21st Century is the Age of Intellectual Dishonesty

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Education / Society

___________________________

People want to hear the lie. The lie that makes their existence validated and meaningful. Lies have gone from the social nicety to save someone from embarrassment to the social, political, and psychological corruption of the entire world. 

This essay is not about religion. That is another lie we tell ourselves. If we are good, do good, and then we can go to heaven. If we don't have a god or dogmatic tomes, then humans cannot be moral, ethical people. That is a conservative group think misstatement.

Liberals are no better. Virtue signaling has taken the place of prayerful piety. If you do not support this or that, then you cannot be socially accepted. If you will not allow certain ideologies to become political dogma, then you are a bigot!

What we have not asked ourselves is: are we being intellectually honest? 

The 21st Century has turned into a mudslinging free-for-all. We have 12 years to live as a species because of Climate Change! The President is a Russian Agent and 17 Intelligence Agencies agree! The only way to save our culture is to put GOD back in the classroom! The Polar Ice Caps are going to melt and we'll never see snow again if we don't get rid of cars! Anyone who doesn't believe in GOD is an evil devil worshiper! Osama bin Laden masterminded 9/11.

The list of dishonest remarks is endless.  

Right, left. Liberal, conservative. Aren't all of you being intellectually dishonest? 

The fervor is so intense that if you state a researched opinion you are open for disparaging commentary about your moral fiber and personage. For example, people with MAGA hats are assaulted wherever they go based on a Mainstream Media narrative. The person is never asked what s/he believes. The apparel causes instantaneous violence on the excuse the person is a "Nazi," "White Nationalist," or "White Supremacist," even if that person wearing said item is black. 

The social constructs of our society that determine moral fiber and ethical behavior are being lost for the instant gratification of an emotional outburst. A crumb to feed someone's ego. A profit made by pundits and political parties.

In America, if you disagree, then disagree that is your right. It is not your right to physically harm another person. It is not your right to defame someone's character because you disagree with their point of view. It is not your right to "dox" someone and make them a target. 

These scenarios have played out in American society, but that is not our inherent cultural norms and mores. So where are people getting the idea that having a temper tantrum is a legitimate form of discourse and debate? 

In high school our class had a debate session for history, no one threw a chair, yelled expletives, or cried needing a hug. So where is this intellectual dishonesty stemming from? Common Core? Colleges and University curriculum? Protest groups? Political parties?  Media bias?

No, this aberrant behavior was going on before President Trump took office. We had protesters during the Obama Administration lighting cars on fire and jumping up and down on other vehicles. We had groups of people stop traffic on freeways.

Do we lay the blame squarely on our educational system? Or do we confront the ideology head on? 

The laws in our Constitutional Republic are based on the rights and responsibilities of the individual against that of mob rule (democracy). The good of the one outweighs the good of the many. So our laws are not skewed toward the more socialistic arenas of our society, but are not also abusive toward others in reciprocation.

In addition, those laws are based on two distinct factors: the spirit and the letter of that law. So we could have a very stern law, but the circumstance for which it was written (spirit) lessens its intensity. Thus the spirit and letter of the law creates a liberal/conservative composition. Our laws are right and left brained simultaneously.  These sides are equal in measure. Equal in weight. Equal in application. 

Our liberal media wants to bias all context of law and etiquette toward only the emotional responses. Talk radio wants to prejudice their audience to only facts and figures. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Just like when someone omits information, data points, social parameters will always be incorrect.

It's called: intellectual dishonesty. 

The scientific theory of make a statement, test that statement, and come to a conclusion based on the outcomes is a good way to determine if a piece is being intellectually honest. As readers, the audience, and as voters, Americans have to weigh the pros and cons of every detail presented to them. 

But we have gatekeepers in media, technology platforms who skew data, bias algorithms, and omit details in order to further an agenda. That is intellectual dishonesty. 

How can we root out intellectually dishonest gatekeepers? We put our belief systems to the test because if we do not have all the facts, figures, and spirit of the discussion then are we not being intellectually dishonest with ourselves? If we are dishonest by choice or circumstance, then how do we ever hope to have an honest conversation about anything?

A few criticisms that has come this editor's way... let's test them. 

VDPG doesn't believe a woman can become a NavySeaL

• Test: If you are a woman making this accusation: drop everything, enlist in the military, and become a candidate for the NavySeals. The qualifications have to be met as you would if you were a man. There cannot be any changing of the strength requirements, ability and skills sets, mental acuity, or any kind of watering down of the regulations. 
• Outcome: Did you pass as a woman in equal mental and physical measure to your male counterpart? Yes or No?

VDPG is transphobic.

• Test: Has the VDPG ever stopped a Transgender person from being Transgender? 
• Outcome: No. 
• Test: Has the VDPG stopped a man wearing woman's clothing? 
• Outcome: No. Actually the VDPG has written about clothing history. Men used to wear the pumps, stockings, dresses, and attire women have come to emulate these many past centuries. If anyone knows about clothing history, then men wearing makeup and sequins is nothing new. It's really old. There is no news story here. 
• Test: Has the VDPG ever stopped a woman from wearing mens clothing? 
• Outcome. I am wearing mens clothing right now. 
• Test: Has the VDPG contested men in women's bathrooms with woman and underaged girls? 
• Outcome: Yes. A resounding YES! Men in skirts or suits have no business in the bathrooms or shower rooms of women and girls. We have sexually tailored bathrooms in our culture designed for the penis and the vagina. Since the males of the species are the sexual aggressors of the females it is not prudent or wise to invade the sexual privacy or security of the other. It is not warranted. That makes this issue a rape and molestation issue and about respecting women. 
• Test:  Does VDPG contest biological males competing against biological females in sports? 
• Outcome: Yes! Biological males are superior in size, speed, and strength to biological females. There would be no competition in sports, males would dominate over females that is why Title 9 exists to give equity and equality to women in all scholastic and sport arenas without fear or retribution.

VDPG is against immigration.

• Test: VDPG hates refugees. 
• Outcome: The editor's grandmother is a refugee from Belarus circa 1912-17. The Bolsheviks stole their family farm and ran them off their land and out of their home country for the cause of socialism and antisemitism. 
• Test: VDPG hates people of Spanish descent.
• Outcome: The editor is from Spanish descent as a descendant of Emperor Charlemagne through the Chisum and Gyrlyngton family lines.  
• Test: VDPG hates all forms of immigration.
• Outcome: Legal immigration that supports the American way of life is most welcome. Illegal immigration that brings in drug/human/sex trafficking is unwelcome.  

 VDPG is anti-vaccine.

• Test: Has the editor ever had a vaccine?
• Outcome: Yes. All necessary vaccines for a child born in 1972. 
• Test: Has the editor ever had a reaction to a vaccine? 
• Outcome: Yes. The editor had the DTap, Tetanus booster, around the age of 29 on the urging of her oral surgeon before getting her wisdom teeth extracted. Her small arm had a site reaction that ballooned up to the size of a half softball. She ran a fever for a week and had to be placed on an antibiotic. Recent testing reveals the DTap has glyphosate (Roundup) and the editor has been disabled with a collapsed immune system since 2007 (i.e., other factors and other vaccine reactions are also involved in the Editor's status at an Environmental Illness patient.)
• Test: Is the editor anti-vaccine?
• Outcome: The editor is against poisons and toxins in the medical supply. Vaccines have changed from ProImmunity to ProToxcity.  For over thirty years, vaccines have never been tested for efficacy or safety, so until the paradigm shifts back to safety all vaccines should be discontinued. 
• Test: Does the editor believe anti-vaxxers are the cause of the measles outbreaks? 
• Outcome. No. With the unmitigated flood of illegal immigration, the health, cleanliness, and nutrition of immigrants are not being tested or remedied before being set loose into our society, so unvaccinated children cannot be the cause of said outbreaks. They didn't have the disease to begin with so how could they spread it?

So are you intellectually honest? Put yourself to the test before accusing the Editor of the Villa de Paz Gazette of such atrocities. 

If you read every article and essay posited here on the Villa de Paz Gazette, readers will find that VDPG challenges the intellectual dishonesty in media, business, politics, culture, and entertainment. Americans have been emotionally blackmailed to believe over here, over there, up that way, and somewhere around the corner. VDPG breaks through the programming. 

There is a spirit and letter to the boundaries of our society. The individual in this Constitutional Republic is the minority. Yet with the rights of an individual, the individual also must uphold their responsibilities to the national discourse. Americans cannot spew emotions as facts, nor can we enumerate facts and figures as the sole means to resolve our differences. 

VDPG breaks convention and returns its readers back to a time where discourse was intellectually honest. 

Are you being intellectually honest? 

VDPG began by dispelling the lies of corrupt politicians, media, and developers. The Editor has never wavered. In the spirit of the old George Washington legend: VDPG cannot tell a lie. 

If you want lies, there are plenty of resources on the internet for you to quote and cite. 

The Villa de Paz Gazette is not one of them. 

We're not pretty. We're not popular, but our thesis statements with citations and quotations will stand the test of time.

Hillary Clinton, Twitter Attack a Disabled Editor

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Tech Monopolies / Hillary Clinton

________________________________

Earlier today, Hillary Clinton was on Twitter complaining that the current administration banned Transgendered individuals from serving our nation via the military. 

Yet Mrs. Clinton used Twitter's Terms of Service to attack a disabled person. She falsely accused this disabled editor of Hate Conduct/Speech for pointing out facts. 

Unless someone can enumerate the hate filled content in the below statement: 

So I lodged a complaint in my response to Twitter and will shortly see if there is a complaint I can file against this political retaliatory action through the FCC or other federal agency. My free speech was violated. I was respectful in my conveyance of the way Transgender people are abused by political figures like Hillary Clinton instead of receiving the mental health support that they so need.

 

Mrs. Clinton, this type of negative behavior is exactly why a good portion of the American electorate did not see you as worthy, professional, or capable of being President of the United States.

I would refrain from making such immature decisions in the future.

If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner befitting a public figure, then perhaps you should retired from public life altogether and let the adults handle our political, social, and economic challenges that face the United States of America.

You have displayed retaliatory behavior against a disabled woman and positioned yourself to harm people with mental disorders for political gain. 

That is shameful indeed. 

Twitter is no better enabling such conduct amongst a swath of celebrities and politicos at the cost of others free and protected speech. 

Isn't about time you all grew up?

Sources: Twitter, Hillary Clinton

Hate Speech, the First Amendment, and Big Tech Monopolies over the Public Square

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Bill of Rights / Due Process

____________________________

Hate speech. The made up terminology to create hysteria against certain groups in society. This phrase is leveled at objectionable people most individuals would disagree with so there is no one to stand up for the other people's rights. That is not very American of you. 

We are speaking of Big Tech monopolies who hire many foreign workers who do not know or care about Truth, Justice, and the American way. These foreign employees care about their paychecks, not their moral or ethical obligations to working in this country. 

So first they came for the NeoNazis, and we said nothing. Then they came for the White Nationalists, and we said nothing. Afterward, they came for the White Separatists, and we said nothing. 

All the while, the technological monopolies were going down their hit lists to censor people far and wide, and label them hate speakers. Laura Loomer. Owen Shroyer. Mike Cernovich. These journalists and commentators have felt the pinch. The biggest strike has been against Alex Jones. 

The Terms of Service states... Hate Speech to be banned and all those who spread it. 

One problem. There is no legal definition of Hate Speech because there is no Due Process of Law that covers the blatant disregard of the First Amendment and its protections of the Public Square, set forth by the Supreme Court. 

So where are the Big Tech monopolies getting their legal advice? Rice crispies treats?  

Terms of Service is a way for corporations to be your parent because to them you are too immature and untrustworthy to be free to express yourself. Is that really their call? Or is it an underlying negative attitude toward the public? Hate speech, shadow banning, and outright banning of people with ideological differences has no basis in legal precedent. None at all. 

So Terms of Service has become the gray area of corporate legalese to eradicate Due Process of Law. Someone threatens with the intent to harm or calls for violence against someone(s), legal action via due process can be initiated. Until someone crosses the line into criminal behavior there is little for corporations like Big Tech to do about free expression or speech on their platforms. 

These companies can offer unfriend, mute, and block. 

Anything else should be pursued by the individual, not the corporation until a legal judgement has been rendered. The legal way is not always the quickest, cleanest, or clearest way, but it is the path of our judicial system.

But, but Citizens United made corporations equal with their free speech, in addition, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is outdated law and Big Tech monopolies are not shopping malls. 

The internet is the new public square and we have got to set some rules. 

First, the internet was created with American tax payer money. So whatever happens on the internet should be subject to our Bill of Rights, especially since most of the technology being used on the internet today including insular platforms was created with American tax payer money. 

See, DARPA, and maybe some IARPA too. 

So the Big Tech monopolies do not really have much legal legs to stand on. The internet is the public square. Your platform is open to the public. Big Tech monopolies have stated in the past that their platforms were public forums. 

Big Tech cannot have it both ways. 

You are either a paid private platform you control, or you are a public forum where the Bill of Rights is enacted. 

No legal wrangling is going to give Big Tech free reign to abuse its already considerable power over the market shares. 

So what do Americans do? Call for the Ma' Bell Solution? Break up all the technology companies until free and fair competition can operate? That is probably the best option. 

Because Big Tech has become what they hate with the absolute power they wield: mean, useless bullies. 

The 1st Amendment protects someone's speech if we agree with it or not. Without adherence to the rule of law, we are virtue signalling permission for a corporation to be an information gatekeeper. As a gatekeeper, media, internet platforms, and politicians have allowed censorship into our public discourse. This censorship is a prime example why corporations especially media need to stop playing god. 

Instead of information and investigative journalism, mainstream media now promotes propaganda and conspiracy theories, yet media outlets feel it is their right to tell the public what they can and cannot read, do, or say... that is an eye opening illustration, is it not?

We have a huge problem in this country and it starts with the gatekeepers. Americans need to reject censorship in all forms. Hate speech isn't a legal term; it's a psychological and emotional trigger phrase to make people reactionary instead of thinking for themselves

Americans have to get back to the basics. The only way to censor is to take said offenders to court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a criminal act. Corporations are not following due process of law. Internet platform monopolies believe they are the law. Big, huge, elephant in the room PROBLEM. 

Corporations have stepped over the line with the public. Corporations should never be in control of people's lives. Corporations should never parent the public. That is a breach of the public trust. 

In other words, take your supposed tolerance back to your safe space, it has no business in the adult room. The public square in a mall or internet forum is the adult room. The only ones acting like children are Big Tech monopolies hiding behind their Terms of Services to satisfy some immature need to control what the public says and thinks. 

That makes Big Tech censorship a form of hate speech. 

... and then they came for the technology monopolies, there was no one left to speak for them.

Donald Trump DISAVOWS David Duke/KKK

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

White Supremacy / KKK 
________________________________

Donald Trump DISAVOWS David Duke/KKK 
again and again and again

Donald Trump has disavowed David Duke MULTIPLE times yet MSM cannot seem to stop with their propaganda to the American Public...I can't believe MSM is STILL lying about this issue...Makes you wonder what else they are lying about and keeping from you all.

Source: Grande Directory

EU Out of Control: Brexit Now Crucial for Basic Human Rights

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Globalism / Human Rights
________________________________

Censorship worthy of China is being discussed by the corrupt European Union. Here is their white paper: 

Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities 

and Challenges for Europe

Essentially to "protect" everyone, which is the corporations and governments, that there should be an internet identification (ID) that would curb bad things like "hate speech."

Here's what the EU believes about how a person should be tied to the internet:

It is recognised that a multitude of username and password combinations is both inconvenient and a security risk. However, the frequent practice of using one’s platform profile to access a range of websites and services often involves non-transparent exchanges and cross- linkages of personal data between various online platforms and websites. As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.

Why is the British people staying in the European Union when the EU does not respect their basic human rights? 

In America, our federal government has been pushing the National ID Act on states. So when are people and states going to rise to the occasion and tell the corporation masquerading as our government what to go do with itself? 

Internet ID's is plain and simple: censorship. Step out line, disobey the government, or write a negative critique of a business and your internet "privileges" that you pay a high cost for are suspended or revoked. 

Hate speech is another word for censorship. Freedom of Speech protects speech you do not like to hear. There is no such thing as "hate speech" only censorship.

People of the world: take your countries back away from these haters of basic human rights of freedom and expression. 


Source: EU

Free Speech is Now Hate Speech

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman
Government / Free Speech 
___________________________________

The European Union is dictating what you can and cannot say or type.

If you disagree with authorities you can have your internet "privileges" suspended or revoked. These internet ghettos have become the permission givers of online speech.

We as a human race with rights, not privileges, cannot have Freedom of Expression when there are administrators filtering our speech and disciplining people for not towing the government line.  

If you are an adult, then why put up with this blatant disrespect? It is high time that the European Union be broken up. The world hoped Scotland would leave, but somehow the votes went the other way. Maybe the people of Europe will finally be free of the bureaucratic dictatorship with a Brexit. 

The people of the world can only hope Europeans step up and dismantle their prison one vote at a time.

CODE OF CONDUCT ON COUNTERING ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH ONLINE

Facebook, Microsoft*, Twitter and YouTube (hereinafter "the IT Companies") – also involved in the EU Internet Forum – share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world;

To read the document in its entirety, please see our source links.

Source: European Union 

1 Million Americans Boycott Target Stores for the Purpose of Equality

Staff Writer, DLMullan

Target / Transgender 

_____________________________________

Mens and womens restrooms make the sexes equal. When men want to use the ladies room, our society skews out of balance. Over a million Americans have also come to this conclusion.

The VDP Gazette reported on this issue in our article: Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!, the editor assumed that the number of Americans rebelling against inequality in our communities would slow down and the numbers would never reach a million people. It is nice to see more and more people are outraged by the social justice campaign that never was.

The LGBT community could have easily requested inclusion. Handicap single occupancy use restrooms that comply with the American Disabilities Act could have been modified for their purposes as well. I mean modified by law. These restrooms are already unisex to accommodate everyone with a disability.

Transgenders could have been seen as bringing the community together instead of tearing communities apart.

The transgender community only comprises approximately 700,00 people. Homosexuals account for 9 million people in this country. Whereas America, have a population of around 320 million individuals. Women are about 162 million. With men making up the rest of the population at 157 million.

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.

So where is this frantic push for inclusion coming from?

The United Nations' Agenda 21, Social Justice core. In order to destroy families, friendships, and any sense of community, the communitarian policy of communism is to make people afraid of their neighbors, fight each other, and destroy our national sovereignty, identity, and self respect from within.

This Agenda 21 has decimated the Middle East with neoconservative policies like the PNAC document. The population has become illiterate, uneducated, and manipulated into radical philosophies. Then these horde populations are released onto other neighboring countries. Europe is a mess with its migrant policies that do nothing to help anyone, except the elite class.

The United State is not immune to this elite disease. Americans' rights are eroded with every piece of legislation passed and executive order signed. Illegal aliens have invaded our nation for decades, which has created a booming sex, human, and drug trafficking trade.

When you listen to the history of the British Empire by Lyndon LaRouche, you get an understanding of the Free Trade system. Free Trade is nothing but the slave trade system. Except now the political prisoners are not Africans, Irish, and anyone else who fell victim to the British Empire of power and control, but with the fanatical religion called Globalism, the whole world is now the political prisoners of a chosen few radicals.

Yes, the top 1% of the 1% of the rich and not famous are in fact extremists that are hell bent on conquering the world, killing and subjugating the world's population, and setting up a permanent police state.

I wish I were joking but I have read the white papers. I have seen the direct effects in our educational system. I see the out of control conduct of Social Justice Warriors.

Our educational system is at the forefront of this destruction. Social Justice has become nothing but a bunch of spoiled brats who do not think anyone else should have an opinion in our society. That somehow their inability to cope with life makes them have the right to lash out at the rest of us.

I said it. There are the rest of us. We are a community of individuals. We are not the hive mind. We are going to agree and disagree, but that does not give another person the right to impede on someone's right to express him or her self.

Equal rights means we all share in the ups and downs equally. We have equal say, but we also have equal responsibility. We cannot have an equal discourse if one part of society is too busy yelling and screaming: hate crime, hate speech, and "some people have more equal rights than others."

No. Equal means equal. Not more than. Not less than.

Target's stance on inclusivity did not create equality, the policy created inequality.

The LGBT community has been attacking everyone for violations that have not been committed against them. You have a bathroom created for your biological needs. You need to use it, not infringe on women's rights. You have equality in marriage now, but going and finding religious cake makers in order to sue for discrimination is infringing on other people's rights.

Just because someone does not want to bake you a cake does not mean your rights have been infringed upon. You can find someone else to bake your cake, or you can bake one yourself. That lawsuit shows how the LGBT community has created a situation that everyone is their enemy. A policy like that produces the results you demand not to exist: inequality. 

In the charge of equality for LGBT individuals, let's remember that those people on the outside have rights too. Those people can either support you or walk away from you. 

In the age of the Social Justice Warrior, remember there are plenty of injustices in the world. You have to be mindful enough to know which ones are real and which ones are social engineering.

Some of us are fighting a greater cause: equality and peace for all.

Maybe instead of having a terrible two tantrum over everything, you could come join us in true inclusion. We are fighting for the soul of our species and our world. That doesn't take a tantrum; it takes discipline, education, and maturity.

Well, you said you wanted to be included. What say you?

If you would like to sign the petition, visit the AFA website.

Source: American Family Association, Gaylife About,

Executive Cabinet Veto of R50-70: Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Flags / Higher Education
______________________________________

 The University of California a few days after the passage of Resolution R50-70 vetoed the measure.

Executive Cabinet Veto of R50-70

We the Executive Cabinet of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine convened on March 7th, 2015 to officially veto ASUCI Legislative Council legislation R50-70, “Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity”. We engage in this action to veto under the constitutional authority granted to us under Article V, Section B, Sub-Section 2 of the ASUCI Constitution stating:

“Vetoing, as seen fit, any measures adopted by the Legislative Council, provided such an action be exercised only once per measure, and within six (6) days from the date of the measure being passed, after which time, the measure shall become legislation with or without the Executive Cabinet’s approval.”

We fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by ASUCI Legislative Council and their passage of R50-70 as counter to the ideals that allow us to operate as an autonomous student government organization with the freedoms of speech and expression associated with it. It is these very symbols that represent our constitutional rights that have allowed for our representative creation and our ability to openly debate all ranges of issues and pay tribute to how those liberties were attained.

As students in an academic institution we encourage all students on campus to participate in open debate about a wide array of issues and to actively engage in academic curiosity, which lies at the backbone of a preeminent academic research institution. It is this freedom to be able to navigate and explore topics on a wide range of issues that we see at risk if we begin to engage in a particular form of regulation of free speech and its expression through symbols in any space associated with our organization.

We as well want to reaffirm our commitment to diversity as a campus in all aspects and ideals associated with it. The concept of inclusion and diversity is a core pillar in the mission of University of California system and we wish to continue to work to have these important discussions of what our campus is doing to make this a priority.

Signed:

ASUCI Executive Cabinet

Even the Administration of the University had this statement:

The statement below is from the UCI Administration

Earlier this week, six undergraduate members of the UCI’s student-government Legislative Council passed a bill that bans hanging a flag from any nation in the common lobby area of the student government offices.

This misguided decision was not endorsed or supported in any way by the campus leadership, the University of California, or the broader student body. The views of a handful of students passing a resolution do not represent the opinions of the nearly 30,000 students on this campus, and have no influence on the policies and practices of the university.

The American flag is still proudly flying throughout our campus and will continue to do so.

Student-body president Reza Zomorrodian has publicly opposed the legislation. The Executive Cabinet of the student government will meet today to discuss a veto. A motion to veto and a second are on the table. One more vote is needed for a veto. We encourage the student government to veto this legislation and abandon any further efforts to pursue it.

We hold the value of intellectual inquiry and the free and rigorous exchange of ideas as bedrock values of institutions of higher education. And yet, we are constantly reminded that those values we cherish are in part, guaranteed by the sacrifices made and the struggles waged to secure the freedom and democracy that the flag symbolizes. UCI never takes that for granted.

Source: University of California, Irvine

ASUCI Legislative Council Resolution R50-70: Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman

Flags / Higher Education 
_________________________________

Associated Students, University of California, Irvine passed this resolution earlier this month:

R50-70
Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity
March 3rd, 2015

Whereas flags are a symbol of a nation, are used as decorations and have a wide range of cultural significance.

Whereas flags are typically viewed as patriotic symbols of a single nation, are often associated with government and military due to their history and have a wide variety of interpretations.

Whereas the traditional patriotic interpretation of a flag is a result of a nation and/or persons who encourage a nationalistic understanding of the flag.

Whereas traditional understandings and ideologies, as encouraged by the national government, include liberty, democracy, constitution values and are up for interpretation on constituents.

Whereas flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.

Whereas flags function specifically for a nation and

Whereas people are assimilated into national ideologies by deployment of this cultural artifact.

Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy.

Whereas symbolism is interpreted differently by different groups or persons based on individual unique experiences.

Whereas a common ideological understanding of the United states includes American exceptionalism and superiority.

Whereas the American flag is commonly flown in government public service locations, military related entities, at homes, in foreign lands where the US government has a presence.

Whereas the American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism.

Whereas symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.

Whereas displaying a flag does not express only selective aspects of its symbolism but the entire spectrum of its interpretation.

Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space is taken seriously by ASUCI

Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidently.

Whereas the removal of barriers is the best option at promoting an inclusive space.

Whereas it is a psychological effect for individuals to identify negative aspects of a space rather than positive ones.

Whereas whenever public spaces are produced and managed by narrow interests, they are bound to become exclusive places and

Whereas the planning process must be inclusive in such that designers are advised to forget about the ‘average’ user or themselves and instead begin the open space designing process with ‘deep knowledge’ of the preferences of the actual communities who are likely to use those spaces

Whereas designers should be careful about using cultural symbols as the symbols will inherently remain open for interpretation.

Whereas once an open space is created, it is important to employ continual evaluation in order to understand changing use patterns and needs over time.

Whereas a high-quality culturally inclusive spaces is essential in any society that embodies a dynamic and multifaceted culture

Whereas freedom of speech is a valued right that ASUCI supports.

Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.

Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.

Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.

Let it be further be resolved that if a decorative item is in the Associate student lobby space and issues arise, the solution will be to remove the item if there is considerable request to do so.

Source: University of California, Irvine