HOWEVER…
It now seems that the entire report (and all of the stories which were written about the report) is complete and utter hogwash.
In a startling story from the New York Post, Paul Sperry uncovers the truth about the bogus SPLC report and the stories which spun off from it.
The SPLC’s widely cited report — “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools” — reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation.”
The takeaway was that Trump-supporting white kids have been harassing minorities at the nation’s schools. And SPLC’s schools report, along with a broader report on alleged Trump-inspired hate crimes — “Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election” — sparked breathless coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and other major media.
The reports also triggered a statement Friday from the US Commission on Civil Rights, which expressed “deep concern” that “prejudice has reared its ugly head in public elementary and secondary schools.” The panel called for more federal funding to prosecute “hate crimes.”
But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit (SPLC) self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”
Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”
“They left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative,” former Education Department civil rights attorney Hans Bader said. “It was deemed an inconvenient truth.”
Yes, you read that correctly, the SPLC study results left out at least 2000 incidents of anti-white and possibly anti-Trump attacks in the days after the election.
The decision to ignore that data destroys any credibility the study could have because that number represents about 20% of the respondents! The data is tremendously skewed. But as civil rights attorney Hans Bader notes, the data was left out because it didn’t fit the SPLC’s narrative.
The Sperry article goes on to note that the SPLC (and their liberal supporters) also routinely quote statistics that have been gathered anonymously (and is unverifiable) on their website. This is not scientific data; this is patently illegitimate information that the SPLC and the Democrat Party often parrot in debates, even though the statistics are not supported by any data. Further, we know that many of the most publicized “hate crimes” perpetrated during the electoral cycle have been proven to be false. (See the links below for a list of just some of the fake hate crimes from the past few months.)
http://nypost.com/2016/11/13/the-fake-p ... ommentary/
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/elect ... tack-false
If we can’t trust liberals to tell the truth when they actually report a crime, how are we supposed to trust the stories they tell anonymously to a liberal website?
It’s nonsense. The SPLC is nonsense. And the liberal infatuation with “fake” news is nonsense.
As I have said before............
The left-wingers are lying ALLLLLL THE TIME!!!
MORS TYRANNIS 
