As a long-time disgruntled Harvard alumnus, I predict that Claudine Gay will survive the onslaught of evidence and pressure to remain as President of the University. The exposure of her minimal scholarly accomplishments and the evidence of her repeated plagiarisms will be offset by the religious devotion of the Harvard community to her identify as a black woman. We shall see.
To your last question, I would say the cultures clash a bit, but yes, shared history helps. Houthi are also used like Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies, tho it seems with more care for the Houthi people perhaps. Houthi are a clan. Hezbollah and Hamas are a synthetic clan that makes their leaders rich.
Shia sects (Iran, Qatar, much of Yemen) , Salafi (Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uighurs, ISIS, Al Qaeda, & the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations) they're all schisms of fanatic medieval drivel howling out of hell for blood, treasure, and enslavement of everyone, filled with righteous hatred, commingled with tribal bigotry, committing rape, torture, deceit, and mass murder as their religious duty. There is no reasoning with any of them, only playing them off on each other, using them as tools (USA, Russia, and I believe China has now entered that game) or placating them in a prisoner's dilemma game (France, protecting Arafat's family and their embezzled money, and i believe France is doing this now with Hamas -- note the recent death of 4 French "diplomats" in Gaza -- they weren't there helping Israel).
It seems with Bari’s brilliant take-down of DEI, on the heels of her Federalist Society speech, that she has attained the stature of Public Intellectual. Such labels can be dismissively pigeon-holing, but I mean this as high praise - that she deserves the widest and most attentive of hearings, because she speaks wisdom that will rightly discomfit its targets while persuading the timid to act.
Besides the bloated, perverse university DEI departments that have begun to deter alumni donations, a DEI rollback might gain momentum in corporate executive suites, where the suits have begun hearing from shareholders unhappy that the bottom line has been compromised by DEI foolishness. Wherever such a course-correction occurs, Bari’s prominent voice will help to propel it. The country should be grateful.
I could use a little history lesson here-how did this "Sanctuary City" thing even start? Who thought this was a good idea to legislate? When these cities raised their hand was there any analysis? Like, were they expecting 1,000 people to come, see the sights, then leave? And that was going to cost xxx$? And the taxpayers were going to be happy with that arrangement? Now that it has been exposed as epically fiscally irresponsible not to mention having all of these (trigger alert!) "illegal aliens" on the streets, which city will be the first to renounce their status??? Posting here because I was "triggered" by Mayor Adams comments...come to New York, one day the twin towers come down and the next day someone opens a thrift store...exciting!!
Since their appearance on Capitol Hill, many have argued that the college presidents of Harvard, MIT, and U Penn should lose their jobs. Most of the discussion has focused on the issue of DEI and freedom of speech. I disagree that either is truly the issue. The issue is moral judgment and the competence to lead an institution charged with producing responsible, competent adults.
What they are leading their institutions toward is graduates accepting of genocide and other intrinsically evil acts if perpetrators are “oppressed” freeing themselves from “oppressors”. To those accepting this narrative, facts don’t matter. It just doesn’t matter that the attack is a genocidal act of terrorism, tactically engaging in sexual assault, deliberately abusing and murdering women and children, shielding combatents by housing them in hospitals, near schools, and in residential neighborhoods, and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. A claim of being oppressed justifies these barbaric acts. It really doesn’t matter that the chant “from the river to the sea” can only mean there is no pathway to accommodate the Israelis. After all, the Israelis are "oppressors".
By clinging to moral ambiguity in this situation the college presidents showed to the world that they are unable to conduct themselves with the moral clarity and leadership that are likely to produce good citizens. What they demonstrated is moral incompetence and ineffective leadership skills.
The women hold their positions through a selection system that considers gender, race, inclusive language, commitment to building a diverse workforce and a host of other considerations having nothing to do with the visionary competence required to guide a university. Such hiring is often criticized because it is not merit based. The performance of the university presidents clearly demonstrated that competence matters and that placing persons lacking strength of character and moral clarity produces young people so irresponsible as to celebrate and excuse atrocities and crimes against humanity.
The mission of the university should be to prepare young people to successfully engage in the world and build a future of justice and peace. Not just these universities, but most universities, are failing miserably in this mission. Rep. Stefanik simply asked the leaders if advocating genocide violated university policy against harassment and bullying. All equivocated. But honestly, the moral ambiguity of university leadership is frequently on display. This is common place that I need not bother with further examples, everyone knows this incivility is all too common on college campuses. And in most of these institutions students may be expelled for “misgendering” another student. This is neither an advocacy for incivility nor an argument about gender, it’s an argument about moral perspective. Misgendering / genocide? Let’s see… well it depends on context?
The presidents all showed a moral perspective that cannot be applied in life without drastic negative consequences. It is leading to commonplace expressions of intolerance, rudeness, impoliteness, and disrespect in the name of moral virtue! The historical reality of the 20th century is that the rise of authoritarian regimes resulted in the deaths of millions. This happens when group membership becomes the determinant for the moral assessment of individual behavior. You are Jewish? Guilty. You wear baggy pants and hoodie? Guilty. Your skin is white, black, brown? Guilty. You haven’t done well in society? You can’t do anything about it and your outcome is not your responsibility. People have only prospered by stealing from others? Imprison them. This moral framework is of danger to everyone in society because you can always be named part of a group that is guilty and there is nothing you can do to be innocent. It becomes the playground of sociopaths and psychopaths.
At issue is whether any person lacking the moral clarity to find abominable acts intrinsically evil is fit to lead a university. I would argue that the job is precisely to provide students with this capacity for moral clarity, so the answer would be an emphatic NO. Leading an institution of higher learning is beyond the morally ambiguous because they do not possess the leadership qualities necessary to keep young people pointed in a positive direction.
Their responses to Rep. Stefanik showed that these leader value context over right and wrong and as a consequence their leadership will not produce young people who will absolutely not engage in genocide. These women actually said that under their leadership it depends on context. So, it wasn’t what they said, it was what they were unable to say. I would argue that their leadership is creating an environment in which the worst of which humanity is capable is acceptable... depending on the context. This is how the world went berserk in the 20th century.
The mindset these women demonstrate indicates that the moral collapse displayed by university students comes from the top down. One cannot declare virtue; it must be earned. The university presidents’ performance before Congress indicates that none of these women conducts herself in the manner required to earn virtue. They seem to think that if they just behave properly toward the “oppressed” that that signals virtue. No,... standing firmly against all evil earns virtue.
Every student educated in Western universities should know of the Nuremburg Trials and the incredible achievement establishing that certain acts are so reprehensible that they cannot be justified under any rationalization or circumstance. This is how we know and agree as civilized people that genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, human trafficking, child abuse, slavery, terrorism, war crimes, sexual assault, and environmental destruction find no justification, ever! They should be learning an appreciation for how elementary that distinction is to civilized life.
Any narrative failing to recognize intrinsic evil lets loose that evil in the world. Individuals lacking such moral clarity should be considered incompetent to lead any university and never allowed leadership in the process of developing young people into responsible adults. Unfortunately, such university leaders are creating an atmosphere in their schools that will cripple their students and render them dangerous to a truly inclusive society.
Bari - agree 100% that we need to yank DEI out by the roots, but how? How does an average person do that?
Chaos
Thank you, Bari.
Your podcast on DEI is spot on.
As a long-time disgruntled Harvard alumnus, I predict that Claudine Gay will survive the onslaught of evidence and pressure to remain as President of the University. The exposure of her minimal scholarly accomplishments and the evidence of her repeated plagiarisms will be offset by the religious devotion of the Harvard community to her identify as a black woman. We shall see.
To your last question, I would say the cultures clash a bit, but yes, shared history helps. Houthi are also used like Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies, tho it seems with more care for the Houthi people perhaps. Houthi are a clan. Hezbollah and Hamas are a synthetic clan that makes their leaders rich.
Shia sects (Iran, Qatar, much of Yemen) , Salafi (Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uighurs, ISIS, Al Qaeda, & the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations) they're all schisms of fanatic medieval drivel howling out of hell for blood, treasure, and enslavement of everyone, filled with righteous hatred, commingled with tribal bigotry, committing rape, torture, deceit, and mass murder as their religious duty. There is no reasoning with any of them, only playing them off on each other, using them as tools (USA, Russia, and I believe China has now entered that game) or placating them in a prisoner's dilemma game (France, protecting Arafat's family and their embezzled money, and i believe France is doing this now with Hamas -- note the recent death of 4 French "diplomats" in Gaza -- they weren't there helping Israel).
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/who-are-yemens-houthis
complex
New York is two words.
Two four letter words.
It seems with Bari’s brilliant take-down of DEI, on the heels of her Federalist Society speech, that she has attained the stature of Public Intellectual. Such labels can be dismissively pigeon-holing, but I mean this as high praise - that she deserves the widest and most attentive of hearings, because she speaks wisdom that will rightly discomfit its targets while persuading the timid to act.
Besides the bloated, perverse university DEI departments that have begun to deter alumni donations, a DEI rollback might gain momentum in corporate executive suites, where the suits have begun hearing from shareholders unhappy that the bottom line has been compromised by DEI foolishness. Wherever such a course-correction occurs, Bari’s prominent voice will help to propel it. The country should be grateful.
One word to summarize: Decline
Wait, what? Silicon Valley has a soul?
Wait, what? Silicon Valley has a soul?
How to describe NYC
unacceptable (bordering on intolerable )
I could use a little history lesson here-how did this "Sanctuary City" thing even start? Who thought this was a good idea to legislate? When these cities raised their hand was there any analysis? Like, were they expecting 1,000 people to come, see the sights, then leave? And that was going to cost xxx$? And the taxpayers were going to be happy with that arrangement? Now that it has been exposed as epically fiscally irresponsible not to mention having all of these (trigger alert!) "illegal aliens" on the streets, which city will be the first to renounce their status??? Posting here because I was "triggered" by Mayor Adams comments...come to New York, one day the twin towers come down and the next day someone opens a thrift store...exciting!!
My word - dystopian
A comment on university leadership:
Since their appearance on Capitol Hill, many have argued that the college presidents of Harvard, MIT, and U Penn should lose their jobs. Most of the discussion has focused on the issue of DEI and freedom of speech. I disagree that either is truly the issue. The issue is moral judgment and the competence to lead an institution charged with producing responsible, competent adults.
What they are leading their institutions toward is graduates accepting of genocide and other intrinsically evil acts if perpetrators are “oppressed” freeing themselves from “oppressors”. To those accepting this narrative, facts don’t matter. It just doesn’t matter that the attack is a genocidal act of terrorism, tactically engaging in sexual assault, deliberately abusing and murdering women and children, shielding combatents by housing them in hospitals, near schools, and in residential neighborhoods, and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. A claim of being oppressed justifies these barbaric acts. It really doesn’t matter that the chant “from the river to the sea” can only mean there is no pathway to accommodate the Israelis. After all, the Israelis are "oppressors".
By clinging to moral ambiguity in this situation the college presidents showed to the world that they are unable to conduct themselves with the moral clarity and leadership that are likely to produce good citizens. What they demonstrated is moral incompetence and ineffective leadership skills.
The women hold their positions through a selection system that considers gender, race, inclusive language, commitment to building a diverse workforce and a host of other considerations having nothing to do with the visionary competence required to guide a university. Such hiring is often criticized because it is not merit based. The performance of the university presidents clearly demonstrated that competence matters and that placing persons lacking strength of character and moral clarity produces young people so irresponsible as to celebrate and excuse atrocities and crimes against humanity.
The mission of the university should be to prepare young people to successfully engage in the world and build a future of justice and peace. Not just these universities, but most universities, are failing miserably in this mission. Rep. Stefanik simply asked the leaders if advocating genocide violated university policy against harassment and bullying. All equivocated. But honestly, the moral ambiguity of university leadership is frequently on display. This is common place that I need not bother with further examples, everyone knows this incivility is all too common on college campuses. And in most of these institutions students may be expelled for “misgendering” another student. This is neither an advocacy for incivility nor an argument about gender, it’s an argument about moral perspective. Misgendering / genocide? Let’s see… well it depends on context?
The presidents all showed a moral perspective that cannot be applied in life without drastic negative consequences. It is leading to commonplace expressions of intolerance, rudeness, impoliteness, and disrespect in the name of moral virtue! The historical reality of the 20th century is that the rise of authoritarian regimes resulted in the deaths of millions. This happens when group membership becomes the determinant for the moral assessment of individual behavior. You are Jewish? Guilty. You wear baggy pants and hoodie? Guilty. Your skin is white, black, brown? Guilty. You haven’t done well in society? You can’t do anything about it and your outcome is not your responsibility. People have only prospered by stealing from others? Imprison them. This moral framework is of danger to everyone in society because you can always be named part of a group that is guilty and there is nothing you can do to be innocent. It becomes the playground of sociopaths and psychopaths.
At issue is whether any person lacking the moral clarity to find abominable acts intrinsically evil is fit to lead a university. I would argue that the job is precisely to provide students with this capacity for moral clarity, so the answer would be an emphatic NO. Leading an institution of higher learning is beyond the morally ambiguous because they do not possess the leadership qualities necessary to keep young people pointed in a positive direction.
Their responses to Rep. Stefanik showed that these leader value context over right and wrong and as a consequence their leadership will not produce young people who will absolutely not engage in genocide. These women actually said that under their leadership it depends on context. So, it wasn’t what they said, it was what they were unable to say. I would argue that their leadership is creating an environment in which the worst of which humanity is capable is acceptable... depending on the context. This is how the world went berserk in the 20th century.
The mindset these women demonstrate indicates that the moral collapse displayed by university students comes from the top down. One cannot declare virtue; it must be earned. The university presidents’ performance before Congress indicates that none of these women conducts herself in the manner required to earn virtue. They seem to think that if they just behave properly toward the “oppressed” that that signals virtue. No,... standing firmly against all evil earns virtue.
Every student educated in Western universities should know of the Nuremburg Trials and the incredible achievement establishing that certain acts are so reprehensible that they cannot be justified under any rationalization or circumstance. This is how we know and agree as civilized people that genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, human trafficking, child abuse, slavery, terrorism, war crimes, sexual assault, and environmental destruction find no justification, ever! They should be learning an appreciation for how elementary that distinction is to civilized life.
Any narrative failing to recognize intrinsic evil lets loose that evil in the world. Individuals lacking such moral clarity should be considered incompetent to lead any university and never allowed leadership in the process of developing young people into responsible adults. Unfortunately, such university leaders are creating an atmosphere in their schools that will cripple their students and render them dangerous to a truly inclusive society.
One word to sum up the past year... Freakish!