How It Works in “Liberal” Dominated Academia, Episode 1

By Pie Guevara

Pie Guevara appears in Post Scripts courtesy of Jack Lee and Tina Grazier. Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton.  So there!

I have debated at some length about whether to launch this as a regular feature. Not because it is not worthy of blogging about but that the task is so daunting. I could blog 5 times a day on this subject for a year and barely scratch the surface. There are so many other things to do. So many other things to write about.

Nevertheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so here we go with Episode 1. Let me call this an “irregular” feature as this sort of lets me off the hook on blogging about it on a schedule.

Please note that in the title “Liberal” is in quotes. That is because “Liberal” Dominated Academia is hardly liberal. It is stone cold (often fascistic) progressive leftism which rejects traditional and classical liberal values and is an intellectually closed tribal system.

The Venue: Boston University
The Protagonist: Professor Spencer Piston, political science
Supporting role: Professor Michael Zank, religion, Jewish studies
Supporting role in absentia: Ben Shapiro, political commentator, public speaker, author, lawyer, humorist
Cast Extra: An anonymous student
Playing The Fool: Tripartite role, see The Protagonist, Supporting role and Cast Extra above

On Monday (2019-12-9) Professor Spencer Piston, offered a “refutation” of Ben Shapiro’s Boston University November lecture “America Was Not Built On Slavery, It Was Built On Freedom.”

Professor Michael Zank (as warm up stooge) introduced Professor Spencer Piston saying that the title of Shapiro’s speech was nonsense and intended to provoke.

When Professor Piston began to deliver his remarks he revealed that he didn’t actually attend the talk by Shapiro that he was going to refute. He was just going to respond to the “premise” of Shapiro’s argument.

A description of the event stated  — The featured speaker, Professor Spencer Piston (Political Science), will offer a factual refutation of Shapiro’s assertion that slavery has no continuing impact on American inequality and that people end up in poverty because of “poor choices.”

In other words part of Piston’s “refute” as claimed by the promotion of his event was that Shapiro in his talk asserted slavery has no continuing impact on American society.

Just the facts, ma’am…

The problem with Piston’s own premise and the lecture description is that neither is a factual. How could Piston give a “factual refutation” not knowing the facts since he did not attend Shapiro’s talk? In fact, Shapiro in his lecture did not assert what Piston and the promotion description claims. He, in fact, stated the “truth to the idea that economic history impacts economic present.”

Shapiro’s talk at Boston University appears in its entirety in an embedded video below. Judge for yourselves.

So, here we have a highly paid university professor “refuting” a guest lecturer without even having attended the lecture and “refuting” something that was not actually asserted.

Must be nice work if you can get it.

Now here is something even more interesting than Professor Piston’s absurd lecture premise. During the Q&A a student asked “One of the big issues that the group that invited Ben Shapiro here said is that they want students to engage in ideas that differ with their own, which I think is very valid. But why does that mean we have to bring someone like him to campus, who we know spews hate speech, and it takes money away from other groups so that we can pay for their security… How do we engage with the ideas that are prevalent, that are important to engage, without actually inviting these figures to campus. How do we work with the administration to do that?”

Professor Piston replied, “I think that’s a great point and I do think that’s the first step.”

Yep, the first step is to marginalize guest speakers with accusations and ridiculous slurs of hate speech and try to keep “them” off campus to begin with via excuses over the cost of security. Perhaps security would not cost so much if students were not such a threat to certain speakers, eh?

Oh yeah, this is a crucial first step. Ideologically regulate what is, ostensibly, a market place for the free association of ideas. Screw the free association and keep “them” off campus by any means necessary.

The good news: Unfortunately for any of the anti-free speech snowflakes at Boston University attending Professor Piston’s lecture their previous efforts to shut down Shapiro the month before failed badly. Perhaps this is why they are so upset. The Young Americas Foundation/Young Americans for Freedom organization’s resounding success in presenting Shapiro indicates that “liberal” dominated academia is starting to show a few cracks.

The Young Americans for Freedom organization is a project of the Young Americas Foundation (YAF). The Young Americans For Freedom is the high school and college student focus organization of YAF.
Young Americas Foundation
Young Americans For Freedom
I know where some of my gift giving dollars will go this holiday season.

2 minutes 14 seconds —

Interesting interviews outside the lecture, nearly 30 minutes —

Shapiro’s talk 1 hour 11 minutes presented by Young Amreica’s Foundatuion, the crowd in attendance was largely enthusiastic. It is funny, it is stimulating, it is incisive, encouraging and thought provoking. A must see and required viewing. There will be a quiz on Monday —

YAFTV on YouTube 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to How It Works in “Liberal” Dominated Academia, Episode 1

  1. RHT447 says:

    Well looky here, right there in River City–

    “Profs: College Republicans have ‘white supremacist’ views, supporting Trump’s re-election a ‘racist provocation'”

  2. Peggy says:

    Great video. Hopefully, everyone will take the time to watch it.

    Let me take the opportunity to add some information I discovered last year while doing some research into my mostly Irish ancestry. I began with the Ancestry. Com app. and traced every side of mine and my husbands family tree all of the way back to their arrival by ship from their country of origin. After I was done I decided to look deeper into my Irish history and the meaning of “Black-Irish.” I’d always assumed it was from the Spanish wars with England and its surrounding territories. I was wrong. It originated from the blending of Irish and Black slaves sent to English owned plantations in Barbados, Antigua and other surrounding West Indies and Caribbean islands. From there they were sold to plantations primarily in Virginia.

    The Irish slaves because of their cooler homeland climate and light skin, which burned too easily in the hot sun, became known as “redlegs” and were deemed less valuable and disposable. They couldn’t do the same amount of work as the Black slaves from the Africa nations and treated more harshly. Since Irish slaves were of less value they sold for less too, so plantation owners started breeding the Irish with the Blacks to improve their physical worth and market value.

    Instead of going into greater detail I will provide below a couple of links from the Irish Historical Society and various documentaries with additional links to explore, if interested. I hope this dispels the lie that all Irish were Indentured Servants, when in truth most were slaves and some were indentured.

    The Black Irish of Montserrat Irish accents in the Caribbean:

    “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

    Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

    From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

    During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

    Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

    As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.”

    The Irish Sugar Slaves of Barbados:

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Interesting stuff. I never knew the true story of the Black Irish and assumed it had something to do with the Moors when they conquered, occupied and controlled Spain.

      My grandmother on my mother’s side was a McDaniel. The name McDaniel results from an erroneous Anglicization of the Gaelic name Mac Dhomnuill, which means son of Donald and is normally Anglicized MacDonald. When pronounced in Gaelic Donald and Daniel sound very similar.

      It is not known but I surmise that because she identified herself as Irish that her ancestry came from the west coast of Ireland and her family ancestors were migrants from the west coast of Scotland. Over a couple centuries they essentially became Irish and did not distinguish themselves as Scotch or Scotch-Irish.

      As such, I wear the Irish National Tartan (a modern invention), the ancient solid color saffron cloth (not a tartan) and on of the various McDonald (i.e. Mac Dhomnuill) tartans when I sport a kilt.

  3. Chris says:

    How could Piston give a “factual refutation” not knowing the facts since he did not attend Shapiro’s talk?

    Is it possible that he watched the video of the talk that you linked to in this very article?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *