RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/26/left-wing-academics-seek-to-revoke-honorary-degrees-for-conservatives/

Multiple far-left activists at various universities and colleges are demanding that schools rescind any and all “honorary degrees” that have been bestowed upon prominent conservative figures.

The Daily Caller reports that the latest example comes from Syracuse University, which has begun taking steps to revoke an honorary degree given to Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City and later attorney for President Donald Trump. In April, the University Senate passed a resolution demanding that the Board of Trustees take action to rescind Giuliani’s degree. Giuliani, who was hailed as a national hero for his leadership after the September 11th attacks, led the legal team that attempted to fight back against voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Since the 152-year-old university has never done so before, the school does not even have a formal process in place for revoking anyone’s degree. Yet due to pressure from the far-left, a spokeswoman for the school confirmed that the school has officially adopted a new process for doing so, solely for the purpose of hurting Giuliani. The Senate Committee on Honorary Degrees will now make the final decision, and could make its choice as soon as spring.

In addition to Syracuse, three other universities have already revoked honorary degrees for Giuliani: Drexel University, Middlebury College, and the University of Rhode Island.

The effort to revoke honorary degrees has targeted multiple officials from the Trump Administration, including the President himself. Lehigh University and Wagner University rescinded President Trump’s honorary degrees following the peaceful protest at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021. He also lost an honorary degree from Robert Gordon University simply for running for president in 2015.

The University of Rhode Island, in addition to Giuliani, also revoked a degree for Lieutenant General and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was falsely accused of coordinating with the Russian government and was later exonerated.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/24/stanfords-naughty-and-nice-list/

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. 

It’s not clear what the origin is of that admonitory observation, though one plausible source is Sophocles’ Antigone, in which the chorus observes that the gods muddle the minds of those to whom evil seems good. 

We usually think of this stricture applying mostly to individuals. But as I look around our culture today, I wonder whether it might apply equally to institutions. 

Investigating that possibility with anything like thoroughness would take many pages. But let me offer what Kierkegaard described as a “preliminary expectoration” by noting what prompted the thought that this connection between madness and destruction might have an institutional as well as an individual application. 

For anyone attuned to the cultural static of our times, it will come as no surprise to learn that the bulletin came from that pullulating golden midden, the university, and from the highest reaches thereof. Elsewhere I have written about Harvard’s decision to go full blackface by appointing Claudine Gay, an activist intellectual nonentity, to be its next president. 

As the commentator Francis Menton noted in an excellent piece on Gay’s appointment, she has long been “the enforcer-in-chief of [wokeist] orthodoxy at Harvard.” She helped destroy the career of the brilliant economist Roland Fryer because he came to the “wrong” conclusions about whether the police displayed racial bias in their use of force (they don’t), while overlooking alleged data fabrication by Ryan Enos, another Harvard professor, because his studies had come to the right (i.e., left-progressive) conclusion about race and public housing. 

Gay’s appointment was just another example of how the obsession with race is destroying the academy in this country. Would she have been appointed had she not been black? Of course not. But no sooner had I filed that piece than Stanford University beclowned itself even more dramatically. As the Wall Street Journal reported, administrators at this gilded elite bastion of politically correct attitudinizing (endowment as of June: $40.1 billion) recently published guidelines for its “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” “a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.”

It gets worse, much worse, but for now all you need to know is that the “EHLI” is “one of the actions prioritized in the Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action, which was published by the Stanford CIO Council (CIOC) and People of Color in Technology (POC-IT).” If you have some Dramamine or an air sickness bag handy, check out the emetic verbiage at the links. 

It’s all part and parcel of our culture’s process of inversion, reversal, or—to give it a more familiar name—suicide. The EHLI website is . . . special. Early on, prospective readers are warned: 

CONTENT WARNING: THIS WEBSITE CONTAINS LANGUAGE THAT IS OFFENSIVE OR HARMFUL. PLEASE ENGAGE WITH THIS WEBSITE AT YOUR OWN PACE. 

https://www.city-journal.org/war-on-merit-takes-bizarre-turn

For years, two administrators at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) have been withholding notifications of National Merit awards from the school’s families, most of them Asian, thus denying students the right to use those awards to boost their college-admission prospects and earn scholarships. This episode has emerged amid the school district’s new strategy of “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.” School administrators, for instance, have implemented an “equitable grading” policy that eliminates zeros, gives students a grade of 50 percent just for showing up, and assigns a cryptic code of “NTI” for assignments not turned in. It’s a race to the bottom.

An intrepid Thomas Jefferson parent, Shawna Yashar, a lawyer, uncovered the withholding of National Merit awards. Since starting as a freshman at the school in September 2019, her son, who is part Arab American, studied statistical analysis, literature reviews, and college-level science late into the night. This workload was necessary to keep him up to speed with the advanced studies at TJ, which U.S. News & World Report ranks as America’s top school.

Last fall, along with about 1.5 million U.S. high school juniors, the Yashar teen took the PSAT, which determines whether a student qualifies as a prestigious National Merit scholar. When it came time to submit his college applications this fall, he didn’t have a National Merit honor to report—but it wasn’t because he hadn’t earned the award. The National Merit Scholarship Corporation, a nonprofit based in Evanston, Illinois, had recognized him as a Commended Student in the top 3 percent nationwide—one of about 50,000 students earning that distinction. Principals usually celebrate National Merit scholars with special breakfasts, award ceremonies, YouTube videos, press releases, and social media announcements.

But not at TJ. School officials had decided to withhold announcement of the award. Indeed, it turns out that the principal, Ann Bonitatibus, and the director of student services, Brandon Kosatka, have been withholding this information from families and the public for years, affecting the lives of at least 1,200 students over the principal’s tenure of five years. Recognition by National Merit opens the door to millions of dollars in college scholarships and 800 Special Scholarships from corporate sponsors.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/nearly-half-of-students-uncomfortable-expressing-controversial-views-on-campus-new-fire-free-speech-report/

Majority of students opposed to bringing conservative speakers on campus, report found

College students at America’s largest 203 colleges continue to censor themselves inside and outside of the classroom, a national survey of 45,000 students concluded.

Students play a significant role in censoring free speech on campus, but colleges can enforce policies that protect it, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s third annual College Free Speech Rankings, released in September, for the 2022-23 school year.

Adam Goldstein, FIRE’s vice president of research, told The College Fix in an email on December 16 that the wider culture has contributed to an atmosphere of thought and speech suppression on campus, measured by the report.

“To the extent there are clues in the existing data, cultural forces in the general public seem to create more discomfort than just on-campus interactions.” Goldstein stated. “For example, 41% of students were uncomfortable disagreeing with a professor in a written assignment, but 59% were uncomfortable disagreeing publicly.”

“Similarly, 48% of students were uncomfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic on campus, while 60% were uncomfortable expressing unpopular opinions to fellow students on social media,” Goldstein stated.

However, Goldstein told the Fix that when it comes to students engaging in at least some forms of censorship, schools can play a big role in protecting free speech by enforcing policies against violent or disruptive tactics.

“Lots of campus censorship isn’t expressive, such as theft of newspapers, ongoing heckler’s vetoes that prevent speakers from speaking entirely, or trashing flyers from ideologically opposed campus groups,” he wrote. “To the extent campus policy or existing law prohibit those actions, enforcement is important. A policy is only ever as good as the will to enforce it.”

Columbia University ranked lowest, receiving a score of ‘Abysmal’

https://thespectator.com/topic/claudine-gay-harvard-president-racial-spoils-system/?utm_source=

Peter Salovey must be fretting.

The longtime president of Yale University has done everything in his power to pander to the forces of woke identity politics. He changed the name of Calhoun College at Yale because students didn’t like that it was named after John C. Calhoun, a supporter of slavery in the early nineteenth century.

Salovey covered over or ripped out artwork across the university that a specially appointed committee deemed insensitive or offensive. He shoveled tens of millions of dollars into “diversity” initiatives in an effort to appease student crybullies.

But Salovey has one insuperable handicap. He is white.

In the great racial sweepstakes of the day, that is (if I may so put it) an insuperable black mark. Harvard understands this. Which is the world’s richest university has just named Claudine Gay, a black woman, to be its next president.

Would she have been appointed had she been white? To ask the question is to answer it.

Gay will take office this summer, just when the Supreme Court will decide an important affirmative action case against the university.

How can Salovey compete with Gay? Is he thinking fondly of Al Jolson? I suspect that one way or the other, Salovey will have to leave the presidency of Yale soon. As a fully paid-up member of the racialist sisterhood, Yale will have to emulate its cousin in Cambridge if it is to maintain its bona fides as a suitably progressive institution in the vanguard of virtucratic fatuousness.

It will be hard to do better than Claudine Gay. Plaudits to Penny Pritzker, head of Harvard’s search committee. Name sound familiar? Yep, she was Obama’s commerce secretary, finance chair of his presidential campaigns. She is also the sister of J.B. Pritzker, the current Illinois governor.

The New York Times reports that some 600 people were considered for the top spot at Harvard. Gay, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, had all of the key credentials. As I say, the conditio sine qua non was race.

Beyond that, though, Gay is the right kind of black, which is to say she is all in on the Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion bandwagon.

As Francis Menton explains in “Goodnight, Poor Harvard!” — a wide-ranging outline of Gay’s career — she has long been “the enforcer-in-chief of wokist orthodoxy at Harvard.” For example, she worked to bury complaints that one Harvard scholar, Ryan Enos, had falsified data in a study about public housing. Why? Because Enos had come to the right, i.e., the left-progressive conclusions in his study.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/22/the-36-million-question-college-presidents-wont-answer/

“Where’s the racism?”

This is the question that college presidents nationwide—and most everyone in their administrations—refuse to answer.

If you want to see a college president tap-dance to avoid accountability, go ahead and ask: “Who are the racist people, and what are the racist policies, programs, and procedures on your campus you claim is ‘rampant’ with ‘racism?’”

Enjoy the public relations messaging, but don’t expect a real answer. They can’t answer, because finding actual racism on a college campus is as likely as sighting Bigfoot. And just about as credible.

Now, college leaders are even more likely to circle the wagons against accountability, largely due to fears of litigation. Thanks to the resolution of a legal case in Ohio last week, this has become a $36 million question. Oberlin College paid up on a $36.6 million judgment to a local family bakery for libeling their business as “racist.”

The sad and completely unnecessary case of Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College is likely to reshape the conversation about so-called antiracism efforts on university campuses in coming months and years, even as colleges fund expensive bureaucracies, commission task forces, and hire well-heeled bureaucrats to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent at their institutions. 

To Catch a Thief

The incident that led to the judgment occurred in November 2016, when a black Oberlin student shoplifted a bottle of wine from the bakery, was chased and caught by one of the owners, all of which resulted in a scuffle. The thief and his two accomplices, who intervened for their friend to pummel the clerk protecting his business, were all arrested.

Within 24 hours, Oberlin moved swiftly into action. Not to upbraid the students, nor to apologize to the bakery and to the owner’s son, Allyn D. Gibson, whom the trio attacked.

Rather than assist in the prosecution of the student, Oberlin shifted into high umbrage mode and supported a coalition of students, faculty, and administrators to attack the bakery publicly for “racism.” The college stopped doing business with the bakery.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/college-carnage/

The well-documented woes that plague our government-run k-12 schools are now infecting our colleges. Students are arriving at universities woefully unprepared with the skills that are needed to tackle the rigors of upper-level education.

Of late, the downward k-12 spiral is a result of the lengthy and absolutely pointless Covid shutdowns, as well as many schools’ penchant for drifting away from the traditional 3 Rs and focusing instead on a heavily politicized curriculum. As a result, student learning has taken a big hit.

A recent survey informs us just how dire the situation is. While 87% of college students answered that at least one of their classes was too difficult and that the professor should have made it easier, 64% said this was the case with “a few” or “most” of their classes.

On a similar note, American Enterprise Institute scholar Rick Hess reports that 64% of college students claim that they put “a lot of effort” into school. But of the students who answered that they’re putting in a lot of effort, “a third said they devote fewer than five hours a week to studying and homework – and 70% said they spend no more than 10 hours a week on schoolwork.”

Some colleges are even dumbing down their curriculum to accommodate struggling students. The English department at Rutgers announced that it will de-emphasize “traditional grammar rules” in its graduate writing program so as not to put students with poor English backgrounds at a disadvantage. In Kansas, universities may scrap their algebra graduation requirement because too many students are failing it. It is reported that about one in three Kansas students fails college algebra the first time around, and some need to take it several times before they pass, while others get so frustrated that they drop out altogether.

Politically, colleges are an abomination. John Ellis, professor emeritus and chairman of the California Association of Scholars, explains that in the past “there would be a college campus on which a young academic loudly voiced his opinions on controversial matters—mostly political, but sometimes also on sexual morality, or even on legalizing drugs. This would offend the sensitivities of some local townspeople.”

But these days, the situation is exactly the opposite. It’s now the “professors who do what the small-minded small-town worthies used to do, shutting down analysis whenever it offends them, which is often.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/__trashed-4/

I went to Harvard. Once. Which is to say, I walked around the campus one day a long, long time ago during a visit to Boston. It was pleasant enough. It was almost as pretty as Wesleyan, Princeton, the University of Virginia, Duke, Chapel Hill, Michigan, Michigan State, Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, Claremont, McGill, Cambridge, Leiden, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and at least a dozen or so other campuses that I’ve sampled over the years.

Harvard is, of course, the oldest American college. It’s also considered the pinnacle, the zenith, the acme of higher education in the United States. But why? Back when I was studying English at Stony Brook, an accreditation committee gave our department a higher rating than Harvard’s. But that didn’t matter in the slightest after you graduated. On the job market, a Harvard diploma was gold. Stony Brook? Ha!

No, Harvard is Harvard because it’s…Harvard. U.S. News and World Report, which presumes to list the “best colleges” year after year, admits that its ratings are based largely on reputation. Which makes no sense. Everybody knows what Harvard’s reputation is. The point of a rating should be to indicate whether or not a reputation is justified.

And the plain fact is that, no, the reputation of Harvard, at least when it comes to the humanities and social sciences, isn’t justified. And the same goes for the rest of the Ivy League, as well as for Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and all those boutique establishments like Oberlin and Swarthmore. Because these are the places where “woke” ideology has made the deepest inroads – and done the most damage.

On December 15, Claudine Gay, a political scientist who specializes in Critical Race Theory and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and who currently serves as Harvard’s Dean of Arts and Sciences, was selected to be the university’s next president, starting on July 1, 2023. The usual suspects cheered her appointment wildly, most of them celebrating her deep warmth and compassion and noting with glee that she would be Harvard’s second woman president and first black president. What a step forward for the oppressed!

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/takeover-russell-jacoby

In 1987 I published The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe which elicited heated responses. Only now do I see I got something wrong—as did my critics. Some had objected to a term I introduced, “public intellectual,” as redundant and misleading. Others rejected the main argument. I proposed a generational account of American intellectuals. For earlier American intellectuals, the university remained peripheral because it was small, underfunded, and distant from cultural life. The Edmund Wilsons and Lewis Mumfords earlier in the 20th century to the Jane Jacobs and Betty Friedans later saw themselves as writers and journalists, not professors. But I missed something, the dawning takeover of the public sphere by campus denizens and lingo.

What I called a transitional generation, the largely Jewish New York intellectuals, ended up later in their careers as professors, but usually they lacked graduate training. When Daniel Bell was appointed to the faculty of Columbia University in 1960, officials discovered that he did not have a Ph.D.—and bestowed it on him for his collection of essays (The End of Ideology). This incident indicates something of the commitment of these men—and they were men; they wrote essays for a public, not monographs or research papers for colleagues. This orientation was as true for a confrere of Bell, like Irving Howe, who also ended up as a professor without graduate training. He observed that like himself Bell did not want to write long-winded treatises; nor did they want to specialize or get pigeonholed. Or as Bell phrased it for all of them, “I specialize in generalizations.”

But the story changes for the next generation—my ’60s generation. In pose we were much more radical than previous American intellectuals.We were the leftists, Maoists, Marxists, Third Worldists, anarchists, and protesters who regularly shut down the university in the name of the war in Vietnam or free speech or racial equality. Yet for all our university bashing, unlike earlier intellectuals, we never exited the campus. We settled in. We became graduate students, assistant professors and finally—a few of us—leading figures in academic disciplines.

To be sure, this was not simply a series of individual choices. The conditions that funneled the transitional generation onto campuses were hard to resist. The life of the freelance intellectual, always precarious, had become virtually impossible.