Our universities must return to their original purpose: to seek the truth and give youths the knowledge they need to flourish. Here are four ways to do that.
The exposed antisemitism and congressional testimony are just one piece in a long line of evidence of rot in many of our universities. It was Penn, for instance, that allowed a biological male to move from a mediocre male on the men's team to a super star performer on the women's team. This was not the pursuit of truth, but the epitome of living a lie. Add pronoun enforcement, identity obsession and DEI into the mix, and there is very little time left for the pursuit of truth. I hope this is a much broader awakening than this one event.
And let's not forget what happened to Penn Law Professor Amy Wax when she dared to say that the enduring values of hard work and responsibility - and not race - were the major determinates of human success and happiness.
She also had the temerity to look at the scholastic records and note that it was rare for a black student to finish in the top half of the class. She wasn’t casting aspersions; she was reporting simple, verifiable, but uncomfortable and inconvenient facts.
Actual data and empiric evidence are very stubborn arguments for those who want to operate exclusively on feelings and emotions. Perhaps because they are too hard to fake without a trace.
When data and theory disagree, data prevail because data represent reality. Theory adjusts to them, not vice versa.* In this case, theory would be that all Penn law students are equally prepared, so racist profs must be the reason for the data. They skew the outcomes since otherwise all representation would be proportional.
Exactly the kind of thing Mr. Lysenko was doing about 100 years ago. Screw reality; good soviet vegetables will do what my novel—excuse me, research—says they’ll do. And if a few people starve, well…that’s the price of being communists. The data must be wrong because the theory can’t be. Someone’s sabotaging my theory to make me look bad.
Of course, we never see that kind of thing any more, right?
* Even though that’s a grammatically correct sentence, it’s still hard to see “data” as plural of datum. English is an odd language….
don't forget that now, speaking/writing (proper/conventional) English is considered racist (to blacks).
I consider "English" , what should be the first language used in America. Other countries also use proper/conventional language as well, just delivered in other dialects or "languages".
If someone can not communicate effectively, as they are too lazy or uninterested in being understood, then they get what they get.
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
Oh....she's had temerity on a whole lot of things....
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
It had nothing whatsoever to do with I.Q. Just standard performance tests that black students struggled with. She was fired for pointing this out and suggesting solutions. Activism over action.
Not the IQ tests I’ve taken. Nor the LSAT. The Med CAT exam, the GRE, and subsequent medical tests are explicitly designed to test knowledge and not problem solving, which is what IQ pretty much is: ability to solve problems.
In her interview, she stated that she was unhappy with the situation and wanted to help low achieving black students to improve.
But by simply pointing out the problem, she was almost immediately demonized and cancelled. Even a person who sincerely says, "My black students are consistently underperforming. We need to change things so that they are better prepared." is considered racist.
The fact is that African-American blacks (not Jamaicans, West Indies groups, and recent immigrants from Africa, who tend to do well) are stubbornly stuck in a rut and the very worst thing is to tell them it's not their fault, but the fault of racist whites who keep them down, when in fact it's THEIR FAULT, whether through genetics, culture, or a combination.
I do not know that it is their fault. They have been dealt a raw deal, mostly by that party that says "[Y]ou ain't black if you don't vote for me." It looks to me like the Great Society decimated the American family, starting with the African-American family and then creeping outward. But when the standards are not met the solution is not to move the goalpost.
My phrasing was poor. Maybe better to say: rather than blame the white majority, they should be told "You can and must uplift yourselves; we expect excellence, not mediocrity."
Tim Scott made the best observation of his abbreviated Presidential campaign when he noted that the worst thing to happen to the black community was "The Great Society". It, together with the extensions put in place by Obama et al, has cemented an underclass that has an almost insuperable wall to climb to extricate themselves.
Terry, I also don’t believe “dumbing down” so that everyone feels good & gets an A is the answer.
Of course, to state the obvious = you’re RACIST; however, in the climate of what’s happening in America / American education, WOKE companies will hire these underachievers, unqualified young college graduates.
Either they must, in order to meet the DEI expectation, OR they willingly accept & believe the DEI expectation is needed to “right the wrongs of this racists country”. Either way, America loses.
Hmmm.....she doesn't seem to be the type that is really all that "unhappy" and "wanted to help."
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
It means the black students were not prepared to do the level of work the other students produced. This likely is because the black kids were never given proper secondary education and had not mastered certain basic skills. Whatever the cause, instead of dumbing down the main curriculum they should have provided a lower level entry course for students with “special needs”. Alternatively, they could have rejected the applications of the students in special needs category. In any case the response should not be to hold back the well prepared student. This deprives and punished the good students, and it deprives society of a well trained professional workforce.
Also, perhaps the lack of a culture which prizes education and critical thinking and which even goes so far as to disparage personal agency should be addressed as well.
I am not sure that is true. I think a significant problem with the A-A community is do-gooders (a/k/a the "elites"speaking for them without realistically analyzing their needs.
How did Black Students with two parents in their home do? It would be interesting to compare their IQ scores with the scores of white students from broken families.
Her point might have been that the establishment and their handmaidens in "da teachiz yoonyun" don't teach black kids spit - except for racist victimization and feel good nonsense - and that where they are held to high standards they prosper. Ever consider that?
Perhaps it is apt they are again colleagues at the law school. Professor Wax’s problems began well before the tenure of ex president Mcgill. She has been targeted for years because of her views. She is a formidable adversary having attended Harvard Law and Medical concurrently. She is also a neurologist. She has advocated for self discipline and hard work. In addition she has many distasteful views. She wants to limit Asian immigration. This seems odd since she is the child of Jewish immigrants. She claims Ashkenazi Jews are diluting their stock by marrying down ( my wife is one of those who married down). Admittedly she is a lone voice who has never advocated violence let alone genocide like Hamas’s crash dummies. I find these views abhorrent. Nonetheless I support her right to academic freedom. Where do we draw the line when opinions stray from the mainstream? ex President Mcgill’s resignation is a good starting point since she couldn’t keep her faculty and students safe by drawing that line.
Listen to her words. These are long held views, The lunacy of others didn’t drive her over the edge. It insults her to say so. She has agency. She has made her own decisions. As I said her credentials are impressive. She has students and colleagues who hold her in the highest regard. She might say she doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That might be true, it’s not a vice but self reflection is a virtue.
I did listen to her words and respect the hell out of her. My comment was directed to another comment suggesting she held prejudiced views about intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews and non-Jews.
FWIW, here’s a copy of the letter from the Dean Ruger of Penn Law enumerating all the various instances of Wax’s inflammatory statements both in and out of class, with citations to the source material whether testimony of students, newspaper essays, interviews in print or online.
Ibram X. Kendi’s xenophobia is not only accepted, but celebrated! (And, quite frankly, mandated by the woke elite for everyone everywhere -- as long as it’s along the lines he draws.). I have always found that enormously abhorrent.
Which brings us to Bari’s “double standard” point...
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
Hold on. Are you suggesting that Wax was being a racist when "taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites” but that Biden isn't being racist when he exults in a belief that America will be a majority non-white nation? Now I'm confused. Even more so than "people of color" or the hilarious BIPOC is "enlightened," while "colored people" is racist. What utter racist claptrap.
Are you suggesting that Wax was being a racist when "taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites”
-She's your hero. The statement is what the statement is. So, you tell me.
"that Biden isn't being racist when he exults in a belief that America will be a majority non-white nation?"
- "bUt bIDen!" I'm sure there was no "exulting." I'm sure if the quote were transcribed it would be quite benign and demographically factual. Which is why so many white people are having psychiatric meltdowns about becoming a minority. Don't know why. You get all kinds of advantages and privileges.
Yes, it is more enlightened - because it rejects the terminology imposed by the white, hegemonic structure in deciding how THEY will refer to nonwhites. So, I can understand why you're confused. I'm sure you're confused and upset by lots of terminology that is no longer polite/acceptable to use when referring to non-white people.
Use "colored people" all you want, Bruce. No one is stopping you.
You can get expelled from an Ivy League school for wearing the wrong Halloween costume or saying that men shouldn't compete on a woman's athletic team. (By "Men" I mean humans with a penis and testicles) But according to the Presidents at Harvard, MIT and UPenn, calling for the literal genocide of Jewish people is A-OK as long as you aren't the one pulling the trigger. What a bunch of idiots.
No, no JB. You have it wrong! It all depends on the context. I heard it three!!!! times in the esteemed ladies Congressional testimony. Which if someone could put in context how the Arabs we now refer to as Palestinians have been subjected to a genocide when their population has doubled since Israel pulled Jews out of the Gaza Strip and left it to its own devices I would appreciate it greatly.
The disaster is directly tied to BLM. The anarchy allowed in inner cities, where police were blamed instead of criminals and supported by mayors and prosecutors, found its footing in DEI. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—equal opportunity—were no longer the benchmark. Now, they pursue equal outcomes: representation in admissions, corporate boards, Academy Award nominations, etc. If you’re not 100% on board, you’re canceled—an enemy. Oppressors vs. oppressed. Black victim mentality gone wild.
Bari is 100% correct. To return to sanity, ending DEI and dismantling it in education is a critical first step.
To a college administrator in today's world, it's the path of least resistance. Catering to the mob is less burdensome than the voice of reason. Essentially, these institutions are led by weak-minded individuals terrified about standing up to students or wacko faculty.
The left is relentless so it is much easier to go along with their BS than to see your life subsumed by harrassment. Administrators w/o backbone have reinforced to the lefties that that canceling someone works if pursued vigorously enough. This could all end if fought tenatiously and then ignored. Trump is not my favorite candidate but one has to give him points for being fearless in taking on the left and the media. He seems to bask in their criticism and there is much to like in that strength.
To play devils advocate, it is very likely that any admin who would actually stand their ground either wouldn't be hired in the first place or would be gotten rid of. Keep in mind, these are jobs. Most people go out of their way to keep their jobs. Mind you, that doesn't excuse weak leadership. But it may help explain it.
Yes! Universities need to stop this pursuit of Culrtural Marxist "transformational change". That should not be the mission.
ALL of the DEI/DIE needs to be taken down.
"It means banning the loyalty oaths professors must pledge to earn a job or tenure. It means dismantling the entire DEI bureaucracy, as some states have started doing."
Yes, "anti-racism", must go, pronoun policing must go... Biology professors who say sex is binary should not lose their positions or have to go on leave. Speakers who disagree with the Narrative should not be shouted down or dis-invited.
It is concerning that President Gay of Harvard might be let go over a brand new plagiarism controversy. If that happens then the institution does not have to face its core rot - which it obviously does not wish to do. - Just sweep her under the carpet and carry on...
Let’s put ourselves in these young jewish kids’ shoes…. God forbid, but how would these university administrators feel if THEY were the subject of death threats on campus by angry mobs of students and professors??
That would be horrible! I’m guessing they would put a stop to it very quickly. They would NOT cite the free speech rights of the perpetrators … and they would indeed be afraid.
It is an obvious fact that calling for genocide of Jewish students does indeed constitute harassment and it needs to stop immediately.
It is not the job of our college students to fight Hamas’ war.
At a university we are training YOUNG adults who are inexperienced in the world how to interact in a meaningful and thoughtful way; that’s the job of the universities. Allowing them to act as angry, canceling mobs is the exact opposite of what we want them to learn.
The DEI departments need to be abolished. All they have amounted to is ideology enforcement which strips away students’ freedom of thought, opinion, and expression with threats of censure, class failure and expulsion. It is how the universities are controlling our young students’ thoughts today.
DEI hit squad: Forcing people to call an obvious biological male a “woman” and having to call him “she” is GASLIGHTING, and as such, is violence against one’s sense of reality.
In fact, the NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE describes it this way:
“[Gaslighting] is an extremely effective form of emotional abuse that causes a victim to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity. As a result, the abusive partner has a lot of power (and we know that abuse is about power and control).”
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females. (May 2023). The transgender “movement” mocks the suffering and mental anguish of these true gender dysphoria sufferers and has turned their pain into a media circus.
Women’s sports: Putting on lipstick and a dress does not suddenly turn your Y-chromosome into an X-chromosome.
A man’s penis, testicles and male hormones are still there… and the previous growth and strength that a man goes through is NOT negated by taking female hormones…. In fact, his testosterone ensures that his strength will stay in tact. So, beyond the shadow of a doubt, these men pretending to be women will win every female sport because they are indeed bigger and stronger. I’m sorry… it is just not fair to women… and it is an out-and-out attack on women’s sports.
Our media outlets declaring that the “Woman of the Year” is a transgender is ULTIMATELY INSULTING TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE. So men are actually better women than a woman who has two X-chromosomes?!! Really?! HOW INSULTING.
If a guy wants to dress up as a woman, go for it, dude. I could care less. But don’t make me call you by any particular name, don’t invade my space, and don’t threaten me in places like women’s locker rooms, public bathrooms and in our sports. How unsafe the women in prisons must feel when these trans “women” men are in their spaces. As if life wasn’t already hard enough for women in prison.
AGAIN, let’s put ourselves in these poor female students’ shoes… How would President Gay or President Magill feel if THEY had to undress in front of a biological male who is pretending to be a woman? What if THEY were subjected to this in their own spaces??
Sometimes it frightens me how astute Bari Weiss is. I find myself nodding my head as I read everything she writes. Bari Weiss and the Free Press gives me hope that all is not lost. There is still a sliver of sanity out there.
"Diversity, equity, and inclusion are important virtues."
No--"Equity" is not a virtue at all. It is an Marxist/Communist goal that seeks to reward selected groups for reasons determined by whoever in charge of deciding who deserves reallocation of resources. Historically it never ended well as it leads to nothing but power grab by whoever was put in charge of enforcing "equity".
Enough of the "equity" BS.
Just bring back equality, equal opportunity, and promotion of charity.
Why are they virtues at all? Define virtue. It is stupidity to include every type of person in many things. Society for one. Schools too. Same with diversity. Hasn’t it been proven that doing so allows moral rot to infiltrate and gain power under the guise of these virtues?
I agree with you about Bari's wisdom and courage, Bobby. My 'hope that all is not lost' is also supported by Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, Christopher Rufo, Tucker Carlson, and other imperfect but truth-seeking warriors.
I don’t like anyone who supports conquest ideologies or has uninformed and dangerous influence. Putin’s ambition to reconstitute the Soviet Union has been well publicized. If Ukraine falls to Russia, the Baltic States and Poland are next and we are headed for WW III.
Yes I think you have that correct. Putin talks fondly of the USSR and clearly wants to reconstitute its boarders. That isnt far-fetched as Russia has historically had expansionist desires. Georgia Ukraine and then the Balkins.
But that isn't the entire issue. We benefit in a world with order. We cant allow larger states to invade and take over weaker states. That is a world in chaos that will eventually take civilization backwards and come to our shores.
You may disagree but that doesn't make a person a shill for any political party.
You hear what you are capable of hearing. I was a big fan until he idiotically said “no one cares if Russia invades Ukraine”.
Some of us are more observant than others. I note that you misspell my name.
Enlightened and intelligent people care. As do those of us with basic knowledge of Russia’s history and communism. The Soviet Union was in reality Russia and its neighbors who had been conquered.
You sound so very progressive. Touting yourself as enlightened and caring. I do not support what this administration had done. It has cost the PEOPLE of Ukraine dearly and I care a LOT about that. I think people who have supported this fiasco have blood on their hands. Lots of blood. I am.not okay with that.
It appears a talking point on this thread for the past year and a half or so that Biden's incompetent bungling (and it was) of America's withdrawal of Afghanistan enabled Putin to conclude that a geriatric Biden would do little to stop him in Ukraine. Of which I agree. He invaded because he believed Biden to be weak.
So to take that one step further - if we had done nothing to help Ukraine when Russia advanced on it, as I presume you would have wished, would that not have enabled Putin to push his aims further westward?
I don’t think he’s ever supported Russia invading Europe, and I highly doubt that will happen. I think Tucker supported Russia’s willingness to leave Ukraine alone unless they join NATO. Ukraine joining NATO has always been a hard line for Putin and I kinda understand why.
I’d recommend giving John Mearsheimer’s 2015 speech a listen…
Bari Weiss is still a Democrat and a leftist. And she avoids addressing the reason for the rise of antisemitism in America. And she avoids the political trial of Donald Trump. Trump did nothing wrong. The fraud is the trial. Nether of you is astute.
I'm being totally respectful here, Terence - so please don't get me wrong. I see you are in favour of aid to Ukraine and that Russia's invasion of it was monstrous. As I am. Full stop. But I also see you are a supporter of Donald Trump. Do you think Trump would have stopped Putin from invading had he remained in power? After I saw his performance with Vladimir in Helsinki, appearing to kowtow to the Russian leader in public view, accepting his intelligence instead of ours, I personally have my sincere doubts. I don't think it's opinion to suggest that Trump actually likes and respects Putin, and I personally think (though it cannot ever be proven) that Donald would have winked at a Putin stab at Kiev at the early stages of the war. Trump is transactional - and I think he would have tried to cut a deal where Russia holds the political control of Ukraine in exchange for a broader peace. But that's just me.
That whole canard is so funny. First of all, no president should be asked to condemn a country for something like election interference *at a press conference for a dipomatic meeting where the opposing party is standing at the next podium*. It's not kowtowing to another leader to not be accusatory to their face in public, it's being diplomatic, as the protocol for the moment would require.
Compare to Biden calling Putin a murderous dictator all of the time. One time he said something like that it was while there were active negotiations to end the war. The US wanted to scuttle those anyway, Boris Johnson from the UK agreed and flew in to Kyiv to do so. Look at all that has gotten Ukraine - 150k dead, a damaged economy, and 20% less territory.
Trump would have done a better job, I'm sure of that, even if not falsely leading Ukraine down a path to get wrecked. Everyone worriea about not making a deal with Putin because he might break it - which just means make a deal you might break too. "We pledge no Ukraine in NATO" is something we can change any time we want. And it could have saved hundreds of thousands, and worst case was you end up in same place as today anyway.
Bari Weiss is a Democrat. Although she supports free speech her party supports open borders, mandating a rushed, experimental, ineffective and somewhat dangerous vaccine as well as the insane policy of vaccinating children with it. And of course Climate Alarmism and inequality before the law. The political trial of Donald Trump is the most obvious example.
I am also dropping Dr. Peter McCullough. He is a brilliant doctor but he supports the invasion of Ukraine. Last week I received an email from Dr. McCullough’s site saying my prescription could not be renewed. because my credit card had expired. This was a day after I had sent an email saying I was not renewing.
I think it is unethical for a website to automatically renew. It is a wise practice to cancel your credit cards in October. It takes only a few days to get a new card.
You make an excellent point about Bari’s status as a Democrat. As a group/culture they vote lock-step with what ever their party comes up with. Whatever is the latest baloney that comes out of these leftist universities she now decries, is what they want to go with when making policy. For examples: DEI, anti-racism, climate change and anti-men-ism.
I am a conservative but I actually agree with a little bit of the policy stuff the Dems propose but I vote against every one of them on account of their consistently selling out our country, their colossal ingratitude for what past generations sacrificed for them including life and limb, and for their know-it-all arrogance. They think because they can talk/rant longer and faster than other folks, that that makes them right by default.
The only reason I’m keeping my subscription to TFP is that, at least some of these Dems like Bari, have the temerity to publicly criticize some of their party’s leadership as is being done in this article.
It took me 30 min to get through the article. I was so mad at the insanity of it all I had to get up and walk around. I wouldn't call these universities liberal. They are coercive, institutions. I hope this is a wakeup call to all concerned. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Her success with The Free Press gives me even more hope...obviously there are many readers who hunger for an actually free press, even if it is by paid subscription only.
I agree 100% on "ending DEI." I think that is the one solid action that we can take to start to see real change. DEI is the great trojan horse to where a systematic destruction of values can be introduced to the populace right underneath our very noses. ex: the trans-movement
"Heather Mac Donald's 'The Diversity Delusion' is an invaluable resource of mythbusting fact and a reality-check on the siren calls of identity-based ‘social justice’ now so insistent in all Western societies that have given rise to the great DEI racket. Detailed, rigorous and copious, it is a devastatingly compelling expose of “how race and gender pandering corrupt the university and undermine our culture......The real shocker.... is not the behaviour of the (hopefully atypical) student ‘protesters’, self-engrossed and feral though it certainly is, but the sycophantic response to and encouragement of it by college administrators. The epidemic of spoilt-brat student behaviour, however caused, could have been stamped out in short order but for the craven virtue signalling of their ‘adult’ academic mentors..” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Heather is so brave. She stands up to the crazy students. I just watchered a few of her presentations at colleges. She speaks in facts and doesn't back down from them. As a wife of a police officer, I was so grateful to her research that showed what a lie the media has spread about them. But her courage doesn't just come from the facts, but in her knowlege that the Left's policies always hurt the most marginalized people.
All one had to do is read the mindless twaddle and cant of Hank Rogers (the laughable Kendi) and DiAngelo to realize the towering scam of the DEI industry.
Good point. Growing up I remember the race hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is just a new set of the same old hustle. Using race to line their own pockets.
I wish I could find the article for when Scott McNeely, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, told Jesse Jackson to basically f@ck off when Jackson was trying to extort millions from Sun.
It's not a "scam". It's not about money -- although certainly some people have made a lot of money off it. It's about power. It's about creating a racial hierarchy whereby someone's skin color and preferred pronouns determine how far that person can go in life.
Power, money and control go together and reinforce each other. Have you looked at congress lately? Davos is another example as is the World Health Organisation, (now there's an oxymoron) and the UN.
The DEI evolved and was ultimately born out of misandrist feminism's six decades of profitable service to the now openly visible, ever ascending, anti-human corporate fascist world state. Beginning with a villainous destruction of family, men and boys, today it represents the specious virtuosity that stifles every attempt at free speech and progress. The DEI represents an outbreak of the same infectious 20th Century virus that rationalized the murder of millions. A slow boil prime example, is its claim to the unobstructed right to destroy and cancel the lives of individuals through trial by press without fact or reason, now gladly weaponized by central banking criminal political/financial corporate fascists as the right to seize (Canada) the bank accounts of protestors en masse or send a militarized police force to arrest elderly ladies for thought crimes. No one gave any of these people the right. Against every Constitutional law of order and across every line of human moral demarcation, they just did, and continue too, do it.
The DEI represents a laughable front for looters and moral cripples and we all know it. Its willing avaricious butchery of the American psyche and destruction of American youth and the future they deserve is unforgivable.
DEI/DNC/WEF/EU/CCP are merely acronymic window dressing and the DEI is just another head on the hydra. At bottom it's the same jack booted little beast it has always been. The hard work, hard won factual Twitter File revelations on the marriage of surveillance capitalism with the bureaucratic surveillance state, its service to corporate fascism and their mutual intent to commodify (enslave) the human race is a lot to take in. But it's not a new strain of the virus.
"The DEI evolved and was ultimately born out of misandrist feminism's six decades of profitable service"
I hear some people, men primarily, say this now but serious question: How else would you have dealt with the real unequal treatments and biased attitudes against women 40-60 years ago so to make things right without feminism?
The current problems with DEI might in part result from liberal feminism from 2000 forward, when the most essential goals of feminism were largely achieved. From 2000 on, it became a movement looking for problems instead of a movement to solve entrenched real problems (which still very much existed in backward foreign countries and the movement could've done much more good turning their attentions to those instead).
Feminism wouldn't have existed in the first place if men had treated women equally in society when they ran the world for millennium. Given they didn't and were entirely resistant to changes until feminism forced what we would expect today to be basic equality and respect for any other human beings regardless of sex, what would you have done differently so feminism wouldn't have been needed 60 years ago?
America was/is an evolving Constitutional Republic. Considering the general chaos of the last three centuries on this continent I believe we'd all agree on the progress we've made. It is disingenuous to broad brush the idea that womankind was intentionally victimized when man, woman and child were often lucky to survive at all. As now, the majority of people weren't racist, white supremacist, sexist, gay haters or X-Y-Z. It was just convenient to say so for grifters trying to turn a buck.
There is no question that, as today, many women were trapped in the often tragic circumstances and consequences of bad social, cultural, economic policy. Let me point to the 1912 Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, the largest woolen mills in the world at that time. Because of cotton fiber inhalation the average age of death for a woman working in the mills was 26 years old. All the attendant horrors of tenement life, subsistence wages and sexual exploitation were definitely in play. Pictures of ten and even year old girls working the winding spools shocked America to the core. But when they struck for rights and wages and the bosses sent Pinkerton slime and the National Guard to break the strike, men and women stepped forward to face the gun thugs together.
Then as now, feminism and women's voices, like the much needed healthy American national dialogue we're struggling to create today, has been/was/is captured, exploited and distorted by the same avaricious grifters and propagandist mercenary sycophants that have always sewn division, hatred and prejudice at every opportunity while unreasonably profiting off the lives and labor of the common man. Every study ever done says that an educated and enlightened citizen creates men AND WOMEN who work hard and wisely plan for for a brighter future within the framework of the resources they have today.
All feminists aren't man haters. But the capture of feminisms political voice and its exploitation and weaponization by poseur marxist ideologues, its evolution into the DEI and its willing service in promoting the sterile anti-humanlike destroying policies of political/criminal financiers can't be denied.
Ok I see where you're coming from. Your view is an approach from a libertarian standpoint, and your objection is the type of feminism ideology that casts women as a victim group, as opposed to victims in specific circumstances and situations.
I wish there's a way that your criticism, which I'll call academic feminism just for the sake of this conversation, can be thoughtfully discussed without it being conflated with MRAs looking for any reason to just rant against women. It is hard to decipher when one comes across a simple statement like "this is all feminism's fault", because feminism means different things to different people. For example, I hear feminism of the kind from 40-60 yeas ago, I don't immediately think of a type of ideology. I think of women working at the grassroot for Title IX, equal opportunities at the work place, and advocating for domestic violence to be treated the same as any other violent crimes and not be dismissed as domestic disputes. That kind of social activism is not that different from the example you gave of the Break and Rose strike for improving the workplace for women, only that you describe that as something other than feminism. The problem is a blanket statement without further distinction can be misread as women should be sent back barefoot into the kitchens, and it plays right into hands of the kind of feminists you're criticizing, and serves as confirmation biases that men or conservatives don't want women to have equal rights.
I do think the word "feminism" is so tainted now and the ideology is so captured that there's no going back. The movement that it once represented is also over and has been over for probably 30 years, as women by and large have achieved legal equality. It everything had ended there, we wouldn't be here today with a concept being captured by grifters and ideologues who have lost their minds. It's the same with the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. The professional activists and academia never want to call it quits because they make their living by making sure the gravy train continues, plus they're also ideological zealots.
I do think a general statement like the one you originally made, without at least a bit of further explanation, probably just further fuels the discourse and possibly weaken what you're trying to say because off hand, it could sound like sexism to a lot of people and serves to affirm men/conservatives are biased against women.
Franklin, we don't have to end DEI, all that needs to be done is to shine a bright light on it. As is happening now. As the pendulum swings back, in parallel with public pushback, DEI will collapse under its own weight - as university administrations realize the public perception of it is too negative for it to be justified and maintained. Just give it time.
BW: it is not enough to start basic education in universities - start with our elementary schools captured by totalitarian unions. Also, since you mentioned that the role of universities president is to raise donations, you need to consider the sources and influence they carry. Lately, it came to light that immense amounts came from foreign countries, mainly China, and Arab countries. Just like political donations, they should be regulated and limited, but more effectively.
These leftists have burrowed into almost every aspect of the organizations that affect our lives. Look for example at the leadership of every professional organization. Even the seemingly innocuous AARP has been captured by these Stalinists.
A ray of hope... I live in a community of ~6,000 and our schools are doing everything they can to oppose the communist tendencies of the MN Dept. of Education. A key moment was during the Scamdemic regarding masks, etc. Our school board was deferring to the MN Dept of Health commissioner - one man - regarding school openings etc and we responded "If you defer to one man why do we need a school board?"
Everything changed after that including a flipping of the school board to more political balance and they have been quietly refusing to comply with all the DIE bullshyte.
I've noticed the AARP latest marketing features actors saying "I don't agree with everything the AARP says but...." which always makes me think then stop saying it! Stay in your lane and drop the woke olympics
Simple solution: enact legislation that requires universities to choose between receiving grant and any other support from the US government or from foreign sources. Can’t have both. And if you choose foreign, you’re stuck with it until 7 years after you change your mind. Think about that for a second.
How about making universities choose between foreign money from our enemies (or all foreign money) and the ability of their students to get student loans?
An even better idea. But not as likely to get through Congress. The media will argue that Congress is hurting the poor students. Better to hurt the undeserving—or at least double dipping—institutions of so-called higher education.
One could argue they are, pushing Israel for a ceasefire that would save Hamas. But more importantly, the BIden Administration is pushing DEI hard, and aid to universities gives them a lot of leverage.
Agreed. I was a K-8 public school board member and the DEI ideology was pervasive within the district. I was the only school board member fighting it. The seven current members worship at its alter. I was so disgusted by the policies being implemented, we moved.
These DEI departments are steeped in pathological altruism. They must be dismantled and rooted out or it will most certainly ruin these institutions.
I'd go one step further. Right now the ratio for university leadership leaning liberal/very liberal to conservative of about 28:1. Universities must work to balance this or they will never change. These progressive university leaders and their boards are a modern day Orval Faubus for libertarian & conservative students/faculty on their campuses IMO.
Bill Ackman has been pressing hard both verbally and financially to end DEI at Harvard, but I'm just not optimistic any this will change no matter how much money you threaten to keep from them.
DEI is a religion, and one must bend the knee to stay safe where dogma rules. This just isn't in academia but in significant corporations with HR departments pursuing the DEI dogma. You look at LinkedIn and see those with the correct set of pronouns. Is that something you do naturally, or is that something you do to keep the jackals at bay? The perverse effect of these people is everywhere, and I pray the reaction against it is beginning to develop momentum.
Those pronouns on LinkedIn, I think it's like a talisman. Have you ever watched this cartoon called Grizzy & the Lemmings on Netflix? They're often fighting over these little talismans that give them powers. Similar to these talismans, the pronouns open up doors and give people advancement with allyship powers. Watch it, it's a funny show!
An old colleague of mine spends her time designing DEI programs for high schools. She is no grifter.
She is, however, a warrior who came of age in the 1950s and early 1960s and never quite realized the terrible direction the cause took at about that time.
After she helped southern Blacks register to vote, our well-meaning government began subsidizing and thus encouraging the having of babies by young single women who couldn't or wouldn't finish school and get a job that would support them, but instead embarked on careers of baby-making with aimless men. And so the family life of that subset of Black people was within a generation of being destroyed.
The era of the "welfare queen" might be over, but the generations of the same families who still subsist on welfare are the cause of so much of our urban dysfunction
While we have not been in touch lately, I would think my old friend still doesn't get it, not because she's rewarded monetarily -- she's absolutely not -- but because she still feels that the root of bad behavior on the part of too many Black urbanites is racism.
As though there aren't Black urbanites whose families are far more successful than Caucasians.
In the years before I retired from teaching, I was increasingly disgusted with the after-school process of splitting into groups to "share our identities," the self-important diversity speeches by young consultants who had given up teaching after 3-4 years in order to make big bucks preaching, and the interminable required assigning of identity essays to our advisee groups.
"We had to write this same essay last year!" they'd complain. "Well, you're older now," was the only reply I could offer.
How things are in more recent years, I shudder to think. My last link to my old teaching job won't say -- she's probably afraid.
“These DEI departments are steeped in pathological altruism.”
I don’t think so. What’s altruistic about malignant grifting? The DEI apparatchiks are in it for one and only thing: they get well paid for being hypocrites. They’re no more altruistic than your average leech.
Mr Horton. Attend Prof Lewis (more-or-less): The evildoer might get tired. But he who is killing you for your own good will never rest. True that the scent of cash attracts grifters. But doubt not that the core actually believes that sh!t. Sorry.
The true believing core might buy it hook, line, and sinker. But they won’t stay there unless they’re paid. And I suspect they’re actually a minority if the apparatuses.
To paraphrase an old Churchill quote, “We’ve already established what you are, madam; now we’re merely haggling over the price”. Yes, of course, the money is important, but I think among the population younger than 60(ish), the educational system has taught them that anti-black racism is similar now to the way that it was in the 1960s, and they are true believers. No matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, these beliefs will not die (or DEI).
We stand little chance of significant change with two generations who have been taught the “truths” of Howard Zinn in middle/high school, and now learn Ibram Kendi in university.
Kinda the Narnia question. But in order is probably better, though you may find the first two more than a bit naive in view of present knowledge -- a problem shared by much vintage science fiction. So. If you find the prospect of a few evenings with Prof Lewis a desirable thing, order; which also makes sense of mostly subtle references to the "history.". Otherwise, I'll say that #3 raised the same question as did the opening of _Atlas Shrugged_: This was written WHEN??? Enjoy the ride, either way.
Perhaps the point being made is that the 'pathological altruism' is the bait that hooks the fish (unfortunately it appears the fish are largely middle class white women) and that then support the grifters at the top.
Greed and, shall we say “a flexible view of the morality of the situation,” seems a simpler analysis that explains what we’re seeing.
Hire an administrator and the first thing she does is hire a staff of assistant administrators and their support staffs. Why? To be important—read: more highly paid.
I agree with that, but imo you can't overlook the army of wannabes that fall for the altruism trope and who provide the mass of support for these grifters. By confirming the biases of morons, you can reach incredible heights, see the muslim brotherhood movement from the 1930s, the kkk, pfizer, cnn, antifa and blm, etc.
I think you found the brass ring: central to all this is information and persuasion—in other words, the media. Remember that, by definition, half of the population is below average intellect. They’re pretty easy tompersuade.
I watched a YouTube video of Glenn Loury and John McWhorter discussing Claudine Gay. I believe the discussion happened before she became president of Harvard. But Loury was certain she would become the next president. To put it simply, they thought she would not be in her position except for affirmative action, that she was completely unqualified for it, and that she is a dangerous person. They would not have been at all surprised by her testimony before Congress.
I can't think of an advantage in having a college president advocate for political positions. It is certain to alienate 1/2 the population no matter what side they support.
I could advocate for removing any federal funding from a university that does it; in the case of Harvard no contracts or funding; their endowment is large enough to go their own way if that's their wish.
“Another good cause that schools might take up is the teaching of reading and math.” Exactly right.”
Agreed. Politics doesn’t belong in schools and it doesn’t belong in Publicly Funded or Publicly Traded businesses. The purpose of education is the acquisition of and contribution to knowledge, reasoned and data based learning, the building of skills with which to earn a living, and to prepare people to contribute to a society whose values are enshrined in its constitution.
Sometimes I just can't help myself but if ebonics is considered lingua franca by someone as highly respected as John McWhorter then it's open to free use (at least in my warped mind) :-)
Totally agree that DEI must be undone. Pursuing truth is important but it is not the only element of restoring sanity to higher learning and the country. For 240 years the United States delivered more to more people than any society in the history of the world based on one focus, meritocracy. Over the last decade a battle has emerged to replace meritocracy with aiding victims. Victims have been defined by political forces and outside influences. Blacks, Native Americans, Student Loan holders, Single parent family children, Trans people, refugees and on and on. The concept of having to work to achieve success in a place where that is possible in many quarters has been swept aside. A prominent pungent example in my mind is the recent attempt by the mayor of NY to move busloads of migrants to housing that had been created to accommodate the influs and being challemged by the migrants that where they were taken wasn’t good enough and too far to be convenient. Outside influences have steered many instituions away from pursuit of truth which must be fixed. However, that is only a part of the huge effort that has been level at eliminating meritocracy from American culture.
Meritocracy was introduced in government by President Grant, one of the greatest presidents in the nation’s history. It was corrupted by one of the worst, johnson, and thoroughly wrecked by an even worse president, obama.
Agree with you. Actually Kennedy and Johnson started the process away, but even before Grant defined it, the basis of advancement in the country was meritocratic from U.S. inception. And yes, Obama set the stage for the rapid current movement away from earning achievement.
“if large numbers of students and professors had marched through the campus of Penn over the past two months saying that all black people should go back to Africa and whoever remains should be subjected to genocide. Should the president of Penn defend those people merely as exercising their rights to free speech?”
The key thing is that, if she were true to the principles she invoked in her testimony, she would have. But everyone knows that in fact she would not have. The ugly truth of the ideology was thus exposed: things like calling for genocide are actually okay - just as long as it’s genocide of the right people.
Nice ideas but why would anyone think any of this is going to happen? Harvard, for example, is one of the most famous and successful corporations in the world. Harvard is not “profitable” in a technical accounting sense since it is a “nonprofit” but its wealth and income, all tax exempt, are staggering. Does anyone seriously believe that the Blues are going to let anyone touch these jewels in their crown?
The ivies have become a brand and brands are fragile. Simply because every east coast public school kid in a privileged neighborhood school thinks the ivies are the shit does nbot mean that a. they still are the shit and b. not going to one hurts you. My kid didn't go ivy and has a grad degree from an excellent uni. Now, there are a bunch of kids getting into ivies that really shouldn't be there and when they are in the world, employers and clients are noticing - that's when the latter suggest that their kids look elsewhere and their HR depts look deeper than the name on the degree.
Do not discount public perception, Stephen. Harvard cannot afford to be looked upon as a haven for uncontrolled radical opinion on one side, with other opinions held censorious. Either it changes and adapts as more light is cast upon it, or it will wither as alumni donations fall and enrollment falters.
"It means banning the loyalty oaths professors must pledge to earn a job or tenure.". These are nothing more than a pledge to be a loyal Democrat. ASU requires these in about90% of their non-custodial positions. I mentioned this to a friend recently retired from ASU’s faculty and he argued DIE pledges were not at all related to being Democrat. When I told him that 70% of independents and 95% of Republicans were unwilling to take them he said that was their issue.
As I have posted several times, the answer to these problems lies in the words of Thomas Sowell: it is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than placing those decisions in the hands of those who bear no penalty for being wrong.
In any private enterprise you can name, the government is congenitally incapable of doing anything right. By shielding institutions of, ahem, higher learning from normal tax laws, they have effectively once again picked the winners and the losers. The upshot is that these colleges have amassed unimaginable fortunes that continue to grow, essentially making them hedge funds with colleges attached. And what do people with too much money and too much time on their hands do? Well, if they're bored, be assured that Satan finds work for them.
We need to tighten up our thinking about apparent double standards as Andrew Sullivan does for us in his Weekly Dish of Dec. 8:
*****
These are not double standards. There is a single standard: It is fine to malign, abuse and denigrate “oppressors” and forbidden to do so against the “oppressed.”
*****
That's an important distinction. When people are applying a double standard, it makes them uncomfortable to have the inconsistency pointed out. They usually deny it or try to rationalize it away. However, the people driving the lopsided systems of inhibition at universities (not necessarily the presidents) are quite comfortable with what they're doing. It's blatantly discriminatory, but the discrimination is the point. They make a virtue of it. The whole idea is to sit on some people while letting others run rampant. It's all in a day's decentering.
As Bari argues here, the universities must be made to understand (as Pres. Magill of Penn clearly didn't, after being challenged) that it's no use trying to manage their difficulties by moving Jews from the roster of oppressors to the roster of the oppressed. It's that the whole disingenuous DEI game must come to an end.
Bari writes "[t]he point here is that even if Claudine Gay follows Liz Magill’s lead and resigns, it won’t make a difference if the person who replaces her upholds the same ideology so powerfully captured in Gay’s own memo." True but the real point is that until Harvard actually fires Gay and resolves to forswear hiring any more leftist intellectual lightweights we will know that universities remain little more than Red Guard training facilities, loyal only to the Internationale. While we were all asleep, raising families, working and living our lives. these leftist termites bore deeply into our institutions at all levels - universities NGOs, foundations, thinktanks and professional organizations and, worst of all , the bureaucracy on every level. They must all be cleaned out.
Oh and Bari - NO MORE LINKS TO THE ODIOUS NEW YORK TIMES, PLEASE. You left that joke of a "newspaper" because it wasn't any longer.
All great solutions, Bari. But I believe Matthias Dopfner's solution must precede any of your recommendations: parents must send their children elsewhere. Elite universities and higher education in general have been living on the gravy train for decades. For the past two decades college tuition is second only to healthcare costs according to this famous chart of soaring costs from Carpe Diem: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/cpi2022junea-3.png?x91208
Higher Ed will not change unless forced to do so by empty classrooms.
What does Academic Freedom mean? At any job, you get paid to do something. At a University, you get paid to teach students. Your measurement of success is how well the students learn and enjoy the experience they are paying for. The school should have standards defining what learning is and how students must work to achieve that. And one should get measured against it. But tenure and "Academic Freedom" allow arrogance to flourish, and if one does not have to worry about getting fired, many have a strong desire not to want to do their jobs.
This is the issue at places of higher learning; they have become focused on personality, politics, and ideology rather than what they get paid to do. When you have no fear of getting fired, people become arrogant, and that power dynamic can create traits in students that are less than ideal. The three Presidents got those jobs not because of their success but because they played the game and favored the accepted dogma of the day.
Fear of termination is a great motivator to do the right things, and anyone immune from that tends to fail to be a team player. I think Madison's maxim, if "All men were angels, there would be no need for government," should apply here. That will take leadership to implement and hopefully get these places back to what they are designed to be.
Full professors teach very few classes. Most are taught by junior profs and teaching assistants (underpaid grad students). Professors are expected to: 1. publish articles 2. study and advance their fields 3. win prizes and bring prestige to the University (Nobels for example).
While most professors are left leaning, the woke/pronoun stuff comes more from the administration. University presidents were often, but not always, professors but the rest of the administration is just that--administration.
Thanks for sharing that great information. It made me think about a great campaign issue the GOP will never run on. All of those burdened with student loan debt, this is what you are sacrificing to pay for—professors to not teach, a bloated admin, and degrees that do nothing for you.
From working in the field, a lot of the cost also comes from student demand. An old school gym isn't good enough anymore. You have to have a state-of-the-art gym with the latest equipment. Two meal choices in a dining hall is no longer good enough--you have to have vegan, vegetarian, paleo, meat-only, salad bar, etc. Dorms require AC, high speed internet, kitchens, etc. But, yes, there is a huge amount of administration. BTW, professors not teaching many undergraduate classes isn't a new thing. It goes back to at least the 70s if not earlier.
The exposed antisemitism and congressional testimony are just one piece in a long line of evidence of rot in many of our universities. It was Penn, for instance, that allowed a biological male to move from a mediocre male on the men's team to a super star performer on the women's team. This was not the pursuit of truth, but the epitome of living a lie. Add pronoun enforcement, identity obsession and DEI into the mix, and there is very little time left for the pursuit of truth. I hope this is a much broader awakening than this one event.
And let's not forget what happened to Penn Law Professor Amy Wax when she dared to say that the enduring values of hard work and responsibility - and not race - were the major determinates of human success and happiness.
She also had the temerity to look at the scholastic records and note that it was rare for a black student to finish in the top half of the class. She wasn’t casting aspersions; she was reporting simple, verifiable, but uncomfortable and inconvenient facts.
Actual data and empiric evidence are very stubborn arguments for those who want to operate exclusively on feelings and emotions. Perhaps because they are too hard to fake without a trace.
When data and theory disagree, data prevail because data represent reality. Theory adjusts to them, not vice versa.* In this case, theory would be that all Penn law students are equally prepared, so racist profs must be the reason for the data. They skew the outcomes since otherwise all representation would be proportional.
Exactly the kind of thing Mr. Lysenko was doing about 100 years ago. Screw reality; good soviet vegetables will do what my novel—excuse me, research—says they’ll do. And if a few people starve, well…that’s the price of being communists. The data must be wrong because the theory can’t be. Someone’s sabotaging my theory to make me look bad.
Of course, we never see that kind of thing any more, right?
* Even though that’s a grammatically correct sentence, it’s still hard to see “data” as plural of datum. English is an odd language….
oh Joe,
don't forget that now, speaking/writing (proper/conventional) English is considered racist (to blacks).
I consider "English" , what should be the first language used in America. Other countries also use proper/conventional language as well, just delivered in other dialects or "languages".
If someone can not communicate effectively, as they are too lazy or uninterested in being understood, then they get what they get.
rich
"don't forget that now, speaking/writing (proper/conventional) English is considered racist (to blacks)."
Is this a major argument being made in the U.S.?
The Liberty Valance school of scholarship: when the lie is better than the truth, print the lie.
Variant: It's not true, but it should be true, so it shall be considered true.
Yes....she seems very "data driven."
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
And that is why they are giving most students A or A- grades to 80% of students
Oh....she's had temerity on a whole lot of things....
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
What was her point?
I believe her point was that you can't start to solve a problem if you aren't even allowed to discuss it.
How did she propose to solve the alleged problem. Is she even aware that IQ tests, test knowledge rather than intelligence?
It had nothing whatsoever to do with I.Q. Just standard performance tests that black students struggled with. She was fired for pointing this out and suggesting solutions. Activism over action.
Not the IQ tests I’ve taken. Nor the LSAT. The Med CAT exam, the GRE, and subsequent medical tests are explicitly designed to test knowledge and not problem solving, which is what IQ pretty much is: ability to solve problems.
In her interview, she stated that she was unhappy with the situation and wanted to help low achieving black students to improve.
But by simply pointing out the problem, she was almost immediately demonized and cancelled. Even a person who sincerely says, "My black students are consistently underperforming. We need to change things so that they are better prepared." is considered racist.
The fact is that African-American blacks (not Jamaicans, West Indies groups, and recent immigrants from Africa, who tend to do well) are stubbornly stuck in a rut and the very worst thing is to tell them it's not their fault, but the fault of racist whites who keep them down, when in fact it's THEIR FAULT, whether through genetics, culture, or a combination.
I do not know that it is their fault. They have been dealt a raw deal, mostly by that party that says "[Y]ou ain't black if you don't vote for me." It looks to me like the Great Society decimated the American family, starting with the African-American family and then creeping outward. But when the standards are not met the solution is not to move the goalpost.
My phrasing was poor. Maybe better to say: rather than blame the white majority, they should be told "You can and must uplift yourselves; we expect excellence, not mediocrity."
Tim Scott made the best observation of his abbreviated Presidential campaign when he noted that the worst thing to happen to the black community was "The Great Society". It, together with the extensions put in place by Obama et al, has cemented an underclass that has an almost insuperable wall to climb to extricate themselves.
Terry, I also don’t believe “dumbing down” so that everyone feels good & gets an A is the answer.
Of course, to state the obvious = you’re RACIST; however, in the climate of what’s happening in America / American education, WOKE companies will hire these underachievers, unqualified young college graduates.
Either they must, in order to meet the DEI expectation, OR they willingly accept & believe the DEI expectation is needed to “right the wrongs of this racists country”. Either way, America loses.
Hmmm.....she doesn't seem to be the type that is really all that "unhappy" and "wanted to help."
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
Btw.....how can genetics be someone's fault?
Well said!
It means the black students were not prepared to do the level of work the other students produced. This likely is because the black kids were never given proper secondary education and had not mastered certain basic skills. Whatever the cause, instead of dumbing down the main curriculum they should have provided a lower level entry course for students with “special needs”. Alternatively, they could have rejected the applications of the students in special needs category. In any case the response should not be to hold back the well prepared student. This deprives and punished the good students, and it deprives society of a well trained professional workforce.
Also, perhaps the lack of a culture which prizes education and critical thinking and which even goes so far as to disparage personal agency should be addressed as well.
I am not sure that is true. I think a significant problem with the A-A community is do-gooders (a/k/a the "elites"speaking for them without realistically analyzing their needs.
Wow....interesting....
How did Black Students with two parents in their home do? It would be interesting to compare their IQ scores with the scores of white students from broken families.
Why do you keep returning to IQ?
It’s not about IQ
Her point might have been that the establishment and their handmaidens in "da teachiz yoonyun" don't teach black kids spit - except for racist victimization and feel good nonsense - and that where they are held to high standards they prosper. Ever consider that?
Is the ability to foresee the likely consequences of saying something controversial a measure of IQ?
I do not get where you are coming from with this. Are you suggesting she should not have spoken as she did?
Are you asking why she pointed it out?
Perhaps it is apt they are again colleagues at the law school. Professor Wax’s problems began well before the tenure of ex president Mcgill. She has been targeted for years because of her views. She is a formidable adversary having attended Harvard Law and Medical concurrently. She is also a neurologist. She has advocated for self discipline and hard work. In addition she has many distasteful views. She wants to limit Asian immigration. This seems odd since she is the child of Jewish immigrants. She claims Ashkenazi Jews are diluting their stock by marrying down ( my wife is one of those who married down). Admittedly she is a lone voice who has never advocated violence let alone genocide like Hamas’s crash dummies. I find these views abhorrent. Nonetheless I support her right to academic freedom. Where do we draw the line when opinions stray from the mainstream? ex President Mcgill’s resignation is a good starting point since she couldn’t keep her faculty and students safe by drawing that line.
I wonder how many of Wax's views were radicalized by the truly insane reactions against her common sense utterances?
Listen to her words. These are long held views, The lunacy of others didn’t drive her over the edge. It insults her to say so. She has agency. She has made her own decisions. As I said her credentials are impressive. She has students and colleagues who hold her in the highest regard. She might say she doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That might be true, it’s not a vice but self reflection is a virtue.
I did listen to her words and respect the hell out of her. My comment was directed to another comment suggesting she held prejudiced views about intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews and non-Jews.
Which she did
FWIW, here’s a copy of the letter from the Dean Ruger of Penn Law enumerating all the various instances of Wax’s inflammatory statements both in and out of class, with citations to the source material whether testimony of students, newspaper essays, interviews in print or online.
https://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2022/07/Ruger-Letter.pdf
Ibram X. Kendi’s xenophobia is not only accepted, but celebrated! (And, quite frankly, mandated by the woke elite for everyone everywhere -- as long as it’s along the lines he draws.). I have always found that enormously abhorrent.
Which brings us to Bari’s “double standard” point...
It’s Magill, not McGill. Lack of attention to detail is a serious problem.
I thought it was Massengill
Or Liz Magoebbels
Jus cracked a rib and bless you Dave, Sir!
I know and adjusted the auto correct is what is causing the problem. It is an unusual spelling
Yes it is. Autocorrect is so unreliable, I refer to it as Autoerr.
I had a pet named Shiloh which my electronic boss "corrected" to phyllo every time. She's long gone but we still call her Phyllo sometimes.
Autoincorrect
She started making national headlines in 2017, when, in a column that now seems mild by standards she would later set, she and a co-author bemoaned the breakdown of “bourgeois culture.” Their claim that “all cultures are not equal” in reference to “inner-city blacks” and “some Hispanic immigrants” along with “some working-class whites” sparked a flurry of open letters, responses, and condemnation. But the controversy died down fairly quickly.
In 2019, at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference, Wax argued for what she called “cultural distance nationalism” when it came to immigration policy. She argued that “embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” There was again a furor, which again died down with no further punishment.
Finally, in late 2021 and early 2022, Wax made a series of comments about Asians, including that we ought to accept fewer as immigrants because they vote Democratic. She summed up her own views:
"We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering."
Hold on. Are you suggesting that Wax was being a racist when "taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites” but that Biden isn't being racist when he exults in a belief that America will be a majority non-white nation? Now I'm confused. Even more so than "people of color" or the hilarious BIPOC is "enlightened," while "colored people" is racist. What utter racist claptrap.
Are you suggesting that Wax was being a racist when "taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites”
-She's your hero. The statement is what the statement is. So, you tell me.
"that Biden isn't being racist when he exults in a belief that America will be a majority non-white nation?"
- "bUt bIDen!" I'm sure there was no "exulting." I'm sure if the quote were transcribed it would be quite benign and demographically factual. Which is why so many white people are having psychiatric meltdowns about becoming a minority. Don't know why. You get all kinds of advantages and privileges.
Yes, it is more enlightened - because it rejects the terminology imposed by the white, hegemonic structure in deciding how THEY will refer to nonwhites. So, I can understand why you're confused. I'm sure you're confused and upset by lots of terminology that is no longer polite/acceptable to use when referring to non-white people.
Use "colored people" all you want, Bruce. No one is stopping you.
You're back. Were you evicted by the bridge owner from your latest dwelling place beneath the structure?
Never left. What do you think Wax's point was?
You can get expelled from an Ivy League school for wearing the wrong Halloween costume or saying that men shouldn't compete on a woman's athletic team. (By "Men" I mean humans with a penis and testicles) But according to the Presidents at Harvard, MIT and UPenn, calling for the literal genocide of Jewish people is A-OK as long as you aren't the one pulling the trigger. What a bunch of idiots.
No, no JB. You have it wrong! It all depends on the context. I heard it three!!!! times in the esteemed ladies Congressional testimony. Which if someone could put in context how the Arabs we now refer to as Palestinians have been subjected to a genocide when their population has doubled since Israel pulled Jews out of the Gaza Strip and left it to its own devices I would appreciate it greatly.
The disaster is directly tied to BLM. The anarchy allowed in inner cities, where police were blamed instead of criminals and supported by mayors and prosecutors, found its footing in DEI. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—equal opportunity—were no longer the benchmark. Now, they pursue equal outcomes: representation in admissions, corporate boards, Academy Award nominations, etc. If you’re not 100% on board, you’re canceled—an enemy. Oppressors vs. oppressed. Black victim mentality gone wild.
Bari is 100% correct. To return to sanity, ending DEI and dismantling it in education is a critical first step.
We listened to "the oppressed" and now look at our country. It's a total disaster.
To a college administrator in today's world, it's the path of least resistance. Catering to the mob is less burdensome than the voice of reason. Essentially, these institutions are led by weak-minded individuals terrified about standing up to students or wacko faculty.
The left is relentless so it is much easier to go along with their BS than to see your life subsumed by harrassment. Administrators w/o backbone have reinforced to the lefties that that canceling someone works if pursued vigorously enough. This could all end if fought tenatiously and then ignored. Trump is not my favorite candidate but one has to give him points for being fearless in taking on the left and the media. He seems to bask in their criticism and there is much to like in that strength.
Those trucks with the TVs seem to upset the sweet dears.
To play devils advocate, it is very likely that any admin who would actually stand their ground either wouldn't be hired in the first place or would be gotten rid of. Keep in mind, these are jobs. Most people go out of their way to keep their jobs. Mind you, that doesn't excuse weak leadership. But it may help explain it.
Cowards who need to go. One and all.
Yes! Universities need to stop this pursuit of Culrtural Marxist "transformational change". That should not be the mission.
ALL of the DEI/DIE needs to be taken down.
"It means banning the loyalty oaths professors must pledge to earn a job or tenure. It means dismantling the entire DEI bureaucracy, as some states have started doing."
Yes, "anti-racism", must go, pronoun policing must go... Biology professors who say sex is binary should not lose their positions or have to go on leave. Speakers who disagree with the Narrative should not be shouted down or dis-invited.
It is concerning that President Gay of Harvard might be let go over a brand new plagiarism controversy. If that happens then the institution does not have to face its core rot - which it obviously does not wish to do. - Just sweep her under the carpet and carry on...
I call them DEI hit squads and witch hunters... they seek out all dissenting opinions
DEI: Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination (unknown - but got it right)
Let’s put ourselves in these young jewish kids’ shoes…. God forbid, but how would these university administrators feel if THEY were the subject of death threats on campus by angry mobs of students and professors??
That would be horrible! I’m guessing they would put a stop to it very quickly. They would NOT cite the free speech rights of the perpetrators … and they would indeed be afraid.
It is an obvious fact that calling for genocide of Jewish students does indeed constitute harassment and it needs to stop immediately.
It is not the job of our college students to fight Hamas’ war.
At a university we are training YOUNG adults who are inexperienced in the world how to interact in a meaningful and thoughtful way; that’s the job of the universities. Allowing them to act as angry, canceling mobs is the exact opposite of what we want them to learn.
The DEI departments need to be abolished. All they have amounted to is ideology enforcement which strips away students’ freedom of thought, opinion, and expression with threats of censure, class failure and expulsion. It is how the universities are controlling our young students’ thoughts today.
DEI hit squad: Forcing people to call an obvious biological male a “woman” and having to call him “she” is GASLIGHTING, and as such, is violence against one’s sense of reality.
In fact, the NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE describes it this way:
“[Gaslighting] is an extremely effective form of emotional abuse that causes a victim to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity. As a result, the abusive partner has a lot of power (and we know that abuse is about power and control).”
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females. (May 2023). The transgender “movement” mocks the suffering and mental anguish of these true gender dysphoria sufferers and has turned their pain into a media circus.
Women’s sports: Putting on lipstick and a dress does not suddenly turn your Y-chromosome into an X-chromosome.
A man’s penis, testicles and male hormones are still there… and the previous growth and strength that a man goes through is NOT negated by taking female hormones…. In fact, his testosterone ensures that his strength will stay in tact. So, beyond the shadow of a doubt, these men pretending to be women will win every female sport because they are indeed bigger and stronger. I’m sorry… it is just not fair to women… and it is an out-and-out attack on women’s sports.
Our media outlets declaring that the “Woman of the Year” is a transgender is ULTIMATELY INSULTING TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE. So men are actually better women than a woman who has two X-chromosomes?!! Really?! HOW INSULTING.
If a guy wants to dress up as a woman, go for it, dude. I could care less. But don’t make me call you by any particular name, don’t invade my space, and don’t threaten me in places like women’s locker rooms, public bathrooms and in our sports. How unsafe the women in prisons must feel when these trans “women” men are in their spaces. As if life wasn’t already hard enough for women in prison.
AGAIN, let’s put ourselves in these poor female students’ shoes… How would President Gay or President Magill feel if THEY had to undress in front of a biological male who is pretending to be a woman? What if THEY were subjected to this in their own spaces??
As I once read, reducing testosterone does not make a genetic male equal to a genetic female. It simply makes them a slightly weaker male.
What antisemitism was exposed?
"Superstar?" Hardly. https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/1/6/22867761/lia-thomas-penn-swimming-trans-truth-myth
Alan, I’m an old 50 yr long oilfield hand and not well read at all, but Sir, you’re spot on and thank you Sir!
Sometimes it frightens me how astute Bari Weiss is. I find myself nodding my head as I read everything she writes. Bari Weiss and the Free Press gives me hope that all is not lost. There is still a sliver of sanity out there.
I wish she didn't write this though:
"Diversity, equity, and inclusion are important virtues."
No--"Equity" is not a virtue at all. It is an Marxist/Communist goal that seeks to reward selected groups for reasons determined by whoever in charge of deciding who deserves reallocation of resources. Historically it never ended well as it leads to nothing but power grab by whoever was put in charge of enforcing "equity".
Enough of the "equity" BS.
Just bring back equality, equal opportunity, and promotion of charity.
Correct. EQUALITY (as in equal under the law, equal opportunity) is important. EQUITY is awful, attempting to force equal outcomes.
Yes, Thomas Sowell explains these differences well.
The other day I read:
DEI: Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination
in the comments.
Equality along with the values of merit or meritocracy.
Why are they virtues at all? Define virtue. It is stupidity to include every type of person in many things. Society for one. Schools too. Same with diversity. Hasn’t it been proven that doing so allows moral rot to infiltrate and gain power under the guise of these virtues?
These things are not virtues.
Honesty, justice, prudence….
Things which produce consistent moral integrity.
Diversity, Inclusion. Equity?
Very vague, very dangerous.
I agree with you about Bari's wisdom and courage, Bobby. My 'hope that all is not lost' is also supported by Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, Christopher Rufo, Tucker Carlson, and other imperfect but truth-seeking warriors.
Michael Shellenberger
John L. Miller
Tucker Carlson is an uncaring idiot who has supported communist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Tucker has taken a side against our support of aid to Ukraine.
That does not mean he's in favor of Russia's invasion, my friend.
We are not at war with Russia and Putin is not going to back down from his objective.
OK, you don't like Tucker, but that is an idiotic, uninformed statement to make
I don’t like anyone who supports conquest ideologies or has uninformed and dangerous influence. Putin’s ambition to reconstitute the Soviet Union has been well publicized. If Ukraine falls to Russia, the Baltic States and Poland are next and we are headed for WW III.
You are a shill for the Biden administration. I am surprised.
There is zero proof of that. It is a left wing talking point.
Yes I think you have that correct. Putin talks fondly of the USSR and clearly wants to reconstitute its boarders. That isnt far-fetched as Russia has historically had expansionist desires. Georgia Ukraine and then the Balkins.
But that isn't the entire issue. We benefit in a world with order. We cant allow larger states to invade and take over weaker states. That is a world in chaos that will eventually take civilization backwards and come to our shores.
You may disagree but that doesn't make a person a shill for any political party.
All that is needed is REAL sanctions on Russia. There will be no war if they have no resources.
Well said 234!
Hmmm, Terrance. I don't believe you are listening to the same Tucker Carlson that I refer to.
John L. Miller
You hear what you are capable of hearing. I was a big fan until he idiotically said “no one cares if Russia invades Ukraine”.
Some of us are more observant than others. I note that you misspell my name.
Enlightened and intelligent people care. As do those of us with basic knowledge of Russia’s history and communism. The Soviet Union was in reality Russia and its neighbors who had been conquered.
Carlson is myopic and uncaring.
You sound so very progressive. Touting yourself as enlightened and caring. I do not support what this administration had done. It has cost the PEOPLE of Ukraine dearly and I care a LOT about that. I think people who have supported this fiasco have blood on their hands. Lots of blood. I am.not okay with that.
It appears a talking point on this thread for the past year and a half or so that Biden's incompetent bungling (and it was) of America's withdrawal of Afghanistan enabled Putin to conclude that a geriatric Biden would do little to stop him in Ukraine. Of which I agree. He invaded because he believed Biden to be weak.
So to take that one step further - if we had done nothing to help Ukraine when Russia advanced on it, as I presume you would have wished, would that not have enabled Putin to push his aims further westward?
The blood is on the hands of Putin. This is his war.
Please provide proof that TC has supported co.munist Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Mr. Gain NATO at the behest of the Biden administration was going to put military hardware and missiles on the Ukraine border aimed at Russia.
It’s the same exact thing as Russia wanted to do with Castro in Cuba during the bay of pigs!
Cuba being 90 miles away from Miami the Ukraine border butts up to the Russian border, what was Putin supposed to do?
“Supported”?
Fade
Yes, he admitted supporting Russia.
I don’t think he’s ever supported Russia invading Europe, and I highly doubt that will happen. I think Tucker supported Russia’s willingness to leave Ukraine alone unless they join NATO. Ukraine joining NATO has always been a hard line for Putin and I kinda understand why.
I’d recommend giving John Mearsheimer’s 2015 speech a listen…
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?si=8fDq4y3V4oU3JV6i%0A
I’ll listen, but your statement is all that’s needed. It’s full of facts!
Add in Helen Dale, Eugyppius, John Carter, N.S. Lyons etc.
Bari Weiss is still a Democrat and a leftist. And she avoids addressing the reason for the rise of antisemitism in America. And she avoids the political trial of Donald Trump. Trump did nothing wrong. The fraud is the trial. Nether of you is astute.
She's certainly to the left of me, but she is not a leftist. That is why she quit the NY Times.
Told her I was praying for her and her family and didn’t get blocked !
She’s for free speech and my right to pray! Leftist, nah don’t think so!
I'm being totally respectful here, Terence - so please don't get me wrong. I see you are in favour of aid to Ukraine and that Russia's invasion of it was monstrous. As I am. Full stop. But I also see you are a supporter of Donald Trump. Do you think Trump would have stopped Putin from invading had he remained in power? After I saw his performance with Vladimir in Helsinki, appearing to kowtow to the Russian leader in public view, accepting his intelligence instead of ours, I personally have my sincere doubts. I don't think it's opinion to suggest that Trump actually likes and respects Putin, and I personally think (though it cannot ever be proven) that Donald would have winked at a Putin stab at Kiev at the early stages of the war. Trump is transactional - and I think he would have tried to cut a deal where Russia holds the political control of Ukraine in exchange for a broader peace. But that's just me.
That whole canard is so funny. First of all, no president should be asked to condemn a country for something like election interference *at a press conference for a dipomatic meeting where the opposing party is standing at the next podium*. It's not kowtowing to another leader to not be accusatory to their face in public, it's being diplomatic, as the protocol for the moment would require.
Compare to Biden calling Putin a murderous dictator all of the time. One time he said something like that it was while there were active negotiations to end the war. The US wanted to scuttle those anyway, Boris Johnson from the UK agreed and flew in to Kyiv to do so. Look at all that has gotten Ukraine - 150k dead, a damaged economy, and 20% less territory.
Trump would have done a better job, I'm sure of that, even if not falsely leading Ukraine down a path to get wrecked. Everyone worriea about not making a deal with Putin because he might break it - which just means make a deal you might break too. "We pledge no Ukraine in NATO" is something we can change any time we want. And it could have saved hundreds of thousands, and worst case was you end up in same place as today anyway.
I plan to drop many of my on line subscriptions but never The Free Press.
Bari Weiss is a Democrat. Although she supports free speech her party supports open borders, mandating a rushed, experimental, ineffective and somewhat dangerous vaccine as well as the insane policy of vaccinating children with it. And of course Climate Alarmism and inequality before the law. The political trial of Donald Trump is the most obvious example.
I am also dropping Dr. Peter McCullough. He is a brilliant doctor but he supports the invasion of Ukraine. Last week I received an email from Dr. McCullough’s site saying my prescription could not be renewed. because my credit card had expired. This was a day after I had sent an email saying I was not renewing.
I think it is unethical for a website to automatically renew. It is a wise practice to cancel your credit cards in October. It takes only a few days to get a new card.
Dear Mr. Gain,
You make an excellent point about Bari’s status as a Democrat. As a group/culture they vote lock-step with what ever their party comes up with. Whatever is the latest baloney that comes out of these leftist universities she now decries, is what they want to go with when making policy. For examples: DEI, anti-racism, climate change and anti-men-ism.
I am a conservative but I actually agree with a little bit of the policy stuff the Dems propose but I vote against every one of them on account of their consistently selling out our country, their colossal ingratitude for what past generations sacrificed for them including life and limb, and for their know-it-all arrogance. They think because they can talk/rant longer and faster than other folks, that that makes them right by default.
The only reason I’m keeping my subscription to TFP is that, at least some of these Dems like Bari, have the temerity to publicly criticize some of their party’s leadership as is being done in this article.
It took me 30 min to get through the article. I was so mad at the insanity of it all I had to get up and walk around. I wouldn't call these universities liberal. They are coercive, institutions. I hope this is a wakeup call to all concerned. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
And surprisingly, even in liberals.
Her success with The Free Press gives me even more hope...obviously there are many readers who hunger for an actually free press, even if it is by paid subscription only.
I am lobbying for my grandson to attend UATX. Sadly, the parents are longhorns. Close enough!
I agree 100% on "ending DEI." I think that is the one solid action that we can take to start to see real change. DEI is the great trojan horse to where a systematic destruction of values can be introduced to the populace right underneath our very noses. ex: the trans-movement
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-budlight-shot-itself-in-the-foot
"Heather Mac Donald's 'The Diversity Delusion' is an invaluable resource of mythbusting fact and a reality-check on the siren calls of identity-based ‘social justice’ now so insistent in all Western societies that have given rise to the great DEI racket. Detailed, rigorous and copious, it is a devastatingly compelling expose of “how race and gender pandering corrupt the university and undermine our culture......The real shocker.... is not the behaviour of the (hopefully atypical) student ‘protesters’, self-engrossed and feral though it certainly is, but the sycophantic response to and encouragement of it by college administrators. The epidemic of spoilt-brat student behaviour, however caused, could have been stamped out in short order but for the craven virtue signalling of their ‘adult’ academic mentors..” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Heather is so brave. She stands up to the crazy students. I just watchered a few of her presentations at colleges. She speaks in facts and doesn't back down from them. As a wife of a police officer, I was so grateful to her research that showed what a lie the media has spread about them. But her courage doesn't just come from the facts, but in her knowlege that the Left's policies always hurt the most marginalized people.
I am a huge Heather fan-rabbit! She’s so fearlessly direct; she writes (and thinks) with clarity and logic, and often provides workable solutions.
Thank you hubby for his service - everything else is bullshit hope you and your family have a great Xmas.
So well posted.
Thanks
All one had to do is read the mindless twaddle and cant of Hank Rogers (the laughable Kendi) and DiAngelo to realize the towering scam of the DEI industry.
Good point. Growing up I remember the race hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is just a new set of the same old hustle. Using race to line their own pockets.
Yep, Grievance Inc.™
I wish I could find the article for when Scott McNeely, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, told Jesse Jackson to basically f@ck off when Jackson was trying to extort millions from Sun.
It's not a "scam". It's not about money -- although certainly some people have made a lot of money off it. It's about power. It's about creating a racial hierarchy whereby someone's skin color and preferred pronouns determine how far that person can go in life.
Two things can be true. It's most certainly a scam. In fact a whole industry of nonsense and lies was created by DEI
Power, money and control go together and reinforce each other. Have you looked at congress lately? Davos is another example as is the World Health Organisation, (now there's an oxymoron) and the UN.
It’s all about the “Benjamin’s” Bruce cut the federal $$$ everything on the left will collapse.
Could we please not repeat anything uttered by that immigration fraud? lol
I apologize Bruce!
The DEI evolved and was ultimately born out of misandrist feminism's six decades of profitable service to the now openly visible, ever ascending, anti-human corporate fascist world state. Beginning with a villainous destruction of family, men and boys, today it represents the specious virtuosity that stifles every attempt at free speech and progress. The DEI represents an outbreak of the same infectious 20th Century virus that rationalized the murder of millions. A slow boil prime example, is its claim to the unobstructed right to destroy and cancel the lives of individuals through trial by press without fact or reason, now gladly weaponized by central banking criminal political/financial corporate fascists as the right to seize (Canada) the bank accounts of protestors en masse or send a militarized police force to arrest elderly ladies for thought crimes. No one gave any of these people the right. Against every Constitutional law of order and across every line of human moral demarcation, they just did, and continue too, do it.
The DEI represents a laughable front for looters and moral cripples and we all know it. Its willing avaricious butchery of the American psyche and destruction of American youth and the future they deserve is unforgivable.
DEI/DNC/WEF/EU/CCP are merely acronymic window dressing and the DEI is just another head on the hydra. At bottom it's the same jack booted little beast it has always been. The hard work, hard won factual Twitter File revelations on the marriage of surveillance capitalism with the bureaucratic surveillance state, its service to corporate fascism and their mutual intent to commodify (enslave) the human race is a lot to take in. But it's not a new strain of the virus.
"If you ain't scared you ain't right."
GOT CONSTITUTION?
"The DEI evolved and was ultimately born out of misandrist feminism's six decades of profitable service"
I hear some people, men primarily, say this now but serious question: How else would you have dealt with the real unequal treatments and biased attitudes against women 40-60 years ago so to make things right without feminism?
The current problems with DEI might in part result from liberal feminism from 2000 forward, when the most essential goals of feminism were largely achieved. From 2000 on, it became a movement looking for problems instead of a movement to solve entrenched real problems (which still very much existed in backward foreign countries and the movement could've done much more good turning their attentions to those instead).
Feminism wouldn't have existed in the first place if men had treated women equally in society when they ran the world for millennium. Given they didn't and were entirely resistant to changes until feminism forced what we would expect today to be basic equality and respect for any other human beings regardless of sex, what would you have done differently so feminism wouldn't have been needed 60 years ago?
America was/is an evolving Constitutional Republic. Considering the general chaos of the last three centuries on this continent I believe we'd all agree on the progress we've made. It is disingenuous to broad brush the idea that womankind was intentionally victimized when man, woman and child were often lucky to survive at all. As now, the majority of people weren't racist, white supremacist, sexist, gay haters or X-Y-Z. It was just convenient to say so for grifters trying to turn a buck.
There is no question that, as today, many women were trapped in the often tragic circumstances and consequences of bad social, cultural, economic policy. Let me point to the 1912 Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, the largest woolen mills in the world at that time. Because of cotton fiber inhalation the average age of death for a woman working in the mills was 26 years old. All the attendant horrors of tenement life, subsistence wages and sexual exploitation were definitely in play. Pictures of ten and even year old girls working the winding spools shocked America to the core. But when they struck for rights and wages and the bosses sent Pinkerton slime and the National Guard to break the strike, men and women stepped forward to face the gun thugs together.
Then as now, feminism and women's voices, like the much needed healthy American national dialogue we're struggling to create today, has been/was/is captured, exploited and distorted by the same avaricious grifters and propagandist mercenary sycophants that have always sewn division, hatred and prejudice at every opportunity while unreasonably profiting off the lives and labor of the common man. Every study ever done says that an educated and enlightened citizen creates men AND WOMEN who work hard and wisely plan for for a brighter future within the framework of the resources they have today.
All feminists aren't man haters. But the capture of feminisms political voice and its exploitation and weaponization by poseur marxist ideologues, its evolution into the DEI and its willing service in promoting the sterile anti-humanlike destroying policies of political/criminal financiers can't be denied.
Ok I see where you're coming from. Your view is an approach from a libertarian standpoint, and your objection is the type of feminism ideology that casts women as a victim group, as opposed to victims in specific circumstances and situations.
I wish there's a way that your criticism, which I'll call academic feminism just for the sake of this conversation, can be thoughtfully discussed without it being conflated with MRAs looking for any reason to just rant against women. It is hard to decipher when one comes across a simple statement like "this is all feminism's fault", because feminism means different things to different people. For example, I hear feminism of the kind from 40-60 yeas ago, I don't immediately think of a type of ideology. I think of women working at the grassroot for Title IX, equal opportunities at the work place, and advocating for domestic violence to be treated the same as any other violent crimes and not be dismissed as domestic disputes. That kind of social activism is not that different from the example you gave of the Break and Rose strike for improving the workplace for women, only that you describe that as something other than feminism. The problem is a blanket statement without further distinction can be misread as women should be sent back barefoot into the kitchens, and it plays right into hands of the kind of feminists you're criticizing, and serves as confirmation biases that men or conservatives don't want women to have equal rights.
I do think the word "feminism" is so tainted now and the ideology is so captured that there's no going back. The movement that it once represented is also over and has been over for probably 30 years, as women by and large have achieved legal equality. It everything had ended there, we wouldn't be here today with a concept being captured by grifters and ideologues who have lost their minds. It's the same with the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. The professional activists and academia never want to call it quits because they make their living by making sure the gravy train continues, plus they're also ideological zealots.
I do think a general statement like the one you originally made, without at least a bit of further explanation, probably just further fuels the discourse and possibly weaken what you're trying to say because off hand, it could sound like sexism to a lot of people and serves to affirm men/conservatives are biased against women.
Wow! Great post all 💯 correct. I’m petrified Mike.
Franklin, we don't have to end DEI, all that needs to be done is to shine a bright light on it. As is happening now. As the pendulum swings back, in parallel with public pushback, DEI will collapse under its own weight - as university administrations realize the public perception of it is too negative for it to be justified and maintained. Just give it time.
BW: it is not enough to start basic education in universities - start with our elementary schools captured by totalitarian unions. Also, since you mentioned that the role of universities president is to raise donations, you need to consider the sources and influence they carry. Lately, it came to light that immense amounts came from foreign countries, mainly China, and Arab countries. Just like political donations, they should be regulated and limited, but more effectively.
These leftists have burrowed into almost every aspect of the organizations that affect our lives. Look for example at the leadership of every professional organization. Even the seemingly innocuous AARP has been captured by these Stalinists.
A ray of hope... I live in a community of ~6,000 and our schools are doing everything they can to oppose the communist tendencies of the MN Dept. of Education. A key moment was during the Scamdemic regarding masks, etc. Our school board was deferring to the MN Dept of Health commissioner - one man - regarding school openings etc and we responded "If you defer to one man why do we need a school board?"
Everything changed after that including a flipping of the school board to more political balance and they have been quietly refusing to comply with all the DIE bullshyte.
I've noticed the AARP latest marketing features actors saying "I don't agree with everything the AARP says but...." which always makes me think then stop saying it! Stay in your lane and drop the woke olympics
The AARP? Oh no, what are they doing?
They have been a leftist organization for a couple of decades now. Watch how they lobby Congress.
Simple solution: enact legislation that requires universities to choose between receiving grant and any other support from the US government or from foreign sources. Can’t have both. And if you choose foreign, you’re stuck with it until 7 years after you change your mind. Think about that for a second.
Easy peasey.
How about making universities choose between foreign money from our enemies (or all foreign money) and the ability of their students to get student loans?
That will wake them up.
An even better idea. But not as likely to get through Congress. The media will argue that Congress is hurting the poor students. Better to hurt the undeserving—or at least double dipping—institutions of so-called higher education.
And include student financial aid underwritten by US taxpayers.
I'm no so sure the foreign sources are more dangerous than the U..S. government.
Is the US govt. promoting Hamas?
One could argue they are, pushing Israel for a ceasefire that would save Hamas. But more importantly, the BIden Administration is pushing DEI hard, and aid to universities gives them a lot of leverage.
Indirectly, by not directing Iran to stop supplying Hamas with weapons
No, but they are enabling it by money and calls for ceasefire.
Agreed. I was a K-8 public school board member and the DEI ideology was pervasive within the district. I was the only school board member fighting it. The seven current members worship at its alter. I was so disgusted by the policies being implemented, we moved.
A battle was fought in my little town. The DIE crowd was defeated.
These DEI departments are steeped in pathological altruism. They must be dismantled and rooted out or it will most certainly ruin these institutions.
I'd go one step further. Right now the ratio for university leadership leaning liberal/very liberal to conservative of about 28:1. Universities must work to balance this or they will never change. These progressive university leaders and their boards are a modern day Orval Faubus for libertarian & conservative students/faculty on their campuses IMO.
Bill Ackman has been pressing hard both verbally and financially to end DEI at Harvard, but I'm just not optimistic any this will change no matter how much money you threaten to keep from them.
DEI is a religion, and one must bend the knee to stay safe where dogma rules. This just isn't in academia but in significant corporations with HR departments pursuing the DEI dogma. You look at LinkedIn and see those with the correct set of pronouns. Is that something you do naturally, or is that something you do to keep the jackals at bay? The perverse effect of these people is everywhere, and I pray the reaction against it is beginning to develop momentum.
Those pronouns on LinkedIn, I think it's like a talisman. Have you ever watched this cartoon called Grizzy & the Lemmings on Netflix? They're often fighting over these little talismans that give them powers. Similar to these talismans, the pronouns open up doors and give people advancement with allyship powers. Watch it, it's a funny show!
An old colleague of mine spends her time designing DEI programs for high schools. She is no grifter.
She is, however, a warrior who came of age in the 1950s and early 1960s and never quite realized the terrible direction the cause took at about that time.
After she helped southern Blacks register to vote, our well-meaning government began subsidizing and thus encouraging the having of babies by young single women who couldn't or wouldn't finish school and get a job that would support them, but instead embarked on careers of baby-making with aimless men. And so the family life of that subset of Black people was within a generation of being destroyed.
The era of the "welfare queen" might be over, but the generations of the same families who still subsist on welfare are the cause of so much of our urban dysfunction
While we have not been in touch lately, I would think my old friend still doesn't get it, not because she's rewarded monetarily -- she's absolutely not -- but because she still feels that the root of bad behavior on the part of too many Black urbanites is racism.
As though there aren't Black urbanites whose families are far more successful than Caucasians.
In the years before I retired from teaching, I was increasingly disgusted with the after-school process of splitting into groups to "share our identities," the self-important diversity speeches by young consultants who had given up teaching after 3-4 years in order to make big bucks preaching, and the interminable required assigning of identity essays to our advisee groups.
"We had to write this same essay last year!" they'd complain. "Well, you're older now," was the only reply I could offer.
How things are in more recent years, I shudder to think. My last link to my old teaching job won't say -- she's probably afraid.
Ahhhh. White Guilt. My mom is one of these people.
To a certain extent, I agree. But Jim Crow was a real thing; it's just that I think that LBJ's well-intentioned programs were in some ways worse.
I do not think LBJ was well-intentioned. He was creating a dependent class to vote Democrat.
“These DEI departments are steeped in pathological altruism.”
I don’t think so. What’s altruistic about malignant grifting? The DEI apparatchiks are in it for one and only thing: they get well paid for being hypocrites. They’re no more altruistic than your average leech.
Mr Horton. Attend Prof Lewis (more-or-less): The evildoer might get tired. But he who is killing you for your own good will never rest. True that the scent of cash attracts grifters. But doubt not that the core actually believes that sh!t. Sorry.
The true believing core might buy it hook, line, and sinker. But they won’t stay there unless they’re paid. And I suspect they’re actually a minority if the apparatuses.
I wouldn’t bet one red cent that they are the minority.
You have a more charitable opinion of humanity than I do, Evans. I bet they’d turn over in a heartbeat if the price is right.
To paraphrase an old Churchill quote, “We’ve already established what you are, madam; now we’re merely haggling over the price”. Yes, of course, the money is important, but I think among the population younger than 60(ish), the educational system has taught them that anti-black racism is similar now to the way that it was in the 1960s, and they are true believers. No matter how much evidence you present to the contrary, these beliefs will not die (or DEI).
We stand little chance of significant change with two generations who have been taught the “truths” of Howard Zinn in middle/high school, and now learn Ibram Kendi in university.
That’s probably true.
Could be only one, though I doubt it. (Have you read _That Hideous Strength_? Highly recommended.)
Hadn’t heard of it until just now. Looks like it’s #3 of a trilogy. Should I read them in order?
Kinda the Narnia question. But in order is probably better, though you may find the first two more than a bit naive in view of present knowledge -- a problem shared by much vintage science fiction. So. If you find the prospect of a few evenings with Prof Lewis a desirable thing, order; which also makes sense of mostly subtle references to the "history.". Otherwise, I'll say that #3 raised the same question as did the opening of _Atlas Shrugged_: This was written WHEN??? Enjoy the ride, either way.
Perhaps the point being made is that the 'pathological altruism' is the bait that hooks the fish (unfortunately it appears the fish are largely middle class white women) and that then support the grifters at the top.
Greed and, shall we say “a flexible view of the morality of the situation,” seems a simpler analysis that explains what we’re seeing.
Hire an administrator and the first thing she does is hire a staff of assistant administrators and their support staffs. Why? To be important—read: more highly paid.
I agree with that, but imo you can't overlook the army of wannabes that fall for the altruism trope and who provide the mass of support for these grifters. By confirming the biases of morons, you can reach incredible heights, see the muslim brotherhood movement from the 1930s, the kkk, pfizer, cnn, antifa and blm, etc.
I think you found the brass ring: central to all this is information and persuasion—in other words, the media. Remember that, by definition, half of the population is below average intellect. They’re pretty easy tompersuade.
They are altruistic in the same vein as Sam Bankman -Fried.
Rufo is pointing out serial plagiarism in the PhD. thesis of Harvard’s current president.
https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist
Keep scratching and we'll find a ton more plagiarism and incompetence with these DEI types; their philosophy cuts against merit, so it's inevitable.
The country “elected” a person president who has plagiarized for his entire life.
True. As if that was the greatest of his sins. Corruption runs through his veins. And now he's senile and imbecilic.
O rly??
O crtnly.
I watched a YouTube video of Glenn Loury and John McWhorter discussing Claudine Gay. I believe the discussion happened before she became president of Harvard. But Loury was certain she would become the next president. To put it simply, they thought she would not be in her position except for affirmative action, that she was completely unqualified for it, and that she is a dangerous person. They would not have been at all surprised by her testimony before Congress.
I tried finding the video, but I can't locate it
idk
I can't think of an advantage in having a college president advocate for political positions. It is certain to alienate 1/2 the population no matter what side they support.
I could advocate for removing any federal funding from a university that does it; in the case of Harvard no contracts or funding; their endowment is large enough to go their own way if that's their wish.
Bari- this piece of your article is core.
“Another good cause that schools might take up is the teaching of reading and math.” Exactly right.”
Agreed. Politics doesn’t belong in schools and it doesn’t belong in Publicly Funded or Publicly Traded businesses. The purpose of education is the acquisition of and contribution to knowledge, reasoned and data based learning, the building of skills with which to earn a living, and to prepare people to contribute to a society whose values are enshrined in its constitution.
'Cept maff is raciss
Your use of ebonics is an outrage!
(and cuttingly hilarious)
Part of the ebonic plague.
Sometimes I just can't help myself but if ebonics is considered lingua franca by someone as highly respected as John McWhorter then it's open to free use (at least in my warped mind) :-)
RM Shanahan
How do you teach the Constitution and history and geography without reference to politics?
Totally agree that DEI must be undone. Pursuing truth is important but it is not the only element of restoring sanity to higher learning and the country. For 240 years the United States delivered more to more people than any society in the history of the world based on one focus, meritocracy. Over the last decade a battle has emerged to replace meritocracy with aiding victims. Victims have been defined by political forces and outside influences. Blacks, Native Americans, Student Loan holders, Single parent family children, Trans people, refugees and on and on. The concept of having to work to achieve success in a place where that is possible in many quarters has been swept aside. A prominent pungent example in my mind is the recent attempt by the mayor of NY to move busloads of migrants to housing that had been created to accommodate the influs and being challemged by the migrants that where they were taken wasn’t good enough and too far to be convenient. Outside influences have steered many instituions away from pursuit of truth which must be fixed. However, that is only a part of the huge effort that has been level at eliminating meritocracy from American culture.
Meritocracy was introduced in government by President Grant, one of the greatest presidents in the nation’s history. It was corrupted by one of the worst, johnson, and thoroughly wrecked by an even worse president, obama.
Idiocracy has been delivered to us by the Democrat Party and their handmaidens in the Ivy League.
Agree with you. Actually Kennedy and Johnson started the process away, but even before Grant defined it, the basis of advancement in the country was meritocratic from U.S. inception. And yes, Obama set the stage for the rapid current movement away from earning achievement.
He also chanted the mantra that “you didn’t make this.”
You are so right! Then Hillary picked up the line and I would gag every-time she said it
“if large numbers of students and professors had marched through the campus of Penn over the past two months saying that all black people should go back to Africa and whoever remains should be subjected to genocide. Should the president of Penn defend those people merely as exercising their rights to free speech?”
The key thing is that, if she were true to the principles she invoked in her testimony, she would have. But everyone knows that in fact she would not have. The ugly truth of the ideology was thus exposed: things like calling for genocide are actually okay - just as long as it’s genocide of the right people.
They would like up straight white males and Jews for the machine gun them if they could. These people are filled with hatred.
Nice ideas but why would anyone think any of this is going to happen? Harvard, for example, is one of the most famous and successful corporations in the world. Harvard is not “profitable” in a technical accounting sense since it is a “nonprofit” but its wealth and income, all tax exempt, are staggering. Does anyone seriously believe that the Blues are going to let anyone touch these jewels in their crown?
Dream on.
The damage to their reputation has already been eroded by their actions.
Just like the damage of the reputation of Disney or even bud light. Or for that matter the Democratic Party. Or how about the moral clarity of the US?
It could and should happen.
The ivies have become a brand and brands are fragile. Simply because every east coast public school kid in a privileged neighborhood school thinks the ivies are the shit does nbot mean that a. they still are the shit and b. not going to one hurts you. My kid didn't go ivy and has a grad degree from an excellent uni. Now, there are a bunch of kids getting into ivies that really shouldn't be there and when they are in the world, employers and clients are noticing - that's when the latter suggest that their kids look elsewhere and their HR depts look deeper than the name on the degree.
Do not discount public perception, Stephen. Harvard cannot afford to be looked upon as a haven for uncontrolled radical opinion on one side, with other opinions held censorious. Either it changes and adapts as more light is cast upon it, or it will wither as alumni donations fall and enrollment falters.
"It means banning the loyalty oaths professors must pledge to earn a job or tenure.". These are nothing more than a pledge to be a loyal Democrat. ASU requires these in about90% of their non-custodial positions. I mentioned this to a friend recently retired from ASU’s faculty and he argued DIE pledges were not at all related to being Democrat. When I told him that 70% of independents and 95% of Republicans were unwilling to take them he said that was their issue.
As I have posted several times, the answer to these problems lies in the words of Thomas Sowell: it is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than placing those decisions in the hands of those who bear no penalty for being wrong.
In any private enterprise you can name, the government is congenitally incapable of doing anything right. By shielding institutions of, ahem, higher learning from normal tax laws, they have effectively once again picked the winners and the losers. The upshot is that these colleges have amassed unimaginable fortunes that continue to grow, essentially making them hedge funds with colleges attached. And what do people with too much money and too much time on their hands do? Well, if they're bored, be assured that Satan finds work for them.
We need to tighten up our thinking about apparent double standards as Andrew Sullivan does for us in his Weekly Dish of Dec. 8:
*****
These are not double standards. There is a single standard: It is fine to malign, abuse and denigrate “oppressors” and forbidden to do so against the “oppressed.”
*****
That's an important distinction. When people are applying a double standard, it makes them uncomfortable to have the inconsistency pointed out. They usually deny it or try to rationalize it away. However, the people driving the lopsided systems of inhibition at universities (not necessarily the presidents) are quite comfortable with what they're doing. It's blatantly discriminatory, but the discrimination is the point. They make a virtue of it. The whole idea is to sit on some people while letting others run rampant. It's all in a day's decentering.
As Bari argues here, the universities must be made to understand (as Pres. Magill of Penn clearly didn't, after being challenged) that it's no use trying to manage their difficulties by moving Jews from the roster of oppressors to the roster of the oppressed. It's that the whole disingenuous DEI game must come to an end.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/
Bari writes "[t]he point here is that even if Claudine Gay follows Liz Magill’s lead and resigns, it won’t make a difference if the person who replaces her upholds the same ideology so powerfully captured in Gay’s own memo." True but the real point is that until Harvard actually fires Gay and resolves to forswear hiring any more leftist intellectual lightweights we will know that universities remain little more than Red Guard training facilities, loyal only to the Internationale. While we were all asleep, raising families, working and living our lives. these leftist termites bore deeply into our institutions at all levels - universities NGOs, foundations, thinktanks and professional organizations and, worst of all , the bureaucracy on every level. They must all be cleaned out.
Oh and Bari - NO MORE LINKS TO THE ODIOUS NEW YORK TIMES, PLEASE. You left that joke of a "newspaper" because it wasn't any longer.
All great solutions, Bari. But I believe Matthias Dopfner's solution must precede any of your recommendations: parents must send their children elsewhere. Elite universities and higher education in general have been living on the gravy train for decades. For the past two decades college tuition is second only to healthcare costs according to this famous chart of soaring costs from Carpe Diem: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/cpi2022junea-3.png?x91208
Higher Ed will not change unless forced to do so by empty classrooms.
What does Academic Freedom mean? At any job, you get paid to do something. At a University, you get paid to teach students. Your measurement of success is how well the students learn and enjoy the experience they are paying for. The school should have standards defining what learning is and how students must work to achieve that. And one should get measured against it. But tenure and "Academic Freedom" allow arrogance to flourish, and if one does not have to worry about getting fired, many have a strong desire not to want to do their jobs.
This is the issue at places of higher learning; they have become focused on personality, politics, and ideology rather than what they get paid to do. When you have no fear of getting fired, people become arrogant, and that power dynamic can create traits in students that are less than ideal. The three Presidents got those jobs not because of their success but because they played the game and favored the accepted dogma of the day.
Fear of termination is a great motivator to do the right things, and anyone immune from that tends to fail to be a team player. I think Madison's maxim, if "All men were angels, there would be no need for government," should apply here. That will take leadership to implement and hopefully get these places back to what they are designed to be.
Full professors teach very few classes. Most are taught by junior profs and teaching assistants (underpaid grad students). Professors are expected to: 1. publish articles 2. study and advance their fields 3. win prizes and bring prestige to the University (Nobels for example).
While most professors are left leaning, the woke/pronoun stuff comes more from the administration. University presidents were often, but not always, professors but the rest of the administration is just that--administration.
Thanks for sharing that great information. It made me think about a great campaign issue the GOP will never run on. All of those burdened with student loan debt, this is what you are sacrificing to pay for—professors to not teach, a bloated admin, and degrees that do nothing for you.
From working in the field, a lot of the cost also comes from student demand. An old school gym isn't good enough anymore. You have to have a state-of-the-art gym with the latest equipment. Two meal choices in a dining hall is no longer good enough--you have to have vegan, vegetarian, paleo, meat-only, salad bar, etc. Dorms require AC, high speed internet, kitchens, etc. But, yes, there is a huge amount of administration. BTW, professors not teaching many undergraduate classes isn't a new thing. It goes back to at least the 70s if not earlier.