|ABOUT THIS SITE||MOST RECENT ARTICLES||RADIO INTERVIEWS||VIDEOS|
|ZIONISM||FREEMASONRY||FILMING COPS||FIGHTING TRAFFIC TICKETS|
|9/11= Inside Job||VACCINES= POISON||RED-LIGHT CAMERAS||EUGENICS=MURDER|
|NEW SECTION: CATHOLICISM||LibertyFight.com CLASSICS||HISTORICAL QUOTES||ALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS!|
Try to follow this next sentence carefully, because there's three layers of recommending going on here. Please note that this is not my wording, it's theirs. In a nutshell it boils down to more Jew ass-kissing.
The 'Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff' for the University of California system recommendeds that the 'Committee on Educational Policy' recommend that the Regents adopt the 'Report of the Regents Working Group on Principles Against Intolerance.' This is to occur at the upcoming March 23, 2016 meeting,
The report itself, referred to as Attachment 1, begins "anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California."
While much of it is mind-numbingly boring and droning gobble-dee-gook, below are the relevant paragraphs.
They begin with a little intro and background, and then give platitudes to freedom of speech and the First Amendment, but then begin with their squirrely language which can be interpreted basically however the regime in power at any given time wants it to be interpreted.
At the end they finally get to the gist of it, letters A through J, which list their new 'Regents Policy: Principles Against Intolerance.'
Here is their intro.:
FINAL REPORT OF THE REGENTS WORKING GROUP ON PRINCIPLES AGAINST INTOLERANCE
Introduction: The Working Group and its Process
During the 2014-15 academic year, the Regents received correspondence and public comment from a variety of sources expressing concern that there has been an increase in incidents reflecting anti-Semitism on UC campuses. These reported incidents included vandalism targeting property associated with Jewish people or Judaism; challenges to the candidacies of Jewish students seeking to assume representative positions within student government; political, intellectual and social dialogue that is anti-Semitic; and social exclusion and stereotyping. Fundamentally, commenters noted that historic manifestations of anti-Semitism have changed and that expressions of anti-Semitism are more coded and difficult to identify. In particular, opposition to Zionism1 often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.
Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California. Most members of the University community agree with this conclusion and would agree further that the University should strive to create an equal learning environment for all students. This said, members of the community express widely divergent views about how the University should respond to incidents of overt, and more particularly, covert anti-Semitism and other forms of prohibited discrimination and intolerance. In light of the evolving nature of anti-Semitism, some commenters recommended that the Regents endorse or adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that has been attributed to the U.S. Department of State. They express the view that adopting a definition of anti-Semitism would help members of the University recognize and respond to anti-Semitism. Some commenters urged the Regents to sanction members of the University community who express views thought to be antiSemitic, while others asserted that the State Department definition would sweep in speech protected by principles of academic freedom and the First Amendment. Sanctioning people based on their speech, they say, would violate the First Amendment. Others expressed concerns about defining and focusing on antiSemitism alone when other forms of bias and prejudice also occur on UC campuses, but have not been specifically defined or addressed in Regents policy.
Finally, some commenters asserted that expressions based on stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance impact the learning environment for some members of the University community, and that prohibiting such expressions altogether should be deemed a legitimate approach to enforcing the University’s nondiscrimination policies.4
At our September 2015 meeting, the Regents considered the adoption of a draft statement of principles against intolerance. After receiving public comment and engaging in extensive discussion, the Regents elected not to move forward with the draft in its then current form. Members cited a number of concerns that led to the decision not to move forward. In the end, Chair Monica Lozano announced the formation of a Working Group, to be chaired by Regent Eddie Island, and charged the Group with developing a statement reflecting the Board’s discussion, as well as the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression. The Working Group comprises Regents Island, Oved, Pattiz, Perez, and Varner; Faculty Representative Hare; Chancellor Katehi; and Vice Provost and Chief Outreach Officer Gullatt. The Working Group has been supported by General Counsel and Vice President Charles Robinson and Secretary and Chief of Staff Anne Shaw.
In the course of preparing a draft statement, the Working Group convened a day-long public forum, on October 26, 2015, in order to receive additional input from interested parties and members of the public, beyond that received at several Regents meetings. Following the public forum, on December 1, 2015, the Working Group invited four recognized scholars and/or leaders on the subjects of discrimination, with a particular focus on anti-Semitism, and on free speech, to come before the group and present their views on what might be an effective statement on intolerance. These experts were UCLA Professor of Law and Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang, UCLA Gary D. Schwartz Professor of Law Eugene Volokh, President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law Kenneth L. Marcus, and Founder and Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center Rabbi Marvin Hier.
In addition to making presentations, each of these experts provided written materials to the Working Group for further consideration.
I skipped through the middle part, and here is the punch line, their 'principles against intolerance.' If you're still reading, congratulations, you're more perseverant than most. :-)
Regents Policy: Principles Against Intolerance
a. The mission of the University is to promote discovery and create and disseminate knowledge, to expand opportunities for all, and to educate a civil populace and the next generation of leaders. The University therefore strives to foster an environment in which all are included, all are given an equal opportunity to learn and explore, in which differences as well as commonalities are celebrated, and in which dissenting viewpoints are not only tolerated but encouraged. Acts of hatred and other intolerant conduct, as well as acts of discrimination that demean our differences, are antithetical to the values of the University and serve to undermine its purpose.
b. University policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, service in the uniformed services, or the intersection of any of these factors. Prohibited discrimination arising from historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices jeopardizes the research, teaching and service mission of the University. This mission is best served when members of the University community collaborate to foster an equal learning environment for all, in which all members of the community are welcomed and confident of their physical safety.
c. Human history encompasses many periods in which biased, stereotypical or prejudiced discourse, left unchallenged and uncontested, has led to enormous tragedy. In a community of learners, teachers, and knowledge-seekers, the University is best served when its leaders challenge speech and action reflecting bias, stereotypes, and/or intolerance. Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University. The Regents call on University leaders actively to challenge anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination when and wherever they emerge within the University community.
d. Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.
e. Each member of the University community is entitled to speak, to be heard, and to be engaged based on the merits of their views, and unburdened by historical biases, stereotypes and prejudices. Discourse that reflects such biases, stereotypes or prejudice can undermine the equal and welcoming learning environment that the University of California strives to foster. The University seeks to educate members of the community to recognize, understand and avoid biases, stereotypes and prejudices.
f. Regardless of whether one has a legal right to speak in a manner that reflects bias, stereotypes, prejudice and intolerance, each member of the University community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights. Intellectual and creative expression that is intended to shock has a place in our community. Nevertheless, mutual respect and civility within debate and dialogue advance the mission of the University, advance each of us as learners and teachers, and advance a democratic society.
g. Candidates for University leadership positions are entitled to consideration based on their stated views and actions, and in a manner consistent with the University’s nondiscrimination policy. Efforts to discredit such candidates based on bias or stereotyping should not go unchallenged.
h. Actions that physically or otherwise interfere with the ability of an individual or group to assemble, speak, and share or hear the opinions of others (within time place and manner restrictions adopted by the University) impair the mission and intellectual life of the University and will not be tolerated.
i. Harassment, threats, assaults, vandalism, and destruction of property, as defined by University policy, will not be tolerated within the University community. Where investigation establishes that such unlawful conduct was targeted at an individual or individuals based on discrimination prohibited by University policy, University administrators should consider discipline that includes enhanced sanctions. In addition to discipline and consistent with the University’s mission to educate members of our community, University administrators should use all available tools, including restorative justice techniques, to address such unlawful conduct, in order to foster learning and mutual respect.
j. The Regents call on University leaders to apply these Principles Against Intolerance and all other University policies directed to discrimination and intolerance to the full extent permissible under law. University leaders should assure that they have processes in place to respond promptly, and at the highest levels of the University, when appropriate, when intolerant and/or discriminatory acts occur. Such response should include consideration of support for members of the community directly affected by such acts.
You can find the most recent articles from LibertyFight.com here.
To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.
NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.
NOTE: Do you think my site ugly? hard to read? outdated? Does it look like a site from the 1990's? I hear these type complaints sometimes, often enough to get my attention. If that is the case, please leave your comments below. You can also click the link here for the cookie-cutter corporate 'blogger' version of this article: http://martinhilllibertyfight.blogspot.com.
[WRH Link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/uc-regents-conclude-anti-zionism-and-other-forms-discrimination-have-no-place-university-cal.]
RECENT FROM LibertyFight.com:
Front-Row Protester Disrupts Trump's Michigan Speech with "ISRAEL DID 9/11! FIVE JEWS ARRESTED ON 9/11 IN NEW JERSEY, NOT MUSLIMS." Donald Trump Responds To "ISRAEL DID 9/11" Protester With "He's A Trump Guy, He's very committed, Got a lot of energy, He's on our side" (!!!)
Trump's Response To "Israel Did 9/11" Front-Row Heckler Is Almost More Interesting Than The Heckle Itself TV News Footage Of Martin Hill Being Escorted Out By Secret Service While Trump Stops His Speech To Watch & Repeatedly Tells Them "Don't Hurt Him, Be Very Nice..."
HERE IS THE CLOSE-UP VERSION. GO TO MINUTE 20. Trump says that the "Israel Did 9/11' Protester is "A Trump Guy, He's On Our Side, He's Very Committed, he's Got a lot of energy."
Here is the wide-shot footage from the back of the room. If you watch starting at around minute 20, That's when I interrupt him, and he responds to me. Then a few minutes later, he stops his speech again to watch the Secret Service take me out, and he is referring to me when he says:
[21:18] Oh! Don't hurt him. Don't hurt him. Be very nice.
Be very nice. Yep. Be nice to him. Don't hurt him.
See how nice I'm being? I'm only doing it for them, you know that (points to the media) Don't hurt him! (21:34)
Tell me, ... I love you too, maam.. Look. Is there more fun than a Trump rally? (21:48) Is there more fun?
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, TargetLiberty.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, Strike-The-Root.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, Antiwar.com, From The Trenches World Report, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com and DontWakeMeUp.Org.
You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.
Tweets by @LibertyFight
comments powered by Disqus