We don't need no thought control.

The University of Delaware has done some things that go way beyond the pale. They've not only invaded the privacy of students living in the dorms, but trampled their rights to think for themselves, not to mention sent a message of "You'll believe what we tell you is right to believe."

The program, later dropped because of the publicity brought to bear by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or the FIRE (linked over at the left), and the huge outcry that publicity created.

So, what was so wrong with the program? Well, for one thing, it redefined racism:

"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"

In other words, the designers of the program are well aware of the link between language and thought: that thought is so dependent upon language for its shape that, if you control the language, you control the thoughts of the people using the language. Politically correct speech seems to be another example of this type of thought control.

Further, the program attempted to stamp out any type of intolerance, whether based on sexual orientation, gender roles, socioeconomic standings, or anything else their fertile senses of offense could come up with.

But stomping out intolerance is a good thing, right?

Maybe. Are you supposed to tolerate violence? Are you supposed to tolerate anti-Christian sentiment? Are you supposed to tolerate drug use?

Maybe. It probably depends on the race of the violent, anti-Christian drug abuser.

In any case, they went too far in trying to root out the attitudes of intolerance. Pushing people about their opinions is a form of intolerance in and of itself; however, the program in question likely pushed that thought aside in the pursuit of the greater good of making sure their students were open minded and mulitculturally literate. And if the student wasn't initially multicultural and open minded, they provided retraining to become the model University of Delaware student.

World Net Daily provides an example case that they, and the FIRE say demonstrates the attempt at thought control and reeducation:

"A female freshman arrives for her mandatory one-on-one session in her male RA's dorm room. It is 8:00 p.m. Classes have been in session for about a week. The resident assistant hands her a questionnaire. He tells her it is 'a little questionnaire to help [you] and all the other residents relate to the curriculum.' He adds that they will 'go through every question together and discuss them,'" according to the report.

When the student is asked, 'When did you discover your sexual identity?' she responds, 'That is none of your d*** business.'

Because she did not respond correctly, the residence assistant 'becomes so appalled by her resistance that he writes up an incident report and reports her to his superiors,' the report said."

Telling. I don't think I need to explain much about how wrong this is. How it tramples students' rights to their own thoughts and beliefs.

I believe that you have the right to think what you want. I believe you have the right to express those beliefs in the way you want to express them as long as you don't cause physical harm to others.

In other words, I believe it's my job to teach you that you already think, and how to express those thoughts, not teach you how and what to think.

Please, feel free to comment on this story. Just click on the word "comments" below the post, type in your thoughts, and follow directions. If you like, you can even choose to be anonymous.