Damn Glenn, you keep doing it. You changed my mind again. Love your discussions with John, especially when you disagree - working it out is most enlightening. So happy I subscribed.
Thank you for including the link to the Roland Fryer documentary. What a travesty! He articulates what I have believed for a very long time, and that is that if we really want to help Black kids, it has to start at the beginning, in elementary education. You simply cannot erase 12 years of sub-standard education by placing a student in a school where he is ill equipped to compete with his classmates, I don't care what the reason for the placement. A poor white child from a horrible school in Appalachia would be in the same boat of trying to swim upstream against a raging river of better prepared students. Fryer's words throughout the documentary remind me of one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”
Humanity, at its core, is an irrational species. Too many of our big decisions are made based on how we feel, rather than being based on sound rationality. Higher education was always, going back to the earliest civilizations, the primary way in which we overcame our core irrationality.
Claudine Gay is a symptom of the disease of anti-intellectualism that has gripped the minds and hearts of our supposed elite intellectual class. What Gay and her ilk have helped accomplish is nothing less than obscene. Once sterling institutions that historically were regarded as bastions of Truth have devolved into expensive struggle sessions.
The devolved and degraded universities that have embraced this philosophy need an Augean stables-like deep cleaning.
This feeds into Glenn asking what is wrong with respectability politics. What Glenn wants is a politics of self-respect where what respectability politics usually means is simply being found worthy of protection by some white person/white people in general.
I understand what John is saying but she is still culpable because she committed evil acts (trying to destroy Roland Fryer among others) and playing in the game as a willing participant that she greatly benefitted from and which ultimately harms the people she is allegedly trying to help. Given that she has still has a job that pays almost $1 million a year she is hardly much of a victim.
However, I do agree with John, Penny Pritzker and her family are worse.
I agree with John in that it’s not “her fault,” she didn’t make the “rules,” she benefitted. No different than a pretty woman, a handsome tall man, a once great athlete who lives in the same college town where he was a “star.” (see this all the time- the good ole boys ..they def get jobs which they are not qualified) the issue is not the person who benefitted. It’s all too common, they are all “tokens”regardless of their skin color or sex and it will never change. But they will be criticized behind their backs or not and some will prove their worth; it’s not unlike being the coaches kid. They have much more to prove.
However my problem with Gay was her congressional hearing. Not condemning terrorism is character and for that alone, in my mind she’s trash. I don’t care what color she is or how many papers she copied.
The directness and honestly in this discussion is like an elixir for one of the main things that ails us today in the West. THIS should be required listening for college students.
"...outcries over the plagiarism in her dissertation and scholarly publications are merely a cover."
This is what corrupt politicians always say when they are found guilty of corruption (it can be true and it is a ploy used in totalitarian regimes to get rid of the opposition. In democratic countries with a free press, the truth on these things comes out).
The supporters of Prof. Gay seem to believe that they can whitewash her misdemeanours (things that Harvard's code explicitly state will get a graduate punished and demoted if not expelled) with the fact that some disagree vehemently with her opinions and have animus against her. Let's be clear. If you steal, even if you are an irrreproachable person under every other respect and you have helped thousands, you get to be tried for theft. And if found guilty you pay for it.
This idea that good deeds put one above the law is pernicious, well beyond judging whether the deeds of Prof. Gay were good or bad.
Last summer, I recall watching one of Glenn's podcasts where, when asked, offered a lukewarm response to Gay's Harvard presidential appointment. I took it with a grain of salt since most of us, I imagine, did not know anything about her. How ironic that less than 6 months later her ride on the DEI train threw her overboard.
I recently watched the Roland Fryer video where it referenced Gay's shameful role in the shutting down of his lab where valuable research was conducted. Karma is a bi*ch.
Although many conversations can and will be had about Gay's demise, I can't help thinking about the race card she played upon exit rather than taking responsibility for her actions. Of course, she was roundly supported by the usual grievance mob and held up as a so-called example of the "system" going after black women in powerful positions in spite no evidence to support this.
I disagree with John about her not knowing any better. I suspect her caribbean parents did not teach her to play the race card. African and caribbean immigrants usually put in the required work and do not attribute their problems to whiteness. More than likely, Gay subscribed to the victimhood model of black American culture while growing up in the U.S..
Nonetheless, what I don't understand is why the educated elite continue to perpetuate and reinforce victim culture, as John recently experienced in Martha's Vineyard, when even poor and working class people don't instinctively blame others for their short-comings. This is exhausting.
I don't have too much to add to the entire Claudine Gay discussion, except to say that my gut feeling is that she was ultimately cancelled for the wrong reasons. Had she not been perceived as insufficiently anti-anti-Semitic, I'm fairly certain she would still be the president of Harvard. She was appointed to the post basically for being Black, female and woke.
Personally I'm a bit alarmed that a handful of powerful individuals such as Bill Ackman and Elise Stefanik have been able to exert such disproportionate influence in getting Gay cancelled. I don't believe she should've been cancelled over her Congressional testimony, but even if someone else feels differently, surely we can all agree that the entire process of deciding to do so could've been more democratic? Also, isn't it incredibly ironic that the pro-Israeli right who are avidly anti-woke and anti-DEI basically did to Claudine Gay what the political left has been doing to its enemies for years now?
I guess us peasants are granted the illusion of democracy and the notion that we matter, but as you say at the end of the day it's those with money who have the actual power. In any case, isn't Harvard basically a giant hedge fund these days with its $50 billion endowment? I'm curious how much some of these elite universities really need ongoing donations.
Here's one peasant who doesn't subscribe to any sort of anti-Semitic tropes hoping that disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence among the donor bloc at elite universities doesn't completely take away everyone else's voice in these matters. Now back to reading another 4,000 word Bill Ackman tweet...
I guess it doesn't matter since you acknowledge above that you don't have too much to add to the entire Claudine Gay discussion.
Here's another peasant who doesn't subscribe to any anti-Chinese tropes that prefers to donate to the Confucius Institute of America. I know their goal is to try to subvert American institutions but their dumplings are just irresistible.
I'm pretty sure that’s a simple statistical fact and the very point Steve was making. Jewish Americans are over-represented among the donor class at elite universities in the same way that Black Americans are over-represented among many categories of violent criminals. But I get it, numbers are racist.
Both John and Glenn are on my "must read" list. Especially when together. This discussion is one of the best--which is a high standard.
I am an old (80) redneck, albeit one with a hard science PhD. I grew up in the rural Southwest during a time when "no colored" signs on stores were still seen. I asked my mother once what that meant. "Colors" to me were crayons. She snapped--"it means we don't shop there.". I still didn't know what it meant. My parents were far from "liberals", BTW.
We knew a black MD. Didn't go to him because we had a family MD that we loved. I remember my parents commenting that he had to be exceptional because of all the unfair obstacles that he had to overcome. The presumption was that his skin color was an indicator of excellence.
"Affirmative Action" was initially billed as NOT a quota system, but as a requirement for an even playing field. Hard to argue against, but it rapidly and inevitably became a quota system.
Now, you see a black MD, and the presumption is the opposite. It could well be the same person, adjusted for time. Horrible.
My immediate reaction to reading this conversation is the pain that John and Glenn feel. I am 100 percent European and cannot personally relate to the problems that a non-white person encounters, but imagine that if I were dark skinned, I would feel similar pain. I have taught Engineering at the University level off and on. STEM is largely objective-- one plus one equals two; it isn't a matter of opinion or life experience. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
The most painful part of this discussion, to me, is what do you tell the black student that is underperforming--by their or your measure? EVERY person has the inherent right to be judged on their own performance. Period. You know and they know that there is a significant likelihood that they got there with some "diversity" assistance. But, not a certainty. How do you deal with that elephant in the room? The only answer is to ignore the elephant. Easily said, but impossible in practice.
My hope is that this Claudine Gay fiasco will lead to progress. I don't have a lot of faith that it will.
From The Harvard Crimson. "Harvard College grades have risen significantly in the past 20 years, per a newly released report presented at the first Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting of the academic year Tuesday afternoon.
The report found that the percentage of A-range grades given to college students in the 2020-21 academic year was 79 percent, compared to 60 percent a decade earlier. Mean grades on a four-point scale were 3.80 in the 2020-21 academic year, up from 3.41 in 2002-03."
It appears Harvard is on a decades long path to make sure everybody is above average.
I taught at a school similar to Columbia, and like John, I did not see a difference between Black and white students. (The Asian students were very conscientious and hard on themselves.)
But tuition was very high, and almost everyone was from an affluent family. Plus, this was social science, so any bright kid could figure it out. It’s probably harder to be underprepared for pre-med or engineering.
Anyway, the gaps in performance are on average, and the distributions overlap. You can’t tell on sight if any individual student is there because of affirmative action, or legacy, or lacrosse, or pure merit. We can talk about the negative consequences of racial preferences while emphasizing to students that they’re individuals who deserve to be judged on performance, not race, and not even something like legacy or athlete status. Any individual student could turn out to be the best or the worst in your class.
Damn Glenn, you keep doing it. You changed my mind again. Love your discussions with John, especially when you disagree - working it out is most enlightening. So happy I subscribed.
Thank you for including the link to the Roland Fryer documentary. What a travesty! He articulates what I have believed for a very long time, and that is that if we really want to help Black kids, it has to start at the beginning, in elementary education. You simply cannot erase 12 years of sub-standard education by placing a student in a school where he is ill equipped to compete with his classmates, I don't care what the reason for the placement. A poor white child from a horrible school in Appalachia would be in the same boat of trying to swim upstream against a raging river of better prepared students. Fryer's words throughout the documentary remind me of one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”
Humanity, at its core, is an irrational species. Too many of our big decisions are made based on how we feel, rather than being based on sound rationality. Higher education was always, going back to the earliest civilizations, the primary way in which we overcame our core irrationality.
Claudine Gay is a symptom of the disease of anti-intellectualism that has gripped the minds and hearts of our supposed elite intellectual class. What Gay and her ilk have helped accomplish is nothing less than obscene. Once sterling institutions that historically were regarded as bastions of Truth have devolved into expensive struggle sessions.
The devolved and degraded universities that have embraced this philosophy need an Augean stables-like deep cleaning.
This feeds into Glenn asking what is wrong with respectability politics. What Glenn wants is a politics of self-respect where what respectability politics usually means is simply being found worthy of protection by some white person/white people in general.
Yes, thanks Mark. I'm watching it now. Great job!!!
I understand what John is saying but she is still culpable because she committed evil acts (trying to destroy Roland Fryer among others) and playing in the game as a willing participant that she greatly benefitted from and which ultimately harms the people she is allegedly trying to help. Given that she has still has a job that pays almost $1 million a year she is hardly much of a victim.
However, I do agree with John, Penny Pritzker and her family are worse.
.
I agree with John in that it’s not “her fault,” she didn’t make the “rules,” she benefitted. No different than a pretty woman, a handsome tall man, a once great athlete who lives in the same college town where he was a “star.” (see this all the time- the good ole boys ..they def get jobs which they are not qualified) the issue is not the person who benefitted. It’s all too common, they are all “tokens”regardless of their skin color or sex and it will never change. But they will be criticized behind their backs or not and some will prove their worth; it’s not unlike being the coaches kid. They have much more to prove.
However my problem with Gay was her congressional hearing. Not condemning terrorism is character and for that alone, in my mind she’s trash. I don’t care what color she is or how many papers she copied.
The directness and honestly in this discussion is like an elixir for one of the main things that ails us today in the West. THIS should be required listening for college students.
Black privilege card denied.
"...outcries over the plagiarism in her dissertation and scholarly publications are merely a cover."
This is what corrupt politicians always say when they are found guilty of corruption (it can be true and it is a ploy used in totalitarian regimes to get rid of the opposition. In democratic countries with a free press, the truth on these things comes out).
The supporters of Prof. Gay seem to believe that they can whitewash her misdemeanours (things that Harvard's code explicitly state will get a graduate punished and demoted if not expelled) with the fact that some disagree vehemently with her opinions and have animus against her. Let's be clear. If you steal, even if you are an irrreproachable person under every other respect and you have helped thousands, you get to be tried for theft. And if found guilty you pay for it.
This idea that good deeds put one above the law is pernicious, well beyond judging whether the deeds of Prof. Gay were good or bad.
Last summer, I recall watching one of Glenn's podcasts where, when asked, offered a lukewarm response to Gay's Harvard presidential appointment. I took it with a grain of salt since most of us, I imagine, did not know anything about her. How ironic that less than 6 months later her ride on the DEI train threw her overboard.
I recently watched the Roland Fryer video where it referenced Gay's shameful role in the shutting down of his lab where valuable research was conducted. Karma is a bi*ch.
Although many conversations can and will be had about Gay's demise, I can't help thinking about the race card she played upon exit rather than taking responsibility for her actions. Of course, she was roundly supported by the usual grievance mob and held up as a so-called example of the "system" going after black women in powerful positions in spite no evidence to support this.
I disagree with John about her not knowing any better. I suspect her caribbean parents did not teach her to play the race card. African and caribbean immigrants usually put in the required work and do not attribute their problems to whiteness. More than likely, Gay subscribed to the victimhood model of black American culture while growing up in the U.S..
Nonetheless, what I don't understand is why the educated elite continue to perpetuate and reinforce victim culture, as John recently experienced in Martha's Vineyard, when even poor and working class people don't instinctively blame others for their short-comings. This is exhausting.
John is Charlie feeling bad for the kids at the chocolate factory, and Glenn is Wonka saying they deserved it.
The new Wonka movie was an absolute delight!
I don't have too much to add to the entire Claudine Gay discussion, except to say that my gut feeling is that she was ultimately cancelled for the wrong reasons. Had she not been perceived as insufficiently anti-anti-Semitic, I'm fairly certain she would still be the president of Harvard. She was appointed to the post basically for being Black, female and woke.
Personally I'm a bit alarmed that a handful of powerful individuals such as Bill Ackman and Elise Stefanik have been able to exert such disproportionate influence in getting Gay cancelled. I don't believe she should've been cancelled over her Congressional testimony, but even if someone else feels differently, surely we can all agree that the entire process of deciding to do so could've been more democratic? Also, isn't it incredibly ironic that the pro-Israeli right who are avidly anti-woke and anti-DEI basically did to Claudine Gay what the political left has been doing to its enemies for years now?
I don't think this is realistic. Raising money from donors is an important part of the job and she pissed off royally an important donor bloc.
I guess us peasants are granted the illusion of democracy and the notion that we matter, but as you say at the end of the day it's those with money who have the actual power. In any case, isn't Harvard basically a giant hedge fund these days with its $50 billion endowment? I'm curious how much some of these elite universities really need ongoing donations.
Here's one peasant who doesn't subscribe to any sort of anti-Semitic tropes hoping that disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence among the donor bloc at elite universities doesn't completely take away everyone else's voice in these matters. Now back to reading another 4,000 word Bill Ackman tweet...
I guess it doesn't matter since you acknowledge above that you don't have too much to add to the entire Claudine Gay discussion.
Here's another peasant who doesn't subscribe to any anti-Chinese tropes that prefers to donate to the Confucius Institute of America. I know their goal is to try to subvert American institutions but their dumplings are just irresistible.
I'm not sure what your comment has to do with my point about money corrupting our democratic processes.
Reacting to your reference to “disproportionate “ jewish wealth and influence. That’s a trope that’s been around forever.
I'm pretty sure that’s a simple statistical fact and the very point Steve was making. Jewish Americans are over-represented among the donor class at elite universities in the same way that Black Americans are over-represented among many categories of violent criminals. But I get it, numbers are racist.
Both John and Glenn are on my "must read" list. Especially when together. This discussion is one of the best--which is a high standard.
I am an old (80) redneck, albeit one with a hard science PhD. I grew up in the rural Southwest during a time when "no colored" signs on stores were still seen. I asked my mother once what that meant. "Colors" to me were crayons. She snapped--"it means we don't shop there.". I still didn't know what it meant. My parents were far from "liberals", BTW.
We knew a black MD. Didn't go to him because we had a family MD that we loved. I remember my parents commenting that he had to be exceptional because of all the unfair obstacles that he had to overcome. The presumption was that his skin color was an indicator of excellence.
"Affirmative Action" was initially billed as NOT a quota system, but as a requirement for an even playing field. Hard to argue against, but it rapidly and inevitably became a quota system.
Now, you see a black MD, and the presumption is the opposite. It could well be the same person, adjusted for time. Horrible.
My immediate reaction to reading this conversation is the pain that John and Glenn feel. I am 100 percent European and cannot personally relate to the problems that a non-white person encounters, but imagine that if I were dark skinned, I would feel similar pain. I have taught Engineering at the University level off and on. STEM is largely objective-- one plus one equals two; it isn't a matter of opinion or life experience. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
The most painful part of this discussion, to me, is what do you tell the black student that is underperforming--by their or your measure? EVERY person has the inherent right to be judged on their own performance. Period. You know and they know that there is a significant likelihood that they got there with some "diversity" assistance. But, not a certainty. How do you deal with that elephant in the room? The only answer is to ignore the elephant. Easily said, but impossible in practice.
My hope is that this Claudine Gay fiasco will lead to progress. I don't have a lot of faith that it will.
What a mess.
From The Harvard Crimson. "Harvard College grades have risen significantly in the past 20 years, per a newly released report presented at the first Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting of the academic year Tuesday afternoon.
The report found that the percentage of A-range grades given to college students in the 2020-21 academic year was 79 percent, compared to 60 percent a decade earlier. Mean grades on a four-point scale were 3.80 in the 2020-21 academic year, up from 3.41 in 2002-03."
It appears Harvard is on a decades long path to make sure everybody is above average.
Lake Wobegon of the East.
I taught at a school similar to Columbia, and like John, I did not see a difference between Black and white students. (The Asian students were very conscientious and hard on themselves.)
But tuition was very high, and almost everyone was from an affluent family. Plus, this was social science, so any bright kid could figure it out. It’s probably harder to be underprepared for pre-med or engineering.
Anyway, the gaps in performance are on average, and the distributions overlap. You can’t tell on sight if any individual student is there because of affirmative action, or legacy, or lacrosse, or pure merit. We can talk about the negative consequences of racial preferences while emphasizing to students that they’re individuals who deserve to be judged on performance, not race, and not even something like legacy or athlete status. Any individual student could turn out to be the best or the worst in your class.