Columbia freshmen required to undergo 3-hour identity politics brainwashing and indoctrination during orientation

As part of Columbia University’s New Student Orientation Program, first-year students participated in a mandatory activity called “Under1Roof.”

Columbia’s schedule book for orientation describes it as a dialogue that aims to “foster inclusive communities by engaging with the social identities we all bring to campus.”

Under1Roof took place in August, and is a “required program” that is “specifically created for all incoming first year students in Columbia College and the School of Engineering and Applied Science,” according to its website.

An incoming Columbia student who attended the program this year told The College Fix that students were asked to write down and explain the categories of identity that they belong to and are most “aware of,” selecting from choices like race, class, gender and sexual orientation.

They were also asked to speak about how they felt their identities “limited their opportunities or access in coming to campus.”

During the experience, each student was given nine sticky notes and asked to write on each one how they identify themselves according to categories that make up “social identity,” including race, ethnicity, immigrant status, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious/spiritual identity, and “additional identities,” as well as anything people wanted to add, such as an athlete or artist, the student said.

“They had signs around the room for each category, and they asked us to put up our sticky notes corresponding to each one (all the race ones under one sign, etc). We then were asked to walk around and look at each section to gain a sense of the diversity of the group in the room (we were like a group of twenty-something students),” the student said. “It was like a gallery, everyone silently surveying the sticky notes. We were then asked us to stand by the social identity category which we’re personally ‘most aware of’ coming to campus, and people volunteered to explain their choices. We then stood by the category which we felt limited our opportunities or access coming to campus. It was a very interesting experience.”

The student told The College Fix the overall workshop lasted nearly three hours.

The Office of Multicultural Affairs, which oversees the workshop, declined a request by The College Fix to comment on why it is needed and what it seeks to accomplish.

However, the webpage for the Under1Roof program lists goals for the program, which include to “increase understanding regarding issues of diversity globally” and “prepare incoming students for the academic and social adjustment to living and learning a diverse campus environment.”

Other stated goals include creating a rapport among a smaller cluster of new students — as the incoming freshmen underwent the workshop in small groups — and creating a foundation for “diversity education rooted in sustained dialogue, critical awareness of social issues, and bridging differences.”

The program’s website also defends requiring it of incoming freshmen.

“Why is Under1Roof required for all first year students? Everyone – no matter how they identify – brings to campus different experiences, knowledge bases, ideologies, and beliefs,” the website states. “… Acknowledging these differences is not about separating people but about understanding the social realities and power dynamics that exist and that have prevented real connections between communities.”

“… There is an expectation of all members within the Columbia community to actively engage with one other and take this personal and educational opportunity. This interpersonal exchange across our diversity is one of the key educational resources on this campus. Under1Roof is a beginning of an important dialogue and process that will continue throughout a student’s time at Columbia and beyond.”

https://www.thecollegefix.com/columbia-freshmen-required-to-undergo-3-hour-identity-politics-workshop-during-orientation/

Lauren Phillips Survives ‘Big Black Cock Invasion 3′ from West Coast Prods.

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – Lauren Phillips survives “The Big Black Cock Invasion 3” from West Coast Productions. The sex flick is now available on VOD and in wholesale/retail release.

“Ginger sex goddess Lauren is no stranger to taming king-sized cocks,” a rep said. “In fact, she has yet to meet a prick she can’t pleasure… Each lovely lady in ‘The Big Black Cock Invasion’ faces the ‘black cock beast’ and lives to tell the orgasmic tale.”

Candice Dare, Oliver Glass and London River join Phillips; male talent is Isiah Maxwell and Prince Yashua.

“This was such a fun production to be a part of and working with Isiah was orgasmic,” Phillips said. “I know my fans will love watching Mr. Maxwell pound my ginger pussy into submission and make me cum so hard I had Bambi legs afterward. I can’t wait to get back onto another West Coast production soon!”

Click here for box art, a hardcore preview and VOD/DVD details.

She is repped by Nexxxt Level Talent Agency; view her model profile here and follow her on Twitter.

In related news, Phillips will headline Night of XXX Stars, one of the weekend events scheduled in conjunction with the 2018 NightMoves Awards. The Night of XXX Stars is scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 3 at 4Play Gentlemen’s Lounge in Tampa, Fla. Click here for details.

Majority of Torontonians not in favour of council cut, oppose use of notwithstanding clause: poll

A new poll suggests the majority of Toronto residents are “strongly opposed” to Premier Doug Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause to carry out his plan to slash the size of city council.

The poll, which was conducted by Mainstreet Research, randomly sampled 802 Torontonians over the age of 18 and found that 65 per cent said they oppose Ford’s use of the clause.

Notably, approximately 56 per cent said they “strongly oppose” the move.

A superior court judge ruled last week that Ford’s legislation to reduce the size of council in the middle of an election violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In reaction to that decision, the premier announced that for the first time in Ontario’s history, the province would use Section 33 of the Charter, a provision known as the notwithstanding clause, to override the court ruling and push through legislation to cut council

His government is also seeking a stay of the court’s decision, which is being heard by three judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal today.

Ford claims he has a mandate from the people of Toronto to reduce the size of city council, which he describes as “dysfunctional.” He contends that the move will make city council more efficient and will save taxpayers money.

In his ruling released last week, Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba wrote that there was no evidence that any public consultation ever took place on the subject and added that there was no proof that suggests a 47-seat council is in fact dysfunctional.

He added that there was no evidence to show that changing the makeup of city council was an urgent enough issue that it should be done in the middle of an election.

Ford’s use of the clause has been widely criticized by members of the opposition and Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has accused Ford of trampling on people’s rights to settle a political score with his former council colleagues.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former prime minister Brian Mulroney have also spoken out against the use of the clause.

Mayor John Tory previously called it a “gross overreach” of the province’s powers.

“Make no mistake about it: Doug Ford is on the wrong side of public opinion when it comes to his use of the notwithstanding clause”, Quito Maggi, president and CEO of Mainstreet Research, wrote in his analysis accompanying the poll.

Speaking to CP24 on Tuesday afternoon, Joseph Angolano, the vice-president of Mainstreet, said most respondents very clearly believe in the Canadian constitution.

“They believe in the fact that this is not a good use of a clause that is meant to sort out differences in legislation when one right trumps another. Using it to fast-track legislation and shrink council size is not something Torontonians agree with,” he said.

“Fifty-five per cent of people said they strongly disapprove of the use of the notwithstanding clause. I haven’t seen that since I’ve been working as a pollster. This is pretty strong opposition.”

He added that even 60 per cent of the respondents from Etobicoke, the home of Ford Nation, did not agree with the use of the clause.

Toronto residents don’t support cutting council

It appears many Torontonians also do not support Ford’s decision to reduce the size of council, according to the poll. A little more than 55 per cent of respondents said that they are not in favour of reducing the number of councillors from 47 to 25 and 46 per cent said that they “strongly disagree” with slashing the size of council.

The poll, which was conducted on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

 

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/majority-of-torontonians-not-in-favour-of-council-cut-oppose-use-of-notwithstanding-clause-poll-1.4098463

Ontario seeking stay of Toronto council-cutting decision that turned plans to chaos

TORONTO — The Ontario government will not pursue a new bill to cut Toronto city council nearly in half if the province’s highest court stays a ruling that quashed an earlier version of the legislation, lawyers said Tuesday.

In a hearing before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, lawyer Robin Basu said legislators would hold off voting on the new bill if the court grants the province the stay it is seeking.

Last week Justice Edward Belobaba ruled that Bill 5, which slashed Toronto’s council to 25 seats from 47, violated freedom of expression rights for candidates and voters.

Premier Doug Ford has since reintroduced the bill, now known as Bill 31, and invoked a constitutional provision known as the notwithstanding clause to forge ahead with the council-cutting plan.

But the new bill won’t be up for a final vote until Thursday at the earliest, and city staff have said the chances of running a fair election on Oct. 22 shrink with every day of uncertainty that goes by.

The government’s lawyers are asking the appeal court to put Belobaba’s ruling on hold at least until after the vote, saying it’s the only way to ensure a fair election.

“There is only one path available to assure the (Toronto city) clerk that she is in a position to proceed with an election with integrity and fairness on Oct. 22,” Basu told the court. “It is simply not feasible to prepare for two elections at the same time.”

Granting the stay would eliminate any uncertainty, even in the eventuality that the new bill is challenged in court, Basu argued.

The province’s stay application, which is being heard before three judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal, could result in Belobaba’s ruling being put on hold until a formal appeal is heard.

If the province is successful, city staff would then immediately start planning for an election based on the 25-ward model rather than the 47-ward approach that went back into effect with Belobaba’s decision.

The city and other parties in the case are expected to make their arguments later Tuesday.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-seeking-stay-of-toronto-council-cutting-decision-that-turned-plans-to-chaos-1.4098370

Why I Stopped Reading Playboy for the Articles

Men’s magazines used to publish thought-provoking authors. Now they’ve gone over to the SJW left.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-i-stopped-reading-playboy-for-the-articles/

Last week, Playboy announced that it was cutting costs and moving from six issues a year down to just four. The magazine’s decline is partly due to the condition of the publishing industry, as well as the fact that print is no longer the primary medium people use to view pornography.

But there’s another problem at work: Playboy, like most men’s magazines, no longer caters to most men.

For decades, the lad mag published thoughtful political and social commentary by thinkers like Gore Vidal; interviews with Ayn Rand, Martin Luther King Jr., and John Lennon; fictional short stories by literary giants like Jack Kerouac and Norman Mailer along with the first ever released segments of Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451; and pioneering coverage of the murder of Teena Brandon who later became the subject of the Oscar-winning film Boys Don’t Cry.

Though it was famous for the pornography, Playboy also offered ideas, interviews, and opinions that were at the very least thought-provoking to a large number of heterosexual men. All of that is gone now.

A perfect example of the new Playboy was its “Freedom Issue,” published right before the 2016 election. The writers featured included TV host Chelsea Handler discussing abortion, Patton Oswalt on “the freedom to make mistakes,” Wiz Khalifa on police brutality and marijuana legalization, and Killer Mike on minority voting. Adding to this lineup of intellectual lightweights was a conservative who wrote about how Republicans should be listening to Paul Ryan, obviously someone who had his finger on the pulse of America.

Every issue has become an opportunity to prove how woke and relevant the magazine is. From having its first transgender playmate to celebrating activist and writer Noor Tagouri (popular for speaking in favor of wearing a hijab) to publishing mind-numbing articles like “5 Punk Rockers Explain Why the Alt-Right’s ‘Punk Rock Movement’ is Garbage,” Playboy has become an endless exercise in the usual boring virtue signaling.

Such moral posturing has driven away heterosexual men who might otherwise be interested in the publication’s erstwhile fiction and non-fiction. And sadly, Playboy isn’t the only men’s magazine that’s fallen into this trap.

Esquire, a periodical intended for cosmopolitan men, has become an instruction manual for what social justice warriors believe men should be. The exact moment that Esquire’s editorial team lost their minds was in 2016 when they named Hillary Clinton “the sexiest woman alive.” The following year they bestowed that title on German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

While on occasion Esquire will publish notable features like Don Winslow’s article on El Chapo’s connection to the opioid crisis and Scott Galloway’s argument for breaking up Big Tech, these tend to get lost in the avalanche of stories that cater to the social justice left. Pieces like “Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Ad is a Watershed Moment” and “Why Are So Many White Male Republicans Afraid of Weed” litter the pages and website of this “men’s magazine.” Esquire even published a bizarre hyperbole-filled rant that went viral about how Star Wars fans don’t understand that the movie series was founded on progressive values—even though George Lucas has stated that he was inspired by Joseph Campbell’s monomyth and the hero’s journey.

Esquire‘s main competitor, GQ, is also in the business of peddling social justice-friendly content. Exhibit A was their attempt to revive Keith Olbermann’s career by giving him an internet show called “The Resistance” where he regularly screamed about how the Trump presidency needed to end right up until he was abruptly canceled.

Besides briefly offering Olbermann a platform, GQ has published plenty of essays that cater to progressive men, including “How Free Speech Warriors Mainstreamed White Supremacists” and “21 Books You Don’t Have to Read” (which included the Bible). It also honored Colin Kaepernick as its “man of the year.”

The ground ceded by these men’s magazines is now being claimed by blogs and podcasts like the “Art of Manliness,” “The Catholic Gentleman,” and “BroBible.” But the real loss can be felt in the greater culture, as men are deprived of any mainstream voice that speaks to what they are going through. Instead, Playboy, GQ, and Esquire have gone over to the feminist-approved version of masculinity where men are just progressive women with a different anatomy.

Ryan Girdusky is a writer based out of New York. Follow him on Twitter @RyanGirdusky.