RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/texas-university-social-justice/

If you think that universities are immunized against the “social justice” plague because they’re located in conservative states, well, think again. They’re not. Once “progressive” thinking administrators get their hands on the school — and very few people who climb the academic ladder are not progressive — the contagion is sure to get in.

In today’s Martin Center article, attorney Mark Pulliam gives us Exhibit A, the University of Texas. He writes,

The latest racket in higher education, evident at my alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin, is the disturbing proliferation of ‘social justice’ as a degree program, a course topic, an academic emphasis, and even as a prerequisite in campus job descriptions.

Consider, for example , UT’s Social Justice Institute. Pulliam gives us the flavor of this institute’s contributions:

The Institute hosts monthly programs (the Social Justice Conversation Series) on selected readings related to social justice and diversity. Topics have included “ableism, sexism, religious oppression, ageism, adultism, heterosexism, transgender oppression, racism and classism.” For each session, cohort leaders “help the conversation flow from a social justice perspective.”

That’s isn’t education; it’s propaganda for statism.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/a_teachers_lament_then_and_now.html

In his 1962 essay titled “A Dog in Brooklyn, a Girl in Detroit: A Life among the Humanities,” from The Age of Happy Problems, Herbert Gold recounts how “neither glory nor pleasure nor power, and certainly not wisdom, provided the goal of [the] students” he attempted to instruct.

Attempting to teach a college-level humanities course, Gold “could classify [his] students in three general groups, intelligent, mediocre, and stupid, allowing for the confusions of three general factors – background, capacity, and interest.”

Reminiscing about his attempt to motivate young people, Gold admits that he “often failed at inspiring [his] students to do the assigned reading. Many of them had part-time jobs in the automobile industry or its annexes.” Thus, the plaintive “I couldn’t read the book this week, I have to work” reverberated in the classroom with “its implied reproach for a scholar’s leisure.” Continuing to describe the paradoxes of teaching in a university, Gold finds little common ground between himself and his students.

When he attempted to explain Seurat’s “La Grande Jatte” and the “importance of … pointillism to students who only wanted to see life clear and true, see it comfortably,” he encountered students who asserted that “this kind of painting hurt [their] eyes.” In addition, students clamored that “there was too much reading for one course – ‘piling it on. This isn’t the only course we take.'”

Then, in the middle of his essay, Gold details how, in front of the school building, a skidding truck sideswiped a taxi, and the cab “was smashed like a cruller.” From the door of his cab, the driver emerged, stumbling holding his head. There was blood on his head and hands. He was in confusion and in shock – “[d]rivers turned their heads upon him … but did not get involved.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/academic-brand-deflated-elite-degrees-worth-less/When self-professed experts are wrong over and over, for decades, what’s the value of a university degree?

Trumpism is sometimes derided as an updated know-nothingism that rejects expertise and the input of credentialed expertise. Supposedly, professionals who could now save us tragically have their talent untapped as they sit idle at the Council of Foreign Relations, the economics Department at Harvard, or in the offices of the Brookings Institution — even as Trump’s wheelers and dealers crash and burn, too proud, too smelly, or too ignorant to call in their betters to come in and save Trump from himself.

But do the degreed classes, at least outside math, the sciences, engineering, and medicine, merit such esteem anymore?

Anthony Scaramucci’s Harvard Law degree seemed no guarantee of the Mooch’s circumspection, sobriety, or good judgement.

Bruce Ohr’s similar degree did not ensure either common sense or simple ethics. Or, on the contrary, perhaps at Harvard he learned that progressive ends justify any means necessary to obtain them. In any case, Ohr thought there was nothing wrong in keeping quiet about his spouse’s work on the discredited Steele dossier, or indeed in aiding and abetting the seeding of it, while he was the fourth-ranking official at Trump’s Department of Justice.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/milwaukees-public-school-barricade-1534203534

Teachers’ unions and their liberal allies are desperately trying to preserve the failing public school status quo. Witness how the Milwaukee Public School (MPS) system is defying a state mandate to sell vacant property to charter and private schools.

Milwaukee’s public schools are a mess. Merely 62% of students graduate from high school in four years, and proficiency rates are 15% in math and just over 20% in English. Families are escaping to charter and private schools, which has resulted in 11,000 vacant seats and a budget shortfall that’s expected to swell to $130 million within five years.

We wrote in 2015 about how MPS blocked charter and private school purchases of empty school buildings, which prevented high-performing schools like St. Marcus Lutheran from expanding. The state legislature then passed a law ordering the city and school district to sell vacant public school buildings.

Well, what do you know, the district still hasn’t sold a single vacant building to other schools despite 13 letters of interest from private and charter operators for 11 vacant buildings, according to the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Following protests from the teachers’ union, a local zoning board denied a bid by Right Step, a private school for children expelled from Milwaukee public schools. The city hasn’t even classified many unused buildings as “vacant.”

Fox News reports on Newton teachers’ emails against “objectivity” in the classroom.

APT recently unearthed emails from Newton high school teachers which show extreme political bias and a pathologically politicized approach to educating Newton students. One teacher writes of not wanting to “get fired for being a liberal propagandist,” while another fears that “the call for ‘objectivity’ may just inadvertently become the most effective destructive weapon against social justice.”

Our exposé of this scandal in The Federalist went viral, and has now made Fox News.

Fox & Friends has featured APT’s findings on the Newton schools scandal twice in two days now.

At 76 I am old enough to have experienced the old-fashioned kind of discrimination. It happened in 1965, when I was in my second year at Harvard Law School. I was looking for a job as a summer associate, a rite of passage that generally leads to permanent employment. I remember feeling pretty confident, having ranked 40th out of 530 in my first-year grades.

I applied to the four law firms I considered the best—all “white shoe” firms in downtown New York. I arrived at each interview in my best suit, hair trimmed and shoes shined. The interviews went smoothly, but at no point did anyone offer me a job. By my last interview I figured I must be missing something, so I asked instead what his firm was looking for in an associate. I recall that he looked at me in silence for about 60 seconds, as though trying to figure out a polite way of explaining the situation. He told me that the most important thing for any lawyer was to be able to relate to the clients, and that of course it is always easiest for clients to relate to lawyers who are like themselves.

It had taken four wasted interviews, but I finally understood. I went from that last firm to my apartment and took out a telephone book. I knew of three so-called Jewish law firms in New York at that time, so I called the one that came first in the book, Kaye Scholer, and asked to speak to the hiring partner. Though it was 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, he asked if I could come over right away. An hour later I was interviewed, first by him, then by a preppy-looking partner with a bow tie, and finally by the firm’s administrative partner, who offered me a job. I accepted on the spot.

After working at Kaye Scholer that summer, I joined the firm as a regular associate in 1966, became a partner in 1975 and stayed there until I retired two years ago, when it merged into a larger firm. Thanks in part to a Fulbright year I had spent in Berlin, I developed a large practice representing German clients—people who were not at all like myself—the very thing the white-shoe firms had assumed I could never do.

After I began my job, I found out that many of the older partners had experiences similar to my own. Some had been hired by downtown firms but left when they realized they had no future there or when an anti-Semitic partner blackballed them for partnership. Firms like Kaye Scholer benefited enormously from the downtown firms’ bigotry.

Since my experience in 1965, all of the firms at which I had interviewed have overcome their prejudices and now hire and promote Jewish lawyers, as well as women, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Kaye Scholer became similarly diverse.

Yet as the old kind of discrimination has died out, a new form has emerged—this time under the banner of “diversity.” It’s good to open opportunities to people who were previously excluded. But promoting “diversity” by discriminating against nonfavored categories of people seems quite a different thing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/racism-debate-sarah-jeong-academia-cannot-define-words/

The latest controversy stems from a deep confusion about how language works.

A “descriptivist” is someone who studies how language is used. A “prescriptivist” is someone who tells other people how to use language correctly. And while these are often framed as opposing camps, they need not be: A thoughtful descriptivist realizes that strongly established usage patterns should generally be treated as rules by someone who wants to communicate effectively; a thoughtful prescriptivist realizes that the rules emerge from constantly evolving usage patterns.

There’s a certain strain of prescriptivism, though, that merely seeks to impose rules on other people’s language, often on nothing more than one’s own say-so. Overwhelmingly, these folks are harmless-if-annoying self-appointed “sticklers” who insist, for example, that you must not split infinitives or start sentences with conjunctions. But ill-founded prescriptivism also rears its head with political terms, and we’ve been seeing a bit of that lately from the woke left.

Some academics who study racial matters use the word “racism” to mean not “dislike of people on the basis of race,” which is how most people use it, but rather something like “prejudice plus power” or what is more clearly called “institutional” or “systemic” racism — meaning, conveniently, that members of minority groups by definition cannot be racist. And as Scott Alexander noted at Slate Star Codex back in 2014, parts of the Left are no longer willing to admit that this is a departure from standard usage by saying something along the lines of, “I suppose a group of black people chasing a white kid down the street waving knives and yelling ‘KILL WHITEY’ qualifies by most people’s definition, but I prefer to idiosyncratically define it my own way, so just remember that when you’re reading stuff I write.”

Many simply point to academic definitions, as though academia had the power to redefine words for the rest of society; that, of course, is not how language works.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/betsy-devoss-loan-forgiveness-rule-slimed-by-college-cartel/

The new standard is clearly better for colleges, taxpayers, and students who are willing to repay their debts.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has issued new guidelines on federal student-loan forgiveness in an attempt to more sensibly balance the rights of borrowers and taxpayers. Predictably, the higher-education cartel and its media allies were aghast. The New York Times headlined its story “DeVos Proposes to Curtail Debt Relief for Defrauded Students.” Other headlines included “Betsy DeVos’ Message to Students: You Have the Right to Be Ripped Off” and “Betsy DeVos’ New Proposal Aligns Her With For-Profit Colleges Over Debt-Saddled Students.” The Center for Responsible Lending’s Ashley Harrington huffed that the proposal was “a roadmap for institutions seeking to abuse students.”

What made this so bizarre, even by the standards of the mud-slinging higher-education debate, is that it’s unclear whether all students seeking loan forgiveness have actually been defrauded. Indeed, the impetus for DeVos’s action was the likelihood that the previous rules, put forward under President Obama, were going to put taxpayers on the hook for billions to bail out students who hadn’t been victimized.

Certainly, one can quibble about the particulars of the new rule — including an unfortunate and arbitrary provision stipulating that only borrowers who enter into default can apply for borrower defense. But to allege, for example, that DeVos is curtailing “Debt Relief for Defrauded Students” is to beg the key question.

The new guidance concerns a provision of the federal student-loan program known as “Borrower Defense to Repayment.” This is a mechanism for forgiving the loans of students who attend colleges that engage in fraud, such as by misrepresenting program information or future employment and earnings. So far, so good.

The problem is that the Obama administration, as part of its larger crusade against for-profit colleges, issued guidance that created an astonishingly far-reaching definition of fraud — opening the floodgates for across-the-board loan discharges, at taxpayer expense, if “public interest” minions could show merely that colleges made modest, inadvertent mistakes in marketing or advertisements.