RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/lincolnbrown/2022/12/19/everyone-gets-an-a-n1654760

Have you heard of New York City’s New School? Me either. Apparently, it is a very elite private university. According to the website, it is a place that “reimagines the future,” “interrogates justice and equity,” “cultivates new models of creative work,” and “creates more sustainable futures.” As far as the course catalog, it seems fairly straightforward in terms of its School of Design. Its liberal arts program offers classes such as “Outings in Queer Anthropology,” “Women in Post-Socialist Transformation,” and “Activist Anthropology: Toward Antiracism, Decolonization, and Anti-Oppression.” In other words, a school perfectly designed for overindulged, rich kids who are desperate to rid themselves of whatever guilt they have decided everyone has. And what do spoiled, rich kids do when they do not get what they want? They have tantrums, of course.

The New York Post reports that on Dec. 8, the students at The New School began a protest in solidarity with adjunct faculty who were striking for higher wages and a better healthcare package. That issue was resolved by Dec. 10, and yet the protest itself goes on. Somehow, the list of complaints has evolved into demands for better cafeteria food, a tuition freeze, and refunds for time lost during class, and that the president, vice president, and provost resign. They also want the president’s townhouse to be turned over to the student body. The protesters have yet to figure out what they will do with the property. Chief among the list of demands is that all students receive A grades for their fall semester classes and the removal of “incomplete” or “withdrawal” listings on grades. The New School told the Post, “The university supports peaceful free expression by our students, and we are listening closely to all of our students’ concerns. Faculty retain autonomy about how to conduct and grade their courses.”

https://freebeacon.com/campus/white-students-are-prohibited-from-applying-to-this-unc-fellowship/

The public university dragged into court over its race-conscious admissions policy is now advertising a research fellowship that bars white applicants from applying.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—whose affirmative action program, along with that of Harvard University, is under review by the Supreme Court—sponsors the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition, which accepts applications exclusively from students who are “Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC),” according to the program’s website. Fellows earn thousands of dollars, live in on-campus apartments paid for by the university, and receive generous mentorship opportunities, including letters of recommendation.

“The field of nutrition is overwhelmingly comprised of white researchers,” an ad for the fellowship states. “Increased BIPOC representation in food policy research is critical for developing effective, equitable, comprehensive, and culturally competent policies that address nutrition-related health disparities.”

On Monday, the economist Mark Perry filed a complaint about the fellowship with the District of Columbia’s Office of Civil Rights. The complaint, which was reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, asks the office to investigate the university for “race-based discrimination.”

UNC Chapel Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

The program, which UNC Chapel Hill announced last week on its website, comes as UNC Chapel Hill and Harvard await a verdict from the Supreme Court over a lawsuit from Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit opposed to affirmative action. The group argues that both schools are violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans racial discrimination by the recipients of federal funds, and that UNC Chapel Hill, as a public university, is also violating the 14th Amendment, which bans racial discrimination by the government.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stanford-guide-to-acceptable-words-elimination-of-harmful-language-initiative-11671489552?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Parodists have it rough these days, since so much of modern life and culture resembles the Babylon Bee. The latest evidence is that Stanford University administrators in May published an index of forbidden words to be eliminated from the school’s websites and computer code, and provided inclusive replacements to help re-educate the benighted.

Call yourself an “American”? Please don’t. Better to say “U.S. citizen,” per the bias hunters, lest you slight the rest of the Americas. “Immigrant” is also out, with “person who has immigrated” as the approved alternative. It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?

You can’t “master” your subject at Stanford any longer; in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that “historically, masters enslaved people.” And don’t dare design a “blind study,” which “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.” Blind studies are good and useful, but never mind; “masked study” is to be preferred. Follow the science.

“Gangbusters” is banned because the index says it “invokes the notion of police action against ‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.” Not to beat a dead horse (a phrase that the index says “normalizes violence against animals”), but you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.

The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is a “multi-phase” project of Stanford’s IT leaders. The list took “18 months of collaboration with stakeholder groups” to produce, the university tells us. We can’t imagine what’s next, except that it will surely involve more make-work for more administrators, whose proliferation has driven much of the rise in college tuition and student debt. For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-12-15-goodnight-poor-harvard

Yesterday I got two emails from Harvard University, as I presume all other Harvard alumni also did. There’s big news: the Presidential Search Committee has announced who will become the next President of the University. It’s Claudine Gay, currently Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the largest constituent piece of the institution. She will become President on July 1, 2023, when current President Larry Bacow steps down (after only five years).

Have I heard of this person before? More on that in a bit.

But first some of the gushing praise from the official University publicity:

Claudine is a remarkable leader who is profoundly devoted to sustaining and enhancing Harvard’s academic excellence, to championing both the value and the values of higher education and research, to expanding opportunity, and to strengthening Harvard as a fount of ideas and a force for good in the world. . . . As her many admirers know, Claudine consults widely; she listens attentively; she thinks rigorously and imaginatively; she invites collaboration and resists complacency; and she acts with conviction and purpose. . . . Claudine’s own scholarship and teaching have focused on aspects of democracy—political participation, voting behavior, public opinion, and the interplay of race, ethnicity, and politics in America.

And that’s barely a tenth of it. I’m sorry I can’t give you a link to the whole thing; but then, I certainly would not recommend wasting your time reading it.

But where have I come across this name before? Somehow I remembered seeing it on Instapundit, and with a quick search there I find this brief post from April 17, 2022. The link goes to a Substack article by a guy named Chris Brunet, formerly of the Daily Caller, who has gone out on his own at Substack under the name Karlstack. Brunet apparently makes a specialty of exposing corruption in academia, and he is all over the case of Ms. Gay. His April 17, 2022 post has the title “The Curious Case of Claudine Gay.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/equity-rears-its-ugly-head-in-academic-publishing/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=third

The leftist obsession with “equity” is showing up all over. Some people insist on ending blind auditions for orchestral openings on the grounds that it’s more important to get a “better” racial mix of musicians than to identify the best ones. And this same mindset is now showing up in the world of academic publishing. It has always been the case that submissions were evaluated “blind” — that is, without the reader knowing anything about the writer.

Now there’s pressure to change that. Daniel Buck writes about this disturbing (but hardly surprising) development in today’s Martin Center article.

In an article for Inside Higher Ed, one academic argues for open reviews. This author, Kim Manturuk, had brought together a conference to discuss instructional practices best suited to the pandemic era. To her shock and horror, a few papers authored by Christians made it through the double-blind review process. Whereas the ancient Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides recommended we “hear the truth, whoever speaks it,” Manturuk, a modern-day Pharisee, suggests we hear the truth only when it is spoken by the ideologically pure.

So, just as with student admissions, merit is no longer the key to success. Papers are to be evaluated based on the characteristics of the writers and tossed aside if those characteristics somehow indicate that the paper isn’t aligned with “proper values.”

Buck argues that this development takes our universities back to the days of the Inquisition.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/catherinesalgado/2022/12/12/half-naked-drag-queen-teaches-kid-to-twerk-in-nyc-as-parents-watch-calmly-n1652899

Here’s your daily reminder that radical leftists are living in a different universe: a video has surfaced of a drag queen shaking his almost-naked behind in kids’ faces, teaching a young girl to twerk as parents placidly watched, some of them smiling, at a recent New York City “all-ages” drag show. What is wrong with American parents?

Libs of TikTok shared the disturbing video clip on Twitter:

The effort to sexualize and pervert children as young as possible continues at a roaring rate. American Girl has a book now encouraging puberty blockers and transgenderism for little girls, even as a recent New York Times report revealed the serious long-term side effects of puberty blockers on kids. A new study just showed that there is a “surge” in irreversible “transgender” surgeries for teenaged girls soon after de-transitioner Chloe Cole said she would be suing the medical professionals who performed the girl’s double mastectomy when she was still a minor. And Project Veritas released a video on Dec. 7 of the dean of students at an elite Chicago private school boasting about how he had an LGBTQ+ “Health Center” come in and teach his underaged students about “queer sex” and other perversions.

Democrat Party leadership supports all this insanity, too — for instance, Joe Biden called restrictions on transgender “treatments” for children “immoral,” and Gov. Laura Kelly (D-Kansas) used taxpayer dollars to fund “an all-ages Halloween drag show,” according to Breitbart.

There is an all-out culture war specifically targeting children as Democrats try to make perversion the norm.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/12/this_is_what_kids_are_learning_nowadays.html

Anthony Gonzalez is a student in high school.

There was a time in America when schools did the job they were supposed to do.

“Transgenderism” indoctrination did not exist. Schools made sure to prepare the future generation to succeed in the real world.

However, that has now changed. Flash forward to the twenty-first century, and you will find that kids are learning about “drag queens” as well as the idea that men can be women and women can be men.

These people are sick! This societal corruption is psychologically, and at times, physically, hurting our children.

This is what Democrats want for your children. Think about that.

Project Veritas recently went undercover to expose this horrible ideology being taught in schools.

Veritas found that Joseph Bruno, a dean at a private school in Chicago, was publicly bragging about the fact that his students were learning about passing around sex toys and noticing the differences between lubes and spit.

Bruno concluded, “That’s a really cool part of my job.” 

Really? Folks, this is not normal, nor should it be acceptable societal behavior. This is truly an ignominy that no one should support. The idea that children are being taught a very gruesome sexual ideology is abhorrent.