Just been following a trail of links from Michelle Malkin’s website to this.
It’s the minutes of a meeting of the student senate at the University of Washington. The topic under discussion is a proposal that a statue be erected on campus to honor WW2 hero Colonel Gregory “Pappy” Boyington. After some to-ing and fro-ing with members of the Senate who, as one of them put it, “don’t believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce,” we get this gem (it’s on page 7 of the minutes) from a similarly-minded participant, one Deirdre Lockman:
“She said the resolution focused more heavily on the negative aspects of war and should instead focus on more positive aspects such as the awarding of the Medal of Honor.”
What you generally get the Medal of Honor for is killing lots of the enemy. That’s what Col. Boyington got it for. Killing the enemy is, however, one of the “negative aspects of war,” and may not be mentioned in polite society. So: you can memorialize a fellow for his having been awarded the Medal of Honor, but you mustn’t mention what he got it for. Everyone on board with that?
(Note in passing the disparaging reference to Col. Boyington as a “rich white man.” He was in fact part Sioux, as you can tell by just looking at him, and came from a working-class background.)