- May 11, 2011
Yup.I suppose now that he has resigned from his race is he considered 'transracial' or maybe even raceless......
Not for his career. His views are pretty mainstream for academia nowadays.
Jury is still out as to whether he is white... His mom's heritage might be interesting.I suppose now that he has resigned from his race is he considered 'transracial' or maybe even raceless......
Not for his career. His views are pretty mainstream for academia nowadays.
A course being offered next year at Hobart and William Smith Colleges will explore how concepts like "meritocracy" and "objectivity" are just "white mythologies."
According to the course description, such "social constructions" serve to "position 'the West' and 'whiteness' as the ideal" by fostering "implicit views about the place of White, male, Euro-American subjects as the norm."
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10993As Campus Reform has previously reported, meritocracy and objectivity are often criticized by academics for promoting or justifying “whiteness” or “white privilege.” One professor, for instance, recently argued that meritocracy serves as a “whiteness ideology,” while another group of professors has claimed that “scientific objectivity” reinforces “white privilege.” “White Mythologies” is a special course offered by the school’s Bidisciplinary Program, which allows students to take one-credit classes taught by two professors from different academic departments. Campus Reform reached out to Freeman and Rodriguez for comment, but did not receive a response.
The style guide adds: “Although this last sentence is grammatically incorrect, in speech it has become common practice to use the pronoun ‘they’ when referring to a generic person.’’
The University of Newcastle’s inclusive language guide bans “mankind’’ Sydney’s UTS instructs students to “avoid sexism in language’’ by banning the words mankind, man-made or spokesman.
But it gives students the grammatically correct advice not to use “their” or “they’’ instead of “him’’ or “her” when referring to one person.The University of Newcastle’s inclusive language guide bans “mankind’’, insisting that students use the terms humanity, the human race or human kind, despite them also containing the word “man’’.
The University of Queensland has marked down students for using “gendered language’’ in essays.A politics student was penalised for using the grammatically correct pronoun of “she’’ to describe a car. And a science student lost marks for using “mankind’’ in an essay about the scientific method.
“I lost 10 marks — it’s such a stupid thing to be marked down for,’’ the student said.
“I heard of a girl in a different course who was marked down for using the words ‘man-made’ and ‘sportsmanship’. It’s a bit ridiculous — you can’t just ban every word with ‘man’ in it.’’
The uni’s essay guide for political science says students must not use “female pronouns’’ for objects, such as referring to a boat as “she’’.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/harvard-begs-to-discriminate.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=swHarvard Begs to Discriminate
Today Drew Faust, President of Harvard University, emailed alumni and others to comment on the lawsuit that accuses Harvard of discriminating against Asian-Americans in admissions:
Dear Alumni and Friends,
In the weeks and months ahead, a lawsuit aimed to compromise Harvard’s ability to compose a diverse student body will move forward in the courts and in the media.
Until now, the case has been tied up in Harvard’s multiple motions to dismiss, which have been denied by the trial judge. It is now in the discovery phase, and plaintiffs are requesting that files allegedly showing decades of discrimination against Asian-Americans be made public.
As the case proceeds, an organization called Students for Fair Admissions—formed in part to oppose Harvard’s commitment to diversity—will seek to paint an unfamiliar and inaccurate image of our community and our admissions processes, including by raising allegations of discrimination against Asian-American applicants to Harvard College. These claims will rely on misleading, selectively presented data taken out of context. Their intent is to question the integrity of the undergraduate admissions process and to advance a divisive agenda. Please see here for more information about the case.
Translation: Harvard’s “commitment to diversity” is realized by discriminating in favor of some ethnic groups, and against others. Further, questioning such discrimination–not engaging in it–represents a “divisive agenda.”
Year after year, Harvard brings together a community that is the most varied and diverse that any of us is likely ever to encounter. Harvard students benefit from working and living alongside people of different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives as they prepare for the complex world that awaits them and their considerable talents.
Is Harvard saying that if it didn’t prefer some ethnic groups over others, its students wouldn’t encounter “people of different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives?” Is skin color really a background, experience or perspective, let alone a decisively important one?
I have affirmed in the past, and do so again today, that Harvard will vigorously defend its longstanding values and the processes by which it seeks to create a diverse educational community. We will stand behind an approach that has been held up as legal and fair by the Supreme Court, one that relies on broad and extensive outreach to exceptional students in order to attract excellence from all backgrounds.
As this case generates widespread attention and comment, Harvard will react swiftly and thoughtfully to defend diversity as the source of our strength and our excellence—and to affirm the integrity of our admissions process. A diverse student body enables us to enrich, to educate, and to challenge one another. As a university community, we are bound across differences by a shared commitment to learning, to pursuing truth, and to embracing the rigor and respect of argument and evidence. We never give up on the promise of a world made better by an assumption revisited, an understanding expanded, or a truth questioned—again and again and again.
What a load of pretentious rubbish! There is nothing so base but what it can be dignified with prettified justifications.
Last month, I presided over our Commencement Exercises for a final time and reveled in the accomplishments of our graduates and alumni, and in the joy and pride of the faculty who educated them, the staff who enabled their manifold successes, and the family members who helped nurture them and their aspirations. Tercentenary Theatre was filled with individuals from the widest range of backgrounds and life experiences. It was a powerful reminder that the heart of this extraordinary institution is its people.
Now, we have an opportunity to stand together and to defend the ideals and the people that make our community so extraordinary. I am committed to ensuring that veritas will prevail.
Is race discrimination really one of the “ideals…that make [Harvard’s] community so extraordinary?” Yale changed the name of Calhoun College, but at Harvard, the intellectual legacy of John C. Calhoun–a master of the highfalutin’ explanation of an ugly reality–lives on
Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.
Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.
The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.htmlThey compare Harvard’s treatment of Asian-Americans with its well-documented campaign to reduce the growing number of Jews being admitted to Harvard in the 1920s. Until then, applicants had been admitted on academic merit. To avoid adopting a blatant quota system, Harvard introduced subjective criteria like character, personality and promise. The plaintiffs call this the “original sin of holistic admissions.”
They argue that the same character-based system is being used now to hold the proportion of Asian-Americans at Harvard to roughly 20 percent year after year, except for minor increases, they say, spurred by litigation.
A YouTube show that challenges contestants to eat increasingly spicy chicken wings has raised the ire of a Tulsa media-studies professor.
According to a professor of media studies at the University of Tulsa, the YouTube show Hot Ones is problematic because it “manipulates inequitable gender hierarchies.”
In case you aren’t familiar with Hot Ones, it’s a show where the host challenges his guests to eat increasingly spicy chicken wings. Seems pretty harmless, right? An innocent chicken-eating show couldn’t possibly be something that’s actually hurting women, could it?
Well, Professor Emily J. H. Contois thinks it could. According to her paper, “The spicy spectacular: food, gender, and celebrity on Hot Ones,” published in the journal Feminist Media Studies, the show “creates, maintains, and manipulates inequitable gender hierarchies through the interrelated performances of gender, food consumption, and celebrity.”
In other words: According to Contois, society just doesn’t accept the idea of women eating spicy foods, and that is the reason that only eleven women have appeared as contestants on the show so far. Women, she argues, know that they don’t really stand a chance on Hot Ones, because gender binaries “create power hierarchies by feminizing dainty, light, and sweet flavors and foods, eaten in small portions with restraint.”
Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/lgbtqia-safe-sex-guide#why-we-need-itFor the purposes of this guide, we’ve chosen to include alternative words for readers to use for their genitals. For example, some trans men choose to use the words “front hole” or “internal genital” instead of “vagina.” Alternatively, some trans women may say “strapless” or “girl dick” for penis. This usage is meant for one-on-one communication with trusted persons, such as your doctor or partner, not for broad discussion.
In this guide, whenever we use the medical term “vagina,” we’ll also include “front hole” as clinically recommended by researchers in the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal.
I guess she never saw the episode with Charlize Theron before she wrote this garbage.Professor: Wings-Eating Show Hot Ones Is Problematic for Women
Women, she argues, know that they don’t really stand a chance on Hot Ones, because gender binaries “create power hierarchies by feminizing dainty, light, and sweet flavors and foods, eaten in small portions with restraint.”
just more people being offended on behalf of those not offended cos they're unable to think for themselves and don't realise that they should be offended so someone needs to be offended for them... Farking sjw pc virtue signallingso not a university, but still ...