Barbara Dansby at UC Irvine-UC Santa Barbara: The Universities Respond (Kind of)

A few days ago I posted an article about a scheduled Webinar at UC Irvine and UC Santa Barbara featuring Dr Barbara Dansby, a professor of African-American studies and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. As advertised, I sent emails to both diversity officers at the respective institutions asking when they might sponsor conservative speakers. I also informed them that I would be happy to post their responses in the event they cared to dispute my belief that the universities do not sponsor conservative speakers. 

Today, I have received replies from both diversity officers at these respective universities.

Here is my original email of January 6.

Dear Vice Chancellors Robnett and Haynes,

My name is Gary Fouse, and I am a former part-time teacher at UC Irvine Extension (1998-2016). I am writing to you regarding the January 13 Webinar featuring Dr Barbara Dansby, which is being sponsored by your offices.

Rather than go into details, I am linking what I have posted on my blog, Fousesquawk. I am not asking that the event be canceled since I do not believe in censoring the views of those I disagree with. What I am asking -challenging, in fact- is that you consider bringing in speakers with opposing points of view from those of Dr Dansby. If, in fact, you have in the past done so, please advise, and I will be happy to post your responses.

It is my opinion, based on experience and my own observations, that students in our universities are being exposed to a very one-sided view of issues affecting our country. While I have seen some conservative and/or pro-Israel speakers appear at UCI, they have invariably been invited by conservative student groups. On many occasions, they are disrupted.

Here is what I have already posted on my blog:

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2021/01/dr-barbara-dansby-to-speak-at-ucsbuci.html

If you disagree with my characterization, I will be happy to post any responses you care to give.

Sincerely,

Gary Fouse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the response from Belinda Robnett of UC Santa Barbara:

Hi Gary,

Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate your concerns. The DEI Office strives to protect First Amendment rights, and we embrace a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our Office seeks to foster a climate of acceptance for all members of the campus community. Since I am new to UCSB, I do not yet have a history of programming. As an institution of higher learning, I anticipate that many different voices will be afforded the opportunity to express a variety of perspectives.

Best regards,

Belinda

 THRIVING THROUGH REFORM, TOGETHER

Belinda Robnett
(She/Her/Hers)
Vice ChancellorDiversity, Equity and InclusionOffice: (805) 893-5114
Email: belindarobnett@ucsb.edu

University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106

The DEI Office wishes to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this place and all land upon which the University is located, and pay our respects to the Chumash Elders past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, and the culture of this area.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the response from Douglas Haynes at UC Irvine:

Dear Mr. Fouse, 

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email--dated Tuesday, January 6--regarding the Anti-Blackness: Difficult Dialogues series. This year long series features a variety of leading national scholars whose research expertise contributes to deepening our understanding about the national reckoning regarding anti-Black racism in the United States.  The scheduled presentation by Professor Ransby entitled "A Crucible Moment for Race in America: The Crisis of Racial Capitalism and the Challenge of the Movement for Black Lives" is no different. As a public research university, we do not select scholars based on their political views. 

 

If you are interested in learning more about UCI's Confronting Extremism program, please consult this link: https://inclusion.uci.edu/confronting-extremism/.

 

 

Douglas M Haynes

Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

https://inclusion.uci.edu

 

Professor of History 

https://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2755

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Fousesquawk comment: I plan to write more on this topic soon.

Denmark Wins Appeal on Deportation

Hat tip Fria Tider- Translation by Fousesquawk

Here is an interesting report from the conservative  Swedish site, Fria Tider. The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the deportation of a Pakistani career criminal from Denmark, where he was born, back to Pakistan. What makes this interesting is that the subject, Shuaib Khan, was born in Denmark. It is not clear whether he had ever visited Pakistan, but as the article outlines, he is not a Danish citizen, thus, is deportable even though he was born in Denmark.

https://www.friatider.se/europadomstolen-ratt-av-danmark-att-utvisa-andra-generationens-kriminella-invandrare

                                                                                             "And don't come back."

European Court: The right of  Denmark to deport second-generation criminal immigrants

Posted January 12, 2021

Foreign: Denmark's deportation of the criminal, Shuaib Khan, leader of a gang that made itself known for several serious violent crimes, does not go against the so-called human rights. That is reported by the European Court (of Human Rights) today.

Khan, who was born in Denmark in 1986 and is of Pakistani, third world, (nationality),  argued in the European Court that Denmark had "offended" his so-called human rights when the northern country deported him through a judgment by the Danish HD (Higher Court) in 2017.

To force him to live in his own country was, according to Khan, a "disproportionately" severe sentence. He had no (issues) with the other parts of the punishment, only appealing the deportation.

One reason Khan never became a Danish citizen is that he has hardly done anything other than commit crimes in Denmark. Between 2003 and 2017, he has been convicted 13 times, mainly for crimes against persons. 

Now Denmark has the right to execute deportations to Pakistan. 

"The Court reiterates that a state has the right to control foreign citizens' entry and stay there," wrote the Court in a press release. According to the European Court, deportations must still be proportionate, and it was in this case, the Court determined.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: From an American point of view, this raises eyebrows because, under American law, a foreign child born in the US is entitled to citizenship. That is not true in all countries, however. Of course, I find it troubling that Europe has a court that exercises jurisdiction over its EU member states, but that is another matter. 

At any rate, here's hoping Mr Khan enjoys the rest of his life in Pakistan, from where he won't be able to bother the Danish people any longer.

.

Campus Reform's Worst Anti-Semitic Incidents on Campus for 2020

I think we can all agree 2020 has been one crummy year in world history. When it comes to campus anti-Semitism, 2020 has been no exception. Ashley Stultz of Campus Reform has compiled a list of some of the worst incidents of the year.

 https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=16616

I would like to mention the professor who invited Leila Khaled to participate in an SFSU webinar, who is Rabab Abdulhadi, arguably the biggest embarrassment in US academia, and that's coming from a loaded field. The link in CR's article pertaining to SFSU features an interview from a sympathetic source with Abdulhadi in which she rails against several Jewish and Zionist organizations. Yet she claims not to be anti-Semitic.

Keep in mind as we encounter more and more anti-Jewish attacks in our country, it is the campus from which most of this has sprouted.

Mexico: President Obrador Criticizes Facebook Censorship

Hat tip RAIR Foundation, Vlad Tepes, and Gates of Vienna. Translation by Fousesquawk.

On Thursday, Mexican President  Andrés Manuel López Obrador made a critical public statement about the censorship policies of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. 

In the translation, which is from RT (Deutschland) and done for RAIR Foundation, there are two segments where a question is being asked from the press. Both segments are cut off mid-sentence and the context is unclear, so we have not translated them.

He's Baaaack! Arnold Schwarzenegger's Soapy and Hypocritical Video

 Yes, Folks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, aka Governor Katzenjammer, is back in the news. The scruffy-faced, failed former governor of California has produced a 7+-minute video, with flags of America and California in the background and on his jacket, symphony music playing and all. He is piling on President Trump, calling him the "worst president in our history" and comparing what happened at the Capitol on January 6 to the "Night of the Broken Glass" in Germany in 1938. 

Whatever one thinks of Trump and the events of January 6, Schwarzenegger's video smacks of opportunism. I myself have condemned the actions of the rioters, but it's a stretch to compare it to "Kristallnacht", which happened in cities all over Germany and were specifically directed at Jews. If Arnold wants to compare the Proud Boys to the SA, he may or may not have an argument, but I would compare the SA more to Antifa, who Arnold neglected to mention. 

As for refusing to accept the results of the election, there is a reason millions of people do not. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was a stolen election. Schwarzenegger should also recall that for four years, the Democrats, the media and the left refused to accept the result of the 2016 election and used every hook or crook to try to remove Trump from office.

And if Arnold thinks he can hold himself up as some kind of moral voice at this sad time in our history, he is delusional. The only thing this guy could do well was pump iron. He may have made millions as an actor, but those skills were non-existent. He was also an incompetent governor, who, in his final day in office, became a corrupt governor when he commuted the murder sentence of the son of his political pal, Fabian Nuñez. Not only did he not advise the family of the murder victim, but this is the guy who scoffed and joked when a reporter tried to ask him about it. And all the while, Arnold was producing a secret love child while playing hide-the-baloney with his housemaid.

None of the above is meant to defend Trump's actions and definitely not the actions of the Capitol mob, but Schwarzenegger is a total hypocrite and a phony. So put away the Conan sword and the flags, Arnold, and please send the sym-phony orchestra home. We don't need your moral lectures.

UK: Life in Prison for Libyan Refugee Who Murdered 3

                                                                                     Khairi  Saadallah: Photo-Sky News

Khairi Saadallah, a 26-year-old Libyan refugee has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the knife attack last June in which he killed three men and injured three others while shouting, "Allahu Akhbar". The court rejected the defense claims of insanity and determined that Saadallah was motivated by terrorism.

 https://news.sky.com/story/khairi-saadallah-terrorist-who-murdered-three-in-brutal-reading-attack-gets-whole-life-sentence-12184977

This is the cost of admitting millions of so-called refugees from countries like Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and others. How many people in Europe have been slaughtered by ungrateful refugees who are determined to destroy the values of the welcoming countries and impose their own Islamic hell in their place?

The Academic Lynching of Law Professor John Eastman

On Wednesday, prior to President Trump's speech to protesters in Washington, Rudy Giuliani spoke to the crowd. He then introduced Professor John Eastman a conservative Constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California. Eastman described how voting machines were allegedly rigged using algorithms to help Joe Biden get the needed number of votes to defeat President Trump. It should be noted that while both speakers passionately stated their belief that the election was stolen, neither encouraged violence, and neither made any mention of the marching to the Capitol. Yet, in addition to President Trump, both men are being accused of engaging in incitement. In addition, efforts are ongoing by some at Chapman University to have Eastman fired. A similar move is underway at Colorado University at Boulder, where Eastman is a visiting professor. The presidents of both universities have severely criticized Eastman's remarks but are refusing to fire him citing First Amendment protections.

The words of both Giuliani and Eastman can be seen here (hat tip Ugetube.com).

Last month, Eastman first came under fire for joining Trump's legal team in a court filing. He was accused of improperly using his work contact information at Chapman in the filing (hat tip Legal Insurrection). 

Now, in the wake of Wednesday's events, Chapman president Daniele Struppa is facing demands to fire Eastman. In two statements to the campus community, Struppa has condemned Eastman but refuses to fire him.

"This week, John Eastman, a member of the Chapman faculty, played a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy."

That is an inaccurate and very unfair characterization. Eastman had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that took place at a separate location, in this case, the Capitol. As previously stated, he neither encouraged violence nor a march to the Capitol, let alone the storming of the Capitol. He expressed his belief that the election was stolen and outlined his reasons. 

Here is Struppa's follow-up statement to the campus.

In addition, Phil DiStefano, President of the University of Colorado, Boulder, strongly condemned Eastman's speech even while conceding his first amendment rights and refusing to fire him.

While the presidents of Chapman and Colorado University are correct in defending Eastman's First Amendment rights and refusing to bend to the demands to fire him, their characterizations of Eastman's words and actions are unfair. As to the December issue when Eastman joined the Trump legal team, our recent history is rife with incidents when university professors have appeared on Capitol Hill to testify, and their university affiliations were prominently noted. Did we not know that Anita Hill was a professor at the University of Oklahoma when she leveled charges against Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings? Even Joe Biden should remember that. He presided over the hearings. What about when the Brett Kavanaugh hearings were taken over by the accusations of Christine Blasey Ford? And who was Christine Blasey Ford? A professor at Palo Alto University. That was hardly kept from the public as she testified. And how about that Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who came to Washington to testify at Trump's impeachment hearings that the President had, indeed, committed impeachable offenses (in her opinion). We all knew she was a Stanford law professor. It was right there on the TV screen. How many times has that prominent Harvard Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, weighed in on controversial issues, often on Capitol Hill, with his Harvard affiliation prominently displayed? Perhaps we should leave Hill and Ford off the list because, after all, they were the alleged victims, but don't tell me that university professors who enter the political arena are supposed to hide their credentials and pose as shoe salesmen. If it's OK for Pamela Karlan, it's OK for John Eastman.

To sum up, what we have here is an attack on Eastman for taking the side of President Trump in the election controversy. In academia, that is considered an unpardonable sin. To link him to the violence at the Capitol is wrong. That, however, will not stop the campus Jacobins from continuing their attacks. It is a sad commentary on the state of our universities today.

France: Justice at Rouen

Hat tip Paris-Normandie

                                                                                 "Hey, what about that rapist dude?"

Five hundred and ninety years ago, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake at Rouen, France. Almost 600 years later, a young man was raped in that same city. This week, a French court sentenced the perpetrator to.......

8 years. (Had ya going, didn't I?) 

The below article from Paris-Normandie is translated by Fousesquawk.

 https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id154432/article/2021-01-07/condamne-huit-ans-de-prison-ferme-pour-le-viol-dun-jeune-homme-rouen

Posted online January 7, 2021 at 5:01 am

Sentenced to 8 years in prison for the rape of a young man at Rouen

Crime. A man has been sentenced by the criminal court of Seine-Maritime for having raped a young man in an apartment in Rouen.

At the beginning of the week, a man of Afghan origin was sentenced by the criminal court of Seine-Maritime to 8 years in prison for having raped a young man, aged 19 at the time of the (crime), in June 2019 at Rouen.  The court also pronounced a definitive ban from French territory against him. The (prosecutor) had requested 12 years imprisonment with sex crime registration. 

He denies the facts

The complainant had passed the accused on the street when (accused) invited him to his home for a drink. The (accused) had then locked him against his will for several hours before raping him in his room. From the window of the room where he was being held, the victim cried for help. The man finally freed him. The perpetrator of the crime denied the acts during two days of hearings that were conducted behind closed doors. He claimed that the sexual contact was consensual.

"This act has had important psychological consequences for my client," the civil lawyer (for the victim) Clemence Rousselet soberly commented.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Capitol Riot

 Now that Brian Sicknick of the Capitol Hill Police has died from injuries he suffered in Wednesday's storming of the Capitol, the death toll stands at 5. The other 4 persons who died are being identified as Trump supporters. There are still claims that some of the rioters were Antifa-types who infiltrated the protesters and participated. As yet, that is not yet confirmed. Whether that will turn out to be the case, I don't know, and I am trying to be cautious in my own comments until we know more. 

But those of us who have supported Trump and suspected that the election was stolen in states like Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, must own up to certain facts. Whether Antifa was involved or not, the involvement of individuals supporting Trump cannot be denied. To me, this is not an indictment of all those who went to Washington to protest what they felt was a stolen election. They were not wrong to do so. They were not wrong to march to the Capitol though it was a bad decision. Those who went the extra step and broke into the Capitol were wrong-period. They need to be identified and prosecuted. 

We also need to face the fact that right-wing, white nationalist groups are on the rise. We can say this is a natural reaction to all the left-wing violence and craziness going on, but that doesn't make it right when you are pushing hate and violence. This is not what conservatism is supposed to be all about. Now we have a dead Capitol police officer, and as a retired law enforcement agent, I am even madder today at those who caused this death.

One thing I have learned from personal experience. When you call for a demonstration, you cannot completely control who shows up. Others may share your views but believe in different tactics. Thus, the words and actions of others may bring embarrassment to those who wanted to peacefully assemble and voice their protests. Thousands of patriots who went to Washington to protest peacefully have now learned that lesson. The media, the Democrats and the left are now having a field day smearing everyone, especially Trump. If you thought conservatives had a target on their backs and their free speech rights were endangered before, just wait until the Democrats take control on January 20. But take power they will. It's done and all we can hope for, however naively, is that what went on November 3 will be fully investigated. If it was, indeed, an honest election, so be it. We at least need to know- not for Trump's sake, but for the sake of our democracy.

Speaking of Trump, does he bear any responsibility for what happened? I have read the text of his speech. It was pretty much the same speech he has been giving for a long time. Was it the wrong speech at the wrong time given what ensued? It is easy to conclude that. Perhaps, he should have recognized the potential for trouble and simply told the crowd to make their way home at that point rather than ask them to walk to the Capitol. In a legal sense, I don't see him guilty of incitement. He didn't tell them to break into the Capitol. He didn't tell them to shut down the proceedings. Did he fire them up when he said things like, "We're not going to stand for it?" Probably. But the idea of holding him criminally liable for incitement after he leaves office is insane. The legal standards for such charges are pretty high.

In hindsight, it would have been great if his police and intelligence sources had determined that some wrong-minded people were out there and that they should not be encouraged to march to the Capitol. Should the police and security have been beefed up knowing that there were thousands of angry people in town on the same day that Congress was debating and certifying the election results? It appears so.

I still think that in the coming days and weeks, we will have a better idea of whether or not Antifa-types were involved. Thus far, none of the people identified as yet fit that category. It comes down to this: Whoever took part in breaching the Capitol needs to be prosecuted, whatever their political ideas, whatever their motivations. We can-and should- point out the hypocrisy of the media and the left in not having expressed the same moral outrage and indignation this past summer when our cities were burning at the hands of left-wing mobs, but that doesn't make what happened in Washington this week right. 

Sweden: Two Sentenced for Rape and Torture of Two Swedish Youths

 Last year, we reported on a shocking case of two Swedish boys who were kidnapped, beaten, raped and tortured in a cemetery near Stockholm. The boys were even reportedly buried alive (but survived) Two men were arrested, and this week they were convicted and sentenced to 5-1/2 years and 9 years respectively. 

The below article from Exakt24, a Swedish site, is translated by Fousesquawk.

https://www.exakt24.se/fangelse-for-tortyr-av-svenska-pojkar-pa-kyrkogard/

Caption below photos: Mohamed Amin El Hani, 18 and Ali Janali Asl, 21, get mild punishment

Prison for torture of Swedish boys in a cemetery

5 hours ago (updated 1-7-21)

During an entire night, two immigrant men beat, threatened, raped and tortured two young Swedish boys in a cemetery. The boys' injuries were extensive and their tormenters' sadism stands out, even among the increasing "humiliation robberies" that are directed at ethnic Swedes. Now the two men, Mohamed -Amin El Hani, 18, and Ali Jahani Asl, 21, are sentenced to prison for 5-1/2 years and 9 years respectively for a long list of charges.

What Happened Today in Washington

 I suppose I will be writing a much longer article on today's events in Washington later on when the dust settles. I still have some questions in my mind about what took place in the Capitol Building. Some are suggesting that some of the rioters may have been Antifa types in disguise. I have no idea. 

In addition, I have not had a chance to listen to President Trump's full speech to the protesters before they marched to the Capitol. I have heard one segment, and I didn't like it. I would hope that most of those who came to Washington simply to protest peacefully did so and did not participate in the violence. There is no doubt, however, that many did, and those individuals should be ashamed.

One thing I want to say right now is that those who took part in the storming of the Capitol are to be condemned, and hopefully, every last one of them will be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is the kind of conduct that we expect from Antifa, not true patriots. These scenes from the Capitol today are sickening, and every decent American should condemn them.

It is true that millions of Americans feel that the election was stolen, and they are angry about it. I am angry, and I want a full investigation-which probably will never happen now. It is true that the media is having a field day tonight. Where were they when Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland were burning? Where were Joe Biden's condemnations then? 

But that is no excuse to riot and storm our Capitol. This has brought shame to our nation and will be a permanent stain on Donald Trump's legacy. This may even turn out to be the death knell of the Republican Party. That would be a true tragedy, not because I am a great admirer of the party, but our democracy will not survive a one-party system-not for one day.

One last thought: I know Vice President Pence is taking a lot of heat this week from some quarters and today as well. It is undeserved. He is conducting himself with honor and standing for the Constitution and the Republic.

What the Hell is happening to our great country?

Dr Barbara Dansby to Speak at UCSB/UCI Webinar

Last month we reported on a webinar held on December 15 on the topic of anti-Semitism featuring a curious cast of charters given the topic. The participants included Rashida Tlaib, Peter Beinart, and Marc Lamont Hill, all fierce critics of Israel. Two of them have been accused of being anti-Semites themselves while Beinart is from a  Jewish background. The event was sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP- an anti-Israel group) and several other, anti-Israel, leftist groups. Here is more on the event from the blog, Fighting the New Anti-Semitism.

The 4th participant was someone I was not familiar with, Barbara Dansby, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her fields are African-American Studies and Gender Studies. I take more interest now because she is slated to speak on January 13 at a similar event entitled: 

A Crucible Moment for Race in America: The Crisis of Racial Capitalism and the Challenge of the Movement for Black Lives

The event is sponsored by several groups associated with UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine (where I taught part-time 1998-2016). The principal sponsoring offices at these two universities are the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at UCSB and the Office of Inclusion and Excellence at UCI.

So who is Barbara Dansby? To give you a flavor, here is an op-ed on feminism appearing in The Guardian in 2017 and co-signed by several female activists including Dansby. I am not familiar with all of them, but I am familiar with Angela Davis and Rasmea Odeh.

In addition, The Canary Mission is a blog devoted to identifying people on college campuses whom they consider to be anti-Semitic. Here is what they have to say about Barbara Dansby.

In spite of my concession in the first paragraph that I was unfamiliar with Dansby, I will go out on a limb here and say that, based on all the above links, she is a leftie and an opponent of Israel. That's OK though I disagree with the leftist philosophy and I support Israel.

If I infer from the title of her upcoming talk that she is against Capitalism, that is OK, too though I would disagree.

I think it is also safe to say that she has devoted her career to fighting apartheid in South Africa and issues affecting black Americans. That is OK, too. 

Like Dansby, I am also against violence and suppression against women. No problem there.

This is a free country, and Dr Dansby is entitled to her views. I would agree that apartheid in South Africa was wrong and that racism against Black Americans is also wrong. I am sure there are many areas where I completely disagree with her views. I would particularly take issue with her association with and support of convicted former terrorist, Rasmea Odeh, who is, fortunately, now residing in some other country since she was deported from the US.  But none of that is the point.

Here is the point I want to make: I am not demanding that this event be canceled. Dansby and the two universities have the First Amendment right to put her on and let her spout her views to the faculty and students. Nor would I ever attempt to disrupt her event as her colleagues at JVP would do and have done. Yet, I would challenge these two diversity offices at UCSB and UCI to occasionally sponsor a speaker with a different point of view. Perhaps someone who supports Israel. Perhaps someone who thinks America is still a great country in spite of its dark chapters and its present-day flaws. Perhaps someone who supports Capitalism. How about an occasional conservative? How about a Republican or (gasp) a Trump supporter?

Now, maybe I'm all wet. It could be that either office at UCSB or UCI could respond and say, "Yes, we have brought in such speakers and here they are and the dates they spoke." I would welcome such a response. However, I have issued such a challenge in the past with UCI, and it went nowhere. Maybe things have changed since then.

So I am sending this post to the two respective offices and repeating my challenge. I will be happy to post whatever response I get even if it proves me wrong.

Oh, and.....speakers invited by conservative student groups or pro-Israel student groups don't count.