Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Academia category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Academia’ Category

This article features a tweet from a “community college professor” who tweeted “I’m not wishing for it…but I’d be ok if #BetsyDevos was sexually assaulted. #SexualAssault #TitleIX”.

The professor’s name is Robert Ranco. He’s “currently an adjunct Professor of Paralegal Studies at Austin Community College, where he teaches the ‘Advanced Research and Writing’ class. He is also a member of The Carlson Law Firm.” What type of disgusting person would make a statement like that? Here’s hoping that Professor Ranco doesn’t have his contract renewed. Saying that you’re ok with a person getting sexually assaulted is about as disgusting as it gets.

Later, Professor Ranco tweeted “Yes, @twitter. My words were harsh. I don’t wish harm on anyone. I wish there’s some way #BetsyDevos would understand and care about others.” Rather than stop there, Ranco tweeted “Twitter trolls are now due process experts! Priceless. #TitleIX” If that isn’t dripping condescension, it doesn’t exist. Why does Professor Ranco think it’s beyond Twitter users’ ability to understand one of the foundational principles of the Constitution? Here’s another of Professor Ranco’s tweets:

While I don’t know this for certain, I’d say there’s a 90+ percent chance that Ranco is a Democrat. First, he’s a lawyer. Next, he’s a college professor. While that doesn’t guarantee that he’s a Democrat, it’s still highly likely that he’s a bitter Democrat.

During Amy Coney-Barrett’s confirmation, Dianne Feinstein and Al Franken did something offensive. They questioned Prof. Barrett’s faith. Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber sent a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Committee.

First, a little background is required. During her questioning, Sen. Feinstein stated “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.” Sen. Feinstein’s mention of dogma refers to Prof. Barrett’s Catholic faith.

According to Princeton University President Eisgruber’s statement, that’s off-limits. In his letter, President Eisgruber said “I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'”

Sen. Feinstein has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for years. There’s no reason for her not to know that part of the Constitution. In fact, I’d be surprised if Sen. Feinstein didn’t just ignore Article VI. It isn’t an accident that our institutions aren’t functioning properly. When politicians like Sen. Franken and Sen. Feinstein ignore constitutional protections to drive their obstructionist agenda, everyone suffers.

Sen. Feinstein essentially said that she’s skeptical that devout Christians are capable of serving in government. That is a religious test, which the Constitution prohibits. In principle, that isn’t any different than Republicans disqualifying people who don’t take their faith seriously.

Feinstein and Franken are ignoring the Constitution that they swore to uphold. That makes them unfit for the offices they hold.

Democrats have started attacking Education Secretary Betsy DeVos because she’s announced that she’s rewriting the guidance on how universities handle sexual assaults on campus. Lucia Graves’ article starts off with a ridiculous premise, then gets worse after that.

The opening paragraphs to Ms. Graves’ article say “As she announced the rollback of Obama-era rules on campus sexual assault, education secretary Betsy DeVos seemed at times less like the head of the Department of Education than the department of rape apologists. ‘The truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students,” DeVos said in a speech at George Mason University on Thursday afternoon. ‘Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved. ‘It’s notable that the ‘victims’ she seems most worried about aren’t those of sexual assault – they’re ‘victims of a lack of due process.’

What a stunning accusation. Let’s look at what life has looked like for men who’ve been accused of sexual assault during the last few years. Student defendants don’t have the right to an attorney, not that it would do them much good since the defense attorneys haven’t been allowed to cross-examine the accuser. This is the criteria used in convicting these students:

Under 2011 rules that establish a low standard of proof, Kaminer says, “students accused of harassment are to be convicted in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of guilt, if guilt merely seems more likely than not.” And schools are enjoined to “take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment,” including “taking disciplinary action against the harasser” prior to adjudication. So the OCR-DOJ “blueprint” and related rules not only violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech but are, to be polite, casual about due process.

Perhaps Ms. Graves likes the thought of students getting railroaded, their lives ruined forever. When people don’t have the right to confront their accusers, they’re essentially defenseless. The prosecutor doesn’t have to present evidence proving that an assault happened. The defendant can’t question his accuser’s credibility. The verdict is essentially rendered when the accuser files the complaint.

How would Ms. Graves like it if she was accused of sexually assaulting a man, then not be able to defend herself? Would she be ok with not being able to question her accuser? Would she be fine with having her career ruined by someone who accused her of doing something she didn’t do?

It’s apparent that Ms. Graves hasn’t thought about the impact due process has had. Due process has protected people from dishonest accusers. It’s also made sure that accusers didn’t ruin honest people’s lives.

She didn’t talk about the fact that according to US Department of Justice reports, an estimated 19% of college-age women will suffer attempted or completed sexual assault, but that only 12% of those cases ever get reported – or that only between two and 10% of campus sexual assault accusations are actually false, per the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Those aren’t the victims she seems to care about.

Ms. Lucia, how will taking people’s due process rights lead to more women reporting sexual assault? Further, when sexual assault is defined as “making ‘sexual or dirty jokes’ that are ‘unwelcome’ or disseminate ‘sexual rumors’ that are ‘unwelcome'” that’s expanding the definition of sexual assault.

If self-described Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders is out-of-touch with Americans, it’s about the so-called campus rape crisis. In this recent tweet, Sanders said “Secretary DeVos made an outrageous announcement that she plans to overturn an Obama initiative that protected women.” President Obama’s initiative overprotected women by trampling male students’ rights on campus.

In the opening paragraph of their WSJ op-ed, KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor said “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has made clear her intention to correct one of the Obama administration’s worst excesses—its unjust rules governing sexual misconduct on college campuses. In a forceful speech Thursday at Virginia’s George Mason University, Mrs. DeVos said that ‘one rape is one too many’ but also that ‘one person denied due process is one too many.’ Mrs. DeVos declared that ‘every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined.'”

A few paragraphs later in their op-ed, Johnson and Taylor wrote “But as Boston College’s R. Shep Melnick has noted, that was ‘just a minor part of the OCR’s procedural requirements.’ Worse were ‘the agency’s rules on cross-examination and appeals; its informal pressure on schools to institute a ‘single-investigator model’ that turns one person appointed by the school’s ‘Title IX Coordinator’ into a detective, judge, and jury; and the intense pressure for schools to show they are ‘getting tough’ on sexual assault.'”

Compare Johnson and Taylor’s op-ed with Sen. Sanders’ official statement on the matter:

Today, Secretary DeVos made an outrageous and unfortunate announcement that she plans to overturn an Obama initiative than protected women on college campuses from sexual assault. Campus sexual assault is a major problem, and it must be dealt with. We must do everything possible to make sure our campuses are safe for all students. This decision does a disservice to those who have worked hard to address sexual violence. Congress must now act to undo another terrible decision from the Trump administration.

First, Congress won’t act on this. Further, they shouldn’t act on Sen. Sanders’ silliness. Finally, if they were to pass a law codifying President Obama’s Title IX assault, it wouldn’t be implemented because a judge would slap a TRO on it prohibiting its implementation because it violates students’ civil liberties. Specifically, it would violate students’ Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment says “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Sen. Sanders isn’t the only Democrat that’s out in left field on this. During Mrs. DeVos’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Bob Casey, (D-PA), stated “To say that it’s an epidemic is also understatement.” I won’t challenge Sen. Casey’s later statement that one in five female college students has been sexually assaulted. Rather, I’d question Sen. Casey and Sen. Sanders if stripping male students of their Constitution-given rights would make female students safer. I’d submit it wouldn’t.

Johnson and Taylor also said this:

Second, it would allow the department to implement Title IX policy through new, carefully considered regulations after a period of public notice and comment. The FIRE study identifies provisions that would be necessary to achieve a minimum of fairness in campus tribunals—the presumption of innocence, clear notice of alleged violations, sufficient time for the accused student to prepare his defense, impartial fact-finders, access to all relevant and exculpatory evidence, the right to cross-examine the accuser, a meaningful right to legal representation, and a meaningful right to appeal.

As four Harvard law professors— Jeannie Suk Gersen, Janet Halley, Elizabeth Bartholet and Nancy Gertner —argued in a recent article, a fair process requires “neutral decisionmakers who are independent of the school’s [federal regulatory] compliance interest, and independent decisionmakers providing a check on arbitrary and unlawful decisions.” The four had been among more than two dozen Harvard law professors to express concerns about the Obama administration’s—and Harvard’s—handling of Title IX. So too had 16 University of Pennsylvania law professors, as well as the American Council for Trial Lawyers.

It’s important that the Obama administration’s guidance be scrapped. Still, it’s important that the system protect students’ safety without trampling other students’ civil rights.

This article offers readers a false choice situation. Let me explain. According to the article, “Conservative news websites and talk radio hosts gleefully publicized the enrollment decline, tying it to the unrest and outside threats related to racial issues and allegations of liberal intolerance on campus that were covered nationally last spring.” Evergreen spokesman Zach Powers “sees it differently, saying a big factor is heightened competition among small liberal arts colleges. ‘This is a situation that is ongoing and is something that we are exploring different options and solutions to,’ Powers said.”

Why fight? It isn’t a stretch to think that the campus unrest gave alumni a legitimate excuse to tell their kids not to attend. I wrote in this post about the “Mizzou Effect.” In that post, I quoted an article, which said “Emails obtained by The College Fix show that some parents pledged to keep their kids away from Evergreen in a development that’s known as the ‘Mizzou Effect.'”

It’s possible that the competition from “small liberal arts colleges” was high. That’s possibly why Evergreen couldn’t afford to be seen as having ineffective leadership. Let’s face it. Evergreen’s leadership team looked like it let the patients run the asylum for almost a month.

If you’re an alumnus, why would you send your son or daughter attend a college that’s that badly mismanaged? Further, Evergreen is forecasting a $2,100,000 budget deficit for this academic year. They’ve already announced that they’ll have to lay off faculty for next year. What parent would let his/her son/daughter attend a college that’s that unprepared to give students a good education? What parent would send their son/daughter to a campus after hearing this?

You’d be a fool sending them to a campus like that.

Mr. Powers apparently isn’t familiar with the concept of competition. If he was familiar with that concept, he’d know that his employer should improve rather than whine about competition.

When I wrote that Daryle Jenkins was Antifa’s unofficial spokesman, I highlighted how he spun things to make his cause seem justified. There’s no way Antifa can spin this article successfully.

For instance, when it’s said that “The vast majority of the 4,000-some protesters who descended on Berkeley’s Civic Center Park last Sunday to demonstrate against a small group of Trump supporters were perfectly peaceful, but some of the 100 to 200 black-clad Antifa there ganged up on the Trump fans, punching and kicking them. Other Antifa carried colorful shields painted with the words ‘no hate’ to build a barrier that Antifa claims is needed to protect anti-racist protesters from the police and right-wingers. The activist said Antifa takes to the streets ‘out of love’, keeping nonviolent protesters safe from right wing protesters and the police.”

That isn’t just spin. It’s an outright lie. This video provides verifiable proof that that isn’t what’s happening:

According to the newscaster, Antifa protesters “broke through police barricades during a rally against hate and clashed with right wing activists.” It’s impossible to explain why Antifa rioters needed to break through police barricades and fight with right wing activists while protecting “nonviolent protesters from right wing protesters.” If there’s a police barricade separating the non-violent protesters and Antifa, then all that’s needed to ‘protect’ Antifa is for them to stay separated. Let the police do their job of protecting the peace.

Later in the article, an Antifa activist said “if the police try to attack protesters, Antifa gives other people the space to stay safe.” According to the article, “violence is justified, the Bay Area Antifa member said, because the far right is trying to create a fascist state.”

I’m pretty certain that thoughtful people might dispute who’s trying to create a fascist state. Activists that crash through police barricades to attack peaceful protesters aren’t likely to be considered peaceful protesters. They’re most likely to be called anarchists and/or rioters.

According to this article, Democrats are rethinking their public support for Antifa. I’m still skeptical over whether these Democrats have rejected Antifa totally. The headline of the article says “Democrats’ alliance with Antifa crumbles; even Berkeley’s mayor denounces ‘street gang.'” The first Democrat who publically criticized Antifa was Nancy Pelosi.

In this post, I wrote “The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity don’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies.” I said then that I was skeptical of Ms. Pelosi, saying that “Democrats always do the right thing … when it’s the only option left.”

Democrats have shown who they are. The fact that they’re backing off their public support for Antifa doesn’t mean, IMO, that they won’t appreciate Antifa’s tactics. The next logical step for Antifa is to disappear, then re-emerge under a different name.

John Kass’s column was written before a Ms. Pelosi’s denunciation of Antifa. He raises lots of questions that still haven’t gotten answered. Democrats certainly haven’t denied his part of his column:

There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence. This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.

Because silence is consent.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement was required because Democrats were losing the PR fight with the American people. In this video, Antifa leadership admits that they were violent:

Violence isn’t just a tactic with Antifa. It’s who they are. It’s horrifying that Democrats think that they’ll be able to convince Antifa to be part of their coalition. One Democrat who has credibility on the issue of Antifa is retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Here’s what he recently said:

Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party. There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence … Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. … I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party.”

Professor Dershowitz has consistently fought for people’s civil rights. He’s spoken eloquently about academia and old-fashioned debate. Antifa’s picture of debate, according to the video available, is them beating people with whom they disagree with weaponized pieces of lumber.

Technorati: , , , ,

After 3 days of waiting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the actions of Antifa. IMHO, that isn’t nearly enough. Ashton Whitty, a prominent member of the College Republicans at U-Cal Berkeley, described a frightening situation in this post.

She told a reporter for Campus Reform that she’d been “targeted and stalked during an Antifa march that left several people injured this weekend.” Campus Reform’s reporter reported that “video footage reviewed by Campus Reform appears to show Antifa members stalking Ashton Whitty, a prominent conservative student at the university and Campus Reform Campus Correspondent, as she was being interviewed by the American Freedom Keepers.”

In this video, it’s clear that Antifa was proud of their stalking activities, saying that they were “hungry for supremacists”, adding that they were “real hungry for white supremacists and there’s more of us.” Additionally, one Antifa rioter said “you guys are all bleeping racist mother bleepers.”

Monday night, Whitty told Martha MacCallum that “They came with black masks, they carried weapons, they were pounding people down with their fists and feet. I knew I had to get out of there. Everything was great until Antifa showed up.”

This video confirms that Antifa was armed with unconventional weapons and that they didn’t hesitate in using those weapons against college students with whom Antifa disagreed. Further, Antifa didn’t see the irony of them using fascist tactics to prevent so-called fascists from speaking.

These aren’t the actions of a bunch of protesters. They’re the actions of a domestic terrorist group. What type of lunatic gets that bent out of shape? Antifa’s stated goal is to highlight fascism. I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job with that. The indisputable thing is that they’re acting like fascists. It’s indisputable because video doesn’t lie.

On a different topic, Antifa was upset that they’re getting negative press. My suggestion is to have them stop acting like vigilantes and/or anarchists. I’m positive this won’t happen but it would be refreshing to see Antifa stop acting like terrorists and anarchists.

This article from the College Fix announces something that was inevitable: deficits and layoffs. CF’s Jennifer Kabbany reports that “Administrators at The Evergreen State College have announced that the embattled school faces a massive $2.1 million budget shortfall due in part to a drop in enrollment, and the institution has already handed out some temporary layoff notices as officials grapple with balancing the books.” Later in the article, Ms. Kabbany wrote “fall 2017-18 registration is down about 5 percent, from 3,922 students to 3,713. But the problem is nearly all of the students they lost are nonresidents, who traditionally pay a much higher tuition to attend, officials explained in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix.”

With enrollment taking that big of a hit, it isn’t surprising that layoffs would be right around the corner.

Apparently, Evergreen’s communications team isn’t top shelf. In the memo announcing the layoffs, they wrote “In a college where 89 percent of the operating budget is in salaries and benefits, it is impossible to reduce the budget by substantial amounts without giving up positions. In anticipation of this, we will soon be announcing a hiring freeze.” I’m pretty certain that’s what they just did.

I can’t fault the communications team for not wanting to talk about the elephant in the room:

Although the memo does not reference it, the drop in student enrollment can likely be traced back to the national uproar caused after a rowdy group of progressive students took over the school in May and June.

That incident triggered this:

Emails obtained by The College Fix show that some parents pledged to keep their kids away from Evergreen in a development that’s known as the “Mizzou Effect.” The term references the situation at the University of Missouri, which faced severe financial struggles after a student Black Lives Matter protest in 2014 took over the campus and ruined the school’s reputation, prompting a huge decline in enrollment.

I can’t blame these parents. To apply an old cliché, Evergreen’s administration let the prisoners run the asylum:

Next, students accused the university’s administration of racism during a contentious meeting, during which they yelled at and belittled President George Bridges. At this meeting, some white students were told to stand in the back of the room because of the color of their skin. The progressive student protesters also issued a string of demands to combat the alleged racism on campus, most of which the university agreed to implement at an unknown fiscal cost.

These administrators should’ve stood up to these protesters immediately. Agreeing to these students’ demands just added fuel to the fire. This is what letting the patients run the asylum looks like:

Talk about getting ugly quickly. Thanks to this University’s attitude of appeasement, their enrollment dropped and they’re having to lay faculty off. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out that this is a recipe for long-term disaster.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

For whatever it’s worth, St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis said that St. Cloud would have a zero tolerance policy against hate. Nobody seems to know what Mayor Kleis means by that but Eunice Adjei of the St. Cloud Area Regional Human Rights Commission is applauding him for that, saying “We stand with our mayor in his zero tolerance policy against hate groups.”

I did a little digging into the SCARHRC. What I found in their minutes is rather interesting. What I found in their minutes is essentially the DFL social issues agenda. I wish I could say that I’m surprised but I’m not.

For instance, one thing I found in the SCARHRC’s minutes is where it identifies “Students for Social Justice” and the DFL as “multicultural organizations,” with the implication being that the DFL is a tolerant organization. That implication is BS, as I highlighted in this post. There’s a significant portion of the DFL and DNC that are fascists who claim that they’re fighting fascism with fascist tactics.

What I’d like to know is whether the SCARHRC uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map:

If the SCARHRC is the DFL front organization that I think it is, then it’s virtually certain that they take their ‘hate guidance’ from the SPLC. This paragraph especially caught my attention:

White nationalist/supremacist, anti-Semitic and other hate groups exist throughout the country, including Minnesota. Additionally, some hate groups have posted flyers at colleges and universities in our state and region.

It isn’t surprising that leftists haven’t included Antifa and BLM in their list of hate groups.