Carolyn Petrosino

[The following essay was sent to Editor Andrew C. Holman and Assoc. Editors Norma Anderson and Ellen Scheible (Bridgewater Review, Bridgewater State University (MA);   Ed.-in-Chief Daniel Creed and Faculty Advisor Sherri Miles, The Comment (BSU student newspaper); Professors Carolyn Petrosino and Benjamin Carson; and BSU Library Director Michael Somers.  It was also sent to The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed.  Not one person deigned to respond.]  

In the Crosshairs of the Cultural Marxist Movement: 

Is Bridgewater State Ready… Or Has It Already Submitted?  

Some ground rules at the Snowden Multicultural Center’s Whiteness Group: If you have an unpopular opinion, speak up. No white person can ask a person of color questions; white people must try to answer their questions for themselves. And no spreading rumors about what people say during the meetings.

—the Kenyon Collegian, Kenyon College 

The problem is that this system gives a perverse incentive for protesters to make conservative speakers prohibitively expensive.  The more violence and trouble that groups cause, the more money sponsors will have to pay.  As a result, groups will not be able to invite speakers opposed by these groups.  Both cities and colleges are supposed to be forums for free speech.  It is not a luxury for which you pay a user fee.  Those groups like Antifa are the ones causing disruptions and interfering with free speech. 

—Jonathan Turley, liberal constitutional law professor 

Over the years, an insidious takeover of colleges and universities across the nation has seemingly been achieved, not by white nationalists, but rather by cultural Marxists, who do not favor freedom of speech and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy.   Are the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, and Bridgewater Review concerned about that?  If not, why not?  Perhaps the editors are cultural Marxists themselves or lean in that direction.  As for white nationalism, clearly it has not even made a dent in higher education… and certainly not at Bridgewater State.  

Ideology has been rapidly supplanting reason and freedom of expression in higher education.  It is well known that right-leaning speakers, including Murray, Coulter, and Yiannopoulos, have been shut down and threatened with violence on campuses from Berkeley to Middlebury, NYU, and William & Mary, for example.  At which campuses have white nationalists managed to shut down left-leaning speakers?  

Speech codes have supplanted freedom of speech in many institutions of higher education.  If unaware of this, check out the numerous reports at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.  A quick search on Bridgewater State will reveal that “Bridgewater State University has been given the speech code rating Yellow.  Yellow light colleges and universities are those institutions with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.”  Is there a  professor at Bridgewater State who even cares about that?  

Are vigorous debate and freedom of speech cornerstones at Bridgewater State?  Would Bridgewater Review, published by Bridgewater State professors and librarians, or the student newspaper, The Comment, publish this counter-essay?  Perhaps not.  Why not?  Well, back in 2011, I tested the waters of democracy regarding Bridgewater State’s English Department. 

Letters to a Young Department Chairperson:
I do appreciate your quick reply. Yet how is it possible that “one of the most vibrant departments” at a state university would not express an iota of interest in The American Dissident, a unique journal devoted to Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence? Well, it is true that“vibrant” means “pulsating with vigor and energy” (i.e., a lot of running around), and not necessarily with curiosity and courageousness. You note the “rich array of courses” at your institution, yet do not offer any courses even remotely similar to “Literature, Dissidence, and Democracy,” the one I created and in which you also failed to express an iota of interest. In fact, how does such lack of interest and curiosity reflect the statement preceding your job ad for English adjuncts: “Applicants should be strongly committed […] to working in a multicultural environment that fosters diversity”? Or am I quite wrong in thinking that by “diversity” you meant diversity of opinions, as opposed to superficial skin color, and diversity of guts, as opposed to mere ethnicity? 

Finally, why not mention in your “Chair’s Welcome” that you encourage student and faculty questioning and challenging of all things, including and especially multiculti- ideology and the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex—its mass of institutions (e.g., NEA, Guggenheim, state cultural councils, and universities), prize-winning icons (Beatniks et al), award-winning journals (Agni, Poetry, the Bridge et al), grant-receiving professors, and of course Holy Canon. 

Remember: the noble title of "chairperson" must be earned rather than claimed; it connotes conformity and safety rather than mere agreement. Yes, I did paraphrase that from Christopher Hitchens’ Letters to a Young Contrarian. 

For Chairperson Benjamin D. Carson’s response and my further retort, see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2012/01/benjamin-carson.html.  I’d also tested the waters vis-a-vis the university president and student newspaper editors at The Comment.  Part of that post includes a cartoon drawn on Professor Carson and a letter sent to then President Dana Mohler-Fariaboth, regarding Bridgewater State’s shameful speech codes.  Back then it had the worst possible rating, the red light!  Neither the student editors, nor the president deigned to respond after I’d sent the items to them.  How odd that student editors did not think free speech at Bridgewater State, or rather lack thereof, to be something that might interest students!  Of course, the apathy of the president was quite understandable.  In vain, I’d also attempted to interest the university library in subscribing to The American Dissident.  After all, where else might students be able to read such criticism?  Well, I digress… or sort of.

“In the Crosshairs of the White Nationalist Movement:  Is Bridgewater State Ready?”, authored by 

Professor Carolyn Petrosino (Department of Criminal Justice), evidently reflects cultural-Marxist biases.  “Social movements that are negative—that advocate the institutionalized devaluation of others—are what I refer to as dark social movements,” notes Professor Petrosino.  “The White Nationalist Movement is in that category.”  Okay.  I agree.  BUT why not also mention the cultural Marxist movement, especially the highly violent, free-speech-hating group Antifa, not to mention BLM, New Black Panthers, and Nation of Islam.  The cultural Marxist movement created the it’s-okay-to-hate-whitey enterprise, spread via large numbers of campus workshops, speeches, and mandatory diversity training sessions aka indoctrination sessions.  That movement has even begun to penetrate Quebec:  Le racisme antiblanc est-il un humanisme?  It also invented the absurd inclusion (i.e., exclusion) mantra that defies logic and reason.  Professor Petrosino notes she’s taught courses on hate crimes.  Does she mention to students that designation is controversial?  Why, for example, should a poster or flyer or graffiti constitute a hate crime, instead of an instance of freedom of expression?  Well, the cultural Marxists in power easily get around that by designating the poster or flyer or graffiti they do not like as litter or vandalism, which indeed are crimes, therefore hate crimes.  Moreover, the term hate is of course subjective.  Does Professor Petrosino mention that racism can and might often be black on white or that anti-Semitism is ingrained in the Qu’ran and likely openly expressed by many Muslim Student Association members? 

Does Professor Petrosino include, in her examples, hate crimes committed against whites by blacks?  Professor Tony Brown at Vanderbilt University notes in a research paper that "African Americans are the only group of persons categorized in significant numbers as both victims and perpetrators of hate crimes.”   Can there really be no examples of white students, as hate-crime victims?  Professor Petrosino mentions the “Stop (or Fight) White Genocide” email received by faculty and students as “disturbing.”  Sadly, in academe, it also seems to be very “disturbing” whenever anyone stands up and dares counter the reigning cultural-Marxist narrative.  Does Professor Petrocino mention that some blacks want the “Tanning of America”?  How is that not anti-white and not constitute a desire for white genocide, and why does Professor Petrosino not mention that?  The Root’s Tracy Clayton and Tracey Ross (the links are for the two cartoons I sketched several years ago) are proponents of that racist wish. 

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: press@theroot.com; readerfeedback@theroot.com
Subject: Dialogue on Racism? Or rather Racist Indoctrination!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 08:36:25 -0400
To the Editors of The Root,
You evidently are not seeking dialogue on racism at all. What you are seeking is to disseminate pro-black, anti-white racist indoctrination, nothing more, nothing less. The Root is a racist online publication, which is why I have decried it, especially in three cartoons. LOGIC is the motor in my cartooning. Indoctrination, racist or whatever, can never defeat LOGIC. For the latest cartoon, inspired by The Root, see “Stupid White Women.”  Scroll down to see toons on Dawkins, Goff, and Tim Wise. A cartoon on Tracy Clayton will be published next week. Conversation on racism?  Silence is not conversation! 

Did The Root respond?  No!  So, Professor Petrosino is concerned about “White nationalist recruitment efforts on campus.”   Okay.  But what about Antifa, New Black Panthers, BLM, or Muslim Student Association recruitment efforts on campus, not to mention the Office of Institutional Diversity and Diversity Consortium efforts to indoctrinate?  Might diversity and inclusion practices exclude opinions apt to question and challenge the inclusion mantra?  Any mandatory diversity workshops or training courses at Bridgewater State?  Any discussion about the white students who might have been rejected by Bridgewater State because of Affirmative Action’s preference for black students? 

Professor Petrosino notes that in the 1980s the FBI reported an increase in neo-Nazi skinheads.   But she fails to mention the violent Black Panthers of the 1970s.  Why?   She underscores that the Anti-Defamation League reported at least 147 incidents involving the distribution of racist flyers on 107 different campuses.  But what about the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement and anti-Semitic flyers or posters authored by Islamists on college campuses?  What about the Muslim Student Association, attached to the Muslim Brotherhood, which adores homosexuality, kuffars, apostates, and non-hijab-adorning alpha females?  

Professor Petrosino aberrantly evokes Trump, as a “symbol of white nationalism.”  Was Obama a symbol of the black nationalism espoused by “outstanding human being” Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan?   Is there a photo of Trump posing with Richard B. Spencer?   Well, there is definitely a photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan!  Here it is in case you live in a fully-protected cultural-Marxist safety cocoon and never saw it:  “The Media’s Ugly David Duke-Louis Farrakhan Double Standard.”  And what about Obama’s fling with “racialist” Jeremiah Wright?  

Professor Petrosino and so many others do not understand, let alone appreciate, the First Amendment.  In Europe and Canada, citizens can and have been arrested for simply expressing an opinion.  Thankfully, in America, that is not supposed to happen.  Far too many people do not understand the intrinsic problem with so-called hate-speech legislation.  Hate is subjective.  Hate is subjective.   Capiche?  Professor Petrosino puts forth an argument against the First Amendment:  “When hateful speech influences public perspectives, it has the potential to shape law and create public policy that negatively impacts vulnerable groups.”  How not to mention Islam in Europe?  Indeed, hate-speech legislation has been adopted there to essentially not only stop criticism of Islamic ideology, but also nefariously to stop criticism of government policy regarding Islam and Muslim immigration.  One can actually be arrested and incarcerated for doing the latter!  In Europe, not only right-wing hate speech, but also left-wing hate speech has been prosecuted.  

As for the Southern Poverty Law Center, it has become a controversial left-wing, pro-Islamic organization.  Professor Petrosino does not mention that.  Instead, egregious bias blinds her, preventing her to question and challenge that which evidently needs to be questioned and challenged.  She notes, SPLC reported that “at least 23 candidates for public office with radical right-wing views” existed.  She fails to stipulate precisely what “radical right-wing views” might be.  Is criticism of political Islam a radical right-wing view?  Does SPLC list radical left-wing candidates?  If so, how many?  If not, why not?  Is SPLC at all objective?  Professor Petrosino states, “Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist for President Trump, has provided a media platform of the alt-right movement (Breitbart News), which supports and advocates white nationalist ideology.”  Well, I consult Breitbart News every morning and have yet to come across an article that supports that statement!  Has Professor Petrosino ever even examined it?  By the way, I also consult the New York Times and Washington Post every morning and am ever disappointed by the important stories on which they fail to report, whereas Breitbart News reports on them.  Why, for example, published on the same day, are the NY Times stories, “Woody Allen Meets Me#Too” and “On ‘S.N.L.,’ Trump Calls In to ‘Fox & Friends’” more important than the two Breitbart News stories, both ignored by the NY Times, “Antifa Extremists Try To Shut Down Jacob Rees-Mogg Speech” and “Belgian Senator: Multiculturalist Elites Manipulated Stats to Transform Society with Mass Migration”?  Of course, Breitbart News also publishes its share of pop stories.  But to simply dismiss it as “white nationalist ideology” serves to assist democracy’s death in darkness, to paraphrase the Washington Post.   

Professor Petrosino ought to include one, just one, Breitbart News article indicative of a connection with white nationalism and then also attempt to disprove “National Public Radio Falsely Links Breitbart to White Separatists.”  If she is indeed concerned about the “vulnerability” of students to the messages of white nationalists, why is she not concerned about the “vulnerability” of students to the far more potently ubiquitous ideology of cultural Marxism likely pushed by some Bridgewater State professors themselves?   She expresses concern for “acts of bigotry” on campus, but fails to mention the left’s ubiquitous “white privilege” courses, workshops, speeches, and mandatory training, as acts of bigotry against white students.  Blatantly anti-white racist student campus “whiteness groups” also exist and even kindergarten children are now being “taught” (i.e., brainwashed) about purported “white privilege.”  Well, you will not learn about those two realities if you only consult the New York Times and Washington Post!  

Now, what to say about “Bridgewater State Professor Says ‘Fuck Any’ Students Who Voted For Trump, They Are KKK And Are Not Welcomed In His English Class”?  Freedom of speech?  Definitely!  But how can professors, including Garrett Avila-Nichols, who proffered that statement, and the Board of Trustees state, without being egregiously hypocritical, “We re-commit ourselves to actions that put into practice our individual and institutional values of diversity, inclusion, and equality for all,” while simultaneously engaging in identity politics, demonization of whites, and exclusion of student Trump voters and alt-opinions in general?  How can egregiously biased, cultural Marxist professors like Avila-Nichols possibly make a statement that “We reject all forms of bias…”?  

In academe today, it seems “let’s have a conversation about race” has become in reality “let’s have a cultural Marxist monologue about race.”  Does Bridgewater State want to graduate questioning and challenging students with the capacity to reason with logic or well-indoctrinated Democrat-Party students with the capacity to skillfully use ad hominem (e.g., KKK) in an effort to demonize anybody daring to proffer uncomfortable truths and/or alt-opinions?  Will Bridgewater Review publish this counter-essay, considering that I must certainly be a Nazi white nationalist, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, sexist, who believes that FREEDOM OF SPEECH, not diversity, is our real strength?  Does Bridgewater Review want to have a conversation or a monologue about race?  Well, as noted, it is closed to outsiders:  “Bridgewater Review invites submissions from full- and part-time faculty members and librarians, and others in the BSU community.”  In fact, it is not even available online.  It is a members-only journal.  And yet, as a public university periodical shouldn’t it be open to the public?   One must wonder if any non-cultural Marxists even teach at Bridgewater State, especially in the so-called social sciences.  It is highly likely that its “forum for campus-wide conversations pertaining to research, teaching, and creative expression” will not include any questioning or challenging of Professor Petrosino.  Its forum is likely nothing but a safe space for campus-wide cultural Marxist groupthink monologues… and thus is perhaps the state of higher education in a nutshell.  

Finally, objectivity needs to somehow overcome the massive left-wing egregious bias controlling academe today.  We have gotten to the sad point where objective facts can now be skillfully warped by hardcore ideologues into subjective falsehoods.  Sanctimonious statements of equality and inclusion professed by those like Professor Petrosino are vacuous when the reality is exclusion and inequity.  Will Professor Petrosino or any of her colleagues even dare step out of their protective bubble and respond to this counter-essay?