To the list of things that doctrinaire advocates of “diversity” and “tolerance” just can't tolerate, add proper use of the English language.
A University of California at Los Angeles professor is in hot water for having the temerity to correct “the grammar, punctuation and capitalization in minority students' assignments,” The Daily Caller reports.
A student group dubbed Call 2 Action: Graduate Students of Color maintains that Val Rust, a professor of education and information, was motivated by ideology when he told one minority student that “indigenous” should not be capitalized. The group further expressed its displeasure with Mr. Rust's “micro-aggression” by staging a sit-in during one of his subsequent classes.
“(The) barrage of questions by white colleagues and the grammar ‘lessons' by the professor have contributed to a hostile class climate,” the group stated.
Rust told his education-faculty colleagues he meant no offense. But, sadly, he's wrongly accepting undeserved blame, saying he probably offended the group earlier by not taking the side of a minority student who told a white female student she has no right to feel oppressed.
In truth, it's Rust who's oppressed — by upside-down, leftist-influenced thinking that uses bogus claims of racism to excuse what, by any objective standard, is simply incorrect use of English. And it's past time that such excuses stop being made at UCLA — or any other institution of higher education.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.