RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/snitches-get-sheepskins-as-colleges-train-student-informants-dei-east-germany-bias-protected-class-f941ee11?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

Anonymous informers have always been a hallmark of totalitarian regimes. Friends, neighbors and even family members are encouraged to inform on those who speak against the regime. This is effective social control: Nowhere is safe to discuss politics, and everyday life is subdued. To this day, when Cubans want to discuss something sensitive, they go into their bathrooms, let the water flow and whisper.

Who would want to live under such conditions? Apparently, America’s colleges and universities do. They have been setting up their own systems of anonymous informers.

According to a recent study by the free-speech watchdog organization Speech First, 56% of American universities have adopted schemes that encourage students to report on one another anonymously for “bias” or “protected identity harm.” This means that anyone who falls short of campus orthodoxy on “pronouns,” transgenderism, microaggressions and proscribed language might soon be denounced and deprived of basic due process, including the right to face an accuser. Zealots at Stanford recently denounced a fellow student who was photographed holding a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

The number of universities that have institutionalized snitching has doubled since 2017. The damage this will do to campus life is easy to imagine: It will chill free expression via self-censorship both in and out of the classroom; it will infantilize protected classes of students even more than they already have been; it will reinforce the campus culture of victimhood; it will further strengthen the radical orthodoxy; and it will divert yet more energy from learning to ideological activism.

Anonymous reporting has a self-selection component: Decent people won’t do it because they consider it morally repugnant. A system that rewards spying on friends and neighbors will disproportionately attract cowardly people motivated by the worst of human nature—resentment, jealousy, grudges and dogmatic intolerance. The snitches will be people who don’t understand the damage Stasi-like behavior will do to our universities.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/school-for-radicals/

In case you haven’t yet caught up with the Spring 2023 issue of UCLA’s online magazine, its feature story is “The Justice League” by journalist Ashraf Khalil: laudatory profiles of a handful of social justice alumni from a unique UCLA initiative called the Activist-in-Residence Program. Established in 2016 by the Luskin Institute on Inequality and Democracy, this Program “plugs activists into the power grid of resources offered by a top-tier research university” to empower these aspiring revolutionaries to overthrow the society they despise so deeply.

As described on its website, the Luskin Institute on Inequality and Democracy “advances radical democracy in an unequal world through research, critical thought, and alliances with social movements and racial justice activism.” By “radical democracy,” they don’t mean individual freedom without limits, but collectivism and enforced equity. Their methodology is almost a parody of woke buzzwords and phraseology such as “decolonizing the University”: “We root our work in abolitionist and decolonial traditions of thought that refuse extractive and exploitative research and instead build forms of knowledge accountable to movements and communities on the frontlines of struggle.”

The Luskin Institute’s Activist-in-Residence initiative grants residents a stipend and free rein of campus resources for five months to develop their varied missions and help educate the next generation of activists. “The UCLA Activist-in-Residence program’s objective is to “turn the university inside out” through “power-shifting scholarship and pedagogy focused on social change.”

“It was a way of shifting who is seen as a scholar, who is seen as a teacher at an elite research university like UCLA,” Professor Ananya Roy, the Luskin Institute’s founding director, told Ashraf Khalil. She added that she wants the program to expand to other universities across the country, envisioning this “shared terrain of scholarship across universities and movements… to be very fertile ground for making change.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/save_stanford_appoint_scott_atlas_or_jay_bhattacharya_as_president.html

Stanford University’s reputation is in freefall as this once-revered university makes headlines for all the wrong reasons. Recently, a mob of law school students shut down a conservative judge’s speech, screeching insults at him to the approval of a Diversity Dean and the disgust of the country. Then there’s the FTX fiasco, in which a Stanford-linked cryptocurrency company collapsed amidst lurid charges of fraud and money laundering. Victor’s Davis Hanson’s lament “What Happened to Stanford?” adds other disasters to the list, including the arrest of a Chinese agent and the disclosure of $64 million in Chinese donations.

I’ve been studying Stanford’s decline for a while, and I think I have a partial explanation: the fish rots from the head.  Stanford’s president is a renowned neuroscientist currently under investigation for scientific fraud. Dr. Tessier-Lavigne made his reputation studying Alzheimer’s, but evidence has emerged that has critics alleging that he may have manipulated images in multiple influential papers published in Science and Nature.

Americans are losing faith in their institutions, and the story of Dr. Tessier-Lavigne exemplifies why. His first problematic study dates back to 2001, but that didn’t stop his meteoric rise through biotech pioneer Genentech to the presidency of Rockefeller University and then Stanford in 2016. Now that his alleged frauds have come to light, Stanford’s Board of Trustees has opened an investigation, but it’s being conducted by Board members, instead of outside experts. To many observers, it appears that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne may be getting the privileged treatment awarded those with favored credentials and opinions.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/teachers_unions_are_destroying_american_education.html

American public schools are witnessing a mass exodus of teachers.

The term “stampede” may be more appropriate. According to one poll conducted in 2022, some 55% of educators were ready to leave the profession, and this unease is often translated into action. In one Chicago school nearly every teacher bailed out. Many teachers are not even waiting for the end of the school year and are leaving in mid-term.

These departures overwhelming result from school violence, disorderly classrooms, insufficient administrative support, and trying to teach kids who just don’t care. According to one study during the 2020-21 school year, one-third of teachers reported at least one incident of harassment or threats of violence while 14% were actually physically attacked. The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Violence against Educators and School Personnel reports that threats can even come from parents convinced that junior is “a good kid” despite carrying a knife to the classroom.

Cold statistics understate the fear of violence, especially in schools where poor, single-parent minority students predominate. Reports of physical confrontations quickly spread to others as does the unwillingness of school administrators to punish culprits.  Further add daily in-your-face hostility to learning such as talking during lectures, constant iPhone use, and obvious boredom that can kill a teacher’s commitment.

Under such circumstances, the usual workplace incentives are of little value to unhappy teachers. A 3% salary raise, or better medical plan, cannot compensate for daily living in fear for one’s safety. This is not the Great Depression where a secure teaching job was prized no matter what. Nor are today’s female teachers limited in their vocational options.   

The problems of unsafe and dangerous working conditions are the classic tribulations that precipitated America’s labor movement. After all, what could be more central to a union?  So, how are the two teacher unions responding? Answer: By making it worse.

https://www.city-journal.org/battle-over-hasidic-schools-is-a-broader-battle

For almost 130 years, New York State has required private and non-public schools to offer a curriculum “substantially equivalent” to those offered in local public schools. That requirement has been loosely enforced, and the state education department issued new regulations in September 2022 that promised a more aggressive approach. But last week, New York Supreme Court Judge Christina Ryba partially invalidated those regulations. The ruling overturned neither the state’s compulsory-education law nor the substantial-equivalency law upon which the September regulations had been based. Rather, it invalidated the enforcement mechanism included in those regulations, which, Ryba found, would shut down schools out of step with the substantial-equivalency requirement. The compulsory-education law applies to parents, not schools, Ryba argued; accordingly, enforcement actions would have to be brought against parents instead of the schools themselves.

The ruling comes at a time of fierce debate over substantial equivalency at religious schools serving Hasidic Jewish New Yorkers. One side of the debate has reduced these schools to a set of caricatures—arguing that the education provided in these schools is of low quality, that their graduates are consigned to lives of poverty, and that parents are coerced by religious leaders to enroll their children in these schools. Reality is more complicated.

While performing research for a Manhattan Institute issue brief on the subject, I visited a yeshiva (religious school) for Hasidic boys in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights neighborhood. It offers no instruction in secular subjects, but the boys I observed all seemed to be fluent English speakers. I was told that they came from homes where English was freely spoken and that some parents may choose to augment the yeshiva’s instruction with tutors in English and math. Judge Ryba’s decision anticipated that a family could ensure substantial equivalency through a combination of religious school attendance, tutoring, and homeschooling.

https://quillette.com/2023/03/26/dismantle-dei-ideology/

For now, the adults at the Stanford Law School appear to be in charge. In a March 22nd letter addressed to the “SLS Community,” Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martínez unequivocally repudiated the shoutdown of federal judge Kyle Duncan by Stanford law students earlier this month. The law school’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, who had lectured Duncan about his allegedly injurious presence on campus, has been placed on leave. That is the good news.

Martínez’s letter is one of the most thorough defenses of academic free speech to come from a college administrator in recent years. However, she has declined to discipline the students involved in the heckling. Distinguishing those students who had engaged in punishable conduct from those who had not would be too difficult, she claims. Moreover, the hecklers had not been warned that they risked sanctions. Punishing the hecklers would also leave unpunished those who did not literally disrupt the event but whose vulgar signs or insulting personal questions were outside the norms of civil discourse.

Instead of discipline, Martínez will require all law students to attend a half-day session on free speech later in the semester. (One can’t help but observe that Judge Duncan’s student hosts, who engaged in no speech disruption, do not seem to be in need of such training.) The reasons for Martínez’s amnesty are not persuasive. Nevertheless, that amnesty could serve as an acceptable compromise if other measures to prevent a reoccurrence were in place. They are not, and Martínez’s letter shows why they likely never will be.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/03/29/is_the_counter-university_movement_any_match_for_the_dei_juggernaut_889808.html

A group of intellectual mavericks made splashy headlines in 2021 when they announced plans to launch a new university in Texas called the University of Austin.   

Backed by a gallery of celebrity intellectuals – its trustees and directors include former Harvard president Larry Summers, Brown University economist Glenn Loury, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen, civil rights leader and former congressman Andrew Young, and the journalists Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan – the startup would be dedicated to the classic ideals of open inquiry, Socratic debate, and the unfettered pursuit of truth.  

The University of Austin is just one of a number of recent academic experiments challenging what many conservatives and independents see as a stifling leftist monoculture on campus they deem illiberal, censorious, and anti-intellectual.   

These countercultural projects reflect a range of reformist strategies coming from inside and outside the academy. In addition to launching new schools, they are creating independent institutes as havens of free thought within existing institutions, and pushing universities to adopt statements that codify academic freedom.  

At the same time, Republican legislatures and governors around the country are moving to shut down campus Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies at state universities. And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking the most aggressive tack, backing legislation that would defund DEI offices and eliminate courses based on Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, and other social justice ideologies.   

This activity is generating buzz aplenty, but these projects face considerable obstacles – logistical, financial, and legal – that proponents acknowledge may be insurmountable on a meaningful scale, at least in the short term.   

https://www.wsj.com/articles/woke-law-schools-could-bring-down-america-ilya-shapiro-dei-bureaucracy-stanford-supreme-court-rule-of-law-34c402c2?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

Wokeness, or what used to be called political correctness, once seemed merely harebrained, the product of shallow ideas and immature passion. The common view was that undergraduates would outgrow it once they left campus and faced the rigors of the real world.

You seldom hear that anymore, as those ideas have run amok in culture- and economy-defining institutions ranging from news organizations and local governments to professional societies and corporate boardrooms. But Ilya Shapiro thinks we’re not alarmed enough about their influence in one important corner of academia: law schools. The professional ideologues who wield administrative authority on American college campuses want nothing less than to “change the American constitutional system,” Mr. Shapiro says. They pose a grave long-term threat to “the rule of law and inalienable rights, and even concepts like equal treatment under the law.”

Mr. Shapiro, 45, is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Hunkered down in the study of his Virginia home, he’s working on a book, “Canceling Justice: The Illiberal Takeover of Legal Education,” that seeks to lay bare the process by which bureaucrats appointed to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion” on campus have “perverted our system of legal education.”

A prime example was in the news as we spoke. Stanford’s Federalist Society chapter had invited Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to speak on campus. Confronted by a vicious leftist student mob, he asked administrators to intervene. Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s associate dean for DEI, arose to deliver prepared remarks, which concluded: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ”

Mr. Shapiro experienced a different kind of DEI humiliation in January 2022. He was concluding his tenure as a vice president of the Cato Institute and due to start a new job as executive director of the Center for the Constitution at Georgetown’s law school. Then Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire. Mr. Shapiro tweeted that Judge Sri Srinivasan was the “objectively best pick” for the vacancy but President Biden had already disqualified him on the basis of race and sex. Mr. Shapiro opined that Judge Srinivasan “alas doesn’t fit into the intersectional hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman.”