Monday, February 26, 2018

Voiding Faculty Contracts By “Vote”

By Professor Doom

     I believe the sleaziest part of our higher education system is the community college. Yes, the “for profit” schools are arguably close, but I’m a firm believer in integrity, so I give the for-profit sector some slack for making their decisions with profit, and nothing else, in mind.

      Community colleges, on the other hand, are often indefensible in their looting of the student loan (and grant) dollar. Time and again I’ve seen admin rake in the money while shortchanging students at every opportunity. Most particularly obnoxious to me is when a Poo-Bah finally is tossed from campus for excessive plundering. Ok, the tossing is fine, I’m happy with that, but what infuriates me is the golden parachute the Poo Bah receives in addition to his plundering.

      “We have to give him severance, because we’re breaking his contract!” says the trustees, and this assertion silences the local papers…but I find it weak. We’ve had community colleges for well over a century now, it really seems by now someone could have figured out how to put in a “we won’t give you an extra million dollars if we catch you stealing” clause in the employment contract.

      Adding to my fury of how community colleges operate is the hypocrisy. The vast bulk of community college faculty are paid almost nothing, even as the rulers of the school screech about how precious having an education is. The students there are trained in feminism, communism, and racism…and then turned out into a world which really doesn’t need people skilled in such things. The reason is because it’s cheap to hire teachers of “skills” like racism or whatever. On the other hand, training in real job skills useful to the modern world (hi computers!) is rare at community colleges—hiring teachers for such things would cut into administrative bonuses.

      Getting back to those contracts, perhaps my lack of knowledge of how the law works is what prevents me from appreciating why scurrilous Poo Bahs always reap great rewards for being let out of their contract (even when they resign, they get handed a bag of phat loot). Contracts are iron-clad, right?

The Maricopa Community Colleges Governing Board has put forth a resolution that would abolish the 40-year-old "meet and confer" negotiation process with faculty and replace it with a policy that "recognizes the Governing Board as the final approval authority for all policy matters."

      Bottom line, the governing board is voting to simply annihilate the faculty contracts, and change the system to a “do whatever we want” system. 40 years ago, you see, higher education was strongly influenced by educators, and so a system was put in place to make education about education, instead of about looting.

      The current governing board doesn’t want that, and the old “meet and confer” system was cutting into the looting. Yes, there'll be a vote on these changes, though faculty won't be the ones voting, just the ones who stand to profit by the new rules. I'll be shocked, shocked, when the vote doesn't go through as planned. Being familiar with how this process works, it’s easy for me to read between the lines of the administrative defense of the new rules:

The proposal will "allow changes to be accomplished more quickly and reduce the amount of valuable resources devoted to policy development while not inhibiting decision-making by the district’s administration or the governing board."

     Ah, yes, the “we need to make quick changes” justification. I remember when from one semester to the next, passing rates in our remedial courses went from 50% to 85%. No, human ability didn’t change suddenly, and no, we didn’t change the course syllabus or books, and no, we didn’t go to restricted admissions.

      What happened was admin simply threatened us: pass 85% of the students or be replaced. Admin’s newfound ability to do so was because they eliminated the department head, and replaced him with an administrative mouthpiece: she made it pretty clear what the new rules for faculty were. ”Policy changes” as admin calls them were very quick after she was awarded power.

     Let’s continue to sift through this risible defense of the proposed new rules:

…reduce the amount of valuable resources devoted to policy development…

       “Reduce the amount of valuable resources…” also brings a knowing chuckle to me. Admin pour ridiculous resources into Vision for Excellence plans and have hired so many additional administrators that campuses often have more admin than faculty on them…they have plenty of resources to spend on “policy development” and have thrown those resources away. The only concern here is to pour more resources into administrative pockets.

      More from the defense, and more laughs:

not inhibiting decision-making by the district’s administration or the governing board."

        “Not inhibiting decision-making…” is the true heart of the matter here. They’re just removing any chance of integrity getting into their way. Honest, the only goal here is to remove the faculty so that the major plundering can begin in earnest, nothing more.

Perhaps even more troubling to faculty, the resolution also would direct the chancellor to create a new faculty policy manual by October. The new manual would allow the chancellor to "at her discretion, incorporate portions of the existing policy manual." …The manual covers issues such as academic freedom, salary schedules, workload and code of ethics.

     So instead of the manual being written by faculty to govern how faculty are to be treated, it’ll be written by the Poo Bah…and the Poo Bah alone will decide how faculty are to be treated.

     How is this not, obviously, a recipe for disaster? The line about “at her discretion” is especially farcical. She may, if she wants, use a part of the existing manual is comedy gold, in fact, as she clearly can do whatever she wants, there’s no need to put this line in at all, except to mislead the gullible into thinking she’ll actually respect faculty wishes.

     I really feel the need to remind the gentle reader that Maricopa’s community college system already has a reputation for fraud and looting, and allow me to re-highlight some examples I mentioned before:

“…vehicle stipends large enough to buy a new car annually…”

Recently retired Chancellor Rufus Glasper
's $408,017 compensation package included at least $55,000 in special allowances in 2015. That included a $32,500 spending or discretionary allowance and a $22,400 auto allowance.

Fourteen [administrators] had car allowances of $18,000 each, with 11 of those having been raised 76 percent since 2012

At least 19 district executives were given spending allowances of $800 to $32,500 last year. Thirteen had allowances of $9,600 each, and 12 had their allowances roughly tripled since 2012…There are no restrictions on how the funds are spent.
“…other perks such as cellphone and iPad allowances, and life insurance coverage, are included.”

      I could go on, but it’s funny how admin is spinning faculty concerns here as “fear-mongering.” In light of the above, only a fool would trust the good intentions of admin if they were given even more power to plunder, right?

     Yeah, no kidding. At least faculty know what they’re up against. I wish them luck, though their only real hope is for the voting public to make it clear that they’ve had enough plundering.

      Definitely, good luck with that.

(Update 2/28: the people with power voted to give themselves more power at the expense of faculty...shocking, I know)


Friday, February 23, 2018

White Genocide Advocate Professor Resigns

By Professor Doom

     It’s so weird how much hatred there is of white people on campuses nowadays, at least some campuses. I’ve addressed this before, but the main reason for it is the white-haters, once they reach critical mass, push out all the rest, leaving no room for anything on our campuses but hatred.

     One such campus is clearly Drexel University, a private school in Pennsylvania with tuition around $50,000 a year—it’s a curious but documented relationship that as tuition goes higher, so too does the hatred off all things non-Leftist. Despite the tuition, it has some 25,000 students.

    Anyway, a professor at this university, overcome with the aura of hatred there, tweeted out the following around Christmas 2016:

“All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

    It should go without saying that if anyone, professor or not, tweeted out the above while substituting “White” for “Black” or “Jewish,” there’d be a huge outcry, with definite violence and a loss of job at the very least.

     To the world’s credit, there was some outrage for this, and even the University admin managed to speak out, calling the tweet “reprehensible.” No, they weren’t going to fire him…it’s so curious how protective our campuses are of free speech and academic freedom when it’s Leftist views being expressed, but such concerns vanish quickly when it comes to other views.

     Anyway, the professor has resigned, indicating his reasons why in a long and revealing post:

“…after nearly a year of harassment by right-wing, white supremacist media outlets…”

    Wait…what? I bet the gentle reader didn’t hear about this professor’s desire for the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people at all, or perhaps maybe a single blurb, quickly forgotten. I do wish he could have mentioned what, exactly, right-wing, white supremacist media outlets he’s referring to. I’m unaware of any, truth be told, but likely this is just the usual standby of RACISM.

      He also says he’s received death threats; I trust he’s passed those on to the police for proper investigation. I’ll be shocked, shocked, when I hear of no arrests or criminal charges.

     The professor tried to pass off his tweet as not serious, as mocking the whole idea of white genocide, but such claims ring hollow when one considers his other activities, such as saying the Vegas shooting was a product of “white supremacist patriarchy” and claims that white supremacists are on the rise.

      What’s interesting here is, even in resignation, the university covers for him, says he was a fine scholar. He quickly found a position elsewhere, and I wish him luck (and prudence) in his future endeavors.

      Let’s get back to that resignation:

My case and many others show just how cynical such appeals are, and how little the Right cares about academic freedom.

     Wait, what, again? I suppose there have been a few cases of Right-ists shutting down Leftist speakers, but Leftists have been doing so, often violently, at a ratio of 50 to 1, if not much, much, higher. I am, of course, against both, but when I start seeing Right wing activists showing up with guns, knives, and other weaponry at speeches given by Leftists, I’ll start posting on it, honest.

      I’m not convinced this guy is aware of the big picture. Honest, if you tell hundreds of millions of people that you want them dead on the basis of their skin color, it’s actually quite natural for some of them to be a little upset with you.

      It’s very curious that he thinks it’s the upset people who are the racists. As is often the case with people like this, they demonstrably don’t believe what they’re saying. The professor is white, after all, so if he truly believed in white genocide, he’d kill himself and his family, right? Instead, he says he’s resigning to protect his family from being killed or so he (supposedly honestly) says. Hmm.

      A bit more from the resignation:

In the past year the forces of resurgent white supremacy have tasted blood and are howling for more.

     There’s only so much of this I can take, but again the above exhibits remarkable ignorance. You threaten people with death and then call them racists for not liking it much? Seriously? Howling? Uh, do you have any examples? I mean, we can find folks on the other side of the political spectrum literally howling at the sky in despair at not getting their way in an election…and that strikes me as far more disturbing than people concerned about threats to their very existence.

     A bit more:

In the face of aggression from the racist Right and impending global catastrophe,

     How does the cry of RACIST never get old? It sure gets old hearing it all the time, every time, whenever one of these people gets upset.

     To his credit, in addition to the spiel about how it’s RACIST to be white, he does talk a bit about a more relevant issue:

To faculty: tenure is a crucial buffer against those who would use money to dictate the content of higher education.  But in a neoliberal academy such protections are far from absolute.  We are all a single outrage campaign away from having no rights at all, as my case and many others make clear.  The difference between tenure-track faculty and the untenured adjunct majority — which has far more to do with luck than merit — is a difference in degree not in kind.

     Absolutely, what’s being done to most professors, adjunct-hood, is a crime, and it’s good for him to raise awareness of this issue. But the good professor was tenure-track before he resigned, and he wasn’t fired due to an “outrage campaign,” administration actually stood by him as he raised awareness of his school as a hotbed of Leftist hatred. So, his message is a little mixed here, to be sure.

     Again, he’s unaware that conservative faculty cannot get hired for tenure positions at many institutions now, and so this point of view is seldom heard on campus, as conservative faculty who dared to speak out even a little, much less propose genocide, are removed from campus fairly quickly.

      Is it a good thing that he’s gone from campus? I don’t think so, but it’s fair to say it’s an irrelevant thing. It’s clear this campus supports such views, so the students there will get to hear of endless hypocritical white hatred. I think it’s a bad thing that they won’t get to hear other views, but I’m sure the professor would simply call me RACIST for expressing such an opinion.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Inside The Mind Of A Lunatic Running A Higher Ed Asylum

By Professor Doom

     It’s no secret many of our institutions of higher education have a real problem with rabid, vicious, White-Hating Social Justice Warriors (or SJWs, or Leftists, if you prefer) overrunning campuses across the county.

     For “converged” institutions, that is, institutions where the takeover is complete, I see no solution beyond bulldozers. These guys have no tolerance for opposing views, and converged campuses can only seal themselves off into a bubble of hatred of everything else, ending in their eventual self-destruction as the hatred turns inward.

     Luckily, these guys have overplayed their hand, and many of them speak out, revealing their institutions as corrupted. A recent article on Inside Higher Ed contains the rant of a SJW. Lest the reader think I’m being unfair in the characterization, allow me to begin with a short bio of the author:

Nicole Truesdell is the senior director of the office of academic diversity and inclusiveness, and affiliated faculty in critical identity studies at Beloit College. Her general interests are in radical pedagogy, academic hustling and social justice.
--when did “academic hustling” become a hobby or personal interest?

     It wasn’t that long ago that no campus in the country had an “office of academic diversity” filled with commissars making $150k a year, like this “senior director.” The interested reader should consider the list of office staff for this fiefdom, to get even a slight idea of how much money is wasted in these places.     

     Anyway, it wasn’t that long ago that no institution had diversity fiefdoms. By no coincidence, it wasn’t that long ago race riots were nonexistent on campus, as well.

      The thing is, these Offices of Diversity wield scary power on campus, as faculty are forced to go to re-education meetings to have large volumes of ideological dogma crammed down their throats. Refusing to go participate in the brainwashing can lead to repercussions, as the Duke Divinity crisis highlighted in detail. Faculty are terrified of speaking out, as we know the consequences are dire.

      So let’s read what this self-admitted Social Justice Warrior has to say, as it very much highlights what’s going on in higher education today:

Recent events in Charlottesville, Va., and Shelbyville, Tenn., show us the modern face of American white supremacy. Rather than marching under sheets or lurking in the backwoods, today’s white supremacists stand proud in their tan khakis and white polos with tiki torches in hand.

     Of the thousands of the participants in Charlottesville, only a few dozen at most were arguably “white supremacists,” with the largest group there being Antifa terrorists. Our commissar above doesn’t care about such data, and instead simply repeats the narrative.

…we can also look to colleges and universities as sites that help both disseminate and normalize racist hate speech.

     Wait…what? How does this commissar not know that free speech is now discouraged on many campuses today, with enough incidents that it can be shown there’s a statistically significant negative correlation between free speech and tuition?

      Again, the commissar does not care about facts and reason, only pushing the narrative.

Alt-right/white supremacist speakers and organizations are choosing to use and abuse colleges and universities as locations at which to speak and recruit. Speakers like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter…

     More pushing of the narrative. I assure the gentle reader, re-education seminars are much like this. Lies, and lies, and lies, are crammed down faculty throats. I would like to point out that Milo is a homosexual with a black boyfriend…and yet the narrative here is Milo is a “white supremacist.” I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’m pretty sure white supremacists are against homosexuality, and very confident they’re against people of different races having sex with each other. But the narrative must be pushed no matter how ridiculous it is.

      The author then slathers that label on Coulter and Spencer, but this is silly stuff.

     Ann Coulter was one of the very few to identify Donald Trump as not only legitimate, but as the winner of the presidential election long before he was even nominated as a candidate. She did so confidently and repeatedly, never backing down…I’m completely unaware of any “white supremacist” views she’s uttered, but with such a demonstrated track record of political insight, it’s clear what she has to say should be heeded.

     (I’ve never heard Richard Spencer speak, and so cannot comment on this other charge by the commissar, though I have little optimism it is accurate.)

      It’s so…infuriating that the commissars engage in this baseless name-calling. Why do the commissars get to define what “white supremacist” means, and why is their definition so vague as to include people like Milo who are the very opposite of any definition of white supremacist a sane person would use?

Why are colleges and universities prime and targeted sites for white supremacist speakers and their allies?

      It’s so tiresome listening to this idiocy. Speakers come to campus because they are invited. There’s no “targeting here,” certainly not by white supremacist speakers, assuming any exist who legitimately can even be called that.

Rather than address systemic and structural oppression and discrimination, faculty are being asked to take “neutral” stances and just teach our disciplines…Yet for many scholars, this is our work.

     Uh, no? This is one of the many things that makes ideologues so tiresome: belief that ideology is everything. A few years ago, our leaders in higher ed could only grunt how “leadership” was the purpose of higher ed, but on campuses where commissars have taken over, higher education is now about ideology.

       Honest, higher education is supposed to be about education, either of people or humanity. To assert higher education is all about looking for oppression, looking for ways to be offended, is even more inaccurate than thinking higher education is about leadership.

. I have been trained specifically to see and call out institutional racism through an intersectional lens.

      I bet not one reader in 10,000 knows what the author is talking about here. You’re missing nothing, I promise you, it’s just irrelevant navel-gazing, the training mentioned can be mastered and emulated quickly: just call anything you don’t like “RACIST.” Simply practice shouting that word until you can reliably spew spittle with every utterance, and you too can become a commissar.

It is on college and university campuses, and within our classrooms and through our programming, where resistance to this encroaching normalized white supremacist ideology must be challenged. 

     Wait…what? Again. “Normalized white supremacist ideology”? Imagine listening to this stuff for hours on end, to get some idea of what a re-education seminar for faculty is like. We’ve established the SJWs honestly believe everything is RACIST now…there’s no point in trying to please them by trying to remove whatever they consider racist, as this wouldn’t leave a square foot of ground to stand on.

      I’ve only touched on the highlights of the rant, above. As is so often the case, scholars roast this idiocy in the comments section. They do so anonymously, of course, since if any scholar openly challenged the above narrative, well, it’s off to the re-education seminar again.

      One comment points out the ultimate issue here:

I've read this article and the links provided, yet nowhere here or in those links is "white supremacy" clearly defined. As far as I can tell, what this author and those she links to call "white supremacy" is in reality simple white culture.

      With no definition, “white supremacy” does indeed mean whatever the SJW wants it to mean, and any look at their words and behavior make it clear: the SJW hates white people, hates white culture, and anything associated with either is “white supremacy.”

      It’s good that they’ve revealed their ultimate goal of killing everything white. But now that we know what they want, will anything be done about it?

Friday, February 16, 2018

Vice Provost Needed...Whites Need Not Apply

by Professor Doom

     Earlier I covered a position for a Kentucky physicist where the job posting made it perfectly clear that no white person could get the job, on account of being white.

      Admin made it perfectly clear that the posting was a mistake. Honest, they would consider any candidate, regardless of skin color, so they say (wink, wink). Now, I've mentioned before that these sorts of racist policies have been around in higher education for decades, and are second only to sexist policies.

      But, sure, if you want to believe I'm wrong, and admin somehow accidentally typed up and posted such a want ad, well, you can believe what you want to believe. 

     Thing is, I knew this type of ad would get posted again; these people live in such a bubble they don't have a clue what they do is wrong. Racist/sexist hiring policies have been so standardized that they really are starting to forget that it's supposed to be done with a wink and a nod...and not in writing.

     These policies are not restricted to the US, as even Canada, apparently, also believes the ethnicity of the applicant is important for scholarly positions. Consider this from a want ad for a vice provost (a position that could pay a few hundred thousand a year):

In keeping with the principles of employment equity and with an aim to address underrepresentation at Dalhousie, only applications from candidates who self-identify as racially visible and/or as Aboriginal peoples will be considered at this time.  

      Now, I don't know what, exactly, "racially visible" means but it's reasonable to suspect this is another (wink, wink) situation put into writing. Isn't it fascinating that "principles of employment equity" are being used to justify this inequitable hiring? 

     I grant that there can be some positions where skin color/gender/ethnicity might be relevant (for example, I have no problem with Hooters only hiring female waitresses that can wear the uniform), but nothing in the extensive job description makes skin color relevant. Besides, this position is so far up in the hierarchy that she would never actually deal with a student (this position, if I worked at this university, would be my boss' boss' boss' boss' boss...perhaps only 3 more layers of bureaucracy until the Poo Bah is reached!)'s nuts.

     Yes, I used the pronoun "she" in the previous paragraph, even though it's clear the job description doesn't specify female.

Nominations and/or applications should be submitted, in confidence, to Jane Griffith or Dania Zargaran...

     Perhaps it's just a paranoid delusion on my part, so I won't go there but...we really, really, need to start asking hard questions about what's going on in our institutions of higher education, because it's very clear that they're being taken over by racists.

      (I know I'm posting a bit early here, but I wanted to get this up before they take down that racist job advertisement.)

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Math Meritocracy Is “Tool of Whiteness”?

By Professor Doom

     Once again we have a professor saying something ridiculous and getting press coverage, but once again the real detail is being missed:

     Now, I’m citing Fox News above, a widely reviled news source. As per Wikileaks, it is one of the very few large audience news outlets that shouldn’t be viewed as completely fraudulent. I concede they’re not very good but they do look good on the curve, at least. They manage to screw up the news here right away:

“A math professor at Brooklyn College wrote…”

     A math professor? Oh really? The professor being referenced here is Laurie Rubel. Let’s take a look at what she’s teaching:

Before coming to teach in Brooklyn College's mathematics education program…

      She’s a teacher of math education. Her Ph.D. is also in Math Education. She publishes in Math Education. It really, really, drives me nuts that we have these people, these Educationists, posing as scholars in different fields. I’ve written extensively of the fraud, and it simply drives me nuts that time and again these people continue to represent themselves as something they are, most definitely, not. It’s infuriating.

     Ok, just because she’s been misrepresented here, it may not be her fault (it’s Fox News, after all), and even though her Ph.D. isn’t in mathematics, I’m still quite willing to hear what she has to say about mathematics. Of course, she’s not talking about mathematics, she’s talking about identity politics.

Rubel reportedly recommended that math teachers use more social justice issues during lessons. Rubel, however, warned that teaching “social justice” can also be a tool of whiteness if teachers are ignorant to the experiences of their minority students...

     I should point out that this professor has won some pretty hefty awards for believing in these things. I tend to disagree with such beliefs, of course, and I want to point out a big difference between disagreement here as opposed to disagreement in an academic field. It’s always puzzling when I hear Educationists make these kinds of statements to explain why “minorities” don’t do well in math class, as though Whiteness is the problem. China has plenty of people who are not white, and yet do fine in mathematics, after all.

     Anyway, the difference between academics and Education is I can actually formulate an argument explaining why the professor is wrong, whereas the Educationist simply just says stuff without justification. Let’s take an example:

Rubel wrote that math teachers who claim to be color-blind are not doing the minority students any favors.

      Please understand the teacher here is really addressing fairly basic mathematics, not advanced, esoteric topics she neither teaches nor researches in.

      I’m pretty color blind about “2 + 2 = 4” and other basic mathematical ideas because none of the mathematics makes an assumption about the color of the skin of the person making the calculation. The burden is on her to show me in the definitions where such assumptions exist, because I know no skin-color-related definitions are in mathematics.

      As far as “doing the minority students any favors” goes, I maintain that mathematics is not under any obligation to do any students, minority or otherwise, any favors under any circumstances. I again put the burden on her to show where mathematics makes any such claim.

     Now, I grant a Fox News article isn’t going to show her full arguments, just her (odd) conclusions but as luck would have it, her whole research paper is online.

     This research is published in the Journal of Urban Mathematics. I’m still scratching my head over the title of this journal; I know I don’t know all mathematics, but can’t hazard a guess what “urban” mathematics could be. To the best of my understanding, mathematics is the same whether you’re in a rural or urban or cosmopolitan setting…even in outer space, mathematics doesn’t change.

      One of my many issues with Education as a field is how they’ve isolated themselves from academia. Their students don’t take math courses taught by mathematicians, instead Education students take Math for Education courses, taught by Education professors. Similarly, they take Art for Education majors, Chemistry for Education majors, and so on. It’s bizarre that what are general academic topics for the rest of humanity are “specialized” for Educationists. Perhaps this weird education is why these people never consider China in their thinking, since they’re unaware it even exists?

      Now, journals absolutely tend to be specialized, but I can’t help but suspect this isn’t so much a research journal as an Identity Politics journal, where any article that simply supports the narrative (such as the famous Penises Cause Global Warming research) gets publication.

     With her paper freely available, I can see with my own eyes what her arguments are regarding her claims. It’s a 40 page paper, so it’s good that it starts with a summary:

In this article, the author synthesizes four equity-directed instructional practices: standards-based mathematics instruction, complex instruction, culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), and teaching mathematics for social justice (TMfSJ).

      Oh no, “teaching mathematics for social justice”? If there was even remote doubt that we’re dealing with a Social Justice Warrior here, it’s gone in the first sentence.

I foreground “race” in this literature review because of the significance of whiteness in the United States in reproducing subordination and widening society’s opportunity gaps in and through mathematics education…

     While the professor does cite her sources for the above, I’m still puzzled at why the research always forgets about Asians; many Asian groups have come to this country and done quite well. Again, this mountain of empirical evidence destroys the “it’s white people’s fault” narrative, and so is simply ignored. (But if anyone knows an argument or research explaining it, feel free to comment below.)

More generally, whiteness tacitly positions White people, their experiences, and their behaviors as superior…

     There are many statements like the above, and while it is cited, it’s not at all clear what any of this has to do with mathematics, or student success. In any event, there is extensive discussion and review of literature before getting to the research, which is statistics based. I note her sample size is 12 (or “N = 12,” as they say in statistics).

      Hey, anyone else remember that “horrible” Wakefield study relating vaccines and autism? It was considered complete garbage because of the small sample size. Guess what it was? That’s right, 12. Such a small sample doesn’t actually destroy a study, it just means it should be viewed as preliminary. But I digress.

     In any event, the vast results of the statistics here are based on qualitative interpretations of what’s going on in the classroom. There are, of course, no controls, either.  As such, there’s no way to put any stock in any of the results. You can pretty much get any result you want from this kind of study, which is little more than a collection of case studies; I’m more than a little puzzled at the long preamble at the beginning of this research. I honestly thought something was going to be shown here, but…no dice.

Whiteness as blinding. Mary and Molly avoided addressing issues of power and social justice in the content of their mathematics lessons, even though…

     Even in the case studies, there’s a theme here that is unpleasant. Instead of commending teachers for sticking to mathematics in their mathematics classes, there’s chastisement for not spending time on social justice. What’s up with that?

      Getting back to the point: we as a nation are pouring huge sums of money into this “research,” and calling it “mathematical research.” We really need to stop doing that, and seeing as the main source of that money is the student loan scam, shutting that down would be a fine place to start.




Monday, February 12, 2018

Lesbian Provost Fired For Corruption

By Professor Doom

     In earlier essays I mentioned how once a Social Justice Warrior gets control of hiring, it’s a lockdown: all further hires are SJWs, or Progressives, or Leftists, or whatever you want to call them.

    Now, as evidence for my claim I could simply point to the strong Leftist leanings of the admin/faculty/staff on our campuses: seeing as about half the country (as per the last election) doesn’t subscribe to this ideology, the best explanation for 90% or more of our campus professionals being adherents is a chokehold on hiring.

      But a specific example is really worthwhile.

Rumors have been going around ever since her appointment to the Provost office of her playing favorites when it came to hiring or promotion of employees under her department. A complete investigation needs to be done and she and her wife need to be placed on leave without pay until such time as it is complete.

     The article I’m quoting from is a news article about a Provost caught in a corruption scandal, and as per the reference to “she and her wife” above, we’re talking about a married lesbian couple. The news piece does the best it can to tiptoe what a mess she was caught in, and I assure the gentle reader what was going on here was far more than what’s presented as news.

Texas A&M’s outgoing Provost and Executive Vice President Karan Watson has been removed from her position after an internal audit found significant conflict of interest issues tied to business dealings her spouse had with the university,

     Once again I see we have a title well past twice as long as the holder’s name, and I remind the gentle reader of my easy guideline for restoring sanity to our campuses: simply eliminate all positions whose titles are more than twice as long as the holder’s name.

      Once you get high up in the admin, you start to have control over the vast loot from the student loan scam. Now, there are rules about spending this loot, and one of those rules is “Thou Shalt Not Do Business With Family.” I’ve seen plenty of institutions violate this rule, which naturally includes one’s spouse. Thing is, as this was a lesbian marriage, the safeguards against violating the rules in this manner weren’t really in place, which is why it took years before the conflict of interest was unearthed.

Over the last seven years since Karan Watson took over as provost, Nancy Watson — owner of a conflict resolution company in Bryan-College Station — was paid $438,733 by the university for training services…. 

     At least, that’s one explanation for why it took years, although it seems whenever I cover a scandal, it’s something that had been going on for quite some time. That said, 7 years is a long time to get away with this, even as I acknowledge by the standards of our Poo Bahs, looting not even half a million bucks is hardly noticeable.

     A “conflict resolution company”? How is it that this was not obvious fraud on the face of it. I’m sure this campus has many Psychology professionals in their Psychology department, could they have not helped? This is a campus, not the Middle East, how could you possibly justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on conflict resolution training?

…a whistleblower’s complaint made in May, marking the third grievance accusing the Watsons of similar possible ethics violations connected to Nancy Watson’s business…

     Another thing that’s striking about scandals, despite it seeming to occur every time, is how everyone knew about it. This was the third complaint regarding an obvious conflict of interest. When I was at a fake community college, we all knew of the frauds going on, though only a handful of us complained...not that anything was ever done, of course.

      Much like the horrific sex scandal at Penn State, the clear academic fraud at UNC, and, well, every other time I examine a scandal, it’s very clear that people knew something quite wrong was going on. It’s well documented that people made formal complaints regarding the obviously foul activity…and nothing happens. Only after repeated complaints about obvious issues does anything finally get done, and it takes years.

     I grant that our higher education system is very slow to change, slow to respond, and to some extent it’s designed to be that way and I’m fine with it. But far too often are we finding frauds or “whatnot” going on for nearly a decade before something is finally done about it.

For those who are wondering why it took so long (after 2 other complaints and many years) to come to this point, I can tell you that Watson was the consummate bully. You did not cross her. There are bullies everywhere but what do you do when the #2 person at the university is a bully. Just put up with it. Watson didn't have to ask folks to use her spouse’s services - they were afraid not to.

      I’m quoting from the comments section here, because these people are often quite nasty. I certainly have known fear when dealing with admin, as they wield too much undeserved power, which they commonly use to pour money on themselves and their cronies, leading to more power.

Not just a bully. A bullet-proof bully. Nobody dared expose her for fear of being called an intolerant homophobe or worse. She knew what she was doing and did not care if it was a clear conflict. She dared anyone to stop her. Only when she had decided to retire did anyone say something. Now, she feigns surprise and concern for her reputation. Give us a break. This scandal must be fully aired and exposed.

     Another comment worth consideration. Part of the SJW takeover of our campuses is that whenever anyone complained about the actions of an SJW admin, that person was labeled RACIST and ostracized. In this case, the label was doubtless more along the lines of HOMOPHOBE…it’s a tough, tough, battle to fight, and one of many reasons why we need to escort identity politics off campus (and over a cliff, truth be told).

      Even in light of this scandal, the provost is playing the gay card (how’d that work for Spacey?), and perhaps she’s right. Bottom line though, every aspect of this story rings true to me, from the repeated complaints, the clear conflicts of interest, the bullying, and everything else. It’s all stuff along the lines of what I’ve seen with my own eyes, elsewhere.

      Would be worth looking at several departments where faculty spouses report to department heads.

     The provost maintains she and her wife did nothing wrong, and I’m certain from her point of view, it’s true. It might even be true, legally. And, absolutely, I’m sure there are husband/wife conflicts of interest to be found in quantity on our campuses…but the point I wanted to make here is that it’s not tough to find evidence of my claims regarding how these people operate.

      A word to the wise, is all.