A Nation of Virtuous Individuals.


This article has flaws. I am not ignorant to that. Continue to point out flaws and challenge them critically and civilly. I know it is possible, because several of my friends have done so. Those are the best kinds of friends.

In this article, “Black Lives Matter” refers to the ORGANIZATION, not the MESSAGE. Of course Black lives matter – in fact, as far as I am concerned, every life matters. Nobody matters more than anyone else, just like nobody else’s opinion matters more than anyone else. If you don’t like my opinion, draw your own. I established this website to give my opinion.

I will never bow to a mob. I have no obligation to prove my character to people who do not know me. I am improving every single day, and this feedback is only going to make my arguments stronger. I have looked at every single comment and I will continue to do so. There are flaws in everything of this world, and there always will be.

I’ve done a lot of thinking since March 2020. Through all of the conflicting ideas running through my head, one idea remains true over all of them:

I love the United States of America.

I love our country. I love all of the different perspectives that make up our exceptional republic, as they are crucial to making healthy progress. However, I sense that the intense issues we face today are nothing but the result of festering wounds. I believe that the hardest and most complicated issues that we face as a country are caused by straying from the Founding Fathers’ doctrine. This includes the Constitution as well as the history, philosophy, and writings surrounding our founding.

I believe firmly that the United States of America is the best country in the world, in part because of its beautiful government theories and foundational philosophies. I believe that our system is unparalleled in human history, serving as a strong model for other countries around the world. The United States of America is the first country in the world that is made of free, self-governing individuals. When applied correctly, our national principles are exemplary.

On that note, I want to establish that I trust the institutions of our government… but I do not currently trust all of the actors within our institutions. Some recent Supreme Court decisions have eroded that trust even further. In the recent landmark case, Bostock v. Clayton County, the plaintiff asserts that Clayton County, GA, fired Gerald Bostock simply because he was transgender – which would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis that the term “sex” includes transgenderism. From the opinion of the court, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch:

The employers also stress that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, and that if Congress wanted to address these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically. But when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, this Court applies the broad rule.[1]

The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.[2]

There’s no authoritative evidence explaining why later Congresses adopted other laws referencing sexual orientation but didn’t amend this one. Maybe some in the later legislatures understood the impact Title VII’s broad language already promised for cases like ours and didn’t think a revision needed. Maybe others knew about its impact but hoped no one else would notice. Maybe still others, occupied by other concerns, didn’t consider the issue at all. All we can know for certain is that speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new legislation offers a “particularly dangerous” basis on which to rest an interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier Congress did adopt. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 650 (1990); see also United States v. Wells519 U. S. 482, 496 (1997); Sullivan v. Finkelstein496 U. S. 617, 632 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“Arguments based on subsequent legislative history . . . should not be taken seriously, not even in a footnote”).[3]

The opinion of the court seeks to incorporate “sexual orientation” within the term “sex” in Title VII, which can only result from a leap of judicial activism. In the last quote, Gorsuch is claiming that other laws have this problem fixed (and explicitly state the distinction between “sex”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity”), but Title VII in particular was not amended. I find it interesting that Gorsuch cites the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a quote that undermines the court’s own position (incorporating the statute of “sexual orientation” into “sex” is based solely off of legislative history after 1964, when the original act was written). Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent concisely summarizes the problem with this opinion:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty. This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.

Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.[4]

Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964.

It indisputably did not.[5]

The current definition of “sex” as applied in Title VII is clearly slated to provide protections to women – not to men, and not on the basis of sexual orientation. The definition reads:

(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-­related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.[6]

This precedent is frustrating because now, in legal terms, “sex”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity” will have no technical distinction. All of the terms bleed into each other and become androgynous. I believe there needs to be a distinction between these terms. They mean different things, and they should not be lumped together in the name of progressivism.

I bring up this ruling to make my point – yes, the outcome of the case is good for people that identify as LGBTQ. The benefits for these individuals are not the problem. The problem is that this was an overreach of constitutional authority by the Supreme Court of the United States that will have unintended consequences. The process was wrong, and it was perpetrated by flawed actors within our faithful institutions. This is also a failure of Congress to perform a check on the Judicial branch.

The proper procedure would have been for a sitting Congress to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to alter the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. OR, preferably, they would add these individual definitions under the protected statuses of Title VII. Then, and only then, SCOTUS would have the authority to make the decision that it did. SCOTUS should interpret the law, not make the law. If a law is technically vague, SCOTUS should apply judicial standards at the time that a law was written and adopted, like Justice(s) Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas did in this case.

This decision has hurt my faith in our sitting justices. I find it increasingly harder to believe that they are upholding our Constitution in the best interests of the majority after seeing the logical jump made in this decision. It appears to me that the affirming justices, like most of the weak-willed, are appeasing anger and shifting in the direction of the wind.

Additionally, I find it especially chilling that a sitting justice has expressed political opinions at all, let alone on the President of the United States (at the time, a candidate).[7] Forgive me if that doesn’t fill me with confidence that our lifetime appointees are impartially executing their duties.

Of course, there are going to be multiple interpretations of this case – that is the purpose of the court. Although I agree with the dissent of this specific case, I can understand how one could agree with the majority opinion of the court. Through their worldview and their own biases, it makes perfect sense. I formed my conclusion of this decision based off of the knowledge that I have about our government, and others can make their decisions with their own information.

It’s fascinating to see how the justices justify their positions and that is one of the reasons I find legal reading interesting. However, this ability (or willingness) to understand an opposing view is something that I am afraid our country is losing. I chose to go to Georgetown specifically to develop this capacity within myself.

Virtually, every issue is more complicated than what the “other side” makes it seem like. There is a reason for that: morality (right and wrong) differs in this country for many reasons. There is more than one solution to any problem, and there are many formulations of what is right and wrong (for many different reasons). The philosopher Isaiah Berlin made sense of conflicting morality in his explanation of pluralism (the possibility for multiple moral matrices, or moral perceptive sets):

I came to the conclusion that there is a plurality of ideals, as there is a plurality of cultures and of temperaments… There is not an infinity of [values]: the number of human values, of values which I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite… And the difference this makes is that if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it. Hence the possibility of human understanding.[8]

For anyone who legitimately believes that the “other side” is evil, I encourage you to read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. Nobody is evil solely because they hold a different political opinion in the United States of America today. They can be factually incorrect, they can be shortsighted, and they can be misguided, but it is disingenuous to write off somebody as entirely “evil”. Simply put, perception is largely affected by moral matrices: in Haidt’s words, “Morality binds and blinds”.

While nobody is completely evil, Dr. Jordan Peterson regularly emphasizes that true evil emerges in the face of ideological possession.[9] This specter has come to haunt the United States as “polarization increases”.

Black Lives Matter is a movement entirely based in unfalsifiable ideological possession, and it does not deserve your support. If you support this group, your emotions are being manipulated to push for fundamentally-incorrect solutions to problems that have many moving parts. The United States of America is not systemically racist today.

The sheer volume of left-leaning ideological possession is suffocating and inherently damaging to those possessed. People that I have known my entire life go to college and suddenly “realize” that the entire United States of America is systemically racist. That is not education; that is indoctrination. If you agree with that narrative, I challenge you to do one thing: read more. It always frustrates me to see how the mainstream media reports news because it is almost always misleading. Additionally, it seems that my left-leaning friends are reasonable in person, but take to the most radical positions on social media. I am equally frustrated to see my peers light up social media with emotionally-charged, deceptive, and manipulative “infographics”, as well as misinterpreted or incomplete statistics. Combine cherry-picking evidence with an enraged mob flooding social media for weeks, and they successfully create the illusion that everything in America is terrible!

On that note, I think it is humorous that college students claim to know exactly how to solve the incredibly complex issues that face us today. In the words of Thomas Sowell, “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Truthfully, we as individuals are much more ignorant than we would like to admit.

If you want what’s best for our country, do not “defund the police”. If anything, the police need MORE money to provide more comprehensive training (among other solutions). I am just so very thankful that police departments are governed at the local level. I don’t know what I would do if I lived in a city that legitimately disbanded their own police precincts. I guess I would probably employ my own security…[10] Police officers and other first responders save countless lives. Their job is incredibly difficult. It takes courage and an unfathomable level of compassion to hold the line every single day for people who spit on you at every opportunity. Good police officers are heroes.

Ultimately, ruining the lives of innocent people or “burning down the system” will never solve the issue of racism. Like most things, the solution comes from local, self-government – one of the founding principles we have strayed from. Even more local than a municipality, it will be solved by true self-government, at the level of the family unit. A family filled with love has no room for racism to exist.[11]

Racial disparities exist, but I do not believe they exist for the reasons that Black Lives Matter OR the majority of my peers suggest. I have reason to believe that these issues exist as a result of flawed and overreaching policy beginning after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once again a result of straying from founding principles. This is a discussion I wish to have soon, as soon as I get my facts in order. Stay tuned for that.

Personally, I think a good start to actually ending racism is to cherish our shared national identity. Ideally, we will be able to refer to each other as “Americans” and nothing more. We won’t have to preface it with Black or White or Hispanic or Asian… we can just say “American”. We can say “friend”. We can say “brother”. We can say “sister”. By no means do I mean we should erase different cultures. We can simultaneously remember our cultures and participate in our country. The United States of America is unique in that aspect – you can be patriotic and unified while maintaining your roots. Every ethnicity in America was a minority at some point in history.

My personal experiences also lead me to believe that Black Lives Matter and other leftists are wrong regarding racism and injustice. I never experienced racism until I went to Georgetown. Volunteering to help a club I was part of, I stood at a table with two of my friends to recruit new members. A girl (also a member) came up to our table and said something along the lines of “Everyone’s going to get scared away by the three white men running our table.” Of course, this example is also accompanied by the countless “You wouldn’t understand because you’re a white male” that I get in class discussions. Something is wrong with this supposedly “anti-racist” line of thinking. I even read White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo and I came to one major takeaway: yes, everything is racist if you redefine what racism is and view everything through a dogmatic lens of “oppression”. What a pitiful way to view your neighbors, coworkers, and friends.

Before my political stance solidified, I researched the two sides of the US political spectrum and what they theoretically stood for. After that, all I could use to inform my decision was personal experience, personal preference, and the behaviors of others. After reading many books (culminating with the Jonathan Haidt book mentioned earlier) and witnessing the vitriol of the left in recent months, I have determined where I stand. When statues started coming down, I knew that I had to pick a side and speak up. If I didn’t speak up now, I would only have myself to blame for drastic and unwanted changes to our beautiful country.

I am beginning to understand the unique role I will play in the years to come. I am not an aggressor; I am a defender. I am preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. I am preparing to fight on behalf of my family, my community, my state, and my nation. My existence has a purpose and the path is clear. I will do my part to preserve our nation and work towards a more perfect Union.

We all have a role to play in healing this country. Our divisions are being exploited to drive us apart, and we cannot allow that to happen anymore. Disagreement is healthy – hatred is not. The United States of America can only exist as a nation of virtuous individuals; I just hope that we are still virtuous enough to resolve our problems civilly.

[1] Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 4 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).

[2] Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 13 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).

[3] Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 24 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).

[4] Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 39-40 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).

[5] Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 41 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).

[6] https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964

[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-ginsburg-doesnt-let-up-on-trump-who-fires-back/2016/07/12/851d62ce-4879-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

[8] Berlin, I. 1997/1958. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” From The Proper Study of Mankind, ed. H. Hardy and R. Hausheer, 191-242. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. From The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion, ed. J Haidt. Pp. 369.

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w84uRYq0Uc8 (41:00-57:00 is the specific section I wish to highlight)

[10] U.S. Const. amend. II. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

[11] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng





37 thoughts on “A Nation of Virtuous Individuals.

    1. You are just brainwashed idiot. Everybody us entitled to his opinion. Just wait for your darling blm and antifa to send you in gulag camp.

  1. Very thoughtful explanation if ideals and founding principles. Hopefully people can see past their ideology to appreciate that!

  2. This article is both under-researched, and disingenuous. First and foremost, inserting quotes by various political philosophers is not evidence, nor does it make an argument stronger. I’ll first address your argument about the constitutionality of the Bostock v. Clayton County case and what you believe to be a growing partisanship within the Supreme Court. Just as a clarification, Gerald Bostock was fired because he joined a gay softball league; Aimee Stephens was the plaintiff who was fired for being trans. You soundly criticize the justices who argued the majority opinion, claiming “their worldview and their own biases”, as well as their desire to appease their fellow “weak-willed” individuals, influenced their decision. However, can’t the same be said for the dissenting justices, who could have been influenced by personal anti-lgbtq+ beliefs which many of them have expressed? Furthermore, I find it insincere to claim that the Supreme Court has lost its position as an apolitical institution only recently, or to attribute this loss to Justice Ginsberg’s comments on then-candidate Trump. The Supreme Court has not been a politically neutral institution for a very long time, if it ever was. In my view, the fact that Justice Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices despite his historical opposition to expanding lgbtq+ rights gives greater legal credibility to the Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
    The author claims that the solution to historical issues like racism and homophobia is discourse. In the same breath, he characterizes “leftists” as radicals perpetrating an evil ideology. Time and time again the author seems to approach a reasonable point, like the dismissing of people’s opinions on the basis of race or gender, and then fails to reach it as he incorporates his own biases and false equivalencies. To identify an experience of being called a “white man” as an example of racism is astonishingly ignorant. It is strikingly clear that, despite his “extensive” reading, the author has failed to actively try to understand or listen to the stories and experiences of people of color in the U.S. He repeatedly praises the U.S. without considering the reality of the other people in this country who experience discrimination and violence on the basis of their race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and gender. One only has to look at the way the author writes about racism, as an issue that largely becomes relevant due to his own “victimhood”, to see his failings in the argument. The idea that local self-government is somehow the solution to racism is nonsensical and is not supported by evidence or logic. The author claims that a “family filled with love has no room for racism to exist”. How can a family like that come into existence without properly addressing and changing members of the family who hold racist views?
    We then come to one of my greatest issues with this piece; attributing current day racial divides and issues to the “overreaching policy beginning after the Civil Rights Act of 1964”. This is an extremely strong claim, and would be of interest in the author made any attempt to expand or support it with evidence. Instead, he essentially hands the reader an IOU and breezes past the topic. If you are going to write a piece arguing against the existence of systemic racism (and instead vaguely reference a “racial divide”), you had better have a strong alternative argument. Do not include a dismissive statement on the root of racism that relies entirely on your own pondering.
    Furthermore, your claim that systemic racism does not exist in the United States and is instead a radical, false assertion pressed upon college students lacks any evidentiary support and betrays your ignorance. Have you considered that college students’ “realization” of systemic racism in college is tied to further education in a more diverse context as well as a lack of comprehensive education about racism in U.S. high schools? I would really encourage you to read more about the intentional creation of mass incarceration to supplant a sudden lack of free labor in the post-civil war era and to research the disparity within drug use and arrests/sentencing on the basis of race.
    Ultimately, this piece suffers from a lack of sufficient, compelling evidence and from the arrogant, all-knowing attitude of the author. In my opinion, the sentence stating that “it is humorous that college students claim to know exactly how to solve the incredibly complex issues that face us today” is easily the best point in this entire article. That being said, it reeks of hypocrisy. The author makes this claim and then proceeds to write an article based almost entirely on his own blanket statements and ideals. If you truly wish to achieve a “more perfect union”, it starts with listening to those who have been hurt by this country, and acknowledging their pain while striving to find solutions.

    1. This is beautiful. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and courage, and G-d bless you for your patience, forbearance and willingness to engage with your opponents. I hope that others can find the willingness to judge people by the content of their character, and the wisdom to appreciate and protect this country of ours. I will pray for you, your friends, and your opponents.

    2. So you wrote a book (I didn’t bother to read it) and were too much of a coward to put your name on it. For your information you dumbazzes are in college because you don’t know squat. I can tel you are wasting your or someone elses money being there. that’s the difference between you and Mr. Torgerson he actually belongs there.

    3. woa this article really really struck home as you wrote all that very interesting by the way, as childish he could have been writing his, you as heated as you got with all your knowledge and research failed also is to bring to the table and idea, a mitigation (there is none) so Good luck with all your time invested and your fettered efforts going nowhere. realize that your words are empty and they are going to be taken by the wind and dispersed, they are going to dissapear. Only a true enlightened mind can reach that place were there is no racism nor hatred, but not all will reach true enlightenment some will fail and derange again back to the same place they were before why? human nature, that part of you that is selfish, a coward, the one who wants to drink and destroy and indulge himself/herself. to achieve enlightenment is to sacrifice the human animal is to bring him down and let reason and mind govern the whole.

      Good luck human, dont get too flustered, it’s futile. oh but you knew that but it gives you pleasure and satisfaction. the base and purpose of all human action.

  3. I lost a brain cell reading this, thank you for cherry picking quotes from philosophers (which isn’t evidence) and for effectively saying that the problem with America is that we strayed from the founding fathers and the constitution. Your founding fathers were: racist, participated in genocide, denied poc and women fundamental human rights. They did: all gather up and wrote a document based on their historical time and environment which is now 1) hundreds of years old 2) not inclusive/representative of people that aren’t white men and 3) not applicable or representative of the current situation in America with no real consideration of history. We get that you got upset that someone called you out on your privilege and racism but don’t kill people’s brain cells like this without an adequate warning at the beginning.

    1. This is incredible! Keep fighting the good fight. This gives me faith for our country’s future. For America to stay great we need to lean in to our founding values not destroy them.

  4. I could write a dissertation-length paper about how terrible the takes in this piece are, but I’m ultimately just angry and disappointed that a Georgetown student would parade around such baseless, racist views. One of the worst is suggesting that the apparent panacea to racial trauma and injustice (which you don’t seem to believe exists at a system level, which is ignorant in its own right) is affirming “national identity.” Racist policy treatments are not going to be fixed by proclamations of nationalism. If anything, glorifying Americanism—instead of rightfully drawing attention to its deficits in order to create the “more perfect union” that seems to be so important to you—only perpetuates racism. You really think that the cure for redlining and forced sterilization and oversurveillance of Black communities and racist drug policing and unequal access to public infrastructure and loads of other discriminatory practices is just *cherishing that we’re American*? That’s ridiculous. Not only would it not work, but it’s also logically disingenuous: none of these practices are things to cherish, and yet all of them have been embedded into the American reality. On an individual level, this also isn’t going to work—white people aren’t going to suddenly drop their racism by thinking “oh I’m proud to be an American” and people of color aren’t going to suddenly stop experiencing that racism as a result of that line of logic either.

    The irony of you publishing this piece and trying to dislodge the claims Black organizers have rightfully made about the ubiquity of racism is that it only proves their point. This essay is racist. Do better.

  5. Excellent article! Common sense is one thing that most college students completely lack in this era of our incredible Country. You have exhibited an unusually high level of common sense. Excellent!!

  6. To everyone who has come here to cancel the author:

    I’m not angry at you. I feel sad for you. If someone is blind or deaf or disabled, I feel bad for that person by nature of the disability. But you are even more disabled in what truly matters in life – you are unable to tell right from wrong. If you’re in the SFS – even more shame on you. Most of you, I assume, got an A in PST. Did you even read a word in On Liberty? “I disagree with this view so the speaker must be punished!” is exactly what the Nazis and a lot of other horrible people in history had practiced. If it wasn’t for the morbid knowledge of what’s happening in society, I’d be laughing at the “I’m so woke I’m fucking racist” responses that I’ve read today.

    1. Dear SFS’23,

      Identify yourself! Don’t drag the other 200 people who identify as SFS’23 through the dirt with your unfortunate, uninformed, ableist and patronizing comment. Really putting the sfs education to waste :/

      1. Lol – I live in and have been volunteering and teaching in the most underprivileged communities for years. I spend my time with organizations that help increase minority enrollment in colleges while you think “social justice” is posting a black square on Instagram. It’s funny – if you knew who I was, you’d still try to cancel me.

    2. Wow a comment that manages to be strikingly ableist and compare criticism of a public post to Nazis! I promise you disabled individuals don’t need your pity and neither do the people criticizing Billy’s post.

    3. try me! what’s your name? so I can personally ask those “underprivileged” individuals you’ve so graciously have been helping, whether they enjoy being tokenized, patronized and belittled by your charity.

    4. try me! what’s your name! So I can personally ask those “underprivileged” individuals you’ve so graciously have been helping, whether they enjoy being tokenized, patronized and belittled by your charity. 🙂

      1. If I’m tokenizing, patronizing and belittling, then go and volunteer! Help clean up the streets, teach students how to do math, a foreign language, whatever. That way people like me won’t need to 🙂 Just remember: wherever you are in life, it’s not “the racists” or “the patriarchy” that determines who you are – you are the oly person who decides who you want you to be. I wish you the best. I really do.

  7. As an alum, young people like you give me hope. Your article is well written, clear, and measured. It reveals a well of common sense and courage so many of your detractors lack. And perhaps most of all, it is fundamentally rational, as opposed to the muddled and histrionic screeds I see these days (like most of these screeching comments, for example). As hard as it is and will be, please stay the course. Ignore the gaslighting. You’re not the one losing your mind, they are.

  8. Hang in there.

    While your opinions might be controversial, they certainly are not mean-spirited or racist. Your fellow students, academia as a whole, and your nation needs courageous people like you to be able to express critical thoughts and especially those that challenge conventional wisdom.

    Academia used to champion free speech and celebrate open-mindedness. Now, as evidenced by many of the comments here and by the actions of the Georgetown Student Association, not only do they refute the very essence of free speech, they are requiring conformity of thought as a new form of intellectual orthodoxy.

    Your peers, your Student Association, and (so far) your university is failing you. Don’t let their failures defeat you.

  9. After reading your article, Jonathan Turley’s editorial about your article, and Georgetown’s Speech and Expression Policy (excerpted below) I can only conclude that your university is teaching its students to oppress people like you.

    “1. The nature of a university. A university is many things but central to its being is discourse, discussion, debate: the untrammeled expression of ideas and information.”

    “2. The university teaches by being what it is.”

  10. Hurrah for Billy Torgerson, and thanks to him for such an insightful commentary! What a shame, meanwhile, that Georgetown University — now mostly just another Catholic-In-Name-Only Jesuit operation — is run by (and caters to) such a collection of knaves and fools. Mr. Torgerson is among the evidently few and far between courageous intellectuals still matriculated, managing, or teaching there.

  11. A very thoughtful and interesting article. Thank you for your insight and views. Isn’t it wonderful our country enjoys free speech? Too bad so many reading this and your university’s student council do not believe in every citizen’s right to enjoy their first amendment rights. Please keep up your good work

  12. A truly well written article. I have no rebuttal and I agree with everything you’ve said. Please continue speaking up! I support you moving forward young man. (Perhaps someday we’ll see you in the political arena).

  13. As a GU alumnus (Class of ’83) it sickens me that the students that the University has chosen to become the next generation of leaders have become just another collection of knee-jerk Leftists intent upon shouting down any viewpoint that disagrees with their own. This is the antithesis of what GU was when I attended. Of COURSE we had our political differences, but for the most part both other students and the professors were not just willing, but EAGER, to debate – in a civil manner – against the ideas with which they disagreed. We had right-wing and left-wing professors and students, and every shade of gray in between – and we celebrated that. Fast forward 37 years, and GU resembles the USSR that my grandfather escaped from in the 1920s, were dissent against the prevailing orthodoxy was reported and punished. Thankfully, the Student Senate doesn’t have the power that the NKVD had back in the day, or poor William would be rotting away in some dark, dank prison cell. YES, that is what is happening here! The Leftists cannot brook any dissent from their (ever-changing) dogma – so they took a page from the old Soviet Union and invented an American cancel culture (though the Soviet one was a bit harsher – it involved gulags and just plain being shot in the back of the head).

    You know what bothers me the most about the Leftists, the collectivists of ANY stripe: that they utterly deny the existence of personal responsibility. Everyone is either a victim of come kind of oppression, or guilty of the most heinous crimes – not because they actually did something right or wrong, but because of the color of their skin, or their religion, or the place where their ancestors came from before arriving at our shores. By denying personal responsibility, they deny free will – and thus deny God. This is an institution that was founded by a religious order, and the Student Senate – supposedly the best among the students – rushed to deny God’s very existence by blindly following the (latest in a long line of changing) standards of the most anti-God institution ever invented, collectivism.

    William, I wrote something to you privately, but I will repeat it here for everyone else who reads this: in this life you are not only judged by those who are your friends, you are also judged by those who are your enemies. What the circumstances surrounding this article’s publication have shown is that in this context, you have picked some incredibly wonderful enemies – people who are largely devoid of knowledge about History, people who are intensely intolerant (despite their bleatings to the contrary), and people so filled with hatred that it drips from every pore of their bodies. All that I can say is that you should continue to have the courage and the determination to voice your opinion. Back it up with facts as much as possible, but don’t ever surrender on the issue of your opinion itself, because opinion is really all about values. Bend no knee to men, only to God.

  14. Welcome to the exclusive club of those of us who somehow have managed to remain free thinkers amidst the authoritarian rabble. I do not agree with you on all counts, but I certainly support your right to say what you say without fear of reprisal or harassment from a bunch of children. One of the main things that I had to learn throughout my undergrad years was to think of people who behave with hatred as children, since only children are incapable of civil discourse, who cannot be intellectually humble enough to acknowledge that other POVs might just be seeing things differently rather than immorally, or lack the ability to solve disagreements on a one-on-one level rather than running and hiding behind the skirts of whatever institution that they belong to. Unfortunately, childhood does not end when someone turns 18, goes to college, or moves out of their parent’s home. Sometimes it is a chronic condition.
    I have a favorite quote from Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism: “Men have been found to resist the most powerful monarchs and to refuse to bow down before them, but few indeed have been found to resist the crowd, to stand up alone before misguided masses, to face their implacable frenzy without weapons and with folded arms to dare a no when a yes is demanded.”
    Don’t give up on your beliefs. Ultimately, you are the one who knows what kind of person that you are, and no amount of name-calling or acrimony from children can change that if you refuse to let it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *