Playing the Victim Card

The recent controversies at Kennesaw State University revealed a great deal about the mindset of liberals and progressives.  These neo-Marxists are prone to considering themselves victims—even when they are the aggressors.  They complain about being bullied when they do the bullying.

This latest round of false posturing began when president Sam Olens of KSU refused to allow the cheerleaders to engage in a protest at the start of our football games.  He decreed that they stay in the locker room rather then permit them to emulate the disrespect of the flag shown in the NFL.

Then, to compound matters, Olens refused to permit the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education to run an ad that specified the university was looking for a math professor who valued “social justice.”  It was only this term to which the president objected, but its withdrawal was enough to set off a firestorm of indignation.

Let me begin with this latter issue.  When we discussed it at a sociology department meeting, I pointed out that this had become a code word.  “Social justice” is not the equivalent of “justice.”  It is a left wing variant that denotes complete social equality.

The point is that, in making this a qualification for employment, conservatives were being warned they need not apply.  They would not be judged on their mathematical expertise or pedagogical skills, but their political correctness.

My liberal colleagues objected to this characterization by insisting they simply meant to exclude faculty members who were not respectful of minorities.  This was disingenuous in two respects.  First, very few academics are neo-Nazis.  Second, our school, as well as most others, has a long track record of excluding conservatives.

As for the cheerleaders, as was noted in the NFL case, when they are in uniform and on the playing field they are the agents of an organization.  They are not merely representing themselves, but it.

The analogy I used to explain why this is inappropriate derives from the classroom.  If I, as a sociology professor, attempted to convert my students to Judaism—or Islam—I would be out of line.  I was hired to teach sociology, not spark in a religious revival.

If my religion is so important to me that I feel compelled to proselytize, I ought to do this on my own time.  Just as I publish opinion columns as a private citizen, so might the cheerleaders.  They were not being “muzzled,” but told there is a time and place for political activity.

This, however, is not how many of my colleagues saw it.  They demanded that the students be allowed to express their dissent.  To fail to tolerate opposition when the anthem played was a violation of their rights.  They were merely communicating their horror at the persistence of racial discrimination.

Given this progressive interpretation of events, my coworkers perceived Olens as a bully.  He was accused of abusing his position to advance his own political agenda.  How dare he tell professional mathematicians that they could not write the employment ad they wanted.  How dare he suppress the moral initiatives of well meaning students.

But Olens is president of the university.  He has the responsibility to preserve its academic integrity.  He thus not only has the right, but the duty, to prevent those who work for, or attend, the school from overstepping their bounds. 

And make no mistake; it was the education faculty and cheerleaders who went too far.   They, not he, began this affair.  They pushed their outrage onto center stage.  In playing the race card—which is what they did—they challenged others to prohibit this effort at intimidation.

The attitude of the “protesters” was epitomized by how one on my colleagues defended them.  Our departmental discussion of these matters began with the chair asking for civility.  It ended with him asserting that civilization and civility were racist plots.

Asking people to exercise self-control and follow the rules were essentially castigated for preventing minorities from obtaining for their rights.  These were depicted as tactics for keeping people down so they could never achieve full equality. 

If so, our society will end in self-immolation.  We will undoubtedly burn in a paroxysm of misplaced self-righteousness.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University