RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/goodbye-harvard/

I went to Harvard. I don’t remember exactly when. I visited Boston several times during the 1980s and 90s, and on one of those occasions I decided to take the appropriately named Red Line up to Cambridge and check out the campus of America’s oldest university. It was cute. It was certainly prettier than my own alma mater, Stony Brook, which at the time must have been one of the world’s premier showplaces of brutalist architecture at its most brutal. But on the other hand I’d seen a lot of campuses that were more beautiful than Harvard’s, among them Chapel Hill, Duke, Ann Arbor, Michigan State, Berkeley, and Stanford. Yes, the buildings – and the trees – were old and stately. But there was a stuffiness about the place. You could feel it. Or maybe I’m just guilty of committing the pathetic fallacy. Admittedly, a couple of my closest and very smartest friends went to Harvard; so did a few of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. You can get a great education there, but that’s true of a lot of places. What sets Harvard apart is that it inculcates in its students (not all, but many) an obnoxious sense of superiority, readies them to rise to the heights of the American establishment, and encourages them to subscribe to that establishment’s most cherished orthodoxies.

Pretty much every one of my closest friends in high school ended up at an Ivy League college. I had the highest SAT scores in my graduating class of more than a thousand, but partly because my father wasn’t eager to shell out Ivy-level tuition and partly because of what now seems to me an odd indifference to the whole business on my own part, I ended up at a state school. I’m glad I did. When an accreditation team came to check out our English department – that was the subject in which I received my B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. – they said it was better than Harvard’s. But who cared about things like that? Stony Brook, founded in 1957, was still half-finished, an active construction site where, when it rained, you had to slog through mud to get from one hideously ugly building to another. Harvard had over three centuries’ worth of cachet. Its name was synonymous the world over with academic excellence. However much of an idiot you might be, a Harvard diploma could take you anywhere. Even our own department chairman felt obliged to rub in the difference. When a bunch of us Ph.D. students got to the point at which we were supposed to start thinking about applying for jobs, our chairman gathered us together and explained how he and his faculty colleagues dealt with applications from newly minted Ph.Ds. “We put them in two piles,” he said. “Ivy and non-Ivy.” The next step for the latter, he made clear, was the trash bin.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-must-keep-pressure-higher-ed-stop-dei-opinion-1912635

Pressure from Republican politicians and conservative donors is beginning to cause Harvard, MIT, and other elite institutions to grudgingly step back from progressive illiberalism.

Consider Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Representative Michael Cloud’s (R-Tex.) new Dismantle DEI Act, which would eliminate mandatory diversity statements as well as Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) administrators and initiatives in the federal government. Critically, the measure hits National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health research funding, two of the worst DEI offenders, dramatically changing the incentive structure of American academic research.

Some conservatives cling to an optimistic conceit that a quiet majority of university faculty oppose woke policies and are suddenly acquiring the confidence to challenge radical activists, but this is not borne out by the evidence. Lawmakers like Vance and Cloud have a key role to play in the ongoing battle to restore political neutrality and expressive freedom to the nation’s institutions, schools, and wider public culture.

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences recently announced an end to the use of mandatory diversity statements in hiring. Diversity statements require applicants for jobs, promotions, or grants to demonstrate how they will advance DEI principles as a condition of success.

This requirement discriminates against conservative and classical liberal applicants who, reflecting the views of a majority of Americans, prioritize equal treatment, objective truth, and freedom of speech above equal outcomes and emotional safety for minorities. Diversity statements are loyalty oaths which violate applicants’ freedom of conscience and discriminate on the basis of philosophical belief.

Harvard’s scrapping of diversity statements follows a similar move from MIT, the first elite blue-state institution to do so. Harvard has also vowed to remain neutral on political questions that do not concern the university’s narrow self-interest.

Why the shift?

https://www.city-journal.org/article/in-portland-the-intifada-begins-in-kindergarten

Portland, Oregon, has earned its reputation as America’s most radical city. Its public school system was an early proponent of left-wing racialism and has long pushed students toward political activism. As with the death of George Floyd four years ago, the irruption of Hamas terrorism in Israel has provided Portland’s public school revolutionaries with another cause du jour: now they’ve ditched the raised fist of Black Lives Matter and traded it in for the black-and-white keffiyeh of Palestinian militants.

I have obtained a collection of publicly accessible documents produced by the Portland Association of Teachers, an affiliate of the state teachers’ union that encourages its more than 4,500 members to “Teach Palestine!” (The union did not respond to a request for comment.)

The lesson plans are steeped in radicalism, and they begin teaching the principles of “decolonization” to students as young as four and five years old. For prekindergarten kids, the union promotes a workbook from the Palestinian Feminist Collective, which tells the story of a fictional Palestinian boy named Handala. “When I was only ten years old, I had to flee my home in Palestine,” the boy tells readers. “A group of bullies called Zionists wanted our land so they stole it by force and hurt many people.” Students are encouraged to come up with a slogan that they can chant at a protest and complete a maze so that Handala can “get back home to Palestine”—represented as a map of Israel.

Other pre-K resources include a video that repeats left-wing mantras, including “I feel safe when there are no police,” and a slideshow that glorifies the Palestinian intifada, or violent resistance against Israel. The recommended resource list also includes a “sensory guide for kids” on attending protests. It teaches children what they might see, hear, taste, touch, and smell at protests, and promotes photographs of slogans such as “Abolish Prisons” and “From the River to the Sea.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/the_more_elite_the_school_the_more_likely_the_pro_hamas_encampment.html

Hedge fund big Bill Ackman, who’s lit a fire under Harvard over its antisemitism, seems to be still mulling the problems with universities.

He noted this, from the analysis of Washington Monthly:

According to Washington Monthly:

Student protestors at college campuses nationwide, united by their outrage at Israel’s actions in Gaza, can rightly be described as diverse. Despite the masks, it’s clear that they come from different racial backgrounds, and their views range from the belief that Israel should give up on its war effort to the conviction that Israel should be destroyed entirely.

But one thing is not especially diverse about the protests: the campuses on which they’ve been happening.

Many of the most high-profile protests have occurred at highly selective colleges, like Columbia University. But since the national media is famously obsessed with these schools and gives far less attention to the thousands of other colleges where most Americans get their postsecondary educations, it’s hard to know how widespread the campus unrest has really been.  

We at the Washington Monthly tried to get to the bottom of this question: Have pro-Palestinian protests taken place disproportionately at elite colleges, where few students come from lower-income families?

The answer is a resounding yes.

https://mailchi.mp/fd11b7e3e8ac/35b-from-us-taxpayers-funded-world-health-organization-59980?e=0c8ccf8e98

On Thursday, Northwestern was held to account in a hearing by the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Labor Force.

NU President Michael Schill had to answer for shocking concessions he made to anti-Israel protestors who occupied his campus.

Schill was confronted with our findings that nearly $1 billion in foreign cash has poured into the school since 2007. The bulk of it came from Qatar, the tiny nation that harbors key Hamas leaders. 

Yesterday, I joined The National Desk to discuss our findings and the hearing: 

A staggering $690M was donated from Qatar to NU, much of it for their mutual partnership: a degree-conferring campus (NU-Q) in Qatar.  

Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), with a huge check as a visual aid, walked through the details:  

NU-Q has a partnership with Al Jazeera for journalism students; more than 1/3 of the campus speakers expressed pro-Hamas sentiments. 

The royal family of Qatar funds Al Jazeera, which delivers the Qatar point-of-view in the news.  

NU-Q mints journalists hired by… Al Jazeera.  

NU-Q has at least one visiting professor associated with an organization accused of funneling funds to Hamas. 

Of $690 million, Northwestern took $173 million to agree to the satellite campus, and another chunk of money to provide scholarships in tandem with the government-backed Qatar Foundation.  

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/how-apple-google-and-microsoft-can

The current system for protecting children online does not work. It relies on parents understanding and managing their children’s online experience across a wide variety of applications. I live in the Bay Area and have many friends who work at large technology companies. I don’t know a single parent among them who feels completely comfortable with the options that currently exist. If the people who build technology products do not know how to protect their kids, we clearly need a better solution.

Parents are left on their own to figure out how to stop strangers from contacting their children and how to prevent anonymous cyberbullying. They need to figure out how to prevent their kids from seeing something they are not ready for in a world where 58% of teens report seeing sexually explicit content by accident and 19% of Instagram teens report seeing unwanted sexually explicit content every 7 days. And then there’s sleep: How do they ensure they don’t receive notifications at 1 am on a school night? Few parents feel confident in addressing these real and important concerns. 

The providers of operating systems, which is a market that Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate, could help. It would not only be the right thing to do, but it would also be a huge relief to the many parents who want their children to have rich social lives that require the ability to interact with their friends (who are online) — but do not have the time and energy to manage the myriad settings that exist across services. Parents need a simple way to protect their children online that doesn’t require them to know the difference between Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube settings and how to manage each of them separately. There is even a business incentive here: Many parents might be *more* willing to buy a device that promises a simple solution.

Of course, the best solution might be for children to stop using these products altogether. The four norms suggested in The Anxious Generation—which include delaying entry into social media until age 16—would do a lot of good, but there will still be youth who need protection from technology-enabled harms, even if such usage is drastically reduced. Children mature continuously and at very different rates, and so a child is not necessarily more able to handle a smartphone when they start high school or able to interact productively on social media on their 16th birthday, as compared to the day before. Even if legislative changes occur such that children cannot sign up for social media accounts without their parent’s permission until their 16th birthday, most families will still want an option that reduces the risk of their newly eligible sixteen-year-old receiving unwanted advances from others, should they choose to use social media at that time.

Some children may develop slower and may need more time before fully engaging with these technologies. On the other hand, some children may benefit from access to technology sooner. Many researchers have pointed out the benefits of social media for kids who have specific support needs, such as some LGBT children—and parents of those children—may want to provide earlier access. Even as many may disagree with their decision, some parents may still want their children to have a smartphone in order to be able to access YouTube, which has a wealth of educational content, or to be able to FaceTime their grandparents – even at earlier ages. Those parents may want solutions that enable their children to use these devices more safely.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/boycott-divest-and-sanction-columbia

The images of the recent protests at Columbia University have grabbed the attention of the American public: students chanting for a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea”; activists setting up a mass tent encampment on the campus lawn; masked occupiers seizing control of Hamilton Hall. For some, it was a sign that ancient anti-Semitism had established itself in the heart of the Ivy League. For others, it was déjà vu of 1968, when mass demonstrations last roiled campus.

After weeks of rising tensions, Columbia president Minouche Shafik resolved the immediate conflict by summoning the New York City Police Department, which swiftly disbanded anti-Israel student encampments, removed the occupiers of Hamilton Hall, and arrested more than 100 students, who were subsequently suspended.

President Shafik feigned surprise. In a statement to students, she expressed “deep sadness” about the campus chaos. But to anyone who has observed Columbia in recent decades, the upheaval should not come as a surprise. Behind the images of campus protests lies a deeper, more troubling story: the ideological capture of the university, which inexorably drove Columbia toward this moment. Columbia for decades has cultivated the precise conditions that allowed the pro-Hamas protests to flourish. The university built massive departments to advance “postcolonialism,” spent hundreds of millions of dollars on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and glorified New Left–style student activism as the telos of university life.

Terms like these might sound benign as euphemisms, but the reality is sinister. As the protests revealed, postcolonial theory is often an academic cover for anti-Semitism, DEI is frequently a method for enflaming racial grievances, and student activism can become a rationalization for violence and destruction.

The university, founded by royal charter in 1754 and a great American institution for more than two centuries, has lost its way. There will need to be a reckoning before it can return to its former glory.

The first part of that process is understanding what went wrong. To do so, we will attempt to uncover the roots of Columbia’s Intifada.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/deception-and-misinformation/

It is becoming more and more challenging to get advanced academic education without being exposed to malicious educators and others, who are willing to advance their own agenda, and ignore the interest of their students.

The recent turmoil in multiple universities in the USA and elsewhere, is only a symptom of many years of on-going indoctrination which is being ignored, due to various excuses.

Recently, there were again, alarms from the PJTN organization and from others, about the indoctrination of the young students in the K-12 classrooms, in multiple states.

I am glad that we have many organizations who would like to do better than the others, in exposing and marginalizing the bad operatives.

We need all of them, as there may be some that will reach groups of people, that others would not be able to do.

Some of the problems of having that many organizations are related to the fact that unfortunately, many times, they are not delivering the same messages, nor addressing the same problems, in systematically and repetitiously effective ways. We know from the science of commercial marketing, that if we want people to remember, identify, and ultimately, buy a product, they will have to hear the messages multiple times, and in different ways. Therefore, sharing well documented, similar, valuable, basic, and relevant information, by different sources, will significantly amplify the distribution of the messages, and will hopefully result in reaching and convincing more people, to act in their own interest, to expose and marginalize evil.

One of the hot topics of today is related to the insidious infiltration of radical groups into our educational system, with serious effects on the society at large. This phenomenon is not new. It happened already in the past, but recently it has gained momentum, which is affecting not only the students, but also educators and political decision makers. Consequently, it negatively affects the population at large.