VIDEO: Administrators literally shred Constitution after reporter calls it 'oppressive'

I am not surprised in some ways by this article but even so I am sorely disappointed by the thought process of some of the so called administrators and the stupidity they allow on campus by the P.C. crowd and socialist who have evidently never read history.

After some prompting from the reporter, she concedes that her hesitancy reflects her belief that the document is flawed, and suggests working with student groups to host a dialogue concerning “the ways in which the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain.”

“So, obviously my end goal is I want the Constitution to not have such a central part here at Oberlin—I would like people to see how discriminating it is and how racist it is,” the reporter tells Kozol. “Do you think that’s a reasonable goal that we could get to?”

“Absolutely,” Kozol says. “I think there are a lot of people who will immediately agree with you and join the conversation and think about ways to limit, confine, or talk back; maybe you just want to talk back to the Constitution.”

Carol Lasser, Professor of History and Director of Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies at Oberlin, likewise concurred that “[t]he Constitution is an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow process.

www.campusreform.org...

They stopped teaching the constitution when I was a kid in school. The generations that have come after that weren't taught have grown up and are now in charge.

Enjoy the distopia America, we deserve everything we're going to get.

a reply to: 727Sky

This reminds me of the Planned Parenthood videos! LOL!

The video was chopped up, omitting the context in several areas, but I get the idea... So, ONE person is "frightened" (or something) by the Constitution and wants to shred it for cathartic purposes. So what? It's her first amendment right to do so, just as it would be for someone to burn the flag.

What is the problem here?

a reply to: 727Sky

Apparently, they no longer think it is a "living document".

a reply to: 727Sky

Get ready for the.."this is more highly edited, BS propaganda from James O’Keefe".

Thanks for the thread.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What is the problem here?

So what is right.

This is just Conservative Correctness gone mad.

They're scared of anarchic expression.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Would she have that 1st Amendment right if the Constitution were gone?

I would think a woman would like the constitution and especially it's amendments for guaranteeing her right to a voice.
But I will hold judgement until I see the video unedited.

a reply to: NewzNose

Unless you lived in the most dystopian place to ever exist yes she could still shred a piece of paper freely.

a reply to: 727Sky

Unfortunately, the " P.C. crowd and socialist who have evidently never read history " are in charge of the educational process and the content of the propaganda they infuse into the youngsters. But who is that unfortunate for? Anyone over 50, who was originally born in the US is probably safe for the moment. It takes a long, long time to re-write and adopt a new constitution. They'll doubtless succeed in another generation or two, but the people who will be subjugated to the new constitution, the people who will lose the freedoms to the authors of the new constitution are probably a people unworthy of the original document. Neither they nor their "new" constitution will long be missed and they won't last long under tyranny.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Would she have that 1st Amendment right if the Constitution were gone?

I don't know. And I FIRMLY support the Constitution. But she DOES have the right, regardless of her manufactured "fears".

This is a sting video and people are entitled to their opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

It's not politically correct to shred the Constitution!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: 727Sky

This reminds me of the Planned Parenthood videos! LOL!

The video was chopped up, omitting the context in several areas, but I get the idea... So, ONE person is "frightened" (or something) by the Constitution and wants to shred it for cathartic purposes. So what? It's her first amendment right to do so, just as it would be for someone to burn the flag.

What is the problem here?

You know that whole "highly edited" claim has been debunked right? What exactly about those videos do you believe was "highly edited"?

Lemme get this straight.


The undercover "reporter" douche pretended to be offended and then asked for the document to be shredded...

He wasn't pushed to do so, he wasn't given the idea by any PC Liberal, it was solely his idea...



Because she complied with his request, Liberals are the problem for being nice to those who request a "therapeutic" favour?


Is that the gist of this nonsense?

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: 727Sky

This reminds me of the Planned Parenthood videos! LOL!

The video was chopped up, omitting the context in several areas, but I get the idea... So, ONE person is "frightened" (or something) by the Constitution and wants to shred it for cathartic purposes. So what? It's her first amendment right to do so, just as it would be for someone to burn the flag.

What is the problem here?

You know that whole "highly edited" claim has been debunked right? What exactly about those videos do you believe was "highly edited"?

So the highly edited claim was debunked huh?
Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds

Planned Parenthood on Thursday gave congressional leaders and a committee that is investigating allegations of criminality at its clinics an analysis it commissioned concluding that “manipulation” of undercover videos by abortion opponents make those recordings unreliable for any official inquiry. “A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,” the analysis of a private research company said.

originally posted by: TheBulk
You know that whole "highly edited" claim has been debunked right?

No, I don't. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

I didn't realize that giving a lady the right to speak her mind was stupid. Just because the topic of conversation is supposedly anti-American doesn't mean we should censor it or anything.

originally posted by: TheBulk

You know that whole "highly edited" claim has been debunked right? What exactly about those videos do you believe was "highly edited"?

You know, just because you SAY this, doesn't make it true. It would help to actually post evidence of your claims, though I can't remember you ever doing that...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: 727Sky

This reminds me of the Planned Parenthood videos! LOL!

What is the problem here?

Because this is another Jame O'Keefe production

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: 727Sky

This reminds me of the Planned Parenthood videos! LOL!

The video was chopped up, omitting the context in several areas, but I get the idea... So, ONE person is "frightened" (or something) by the Constitution and wants to shred it for cathartic purposes. So what? It's her first amendment right to do so, just as it would be for someone to burn the flag.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that these mental defectives will have the ability to change the Constitution with no opposition one of these days, when you and I are playing bridge in some retirement home where the TV is stuck on HSN.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Not without an Amendment convention they can't.