Looks like a basic inability to communicate to me. And they say women have better language skills than men. If this is an example, woe unto the human race if we ever have to encounter aliens come to blast us because of our endless chatter into the ether.

It is, as you suggest, typical of liberals generally to think the measure of good writing style is to confuse the reader as much as possible. It is as if to say, “You’re just to ignorant to follow what I’m saying.” Since no one can possibly follow what they are saying (at least not without hours of equally pointless conversation with them – or possession of the secret liberal codespeak book), they applaud themselves for having dumbfounded the moronic masses (aka, everyone else) and node their heads at each other as though they got it. Just don’t ask one for an interpretation of what the other just said. Lib-2 will give you an answer equally incomprehensible and totally disconnected from that of Lib-1, leaving you even more lost and unable to find your way back. ;-)

The bio of Clemons that you quoted, is a case of euphemisms wrapped in jargon, shrouded in doubletalk. Some translations follow.

“[H]ow language in education policies and practices impact equitable socio-political relations and social change” means, ‘We will force-feed black and Hispanic students a cognitive diet of dialect (so-called Ebonics) and pidgin (bowdlerized bilingualism) and an emotive dialect of illiterate, inchoate, anti-white racism.’

“Grassroots Participation in School Decentralization,” translates as ‘Avant garde cadrists will indoctrinate alienated blacks and Hispanics whom we have already relegated to isolated cultural islands in the stream, in the value of racist violence, so that they may of use to the revolution.’

“Language Issues” is a euphemism for “language rights,” which is double-talk for the notion that racial minorities in America are not only under no obligation to learn English, but that it is the revolutionary educator’s job to segregate those groups from the English language, and thus the American mainstream, via ruses such as so-called bilingual education and ebonics.

My grandmother was a member of the DAR in Washington, D.C. at the time of the Marion Anderson controversy. The DAR of that time was an exclusionary club, and she dropped her membership (as did many decent women) over that flap. The DAR refused to let Anderson perform in the DAR’s Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. The DAR was not an especially bigoted group, as a whole, but it was a highly visible example of the kind of discrimination common in America of the time, even to highly liberal organizations (like the DAR) and in places as unlikely as the nation’s capital. A simple visit to the national website is sufficient to dispel the notion the DAR is still a discriminatory organization; and the crude joke Ms. Clemons was exposed to cannot be something the DAR would tolerate. The national site openly acknowledges its’ culpability for past offense and is committed to ending bigotry in its ranks. Rather than reporting the offensive email to her chapter or the national organization, and on the basis a rumor against the organization, Clemons chose instead to drop out of the group without giving it the benefit of doubt liberals always say is due. She didn’t stop there, however. She has now (with her IC article) pilloried an entire organization on the basis of one bad apple and hearsay evidence she cannot have bothered to check.

Ms. Clemons’ father is a Navy veteran and the U.S. Navy was segregated at the same time as the Anderson offense, and for many years after. Does she also regard the Navy as discriminatory and bigoted? She belongs to a prestigious school (if your link identifies her aright). Does she recognize the segregated nature of the California school system prior to the Civil Rights movement? If so, why is she still there? I have never taken much interest in the DAR, possibly tainted by my Grandmother’s vocal distain of the organization as Clemons distains it on pure hearsay. The DAR did participate in discrimination of a black woman, and for that the organization has suffered lost membership, prestige, and respect. They are not alone in that; with every organization in American having undergone profound soul-searching and revamping. However, you cannot remain forever rooted in the past and unwilling to acknowledge amends without being, yourself, as bigoted as the bigotry you pretend to revile.

I have nothing against being judgmental of persons or organization guilty of actual wrong-doing. Yet, that kind of judgment comes with a burden of proof. Ms. Clemons’ rant against both Bush and the DAR are equally unfounded and she ought to apologize.

However, I think this all misses the point. Mr. Stix is assuming that Ms. Clemons used logic in the formation of her article. He also assumes that she will evaluate his response using logic. His premise is faulty, for clearly she is not employing logic or reason.

If a man rushed into the room and began raving hysterically that there were purple hippos riding pink bicycles outside, would we rush out to look? Would we take the time to explain logically that his claims are impossible? Would we bring out charts and graphs that demonstrate that such a thing could not occur? Of course not.

It is the very same thing regarding Ms. Clemons. Her article is prima facia evidence that was not thinking logically. The statements she makes are the simple parroting of nonsensical phrases. If she wrote about purple hippos, it would be no different.

We must understand that to Ms. Clemons, her statements are self-evident. They need no proof. They are the very foundation of her entire world view, and to question them would be akin to questioning that the sun sets in the west.

It may well be impossible to reason with Ms. Clemons, but one can hold out hope. However, at present, challenging her on the basis of logic, reason, and evidence is a fruitless pursuit.

Andrea Clemons is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Education and the Program Lead for the Master’s programs in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and Teaching English as a Foreign Language. She received her Ph.D. in International/Intercultural education and M.S.in TESOL from USC and an M.A. in English from the University of Toronto. Her research aims to explore how language in education policies and practices impact equitable socio-political relations and social change. She has experience in formal and non-formal education in West Africa. Her most recent publications include a chapter in Globalized Governance and Grassroots Participation in School Decentralization, forthcoming from Kluwer Press (2005); Appropriating Diversity: Current Trends in the Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs in The International Journal of Diversity in Nations, Organizations and Communities, vol. 4, with Marta Baltodano (2005); and Post 9-11 Language Policies in The Multilingual Educator (2003). She is the inaugural President of the Language Issues Special Interest Group of the Comparative and International Education Society and is the co-Chair of the Committee for the Study of Culture and Schooling in the American Anthropological Association.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:NTM04eskT1sJ:www.usc.edu/dept/education/faculty/index.htm+%22Andrea+Clemons%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a