Political Correctness Infecting College Conservatives


Conservative students cannot solely rely on College-Republican student organizations’ leadership.  Not because they are bad individuals, but because as leaders, many capitulate to Political Correctness, so as not to risk their aspirations of a political future. As a result, most CR leadership dare not touch controversial issues like Islam or the fight for human rights, gays rights, and even oppressive Shari’a law. The CRs stand behind local politicians, making calls and dictate to its members what the agenda is, as opposed to being open to their members’ interests. Leaders should reflect its members’ Voices, not the other way around.

Campus Islamists – Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and numerous other Islamist student organizations – feast on the fact that CRs leadership won’t confront their doctrinally Islamist agenda and anti-Semitic Campus Crusades. I don’t blame the CRs leadership, for it takes courage to go against large, powerful, mischievous Islamists organizations filled with students who cry racism when a mouse squeaks.

Does it make a difference to American Islamists and CRs leadership to know this:

“The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference adopted in Cairo in 1990, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari’a as its sole source.”

Last year in April, Students for Intellectual Freedom National (SIFNA) hosted an Islamic Apartheid Conference. The campus Islamists, Leftists and College Republicans that gathered represented the culmination of three year’s worth of constancy and achievement of what SIFNA had always sought to accomplish: starting a conversation in the absence of political correctness. Starting a conversation is the most crucial component in the fight for Intellectual Survival. The result of that is the inevitable emergence of competing views on the best way to survive.

Present was the group most notorious for proclaiming itself as victims of/in America, even though they are the most defended persons around the world: Islamist-Muslims. Among the panel of distinguished speakers was Simon Deng, a Sudanese who as a child was abducted and sold into Muslim slavery. He addressed all Muslims in the audience, asking where they were when he needed them to speak up for him and Give him Voice. None answered, for they had no knowledge/comprehension as to what Deng was referring. The Islamists and Occupiers instead defended Shari’a, an oppressive and patriarchal code of conduct they don’t understand; naturally, they stood up mid-event, did their zombie-esque call-and-shout “Mic-Check!”and walked out in line, much like cattle into a slaughterhouse. The Occupiers arrived at the event with closed minds, determined to disrupt and shut down an event, something they have always failed to achieve with SIFNA. They left just as they arrived: uninformed, cowardly.

To advance the American conversation, truly free Muslims must submit to freedom – not Shari’a/Islamism – and break free from the slavery of HAMAS-linked CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood’s creation: the Muslim Student Association (MSA). Those two anti-American entities aren’t the protectors of Muslims…they are their Masters; they solely offer them the tools for Religious Tyranny, while America’s Constitutional experiment offers Muslims the intellectual tools for Religious Freedom, Tolerance, Security, and Prosperity.

The College-Republicans Leadership, in my experience, subscribes to appeasement and recklessly hides behind the powerful brand-name of College Republicans. Aren’t they supposed to be the brave ones to whom the lonely Conservative souls look?
The CRs leadership often seeks to avoid Risk and gravitates toward the enigmatic, glorious idea of political office, so it runs away, not wanting to be associated with any efforts for Islamic-Apartheid awareness, which are relevant and very much needed. Unlike its intellectually-thirsty members, the CRs leadership has a reputation of choosing personal reputation over a truly College Republican agenda.
The CRs leadership uses its CRs brand-name to advance itself, yet generally exhibits no intellectually assertive concern for the citizens, community or nation they so desire to lead. They seem to lust for the idea and prestige of a political title, nothing more. When they choose the comfort of neutrality, they choose appeasement. From citizen to Leader of the Free World, both require brave, selfless leadership, willing to take difficult-issue stances.

The CRs must reject silence when time calls them to speak and Give Voice. CRs members deserve leaders who think of them…not for them.

America and the world need a new type of free Muslim, independent of chains that keep them from advancing in Freedom. American society needs a new breed of Republican, unwilling to subscribe to political correctness or exchange courageous leadership for selfish comfort.
As it is, neither group is ready to strengthen the American soul…not until they start new conversations and end old ones. Too many without a Voice desperately wait for someone to rescue them, and that someone’s voice – your voice – is their only hope. America and the world need both groups to work on a new script for a new stage.


Alvaro Watson is the founder (2009) of Students for Intellectual Freedom National (SIFNA), a politically and Classically Liberal/Conservative and Human Rights organization. Our mission is to counter Intellectual Intolerance found across America and its college campuses, like that of Temple University (my undergrad) and prominent student organizations.

Photo Credit: Standard Compliant

GIVING VOICE: Reconciling Nelson Mandela

Photo credit: michaelseangallagher (Creative Commons)

As Americans and the rest of the world mourn Nelson Mandela’s death, those of us in the less popular position – being informed – are left with the utterly unfair, tough task of how to reconcile Mandela’s messages of peace and forgiveness with the knowledge of his neck-lacing Barbarism, his Democratic-Socialist terrorism, and lust for Communistic ideas.

How does one do that? Is it necessary? Does one merely extract the good and toss the bad to the side? If one were to do that, is it still Mandela?

The idea of “The Great Man” Mandela was is far greater and comforting to the uninformed human than is the reality behind his legacy as a political animal.

Reconciliation is a virtuous ideal, but is it always practical or applicable? Is it in the case of Mandela?

When I speak about Mandela as a whole person, Progressives tell me that they are disappointed in me, accusing me of dividing people into two camps – informed and uninformed – and of being driven by arrogance. Information equals arrogance now? Slow down, please; I’m still working on Truth being the new Hate Speech. Progressives and the uninformed others urge that they don’t think anyone is ignoring the bad, but that most people just recognize the overwhelming positive impact Mandela had. I disagree with their simplistic, presumed assessment, mostly. I do agree that it is not that people aren’t ignoring; but I further add that these “most people” who just recognize Mandela’s “positive impact” are completely uninformed, which, according to Progressive logic, just means to be humble, a much more comforting word than arrogant.

I question why they are disappointed in what I’ve said, for I’ve done what I have always done: present facts from more than just one angle, affording others the opportunity to see a more whole picture of issues, topics, or, in this case, a person named Nelson Mandela.

The world needs a hero, a leader, someone in whom they can find the hope or a wholeness they lack in their lives, family, community, or nation. It is an inherent trait of humans to feel this need for a leader or hero. This yearning, when manifested, allows the reasonable person to become deaf and blind to certain elements of reality that would otherwise deny or eliminate the necessary bricks to build that legend…to construct that Superman.

The question I have posed is how we – the informed – are supposed to reconcile Mandela’s prison epiphanies of forgiveness and peace with his acts of Democratic-Socialist terrorism and salivating lust for Communistic ideas, or the neck-lacing (not very forgiving/peaceful) his then-wife and he endorsed.

Mandela was the terrorist leader of a violent terrorist organization, the ANC (African National Congress), which was responsible for many thousands of mostly black deaths. At least we know he didn’t discriminate (he was responsible for both black and white murders).

Yes, Mandela had quite the impact on the world; while undeniable, it was a farce, based on lies that took root and became legend. The iconic legend is no more real than Paul Bunyan and his blue ox.

This is what he thought of your country, my country, our country: “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.”

What he thought about a country that truly doesn’t care for its citizens: “Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people. There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people.”

Hey, uninformed Americans, Mandela considered you his enemy; unless you support Democratic Socialism and lust a little for Communistic ideas, you are not his girl.

It’s said that in his late life, Mandela eased off his Red ideas. If such were the case, one must ask why this supposed conversion wasn’t media-worthy; for many would have embraced it. As it is, the uninformed praise him for the “idea” of what, to them, he represents. It’s not my intention to subtract credit from his character.

It’s in the best interest to be afforded all parts of the whole. In Mandela’s case, while I recognize why he’s appreciated, it’s pertinent that one understands that in praising him, one indirectly continues to validate the efforts he so passionately engaged in, began, encouraged, and perpetuated.

Persons should want to know the whole of the person and appreciate or reject him or her for it. In this best-case scenario, the informed person will fully understand why it is that he or she believes in, fights for, and defends that person…or none of those at all.

In the final analyses, it ultimately is up to the informed individual to forgive anything that might require such action or find a way – an informed way – of reconciling the good and bad.

Is the human investment in genuine hope for peace and forgiveness worth reconciling Mandela’s prison epiphanies with the political animal he was, merely because humans need that comforting idea of a hero whom we believe espouses virtuous qualities we’re afraid to admit we don’t possess, regardless of how incomplete that hero is?

Photo credit: michaelseangallagher (Creative Commons)