Education despite universities

Caitlin Flanagan writes in this month’s Atlantic about why Jordan Peterson is so important. What it points to is that a liberal education is now being offered on Youtube, and not in university.

The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.

That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.

“They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology.”

Further, Flanagan writes:

But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

They – reasonable, moderate centrists – are starting to wake up. That is my conclusion from the publication and writing of this article. They have understood the bankruptcy of the cultural Left and they are starting to see their children have realized this too.

———————————

Post Script:

She could have included Ben Shapiro, and Victor Davis Hanson in this list of educational shows or speakers.

Cultural appropriation and heresy hunting

 

From Kevin Williamson in National Review, for the abject surrender of a literary magazine to some leftist goons on the issue of black English in a poem, for which it issued a grovelling apology.

 

In the morally illiterate idiom of the moment, a white poet’s ‘appropriation’ of Black English serves ‘white supremacy,’ putting it in the same category of things as lynchings, cross-burnings, and segregation.

The American Left, having lost the contest of ideas — the Left’s last big idea was Marxism, which never has been successfully replaced as an intellectual foundation — is in the grip of moral hysteria, and its main occupation is heretic-hunting, inventing ever-more-absurd pretexts for simply declaring beyond the pale any idea or intellectual opponent progressives cannot successfully engage or, nearly as often, to bounce any white male occupying cultural space the heretic-hunters covet.

And there you have it, people.

It is we who need perestroika and glasnost, restructuring and openness. Fortunately it is coming through the agency of Donald Trump, the icebreaker, however slowly.

This anti-white stuff is coming for you, dude

 

Explicit anti-white racism is now de rigeur in our universities. If you think this is temporary, think again.

First demonstrate your contribution to “diversity”, as defined by the academic elites who seek to abolish themselves because, to no one’s surprize, they are white.The College Fix reports

For Cal Poly, requiring the diversity statement is one part of a larger effort school officials are engaged in to “improve diversity” via dozens of various endeavors outlined in its 30-page action plan. As part of the diversity initiatives plan, the university also has a goal of “increasing, in a Proposition 209-compliant manner, the hiring of diverse faculty utilizing cluster hires every other year.”

It is evident to me and to a growing number of reasonable people that the entire university sector is overinflated and needs drastic reduction of its financial resources. The government must stop subsidizing this racialist evil. And stop enserfing our children to debt for a useless and dangerous miseducation.

Here is a portion of Cal Poly’s action plan. To read it is to see the anti-white future:

 

Office of University Diversity and Inclusion
Diversity Action Initiatives
Items in bold are key initiatives.
Future Actions Initiative Anticipated Implementation Department(s) Description
Cultural Humility Institute
Winter 2019
Vice President for Student Affairs, Office of University Diversity and Inclusion
Cultural humility is a lifelong process of self-reflection, self-critique, and commitment to understanding and respecting different points of view and engaging with others humbly, authentically and from a place of learning (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998).

Student Diversity Advisory Committee
Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
An advisory committee to the Office of University Diversity & Inclusion made up of student representatives to help guide work related to student concerns and to gain input on initiatives.

Campus-Wide Allyship Trainings

Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Cross Cultural Centers
An expansion of the currently offered Allyship workshops on Race & Ethnicity and Gender & Sexuality offered by the Cross Cultural Centers.

Collective Impact Strategic Action Plan Open Forum
Fall 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The Inclusive Excellence Council will review the Collective Impact Recommendations and create a strategic plan to be shared in a Fall 2018 Open Forum.

Collective Impact Strategy Group Recommendations
June 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The three Strategy Groups will have short- and long-term recommendations outlined.

Mandatory Implicit Bias Trainings for MPPs and Confidential Employees
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Employee and Organization Development
The “Exposing Hidden Bias” workshop will be mandatory for all MPPs and Confidential Employees.

Collective Impact Listening Sessions
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Open sessions reflecting the 3 Collective Impact Strategy Groups: Campus Climate, Curriculum, and Recruit & Retain. The sessions will garner input from participants.

All Faculty and Staff Association Meeting
Spring 2018
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
A gathering of representatives from the 5 established Faculty Staff Associations.
Expand BEACoN mentors to include staff and alumni *
TBD
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Include opportunities for staff and alumni to provide mentorship for underrepresented students

Campus Climate Survey
2019
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
A survey to assess campus climate will be re-administered.

New Employee Orientation
2017
Employee and Organization Development
An introductory training for new employees at Cal Poly. Onboarding for all new staff positions, including a diversity and inclusion segment.

BEACoN Research Mentor Program
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The BEACoN Research Mentor Program pairs students with research mentorship under the guidance of faculty. Enhanced the faculty/student mentorship program to add paid research opportunities.

Collective Impact Process for Advancing Diversity & Inclusion at Cal Poly
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
The Collective Impact approach is premised on the belief that no single policy, department, organization or program can tackle or solve the increasingly complex social problems we face as a society. The approach calls for multiple organizations or entities from different sectors to abandon their own agenda in favor of a common agenda, shared measurement and alignment of effort. Unlike collaboration or partnership, Collective Impact initiatives have centralized infrastructure – known as a backbone organization – with dedicated staff whose role is to help participating organizations shift from acting alone to acting in concert.

Vice President for Diversity & Inclusion
2017
President’s Cabinet
The lead position in OUDI was elevated to executive level for greater impact.
Established the Chicana/o Latino/a and Indigenous Alumni Chapter
2017
Alumni Association
Supports and creates community for Latinx alumni.

Faculty Associate Positions
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion
Faculty Associates are hired by OUDI to gain a faculty perspective in diversity and inclusion work.

Implicit Bias Trainings for Staff and Faculty
2017
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Employee and Organization Development
A two-part implicit bias workshop series that brings attention to the unconscious biases we all possess and provides some strategies for overcoming thier impact in our work and relationships.

Implicit Bias Trainings for Faculty Search Committees
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Academic Personnel
This training introduces participants to implicit bias in decision-making and hiring. It is required for all tenure/tenure-track faculty search committees.

Diversity in the Curriculum Training for Faculty
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and the Center for Teaching Learning & Technology
A summer week-long workshop designed for faculty to incorporate diversity and inclusion topics into their curricula.

Bias Incident Response Team Established
2016
Office of University Diversity & Inclusion and Dean of Students
The Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT) is co-chaired by the Dean of Students and the VP for Diversity & Inclusion. The team meets to discuss the appropriate course of action on hate/bias incidents on campus. BIRT also works to support and provide resources to those who are targets and/or witness acts of bias in our campus community.

==========

Remember:

Diversity = uniformity

Inclusion = exclusion

Inflating your way to survival

In the crash of 2008, and the subsequent measures to stave off a very real global crash of liquidity, certain measures were taken. These had the effect of saving the large banks and financial institutions, and the owning classes, worldwide. In the ensuing ten years, the elites took care of themselves very well. Anyone who had assets, gained; those who offered labour have had to live on no wage increases. So says Steve Bannon. Those with capital gained, while over half the US population cannot put $US400 to cover emergencies.

Socialism – the government covers your downside risk – for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Start watching around 14:00 minutes. Prior to that is interesting but they are making irrelevant points. This is the best, most cogent, analysis of why Trump came to power. My left wing friends (I have a couple) would probably agree. The essential argument ends by 20:55 into the interview.

Bannon explicitly excludes Obama from any blame for this situation.

In my opinion, while the populist/nationalist movement appears radical, it is actually conservative in intention, trying to save the capitalist system from its current situation where, to repeat, there is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

 

Anti-whiteness

 

 

 

A pithy exploration of the Left’s anti-whiteness agenda is offer today at Front Page Mag, authored by John Perazzo.  It concludes:

The attack on whiteness is just the latest and most fashionable manifestation of the left’s progressive racism. As racial attitudes have softened in the years since the magisterial 1964 Civil Rights Act, as racial intermarriage has become more commonplace, as what W.E.B. Du Bois and other radicals called “the color line” disappears to the point of nothingness, the left has had to work doubly hard to substantiate its belief that America, appearance to the contrary, is a hell of bigotry and racial violence. That is why it has come up with “whiteness,” and why it works so hard to convince the credulous that racism is not an act committed by an identifiable individual but a “structure,” invisible to its white beneficiaries, which allows them to live lives of power and certainty while trampling, without meaning to do so, the hopes of people of color.

“Whiteness” is the last refuge of scoundrels.

 

I tell lefties in vain that this stuff is coming for them, just as restrictions on speech are. They do not heed, they do not listen. They think they are on the winning side. They are useful idiots. Freedom is indivisible, as George Jonas would have it.

Alan Borovoy you have a lot to answer for

I believe that Alan Borovoy, father of Canada’s hate speech legislation, repented of his earlier enthusiasm for hate speech legislation and its expansion into human rights codes by the time it began to be used by Human Rights Commissions to suppress the likes of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. At least his old friend and sparring partner George Jonas thought so:

It always puzzled me why Alan, a civil libertarian by vocation as well as avocation, would burn the midnight oil to set up laws and institutions designed to reduce the very liberties he was safeguarding and promoting by day. The answer, it seemed, was that he never imagined human rights commissions, a progeny of the progressive left, could be a threat to free expression. In my column a few days ago I wrote: “It never occurred to [Alan] that civil liberties can be threatened from the left…..

Initially, Alan, like many left-liberal social activists, believed he and his comrades could regulate conduct without affecting expression or conscience. After all, how could prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing turn into censorship in the media?

Unfettered by the illusions of the left, conservative civil libertarians could see it easily. Deny liberty to conduct; it’ll soon be denied to speech, or vice versa. Freedom is indivisible. Cutting it in half means killing it. King Solomon understood this in relation to babies; civil libertarians like Alan didn’t think it applied to civil liberties. He disdained any talk about “the thin edge of the wedge.” In the 1980s, with civil liberties already halfway down the throat of the voracious state, Alan was still dismissing the slippery slope as a shopworn myth. It took him another decade and a half to change his mind.”

The left wing assault on speech is only gathering strength, because now it is unhinged from reliance on courts or quasi-judicial bodies like human rights commissions. Now it exercises its whims through young twenty years old social justice warriors in the platform oligopolies: Facebook, Google, Youtube, Apple and Spotify. No such thing as fair process, or rights,  hinder the process. What the Left does not like, is “hate”. That is to say, all speech not conforming to the left wing mindset of our times is hate: sexist racist fascist transphobic Islamophobic nyah nyah nyah.

 

William Jacobson in Legal Insurrection has it right:

The targeted takedown of Jones was strategic.

Few people want to defend the substance of his content. So CNN gets to wrap itself in self-righteousness, even though it was an act by CNN of political activism.

And yes, these are private companies who can do what the government cannot. We understand that. But they have taken on a role approaching public utilities, without whom we can’t communicate politically.

This is something we’ve covered a lot in the past year, how an oligopoly of left-leaning high tech firms control virtually all of our social media interactions. In my dreadful 9th Anniversary post, I wrote:

If the assault on the Electoral College was the game changer for me, a runner up was waking up to implications of the concentration of power in a small number of social media and internet companies who have been weaponized to shut down speech and expression. Google, Facebook, Twitter and two handfuls of other companies now completely control our ability to communicate with each other, while internet backbone companies are poised to block internet access altogether.

Imagine living in a repressive country in which the government blocked access to and suppressed internet content. You don’t need to move. It’s coming here but from private industry. This is, in many ways, more dangerous than government suppression of free speech because at least in the U.S. the government is subject to the First Amendment, and can be voted out of office.

The social justice warriors have moved from shouting down speakers on campus to pressuring high tech companies to expand the definition of “hate speech” and “community standards” to the point that anything right of center is at risk….

And further from Jacobson:

These social justice censors start with neo-Nazis, then define everyone who opposes them as the equivalent of neo-Nazis. So they move on to Alex Jones, then the NRA, and won’t stop until mainstream conservatives are banned.

Yet lunatic leftist #Resistance conspiracies proliferate on these same social media platforms without hindrance.

One of the best comments I saw about the Jones takedown was from David Reaboi on Twitter:

When the only thing you’ve got to say about the deplatforming of Jones is, “it’s a private business”—for conservatives, it’s a tell.

It means you don’t see the larger fight about deplatforming and Left’s “hate speech” restrictions to expression. You don’t know what time it is.

That is spot on. There is a war being fought for the turf controlled by the big tech social media oligopolies, and when the openness of these forums is lost, we’re back to the equivalent of Samizdat.

Sargon of Akkad has this to say:

 

 

It’s still legal to say what you think

I have been watching a considerable amount of the Rubin Report in my leisure, which I recommend highly. The hour-long discussions allow for an exchange of views, as opposed to a ritualized six-minute interchange on cable TV of talking points.

One of the heroes of truth is Douglas Murray, who has written The Strange Death of  Europe. Asked by Rubin what words of encouragement he has for others, he responded: “It’s still legal to say what you think”.

I want to add my two cents’ worth to that observation. It is surprizing the degree to which, in the absence of any secret police, and with human rights commissions still occasionally defeated in  public and embarrassing ways, that people feel so constrained to toe the line of political correctness.

Yet they do, and for good reason. There are innumerable enforcers out there, in almost any occasion in which polite society meets.

Last year I was talking to a lady at a cocktail gathering and had occasion to observe that North American Indians or blacks were overrepresented in our prisons – and no, I did bring up the topic but did not avoid it either. She asked me quite bluntly: “Was I racist?| I thought for a moment and said, “No. I merely observe statistical realities”. What I ought to have said, and wish I had said, “Are you a member of the thought police?”

Because there are many members of the thought police and they do not hesitate to comment on the slightest deviation – it is the slightest and not the greatest deviation they are sensitive to.

More than any other thing which lies behind the success of Trump is his capacity to talk ordinary language about difficult subjects: to talk like a real person and not in a series of carefully crafted talking points. What he has done is enlarge the capacity of ordinary people to react as normal people should to violations of common sense, good manners, and good public policy. The Emperor of PC has no clothes, which we have seen for some time. Yet it is the power to force people to say that His Majesty is splendidly clothed, to humiliate the general public by ceaseless participation in lies or doubtful propositions, that gives the guardians of PC their power.

To wit:

  • mass immigration is good for all people of the receiving society
  • free trade with China is actually free – that is, standards-based, law abiding  – trade
  • there is no link between Islam and jihad
  • that different rates of criminal incarceration among different ethnicities is a sign of racism or other injustice

Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that Communism would not survive the day if everyone spoke the truth. As I have said recently, we are living in the liberal version of Oceania, and we will not get out of it until we each decide to tell the truth.

So say something.

———————————-

For  good measure, here is the interview with Douglas Murray.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech in Trumpland

From American Greatness:

The past week of Russia hysteria has me longing for the good old days. Like 2009, when a Democratic president could pull missile defense systems out of Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Vladimir Putin without facing charges of treason. Or 2010, when a former Democratic president could take a cool half-million from a suspected Russian government-backed source to speak in Moscow and that wasn’t considered treasonous, either. Or 2012, when no one was screaming for impeachment when a Democratic president on a hot mic assured the Russian president that he’ll have “more flexibility” on missile defense systems once he’s re-elected. Or when the previous Democratic administration helped Putin toward his goal of controlling the worldwide supply chain of uranium and that was really all about “resetting” relationships.

Oh, how the times have changed!

 

I was at a reception at the US Embassy in Ottawa recently. A Canadian happened to remark that he had been there often listening to the most strident denunciations of Trump by Americans. Clearly for all the talk of Trump leading to fascism, there is not the least fear on the part of any American to complain that they are approaching a condition in which their speech would be even mildly dangerous to their careers.

Hence one can conclude that political discourse is alive and vigorous in the halls of the American government and in the felt freedom of its people to complain of Trump.

Perhaps it was the alcohol talking, but I made bold predictions of Republican gains not losses in the senate and house at mid-terms. When I have the inclination and closer to the time I will make precise more predictions.

How come when a Muslim male goes crazy he kills people?

And the cover up never stops.

From Pajamas Media, which I think captures the enormous effort to divert attention from Islamic jihad to mental illness, toxic masculinity, or “look. there’s a rabbit!”.

According to police, Hussain — who had lived for a time in Afghanistan and Pakistan — had “expressed ‘support’ for a website that was seen as ‘pro-ISIL.’” This and other fishy online activity had led the authorities to speak to him. Indeed, reported Warmington, Hussain had been on the radar of the Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Well, that certainly sounds dispositive. But while Warmington was serving up this hard information about Hussain’s jihadist sympathies and shady background (what was he doing all that time in Afghanistan and Pakistan?), virtually every other journalist or public figure in Canada seemed determined to lead the public down this or that garden path –whether by calling for even tighter gun laws, meditating on the mystery of the individual human soul, serving up academic hogwash about toxic masculinity, or embracing the argument that it was all about mental problems. They were willing, in short, to make any argument, however absurd, rather than to acknowledge the manifest possibility that a young ISIS fan named Faisal Hussain might be yet another enemy within, driven to mow down infidels in the name of the caliphate.

Islamic jihad taunts the liberal vision of diversity and inclusion with the adamantine fact of total rejection. No we will not assimilate. Yes you are fit to be slaughtered. You are vermin and we will destroy you.
Jihadists preach it, and all jihadists are Muslim, though not all Muslims are jihadists. I do not know what is to be done, but what I want to hear is public authorities wrestling with the question.
In Canada, as elsewhere, we hear the choirs preaching diversity and inclusion. Actually, if there was one style of masculinity I would call toxic, it is the Islamic male’s sense of rightfulness to seize or women, kill and enslave there rest of us, all in the name of the Prophet. This has gone on since the beginning of the creed’s war against all, kuffar.

 

Fareed Zakaria interviews Steve Bannon

Start at 38:17.

Bannon locates the inception of the populist revolt which led to Donald Trump in the financial crisis of 2008.

“If people think the Washington elite is arrogant towards the rest of the country, it is as nothing compared to Brussels and the City of London financial elites towards their own countries”.

 

I like people who are able to explain at a high level of abstraction what is happening: fact driven, insightful, and as much as possible, above the fray.

Jordan Peterson does this in academic subjects, Peter Zeihan in energy, demographics and large scale political outcomes,  and Steve Bannon in why Trump made it to President, and why he must prevail.

“With China and NAFTA and everything else, we are at the beginning stages of a major  renegotiation of the economics of the United States and how we are treated in the world and what our place is in the world. It’s at the heart of the Republican Party and the re-formation of the Republican Party. His biggest enemies in this are the Republican Party….”

Zakaria has some good points in rebuttal, too.

And Bannon comes right back.

A superior interchange among very intelligent people.

“The United States is more than an expeditionary humanitarian military force that is there to be the world’s police force and they [the deplorables]  are paying for it. They are asking for a re-calibration.”