RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/corrupting-medical-education-11568578153

Stanley Goldfarb knew what he was talking about. Last week the former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school wrote in these pages that climate change, gun control and “other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness” were beginning to corrupt medical training. His piece spurred a social-media eruption that immediately proved his point.

Left-wing medical Twitter —yes, there is such a thing—piled on with virtue signaling that distorted Dr. Goldfarb’s argument. He didn’t write that doctors shouldn’t have opinions about political issues. He wrote that those issues shouldn’t interfere with the scientific and clinical training essential to producing doctors who can serve patients.

The most disappointing response came from Penn medical school, which sprinted for political cover. Dean J. Larry Jameson and Senior Vice Dean Suzanne Rose sent a letter to students and faculty that is a case study in progressive correctness:

“Please know that the views expressed by Dr. Goldfarb in this column reflect his personal opinions and do not reflect the values of the Perelman School of Medicine,” the letter said. “We deeply value inclusion and diversity as fundamental to effective health care delivery, creativity, discovery, and life-long learning. We are committed to ensuring a rigorous and comprehensive medical education that includes examination of the many social and cultural issues that influence health, from violence within communities to changes in the environment around us.”

Maybe we should begin to wonder about the quality of the doctors who graduate from Penn. Patients want an accurate diagnosis, not a lecture on social justice or climate change. Thanks to Dr. Goldfarb for having the courage to call out the politicization of medical education that should worry all Americans.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/09/harvards-president-publishes-politicized-phony-jeff-ludwig/

On September 3 of this year, Lawrence Bacow, President of Harvard University, sent a welcome letter to everyone in that community. It was a letter filled as one might expect with expansive platitudes about “traditions” being affirmed and our living in turbulent times. It is a letter that could have been delivered at a commencement address or a general convocation on “How To Make A Better World That Is Acceptable To The Ivy League.”

But the focus of the letter – delivered by a man leading a massive research institution, an institution with outstanding scholars in every branch of knowledge – was President Trump’s immigration policy. In July of this year, he had written of his concerns about delays, disruptions, and cancellations of various student visas to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan. And, also in July, had visited lawmakers in Washington, DC about the same issues, and also about new taxes on institutions of higher education. Obviously, he was not satisfied with those meetings as he now felt the need to vent his concerns to the entire Harvard community, including alumni.

In his letter he alludes to students and/or researchers from certain countries being disrupted in their plans to come to Harvard, but does not name the countries. And he is frustrated because our government is citing national security concerns which he obviously thinks are exaggerated or even unnecessary. Since self-control is a virtue in the Harvard community and among all highly-educated, civilized persons, even though he is clearly pissed off, he does not say so directly.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/09/the-oberlin-college-lawsu

The successful lawsuit recently brought by a small local bakery against Oberlin College in Ohio has generated worldwide interest. What occurred is instructive and a shocking commentary on the current state of academic life in the United States. It has obvious implications for academic life here, and indicates the depths to which the academic Left has sunk in recent years.

Oberlin College is a well-known tertiary institution in a small town about 100 kilometres from Cleveland. It is a college, to use the American terminology, not a university, meaning that it has no postgraduate or professional schools attached to it, although it does have a well-known musical conservatory. There are really no Australian tertiary institutions similar to these American colleges, only very large universities which offer postgraduate degrees. In America, however, there are many distinguished undergraduate-only colleges, such as Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Vassar. Oberlin is an entirely private body, not a public institution chartered by the state—again, this has few parallels here—and, like all private colleges in America, is phenomenally expensive, costing $60,000 or more per year for four (not three) years. Although scholarship aid is widely available, most students amass enormous debts by the time they receive their diplomas. Most scholarship aid to students comes from the institution’s endowment, the amount of money, often incredibly vast, which it has in the bank, the product of gifts and legacies from alumni. Harvard has an endowment of $38 billion, while Oberlin is far down the list with an endowment of only $900 million or so.

Throughout its history, Oberlin has had a reputation for political radicalism. Black students graduated from Oberlin as early as 1844, and the college functioned as a stop on the “underground railway” of runaway slaves seeking freedom. It was also the first coeducational college in America, admitting women in 1837, four years after it was founded. During the Vietnam War, Oberlin was a centre of student radicalism. Owing to this reputation, many already radicalised students apply there for admission, and few conservatives. In recent years it has moved even further to the left, with—as will be seen—even its administration associated with radical causes. In terms of its academic reputation, Oberlin is very good, but not quite at the top. For instance, only 5 to 15 per cent of high school seniors who apply to super-elite universities like Harvard or Princeton are admitted to them, while for Oberlin the figure is 28 per cent.