Long Live the Gingerbread People!

 Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that Trader Joe's grocery stores sell all kinds of delectable snack foods. 

Yesterday, I returned from Trader Joe's with a box of gingerbread cookies. The box's cellophane window revealed traditional little gingerbread figures—just like the gingerbread men I devoured as a kid.

As I tore into the contents, I was pleased to see that the box was labeled "Mini Gingerbread People," not "Mini Gingerbread Men." That's good, I thought to myself. Trader Joe's is woke and fully invested in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

However, as I bit into my first cookie,  I was horrified to see that all the little gingerbread figures were covered with white icing. I could discern no Latinex gingerbread people, no BIPOC people, no cookies that represented the LGBTQX community.

Indeed, as I spread the confections on a plate, I realized I was looking at a pile of cleverly disguised cis-gendered, white Christian nationalist cookie men. I spat out this despicable little symbol of racism, sexism, and homophobia. I immediately took my box of gingerbread people back to my local Trader Joe's store and demanded a full refund.

Not surprisingly, the store manager profusely apologized and assured me that all boxes of gingerbread people were being recalled nationwide and would be off Trader Joe's shelves by sundown.

Whew! That was close. Now, I can devote all my time to persuading the municipal road maintenance department to change the name of manholes to person holes, maintenance holes, or inspection chambers.

Racism, misogyny, and homophobia have contaminated America's food supplies.

Why take out student loans to get an Ivy League degree when you can learn to be a bigot for less than twenty bucks?

 American universities have spent millions of dollars on affirmative action, women's varsity sports, litigation defending their race-based policies, and the newest race-obsessed fashion trend--Diversity. Equity and Inclusion (DEI). 

All these investments should produce kindlier and more tolerant college campuses--a collegiate nirvana, an idyllic state of perfect racial harmony.

But not so. Over the past few months, universities have shown themselves to be racist institutions and hotbeds of antisemitism. The most racist schools have been the most elite: Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and UCLA, among them.

And it's not just the students who are bigoted toward Jews. Professors have also attended disruptive anti-Israel rallies, and when college presidents call the cops, the faculty protest by passing votes of no confidence in them.

Few college leaders openly espouse anti-semitic opinions, but they often don't take campus anti-semitism seriously. For example, three college administrators were put on leave at Columbia recently for exchanging "unprofessional text messages while attending a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus. "

Young people might profitably ask themselves why they should take out $100,000 in student loans to surround themselves with bigots on an Ivy League campus. After all, you can school yourself in racial prejudice for the price of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, which you can purchase from Amazon for only twelve bucks.

Mein Kampf: Cheaper than a liberal arts degree from Harvard

Colleges sow the wind with DEI and reap the whirlwind of racism

 In recent years, American universities have invested millions of dollars in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  The goal, of course, was to scrub campuses clean of the last vestiges of bigotry and racial discrimination.

How’d that work out? Not so well. All across America, student protesters are spewing antisemitic bile, intimidating Jewish students, and scuffling with police.

Racism is most pronounced at the nation’s elite schools—Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc.  A degree from one of these swank institutions costs a quarter of a million dollars. Yet students are willing to sabotage their education to promote Islamic terrorism and persecute Jews.

Professors have primarily sided with the anti-Israel mobs. When college presidents summon the police to rid their campuses of disruptive protesters, the faculty howls in outrage.

Meanwhile, chaos reigns. Columbia has stopped face-to-face instruction due to safety concerns and switched to online teaching. USC canceled this year’s main commencement ceremony for the same reason. At the University of Texas, professors have called for a work stoppage to show their support for the anti-Israel protests.

Here's my advice to young people who think an Ivy League education is a ticket to a better life: Steer clear of the elite universities. Our nation’s most prestigious colleges have become cesspools of antisemitism and racial intolerance. Don't take out student loans to attend one of these morally bankrupt institutions. You'd be better off going to trade school to become a plumber. You'll meet a better class of people.

Photo credit: Times of Israel

We don’t know nothin' about no diversity. LSU rebrands its DEI agenda.

As reported by Robert Mann on Something Like the Truth, his blog site, Louisiana State University recently rebranded its DEI agenda. For those of you living under a rock, DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. 

Last Friday, LSU President Bill Tate alerted the staff and faculty that its Division of Inclusion, Civil Rights, and Title IX has a new name: the Division of Engagement, Civil Rights, and Title IX.

Why the name change? LSU obviously took this action to counter mounting opposition to the university's DEI agenda in the state legislature. The university hopes to stave off criticism of its diversity program by simply changing the name.

LSU president Bill Tate explained the action differently in an email message. Unfortunately, me no speakie gobbledygook, so I am unable to translate it for you. I’ll quote part of the message; you can translate it yourself.

Engagement is defined in several ways. We use two forms of the definition. For us, it represents a two-way process that enables change on both sides. To fully deliver on the promise our flagship offers, we must engage with each other to exchange views and experiences and share potential solutions to our most pressing challenges. Second, engagement reflects a serious commitment. We must commit to find[ing] ways to translate our discoveries and talent to serve and elevate the state and its people.

What the hell does that mean?

I draw these conclusions from LSU's diversity-and-inclusion shuffle:

First, LSU is not revising its DEI agenda; the fact that it has switched from using the word inclusion to engagement does not alter the university's obsession with race and gender.

Second, President Tate's word-salad justification for the change was probably written by the university's attorneys, which tells us that the lawyers are now running the university – not the academics.

Finally, LSU‘s rebranding of DEI shows that its leaders are cowards. If they’re fully committed to DEI, why change its name? 

As I just said, I think the change was motivated by the fear that the conservative state legislature and Louisiana’s new governor will clamp down on LSU and perhaps cut its funding to punish it for its flirtation with DEI--higher education's current obsession.

LSU wants to pursue its DEI agenda without alienating its funding source. As Robert Mann observed, the move was dumb and ham-handed.

In addition, the change is a transparent act of obsequious cowardice and a sure sign that LSU has lost its way.

We don't know nothin' about no diversity.

You got some 'splaining to do: Alleghany College cuts its minor in Chinese and lays off a tenured Asian professor

 Allegheny College, an old and respected school in western Pennsylvania, closed its Chinese program (an academic minor) and laid off the program's only tenured professor, who is Asian.

Apparently, Allegheny didn't explain its decision very well, and now the college is coming under fire. Xiaoling Shi, the laid-off professor, is concerned the college's decision "was motivated by racial animus," possibly because she has been outspoken about anti-Asian hate.  She filed a complaint against Allegheny with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I am skeptical of any suggestion that Allegheny's leadership harbors racial prejudice. America's colleges and universities are the wokest places on the planet. Higher education in the U.S. is obsessed with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and most have DEI officers at the highest administrative levels.

Indeed, Allegheny's website includes this solemn affirmation:

Allegheny students and employees are committed to creating an inclusive, respectful and safe residential learning community that will actively confront and challenge racism, sexism, heterosexism, religious bigotry, and other forms of harassment and discrimination. 

In my opinion, Allegheny's pledge is sincere. Nevertheless, the college must defend against Professor Shi's EEOC complaint, which will cost it money. And Shi's actions may well discourage Allegheny from streamlining its programs.

According to an Inside Higher Ed article, Allegheny College only had 12 students in the Chinese program. Still, Professor Shi pointed out that her program had more students than 21 other minors, including five minors in ethnic studies.

The Inside Higher Ed piece reported that Allegheny would like to eliminate 29 faculty positions to reduce costs and invest in programs that are likely to attract more students.

But Shi's EEOC complaint may prompt the college to rethink its academic plans and stick with the status quo. If so, that would be unfortunate because Allegheny College and hundreds of other American colleges need to get their costs down and focus on academic programs that will help their graduates get jobs that will allow them to pay off their student loans.

By the way, what does it cost to attend Allegheny College? More than $60,000 a year (including room and board).

In interest of "diversity," colleges drop SAT/ACT scores for student applicants. But are the colleges sincere?

More than 1,000 colleges have dropped the ACT or SAT test as an admission requirement. According to a Washington Post story, more than half of the top 100 liberal arts colleges (as selected by U.S. News and World Report) have dropped standardize tests as part of their admission process.

The colleges will tell you they are ditching ACT and SAT tests because the tests discriminate against racial minorities and the socio-economically disadvantaged (poor people). But I think this explanation is mere blather.  The colleges are dropping standardized tests in the admissions processes for two reasons that they dare not articulate.

First, most of the elite colleges are engaging in race discrimination in making their admissions decisions.  Harvard, for example, has been accused of discriminating against Asian applicants based on an analysis of enrollment criteria. Asians lost their discrimination claim against Harvard, but they are appealing in a case that is likely going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is much harder for disappointed college applicants to claim they were discriminated against based on race when the objective criteria of SAT and ACT scores are jettisoned. College admission officers will argue that standardized test scores interfere with the goal of achieving diversity, which is just a disingenuous way of saying their admissions decisions are subjective and often based on race.

Regarding the less selective schools, many are ditching the ACT and SAT exams because they are so desperate for students that they've lowered their admission standards and don't want anyone to know it.  By tossing out standardized test scores, it becomes harder to document the fact that many colleges will now admit anyone who has a pulse and some student-loan money. In fact, the pulse may be optional.

A great many of the 1,000 colleges and universities that have gone test-optional for student applicants are obscure institutions that are probably struggling to keep their enrollments up. For example,  Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana. only has about 1,000 students and is facing several financial problems. The Chair of the Earlham Board of Trustees released a letter to the campus  community in 2018, which acknowledged that the college had been "running substantial operating deficits" since 2008 and that its present level of cash flow was not sustainable.

I don't have inside information about enrollment challenges at the 1,000 colleges and universities that scrapped the ACT and SAT,  but I feel sure that many of them are scrambling to survive and that the chief motivation for most of them is to juice their enrollments and not to enhance "diversity."

Photo credit: Kayana Szymczak, New York Times