Sunday, November 10, 2019

Higher Learning Commission: Accreditation Is No Sign Of Quality

by Professor Doom

       The College Meltdown recently had a post which basically said what I showed years ago in my book: accreditation is a fraud.

       Before going on, a quick overview of accreditation: well over a century ago, our institutions of higher education got together and decided to share ideas on how to run their institutions. It was a completely voluntary system, and so what rules there were, were given as suggestions, with an underlying assumption of good faith.

       Because accredited schools were willing to do extra work, to always have an underlying goal of improving, accredited schools were viewed as superior. It's also worth noting that, in times past, a school first became an established good school and then, only after that, would they seek to become accredited. In any event, schools willing to do this were considered superior schools.

     We live in inverted times today, and now schools' only purpose upon opening their doors is to become accredited, and being a good school first if at all is irrelevant (although admin will tell you they'll care about quality after getting accredited). It'd be nice if this were the only inversion, but the reason for this inversion is key to the rest: the student loan scam. Only accredited schools qualify to get the ridiculously huge torrent of Federal student loan and grant money.

      I taught at an unaccredited school for a few years; I assure the gentle reader that when students were paying for classes with their own money...they cared more. Once that school became accredited, it basically doubled in size from one semester to the next, and then again, but classes were filled with kids who believed they were going there "for free" and no longer cared.

Insiders in higher education have been well aware of the corruption inherent in accreditation, but few speak of it publicly. The way the system works, accreditors like the Higher Learning Commission receive most of their their money from member schools, which gives them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, even among their worst or most predatory performers.

      The above quote is rather telling: everyone who works in this industry knows accreditation is a fraud. The faculty at the fake schools know it the most, although at least a few think the school is defrauding accreditation (that's what I thought, until I went line by line through the accreditation rules and saw with my own eyes it's basically impossible to defraud the accreditors, because they just don't care).

Rather than acting as auditors, higher education accreditors for decades have acted as shills for whomever they accredit, and that can include some of the most predatory and substandard schools in America.

      Part of the reason accreditation is a fraud is they get paid, and paid handsomely, by the schools wanting to become accredited. Accreditation used to be a voluntary process, but almost no school can compete with the kind of money an accredited school gets. So, each school pays the fees, which can add up to hundreds of thousands per school per year. This may not sound like much but the accreditor does almost nothing for that money, because accreditation was built from the ground up to be a voluntary process only for schools willing to do all the work themselves.

      It's a great deal.

      Another big reason for the fraud is the people working for the accreditors are also working for, or used to work for, the schools. The conflicts of interest here are multitudinous, little different than the Congress/lobbyist relationship we see in our government.

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich, and I think it's very important for us to make sure that they're independent and not being bought off by the Internet." -Mary A. Burgan, General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors (2000)

     Since the rules are basically voluntary, it's quite rare for a school to lose accreditation, almost every rule is something the school "should" do, not "must" do. The only exception, of course, is to pay those fees. That rule cannot be violated!   (Accrediting fee schedule here, for those interested.)

     As I said before, we live in inverted times. Modern medicine sickens, schools mis-educate, media misinforms, food many lies. Granted, the very observant can read food labels, be wary of doctors, ignore our mass media misinformers, and be extraordinarily wary of doctors...but when it comes to higher education, for generations we were given to believe accreditation was a seal of legitimacy.

      No, it's just one more inversion. Accreditation is, far more often than not, a sign that the school has been corrupted by our student loan scam, and nothing more.

Thursday, November 7, 2019

Common Core Graduates Are The Worst Prepared For College

By Professor Doom

     I feel like plucking some low-hanging fruit today, and so let's take a look at Common Core. I've written of it before, how it ignores science, how it's just another excuse to inject more indoctrination into our schools, and how by changing the approach to how mathematics is learned, will further separate the children from their parents, since the latter won't have a clue how to help their kids with homework using the convoluted new methods.

     Predicting the failure of Common Core is about as easy as predicting Epstein's "suicide" in prison, but now we get to see how well the "new ways of knowing" methods of Common Core are working, but it's now been 4 years since this idiotic idea was proposed--enough time for a kid go through all of high school, using Common Core as preparation for college.

      My own eyeballs tell me something's gone wrong. Even though the endless cancer treatments make it impossible for me to teach a real class, I still do much free tutoring for the department. The advanced students fresh out of high school can no longer handle fractions unless they have a calculator to do it for them, and the non-advanced students can't handle fractions even with a calculator. This is just one example of how Common Core has gone a full step lower--before Common Core, the advanced students could add fractions without $50 of electronics to help, for example. And of course, as soon as a kind of fraction pops up which the calculator can't handle, it's mental lockdown time for the students. Even arithmetic like "15 divided by 5" has the "A" students needing a calculator now.

     But that's my own eyeballs. How about something less anecdotal?

First Common Core High School Grads Worst-Prepared For College In 15 Years

      I remind the gentle reader that the whole reason Common Core was slammed down the throats of our kids was because it was going to help them prepare for college, the ultimate goal (or so we're told repeatedly) of our public school system.

Further, the class of 2019, the first to experience all four high school years under Common Core, is the worst-prepared for college in 15 years, according to a new report.

     While the above might lead the casual reader to think that things were way better 15 years ago, there's a factor here which causes confusion: how well a student is prepared is determined by "standardized" tests. Every decade or so, the standards on those tests are lowered, or at least dramatically changed. Anyone who compares tests of today to tests of, say, a century ago can quickly see something has gone horribly wrong in our education system, as it's very clear the capabilities of our young humans have dropped off very sharply--top students of today would horribly the older tests.

      And so comparing student performance on tests of today to even a mere 15 years ago just isn't an "apples to apples" comparison. Still, just looking at the last few years of steady drops tells the tale. The people pushing Common Core needn't worry much, as I'm sure those standardized tests will change soon, so that Common Core will look better.

       The gentle reader's grandchildren, assuming they'll even be capable of reading, will absolutely marvel at material that kids today could do, but I digress.

“Students in the U.S. made significant progress in math and reading achievement on NAEP from 1990 until 2015, when the first major dip in achievement scores occurred,” reported U.S. News and World Report. Perhaps not coincidentally, 2015 is the year states were required by the Obama administration to have fully phased in Common Core.

            I can't answer in detail about the NAEP test, but much like with Epstein's "suicide," I predict with confidence that it'll be changed soon and scores will start heading up again.

As Common Core was moving into schools, 69 percent of school principals said they also thought it would improve student achievement. All of these “experts” were wrong, wrong, wrong.

      The article lists many of those experts, but much like with the principals listed above, none of the "experts" actually teach human beings. All the experts who teach human beings (which strike me as the ones you should ask about matters involving teaching human beings) that I'm aware of, including myself,  determined Common Core would fail, and it's not difficult to specifically identify why (as I discussed in four connected posts).

        It's so weird how the people accept lies being poured into their ears, even when those lies harm their children. Granted, I shouldn't throw stones, considering how many lies of cancer doctors I've accepted.

On the same day the NAEP results were released, the college testing organization ACT released a report showing that the high school class of 2019’s college preparedness in English and math is at seniors’ lowest levels in 15 years. These students are the first to have completed all four high school years under Common Core.

     Looks like they'll have to change the ACT, too. I should point out, it isn't just high school where we're seeing disaster, it's throughout the system. Again, no surprise, and I again remind we were promised that Common Core would really improve things.

“Readiness levels in English, reading, math, and science have all decreased since 2015, with English and math seeing the largest decline,” the report noted. Student achievement declined on ACT’s measures among U.S. students of all races except for Asian-Americans, whose achievement increased.

      It's an interesting result about the Asians, but I suspect there's a reason for this. Recall that one of the main goals for Common Core was to make it impossible, or at least very difficult, for the parents to help their children. Without this help, children will struggle. But the Asians? Children of new immigrants especially have been unable to go to their parents for help, because the parents came from a radically different system already. So their scores weren't going to be as negatively impacted as the "non Asian" students, and the improvement isn't all that much, really.

It is thus still the case, as it was when the Coleman Report was released 53 years ago, that U.S. public schools do not lift children above the conditions of their home lives.

      I cite the above to again reinforce the point: if the children can't get help from their parents, they will not get help from the schools. We've known this for at least half a century, and still our government works tirelessly to separate the kids from parents at every opportunity.

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Girl Rejected by Top Schools Takes Her Case To The Supreme Court

by Professor Doom

     There was a time when getting into college wasn't a slam dunk. Even your local state university still had standards, still requested a prospective student to show that he really was interested in learning. Of course, in those days having a university degree meant something, but with the loss of standards has come the loss of value of a degree, of course.

      The top schools are a different matter entirely, those schools still offer value for their degree. Naturally, everyone with a remote chance applies to those schools...they can't take everyone. Parents do what they can to tilt the odds in favor of their kids (hi Admissions Scandal!). The most popular way of improving the chance of acceptance is going to a posh private school. Such schools charge dearly for that advantage, and while they might improve the odds, they can't guarantee success.

       A kid actually went through such a school, and got rejected by all the "main" universities. Tough break, right? Well, it should be, but she decided to fight back:

     I respect she got her feelings hurt, but I just don't see how on the face of it she has a case. If she somehow wins, I don't like the implications, either. But let's get a summary of why she feels she was wronged:

...private Sidwell Friends School -- the elite school attended by a who's who of Beltway families, including presidential daughters Sasha and Malia Obama and Chelsea Clinton as well as former Vice President Joe Biden's granddaughter Maisy -- breached a settlement with the family after it allegedly discriminated against Adetu, an African-American, in the grades she received while in high school and then in materials Sidwell submitted as she applied to colleges.

     Ah, yes, the cry of RACISM, that usually works well. I've mentioned before how children of certain politicians seem to be unusually  lucky when it comes to getting accepted. Yeah, we all know it isn't luck, but that's what the likes of CNN would call it if they covered this phenomenon at all.

     Still, just because you go the same school as the elite doesn't guarantee you'll get all the benefits of having the last name of an elite family. Anything else?

"...was the only student in her graduating class of 126 students who did not receive unconditional acceptance from any educational institution to which she applied," according to the Supreme Court petition.

      Hmm, by the qualification of "unconditional acceptance" I think it's fair to believe she was accepted, at least conditionally. The article doesn't clarify what exactly the conditions were (this is CNN, and giving the whole story would cut into the narrative of RACISM, of course).

      It's just so bizarre to take this issue to The Supreme Court, and likely won't hear it, much less rule in the kid's favor. It's clear her parents have more money than sense in even paying lawyers to try this case. It is interesting to note how "the other half" lives here, though. 

       Her elite high school has 126 graduates in a given year. My graduating class was close to a thousand, and I suspect many of my readers endured something similar in their public education. I wonder what the racial diversity of her private school was? I imagine with so many elite scions going there, the school gets a pass from such considerations...otherwise we might see The Supreme Court petitioned regarding admission to this private school, and I doubt the elites would stand for that.

        I can't but suspect the elite schools rejected her for a reason, however:

...she and her parents filed a claim with the DC Office of Human Rights, alleging discrimination and retaliation largely related to her math classes. The complaint specifically accused a math teacher of allegedly using "biased, improper scoring" to grade Adetu's tests... 

      So, before crying RACISM at the elite schools, she cried RACISM at the private school as well. You generally want to avoid people with a track record of litigiousness, and our currently hypercharged environment doesn't make things any better. I'm sure the top schools didn't accept her in hopes of avoiding being called RACIST when she came to campus and had any sort of problem whatsoever. Too bad rejection is also RACIST (but only because everything is RACIST now).

       Now, she did win when she sued her private school--scoring some $50,000 (perhaps 2 years' tuition at the school, after legal fees), and claims that the school retaliated, somehow influencing her applications to the Ivy League schools. She might have a case, but the fact remains: when you sue your school, the next school you apply to might well take that into consideration.

      While some have called the student here entitled...I'm putting the blame on the parents for paying for this level of litigation. The student involved just went to another ("lesser") university and graduated...having her name associated with ever louder cries of RACISM isn't doing her any favors--employers are even more terrified than the big schools of being in the crosshairs, of course. Even if they win another $50,000 (and it's no clear who they'd win it from), employers will think long and hard before offering her a won't take too many years of unemployability before that settlement won't be worth it.

      Not only would a win be terrible for her, it would devastate private schools, which now would be clearly vulnerable to cries of RACISM just for rejecting students who felt that was the cause. Yikes.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

University Slashes Programs Due To Budget, Also Hires A New Vice President

By Professor Doom

      Tuition continues to skyrocket, and always this is justified because the schools need more money to educate students. For most schools, the lie here is transparent for a variety of reasons:

     If the student base is increasing, economies of scale should drive overhead per student down...but it does not. If the school has been around a while, the capital expenditures on land and buildings should be recovered, and again costs should go down. If the number of faculty is reduced or faculty salaries lowered through adjunctification, then, again, tuition costs should be lowered. If coursework is being offered online, then tuition should go lower due to reduced overhead.

     Every school in the country satisfies at least one of the above, many can claim to have all four properties..and yet tuition still continues to rise.

     The primary reason rising tuition continues to be paid is the student loan scam, of course, but why does the overhead continue to rise? Why do schools who should have had every reason to lower their tuition substantially over the last decade or two still find themselves continually on the edge of bankruptcy?

     The answer is one I've not discussed in a while: many of our campuses are bloated with an administrative caste paid extraordinary sums to do very little, if anything. Today's article highlights one such campus, but they miss a few details:

University cuts humanities program even as it employs over a dozen people ‘with the title of VP or higher’

       Let's start with the big detail missed: the university mentioned in the above has around 5,000 students. Yet, they need over a dozen vice-presidents. Any gentle readers in other industries where you have but 5,000 customers a year and still require so many upper managers? Each vice president has a very significant support staff (and possibly his own palace as well).

      The school, incidentally, is private and over a century old. Have they learned nothing about how to run a school in all that time?

Board of Trustees sought to “eliminate programs in philosophy, religion, fine arts (dance, musical theater, theater, film scoring, musical performance), languages (Greek, Latin, Chinese, German, French, and Russian), and condense departments into fewer major offerings.”

       Due to budget concerns, the schools is cutting Humanities programs in half. That's pretty severe. It's also fairly common today, as the immense cost of college education, more accurately immense charge for it, has caused many students to quite reasonably turn away from the pursuit of truth, beauty, and good and heads towards majors which present a better chance of making enough to justify tuition.

     While academics is being dismantled at the school, administrators are doing just fine:

"...the university is hiring yet another vice president in addition to more than a dozen VPs already.
“...employs 15 people holding the title of VP or higher. Several of them have salaries that exceed that of entire academic departments,”
      Honest, if our schools were being run by educators instead of plunderers, this sort of stuff would be far more rare. The titles are always good for a sad laugh:

Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Executive Vice President for Finance, Operations and Administration, Vice President for Public Affairs, Vice President and Director of Athletics, Vice President for Institutional Advancement, Vice President for Research, and Vice President for Strategic Initiatives...Vice President for Diversity and Engagement, Vice President for Admission, Vice President for Student Services, Senior Vice Provost for Operations and Student Success, Vice President for Information Technology and CIO, and Senior Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives.

      I again advance a simple idea to bring higher education under control quickly: eliminate all positions with a title twice as long as the holder's name. It may be unfair, but it's more fair than crushing some kid right out of high school with a lifetime of inescapable debt. Just like that, this school could bring its budget under control, and I assure the gentle reader none of the above positions have a worthy impact on the education of any student.

     The article does as I have done, and tries to figure out what these highly paid admin do:

The job of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives, according to the university’s website, is “coordinating the transformation and academic restructuring of the university.”

     The school wouldn't have to "restructure" if they'd kept their budget under control, and I suspect this position has been around a very long time. It's a do-nothing job hiding behind some long words.

     Here's another:

That of the Senior Vice Provost for Operations and Student Success, meanwhile, is to keep track of the “student-faculty ratio, diversity of the student body…overall grade-point average, [and] percentages of scholarships rewarded.”

      Wow. The entirety of this guy's job could be performed by a typical spreadsheet in a week, assuming no data had ever been entered before. How is this a full time, much less executive, position?

     And what's the new position?

“Vice President for Research,” will entail “supervision of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs,” and “guiding the institution in the development of intellectual property.”

       The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs is one of those fiefdoms choking our campuses, soaking up huge amounts of overhead while providing nothing for students.

     The school defends its excessive administrative spending in the usual way:

 ...additional administrative staff in recent years have been “related to efforts to improve the school’s graduation and retention rates.”

       You want to improve graduation and retention rates? Stop accepting as many students as you can, and take only the best students. There, I just did a Vice-President's job in under 30 seconds. Shame I can't get the pay.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Accused Rapists Sue University For Disciplining Them...As Accuser Imprisoned For False Charges

By Professor Doom

     There are so many derangements on our campuses today that it's hard for me to cover even the most egregious of them with any regularity. One I've neglected is the kangaroo campus court system a quasi-court system where basically admin can do whatever they wants, with a thin veneer of legitimacy attached to it.

      Words cannot adequately describe the laughable unfairness of this court system. I used to be involved in it, and so I do not exaggerate when I say with my own eyes I've seen admin destroy evidence, and then have us declare guilt because the defendant failed to provide evidence...and this is everyday behavior in this system.

      The "me too" movement has wreaked havoc in our workforce, as employers are terrified of hiring females since even an accusation from such a person can cause great harm to a company. That's in the "real" world...on our campuses, an accusation is the same as a conviction if the right political winds are blowing.

Their accuser went to prison for inventing gang rape. Now they’re suing the university for prejudging them.

       To summarize the criminal part of the above case, a woman accused a couple of football players of raping her, to get sympathy from her boyfriend. The police determined that she was lying, and she'll serve time for it. It's weird how seldom this sort of thing doesn't get widespread coverage, even though it seems as common as "actual" rape.

     That's how the police handled the case. What happened on campus? Well, the university says they didn't do nuffin', while the players feel they were suspended and otherwise disciplined based on the accusation. So we have a "he said, she said" embedded in a "he said, she said," right? Well, since the university controls all the evidence, the players might have a hard time proving their case.

      Once again the police come to the rescue of these harassed players:

That contradicts the arrest affidavit by a detective, Walberto Cotto, who said a university official told him “both players had been academically suspended by SHU because of the sexual assault allegation,” the Connecticut Post reported at the time...

      Gee, I wonder how well the university's denials will stand up in court next to police testimony? Based on their treatment, the players felt they had no choice but to leave campus after being stripped of their scholarships. I'm no fan of college sportsball, but I'm even less of a fan of destroying men based merely on accusations.

       Th players are suing both the woman who accused them (not much money there) and the university (a more valuable target). I honestly don't know how much damages would be fair, but it just strikes me as curious how often these types of accusations merit major coverage, but when those accusations are shown to be false (hi Trump!) the news never seems to think it interesting at all, even as they virtue signal their support of the "Me Too" movement endlessly.

      A bit too much going on right now for a longer post, but hopefully life will get less complicated at some point.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Stanford: Dungeons and Dragons is RACIST

by Professor Doom

     The "new thing" is often declared the problem for society's ills. Television and comic books, when they came out half a century or more ago, were blamed for why children were so disobedient, for example. A bit more recently, Dungeons and Dragons was targeted when it achieved some level of popularity in the 70s, with a "Satanic Panic" associating the game with suicide and devil worship.

      The "new thing" today is to declare something, darn near anything, as RACIST...I think the new fad is bad, of course, and a professor a while back naturally had the "clever" idea of declaring a game as racist:

Stanford Professor: Dungeons and Dragons Perpetuates Systems of White, Male Privilege

      What's interesting about this latest accusation is the double-ignorance. The professor making the claim is both ignorant in making the claim, and ignorant in not realizing there are some honest things one could say to support the claim.

       But let's get to the claim in more detail:

Garcia argues that Dungeons and Dragons encourages a distrust of the “other.”

      A big part of D&D is going to unpleasant places, finding unpleasant monsters, killing them, and taking their stuff. The "other" in this case is the monster. But...this is a game. Only a lunatic would claim chess encourages a distrust of the "other" because the white pieces invariably (albeit metaphorically) attack and kill the black pieces and vice-versa.

      Oh, crap, I just provided an argument that chess is RACIST now. I wonder if I'll start getting coverage.

      In any event, "distrust" is a strange and invalid word to use to describe what typically goes on in a game of D&D, as usually monsters just get hacked to death, trust isn't relevant at all.

He bemoans the fact that Dungeons & Dragons began as a “white man’s” hobby.

       As did chess. Or possibly did, not that it matters since facts aren't generally important in these types of arguments.

He argues that wargaming communities are “male-dominated,”

      As is war; many  of the game rule ideas in D&D can be traced to wargames from the 60s, of course.

      The article I'm quoting from mentions incidentally that Gary Gygax (one of the main creators of Dungeons and Dragons) initially played this fantasy game with his little daughter.

      The "research" here is utterly ridiculous, and the conclusion that D&D perpetuates a system of white privilege is simply insane. This game is typically played by "nerds" in school (including me), among the lowest of the social hierarchy there. I promise the gentle reader, I gained no particular privileges, acquired no position of power and influence, from the playing of this game. 

       To claim that playing D&D perpetuates anything beyond being associated with being in the lowest social class in school is ignorance on the professor's part.

       IF he had any knowledge of D&D, and wanted to claim there were some "white male" issues with the game, he could do so with ease, however. For example, while the game has elves and dwarves and such in it, the irredeemably evil versions of these creatures are...wait for it...wait for it...BLACK! There are even various colors of dragons, and black dragons are evil! White dragons are evil as well, but like all such arguments, it's important not to give the full story. In any event, if he knew even a little of D&D he could have mentioned such details, rather than say such broad and pointless generalizations like the above.

       To go further, an early version of D&D (there are many editions, variants, and knock-off clones) gave different ability score restrictions for males and females. Females, for example,  had lower maximum strength scores--something of a big deal in a game where hand-to-hand fighting was core. Nowadays we have "trans" athletes dominating "women's" sports because we don't dare suggest such a thing, whereas Gygax put in writing over 40 years ago that females tended to be weaker than men (he disavowed it soon afterward, saying such restrictions were a design mistake, and again it's normal to ignore such details in such arguments). At least if the professor had said such things, he'd have a (very weak) point, but he's so ignorant, simply playing the RACIST card knowing it'll work regardless of validity of the play.

Garcia’s ultimate wish is to see Dungeons & Dragons move beyond its problematic past into a more diverse and inclusive future.

       The above is the insidious part, and indeed, the designers of the game (and its clones) are becoming ever more "woke," including lines like "your fantasy character can have whatever sexuality you want them to have" in the main rules  and regularly engaging in all the virtue-signalling and lecturing that turned a multi-billion dollar franchise like Star Wars into a worthless smoking ruin.

       That's a shame, since destroying this game (if they can, which considering how thoroughly Star Wars has been obliterated cannot be ruled out) would remove one of the few refuges nerds in school have.

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Professor: Grading and Grammar Are Racist

By Professor Doom

     Our institutions of higher learning are massively oversized. While in general I disagree with the levels of growth which allowed this to happen there is one benefit to a large institution: resistance to change. Back when our institutions were merely huge, this benefit occurred quite often as the universities tended to not fall into fad “learning” scams like “new math” or “common core” or whatever, but somehow along the way to achieving truly immense size the institutional resistance to change vanished.

       The reason for this, of course, relates to the student loan scam, which made size, and not education, relevant to a school’s status. This led to the worst sorts of people getting control of our universities, and these kind of people, edu-fascists, concentrated power. Just as the Emperors of Rome could single-handedly achieve broad changes in society with an edict, so too can a university Poo-Bah dramatically change the character of an institution.

       The concept of “best practices” allows other Poo-Bahs to follow suit, and quickly, and so whenever some institution changes its rules to cause even further growth beyond all reason, the other “leaders” quickly follow to do the same.

      This growth has been achieved by allowing a great number of people to come on campus who have little interest in learning, and are merely there to collect their share of student loan money (after the university takes quite a bit more than lion’s share, of course). Trouble is, these students do tend to fail classes, and do tend to drop out after so many failures. In the last few decades, the rules have long since been changed so that failing doesn’t occur quite so much, and that dropouts due to failure are likewise less common than before.

      But, we still have students failing and dropping out. Whatever shall we do? Cry RACISM, of course:

     The professor referenced above, I covered before at American University. It’s the same spiel as always:

‘Grading is a great way to protect the white property of literacy in schools’

      Before going further, I must highlight how incredibly stupid the above is, and give the reader fair time to laugh. Please, gentle readers, call friends and family members over to whatever device you use to read this, and call their attention to the above quote. They deserve a good laugh as well.

      Now that this lunatic professor has infected American University with this madness, he’s travelling the country spreading it to other schools, with Ball State University next.  He gives his speech there, hosted by the Office of Inclusive Excellence (I can’t make these names up, and our schools are bloated with such goofy-named fiefdoms).

       When I was at a corrupt community college, every semester we had people coming in telling us basically the same thing as this professor, at least in terms of results: don’t fail students. The only difference is this guy’s rhetoric plays the race card more often than the Kentucky Derby:

We are all implicated in white supremacy,” Inoue said during his presentation…“This is because white supremacist systems like all systems reproduce themselves as a matter of course,” he said.
“This includes reproduction of dominant, white, middle-class, monolingual standards for literacy and communication.”

     If I was in China, taking a course in Mandarin, I would fully expect the teacher of that course to grade my use of Mandarin. It wouldn’t occur to me that this would be “supremacist,” I would expect a “monolingual” standard for a country. Yes, I know China has many native languages, but despite this reality it still mandates “one language” that all educated people there must know. Bottom line, mandating a proper use of a single language isn’t “white supremacist,” it’s a matter of nationalism, and our planet has seen endless countries arrange themselves linguistic lines far more than along physical characteristics.

     There is absolutely no winning with these people, who are never satisfied:

“Your school can be racist and produce racist outcomes,” Inoue said. “Even with expressed values and commitments to anti-racism and social justice.”

      It doesn’t matter what you do, you’re still vulnerable to the RACIST charge. This suits both sides of the edu-fascist cabals running our schools: admin is happy to add yet another fiefdom to rule over, and the ideologues are thrilled to be ever in pursuit of ever louder virtue signaling.

During his presentation at Ball State University, Inoue said that in order to succeed in even the most liberal and forward-thinking institutions of higher education today, a person of color has to act, think and sound white to some degree.

     Rubbish. Honest, there are universities in China where “sounding white” will not help you at all, and in many institutions in Africa, sounding white could easily be a detriment.

      Ultimately, it comes down to one selling point:

      …writing teachers should “calculate course grades by labor completed and dispense almost completely with judgments of quality when producing course grades.”

      The above is the primary reason this professor gets so much traction with his ideas. He’s advocating for course grades not to be about quality or knowledge, but simply a claim of effort. Much as admin continuously brought in educationists to “suggest” I allow more cheating in my classes (because that keeps more students on campus and provides admin with bigger checks), the professor’s above advice is given for different reasons to be sure, but is promoted for the same reason as other educationists.

       While the educationists pumping this crud decades ago could only have a low impact on schools with tenured faculty who weren’t going to change their ways, the classes of today are largely taught by de-professionalized faculty who have no choice but to follow the Poo-Bah’s whims or be dismissed.

        And so I assure the gentle reader that Ball State will become converged and achieve educational irrelevance in short order as this professor’s ideas are followed. The only question which remains is what school will be destroyed next?

       The comments section is filled with people who rightfully laugh with scorn at the professor’s racist ideas, but they’re not the edu-fascists running the schools, alas.

      The double-lung surgery failed, and finding that out was delayed a few weeks because they ignored my reminder to do a tumor marker test.  MDA's biopsy shows I have a met to my femur. So, next thing is surgery. They told me to wait for the call from the surgeon's office for set up the meeting to get the go-ahead for the surgery appointment.
       It's been a week waiting for that phone call. MDA in Houston is the #1 cancer treatment center, and one thing I can say from this ordeal: the #2 cancer treatment place must be absolutely wretched.