The word “flagging” has several meanings, including the calling out of something of particular interest or the identification of a problem or violation.

It can also mean growing tired. All of this applies to this story of the student government at a California college voting to ban the American flag from their space. In the interest of being “fair,” they banned all flags, but the clauses in the resolution mention nationality mention only one nation’s flag in particular. Here is the resolution that they passed last week:

Associated Students of the University of California Irvine
Legislative Council Resolution R50-70

Whereas flags are a symbol of a nation, are used as decorations and have a wide range of cultural significance.

Whereas flags are typically viewed as patriotic symbols of a single nation, are often associated with government and military due to their history and have a wide variety of interpretations.

Whereas the traditional patriotic interpretation of a flag is a result of a nation and/or persons who encourage a nationalistic understanding of the flag.

We’re already in trouble, as these two terms “patriotic” and “nationalistic” are considered by them to be highly negative notions.

Whereas traditional understandings and ideologies, as encouraged by the national government, include liberty, democracy, constitution values and are up for interpretation on constituents.

I wonder what they meant by that last phrase. Perhaps that it was too narrow an interpretation to limit constituents to just legally present persons?

Whereas flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.

Here we are. American flags are “weapons for nationalism” — we’ll see about their “mythologies” in a moment.

Whereas flags function specifically for a nation and

Whereas people are assimilated into national ideologies by deployment of this cultural artifact.

Yes indeed, when this “weapon” is “deployed” people are at high risk of being “assimilated”; in other words, to consider themselves American. This is, to these folks, the most undesirable of outcomes. But it is NOT undesirable to their parents; strong majorities of immigrants consistently poll as wanting their children to become and to consider themselves Americans.

Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy.

Note now that we are no longer pretending to be concerned about generic flags. It is “this country” they are outraged about.

Whereas symbolism is interpreted differently by different groups or persons based on individual unique experiences.

Whereas a common ideological understanding of the United states includes American exceptionalism and superiority.

And this notion of exceptionalism galls the Left to no end.

Whereas the American flag is commonly flown in government public service locations, military related entities, at homes, in foreign lands where the US government has a presence.

Whereas the American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism.

Evil America! The colonial power that, over the past century, has expanded its territory through its victories in two world wars! Except, of course, that this never happened; we obtained only cemeteries to bury the soldiers who fought and died to protect and liberate those overseas.

Whereas symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.

“… and we choose the negative aspects, because that’s how we are…”

Whereas displaying a flag does not express only selective aspects of its symbolism but the entire spectrum of its interpretation.

Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space is taken seriously by ASUCI

Whereas designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidently.

Whereas the removal of barriers is the best option at promoting an inclusive space.

Whereas it is a psychological effect for individuals to identify negative aspects of a space rather than positive ones.

One has endless opportunity to find offense in the world. Too bad.

Whereas whenever public spaces are produced and managed by narrow interests, they are bound to become exclusive places and

Whereas the planning process must be inclusive in such that designers are advised to forget about the ‘average’ user or themselves and instead begin the open space designing process with ‘deep knowledge’ of the preferences of the actual communities who are likely to use those spaces

Here is what these folks would register as their “preferences,” as implemented at another school not too many miles away:mexicalifornia_flags

Whereas designers should be careful about using cultural symbols as the symbols will inherently remain open for interpretation.

Whereas once an open space is created, it is important to employ continual evaluation in order to understand changing use patterns and needs over time.

Whereas a high-quality culturally inclusive spaces is essential in any society that embodies a dynamic and multifaceted culture

Whereas freedom of speech is a valued right that ASUCI supports.

 Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.

Isn’t this interesting? The Left has long hated the notion of freedom of speech, but they don’t often make this hatred quite so plain. Usually, they will promote eliminating non-confirming opinions under the doublespeak guise of “tolerance” as I’ve described before. So now the display of the Stars and Stripes “can be interpreted as hate speech” in an American-funded institution on American soil. The answer is yes, because it’s not where the flag is, it’s where these students heads are, that is the crucial difference.

 Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.

You know, that lobby has “walls,” and it may well be that some might not consider that very “inclusive” as it promotes an “indoorism” which would certainly be hate speech to outdoor types. They are now charged with the responsibility of tearing those walls down to avoid offense.

 Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.

After the vote, in which six of twelve student legislators voted for this nonsense (and two others refused to commit one way or another, allowing a 6 to 4 vote), the Executive Committee reacted. To their credit, they voted to veto this new regulation, and issued a statement about it:

We the Executive Cabinet of the Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine convened on March 7th, 2015 to officially veto ASUCI Legislative Council legislation R50-70, “Flags and decoration adjustment for inclusivity”…. We fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by ASUCI Legislative Council and their passage of R50-70 as counter to the ideals that allow us to operate as an autonomous student government organization with the freedoms of speech and expression associated with it. It is these very symbols that represent our constitutional rights that have allowed for our representative creation and our ability to openly debate all ranges of issues and pay tribute to how those liberties were attained.

Good for them. But it is not that this poisonous regulation was defeated, it is the idea that such a thing was even seriously drafted, discussed, and voted on. And received a majority of votes! These student legislators are little children in adult-sized bodies who are being raised on history as interpreted by Howard Zinn and other communist America-haters.

They actively look forward to America’s defeat and fall, but I don’t think they’ve quite thought through the next steps: In such takeovers, the intellectual elite are invariably rounded up and eliminated, as they are the most dangerous to the new regime.

These leftists have long attacked Christianity and Judaism, and they defend Islam as explicitly in opposition to the core of what America is about. (This opposition is certainly not true of all Muslims, but Islam requires that it be not only the faith, but also the political system, and thus would displace America’s constitutional republic with Shariah law.)

In thinking about this resolution and related issues, I have taken the occasion to do some soul-searching, and I have decided to reveal my own faith. It is one of the world’s four great religions, and I will talk more about this tomorrow. Some will be surprised, others not so much.

(On a happier note, the same UC Irvine students were evidently responsible for this video, which amused me.)

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle