More Shenanigans at Yale Law School (UPDATED)

Yaseen Eldik, the law school bureaucrat who tried to force a student to apologize for inviting his colleagues to his "trap house" recommended a diversity trainer to the law review who spouted racist and antisemitic drivel

UPDATE: This appears to be a law journal memo summarizing the relevant "diversity training" and the internal reaction to it. Two things stand out. First, compared to the tenor of the Free Beacon article, Eldik's role in choosing Ericka Hart for diversity training seems to have been quite limited, though how she wound up previously "training" 1Ls is unclear. Second, Hart decided to include a discussion of her understanding of "Israel's oppression of the Palestinians" as somehow relevant to diversity training on the Yale Law Journal. Somehow, coming from someone who apparently suggested that antisemitism does not exist, this is not shocking.

Washington Free Beacon:

The Yale Law School administrator caught on tape pressuring a student to apologize for an allegedly racist party invitation pushed the Yale Law Journal to host a diversity trainer [Ericka Hart] who told students that anti-Semitism is merely a form of anti-blackness and suggested that the FBI artificially inflates the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes….

The controversy began when a law journal editor asked Hart why her presentation had addressed inequities like "pretty privilege" and "fatphobia" but not anti-Semitism. According to the memo, which collected feedback on the training from 33 law journal editors, Hart responded that she'd already covered anti-Semitism by discussing anti-blackness, because some Jews are black. She also raised questions about FBI data showing that Jews are the most frequent targets of hate crimes—implying, in the words of one journal editor, that the people compiling those statistics had an "agenda."

"She basically said anti-Semitism is a subset of anti-blackness," a Yale Law Journal member told the Free Beacon. "She didn't recognize there could be anti-Semitism against white people." That characterization is corroborated by two students quoted in the memo, and by a third who spoke on the condition of anonymity….

The journal solicited suggestions for a diversity trainer months earlier, according to the memo, and Eldik recommended Hart as an "impactful and informative" choice. The memo noted that Hart had already "led workshops for YLS Class of 2024's 1L Orientation, the Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale, the Yale Good Life Center, and the Yale School of Nursing."….

In her September presentation, Hart listed "perfectionism," "objectivity," "a sense of urgency," and "the written word" as examples of "white supremacy culture." Dismantling that culture, she said, required abolishing prisons, opposing capitalism, and imprisoning former president Donald Trump.

At least five different editors slammed the suggestion that things like "punctuality" and "objectivity" constitute white supremacy, with one going so far as to accuse Hart of racism. "How is it not infantilizing for her to stand up there and say such traits are inherently white," the editor asked. "This sort of neoracism is not something we should be promulgating at the journal."

The political culture at Yale Law School has been toxic for decades, but it was primarily student-driven; in my day, the faculty and staff were notably and noticeably committed to representing and encouraging students with diverse perspectives. Now, elements of the administration seems to be aligned with the most radical students, and beyond. Note that the whackadoodle diversity trainer had already "trained" first-year law students at orientation. It's time for Dean Heather Gerken to clean house.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's time for Dean Heather Gerken to clean house."

You do realize that she'd probably understand "cleaning house" to involve purging any remaining conservatives, right? Because Yale is that far gone.

[Gandydancer]

That Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken hasn't already fired Asst. Dean Helen Cosgrove (she of the email saying Trent Coulter's inviitation was racist and "pejorative" is proof enough that the house won't be cleaned before Gerken is shown the door. Do you really think she has no idea what Eldik and the whackadoodle diversity trainer are? If so that wold be reason enough to fire her.

But we've seen the whiny statement's from Yale's President and Dean, so we know that that's not happening.

[DaivdBehar]

All Yale alumni in government have been highly toxic to our nation, including the idiot Bushes. Yale is a toxic nuisance putting out human effluvia. Rescind its tax exemption because it is engaging in indoctrination, not education. Then cancel its accreditation. Shut is down. Seize its assets for defrauding the government by taking funding for education, then engaging in indoctrination. Use its $billions to fund Build Back Better.

[Longtobefree]

Only the Yalies think Yale is important.

[Commenter_XY]

Awful lot of Yalies in the executive branch. And the judicial branch. And the legislative branch.

Maybe it should not be that way, but the objective reality is that Yale alumni are in many influential government positions. Personally, I think we need way fewer Ivy leaguers in government.

[Bob from Ohio]

Tax the endowment and that valuable real estate.

[Don Nico]

On what basis (presently legal) would you tax the endowment itself?
The real estate is easy to figure out as are realized gains on investments

[Kazinski]

I certainly agree with you there, taxing income is legal for the Federal Government, but not property or equity taxes.

[Social Justice is neither]

I'm sure you could spin up a rationale similar to the dangerous product line being pursued against Chevron for climate change. They know the collectivist teachings they provide are intended to collapse society and should be held to account

That is only slightly sarcastic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Remove the exemption from federal taxation for al endowments over X dollars [say 5 billion] so donations are no longer deductible and income/realized gains are taxable. If you need a new law, pass it.

Maybe require free tuition/board/books to students or pay a double tax penalty. If you need a new law, pass it.

A wealth tax could be used too. If you need a new law, pass it.

[Don Nico]

More imaginary blah-blah worthy of Bernie Sanders

[Seamus]

Dismantling [white supremacy] culture, she said, required abolishing prisons, opposing capitalism, and imprisoning former president Donald Trump.

So we're going to abolish prisons *and* imprison Donald Trump?

But I forgot: use of logic is racist.

[DaivdBehar]

Laugh of the Day, but true.

[MP]

according to a memo from Yale Law Journal editors obtained by the Washington Free Beacon
...
Debra Kroszner, the law school's managing director of public affairs, replied instead, saying the law school hadn't "received any complaints about anti-Semitic comments, nor were these anonymous concerns shared with us." Any complaints would have been lodged with Eldik, who serves as a "discrimination and harassment coordinator" for the law school.

Something doesn't square up. Either the Administration is lying (possible), the "memo" isn't something that was shared outside of the clique that it was distributed within (possible), or something else.

Regardless, until there's an organized protest movement against anti-racism (which is really what F.A.I.R. is), this isn't really a controversy. A controversy requires direct and open confrontation...and yes I understand that the culture of fear is likely accountable for keeping such confrontations at bay at the college level. But still...we're not yet there.

[Gandydancer]

Trent Coulter explained in his interview by CNN that he had recorded his conversations with Eldik and Cosgrove because he had heard of them, or the likes of them, lying about what had been said behind closed doors. As indeed they did here.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/16/yale-demands-law-student-apologize-to-peers-for-triggering-them.cnn

[Kazinski]

The Virginia governor's race is hopefully a first step. When it's clear to progressives that pushing CRT and 'anti-racism' loses elections then it will die out. Now they see it as a winner for progressive causes.

Make it clear it's a loser and it's finished. Look at the defund the police movement, lots of politicians jumped on that trope, now they are running from it because it loses elections.

[David Nieporent]

So, if I'm understanding this story correctly, Eldik is being criticized here because a speaker who he proposed¹ said some stupid things during her presentation. The trainer may be terrible and offensive, and this may have been a complete waste of time and money, but trying to hook this to Eldik seems like a massive stretch.

¹The Free Beacon story uses the word "pushed," but provides no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. The sum total of what Eldik is identified as doing is that after YLJ solicited recommendations for a diversity trainer, he "recommended Ericka's training as impactful and informative" based on prior presentations that the trainer had done at Yale.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The director of Diversity and Inclusion at Yale proposed a diversity training that said that anti-Semitism could be covered by addressing anti-blackness, and that perfectionism, objectivity, and the written word were white supremacy are white supremacy?

I guess you're free to think that that's good D&I work, other people may disagree.

[David Nieporent]

The director of Diversity and Inclusion at Yale proposed a diversity training that said

So if someone I know is looking for an expert witness, and identifies a few possibilities, and I say, "The third one on your list did a good job for my firm in the past," and then the expert witness shows up drunk to his deposition, does that mean I did something wrong?

The DEI person gave a good review to a particular person when the YLJ inquired. That's it. Maybe he knew that the woman was an anti-semite, and maybe I knew the expert witness was an alcoholic. But there are no facts to support that given in the article. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the presenter or the contents of her presentation. But implying based on the specific facts that the DEI person endorsed those particular contents without the slightest evidence is just clickbaitingly writing a story that mentions someone currently in the news.

[David Bernstein]

Imagine this "diversity trainer" had turned out to be an overt white supremacist instead of an antisemite with ridiculous racialist ideas that in normal circumstances we'd just call racist. What would be the over/under on Eldik's tenure at Yale Law? How many anguished apologies would the dean's office have already sent out?

Also, let's hold Eldik to his own standards. If merely using the phrase "Traphouse" requires an abject public apology, what does this require?

[Don Nico]

Amen!

[Ben_]

"what does this require"?

As always, the answer is the careful application of double-standards. Maybe with a side order of shut up, or there’ll be consequences.

When was it ever anything else from leftists?

[IPLawyer]

Bernstein, let's be clear. If that were the case, the only thing we'd know for sure is that you'd be defending him in a blog post.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This trainer had extensive experience at Yale. "The memo noted that Hart had already "led workshops for YLS Class of 2024's 1L Orientation, the Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale, the Yale Good Life Center, and the Yale School of Nursing."

One would hope that the D&I director had some familiarity with her work.

And she didn't just say stupid things. She had racist, batshit crazy views that many suspect are prevalent in the D&I community, and are routinely being taught to children and students under the guise of diversity training.

The mainstream left had been trying to write this off as a right-wing conspiracy theory or a fringe left-wing view.

But given the fact that this happened at this type of training seems to be prevalent at Yale, with the blessing of the D&I director, indicates that this is much more mainstream than many have been claiming.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's one of the weakest attempts to defend the indefensible I've seen in a while here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Predictably said some stupid things during her presentation. You might go so far as to say, was hired to say some stupid things.

Where "stupid" actually means "racist and bigoted".

[David Nieporent]

You might go so far as to say that, if you were a conspiratorial-minded Internet commenter who couldn't be bothered to do any research before speeding his conspiracy theories about people acting in bad faith, and therefore didn't realize that this was exactly not what she was hired to say.

[David Nieporent]

s/speeding/spewing

[TwelveInchPianist]

"therefore didn't realize that this was exactly not what she was hired to say."

It certainly seems that there's a disconnect between the Law Journal and the Yale D&I apparatus about what a diversity trainer should say.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, presumably the woman was hired to share her expertise about diversity and inclusion, not to parrot the Law Journal's views on diversity and inclusion back to them.

And the evidence in this case indicates that this bullshit is what passes for expertise in d&i among recognized experts.

[David Nieporent]

I am happy to declare the entire DEI industry a grift. But the memo makes clear that they were looking for something different than what she provided: they wanted concrete actionable steps a law review could take, rather than just generalized "diversity training."

[Social Justice is neither]

And yet here you are defending the grift or at a minimum the complete lack of due diligence from the D&I types that allow it to thrive unchecked. Sorry, but how do you come to a conclusion that the training is "impactful and informative" with no clue what the training actually is? Somebody's narrative doesn't pass the sniff test.

[IPLawyer]

Wow, somebody just blew their load. I hope you have some tissues nearby. Wouldn't want to get that mess all over the place.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the DEI person didn't say that the presentation the woman gave to the YLJ was impactful and informative; we know that because it hadn't happened yet. The DEI person said that a previous presentation given by the woman was impactful and informative.

If I tell you that I liked my meal at a restaurant, does that mean I am promising that all future meals that you eat there will be good?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" they wanted concrete actionable steps a law review could take, rather than just generalized "diversity training.""

Fair enough, but it's not clear what they got. Apparently the craziness came at a Q&A after the presentation.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Eldik recommended this speaker as "impactful and informative". Turns out she's cuckoo as Cocoa Puffs. Between this and how he handled the trap house disaster, seems fair to question Eldik's competence, and his actual commitment to real diversity.

And his giving this stuff a bad name makes you wonder about this office at other colleges. Is it really all just a grift?

[Gandydancer]

There is no way in hell that you're going to admit to a correct understanding of what went on here.

The rest of us notice that her whackadoodleness is perfectly consistent with his and know how to draw a conclusion from a pattern of behavior.

[Don Nico]

"trying to hook this to Eldik seems like a massive stretch."
Not a stretch at all. People ought to be accountable for their decisions especially those that spread hate.

[David Nieporent]

What "decision" do you think Eldik made in this story?

(I'm not talking about the trap house one. I'm talking about this one.)

[Gandydancer]

He "decided" that her line in bullshit was exactly what Yale Law School ought to buy.

[David Nieporent]

He did no such thing. The YLJ made the decision. (For the YLJ, not for YLS.) All he did was give her a good review.

[Gandydancer]

Reaning comprehension: DELIBERATE FAILURE.

He decided that her line in bullshit was exactly what Yale Law Journal/Yale Law School ought to buy, and they both bought it.

In your story he's somehow giving out "good reviews" but has no idea what that line of bullshit is?

Sorry, we've got tapes of this guy in action. We know what he is.

[David Nieporent]

No, in my story making a recommendation is not making a decision.

[Social Justice is neither]

And recommendations from the person supposedly responsible for the area impacted apparently carry no weight in your view. What is the point of the position then? Jobs program?

[IPLawyer]

Lol, it's a f*ing university and you are seriously asking if some administrator of a made up thing is a jobs program?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, true.

But that having been said, Mr. SJiN really doesn't seem to understand the actual facts here. The YLJ decided it wanted a presentation. They put out an inquiry to a whole bunch of different people - other law reviews, other law students, and the DEI person to compile a list of possible presenters. They compiled a list, did some due diligence, narrowed it down to three people (including this woman, Ericka Hart), and then asked for people's thoughts about the short list. The DEI person responded that a prior presentation by Ericka Hart had been impactful and informative. That's it. That was the DEI person's sole role, based on the YLJ's own description of what happened.

[IPLawyer]

David, you are right and incredibly reasonable. My only point was that if you take this issue from the basic assumptions present in most comments and articles here, you don't even need to step into your more thoughtful analysis. You can just laugh about it and move onto the more important and interesting things in your life.

[Libertymike]

An Ivy pedigree is something from which one should not walk, but sprint.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's time for Dean Heather Gerken to clean house."

Assumes that she is not 100% in favor of this nonsense.

[Gandydancer]

A very strange assumption indeed, in the teeth of the evidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

ISTM that if these racist and anti-sematic themes are being promoted at Yale with the backing of the Diversity Director, people can stop claiming that this is a fringe view on the left and admit that racism is at the core of the modern Anti-Racist agenda.

[Krychek_2]

Nope. If you randomly selected 100 people who identify themselves as supporting anti-racism (which would include me) I'll bet you'll find that most of them would have the same opinion of this crap as you do. In my office, anyone who doesn't have a sense of urgency, especially when it comes to deadlines in a trial order, is asking to get fired, and any resulting accusations of racism would be greeted with laughter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nope. If you randomly selected 100 people who identify themselves as supporting anti-racism (which would include me) I'll bet you'll find that most of them would have the same opinion of this crap as you do."

Yeah, but the institutions promoting Anti-Racism (note the caps) aren't hiring you and I to provided diversity training, are they?

And I don't know about you, but nobody's offered me a job as Yale DEI Director.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, if you randomly selected 100 people who identify themselves as supporting anti-racism, I'll bet they'd say that they're against judging people by their skin color. But that's not what we're talking about.

[MP]

If you randomly selected 100 people who identify themselves as supporting anti-racism (which would include me) I'll bet you'll find that most of them would have the same opinion of this crap as you do.

I'd like to believe that. But that would imply that they actually think about it. Since a majority of the populace, regardless of political orientation, doesn't get much beyond memes and headlines, I'm skeptical.

[Krychek_2]

MP and 12", probably most people only think superficially about what they believe. I would bet that if you randomly selected 100 people who are opposed to critical race theory, most of them could not articulate what CRT actually is. They just know they're against it. So from that standpoint, why should people who lean left be any different?

But if you ask specific questions:

Do you believe that punctuality is racist?
Do you believe that attention to detail is racist?
Do you believe that not imprisoning Donald Trump is racist?

What you'll find is that most people have more sense than that, and I suspect that's true of both people who lean left and people who lean right.

Left and right each have their lunatic fringe. This woman is on the left's lunatic fringe. But I don't think most people on the left are buying what she's selling. Even at Yale.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Problem is, this woman is in a position of authority at Yale, using her authority with that of her diversity trainer to push her values on students...and to punish those who don't agree with them.

If you don't "buy what she's selling"....you get punished...

[David Nieporent]

"This woman" is a man. The woman was the trainer. Eldik is a man.

[Krychek_2]

I was referring to the trainer.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Here's a hint Krychek...

When the administrator is threatening you with ethical sanctions to the bar. Then brings in a a "diversity trainer" with "fringe views" for you to "listen to"....

The implication is clear. Buy into those fringe views. Or else.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, I'm not disputing that the administrator needs to go. But that's not the question. The question is whether the administrator's views are fringe or mainstream. They're fringe.

[Armchair Lawyer]

And yet...the administrator still has their job. And yet...the administrator pushes her fringe views on the students.

[Gandydancer]

They're not fringe at Yale. They, or rather the exposure, are what caused the President, the Dean, the Dean of the Law Schoool, etc., etc., to promise an "investifation" but concentrate on whining about the backlash and mention the idea that that their miscreant minions are a proper target of the "investigation" not at all.

[Krychek_2]

Lots of people with fringe views, both left and right, still have their jobs. In academia, it takes far more than this to get someone fired.

[Gandydancer]

Nonsense. If the views of the two racist jackasses were similarly on the "right" they'd be out the door already. In that Academic Freedom Assn. interview advertised here on Volokh yesterday the guy interviewed was all-in on tossing out an Econ prof whose views were "race realist", but the little bitch who called for "more muscle" at UMo to keep non-blacks off the quad... she was just misunderstood.

Who, whom.

[IPLawyer]

Armchair Lawyer, the "academic freedom alliance" regularly blogs here in defense of professors that have fringe or mainstream views and that they should not be fired for them!

[David Nieporent]

When the administrator is threatening you with ethical sanctions to the bar. Then brings in a a "diversity trainer" with "fringe views" for you to "listen to"....

I mean, you're completely making up facts here. The administrator didn't bring in this diversity trainer. This diversity trainer was hired — by someone other than the administrator — many months before the trap house thing. And the diversity trainer was for the YLJ, not for the student who sent the trap house email.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The Yale Law School administrator caught on tape pressuring a student to apologize for an allegedly racist party invitation pushed the Yale Law Journal to host a diversity trainer who told students that anti-Semitism is merely a form of anti-blackness and suggested that the FBI artificially inflates the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes."

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The journal had solicited suggestions for a diversity trainer months earlier, according to the memo, and Eldik recommended Hart as an "impactful and informative" choice. The memo noted that Hart had already "led workshops for YLS Class of 2024's 1L Orientation, the Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale, the Yale Good Life Center, and the Yale School of Nursing."

We know who's ultimately in charge.... If Eldik "recommends" someone...well, the YLJ knows they should follow that recommendation.

[David Nieporent]

Like I said, you're completely making up facts here.

[David Nieporent]

I know you were; I was responding to Armchair Lawyer.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Regardless (and the gender choice of the administrator wasn't mentioned), If you don't buy what he/she is selling....you get punished.

And the views have been made clear.

[Krychek_2]

AL, did you read the reviews by the students who attended the presentation? She was panned, she was ridiculed, she was held up to mockery. What punishment did they receive?

[Gandydancer]

These reviews were published where and when?

NOW the Coulter recordings and reaction render immediate retaliation as against Coulter problematic, but I wouldn't rule out that their derision of the religious object has gotten them on the same list for later retaliationthat Coulter is on.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Mmm. Anonymous reviews...

[bevis the lumberjack]

"most of them could not articulate what CRT actually is."

Well, you know, the proponents of CRT have had plenty of opportunity to come out and clearly explain exactly what it is and what it teaches. But they haven't done so. Instead they've tried to hide it. Wonder why?

Today's parents and grandparents (I'm both) were raised to believe that race shouldn't matter and that everybody should be treated the same. The vast majority honestly try to do so. America is much, much less racist than it was when I was a kid, which is a direct result of that upbringing. CRT, with it's obsessive focus on race and it's punitive aspects is exactly the opposite of what most people believe, and the opposite of what most people want their children to believe.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, but who's hiding what? Google critical race theory and you'll find its proponents explaining it in excruciating detail. (You'll also find plenty of misinformation by its opponents, but that's a separate issue.)

[swood1000]

Google critical race theory and you'll find its proponents explaining it in excruciating detail.

If you Google critical race theory and read an explanation written by a defender you end up reading about a dense theory having its origin with Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw, and involving Critical Theory, a concept that can only be understood by those who are willing to devote substantial time and energy to the effort. This is why CRT is uniformly described by its supporters as simply being willing to examine the realities of Jim Crow, while those opposed want to keep this hidden. This is the tact taken currently by Terry McAuliffe, for example. Instead, what opponents of CRT are complaining about is teaching that our society is rotten to its core with irredeemable racism, and that structural racism is the reason why black students in well-funded school systems such as D.C. perform below white and Asian students. The conclusive proof of structural racism that is given is that black students in well-funded school systems such as D.C. perform below white and Asian students.

[Krychek_2]

All right, here is CRT in a single sentence: Our institutions suffer from systemic and structural racism that needs to be addressed in order for racism to be eradicated. Period, full stop.

Now, if you think that's wrong on the facts, then fine, articulate why you think it's wrong on the facts. But it's not that difficult a concept. Nor is it most of the things it's described at by its enemies on the right.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What institutions exactly? If you want to argue the criminal justice system does in some locations, then yeah probably so.

But a lot of our institutions have policies in place that benefit minorities to the harm of other races. Universities. Diversity efforts at big corporations. Basically all government hiring.

So no, it’s not 1955 any more. Our society is not ate up with racism. Bitching about all this institutional systemic stuff contradicts people’s plain observation and just alienates potential allies.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Oh, and where does the part about teaching white 3rd graders that they are born oppressors and responsible for slavery fit within your description?

[TwelveInchPianist]

White devils. The term is white devils.

[Krychek_2]

Yeah, and you can find Christians who believe Jews are in league with Satan to destroy Christianity; doesn't mean they're representative of Christians in general.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t care what those whacky Christians believe as long as it’s not being taught in school. The oppressor/slavery thing is being taught. That’s a huge problem. Hell, it’s child abuse.

[Kazinski]

The only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Treating disparities in outcome as racist makes things worse not better, a clear example is the Obama administrations position that higher rates of disciplining black students is evidence of racism. The result is more disfunction and less education in predominantly black schools and classrooms.

I'm all for reforming drug laws, and other victimless crime laws that put more blacks in jail, as well as victimless gun crimes such as simple possession by non-felons that put large numbers of minorities in prison.

But a lot of anti-racist prescriptions hurt minorities a lot more than they help.

[swood1000]

Our institutions suffer from systemic and structural racism that needs to be addressed in order for racism to be eradicated.

Please explain how systemic and structural racism prevent black school children in D.C. from performing at the same level as whites and Asians. What is the mechanism? How do we go about resolving this issue?

[Krychek_2]

I am not familiar with that specific situation. My first question would be if it's really an apples to apples comparison, but that's just a hunch on my part since I'm not familiar with it.

[swood1000]

My first question would be if it's really an apples to apples comparison, but that's just a hunch on my part since I'm not familiar with it.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that it might not be an apples to apples comparison? Can you explain how systemic and structural racism could have caused this situation? Can you give an example of how systemic and structural racism produce other effects, and please do so without pointing to an inequality and saying that it must have been caused by systemic and structural racism even though we don't know how it produced that effect. How can we dismantle systemic racism if we can’t explain what it is and how it produces its result?

[Krychek_2]

Swood, I can't answer any of your questions because *I'm not familiar with the actual situation* and I'm not going to speculate. Is this situation an anomaly (anomalies happen), or is this routinely what happens when blacks are compared to whites and Asians? Are the available resources the same across the board, so that the blacks are actually competing on a level playing field? Are there economic factors at work (i.e., students from wealthier families tend to do better than students from poor families regardless of race)?

Since I don't know the answers to those, or multiple other, questions, I'm not going to speculate. Looks like you're doing enough speculating for both of us.

[swood1000]

Since I don't know the answers to those, or multiple other, questions, I'm not going to speculate.

I am saying that any person who says that there is profound systemic and structural racism in our society has to be able to give examples of that and be able to suggest a plausible mechanism by which it produced the effects attributed to it. Can you point to an example of structural racism in our society today?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"All right, here is CRT in a single sentence: Our institutions suffer from systemic and structural racism that needs to be addressed in order for racism to be eradicated. Period, full stop."

Yes, but as evidenced here, systemic and structural racism is often defined broadly enough to include perfectionism, the written word, the concept of correct answers in math, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sorry, but who's hiding what? Google critical race theory and you'll find its proponents explaining it in excruciating detail. (You'll also find plenty of misinformation by its opponents, but that's a separate issue.)"

That's weird, when I google I find misinformation by its proponents (only taught in law school, etc.) and it opponents trying to explain it in excruciating detail.

[Krychek_2]

You can probably find some proponent somewhere who claims it's only taught in law schools, just as you can find some conservative somewhere who wants to execute gays and send blacks back to Africa. Doesn't mean they're representative.

[IPLawyer]

I graduated from law school in 2019 and never heard of CRT until the month prior to my mom texting me to ask me what it is, in YOOL 2021.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You can probably find some proponent somewhere who claims it's only taught in law schools..."

Joy Reid would be on prominent example among many. IIRC our own Sarcastro is another. This type of misinfo is more mainstream than you realize.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Left and right each have their lunatic fringe. This woman is on the left's lunatic fringe. But I don't think most people on the left are buying what she's selling. Even at Yale."

This woman on the lunatic fringe was recommended by the Yale D&I Director, who has been giving every impression that he is also on the lunatic fringe.

This bolsters the suspicion, widely held on the right and dismissed but the left, that higher education in general and the D&I field in particular has been captured by the lunatic fringe.

[IPLawyer]

This blog: professors can be as racist as they want to so long as its not part of their academic work.

This blog: how dare this person who isn't even a professor harbor a racist thought while we have no evidence that the racist thought was expressed as part of her professional work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This blog: how dare this person who isn't even a professor harbor a racist thought while we have no evidence that the racist thought was expressed as part of her professional work."

Huh? This woman was voicing her racist ideas during a diversity training that she was paid to give.

[Krayt]

Do you believe that punctuality is racist?
Do you believe that attention to detail is racist?

Of course I do!

Oh my god, I'm having a heart attack! I hope the surgeon is punctual and pays insane attention to detail!

[Don Nico]

K_2,
And yet your apologia seems to suggest to give Edlick a pass for what is at best very bad judgment and at worst implicit anti-Semitism

[Krychek_2]

Whom have I given a pass to? Hart is as crazy as a march hare and Edlick exercised bad judgment in hiring her. Don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.

My argument is not that I agree with them; it's that they do not represent the mainstream of leftwing thought. At least in the US.

[Gandydancer]

Eldick's career says otherwise, including his current impunity.
MAYBE his bosses will be forced to throw him (and/or Cosgrove) under the bus, but they're resisting hard, and I can't think of any reason for that except that they agree with "he,they" and "she,they".

[bernard11]

if these racist and anti-sematic themes are being promoted at Yale with the backing of the Diversity Director, people can stop claiming that this is a fringe view on the left

If you bothered to read the comments by the attendees quoted in the article you'd quickly learn that you are badly wrong.

[Gandydancer]

Tat only proves that the "attendees" are the victims of the views regnant at Yale and not those in charge of inculcating them.

Coulter said in his CNN interview that he recorded his struggle sessions with Cosgrove and Eldick because he'd heard about such admins lying about what went on behind closed doors. And he was right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If you bothered to read the comments by the attendees quoted in the article you'd quickly learn that you are badly wrong."

The attendees are not the diversity experts. They attendees are the ones being trained by a purported diversity expert who has the backing of the Diversity Director.

And these experts have racist and batshit crazy views about diversity. That's the whole problem.

[SKofNJ]

I'd say Dean Gerken is in quite a pickle. Sorry. Someone had to say it.

[Don Nico]

Excellent!
But it's a little pickle.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I found the following article enlightening.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/how-journalism-abandoned-the-working

In short, as the Democrats abandoned the working class, (becoming a party of liberal elitists) as well as any pretense of supporting the working class, they found they needed something to support their view that they were "still fighting on behalf of the little guy".

So, they manufactured a "racism crisis" which largely didn't exist. By most realistic metrics, this is the least "racist" time in the history of the United States. But by promoting a "racism crisis" they could pretend to be "fighting against injustice" while simultaneously using their liberal-elite status to entrench themselves against the working class.

This is simply another symptom of that mentality.

[IPLawyer]

"In short, as the Democrats abandoned the working class, (becoming a party of liberal elitists) as well as any pretense of supporting the working class, they found they needed something to support their view that they were "still fighting on behalf of the little guy"."

What does this have to do with anything? Not surprised to see such inane crap following a Bari Weiss link. I used to like her until she joined the grief industrial complex. Funny enough, that's apparently the same direction this blog is taking. Yaaaawn.

[Krychek_2]

It's not even right on the facts. Which party is trying to pass a multi-trillion dollar build back America bill that will mostly benefit the working class?

[bevis the lumberjack]

"that will mostly benefit the working class?"

I laughed out loud. First, nobody knows much about what's in it, so you don't know who it will help. To the extent we do, well, the money they're pissing away on climate stuff won't help the working class, unless you consider higher energy costs to be help. The IRS harassing everyone with a minimal amount of bank transactions isn't all that helpful.

Look at voting patterns and how they're changing and see how the working class themselves sees who does and doesn't help them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which party is trying to pass a multi-trillion dollar build back America bill that will mostly benefit the working class?"

Lol. With the elimination of the SALT cap, it's a giant tax cut for the rich.

[Don Nico]

I would welcome an extra $40,000 in deductions

[Bob from Ohio]

"that will mostly benefit the working class?"

LOL The biggest item is removal of the cap on the deduction for SALT. $475 billion!

Lots of working class people have big SALT deductions?

[ReaderY]

The idea that anti-semitism is analogous to anti-blackness doesn’t seem an especially disturbing idea.

I am wondering if Professor Bernstein is making more of this than there is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Not "analogous"

Rather that anti-semitism is a subset of anti-blackness, that doesn't even need to be mentioned, if you mention anti-blackness.

Imagine...not discussing discrimination against women, or against gays or lesbians. And just saying "Well, I didn't have to, because discrimination against gays and women is just a subset of discrimination against blacks"

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0008490759/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Bob from Ohio]

"anti-semitism is analogous to anti-blackness "

That is not what she allegedly said though.

"She basically said anti-Semitism is a subset of anti-blackness,"

She is dismissing a prejudice that existed a thousand years+ before the first European saw his first Sub Saharan African as unimportant. A prejudice which killed 6 million people in, for example, Joe Biden's lifetime.

[David Nieporent]

The idea that anti-semitism is analogous to anti-blackness doesn’t seem an especially disturbing idea.

That's… not what she purportedly said. What she said according to the YLJ people was that anti-Semitism didn't really exist as an independent thing, that to the extent the victims in question were black, condemning the bigotry against them is covered by condemning racism. And that to the extent the victims in question were white, they were probably lying.

[Ed Grinberg]

And that to the extent the victims in question were white, they were probably lying.

More like: they deserve it (as do non-Jewish whites).

[Don Nico]

Y,
Maybe I read the OP incorrectly, but the claim was NOT that anti-Semitism is analogous to anti-blackness, but rather that it is a subset of anti-blackness and therefore did not require being called out.

[IPLawyer]

Funny how this blog will go out on a limb to defend anyone else's statements, but if some "leftist" "wackadoo" says something ridiculous, it's cluck-cluck-cluck how can they let this person speak at the school??!?

[Don Nico]

I think you must have missed the point that the wackoo was invited by the university administrator charged with diversity training

[IPLawyer]

I didn't miss that point. How does that change anything? Wasn't that the exact case w/ the matters the "academic freedom alliance" was blogging about? Cluck cluck, don.

[swood1000]

Are you equating private expressions of opinion with assertions by a diversity trainer in mandatory training that one is required to attend in order to remain at the university?

[David Nieporent]

mandatory training that one is required to attend in order to remain at the university?

Are you just randomly making up facts here?

[IPLawyer]

As far as I can tell it wasn't mandatory and the diversity trainer didn't even say those things in the training, nor was it complained about at the school...

And even if the diversity trainer did say them at the school... how does that change anything? The academic freedom alliance is tripping over itself to defend any statements made by any professor that are brought up in any context... here the school invited someone to talk at the school despite the fact that the speaker might have said something "bad" once... are you really this slow?

[Gandydancer]

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone would voluntarily attend known nonsense "diversity training", except as virtue signalling, if it wasn't mandatory, particularly for white males?

I agree with you about the Academic Freedom Alliance "defend[ing] any statements made by any professor", though. I was particularly struck by the AFA (I'm pretty sure) functionary on a recent podcast advertised here defending the adjunct who called for "muscle" to help her block a non-black student from going onto the quad at UMo. (This incident: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article56443200.html )

[Gandydancer]

A revisit to that link found it behind a paywall, after it worked when I got there via duckduckgo. YMMV. As I recall one Melissa Click was charged with battery in the incident,

[Gandydancer]

...but has now landed at Gonzaga, he poor suitability for the position be damned.

[Kazinski]

I think schools disciplining professors or students for being guilty of espousing views that some call racist should be called out.

But I thing schools hiring people expressly for the purpose of espousing racism in "training" should be rigorously rooted out, and it's likely illegal discrimination.

[Gandydancer]

You're a bit slow on the uptake if you think "Who, whom" doesn't apply.

[IPLawyer]

"I think schools disciplining professors or students for being guilty of espousing views that some call racist should be called out."

Okay? I'm not sure what you think that has to do with anything...

"But I thing schools hiring people expressly for the purpose of espousing racism in "training" should be rigorously rooted out, and it's likely illegal discrimination."

In what way did discrimination occur here? As far as I can tell the arguably racist comment was not said as part of the training, so it would be no different than the personal opinions of the professors that the "academic freedom alliance" blogs about here regularly.

[IPLawyer]

To put it another way, the "academic freedom alliance" will defend professors that make racist comments that have nothing to do with their academic roles, but now here the blog is attacking someone that said something racist outside of their professional role. Just kinda shockingly stupid if you ask me.

[Gandydancer]

AFAIK the racist things this woman vomited up, like Eldicks own racism, were absolutely vomited up while they were on the clock. Where are you getting this claim that it's otherwise? Out of your butt?

[swood1000]

Funny how this blog will go out on a limb to defend anyone else's statements, but if some "leftist" "wackadoo" says something ridiculous, it's cluck-cluck-cluck how can they let this person speak at the school??!?

Look, the issue here concerns an official diversity trainer hired by the University to explain to people how they can avoid being charged by the university with diversity infractions. In the past this trainer has made certain statements of belief. The concern is the extent to which the trainer incorporates these statements into her training, a possibility that appears realistic since they have everything to do with the subject of her training. For this to be worthy of scrutiny it does not have to have already been demonstrated that she did incorporate this outlook into her training. It is her training that is being discussed here, and that training is not equivalent to private statements made by others.

[IPLawyer]

Oh, thanks for prefacing your comment with "look". I would've found it really unreasonable otherwise.

"The concern is the extent to which the trainer incorporates these statements into her training, a possibility that appears realistic since they have everything to do with the subject of her training. "

The "academic freedom alliance" argued contrary to this when they defended a professor accused of "racist thoughts" when he was invited to speak, not on his academic focus, but on campus unity or some other bit of crap.

[swood1000]

a professor accused of "racist thoughts" when he was invited to speak, not on his academic focus, but on campus unity or some other bit of crap.

Do you think that it’s reasonable to assume that a diversity trainer incorporates her beliefs about diversity and equity into her training, and advises participants that this is the proper approach?

[IPLawyer]

How is that different from the racist professor being invited to speak about campus inclusivity that this same very blog defended for the same reasons. It's no surprise to me that you fall for this blog's rube slathering bullshit while you repeatedly don't get this basic point.

[swood1000]

Give me the corresponding example from the other side - the person who makes racist statements and then the forum at which he or she is invited to speak, that I "repeatedly" fail to perceive.

[Ed Grinberg]

In her September presentation, Hart listed [various] examples of "white supremacy culture." Dismantling that culture, she said, required abolishing prisons, opposing capitalism, and imprisoning former president Donald Trump.

compare (source):

Buta Biberaj, the county’s progressive, top elected prosecutor, who has close ties to the school board’s most liberal members, appeared in court to personally prosecute Smith for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Biberaj ran on a platform of ending "mass incarceration," but she wanted to put Smith in jail for the misdemeanors.

[Ed Grinberg]

Who-Whom-ism