Evil, Morality & the People

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/

 

Evil is not an exclusive thing, trait, or motivation. Evil is not confined to a people group, profession, geography, or society. Evil is not confined to time, space, or circumstance. These conclusions are as unfortunate as they are true.

As individual citizens, or as the American People as a whole, it’s past time to openly state the truth about evil. It is a truth that evil exists because mankind choses the evil path. It is a truth that each of us has a duty to resist evil whenever and however possible. It is a truth that the choice between good and evil cannot be legislated away.

“I would rather be a little nobody, then to be an evil somebody.” – Abraham Lincoln

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmond Burke

This post came to my mind after reading about the assault of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on the 27^th. My thoughts did not originate because of the attack, nor as a means to rationalize away the tragedy. They rose out of a sense of disgust for what I was reading and hearing in the media (and to some degree the commenting public). Even before the incident was over, the media began to embrace the evil on display by seeking to demonize those that were not involved in any way. And now, days later, that trend continues.

The Facts

On 27 November 2015, Robert Lewis Rear assaulted the Planned Parenthood facility of Colorado Springs. When the incident was resolved there were 11 injured and three dead. The dead included a veteran, a mother, and a responding police officer.

Moral: An American’s life is sacred. – No one may kill another person without cause. If a heartbeat, then a life.

When I look at these facts I see that a single man is solely responsible for his thoughts, feelings, and actions on that day. In turn, he is a killer with a high probability of becoming a convicted murderer. In my view, it seems clear that the individual acted alone and without cause for the harm done. Meaning he is singularly responsible for the killing and wounding of Americans outside a state of war and without a clear and present danger to his person, his castle/property, or bystanders. What he did was morally wrong and reprehensible.

Now…the media

As I was watching the news and tracking media posts I could not believe my eyes or ears. Before the incident was over there were declarations of Rear’s motivations to include blaming “white conservatives,” “pro-lifers,” “Republican rhetoric,” “self-righteous white Christians,” and the “antiabortion right.” This was not just isolated to tabloids and other trash media, as it was also seen on the main-stream media. Additionally, there was what seemed like thousands of social media commentators writing in concurrence. Comments were being posted faster than I could realize they were posted.

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

My only conclusion is that I was witnessing madness. It seemed as if there was a complete absence of morality in Colorado, within sections of the media at large, and across portions of cyberspace at the same time. It was proof positive that moral thinking was not only set aside, it was completely abandoned. The peddlers of truth were lying through their teeth and the citizenry seemed to be eating it up.

One day later, some pushback against the madness was observed. I came across an article from the New York Times that seemed to be a well written and informative piece. I appreciated the read just for the fact that it had facts. Throughout the article there were claims that could be later verified, quotes from officials, and witness testimony. All in all, given the nature of what just happened, it was a job well done. Then, there was an ABC article that began with speculation made by the Mayor and ended with the President of the United States telling the public what should not be happening during the holidays and that murdering people was not normal. (No $&*#, sir!)

Two days after the event, media commentary on the shooter’s motive was already cranked up despite the fact that the Colorado Springs Police Department refused to release details relating to motive. A Think Progress piece went so far as to contribute Rear’s actions to “increased scrutiny since a deceptively edited video” was released by a politically opposing group, then quoted the CEO of the Planned Parenthood division calling the act “domestic terrorism,” and wrapped up with a briefer named Buckley stating that it would be “premature to speculate about this individual’s motives.” – Here’s a news flash: A video did NOT force the gunman to do anything, a CEO is in no way qualified to determine if an event is an act of terrorism, and it was clearly stated that motive was unknown. (A passing thought…if the CEO is indeed an authority, then does that mean Planned Parenthood is actually a political organization knowledgeable in seeking political ends through other means?)

Three days after the event, Fox News was also reporting on the motivation question. Again, the article quoted the Planned Parenthood CEO as an authority when law enforcement officials were “leaking” details under the condition of anonymity. When did the leading provider of abortions in the United States develop enough law enforcement expertise to declare motive of a suspect that the organization never met? Why should we believe that local law enforcement is leaking information, which it has been good about issuing public statements and taking media questions up to this point?

This veteran’s perspective…

How about declaring the event an act of evil, or stating any motive to murder is unacceptable, or promising the People (and future murders) that the full weight of the law would be brought to bear? Nope! Instead the message from the highest office in the land was an “if-then” statement: “if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough."

Really! Did the POTUS just suggest that I contributed to the massacre because I believe in the benefits of arms? I’m a reasonable man. I’ll pick up that gauntlet.

What is the logical progression between one person’s personal decision to murder and my personal decision to responsibility own personal property, a firearm? Along that vein, let’s ask a different question. What is the correlation between the high casualty counts of attacks on unarmed civilians (in 2014 the average was 18 killed per event) and the restriction of firearms for self-defense?

Perhaps the question should be rephrased? What is the correlation between the much lower casualty counts of attacked armed civilians (in 2014 the average was 2.5 killed per event) and the promotion of firearms for self-defense? (Before answering, please keep in mind that there is a 3-7 minute delay between a 911 call and the first responder arriving on scene. Just to be clear, the time does not start from the moment a shooter becomes active, but from the making the 911 call. It does not end when law enforcement officers begin a response, but from when the first officer arrives.)

Am I to understand that IF I am to pray for the suffering, then I must first renounce the pre-existing right protected by the Second Amendment? Am I to understand that IF I am to assuage my personal guilt (and that is one hell of an assumption), then I must accept the use of force to disarm certain people? Am I to understand that IF my thoughts and prayers are to be accepted by God, then I must let you decide who should be disarmed? (Before blowing these questions off using some version of “that’s not what he meant” or name-calling, consider that the POTUS has an entire staff dedicated to scripting and rehearsing this stuff.)

Did anyone else notice the phrase, “Period. Enough is enough.”? Again, I’m a reasonable man; and, again, I’ll pick up that gauntlet. Am I to believe that the POTUS is the keeper of the final, reasonable answer? Am I to trust in a call for reason when the Chief Executive has already signaled his intent to use the government’s monopoly on force against others because one person out of 340 million other citizens was unbelievable stupid? If the POTUS is responsible for executing the laws, and the laws frame a free society (not a safe under all conditions society), then how is beginning the conversation with an absolute end-state going to unite the nation through a reasoned discourse?

Just how is the emotional pleading of the President to do something that “feels good” going to bring about anything that actually “is good?” (Before you answer that, keep in mind that laws declaring this violent act illegal and unacceptable are already on the books right now, and have been for centuries, and are well known across the population.)

Honor, Morality & Ethics

What happened to honorable conduct? The American Honor Code is very simple and 100% applicable: “I will not lie, steal, cheat, nor tolerate those that do.” If this code had been followed by the media and its commentators, then two things would likely have happened: first, the assignment of blame (regardless of CYA weasel-words) would not have happened; second, if it did happen, then those that pushed that junk would have been immediately ostracized. Why? Because it would be reasonable to conclude that no one other than the hostile actor knew what was motivating that hostile actor.

What happened to morality? In this case the primary moral is as follows: “An American’s life is sacred. No one may kill another person without cause. If a heartbeat, then a life.” Why is this not the automatic default position across the board? And, if it is, then why not come right out and declare it so?

What happened to American values?

America values unity, not uniformity. It’s time to be united against unacceptable behavior at the societal level. Instead, the call is for a more uniform, guilt-driven, and self-imposed state of disarmament.

America values stewardship, not neglect. If mental health is at the heart of the problem, then where is the call to bolster the common man’s ability to care for the spirit, soul, and humanity of his fellow man? In other words, if morality to taught and reinforced locally across the nation, then the nation will begin to behave in a more moral manner by default.

America values answering our enemies without moral ambiguity. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind. Mr. Rear is an enemy of the American society. He has crossed the line. There is no going back.

America values doing what is good, not doing what feels good. If reducing gun violence represents what is good, and individuals are solely responsible for their decision to use gun violence to resolve disputes, then “doing what is good” is about conditioning the people away from choosing gun violence to resolve differences. Reducing instruments of gun violence is not the answer. Increasing society’s resistance (morality) to evil intent is the answer. Just as “doing what is good” must be taught by one generation to the next, so must morality.

What happened to personal responsibility? No one has the right to do what is wrong. It’s a simple statement that is clear and unambiguous. There are no conditions, qualifications, or exceptions stated or implied. Therefore, why does the virtual barrier of social media seem to serve as an insulating feature between the participants of evil and those that fail to denounce that same evil?

“He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Going Forward

For a representative republic of liberated, free-thinking people to combat evil in our mist, the people must be morally straight and well-grounded by absolute truth. The people must have an inherent ability identify what is evil and wrong, and demonstrate the courage necessary to select the right and virtuous path without regard to circumstance, reward, or consequence.

For the American people to be free, then they must first be moral. The people must know, understand, and be able to apply moral absolutes day-to-day in all that they do.

Your View

I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

 

It’s about “Safe Space”

It’s about “Safe Space”

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/

I just don’t get it, Mizzou. Someone explain to me, as if I were three years old, the “so what” of the Mizzou uprising. Given what I see in the media, I am just not able to get my mind around the higher purpose of the event. Personally, my leading question is this: how is this not the mob seeking to consolidate new political power through some form of legitimacy? After two weeks of mulling this over and trying to boil it down to a driving cause, I have come to a conclusion…it’s about “safe space”.

When I set aside the demands and rhetoric, and focus on the behavior of those that started and continue to sustain this thing, I see the following.

On/Near 10-12 Nov 2015, multiple people occupied a quad area on the Mizzou campus to establish a “safe space”.

On/Near 10-11 Nov 2015, Mizzou students and faculty barred entry to the MU quad area for journalists attempting to document the event in order to protect their “safe space”.

Since then amateur videos and professional news organizations have shown the common presence and unconditional power of a “safe space.” I hear sound bites (as if this thing can be reduced to a sound bite) about “giving them their safe space so they can heal” or “you have no right to be in my safe space” or “your safe space better not violate my safe space” and on and on.

Progressive rationale mixed with sarcasm for the sake of making a point

It can’t be the primary actors causing all of this…right? In the instances stated above the primary actors don’t seem to be strangely out of place. They all seem local to the event and may even have a stake in its outcome. I observed by video, and read in articles, Mizzou students (mentioned repeatedly by the media in general terms), Mizzou faculty (mentioned repeatedly by the media until Melissa Click was specifically identified), and a small group that are collectively referred to as Concerned Student 1950 (identified as an activist group) are routinely involved. They certainly aren’t to blame. Even the President of the United States has endorsed the actors.

Perhaps the effects of the uprising are to blame? Some of the effects of this event include the forced shutdown of free traffic on campus, cancellation of classes, malicious false witnessing of others, across the board interruption of “paid for” education opportunities, disturbing of the peace, and abuse of limited law enforcement resources. Additionally, we’ve seen blatant violations of personal and public property, willful disregard of the First Amendment, and general disregard for authority, rule of law, and due process. There are other items of interest, many have been brought to my attention, but these are the ones I initially noticed. But, regardless of what any reasonable person in authority my think, these infractions are not a problem brought about by the behavior of the actors. No. Certainly not them as they are simply expressions of concerned activists. The root cause has to be something else, something that makes all of this ongoing fuss worth it.

Perhaps it’s to solve a problem, say…racism? Personally, I doubt it. Given the list of demands (not allegations of unfair treatment under the law, not specific claims of discrimination by those in power, not infractions of civil rights on behalf of American citizens, not violations of procedure by law enforcement…but demands of the mob) it seems clear that the activists want to eliminate one brand of racism by replacing it with their own brand of racism. Regardless of what anyone that is capable of rational thought based on a high school understanding of the English language may dare to say, it is just not possible to have one group of people attempt to subjugate another group to realize their own ends. Nope! Not in America. The reason for this madness must be something else.

So what is actually driving the mob and its madness…it must be the “safe spaces.”

Understanding “Safe Space” at Mizzou

According to the University of Missouri, Department of Student Life, LGBTQ Resource Center, “safe space” is a requested object (a noun) with two definitions. First, “safe space” is “a training designed to give you the tools and knowledge you need to be an effective ally for LGBTQ and ally students, staff and faculty.” Second, “safe space” is “a program meant to teach the basics of LGBTQ identities and culture through definitions, terminology, and an overview of current cultural, social, and political issues, activities, and plenty of time for question and answer.”

According to Advocates of Youth (a nation-wide activist organization) a “safe space” is taken a step further. A "safe space" is “a place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to agree with others.”

Perhaps the whole of Mizzou, having put their heads where the sun never (ever) shines, was misinformed about “safe space.” As you can plainly see, “safe space” is about building a base of sexually dysfunctional political activists with racial leanings, not for providing a land area devoid of American rights, moral character, and civil conduct. Yet, authorities do nothing and the mob continues.

What’s Left?

It must be the “safe space” causing all of this unrest and upheaval. After all, if these events were caused by willfully ignorant and corrupt people, having used their own free-will to initiate force against others without cause, then they would be breaking the law and made to stop. However, by admission of non-action, we know this to be untrue.  Fortunately, for those not directly impacted, it’s only the hijacking of a queer-comfort meeting for use as an excuse to further a racial temper tantrum. There’s nothing to see here.

Why does this nonsense make no sense? Because it’s coercive, ridiculous, absurd, and profane…it’s C.R.A.P.

Back to Reality

The underlying rationale for the uprising is not difficult to understand. This is not to say that the reasons, history, and actors are simplistic. It’s likely to be the exact opposite. However, the underpinning remains.

In my opinion, the uprising is a result of a people group (black students are the loudest so far) deciding that what was once sufferable is no longer worth being suffered. I propose that the way forward is best served by clearing stating “sufferings,” factually articulating the history of those “sufferings,” and presenting solutions that are aligned with American values and our highest ideals. Along the way, all actors (regardless of specific interests) must guard against the desire to oppress (coerce, dominate, harass, silence, etc.) others in an effort to elevate themselves. I fear that failing to do this, will empower today’s oppressed to become tomorrow’s oppressors.

It’s time for judging merits and weighing harms.

As a starting point, let’s agree to satisfy the following conditions. First, loyalty to American (all inclusive) values and ideals must hold the default position. Second, all actors must do their duty, their complete duty, in a steadfast and honorable manner. Third, (and most difficult) all actors must work, speak, hear, debate, and resolve in a manner that is knowledge-based, logical, upright, and principled.

Back to Basics

America values justice for all, not “just us” for some. If the ideal end-state is the elimination of racial practices at Mizzou, then there is no substitute for holding wrong-doers accountable for their wrong-doing. In the United States, the civil rights of each and every individual citizen is well established. If there are “systems of oppression” at Mizzou, then it stands to reason that there is at least one court case that can be brought to the bar. However, as I review the demands, it is clear that justice is not a priority.  If wrong-doing was committed by those in power, then nothing good will come from allowing those wrongs to go without redress. If the “systems of oppression” claim is true, then nothing will be solved by replacing one racially flawed system with another racially prescribed system.

America values equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. For all of those that say “those students have the right to protest” I am willing to answer that with “those remaining students have the right to attend their classes.” During the past two weeks I heard and read the narrative (however it’s presented) of equal outcomes. Some people have taken the bait and followed that path to its natural end. For example, while I was standing in line at the sandwich shop I overheard an individual state the following, “As long as no one has to attend class or be punished with a bad test score, then I don’t see a problem.” Even as I recall this I am about to pull out what’s left of my hair. It’s madness to legitimize someone initiating force upon another person because there is a common outcome shared by both. It’s no different than saying it’s okay to destroy your neighbor’s property because neither you nor your neighbor will have use of that property anymore. If this line of thinking is followed, then conflicts will never end. This is not the application of objective truths (which causes convergence); it’s the application of subjective feelings (which causes divergence). This is not a vision of personal liberty in a freedom loving society; it’s a prescription for anarchy.

America values doing what is good, not doing what feels good. In this case, doing what is good means, realizing for all Mizzou students the ideals of unity, justice, stewardship, charity, liberty, and opportunity. Whereas, doing what feels good means forcing uniformity, allowing neglect, mandating welfare, promoting intellectual captivity, and celebrating outcomes favorable to a specific group by subordinating others. It is stupid to believe that sacrificing the individual at the altar of the collective will produce anything other than conflict.

Going Forward

The answer to this mess is found throughout American history and its heritage. The answer was understood to be so powerful and fundamental to the American way of life and its future that is was captured and codified long ago and made integral to the American identity. Please open your Constitution. I invite you to turn to Article-2 and the First Amendment.

In Article-2, it clearly states that the President has a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In the case of Mizzou, if it can be shown that students were harmed by the racially motivated wrong-doing of others as defined by the Civil Rights Act as amended, then the President is obligated to intervene on behave of those wronged. This means that the Mizzou mob is responsible for expressing their grievances according to the law, and that the President is responsible for upholding that law.

The First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law…abridging…the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This means that Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people, without disturbance, to meet or come together and to make a formal request (usually in writing) to the government for a relief or compensation for specific wrongs or injuries of conditions that cause harm or distress (usually expressed in formal complaints). This means that the Mizzou mob is responsible for expressing their grievances in a lawful manner, and that the Congress is responsible for ensuring those students have an opportunity to express their grievances in a lawful manner.

At no time has it been long accepted that “safe space” represented the American ideal. Throughout American history, citizens have made strides to eliminate ownership of people, reduce inequality under the law, and other “safe space” fabricated by society. Each time it was about removing barriers versus establishing barriers. I see no benefit in embracing a new way.

The American way is the best way…when we choose to follow it.

Your View

I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com or by leaving a comment below. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Do Blacks Graduate Disproportionately to Whites at Mizzou? – Let’s examine the facts.

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/

I just read an article about demands being made by student activists of Mizzou. While reading I saw precious little about demands (meaning the actual list of demands was not published), and an over-amount of editorial commentary (meaning I could hear the voices of the AP reporters over the roar of popup ad jingles). However, there was a statement that did catch my eye. The statement was in the form of a claim: “About 71 percent of white students at Missouri's Columbia campus graduate within six years, compared to about 55 percent of black students.”

Imagine my excitement. I was looking at a comparison of estimated generalizations of two specific particulars being passed off as a claim. (And, within the context of Mizzou student activist demands, no less.) Perhaps examining some facts might bring me back down to earth? Here I go!

My Assumptions

To begin an examination I needed to further frame the context. To that end I decided to assume an allegation was present: During an unspecified period, MU reprised against black students by disproportionately graduating white students as shown by the following evidence: “About 71 percent of white students at Missouri's Columbia campus graduate within six years, compared to about 55 percent of black students.” 

Just the Facts

Through simple Google searches of open source data I was able to collect the following information. Given the sources of the information, I am comfortable at this point calling the data factual. However, it is worth noting that some data is from the UM system.

The six-year rate for Mizzou is 68.7% percent compared to the national average of 57.7 percent and state average of 55.2 percent.

2014 Enrollment Ethnicity: 77% white and 7% black

2014 State Demographics: 83.5% white, 11.8% black

Analysis #1

When comparing the claim against the 6-year graduation rates of Mizzou, national, and state students the following conclusions seem clear.

First, white students are graduating at a greater rate than the Mizzou (+2.3%), national (+13.3%), and state (+15.8%) rates.

Second, black students are graduating below the Mizzou (-13.7%) and close to the national (-2.7%) and state (-0.2%) rates.

This seems to suggest that white students typically perform above average; while, black students typically perform at the average. However, there is not enough data to isolate particular factors that may be driving this result.

Analysis #2

When comparing the claim against 2014 enrollment rates the following conclusion seem clear.

The white graduation rate is less than the white enrollment rate by -6%.

The black graduation rate exceeds the black enrollment rate by +48%.

This seems to suggest that black students are much more likely to graduate than white students. Again, there is not enough data to isolate particular factors that may be driving this result.

Analysis #3

I wonder what happens when I compare the Mizzou black and white populations against state demographics. According to 2014 census data, Missouri had 715,504 (11.8% of population) blacks and 5,063,097 (83.5%) whites. During the same year, Mizzou enrolled 2,553 (7.2% of students) blacks and 27,073 (76.4%) whites.

Evaluating this data, using state data as the baseline, I can see the following results. Looking at linear changes, the Mizzou black population is 4.8% lower than the state population. Whereas, the Mizzou white population is 7.1% lower than the state population.

This seems to suggest the demographics of Mizzou reflect the demographics of the state it serves.

Going Forward

Now, let’s answer the allegation.

Given the data provided, the determination of the allegation is “indeterminate” (neither “substantiated” nor “unsubstantiated”). However, for the same reason, further investigation is required to obtain and analyze the appropriate data sets to fully examine the allegation. I considered the following reasons prior to arriving at my conclusion.

First, the supporting evidence is factually wrong. At best it’s “kinda” close (meaning it’s wrong). At worst, it’s a fabrication (a lie) with a CYA modifier (still a lie).

Second, the phrases “reprised” and “by disproportionately graduating” implies motivation and intentional actions by authorities. Obviously, the analysis I provided did not address these issues in any way.

Third, it is not clear that race is a driving factor. The data seems to show the following.

·         White students are graduating in greater numbers than black students. In my opinion, this may be caused by the fact that there are 10x as many white students as black students.

·         Black students seem to be graduating at or near the national and state average graduation rates.

·         At the six-year mark, black students seem to be 8x more likely to graduate than white students.

·         Mizzou seems to be sufficiently accessible to the state population it is intended to serve.

·         Examination of data relating to other factors was not accomplished. The data was not available at the time of evaluation.

In my Opinion

Check the Facts & Keep on Thinking – This should be on a bold color t-shirt with an American flag (better yet, an America Minuteman with a musket and flag) in the background.

I would like to commend the academic performance of the “black student” at Mizzou. Based on the evaluations presented in this post, I see nothing to suggest that black students are more or less capable than their national or state peers. Additionally, I see that a typical black student at Mizzou is much more likely to earn their degree in the sixth year than a typical white student.

I would like to note the successes of the “white student” at Mizzou. Based on the evaluations presented in this post, I see nothing to suggest that white students are less capable than their national or state peers. However, there seems to be an indication that your desire to graduate may not be up to par at the sixth year.

Without a doubt, I would recommend further analysis before rendering a “substantiated” or “unsubstantiated” determination of the allegation. Factors describing specific conduct of Mizzou were not considered. Additionally, specific factors of known social, financial, and economic influences were not considered.

Your View

Obviously, the issues tackled in this post are far from settled.

I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Postscript

To the AP and Huffpost College,…

What was the point of the article? During a quick review of the article I was able to identify 28 claims, seven opinions (not all of them yours), and only one reference to a verifiable data set.

If this was intended as an investigative report, then I have to wonder why you published the article at all. How did you determine that a dean from a unique and different east coast university had a qualified opinion on the events at Mizzou? Can you logically connect the events at Mizzou with Dean Fenwick, or vice versa, without throwing the race card?

Is it common practice to purposefully withhold original factual information? Am I supposed to accept that everything you have to say is true beyond doubt because you are the AP? Before answering, please consider that your local contributor is an Editorial editor.

By any color, Payton Head is accountable.

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/

That right, folks. You read it correctly. By any color, the Mizzou Student Body President, Payton Head, is a liar and accountable for his actions. Here are the facts.

On/Near 10 Nov 2015, Payton Head, the MU Student Body President, issued a Tweet to the general public that he knew was a false statement.

A transcript of his original statement is as follows: “Students please take precaution. Stay away from the windows in residence halls, the KKK has been confirmed to the sighted on campus. I’m working with the MUPD, the state trooper and the national Guard.”

Local law enforcement responded: “We have found no evidence of anything related to the KKK on campus,” police spokesman Brian Weimar said in a statement. Not only that, but despite Head’s claim to be working with the National Guard, Weimar said the Guard was not present at MU at all.

On/Near 10 Nov 2015 at 2344, Head issued the following Tweet. “I’m sorry about the misinformation that I have shared through social media,” Head said. “In a state of alarm, I was concerned for all students of the University of Missouri and wanted to ensure that everyone was safe. I received and shared information from multiple incorrect sources, which I deeply regret.”

During the time in between “Head’s comments added to the tumult, and soon dozens both on and off-campus were tweeting about the supposed KKK presence, with some claiming the Klansmen were throwing bricks through dorm windows and others wildly claiming the KKK were enjoying police protection.”

My Opinion

Mr. Head, while the level of your negligence is up for discussion, your misconduct is clear and present.

An American’s truthful statement is sacred. This is an absolute and not subject to circumstance, feelings, or intentions. In my opinion, your actions on/near 10 Nov 2015 are in direct violation of this absolute. Due to your position as the Student Body President, you are doubling accountable. First, to those that chose to trust you. Second, to the entire Mizzou student body, the faculty and staff, the alumni, and all benefactors and supporters.

The American Honor Code has two parts. First, an honorable person will not lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate those that do. Second, to seek what is right, do what is right, and stand by those who are right. In my opinion, your actions on/near 10 Nov 2015 are in direct violation of the Honor Code. By your own choice, you dishonored yourself, your name, the office you hold, and Mizzou in general. Additionally, you chose to display your dishonorable conduct on the public stage for anyone to see. No retraction, or admission of wrong-doing, can correct your severe lapse of judgement.

In my opinion, you are not fit to be the MU Student Body President, and are accountable to all civil and criminal infractions resulting from, or having been influenced by, your actions. No one has the right to do what is wrong.

Mr. Head, in this instance, has demonstrated that he is an immoral and dishonorable man. While it is my hope that Mr. Head will strive to redeem himself at a future date and time, Mr. Head remains fully accountable for his actions and the results of those actions. To be clear, in my opinion, there is no excuse for how he alone elected to behave.

How about some Mizzou-style fair play?

I want to see if Mr. Head can stand up to the same standards being demanded of his faculty counterparts. I recommend starting with a page from the Mizzou protestor play book.

It is demanded that the Mizzou Student Body President, Payton Head, writes a handwritten apology to the Mizzou student body, the faculty and staff, the alumni, and all benefactors and supporters and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter, and at the press conference, Payton Head must acknowledge there is no such thing as student-privilege, recognize that systems of accountability for personal misconduct exist, and provide a verbal acknowledgement of his actions while accepting full responsibility for his actions and the results of those actions. No excuses may be offered at any time.

It is demanded Payton Head be immediately removed from the office of Mizzou Student Body President. After his removal, a new President shall be elected by popular vote of all Mizzou students in good academic standing at Mizzou.

Your View

I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe