Currently browsing posts authored by jdrew

Follow jdrew via RSS

← Previous Page

Why Aren’t You Listening? – Partial Transcript

I have loaded a partial transcript of some of the most offensive and extreme comments made at the CC meeting. I created it by leveraging the Word document posted on Ephblog and then reviewing the video. It is shocking stuff. There is evidence in this video of a lot of dysfunction including the efforts of one speaker to shame student representative Tristan Whalen for seemingly not listening respectfully enough to a stream-of-consciousness tirade of anti-white bigotry.

To his credit, Whalen defended himself. He requested that he be treated in a courteous manner as he responded to the attackers. He pointed out that he had been listening and that what he was writing up were his own notes on the attacker’s comments. At any rate, I will not post the transcript here. It is quite offensive. You can access it over at my Anonymous Political Scientist blogsite here.

The only other thing I would like to add to the discussion is the manner in which the speaker, Isaiah, is permitted, without any complaints, to use the N-word, use foul language, articulate racial stereotypes, and endlessly refer to ****-sucking. In Isaiah’s view, simply being polite and following normal procedures is tantamount to working as a cheap prostitute on a busy thoroughfare. My sense is this was all an expression of his power over the group. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that a white student saying the exact same things would be given such deference.

Facebooktwitter

K. C. Johnson on How to Fight BDS

I saw an excellent article in the Tablet today from one of my favorite former Williams professors, K.C. Johnson, on the successes enjoyed by those fighting against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on college campuses. In particular, he applauds the presidents of Pitzer, Cornell and the University of Michigan for standing up to the BDS movement.

Nevertheless, Johnson thinks it is foolish to depend on college presidents to stamp out the BSD movement. Instead, he recommends more aggressive actions by faculty and students. Among faculty, he notes:

On the faculty side, after several minor academic organizations had adopted resolutions committing support to BDS, the American Historical Association seemed poised to follow suit. But the Alliance for Academic Freedom, an organization championed by high-profile professors such as Maryland’s Jeffrey Herf and David Greenberg of Rutgers, engaged the BDS advocates on a variety of grounds, and helped to persuade more moderate AHA members to decisively reject the BDS resolution. The 2016 vote blunted the momentum of BDS activists in targeting academic organizations.

Likewise, Johnson also sees great hope in encouraging students to show courage in combating the BDS movement on their own, potentially with the help of legal talent.

Earlier this week, meanwhile, San Francisco State University settled a lawsuit filed by two Jewish students who alleged religious discrimination in one of the nation’s most virulently anti-Israel campus environments. The university agreed to spend $200,000 on “educational efforts to promote viewpoint diversity (including but not limited to pro-Israel and Zionist viewpoints).” The school also released a statement reiterating “its commitment to equity and inclusion for all—including those who are Jewish,” and affirming “the values of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are so critical on a university campus.

It is, of course, a great shame that K.C. Johnson saw his excellent research demeaned while he was a junior faculty member at Williams. According to a report he gave to an Ephblog correspondent, he bailed out rather than endure what looked like a fruitless, upcoming tenure battle. It warms my heart to see such a courageous fellow sticking it out in the academic world, promoting the freedom of speech standards which once made our elite institutions truly elite.

 

Facebooktwitter

The Cudgel of ‘White Privilege’

The campus left really isn’t interested in solving problems. Their main aim is to attack whites, shut them up. It doesn’t matter whose feelings they hurt or what damage they do to others or their cause. Zachary Wood ’18 offered a great take on this phenomenon in an opinion piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 8, 2018. Unfortunately, the full text is locked behind the WSJ paywall.

‘White people need to be checked, Zach. End of discussion.”

I was talking with an Ivy League historian, a fellow African-American, about “white privilege.” I asked if his goal was to antagonize or to promote dialogue.

“Do you know who I am?” he demanded. “I’ve been helping black people longer than you’ve been alive. I’m telling you what I know: Lecturing these white kids is only the beginning.”

Is it really necessary to be so aggressive?

“Listen, I don’t give a damn. I’m not interested in negotiating with racists.”

I tried to close the conversation cordially, saying I’d have to reflect on the issue. But when I extended my hand, he looked at it, looked up at me, and then walked away.

To be fair, I should point out that citing an example of leftist excess contained in an opinion piece authored by Zachary Wood ’18 is, in itself, racist.

Facebooktwitter

Where’s the Violence?

The College Fix has locked on to the Green/Love Black Joy controversy in an article published on February 18, 2019, titled “Black queer professors suddenly cancel their courses at elite college because of ‘microaggressions’

The focus of Greg Piper’s report is that Dr. Kai M. Green and Dr. Kimberly Love have massively inconvenienced their students and colleagues through the last minute cancellation of their Spring 2019 classes over what appear to be trivial concerns. From my perspective, Piper seems to underestimate the degree to which this controversy is a distraction from the underlying mental health issues which caused Kai M. Green ’07 to go on medical leave. (Kimberly Love has apparently also been placed on medical leave to help support Kai M. Green.)

In Piper’s view, the reasons that Green and Love provide for cancelling their classes seem relatively insubstantial. At best, he reports that they framed their complaints as

Colleague: Can I touch your….?

Answer: NO!

Piper is particularly concerned that neither Green or Love provide much detail regarding the “violent practices” they experience while teaching at Williams College:

Their article is light on specific incidents that bothered them; rather, it says Williams and other colleges “have not made structural changes to create environments in which Black, Brown, disabled, poor, queer people, and our work can thrive. Through various isolating tactics, academic institutions can dull our awareness of the grave conditions under which we are expected to perform.”

They cite one off-campus incident: a tow-truck driver who thought they weren’t “from around here” when he towed their stalled car, asked if they were students, and then called them “ball busters” when they complained that he wouldn’t drive them home, as he’d earlier promised.

Their description of this incident continues for several more paragraphs but does not acknowledge their classism toward the blue-collar worker. They finally suggest they told the account in “two very different ways” but both through a “Black Queer feminist lens.”

The professors, again, share no specific incidents of bias at Williams, other than the vague reference to requested touching. They credit the college for its “commitment and work … in the name of creating and sustaining a more equitable Williams.”

All in all, Piper is dubious about the merits of the complaints these Williams College professors have made about their working conditions. He writes: “Love and another professor, who together identify as “Black Queer Feminists,” are leaving their students high and dry due to abstract harms they claim to have suffered as a result of not being free to “point out the anti-Black, transphobic, xenophobic” environment of the extreme leftist college.”

Key comments on the Piper article include the following wry observations:

If you’re an SJW and you can’t find a safe space at Williams then you’re insane. The problem it seems is that the school allowed her to build her own course program and then got angry when no one signed up for it. Then she went to the college and demanded it be made mandatory or demanded reparations or she simply has a better offer somewhere else. Seriously, I have family members who work there.

Black, Queer, Heavy-set Feminist and a woman suffering from disphoria. What a team.

“Professors”: give everything plox
College: lol no ur batshit insane
“Professors”: microaggressions! transphobia! ur literally hitler

 

Facebooktwitter

Unbearable Whiteness of Being

The Processing Whiteness group at Williams College has caught the attention of Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., the Rome Bureau Chief for Breitbart news. Quoting the college’s website, the author reports the Processing Whiteness workshops will furnish “opportunities to analyze and understand white identity, white privilege and racism in a supportive environment that focuses on the experiences of the participants.”

The Breitbart author observes: “The assumption seems to be that ‘whiteness’ is a condition that disposes a person to racism and shame and therefore requires being worked through in a supportive environment.”

“The group will help participants learn to speak about the historical and contemporary implications of white identity, examine race and racism, identify implicit bias and feelings of shame,” states the event description.

Group leaders will also help participants “explore and practice allyship and interrupting racism.”

“It’s important that white people give space in their lives to learning from and bearing witness to people of color’s experiences of racism,” the site declares.

Much of the material for the workshop is be drawn from Shelly Tochluk’s 2010 book Witnessing Whiteness: The Need to Talk about Race and How to Do It.

Witnessing Whiteness “invites readers to consider what it means to be white, describes and critiques strategies used to avoid race issues, and identifies the detrimental effect of avoiding race on cross-race collaborations,” according to the book description.

The Processing Whiteness group is meant as “a supplement to, not a replacement for, multi-racial dialogues and activism between white people and people of color,” the school website notes.

Processing Whiteness will be provided by Integrative Wellbeing Services Fellow Ruby Solomon, College Rabbi Seth Wax, and Professor of German Gail Newman. It includes eight hour and a half sessions over the Spring 2019 semester. It will meet on Wednesdays from 12:30 – 1:45 pm in Hollander 317 on the following dates: 2/13, 2/20, 2/27, 3/6, 3/13, 4/3, 4/10, and 4/17. The group is limited to 16 participants.

The most highly rated comments regarding Processing Whiteness are perhaps even more interesting than the article itself. They certainly show how people outside the purple bubble perceive this program.

How about a course on how to identify a fake black hate crime.

Ivy League schools and most of the formerly prestigious colleges like Williams have become cesspools of ignorance.

To assume negative character traits in people due to their race is racism. As usual, the “anti-racist” left is showing who they are: racists.

How about workshops to help “people of color” deal with their racism against white people?

Parents spending a ton of money having the kids indoctrinated in self-loathing anti-white P/C globalist Bull S h I t.

The Williams College website indicates that there will be no costs for participants to participate in this program. Moreover, Williams College has several copies of the book Witnessing Whiteness which are also available for free for faculty and staff. A light lunch will be offered. For the full article at Breitbart, please click on the link below.

Williams College Offers Workshops So Faculty Can Process Their Whiteness

Facebooktwitter

Professor Paul Red Pills the Left: Democrat Party Increasingly Represents the Rich

“Democrats won back the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections thanks to strong gains among the rich,” writes Williams College political science professor Darel E. Paul. “What many pundits have described as a Republican rout in the suburbs is nothing less than the party’s sharp decline among the wealthiest American households.”

Paul backs up his findings in a new article in First Things, America’s most influential journal of religion and public life.

The upshot of the 2018 midterms is that the Democratic Party now overwhelmingly represents America’s rich. At the same time, Democrats continue to represent the poorest Americans, at least those who are not white. Managing this contradiction is ever more the party’s great challenge.

You can check out professor Paul’s full analysis in the following article, The Rich Turn to the Democrats.

First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life. They describe themselves as “an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization.” It was founded in 1989 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues, in part, to “…confront the ideology of secularism.”

Facebooktwitter

Uncensored: Zachary Wood ’18 Discusses His New Book on FIRE’s So to Speak Podcast

Zachary Wood ’18 is one of my favorite Williams College graduates. I was very pleased to see the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) interviewed him about his new memoir, Uncensored: My Life and Uncomfortable Conversations at the Intersection of Black and White America.

Wood’s backstory includes a tough life that gave him the fortitude needed to become one of the college’s most precocious and famous alums. He has a mom with schizoaffective disorder and grew up in Washington, D.C.’s extremely dangerous Ward 8 community. Ward 8 includes the historic Anacostia neighborhood where the overall crime rate is reportedly 223% higher than the national average.

Zachary Wood’s bravery was tested when he and his Uncomfortable Learning organization invited thought-provoking speakers like former National Review writer John Derbyshire to speak. The college administration, under President Adam Falk, cancelled the event.

You can catch up with Wood’s adventures and hear more of his story by clicking on this link: So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Facebooktwitter

Nudged to Care: Michael E. Reed ’75 Promotes Lived Name Initiative at Bowdoin

 

 

 

Scott Johnson at Powerline called my attention to how a Williams graduate, Michael E. Reed ’75, is pushing to abolish gender classifications and foist artificial pronouns down the throats of the formerly free and independent folks at Bowdoin.

A friend has forwarded the email below from Bowdoin College Senior Vice President for Inclusion and Diversity Michael Reed. The email sets forth Bowdoin’s Lived Name Initiative. Is it permitted to ridicule this scheme and its supporting apparatus?

In the e-mail, Reed reports: “Beginning in January, the lived name will become the default name for students in Polaris, DegreeWorks, Blackboard, Workday, eBear, the online campus directory, and Bowdoin email display name.” This effort to prevent inadvertent dead naming is now  “an important part of creating an inclusive community.”

Reed, of course, has little compassion for the conservatives who feel excluded because they believe efforts to eliminate binaries and impose gender fluidity are both bad policy and an assault on freedom of speech. I have to agree with Scott Johnson who points out: “What we have here is beyond satire, a glimpse of our dystopian future now.”

Michael E. Reed, ’75

As you may remember, Reed rode a short stay on the Williams College Board of Trustees (2004-2006) into a paid campus job as a vice president and a member of the senior leadership team. He established Williams’s Office for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity, and represented Williams as its affirmative action and Title IX officer. He left Williams in 2014 to take a job as vice president of institutional initiatives at Dickinson College. He was appointed the senior vice president for inclusion and diversity at Bowdoin College starting in March 1, 2018. Reed was a psychology major as an undergraduate.

For the full Powerline article, see Include Me Out.

Facebooktwitter

Censorship at Williams: When You’ve Lost David Brooks

David Brooks, the somewhat conservative columnist at the New York Times, has offered his take on the pro-censorship, anti-free speech movement at Williams College.

 

 

In a tweet on Saturday, Brooks references the student statement opposing the faculty effort to adopt a version of the Chicago Statement and writes: “This is a statement signed by 363 censorship advocates at Williams College. A perfect encapsulation of the fundamentalism sweeping America’s elite colleges.” Most of the comments on Brooks’ tweet were supportive.

There was also the predictable leftist responses as follows.

In my view, the fight for freedom of speech is the most important issue in our nation. The left cannot win if we argue about their policy ideas. When we do argue policy it is too easy for conservatives to point to the real world examples of leftist ideology in action including Cuba and Venezuela. The only way the left can win is by silencing conservatives. It is good that establishment figures like David Brooks are waking up to the censorship running wild at places like Williams.

David Brooks has been writing for the New York Times since September 2003. He appears as a commentator on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Facebooktwitter

Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty

Earlier this year, I noticed a helpful article by Mitchell Langbert on the number of Republicans teaching at the top ranked liberal arts colleges in the nation. The article appeared on the website of the National Association of Scholars. Lamgbert mentions Williams in his article. His research shows only a single Republican teaching at Williams out of 254 faculty members. According to my sources, there are actually two registered Republicans at Williams.

If this is true, it would change Langbert’s reported ratio of Democrats to Republicans at Williams from 132:1 to 66:1. This would at least take Williams out of the worst of the worst category.

I had an extended e-mail conversation with Langbert after this article came out. We compared notes on what it was like to compete for tenure and teach in an environment biased against conservatives. His article supports what I learned when I spoke with Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, the authors of Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University. Without a doubt, Republicans fare the worst at the elite LACs in New England. For Langbert’s full article, click on the link below.

Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty

Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business management at Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY 11210; MLangbert@HVC.RR.com.

Facebooktwitter

Donor Beware: Power Line’s Steven Hayward Takes on Williams College

 

 

 

I was surprised to see one of my favorite Power Line writers, Steven Hayward, had noticed the faculty petition to bring a version of the famous Chicago Statement to Williams College. He notes he is proud UC Berkeley has adopted the Chicago Statement and its common sense defense of free speech and academic freedom. He opines “…while places like Berkeley, Colorado/Boulder, the University of Wisconsin, etc. have the rap for being the most politically correct and radical institutions of higher education, in fact they are relatively sane compared to small, elite private liberal arts colleges.”

Our Rotten Liberal Arts Colleges

His article focuses on the extremes he sees at Williams College and Sarah Lawrence. He goes out of his way to share choice elements of the student led counter-petition which hysterically views free speech and academic freedom as little more than revolutionary pogroms targeted at “people of color, queer people, disabled people, poor people, and others outside the center of power.”

His article is a refreshing reminder of why the postmodern radical ideology which dominates the culture of Williams College appears so unhealthy to well-meaning outsiders. It is worth reading his article in full. Steven Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, and a visiting lecturer at Berkeley Law School.

 

 

Facebooktwitter

← Previous Page

Currently browsing posts authored by jdrew

Follow jdrew via RSS