Friday, June 21, 2019

Harvard Rejects Parkland Survivor For Being Pro-Gun, Gives Bogus Reason

By Professor Doom

     The admissions scandal highlights how getting into Ivy League schools can be a little, well, quirky. Granted, having the right connections has always helped, and certainly it helps to have the right political views (hi Mr. Hogg, still waiting to hear why you're getting into Harvard even with those low SAT scores no Asian could hope to gain acceptance with). Of course, if getting accepted is capricious, it follows that rejection will likewise be for questionable reasons:

Harvard Rejects Parkland Survivor Admission for Teenage Racist Comments

     This whole "tunnel into your past to find evidence" procedure is madness. Let's overlook the inherent hypocrisy of how this procedure is applied (but for funsies, you can read about Hillary's approval of a KKK Grand Wizard), but consider instead how permanently damning any evidence found against the "deplorable" is.

     No redemption is possible, apparently. Our legal system more than allows for a juvenile to get a reduced penalty for a crime as opposed to an adult, but the Progressive madness rates all "crimes" equally, permanently damning someone for nonviolent behavior in a child.

        So, this kid applies to Harvard, and being a survivor of yet another strange school shooting, figures he might have a chance.

Kyle Kashuv, 18, admitted on Twitter that Harvard rescinded his admission because of “texts and comments” he made when he was 16.

      So he said something stupid when he was 16. Does anyone honestly believe nobody at Harvard has ever said a naughty thing as a teenager? If they really are going to use this standard, then they would honestly have to reject everyone who applied. Why do I suspect more hypocrisy here?

He had previously become popular among conservatives for his opposition to the anti-gun measures supported by his fellow survivors.

      Yeah...I suspect the above is the true reason this deplorable is not allowed on Harvard's campus.

 Kashuv is himself Jewish and said that though he made anti-Semitic and racist comments, he did not mean any harm by them.

     Poor kid, he actually believed the edu-fascists running Harvard when they told him why his kind wasn't welcome there. Now, if Harvard were still an educational institution, it wouldn't even have considered some old comments made by a kid. Instead, academics would have been a factor. 

     But now, holding the right political views is what gets you into the Ivy League. As our schools browbeat themselves about how they'll no longer accept bribes in exchange for admission, the gentle reader need realize their ideology is paramount: I've yet to see a school promise not to exclude political views from campus, even when those views are held by half of the country.

“I’m embarrassed by it, but I want to be clear that the comments I made are not indicative of who I am or who I’ve become in the years since.”

      Give it up, kid, don't waste more time apologizing, you may as well apologize for filling your diapers nigh 20 years ago for all real adults care about what you said. I assure you, the racists and sexists at Harvard honestly don't care about racist and sexist things you said. On the other hand, it's your conservative views which will keep you off campus. Try disavowing those, and I bet your chances will improve greatly.

      If Harvard honesty believed its decision is reasonable, that one sin in the past damns a person forever, beyond redemption, then Harvard would shut itself down. Harvard was established in 1636; in its very long past, it is certainty Harvard had many faculty and students who owned slaves and held racist views. I won't be holding my breath for Harvard to show they have the courage of their convictions, by destroying itself for those past crimes.

      Harvard's ill decision only reflects poorly on Harvard, but there's a wider issue here, since Harvard hasn't received widespread condemnation. If now it is going to be considered socially acceptable to shut someone out of society forever for things said as a child, who among us will be safe from the un-personings to come?

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

"Sexist" Scholar Reported To Bias Response Team...Your Taxes Pay For This.

By Professor Doom

      With so much student loan money pouring onto campus, it's only natural for much of it to be wasted. One of the largest, most evil wastes of this money is to "Diversity Institutes," fiefdoms packed with $100,000 (often much more) a year commissars eager to enforce social justice.

      This waste just leads to more waste, as today's story shows:

‘Sexist’ business scholar reported to bias response team

      Yes, our campuses now have a "bias response team," a collection of NPCs who sit around bored for weeks on end, waiting for someone to cry RACIST. Our campuses survived for centuries without such teams, and yet now we have universities proud of wasting their surplus wealth in this manner, instead of using the money for education and research.

      Does it even matter what the complaint was? No. But let's take a look all the same:
The report also accused the professor of frequent sexist language, but the bulk of the complaint centered on his assigned readings for the business course.

     Since "sexist language," much like "hate speech," is in the eye of the beholder, let's focus on those assigned readings. What was the problem, citizen?

“I believe it to no longer be necessary when teaching the foundations of our country’s economic system and those who helped build [its] ideals to be presented in conjunction with their sexist beliefs that have already planted their roots within our global and local communities,” the student stated in her complaint, filed in December 2018

       It's hard to parse what exactly the problem here is, but do keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of commissars' time will be spent finding the wrong here.

       What would a scholar do? Well, as soon as the student said "I believe..." the complaint would be over. The scholar would trust the professor of the course to know more about the material than the student, close the complaint in a few seconds, and free up enough money for "full ride" scholarships for a dozen or more students.

      The gentle reader should keep that above in mind always: if the people running our schools honestly cared about helping students, they could do so easily and generously simply by using all that money for education instead ideological pursuits.

In the female student’s bias report, she stated that while her professor “never applauded these philosophers on their sexist beliefs,” he “never outright said they were wrong” and “continued to place them upon a pedestal.”

      It's unknown who the philosophers (in this case, economists, the closest business classes come to philosophy) are in this case, and perhaps they are outright wrong but...that's not the purpose of education, which is far more about discussing ideas than shouting down those with whom you disagree.

       Again, this aspect of the complaint would be ignored by a scholar.  I guess we'll examine the charge of "sexist" talk.

She continued that she began to “fear” his sexist banter and said she “also began to fear the readings and I could not even finish one assigned reading due to its clear sexist message.”

       Fear? Poor kid, she's so afraid she can't read. Obviously, the proper response is to kick her off campus for her own good, though I suspect the Bias Response Team would never show such integrity.

According to the complaint, the student was especially disturbed by a conversation that took place on the last day of class about robots taking jobs from working Americans. The professor allegedly claimed that “while all our jobs will be taken by robots,” he will be “retired living in Tahiti surrounded by 40-45 beautiful women feeding him grapes.”

     The last day of class? The kid had to wait until the end of the semester to come up with an example? I'd look at this as a joke rather than "sexism," but now I want to point out the reality here, a reality an educator knows, but not a commissar.

     This kid is failing the course. By her own admission, she had not finished even one assigned reading, and I suspect she wasn't doing well on the class assignments, assuming she attempted any.

      Rather than just fail the course, she appeals to the Bias Response Team and levels a series of charge. You better believe the professor has gotten the message here: fail a student, and a pack of crazy ideologues might be breathing down your neck in short order.

      Does anyone honestly believe education is improved by the addition of Bias Response Teams on campus? Anyone off-campus, that is?

     This is what I mean by edu-fascism, the merger of administrative and ideological interests on campus. Bias Response Teams, despite being wasteful and harmful to education, are on campus because both the ideologues (to enforce their beliefs) and admin (to expand the number of subordinates) want them.

      This whole complaint should have been shrugged off as insignificant, even if it wasn't just an obvious ploy by a failing student. What's the criterion for investigation?

According to the university’s Office of Inclusive Excellence website, an act of “bias” is “any act of intolerance, motivated wholly or in part by bias or prejudice against an individual’s race, color, ethnicity, age, religion, size, disability, national origin, language, gender, veteran status, identity expression, sexual orientation or age—regardless of severity.”

--emphasis added.

      Holy micro-aggression madness! Regardless of severity? Talk about defining your own job parameters. Even if the severity is absolute zero, nothing, you STILL are engaging in bias!

       I bet if students had a choice in the matter, or the lunatics running the schools cared about the students, severity would be cranked up to "actual harm caused," in exchange for freeing up enough resources to offer full scholarships every year for a few dozen students.

       Lest the gentle reader believe this kind of waste is only happening at one school, the College Fix has a helpful list of similar Bias Response Team activity at other schools across the country:

      This is all paid for by the student loan scam. End it.

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Christian Academics Hiding on Campus

 By Professor Doom

     The recent documentary showing Christianity and bible verses being blocked on Pinterest as "hate speech," or at least controversial, whilst other religions get a free pass, not to mention a pro-Life organization being blocked as a porn site (and then the documentary being blocked on YouTube because reasons), leads me to a very slowly growing issue in higher ed.
     The culture of fear which encompasses many of our campuses is due to the ideological takeover—say the wrong thing, and it’s off to re-education camp. It’s been known for years that if you have conservative views, it’s best not to mention them until after tenure, which for many faculty means “never.”

     It’s possible to keep your mouth shut and not talk about conservative ideas for years, but what happens if you happen to be part of another group converged campuses despise, Christians? Oh, you don’t need to wear a crucifix, you can avoid the death-sentence of proselytizing on campus, and with discipline you can keep your mouth shut when Jesus or Christian beliefs get besmirched…but some parts of Christianity are tough to hide.

      Take down the crucifix (or two) in your home? Ok. Perhaps you can rationalize to co-workers why you’re putting your kids in private schools (you are an educator, after all). But what happens if you’re caught in the grocery store or eating out after church on Sunday? You’ll be caught dead to rights…and your career will be stunted.

      Think I’m joking? A recent letter reinforces some things I’ve seen with my own eyeballs:

      I know, a letter is simply an anecdote, but I feel the need to confirm the things this letter says:
…American academics with tenure who will not “stand up” against the SJWs.

        While tenure is often presented as “job for life,” the protections from tenure aren’t that great—it basically means that if you’re fired (and you absolutely can be fired), you have the right to fight for ten years or more to get your job back. Not everyone has that kind of strength or wealth to spend. Of course, today tenure can be retroactively removed…it means nothing.

      So no, tenured professors won’t speak out any more than the “temp” faculty. Yes, in theory, if all the faculty rose up simultaneously, perhaps it would work. Trouble is, admin controls hiring, and “spinelessness” is as much a part of the job description as “supports social justice,” has been for years. I’ve been on campuses where the bulk of the faculty were invertebrates…nobody is going to speak up for you if try to say something even so feeble as “it’s ok to be white.”

I wanted to assure you that there are many professors (tenured and not) in this country who are steadily taking positions informed by their Christian beliefs week in and week out. They know that in doing so they are gradually giving their administrations and coworkers a treasure-trove list that is updated, recorded, and hidden away in the faculty file record…

     Again, I saw things in my “permanent record” as faculty at a scammy school (I was on good terms with the head secretary; she was fired for warning family away from the community college….so I got to see some things), yes, they really do keep a long-running record. When it’s time to get rid of you, you can bet things you said and did a decade or more ago will be brought up.

      Granted, anyone following the news, where even a supreme court nominee has to answer for alleged things he did in high school, won’t find such a claim surprising.

       If the rules suddenly change so that “having a Crucifix on display in your home” is now a hate crime, you better believe they’ll bring up mention of such in that file. I know, the gentle (and somewhat ignorant) reader might find this outlandish, but when one considers how much “our” culture has changed in even the last five years (try telling a “gay joke” today, for example), it’s no stretch to be concerned at these files, and what’s in them.
“…American academics could be doing more (as we all could) to speak up against the errant ideologies held by the SJWs.”

      Errant ideologies? Errant! That’s bold talk. You better believe this is an anonymous letter. I’ve long since lost track of the number of pointedly anonymous complaints against what’s going on in higher ed today. I’ve had people laugh at the things I say because of my  “ridiculous” pseudonym…but I do it in homage of all the anonymous complainers (CNN tracked down and threatened to have killed the guy who made a meme they didn’t like, in a matter of hours—not days!—so I have no illusions how well I’m protected by my public anonymity).

For what it’s worth, we (as parents) are not actively trying to encourage any of our three children (about the same ages as yours) to pursue academia as a way to support themselves or their families in adulthood…

     Truly, one of the most damning indictments against an industry is when people in that industry do not wish to subject their children to it. I still remember the look of disgust on the Dean’s face when I suggested she send her children to the school she was Dean at…it was one of many hints that something was going far wrong in higher ed. Luckily, a “medical oops” killed my son before I would have to make the decision about if he should enter higher ed. I grant I probably would still do so, but I would watch over him very, very, closely when he did so, being careful to see he went to one of the few legit schools remaining.

      …they need to have some kind of vocational training (electrician, plumber, etc…???) to fall back on when their Christian principles get them into “trouble.”

     Christians, or various branches of such, have been targeted for oppression as much as (if not moreso than) any other religion, and have a strong tradition of being able to hide well (there’s even a well-hidden Christian culture in China, able to survive Mao).  It’s no great stretch to believe Christians on campus are already going into hiding…it’s simply prudent behavior based on what we’ve seen in the last few years.

      They’ve come for the people who care about students and education more than loot. They’ve come for people with integrity. They’ve come for the conservatives. Yeah, I can see why Christians might be a little worried they’re the next to be taken off campus.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

College Loses $11 Million For Sponsoring Racial Protest...And $33 Million More In Punitive

By Professor Doom

    Oberlin College has made my blog a few times, as its convergence, takeover by Leftist ideologues, causes it to behave in ever more insane ways.

     Most recently, Oberlin harassed a baker who dared to get some of the students arrested for shoplifting, as well as physically assaulting the shopkeeper. Although the kids initially denied it, eventually they plead guilty to the charges, but not before Oberin's admin launched a hate-filled campaign against the bakery--supporting the violent criminal students (who fill the pockets of admin via the student loan scam) rather than getting rid of people who clearly aren't there for the education.

     In addition to calling the baker RACIST, the school even organized dangerous protests outside the bakery. The baker, naturally, thought this was too much, and decided to take them to court for the school's racism and instigation of violence:

“..sued Oberlin and dean of students Meredith Raimondo for slander. The lawsuit accuses college staffers of encouraging protests against the bakery by cancelling classes, distributing flyers, and supplying demonstrators with free food and drink. It claims that in a protest, Raimondo used a bullhorn and distributed flyers that said the bakery is a "RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”

     The school of course denied everything, even though there was plenty of video, eyewitness testimony, and other physical evidence. Why would they bother with such a denial? Because admin are used to resolving such things in the kangaroo campus court system, where they can "legally" destroy evidence and throw out cases for lack of evidence. They never lose in that system.

      Trouble is, the baker isn't subject to that system, and so took them to the "real" court system, where admin couldn't just threaten the judge and jury into doing whatever they want. How'd that work out for Oberlin?

The $11 Million Libel Verdict Against Oberlin College Is A Threat To Colleges Nationwide

     I've lost track of how many times a supremely confident college admin gets completely toasted once they're put in a system they don't completely control. Of course, admin doesn't have that much skin in the game, as the college, not the actual human beings performing the acts, will pay the fines. At worst, the administrators involved will cry all the way home to their lakefront properties.

      The article I'm quoting from is one of the few that actually thinks this verdict against the oppression of Oberlin is a bad thing, and there is potential for things to get even worse for Oberlin:

An Ohio jury has awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million in damages in its libel suit against Oberlin College. This week, that same jury could award punitive damages that would increase the total amount of damages to more than $30 million.

    If this seems excessive, keep in mind Oberlin has basically destroyed this bakery. There will never be an apology from Oberlin or otherwise an admission of error. That arranging and inciting the protests in no way helped education is besides the point, as far as Oberlin is occurred.

     In fact, the jury today awarded an additional $33 million in punitive damages. Forbes is against that, too, but based on Oberlin's behavior, I see the jury's point.

      But why is a verdict discouraging getting involved in racist activity a "threat" to colleges nationwide? Be prepared to laugh:

However, Oberlin’s most important defense is far more meritorious. (I should disclose here that I am an Oberlin alum.) The college should not be held legally responsible for statements made by students or faculty who are not speaking for the college as a whole.

     I agree with the part about students and faculty but a dean was involved. Faculty cancelled classes to make the riots/protests larger...but admin didn't penalize faculty for doing so. Admin allowed resolutions to pass, without challenge, calling the bakers RACIST. 

      Bottom line, the ideologues running the school absolutely were using the power of the school to destroy a bakery. It's a shame the ideologues won't be held responsible for it, however.

The student senate is not controlled by the college and allowing the senate to post its resolution on college property is not tantamount to an official endorsement of that resolution.

       Again, I agree, but...the school could have come out on the side of truth. Because our schools regularly shut down and remove signs saying things they don't agree with, I think it's fair to consider signs on campus not taken down to be delivering messages the school approves. They shouldn't have it both ways, and the jury agreed.

Gibson’s attorneys also made much of the fact that some Oberlin administrators attended the protests. But, of course, Oberlin would want to have a presence at the protests to ensure both student safety and that students were respecting the law. This verdict tells colleges that if they send administrators to watch out for student safety they can be sued for millions of dollars. 

      This is a nice spin, and if "student safety" were why admin was there, the author would have a point. Too bad about the evidence showing the dean was encouraging the protest. Honest, if our schools could get out of the racism business and focus on education, this stuff would be a non-issue.

       Despite the author's admitted bias, he does concede Oberlin did wrong:

None of this is to say that Oberlin or its students acted well. All three of the students at the center of the controversy pled guilty and conceded at their sentencing hearing that they were not racially profiled. The protests against Gibson’s were organized before there was any reasonable opportunity to ascertain the facts and were an ill-advised rush to judgment.

      What entity organized the protest? Who endorsed the cancelling of classes? Who endorsed the libelous signage and flyers? Who provided refreshments at the protest? If it wasn't Oberlin, and the jury sure believed it was, then who?

      A great quote from the dean with the bullhorn:

Meredith Raimondo, The Oberlin Vice President and Dean of students, texted other administrators about a faculty member who was critical of how the college handled the situation, writing, “(Expletive) him, I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

     Considering admin's typical respect and professional treatment of faculty here, I'm hard pressed to hold this particular faculty responsible for the college's behavior, though I expect the dean will (expletive) him at some point. The faculty who marched in lockstep with administrative desires? Well, maybe they believe in this gook, or maybe they simply feared the dean...there's an implicit threat in the above that I expect would be expressed more explicitly in mandatory faculty meetings held about this affair. My  own eyeballs have seen similar, after all.

     The gentle reader should note carefully the lack of the word "former" in giving the long, long, title of the dean here. Could it be fear she might "unleash the students" that's prevented her removal? That would be speculation on my part...but it once again provides evidence that the students didn't magically appear at the bakery. Moreover, faculty are right to fear the dean's unleashing of students upon them.

But to punish a college for not reining in its students, administrators, and faculty even when they are not speaking on the college’s behalf represents an extraordinary threat to academic freedom and to freedom of speech.

      Seeing as colleges regularly rein in anyone on campus who expresses thoughts not approved of by admin (or as the dean so eloquently puts it, "(expletive) him"), then, yes, they need to take responsibility when they express libelous or otherwise damaging things. 

      Again, the whole issue could be avoided if schools got out of the racism business...that won't happen on converged campuses, however.

The jury pool, in this case, is from a community that is significantly more conservative than the college is.

      Of course, most every campus is run by ideologues who don't remotely accept (or tolerate) the beliefs of the taxpayers supporting them. Perhaps we should consider how that happened, and change it?

      Alas, Forbes doesn't allow comments, so there's no way to judge how wrong most people consider this article. As I endure what I hope to be my last round of experimental chemo, I have no choice but to wonder if I'm alone in thinking Forbes is a bit off the mark here.