Let me hasten to say: I know only as much as I read in the MSM about Shirvell, whose one-man campaign against the homosexual student body president of the University of Michigan has earned him the scorn of our ruling classes and institutions. His actions may, in fact, have looked a little weird, MSM spin notwithstanding (he apparently borrowed the Alinsky/left tactic of "isolate and humiliate" by making it personal). I'm relatively less interested in the issue of homosexuality than the National Question, and I've got only so much energy to defend anyone who throws around the word "racist" to get his way.
That said, let me provide the outlines of a defense. What's happened to Mr. Shirvell is a telling example of what happens to the politically incorrect dissenter in a position of even modest stature who sticks his neck out. I occasionally hear the laughable assertion that "fundamentalist Christians are the ones who really run this country." Really? In such a country, would Mr. Shirvell be disbarred and fired for his campaign? Or would it be Chris Armstrong who's kicked to the curb?
Mr. Armstrong has apparently proposed gender-neutral housing for the university. In a country run by "fundamentalist Christians", it would be Armstrong being mocked by Jon Stewart, Anderson Cooper and Elie Mystal (or their equivalents). He wouldn't be disbarred or fired, he'd be seen as vigorously opposing a man living a defiantly un-Christian lifestyle and using his position of power to advance his counter-Biblical cause.
No, of course, it's quite the opposite. All the power players are on Armstrong's side.
Note, too, the "weaponized diagnosis" of Shirvell by his enemies. "Deranged." "Obsessed." "Probably homosexual himself." Such are the attacks on the politically incorrect dissenter — a pattern seen more broadly with the attacks on the Tea Party or conservative whites.
Shirvell was accused of (I'll assume it's true) trying to get Armstrong fired from a Capitol Hill internship. Heidi Beirich does precisely the same thing, but enjoys absolute immunity for her efforts. As a thought experiment, imagine what would befall an Assistant Attorney General who decided to target Fred Phelps with a blog, in-person protests and phone calls.
Come to think of it, Andrew Shirvell's biggest sin wasn't to criticize a homosexual student body president. It was to adopt the aggressive tactics of the left. As he can now testify, the left isn't going to tolerate that.