I’m not really sure where to start here. We could start by looking at some of the things said before the latest election that saw Donald Trump win the election. Here is a typical headline by the Washington Times: Democrats warn of a racist uprising if Donald Trump loses election. There were a lot of people who didn’t like Trump, who were predicting that there would be violence if Trump were to loose. Now that we can look back at that, we have to wonder, was this projecting on their part? We may never know for sure, but anyone who thinks for themselves has to wonder.

Let’s start by looking at what Berkley used to stand for. If you go to their home page at www.berkeley.edu, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the Equity, Inclusion & Diversity link, you can see the following text:

Each day, the Division of Equity and Inclusion works to build a campus where there are no ‘others’; where our diverse ethnicities and cultures, backgrounds and identities, struggles and strengths make us—the students, researchers, faculty, and staff—all the richer.

As you can see from this diversity message, they specifically say “there are no ‘others’”. So they are indicating that since there are no divisions between people, that they are all in fact together one people. And if they are all one people, wouldn’t that mean if someone has something they feel important to say, they would applaud that and listen to them? And that is what this was all about. There was a controversial speaker scheduled to speak at Berkeley that evening, and some people didn’t want anyone to hear what he had to say. Now if a particular individual doesn’t want to hear what someone has to say, they can just not be present in the room the discussion is happening, but in todays society, when someones speech is labeled as ‘hate’ speech, even without any evidence, it is no longer ‘tolerated’ by some. On many college campuses this is known as Social Justice. I did find an interesting article on Social Justice called “Social Justice: Not What You Think It Is” which is fascinating.

Now the idea of Social Justice is interesting in that it is looking for equality in general. Now there are different kinds of equality. The first one I will talk about is Equality of Opportunity. The idea here is that everyone should have the same opportunity as everyone else. So, if two people apply for a job, the one that is more qualified for the job based on their skills should get the job. It should not be based on race, religion, sex, age, or anything else. If the person is qualified for the job, and they are more qualified than anyone else, nothing else should matter. I think there are very few people in the US today who would have any kind of a problem with this.

The next type of equality is Equality of Outcome. In this case, the idea is that outcomes must be equal. There is a good example in that there are only a fraction of women in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields as compared to men, and that the only way things are equal is if this country is 50% female, then the STEM fields should contain 50% females. The problem with that is the STEM fields are preferred by men. Just as teaching is preferred by women. If we followed this logic through, then 50% of lumberjacks should be women, and coal mines should contain 50% women. And I don’t see anyone complaining that these last two jobs are filled with mostly men. The problem with Equality of Outcome is that it doesn’t take into account what individuals want. The important thing to understand is that there are general differences between men and women. For instance, women are generally better caregivers, as in the past, they have cared for the children of society, where the men were out risking their lives hunting for food. Of course there are exceptions, but here I’m talking about generalities. The other problem is if a hiring manager of a STEM business has too many men, they are limited to only hiring women, which could leave them short handed, even if there are qualified men for the job. This just isn’t good business in a free market.

So, enough about Social Justice, what about the riots? Now to be fair, most people at this protest were actually non-violent, and as always, when a protest turns violent, it is usually just a few who instigate it all. The big question is who were these violent people? Were they students? They could be called “Agitators”, but what kind of agitators were they? Were they “home grown” agitators, or were they funded by someone similar to what I mentioned in my “Expose the Agitators!” post? Any way you look at it, these violent people are trying to put a stop to free speech in this country, and that cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, then we will be taking a giant step back in time.

Let me know what you think!