Tag Archives: Stanford University

Stanford University fraternity told to remove American flag because it’s intimidating and aggressive

The next time we find ourselves despairing about the future of America, remember the young people of Sigma Chi and the Stanford Review.

The Stanford Review is an independent newspaper staffed completely by Stanford University undergraduates. It describes itself as “a political magazine that promotes independent thought at Stanford. We aim to promote debate about campus and national issues that are otherwise not represented by traditional publications.”

Stanford Review‘s executive director Antigone Xenopoulos reports on Nov. 28, 2018, that the Sigma Chi fraternity was on probation last year. So the fraternity tried to improve its image with the university so that the probation would be lifted and the fraternity be allowed to continue.

According to senior Pablo Lozano, class of 2018, as well as other students who asked not to be named, a Stanford University administrator “encouraged” Sigma Chi to take down the American flag flown in front of its house in order to improve its image on campus.

The administrative – let’s call him Mr. Z – was assigned to serve as a liaison between Residential Education and Sigma Chi. At first, Mr. Z was supportive and helpful, explaining to the fraternity often obscure bureaucratic processes.

But his demeanor changed one night in Autumn 2017.

The fraternity had invited Mr. Z to dinner, during which he “offhandedly suggested” that the American flag flown in front of the Sigma Chi house be removed.

Mr. Z urged Sigma Chi to consider the image being presented to the rest of campus by flying the flag out front. Lozano understood the administrator to imply that the American flag was intimidating, aggressive or alienating, and made others uncomfortable, and that Mr. Z found the mere sight of the American flag to be offensive.

Lozano recounted that the more the house talked about Mr. Z’s suggestion, the more it bothered them. Many found his proposal to take down the flag “weird”. The remark was out of the blue and incongruent with the rapport the fraternity had shared with Mr. Z. Furthermore, the fraternity wondered since when is an American flag flown at an institution in the United States offensive?

In fact, American flags adorned buildings near Sigma Chi and on campus, including:

  • Stanford’s Post Office right down the road from Sigma Chi.
  • Green Library’s Bing Wing.
  • Memorial Auditorium, which commemorates fallen Stanford soldiers since WWI.

Furthermore, Lozano noted that Mr. Z raised no objections to the Dominican flag flown by a student from his bedroom window in Sigma Chi or to the Palestinian flag hung across the street at Columbae.

To Sigma Chi’s credit, the fraternity not only declined to remove the American flag from its house, they replaced it with an even bigger one — from a 3×5 ft. flag to a 4×6 ft. flag. The former flag was then framed and placed on display inside the house. In Lozano’s words, Sigma Chi’s decision was a “silent but visible protest” against the classification of the American flag as a potentially stigmatizing symbol by a member of the Stanford administration.

And the upshot?

Sigma Chi is gone. The fraternity was shut down last May and no longer exists at Stanford University. (Breitbart)

Stanford Reviews executive director Antigone Xenopoulos concludes:

This series of events, known to few, is concerning on multiple levels. One can imagine a justification for opposing a foreign flag being flown on one’s own soil, though I believe that such a condemnation would be ultra-nationalist and antagonistic. One could also reasonably consider the display of an authoritarian regime’s flag to be insulting and hostile – be it a flag representing Nazi Germany, The Confederacy, or Apartheid South Africa. One can likewise anticipate the classification of a sectarian flag as illegal – be it that of Catalonian or Chechen separatists. However, there is no reason why hoisting the American flag, on American soil, at an American institution, is offensive.

Every individual – American or not – has a right to take issue with any and all policies and actions that the U.S. government takes. I am not discouraging criticism of, protest against, or opposition to U.S. government policies. In fact, I encourage such scrutiny. To classify the American flag on American soil as offensive or jingoistic, however, is an entirely separate phenomenon which implies the condemnation of the United States at large.

There is an evident aversion amongst private institutions in the Bay Area to affiliate or partner with the American government. Be it Google employees protesting collaboration with the military on AI development, the absence of the national anthem at Stanford’s 2018 graduation ceremony, the elimination of the American flag from student organization logos, or Stanford’s framing itself as a global rather than American institution, the pattern is clear. Affiliation or partnership with the U.S. government is neither popular nor sexy. Patriotism in the Bay [San Francisco Bay Area] is not praised; indeed, at this rate of pariah-hood, it may soon perish.

However, the presently taboo nature of national pride is shortsighted. The distinction between our timeless political institutions (and their hallowed symbols) and the country’s leaders and policies at any given moment in history is elementary but crucial. Condemnations of patriotism fail to recognize that the United States’ institutions have and will continue to outlive unpopular leaders. This fact alone is cause for significant national pride. The vilification of our nation and its symbols is damning for the social fabric of American society. The current political climate has destroyed the last remnants of civic unity and patriotism.

But enough with the ominous platitudes. Next time you hear someone degrade a symbol of the United States – whether in the form of a flag, the Constitution, or the national anthem – you can defend the principles of this nation through oration or just go out and, like Sigma Chi, buy a bigger one.

To donate to The Stanford Review, go here.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Baby born with DNA from 3 people, first from new technique

20_week_fetus
From Seattle Times: Scientists say the first baby has been born from a controversial new technique that combines DNA from three people — the mother, the father and an egg donor. The goal was to prevent the child from inheriting a fatal genetic disease from his mother, who had previously lost two children to the illness.
The birth of the boy is revealed in a research summary published by the journal Fertility & Sterility. Scientists are scheduled to present details at a meeting next month in Salt Lake City.
The magazine New Scientist, which first reported the birth, said the baby was born five months ago to Jordanian parents, and that they were treated in Mexico by a team led by Dr. John Zhang of the New Hope Fertility Center in New York. It’s not clear where the child was born.

Dr. John Zhang

Dr. John Zhang


The technique is not approved in the United States, but Zhang told the magazine, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.” A spokesman for the fertility center said Zhang was not available for further comment on Tuesday. Others involved in the research referred questions to Zhang.
The mother carries DNA that could have given her child Leigh syndrome, a severe neurological disorder that usually kills within a few years of birth. Her two previous children died of the disease at 8 months and 6 years, the research summary said.
The technique involved removing some of the mother’s DNA from an egg, and leaving the disease-causing DNA behind. The healthy DNA was slipped into a donor’s egg, which was then fertilized. As a result, the baby inherited DNA from both parents and the egg donor. The technique is sometimes said to produce “three-parent babies,” but the DNA contribution from the egg donor is very small.
People carry DNA in two places, the nucleus of the cell and in features called mitochondria, which lie outside the nucleus. The technique is designed to transfer only DNA of the nucleus to the donor egg, separating it from the mother’s disease-causing mitochondrial DNA.
The research summary identified the mother as a 36-year-old woman and said her pregnancy was uneventful. One of the five eggs the researchers treated was suitable for use.
Critics question the technique’s safety, saying children would have to be tracked for decades to make sure they remain healthy. And they say it passes a fundamental scientific boundary by altering the DNA inherited by future generations. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from women to their offspring.
Still, last year, Britain became the first country in the world to allow creation of human embryos with the technique. In the U.S., a panel of government advisers said earlier this year that it’s ethical to test the approach in people if initial experiments follow certain strict safety steps. That report was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is currently prevented by Congress from considering applications to approve testing the technique in people.
Shroukhrat Mitalipov, who has worked with the approach at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said that given the panel’s conclusion, “We believe it’s time to move forward with FDA-approved clinical trials in the United States.”
Henry Greely from Stanford University

Henry Greely from Stanford University


Henry Greely, who directs the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, said Tuesday he sees nothing wrong with using the technique if it is safe and is aimed at diseases clearly caused by faulty mitochondrial DNA. But he called the research leading to the newly reported birth “unethical, unwise, immoral.” He said the approach “hasn’t been sufficiently proven safe enough to try to use to make a baby.”
Dieter Egli of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, who has done work in the area, was cautious about the implications of the new report. “I wouldn’t go out there at this point and tout the accomplishment because we don’t have enough information,” he said Tuesday. “We do not know exactly what was done. We have to wait for a fuller report,’ he said.
The child is not the first to inherit DNA from three people. In the 1990s, some children were born after researchers used a different technique. But federal regulators intervened, and the field’s interest now has passed to the new approach.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

So Much for Doctor/Patient Confidentiality – 20,000 Patient Records

Patient Data Posted Online in Huge Breach of Privacy

By
Published: September 8, 2011

A medical privacy breach at Stanford University’s hospital in Palo Alto, Calif., led to the public posting of medical records for 20,000 emergency room patients, including names and diagnosis codes, on a commercial Web site for nearly a year, the hospital has confirmed….
….The spreadsheet contained names, diagnosis codes, account numbers, admission and discharge dates, and billing charges for patients seen at Stanford Hospital’s emergency room   Full Story
~LTG
 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Tax-Funded "Art" Depicts Jesus Getting Oral Sex

Still doubt that Christianity is under assault in America, where 80% of us still identify ourselves as Christians? Just ask yourself this question:

Would any “art” exhibit in America depict Moses, Buddha, any of the thousands of Hindu “gods,” a wiccan “goddess” or, jihad forbid, Muhammad receiving fellatio?

The systematic assault is by the Left, who have infiltrated every institution of our society — including our schools (please see my next post on “Silent Night”) and government at every level. Note that this so-called “art” exhibit is funded by taxpayer dollars.
~Eowyn

"Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -Ephesians 6

Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado

By Diane Macedo – FoxNews.com – October 4, 2010
An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
Enrique Chagoya’s “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,” created in 2003, is a multipanel piece in which “cultural and religious icons are presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes controversial contexts,” the artist’s publisher, Shark’s Ink, said on its website.
The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word “orgasm” appears beside Jesus’ head.
Dozens of protesters gathered at the museum over the weekend to object to Chagoya’s work, including Loveland Councilman Daryle Klassen, who failed to get the issue on the council agenda but said he’ll keep pressing to have what he has called “smut” and “pornography” taken down. “This is a taxpayer-supported, public museum and it’s family-friendly,” Donna Rice, another member of the city council, told the Denver Post. “This is not something the community can be proud of.”
Critics said the piece is appallingly disrespectful and offensive. “It is visual profanity,” Linda King, an art gallery owner, told the Loveland Reporter-Herald. “It disgraces the God of all creation.”
Several citizens even called the police regarding the exhibit, asking for an investigation into whether it violates a Colorado law that protects children from obscenity, the Reporter Herald reported. The city attorney determined it did not.
But the artist, a professor at Stanford University, said he was simply making a statement on problems he sees with religious institutions, including the sex-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic church. “My intention is to critique religious institutions, since they affect everybody’s lives (even people outside the religious sects),” Chagoya told FoxNews.com. “In my work mentioned above I address the role of the Catholic Church (among other religious groups) imposing its credo on Native American cultures all over the Americas. I also critique the Church’s position against same-sex marriage while allowing pedophiles to exist within its ranks for decades and keeping it quiet.”
Chagoya said he’s surprised by the response, saying there were no objections when the piece, which also includes comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes, was shown last year at a museum in Denver. “My work is about the corruption of the spiritual by the institutions behind it, not about the beliefs of anyone. I respect people’s opinions and I hope they respect mine,” Chagoya said. “…All I do is use my art to express my anxieties, with some sense of humor. Lets agree to disagree, and long live our First Amendment.”
Edwina Echevarria, a Loveland painter who was part of a smaller group of counter-demonstrators outside the museum, said she agreed with Chagoya. “We have to be a country where freedom of expression thrives,” she told the Reporter-Herald.
Don Surber of the Daily Mail says he wondered if Chagoya and his supporters would feel the same way if someone depicted Muhammad in the same way. “This has been done so many times before that it is a cliche. In the artworld, such work belongs next to the Velvet Elvis and the dogs playing poker,” Surber wrote in his blog. “If this ‘artist’ had any courage, he’d show Muhammad instead of Jesus. That’s cutting edge. That’s breaking new ground. That’s dangerous. That’s truly being willing to sacrifice for the sake of art.”
…”The Legend of Bud Shark and His Indelible Ink” is scheduled to remain on display until Nov. 28….
+++
Here’s Enrique Chagoya’s contact info:

  • Email: echagoya@stanford.edu
  • Primary Phone: (650) 736-8143
  • SecondaryPhone: (650)736-8143
  • Please follow and like us:
    0