Archive for 2015

JAMES KIRCHICK: Growing Up At Yale: Where Are The Adults?

Upon reading about last week’s controversy, I originally felt irritation with the protesting students, as I did with my own classmates who cheered Baraka. And as was the case a dozen years ago, my initial anger eventually gave way to disappointment, as I realized that these students have not been equipped with the intellectual or emotional tools required for operating in a disputatious society. That inability to confront ideas one doesn’t like and engage respectfully with those whom one disagrees with is not only a failure on the part of the individual students, but of the society that has produced them.

What we’re witnessing at Yale are the abysmal consequences of a decades-long inculcation of identity politics and grievance mongering, which hold that the relative virtue of an argument is directly proportional to the professed “marginalization” of its proponent, and it is destroying the ideal of a liberal education. Like the students who thought it entirely unobjectionable to hail an unhinged anti-Semite, (indeed, their joy at his defiance seemed inspired by an element of épater la bourgeoisie, precisely because he was unsettling their Jewish classmates), apparently no adults in these young peoples’ lives have informed them that shouting in the face of a professor, hurling imprecations at those who question their assumptions, and then demanding refuge from the tempestuous waves of intellectual discourse in the form of a “safe space” where their fatuous notions go unchallenged, is behavior befitting a toddler, not an undergraduate at one of America’s premier institutions of higher learning.

No less a figure than President Barack Obama has assailed this rising tide of intolerance on university campuses, saying that “anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them, but you shouldn’t silence them by saying you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.”

Indeed.

JONATHAN CHAIT: There’s Nothing Funny About Political Correctness:

The student protest at the University of Missouri began as a response to a serious problem — outbursts of vile racism on campus — and quickly devolved into an expression of a renewed left-wing hostility to freedom of expression. At the protest on Missouri’s campus yesterday, on a space that is expressly open to free expression, protesters barred journalists from covering the demonstrations. In one scene, protesters surrounded and harassed Tim Tai, a photographer with the student newspaper, chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, journalists have got to go.” The scene is captured on a video here, which rewards close watching until the end, where Melissa Click, a professor of mass media working with the protest movement, calls out, “Help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.”

It is possible — and, for many sympathizers on the left, convenient — to dismiss these sorts of incidents as just so much college high jinks. “College students have been saying stupid things since the invention of college students,” argues Daniel Drezner, in a passage that attracted widespread support on the left. It is probably true that a strange and sudden new hypersensitivity among young people has produced a widespread expectation of a right to be protected from offense. It is also undeniably true that outbursts of political correctness disproportionately take place in campus settings. In recent weeks, UCLA, Wesleyan, and Yale have seen left-wing student activism aimed at shutting down the expression of contrary viewpoints.

Even if it were the case that political correctness was totally confined to campuses, it would not make the phenomenon unimportant. Colleges have disproportionate influence over intellectual life, and political movements centered on campuses can spread well beyond them (anti-Vietnam began as a bunch of wacky kids, too). But to imagine p.c. as simply a thing college kids do relieves us of taking it seriously as a coherent set of beliefs, which it very much is. Political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender. It manifests itself most prominently in campus settings not because it’s a passing phase, like acne, but because the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others. The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities, many of them virtual ones centered on social media, and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.

It’s not about justice, it’s about power. And the people behind it aren’t good people who are just a little overzealous — they’re awful, horrible people who deserve to be mocked, disputed, and opposed at every step.

ANDREW KLAVAN: Why ‘Spectre’ Gets a B: “The people who make these movies live in a haze of such intellectual dishonesty that they have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, these answers. They aren’t honest so they can’t write honest plots. Their villains have no motives and their master plans are confusing where they’re not just laughable. Their heroes are merely an assemblage of characteristics from an earlier age: empty images that move and talk a certain way but have no virtue and so no power to thrill. They are, so to speak, merely spectres of their former selves. Without intellectual honesty, you can’t find moral truth. Without moral truth, there are no good stories.”

I remember watching the Craig version of Casino Royale and contemplating the disparity between that film’s characters and those who inhabited the Connery-era Bonds, and as much as I wanted the film to work, feeling very little empathy for either Craig’s 007, or anyone surrounding him, unlike those swank early Bonds. (However flabby the Bond films themselves that Pierce Brosnan starred in became, Brosnan himself seemed to bring together a bit of Connery’s spine with a fair dollop of Moore’s gregariousness and charm, along with plenty of goodwill from the Remington Steele days.) Perhaps’ Andrew’s take on the disconnect between today’s 007 writers and Ian Fleming’s WWII-era morality explain the distance I felt as well.

BUREAUCRATS FIND A ‘SUPERHIGHWAY’ AROUND FOURTH, FIFTH AMENDMENTS: So much for concepts like probable cause and no self-incrimination. You’ve probably never heard of “administrative subpoenas” but you will, sooner or later. And it won’t be fun.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: The Regulatory Goose Chase Degrading America.

American colleges are diverting more and more money away from serving students and instead using their funds to develop a massive D.C. lobbying force. . . .

Federal mandates impose huge costs on colleges, just as they do on other industries, and federal subsidies (student loan programs as well as direct funding for colleges) are a crucial source of colleges’ incomes. It’s small wonder then that as the federal government becomes increasingly vital to their financial health, colleges devote an growing portion of their resources toward influencing federal officials. The result, of course, is the kind of regulatory capture we see in so many federal programs, where industries organize to ensure that the regulators serve their interests rather than the needs of the public.
And, of course, regulatory capture exists side-by-side with expensive regulatory compliance, which colleges can’t avoid. Despite the lobbying by higher ed institutions, there are many ways that federal involvement in higher education forces colleges to divert attention from what ought to be their core mission and apply it instead to regulatory compliance. According to one study, colleges spend $27 billion dollars annually complying with a whole range of regulations, including those issued by thought-policing Title IX bureaucracies and all the other well-paid bureaucrats (whose numbers continue to grow).

And all of that in turn makes the colleges even more dependent on federal subsidies than ever, so they hire more lobbyists to get more power over legislation and implementation. In industry after industry, this kind of wild goose chase consumes more and more of America’s energy, attention, and money every year—leeching the vitality out of our system, degrading the performance of key institutions, and making government less effective even as it keeps getting bigger.

How long it will continue and how much more damage it will do is anybody’s guess. But ultimately U.S. policy is going to have to undertake a serious change of direction, or the country will slowly strangle itself.

The higher ed sector is hugely dysfunctional, and heading for a reset. Be warned.

HELMUT SCHMIDT IST TOT. I’m guessing most people won’t get that reference. . .

SOUTH PARK TO SHOW LIFE WITHOUT ‘RACIST, TRIGGER-HAPPY’ COPS: Sounds like it should be a fun episode, but didn’t The Dark Knight Rises already do that?

WALL ST. JOURNAL: Republicans Push Bold Tax Plans: Proposed changes go well beyond the party’s previous platforms and ensure the issue will play a central role in the general election.

Driven by a desire to stand out in a crowded field and spark economic growth, the GOP contenders no longer just say they want to lower rates and expand the tax base. Their new ideas, once the province of right-leaning think tanks, make previous Republican plans look timid.

Nearly all the GOP candidates—who will meet again Tuesday evening in a debate hosted by Fox Business Network and The Wall Street Journal—are promoting at least one tax idea the party hasn’t tried to sell to a general-election audience.

Among them: eliminating both payroll and corporate taxes and introducing a broader business tax in their place. Donald Trump, a front-runner, has proposed a tax cut that by one estimate would put federal collections at their lowest since World War II.

“It doesn’t seem like there’s anything constraining these guys,” said Alex Brill, a former GOP congressional tax staffer now at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “The next guy that’s announcing his plan, he’s going to announce a plan that’s bigger and bolder and better than the last guy. And then he can win that debate.”

So far, though, nobody’s come out to repeal the Hollywood tax cuts. But we can hope. I have some higher education related proposals, too.

HIDDEN WATER-WASTERS DISTURB THE COMRADERY OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BEL AIR! “Be ever-vigilant, comrades!  The wreckers and parasites known as ‘water-wasters’ constantly conspire to batten off of the Californian Collective of Concerned People’s precious, limited stockpile of dihydrogen oxide!  Watch your neighbors! Examine their lawns with your collective-issued People’s Revolutionary Garden Hydration Index flash cards! Report any lawn that you find that is too green! PROTECT THE REVOLUTION!”

Or do what San Diego has already done and get started building a desalinization plant to take advantage of that little pond right next door called the Pacific Ocean, but where’s the socialist fun in that?

THERE’S A BULLSHITTER IN THE WOOD: Ashe Schow: If bears killed 1 in 5 people.

Late last week, College Humor (partnered with the Obama administration) released a video asking: What if bears killed one in five people? It was supposed to be a humorous attempt at getting people to consider just how dire it is that “one in five women will be sexually assaulted by the time they finish college.”

Except there’s no evidence that one in five women are sexually assaulted during college. That statistic has been debunked again and again and again. Only the most incredulous (or calculating) media outlets still print it as a fact without noting what it actually refers to or that it has been disputed.

The statistic comes from surveys of college students who are asked whether they have ever experienced a broad range of sexual activity. The students are also asked if they have ever engaged in said activity while drunk or on drugs. Based on answers students give to these questions, biased researchers hoping to prove “rape culture” exists determine that these students have been sexually assaulted. . . .

But what if it were true, as the video implies? Then the response from the Obama administration and activists would be wholly inadequate.

Using the bear analogy, if people were being killed by bears at such a high rate, how would we respond? I’ll tell you how, we, as a society, wouldn’t respond. We certainly wouldn’t be asking our condo boards, homeowner’s associations or the Housing Department to take care of the problem simply because the problem was occurring in our homes or on our property.

No, we’d be calling animal control, the people trained and dedicated to the problem. And you can bet we’d be telling people how to protect themselves from bear attacks.

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.

ASHE SCHOW: College spokesman says rape didn’t happen, loses his job.

A spokesman for Hocking College has been fired for telling media outlets that a reported rape did not actually occur.

Investigations from the Athens County prosecutor’s office as well as the school’s Title IX office both determined that the alleged rape did not occur.

A female student reported to police on Sept. 1 that she had been gang-raped by several male students several days earlier, on Aug. 27. She claimed she had gone to a party and consumed a lot of alcohol. She said she didn’t remember returning to her dorm, but somehow she did and couldn’t find her keys, so she asked several other students to help her get into the building.

She then said she woke up hours later, naked, with five naked men. The school’s counseling center had referred her to the school’s advocacy center, which referred her to the college police. Now, more than a month later, the prosecutor’s office is concluding its investigation without charging any of the accused men.

“After pursuing all leads and following all investigatory protocols, the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office determined there was no evidence to pursue an indictment in rape allegations against five Hocking College students,” the release states.

The school also closed its own investigation into the claim, even as national attention puts intense pressure on colleges and universities to steamroll ahead with accusations, often without much evidence.

“Investigators at Hocking College did not find enough evidence to support a Title IX violation,” the school’s president said in a statement.

Yet the spokesman, Michael Brown, has been fired.

Related: When evidence is allowed, Stanford changes its verdict on an alleged campus sexual assault.

In 2013, Elise Clougherty accused her ex-boyfriend of a year, Joe Lonsdale, of abuse and sexual assault. She reported her allegations to Stanford University, where she was a student and he was her mentor. Stanford found Lonsdale responsible for sexual assault and banned him from the campus for 10 years.

In early November 2015, Stanford reversed the ban, citing “new evidence” in the case.

That “new evidence” was apparently emails sent from Clougherty to Lonsdale during their relationship that raised doubts about her accusations. The emails were not included in the original investigation against Lonsdale, and were only brought to the attention of Stanford administrators due to a New York Times article about the case.

Also: Third lawsuit filed against Rolling Stone for gang-rape hoax.

Plus:

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 7.19.49 PM

HOW HEINLEIN’S 1952 NOVEL THE YEAR OF THE JACKPOT FORESAW 1968 – And maybe 2016 as well:

The story had been published in 1952, but it conjured up the annus mirabilis/horribilis that I could see flashing before me every day: nudity in public, nudity in the churches, transvestites, draft-dodgers, cigar-smoking feminists, bishops promoting sex education, ludicrous lawsuits, a “startling rise in dissident evangelical cults,” and the Alabama state legislature proposing to abolish physics (not the teaching of physics, no, they wanted to repeal the laws of nuclear physics). Heinlein even predicted that weird antiwar protesters would be arrested in Chicago and disrupt their subsequent trial. In the story, a bespectacled statistician (they always wear glasses) discovers that all varieties of human behavior move in waves, and now (as he plots on graphs) all the waves are cresting at once. “It’s as clear as a bank statement,” he warns. “This year the human race is letting down its hair, flipping its lip with a finger, and saying, ‘Wubba, wubba, wubba.”‘

* * * * * * * * *

Once every generation or so, history abruptly floors the accelerator and leaps off the road. In 1789, 1848, 1917, 1933, 1968, and 1989 regimes fell, astonishing events erupted daily, ideologies realigned, new movements were born, past experience was rendered obsolescent and irrelevant. Each of these revolutionary years took contemporaries by surprise: only after the smoke had cleared did historians find the underlying causes that should have been obvious to everyone.

If you ask whether the Bastille was stormed because bread prices were skyrocketing, or because Louis XVI was inept, or because his tax system was hopelessly corrupt and his government couldn’t pay its bills, or because the armed forces had been humiliated in military adventures, or because the Enlightenment had undermined faith in the established order, or because the lower classes wanted an end to feudalism, or because the middle classes wanted power, most historians would answer: “Sure.” Revolutions never have single causes; they take off only when multiple dysfunctions coincide in a perfect political storm. And right now storm clouds are gathering everywhere. If indeed we once again hit the historical jackpot, it will be frightening and enthralling to watch. Brace yourselves.

As Glenn — and Heinlein — would say, there’s another root cause:  “this is known as bad luck.”

(Via Kathy Shaidle.)