RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/stanford-u-teaches-male-privilege-with-its-men-and-masculinities-project/

Stanford University is pushing the myth that male identity is a “social privilege,” despite numerous studies indicating that men disproportionately suffer from unique issues that circumvent their economic, educational, and social pursuits.

The claim was made by the school’s Men and Masculinities Project. The project aims to convene male students with counselors to help them develop “healthy and inclusive male identities,” almost as if male students oppress women by their very existence.

“We acknowledge that male identity is a social privilege, and the aim for this project is to provide the education and support needed to better the actions of the male community rather than marginalize others,” explains Stanford officials.

Instead of aiming to help men regain parity with women in academia — men nationwide are less likely to attend college, and less likely to graduate in four years than women — the school instead aims to help men “redefine masculinity.”

College men should be “active agents of positive and sustainable change on campus and in the community, striving to understand male privilege, redefine masculinity, [and] dismantle systemic structures of power and oppression,” the program states.

Of course, men do enjoy certain privileges in society. They don’t have to worry about sexual harassment and stalking to the same extent as women, and they are far less likely to find themselves victims of sex trafficking.

But privilege isn’t a black and white issue. To acknowledge the plight of women — especially regarding sexual abuse — shouldn’t preclude a discussion of the issues that men face. Yet that is precisely what the Stanford University program does.

The issues that men face start young. Men are significantly more likely to face issues in K-12, and are significantly less likely to graduate from high school, a disparity that is even more pronounced in minority and working-class communities.

Men also are less likely to attend college, disproportionately less likely to graduate, less likely than single women to become homeowners by age 30, far more likely to be in dangerous fields of work, and significantly more likely to be homeless. Men are also far more likely to remain homeless — nonprofits and state services prioritize women and their children. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.city-journal.org/

The Supreme Court’s recent Janus decision ends mandatory fees for public-sector employees who don’t want to belong to a union. Previously, in 22 non-right-to-work states, such employees had to pay these fees for the union’s services on their behalf, which could include collective bargaining, but also a host of political activities to which many employees objected. Most of the debate in the case, appropriately, focused on legal questions, not the ramifications for higher education. Yet hundreds of thousands of professors teach at public universities in the 22 states affected by Janus; the example of one of New York’s largest higher-ed unions, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), shows how relevant the Court’s ruling might prove to be.

In her Janus dissent, Justice Elena Kagan maintained that “everyone knows the difference between politicking and collective bargaining.” Yet a lawsuit against the PSC brought by my Brooklyn colleague, David Seidemann, demonstrated how difficult it is to draw these lines in the higher-education context. In a 2009 Second Circuit decision, a unanimous three-judge panel noted a lack of clarity about the PSC’s political expenditures in a wide variety of activities common to higher-ed unions—a contract campaign, donations to the parent union, lobbying of the state legislature, and paying salaries of union employees. (That the union listed political expenditures as office supplies, while claiming that a Woody Guthrie concert shouldn’t count as a political expense, did little to enhance its credibility.) The Second Circuit judges held that “courts must examine union activities carefully to ensure that dissenters are not charged for ideological undertakings not related to collective bargaining.” Rather than allow that careful examination of its expenditures to occur, the union settled with Seidemann.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-war-on-admissions-testing-1530481487

The “test optional” movement has won its most high-profile convert in the University of Chicago, which announced last month that applicants to the school would no longer need to submit ACT or SAT scores.

The University of Chicago has become known in recent years for its commitment to academic rigor and resistance to coddling and group think. But in this decision it has increased the momentum of a fashionable but damaging ideology overtaking elite education: That standardized metrics of any kind are discriminatory and elitist, and that each student is so special that he or she can only be evaluated according to uniquely personal traits.

No test is perfect, but the ACT and SAT are powerful predictors of college performance. As psychology professors Nathan Kuncel and Paul Sackett wrote in The Wall Street Journal in March: “Longitudinal research demonstrates that standardized tests predict not just grades all the way through college but also the level of courses a student is likely to take.”

Standardized tests are especially important in a time of severe grade inflation, especially in more affluent high schools. That doesn’t mean students who don’t test well can’t succeed, or that students with high scores are guaranteed to graduate summa cum laude. But it’s clear scores are at least as valid a predictor of college performance as a students’ roster of carefully selected extracurricular activities or “personal essays,” which may be rewritten by tutors.

So what’s behind the campaign against standardized assessments? A University of Chicago spokeswoman says the test “may not reflect the full accomplishments and academic promise of a student.” This is true but could be said of any single part of a college application, including high school grades.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/26/professors-penis-size

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Alicia Walker is used to the snickers, the juvenile puns and raunchy jokes. But she is not fooling around with her latest research project.

The assistant professor of sociology at Missouri State University launched a study this month that explores how the size of a man’s penis affects the rest of his life. And she’s documenting the work with pictures.

“The kind of work I do is not for everybody,” she said.

Walker said the project looks at how penis size — and, as importantly, a man’s perception of his penis size — affects overall health, sexual activity, condom usage, self image, social interaction and mental health.

“So far I’m hearing a lot of anxiety and a lot of low self-esteem related to size,” she said.

As part of the study, Walker hopes at least 3,600 men will fill out an online survey and upload photos of their genitalia. The participants must be age 22 or older.

“These are not sexy pictures,” she said. “These are clinical pictures.”

She said photos are necessary to ensure men carefully follow the instructions when measuring their flaccid and erect penis.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/ohio-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-protect-kids-from-transgender-mafia-at-school/

Parents have the right to say no to dangerous hormone therapies and disfiguring surgery.

In a recent court decision, Sylvia Sieve Hendon, an Ohio juvenile court judge, awarded custody of a gender-confused minor to the grandparents so he could defy his parents’ wishes and get hormone therapy. The decision alarmed lawmakers and parents in the state so much that new legislation is being considered to stop it from happening again.

Ohio House Bill 658 sets out clear guidelines regarding parental rights when children face the mental disorder of gender dysphoria. The bill ensures that parents have the final say on how to treat their children who are experiencing gender confusion and makes it illegal for anyone else to do so (like teachers or school therapists) without parental consent. The law also would make it illegal for a judge to remove a minor from his parents’ custody for refusing to treat gender dysphoria with irreversible, dangerous drugs that can cause sterility and disrupt natural development. Further, the law would require any adult with authority over a child to inform the parents if the child is considering gender “therapy.”

Transgender activists are intent on demonizing this law. From the gay publication Them, Mary Emily O’Hara writes,

Ohio House Bill 658 would turn school employees, psychologists, and social workers into spies of a sort; the legislation mandates that they disclose to parents if a minor approaches them with questions about gender identity or seeks mental health care for gender dysphoria. And if they don’t inform the child’s parents — regardless of concern for the safety or wellbeing of the child — they would face felony charges.

In every school across this nation, teachers and counselors are prohibited from giving a minor Tylenol without parental consent, yet activists want them to be able to refer kids for body mutilation without telling their parents? Parents must give consent to send kids on field trips, watch movies, and even eat a hot lunch. Why is it offensive to inform parents when their minor child is having an identity crisis? What kind of educators would want to hide such a serious thing from the people who love the child the most? Parents in this nation are held responsible financially and otherwise for the well-being of their children. They take on all the risks and burdens of parenting and are responsible for anything their minor child does (and sometimes can even go to jail for it). Shouldn’t parents get the benefit of making major decisions concerning those minors when it comes to something as life-altering as gender reassignment surgery or “therapy”?

If state legislatures don’t do something to protect parents’ rights soon, the Gaystappo will be forcing parents to not only agree to poisonous hormone “therapy,” but making them pay for it too! Already in several states the gay rights activists have pushed through legislation that bars parents from seeking Christian counseling for their children suffering from gender or sexual confusion.

The university has earned a “red light” rating — the worst possible — from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Southeastern Louisiana University, a public school, allows its students to exercise their rights to free speech and free assembly for only two hours per week.

The university’s speech-limiting rules can be found in its University Policy on Public Speech, Assembly, and Demonstrations:

“In accordance with US Federal Court decisions, the University has the right to regulate the time of speech or assembly activities. A two (2) hour time period will be provided to individual(s) and/or organizations for these purposes at Southeastern,” the policy states. “Speech/assembly activities will be limited to one two hour time limit per seven-day period, commencing the Monday of each week.”

In addition to restricting when speech is allowed, Southeastern also strictly limits where it is allowed. According to the policy, “Public discussion and/or peaceful public assembly or demonstration” is allowed “without prior administrative approval” in three locations only: the steps of and the “grassy area” near the Student Union Annex, the “grassy area in front of” a student-activity center, and the “Presidential Plaza area.” Furthermore, students need to register to use these spaces for “public speech or assembly a minimum of seven (7) days in advance through the office of Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/philly_schools_add_muslim_holidays_by_cutting_jewish_one.html

Back when public schools were overwhelmingly Christian, scheduling religious holidays meant closing for Christmas and, in some places, for Jewish high holidays. As American school populations change, deciding for which religious holidays schools should close and on what basis becomes more complex.

According to Anti-Defamation League religious freedom counsel David Barkey, consistently with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, “[p]ublic schools can’t close to observe a holiday, but can if there’s an appropriate secular reason. The reason usually is the level of absenteeism” that would hamper schooling.

Philadelphia’s Mayor Jim Kenney suggested a different standard in announcing the city’s decision to close public schools for Muslim holidays. Rather than focusing on practical need, Kenney explained: “Our city was built on the idea that … the city welcomes all to worship and practice the faiths of our culture or our choosing[.] … We have to take into account how society sometimes ostracizes and eliminates people from the mainstream[.]” In other words, schools should close on minorities’ religious holidays so their adherents feel accepted.

Sadly, Philadelphia’s approach to holiday closures fails both standards. Its public schools closed June 12, 2018, in time for Muslim students to celebrate Eid al-Fitr, beginning June 15. Without determining whether the numbers of practitioners necessitated the change, Philadelphia added Muslim holidays to its calendar to make Muslims feel welcome – and paid for it partly by reducing Jewish holiday observances, school district documents show. What’s more, the school district underhandedly failed to identify the reasons for the change.

Philadelphia Changes Its School Calendar

On May 31, 2016, Philadelphia school district superintendent Dr. William Hite announced: “I’m honored and proud to announce that the school district fully intends to honor the eid celebrations for the many Muslim students and staff that celebrate these holidays.” The 2016-17 academic calendar had already been finalized, Hite explained, so the holidays would be added in future years.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/math-can-cause-collateral-damage-to-society-professor/Some things in life are objective and rational, and that’s perfectly okay.

According to a new textbook written by a professor at the University of Exeter, learning mathematics can cause “collateral damage” to society because it “provides a training in ethics-free thought.”

“Reasoning without meanings provides a training in ethics-free thought,” Paul Ernest writes in “The Ethics of Mathematics: Is Mathematics Harmful?” — a chapter of his book The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Today.

In an abstract for the book, Ernest claims that although he does “acknowledge that mathematics is a widespread force for good,” “there is significant collateral damage caused by learning mathematics.”

According to Ernest, this “collateral damage” happens in three ways. First, he argues, the styles of thinking involved with mathematics are “detached” and “calculated” ones, which value “rules, abstraction, objectification, impersonality, unfeelingness, dispassionate reason, and analysis” — which he claims “can be damaging when applied beyond mathematics to social and human issues.”

The second problem, he explains, is that “the applications of mathematics in society can be deleterious to our humanity unless very carefully monitored and checked.”

“Money and thus mathematics is the tool for the distribution of wealth,” he writes. “It can therefore be argued that as the key underpinning conceptual tool mathematics is implicated in the global disparities in wealth.”

Finally, Ernest claims, “the personal impact of learning mathematics on learners’ thinking and life chances can be negative for a minority of less successful students, as well as potentially harmful for successful students.” Ernest continues to explain that math is often viewed as “masculine,” and that that can essentially make it difficult for women to deal with learning it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/humanities-education-harmed-by-faculty/

Fewer and fewer students choose to study the humanities these days and the main reason is that the field has been overrun by “progressive” notions. Those notions, of course, were introduced and spread by the faculty, eager to create lots of dedicated revolutionaries.

In today’s Martin Center article, Professor Mark Bauerlein examines the sad illness afflicting the humanities. Specifically, he looks at a recent statement put out jointly by the Association of American University Professors and the American Association of Colleges and Universities. “The incapacity of the experts and professionals who wrote the statement to understand why their own diminishment has happened is abundantly in evidence,” he writes.

The learned folks who wrote the statement are utterly blind to their own role in the decline of this once-grand field of study.

This paragraph of Bauerlein’s nails the problem exactly:

Today’s liberal arts professors have a different relationship to their subjects. Joy, wonder, awe, and inspiration are missing. The professors aren’t merely uncomfortable with Paradise Lost and Parsifal. They vigorously point out the sexism and racism of those works. But they even denounce earlier practitioners in their own fields, too, the New Critics, for instance, for their backward notions. We were told that opening the canon to women and persons of color was a positive and happy development, but that was only part of the project. The professors also had to denigrate the tradition, a turn proven by the dismissive label ‘Dead White Males.’ They got rid of the honorific term civilization and replaced it with culture, and then with cultures, which, they believed, eliminates the implication of the old term that some societies are civilized and others are savage.