Constitution Shredded Because It "Triggers" Students
#1


https://youtu.be/3PZAzLTQlX8


VIDEO: Administrators literally shred Constitution after reporter calls it 'oppressive' and 'triggering'
Investigative Reporter
@FrickePete
Today at 8:02 AM EDT



A reporter from Project Veritas covertly filmed administrators at Vassar College and Oberlin College agreeing to shred the Constitution.

Other profs. are shown in the video seemingly agreeing that the Constitution is "oppressive" and "causes people pain."



Administrators at Vassar College and Oberlin College agreed to personally shred a pocket Constitution after an undercover reporter posing as a student complained that she felt “triggered” by its distribution on campus.

The video was produced by Project Veritas, a non-profit established by conservative journalist James O’Keefe, and employs a similar style to the undercover ACORN videos that first brought him to prominence.

“Last week something kinda happened on campus that kind of really upset me and I ended up having a panic attack,” the reporter tells Vassar College Assistant Director of Equal Opportunity Kelly Grab. “It’s just I’ve been kind of hiding out in my room ever since kind of scared, so, finally somebody told me I should maybe come talk to you about it and see if there’s anything that can happen or anything … They were handing the Constitution out on campus.”

“Oh, CATO Institute,” Grab murmurs while looking the booklet over.

“They were handing it out and as soon as I saw it you know I started to not be able to breathe, hyperventilating,” the reporter elaborated. “My vision went blurry and I just—kind of just lost control.”

After establishing that the reaction was triggered merely by the offering of copies of the Constitution and not by anything the group had said, Grab offers her sympathies to the reporter.

“And so what I think you’re sharing with me is that your interaction in receiving this was harming, right?” Grab confirms. “And that’s what we certainly want to avoid; we don’t want to limit people in exchanging ideas or having opposing viewpoints, but when it’s disruptive or causing harm…”

“Yeah, which I think the Constitution does,” the reporter interjects. “I mean, it’s not just me, it’s—I mean I thought that Vassar wanted to create like a safe place here, you know a place that … where students could walk around and not be scared of seeing discriminating things on campus.”

Noting that “I’m sure there are also some people who, who maybe don’t understand the impact that this might have on folks,” Grab asks the reporter whether there is anything that can be done to create an “educational moment” regarding the issue.

“Yeah, I guess, maybe,” the reporter responds, suggesting that “maybe the Constitution should be removed from campus permanently.”

Grab stops short of endorsing that idea, but asks the reporter if there is anything she can do with the copy of the Constitution that was brought into the office.

“Honestly, can we just like destroy—like is there a shredder or something? Like I think it might be really therapeutic,” the reporter offers.

“Cathartic … Yes, I think we have a shredder in the front office there,” Grab replies. “Did you want to do it with me?”

The video then show Grab and the reporter enter another office, where Grab proceeds to shred the entire Constitution, page by page.

“Thank you, that made me feel better,” the reporter says, to which Grab replies, “[g]ood.”

A narrator then asserts that when the reporter tried the same story at Oberlin College, several professors made similarly shocking statements.

When the complaint was brought to Wendy Kozol, Professor/Chair of Comparative American Studies at Oberlin, she agreed after a long pause that “[t]he Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” adding that she rarely discusses the Constitution in class, and that when she does she tends to focus on specific amendments.

After some prompting from the reporter, she concedes that her hesitancy reflects her belief that the document is flawed, and suggests working with student groups to host a dialogue concerning “the ways in which the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain.”

“So, obviously my end goal is I want the Constitution to not have such a central part here at Oberlin—I would like people to see how discriminating it is and how racist it is,” the reporter tells Kozol. “Do you think that’s a reasonable goal that we could get to?”

“Absolutely,” Kozol says. “I think there are a lot of people who will immediately agree with you and join the conversation and think about ways to limit, confine, or talk back; maybe you just want to talk back to the Constitution.”

Carol Lasser, Professor of History and Director of Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies at Oberlin, likewise concurred that “[t]he Constitution is an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow process.

“I think birthright citizenship is right,” she whispers. “And you know that if that was up for a vote today we would lose it under the craziness of Trump and his seven dwarves.”

She then observes that “[t]he Constitution is not a sacred document in that sense,” citing the Second Amendment as an example and asking, “[w]hat could be clearer than, I mean at least from my point of view, that the founders never envisioned giving people carte blanche to own assault rifles?”

Colleen Cohen, Faculty Director of Affirmative Action and a Professor of Anthropology at Oberlin, is even more indulgent of the reporter’s complaint, saying, “[ i ]t’s horrible that this is something that has caused you such pain,” and despairing that “unless the people are from off campus,” there is nothing the college can do to prevent the Constitution from being distributed.

“Can I destroy this?” she asks the reporter, referring to the Constitution. “Or did you want to hold on to it?”

“Well, could you destroy it?” the reporter says. “Maybe it will feel, you know, therapeutic for me.”

“I’ll put it through a shredder,” Cohen offers. “Yeah, I’ll put it in a shredder.”

Subsequently, Cohen hangs up her office phone and informs the reporter that she will not have access to the shredder until her secretary returns, but promises to destroy the document at that point.

O’Keefe also makes sporadic appearances in the video as he hands out pocket Constitutions while dressed in a comical Constitution costume.

“When this idea came up in our newsroom about campus administrators shredding the Constitution because it’s a trigger against students, we didn’t think people would actually fall for it,” he says at one point. “We underestimated just how stupid and politically correct these people are.”

“We were amazed and disappointed,” the narrator intones at the end of the film. “Political correctness and cultural sensitivity run amok.”

Jeffrey Kosmacher, Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs at Vassar College, told Campus Reform that nobody from Vassar would have any comment on this story.

Campus Reform likewise reached out to Professors Kozol, Lasser, and Cohen, but none had responded by press time.


Reply
#2
Interesting line of 'logic'.

So then, I suppose we should shred the text books and all the library books since they may scare/stimulate someone's 'negative' feelings due to the 'controversial' subjects they may contain. Such absurd relativism!

'Fahrenheit 451' revisited?
Reply
#3
Other profs. are shown in the video seemingly agreeing that the Constitution is "oppressive" and "causes people pain."

Maybe they would prefer a constitution like the one they have in Byelorussia.
Reply
#4
Some of the initial rebellion against the idea of the Constitution isn't bad, really. The one woman has a point, it isn't sacred. But the context that grows up out of this just becomes absurd. I mean if it's not sacred, why shred it? (Oh, it's the 'journalist' who suggested the shredding!) Would make more sense just to write a new one and say 'Here, this is why I think!' A nice intellectual and respectful debate with opposing viewpoints would be a fine and illuminating way to clear up qualms about the Constitution. Instead, covertly filming a woman and provoking her on the subject seems just pathetic. The man was surprised, really? I'm not surprised. This tendency to make everything a sensation is a direct result of the out-of-control media growth we've experienced in the past decade. What is the point of this video anyway? To scare to Republicans to not send their kids to college? To fuel the fears of conspiracy theories and the like? This video does nothing to help people see that the way this woman thinks has a historical narrative behind it, that it can be logically seen and understood. It really plays to baseness of the viewer. The whole thing feels like electioneering. I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the video it said 'Funded by X University' in other words, 'these places suck, come to us!'

And the dude in the costume? They pretty much come out with it there. This is some kind of show. This is the worst of Americans, really. I mean someone on the left could covertly make a video and while interviewing a Holocaust revisionist and edit it to make that person look like a Nazi. I thought that we on the side of the Truth were above this?
Reply
#5
Those poor dears. Don't they realize we no longer live in the same republic as that originally constituted through the ratification of that document? The French, with Gallic bluntness, at least say they live under the Cinquième République, or Fifth Republic, and have a young constitution accordingly. The United States, though, is like an old restaurant that has shifted ownership, management, and menus several times, but still keeps the old signs up because of a mixture of sentimentality and deceptive branding.
Reply
#6
Vassar College and Oberlin. Nice.

(11-04-2015, 04:57 AM)xandratax Wrote: Some of the initial rebellion against the idea of the Constitution isn't bad, really. The one woman has a point, it isn't sacred. But the context that grows up out of this just becomes absurd. I mean if it's not sacred, why shred it? (Oh, it's the 'journalist' who suggested the shredding!) Would make more sense just to write a new one and say 'Here, this is why I think!' A nice intellectual and respectful debate with opposing viewpoints would be a fine and illuminating way to clear up qualms about the Constitution. Instead, covertly filming a woman and provoking her on the subject seems just pathetic. The man was surprised, really? I'm not surprised. This tendency to make everything a sensation is a direct result of the out-of-control media growth we've experienced in the past decade. What is the point of this video anyway? To scare to Republicans to not send their kids to college? To fuel the fears of conspiracy theories and the like? This video does nothing to help people see that the way this woman thinks has a historical narrative behind it, that it can be logically seen and understood. It really plays to baseness of the viewer. The whole thing feels like electioneering. I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the video it said 'Funded by X University' in other words, 'these places suck, come to us!'

And the dude in the costume? They pretty much come out with it there. This is some kind of show. This is the worst of Americans, really. I mean someone on the left could covertly make a video and while interviewing a Holocaust revisionist and edit it to make that person look like a Nazi. I thought that we on the side of the Truth were above this?

Yea, no. Just no. As someone whose parents & several family members immigrated to America, as someone who really didn't like America as a teenager (I wanted to move to France), I pretty much view the Constitution as the closest thing to being sacred for a man-made document when it comes to governance. 

Yes, it's not "sacred" but you find anything better to use as a guide, or better yet, make one yourself. We'll see how that turns out.

And the scaring of Republicans -- well, given the atmosphere that pervades colleges & universities and the one-sided aspect of teaching I'd too be hesitant to send a kid to college when paying $$. 
Reply
#7
Oh, I almost forgot...

I see Ms. Kelly Grab's pic in the opening comments of the thread, that pic in the video still.

Holly Cats!!

She doesn't look at all 'reactionary', kinda like that deer-in-the-headlights look! 

Like she just sat on a toad or something...LOL
Reply
#8
Hell iff we get to shred stuff because its "triggering" in school now, Im gunna go ahead and shred John Stuart Mill, Marx, Hobbes, Rousseau, all the Islamic stuff I had to learn, hell if we get to shred stuff we don't like I might as well shred every single bit of material Iv learned in my 4 years of trying to get a Political Science degree. Liberals are by far the most ridiculous, over emotional, irrational cretins on this earth. Blows my mind every time.
Reply
#9
(11-04-2015, 04:57 AM)xandratax Wrote: Some of the initial rebellion against the idea of the Constitution isn't bad, really. The one woman has a point, it isn't sacred. But the context that grows up out of this just becomes absurd. I mean if it's not sacred, why shred it? (Oh, it's the 'journalist' who suggested the shredding!)

But she did that to prove the point:  that America's universities coddle their students emotionally, leaving them totally unprepared for dealing with life. In this case, they were willing to shred the Constitution of the United States, the very basis of our rule of law (!), in order to keep a student from being "offended." This sort of thing isn't a "one-off"; it's par for the course here. I posted a thread (or two) about it here, and here's one of the articles I included somewhere along the line:  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...nd/399356/

(11-04-2015, 04:57 AM)xandratax Wrote: Would make more sense just to write a new one and say 'Here, this is why I think!' A nice intellectual and respectful debate with opposing viewpoints would be a fine and illuminating way to clear up qualms about the Constitution. Instead, covertly filming a woman and provoking her on the subject seems just pathetic.

Her response was pathetic. The entire "coddling of the American mind" is pathetic, and I totally disagree with you about covering this sort of thing. This phenomenon needs to be revealed, discussed, and done away with. It is killing us culturally (well, that and a slew of other things are doing us in).

(11-04-2015, 04:57 AM)xandratax Wrote: The man was surprised, really? I'm not surprised. This tendency to make everything a sensation is a direct result of the out-of-control media growth we've experienced in the past decade. What is the point of this video anyway? To scare to Republicans to not send their kids to college? To fuel the fears of conspiracy theories and the like? This video does nothing to help people see that the way this woman thinks has a historical narrative behind it, that it can be logically seen and understood. It really plays to baseness of the viewer. The whole thing feels like electioneering. I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the video it said 'Funded by X University' in other words, 'these places suck, come to us!'

I think the Cato Institute people are libertarians. But every American should be concerned about what's happening to free speech in the U.S. We don't have to know a thing about how that woman in the video views the historical narrative behind the Constitution; all we have to know is that universities are willing to shred the Constitution, never invite -- or disinvite already invited -- speakers who lean this side of Far Left/culturally Marxist, disparage men and EED people while not allowing any dissent, any opposing viewpoints, are willing to destroy young men's lives because of cries of "rape" that amount to next-morning regret, etc.

I don't think that video is associated with any political candidate whatsoever, or has anything to do with "electioneering"; it's showing what's going on at our campuses.

(11-04-2015, 04:57 AM)xandratax Wrote: And the dude in the costume? They pretty much come out with it there. This is some kind of show. This is the worst of Americans, really. I mean someone on the left could covertly make a video and while interviewing a Holocaust revisionist and edit it to make that person look like a Nazi. I thought that we on the side of the Truth were above this?

Just some guy wearing a Constitution costume, handing out copies of the Constitution (I find that a whole lot healthier than some girl who ties a mattress to her back to fight rape (or "rape") -- and who follows it up by making a porn video to fight against it).  Also, I didn't see any evidence of nefarious editing. This sort of thing IS happening on American campuses. Frequently! Free speech is dead, man.
Reply
#10
(11-04-2015, 12:27 PM)GRA Wrote: Yea, no. Just no. As someone whose parents & several family members immigrated to America, as someone who really didn't like America as a teenager (I wanted to move to France), I pretty much view the Constitution as the closest thing to being sacred for a man-made document when it comes to governance. 

Yes, it's not "sacred" but you find anything better to use as a guide, or better yet, make one yourself. We'll see how that turns out.

And the scaring of Republicans -- well, given the atmosphere that pervades colleges & universities and the one-sided aspect of teaching I'd too be hesitant to send a kid to college when paying $$.

How can any Catholic reconcile the Masonic Enlightenment inspired Constitution with their beliefs? I have been wondering this since I began to take Catholicism seriously. It doesn't surprise me that many posters on the forum are anarcho-monarchists. i have started leaning that direction recently, after much thought on this very subject.

The good ideas in the Constitution do not belong to it, nor would I bash them or rally against them. But those ideas don't come from the Constitution itself, they are a part of a greater ideal Truth, part of the teachings of Christ. They are eternal, which is why even the Greeks were able to glimpse into some of this before Jesus was even born. But many parts of the Constitution are purely Masonic, and historically steeped in the Enlightenment, which is a total rejection of our faith. Don't forget that out Constitution and our 'revolution' inspired the French Revolution.

Even though I do not hold the Constitution in high reverence, I'm still proud to be American and I love the US. But the things that I love about it are are not products of the Constitution. Rather, they are anarchistic and organically developed cultures and characteristics that came about through the particular immigrants who built the country up. Most immigrants had no idea what was in the Constitution before they arrived, and the idea of immigrating to a place for a better life, even the 'American Dream' is hardly original, let alone purely inspired by a political document. I have the best way to prove this: Canada. Canada is a nation almost exactly the same as ours. The differences are slight and accidental, to the point that you can hardly even tell a Canadian apart from an American. But they don't have our Constitution! This is perfectly explained by the immigrant organic culture that I mentioned earlier. Canada has it too because their country was also built by European immigrants, indigenous peoples and imported slaves, the only differences are geographic and demographic.

And in reply to Vox, the first woman approached in the video doesn't seem to be into it at all. She's treating the journalist like you would some crazy homeless or retarded person you just want to get away from quickly. I still don't think this 'shows what's going on in the universities' because it's FAKED. And I bet some of those people knew that from the outset. The shredding was suggested by the journalist, not the woman. And if the woman had responded angrily and kicked the person out of her office she'd probably be sued or what? Congratulated? The whole thing is so silly! There's other context here that's being overlooked. This whole non-sense politically correct oversenstiveness has already been written about by many good journalists in various articles, citing REAL examples. I don't understand what this wanna-be sting operation is adding to that. And if it's about free speech, well heck, isn't it my right to shred the Constitution if I want to?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)