Hi Eugene!

And the point of this post is? Do you want us to critique the dark-arts rhetoric in the document? Discuss the subject of ideological purity? Tribalism?

I don't see what this has to do with rationality, or any other core interest of LW. This seems to be a fairly prototypical example of the genre, so I don't even see what kind of useful analysis you can perform on it. Maybe try /pol/?

Ranting eagerly about "bigotry" that much, may signal your own kind of bigotry.

This is the problem with "Downvoting temporarily disabled."

Is linking this article (ideologically loaded, unreflective, devoid of any logical analysis of any form) calculated to get a rise out of the kind of people who post here?

Fun fact: I can generally imagine a person described by the word asshole, but I can't really imagine a person defined by the word 'bigot'. It's such a liberally used word that.. it suffers from lingual inflation.

I wanted to have a bigger bite but there's this funny part of the article which is a miniature black hole of irony:

“We have an obligation and a responsibility to create a campus climate that is empowering, rewarding and welcoming for all students,” Leonard said.

The letter cited the erection of the Trump wall and acts of harassment since the election but he said it is not about politics.

Feels like somebody here is trying to build their own wall..

“We’re relatively (politically) powerless,” Rud said, “except (we can) try to influence people through how we teach and how we write and what we stand for.”

Influencing is a nice alternative to indoctrinating..

Overall this is a 0/10 article and I assume the writer doesn't know what he's talking about or.. he knows exactly what he's talking about.

What is the value of this link supposed to be?