Monday, December 30, 2019

Detransitioned Students Form Group To Help Trans-people De-Transition

By Professor Doom

      It’s hard to come up with a decent title for today’s post. A while back I wrote how daughters coming home with mustaches and breasts removed is a thing now. When I first heard of this, I greeted the news with skepticism because it was just so wacky…but I confirmed things as best I could with followup, and it sure seems legit.

      To further reinforce that sending your daughter to college today presents a real risk of getting back a “son,” I want to talk a bit about a student group on campus:

Meet the liberal young women helping their peers ‘detransition’ from transgender identity

     The title is a bit unclear, and the obfuscation is rather important here. The “liberal young women” aren’t merely young women with liberal views, they’re all “female to male” transsexuals who decided, mid-change, that they were making a huge mistake and stopped what they were doing.

       I concede it’s a big world, and that it’s possible there really are men born in women’s bodies, but the mere existence of this group indicates we as a society (and more specifically our higher education system) have a large problem: “men born as women” are not rarities, there are so many of them that not only can there be student sub-groups for that, but a campus can have enough “women who thought, for a time, they were men born as women” to form their own sub-sub-group.

      We should ask some questions about how that happened, and this article provides some answers.

      Before getting to those answers, the women here still hold their liberal views and affirm as much. I’ll just put something out there: could it be susceptibility to today’s “liberalism” be somehow related to susceptibility into being convinced of being the wrong gender? Even asking that question in some quarters would draw intense hatred, but I suspect the existence of a link there. 

       The phenomenon on our campuses (and to some extent in our public schools as well) is called rapid onset gender dysphoria, ROGD. Basically, one day the girl wakes up and decides she’s supposed to be a boy, or vice versa. It supposedly just suddenly happens, completely unrelated to all the indoctrination fed to the child (supposedly), and we’re not just talking 2 year olds, here, but young women to went to prom and seemed perfectly happy with their gender identity, but then come back from a semester of college deciding they’re supposed to be males. 

her three best friends in high school all identified as transgender and then desisted. This affirms researcher Littman’s conclusion that “a process of ‘social and peer contagion’ may play a role.”

      What, exactly, is happening in our public schools nowadays? You know, we could run a simple study comparing transsexuals in public schools to those in private schools, particularly those which don’t preach this ideology, and get some answers, I bet. I wonder why no such study has been done?

      The phenomenon exists and is real, but is against the ideology dominating our campuses, and so knowledge of it must be squelched:

Brown University’s Lisa Littman, assistant professor of behavioral and social sciences, published a study on the phenomenon and coined the ROGD moniker last year. The university removed a statement promoting the study following claims that it was anti-transgender, and later mischaracterized the nature of corrections made to the study.

       Let’s get to the more relevant things the article has to say:

The Pique Resilience Project, created by four women in their early 20s, aims to bring the conversation of detransitioning to the forefront. They describe themselves as “four detransitioned and desisted women with the goal of sharing our stories and providing information on detransition, as well as support for those who may be questioning their gender or identity.”

      There’s very little support for groups and people providing information on how to detransition, and the lack of such support is for the same reason the question I posed above is seldom uttered: the response is hatred:

They also object to being described as “trans exclusionary radical feminists,” a slur often used by trans activists against women who question trans ideology.

       The big question still remains: how can we have so many people walking back from this path? One of the main reasons groups like this exist now is because of just how easy it is to get talked into, and receive fast treatment for, “transitioning,” as one of the members explains:

It only took a 30-minute meeting with an LGBTQ+ social worker for her to be granted testosterone. “It’s actually pretty ridiculous, the answers that I gave, and she like accepted those answers without questioning them,”

      The student above admits to a strong history of mental issues…and yet all it took was a single meeting to get her to start transitioning. Just how many other vulnerable people are being taken advantage of in this way? If she had told the “social worker” that she belonged on the moon, would they instantly starting building a rocket to send her back?

explained that she began testosterone during her teenage years because she had her parents’ blessing. She said that if she were made to wait until 18 to begin testosterone, she likely wouldn’t have begun it at all. “I really did not have any doubts until the second I started transitioning.”

      All the members tell a bit of their own stories, and I can’t help but see how the parents are a factor in all this:

...feels “fortunate that her mother didn’t allow her to undergo medicalization.”

      By “medicalization” it is mean having breasts removed and other surgical methods to make the female appear more male. I can’t help but be grateful that the parents stopped the more painfully permanent part of “transitioning” but I still worry that access to those hormones might be a bit too easy.

gender therapists all urged gender affirmation and treatment at Chiara’s age of just 16.

     Being a cancer patient, and watching my doctors get wealthier and I get weaker with every failed “treatment,” I have concerns that the consistent failure and huge profits for failure are somehow related. 

        In a similar vein, the “therapists” here have a far too vested interest in having transsexual clients. Changing your putative gender isn’t a matter of a few pills and surgeries, it’s a lifetime of treatments and low overhead-high profit meetings with therapists. Again, I ask an unpopular question: could it be these “therapists” are doing this harm because it’s just so profitable?

       In any event, the mere fact that a group of de-transitioned students can exist is more evidence that daughters coming home with their breasts removed really is a thing now.

Friday, December 27, 2019

Trump Hires Dean of Fraud College To Investigate College Fraud

By Professor Doom

     It’s a strange world we live in today. Most media put so much spin on their “news” that it’s almost impossible to figure out what’s happening just by reading about it.

      Everything Trump does is spun into the most negative thing possible, meaning all Trump news is taken with a grain of salt. I’ve heard it said that Trump could commit murder in public and his support wouldn’t change, but that’s only partially accurate: if it was reported, support wouldn’t change, because the credibility of the news nowadays is zero…nobody would believe the murder. If he actually did it, I suspect it would hurt him, however.

      When the Soviet Union fell, part of what happened is people simply refused to listen to the lies of the State news agencies. We as a people are just now starting to realize our news agencies are also State controlled, hence the “Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme. 

       Anyway, Trump recently appointed a former DeVry dean to the student aid enforcement unit, an anti-fraud division created during the Obama era. DeVry is a funny place to get anti-fraud people from since it recently settled a $100 million  lawsuit with our government regarding misuse of student funds.

      DeVry is a for-profit school, and these guys all have a bad reputation for taking advantage of students, burying them in student loan debt in return for worthless degrees. This reputation, while deserved, is a little unfair: for-profit schools get all the scrutiny, even though they take about 5% of student loan money. The non-profit (and especially state) schools are far more responsible for the student loan mess we have now…but seem to be as immune from scrutiny as a Democratic candidate.

Trump admin reportedly hires a former for-profit college dean for fraud enforcement

      Certainly there’s room for concern here, but things get exaggerated quickly:

“His association with DeVry and the fact that he’s being made the head of investigations at the Department of Education, does send a signal to students, to taxpayers and to the markets that the Department is not serious about investigating deceptive practices and other abuses by for-profit colleges,” said David Halperin, a lawyer and for-profit college critic.

      A message to the students? Oh really. Over 95% of students don’t even know about the “impeachment” idiocy, so it’s a safe bet the appointment here isn’t going to register for students, and I doubt the taxpayers or markets really care all that much, either.

Makes sense in a way. Who better to spot a criminal than a criminal?

--from the comments section.

      Now, just because DeVry lost a lawsuit doesn’t mean it’s totally corrupt, and it certainly doesn’t mean the new guy is corrupt. Regarding the latter, it’s possible he knows exactly how to “get” schools for misusing funds, so perhaps he does qualify as an expert. It wouldn’t remotely be the first time the government used an expert fraudster to help it catch other fraudsters, after all, although I point out he wasn’t named or implicated in any of the suits against DeVry.

       The above quote is only minor spin, from a somewhat neutral site. When I go to a raging Leftist site like The Atlantic, things get a bit more frothy:

The Trump administration has made a systematic effort to undo Obama-era initiatives, particularly those that sought to ramp up regulation of private institutions. It’s long been expected that Trump would target policies pertaining to for-profit colleges—in fact, several for-profit institutions, including DeVry, saw a noticeable bump in their stock values the day after the election. A few months ago, the Education Department moved to delay implementation of the borrower-defense rule—a development that prompted attorneys general for well over a dozen states to sue Secretary Betsy DeVos.

“This can definitely be seen as further evidence of the Trump administration, and DeVos in particular, [practicing] favoritism toward for-profit entities…

      Wow, that’s quite a bit to bring up just from hiring one guy from one place. While true, it seems like they could put some effort into saying why the guy was a bad hire, instead of linking to a bunch of things of no relevance to the story. I’m just not convinced a human being should be damned forever based on the actions of his superiors.    

     The wailing and gnashing of teeth is considerable:

“The Trump administration is turning the Education Department from a defender of students and taxpayers to an accomplice in the fraudulent and predatory practices of for-profit schools,” argued California Representative Mark Takano in a statement. “This hire is just the latest indication that President Trump and Secretary DeVos are putting the profit margins of for-profit companies over the interests of students.”

     Wait. Since when was the Education Department a “defender of students and taxpayers”? Seriously, education in every way has become worse since its creation, and the entire student loan scam was allowed to corrupt higher education under its watch. Yes, it’s possible it will somehow become worse under Trump, but with a 100% failure rate so far, I’m not too worried about that.

      The Atlantic goes quotes everyone who supports the narrative here:

“I can’t even say this is ‘signaling’ to for-profits” that Trump is on their side, Cottom said. The administration is “being explicit in saying that an era of regulation is over; this is a new approach that welcomes privatization.”

     I really want to remind the reader, even if for-profits were the real problem, they were a problem before Trump. It’s curious how the article neglects to ever mention this detail.

        Only towards the end does The Atlantic mention that Trump isn’t exactly Literally Hitler for this:

It’s not unusual, though, for federal agencies to hire officials with experience in the industries they are assigned to regulate, either because they’re presumed to know where the problems are, or trusted to balance the needs of the industry against the desire to regulate. Nor is his time at DeVry Schmoke’s only relevant experience; DeAngelo pointed out that his most recent role was at a public, two-year institution.

      I wish the guy the best. Perhaps I have a vested interest in wanting his past associations to be forgiven; having worked at some extremely questionable State schools (and I again emphasize these are the schools doing the lion’s share of abusing the student loan system, not the for-profits), I certainly would hope for some redemption in that regard as well.



Monday, December 23, 2019

Mathematician Speaks Out Against Diversity

By Professor Doom

     The ideological takeover of our campuses has been devastating to our education. Departments like mathematics and science focusing on academics have been de-emphasized, while politically themed departments like Education and African Studies. This is simply a consequence of the political environment. Any person attempting to curtail the growth of, say, African Studies is labeled RACIST; there are only finite resources available, and so other departments pay the price.

      How did the takeover happen? It happened at the hiring. It used to be done with winks and nods, but bottom line you couldn’t get hired unless it was clear you were “with the program,” a full supporter of ideology. Those of us in the ever-marginalized departments have mostly been silent, fearing the label, but with so little left lose, some are finally speaking out:

Mathematician comes out against mandatory diversity statements, while others say they continue to be valuable -- with some caveats.

     Now that the takeover is nearly complete, hiring is no longer done with a wink and a nod, they’re starting to put in writing that only fellow ideologues are eligible for the position. Part of this is an applicant must swear fealty to a “diversity statement,” and also show they’ve done work supporting the cause.

     This is something of a problem for those of us in the academic fields. Mathematics, for example, has no theorems relating to skin color, and mathematicians tend to be far ore devoted to learning new things than supporting the cause of Social Justice.

       Because actual mathematicians (and scientists) are now basically “un-hirable” in this system, it has allowed the education degree to become something of a joker, and we have Math Education and Engineering Education people taking over the positions formerly held by mathematicians and engineers. But I digrees.

       So what’s the mathematician’s complaint here?

“Faculty at universities across the country are facing an echo of the loyalty oath, a mandatory ‘Diversity Statement’ for job applicants.”

The “professed purpose” of these statements is to identify candidates “who have the skills and experience to advance institutional diversity and equity goals,” Thompson wrote. But “in reality it’s a political test, and it’s a political test with teeth.”

Much like the reviled (although in retrospect, perhaps unjustifiably) anti-communist oaths of the 50’s, now faculty are being forced to swear loyalty to the latest ideology. An ideology not that much different than communism, but I digress.

     What was that about teeth?

Nearly all University of California campuses require that job applicants submit a “contributions to diversity” statement as a part of their application, and campuses evaluate such statements using rubrics, “a detailed scoring system.” She doesn’t name names, but says that “several UC programs have used these diversity statements to screen out candidates early in the search process.”

     Like I said, it’s becoming ever more out in the open. Mathematicians are no longer expected to, you know, study math, they’re expected to attend rallies, be parts of parades, to do the things which political parties like, but are of no importance to academics.

In private comments to Inside Higher Ed, some of her colleagues in math praised her position.

     Private comments, indeed. Because of those teeth, there’s a powerful culture of fear in higher education.

Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science at Portland State University whose course on conservative political thought was denied permanent status last year -- in part because it didn’t meet what he described as the university’s narrow diversity requirement for courses -- said he agreed with Thompson, as well.

      The ideology doesn’t stop at the hiring process, the coursework is likewise judged solely by how well it helps the party. Thus the great legitimacy to the claim that much of college is indoctrination, and we have mathematics courses on why Hillary is great, while courses giving an opposing point of view are shut down.

Some fields are more diverse than others. Math historically isn’t one of them. But some departments and institutions are working to change that. Lafayette College’s math department, for instance, has long worked to promote an inclusive culture based on the understanding that math is a gateway to many other fields in the sciences, technology and engineering.

Chawne Kimber, chair of math at the college, …

      You know, if there was less hypocrisy in our system, we’d ask questions why math department heads tend to be female…but I digress again.

The math department is currently looking for a statistician, and its directions for applicants say candidates "should address in their applications how their teaching, scholarship, and/or service will support Lafayette’s commitment to diversity and inclusion as articulated in the college’s diversity statement."

     The bias here is on multiple levels. Not only is there inherent bias in having the diversity statement, the gentle reader can be certain that “diverse” applicants will have an inherent advantage in getting this position (and “diverse” in no way means Asian, and to a considerable extent won’t mean straight males, either…).

       While universities across the country are forcing people into swearing these new loyalty oaths, the comments section is uniformly against it. We probably should ask questions why the universities are engaging in behavior that the people supporting them do not want (hey, that’s a strong indication of a communist system).

      One comment bears further discussion:

Replace diversity and inclusion with a requirement for applicants to demonstrate a personal, growing Christian faith…

      The above is exactly the point, as far as I’m concerned. If I were applying to an explicitly Christan/Jesuit/Catholic/Fundamentalist school, I would be completely fine with being asked about my religious beliefs, and with the school only hiring based on those beliefs. Those schools were built and paid for by believers, and I can respect they might only want to support believers…even as I’d hope they’d favor academics in their education.

       Progressivism (or “Leftism”) is basically a religion, and schools built and paid for by Progressives might have a point in mandating their faculty to share that ideology. Bottom line, however, much of our higher education system is supported by the taxpaying people of the United States, who very clearly do not all share this belief system, and, truth be told, appear to me to becoming virulently against it.

      Enough so that even the mathematicians are starting to tell the schools to knock it off already. I doubt they’ll listen, however.

      Naturally, for speaking out against "the narrative," the mathematician has been attacked. An online petition has been set up in her defense, but considering how these ideologues ignore multi-million dollar lawsuits, I doubt the petition will do much good.

       In other news, I hear Trump was impeached lately. Here's the mathematical relationship of the relevance of Trump's impeachment to other noteworhty "awards":

Greta's "Person of the Year" award <=  Trump's Impeachment <= Obama's "Nobel Peace Prize"

      Students of calculus should note the Squeeze Theorem, as well as the value of Obama's and Greta's awards meaning nothing, to get a more precise estimate of Trump's impeachment.
      In more other news, after sitting on the results for nearly 2 weeks, the Keystone Cops Cancer Center elected to let me know the last treatment failed. So, back to the drawing board; I don't know what they're try next, but I'm sure it'll be painful for me and be very profitable for them.


Friday, December 20, 2019

Professor Fired For Disputing Global Warming Wins $800,000 In Lawsuit

By Professor Doom

     The whole “global warming” nonsense (hint: cooling is more credible) really is remarkable. Time and again when I bring this up with my low-information friends, I’m told (among other talking points to be sure) how scientists by and large agree the world is burning up into a cinder unless we do something about it right now. The fact that it’s been 20 straight years of being told the ice caps will be gone in 10 years unless we do something doesn’t seem to shake their beliefs in the slightest.

       Anyway, the reason why scientists “agree” on global warming to any extent is because they are mostly employed by the government, at least indirectly in our higher education system. On many campuses, if you dispute the narrative, you’ll quickly find yourself off campus in short order, and the people kicking you off don’t see any problem in doing so even as they shout how they support freedom of expression.

      These incidents never make the mainstream news, but allow me to highlight one:

     Global warming is blamed for pretty much everything bad that happens, of course, the better to scare people into supporting it. The Great Barrier Reef, a massive coral ecosystem near Australia, certainly has its problems (like all coral systems, and I rather suspect polluting the ocean is the main factor, but I digress), but this one professor dared to dispute that global warming was the issue.

      (Incidentally, my favorite “it’s global warming’s fault!” accusation concerned the die-off of horseshoe crabs, whose populations have dropped off sharply recently. Although this 400 million year old species has endured much hotter and much colder climates than today, global warming is still blamed for hurting them. It’s nuts.)

     So, this professor disputes the latest blame being laid on the latest nonsense. Was he professional about it?

“There is perhaps no ecosystem on Earth better able to cope with rising temperatures than the Great Barrier Reef,” Ridd wrote in the publication. “Irrespective of one’s views about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in warming the climate, it is remarkable that the Great Barrier Reef has become the ecosystem, more than almost all others, that is used to illustrate and claim environmental disaster from the modest warming we have seen over the course of the last century.”

      Do note that he’s willing to concede there’s been some warming. He also criticizes how the research is being done:

“I have highlighted just a few examples of questionable science—the list is long,” Ridd continues, adding that in his view, current scientific practices and institutions are unreliable and in need of reform.

      There is a huge, and I mean gargantuan problem in “science” today, and I’m not just talking about pseudo-subjects like gender studies, or qualitative subjects like psychology. Even “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry have a reproducibility problem: the study can be peer reviewed and published, but can’t be reproduced when someone else tries it. Well over half of peer reviewed studies do not get the same results when someone else tries them.

       Seriously, at this point, when you hear the results of a scientific study, you may as well flip a coin to determine if you should believe it. Mathematically, you are better off flipping a coin, in fact.

        So, the professor isn’t exactly saying much here when he says what we’re doing in science is “unreliable”—flipping a coin is as unreliable as it gets, and produces more reliable results today than “science.” That’s demented.

       His university responded as most universities do when a professor disputes the narrative: they fired him. Yes, he had those job “protections” you supposedly have as faculty, but they’re worth very little when you try to work through the kangaroo campus court system. 

       The professor wisely takes his complaint to court instead of the kangaroo campus system (I remind the gentle reader I was part of this system: it’s a joke). How’d that work out?

In a judgment (pdf) issued on Sept. 6, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled to award Ridd “the sum of 125,000 AUD [$82,000] by way of pecuniary penalty” plus “1,094,214.47 AUD [$750,397.39] as compensation for loss” that the former James Cook University employee suffered at the hands of the educational institution.

       While I’m happy for the professor, the gentle reader should take little comfort  that other universities will start behaving—I’ve seen time and again that despite these kinds of judgments, university “leaders” won’t change their ways. They don’t pay the price, you see, the university does, and that usually just means the cost is passed on to the taxpayers to pay for their continued supply of misinformation.

       A quick overview of just how far off the rails the university was in firing the professor:

In its decision, the Federal Circuit Court listed a total of 18 “contraventions” of legal acts that the university had in April been found guilty of, including imposing a gag order on Ridd “to keep the disciplinary process confidential;” trying to prevent him from making jokes about his ordeal by directing him to refrain from “make[ing] any comment or engag[ing] in any conduct that directly or indirectly trivialises, satires or parodies the University taking disciplinary action against [him];” and, finally, firing him.

          To further reinforce the point about how the leaders won’t learn anything from this:

“The fact that JCU has not removed either of their press statements (despite my judgement) is almost tantamount to an attempt to ensure that Professor Ridd does not obtain employment in this field,” Judge Vasta noted.

The judge further suggested the university’s conduct bordered on “paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness” and Ridd must have felt he was being persecuted.

     The professor’s career in academia is ruined, he’ll be basically unemployable, so the massive judgement is quite fair. Meanwhile, the “leaders” of the university who have destroyed this man for daring to question the narrative? They’ll continue to reap massive pay and benefits, and I promise the gentle reader not a one of them will be fired for their clear and documented transgression, and all will continue to rise up through the ranks in the higher education system.

       Honest, there’s a real reason why our scientists agree to whatever the government wants them to say.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Students Protest Anti-White Racism…Finally

By Professor Doom

     The anti-white racism on many of our campuses has been going on for years. Students, understandably, have mostly just sat in the classrooms and put up with it, often diligently taking notes on just how horrible white people are.

      The effect of the endless preaching of racial hatred has been protests by those who feel “oppressed” by the very existence of white people. This was the intended effect of those doing the preaching, of course, these ideologues failed to comprehend a very reasonable consequence of those encouraged protests: the “oppressors” get the idea that, since protests are acceptable, they’re allowed to protest too.

      It’s taken years, but we’re finally starting to see pushback against racism by our woke campuses, and by our woke faculty:

University students burn Latina author's book for 'dissing white people' during lecture

     Now, I’m no fan of book burning, but this isn’t quite the same as what most people think of burning books. Usually when “book burning” is referenced, it refers to the most extreme form of censorship, often government sponsored, where knowledge which contradicts an official narrative is destroyed as thoroughly as possible. With today’s internet, burning books is an antiquated concept, since a campfire is completely insufficient to destroy “printed” knowledge of today.

      The burning was simply part of a protest. A particular person is being protested here:

New York Times contributor and associate professor at the University of Nebraska,

      The NYT used to be a respectable paper, but like so much of our mainstream/legacy media, they’re far too prone to bias. A professor being a contributor to the NYT is as much a black mark as the professor being a contributor to the KKK, and cause for concern indeed. So what seems to be the problem here?

spoke about her novel Make Your Home Among Strangers to first-year students at Georgia Southern University (GSU). The book, required reading for some of GSU's First-Year Experience classes, focuses on the story of a Cuban-American girl from Miami who is accepted into a prestigious university in New York, and the struggles she faces to fit in with the predominantly white environment.

     Yikes. There’s so much wrong in that single sentence that I feel the need to only hit the highlights.

     First, students are required to read her book. Now, normally there’s nothing wrong with this, particularly when the book is a textbook, filled with knowledge long-established as important for educated humans to know. In this case, it’s just a fiction novel—it might still be useful knowledge, but this is the professor’s own work, with no record of being particularly relevant for the educated. If the book had been around for 20 years and received much praise or at least a best-seller, perhaps a case could be made? There’s nothing like that here.

     Second, it’s for a non-academic course, the “First-Year Experience” class. This level of navel-gazing is becoming ever-more important to our universities, which feel students need to take a college course to appreciate how great it is they’re spending a fortune learning about their own university. 

     Third, the course is so precious that it’s mandatory for all students to take, whether they’re getting a degree in History of Georgia Southern University (where the course might well apply) or Physics. I guess it’s simply balance that the students are being forced to buy a non-academic book they shouldn’t have to read in a non-academic course they shouldn’t have to take.

       Fourth, the description of the book scares me more than a little. Isn’t Miami like, in America? Are whites so rare in Miami that now it’s a “struggle” for someone raised there to move to “another country” like New York? 

     (Incidentally, I was born and raised in southern Florida, having to “go north” if I wanted to visit amusement parks like Bush Gardens or Disney. Having lived in New York and other states, I concede there are cultural differences, but “struggle” is a bit much, I assure the gentle reader.)

      But enough about that.

     “I noticed that you made a lot of generalizations about the majority of white people being privileged,” one student said…

     At long last, students are starting to identify the hypocrisy of the ideologues running our campuses. It’s very wrong to make generalizations about other races, students learn, and, finally, they’re starting to realize it’s equally wrong to make generalizations about “white people.”

     The professor’s speech was filled with anti-white racism, and the student challenged her on it, with the ultimate punchline of why doesn’t “diversity” include white people

      Instead of acknowledging the hypocrisy and trying to explain why white people can’t be included in diversity, the professor basically snarled back at the student:

I talked about white privilege because it’s a real thing that you are actually benefiting from right now in even asking this question,” Crucet said in response, according to the paper. “What’s so heartbreaking for me and what is so difficult in this moment right now is to literally have read a talk about this exact moment happening and it’s happening again...”

     To summarize the above the professor accused the student of having white privilege just by asking the question, and the professor was puzzled why her ideology keeps getting called out on its hypocrisy.

     Things didn’t go well after that, with students burning her book in protest. One student tweet sums things up:

you came to our university as an author of a book all freshmen were required to read, a book you barely talked about. instead, you wasted everyone’s time by attempting to create a racial divide by bullying white people for an hour. that IS racist. you should’ve expected this.

— MT (@morganetracy1) October 10, 2019

     While the above is mostly correct, I feel the need to clarify that last bit about “should’ve expected this.” The student is surprised here at the professor’s inability to conceive of being called out for her inappropriate behavior but I’m not, for two reasons. 

     First, students have been gobbling up anti-white racist rhetoric for well over a decade now, with nobody questioning it.  It’s a recent phenomenon that students are seeing the hypocrisy of progressive beliefs.

       Second, although this pushback only started recently, it didn’t start five minutes ago. The professor herself acknowledges it’s happening, and despite knowing this, she falls back on the age-old cry of RACISM rather than address this fundamental flaw in her point of view.

     Trouble is, that weapon, the cry of RACISM, has long since been blunted from over-use; the targets just don't care any more. It’s not working, so the only questions which remain are how long until they figure it out, and what weapon(s) will they resort to next. They won’t simply admit the ideology is flawed, admit they are wrong…instead it will be more doubling down.

      I suspect they’ll go to censorship next, but, as the book-burning shows, students have figured out how to deal with that weapon as well.

      Now, university admin have said the student’s behavior (such as protesting at her hotel) was wrong, and the students doing so have been called RACISTS, of course…but this is just further hypocrisy, as the students literally did nothing which speakers opposing this ideology have been exposed to, as encouraged by promoters of this ideology.