http://freedomoutpost.com/feds-recommend-mandatory-psychiatric-evaluations-for-all-americans/

Feds Recommend Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations for All Americans

At this point in time, the Constitution for the united States of America is very close to ruin. In some areas, the administration and Congress have already shredded much of it. All that is left is a few individual God-given unalienable rights for the government to usurp away and this nation as a free republic ceases to exist. While many citizens of this great nation seethe in anger and focus on the dog and pony show 2016 presidential candidate nominee debates by both parties, this administration is moving rapidly closer to infringing on the one right through the back door that will leave this nation’s citizenry defenseless – the Second Amendment.

With the government gaining control over the health care insurance agency, it has the power to make the rules on what is mandatory to have concerning coverage as well as what evaluations every individual is mandated to have according to the core coverage requirements. According to Infowars.com, “Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.”

That is because a panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Psychiatry, wants to make doctors subject all American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged “mental health” disorders — particularly depression, at least to start with. Then, anyone found to harbor any alleged mental disorder, including children as young as eight, should undergo “therapy,” often including powerful psychotropic medications that experts say have dubious value but often come with well-documented and highly dangerous side effects.

Remember, this will not be optional. Obamacare health plans will be forced to cover the service and pay for it. While the panel is limiting coverage to children over age 12, one can take to the bank the age requirement will go lower and lower for mental health evaluations and “behavioral health services,” whether you as a parent want it or not. There will be no choice in the government’s eyes – agree or face the wrath of Big Brother. “School teachers, social workers, and more are all already being enlisted in the federal government’s search for supposed ‘mental and behavioral health’ issues — a list that is perpetually expanding as psychiatrists invent new ‘illnesses’.” Naturally, this could be a back door into gun control and confiscation, as well as denying future adults the right to keep and bear arms due to having a mental disorder or illness.

The American Psychiatric Association relies heavily on the DSM-V and has added new “mental health disorders” that would include American patriots, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD), while removing disorders such as homosexuality. This “listing” is entirely subjective and constantly expanding “as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the ‘Bible’ of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists.” All health care insurance plans are required to conform to the minimum standards of mandatory coverage of Obamacare. Whether you want it or not, Big Brother will subject you to a mental health evaluation as well as your children over the age of 12.

However, the ACA did leave the door open to include children under the age of 12.

The New American reports:

The latest demands come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. The influential outfit, appointed by the Obama administration’s increasingly radical Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies for Big Brother to decree into pseudo-law via regulation.

Its latest recommendations for children and adolescents 12 and older were published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years,” the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”

The outfit also left the door open for recommending such “screening” for children under 12, too. “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years and younger,” the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using controversial medications such as Prozac to drug children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as eight.

In the movie, Prozac Nation, based on the book of the same name by Elizabeth Wurtzel, “We are living in a Prozac nation – the united States of Depression.” How apt and appropriate that statement will be when the “mandatory” evaluations for mental illness begin in earnest. Big Pharma and Big Brother have tag-teamed the citizens in order to produce a nation of “pill poppers” easily controlled through psychotropic medication. Big Pharma gets richer as more of the citizens are medicated and Big Brother garners the ultimate control over a zombie population.

Many may not realize that one in 10 “American school-aged boys has been labelled and drugged under the guise of ‘Attention Deficit Disorder’ (ADD) and ‘Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’ (ADHD). Known as the “father of the diagnosis,” the now deceased Dr. Leon Eisenberg admitted in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel before his death that the supposed “disease” is a “prime example of a fabricated disorder.” American citizens are witness to more and more normal behaviors being listed as symptoms of “alleged “disorders, which critics claim is a troubling trend. The supposedly “independent advisory panel” wants to cast a much wider net.

“The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women,” said the outfit, which adds that its views should not be construed as the official position of the “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality” or Obama’s HHS. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”

In its “rationale” for recommending that all U.S. adults be screened for depression, the panel claims that the “illness” is “common in patients seeking care in the primary care setting.” It also cites “adequate evidence” allegedly showing some “improvements” if its advice is followed.

Not surprisingly, this “panel” downplays the risks cited by The New American as well as other sources – including Big Pharma and the government. “For instance, the panel admits that antidepressants are ‘associated’ with harms, including an increase in suicidal behavior, an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, fetal harm, and more. But despite that, the task force ‘concludes with at least moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit’ to screening all American adults. And by all, the task force means all: ‘The USPSTF recommends screening in all adults regardless of risk factors,’ it said.”

Those who attempted to warn the citizenry about this unconstitutional Affordable Care Act were maligned as “heartless,” “uncaring,” and “selfish,” among more unsavory terms, because liberals accused those individuals of wanting to deny health care services to those without insurance. These individuals never stopped to truly evaluate Obamacare or review the information many gathered and presented to inform the public of the invasiveness and loss of control in an individual’s health care. Their only goal was the destruction of a free nation under the guise of an egalitarian utopia.

Although, there are individuals that claim to support the Constitution who accept and applaud “mandatory” health procedures – court ordered blood draws to determine whether someone is drunk driving comes to mind, court ordered colonoscopies, and roadside strip searches. Now, it will be mandatory for adults to endure a mental health illness evaluation. If you refuse, citing individual “rights,” you can be diagnosed with ODD, meaning you will become a member of the Prozac Nation. Your children will be subjected to the same, whether you agree or not. Congratulations.

The moment the government realizes individuals accept it crossing one line, the government invariably expands its authority, unlawfully, and crosses into all areas. We, the citizens of the united States, are witness to this expansion of totalitarianism.

The new mandatory evaluation will go along nicely with the “National Adult Immunization Plan” (NAIP) “to track Americans’ vaccination records, wage a massive propaganda campaign to ‘encourage’ more inoculations, and force more controversial vaccines on adults against their will. Critics noted the agenda includes eventually imposing vaccines at gunpoint.” Let that sink in for a moment. The government will impose vaccines upon you at gunpoint.

Violating and ignoring the Constitution comes at a price. The price is freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and at times, life itself. It’s a high price to pay. Yet, many Americans are willing to pay that price. And, they are willing for you to pay it as well. The noose is tightening around the neck of freedom each day unconstitutional laws, such as Obamacare, and agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services are allowed to continue to exist. No authority is given to the federal government to mandate health care, mental health of its citizens or to establish unconstitutional agencies. Yet, it is being done. The threat is becoming clearer and the solution more urgent. If violations of the Constitution are allowed to continue, the united States will be the Prozac nation Elizabeth Wurtzel so declared and the united States of Depression will be the reality.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Sent from my iPhone

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/03/christian-targeted-for-personal-destruction-has-new-hope/

CHRISTIAN TARGETED FOR 'PERSONAL DESTRUCTION' HAS NEW HOPE

Barronelle Stutzman

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the case against a florist who was penalized for following her Christian faith and refusing to support a “gay wedding” with her artistic talent.

The brief order from the Supreme Court of Washington was signed by Barbara Madsen, the chief justice, and said tersely that the court would “retain this case for hearing and decision.”

The fight involves penalties that the state is imposing on Barronelle Stutzman, a longtime florist who was accused of discrimination when she declined to violate her Christian faith and provide her artistic talents for the same-sex “wedding” being planned by a longtime customer.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is working on court on behalf of Stutzman, explained at issue are the penalties and attorneys’ fees a lower court ordered her to pay “for declining to use her artistic abilities to design custom floral arrangements for a longtime customer’s same-sex ceremony.”

The lower courts ruled that not only was Stutzman liable as a business operator, but her personal assets and property also were at risk.

Stutzman had referred the customer, Rob Ingersoll, to several other florists who would provide him with quality products and services.

David Limbaugh’s book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States — get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

She considered him a friend at the time, having done business for many years, and still does, she wrote in a recent commentary in a Seattle newspaper.

“As a Christian, weddings have a particular significance. Marriage does celebrate two people’s love for one another, but its sacred meaning goes far beyond that. Surely without intending to do so, Rob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing.”

See a video about the case:

She continued, "I've never questioned Rob's and Curt Freed's right to live out their beliefs. And I wouldn't have done anything to keep them from getting married, or even getting flowers. Even setting aside my warm feelings for them, I wouldn't have deliberately taken actions that would mean the end of being able to do the work I love or risk my family's home and savings.

"I just couldn't see a way clear in my heart to honor God with the talents He has given me by going against the word He has given us."

She wrote, "I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend. I want to believe that a state as diverse as Washington, with our long commitment to personal and religious freedoms, would be as willing to honor my right to make those kinds of choices as it is to honor Rob's right to make his."

"Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages," said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. "We hope the Washington Supreme Court will affirm the broad protections that both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution afford to freedom of speech and conscience."

"No one should face personal and professional ruin simply for exercising these foundational freedoms," added ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Americans clearly oppose unjust government actions that force people to create expression against their will."

The same issue has erupted all across America, and, in fact, around the world. Bakers, photographers and venue owners are facing penalties and punishment from various U.S. governments for following their Christian faith.

In the United Kingdom, a family that owned a bakery was ordered penalized for refusing to violate its faith and promote same-sex "marriage," a decision that was put on hold when a government lawyer intervened amid speculation that the anti-discrimination laws being used for the prosecution actually violate international human rights protections.

In the Stutzman case, the ADF explained, "The case boils down to this question: is there room in our tolerant, diverse, and freedom-loving society for people with different views about the nature of marriage to establish their 'religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community…?' The trial court's and [the state's and the ACLU's] answer is 'no….' This is contrary to the best of our historical and constitutional traditions, which mandate that citizens who hold non-majoritarian views be given room to express them and not be coerced, punished, and marginalized through force of law.

"The trial court's and [the state's and the ACLU's] view – that there can never be a free speech exception to public accommodation laws – endangers everyone," the brief continued. "If correct, then the consciences of all citizens are fair game for the government. No longer could a gay print shop owner decline to print shirts adorned with messages promoting marriage between one man and one woman for a religious rally. Nor could an atheist painter decline to paint a mural celebrating the resurrection of Christ for a church. Indeed, no speaker could exercise esthetic or moral judgments about what projects to take on where a customer claims the decision infringes on his or her rights under the WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination]."

The ADF's logic is being challenged by no less than Barack Obama.

The president, who has been trying to reframe the Constitution's protection of religious rights to the narrower "freedom to worship" rather than "freedom of religion." went a step further in an address to a homosexual festival.

He said at the Democratic National Committee's LGBT Gala in New York that the Constitution's protections for "gay" rights trump the protection for religious rights.

"We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions," he said. 'But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights."

Obama said that "even as we are respectful and accommodating of genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions, we need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes."

The conflict was exacerbated when the Supreme Court last June created a right to "same-sex marriage," overturning the votes of people in a majority of states.

The Obergefell opinion, in a narrow 5-4 vote, included a perfunctory acknowledgement of the constitutional free exercise of religion.

However, in practice, religious rights are succumbing to the "right to gay marriage," as illustrated in the case of Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis.

A federal judge jailed Davis for six days after she refused to follow his order to violate her Christian faith and to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

David Limbaugh's book chillingly documents the destructive "transformation" of the United States -- get "The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic"

Obama, at the "gay" festival, also quoted Harvey Milk – a San Francisco city official whose biography describes how he had a penchant for sex with young boys – as a hero of the movement.

"Harvey Milk once said, 'If a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone.' But to those of us who've made it through those doors, we've got a unique obligation to reach back and make sure other people can make it through those doors, too," Obama said.

"We have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry not just against us, but against anybody, anywhere. We have a responsibility to stand up for freedom – not just our own freedom, but for everybody’s freedom. We speak up to condemn hatred against anybody – gay or straight, black or white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, non-believer, immigrant because we remember what silence felt like when hatred was directed at us, and we've got to be champions on behalf of justice for everybody, not just our own."

See WND's Big List of Christian Coercion about this very topic.

Sent from my iPhone

Federalism in the Modern Age

http://www.freedomworks.org/university/lessons/federalism-modern-age?source=FBfreedomuVid

Federalism in the Modern Age | FreedomWorks

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains that, despite the Tenth Amendment’s protection of federalism, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can use taxpayer money any way it likes. With this loophole, the federal government is able to incentivize states to do whatever it wants, by offering juicy funding grants, or threatening to withhold them. The codification of this kind of bribery has effectively put an end to federalism in the modern age.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. Judge Napolitano lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime, and human freedom. He has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications. His weekly newspaper column is seen by millions every week. The Judge is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution, two of which have been New York Times best sellers. His most recent book is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

Sent from my iPhone

http://christianindex.org/georgia-religious-freedom-being-held-in-the-balance/

GEORGIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BEING ‘HELD IN THE BALANCE’

Georgia Religious Freedom Being ‘Held in the Balance’

thinkstockphoto.com

As I write, the 30th day (“Crossover”) has now come and passed under the gold dome. The most significant piece of legislation so far has been the Pastor Protection Act  (HB 757) that passed out of the Senate with an amendment that will protect individuals (ex. counselors), churches, private schools, private colleges, adoption agencies, nonprofit organizations, and businesses from adverse government action because of their beliefs on marriage. This bill, having already passed from the House without this amendment, now has to be voted on again with the Senate’s amendment.

Here is where the problem lies. If the House does not agree with the changes made in the new language, the bill goes to a conference committee where it can be changed. If that happens we will not know what the bill will have in it until the vote is taken on both sides of the chambers.

As Georgia Baptists, we have been asking the House to leave the bill as it is. We want broad-based protection for all Georgians, not just the pastor and the church buildings. The LGBT activists, the Chamber of Commerce, and media are promoting only pastors, churches, and faith-based nonprofits. They overwhelmingly asked the legislature and the governor to not protect the business community from public accommodation laws, which will force these businesses to promote, support, and participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

You have all heard about the bakers, the florists, and photographers being made to comply with government laws, facing fines and being driven completely out of business. Do we want that here in Georgia? I am writing to tell you: it is coming. There is a public accommodation law that has already been passed by the House Judiciary Committee that has included the word “sex” in relation to public accommodation.

News flash: “sex” in our day is not defined as sex was years ago. This is the first step toward forcing businesses to conform to the LGBT agenda or get out of business. Pastors, this will have an impact on your churches! These businesses are owned and operated by the people who give and supply the resources to allow our churches to fulfill the Great Commission.

The opposition forces I face at the Capitol are passionate and aggressive in letting their voices be heard above everyone else’s. But the church, as a whole, is too quiet on these matters. We are simply allowing opportunities to get away from us. This is why I am asking for your help! We must not let the government do to us what Hitler did to the pastors and churches of his day. He got them to accept his protection from government action if they would agree to stay out of government. He basically said, you take care of the church and leave government to me. Pastors, this is happening before our eyes today!

I know that all of us are busy and overwhelmed with information. But if we don’t respond to this challenge today, we will look back and see when we lost an opportunity to defend our 1st amendment rights. Our 1st amendment rights include the free exercise of religion, and that includes preaching and living out the gospel in everyday life. And, we must also remember the persecution our children will be facing. Please heed this warning: We will be made to care, if we don’t right now.

So please be looking for my next alert. Thank you all for what you are doing.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/05/nyc-kindergarten-students-pledge-allegiance-international-flag-made-desecrated-american-flag/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

NYC Kindergarteners Pledge Allegiance To ‘International Flag’ Made from a Desecrated American Flag

NYC Kindergarteners Pledge Allegiance To ‘International Flag’ Made from a Desecrated American Flag  

A story from Sean Hannity's website has been tearing up social media on Saturday and with good reason. It seems kindergarten children in New York City, under the direction of teachers and with the approval of the parent teacher association, desecrated an American flag in order to praise multi-culti internationalism as superior to and authoritatively above the United States.

The flag was created by gluing the flags of other nations onto the stripes. The red stripes represent the 13 original American colonies, of course.

Kindergarten students from PS75, a public school in New York City, recently took part in a class project in which the children were made to create an American flag with the flags of other 22 other nations superimposed over the stripes. Below the flag read the words "We pledge allegiance to an International Flag."

The story came out when a concerned parent contacted Hannity's website with a link to the page where the Parent Teacher Association was auctioning it off to raise funds. It has since been deleted.

In the liberal leftist assault on American values, institutions, and culture, your children are the front line. The indoctrination in public schools is near-total. As a parent of two, I have a kabillion other stories just as offensive and ridiculous. They really are out to get your kids. And they really see nothing wrong with it. 

Grotesque.

Sent from my iPhone

Judge Jeanine: Mitt Romney Awoke A Sleeping Giant

http://youtu.be/srGlyFyghRk

CAMPUS RADICALS ATTEMPT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2016/03/thorneroneil-campus-radicals-attempt-to-stifle-free-speech.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FbYHz+%28Illinois+Review%29

THORNER/O'NEIL: CAMPUS RADICALS ATTEMPT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH

What is happening on our college campuses?  Are college administrators going to wait until there is a terrible tragedy before taking aggressive, appropriate action to stop the inappropriate behavior of students who exhibit radical behavior and cross the line of what is acceptable and safe?  Judging recent examples, there is reason to be concerned that some students, possibly some of whom are under the influence of outside radical groups, or some of whom may be negatively influenced by  professors, might eventually allow their emotions  to evolve into tragic actions.

The most recent example to illustrate the radical change on campuses occurred at California State University, Los Angeles on February 25, 2016. Ben Shapiro, who represents Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), was invited to speak at the school. Liberal students did not have to work hard to persuade CSULA President William Covino to cancel the event, because the President is a known leftist ideologue.  Covino cancelled Shapiro’s opportunity to speak by claiming he wanted to provide an expanded venue with opposing speakers on the subject of censored speech and diversity issues.  However, Covino did not offer any specifics as to a new date.  Also suspicious was that the school had previously invited and allowed many controversial liberals to speak without any opposition voice.

Having learned that "Black Lives Matter" protesters were involved in the effort to keep Shapiro from speaking, and knowing there were students who worked hard to advertise and encourage attendance,  Shapiro decided not to disappoint the students and decided to speak as scheduled.  

Those involved in trying to keep Shapiro from expressing his viewpoints began plotting more aggressive ways to deny students from hearing his speech, including tactics such as:

• Bullying of students planning on attending.

• Physically intimidating those who did attend, including a female reporter trying to film the unruly crowd.

• Protestors barring attendees from entering the room in which Shapiro was speaking.  

• Turning on the fire alarm to disrupt Shapiro's speech for those who had found an alternate entrance into the room.

The school staff at CSULA certainly understood there would likely be a problem, yet police presence on the campus remained thin.  The situation could have escalated into a much bigger problem which begs the questions: 1. Why didn’t the school administration foresee the potential of an aggressive assault that could easily have escalated into something far more serious.  2. Were the perpetrators disciplined?  3.  Has the University president made this an example of what must not happen again on this campus?  These are questions that deserve answers not just for the sake of impacted students but for the public as well.  

Political correctness has become a problem

A bigger problem is that there is a growing number schools that are experiencing similar problems on their campuses. Yale University is an example.  Members of the Black Student Alliance physically surrounded a school administrator to verbally attack him for, of all things, standing up for free speech. The conversation was not a friendly one, and the dangerous, angry confrontation was caught on film.  Instead of the students being reprimanded and disciplined, a group of largely Black students confronted President Peter Salovey at his home with a set of demands claiming they did not feel safe, that the University needed to address racism at Yale, and demanded the resignation of the administrator they had attacked claiming that the statements made by President Salovey lacked sensitivity to Black concerns. This type of bullying of teachers, professors, and school administrators by Black groups is not unusual, and the intimidating students often end up getting their way.

The Virginia Tech Young Americans for Freedom were defunded over an immigration event at the school, due to the Student Budget Board taking issue with a flyer used to advertise the event.  The flyer read, “Alien Invasion:  How Illegal Immigration is Hurting America.” The board voted to defund the student chapter stating: 

“The combination of language and imagery is offensive, insensitive and a blatant act of disrespect towards the immigrant community and the Virginia Tech community at large.” Supporters of the group responded “It is an outrageous effort on the part of these students to control speech to determine what is said and how it is said.”  

To the universities credit, they reversed the decision and continued to fund the student group.

The University of California system considered adopting a policy that encouraged students to report “derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudices.”  Imagine, that!  An attempt was made at the University level to ignore and/or deny our Constitution and First Amendment Right to free speech.  Fortunately, enough people found that outrageous and complained to the Administration, who then reversed their decision.

A Penn State official ordered a group distributing pocket Constitutions to cease their efforts even though it was Constitution Day and they were in a campus designated “Safe Space”.  Conservative students believe “Safe spaces” are a way for administrators to further isolate them from expressing their political views and/or messages. 

American Sniper was cancelled at the University of Michigan after Muslim and Middle Eastern students complained the movie made them feel “uncomfortable.”  Only after YAF Chairman Grant Strobel appeared on Fox News to explain what happened did the University announce the film would be shown as previously planned.

While these examples illustrate that political correctness has become a problem on our college campuses, it also indicates the administration on many campuses are willing to reconsider their poor decisions when confronted with facts and an opposing viewpoint.   That makes it important for campus conservative groups to have a source that can guide them on the law and their rights.  

Blackmail by students to achieve demands

However, other Universities have not had the courage to confront student groups who have resorted to blatant blackmail to achieve their demands.  Consider students at the University of Missouri who decided President Tim Wolfe was not doing enough to satisfy their definition of what the University should be doing to stop racism.  With the help of members of the Missouri football players, most of whom are Black and with the blessing of their team’s coach, they joined activist groups demanding the resignation of the University president, claiming if their demands were not met, they would refuse to play in the upcoming important football game. The football players joined the protest after a Black graduate student, Jonathan Butler, began a hunger strike one week earlier. Butler said the strike would either end with Wolfe leaving his post or Butler dying.  In their letter of demands, student government leaders pointed to University officials remaining silent in the aftermath of Ferguson and claimed that exacerbated tensions on campus.  Butler, the student who went on the hunger strike, echoed that sentiment.  Canceling the game would have cost the university in excess of $1 million.  Wolfe met the demands of the students and resigned so that he would not be responsible for any harm to the University.  There are some who have compared this to the danger of and reason why America adopted the policy of never negotiating with terrorists - once one capitulates to a terrorist, the demands never stop.

Vox published an essay from a liberal professor who confessed that the zealotry of his own students frightened him.  Salon published an article from a Black feminist film studies lecturer, describing her “disastrous” attempt to accommodate her students’ strangely aggressive emotional fragility. The one positive result of the students' aggressiveness is that some academics on the left have finally awakened to the fact it was largely the liberal professors themselves who created the monster they are now currently experiencing.  Many liberal professors have used the classroom to promote their liberal ideals which often are presented as White dominance and the suppression of Blacks. Did they expect that philosophy to help racial relations.

Can the genie be put back in the bottle?

It remains to be seen if professors will now dial back their classroom dialogues and instead promote positive concepts of respect for all people and thus begin to stress the proper way to facilitate positive changes.  Certainly pitting one group against another and skewing the discussion to a specific liberal viewpoint is not the solution, as it has resulted in an unhealthy increase of racial tension on campuses.  Thus, just when the nation elected a Black man and other Blacks were selected to the highest positions in our government, racism wormed its way back into our society.  One could almost be persuaded to think it was deliberate.  However, who would ever intentionally want and/or benefit from such an unhealthy scenario.

The public is awakening to the unfortunate changes college professors have introduced to students which have largely produced student behavior that is unacceptable by historical standards as well as common sense. It has spilled out into the general public and provided an increase in racism within the general public as well.   The question now seems to be how does one put the genie back into the bottle?  Our schools have nurtured and condoned “progressive” thinking for decades, and intentionally or not, it created increased tension between Blacks and White students.  It has now reached a critical point that must be seriously addressed.   Possibly before we see improvement, we must analyze the genesis of the problem.  We must also discuss the best way to initiate fair, equitable, and positive changes in our University system that provide some basic, common sense recommendations for administrators and professors.  

Our follow-up article will deal with some facts that will explore and might explain in part the reasons for changes we see in our schools and suggest recommendations as to how to create a more objective, balanced classroom and campus environment for all students.  This is essential because college students are our future.  What they are taught and learn today will be the direction of America tomorrow.  This is one area we all must examine and get right for the sake of our children's and grandchildren’s future.

Sent from my iPhone