatives, blocked
traffic, and committed a litany of
other offenses. These individuals,
emboldened by the Lefts deplor-
able approval of such criminality,
are gradually blurring the line be-
tween a legal protest and an illegal
riot. What is equally problematic
is the Lefts proclivity to justify
the violation of the speech and
property rights of others, under
the banner of social justice.
Leftists, on the whole, believe
in the existence of systemic iniq-
uities, mystical forces like white
privilege and the patriarchy,
designed to oppress minority
groups for the benefit of straight,
rich, white, Christian, able-bod-
ied, cisgender males. Basing your
policies and proposals on this core
premise necessitates that politics
member said: The racists came
out to vote last night in Ameri-
KKK-a. Another member said:
I have not felt this bad since
9/11. As someone who is a Rus-
sian minority, with sisters from
other countries, I politely shake
my head in disagreement with
those who might call me a racist.
In regard to the latter comment,
I felt it very disrespectful to those
affected by 9/11, particularly con-
My recent experiences have shown me that many on
campus, both students and faculty, consider my view-
points worthy of ostracization, far from the diversi-
ty and tolerance I am assured of as a student.
sidering it was Veterans Day.
That being said, I understand
if these are your thoughts and
I believe you have a right to ex-
press them. However, that means
equal coverage should be given
to conservative/libertarian view-
points. I noticed on social media
a campus article about students
who participated in the Wom-
ens March - and thats great! But
be viewed through the lens of
victimhood. Consequently, when
you indulge a generation of mi-
norities with the idea that they are
perpetual victims of bigotry, they
are trained to feel as if any action,
no matter how illegal or immoral,
is justified, so long as it is commit-
ted in response to racists, sexists,
homophobes, xenophobes, trans-
phobes, Islamophobes, ableists,
or any -ist or -phobe in the book.
This philosophy illustrates per-
fectly why professors like Marcel-
lus Andrews believe it to be pro-
fessional and acceptable to libel
conservative students, and make
nuanced threats against them.
This mentality also explains why
feminist students seem to think
they are entitled to rudely and
audaciously interrupt Christina
Hoff Sommers, for committing
the cardinal sin of presenting a
viewpoint with which they dis-
agree. Last year, there were nu-
merous instances of vandalism,
in which posters advertising an
event featuring Milo Yiannopou-
los were torn down or stolen.
These individuals recognize that
under a left-leaning administra-
tion, in a vastly and incontro-
vertibly left-leaning institution,
their odds of facing disciplinary
where is the article about the
March for Life, or about women,
like myself, who voted for Presi-
dent Trump on November 8th?
Becoming more aware of unbal-
anced reporting combined with
a lack of conservative/libertarian
views presented on campus has
made me question in new ways
where my voice fits into the Buck-
nell community.
These events have gotten me
thinking: What if people knew my
opinion? If this is what they are
saying in front of me now, what
would they do if they knew
where I really stood? Yet, I dont
think it occurs to people that I
would be anything but progres-
sive. After all, I am a minority, an
immigrant, a female, and I have a
disability. According to my iden-
tities, I should be a progressive.
action for offenses perpetrated in
the name of social justice are
slim to none. While these are just
a few examples of inappropriate
conduct toward conservative stu-
dents and speakers at Bucknell,
they pale in comparison to the
utter felonies that are committed
and justified elsewhere.
America noticed a resurgence
of violent protests in the wake
of a number of police killings in
late 2014. The Black Lives Mat-
ter movement has instigated
innumerable protests, marches,
and riots, many of which have
devolved into outright chaos, re-
sulting in empty stores and tens
of thousands of dollars in prop-
erty damage. BLM leader DeRay
McKesson has since begun teach-
ing a course at Yale University,
entitled In Defense of Looting,
in which he describes looting as
a righteous tactic. Its no secret
that American universities are
hotbeds of Leftism. But the fact
that such a prestigious university
has introduced looting and riot-
ing into the realm of defensible
forms of a First Amendment right
underscores the extent to which
the Left is prepared to justify fel-
onies in response to perceived in-
justices.
Sitting in the audience when
Christina Hoff Sommers came to
speak at Bucknell, I agreed with
much of what she said, particular-
ly about oppression. According to
the progressive viewpoint, I have
plenty of reasons to consider my-
self oppressed. Yet, in my opin-
ion, as a college-educated Amer-
ican woman, I have no right to
complain of oppression. Rather,
oppression is the lack of oppor-
tunities I would have had as a dis-
abled orphan in a Russian mental
institution.
There has been a lot of con-
versation since Sommers came to
Bucknell. What I saw during the
open Q&A session was such a lack
of respect, that it prompted Tom
Ciccotta, organizer of the event,
to call out them out. People were
yelling and interrupting, making
This brings us to the incident
at Berkeley, which illuminates
the dichotomy between the Lefts
views on free speech in the 1960s
and those of today. Berkeley, once
known as the birthplace of the Free
Speech Movement, has decayed
into a Leftist breeding ground
of speech codes and ideological
bigotry. Leftists persisted in their
display of intolerance of oppos-
ing viewpoints, as Yiannopoulos
event was quickly and violently
shut down, such that Yiannopou-
los had to be evacuated from the
building by his cohort of security
guards. Even more troubling, a
few days later a collection of edi-
torials appeared on the website of
The Daily Californian, Berkeleys
student newspaper. The titles
of some of these pieces included
Condemning Protesters Same as
Condoning Hate Speech, Vi-
olence Helped Ensure Safety of
Students, and Check your Priv-
ilege when Speaking of Protests.
The existence of a contingent of
Americans willing to advocate for
physical violence in response to a
mere speech, and to equate feel-
ings of offense with bodily injury
is, if not unsurprising, particular-
ly disconcerting.
The Left is increasingly adopt-
it appear as though their true in-
terests lay in proving Sommers
wrong, not engaging in a peaceful
exchange of different opinions.
This was disappointing to me as a
student.
Bucknell has a focus on pro-
moting campus diversity, which is
a good thing. The campus Diver-
sity Statement says, An essential
component of Bucknells com-
mitment to academic excellence
is our commitment to fostering
an inclusive, diverse campus
community. However, I suggest
that Bucknell needs to consider
whether their treatment of con-
servative/libertarian viewpoints
is truly inclusive.
The assumption that I, because
of my background and identi-
ties, should be progressive is con-
cerning because it is the opposite
of being open-minded and inclu-
sive. My recent experiences have
shown me that many on campus,
both students and faculty, consid-
er my viewpoints worthy of os-
tracization, far from the diversity
and tolerance I am assured of as a
student. I simply want the equal
opportunity to express my opin-
ions and be heard with respect,
without the fear of ostracization
by the university.
ing this philosophy, as exempli-
fied by the debate over the bat-
tery of Richard Spencer, in which
reputable media outlets like The
New York Times legitimately en-
tertained the notion that you can
punch a Nazi for what he says or
believes. This is how free speech
dies.
Fortunately, we havent yet
reached that point, but the idea
of violence as a reaction to speech
is insidiously gaining traction
among the Left. In one of The
Daily Californian editorials,
Nisa Dang asserted, As I recent-
ly wrote in a tirade against this
brand of idiocy, asking people to
maintain peaceful dialogue with
those who legitimately do not
think their lives matter is a vio-
lent act. The fundamental claim
behind such absurdity is that
physical retaliation against ver-
bal expression is justifiable based
on the content therein. That is to
say, it is permissible to brutalize
anyone with whom you disagree,
so long as you claim that you were
offended by their words. This
would officially mark the death
of free speech in America, and
alarmingly, its not as preposter-
- Continued on A5 -
A5 The Counterweight Spring 2017
- Continued from A4 -
ous as it once would have seemed.
All of the nonsense and law-
lessness connects back to the idea
of social justice. The impetus be-
hind such a tremendous spike in
violent protests and riots is the
Lefts continuous assurance that,
because minorities are oppressed
by evil white men, they are jus-
tified in retaliating against per-
LITERALLY HITLER CONT.
- Continued from A1 -
rhetoric of the 1920s and 30s es-
poused a deep rejection of liber-
alism, republicanism, and main-
stream conservatism; similarly, it
looked with horror (humorously
enough) at the totalitarian com-
munist system being imposed in
the Soviet Union at the time by
Josef Stalin.
Fascists hated - and continue
to hate - capitalism as much as
communism; they would spit on
the graves of Adam Smith and
Milton Friedman as much as they
would on those of Karl Marx
and Vladimir Lenin. To fascists,
both of these models have been
tried and both have failed. To
Mussolini, people needed a third
path. His solution was fascism,
an ideology that brought about
the most destructive war in world
history, killing three percent of
the world population in six years
and all but destroying dozens of
countries.
Fascism does more than pro-
mote racial purity and a new
third position. Fascism seeks
to mobilize the choice racial or
ethnic group in Germany, the
Aryans; in Italy, the Italian
Romans; in Japan, the Japanese
into doing all that it takes, and
sacrificing everything if need be,
in the name of the nation, the
state, and the national leader.
Mussolinis proclamation of ev-
erything within the state, nothing
An Open Letter to Professor Aaron Hanlon
Alex Suss
alex@thecounterweight.net
Dear Professor Hanlon,
I read your article, Advice for
My Conservative Students (The
New York Times, February 16,
2017) with interest and anticipa-
tion caused by my belief that tak-
ing advice from people who know
more and have greater life expe-
riences is a wise course of action.
I will start with full disclosure;
I must admit that I do consider
myself conservative. First, to
follow Socrates, I know how little
I really know to assert my philo-
sophical or political credo with a
substantial level of certainty. Sec-
ond, because the other option,
progressive was not intellectu-
ceived instances of bigotry. When
you combine that notion with the
culture of victimization, with mi-
croaggressions, trigger warnings,
and safe spaces, which encourage
individuals to seek out evidence
of bigotry in innocuous words
and actions, this phenomenon
perpetuates, and it manifests in
ways that affect all of us.
There was no justification for
Professor Andrews cowardly li-
outside the state, nothing against
the state echoes his demands for
the state the government to be
all-encompassing, for the state to
have no opposition, for the na-
tional leader to be hailed as the
savior of the nations ethnic pride
and dignity. The government
plays a game of realpolitik, taking
what it can at the expense of other
nations, without outright invok-
not only does a disservice to those that
suffered through the Holocaust, it re-
veals an underlying layer of intellectual
laziness, ignorance, and irresponsibility
that border on the immoral.
ing war after all, Hitler did not
expect the British or French to
declare war on Germany, as they
ended up doing, when he invaded
Poland.
Fascisms opposition to capital-
ism was expanded upon during
Hitlers early days as leader of the
NSDAP (National Socialist Ger-
man Workers Party in German),
as seen in the partys 25 Point Pro-
gram, which, among many other
things, demands: the nationaliza-
tion of trusts and corporations;
wide-reaching land reform; an
expansion of welfare and pen-
ally attractive to me. Walter Lip-
pmann, described it best, The
collectivists [] have the zest for
progress, the sympathy for the
poor, the burning sense of wrong,
We have past victims, present victims, vic-
tims in the making, and of course future vic-
tims. If that is not the case in Maine, I am
transferring to Colby!
the impulse for great deeds [].
But their science founded on a
profound misunderstanding []
and their actions, therefore, are
deeply destructive and reaction-
bel of conservative students. Had
he actually attended the speech,
he would have found that Yian-
nopoulos, whom the racists and
fascists invited, acknowledged
the historical discrimination of
African-Americans, and argued
that they are still owed some-
thing. Similarly, the conduct of a
number of students, and a profes-
sor, during Christina Hoff Som-
mers lecture was downright rude
sions; the abolition of child labor;
an expansion of public education-
al opportunities; and increased
taxes on heavy industries (this
all literally comes out of the Par-
ty Program, which can easily be
Googled. The Nazis implemented
much of this after they came to
power).
Gregor Strasser, a noted early
Nazi before being executed by
Hitler in 1934, went further, de-
manding the abolition of social
classes in what was eerily remi-
niscent of communist rhetoric.
At the same time, the 25 Point
Program outlined the racist ten-
dencies of the ideology, stating
that only a member of the race
[Aryans] can be a citizen . no and his cronies in the Nazi Party
Jew can be a member of the race,
and every public office [may] be
filled only by citizens. With this
information - excluding the ra-
cially-charged bits - I could more
easily support the statement
Bernie Sanders is a fascist, than
ary. His words resonate with me
deeply. In the ancient and ongo-
ing struggle between Emotions
and Reason, I am firmly on the
side of Cogito.
To start I must acknowledge
that, at Bucknell, where I have
taken classes lead by professors
from both sides of the political
or cultural spectrum, I have not
and indefensible, and I highly
doubt that similar behavior would
have been condoned during An-
derson Coopers event. All of this
can be resolved by restoring basic
standards of decency and civility,
and actually disciplining those
who act improperly, irrespective
of race, gender, or religion.
As Voltaire so eloquently said,
I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death
the statement Donald Trump is
a fascist. gration policy and therefore
This brings me to my final
point. My point is not to ram-
ble on about the history of the
founding of fascism. Rather, it is
to tie into present-day politics the
politics of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s,
and to reveal a glaring lack of un-
derstanding on the part of many
people.
When people want to com-
pare politicians they dont like to
something, they compare them
to Hitler. It sort of makes sense
in most regards: no man or group
of men have so shaped world his-
tory, politics, and culture through
more terrible acts than Hitler
Donald Trump a fascist for tem-
leadership. However, not all anal- porarily restricting people from
ogies were made equal. Sharing a
NowThis or Occupy Democrats
video on Facebook titled How
did Hitler rise to power? which
insinuates some vague similari-
ty between the Nazi persecution
experienced anything but fairness
and support as you mentioned in
the closing lines of your article.
My second comment concerns
your passage, What I am getting
at is that I was never a victim. I
agree with you, I dont feel that
I am a victim. There are much
bigger and greater issues at stake
where the victimology indus-
your right to say it. If you oppose
somebodys ideas or find them
offensive, rather than attempting
to quash his right to speak, or re-
lying upon physical intimidation,
criticize and refute the arguments
themselves in an honest debate.
Free speech is one of your most
fundamental and inalienable hu-
man rights. Use it.
of the Jews and Trumps immi-
Trumps alleged neo-Nazi sympa-
thies not only does a disservice
to those that suffered through the
Holocaust, it reveals an underly-
ing layer of intellectual laziness,
ignorance, and irresponsibility
that border on the immoral.
Is Donald Trump a fascist for
nominating Elaine Chao (born
in Taiwan), Nikki Haley (born
a part of an Indian Sikh family),
Ben Carson (born into a black
family from Detroit, a city de-
stroyed by outsourcing and high
taxes under decades of Democrat-
ic leadership), Steve Mnuchin (a
Jew), and others to his Cabinet?
Is Donald Trump a fascist for
promoting gay rights since before
Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton
publicly supported them? Is Don-
ald Trump a fascist for opposing
the outsourcing of jobs, which
most leftists similarly opposed be-
fore June 2015? Is Donald Trump
a fascist for being the most pro-Is-
rael presidential candidate in
the 2016 race, and perhaps being
as pro-Israel as George W. Bush
(who was noted for his particu-
larly strong pro-Israel stance)? Is
coming to the United States from
seven countries for 120 days, a
similar length of time as when a
similar policy was implemented
by Barack Obama or Jimmy Car-
ter? You decide.
try, the brainchild of the pro-
gressives, causes immeasurable
damage. Victimization is present
in our culture in great many man-
ifestations. It is a tool widely and
skillfully used to divide and con-
quer. Regrettably its emotion-
al power resonates with many.
You assert, You know the world
doesnt love a victim. I would
love to believe that, yet every
day I read the papers, books or
hear on television a monotone
monologue about victims. Con-
cepts like social justice, access to
healthcare or education, and im-
migration are fully loaded with
- Continued om A7 -
A6 The Counterweight Spring 2017
Alf Siewers
asiewers@bucknell.edu
MEMORY ETERNAL
According to European scholars
in The Black Book of Communism, 80
to 100 million people were killed
by communist regimes in the last
century, ranging from victims of
labor camps to those of food ter-
ror famines.
This year marks the notorious
centennial of the Russian Revolu-
tion, which gave birth to this phe-
nomenon. The Black Book notes
that the deadly global phenome-
non of Communism had a direct
genealogy from ideology and
practices that grew out of the Oc-
tober 1917 Bolshevik Revolution,
and also helped inspire Nazi death
camps and methods.
On our secular and leftward-tilt-
ing campus there are no solemn
remembrances or critical examina-
tions of this communist phenom-
enon scheduled currently. On the
contrary, occasionally there are
displays of Red Army and com-
munist images by faculty with ap-
parent approbation, as one faculty
member quoted Lenin seemingly
approvingly in a discussion, all
without remark.
Nazis ideas and insignias un-
derstandably are taboo, given the
horrible record of the Nazi regime,
to the extent that even a quar-
ter-sized swastika drawn on a bath-
room stall prompts campus-wide
soul-searching (as should be the
case), and periodically campus
hosts remembrances and critical
examinations of the Holocaust (as
should be the case). But why the
silence in the case of communism?
THE CALL TO DEBATE
Josh Hunter
josh@thecounterweight.net
I may be wrong and you may
be right and, by an effort, we may
get nearer to the truth. ~ Karl
Popper
Since the election of Donald
Trump there has been an up-
roar on colleges and universities
nationwide. There have been
numerous walk-outs, teach ins,
strikes and safe spaces. All done
with the purpose of giving a mid-
dle finger to the current admin-
istration. These actions are the
height of group thought and as
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard would
describe the herd mentality.
However, It should be known
that they all share common short-
coming. They all fail to provide
the thing that given our current
state of partisan politics is needed
most, genuine debate.
The current antics of those on
the left are how ESPN analyst Will
Cain describes those who have
never had to win an argument
in eight plus years. Rather than
While understandably there
is criticism in US history of
McC-rthyism, sometimes an hys-
terical and needlessly damaging
search in Cold War America for
Communist enemies within our
society, and a demonizing of peo-
ple so labeled, today some of the
same spirit arguably infuses the
loose categorizing by the Left of
people as fascists or by other labels.
Yet totalitarian movements are
dangerous in the willingness of in-
dividuals to devote themselves to
ideology as a kind of new religion
without God, in which paradox-
ically the ultimate autonomy of
the individual leads to servitude
to an ideological cause without
Our blindspots often tell as much or
more about ourselves as our ideals.
moral restraint. The release of in-
formation from Soviet and US in-
telligence archives in recent years
has revealed that there indeed
was a widespread Communist spy
network in the US, knowledge of
which was kept from the public by
US intelligence agencies. Its exten-
sive nature ironically largely was
missed in McCarthyite politics.
And if someone was known to
have been a Nazi ally, would that
justify blackballing or expecting
public repentance, given the atroc-
ities of that systems deadly acts? If
so, why not for a Communist after
some of the atrocities of that sys-
tem had become known?
The philosopher and Jewish ex-
using this election as wakeup call
that there are many who do not
accept the current liberal agenda,
many on the left have viewed this
election as a whitelash or fur-
ther proof of systemic racism and
white supremacy. And have am-
plified their old tactics. Whether
it be making a new years reso-
lutions video for white guys, or
stopping prominent conservative
This lack of willingness to engage in honest
debate is something that needs to change.
speakers from lecturing on col-
lege campuses one thing becomes
clear: the left is not ready to come
to the debate table and make a le-
gitimate case.
As I attended the opening rally
for the Bucknell Day of Action,
on February, 17 one question
came to mind. What is the point
of all of this? Throughout the day
I often heard the word change
being used. But as I looked around
ile from Nazism Hannah Arendt
noted in her classic The Origins of
Totalitarianism that totalitarian
movements and regimes on both
the Left (Communism) and Right
(Nazism) had a common core:
Terror identified with isolation.
Both involved the categorization
of people and quotas for their per-
secution, often immersing them
culturally according to Arendt in a
social identity fostering the men-
tality of being able to embrace be-
ing both persecutor and thought/
identity criminal simultaneously.
In the case of Nazism it was racial
genocide, in the case of Commu-
nism class and cultural genocide.
Our blindspots often tell as
much or more about ourselves as
our ideals.
My children are the first in a few
generations in their family line
able to be publicly baptized and ex-
press their faith identity. Millions
of my faith community were killed
or tortured or silenced under Com-
munism, as many are today in the
Middle East by radical extremists
acting falsely under the banner of
Islam. The memory of the Com-
munist persecutions is a trauma
still within the warp and weft of
our tradition, and those slain dwell
within our transgenerational and
living memory continually in our
services and homes, and in what
we call the joyful sorrow of the
the rally of people with very sim-
ilar political views I had to stop
and wonder, who were they hop-
ing to change? Does the person
with the microphone honesty
believe that things have changed
simply by preaching to the choir?
The point of these rallies, walk-
outs, teach ins, and safe spaces are
not to make a change, but, they
are so that people can have their
views validated. If these events
were advertised as spaces to have
dialogue with those who share
similar thoughts, I would have no
complaint. As a conservative who
attends conservative lectures reg-
ularly, I must say I have no prob-
lem with this. Spending time with
those with similar views can of-
ten be a worthwhile experience.
However, I believe that none of
these forms of action should be
martyr saints who form a part of
our extended family.
Defending both free expression
and opposing the hateful catego-
rization of people for quota-style
persecution, from the Right or
Left, is the best way to remember
the tragic centennial of the Russian
Revolution.
This is indicated strangely by
two of the most critically acclaimed
films of the Western genre that
typified American myth-making
in the twentieth century: High
Noon and Rio Bravo. High Noon
was made according to its script
writer, a former Communist who
was later blacklisted, as an allegory
critiquing McCarthyism, although
its director, a Jewish refugee from
Nazism, saw it as an allegory for
the dangers of appeasing Hitler.
Rio Bravo was made as a response
to High Noon, to emphasize how
average Americans could stand up
against Communism. The com-
mon denominator: Bravery and
decency in the face of bullying by
power-hungry and violent orga-
nized crime, which in their allego-
ries rightly equate with totalitari-
an systems.
Today, both films remain clas-
sics, even as their precise political
contexts have faded in the minds
of twenty-first-century audiences
for classic 1950s Western films.
What remains in them is a lesson
mistaken for any sort of platform
of honest debate or discussion.
Often times at these rallies the
viewpoints that are brought up
are talked about as if they should
simply be accepted by everyone.
You can make claims backed by
no facts and receive applause and
snaps from your peers around
you, even if the statement made is
a complete oxymoron. For exam-
ple, during the day of action, the
following statement was made,
there is a gender pay gap, men
earn more than women. There
was no correction by the profes-
sor by the end of this statement.
There was just a room full of
smiles and nods. There was no
statement of how we gender dis-
criminate. Or who specifically
gender discriminates. There was
simply an acceptance of false pre-
of virtue from the battle against to-
talitarianism on both the Left and
the Right in the last century: The
importance of moral courage, free
expression, resistance to objectify-
ing ones self or others in the name
of ideology, and an active love for
community and other human be-
ingsall in the struggle to be an
authentic person. They remind
us of the biblical dictum for love
of country and community and
human beings versus totalitarian-
ism: Greater love hath no man
than this, to give up his life for
his friends. Not to give up life for
ideology, Big Brother, or the deep
state.
To such virtue-lessons I would
add discernment of the dangers in
our secular age of replacing God
with worship of an idea or ideol-
ogy, turning toward power. The
historically unprecedented mass
killings of the twentieth century
were committed in the name of
humanity, not God.
The Russians have a saying in
their church funerals: Memory
eternal. It forms the end of Dos-
toevskys classic book The Brothers
Karamazov. Its purposeful ambigu-
ity means both a call to keep those
departed in memory and a prayer
for God to remember themre-
ally an affirmation that we are all
related to each other in the larger
mystery Gods memory, beyond
whatever any categories and objec-
tifications that mortal ideologies
might impose
sumption that continues to be dis-
proven daily.
Similar behavior was seen on
February, 9th when Christina
Hoff Sommers came to Bucknell.
Ms. Sommers considers herself an
equity feminist, however she does
not believe in what she calls fem-
inist myths. The point of her
lecture was to provide insight into
her beliefs on the origins of some
of these myths, as well as debunk
them. After Ms. Sommers had
completed her lecture she opened
up a question and answer session.
During this event she was asked
very pointed questions intent to
prove that she must have a lack of
compassion; for those who have
personally experienced sexism in
their lives. I recall only one stu-
dent reciting any sort of facts to
dispute the claims made by Ms.
Sommers. Other than that most
of the arguments contained state-
ments such as I know a person
who, or In my life. The
- Continued on A7 -
A7 The Counterweight Spring 2017
THE CALL TO DEBATE CONTINUED
- Continued from A6 -
basic argument turns out being
I have seen/experienced some-
thing; therefore you rejecting
that this happens on a large scale
makes you ignorant or insensi-
tive.
First off, this is ironic because
this is an example of attacking
the person and not the idea. It
is a violation of the safe space
many of these students claim they
adhere to. Secondly, these state-
ments suggest a lack of ability to
debate on the points they wished
to convey. If the gender pay gap is
AN OPEN LETTER TO PROFESSOR AARON HANLON CONTINUED
- Continued from A5 -
yes, victims. We have past vic-
tims, present victims, victims in
the making, and of course future
victims. If that is not the case in
Maine, I am transferring to Col-
by!
Furthermore, I agree with your
observation that conservative
leaders and icons have largely
WHAT DOES B.A.D. REALLY STAND FOR?
Madison Cooney
madison@thecounterweight.net
The election of President
Trump into office has seen many
things for the country, but also
for Bucknell. One of the biggest
things that Bucknells campus
has seen is the rise of a new group
called B.A.D., or Bucknell Alter-
native Delegation. I affectionate-
ly call this group Babies Against
Donald, which fits their acronym
and their purpose on campus.
Since the founding of B.A.D.,
Bucknell has seen an absurd
amount of unnecessary protests
and many students have learned
just how entitled our peers feel.
Bucknell was first introduced
to B.A.D. through an open let-
ter that was sent out to all of the
student body that was full of de-
mands. While the letter provided
some things that may have been
legitimate talking points, I lost re-
spect for those who wrote it from
the very beginning. The fact that
the students felt so entitled that
they could demand things from
the President and the Universi-
ty was astonishing to me. I have
never seen such a sense of entitle-
ment. Who are they to demand
things? Request things, sure, but
to demand something requires
power and that is the kind of
power that students do not and
should not have. If these students
have such a problem with the
way the University is being run
so real one person rejecting its ex-
istence should not result in shock.
Instead, it should be easy to prove
that person wrong.
This lack of willingness to en-
gage in honest debate is some-
thing that needs to change. If you
believe in white privilege, prove
it. Explain how a young white
male living in a trailer park in
rural Pennsylvania enjoys cer-
tain privileges over all blacks. If
you believe in the gender pay gap
prove it. Show graphically why
something that was outlawed
over forty years ago still occurs
abandoned traditional conserva-
tism. So did vast segments of our
culture, and most importantly ac-
ademia. The shift is seismic you
can get a degree in literature from
some of the most prestigious uni-
versities and never read a word of
Shakespeare. For every book writ-
ten by a conservative there are ten
published by authors with oppos-
ing views. For every academic
that they feel as though they can
- and need to - demand things,
they should really consider going
to school that has already imple-
mented their demands. No one
is making them stay.
This letter started off by de-
manding Bucknell become a
sanctuary for all marginalized
community members who have
chosen to pursue their education
here. Almost anyone should be
able to pursue an education at
Bucknell, not just the marginal-
ized community members. The
key phrase in that demand is
chosen to pursue, meaning that
the students they are demanding
sanctuary for chose to go here full
well knowing what the university
was like. The demands have sub-
sections and one subsection that
I found appalling was the section
that stated the Bucknell should
provide financial support for the
undocumented students because
they cannot receive federal fund-
ing. It amazes me that this is not
common sense to students on
our campus. There are intelligent
people on this campus who think
that Bucknell should be providing
support because undocumented
students are unfairly kept from
federal funding. Of course undoc-
umented students are kept from
federal funding because they are
not in accordance with the laws
of the federal government. Why
should Bucknell support some-
today.
Those are just two of the many
controversial topics that need
to be discussed. However, often
times these conversations are dif-
ficult to have in the first place be-
cause of the PC culture in college
life. Which makes it so that you
have to constantly worry about
not marginalizing or offending
anyone. By constantly policing
the way in which the other per-
son phrases his statements, we
shift the purpose of the debate
from the original topic to the mo-
rality or wokeness of the other
with conservative views there are
eight who do not. Sowell wrote
about it better than most.
Lastly, I wish you would have
written advice to a different audi-
ence, and I urge you do so. Advice
to progressive students is needed
more than ever. It is their desire
to shut down ideas and words that
are hurtful. It is their need for
trigger warnings and safe har-
ones illegal activity?
There are many other prob-
lematic subsections under the
first demand, such as the demand
for the right to live, party, and
mingle in a space distinct from
university housing restrictions
and limits of conduct. The only
spaces that are distinct from uni-
versity conduct violations are the
downtown houses. I know con-
duct violations take place in Fra-
ternity houses on a regular basis,
but Bucknell does not willingly
let that happen. If misconduct
happens and the University is
made aware of it, they address it.
The only place to be mostly free
from University conduct policies
is in downtown housing and even
then, some University conduct
rules still apply So why would
Bucknell give something to this
organization that they do not give
to everyone else?
The second demand states,
the university become a sanctu-
ary for open dialogue of political
discussion and practice regardless
of ideology, barring hate-speech,
personal attack, and/or threat
to the safety of individuals and
groups. While this would be
great, it is almost completely un-
attainable, mostly because of the
members of B.A.D. or other stu-
dents who signed the letter. It is
not the Conservatives on campus
who have problems engaging in
dialogue , it tends to be the re-
person. This is why PC should be
disregarded during open debates.
While respect is needed during
debates, moral policing is a bully/
stall tactic that has no other pur-
pose than to hurt the credibility
of the other person. It would be
far more effective to discredit the
other person through use of factu-
al evidence.
Throughout human history,
debate was needed to convince
people of things we now consider
common knowledge. Concepts
like gravity and even notions that
earth is not flat were not ideas
bors that is antithetical to the
very definition of a university stu-
dent and college should be. How
do you discuss Sowell or Noonan
if trigger warnings go off? Should
conservative students insist on
their own warnings when we read
Marx, Sartre, or Foucault? Where
does negating open dialogue and
arresting and stifling free ex-
change of ideas lead? This is clear
gressive liberals, as I know from
personal experience and more
than one death threat from peo-
ple of that political persuasion
on campus. This demand is also
problematic because the use of
the phrase hate-speech which has
a loose definition that has never
been clearly defined. When it is
defined, almost anything said on
campus should be hate-speech so
should we just stop engaging in
dialogue because heaven forbid
we offend someone. If B.A.D. has
a problem with campus political
discussion, they should address it
within their own community, not
as a campus-wide discussion.
The Bucknell Alternative Dele-
gation has since that letter caused
many disruptions on campus for
seemingly no other purpose than
to disrupt campus business. They
have held two student walkouts
and a day of protest, but the only
thing I see happening throughout
those events is those students los-
ing out on class time and the sig-
nificant amount of money they
pay to be in class. While peaceful
and nonviolent protest is abso-
lutely their right, I simply do not
understand what change they
think they are causing on Buck-
nells campus by doing so. It is
not as though the national news
is going to notice the protests that
are happening and applaud some
Bucknell students for it.
It is my firm belief that one of
that were easily accepted. It took
evidence and debate to persuade
people that these ideas were cor-
rect. No political idea or concept
is so flawless that it should be ac-
cepted by everyone immediately.
So I challenge all students who
want to make a difference to en-
gage those who disagree with you
in debate.
Dont shout, slander or shame.
Engage, convince and change.
and present danger. Those who
promote and produce climate of
intellectual intolerance would
benefit from your advice greatly.
Best regards,
Alex Suss
Bucknell University
the most problematic element
of the campus activities initiat-
ed by B.A.D. is the open support
they have from faculty. I think it
is great that Professors want to
support their students and should
freely speak their opinions on po-
litical matters, but not to the det-
riment of other students in their
classes. There have been many
instances where Professors have
canceled class and all but forced
their classes to participate in the
protests through their actions of
following their classes outside.
If B.A.D.s entire purpose is for
everyone to have the freedom to
speak, then Bucknell students
who do not support them should
not be forced by Professors to
attend these protests and stu-
dents who do not support these
actions should not be academi-
cally harmed because their Pro-
fessor decided to not have class.
I completely support a freedom
of expression in almost whatever
form you choose but I wish that
the Bucknell Alternative Delega-
tion would wake up and see they
appear as entitled babies to those
who do not agree with them.
A8 The Counterweight Spring 2017

ABOUT THE COUNTERWEIGHT

ABOUT US:
The Counterweight is a publication dedicated to
promoting the free exchange of ideas in an envi-
ronment where meaningful debate and ideolog-
ical diversity are often lacking. We, its staff, seek
to serve the Bucknell community by infusing it
with the ingredients necessary for a balanced
educational experience. These ingredients in-
clude conservative, libertarian, and classical lib-
eral thought.
We aim to nd and describe logical solutions
to issues big and small, while adhering to the
Constitution of the United States. We believe
that peace is best achieved through strength,
that utopia is nowhere, and that true equality is
blind to race, creed, sex, and sexuality. We take it
as our mission to expose the inadequacies of the
leftist ideas that dominate this University and
to articulate an alternative viewpoint. We strive
to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our
readers in doing so. We invite the active partici-
pation of any student who shares our vision and
would like to join our mission.
DISCLAIMER: Published by the Bucknell University
The views expressed in the articles herein are
Conservatives Club since 2001
solely those of each respective author. They do
not necessarily reect the opinions of any other
club members, the Conservatives Club at large,
President: Vice President:
BSG (Bucknell Student Government), or Buck-
Justin Pinard Ethan Wise
nell University, its staff, faculty or students.
SUBMISSIONS POLICY:
The Counterweight wholeheartedly welcomes THE COUNTERWEIGHT Contributers:
letters to the editor, letters to writers, or guest Editor-in-Chief:
columns. They can be emailed to the individu- Ethan Wise
al writers or to editor@thecounterweight.net.
Distinguished Members of the Board:
Prospective writers are advised that all corre-
Tom Ciccotta, Timothy Eason,
spondence with The Counterweight writers about Justin Pinard, Nick Paray, Alex Suss, Kevin Chabrier,
the publication is liable for publication unless Josh Hunter, & Madison Cooney.
specified otherwise.
Want to help keep this
publication alive?
DONATE.
Send your donations to:
Bucknell Conservatives Club*
701 Moore Ave, C1873
Lewisburg, PA 17837
*Make checks payable to Bucknell Conservatives Club

What is Heterodox Academy?

We are a politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars who want to improve our
academic disciplines and universities.

What does it mean to be a member? All members are professors who have endorsed this statement:

I believe that university life requires that people with diverse viewpoints and perspectives encounter each other in an environment
where they feel free to speak up and challenge each other. I am concerned that many academic fields and universities currently lack
sufficient viewpoint diversityparticularly political diversity. I will support viewpoint diversity in my academic field, my university,
my department, and my classroom.

You can learn more about Heterodox Academy at http://heterodoxacademy.org

LOVE US? HATE US? WRITE US.

The Counterweight editor@thecounterweight.net

@BUConservatives www.TheCounterweight.net