Rector Election Results

I just wanted to update everyone about the rector elections I recently ranted on for a very long time, and clarify some points I made earlier.

Also, before I begin, I would like to personally thank Austin Fimmano for editing the mess that was my grammar.  I have been lying this entire time and I apparently don't know how to use commas.  So, Austin, thank you for your help.

Firstly, I am very happy to announce that Milo was not voted as the Glasgow University Rector; rather, it was Aamer Anwar, a human rights lawyer. If anyone would like to read more about him, here's a quick news article about his victory here.

Secondly, I wanted to smooth over my overly passionate points I made about Milo, and the ideas of freedom of speech and science.

Milo, for me, represents just about everything I stand against in the world – I find everything he has advocated for to be gross misrepresentations at best; at worst, downright deplorable.

To advocate for freedom of speech, on the one hand, is a good thing. But when that freedom of speech is used solely to speak incendiary insults - what is the purpose? Milo's brand of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the actual freedom of speech, and everything to do with the purposeful spread of hateful rhetoric. If you all remember, politically correct (PC) culture was popular – and in some ways still is, despite its failings – during the Obama administration. I will admit PC culture lead to, in a great many instances, a form of whitewashing of people of color. For whatever reason, people twisted PC culture from showing respect to everyone to the idea of "I don't see color," which created a plethora of other problems considering that it was, first and foremost, a lie, but also that it ignored the complex web of oppression(s) that was and still is inherent in our society today.

However, the core idea behind PC culture I think was a good one - if we cauterized hate rhetoric from our speech, we would eventually cauterize the concepts from our minds. This came from a linguistic theory in which, quickly, language shapes our understanding of reality and we create concepts in language first, then project those concepts out onto the world.

Therefore, while I can't say anything inherently bad about freedom of speech, to insult a group of people based on race, religion, gender, and to defend the insult under the guise of freedom of speech - it begs the question: how much of the hate rhetoric was used to "defend" freedom of speech rather than posit the speaker into the forefront of the public eye. In essence, if one were to consistently place themselves into the public eye for "shock value" language, what is the freedom we're trying to preserve? And likewise, at what cost does freedom of speech have if one side of a debate is based on objectivity and the other based on populist (or marginal) opinion? There's something fundamentally different with claiming that freedom of speech and freedom of press allow us to criticize the powers that be, rather than someone defending freedom of speech to flare tensions that exist within the public sphere. If that freedom of speech is going to continue, then it must be up to all citizens to call it what it is - unfounded hate rhetoric and absolute crap. And to those who say it, they must be held accountable for the views they spread - and should be called out for who they are.

It is based on this logic that I attacked Trump in my recent post as well. With a pattern of racist, sexist, bigoted, irrational rhetoric, then Trump must be held accountable as a racist, sexist, irrational bigot. I have listened far too long to bad arguments and poor reasoning supporting his claims or deflecting these conversations. If we are constantly in need of someone to "tell it how it is," then so be it. Milo is a terrible person with political views that would grant him a top position in Hitler's Nazi Germany, and that is reprehensible. Trump is in a similar position, though he seems to prefer Putin's Russia, so that too is reprehensible. Of course, Trump is also the leader of the free world, so he poses a far greater threat to women, minorities, and democracy, but one step at a time. . .

One of the problems with Milo and Trump come from an odd quirk in American thinking, that if there are "two sides" to a debate, we must listen to both of them regardless of what the two sides are. This is why there's a "debate" over feminism and why there's a "debate" over science. Regardless of an objective claim - women make on average less thanmen, women are more likely to be discriminated against due simply togender, cat-calling and street harassment is a visible sign of themale-dominant narrative in our society, anthropomorphic climate change exists and can be stopped, clean energy will employ morepeople than coal/natural gases - all of these claims can be supported with peer reviewed scientific evidence. What I have included above is a step below peer reviewed evidence, but all good articles from respected news sources, one college publication, and the IPCC which is at the fore front of climate science. Therefore, those statements that I made are evidence based claims.

However, if we were to "debate" those claims, we would have to find sources from fake news sources or, at best, highly biased sources that actually twist facts to produce a story. However, those sources exist, so there is "debate" in the spectrum of American discourse. It is due to that "debate" that we get the rise of the Milo's and the Trumps. They exploit the darkest aspects of humanity, our fear, our hatred of one another, our deep rooted sexism, and normalize it. Their viewpoint is, then, objectively wrong but they have followers who agree with them because it supports their own objectively incorrect but deeply embedded racism/sexism/bias.

This is why I would like to encourage all of you to do two things - continue learning and call lies out for what they are.

Firstly, education is the only way we can begin to eradicate the root of these problems. At a personal note, as a younger man, I would have agreed much more with the rhetoric of Donald Trump than I would have others. I held views that I am not proud of all through out high school simply because I inherited them from my friends, family, and predominantly white-middle class community. However, it was during my freshman year of Siena that I really started to see the world in a more objective lens and realize the inherent racism and sexism in me. I never believed in the wage gap because I wasn't a woman and it was inconvenient for me to, for example. However, as I went through my freshman year and I was exposed to new ideas that were argued rationally and with evidence, I was eventually forced to choose between my own inherited shortcomings, or begin to change my views. This is when I really started to read and learn and it is through my constant education that I now not only saw the error of my past beliefs, but now have a passion to see those who held my own misguided beliefs see the world in a truer way. To borrow one of Sr. S's favorite quotes from Charlotte Bronte, "prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education: they grow there, firm as weeds among stones." One of life's great jokes is that those who hold these prejudices should be required to fertilize their hearts with education, but it often falls to the shoulders of those who know to share our knowledge with the misguided and uneducated. It is not an easy task, and may be downright impossible in some instances, but if we are ever to live in a true democracy and a fair state, it is what is needed.

Secondly, it is time we call out lies and crap for what they are, lies and crap. This will not be possible every time, and it poses more risks for some to do so than others. But I, for one, am tired of listening to the Milos of the world claim freedom of speech while they insult marginalized groups. Therefore, I call foul play. I call racism on Milo, and I call sexism on Milo. Your views are crap and unfounded. Slink back to the shadows of greater men and women. You deserved to lose to Aamer Anwar a thousand times over - we, the student body, have spoken.

Thank you all for reading another politically charged post. I am going to try to avoid any of this length for a good long while.

Also, I apologize in advance if I become even more flippant with posting. I will be away for about three weeks, and I can't say how much writing I will get done during my travels. Just know I will be taking many pictures and I will be sure to write / upload as soon as I can.