|September 5th, 2014||#201|
College is a great place to fall out a window or off a ledge. Even an actual college such as MIT:
|September 8th, 2014||#202|
Steven Pinker on Harvard Admissions: Ignoring the Elephant in the Room
via The Occidental Observer
Steven Pinker (“The Trouble with Harvard“) argues that students should be selected on the basis of standardized testing. He is tone deaf on Jewish overrepresentation and on the underrepresentation of non-Jewish Whites.
Like many observers of American universities, I used to believe the following story. Once upon a time Harvard was a finishing school for the plutocracy, where preppies and Kennedy scions earned gentleman’s Cs while playing football, singing in choral groups, and male-bonding at final clubs, while the blackballed Jews at CCNY founded left-wing magazines and slogged away in labs that prepared them for their Nobel prizes in science. Then came Sputnik, the ’60s, and the decline of genteel racism and anti-Semitism, and Harvard had to retool itself as a meritocracy, whose best-and-brightest gifts to America would include recombinant DNA, Wall Street quants, The Simpsons, Facebook, and the masthead of The New Republic.
This story has a grain of truth in it: Hoxby has documented that the academic standards for admission to elite universities have risen over the decades. But entrenched cultures die hard, and the ghost of Oliver Barrett IV still haunts every segment of the Harvard pipeline.
Sounds like Pinker is implying that WASPs like Oliver Barrett IV still run the show at Harvard, keeping out the Jews and anyone else who can’t trace their ancestry to the Mayflower.
The reality, of course, is there is more than a grain of truth to the idea that admission to Ivy League universities is anything but meritocratic. In fact, Jews are vastly overrepresented on the basis of any available metric, while Whites and Asians are underrepresented, as Ron Unz has shown. Pinker is aware of Unz, but interprets Unz’s results as showing only that the deck is stacked against Asians, with the implication that folks like Oliver Barrett IV are the beneficiaries of unearned privilege:
Jerome Karabel has unearthed a damning paper trail showing that in the first half of the twentieth century, holistic admissions were explicitly engineered to cap the number of Jewish students. Ron Unz, in an exposé even more scathing than Deresiewicz’s, has assembled impressive circumstantial evidence that the same thing is happening today with Asians.
However, Pinker ignores another damning paper trail. As I noted elsewhere,
Unz doesn’t even have a case that Asians are being discriminated against at Harvard or the other Ivies unless Jews are separated from non-Jewish Whites—and indeed, that is how he develops his argument in the original paper. “Once we begin separating out the Jewish portion of Ivy League enrollment, our picture of the overall demographics of the student bodies is completely transformed.”
[Unz:] Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population [18%] than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.
Indeed, Unz’s analysis implied that, compared to Jews, non-Jewish Whites are represented at Harvard at 1/15th of the level they would be in a meritocratic system. On the other hand, compared to Jews, Asians are underrepresented at 1/7 of the level they would achieve in a meritocratic system. It is indeed obvious that Asians are being actively discriminated against. But only compared to Jews, and certainly not when compared to non-Jewish Whites. Indeed, non-Jewish Whites are discriminated against more than twice as much as Asians when compared to Jews. I don’t see any other possible explanation besides ethnic networking for this “wildly disproportionate” overrepresentation of Jews compared to non-Jewish Whites.
This suggests that, if Asians sue Harvard for underrepresentation, they could only make their case if they claim underrepresentation compared to Jews, not Whites as a whole. I rather doubt they will do that. (“Why has Ron Unz stopped talking about discrimination against non-Jewish Whites?“)
Jewish overrepresentation is not because of superior performance on standardized tests but rather the result of the completely opaque process of holistic scoring. As Pinker notes, “At the admissions end, it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) of its students on the basis of academic merit.”
We must suppose that subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) forms of ethnic networking are involved. One wonders if it’s the same for professors like Pinker.
Corresponding with the lessened importance of standardized testing for admission, there is an increasingly lax academic milieu at Harvard — what Pinker terms “the anti-intellectualism of Ivy League undergraduate education.” For example, Pinker notes that students often fail to attend lecture and are consumed by extracurricular activities like music or writing articles for the student newspaper.
But despite all that, getting an Ivy League education is still a ticket to success:
[Harvard students] get snatched up by the big consulting and investment firms, helping to explain that 20 percent boost in their expected earnings. Why, I wondered, do these cutthroat institutions hire rowers and baritones who know diddly-squat about business just because they have a transcript with the word “Veritas” on it? Wouldn’t they get more value by hiring the best finance major from Ohio State? I asked some people familiar with this world to explain what seemed to me like a massive market failure. They responded candidly.
First, an Ivy degree is treated as a certification of intelligence and self-discipline. Apparently adding a few Harvard students to a team raises its average intelligence and makes it more effective at solving problems. That, the employers feel, is more valuable than specific knowledge, which smart people can pick up quickly in any case.
This assumes that Harvard grads are smart but we already know that the vast majority weren’t selected on the basis of smarts and that they likely got through college doing precious little rigorous academic work. Why not just have prospective job applicants take the GRE, LSAT, or some other standardized test of intelligence? If what you really want is intelligence, it shouldn’t matter if the degree is from Ohio State or Harvard.
Second, a little education can go a long way. As one business-school professor put it, “I have observed many smart people who have little idea of how to logically think through a problem, who infer causation from a correlation, and who use anecdotes as evidence far beyond the predictability warranted. Most of the undergrads who go to the consulting firms did take a course in social science, and much of this basic logic can be obtained there.”
Perhaps it’s because they spent their undergrad careers playing music and cutting class. But how is this an argument for why elite organizations should want to hire Harvard grads? Students can have goofy ideas and a poor education no matter what school they go to.
More disconcertingly, I was told that Ivy League graduates are a prestige good: having a lot of them in your firm is like wearing a Rolex or driving a Bentley.
Now we’re on to something. It’s really about elites reproducing themselves by taking advantage of Harvard’s past reputation and funneling graduates into elite positions throughout the society — business, politics, media, and academia. Having a Harvard degree is like wearing a badge or knowing the secret handshake. You can get into the club even if you aren’t very smart and even if you goofed around during college. Sounds just like the old elite as represented by a generation of Jewish writers.
Our new elite revel in the conceit that they replaced the bad old WASP elite with a true meritocracy. (See, e.g., much of the mainstream commentary on Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court (here and here). Kagan is the poster child of the new elite whose main qualification was that she was associated with Ivy League universities and was very well connected, especially to Lawrence Summers, who, as President of Harvard, appointed her Dean of the Harvard Law School with precious little qualifications.)
Pinker must himself be considered a member of the new elite (having inherited the Steven Jay Gould Chair of Politically Correct Evolutionary Studies at Harvard). As a member of the new elite he can take advantage of his position as a faculty member at Harvard to criticize my work while boasting that he hadn’t read it (see previous link)— surely a bonus that comes with a prestigious position. In the same way that those Harvard grads get unearned privilege just by having been there, having all that academic capital because you are a professor at Harvard means you don’t have to engage in serious criticism of those whose work you dislike.
Pinker realizes that Harvard is run as an elite, anti-meritocratic club. He just doesn’t want to open his eyes to what that club that is.
|September 8th, 2014||#203|
[this article touches on college, but it's relevant here because it concerns more general questions than your considerations about college will play into]
[not saying everything in this is right, but it's more right than wrong - it goes contrary to much of what you hear. whatever you hear in the controlled media is likely to be wrong - ie, college is some great thing that pays off hugely - lie, grains are good for you, fat is the problem not carbs, diversity is good rather than bad, there are WMD in Iraq we need to worry about, and on and on...]
The Secrets of Personal Finance
By James Altucher
The Altucher Confidential
September 8, 2014
I managed to totally screw things up for myself at the ages of 20, 22, 24, 29, 33, 37, and 40 so I decided to write everything I know about so-called “personal finance”. The words personal finance are a total scam but I’ll save that for another time. Let’s just say, this is about how to build wealth and preserve your wealth.
The things you need to know.
The first answer is: nothing. You need to know absolutely nothing about personal finance. Buying a cheap beer versus buying an expensive beer will not help you get rich.
But, that seems cynical. So let me say congratulations first. You’re 20 years old! Yay!
I can’t even really remember 20 years old. I started my first business then. And failed at it. But that’s another story.
When I was 22 I was thrown out of graduate school and then fired from 3 jobs in a row at higher and higher salaries where I saved nothing.
When I was 24 I moved to NYC and began the first of about ten career changes. The first rule of personal finance is that it’s not personal and it’s not financial. It’s about your ability to make ten changes and not get too depressed over it.
During those career changes I made a lot of money. Then lost a lot. Then made a lot. Then lost a lot. Then made a lot more.
I did this so many times I made a study of what was working for me on the way up. And what wasn’t working on the way down.
So I’m not an expert on anything. I just know WHAT HAS WORKED FOR ME to create massive success. I’m admitting it right now. I’m not just a failure.
First off, don’t bother saving money. You get more money in the bank by making more money. That’s rule #1.
People might think this is flippant. What if they can’t make more money. Well, then, you’re going to run out of money. No personal finance rule will help.
Buying coffee on the street instead of in a Starbucks is the poor man’s way to get rich. In other words, you will never get rich by scratching out ten cents from your dollar.
People save 10 cents on a coffee and then….overpay $100,000 for a house and then do reconstruction on it.
Or they save 10 cents on a book and then…buy a college degree that they never use for $200,000.
Now your real education can begin:
A) Don’t save money. Make more. If you think this is not so easy then remember: whatever direction you are walking in, eventually you get there.
B) That said, don’t spend money on the BIGGEST expenses in life. House and college (and kids and marriage but, of course, there are exceptions there). Just saving on these two things alone is worth over a million dollars in your bank account.
C) But doesn’t renting flush money down the toilet? No, it doesn’t. Do the math. You can argue all you want but the math is very clear as long as you are not lying to yourself.
D) Haven’t studies shown that college graduates make more money 20 years later?
No, studies have not shown that. They show correlation but not causation and they don’t take into account multi-collinearity (it could be that the children of middle class families have higher paying jobs later and, oh by the way, these children also go to college).
E) Don’t invest in anything that you can’t directly control every aspect of. In other words…yourself.
In other words:
You can’t make or save money from a salary.And salaries have been going down versus inflation for 40 years. So don’t count on a salary. You’re 20, please take this advice alone if you take any advice at all.
Investing is a tax on the middle class. There are at least 5 levels of fees stripped out of your hard-earned cash before your money touches an investment.
F) If you want to make money you have to learn the following skills. None of these skills are taught in college.
I’m not saying college is awful or about money, etc. I’m just saying that the only skills needed to make money will never be learned in college:
- how to sell (both in a presentation and via copywriting)
- how to negotiate (which means win-win, not war)
- creativity (take out a pad, write down a list of ideas, every day)
- leadership (give more to others than you expect back for yourself)
- networking (a corollary of leadership)
- how to live by themes instead of goals (goals will break your heart)
- reinvention (which will happen repeatedly throughout a life)
i- dea sex (get good at coming up with ideas. Then combine them. Master the intersection)
- the 1% rule (every week try to get better 1% physically, emotionally, mentally)
- “the google rule” – always send people to the best resource, even if it’s a competitor. The benefit to you comes back tenfold
give constantly to the people in your network. The value of your network increase linearly if you get to know more people but EXPONENTIALLY if the people you know, get to know and help each other.
- how to fail so that a failure turns into a beginning
- simple tools to increase productivity
- how to master a field. You can’t learn this in school with each “field” being regimented into equal 50 minute periods. Mastery begins when formal education ends. Find the topic that sets your heart on fire. Then combust.
- stopping the noise: news, advice books, fees upon fees in almost every area of life. Create your own noise instead of falling in life with the others.
If you do all this you will gradually make more and more money and help more and more people. At least, I’ve seen it happen for me and for others.
I hope this doesn’t sound arrogant. I’ve messed up too much by not following the above advice.
Don’t plagiarize the lives of your parents, your peers, your teachers, your colleagues, your bosses.
Create your own life.
Be the criminal of their rules.
I wish I were you because if you follow the above, then you will most likely end up doing what you love and getting massively rich and helping many others.
I didn’t do that when I was 20. But now, at 46, I’m really grateful I have the chance every day to wake up and improve 1%.
|September 8th, 2014||#204|
nigger writing anti-white boilerplate is a master's candidate at northwestern, one of the top journalism schools. what's the point? no reality need apply. enjoy your food stamps if you're not in the cult and want to do anything in liberal arts arena.
|September 10th, 2014||#205|
Join Date: Jul 2013
This is the mindset of a college professor.
This guy proposes a plan to eliminate all suffering.
That he isn't laughed into seclusion is scary.
|November 19th, 2014||#206|
Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained
Kevin MacDonald on July 16, 2010 — 158 Comments
Steve Sailer has an important blog at VDARE.com quoting from Russel K. Nieli’s essay on No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford. It’s no surprise that there is affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos: “To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.”
Unfortunately, the authors lump Jews and non-Jews into the White category, but combining their results with what we know about Jewish admissions to elite universities yields some interesting results.
In a 1998 op-ed (“Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.) A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)
Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)
One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)
So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.
Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish. There is a “a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.”
When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.
One possible explanation is that the desire for better off students reflects the universities’ desire to have students who are better able to pay their way, so that more money can be diverted to less well-off non-Whites. Nieli points out that this “cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid.” Right.
Nieli suggests that the real reason that rejecting less well-off Whites benefits the university is because it raises the yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll) and lowers the acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) on the theory that less well-off Whites would not be able to afford to attend without scholarship money that the university wants to reserve for non-Whites. This makes them look good to the rating agencies.
This explanation seems rather ad hoc. Quite a few less well-off Whites would doubtless be willing to take out loans in order to satisfy their dream of an education at an elite university. To be convincing, Nieli should at least have some data supporting his theory. Even an anecdote or a colorful story gleaned from an academic cocktail party would be nice.
The other finding is
what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities — including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities — conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here — every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.
But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. … Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”
It’s interesting that the bias against Red State interests holds even when controlling for other variables such as family income. These students are being rejected not because of their family income but because of their attitudes and interests–a finding that casts doubt on the yield rate/acceptance rate explanation for the bias against less well-off Whites as well.
These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.
The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.
Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.
[normal whites are locked out of the better universities, but this is a double-edged score, as staying away from uni means avoiding debt, if the white is smart]
|November 22nd, 2014||#207|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
In 1960 when the US was 90% White jews were the only group displacing a substantial number of talented Whites from elite positions. Rockwell and Pierce were unusual in voluntarily giving up their lucrative slots. Packing the elite with Asians and affirmative action niggers leaves a lot of very intelligent Whites with nothing to do but fight the system that fucked them.
|November 22nd, 2014||#208|
Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’
Student unions’ ‘no platform’ policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don’t fit prevailing groupthink [straight from jew herbert marcuse, no tolerance for the right (concept of repressive tolerance - normal/right views must be denied all platforms so that fleurs du abnormal aka "silenced voices" (that never shut up) have room to boom and bloom. students are conditioned ZOGbots)]
Brendan O'Neill and Harriet Brown discuss the rise of the Stepford student
Don’t be a Stepford student — subscribe to The Spectator’s print and digital bundle for just £22 for 22 weeks.
Have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the land. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture halls or surreptitiously policing beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up.
I was attacked by a swarm of Stepford students this week. On Tuesday, I was supposed to take part in a debate about abortion at Christ Church, Oxford. I was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life. But apparently it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion. A mob of furious feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off. They said it was outrageous that two human beings ‘who do not have uteruses’ should get to hold forth on abortion — identity politics at its most basely biological — and claimed the debate would threaten the ‘mental safety’ of Oxford students. Three hundred promised to turn up to the debate with ‘instruments’ — heaven knows what — that would allow them to disrupt proceedings.
Incredibly, Christ Church capitulated, the college’s censors living up to the modern meaning of their name by announcing that they would refuse to host the debate on the basis that it now raised ‘security and welfare issues’. So at one of the highest seats of learning on Earth, the democratic principle of free and open debate, of allowing differing opinions to slog it out in full view of discerning citizens, has been violated, and students have been rebranded as fragile creatures, overgrown children who need to be guarded against any idea that might prick their souls or challenge their prejudices. One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’
This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered the Stepford students. Last month, at Britain’s other famously prestigious university, Cambridge, I was circled by Stepfords after taking part in a debate on faith schools. It wasn’t my defence of parents’ rights to send their children to religious schools they wanted to harangue me for — much as they loathed that liberal position — it was my suggestion, made in this magazine and elsewhere, that ‘lad culture’ doesn’t turn men into rapists. Their mechanical minds seemed incapable of computing that someone would say such a thing.
Their eyes glazed with moral certainty, they explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour and that is why it is right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus. ‘We have the right to feel comfortable,’ they all said, like a mantra. One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Pre-rapists! Had any of them read Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals, I asked? None had.
When I told them that at the fag-end of the last millennium I had spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal — not so much as a flicker of reflection crossed their faces. ‘Back then, the people who were making those censorious, misanthropic arguments about culture determining behaviour weren’t youngsters like you,’ I said. ‘They were older, more conservative people, with blue rinses.’ A moment’s silence. Then one of the Stepfords piped up. ‘Maybe those people were right,’ he said. My mind filled with a vision of Mary Whitehouse cackling to herself in some corner of the cosmos.
If your go-to image of a student is someone who’s free-spirited and open-minded, who loves having a pop at orthodoxies, then you urgently need to update your mind’s picture bank. Students are now pretty much the opposite of that. It’s hard to think of any other section of society that has undergone as epic a transformation as students have. From freewheelin’ to ban-happy, from askers of awkward questions to suppressors of offensive speech, in the space of a generation. My showdown with the debate-banning Stepfords at Oxford and the pre-crime promoters at Cambridge echoed other recent run-ins I’ve had with the intolerant students of the 21st century. I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods. In each case, it wasn’t the fact the students disagreed with me that I found alarming — disagreement is great! — it was that they were so plainly shocked that I could have uttered such things, that I had failed to conform to what they assume to be right, that I had sought to contaminate their campuses and their fragile grey matter with offensive ideas.
Where once students might have allowed their eyes and ears to be bombarded by everything from risqué political propaganda to raunchy rock, now they insulate themselves from anything that might dent their self-esteem and, crime of crimes, make them feel ‘uncomfortable’. Student groups insist that online articles should have ‘trigger warnings’ in case their subject matter might cause offence.
The ‘no platform’ policy of various student unions is forever being expanded to keep off campus pretty much anyone whose views don’t chime perfectly with the prevailing groupthink. Where once it was only far-right rabble-rousers who were no-platformed, now everyone from Zionists to feminists who hold the wrong opinions on transgender issues to ‘rape deniers’ (anyone who questions the idea that modern Britain is in the grip of a ‘rape culture’) has found themselves shunned from the uni-sphere. My Oxford experience suggests pro-life societies could be next. In September the students’ union at Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from the freshers’ fair on the basis that its campaign material is ‘highly offensive’.
Barely a week goes by without reports of something ‘offensive’ being banned by students. Robin Thicke’s rude pop ditty ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned in more than 20 universities. Student officials at Balliol College, Oxford, justified their ban as a means of ‘prioritising the wellbeing of our students’. Apparently a three-minute pop song can harm students’ health. More than 30 student unions have banned the Sun, on the basis that Page Three could turn all those pre-rapists into actual rapists. Radical feminist students once burned their bras — now they insist that models put bras on. The union at UCL banned the Nietzsche Society on the grounds that its existence threatened ‘the safety of the UCL student body’.
Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a contentious subject raised than a university ‘campaign’ group appears on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is shut down. Technology means that it has never been easier to whip up a false sense of mass outrage — and target that synthetic anger at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so besieged that they succumb to the demands and threats.
Heaven help any student who doesn’t bow before the Stepford mentality. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a motion to ‘End lad banter’ on campus. Laddish students are being forced to recant their bantering ways. Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style.
The censoriousness has reached its nadir in the rise of the ‘safe space’ policy. Loads of student unions have colonised vast swaths of their campuses and declared them ‘safe spaces’ — that is, places where no student should ever be made to feel threatened, unwelcome or belittled, whether by banter, bad thinking or ‘Blurred Lines’. Safety from physical assault is one thing — but safety from words, ideas, Zionists, lads, pop music, Nietzsche? We seem to have nurtured a new generation that believes its self-esteem is more important than everyone else’s liberty.
This is what those censorious Cambridgers meant when they kept saying they have the ‘right to be comfortable’. They weren’t talking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue — they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness. At precisely the time they should be leaping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy discussion, students are cushioning themselves from anything that has the whiff of controversy. We’re witnessing the victory of political correctness by stealth. As the annoying ‘PC gone mad!’ brigade banged on and on about extreme instances of PC — schools banning ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, etc. — nobody seems to have noticed that the key tenets of PC, from the desire to destroy offensive lingo to the urge to re-educate apparently corrupted minds, have been swallowed whole by a new generation. This is a disaster, for it means our universities are becoming breeding grounds of dogmatism. As John Stuart Mill said, if we don’t allow our opinion to be ‘fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed’, then that opinion will be ‘held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.
One day, these Stepford students, with their lust to ban, their war on offensive lingo, and their terrifying talk of pre-crime, will be running the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have cause to visit a campus who have to suffer their dead dogmas.
|November 22nd, 2014||#209|
Whites are the ones with the most reason to be angry at the System and the brains to do something about it.
|November 22nd, 2014||#211|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Even naive Whites who aren't fully indoctrinated, guys like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning (sorry Brad, not gonna call you by your make believe girl name, you're a dude), can throw monkey wrenches into their system of control. Just think what a jew wise Snowden could do. And that's one guy.
|November 24th, 2014||#212|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Was going to be an English professor until in class we were discussing politics on campus. The campus is much more right wing than a typical lefty hive due to being a Midwestern state school, but the place has weirdo stuff going on like multicultural rooms and GLBT freakshow stuff going on. A Hispanic woman teaches about immigration policy and half of the "poli-sci" majors are yids. The campus, no bullshit, seems about 20 percent jew...in WISCONSIN.
There are almost no right-wing people teaching at the high school and college level. At all. All the reading has a very left-wing slant.
I was point blank told by the head of the English department to not even bother.
For instance, in a Major Poetry class we skipped so many straight White heavyweights in favor of three consecutive Communists
(Hughes, Ginsberg and Adrienne Rich).
The beginning of the semester had a Modernist slant to it and we skipped...
William Carlos Williams
The entire Imagist movement within Modernism so people like Hilda Doolittle
WWI poets like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon
Just rotten. Dickinson, Rimbaud and Andrew Hudgins were the only things worth reading in 14 weeks.
I should have dropped out semesters ago. I was denied a philosophy major assignment for defending Arthur Butz in class, for instance.
|December 1st, 2014||#214|
|December 4th, 2014||#215|
Almost Nobody Graduates From College On Time
Is it true that community college "takes two years" to complete, and regular college "takes four years" to complete? Not at all! It takes much, much longer.
A new report from a group called Complete College America explores how long it actually takes students to graduate (or not) from college, and finds that the reality is much, much different from the outmoded expectations that are held up as the norm. Let's cut straight to the depressing stats!
Among full time students:
Of those seeking a two year associates degree, 5% finish on time.
Of those seeking a four year's bachelor's degree, between 19% (at lesser schools) and 36% (at better schools) finish on time.
Is this an isolated problem? Not at all! "[Only] 50 of the nation's roughly 580 public four-year institutions report that at least half of their first-time, full-time students graduate on time."
If you go to college you should really try to graduate on time because that shit is expensive. Or if you have a good scholarship/ rich benefactors paying your tuition, try to draw it out as long as possible, because as soon as you leave you're expected to "work."
The full report:
|December 8th, 2014||#216|
[Flip Strength Test: Mt. Holyoke.]
Women's college viciously attacks freshman girl for conservative reporting
on Dec 04, 2014
Mount Holyoke College students attacked the appearance of a freshman female after her report on a Ferguson rally went viral.
After her Campus Reform article, Yvonne has been threatened at her dorm room and anonymously cyber-bullied by Mount Holyoke students.
Nothing says progress quite like a hoard of liberal college students bullying one of their peers because of her conservative values.
This morning, a Campus Reform correspondent awoke to a threatening note taped to her dorm room door after she wrote a piece on a Ferguson protest that took place on her campus.
Yvonne Dean-Bailey, a freshman political science major at Mount Holyoke College (MHC), attended the student-organized protest held on Monday. She took photos, reached out to the event organizers, and researched the demonstration. And like anyone in professional journalism strives to accomplish, Yvonne found a unique angle for her story and ran with it.
But it was that angle—an event organizer asking “white folks” to keep their hands down during the demonstration—which angered crusaders for equality at Mount Holyoke so much that they resorted to “fighting the good fight” with hateful notes and vicious attacks on an online message board.
Since the article, Yvonne has been called a bigot, “closed-minded” [sic], hateful, homophobic, privileged, racist, rich, and transphobic. Yvonne’s appearance, character, intellect, and integrity have been eviscerated.
These attacks have all come from women—her Mount Holyoke peers.
Of course, none of these ad hominem attacks can be duly attributed, though the site requires a MHC email address to post. While these petulant college kids are so quick to become social justice warriors, they must do so anonymously in a purely phenomenal show of cowardice.
According to Mount Holyoke’s website, the college was founded in 1837 as a place where women could “develop their intellects, hone the power of their voices, and cultivate courage.” But what kind of courage are the women cultivating when they spend their collegiate days hiding behind anonymous online posts attacking the views—and the appearance—of one of their peers?
These women are not empowering each other or honing their own voices. They’re creating a homogenous liberal echo chamber where only the sounds of chosen voices can ring out without fear.
“Kindly take your bigotry and miniscule world view [sic] home with you and leave them there when you go, or consider somewhere else to voice your ignorance,” reads the note from Yvonne’s secret admirers.
Admittedly, I didn’t attend an all-women’s college, but I don’t think that was the type of female empowerment and cultivation of courage Mary Lyon had in mind when she dreamt up the school. But as a woman, I'm not afraid to say the level of intolerance the women at Mount Holyoke have displayed towards Yvonne is absolutely abhorrent.
To their credit, Mount Holyoke administrators, when reminded of the school’s strict anti-harassment policy by Campus Reform, have encouraged Yvonne to schedule a visit with the Dean of Students—a visit that will include the organizers of Monday’s Ferguson protest.
Are the women of Mount Holyoke so afraid of Yvonne’s conservative voice that she has to be flanked by the very peers who could be behind the anonymous threats at all times?
Yvonne says she doesn’t feel safe on her own college campus, her own community, but as she knows, true courage does not bend to frivolous attacks of intimidation.
“Despite this I will continue to be an independent and active voice on campus until all sides are considered,” Yvonne told Campus Reform.
While immaturity and cowardice run rampant around Mount Holyoke, it seems Yvonne’s own bravery is the only flickering hope that any of the school’s founding principles can still be found on that campus.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @K_Schallhorn
|December 14th, 2014||#217|
Social Justice Warrioring As Justification for Student Loan Expenses
Universities do a spectacular job of convincing prospective students go to thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to gain liberal arts degrees which are mostly an instruction in post-modern Marxism.
After graduation, many of these students have a hard time finding work that can pay back their loans on a sensible schedule. This problem is more acutely felt at the middle-tier schools, but it affects elite graduates as well, more so than many people would otherwise tell you. An elite degree alone will not get you a good job.
Social justice fanatics may be fanatical because they are justifying to themselves the amount of money and time that they spent on getting a Marxist degree that sets them at odds with their surrounding society. They feel that, unless they join the class struggle, their expenditure has been wasted.
This behavior tends to present itself frequently in victims of scams: the more that they have spent on getting into the scam, the more fervently that they want to believe in it.
The American universities have hoodwinked entire generations of young Americans who have diminished life opportunities due to the same bad policies advocated by the professors at those institutions. It’s more difficult for people to admit that they were fooled than it is for them to double down on the narratives promoted by the people who betrayed them.
This is especially the case for radical feminists, who in many cases have destroyed their chances for having a happy family life — they squeal the loudest because they have the most to lose from any reversal in their gains. At a time when the happy infinite credit regime is loath to give out home and business loans to anyone with a heartbeat, it’s mostly happy to extend credit in enormous amounts to students with no qualifications.
The woman with the master’s degree in gender studies knows how much it cost her to get that degree — more than a dozen diamond bracelets from Tiffany’s — and she has to justify to herself that it was as valuable as the time, money, and energy that she or her family sacrificed to get that certification and the indoctrination that came with it.
Most of this money goes into the pockets of administration bureaucrats and into university endowments, which are essentially hedge funds with more favorable tax treatment.
The passion that social justice warriors show for post-modern Marxism is partly because our system has rigged a bizarrely high valuation for advanced degrees in degree programs that would have been seen as politically correct in the Marxist-Leninist universities of the old USSR. They believe that it was valuable because they saw the high price tag, and noticed that it was the middle-class-responsible thing to do to trundle off to college to learn Marxist dialectics.
This is a social distortion of the kind that is common to all paper money regimes, because the industries chosen for inflationary favor tend to bloat far beyond what they would be able to get to without the mass credit issuance, or the guarantee from the government that the face value of the loan will be repaid.
When the flow of money falters to the social justice training camps, so will the social justice warrioring. Ironically, the best way to destroy the American university system as it stands today would be to remove the government guarantees from student lending, permitting the loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This would curtail the infinite bloat of tuition and put countless leftists out of work permanently.
|December 15th, 2014||#218|
[Flip-Strength Test: Michigan]
Vandalized: Residence of U-M Student Who Dared to Mock Trigger Warnings
Robby Soave|Dec. 15, 2014
Omar Mahmood is a student at the University of Michigan. He considers himself a political conservative and a Muslim. And until recently, he enjoyed writing for both of the campus's newspapers: the institutional, liberal paper, The Michigan Daily, and the conservative alternative paper, The Michigan Review.
After penning a satirical op-ed for The Review that mocked political correctness and trigger warnings, The Daily ordered him to apologize to an anonymous staffer who was offended and felt "threatened" by him. He refused and was fired.
Last week, he became the victim of what The College Fix has described as a "hate crime." The doorway of his apartment was vandalized in the middle of the night; the perpetrators pelted the door with eggs and scribbled notes like "shut the fuck up" and "everyone hates you you violent prick." They left copies of the offending column and a print-out picture of Satan. (Hmm, when I was a similar position, my jew friend stuck a picture of Hitler and another Nazi on my door. I was a conservative individualist, not a racist or anti-jew. I didn't really mind, but it goes to the point that jews know where you are headed if you think certain thoughts; to them all whites are potential nazis and conservatives are halfway there.)
The column that caused such a controversy, "Do the Left Thing," was published in The Review last month. It's a first-person narrative in which Mahmood pretends to be a left-handed person who is offended by the institutional patriarchy of right-handedness. A sampling:
A staffer at The Daily who saw the piece was furious, however, and complained to editors. One of Mahmood's bosses at The Daily told him that article—which ran in The Review, remember—created a hostile work environment and made the staffer feel "threatened." Mahmood was asked to apologize, which he refused to do.
Daily editors dug up the paper's bylaws and found a provision that forbids students to work for both papers without prior permission from the editor-in-chief. He was told to resign from The Review immediately. After he failed to do so, he was sent a termination letter.
I can't recall whether that rule was ever enforced during my tenure as editorial page editor at The Daily in 2009. But it does exist, and appears to give The Daily just cause to fire Mahmood. But it's difficult to believe that his work at both papers is the root cause of his termination, rather than the views he expressed.
As Susan Kruth of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warned, The Daily's actions could end up stifling student-journalism by making writers afraid to express contrarian views:
Of course, independent student newspapers like theDaily are not bound by the First Amendment, but students who value unfettered debate and free expression do not punish peers for saying or writing things with which they disagree. Instead of forcing Mahmood to choose between writing satire and reporting for the Daily, any editor who was offended by his column should have offered his or her own counterpoint to Mahmood.
Instead, the Daily’s actions will serve to make students reluctant to write further satire, confining their writing either to the non-controversial or, perhaps, to less entertaining forms.
That was the end of the story—until last week, when The College Fix reported that Mahmood's off-campus apartment was vandalized. The four criminals wore hoods and baggy clothing to disguise themselves; less brilliantly, they changed in full view of the apartment complex's security camera. They appear to be women of unclear ages. The video footage is available
I spoke with Mahmood, who tells me the police are looking at the matter. And I understand that some people have identified the women in the video footage. I will publish an update when their identities are confirmed.
The whole string of events is a sorry indictment of the rampant illberalism of the modern, "liberal" college campus, where writing something that offends someone else is considered threatening, but censorship, vandalism, and actual threats are not.
Robby Soave is a staff editor at Reason.com.
[i'm sure this guys is a neocon, but campuses are so far left that no disagreement on anything can be tolerated at all]
|December 15th, 2014||#219|
DECEMBER 12, 2014 AT 12:51 PM
It just hit me when I read this part:
|December 15th, 2014||#220|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Every time I turn around one of my friends, relatives, etc are asking me "When do you start college?". It's annoying as hell considering I've told them a million times already. I'll start within a year, and to be honest I am not looking forward to it. But, I want a good job and I want the Ph.D so I've got to. I don't think college is a must for everyone, though.