Tuesday marked the second time that I have ever been meaningfully oppressed (my first such experience was, of course, last year’s Tunnel of Oppression). There were some slight differences in this year’s Tunnel (largely, I think, because of my insightful and probing criticism from last year), resulting in what I will consider an upgrade in the Tunnel’s performance, i.e. instead of being completely ridiculous like last year, this year’s Tunnel was only extremely ridiculous. Despite some tweaking around the edges, there was still plenty of absurdity to go around. So, let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

Last year, the Tunnel sported a Harry Potter theme. This year, the theme was Willy Wonka. I commend the Tunnelers for choosing such a theme, as it’s entirely appropriate to the overall context of the Tunnel. Being nothing more than a fantasy of the liberal imagination, the planning committee was spot-on to select Willy Wonka as this year’s sponsor. My only criticism here is the rather obvious lack of chocolate in the Tunnel. After walking under the banner proclaiming the entrance to Willy Wonka’s factory, I was expecting at least a few chocolate bars somewhere along the course of my journey through the Tunnel. A chocolate fountain would have been most excellent, but I’m entirely willing to settle for a few Wonka Bars. Also missing were the demeaning name tags everyone received last year. I had really hoped to be the “Towel Head” in the group again, but was severely disappointed when I learned this part of the tour had been deleted.

We then played the rather odd, “Take One Step Forward if You’re a White, Privileged, Male. Take One Step Back if You’re Anyone Else” game. Unlike last year, I think I nearly won this time. In my alias as an underprivileged Hispanic (by the name of Juan Franco-Seelingez), I was a close second to the black Jamaican guy. Unfortunately I did not anticipate encountering such stiff competition, but I hope to do better next year.

We next passed by a couple of people reciting kvetches from the Daily Tar Heel. I’ll confess that I didn’t quite understand the point of this presentation. I guess the Kvetching Board is oppressive??? Then a homeless man wandering onto the scene, and the Kvetchers “oppressed” him by refusing to give him money. Now, as a rule, I don’t give money to panhandlers. Aside from the dozens of welfare programs that these people could choose to avail themselves of, I’m of the opinion that local charities are much better at determining the needs of such people than I am. The Tunnel’s presentation of the hobo was also misleading. Many bums don’t simply wander up to you (in their brand-new jackets) and amble off when you refuse to give them money. In my experience, they can be quite mean and vile: getting in your face, swearing at you, spitting at you, etc. Not altogether a pleasant experience. The Tunnel’s hobo is quite fictional without any basis in reality, departing with a simple, “Ok, no problem. Have a nice day.” It just doesn’t happen that way.

Next, we wandered into a room that took up the issues of binge eating and the like. This wasn’t particularly interesting one way or the other. Binge eating’s bad, I get that. But then we also have such things as Michelle Obama’s “Move On” campaign and UNC’s own Lifetime Fitness requirement, which for the obese might constitute its own form of oppression. The demonization of anything but a perfect body is not something that is just found in vain Hollywood actors.

Special needs (actually I’m not even sure if I’m allowed to say that) was up next. This was yet another fantasy world dreamed up by Willy Wonka-inspired Tunnelers. In this room, a teacher proctoring an exam refused to allow extra time for the dyslexic student in the room to finish his exam. I don’t know any teacher (or professor) who’s not willing to make accommodations for people with special needs. It’s really just a non-issue for me. The whole scene was contrived.

Next up was the Museum of Religion. The very name of the room was a tip-off, as it implies that religion is some sort of relic of the past. This was the first area of the Tunnel for which I think I can claim responsibility. Considering the way I sandblasted the Tunnel’s presentation of religious believers last year, I think this really goes to show the extent of my power and influence. Instead of outright making fun of Christians, etc. (but mainly Christians), the Tunnelers attempted to present the diversity of religious belief in the world. However, what they accomplished in creating was simply a set of caricatures. Take the Christian as an example. He was a Bible-thumping, Fundamentalist Christian. This fails to appreciate the great diversity of belief among Christians and instead simplifies it down to what is simply a popular mischaracterization of Christians among non-Christians. This occurs while the Muslim girl makes a point about how everyone who’s not Muslim thinks all Muslim women wear burkas. I’m not sure that she appreciated the irony. But then this also seemed like another non-issue (especially if we’re talking about the United States). Sure, there’s still religious discrimination in the world (particularly in, dare I say, Islamic states), but what do the Tunnelers expect us to do? Fly to Iran and tell the mullahs to back off?

We then moved onto what was one of my favorite rooms from last year, the Homophobia Room! I also saw my mark here, as the homophobes (unlike last year) were not carrying Bibles and did not have terribly overt Southern accents. However, there were such classic lines as, “What about AIDS? Aren’t your parents going to be worried?” Because that’s totally the first thing that comes to mind when I meet a gay person. And then there was the not so-veiled criticism of Christians (although, in fairness they could have been invoking Islam, but somehow I doubt that), “Don’t you know what our religion says about these people? That you’re just going to beat them down, [what???] that you’re just an abomination.” I’ll take ignorance for 100 please, Alex. As luck would have it, I happen to be fairly well-versed in what my “religion” says about “these people” (at least on the Catholic side of things). And it’s not, like the Tunnelers suggest that “Gays are bad people.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I also don’t think the Tunnelers appreciated the irony of (continuing to) present caricatures of religious groups just after telling us we shouldn’t generalize about religious groups.

We then moved through a TSA security line, where the screeners pulled out all of the Middle Eastern-looking people. Now, like I’ve said before, I have no problem with racial profiling (or profiling in general) in police work. It’s how you eliminate obviously innocent people and narrow down the list of bad guys. Considering that there are armies of Middle Eastern terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow you and me to pieces, I really don’t have any problem with giving them a little extra scrutiny at the airport.

On that subject, following our screening, a group of terrorists herded us into a “gas chamber” and gassed us as we listened to a recording of people being gassed to death. I still believe that this presentation is highly inappropriate as it trivializes some of the most horrific mass-killings of the last century. If the Tunnelers had any respect for the dead, they would drop this.

After listening to two girls talk about relationship violence (which as I mentioned last year, conspicuously omitted any mention of female on male relationship violence), we proceeded to the Diversity Room with Comfy Chairs, where we listened to some of the most confused people I have ever met. Actually, the room might also be entitled the Mental Ward, as no one in the room seemed to know who they were.

(Preface: I apologize for inadvertently filming the ceiling for this section. Being sneaky is harder than it looks). First, we had the throughly confused girl who didn’t want to be placed in a racial “bubble”, but was also freaking out about not being able to fit in with the various racial groups with which she didn’t actually want to identify. As if to make her point, she proclaimed, “[The Egyptians] ask for my passport.” Among a whole list of platitudes, there was this classic line (which I think she stole from an Obama speech), “I am everything I want to be. I am everything I say I am.”  Well… no you’re not. She was quite obviously a woman. Even if she had claimed to be a man, she would still have been a woman (even if some people in the Gender Studies department would contest that). But I think the most bothersome part of this monologue was its sheer hypocrisy. Liberals (and especially UNC’s Admissions Office) obsess over racial identity. I couldn’t care less, but they’re the ones who insist that we all fill out the little racial bubbles on our applications and tests and census forms. Identifying as an American is quite enough for me. I’m not the one obsessing over my racial heritage or demanding reparations for crimes committed against my race. When I look at a person, I don’t see a race. I see a unique person with his own set of skills, talents, ideas, and desires. Liberals, on the other hand, only see arbitrary group identities. So, if you want the source of your “oppression” honey, look in the mirror.

A Racial Bubble

I then had to listen to a black woman complain endlessly about how everyone assumes she’s uneducated because she happens to be black. Of course, she didn’t really do much to help her case with her frequent grammatical slips. She seemed to have a particular issue with adverbs. Consider, “I’m not allowed to speak proper [sic],” or “Just because I speak proper [sic], I’m acting white.” Now, I normally try not to be a grammar Nazi, but if you’re going to make a big deal about how you’re educated and you speak like the white people, you might want to proofread your speech a few times. Just a suggestion. Also, her point about how BET is a true representation of “her people” was also really funny. If you remember, in the 2009 Virginia Governor’s race, the co-founder of BET, Sheila Johnson, endorsed the Republican, Bob McDonnell. Considering that the black vote is overwhelmingly Democrat, I guess the point of the Angry Black Woman is borne out here. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what she meant.

Next was Madame Bolivia, who, if I remember correctly, was also present in this room last year. The one point of her’s that was really irritating concerned her “people can’t be illegal” comment.Clearly they can, and clearly they are. If you break the law (even if it’s not immigration law) you operate in a fashion that is outside the bounds of the law, and hence illegally. Also, being an illegal immigrant doesn’t “void” your existence (as she claimed) in the same way that trespassing doesn’t “void” your existence. You’re just simply in a place that you’re not supposed to be. I’ve never heard of an illegal immigrant just ceasing to exist. She also asks us to consider “things we cannot fathom” (a particularly difficult exercise) and imagine all the things that illegal immigrants give up to be here. But what about those who came here legally and all that they gave up? What makes the illegal immigrants so special? The odd thing is, the illegal immigrants are operating out of a place of selfishness, placing themselves above the laws the govern everyone else and putting their wants and desires ahead of those who patiently waited in line. We all learned in kindergarten that cutting the line was a bad thing and unfair to those in the back of the line. Line cutters would be ratted out to the teacher and frowned upon by the other students. The same principle applies to illegal immigration. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about it that a five-year old can understand it, but the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian can’t. Also, her comment about treating illegal-immigrants as third-class citizens is totally out of line. If they were “below human” as she claims, they’d be out in the fields working as slaves, and would not have access to our hospitals, schools, and a whole host of welfare programs. Compared to what many of them came from, I’d say they have it pretty good. And I’d appreciate it if the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian did not make my country sound like the re-incarnation of the Third Reich.

Do you think they're illegal???

We ended with a visit to the Hall of Flowers and Sunshine, where we wrote our feelings up on the wall. I, of course, promised to be the change I hope to be, but others took the event a little more seriously than I did. We finished up with the Indoctrination/De-compression session and wished Willy Wonka a good-bye before heading out the door.

All in all, it was a rather entertaining experience. While I realize most liberals have nightmares about these sorts of things, the way in which they presented them was quite funny, at least to me and my compadres (no racial slur intended) who live in what we like to call reality. The Tunnelers followed the classic liberal line of building of a straw man (That’s oppressive isn’t it? Maybe I should say, “straw person” or “straw wo/man”), and tearing it down. But given that we’re dealing with people who obviously have the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, what more should we expect? Though, in all honesty, I think they should really consider billing the Tunnel as a comedy show. I can’t even count the number of times I nearly broke down laughing. They could call it, “A Parody on Life: The Tunnel of Oppression.” But I guess there’s always next year.

Wearing hijab (modest clothing) is considered a religious duty by most Muslims, and not just radicals and militants. The Qur’an clearly states that women should dress modestly and cover their hair:

And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful. (Sura 24:31)

Of course, in many Islamic countries women are forced to wear headscarves regardless of whether they want to or not. But of course, French Muslim women had a choice as to whether or not to wear the scarf. Until 2004.

The French government defended its move by saying that French public schools are secular, and should be free of religious influences. They also argued that the headscarf was a symbol of the subjugation of women inside Islamic societies.

Of course, this was all patently ridiculous. Most Muslim women in the West choose to wear the scarf as a symbol of their faith and culture, without anyone forcing them to do so. None of this is really surprising for France, whose commitment to freedom of religion throughout its history has been at best shaky and at worst downright tyrannical.

Now, French president Nicolas Sarkozy wants to take this a step further. Yesterday, Sarkozy gave a speech before the French legislature where he called for a ban on women wearing the burqa in France.

The burqa is a garment which covers everything but the eyes. It is only worn by a small minority of Muslims who follow strict interpretations of Islam, and only worn by a very few women in France. Sarkozy argues that the burqa “is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.”

The burqa certainly is just that in many cases. But once again, in France the government is not forcing anyone to wear the burqa. If a woman in France chooses to wear the burqa, that is her choice.

Many people in France feel threatened by Muslim immigration and the presence of Islamic culture in France. Often, all Muslims are conflated with violent militants and fears abound of a Europe overrun by Muslims (which currently make up 9% of the French population, so they have a lot of overrunning to do). In such a climate, laws designed to limit Muslims’ ability to practice their religion and culture are appealing. The way to protect your culture, it is argued, is to ban other cultures.

The problem with this is that it is counter-productive. You cannot preserve a culture by building a fence of laws around it which abrogate personal liberty. Culture is in a constant state of change as new ideas emerge and promulgate themselves throughout a population. There is no stopping this, because government cannot control people’s thoughts. Government cannot force cultural change on immigrants, because it cannot make them stop wanting their old culture. Cultures are not created by governments, and they cannot be preserved by them.

But more importantly, these laws are a straight-up abrogation of the basic human freedoms that Western democracy is built on recognizing. Freedom of religion is simply a corollary of freedom of speech, and freedom of speech is fundamental to a working democratic society. Therefore, France’s ban on headscarves and proposed ban on burqas does not protect French culture. Rather, it is an assault on French democracy itself.

On their website, YWC claims to be a group dedicated to preserving western culture on college campuses. They argue that “the cultural, political, and especially academic elites in this country hate the West and seek to destroy its identity and freedoms” and as a result “we do not believe it is worth conserving and adopt a revolutionary mindset towards the status quo. The existing power structure must be overthrown.”

YWC says they are not conservative, for they do not want to conserve the existing power structure. Rather, they say that they “are a right wing movement that seeks fundamental change in our society.” They do not concern themselves with issues such as taxes, the economy or foreign policy. Instead, they maintain that “the leftist assault on the West must be repulsed on the firm grounds of identity.” These politics of identity in practice translates into strong anti-immigrant sentiment (both legal and illegal). Indeed, all speakers (Tancredo and Bay Buchanan) that YWC has brought to UNC have been speaking out against allowing Hispanic immigration into the United States.

However, a closer look at YWC reveals more sinister leanings.

The national Vice President of YWC is Marcus Epstein, who is a regular contributor to VDare.com. VDare.com is a racist anti-immigrant blog which has criticed the US government for “encouraging the garbage of Africa to come here” and argues that Africans are on average mentally retarded. (Ed. Note: Previous version incorrectly identified Epstein as a VDare.com editor)

National YWC president Kevin DeAnna has told Carolina Review that Epstein is not the vice president of YWC, but according to the Vanderbilt Orbis, Epstein is in fact the vice president of the organization. Epstein identifies himself as the vice president of YWC while writing for The American Cause. According to Epstein, he is a close personal friend of Kevin DeAnna.

On their website, the YWC states that they want to “Create a social movement on campus where a right wing subculture — similar to the left wing subculture that currently exists — will provide a healthy alternative to a poisonous and bigoted left wing campus climate.” Their goals:

Initially, we would like to set up as many active campus chapters as possible that will host events such as speakers, debates, and protests.

In the medium term, we want these groups to take over student governments, defend against left wing organizations and create new right wing groups. We also want to change the social atmosphere of the school, with YWC becoming the focus of social life at the school as well as political activism.

In other words, YWC wants to become the right wing version of Students for a Democratic Society.

Given YWC’s stated goals and associations,  it is surprising to know that their faculty sponsor at UNC has not even read the organization’s national charter. Professor Clemens says that he does not agree with everything that they told him they stood for, but that he sponsored the group to foster “a diversity of opinion.”

Riley Matheson, the president of the UNC chapter of YWC, has interned with Epstein. We have not heard Matheson himself say anything explicitly racist, but his association with Epstein is troubling. YWC’s national leadership, especially Epstein, are clearly associated with racist organizations. Considering this, as well as their penchant for revolutionary rhetoric, YWC’s intentions are suspect.

YWC’s leadership insist that their group is not racist. But because of the reasons for suspicion outline in this post, the burden of proof is on YWC to demonstrate what they actually believe.

Ed. Note: The previous version of this post re-printed several other claims about YWC  president Kevin DeAnna from other sources that upon further investigation could not be substantiated beyond one group’s word against another.

You see, Multiculuralists, who supposedly put equal weight to every culture, are intolerent of those who are intolerent of other cultures.  The non-discriminatory discriminate against the discriminatory.

Beyond that, the idea of having a multicultural event that mimicks a favorite American tradition that is a part of the larger celebration of Christ’s resurrection is simply obnoxious if not offensive to a great majority of students here.  Easter is a celebration of a very specific culture by people who believe the same thing about a specific religious text that is very, very, a lot, a lot not pro-multiculturalism.

• First, a few announcements. Wait no more- the April issue of the Carolina Review will be distributed Monday. Also, the Carolina Review has now officially sold out to the powers of social networking (of course, long ago we all sold out to big business, the military-industrial complex and the Israeli lobby), and we set up a Facebook page. You can go here to become a fan of your beloved Carolina Review.

• There is a lot of talk on campus and in the North Carolina State Legislature about smoking policies. The treatment of smokers by those who go out so far out of their way to be inclusive of every other minority group always reminds me of a scene in the South Park (the most reliable source for sound social commentary, that is besides the Carolina Review) episode “The Death Camp of Tolerance.” After walking through the Museum of Tolerance and talking on end about how we need to be tolerant and encourage diversity, the kids and their parents run into a smoker and ridicule him ruthlessly, calling him such infantile names as “tar breath” and “dirty lungs.” So much for compassion for the fringe of society…

• A quick note on style. With all of the talk of economic policy, you’re bound to hear the politicians and pundits on both sides misuse the verb “grow” as a transitive verb, notably in the clumsy new phrase “grow the economy” (as in, “The stimulus is sure to grow the economy.”). Do people wonder “How can I grow my love for the Carolina Review?” or “How could the CR Editors ever possibly grow their already enormous editorial prowess?” The more precise, less grating phrase would be “foster economic growth” (as in, “Can they seriously believe that the stimulus is going to foster economic growth?”). Perhaps, though, this gives too much credit to abstract economic factors and too little credit to the narcissistic politicians.

• This is truly a breathtaking season. Spring is blossoming, Carolina basketball is rolling, and we have a few weeks yet until we have to start worrying about exams. But, most importantly, it’s awareness week season! With Feminist Week, Proud to be a Democrat Week, Poverty Week, etc. there’s a week for everyone. At the very least these weeks have helped grow my awareness of awareness weeks. While I applaud the goals of some of these activists (namely, the poverty activists), it seems that awareness events are naturally unproductive. After all, you have to have some level of passion for the issue to even know about these awareness events, let alone go ahead and attend them.

Next week, I’ll post my final review of March Madness. Be there or be square.

Queen Elizabeth

“The Queen’s scheduled visit to the Lord Mayor of Birmingham…” Wait, let’s rewrite that sentence. “The Queens scheduled visit to the Lord Mayor of Birmingham…” That’s better. At least in Birmingham, England that is.

The city council recently voted to remove all apostrophes from city signs saying that the use of correct punctuation is “confusing and old-fashioned.” Councillor Martin Mullaney declared, “Apostrophes denote possessions that are no longer accurate, and are not needed. More importantly, they confuse people. If I want to go to a restaurant, I don’t want to have an A-level (high school diploma) in English to find it.”

Yes, correct grammar can be confusing. Especially in the modern era where grammar and correct punctuation is no longer taught in schools. There are two main reasons for this neglect: the movement that produced the “fuzzy math” concept which developed out of an excessive fear of hurting a child’s self-esteem; and the multiculturalism that now pervades our nation.

The shift of focus from expounding knowledge to bolstering students’ self-esteems removed objective standards from our education systems. What happened in mathematics with the “fuzzy math,” happened to English with the end of instruction of grammar and punctuation in elementary grades. The National Education Association and leftists in Departments of Education across the nation taught the current generation of teachers to not tell students that there is a right or wrong way to speak, do math, or write. They taught that a student’s self-esteem was a better indicator of future success than their ability to correctly conjugate verbs or multiply. The results of this change in instruction were disastrous and are continuing to wreak havoc in our education system.

Parallel to the development of the primacy of self-esteem in the goals of the education establishment was the development of “linguistic equality” as an extension of multiculturalism. The first installment of the Language Columnist at the DTH is a perfect example. Miss Steindel makes the argument that affirmative action must be maintained to aid students who speak the dialect African-American English (Ebonics) or Southern-American English (people who say “y’all”).

The insanity of this is breathtaking. It’s no longer a matter of ignoring defects in students’ grammar, but we must reward them for their mistakes. By promoting grammatical errors in our education system, we will commit lingual suicide. The asininity of the idea that we should worry more about a student’s self-esteem than his ability to proficiently speak English should be self-evident.

To thwart the decadence of our beloved language, we must stop this nonsense. High school diplomas should not be needed to understand the meaning and nature of an apostrophe. Verbs should be correctly conjugated by second-graders and phrases like “He be good” or “I done did them dishes” shouldn’t be heard on a college campus. As English fares, so fares the nation. And English ain’t faring so well…

The Cross removed from the chapel at William & Mary University

Exclusionary multiculturalism: seemingly paradoxical, it is, unfortunately, a doctrine widespread in liberal quarters such as here at UNC. Liberals lovingly adhere to multiculturalism, the idea that every culture is on equal moral footing, the logical outcome of moral relativism, which is the idea that there is no moral truth, and, therefore, morality is a personal preference. Both these ideas are odious, however.  Exclusionary multiculturalism is an interesting offshoot of the two, for if each culture and each person is moral according to themselves, why are religious people, Christians in particular, harassed?

There are numerous examples of this. In New York City, the Nativity was forbidden as religious, yet the Star of David and other symbols of religions were displayed prominently. In a school district in Minnesota, the term “Easter Egg” (which isn’t even Christian) became “spring oval.” In a school district in Maryland, no song that mentions the Christ-child is allowed. “Christmas” songs are ones that mention winter. However, “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel, I made it out of clay” is sung, even though it is about the Jewish holiday Hanukkah. This past Christmas season, our very own university banned Christmas trees from both the Wilson and Davis Libraries.

Perhaps a good explanation of the basis of exclusionary multiculturalism is the recent ruling of the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court with reference to the case Harper v. Poway Unified School District. It states that “There is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status. Growing up as a member of a minority group often carries with it psychological and emotional burdens not incurred by members of the majority.” Therefore, Christians are allowed to be excluded, their celebrations ignored, for Christians are the majority, enjoying the “preferred social, economic, and political status;” yet Kwanza is celebrated in public schools.  Why should society adhere to such a double standard?

Inherent within liberal thought is this sense of retribution for past errors; hence the support for affirmative action, and so forth (interestingly, Zionism is absent from this list). Presumably, in their quest for equality, intolerance for peoples who have been majorities and therefore “discriminated” against the minorities follows. So within liberalism itself we have this inner conflict: be tolerant of all, yet intolerant of the majority, most often the religious. Perhaps that is why most liberals are secular humanists.  Conservatives make no pretense at such contradictory tolerance; tolerance already has a definition, but “progressives” seem intent on proving their insanity.

One can see the inherent paradox of the modern multiculturalism. Accept all other “cultures” because each is morally equivalent. Yet while they claim this, they simultaneously condemn the Hindu caste system, the Islamic fundamentalist treatment of women, and any instance of a conflict with their secular humanist agenda. Whatever happened to multiculturalism? Finally the crux of the matter appears: proponents of multiculturalism only agree to moral equivalence when the culture is in accord with the secular humanists agenda. That is why Oriental religions are quite popular with secular humanists; no dogma, just inner “oneness” with the various deities.

Thus, these people that designate themselves multicultural are hypocrites. They respect only themselves. These self-righteous leftists are masquerading as something no one can be: respectful of every action and every belief of every single culture. Just like Carl Sagan, the choice between beliefs and death leads to the repudiation of one’s beliefs. Why cannot these secular humanists recognize their inherent hypocrisy?

Mahmoud Ahmadinerjad

UNC professor Carl Ernst has received an academic award from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad personally presented the award to Ernst in Iran for his work involving a 12^th century Persian poet. The Daily Tar Heel, of course, could not help itself. According to their editorial board, “the accolade he received ought to be celebrated as an opportunity for academic interaction with a different culture.”

The DTH’s sentiment is a symptom of that disease that so infests UNC:  multiculturalism; an unforgiving infirmity that promises to make one stupid. Oh, Iran’s “different” alright. Everyone but Barack Obama has figured out that it is a terrorist state responsible for the murder of U.S. Military men and women; Iran actively smuggles weapons into Iraq for the stated purpose of supplying Iraqi terrorists. A U.S. defense official has noted that “these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government.”

Other favorite past times of Iranian culture is to murder both political and moral dissidents. Ahmadinejad has among his government officials those who, according to a human rights organization, “engaged in extra-judicial killings of opposition figures, political activists and intellectuals.” And, when asked at a Columbia University speaking engagement back in 2007 about his systematic murder of gays, Ahmadinejad explained, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” I guess not; they are all dead.

Further, Iran has, for two years, defied the United Nations regarding their uranium enrichment program which is just fantastic considering one of Ahmadinejad’s new year’s resolution is undoubtedly to bring the world to an end. Don’t believe me? He has said so himself. In a speech given November 16, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated that his main goal is to “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi,” the so called 12^th imam who (according to the Shia) will bring an end to the world upon his return.

Ahmadinejad has also denied the Nazi holocaust, calling it a “myth.” In 2006, the Iranian government held and organized a conference to examine whether the genocide of 6 million Jews ever really happened.

Lastly, a note to the UNC feminists out there:  I wouldn’t recommend holding an “I Heart Female Orgasm” event in Iran; that’s probably grounds for death by stoning. In Iran, women are oppressed daily. If a woman dares dress different from the Islamic dress codes, for example, she is promptly arrested.

So there you have it. The murder of thousands, the killing of gays, the persecution of women, denying the holocaust, and supplying terrorists with weapons used to kill U.S. soldiers; all this the DTH can forgive. Why? Because it’s “different.” Well whoop-di-doo.