When the city of New Orleans finally began the process of taking down its pro-Confederate monuments this week, it faced some opposition. One of the more high-profile critics of the decision was Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart.

Stewart attracted attention on the internet a few days ago for his tweet-storm defending preservation of the monuments. But there was one controversial tweet in particular that stood out.

Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don't matter.

— Corey Stewart (@CoreyStewartVA) April 25, 2017

Twitter users quickly reminded Stewart that he is not from the South (he is a Minnesota native), and that a lot of things are actually worse than “a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don’t matter.”

You are from Minnesota. https://t.co/45pEgVGmC2

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 25, 2017

@CoreyStewartVA Like, literally, nothing? Nothing is worse?

— John Legend (@johnlegend) April 25, 2017

you know what was worse? Slavery https://t.co/1ACEuYjUh9

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 25, 2017

1. Slavery
2. Lynchings
3. Black women raped + their rapists set free
4. Jim Crow
5. Workplace discrimination
6. Housing discrimination https://t.co/aTgOxwXEqd

— Yashar (@yashar) April 25, 2017

Stewart, who is currently a chairman for the Board of Supervisors in Prince Williams County, Virginia, announced his bid for governor of the state in April 2016 (the primary elections will take place this June). Since then, he has become a vocal advocate for honoring Confederate landmarks, and has integrated the issue heavily into his campaign. In February, he organized protests in Charlottesville, Virginia against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Earlier this month, he attended a Civil War-themed “Old South Ball.”

For many, Confederate symbols (like the flag) will always represent white supremacy because of their ties to the southern states that seceded from the U.S. and defended slavery during the Civil War. Stewart, on the other hand, has said that his position on the issue is not about the Confederate flag, but about “rampant, uncontrolled political correctness that is shaming Virginians who are simply trying to honor their ancestors, their ancestry, their heritage.”

If that anti-political correctness sentiment sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard similar things from President Donald Trump while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart supported Trump during the presidential election and served as the chair of Trump’s campaign in Virginia, until he was fired for orchestrating an unauthorized protest against anti-Trump Republicans outside the Republican National Convention headquarters.

Now, his commitment to protecting Confederate heritage, and combating what he calls “historical vandalism,” could hurt him in his run. Stewart recently lost the support of Prince William County’s sheriff, who switched his endorsement to back Stewart’s Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. Sheriff Glendell Hill told the Washington Post that Stewart’s views on “all that Confederate stuff” were too divisive. Four GOP supervisors who serve on the county board with Stewart also chose to endorse Gillespie.

Like Trump, Stewart is known for being outspoken on the internet. In March, he answered questions on a Reddit thread known as an “Ask Me Anything,” or AMA. At one point in the AMA, Stewart referred to Gillespie as a “cuckservative,” a term coined by the alt-right movement to disparage Republicans who are too moderate. In the same question-and-answer session on the site, he called for deportation of “criminal illegal aliens,” called globalists “BAD people” (even though he has worked as an international trade attorney).

Stewart has also tried to cover up negative information about himself–like low ratings about his claims on the fact-checker Politifact, and his loss in the 2016 race for lieutenant governor–by editing his own Wikipedia page.

From the establishment of sanctuary cities to the legalization of marijuana, a lot of resistance to the Trump Administration and its policies happens on local and state levels. Virginia’s current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, has opposed the president’s immigration order while Democratic candidates for governor like Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam have both criticized and vowed to push back against the federal government. But a win for Stewart could change that.

However, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Gillespie–who voted for Trump, but whose support of the president has been lukewarm in comparison to Stewart’s–leading with 28 percent, while Stewart is currently falling behind at 12 percent. According to the same poll, in the general election both Perriello and Northham would hold double-digit leads over Gillespie.

Not to mention, Trump’s politics haven’t been very popular in Virginia–he pulled his campaign out of the state weeks before the election, a move that was criticized by Stewart.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Corey Stewart, the Pro-Confederate Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Halloween is a frightening time of the year, although it does not normally send university students to counseling.

The University of Florida said in a statement last week that it will be offering counseling students to students who are offended by Halloween costumes.

“Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions,” the statement says. “Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people.”

The school then provided contact information for different resources around campus. One of the resources, the U Matter, We Care program, describes itself as “UF’s umbrella program for UF’s caring culture and provides students in distress with support and coordination of the wide variety of appropriate resources,” according to its website.

Additionally, students have access to a 24/7 counselor reachable by phone and a service to mediate situations of bias. According to the statement, “the Bias Education and Response Team at the University of Florida is able to respond to any reported incidents of bias, to educate those that were involved, and to provide support by connecting those that were impacted to the appropriate services and resources.”

Over the past few years, Halloween costumes have become a large issue on college campuses, with many people feeling as though costumes appropriate their culture or reinforce negative stereotypes.

This year, costumes such as the “Kim the Hostage” costume and another depicting a gorilla holding a plastic baby, have come under intense scrutiny, as they reference graphic events.

They made a Kim K hostage costume …………… pic.twitter.com/arLpoiV6uS

— Nathaniel (@swallowship56) October 13, 2016

Some people, however, voiced their concerns over the services the university is providing.

Our country is doomed. “The school is offering counseling to those who may be offended by costumes this season.”https://t.co/h6It6mTjx3

— Matt Lewis (@Mac_Tampa) October 15, 2016

University of Florida is offering counseling to anyone upset by a halloween costume. In other news, the 4th Horseman just saddled up

— Andy Lambert (@AndyLambertAndy) October 15, 2016

The university encouraged students to be aware of the costumes that they choose to wear on Halloween, adding, “Thank you for being mindful of these values, and have a fun and safe Halloween.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Florida to Offer Halloween Counseling to Offended Students appeared first on Law Street.

When I went on Twitter today to try to find something to write about for all of you, it didn’t take long before my eyes were assaulted by an onslaught of tweets filed under the trending hashtag #TheTriggering.

I mistakingly clicked on the hashtag’s title thinking that it was some kind of fan dialogue on the next lousy “Purge” movie or something, but quickly realized, no, its a bunch of men’s rights fanatics and internet trolls “back at it again with the bulls***t.”

Damn misogynists!

For those of you who are still confused, #TheTriggering, as explained by someone calling themselves TheFoolAndTheWorld on the anti-“social justice warrior” site Age of Shitlords…(yes that is the site’s actual name), is an annual event where racist, sexist, and generally horrible men and women decide to be…even more racist, sexist, and horrible on social media.

Age of Shitlords explains,

Our freedom of speech is under attack from cultural Marxists who seek to subvert us. Well, as The Addams Family said…’we gladly feast on the flesh of those who week to subdue us.’ That is why on March 9th and 10th, to fight political correctness, and to celebrate the return of Lauren Southern’s profile, we shitlords around the world will conduct the annual event known as #TheTriggering on all forms of social media.

Essentially participants are asked to “post the most vile and offensive things [they] can think of (within federal law), in defense of freedom of speech.”

The anti-misogyny site We Hunted the Mammoth reports that the hashtag is the brainchild of Lauren Southern, a Canadian anti-feminist activist and journalist who loves to bully feminists. According to the site, “she first became something of an icon in the internet’s jerk community last year after she showed up at a slutwalk in Vancouver proudly holding a sign reading ‘there is no rape culture in the West.'”

To give you a taste of what that looks like, here are some of the most vile tweets from users reveling in the political correctness protest.

If you’re of minority ethnicity, your segregated “safe spaces” are precisely what Jim Crow racists wanted. Idiots. #TheTriggering

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 9, 2016

Feminists don’t get raped. They find a man drunk enough to get it up and then try and extract money from him#TheTriggering — Squints McCuck (@FemsHaveBallz) March 9, 2016

I have ZERO “white guilt” In 2016 shouting racist is a tactic used to gain an advantage#TheTriggering pic.twitter.com/Dj2KWVhzmd — Jared Wyand (@JaredWyand) March 9, 2016

“DEY TOOK OUR JOBS!” “No, we just don’t have a position for someone with a gender studies degree.” #TheTriggering

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) March 9, 2016

There’s no “gender pay gap” — but there should be. https://t.co/UYaxmTAxT5#TheTriggering pic.twitter.com/rYm3mhH3qC — Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ (@Nero) March 9, 2016

You are either male or female. Biology dictates it. “Gender fluid” & “gender non-conforming” translate to: I need attention.#TheTriggering

— Leah the Boss (@LeahRBoss) March 9, 2016

#BlackLivesMatter is a movement based on a lie, perpetuated by those who glorify criminals. #TheTriggering — Leah the Boss (@LeahRBoss) March 9, 2016

Don’t complain about govt regulating your ovaries if you give them permission to regulate every part of other people’s lives. #TheTriggering

— That Guy T (@_ThatGuyT) March 9, 2016

Right-wingers who aren’t white and male exist, and not just in your nightmares. #TheTriggering — Lauren Southern (@Lauren_Southern) March 9, 2016

While scrolling through tweets I noticed a trend of women involved in the hashtag going above and beyond to prove that they could be just as “sexist and anti-feminist” as their male counterparts, which was pretty sad seeing as yesterday was International Women’s Day.

Clearly these trolls are intentionally looking to piss off as many people as possible, so I guess I won’t take it too personally, but as one insightful user puts it:

FYI people using the #TheTriggering hashtag to upset and offend others; it is only causing a moderate level of PTSD, so the joke’s on you.

— Godfrey Elfwick (@GodfreyElfwick) March 9, 2016

Editor’s note: This post has been updated to remedy a typo.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Web Trolls & Men’s Rights Activists Step Up Hate for #TheTriggering appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bread Cruz for President! appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

As a “melting pot,” Americans observe and consume different aspects of various cultures every day. In Western culture, it has become the norm to borrow foods, traditions, and clothing from other racial and ethnic groups as we please. But when exactly does taking inspiration from other cultures’ ways of dressing cross the line into cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation by definition is “the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another.” From Pharell’s Elle UK cover, to Katy Perry’s music videos, the fashion and entertainment industries always seem to cause an uproar every time someone wears a Native American headdress or Indian bindi. But is it possible to ever rock a turban or fringe without offending anyone?

The answer to that question is complicated, especially when it comes to those cultures that have been historically repressed by others. Native Americans seem to be the biggest issue with the ubiquitous use of headdresses everywhere from the runway to music festivals like Coachella. There’s no doubt that white people have done horrible things throughout history to exploit Native Americans, so I understand why they would be terribly offended when they see people from outside of their culture wearing full-on headdresses.

However, there are some styles that have become so ingrained into the Western way of dress that people may wear them without even realizing that they might be offending someone. Moccasins, for example, have become a staple shoe option in the West. And why wouldn’t they? They’re comfortable and go with almost anything. And what about driving moccasins? Should we stop using such a practical innovation in footwear just because our forefathers stole the idea hundreds of years ago?

So what determines what styles belong to a certain culture anyway? One culture that seems to have a lot of gray areas is that of African Americans. One of the most sensitive areas in African American culture is the representation of their hair. And just because a person is a minority doesn’t mean that they are free to wear whatever they want without considering other subcultures. Dreadlocks, for example, have religious associations that might make it inappropriate for some African Americans to wear. 

African Americans in general have taken on certain kinds hairstyles to be considered as their own, such as cornrows and baby hairs. As a white Hispanic girl with curly hair, sometimes I find it difficult to tell if I’m “allowed” to get in on the natural hair movement that many mixed-race women and women of color have been embracing lately. Some mixed-raced Latinas may be able to get away with sporting cornrows, but as someone who appears to be a white woman of Anglo-Saxon descent it’s difficult to see where I fall. Am I supposed to walk around with a sign that says “I am Cuban-American. My ancestors did not enslave your ancestors”?

Granted there are times when celebrities completely disregard a culture’s background and simply wear certain styles because they think it’s cool or sexy. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Rihanna come tend to come to mind as examples. Perry’s “Dark Horse” video is just a bunch of random cultural messages slapped together without even trying to make a statement or anything of artistic substance.

A lyric in Lady Gaga’s song “Aura” reads verbatim “she wear burqa for fashion.” So not only is she trying to make light of a garment that women are forced to wear in some parts of the Middle East, she uses incorrect grammar to imitate a foreign accent. Not cool.

Yeah…not really sure what’s going on here.

And let’s not forget the time Rihanna came under fire for trying to look sexy in traditional clothing in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi mosque asks Rihanna to leave after photo shoot clashed with “sacredness.” http://t.co/1jgq2Duh5q pic.twitter.com/SjjrIx7Pxi

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) October 22, 2013

While I’m not sure if we can always dress without appropriating any cultures whatsoever, there are few instances where it is a big no-no. With Halloween coming up, try to be conscious about what kind of costumes you choose to wear. For example the sexy version of any kind of ethnic-wear is probably not the most politically correct thing to wear. Most importantly, this holiday should be about having fun, so think about how un-fun it would be to feel like your own cultural identity is under attack.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Beckett via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Cultural Appropriation in Fashion Ever Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Greetings from Las Vegas! As I mentioned last week, last week was my birthday so I decided to celebrate it the right way and am spending a few days in Vegas with friends. It’s been a blast so far!

I am a creature of habit and no matter how late I stay up my body and mind are still ready to get the day started at 9am despite any time zone. Part of my morning ritual is to watch Fox News just to see what’s going on in the world. Monday morning I stuck with my routine, flipped on the television and watched whatever program was being aired. In this case it was the afternoon (on the East Coast) show, Outnumbered. This show has a rotating group of hosts but the only consistent thing is that there are four women and a man sitting on a couch talking about topics of the day and not all of it is political, which I kind of enjoyed!

After a couple of segments the host for the day, Pete Hegseth, brought up the new racist claims on a fraternity at the University of California at Irvine. So the story goes that the fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta, recently had a Fiji-themed party at the end of its charity week that has offended certain people. The theme seems reasonable because apparently this particular fraternity has been called “FIJI” since the 1800s. So what’s the problem? Apparently grass skirts and coconut bras are racist in the context of a party. Yep. You can read that again but it is still going to be the same: grass skirts plus coconut bras equal RACISM!

Just hearing about this even being an issue has blown my mind. If anything Phi Gamma Delta is celebrating its nickname and a culture all at once.

I am no stranger to throwing a Hawaiian- or Fiji-themed party from time to time and have never felt like I was doing it in the context of being racist toward a specific group of people. Grass skirts and coconut bras are a certain way for the rest of the world to pay homage to that culture. Let us remember that grass skirts are a part of that culture, coconut bras are not. In fact, Western civilization added the coconut bra because we are too prudish to celebrate our bodies the way that they do. And who doesn’t love the idea of escaping to a paradise where the native people get to walk around in linen clothing by day and celebrate their heritage by night for tourists?

The claim to racism goes beyond grass skirts, coconut bras, UC Irvine, and college campuses. Racism has been a hot topic over the last few weeks. It has been shoved down our throats because of LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and all of the comments that the sports community has contributed to the issue. Even this week Donald Sterling has been labeled a racist and a sexist by another ex-girlfriend. I’m sick of hearing about it and I am sick of thinking that everything has to be connected with race. Now, on the Donald Sterling front, that is absolutely all about race and the NBA will handle it the best way that it knows how, but to go from Donald Sterling and his extremely racial remarks to a fraternity simply throwing a party with props is ridiculous. Not everything has an ulterior motive. College is a place to celebrate and learn more about other cultures.

We have turned into a culture of political correctness and even the slightest mention of anything about another culture has become some sort of racism. The self-absorbed “everyone is out to get me because I am this” attitude needs to stop! No one is out to get you; no one is bashing your culture just because of grass skirts and coconut bras. We have been celebrating this culture for decades and never has it been an issue until today. It’s sad and it sickens me that we have to walk on eggshells for every little thing. We need stronger backbones again and to realize that not everyone is the same, not everyone is going to agree, not everyone is going to like everyone else. Not everyone is out to get you.

Maybe we should all put on our grass skirts, coconut bras, grab a Mai Tai and chill out!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [1950sUnlimited via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chill Out, America! Everything Isn’t a Race Issue appeared first on Law Street.