At the campus of Dartmouth College, activism is welcomed, but only if that activism falls in line with leftist principles. No, the faculty at the Ivy League institution isn’t bringing this philosophy down from the top, but the students involved with Black Lives Matter have made the point quite clear. If there is any other message out there other than the one they endorse, then it has no place on campus.
This became quite obvious last week when a display supporting police officers was immediately defaced by BLM activists. The display, put on by the Dartmouth College Republicans, used the dreaded term: Blue Lives Matter. Of course, that was like waving a red flag in front of an angry bull. Within hours, Black Lives Matter students had covered up the display with fliers reading:
“You cannot co-opt the movement against state violence to memorialize its perpetrators. #blacklivesmatter.”
“The next morning we got up and we saw that our display was torn apart and replaced with Black Lives Matter posters,” Michelle Knesbach, the president of the College Republicans, told Fox News.
Dartmouth administrators took a few days before finally addressing the conflict. At that time, President Phil Hanlon sent out an email saying that the actions of Black Lives Matter represented “an unacceptable violation of freedom of expression.”
Later, the BLM fliers were taken down so that the original display could be restored.
If you are wondering how these activists can justify their actions, they wrote a long letter explaining their position. It’s as insane as you would expect.
“By co-opting a movement intended to protect the livelihood of Black people, Blue Lives Matter & #AllLivesMatter facilitates the erasure of black lives,” the BLM group wrote. “This slogan denies that black bodies are subjected to disproportionate state violence. This has nothing to do with individual police officers.”
No, of course it doesn’t. When BLM decides their movement is about a specific case, it usually blows up in their faces. Upon further scrutiny, the majority of officers supposedly “murdering” young black men wind up being cleared of all wrongdoing. And after whining about the corrupt justice system for a while, the evidence finally hits the media and they look silly. And that’s when they pivot to say, “Oh, it’s not about this one case.”
Without these sensationalized cases, the BLM movement wouldn’t exist. But these activists take the initial impression of these cases and then expand them to “prove” systemic racism. But how can you do that if the facts of the original cases aren’t what they appeared to be? Doesn’t it follow that your spurious examples of systemic racism might follow the same pattern?
It’s because they don’t want to confront these questions that liberals and BLM activists want to shut down any discussion. If you think this way, you’re a bad person. If you think this other way, you’re a good person. And that’s the end of the conversation.