concerning the philosophy of MLK and non violent resistance. the FBI will release the documents concerning the movement in 2024. Most of us will live to see the release of this information. It will prove without a doubt that MLK was not committed to the philosophy of non violence and was in fact using it as a public relations stunt for a movement that was committed to violent revolution. many of my generation have been indoctrinated into the philosophy of MLK, but in a little over a decade we will see that in fact the FBI and CIA were interested in furthering the flawed propaganda of MLK because they used it as a means to control populations to this day. MLK was a lot more dynamic then most historians have given him credit for and it is a great irony that a charade that he used to further a very worthy cause was eventually used to subdue that same cause for half a century. justice, freedom and the right to live in dignity are not accomplished with non violence. it is only through revolutionary struggle that the rights articulated in our constitution are upheld. It is very sad to see how much abuse is done in the name of non violence. it would of been impossible for MLK to of known that his own revolutionary charade would of been used against him after his death.
|so the students of this Chicago University
can not have dialogs about this….
|…but of course attacks on Israel
by professors they hired is fine?
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has the details. The university admits that it is excluding the group from generally available student group registration benefits, because the university disapproves of the group’s message:
Considerable research indicates the use of cannabis does not contribute to healthy decision-making, particularly in college-age populations. Given the above, the University determined that recognizing the “Students for Cannabis Policy Reform Group” as a DePaul student organization would not be congruent with out institutional goals regarding the health and well-being of our students.
I rather doubt that recognizing such a group would materially affect the level of marijuana use by DePaul students. But denying recognition would affect the amount of debate about marijuana policy that takes place. Sounds like unhealthy decision-making on the university’s part to me.
DePaul is a private university, so it’s free to engage in unhealthy decision-making. But banning the expression of some views, it seems to me, is the gateway drug to broader restrictions as well, restrictions that are even more dangerous to the culture of debate and discussion that universities, private and public, ought to be promoting. DePaul itself has officially stated, in its Guiding Principles on Speech and Expression that it is “committed to fostering a community that welcomes open discourse.” And while that document seems to suggest that DePaul’s Catholic mission may support some restrictions aimed at protecting “dignity,” “respect,” and “civility,” I don’t see anything in that statement that justifies discrimination against student speech that promotes legalization of marijuana. So I’m glad that FIRE is taking DePaul to task for its position.
Finally, DePaul’s letter suggests that denying recognition to the student group would still leave open “myriad opportunities for students to gather together and express their views to the larger community regarding the use of and/or legalization of cannabis.” But if indeed the group will be able to speak as effectively without the benefits of recognition, then I don’t see how the university’s action will further its stated goals. And if the university’s action will somehow diminish the amount of speech that might promote “[un]healthy decision-making,” then that must mean that the university hopes the group will not speak as effectively without the benefits of recognition.