HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: A Mathematics Paper Two Math Journals Were Mau-Maued into Suppressing: Academic discourse is increasingly under threat from activist professors.

When taxpayers grow tired of subsidizing this clown show, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.” Meanwhile, the paper they were trying to suppress is here. Abstract:

An elementary mathematical theory based on “selectivity” is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.

This is what some professors thought too right-wing (or whatever) to be published. Because punch Nazis.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Instructor tries to quarantine gun owners in back of class. “A teaching assistant at the University of Utah tried to create a ‘Second Amendment zone’ in a classroom, forcing students who legally carry to stand in a tiny, taped-off area with no desk during class.”

This is the sort of mean-spirited abuse of power one expects from today’s campus left. When taxpayers lose interest in subsidizing it, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Identifying the Real Haters on Campus.

While radical feminism in the 1960s called for challenging existing gender roles and abolishing what the feminists saw as the pervasive patriarchy that permeated social institutions, churches, politics, and schools, today’s radical feminists call for the elimination of men.

In an offshoot of the #MeToo movement, the #YesAllMen campaign rejects the goodness of all men. Sociologist, Suzanna Danuta Walters, a lesbian gender studies professor at Northeastern University, published an op-ed in the Washington Post last month titled: “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” Walters advised men to “Step away from the power…Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything…And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you.”

Walters believes that gender is a social construct—one that privileges men unfairly. To remedy this, she suggests that gender be simply eliminated. In an interview published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Walters said that “the world would be a better place for men and for women if we did away with gender altogether—gender nouns, gender binaries, and so on. And God knows men would be happier and better people if we did away with that.” Believing that we can “break apart the binary oppositions” to create more “fluidity,” Walters concludes that “gender demeans, constructs, produces power, constrains.”

Rejecting any criticism of her thesis that all men deserve to be marginalized, Walters has attacked those who voiced some concerns about her proposal to eliminate gender—and men.

When taxpayers tire of subsidizing this sort of thing, we’ll be told that it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Colleges May Reject You Based On Whom You Follow On Social Media.

Remember, when taxpayers tire of subsidizing this industry, we’ll be told it’s because of close-minded anti-intellectualism.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Sarah Jeong Is a Boring, Typical Product of the American Academy. “The key features of Jeong’s worldview are an obsession with whiteness and its alleged sins; a commitment to the claim that we live in a rape culture; and a sneering contempt for objectivity and truth-seeking. These are central tenets of academic victimology. From the moment freshmen arrive on a college campus, they are inundated by the message that they are either the bearers of white privilege or its victims. College presidents and the metastasizing diversity bureaucracy teach students to see racism where none exists, preposterously accusing their own institutions of systemic bias. ‘Bias response teams,’ confidential ‘discrimination hotlines,’ and implicit-bias training for faculty and staff roll forth from university coffers in wild abandon.”

Welcome to the academy’s New Normal.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): When taxpayers get tired of subsidizing those university coffers, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: When colleges say ‘inclusive,’ what they really mean is no conservatives.

Need more evidence that US campuses actively silence conservatives? Then take a look at a stunning new report by the higher-ed watchdog Campus Reform.

The report notes that at SUNY-Albany last year, 64 speakers identified as liberal were handed the podium, vs. just two conservatives.

Many of the speakers were officials who’d worked in the Obama administration, including two Environmental Protection Agency regional directors and the head of Customs and Border Protection.

Events included discussions on “marginalized communities,” “barriers to naturalization for low-income immigrants” and “gender and sexuality from a Jewish lens.”

Part of the reason for the skew, the report says, is the school’s “Strategic Plan,” which calls for a more “diverse” and “inclusive” campus. By “inclusive,” SUNY apparently means: Let almost no conservatives speak.

SUNY-Albany is hardly unique: In 2016-17, liberal speakers outnumbered conservatives 44-4 at the University of Indiana, 30-9 at George Washington University, 9-2 at Alabama and 44-2 at Vermont, Campus Reform also found.

And colleges don’t just favor left-wing speakers: A study last April by Brooklyn College’s Mitchell Langbert of 8,688 tenure-track professors at top liberal-arts colleges found that, of those enrolled in a political party, 10 times as many were Democrats as Republicans. Some 39 percent of the colleges had no GOPers at all.

When taxpayers tire of subsidizing all this partisan indoctrination, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Yale law prof encourages people to ‘hide immigrants from ICE.’ “Gregg Gonsalves is more than willing to disclose the locations of ICE employees, however, encouraging others to release their home addresses and saying he would have ‘no qualms’ about showing up at those homes himself.”

When taxpayers get tired of subsidizing these institutions, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Feminist scholar slams hot-wing-eating show for ‘inequitable gender hierarchies.’ Remember, when taxpayers tire of funding this sort of thing, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: STUDY: Fossil fuels contribute to ‘petro-masculinity.’ And this is at Virginia Tech. Remember, when taxpayers tire of paying for stuff like this, we’ll be told it’s due to “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: A University of Northern Colorado professor told students that she hopes they can “find something to celebrate” on Independence Day despite “a ton of ugliness in our nation’s past and present.” When taxpayers tire of supporting this sort of thing, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Frustrated Faculty Struggle To Defend Tenure Before It’s Too Late.

[T]he argument that tenure is the essential protection faculty members need to do their jobs is one that an increasing number of professors have felt compelled to make — and almost always to less-than-receptive audiences. In an era where skepticism about higher education runs high and anti-intellectualism thrives in the political discourse, the concept of tenure fuels perceptions that professors are a protected class isolated from the rigors of the real world.

The argument that tenure is essential to protecting independent thought would be more compelling if universities and their faculties showed more interest in independent thought. And that’s not because of “anti-intellectualism” on the part of the public.

Related:

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, LEGAL EDUCATION EDITION: 2018 Grad Decries Political Correctness At Stanford Law School.

At Stanford Law School, no more than three of approximately 110 full-time faculty publicly identify as conservative or libertarian. (By way of contrast, Stanford Law School touts on its webpage 23 full-time faculty under the inartful rubric of “minority.”) As a consequence, many of my classmates will graduate having never engaged with a law professor whose worldview and convictions track those of nearly half the voting public.

It would require nothing less than willful blindness to presume this state of play does not affect the education that students receive. Probably for obvious reasons, my classmates demonstrate little willingness to identify publicly with anything associated with conservatism or, God forbid, President Trump, no matter how trivial. By way of extraordinary example, the Law School Republicans will soon cease to exist as a student organization because — after a campaign of intimidation and opprobrium — not one underclassman would volunteer to serve on its board next academic year.

An almost unspoken agreement seems to exist among many students that all of us will soon be fabulously successful, so long as everyone remains a “team player” and nobody rocks the boat too earnestly. Political, moral, and religious convictions are, for the most part, accessories best deployed for instrumental purposes, rather than values to be espoused or explored for their own sake. In much the same manner that all respectable people may speak or dress or eat a certain way, students at Stanford Law School have come to believe — and not entirely without reason, given their surroundings — that all respectable people should think the same way. …

For the past two years, I have repeatedly beseeched the dean of Stanford Law School to follow the example set by the leaders of my undergraduate alma mater — the University of Chicago — and publicly affirm the centrality of viewpoint diversity to the aims of education. Each time, she has refused, citing squeamishness at the prospect of overstepping her portfolio. Yet during that same period, she has nonetheless offered schoolwide commentary on public topics as diverse as the violence in Charlottesville, the rescission of DACA, and the Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender individuals from military service.

Beyond the Office of the Dean, Stanford Law School has staged programs aimed at helping students to #resist more effectively, celebrating International Workers’ Day and offering advice on “progressive lawyering” in the Trump era. Professors have sent schoolwide emails condemning anyone who supported President Trump as either an outright racist or an enabler who is #complicit. One professor even saw fit to join a student/alumni Facebook group for the purposes of criticizing the Law School Republicans.

When the taxpayers get tired of supporting this narrowmindedness, they’ll be accused of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Prof: Valuing ‘emotion as knowledge’ fights ‘white identity.’ When taxpayers get tired of funding this stuff, we’ll be told it’s because of anti-intellectualism. But now taxpayers can just tell us they’re valuing their emotions as knowledge.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Profs blame ‘masculine’ ideals for lack of women in STEM. “According to the professors, these masculine norms include ‘asking good questions,’ ‘capacity for abstract thought and rational thought processes,’ ‘motivation,’ ‘independent’ thinking, and a relatively low fear of failure.”

Remember, when taxpayers get tired of funding this stuff, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

WHEN TAXPAYERS GET TIRED OF SUPPORTING THIS NONSENSE, WE’LL BE TOLD IT’S BECAUSE OF “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:” ‘White-Informed Civility’ Is the Latest Target in the Campus Wars: The rules of collegiate debate are also coming under attack as racist and patriarchal.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Prof urges ‘abolition of white democracy’ during lecture. Remember, when taxpayers get tired of funding this sort of thing, it will be blamed on “anti-intellectualism.”

WHEN TAXPAYERS GET TIRED OF FUNDING THIS KIND OF THING, WE’LL HEAR THAT IT’S BECAUSE OF “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:” Prof: Academic rigor reinforces ‘power and privilege.’ Worse yet, she’s in engineering. At Purdue.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Grad student who showed debate on gender-neutral pronouns: My class was canceled with no explanation.

“I wonder if my mere presence is simply too triggering now.”

That’s how graduate student Lindsay Shepherd, who caused an uproar at Canada’s Wilfrid Laurier University by showing undergraduates a gender-neutral pronoun debate, makes sense of the unexplained cancellation of her department-wide class this week.

As she has become a campus celebrity among defenders of free speech, Shepherd has taken to Twitter to joust with critics who call her a white supremacist and threat to students who do not identify with their birth sex.

Wilfrid Laurier’s critics are calling on the school to reckon with its speech codes – under which Shepherd faced possible discipline – as the university launches a task force on freedom of expression.

When taxpayers tire of funding this sort of thing, it’ll be blamed on “anti-intellectualism.”

THEY TOLD ME IF TRUMP WERE ELECTED WE’D SEE A RESURGENCE OF OPEN RACISM. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Student op-ed calls white people ‘an abomination.’

Texas State University’s student newspaper published an op-ed Tuesday telling “white people” that “your DNA is an abomination.”

“When I think of all the white people I’ve ever encountered—whether they’ve been professors, peers, lovers, friends, police officers, et cetera—there is perhaps only a dozen I would consider ‘decent,’” student columnist Rudy Martinez begins the op-ed, which The University Star has not posted on its website.

The piece documents Martinez’s personal opinion of “whiteness” and “white people,” which he defines to include anyone who is “a descendant of those Europeans who chose to abandon their identity in search of something ‘new’—stolen land.”

When taxpayers get tired of funding higher education, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Report: Having ‘white nuclear family’ promotes white supremacy, says New York professor.

Remember, when people get tired of funding this stuff, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

Related:

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Miami art professor turns American flags into KKK hoods causing outrage. “Billie Grace Lynn, a University of Miami associate professor of sculpture, calls it ‘American Mask,’ a work, she writes on her personal site, that suggests ‘bigotry and racism are hiding behind our flag.'” Well, with this project she’s right, but not in the way she thinks.

When taxpayers cut funding for higher ed, we’ll be told it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: The Purge: Scott Yenor and the Witch Hunt at Boise State: A political science professor at Boise State writes a piece about transgenderism and the university tries to tie him to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

When funding for these institutions is slashed due to plummeting public support — and it will be — they’ll blame “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: University of Montana Dean Worried About ‘the Risk of Offending Students,’ Dis-Invites Conservative Speaker. God forbid they should be offended by hearing a view they disagree with.

But when funding for these institutions is cut, they’ll blame “anti-intellectualism.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, LEFTIST AUTOPHAGY EDITION: Professors warn academic intolerance for dissenting views is reaching new highs. But when taxpayers lose patience and won’t fund it, academics will blame “anti-intellectualism.”

ROBBY SOAVE: If You Think Trump Is a Fascist, You Should Oppose Gun Control.

Following the unfathomably tragic events in Las Vegas, many on the left are demanding that Congress pass new restrictions on guns. Such calls make even less sense than usual, given what much of the left already believes about the current political environment: that a fascist occupies the White House.

“Yes, Donald Trump is a fascist,” wrote The New Republic’s Jamil Smith. He said that in 2015, when Trump was still merely a primary challenger; associating Trump with fascism has grown only more common in the two years since.

“This is how fascism comes to America,” wrote Robert Kagan, a former Republican, in a Washington Post piece widely shared last year on both the left and the NeverTrump right: “not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac ‘tapping into’ popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party—out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear—falling into line behind him.”

“Trump’s not Hitler,” wrote Salon’s Fedja Buric in 2016. But that was only because: “He’s Mussolini.” Buric’s article is about “How GOP anti-intellectualism created a modern fascist movement in America.”

The Daily Beast’s Jay Michaelson held out until Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, at which point he declared, “at a certain point, ‘fascist’ becomes the most accurate term to describe what this man does….’Fascist’ is not an incendiary slur—it is an accurate description.”

Those are high-profile writers; grassroots activists have been less measured. The antifa movement, which for some reason thinks smashing windows and setting cars on fire is an effective form of resistance, regularly claims that Trump is a modern incarnation of Nazism. Left-leaning students and professors frequently accuse Trump of fascism; some have even maintained that members of Trump’s Cabinet, like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, are white supremacists by mere association. . . .

Which brings us back to gun control, something countless liberal pundits and Democratic congresspeople are breathlessly demanding right now. How on earth could anyone believe both that Trump is a fascist and that it’s a good idea for a federal government he runs to take guns away from law-abiding citizens? If Trump is a budding Mussolini—let alone something worse—then you shouldn’t want to give him the power required to wage a war on guns.

You’d think.