Posted on 05/14/2014 4:51:02 AM PDT by Resettozero
University of South Carolina Upstate officials announced $450,000 in changes and cuts to programs Tuesday to save money, including closing its Center for Women's and Gender Studies.
The cuts are effective July 1, with the bulk of the savings coming from moving some faculty and staff from 12-month positions to 9- or 11-month positions, officials said. The announcement came the same day the state Senate approved a budget amendment requiring USC Upstate to spend $17,000 to teach the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers - the same amount of money the college spent on the gay-themed book, “Out Loud: The Best of Rainbow Radio,” a required reading assignment for freshmen.
Upstate Chancellor Tom Moore said in a written statement that the $450,000 in cuts are needed due to “increasing costs and declining state support.” The university is in the midst of a strategic planning process and plans call for administrative changes in the honors program, continuing studies, the university's Greenville campus and others, in addition to the Women's and Gender Studies Center.
Moore said in the written statement that the cut to the Center for Women's and Gender Studies, which drew the ire of some state legislators recently, is not in response to “external pressure.”
Last month, state Sens. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, and Mike Fair, R- Greenville, questioned the programming of the center, which for the past several years has planned a “Bodies of Knowledge” symposium that includes discussions of gay and lesbian issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at goupstate.com ...
This is evidence that we Constitutional conservatives of S.C. still are alive and kickin'.
Heard this on our news last night. Good news but frightening how brainwashed young people are now. Just as the sodomites planned.
Perhaps they realized that women’s and gender ‘studies’ produce no knowledge?
And here is a related news item:
“Perhaps they realized that women’s and gender ‘studies’ produce no knowledge?”
If so, then maybe they’ll realize the ethnic studies don’t produce anything either (if they even have them). They’ll be more difficult to remove, as white women are in the crosshairs of the racial grievance industry right now so the loss of women studies means nothing to them (darker women can retreat to ethnic studies).
Count down to the war against womyn demonstrations: three two one.....
Hopefully this is a ripple of sanity that will grow into a tidal wave.
When I first read the headline, I assumed this was regarding the University of Southern California and hence satire.
Nothing changes until the money runs out and we have to make priority decisions.
That ties into something I keep asking about the Hillary campaign vis-a-vis the race hustlers.
Why was Marcia Clark such a target during the OJ trial? Because she was the kind of hard-charging white career woman that all sides agreed was an archetype black women (i.e. most of the jury) despised - the women viewed Clark as pushy, mouthy, bitchy, etc.
Fast forward 20 years (depressing, but Hillary predates the OJ circus) and we now have Hillary Clinton as candidate. Political party notwithstanding, is Hillary not a Marcia Clark figure? The nasal voice, the chip on the shoulder, the flat ‘white’ accent. It’s one thing to vote party line because you’re worried about next month’s EBT recharge but some will have to reconcile their political loyalty with their personal distaste for the white chick. It will undoubtedly affect turnout...hopefully in a significant way.
Another FReeper pointed out that when Hillary was running years ago, she reminded too many people of their nasty mother-in-law. At the time a problem she had was there was no “swing vote”; everybody either loved or hated her (nobody was undecided), and not enough people loved her. It was comical to see her lose the nomination to Obama; she beat him in primaries (where votes are counted) and lost in caucuses (where enthusiasm is counted - it was an affirmative action boost to the equally unqualified half-minority). I think a lot of younger Dems/libs (especially non-whites) won’t buy into the “it’s her turn” BS; Obama was the most visible proof that the racial politics of the Dems have a price when it cocmes to political representation. They have to defend any choice of a white candidate anywhere minorities make up 1% of the population; while they can whip black LIVs back onto the plantation easily enough, Hispanics are less docile about it (and will even primary black Dem candidates).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.