Thursday, October 18, 2018

Study: $400k A Year Diversity Officers Do Nothing For Diversity

By Professor Doom

      It seems every school is loading up on Diversity Officers, filling up Diversity Palaces as they preach Diversity. It’s obnoxious, of course, all the more so because of the ridiculous, truly ridiculous, amounts of money poured into these Diversity Officers:

Campus diversity czars frequently draw massive salaries. The University of Michigan's chief diversity officer, for example, rakes in $396,000 a year.

     That’s a state school, folks, and you need to understand this guy is supported by a massive staff of vice-presidents and whatnot, each making sums of money that I can never hope to make as faculty In higher ed. No, I’m not asking for more money, but I must point that I actually teach students, actually write and publish1…I advance the university’s mission of education and research at least a tiny, tiny, increment.

     I’ve often commented that, empirically, the main job of these Diversity Officers is to increase racial strife. I’ve cited campus after campus after campus where we see Diversity Officers actively causing trouble. It’s their job, you see, for they use the trouble to demonstrate their job is necessary.

      I know, this is just a blog, and even a large family of anecdotes still doesn’t qualify as a real study in any legitimate science. Is anyone studying to see if there’s an actual benefit to having these wildly overpaid hustlers on campus?

     Turns out, yes:

     The above study is from the National Bureau of Economic Research. They defined “benefit” in a way a normal person would consider questionable: the Diversity Officers are supposed to be increasing “Diverse” faculty hiring, that is to say the hiring of anyone but white males. That’s a questionable benefit if ever there was one, but let’s go with the flow here.

      Again, I’ve highlighted several overt cases where the hiring was obviously racist. I use the adjective “overt” because many campuses have had unwritten racist and sexist hiring policies for a very long time, but now we even see explicit political leaning policies in hiring as well, even in mathematics.

     So, before moving on to the results of the study, I really want to point it out clearly: Diversity Officers are fundamentally racist job positions, every bit of an abomination to higher ed as mandating every campus must have an anointed Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

      And the guy at the top of each diversity fiefdom is paid around $400,000 a year with our tax dollars.

     So what were the results of the study?

"We are unable to find significant statistical evidence that preexisting growth in diversity for underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups is affected by the hiring of an executive level diversity officer," write the study's authors

     Now, “science” has a real problem right now in that many of our research studies cannot be replicated. Perhaps I’ll go into great detail on why this happened, but for now, the basic idea is it’s very simple to manipulate data statistically to get whatever result you want, because there aren’t official rules as to what manipulation is allowed. When you get a benefit for a study with a result, and a penalty for a study with no result, and get to decide if you want a result or not…you better believe “scientists” will get studies with results.

      The above study, however, is a “no result” study, they’re saying they could find no evidence of any of the supposed benefit to having Diversity Officers on campus (I should point out that these huge boondoggles are a big feature of public schools, but far less so of private schools—especially for-profits, who, while scammy, aren’t about to waste their money on these useless demagogues).

     Diversity fiefdoms employ dozens of race-baiters, with multi-million dollar budgets…the kind of budgets that could fully pay the tuition of hundreds of students a year, every year.

     It’s not just a waste of money and squandered opportunity to save kids from a lifetime of student loan debt, of course, since often Diversity Officers promote race riots and other events which are very detrimental to the school (Hi Mizzou, though you’re certainly not alone!).

      Now, some might think this study is politically biased, and that these researchers simply had an axe to grind. I think not. Consider this quote:

“Although important progress has been made in increasing faculty and administrator diversity from 2001 to 2016, we believe more work must be done to better understand barriers to increased diversity, and how they might be best addressed.”

     So, the researchers believe that “more work” must be done to increase diversity, and believe there are “barriers” that are not already well understood (eg, “different people are different” is still a confusing concept to them). Seeing as the researchers are drinking the proverbial Cool-Aid regarding diversity as a fundamental benefit, I’m inclined to believe they found no result because…there’s no result.

     I hope someday they start asking other questions like “why is diversity necessarily a benefit to higher education to the point that we need to deny education to hundreds of kids to pay for Diversity Officers?”…I won’t be holding my breath even though this strikes me as a supreme question for an educational facility to ask.

     I also won’t be expecting a single state school to look at this study and go “hmm, maybe we don’t need quite so many of these guys on campus.” After all, every dollar spent on faculty is a dollar that won’t go into administrative pay, and the more admin you have, the more you can pay them—it’s win-win when you hire diversity officers over faculty.

     Except for the students, of course, as every diversity officer hired is a loss for students. No worries, since all those diversity officers are paid for by student loans, which most students consider free money, at least until they leave campus and those first payments come due.

      Gee, I wonder if we’d stop wasting money on Diversity Kommissars if there was no student loan money paying for them? Can’t wait to see the study on that idea…

1.     Technically  I should use the past tense here, but if I get quite lucky I might still teach again. Maybe.

Monday, October 15, 2018

The Predatory Art School

By Professor Doom

     It’s no secret that the for-profit schools are doing the most harm to human beings via student loans…it’s such common knowledge that they are shedding students quickly, many have lost half or more of their students or shut down in the last five years.

     Now, the only reason these schools gained such infamy is our government has finally decided it’d had enough of our fake accreditation system.

     Corinthian was raking in over 1.4 billion a year off its 72,000 students even as the Federal government was shutting it down. It was an utter joke of an institution, but the accreditor didn’t care because Corinthian “complied” with the criteria. What are those criteria? Mainly, accrediting only asks the school if it thinks its doing its’s all self-reported, and Corinthian was only too happy to say it was satisfied it was doing a great job.

     Now if you’re running a scam school, you’ll need students…students who don’t know what they’re getting in to. Most schools, for-profit and community colleges especially, focus on “first generation” students for just this reason, but the for-profits found an even better market to target: art students.

     The whole “left brain/right brain” stereotypes might not be always true, but there’s absolutely a grain of truth there, particularly with the idea that “artsy” people generally aren’t the best “numbers” people.

      If they don’t know about numbers, then they’re particularly vulnerable to loan predation, as they simply aren’t going to understand that it’s fiscally suicidal to get a $100,000 loan for a degree leading to a job paying $10,000 a year.

     And so art students were sucked into art schools, drained of their loan money, and spit back out on the street. Am I exaggerating?

     Please understand that even if these loans were for complete rip-off education, even if the school knows the degrees are worthless…the students are still on the hook, as these loans are secured with the brutal force of the federal government (which still took over 2 years to decide the victims of Corinthian shouldn’t still be in debt, incidentally).

Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Education had cracked down on for-profit schools, but President Donald Trump’s administration appears to have eased the pressure on such institutions considerably.

     I do wish the article had cited this assertion—Trump gets accused of many wrong things inaccurately. That said, I suppose it’s possibly true, although with so many of these schools already shut down, I’d rather expect there’d be less shutting down of schools.

Students are calling on the Department of Education to enforce an Obama-era regulation that would erase debts accrued at predatory schools of higher learning, according to CNBC. The Art Institutes’ financial aid offices, students say, would routinely call students to inform them that their student loans had run out and pressure them to take on more debt. The bill for a two-year associate’s degree could run as much as $90,000 and leave students with little to show for it, according to some alumni.

     Wow, you just know those art students had no idea that $45,000 a year in tuition, and only for a 2 year degree, was ridiculous. There are rules to erase student debt, incidentally, but they’re pretty draconian, something like 1 student in 280 actually qualifies (I’ll document this in a later post).

      The article puts much effort into blaming Trump for all this, and while he’s certainly not fixing the problem…the $1.5 trillion dollar student loan debt didn’t happen overnight, or even since Trump was elected.

…the Obama Administration to discharge severely disabled veterans’ student loans, but they were set aside due to complicating tax laws that would have required those with erased student loan debt to have to pay tax on it. The cancelled debt was considered to be taxable income.

--Wait, Obama wasn’t like, the head of the government? He had no influence over law enforcement (hi executive order)? For what it’s worth,Trump is trying to make it easier for Disabled Veterans to escape debt, but it’s not much of an issue--About half of them are in default. The government may as well write those off anyway.

     Back to our main article:

On the I am AI Facebook group page, some students claim that high interest rates have doubled the principal of their loans. “I have two loans totaling 13k with interest rates of nearly 9 percent and 11 percent,” wrote Sam Kotowski, asking for advice about refinancing private loans. “I have paid these fully since 2012 and, while it hasn’t grown, the total balance has only decreased about $300 when I have paid about 14k on them.

     Artsy people really aren’t the best with money, eh? Not only were they being charged about four times as much as your typical rip-off school, they were paying double the usual interest on the loans. Insult to injury, the payments were set up so a student could make regular payments essentially forever. In the above example, the student will, assuming he makes regular payments, be free from debt in about 40 years. Whew, good thing he’s only $13,000 in debt, the ones with more like $90,000 in debt will be paying for over 250 years. You really can’t expect art people to make such calculations.

     So, these art schools, having looted with abandon for years, will close down and ride into the sunset with immense profits. At least the scam ends, right? I mean, we all now know to avoid for-profit schools. Hmm, wonder what will happen with those old campuses…

Early last year, Dream Center Education Holdings, part of faith-based Los Angeles charity the Dream Center, purchased the 31 Art Institute schools, as well as the Argosy University and South University schools, from Education Management for $60 million.
Dream Center moved to convert the schools into nonprofits. (The approval from the Department of Education is still pending.)

     Now, “nonprofit” sounds better, but it’s really just a bit of accounting legerdemain, I assure the gentle reader a non-profit can be every bit as predatory as any for-profit, as NYU readily demonstrates.

     I really to point out the key detail here: the only reason the for-profits are now widely known as frauds is because our Federal government stopped trusting accreditation and decided to look with their own eyes. As the for-profits scuttle off into the darkness, we’ll see non-profits as scam schools just as soon as the government decides to take a look there.

      I assure the gentle reader, if the day ever comes when our government realizes the accreditors for for-profit schools are the same as for our state schools, and decides to look at what’s happening in state schools, especially community colleges, they’ll see fraud even more epic than in the for-profits.

Friday, October 12, 2018

College Credit to Harass Republicans?

By Professor Doom

     What defines a college course? In times past (and on a few legit campuses today), a college course was put together by a scholar, possibly a team of scholars. The material in the course was assembled with a specific purpose in mind, usually preparation for even more advanced material.

      Once the course was put together, it was then reviewed by other scholars, to determine its legitimacy. Despite the age of our higher education system, we still have new courses appearing on a regular basis. I’ve done the “legitimate new course” thing a few times, and it’s not easy…you only go through the trouble if you honestly believe you’re adding value to education.

     The system I’ve lightly described above is somewhat antiquated, from a time when our universities were run by scholars. Most of our educational institutions are controlled now by plundering administrators. Under the “new system” education is irrelevant, the only thing that matters to these guys is “will it sell?” Thus we have courses on Lady Gaga, Game of Thrones and other topics that honestly have minimal educational value at best.

       Even if the course is legitimate, academic freedom means the professor running the course (not necessarily the designer of the course) has wide leeway in what he or she will do as far as course material. This is why supposedly academic work like “don’t shave” can count as much as a letter grade in a course.

     I sneer too much perhaps, as the “don’t shave” exercise does at least involve the student writing about her experience of not having shaved armpits or whatever. I hardly know what to make of this:

     Senator Collins is, of course, a Republican. I…do not understand how admin can tolerate this, academic freedom notwithstanding. I don’t care if there’s some huge push nowadays to get ever more violent against non-Democrats. That’s wrong,  I do care, I find it vile and reprehensible.

      But how is this even remotely of educational value? How does acting like an ill-mannered thug possibly prepare a student for more advanced academic work? Why isn’t this question being asked?

      Perhaps the headline is sensationalizing things?

The University of Southern Maine if offering credit hours to students if they travel to Washington DC and harass Senator Susan Collins in the hallways and elevator.

Students will receive one credit hour for their political action.

      Wow, a full credit hour for being a thug…so this qualifies as a college course. A typical college degree is around 130 credit hours. We only have a mere 100 senators, so at least you can’t get a whole degree in thuggery.

      Of course, why not extend the program to Congress? 200 credit hours is generally enough for a Ph.D., so extending things would allow students to get doctorate degrees In thuggery by harassing our duly elected representatives throughout Washington DC.

      Ok, it’s clear college credit would only be offered for harassing Republicans…but I suspect this is because many schools have few, if any, Republican faculty.

However there’s a catch.
Only anti-Kavanaugh protesters will be rewarded the extra credit hour.
Pro-Kavanaugh students need not apply.

      I know it’s a little dated quoting the above but…we really do have a problem on this campus.

The University of Southern Maine briefly offered students an accredited “pop up course” that consisted of traveling to Washington, D.C. to protest Senator Susan Collins in an effort to dissuade her from voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Glen Cummings, the president of the university, said Wednesday the course was posted without his knowledge, and was immediately canceled when he learned of it. He added that no university money had yet been spent to organize the Wednesday night trip.

     It’s good that reason prevailed here, but the gentle reader should take heed: on this campus, and likely many others, the Leftist lunacy is so dangerously close to taking over that wildly, wildly inappropriate behavior is now being considered as legitimate college material. Much as the Left is weaponizing baseless allegations, they’re also trying to weaponize our higher education system.

      The time honestly draws near where an overhaul, if not outright tearing down, of many of our campuses becomes the only reasonable thing to do.

       Another short post, as my head spins from another day of cancer surgery. I ask the reader to take the time to consider the implications of the above “course,” especially compared to what it used to take to create a college in the past.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

College Madness: A “Fist Bump” Is Sexual Harassment

By Professor Doom

    In our “criminal justice” system, being convicted of a sex crime is a permanent mark of shame. Lay hands on a girl one day shy of her 18th birthday, or equally molest an infant, and forever more you’re branded a “sexual predator,” and your neighbors are notified as such whenever you move. That label is really, really, broad, and as much I respect people should have some warning, the range of crimes it covers is too ridiculous for the warning to serve well.

     On campus, because our Poo-Bahs running the places have a disturbing tendency to cover up such crimes, a large family of laws called “Title IX” was enacted to try to cut down, just a little, the cover-ups of campus sex crimes. There are actually a huge number of rules here beyond governing sexual misconduct, such as how to handle disabilities and how to spend money on various sports teams, among much minutia. Much as “sexual predator” is a bit over-used, “Title IX violator” could well mean a serial rapist on campus…or someone who had a minor discrepancy in accounting between the men’s and women’s track teams.

      It can also be an autistic kid who asked for a “fist bump” in celebration over some minor achievement (a fist bump is a momentary touching of the closed hands of two participants, comparable to a “high 5” and certainly less invasive than a handshake).

     Overall, Title IX is a misguided attempt to force the plunderers running a campus to act with integrity. You really can’t legislate integrity, and so the plunderers used Title IX to the establish huge fiefdoms on campus, filled with grotesquely overpaid bureaucrats whose very job depends on finding ever more violations leading to more Title IX “convictions.” How’s that working out?

     The student, who has autism, cerebral palsy and a shunt to relieve fluid pressure on his brain, was not allowed to defend himself against allegations in two Title IX investigations this past fall, …

     As I’ve mentioned before, campuses have a kangaroo court system, so a target of this system being unable to defend himself is quite common. And, of course, convictions are pretty reliable.

     What’s really funny here is Title IX is supposed to protect the disabled from unfair treatment. Every semester I am given multiple forms asking for various accommodations, which I grant, as per this federal law. So what’s funny?

Though he receives academic accommodations for his disabilities, he was not offered accommodations in the Title IX process,

     So, the law to establish integrity grants the kid the academic accommodations he would already get in a system with integrity…but gives him no quarter when targeted by that law, because the system has no integrity. Good thing we have all those bureaucrats, eh?

The first incident occurred in the first week of September when Marcus was in the Student Services office and asked a female student working there if he could “fist bump” her. She agreed but soon filed a Title IX complaint.

     Now, she “agreed” to momentarily touch knuckles, probably because the kid had just successfully completed one of the little tasks you must complete in the beginning of the school year.

     Before Title IX, the female student worker could complain, but her superior would think “the worker did it willingly, and it was just a fist bump,” and tell the worker that this is just the sort of very minor annoyance you might experience when dealing with a customer. Then the matter would end, and the worker would go back to work.  With Title IX, well now the superior must report this “inappropriate behavior” to the Title IX fiefdom. Past this point, the kid was doomed.

College staff present at the October meeting had Marcus sign an informal resolution of sexual harassment and told him not to have contact with the female student, according to Aurora.

     And now the kid is officially a sexual harasser. For a fist bump.

     Now, the kid has serious issues, and is often accompanied by an assistant.

Marcus was involved with the college’s musical theater program, and wanted to ask a female student in the program if he could take a selfie with her…assistant approved him asking the question, and the female student said yes.

      The assistant probably made a bit of a mistake here, but we do have evidence nothing untoward happened:
It shows Marcus halfway out of the frame, with his arm extended and his hand behind the female student’s head. She’s seated and smiling.

     So…big deal. Sadly, the student decided to complain:

According to a charge letter dated Dec. 1, the student reported the incident as sexual harassment, claiming that Marcus “forcefully placed [his] hand on her shoulder while taking a selfie with her.”

     So, you have witnesses, photographic evidence…surely Title IX would let this one slide, right?

“…they weren’t allowed to present evidence, …”

      I reiterate: these Title IX departments are all about convictions, and I have much inside knowledge of just how kangaroo these court systems are. Having seen these course destroy evidence provided by the defendant (in order to facilitate the conviction), I guess not accepting the evidence in the first place is better than average here.

Marcus was found responsible and suspended,

     Yeah, no kidding. Now, the kid has numerous issues and isn’t doing so well, academically…I respect him trying, however. On the other hand, it’s very clear the college doesn’t want him on campus and he should probably go to another school. Too bad those “sexual harassment” violations will follow him to any other school, and might well preclude him being admitted.

      I feel the need to point out the issue here isn’t merely the Title IX fiefdom simply exploiting this kid as an easy mark, because there is something else one-sided about all this. If the roles were reversed, the male would end up being punished by being forced to attend mandatory sexual harassment training…but at no point will there be any talk of forcing the females here to attend mandatory autism sensitivity training. Hmm.

      But hey, at least all those Title IX investigators will keep getting $100,000 a year for all their fine work, so that’s something.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

College Sued For “Stealing” Students From Another School

By Professor Doom

    When it comes to sportsball players, colleges “steal” star athletes from each other on a regular basis, at least when it’s time to grab incoming freshmen. It’s little different than in professional sports, which often bid for available players. It’s funny to use the word “steal,” of course, but I can certainly understand how people might claim some ownership of a player on the home team.

     Colleges have been losing students for years now, and bottom line, each individual student represents a great sum of money for a school. How much? Well, a recent set of accusations provides insight into that, as well as other features of today’s higher educational system:

    Now, this is all just accusations right now, and until the court case is settled the gentle reader should take it as conjecture that anything untoward happened here. I’m fairly confident that the settlement will seal the records and the issue will vanish from the public eye. There are details here which need highlighting now:

Mercy College charges that Long Island University hired one of its deans and he then used confidential information he emailed to himself while still employed to poach students who had accepted admissions offers.

     On the face of it, the charge seems quite reasonable. Time and again I’ve seen an administrator come onto campus, and diligently work to sell out everything he can (reputation and educational integrity being towards the top) to get more students. Then the new admin uses his skills at degrading his school to get a better, higher paying, position at another school, where he can find more things to sell out.

      It’s a sick, demented system. In times past, the “leaders” of a school were chosen from faculty, people who devoted their lives to the school, but now higher education is run by roving bands of wandering plunderers. So, sure, I can see a Dean doing this. Did he at least get a better job at the new school?

Edward Weis was until May 31 the dean of Mercy's business school, and Mercy says he had access to all of the information in the spreadsheets, as well as communications between the college and prospective students.
In June, Weis started as vice president of academic affairs at LIU.

      Dean Wise held his position for 5 years before moving up to Vice President. That’s hardly a lifetime. So, as I’ve documented many times before, he certainly fits the profile of your typical plundering school administrator.

     The allegation here is this Dean, after he moved to the new school, used his insider information to contact students and, basically, give them slightly better offers at the new school. There are supposedly e-mail records to this effect, so it sure doesn’t look good.

Mercy's suit says that as of May 1, it had 42 new students who had accepted offers to enroll in the business honors program. By July 20, nine of them had notified Mercy that they would enroll instead at LIU. Confidential information about all nine of them was in the material Mercy says it tracked Weis sending from college accounts to his private accounts before he left the college.

     So, we’re talking allegedly 9 students here. This is what higher education has come to. Mercy College has over 7,000 students, so we’re talking a bit over 1/10 of 1% of the student base being “meddled with” (to use mainstream media’s latest over-used phrase) is sufficient to bring a lawsuit.

     Just how much money is a student’s head worth?

The loss of a single student, considering tuition, fees, room and board, costs Mercy $32,252, the suit says.

     So each student is worth over 30 grand a year, hence the lawsuit is for $700,000, at least to start. I really feel the need to highlight that at no point does the lawsuit discuss in any way how (allegedly) offering the students better deals is harmful to the students.

      Doing harm, or helping, the students is irrelevant. It’s about the money, and only the money. Again, this is what higher education has come to.

The loss of these students was more damaging, the suit says, because they had high SAT scores and stellar academic records, and many had already participated in Mercy's summer program.

     Wait. These students already knew Mercy well, and still flipped. Those alleged e-mails must be pretty damning to overcome this…I bet they are.

The suit charges that Weis and LIU obtained confidential information to which they were not entitled and then used that information to engage in "unfair competition" with Mercy. The suit says that they acted with "Intentional, malicious and/or wanton disregard" for the rights of Mercy.

     Unfair competition? These aren’t athletes, there’s no equivalent to the NCAA for how you can recruit students. I’m a little confused. I’ve seen quality schools “lose” students to other schools because the latter offer “fast, convenient” degrees. Why is that unfair? There’s been a huge race to the bottom in many schools, lowering standards as they “compete” to scrape up still more students—gotta pay for all those Vice Presidents of Higher Education Degradation somehow.

       Malicious disregard? Again, I’m confused. I’ve never seen an admin give the slightest regard for anything a school stands for. I sure hope Mercy, in addition to those alleged e-mails, has some serious documentation that the admin they hired (and casually replaced) really cared about the school, and really worked to adhere to standards and integrity.

     Good luck with that.

      Turns out, there are some written rules about this sort of thing, a Code of Ethics and Professional Practices:

"Colleges will not knowingly recruit or offer enrollment incentives to students who are already enrolled, registered, have declared their intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions. May 1 is the point at which commitments to enroll become final, and colleges must respect that."

     I’ve seen schools repeatedly and extravagantly violate the code of ethics they agree to when they become accredited, at every opportunity where following that code would cost them even a penny of that sweet student loan money. Once again we have a problem: if other written codes of ethics can be violated at will with no penalty, why should this code be worth more than the pixels which glow when you click on the link?

      Really, all I’m seeing here is just continuation of the “best practices” and policies which school administrations have been following up to this point. Having looted everything else, this new Vice President should be commended for his (alleged) actions…those 9 students will generate enough revenue to pay his salary and luxurious benefits for at least several years.

     It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see more of this in the coming years, and past this point we’ll expect to see admin receive promotions and transfers in exchange for bringing even a handful of students with them to their new school.

      This, indeed, is what higher education has become.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

All College Newspapers Against Kavanaugh

By Professor Doom

     It sure doesn’t take much effort to see something’s very wrong with the media in our country. During the last presidential election, not one of the top 100 papers endorsed Trump, and very few even minor papers did…and yet he won the election. How could it be that essentially every single major news organization could not see anything which the voters could see? It’s a weird blind spot.

     More recent news yields another huge blind spot. Kavanaugh was just about to be confirmed as a supreme court justice, after weeks of vetting, after a lifetime of being scrutinized with great care and detail.

       Then, BOOM, out of the blue, we have a weird allegation of sexual impropriety in high school. He stands accused of, possibly, being drunk at,  possibly, a party during, possibly, a summer when he was, possibly, in high school. Every single corroborating witness has denied the allegations in full…but somehow the allegations allowed  a delay in the vote of confirmation.

       Then comes another vague allegation of possible wrongdoing, again made in a way impossible to fully deny because there are just too few details to refute. I hear there’s another lurid allegation on top of that…but again no actual evidence is provided. Despite the issues with the claims, the FBI will investigate (um…there are allegations against the Clintons with actual dead bodies still awaiting investigation, but I digress…).

      Thing is, we’ve seen this before, again and again, and again. It’s always some guy who’s running against a Democrat or otherwise opposing Dem interests, and the accusers always have a long track record of supporting Dem interests, and the allegations are always made at the very last second.

       Does anyone else wonder at how Republicans are able, with pinpoint accuracy, to identify which women will be rabid Dem supporters 30 years in the future, and to sexually harass those exclusively? Does anyone else wonder why this never, never, never, happens to some independent running a campaign but with no serious chance of winning?

     I remind the gentle reader, at the night of the last Presidential election, the Dems lined up an extra dozen women to make sexual assault allegations against Trump…and we as a country simply ignored the “revelations” breathlessly spewed at us by our mainstream media.

     Our campuses are supposed to be refuges of clear thought, so surely the student newspapers can see what anyone following the basics of politics can see?

     Seriously, not one paper can even consider the possibility this is just another hatchet-job? It’s simply incredible that dozens, hundreds of “independent” thinkers can all come to an identical conclusion. Even if these allegations are far more credible than I find them…not even one student thinker could possibly be wrong? This is the implication of them all thinking the same way, after all.

there seems to be no shortage of vigils for Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford over the last couple of weeks, there doesn’t seem to be even onesupporting the US Supreme Court nominee.

     Hey, I’ve nothing against vigils for the alleged victims here, but please understand conjecturing this is merely a smear campaign against Kavanaugh, to the detriment of him, his reputation, his career, and his family, is hardly off-the-rails conspiracy theory. How about one vigil for his daughters, who clearly are suffering horribly regardless of the truth of the allegations? Nothing? Okeedoke.

Take Illinois State University’s Vidette, for example. Titled “ISU students react to Kavanaugh hearings,” not one student in the article offers a word of support for the nominee … or expresses skepticism about the charges against him.

      Seriously, not one skeptical student? Much like with the last election, I can’t help but suspect “media” is shaping opinion by leaving a wide swath of opinions off the table. Only one opinion is supplied:

“I truly hope that Ford’s testimony can sway some Republicans to put aside party and finally believe the stories we’ve heard of Brett Kavanaugh. It was horrible watching the testimony, as Republicans tried to break holes in her story and tried to discredit her honesty. Both in the hearings and the days leading up to this,” Nyland said.

     “Tried”? The gentle reader really needs to note that every single witness supplied by the alleged victim has denied the incident took place or at the least gives a “don’t recall.” Not a single confirmation. This simple fact should come up in every article covering the accusation, and yet it’s mostly consigned to “alternative” news sites.

      More importantly, the campus newspaper I’ve quoted above, like I imagine every campus newspaper, has failed to report this very relevant fact. By all means, if any of my gentle readers can show me wrong here, feel free to make corrections below.

       And feel free to offer suggestions to how most (all?) campus papers fail to see what the bulk of people familiar with one of today’s most common political tactics already know.