politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
We must not stop until we have abolished DEI ideology from every institution in America
— Christopher Rufo (via X formerly Twitter)
And this is the whole thing. Republicans talk a big game about meritocracy, but they themselves do not believe in it. There's a lot of the Dunning–Kruger effect within Republican ranks, this is why they rely so heavily on grifting. They are for the most part faking it till they make it (or most likely get called out). George Santos is like the extreme end of this.
So the question is why does this ideology contrast so heavily with things like DEI? And the reasons are to promote keeping a silent status-quo. White guys hire white guys, that's just the straight and narrow about it. And folks like to push, "Oh well I'm judging them based on merit!" That's where that Dunning-Kruger effect comes in, because there's a lot of blatant faking it going on.
I mean, we joke, but white guy saying the internet is a series of tubes is likely faking knowledge, just kind of calling as I see it. And there's a lot of that. Not just lawmakers, I see it in IT all the effing time. Like my previous employer, it didn't go without notice how the backend development group was a guy's club. And they may say "Oh well it's all based on merit". Nah, friend, we had at least two "Postgres Devs" who hadn't the faintest clue about what an Index is. It's a hard sell on the merit thing.
And I see that a lot. And I'm not one to judge on folks who are missing some knowledge, I'm not holding a bar at folks being able to recite from memory how to do a red-black tree in C++, that's not really important. But what I do have issue with is when there's an almost implicit grant for men on knowledge. Because one of those devs that didn't need to be there was in the running with someone else who happened to be a woman, and we just happen to hire a guy who was actually good at spitting bullshit. Perhaps that's the manager that hired the person's fault or whatever, but it gets into that silent status-quo. Like, maybe the manager wasn't actively thinking in their mind, "this person has a vagina, there's no way I believe them!" But he totally was like "Oh man this guy is funny as shit and brings a special energy to everything".
And that's that meritocracy Republicans want to preserve and DEI seeks to introduce an element that's outside of that silent status-quo. Suddenly, these managers can't look at that "special energy" the same way as they used to. There's other things that they have to measure along the way. And don't get me wrong, hiring someone for the sole reason "they are a black woman" is not correct, but Claudine Gay’s ascension is not strictly because of that. And the fact that Christopher Rufo attempts to surmise it as such is a big display of this faking knowledge. Because the hiring her is way more complex than Rufo can actually comprehend, he's just faking his "knowledge". Much like his Master of Liberal Arts ass trying to surmise CRT, literally nothing he has said on CRT bears any kind of actual knowledge behind it, it's all surface level musings that he panders as "fact". And Claudine Gay's resignation is complex too. So the folks saying she's being bullied out of her spot are glossing over a lot of the complex interactions in politics and money that Universities do actually have.
Gay is returning to her position as faculty and Dean of Social Studies which she has enjoyed since 2015, of which she obtained that position through a very complex history of academic excellence. The plagiarism claims were reviewed by independent bodies at Gay's request and their findings were summarized by the Harvard Corporation here. In which they found two things indicated by omission from citation, but those omission from citation did not rise to the standard routinely used by Harvard for plagiarism. But no one mentions this, that it's been looked over and she did not meet the criteria for plagiarism and that finding absolutely played a role in considerations.
But more importantly this. Gay is not leaving Harvard, in fact, I would argue that she's moving back into a position where she can do more work than where she was. Harvard is clearly not ready to advance outside of their own silent status-quo, there's a lot of "traditionalist" who form the bulk of Harvard's philanthropy. And Gay may have looked over the sentiment and come to the conclusion that now was not the time to push on that from the position she was in at that time. It's fairly complex and until she actually spills beans about it, we can only at best speculate. But yeah, the poor performance before Congress played a role, President's from Universities have a very big PR role they fill and poor performances play a role in that.
I think that's what people dislike the most. That Stefanik used her massive amount of bullshit to false dilemma Gay into a bad PR light. But Stefanik is also alumni of Harvard, in fact she was at one point VP of Harvard's Institute of Politics. She's got skills to pay the bills, especially when it comes to the way faculty speaks at Harvard. Gay walked right into it and that's something she should have seen coming. That's part and parcel, as much as we like to bemoan it, of politics. Perhaps one day we will reach a political climate where we frankly and openly discuss the woes of society and address them outright. But boy oh boy is someone fooling themselves thinking that day is today. Which as an aside is why I've always had issues with the mantra of "when they go low, we go high". No call their bullshit out and stone their ass for going low, damn it!
People like Rufo will read into this as "it's a win against DEI" but the reality is, this event is just one of many in a complex string of things that play into an over arching attempt by some to maintain the "good old boys" way of life. There's multiple aspects of "good old boys" like "Make America Great Again", "the war on Woke", and what not. But there's a need to remember that as much as these folks like to talk about meritocracy, that's not actually what they want. Or at least they do a lot of things to demonstrate that, that is not what they want. And this whole episode of these President's falling to the traps of Stefanik are just yet another demonstration that they aren't after quality or work ethic, they are after preserving a way of life they feel is under threat.
expose the rot in the Ivy League and restore truth, rather than racialist ideology, as the highest principle in academic life.
— Christopher Rufo (via X formerly Twitter)
That's what this ultimately plays out as. They're under the impression that asking folks to equally weigh all factors in a position without undue passion is some form of racialist ideology. When in fact it's just Rufo's lack of knowledge at real world inequality. They're not exposing rot, they're just going after folks they have a grudge with. Stefanik wasn't asking genuine questions to further testimony in collegiate response to a world event, she was just hawking got'chas and she's insanely good at doing that.
Out of all of this, I think that's the important aspects to see in this. It's folks trying to preserve something that we should have in my opinion done off with already. But unfortunately the Associated Press has decided to write an article on the "munitions of the right" which is just more code for "let's make left/right politics even more polar." Stefanik is a demonstration of how Congress is becoming worse. She's very smart and only really foolish people sell her short of that, but bullshit is selling like hotcakes in Congress right now. And to me the "why does bullshit and Dark Brandon sell" is a better question. Because if the goal is to actually reach that day where we talk frank about social ills and address them, we have gone into hyper reverse on reaching that goal. And this piece from the AP really smacks of the drivel that fuels that vehicle. I don't think that should be our goal (or at least not the primary one, politics isn't black and white for a reason), but for those who want that as a goal, this piece is classic anti-that goal with it's quips that exist to only further polar opinion on the matter. When in reality, Gay likely going back to work in a position that she can sow seeds that may one day change the calculus of the traditionalist alumni that she faced as President. Yes, it is sad that it has taken Harvard this long to have a black person as President. Clearly the alumni of Harvard are having a hard time with it to the point that they are feeling fine to overtly suppress such. But the kids today are tomorrow's alumni and sometimes taking the longer approach is better. Yes, it is shit. But the more I see the younger generation, the more I see a very clear change for the what I would consider better. And there is a lot of very unhappy people about that trend.
Good write up, thanks. These low-quality people.. Can't believe they think they're the good guys.
“SCALPED,” as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here but isn't the author getting this backwards? I know, of course white people scalped their foes sometimes, but my understanding was that scalping was far more prevalent among native Americans.
Scalping happened world wide, earliest examples tho are Northern Europe.
However, scalping was so prevelant in America, because American colonies paid for Native scalps like animal pelts. Specifically wolve/Coyote pelts.
So while Natives might have taken scalps as a trophy from a mighty warrior they killed, it wasn't exactly common.
Until they started coming across Native villages where everyone (including women and children) were scalped while alive and left to die slowly.
So the Natives started doing it back.
The reason we only heard about Natives doing it, is because America wanted Americans to think of them as violent savages. So a couple generations later, and we started getting people who believed like you do
Yeah, I was scratching my head at that as well.
While its true that some First Nation's practiced scalping of defeated enemies for hundreds or thousands of years, it's also true that some English Colonies had a bounty on dead First Nations to encourage genocide, and one way this was confirmed was with a scalp rather than full dead body or head.
It tended to be that Native Americans would do it in or after battle/fighting an enemy. But in response, colonists, particularly those "settling" the West, started offering standing rewards for every Native Americans scalp people could collect. Many white colonists then ended up scalping every Native Americans they could find, regardless of enmity, and even scalping others as well, such as railroad workers, in order to pass off their scalps as those of Native Americans. All to say that, yes, much like many things, scalping was a tradition of another culture that colonists adopted and took much further.
There were bounties paid for scalps of American Indians in colonial times.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The downfall of Harvard’s president has elevated the threat of unearthing plagiarism, a cardinal sin in academia, as a possible new weapon in conservative attacks on higher education.
The plagiarism allegations came not from her academic peers but her political foes, led by conservatives who sought to oust Gay and put her career under intense scrutiny in hopes of finding a fatal flaw.
In another post, he announced a new “plagiarism hunting fund,” vowing to “expose the rot in the Ivy League and restore truth, rather than racialist ideology, as the highest principle in academic life.”
Gay didn’t directly address the plagiarism accusations in a campus letter announcing her resignation, but she noted she was troubled to see doubt cast on her commitment “to upholding scholarly rigor.” She also indirectly nodded to the December congressional hearing that started the onslaught of criticism, where she did not say unequivocally that calls for the genocide of Jews would violate Harvard policy.
In highly specialized fields, scholars often use similar language to describe the same concepts, said Davarian Baldwin, a historian at Trinity College who writes about race and higher education.
Without commenting on the merits of the allegations against Gay, President Irene Mulvey of the American Association of University Professors said she fears plagiarism investigations could be “weaponized” to pursue a political agenda.
The original article contains 1,144 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
the mastermind behind this attack, christopher rufo, has been relentless in his pursuit to dismantle leftist influences in academia, even going so far as to celebrate gay's departure with a disturbing choice of words, "scalped." such rhetoric only furthers the divide between conservative and progressive ideologies. rufo's intentions are evident in his ongoing crusade against policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in both education and businesses.
plagiarism, however, can be seen as a necessity for marginalized individuals like claudine gay when navigating through these systems riddled with systemic discrimination. it becomes a tool in the fight against the historical suppression of non-white scholars. ultimately, what we are witnessing here is not a case of plagiarism, but rather the misuse of this term by those who fear the advancement of underrepresented minorities in positions of power. it's time for institutions like harvard to stand up to this malicious campaign and recognize the value that people like claudine gay bring to academia, rather than succumbing to baseless accusations meant to silence them. only then will society begin to truly address and eradicate institutional racism from its core. it's about time for change. it's about time for inclusivity. it's about time for justice.
Tom Nichols: “Claudine Gay engaged in academic misconduct. Everything else about her case is irrelevant, including the silly claims of her right-wing opponents.”
David French: “This is exactly the right call. Harvard can’t impose lower standards of academic integrity on its president than it imposes on its students. I could not have graduated from the law school with similar levels of plagiarism. She shouldn’t lead the institution.”
Jonathan Chait: “Claudine Gay’s resignation as Harvard’s president for having repeatedly engaged in low-level plagiarism is a strange and sad ending to her brief tenure as a symbol in the culture wars. The tragicomedy of it lies in the disjuncture between the picayune scale of her sloppiness and the broader ideological stakes she came to symbolize. On those stakes, Gay was right. But on the morally insignificant matter that doomed her — the discovery that she had violated rules of attribution in her academic work — she was frustratingly defenseless.”
picayune
Never heard that one before