The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Disinvitation at MIT
The Academic Freedom Alliance rebukes MIT for capitulating to the cancel mob.
Dorian Abbot is a professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago. He was invited to deliver the annual John Carlson Lecture in the department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After the lecture was announced, however, activists organized to pressure the department to cancel it, and the department has now done so.
This is not the first time that activists have sought to pressure universities to penalize Abbot for his speech. After he criticized some diversity initiatives, there were calls for his home institution to sanction him. The University of Chicago quite properly rejected those demands, stating simply that
the University does not limit the comments of faculty members, mandate apologies, or impose other disciplinary consequences for such comments, unless there has been a violation of University policy or the law. Faculty are free to agree or disagree with any policy or approach of the University, its departments, schools or divisions without being subject to discipline, reprimand or other form of punishment.
Abbot has continued to express his views about how universities should approach diversity issues, and activists have demanded that he be blackballed for his extramural speech. They are free to express their displeasure and disagreement with Abbot, but universities should refuse to surrender to their demands that he be barred from speaking at a university campus on topics relating to his scientific expertise because his political and social views are unpopular with some segments of the campus community.
The Academic Freedom Alliance has issued a statement condemning MIT's cowardice in this instance. The letter can be found here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Even if I agreed in general with cancelling people with unpopular views, which I do not, this specific one makes absolutely no sense. He was planning to give a lecture on science, not politics. It would be one thing if the mob were up in arms about a lecture on the subject of diversity, but now we're not even allowing people to talk about unrelated topics?
Well yeah, that's the whole point of cancel culture.
Um, yes, you (meaning people on your side) are.
In related news, men (I mean "inseminators") in Pennsylvania are being targeted for government-mandated vasectomies: https://mobile.twitter.com/RepRabb/status/1444391395394035713
Michael P, there is probably no idea so extreme and so asinine that you can't find someone somewhere who espouses it, but that does not mean they speak for "my side", whatever you may believe my side to be. Just as not every conservative is Marjorie Taylor Greene, so not every liberal is Representative Rabb.
Rep. Rabb isn't the one who disinvited Prof. Abbott from MIT. He's not the one who is fining NYC restaurants for giving out plastic straws, and also for not giving them out. He's not the one who is weaponizing the FBI against parents speaking out against racist indoctrination in public schools. And so on and so forth.
But he is the one who, you are claiming, introduced legislation to require vasectomies.
When your nutpicking includes taking satire seriously, you may be too deep into confirmation bias.
The men's rights activist was just making a joke about raping women. In no way should this impact how seriously people take his larger views. Lighten up dude.
Satire is not the same as 'this thing that aligns with my views was just a joke, guys!'
"He’s not the one who is weaponizing the FBI against parents speaking out against racist indoctrination in public schools. And so on and so forth."
Yup. I guess I'm not shocked to see that the administration is so captured by the teacher's unions that they'd use the FBI to suppress parental speech.
There have been very few examples of true threats at these meetings, and theses have been adequately addressed by local law enforcement.
The FBI was invoked due to the violence and death threats, TiP. Not speech.
What violence and death threats?
I haven't seen any evidence of an elevated level of violence or threats surrounding this issue.
As I said, the rare cases to actual threats appear to be sufficiently handled by local law enforcement.
And many of the examples given in the letter from the National School Boards Association involved hash criticism, not true threats.
Read the fucking order. It's about death threats. https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download
I read the fucking order. There's no evidence of a wave of violence justifying FBI involvement.
It’s about CLAIMED death threats.
Teacher union owned administation doing what it is told.
Because activists have never perpetuated death threats against themselves to prove just how serious the issue is or "start a dialogue". Fucking dishonest shits
Google 'school board violence' before you wallow in confirmation bias. https://www.npr.org/sections/back-to-school-live-updates/2021/09/30/1041870027/school-boards-federal-help-threats-violence
This is new, and bad, and dumb. Bannon is calling for it on his radio show.
I don't know if it crosses the line of calling in the FBI, but denying it's happening is condoning this shit.
As I said in my comment, you've got a few isolated incidents that can be handled by local law enforcement.
I mean, look at the examples:
"In Ohio, a school board member reportedly received a piece of hate mail that said, "We are coming after you and all the members on the ... BoE [Board of Education]. ... You are forcing them to wear mask—for no reason in this world other than control. And for that you will pay dearly."
That's not even a true threat.
No evidence at all of anything approaching domestic terrorism.
1) The OP was saying the FBI was weaponized against speech. Agree or not, that is absolutely a mischaracterization of what the FBI is doing.
2) Neither you nor I have the crime stats to know how rare this is. Won't stop you from assuming, though!
3) Not even a true threat? Yeah, it's not criminal, but that doesn't mean it's not worth some concern and protection for the school board members.
Quit condoning these anti-vaxx threats.
" The OP was saying the FBI was weaponized against speech. Agree or not, that is absolutely a mischaracterization of what the FBI is doing."
The Justice department is falsely claiming that there is a wave of threats and violence against school board members in order to justify actions against protestors.
"Not even a true threat? Yeah, it’s not criminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth some concern and protection for the school board members."
It's protected speech. You were saying that the FBI isn't being weaponized against speech?
"it’s not criminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth some concern"
The FBI investigates criminal matters.
Using the FBI here is merely a way to intimidate parents.
You know it's false...how?
Oh, that's right, you don't.
"Bannon is calling for it on his radio show."
I don't listen to Bannon. What's he calling for? Protest? Violence? Do you have a cite?
Google it. Or remain willfully blind, which is what you seem into.
"Google it."
OK. In the first several results I didn't see any examples of Bannon encouraging threats or violence, just encouraging people to work with school boards to get the type of education they want.
Why are you complaining about that? Don't you think parents should work with school boards.
Wow, 3 whole examples.
Two scattered fights and one mailed non-threat. Only the mailed letter is even a federal issue.
You think the FBI is lying?
"You think the FBI is lying?"
The memo is from Garland, not the FBI. Its an order TO the FBI.
Yes, Garland is lying.
"You think the FBI is lying?"
About what? The order is from the Attorney General, not the FBI. Has the FBI said anything on the subject?
https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf
I mentioned that letter before. Nothing is mentioned there that's not in the NPR article covering the letter, and most of the examples it gives are protected speech, or at least non-violent protest.
The fact that they could only find one or two trivial examples of unprotected conduct when asking the Justice Department to investigate their critics for domestic terrorism is strong evidence that there is no such spike in threats or violence.
Fine, minimize this new violence if you want. That's on you.
Is there any sign the FBI is being weaponized against parents speaking out?
As for Bannon -
S2: You’re right, you know, Bannon is talking about things he makes. He’s talking about. He’s making comparisons to the opening battles of the Revolutionary War. He’s talking about taking over the party village by village, which, you know, has this kind of guerrilla warfare. Sound to it. It’s all right. We’re already seeing it go beyond implied violence to to, if not actual violence. You know, the threat of violence
https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2021/09/war-room-listeners-are-brigading-the-republican-ranks
"Fine, minimize this new violence if you want. That’s on you."
Until somebody can show that it exists, I intend to.
"Is there any sign the FBI is being weaponized against parents speaking out?"
You mean other than the fact that the National Association of School Boards asked the DoJ to investigate what amounts to slightly raucous criticism by parents as domestic terrorism, and the DoJ agreed?
On any subject, it’s easy to guess the FBI is probably lying. They have a history of lying and they work for Washington against the rest of America.
Sarc supporting the feds harassing parental speech? I did nazi that coming!
No, they're not. Don't be stupid. This person was trying to make a point about SB8, not seriously proposing this.
(I would note for the record that if the person had been seriously proposing it — something no rational person could think — your description would still be a lie. "One state legislator announced that he was going to introduce a bill to do X" is not fairly described as "are being targeted." It hasn't happened, so "are being" is the wrong tense, and of course a single legislator supporting a law does not constitute people "being targeted," anyway. There are over 7,000 state legislators in the United States. Nutpicking a proposal from one of them is dishonest.)
Please identify this alleged point. It's eluding me.
The point is that a lawmaker who is apparently too stupid to understand what is distinctive and dangerous about SB8 is too smart to actually propose a law that implements his misunderstanding of what it looks like. Especially when he says he was inspired by ... a lawmaker who did introduce a similar bill. Especially when an Alabama legislator did introduce a similar bill. These actual bills are all just satire, don't you see?
The other point is that making someone liable for not undergoing an otherwise elective surgical procedure would be logically and legally exactly the same as prohibiting an otherwise elective surgical procedure (... that kills or destroys a fetus). "Not A" is "A"!
Alternatively, the point is that leftist drones got the "nutpicking" talking point and swooped in to harass people pointing out that Dem legislators are frequently nutty.
No, they’re not. Don’t be stupid. This person was trying to make a point about SB8, not seriously proposing this.
Its the President Trump standard
When the speech supports your bias, you use literal interpretations.
That's what we learned from the great Robert Mueller.
Why not? Forced medical procedures are all the rage on the left these days.
If you're talking about vaccines, mandatory vaccines for a wide variety of ailments have been the law in most of the United States for decades. There's a hundred year old Supreme Court case about it.
It's all the rage to cite said case, but it's not very much on point. The issue, anyway, is the scrutiny that need be applied to the forced "vaccination".
I'm sure he is talking about vaccines, but please don't allow him to elide the difference between "mandatory" and "forced." Not a single person has proposed holding stupid people down and injecting them with a vaccine.
Separation of science and politics should prevail. If someone is yelling social justice (which is not actual justice) or that "the" science is settled (true science never is) then it's an exercise in political science which is not science at all.
I'm pleasantly surprised U of Chicago has toed the line of their free speech stance so well
Separation of science and politics should prevail.
That's not even the issue here. The issue is MIT enabling the heckler's veto. His event shouldn't have been cancelled because of activist whining even if he was there to talk about politics or anything else.
It must be time for an extinction event asteroid strike, because I agree with WYOT.
In the SF story The Mote in God's Eye, the Moties have various castes, each much better at its job than human equivalents.
Notably, the engineer caste would make Scotties head spin. They just barely failed to whip up a heart lung machine out of junk to save a severed head.in time.
But they are mute.
The powers that be on Earth, here and now, want to shut up scientitsts from speaking outside their permitted domain.
With all due respect, fuck you, whoever believes that. Go jump off a cliff, dictatorship enablers.
In Starshio Troopers, by Heinlein, the book, the bugs are all dumb. But if a stressor is applied to a colony, they breed a brain bug, and, from an evolutionary point of view, the problem goes away.
Here and now, again, your science and engineering brain is only useful insofar as it makes miracles happen. When not, go away.
Again, FU.
Is there anything so useless as diversity as it is presently interpreted which is pure identity politics .
There are so many examples of successful endeavors that are completely non-diverse. Easiest is sports. The worlds best basketball teams are mostly black. The worlds best hockey teams are mostly white.
I dunno. There are plenty of good basketball teams made up of white Eastern Europeans.
Yes there are exceptions. Japan has one of the best 4 x 100 M relay teams in track. But the norm is 4 x 100 M relay teams (track) are black and 4 x 100 M relay teams (swimming) are white.
FWIW Japan has won one single medal in the 4 x 100m in the whole history of the Olympics. Jamaica has won nine. And the year the Japanese won a medal ? Their anchor man was half Jamaican 🙂
Easiest is sports. The worlds best basketball teams are mostly black. The worlds best hockey teams are mostly white.
And that's before you get on to sex.
Don't even have to go there. Japan is not diverse at all. Yet I would say as a whole they have a successful society.
Unlike race, sex is merely a social construct.
The stream of political correctness runs strong through MIT. Unfortunately, it has proved no match for my alma mater, Chicago, in upholding the best traditions of academic freedom. In caving on an invitation to deliver a special, honorific scientific colloquium MIt has displayed cowardice on behalf of the Department and the entire administration of the Institute. It owes Prof. Abbot a profound apology.
Before you get too proud of your alma mater: https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/04/u-chicago-science-professor-under-assault-for-criticizing-no-white-men-hiring-rules/
The situations are different. The MIT cancellation was done by the school administration, as its official act. The Chicago brouhaha was fomented by leftist students and faculty, not the school. U Chi has not, to my knowledge, disciplined or cancelled the professor for his speech.
In particular it was the department of earth and atmospheric sciences that cancelled the talk. I wonder what that makes you think about the departmental position on "climate change."
It was the MIT department that cancelled the talk.https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/mit-cancels-lecture-by-u-chicago-geophysicist-dorian-abbot-over-under-pressure-from-campus-mob/
The wokeness at U.Chicago is the subject of the Federalist article.
From the linked Federalist article:
I looked t the slides. I could nit have authored better myself. The nicely started with a slide featuring S. Chandrasekhar with whom I wrote a book that unfortunately was not published.
Naturally the rabble rousers demanded strict punishment of Abbott's views but UC President Zimmer did the right thing.
That the Federalist did not get all of what it would have liked does not trouble me. Zimmer was not going to inflame strong disagreements about hiring policy that would only have obscured the over arching message.
Has your alma mater done better?
Strawman.
I've quoted Abbott above. This has nothing to do with what "the Federalist... would have liked". And Zimmer's message was impoverished by what he didn't address.
"Has your alma mater done better?" - No ... MIT has not.
That, my friend, is the point.
MIT has NOT and shamefully so.
Thank you for being honest.
I agree ... but that does not make UChicago a paragon of virtue. They're both shameful in their failure to protect academic expression.
Chicago has done better. Pres. Reif, who immediately sends us an email about any emergency, student death, non-PC action, has been completely silent unlike what Prof. Zimmer was at Chicago.
The rot has spread from humanities to the leading STEM school.
Time to go Henry VIII on rich modern monastaries.
Yawn. This post is as histrionic as anyone who wants to "cancel" the professor.
How would you report this incident - avoiding histrionics?
Dumbass misfit says stupid things. Other people (predictably) overreact. Then fellow misfits overreact (predictably, and hypocritically) to the other people's overreaction.
Your undoubted expertise in being a dumbass doesn't actually qualify you to declare Prof. Abbott one.
I guess you won't complain until they come for you and your family
Our society has withstood the detriments associated with hundreds of censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, downscale educational institutions. Better, modern Americans should be able to overcome this event in our culture war, too.
I'm not so sure your desired packed court can resist the siren song of allowing the outlawing of harrassment. Recall the Democratic debates where they stood around one-upping each other on to how use government power to hurt businesses that do not censor in ways the politicians like.
IIRC, Harris, just an 80 year old's heartbeat away from the presidency, won by proposing additional laws beyond mere 230 repeal, to directly punish companies.
Let's hope this is irratiinal fears on my part. History does not bear this out. One such country just started arresting people for calling politicians asses.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Waste of brain cells warning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For any one reading the above, Kookland is performing his weird trick of "footnoting" his assertions with a music video. I didn't follow it, but hovering over it shows "youtube". So there's no need to click on it
How do you know others share your disdain for good music?
I didn't even say that the complaint was unjustified, so much as the post is needlessly histrionic. Keep working on that issue spotting, Don!
IPL what the hell are you talking about? Just how was the post histrionic? Be specific.
Most of it was simple presentation of fact and a modicum of content.
If you have a complaint, it may be that you agree with canceling the lecture.
Keep working on those not so hidden insults IPL.
The original version, I believe it's been edited since, had much more histrionic language. Reading it now it's not histrionic. Nevertheless, I think dramatically and histrionically engaging with "cancel culture" is really the only actual thing that legitimizes it. Proponents of the belief in cancel culture wildly equate any social comeuppance. It's obnoxious and it's ridiculous.
"Yawn. This post is as histrionic as anyone who wants to “cancel” the professor."
So you agree that people who criticize diversity initiatives shouldn't be allowed to lecture about Geophysics?
Evidently he does.
Frankly, I don't really care. He was uninvited from a single university, and here you are conflating that with some sort of general prohibition against him lecturing when his school already said they didn't give a shit. Stop making Kirkland's posts about lathered up rubes so damn true!
You don't care, I don't care whether you care or not.
"here you are conflating that with some sort of general prohibition against him lecturing "
That is an out and out falsehood.
My specific complaint was against MIT. Stop reading words that are not there.
This is bad. It is absolutely bad, and deserves pushback.
It is not evidence higher education is some corrupt partisan organization.
Which I'm secure you know, Don, but for the benefit of other readers, do not confuse some crap trees for an entire crap forest, just because you want to attack all of education or declare conservatives victims once again.
(Most of) U.S. institutions of higher education have become partisan and corrupt (not in the sense that they're tied in with the Mafia; rather, in the sense that they impose a one-sided partisan conformity on their students & faculty).
How do I know? Because Sarcastr0 say it isn't true.
Actually, the evidence that higher education is widely corrupt and partisan has been overwhelming for some time. What THIS is is evidence of exactly hof far the corruption has spread: Into STEM fields at U.Chicago and MIT.
The evidence is so overwhelming you haven't bothered to provide any.
Which makes sense - if your evidence it's in STEM due to this anecdote, I figure your standards of proof are quite low.
S_0,
My concern about this report is very specifically a concern about the Institute
Yeah, I'd say that's fair - this seems an institutional decision; plenty of reason not to think it's a one-off.
But not something you can use to declare all of STEM is woke now.
I never said that.
But I did say that political correctness runs strong through MIT. I know that first hand.
To...
My specific complaint was against MIT. Stop reading words that are not there.
...Sarcastr0 predictably offers the following pathetically dishonest straw man based on words that are not there...
It is not evidence higher education is some corrupt partisan organization.
Which I’m secure you know, Don, but for the benefit of other readers, do not confuse some crap trees for an entire crap forest, just because you want to attack all of education or declare conservatives victims once again.
Yes it is, literally, "evidence" of that. Does it completely, conclusively prove it? No.
Yes, a million data points should never be confused with data if it runs against the marxist narrative.
Perhaps I misunderstood him, but it's entirely possible to fairly read that from the post; that he's being barred from lecturing about geophysics entirely. And it wasn't your specific complaint, it was TwelveInchPianist (whose name I assume you don't find uncivil as you haven't mentioned it). Given that 12" put it so generically, I don't think my response was unwarranted. Professors don't have some sort of right to lecture wherever they want or wherever they were invited to but since rescinded from... and I feel stupid for having written that. So what's the problem here? Some professor said some dumb crap that people don't like and they don't want to be associated with him despite the fact that not EVERYTHING he says is stupid and he was promising to not talk about his stupid opinions this time.
If MIT is bound by some rules they take government money for this or that, good for people monitoring them stepping on speech.
If not, Kirkland should be happy for monitoring a private school stepping on speech.
Don't forget the racist hiring quotas.
Krayt,
I this case the only concern is that the Department gets special grant money that sponsors this lectured each year. "The John Carlson Lecture communicates exciting new results in climate science to the general public. Free of charge and open to the general public, the lecture is made possible by a generous gift from MIT alumnus John H. Carlson to the Lorenz Center in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,.
If Mr Carlson is pissed, then the Department may have a problem
I wanted to see what sort of radicalism this professor was teaching, so I looked at the linked Newsweek article he coauthored:
"We propose an alternative framework called Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) whereby university applicants are treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone. Crucially, this would mean an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants, in addition to those based on group membership. Simultaneously, MFE would involve universities investing in education projects in neighborhoods where public education is failing to help children from those areas compete. These projects would be evidence-based and non-ideological, testing a variety of different options such as increased public school funding, charter schools and voucher programs."
Yeah, that seems really extreme. This nut should be at Liberty University teaching creationism. /sarc
Anything other than pure racial preferences (which really just means favoring blacks) is evil to these folks. Note that there is a male/female gap at universities now with more females than male.
Title IX is gender neutral but I'm not hearing it invoked in this case. The CRA is also race neutral. But it only gets invoked one way.
Both need to go
Eh, I read the whole article. I don't much disagree with some of the MFE ideas at the end, but the entirety of the rest of the article makes no attempt to actually engage with then arguments put forth by DEI proponents and includes obvious strawmen instead.
He should still be allowed to give talks about geology, but hopefully what he has to say in that discipline is more interesting than his writings about diversity.
I think he's discussing effects not subjective intentions, which he stipulates are often pure (an unwise concession if you ask me).
Take for example this gem: "The underlying premise of DEI is that any statistical difference between group representation on campus and national averages reflects systemic injustice and discrimination by the university itself."
No one thinks that. That's stupid, and if the whole premise of your opposition to something is based on not understanding what its "underlying premise" is, the rest of your thoughts on the topic are probably not going to be very insightful.
It's also not the case that DEI efforts necessarily imply discrimination against (over-)represented groups. For example, ending legacy admission advantages, something Abbot himself proposes, is a way of improving diversity without discriminating against anyone at all. Similarly, the whole "equity" prong of DEI is focused on making sure that once at the institution, people are evaluated fairly based on the merits of their work rather than because of group-based advantages. This is also something that it sounds like Abbot would support, but since he can't be bothered to understand his opponents' point of view, he just goes on beating up a strawmen instead.
There are reasonable arguments against various DEI efforts. Professor Volokh's writings on the topic that I've seen are generally well-reasoned and don't over-simplify the problem or the solutions that he disagrees with. Abbot's piece fails on both counts.
jb,
The post had nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of Abbott's suggestions. Therefore no discussions of the merits of Abbott's opinions about DEI were needed.
Rather the post concerned the failure of a "hard science" department at MIT to stand up for its decision about the academic merits of a lecturer for a special annual lecture that had nothing to do with DEI at his university, at MIT or in general.
As a premier scientific research university, MIT might have upheld principles of academic freedom better than it did in this instance demonstrates.
“No one thinks that.”
Hmmm…
“In summer 2020, [the University of Louisville] launched the Cardinal Anti-Racism Agenda. The university pledged to take a stand against systemic racism and take concrete action toward much-needed change on campus and in our community. Through new and ongoing initiatives including our living-learning community for Black students, our Hispanic/Latinx Initiative or our consortium for social justice research, the university is incorporating diversity into the core of our programming and academics.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/partner-insights/university-of-louisville-opportunity-louisville/access-for-all-university-of-louisville.html
‘”Our focus is to shine the spotlight on systemic racism as a root cause of the inherent disparities that exist in the sports,” said Mr. Darryl Woods, Executive Director of Coaches Vs. Racism. “Economic inequality continues to exist today in our Elementary and High Schools, Colleges and Universities and is detrimental to our youth. By working together, and using our collective passion for sports, we hope Coaches Vs. Racism will spark productive conversations to change the narrative about race in sports and serve as a revolutionary voice for change in our society.”‘
https://www.wfmz.com/news/pr_newswire/pr_newswire_sports/coaches-vs-racism-launches-ambitious-action-plan-to-erase-systemic-racism-in-sports/article_daf8deea-f4aa-502b-b15e-5ff09c614ab7.html
“How can straight, cisgender, white people make up most of the country but have the lowest poverty rate? Systemic racism, homophobia and transphobia that higher education helps perpetuate.”
https://www.newsrecord.org/opinion/opinion-free-public-college-is-essential-infrastructure/article_899153d6-1b52-11ec-96f3-eb1bb5f1acf9.html
You seem to be suffering from the same reading comprehension problem as Abbot.
Yes, lots of people think that both systemic racism and in some cases discrimination by universities contribute to bad outcomes for various underrepresented groups. No one thinks that those are the only causes, or that "any statistical variance" in representation are the result of those two things.
Analogy: if a quarterback throws a pick-6 in a 36-14 loss in a football game, most people would agree that his bad pass contributed to the loss. But also no one would possibly say that the only reason his team lost was because of that single play.
You've never read sentences like this:
"Although Black Americans are only x percent of the overall population, they are [higher percentage] of [bad thing happening to them]" or "[lower percentage] of [good things]"
...followed by cries of urgency and various policy prescriptions?
Is it really so shocking that someone reading this sort of material might get what you deem an exaggerated view of what the advocates are actually claiming?
"Oh, no, my accusatory use of statistics only meant that *some* of the bad things are the result of systemic racism!"
Except when pressed they actually do mean ALL of it. Fucking lying cunts.
I agree that's what the original post is about, and I don't really take issue with any of it.
Cal Cetin decided to start talking about the merits of Abbot's positions, though, so I'm responding to Cal rather than the post.
Understood. Thanks.
Take for example this gem: “The underlying premise of DEI is that any statistical difference between group representation on campus and national averages reflects systemic injustice and discrimination by the university itself.”
No one thinks that. That’s stupid, and if the whole premise of your opposition to something is based on not understanding what its “underlying premise” is, the rest of your thoughts on the topic are probably not going to be very insightful.
Apparently you are not familiar with the writing of Ibram X. Kendi:
No one thinks that?
Ibram X. Kendi does. Or at least claims to.
Why should the blatant racism and sexism of DIE proponents be taken as other than the odious ideas they are?
“ We propose an alternative framework called Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) whereby university applicants are treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone. "
Sounds vaguely like the Jim Crow approach the voting rights (literacy tests, citizenship tests, poll taxes).
Or the lame attempts of "colorblind" clingers to mask their discontent with modernity, diversity, and inclusiveness in a politically correct manner.
Get out of here with that Jim Crow horseshit. “Everyone should be treated equally” and “black people will not be allowed to vote” are nothing alike.
Remarkably vapid argument from Mr. Rationality. You’re not just a bigot, you’re a stupid one.
Bevis,
Don't waste your time on Kirland.
Thanks for pointing this quote out. I had intimations that this was Progs eating a Lib, and that I should just get out my popcorn and enjoy the karma, but this is conclusive. Never mind that athletics functions arguably as a way to partly fill the black quota, "legacy" doesn't favor whites, it favors a certain subset of whites, and the warped assertion that it "favors whites" is a tell as to the authors' gormless absorption of identity politics.
Go read the article he authored on DEI. No racism in it. His opinion is that DEI simply replaces presumed racism with a different racism. Agree, disagree, whatever. It’s pretty bland stuff.
Which goes to show that the race baiters among us aren’t trying to stop racism. They want to shut down differences of opinion. Can’t wait for Kirkland or Queen to come around to tell us how enlightened they actually are.
*Performatively masturbates in the corner while screaming how I'm actually woke and the woke are the real fascists*
Congrats, you did it! You did a free speech!
You really enjoy being nasty for no good reason.
You're thinking of the numerous folks I have muted here for spouting virulent racism and evil partisan bullshit. I'm just making fun of this guy for his dumb post.
No, his was pretty bland, but accurate. You responded with performative masturbation and screaming, a revealing exercise in projection.
No, no -- we're thinking of you. You're routinely a caustic asshole around here. Man up and own it.
Excuse your mouth!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook adoptive admission. Not quite man up and own it material, but we can dream.
And he always has to have the last words about his incivility
You're free to continue posting! This is a free-speech blog, after all. That is, so long as you aren't advocating that someone lose their job. Then you shouldn't speak, as you insightfully pointed out earlier today. You didn't want the last word on that one? Or is it because you have nothing of value to say
This is not a free speech blog.
Free speech blogs do not impose repeated, longstanding, hypocritical, content-driven censorship. The Volokh Conspiracy does.
Shhh!! Don't tell them!
You and your friend the Rev have much in common. But thankfully there is a mute list here.
We're not friends but I have a feeling we'd have an enjoyable conversation over a drink or two 😉
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Waste of brain cells warning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For any one reading the above, Kookland is performing his weird trick of "footnoting" his assertions about censorship with a music video rather than anything relevant. I didn't follow it, but hovering over it shows "youtube". So there's no need to click on it You won't learn anything on point by doing so.
Then you shouldn’t speak, as you insightfully pointed out earlier today. You didn’t want the last word on that one?
And here we have a demonstration of the level of stupidity required to not understand the difference between "Institutions should not enable the heckler's veto by caving to the hecklers' demands that people they don't like be silenced" and "Hecklers should not have the right to speak".
I didn't say they were the same, did I?
The context of your comment undeniably gave it that meaning, you disingenuous asshole.
I didn’t say anybody was woke or fascist. Just pointed out that the inclusion side of this wants to shut up anybody that disagrees with them.
You obviously couldn’t counter the point or you would have. Attack me personally all you want - you’re just an internet rando who doesn’t have much coherent to say.
It's called mockery: "an absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something". You don't have a point, there is nothing to counter. Hence me wallowing in your stink.
"performatively masturbates"
"wallowing in your stink"
This is much more eloquent than the babble of such inarticulate lesser lawyers as Daniel Webster, Sir Edward Marshall Hall, etc.
Self-unawareness much?
From this incident we can all see how much the left values science. It’s subservient to their will to power, just like everything else.
It seems Abbot got no credit for calling for the abolition of legacy admissions and athletic scholarships.
Either he sincerely opposes these things, or he adopted that position to avoid the usual "rebuttal" of the racial-preference crowd: "what about legacy admissions and athletic scholarships, huh?"
See how well that worked out for him!
May as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb...
Athletic ability is a form of ability. Colleges should encourage talented students in all areas of life. Unless of course they read the signs of the times and slim down to focus on only a select number of skills which are best learned in a university setting, shedding other instructional programs. But how likely is that to happen?
And the relationship between colleges and alumni should be reciprocal. Colleges want their alumni should discriminate in their favor in deciding who gets donations. In turn, colleges should discriminate in favor of alumni children. Maybe the policy could be modified to give alumni children a scholarship at *any* university, not just the old alma mater. But it would be weird for the universities to advocate a situation where they (the universities) get preferences from the alumni but the alumni get no preferences from the university.
I've commented above about the absorbed identity politics implicit in the claim that legacy admissions "favor whites".
Abbott on substack:
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-and-me
Is Costello there too?