Yet another tale of infantile identity politics from a post-American university campus

Mike Adams reports on how the Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion at UC Wilmington helped various demographics - some made up out of whole cloth quite recently - stage separatist graduation events:

"A summit for black faculty, staff and graduate students in the UNC system drew more than 90 participants to UNC Wilmington. Navigating Challenging Waters: Achieving Success in the Academy was held April 24-25 in the Education Building. It was hosted by the UNC Wilmington Black Faculty and Staff Association (BFSA), in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion ..."

With straight faces, the university actually boasted that it held a racially segregated event (a "black" summit), sponsored by a racially segregated organization (a "black" association), and did so with the help of an office of "inclusion." These people are so full of nonsense that they see more racism in terms like "these people" than they do in terms like "black association."

But it gets even worse. UNCW has also announced a separate graduation ceremony for homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and other "queer-identified" students. The official announcement, written by a UNCW English professor, reads "Join us to celebrate the graduation of LGBTQIA students and those students who have eared {sic} a minor in Women's and Gender Studies."

I hate to be picky but I remember a time when English professors knew how to spell. But that was before the university started to pay them to teach sexual politics and to constantly interject sex into the workplace - as opposed to actually teaching spelling and literature. The criticism may sound harsh, but they've "eared" every bit of it.

There's a real damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't quality to these developments.  White male heterosexuals are expected to be "inclusive," but everybody else gets to stage events to which white male heterosexuals are clearly not invited.

Then there's the whole dichotomy within the feminist world between the hard-core separatists who wouldn't go within twenty miles of a penis, and those who consider lots of random heterosexual sex "empowering."  Robert Stacy McCain has been looking into this a lot lately:

The arguments of radical lesbian feminists are, to me, preferable to the liberal “pro-sex” feminists like Amanda Marcotte, whose objective seems to be to defend women’s “right” to shame-free promiscuity. Radical feminists see the “pro-sex” embrace of heterosexual hedonism as a dishonest betrayal of feminism: How are women fighting the patriarchy by sucking cock? The paradox is self-evident.

His overall point is that, for the feminist, as for any kind of leftist, it always comes down to power dynamics:

Radical feminists perceive everything, including happiness, as a zero-sum game: Anything that makes men happy can only be obtained by a process of subtraction from the happiness of women. 

A leftist of any specialty has to have some perceived entrenched class within society that is holding all other groups under its thumb in order to keep up the feeling that "the established order" must be fought against.  That's what's going on when there are race-specific and sexual-orientation-specific graduation events at universities.

The world they strive for is a world utterly devoid of human warmth.  It is a world of micromanagement, busybody regulations, speech codes, rules for use of your own land, "open enrollment" periods for the simple consumer act of buying some health insurance, and legalistic, mechanistic agreements about engaging in intimacy.

It's all marketed with a smiley-face, by "offices of inclusion" and human rights councils and the EPA and inquiries about disparate rates of discipline in public schools.

Post-America is a sad, tawdry, brittle place.