Category Archive 'Harvard'
20 Dec 2021
Old School Marxist Freddie deBoer (a graduate of Central Conn, not Yale) looks with a jaundiced eye on Harvard’s recent “Oh-so-kind” dispensing with requiring SAT scores in its undergraduate admissions application.
Here is what I want to say to you: at the end of this process, no matter how you change it, no matter how many statements the schools put out about diversity, no matter how many thumbs you put on all the scales to select for a certain kind of student, at the end of this process are self-serving institutions of limitless greed and an army of apparatchiks who are employed only to protect their interests. That’s it. You can’t make college admissions fair by getting rid of the SAT because colleges admissions can’t be “fair.” College admissions exist to serve the schools. Period. End of story. They always have, they always will. College admissions departments functioned as one big anti-Semitic conspiracy for decades because that was in the best interest of the institution. Guys who the schools know will never graduate but who run a 4.5 40 jump the line because admissions serves the institution. Absolute fucking dullards whose parents can pay – and listen, guys, it’s cute that you think legacies are somehow the extent of that dynamic, like they won’t let in the idiot son of a wealthy guy who didn’t go there – get in because admissions serves the institution. Some cornfed doofus from Wyoming with a so-so application gets in over a far more qualified kid from Connecticut because the marketing department gets to say they have students from 44 states in the incoming class instead of 43 that way, because admissions serves the institution. How do you people look at this world and conclude that the problem is the SAT?
And what just drives me crazy, what I find so bizarre, is that all these PMC liberals in media and academia think they’re so endlessly disillusioned and over it and jaded, but they imagine that it was the SAT standing in the way of these schools admitting a bunch of poor Black kids. What the fuck do you think has been happening, exactly? They’re standing around, looking at all these brilliant kids from Harlem and saying “oh God, if only we could let in these kids. We need to save them from the streets! But we can’t get past that dastardly SAT.” They decide who to let in, and they always have! They can let in whoever they want! Why on earth would you put the onus on the test instead of the schools? You think, what, they would prefer to admit kids whose parents can’t possibly donate? The whole selection process for elite schools is to skim a band of truly gifted students from the top, then admit a bunch of kids with identical resumes whose parents will collectively buy the crew team a new boathouse, and then you find a kid whose parents moved to the states from Nigeria two years before he was born and whose family owns a mining company and you call that affirmative action. And if you look at all this, and you take to Twitter to complain about the SAT instead of identifying the root corruption at the schools themselves, you’re a fucking mark, a patsy. You’ve been worked, you’ve been took. You’re doing the bidding of some of the wealthiest, most elitist, most despicable institutions on earth. You think Harvard gives a single merciful fuck about poor Black teenagers? Are you out of your goddamned minds?
It was in their best interest to use the SAT before, so they used it. Now it’s in their best interest to have even more leeway to select the bumbling doofus children of the affluent, and you’re applauding them for it in the name of “equity.” Brilliant.
It’s all corrupt. All of it. From the top to the bottom. It is so insane that all of these people who are ostensibly so cynical about institutions, who will tell you that capitalism is inherently a rigged game, who think meritocracy is a joke, who say that they think these hierarchies are all just privilege, will then turn around and say “ah yes, the SAT is gone, now fairness and egalitarianism will reign.” The whole damn thing makes no sense – it is nonsensical to talk about equality in a process that by its most basic nature is designed to select for a tiny elite! How the fuck do you think it’s going to work, exactly, when the SAT is gone? They’re still nominating a tiny elite to enjoy the most outsized rewards human life has to offer. That’s destructive no matter who gets a golden ticket. By its very nature.
“Equality”?!? Harvard only lets in 2000 kids a year! You really think carving out space for 50 more Black kids among them, if that actually even happens, is going to result in some sort of quantum leap forward for the average Black American? Is it not obvious that the whole scheme of fixing our racial inequalities by starting at the top by selecting some tiny number of Black overachievers and hoping the good times trickle down has failed, over and over again, since the start of desegregation? You can’t make Harvard “fair!” You can’t make it “equal!” Thinking otherwise is absolutely bonkers to me. Harvard exists to make sure our society is not equal. That is Harvard’s function.
You get that they just want to make it easier to turn down the poor but brilliant children of Asian immigrants, right? You understand that what Harvard and its feckless peers would like is to admit fewer students whose Korean parents clear $40,000 a year from their convenience stores, right? And you think, what, they’re going to be walking around Brownsville, handing out admissions letters to kids with holes in their pockets and a dream in their hearts? To the extent that any Black students are added to the mix by these policies, it’s going to be the Jaden and Willow Smiths of the world. If you think Harvard has any actual, genuine desire to fill its campus with more poor American-born descendants of African slaves you are out of your fucking mind. Just absolutely unhinged.
You hate the SAT. I get it. I will repeat myself in saying that, frankly, I think this is mostly because you didn’t do as well at it as you thought, it didn’t confirm your place as one of the lonely geniuses of our times, and this is your revenge. Cool, cool. You’ve firmly established your own place on the ladder, so now you want to pull it up. Cool, cool. Well, look, Mr. and Mrs. Jaded, blue checkmarks, oh sultans of ironic detachment, why don’t you prepare another audaciously dry tweet that shows your insouciant take on contemporary American meritocracy, only this time instead of carrying water for the most vile and existentially hierarchical institutions imaginable, which reap insane profits from the interest on their endowments alone, perhaps you could take a moment and contemplate the possibility that getting rid of the SATs is just another way for them to consolidate total and unfettered privilege to choose whoever is going to make their pockets even heavier, and that they are and will always be in the business of nominating an aristocracy that will deepen inequality and intensify exploitation no matter what kind of faces they happen to have, Black or white, Jew or gentile, all of them the elect, Elois over Morlocks, and this is the system to which you have lent your faith, the vehicle you expect to deliver us equality. What a world, what a world, what a world.
02 Oct 2021
Recent Harvard grad Carine Hajjar has bad news and some intelligent observations on the deplorable state of universities today, including in particular the most prestigious.
Before the Cold War, universities were run by faculty: “From the perspective of 100 years ago,” says Goldstein, “the idea that a faculty member would have his speech suppressed by the university was difficult to conceptualize.” During the Cold War, higher education was laden with research grants, one of the factors leading to the bureaucratization of the modern university. From 2007 to 2018, public degree-granting postsecondary schools in the U.S. generated a revenue of $671 billion. “The amount of money involved in higher education in the U.S. was slightly more than all the software we sell and electricity combined,” notes Goldstein. The result? “Universities don’t reflect the interest of the faculty anymore, they have the priorities of a corporation.”
The idea of university corporatism as an impetus for illiberalism is not new. In 2015, Fredrik deBoer, who had just completed a Ph.D. at Purdue, wrote a piece for the New York Times on the pernicious effects of corporatism on campus, stating that “a constantly expanding layer of university administrative jobs now exists at an increasing remove from the actual academic enterprise.”
Academic freedom is not optimal for market share. “Tranquility and profitability tend to win out over truth and inquiry,” says Goldstein. Controversial views (even if factually accurate) can disturb the corporate equilibrium. This may be one of the reasons why universities are increasingly dedicated to a new concept: “safetyism,” a term coined by FIRE’s founders, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in their book The Coddling of the American Mind. Educators’ telos is no longer only knowledge; it’s ensuring that students feel “safe.”
But what is “safe”? Goldstein deals with cases where students claim to feel “unsafe” when presented with certain arguments in class. But can one really equate words — statements, claims, hypotheses — to physical safety? “It isn’t as if somebody saying words will make you explode into a fine mist,” as Goldstein says.
“Safe” in modern parlance seems to be about being on the “correct” side of an issue. That side is no longer simply the one on the left. Pinker shared a story with me about a hiring process he was involved in. The candidate, in Pinker’s words, “was a kind of middle-of-the-road liberal Democrat.” His political orientation did not matter; he violated a pillar of the orthodoxy. “He was skeptical about affirmative action,” which got him “branded as an extreme right-winger.” I asked if this was the reason the candidate was not hired. “It went into it,” among other factors.
Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, told me that certain topics demand more homogeneity than others: “We’re comfortable accepting a fairly wide range of views on U.S.–China foreign policy but we’re not comfortable accepting a wide range of views on affirmative action.” Other taboos include certain positions on race, gender, and colonialism. Summers shared a hypothetical: “If someone did research that showed that it’s better for children to spend more time with their mothers during the first six years of their life during the day, you’d have to be an extraordinarily brave person to do that on Harvard’s campus.”
How did we get here? Wasn’t the once-whimsical soft Marxism of college enough? Pinker offered a psychological explanation, mentioning the work of his former postdoctoral student, Peter DiScioli, on the human creation of groups. Humans have a propensity to compete for prestige as well as a fear of being in the “more vulnerable coalition.” So they join the mob lest they be the target of the mob. It’s a phenomenon that occurs in witch hunts, cultural revolutions, and political purges: “Anyone can be a victim if they themselves don’t join the ‘denouncers.’” This can be extrapolated to universities-turned-corporations, which, seeking to avoid controversy, are happy to oblige denouncers.
Ironically, the hippie-student-against-the-man crowd is driving this whole corporate tilt. “It’s easiest for [administrators] if they cave. . . . No skin off their nose if the universities are less able to investigate questions of truth and falsity and explanation,” said Pinker. They’re more worried about appeasing the “left-leaning students protesting outside their office.”
Why is this woke crowd powerful enough to dictate university incentives? Humans, in general, want to be on the “right” side of history. “We’re all moralistic animals,” said Pinker. But that doesn’t mean objective morality: “Moralistic efforts are those that attempt to claim superiority and demonize opponents.” We go for what is perceived as moral. The Harper’s open letter touched on this: There’s a “vogue for public shaming” and a “tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”
So long as this “vogue” continues, profit-seeking entities will comply. Safetyism and moralism go hand in hand: Universities can avoid controversy by tolerating mob mentality. It’s similar to the virtue-signaling you’re seeing in corporate America (think woke Coke). It’s trendy, it’s safe, and it sells.
After all, what’s more corporate than appearing moral?
20 Apr 2020
Elizabeth Bartholet moderates a panel discussion. Elizabeth Bartholet is the Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Child Advocacy Program (CAP), which she founded in the fall of 2004. She teaches civil rights and family law, specializing in child welfare, adoption, and reproductive technology. Before joining the Harvard Faculty, she was engaged in civil rights and public interest work, first with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and later as founder and director of the Legal Action Center, a non-profit organization in New York City focused on criminal justice and substance abuse issues. She is the author of many publications on child welfare.
Bartholet is a classic villain right out of an Ayn Rand novel. She recognizes the alarming possibility that kids might grow up Christian, or worse: Republican via parental influence. If kids are home-schooled that means they will miss out on crucial brain-washing and indoctrination at the hands of liberal teachers.
Elizabeth Bartholet, Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law Schoolâ€™s Child Advocacy Program, sees risks for childrenâ€”and societyâ€”in homeschooling, and recommends a presumptive ban on the practice. Homeschooling, she says, not only violates childrenâ€™s right to a â€œmeaningful educationâ€ and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society.
â€œWe have an essentially unregulated regime in the area of homeschooling,â€ Bartholet asserts. All 50 states have laws that make education compulsory, and state constitutions ensure a right to education, â€œbut if you look at the legal regime governing homeschooling, there are very few requirements that parents do anything.â€ Even apparent requirements such as submitting curricula, or providing evidence that teaching and learning are taking place, she says, arenâ€™t necessarily enforced. Only about a dozen states have rules about the level of education needed by parents who homeschool, she adds. â€œThat means, effectively, that people can homeschool whoâ€™ve never gone to school themselves, who donâ€™t read or write themselves.â€ In another handful of states, parents are not required to register their children as homeschooled; they can simply keep their kids at home. …
She views the absence of regulations ensuring that homeschooled children receive a meaningful education equivalent to that required in public schools as a threat to U.S. democracy. â€œFrom the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,â€ she says. This involves in part giving children the knowledge to eventually get jobs and support themselves. â€œBut itâ€™s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other peopleâ€™s viewpoints,â€ she says, noting that European countries such as Germany ban homeschooling entirely and that countries such as France require home visits and annual tests.
In the United States, Bartholet says, state legislators have been hesitant to restrict the practice because of the Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, a conservative Christian homeschool advocacy group, which she describes as small, well-organized, and â€œoverwhelmingly powerful politically.â€ During the last 30 years, activists have worked to dismantle many statesâ€™ homeschooling restrictions and have opposed new regulatory efforts. â€œThereâ€™s really no organized political opposition, so they basically get their way,â€ Bartholet says. A central tenet of this lobby is that parents have absolute rights that prevent the state from intervening to try to safeguard the childâ€™s right to education and protection.
Bartholet maintains that parents should have â€œvery significant rights to raise their children with the beliefs and religious convictions that the parents hold.â€ But requiring children to attend schools outside the home for six or seven hours a day, she argues, does not unduly limit parentsâ€™ influence on a childâ€™s views and ideas. â€œThe issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think thatâ€™s dangerous,â€ Bartholet says. â€œI think itâ€™s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.â€
She concedes that in some situations, homeschooling may be justified and effective. â€œNo doubt there are some parents who are motivated and capable of giving an education thatâ€™s of a higher quality and as broad in scope as whatâ€™s happening in the public school,â€ she says. But Bartholet believes that if parents want permission to opt out of schools, the burden of proving that their case is justified should fall on parents.
â€œI think an overwhelming majority of legislators and American people, if they looked at the situation,â€ Bartholet says, â€œwould conclude that something ought to be done.â€
22 Nov 2019
The Crimson reports on the latest vital and totally relevant administrative initiative up there at the little commuter school of the Charles.
University President Lawrence S. Bacow announced the creation of a University-wide initiative to address and further research the schoolâ€™s ties to slavery in an email sent to Harvard affiliates Thursday.
Bacow selected Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Dean Tomiko Brown-Nagin to be the head of a new University-wide faculty committee that will lead the initiative. The University has designated $5 million for the program, according to Bacowâ€™s email.
â€œIt is my hope that the work of this new initiative will help the university gain important insights about our past and the enduring legacy of slavery â€” while also providing an ongoing platform for our conversations about our present and our future as a university community committed to having our minds opened and improved by learning,â€ Bacow wrote.
Bacow wrote that the Radcliffe Institute will work closely with library and museum staff to host both programs and academic opportunities related to the issue.
â€œBy engaging a wide array of interests and expertise, as Radcliffe is uniquely suited to do, this initiative will reflect the remarkable power of bringing together individuals from across Harvard in pursuit of a common purpose,â€ he wrote.
Other faculty on the 12-person committee include former Law School Dean Martha L. Minow and former Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds.
Bacowâ€™s announcement comes as the University continues to grapple with its ties to slavery. In March, Connecticut resident Tamara K. Lanier filed a lawsuit against Harvard alleging the University unlawfully owns and profits off photos of enslaved people who she says are her ancestors.
Earlier this month, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda penned a letter to Bacow demanding reparations from Harvard for its historical ties to slavery.
In his letter, Bacow also wrote about efforts that former University President Drew G. Faust spearheaded several years ago like installing memorials commemorating enslaved individuals at Wadsworth House and Harvard Law School, and creating a faculty committee to study the Universityâ€™s ties to slavery.
In February 2016, former Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith announced that faculty leaders of the 12 undergraduate houses would be renamed â€œFaculty Deansâ€ â€” a shift away from the former term â€œHouse Master,â€ which some students associated with slavery.
A month later, the Harvard Corporation â€” the Universityâ€™s highest governing body â€” agreed to remove the Law Schoolâ€™s controversial seal, which featured the crest of a slaveholding family. The decision came after pieces of black tape were found over the portraits of black Law School professors in November 2015 and months of student protests.
The initiative announced Thursday will focus on researching further the connections Harvard has to the slave trade and to abolition movements, Bacow said in his email.
â€œHarvard has a unique role in the history of our country, and we have a distinct obligation to understand how our traditions and our culture here are shaped by our past and by our surroundings â€” from the ways the university benefitted from the Atlantic slave trade to the debates and advocacy for abolition on camp,â€ Bacow wrote.
After all, hey! it’s only been a mere 236 years since Massachusetts abolished Slavery in 1783!
The great discovery of our Enlightened Age is the principle that the Universe revolves around left-wing sob stories.
25 Oct 2019
The Harvard Crimson uncritically reports the sexual assault survey which proves that it’s a lot more dangerous to send your daughter to an elite Ivy League school than to have her walk home at midnight through the worst neighborhood in Chicago.
But, hey! at least Yale comes out on top!
A national sexual misconduct climate survey administered to universities across the country earlier this year revealed that most schools did not see a significant change in the prevalence of sexual assault compared with incident rates four years ago, according to the results released earlier this month.
The American Association of Universities survey found that among similarly sized peer institutions, Harvardâ€™s rate of sexual misconduct tended toward average.
Harvardâ€™s prevalence rate of â€œnonconsensual sexual contactâ€ for undergraduate women was within a percentage point of both Stanfordâ€™s and Brownâ€™s. Harvard and Stanford both saw rates of roughly 33 percent, while Brownâ€™s rate is 34 percent. Yaleâ€™s rate is higher at 39 percent, while MITâ€™s is lower at 27 percent.
And some people just don’t understand why ordinary Americans have lost confidence in the wisdom and judgment of our national elite establishment.
17 Oct 2019
The Crimson won’t even tell us what he actually said.
Understandably. All those little millennial snowflakes melt whenever any old, white male says something transgressive and un-PC.
But, cheer up, the alumnus did grovel and confess his Speech Crime in the end. I guess he’ll just get a bit of political reeducation, they won’t have to harvest his organs after all.
More than 70 members of the Harvard Band walked out of a banquet celebrating the groupâ€™s centennial Saturday after an alumnus joked about the groupâ€™s decision to implement a sexual harassment policy.
At the banquet, former band member Richard â€œRichâ€ D. Horn â€™72 began his speech with a joke about the groupâ€™s decision to implement the policy, which undergraduates distributed to alumni ahead of the reunion. As Horn continued to speak, roughly 75 attendees left the room, according to an emailed statement by the bandâ€™s senior staff. Many of those who walked out did not return for the remainder of the event.
Horn wrote in an email that he regrets that others interpreted his remarks as a criticism of the policy, which provides band members with a formal disclosure system to report incidences of sexual misconduct, according to a copy of the policy obtained by The Crimson.
â€œI sympathize with the frustration of decades of Band women in dealing with sexism both in the Band and elsewhere. I strongly support the Band’s sexual harassment policy and did not mean to imply otherwise,â€ he wrote. â€œI deeply regret any implication to the contrary. This is an issue on which emotions understandably and rightly run high, and I ought to have known better. Hopefully, I will do better in any future occasion.â€
A separate speaker had also joked about the sexual harassment policy before Horn, according to the bandâ€™s staff. That speaker later apologized for his remarks, the band wrote in its statement.
After some attendees left the room, Harvard Band Foundation president Camaron â€œCammieâ€ S. Oâ€™Connor Wynn â€™94 made an impromptu speech apologizing for the disruption, according to the band. Oâ€™Connor Wynn wrote in an email that band leadership, including both undergraduates and alumni, sought to address concerns about Hornâ€™s comments both during and after the banquet.
â€œAttempts at humor by two brief (not primary) alumni speakers at our 100th reunion banquet touched on the Bandâ€™s sexual misconduct policy as a policy â€” in the sense of the necessity of censoring oneâ€™s own speech to fit with the new policy,â€ Oâ€™Connor Wynn wrote.
The Bandâ€™s senior staff wrote in an emailed statement that the sexual harassment policy previously caused controversy in the bandâ€™s alumni Facebook group when some alumni questioned the need for such a policy. The staff wrote that some alumni had written in the chat that the policy was â€œin contrast to the spirit of the band that they had known in their time.â€
Band manager Lucaian Al-Tariq â€™20 sent the emailed statement to The Crimson. Drill master Reese Garcia â€™21, student conductor Marcos B. Cecchini â€™21, drum major and Crimson multimedia editor Mariah E. D. Dimalaluan â€™20, social chair Selket R. Jewett â€™21, reunion manager Jessica D. Bishai â€™20, and assistant reunion manager Jessica A. Boutchie â€™21 also signed the statement.
â€œ[M]uch has changed even within the past decade,â€ they wrote. â€œThe jokes that were made may express discomfort in confronting this change; older alumni may have been surprised to see just how much the structure and nature of the Band have changed over time.â€
â€œBoth their discomfort and the reactions of the undergrads exemplify how deeply all generations of bandies care for this organization, despite its changes,â€ they added.
16 Oct 2019
Harvard has a traditional Fall Clean-Up, in which freshman student employees arrive early to make a few bucks tiding up Harvard’s residential houses in preparation for the arrival of the entire undergraduate student body.
Although cleaning dormitory rooms and bathrooms is work, Harvard tries to put an element of fun into it as well.
What is Fall Clean-Up?
For more than sixty years, Dorm Crew has welcomed Harvard first-years to campus for our annual Fall Clean-Up (FCU). Created in 1951, Dorm Crew is a student employment and leadership program that is entirely managed and operated by Harvard undergraduates. Today, Dorm Crew offers employment opportunities, leadership development, advising resources, and pre-orientation programing to more than 800 students annually. Each year, 300 incoming first-years join FCU to have fun and work hard while cleaning and preparing the dorms for student move-in. Throughout the week, students will have the opportunity to explore and engage with Harvardâ€™s campus and community through various planned events. …
Year after year, students have found Fall Clean-Up to be a rewarding experience that offers a great community of friends and provides an unrivaled introduction to the diversity of the Harvard community, the aged beauty of Harvard’s student residences, and the vibrant life of Harvard Square. Under the guidance of our upperclassman captains, we aim to deliver a Fall Clean-Up experience that truly orients students to what life at Harvard is all about.
Some alumni report that they enjoyed the experience:
As I reflect back on my life, that first week or two of freshman year, with the bonding with my fellow freshman Dorm Crew members, was an extraordinary stress reliever as we found out about each other and that we were all scared to death that Harvard had made a mistake admitting each one of us! I will never forget those initial few weeks in Cambridge.” â€”Ray Peters ’69
â€œI loved FCU because I met some of my best friends at Harvard and found a community that has been really important to me throughout my time in college.â€
â€”Sarah E. Lagan â€˜19
But the Harvard Crimson staff stroked its collective chin, and decided there was a PROBLEM here.
Oh, migod! Who would have imagined? Not everyone at Harvard is rich, some people are there on scholarship and need to take jobs in order to earn money. Everyone is not the same. It just isn’t fair!
Bedford felt out of place, just as the sight of trash in Murdockâ€™s sink left him feeling neglected by the University. From the beginning, Bedford and Murdock felt that the University deemed them different from their peers.
It took Bedford some time to pinpoint exactly why he felt alienated. Amidst meeting other students and recovering from jetlag, he did not look around and think, â€œOh, weâ€™re all here because weâ€™re poor and we need money.â€ At the time, he says he â€œhad no conception of theâ€ â€” here, his voice lowers in emphasis â€” â€œdisparity that is present on this campus between rich and poor.â€ But shortly into his time at Harvard, he began to reconsider the way Fall Clean-Up functions: It distinguishes between the students who need to earn quick money for school supplies and those who do not.
Many of the students who end up participating in FCU would have liked to do other programs. â€œWhat turned me off about FUP at the time wasnâ€™t what it was, but what it wasnâ€™t. And it wasnâ€™t a program that paid me,â€ Ibrahim says. â€œFall Clean-Up gave me dollars, and I needed that.â€
During pre-orientation, some students can afford to do what they love. Others donâ€™t have that luxury.
I’ve noticed the exact same problem in life after college. If you want something, if you want a home with electricity, heat, and in-door plumbing, you actually have to get a job and work to pay for all of it.
23 Sep 2019
The Harvard Lampoon today is a sinner in the hand of an angry Harvard Crimson Editorial Board.
Ten students recently protested one of the Harvard Lampoonâ€™s comp meetings, condemning the undergraduate humor magazine for its insensitive content, and what they claim is a hostile and exclusive institutional culture.
As a Board, we applaud the protesters for standing up to the Lampoon. We condemn the magazineâ€™s publication of offensive and culturally insensitive content and sympathize with the protestersâ€™ claims that the organization has a hostile internal culture. We hope the Lampoon views the protests as impetus to work harder to build a better culture and better institutional pathways to screen their content before publication.
Last May, the Lampoon published an inappropriate, sexualized image of Holocaust victim Anne Frank, which Director of Harvard Hillel Rabbi Jonah C. Steinberg compared to the â€œobscenity of the Nazis.â€ This abhorrent incident was a striking dispay of hypersexualization and anti-Semitism, but must be understood as only one of many instances in which the Lampoonâ€™s actions have peddled in such morally reprehensible sentiments as humor. The magazine has â€” in the past â€” made sexist jokes, from comparing women to dogs to insensitive jokes about University President Lawrence S. Bacowâ€™s wife. And its insensitive content extends beyond the Anne Frank image as well, including an inappropriate joke about ISIS and minorities in final clubs. As if this smorgasbord of poor taste were not harmful enough, the Lampoon has also put out content trivializing a number of delicate issues such as suicide and fat-shaming.
The editors of the Lampoon said in a statement that their publishing process â€œlacks sufficient editorial oversight.â€ We believe this lack of oversight can lead to an inability to discern what kinds of humor are in poor taste.
We sympathize with the protesters and believe the Lampoon must take steps to address their concerns. And although the Lampoon has tried to take steps toward increasing diversity and accessibility â€” through steps such as newly instated positions to their Accessibility Council and Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response training for new members â€” we believe these efforts are insufficient. The Lampoon should, in addition to OSAPR training for its members, require implicit bias training and should be more explicit about the ways their comp and internal culture have improved to avoid this in the future.
In seeking change at the Lampoon, we believe the student body has a huge amount of power. We call on students who are considering comping the Lampoon to consider the culture that has enabled the systemic production and amplification of offensive and culturally insensitive content. In so doing, we hope they either choose not to comp the Lampoon, or, in comping it, to demand change.
The spirit of Cotton Mather rides again!
24 Jul 2019
How smart are the elite intelligentsia really? Should ordinary Americans be more deferential and start bowing to the consensus of the elite on Global Warming, on Social Justice, and on Donald Trump?
Before you make up your mind read the introductory comments by Rod Dreher below and follow the link to the original New York Magazine story.
Sit down, my people, and read the craziest true story you will read this year or maybe even this decade.
It is written by a journalist named Kera Bolonik, who has made an extremely complicated story comprehensible, in the sense that she recalls a logical progression of events. Nothing else about it makes sense. Itâ€™s a story about a liberal Harvard Law professor who is a world-historical boob â€” and about how two grifters (a transwoman and his best friend) stole his house and used Title IX to further ruin his life.
In 2015, a mysterious young woman named Maria-Pia Shuman flirted with Prof. Bruce Hay in a Cambridge hardware store. Hay, who makes Pajama Boy come off like Vin Diesel. is married, but he and his wife, Jennifer Zacks, live together with their children as roommates, no longer lovers. What would a little fling with the sexy young woman hurt? …
Read it all. Trust me. Iâ€™m not going to go further here, because to tell even just a piece of it without telling the whole story would not do it justice. You have to read to see what these insane grifters did to this moron and his innocent wife and kids. It really does read like Fatal Attraction meets a transgender Bonfire of the Vanities. Golden quote: â€œI just really hate the patriarchy, thatâ€™s it.â€
05 Jul 2019
Sahil Handa, an intelligent young undergraduate, reports from the front-lines of the Snowflake Revolution at Harvard.
Much of the debate about campus culture would have you believe that the average college student is hellbent on tearing down the patriarchy. One wakes up in the morning, wallows in grievance, and proceeds to spend the day railing against the evils of privilege.
I attend Harvard University, one of the places most associated with such snowflakery. I also happen to be a brown British student who wears colorful Hawaiian shirts, dances to techno, acts in undergraduate theater, and listens to jazz. I say this not to brandish my victimhood credentials, nor to make any claims to artistic ability â€” I say it because these facts get me invited into liberal social circles that, unfortunately, most conservative commentators do not.
So, is the description accurate? In my experience, not particularly. Iâ€™d say it describes roughly 5 percent of the undergraduate population â€” a few hundred or so social-justice warriors who consider their mere survival on Harvardâ€™s campus to be a form of triumphalist activism. These woke icons are overwhelmingly middle class, incredibly entitled, and extraordinarily outspoken. They respond to any virtue signal with finger snaps and use the word â€œproblematicâ€ in every other sentence. They see themselves as engaged in a perpetual war against a white, male, neoliberal blob â€” wrong opinions must be canceled, and insufficiently woke speakers ruined. Trump supporters are too far gone to bother persuading.
But most students do not subscribe to the madness. Contrarian conservatives repudiate it and find sanctuary in the Republican Club. Others are too focused on studying and partying to care. The majority stay silent and air their concerns in private, so that they wonâ€™t be forced to bear the inevitable social cost.