Blog

NTC Blog Posts

Blog

Happy Independence Day – July 4, 2025

This Independence Day, we celebrate the enduring promise of liberty and justice for all, and we recommit to holding those who create the greatest cultural impact accountable to these very ideals. Freedom loses meaning when double standards prevail. That’s why we fight every day to expose hypocrisy, defend free expression, and demand equal standards for all — regardless of politics, race, religion, or belief. Let’s honor July 4th not just with fireworks, but with action. Because real patriotism means standing up for truth, fairness, and the values that made and keep America great!

Blog

Columbia University’s Inclusion Crisis: When “Diversity” Becomes Discrimination

Few recent stories illustrate this betrayal of principle more clearly than the disturbing revelations about Columbia University’s interim president, Claire Shipman. According to internal communications obtained and published by the Washington Free Beacon, Shipman privately called for the addition of an Arab board member, while suggesting the removal of a Jewish trustee who had previously spoken out against the rise of antisemitism on campus. “We need to get somebody from the Middle East or who is Arab on our board. Quickly I think,” Shipman texted in January. Days later, Shipman wrote of Trustee Shoshana Shendelman: “She shouldn’t be on the board.” Let us be clear: the problem here is not the desire for diverse representation. True diversity which includes variables like background, identity, and thought is a hallmark of a healthy institution. The problem is when identity becomes a political calculation, and when the inclusion of one group is explicitly tied to the exclusion of another. When Identity Politics Trumps Principles Shipman’s private remarks betray a dangerous mindset: that credibility of Columbia’s leadership rests not on the moral courage or qualifications of its members, but on how well they conform to ideological optics. In this case, Shendelman’s “offense” wasn’t a lack of diversity, rather it was her outspoken opposition to antisemitism on Columbia’s campus during a year of historic unrest, encampments, and violent threats targeting Jewish students. According to the Free Beacon, Shipman’s comments came just weeks after Columbia faced public scrutiny for failing to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation. Rather than embrace a trustee willing to address that growing crisis, Shipman suggested she be removed and replaced. This is not diversity. This is evidence of discrimination under the guise of inclusion.  A Pattern of Double Standards This episode doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Columbia University has been one of the epicenters of campus protests since October 7, 2023, when terrorist attacks in Israel triggered widespread political activity on campuses across the country. What began as anti-war demonstrations quickly morphed into chants calling for the destruction of Israel and justifications for political violence. After all, students affiliated with the group, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine publicly launched and handed out their inaugural edition of “The Columbia Intifada” despite the Ivy League University denouncing their publication. Jewish students at Columbia reported feeling unsafe, unsupported, and in some cases, explicitly threatened. Many alumni and donors began to speak out. Some trustees did as well. Rather than treat these concerns seriously and strive to protect all students equally, Columbia’s top leadership appears to have unethically calculated which voices were politically advantageous and which were not. Claire Shipman’s remarks reflect a growing trend in higher education: the preference for ideological conformity over principled leadership. Tolerance Requires Courage, Not Curation The New Tolerance Campaign (NTC) believes that institutions must consistently reflect their stated values and operate without bias. That means rejecting selective outrage. It means defending freedom of conscience for everyone, not just those with the most fashionable beliefs. And it means acknowledging that diversity and inclusion are not mutually exclusive with moral clarity. Wanting to remove a trustee for calling out antisemitism is not progress; it’s a giant step backward. Appointing someone based solely on ethnicity or political optics is not empowerment; it’s tokenism. True tolerance demands more than hashtags, hollow statements, and civil righteousness. It demands institutional integrity, even when the political winds may shift. The Call to Action As a nonprofit committed to defending the principles of real tolerance, NTC calls on Columbia University to: Denounce identity-based discrimination in all forms, including decisions that exclude individuals based on their religious or political views. Protect trustees, faculty, and students who raise legitimate concerns about antisemitism, especially when they challenge the status quo. Follow the transparent standards for trustee membership as outlined in the Columbia University “Trustees’ By-Laws And Rules Of Order” document, where qualifications, experience and values are prioritized over ideological posturing. Reaffirm their commitment to the First Amendment principles of free expression, religious liberty, and ideological diversity. On Final Thought Columbia University Interim President Claire Shipman’s texts are not just inappropriate, they expose the fragility of performative tolerance in American institutions. If inclusion can only exist at the expense of dissent, then we’ve lost the entire plot. Columbia University has an opportunity — right now — to model true leadership. That doesn’t mean chasing public approval or checking identity boxes. It means defending all communities on campus — Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, atheist, conservative, progressive — with equal commitment and equal courage. At NTC, our mission is to hold powerful institutions accountable to the very standards of inclusion, fairness, and equality they publicly claim to uphold. When these standards are applied selectively, favoring one group while excluding another, true tolerance dies, and performative activism reigns supreme. We will continue to monitor this unacceptable action by Shipman while continuing to shine a light on storied institutions that violate the values they claim to champion. Because tolerance, when applied unevenly, is not tolerance at all.

Blog

GiveSendGo’s Principled Stance in a Time of Viral Rage

Crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo has been a hero to conservatives in recent years after its more mainstream competitor, GoFundMe, became notorious for cancelling conservative-leaning campaigns. But GiveSendGo’s commitment to allowing all campaigns (except for fraud or expressly illegal activity) has recently been tested, and it’s stood its ground. We have to applaud their principled stance, even as two recent campaigns reveal some of the ugliest parts of our cultural moment. On April 2, Karmelo Anthony got in a tussle with a student at a track meet. He proceeded to pull out a knife and stab the other student in the chest, killing him. Anthony has admitted to the stabbing, but claims it was self-defense. While Anthony is still going through the legal process to see if this defense holds up, the fact remains that a young man who was unarmed is now dead. Anthony is black, and his victim was white. That fact has made this something of a cause célèbre for a group of people who want to make this a racial justice issue. They started a GiveSendGo campaign for Anthony, which has received over $525,000 to date. Angry comments that GiveSendGo co-founder Jacob Wells very diplomatically referred to as “championing a racial narrative” have regularly accompanied the donations. Wells says he’s “not proud” of the fundraiser, but the site is sticking to its principles and allowing the campaign to continue. But the problem isn’t one-sided. A woman named Shiloh Hendrix recently went viral for calling a young man, who was allegedly trying to steal from her diaper bag, the n-word. She has since repeatedly doubled down on her use of the term. She also has a GiveSendGo campaign, and donors have given her over $733,000 and rising. The comments on this campaign also contain racially-charged anger, mirroring the Anthony campaign but in reverse. It’s no secret that both the black and white communities have felt extremely aggrieved in recent years, but the fact that that anger could make people like Anthony and Hendrix millionaires is a dire warning of just how bad it has become.  Many donations appear to be motivated less by support for the individuals involved and more by a desire to “settle the score” in broader racial or cultural battles. As any observer of history knows, vengeance of this type doesn’t end problems; it worsens them.  GiveSendGo didn’t intend to become a battleground for racial resentment. However, as co-founder Jacob Wells put it, “In free societies, people can say stuff that is divisive and not unifying.” That’s the challenge — and the burden — of living in a free society. We can’t rely on platforms to clean up our cultural mess. If we want something better, we have to be the ones to build it: with empathy, responsibility, and true tolerance. There’s no time to lose.

Blog

Funny Money

It’s April 15! Do you know what “woke” craziness your tax dollars funded? Every April, millions of Americans bite the bullet, file their taxes, and pray that Uncle Sam puts their hard-earned dollars to good use. Few Americans would imagine their tax dollars going toward transgender treatments for mice. Or promoting DEI values in Lithuania. Or studying honeybees’ behavior on cocaine. We’re not making this up — that’s exactly where they went. What other “woke” insanity has the federal government funded? Divisive so-called “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programs in higher education have been the beneficiaries of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars annually. The National Institute on Aging gave Rutgers and the University of Michigan $3.7 million to study the long-term effects of “structural racism.” The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded the City University of New York (CUNY) a whopping $19 million to create “The New York Center for Minority Health, Equity and Social Justice.” Not too long after, Duke University received $770,000 from the National Cancer Institute to study “Systemic Racism and Biological Embodiment of Risk in Breast Cancer Mortality.” Taxpayer dollars have underwritten the promotion of the progressive LGBTQ agenda and radical gender ideology — both at home and abroad. For example, USAID gave $1.5 million to promote job opportunities for LGBTQ individuals in Serbia, and another $425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly. $1.93 million more supported LGBTQ activity in the Western Balkans. And $1 million was shoveled out the door of the State Department to boost French-speaking LGBTQ groups in West and Central Africa. Arguably the most mind-boggling destination of our tax dollars were devoted to subsidizing silly animal studies. One such study, sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, taught pigeons to gamble using slot machines in “a token-based economy.” Scientists also now know, thanks to your tax dollars, “What makes goldfish feel sexy?” after the National Science Foundation gave $3.6 million to a study entitled, “The Good, the Bad, and the Sexy: How Brain Chemistry Affects Social Judgment.” One NIH-funded study observed the effects of alcohol on zebra finches’ behavior and singing abilities to the tune of nearly $5 million! Another received $10 million to create transgender mice, rats, and monkeys. But that’s not all. If you thought things couldn’t get any crazier, check out these jaw-droppingly wasteful uses of taxpayer funds, courtesy of Rand Paul’s 2024 Festivus Report: TV time in the Middle East! USAID reportedly spent $20 million on a new Sesame Street show in Iraq, while The State Department gave the Royal Film Commission $873,584 for movies in Jordan. Taxes for Tech! The State Department paid a total of $4,840,082 to social media “influencers,” and spent $123,066 to teach Kyrgyzstan youth how to “go viral.” Skate and Break! The National Endowment for the Arts awarded a drag group, the Bearded Ladies Cabaret, $10,000 to support a cabaret show on ice skates focused on climate change, while the State Department allocated $32,596.12 for breakdancing. Honorable mentions include $7,026,689 spent by the federal government on various “magical” projects, including $6,293,820 from the Department of Defense (DOD) on a Magic City Discovery Center and $388,863 from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) toward a podcast entitled, “Magic in the United States.” So next time you’re gaping at inflated grocery prices, budgeting for that new house, or wondering if you can crank one more year out of that busted Jeep, just remember: somewhere, a federal agency might be spending your tax dollars getting pigeons wasted. Government spending doesn’t have to be this ridiculous. The inauguration of President Trump and aggressive auditing by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seems to be rooting out the more ridiculous and frivolous federal grants. But until the public demands a full divestment from “woke” grants and transparency for the destination of our hard-earned tax dollars, who knows where they might end up next?

Blog

Hate Alert: Tesla Takedown Protests

Potential for violence and vandalism at nationwide demonstrations planned at 500 Tesla dealerships this Saturday, March 29 The New Tolerance Campaign (NTC), a watchdog organization tracking far-left extremism and political violence in the United States via its HateMap.com project, is flagging law enforcement and warning the general public to steer clear of “Tesla Takedown” protests planned across the country this Saturday, March 29. Launched to generate grassroots rallies in opposition to Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his actions as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Tesla Takedown Movement encourages supporters to “take action at Tesla showrooms everywhere,” asserting that “hurting Tesla is stopping Musk,” and that “stopping Musk will help save lives and our democracy.” In recent weeks, several demonstrations at Tesla locations that began as civil protests later erupted in violence and/or vandalism. In recent weeks, Tesla dealerships have been the targets of gunfire and arson. In an interview, Valerie Costa, one of the movement’s founders, agreed that Tesla Takedown activities are inspired by Luigi Mangione, who assassinated United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024. The ANTIFA-linked Online Anarchist Federation shared a post from the Philly Anti-Capitalist website recommending incendiary devices that can be used to burn down Tesla sites. Last week, the website Dogequest was launched featuring an interactive map listing the addresses and phone numbers of Tesla owners across the country. The cursor on the website depicts a Molotov cocktail. Dogequest also includes the locations of Tesla dealerships and superchargers. On Saturday, March 29, the progressive activist group Indivisible is organizing 500 Tesla Takedown protests across the country. During a video conference to plan the day of action, actor John Cusack stated: “We are in an oligarchic country that’s fascist and becoming more fascist every day, and that means that people are going to die and it’s going to get as ugly as we can think. And the only way to stop that is if the people who have the money are afraid of us.” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has declared the wave of violence at Tesla locations “domestic terrorism.” The New Tolerance Campaign urges the public to avoid Tesla dealerships, service centers, and public charging stations on March 29, and to employ caution at those sites on March 28 and March 30 as several instances of political violence at Tesla locations have occurred in the lead-up to Tesla Takedown protests and in their aftermath. Owners of Tesla vehicles are encouraged to exercise vigilance and limit use of their cars during this period. The NTC HateMap.com project is a comprehensive resource documenting instances of political violence perpetrated by leftist organizations across the United States. The interactive Map aims to fill the gaps left by traditional civil rights organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which have largely overlooked or ignored such acts. HateMap.com is designed to be a vital tool for journalists, researchers, and news organizations seeking to understand and report on the full spectrum of political violence in the country.

Blog

Is Love Blind…to Politics?

The shocking season finale of the Netflix show Love Is Blind challenges the old adage that “opposites attract” Earlier this month, the hit Netflix reality TV show Love Is Blind aired its season finale, leaving viewers shocked as two women abandoned their would-be mates at the altar rather than marry a Trump-supporting Republican. Love Is Blind puts the old adage to the test, connecting singles who get to know each other by voice only before meeting face-to-face. The social experiment tests whether or not romance can be created without the guarantee of physical attraction. Eight seasons and multiple successful marriages later, most would agree that the answer is yes — until the most recent season. To viewers, Sara and Ben seemed perfect for each other: on-screen, they shared chemistry and genuinely enjoyed each other’s company. Yet Sara said no at the altar, citing unaligned values “close to [her] heart” that Ben didn’t share: Black Lives Matter, sexual identity, religion, and COVID-19 vaccination. “I love you so much, but I’ve always wanted a partner to be on the same wavelength […] so today I can’t [marry you],” she explained. “I still love you and everything about you is amazing […] I know the connection we have is so real and my heart is there,” she added as she walked away from the relationship. Another couple, Devin and Virginia, expressed deep love and connection on the show, leading Devin to say “I do” at the altar. Virginia, however, claimed she was “just not ready,” and fled the ceremony. The Love is Blind reunion episode revealed that political and social issues were at the root of the separation. “I 100% support the LGBTQ community,” Virginia said. “I also believe that women should have the decision to choose if they want to have an abortion or not. I also believe that different religions should be valued.” Devin, a conservative traditional Christian, did not share her views. Ultimately, divergent points of view on political and social issues spelled the end of both nuptials. Sara and Virginia aren’t outliers. According to the Institute for Family Studies, only 4% of couples identified as Democrat-Republican pairs in 2020 — and researchers noted a downward trend. A separate study by the University of Michigan concluded that “[c]ouples who did have differing political views had slightly lower relationship quality [which] was noticeable in everyday interactions as well as overall relationship satisfaction.” Data show that left-leaning women, especially, find it difficult to align romantically with someone who holds opposing views. A 2020 YouGov poll showed that over 50% of men would date someone with differing stances, while only 35% of women said the same thing. The same study found that Democrats are the least likely to date across party lines. Both Love Is Blind ladies expressed discontent not only with their would-be husbands’ differing views but also with their overall passivity on politics. Studies show that independent and politically neutral individuals are most likely to engage in ideologically mixed relationships. Does this romantic red tape extend to other values? Couples with differing core ideals also tend to reject traditional marriage, opting instead for more unconventional partner dynamics. For example, the Pew Research Center found that “62% of unmarried people living with a partner identify with the same religion their partner does, while 38% say their partner has a different religious identity.” Meanwhile, “74% of married people report that their spouse shares their religion, while 26% say their spouse has a different religious identity.” Another study done by the vegan dating app Veggly discovered that vegans and vegetarians are 69% more likely to pursue an open relationship than meat-eaters. Whether these trends are the result of the increasingly polarized political climate in America or a historic desire couples have to be a match on principles, it’s apparent that opposites don’t always attract. Experts suggest that mismatched politics aren’t necessarily an amorous dealbreaker provided open communication, compromise, and therapy are emphasized in interactions. Nonetheless, such an arrangement might be a nonstarter for the impassioned and politically active who feel that tying the knot with someone they disagree with means compromising their core values. One thing is clear: Love may be blind, but it’s not unopinionated.

Blog

“And the Oscar for politicizing everything goes to…”

Staying out of politics used to be good business in Hollywood. Now it can get you canceled. It was a stunning headline: “Director Ignites Backlash with Non-Political Post” How could a non-political post be a source of controversy? Damien Leone, director of the slasher-film Terrifier franchise, found out earlier this month when he responded to some of his cast’s politically-charged X posts. After explaining that he was “all for freedom of speech and expression,” Leone asserted that “Terrifier is NOT in any way shape or form a political franchise. I did not get into filmmaking to become a politician or promote any political agendas or ideologies, especially through a killer clown movie. “If this doesn’t sit well with any fans or cast/crew members that is your right and I respect it,” he concluded. And yet fans retaliated, with some on X saying they “do not feel comfortable supporting the series anymore” and that making a neutral statement was in “bad form.” One elaborated that it was “insanely disappointing to see a certain horror director dismiss the impact of the political climate on horror and act like horror and politics aren’t related at all. That is an extremely shallow view on the genre.” For years, the Left has been quick to condemn celebrities, athletes, and public figures who express conservative viewpoints. Now, it seems even staying out of it won’t keep you safe anymore. Chris Pratt, too, received backlash from his op-ed in the Sunday Paper titled “Win or Lose, My Hope Is We Show Up for Each Other.” Written in the stretch just before the 2024 election, Pratt reminded readers that “we are fellow countrymen,” and that “starts with remembering no matter who wins or loses, there are still going to be people who need help in this country.” Who could be opposed to that? Unfortunately, a lot of people. A wave of social media hate ensued. One commenter berated: “Coward…if you’re gonna tell us to take a stand on our own political beliefs but you don’t do the same but want us to take your ‘stupid political advice’ — shut up and sit down.” Other celebrities who have chosen to remain neutral have received similar criticism — even those with a history of supporting left-wing causes. Chappell Roan, a self-described member of the LGBT community and an open supporter of the Hamas regime in Gaza, received intense backlash when she stated in an interview: “I have so many issues with our government in every way…There are so many things that I would want to change. So I don’t feel pressured to endorse someone. There’s problems on both sides.” Negative reaction was swift, with one fan commenting, “How are you queer, an ardent defender of the drag community and somehow a ‘both sides are bad’ person,” while another snapped, “White girl unaffected syndrome at play…she’s just not been paying attention.” Today, it seems only full-fledged, vocal support of the Left is safe from censure. Taylor Swift, for instance, announced in September 2024 that she was voting for Kamala Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them” and received vast praise from the Left for toeing the line. Megan Thee Stallion, too, was applauded for her performance at a Kamala Harris rally, where she encouraged America to elect its “first black female president” while twerking for a braying crowd. The Left’s message is clear: choose a side — or we’ll choose one for you. The question is: will Americans push back, or will they allow this cultural policing to continue unchecked? Because in today’s climate, even saying nothing might just get you canceled.

Blog

Hate Alert: “We Fight Back” Rallies

Organizations known for promoting political violence will be taking part in Inauguration Day protests nationwide The New Tolerance Campaign (NTC), a watchdog organization tracking far-left extremism and political violence via its HateMap.com project, is flagging law enforcement and warning the general public to stay away from “We Fight Back” Presidential Inauguration protests scheduled across the country. Several of the event’s endorsers have been found by NTC to have promoted, inspired, or directly engaged in physical violence against those with whom they disagree. Groups that appear on HateMap.com helping to coordinate the Monday demonstrations: ANSWER Coalition Dream Defenders Party for Socialism & Liberation Palestinian Feminist Collective Palestinian Youth Movement People’s Forum “We Fight Back” has dozens of demonstrations planned throughout the United States beginning on Saturday, January 18 and continuing through January 25. Note: While it has been announced that the presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20 has been moved indoors, “We Fight Back” has not issued any statements calling off their planned public actions. The NTC HateMap.com project is a comprehensive resource documenting instances of political violence perpetrated by leftist organizations across the United States. The interactive Map aims to fill the gaps left by traditional civil rights organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which have largely overlooked or ignored such acts. HateMap.com is designed to be a vital tool for journalists, researchers, and news organizations seeking to understand and report on the full spectrum of political violence in the country.

Blog

American Carnage

The 2017 inauguration of Donald Trump was far from a peaceful transfer of power. Will history repeat itself in 2025? The left in America is fond of casting themselves as the standard-bearers for democracy and conservators of “the peaceful transfer of power,” particularly following the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021. As the nation approaches the second inauguration of President Donald Trump, it’s worth remembering the political violence that transpired on January 20, 2017. It’s a sobering reminder that the left doesn’t always practice what they preach. The bedlam began in the day’s early hours. Coordinated attacks by aggressive activist organizations such as ANTIFA and the ANSWER Coalition organized under the umbrella group DisruptJ20 took place in multiple parts of the city. Black Lives Matter supporters chained themselves to entry points at the Inauguration. Raging demonstrators burned MAGA hats in the street, vandalized cars, and set garbage bins ablaze. Limousine driver Luis Villarroel sustained lacerations after escaping the mob that set his car on fire. Shocking footage shows swarming protesters smashing the windows of a Starbucks and Bank of America in downtown D.C. Six police officers were injured during vicious clashes with demonstrators, and over 200 people were arrested in what was one of the most violent inaugurations in modern American history. Transgressions weren’t limited to property damage and spanned several days: protesters hurled bricks and rocks at law enforcement officers tasked with maintaining order. At the Women’s March in the nation’s capital the day after the 2017 inauguration, pop star Madonna infamously declared before the assembled crowd that she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” For some, Inauguration Day interference didn’t go far enough. In lamenting “what might have been,” an anonymous observer remarked that “a concerted effort could have been made to break through the checkpoints and storm the inauguration en masse. It is possible that in the afternoon, the bloc [ANTIFA] could have led thousands of folks out into D.C. and paralyzed the city (and still smashed shit).” As the 2025 presidential inauguration approaches, vigilance for violence should be observed. The left’s muted pushback following the 2024 election should assuage some, but it also wouldn’t be a surprise if similar chaos much like 2017 unfolds. The People’s Forum — a coalition representing groups known for engaging in violent disruption at Trump’s last inauguration — has planned a “national day of action” on January 20 titled “We Fight Back.” [Photo credit: Trump Inauguration Washington DC, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, via Flickr (cropped)]

Blog

New Tolerance Campaign Announces 2024 “Worst of the Woke” Awards

Super Bowl LVIII, The Olympics, Harvard, and More Among the Top 10 Worst Woke Offenders of the Year Washington, DC — Today the New Tolerance Campaign (NTC), a grassroots watchdog organization, unveiled its fourth annual “Worst of the Woke” Awards — a look back at the year’s most outrageous headline-grabbing instances of woke-run-wild in the United States. In 2024, 10 institutions went to extremes pressing a woke agenda on a weary public: DEI in Star Wars, drag queens at The Olympics, “nonbinary” toys and more all made the cut. See the full list of “Worst of the Woke” Award winners — as well as this year’s “Champion of Tolerance” — below:   Award Winner: “The Acolyte”* Reason: Disney hoped for a hit but ended up with a messy miss following the disastrous rollout of “The Acolyte.” The Star Wars spinoff crashed and burned, cancelled after only one season for the most predictable reason: it refused to stay true to Star Wars lore and instead sought to shoehorn as much DEI into every episode as possible: an all-lesbian coven of Force Witches lamenting the galaxy not accepting “women like us,” asking an alien for its pronouns, a pronounced emphasis on race and more all featured in the show. Series creator Leslie Headland even went on-record, stating that the inclusion of “queer” communities in the program was deliberate because it “would be natural” in an all-female community.   Award Winner: Super Bowl LVIII Reason: With more than 123 million viewers every year, few things unite America like the Super Bowl — but not this year. The NFL spoiled the fun with divisive woke posturing, presenting two separate national anthems before the big game: a “black national anthem” and one for everyone else.   Award Winner: The Olympics Reason: The Paris Olympics managed to anger Christians, conservatives, and anyone with good taste in dancing. The opening ceremony of the global athletic event began with a tableau of drag queens that more than a few people felt mocked “The Last Supper”; the cross-dressing star at the center of the performance who called herself “Olympic Jesus” only exacerbated the outrage.   Award Winner: Harley-Davidson Reason: Harley Davidson had a rock-solid, badass brand…and then DEI came along. A video unveiled on X showed the company’s CEO Jochen Zeitz speaking at a conference in 2020 in which he called himself “the sustainable Taliban” and asserted Harley Davidson was “trying to take on traditional capitalism and trying to redefine it.” After the uproar, Zeitz issued a public statement denouncing DEI and declaring the bike builder would pull back from the woke brink, ending its participation with the odious “Corporate Equality Index” pushed by recognized hate group the Human Rights Campaign.   Award Winner: Columbia Reason: During a three-week fiasco, the administration of Columbia University was paralyzed in the face of rabidly antisemitic and increasingly violent conduct: students took over the campus’s famed Hamilton Hall, barricaded the entrances, and hung a “Free Palestine” banner from a window. The inmates were running the asylum at New York City’s Ivy League school, with students issuing a list of wild demands that included a “complete divestment” from all Israel-related businesses and amnesty from disciplinary actions for protesting students. Columbia’s pushback? An email declaring that bringing in police “at this time” would be counterproductive. Things got so hot that Columbia ended up canceling its university-wide commencement ceremony.   Award Winner: Harvard Reason: Following the unceremonious resignation of university president Claudine Gay under allegations of rank plagiarism, America’s premier Ivy League institution presented a case study in emotional fragility in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election. Harvard professors cancelled classes for two days to allow their students “space to process the election.” The school’s Institute of Politics distributed conciliatory pastries and sweets all day on November 6. And quizzes in the “Intermediate Microeconomics” class were declared optional henceforth as a reprieve from post-election trauma.   Award Winner: WPATH Reason: Hippocratic Oath be damned! The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) came under fire for its role in one of the most alarming medical scandals of our time. Behind closed doors, doctors affiliated with WPATH, who swore an oath to “do no harm,” privately discussed how sex-change procedures for minors are experimental, untested, and often devastatingly painful. The admissions directly contradicted their public-facing advocacy for the treatments, leaving families betrayed and children’s bodies permanently altered.   Award Winner: Mattel Reason: The company behind Barbie pushed the boundaries of political correctness with the release of “the world’s first gender-neutral doll.” The toys, marketed as “gender-inclusive,” are designed to be “a boy, a girl, neither, or both.” Mattel hailed the launch as a step toward greater inclusivity, but the move sparked pushback among parents and child-development experts.   Award Winner: Penzeys Spices* Reason: Once crowned “America’s Wokest Company,” Penzeys Spices stirred the pot yet again this year. The seasoning shop is known for promotional events such as “Republicans Are Racists Weekend” and for recommending their customers “send the Jewish people in your life…a photo of a couple sleeping bags up in your attic with the message that you will always have a place for them.” In 2024 the company sparked widespread outrage and calls for boycotts after their owner published an essay on the business’s website slamming the GOP. Of all places for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to deliver remarks about ending “divisiveness,” she chose this one?   Award Winner: Jaguar Reason: Luxury carmaker Jaguar rolled out a bizarre ad in December that left audiences scratching their heads: a commercial filled with androgynous models and completely devoid of cars. To make matters worse, the auto manufacturer literally took the jaguar out of Jaguar, erasing the iconic big cat from its logo. Critics called the company “Bud Light 2.0.” X owner Elon Musk mockingly asked the company “Do you sell cars?” And conservative parliament member Nigel Farage predicted the UK brand “will now go bust.”   2024 CHAMPION OF TOLERANCE  In

Scroll to Top