Elsewhere (118)
The Wall Street Journal reveals the unspeakable suffering of leftwing students at an Ivy League college:
The demonstrators had a 72-point manifesto instructing the college to establish pre-set racial admission quotas and a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum for all students. Their other inspirations are for more “womyn or people of colour” faculty; covering sex change operations on the college health plan (“we demand body and gender self-determination”); censoring the library catalogue for offensive terms; and installing “gender-neutral bathrooms” in every campus facility, specifically including sports locker rooms.
We rarely sympathise with college administrators but we’ll make an exception for Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon, an accomplished mathematician who for some reason took the job last year. The occupiers filmed their confrontation and uploaded the hostage video to the web, where Mr Hanlon can be seen agog as his charges berate him for his “micro-aggressions.” Those are bias infractions that can’t be identified without the right political training.
Mr. Hanlon left after an hour and told the little tyrants that he welcomed a “conversation” about their ultimatums. They responded in a statement that conversations – to be clear, talking – will lead to “further physical and emotional violence enacted against us by the racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist structures at Dartmouth.” They added: “Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack.”
The mighty student ‘occupiers’ were also rendered tearful and distressed on discovering that their behaviour had been described as “threatening.” You see, the students’ threats of further “physical action” should be heeded and obeyed but not recognised as threats. That too would be a “micro-aggression.” Dartmouth’s annual tuition of $65,133 has evidently failed to deter fits of delinquent psychodrama by checkers of privilege whose own colossal sense of entitlement somehow escapes detection.
As noted previously, this kind of obnoxious and narcissistic behaviour is regarded as a credential by many students on the left, as somehow self-validating, something to be proud of. It’s what elevates them within their own immediate peer group. They’re achieving their in-group status, their imagined radical chic, by imposing on others – people about whom they simply don’t care or for whom they show outright contempt. It’s more than a little symbolic that the disruption and clearing up are always at someone else’s expense. Despite the guff about “social justice,” their behaviour is fundamentally parasitic.
And hey, think of how well they’re using that $65,133 a year. Think of the message they’re sending to potential employers. Who wouldn’t want to hire someone who wants to abolish capitalism, who hallucinates “white supremacy,” who dismisses dialogue as “racialized and white” and “gendered and masculine” and therefore invalid, and who threatens “physical action” if their absurd demands aren’t met?
Via Instapundit, Kingsley Browne on statistical gender disparities:
There are many statistical disparities between the sexes in our world, but only some become the subject of widespread concern. Ones that are perceived as favouring men are labelled “gaps,” while those that favour women are simply facts. Outside the workplace, men are arguably disadvantaged in a variety of arenas, whether in terms of health and longevity, crime and violence, domestic relations, or education. In the workplace, men are far more likely than women to be killed and to work long hours. None of these disparities is generally viewed as a “gap” deserving of intervention, however. Men earn a disproportionate number of Ph.Ds in some fields, while women earn a disproportionate number in others. Only the former set of disparities, however, is typically viewed as a “gap.”
And Theodore Dalrymple casts an eye over Oxfam and its moral credentials:
Oxfam claims that for every £1 donated, 84 pence is spent on emergency, development, and campaign work, 9 pence on support costs, and 7 pence on investment “to generate future funds.” A look at Oxfam’s annual report for 2011-2012 suggests that this is a very charitable way of interpreting its own activities. It raised £118.5 million ($196.7 million) by voluntary donations that year, but spent £101.8 million on staff salaries – £59.5 million on British staff alone…
Nor would most contributors suspect where the majority of Oxfam’s money comes from: government, in other words, from the forced contributions of taxpayers in various countries. Such funds amounted to £170.1 million as against £118.5 million of genuinely charitable contributions. An organisation so financially dependent upon forced contributions cannot be called a charity at all, in fact, unless taxation under threat of prosecution if not paid be regarded as charity.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets below. [ Updated via the comments. ]
They responded in a statement that conversations – to be clear, talking – will lead to “further physical and emotional violence enacted against us by the racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist structures at Dartmouth.” They added: “Our bodies are already on the line, in danger, and under attack.”
The college should expel the little divas – for their own safety.
Careful, David! Talking about statistical gender disparities which disfavor men is nothing less than total misogyny.
It’s funny how organisations that are actually not related to, much less fully dependent on, government rarely refer to themselves as NGOs. Sort of like how “non-political” is a byword for “dogmatic” and “independant”, well, rarely anything less than full dependance.
The college should expel the little divas – for their own safety.
Well, these titans of tomorrow don’t seem at all equipped for even the mild rough-and-tumble of campus life. I mean, the kind of rough-and-tumble that already comes with intergroup dialogues, centres for gender, pluralism and inclusivity, Pride Week, sexual assault awareness months, and umpteen other “diversity” resources and events. Apparently the college’s promise to spend an additional $30 million on “diversity” fluff simply isn’t enough. And departments that fall short of the designated ratios of brown/gay/transgendered people will be deemed “in crisis.” Though quite where this inexhaustible source of funding might come from isn’t addressed by those demanding it.
The important thing, for them, is that the entire college is purified of all conceivable ideological contaminants. The school must be purged of “white supremacy and maybe capitalism.” Because they care so very much.
“we demand body and gender self-determination”
Only so long, naturally, as somebody else pays for that self-determination.
Mr. Hanlon might have told the kids occupying his office that most of mankind — forgive the micro-aggression — would love to be as oppressed as they are.
Should have done but didn’t. Just how spineless are these people?
Just how spineless are these people?
That’s the thing about leftist identity politics. It’s utterly corrosive to realism, probity and a sense of proportion. It can make people tie themselves in knots, and lie and hallucinate – and make the people watching not dare to point this out.
Hi David
Wow, a 72 point manifesto! Let 100 precious little hothouse flowers bloom.
I agree with the Wall Street Journal about how the dean should have responded. What’s remarkable to me is how indulgent universities are of the Special Leftist Snowflakes and their little dramas. Lack of institutional self-confidence is one explanation – they’ve spent so many decades in the thrall of political correctness that they find themselves unable to defend themselves against the next logical progression of PC thought.
Higher Education has deconstructed the culture of intellectual liberty and eschewed its tradition of robust debate in favour of pandering and pampering and the tearful narrative of victimhood. They’ve sown the wind and are now reaping their crop. And what a bumper crop of nuts it is!
To be clear, it’s the small minority of students who get involved in this sort of thing, but then the Bolsheviks were a minority too. If you are unable to even articulate resistance to extremists, guess who’s more likely to wear down the other side and get their way?
But confidence isn’t the only factor. The other problem is that the people running universities all too often sympathise with the pimply teenage Trots issuing demands and threats to them. It’s a sadomasochistic relationship, like 50 Shades of Che.
If a group of ardent right wingers occupied a university building and demanded more privatisation of university services, cheaper beer, and more attractive freshers, you can bet your Jack Wills hoodie that there would be no “dialogue” of any kind. University security and the local constabulary would be called to the scene and disciplinary action including rustication would ensue.
Special Leftist Snowflakes, on the other hand, are allowed by campus authorities to get away with trespass, criminal damage, and the wilful disruption of university business so long as they utter magic words like “diversity”.
At Glasgow University, a similar little melodrama was allowed by the university to continue for seven whole months. Despite visits from “comedian” Mark Steel, “singer” Billy Bragg, and “grown man” Owen Jones, the little darlings remained in situ with petted lips fixed till the university agreed terms with them.
It’s almost as if middle aged academics like being dictated to by the heirs of Vivian from “The Young Ones”.
It’s almost as if middle aged academics like being dictated to by the heirs of Vivian from “The Young Ones”.
Heather Mac Donald described the dynamic as “a co-dependent relationship between self-engrossed students and adults whose careers consist of catering to that self-involvement.” Which sounds about right.
Poor Laurie Penny, getting it in the neck again. And all she did was lie (again).
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/laurie-penny-of-newstatesman-is-a-petulant-dishonest-child-whos-been-caught-again-pennyred/
an accomplished mathematician who for some reason took the job last year.
That’s good!
That can’t be Dartmouth they’re talking about! When did Dartmouth start imitating Concordia and what kind of parent would shell out $63K for 9 months tuition only to have their kid rub elbows with community college riffraff?
Dartmouth’s annual tuition of $65,133. . .
I know it’s only “back of the napkin,” but I figure I’ll spend less than two thirds of that amount for four years of college at a well-respected, public STEM university for my son, after which, he will a)have degrees in Applied Math and Petroleum Engineering and b)a starting salary close to six figures. Of course, the downside is he’s learning how to economically rape Mother Gaia, which leaves precious little time to pursue “demand[ing] body and gender self-determination.”
I’m afraid I’ve failed as a parent.
R Sherman,
I denounce your pragmatism.
“Mr Hanlon can be seen agog as his charges berate him for his “micro-aggressions””
The students have found/been taught a way to justify real aggressions by throw accusations of unidentifiable aggressions. I moonlighted as a nigh club doorman during my time in the army. These students remind me of the scum bags that would smash a glass in someone’s face for the “micro-aggression” of looking at them the wrong way.
I figure I’ll spend less than two thirds of that amount for four years of college at a well-respected, public STEM university for my son, after which, he will a)have degrees in Applied Math and Petroleum Engineering and b)a starting salary close to six figures.
But what about those library catalogues that need checking for ableist and cis-normative terms?
(What does the number — 118, in this case — mean after the Elsewhere titles?)
These students remind me of the scum bags that would smash a glass in someone’s face for the “micro-aggression” of looking at them the wrong way.
The dynamic is often very similar. See, for instance, this. Or this. Or this.
Dom,
It’s the 118th ‘Elsewhere’ post.
Anna, I’m afraid the whole catalog is a nest of oppression. After all, calculus was invented by a white guy.
Wankers.
Sorry, but I was just unable to find a more appropriate way of summing up my response to the students in that WSJ article.
However, I was amused by the presumption tucked away at the heart of this demand:
Create a professor of color lecture series; bring a professor of color once a month in order to expose the Dartmouth community to a wide range of ideas
No doubt at all in my mind that the protesting students would extend a warm and hearty welcome to the persons, ideas and views expressed by, I don’t know,this economist say, or this Nobel prize-winning writer or this writer and educator or perhaps this world-leading neurosurgeon or indeed this former senior member of the US government – all of whom might qualify as a PoC professor under the terms of the protestors’ demand and each of whom would, I think, make for suitable speakers (a fact that would of course still be true in the complete absence of any considerations for genetic or cultural inheritance).
It’s almost a commonplace, but I still think it’s worth noting the irony that those at the far fringe of identity politics, – i.e. those who go far beyond demanding equality before the law regardless of one’s race, gender, sexuality etc. – are themselves basically race-obsessed racists. Often profoundly so.
That’s not a lazy or idle claim. Anyone who has seen the open vitriol* that has, at various times, been poured on each of the people I just linked to will know that such speakers are attacked at least as often for their race, class, etc. by professed anti-racists and antifascists as they are for more reasonable targets, i.e. the actual ideas and politics they espouse.
*None of this namby-pamby ‘is-it-or-isn’t-it’ structurally formulated ‘microagression’ bullshit for such apostates; no, no quite openly racially-themed invective and verbal stoning does just fine.
Having an expectation that people born into certain circumstances are somehow ‘inauthentic’, ‘traitors’ or some kind of ‘government stooge’ is not refined to Dartmouth undergraduates.
Here’s Owen Jones, in his own words, from the BBC’s Moral Maze discussion on Class:
Owen Jones: Yep, I think in fact I don’t think you’ve even invited anyone who’s not middle class this evening which is, er, slightly unfortunate turn of events on the part of the BBC […]
Claire Fox: It was an interesting point you made about– We should have had a working class person on. I mean, is there not a danger that this just does become some kind of, er, identity politics game?
Owen Jones: I think there’s a danger but I think it’s always good to have people, I mean if you’re going to have a debate about class with four guests, then have somebody who can talk from experience. I don’t think it’s about identity. It’s just lived experience is important […] I think, y’know, a big crisis in British politics is a lack of working class representation. I mean it comes back to the point I just made really. Having people able to speak for themselves in an organized way […] having an organized movement that can represent the interests of working people in the broadest possible sense
Although Jones talks about allowing people to speak for themselves, I feel fairly sure that what he heavily implies here is that an ‘authentic’ working class opinion would be one that naturally matches his own political views, whereas the voices of people such as (Lord) Alan Sugar, Theo Paphitis or Duncan Bannatyne (all working class men who have gone on to become millionaires and media celebrities in the UK) or the voices of those working class people who aspire to be like such entrepreneurs would presumably be ‘inauthentic’ in Jones’s view – meaning that their views are not representative of the ‘real’ working class issues and concerns (as defined by Guardian journalist Owen Jones).
On the subject of academia’s dysfunction, this seems sort of relevant.
Even in pretty mundane interactions – say, an after-lecture Q&A – the mental narrowness on display is often quite revealing. Last year, Professor Janice Fiamengo noted a tendency within academic feminism to beg the question, distort data and be unwelcoming of dissent. Feminist students in the audience did the usual dance of indignation, with interruptions, wild projection and screamed outrage, much of which rather proved Fiamengo’s point. (The video linked above is quite long and may only be of interest to readers who like marvelling at what passes for intellectual debate among fans of Women’s Studies.)
More recent attempts to censor and intimidate Fiamengo during her lectures – blowing horns, banging desks and derailing the lecture entirely – have underlined that tendency. Having revealed Women’s Studies scholarship as often deficient and misleading, which it is, laughably so, and having noted a general tendency towards dogmatism, she’s now apparently a target for payback. Apparently, identity politics demands conformity. WrongThought™ must be purged.
Nik – a little known fact about Owen Jones is that he’s actually hard.
I heard he has the Sheffield United crest tattooed on his chest, right next to the one saying “Mum”. He’s banned from the KFC in Islington after an incident where they forgot to add hot wings to his Wicked Variety Bucket and he went mental, challenging the terrified staff to have a go.
He might look like he doesn’t need to shave and carries a fake ID to get served in pubs, he may even look like James Spader and E.T. had an anaemic baby, but don’t ever mess with OJ or he will batter you.
Nik,
such [non-leftwing] speakers are attacked at least as often for their race, class, etc. by professed anti-racists and antifascists as they are for more reasonable targets, i.e. the actual ideas and politics they espouse.
Absolutely. The terms “Uncle Tom” and “political Mandingo” come to mind, among others. Likewise, as in the Fiamengo videos, it’s interesting how the pious and sensitive souls who bang on about “intersectional privilege,” “inclusiveness” and “gender oppression” are often visibly determined to demoralise and gang up on an unassuming woman who disagrees with them. Evidently the rules they profess regarding enlightened propriety are very much conditional and aren’t extended to someone regarded as a dissenter, and therefore an obstacle.
Steve 2,
I heard he has the Sheffield United crest tattooed on his chest, right next to the one saying “Mum”.
He’s not allowed to call her that.
Close the department of women’s [sic] and gender studies and fire assistant history professor Russel Rickford who is apparently bound for Cornell anyway. Cornell should, in turn, rescind its offer and the department choosing to hire this miscreant should likewise be overhauled. Clearly there is no risk to Dartmouth’s university status.
PS: “you kids have ten minutes to go away. After that, we send in the bulls to beat your asses and toss you in the clink. Questions?”
These people (the Dartmouth College students) are mentally ill.
What I find most appalling about all this garbage is the “entitlement” from many of these progressive/leftist douchebags, something they often accuse their detractors of. It’s hilarious to see ethnic minorities (speaking as one, although lately some ethno-fasicsts are beginning to attack “White”, light skinned Latinos/Hispanics and those of the Caucasian/European extractions) and others stoop to such a low level. My God, these identity politics are continuously proving to be extremely toxic in the academia. Whatever happened to being content with who you are?
Ones that are perceived as favouring men are labelled “gaps,” while those that favour women are simply facts.
That reminds of a column written years ago by Pat Buchanan in which he gave stats regarding public sector employment in CA. The punch line was that blacks are wildly overrepresented in state govt agencies. I can’t find a link to the article, but as I recall, blacks comprised over 60% of the employees in some agencies, esp. those involving social services, despite the fact that blacks represented well under 10% of the population. Never stopped the usual suspects from complaining about racism in state hiring practices though.
My God, these identity politics are continuously proving to be extremely toxic in the academia. Whatever happened to being content with who you are?
Well, actually, they do have a point. As we all know and agree, the world will completely come to an end if we have the Picts mixing with the Angles, and it’ll be even worse if the Saxons even get mixed in. Anything like that and we’ll even have the Normans demanding to get involved, and we all remember how bad it was with the Akkadians . . . .
Only 72?
They couldn’t bump it up to 95?
The lists being of equal gravity and import, that is.
I wonder how many of these ‘occupiers’ spending $65,133 a year on tuition are ever going to be employable in the real world.
They couldn’t bump it up to 95?
Well, apparently once you get past 11 it’s difficult to stop.
72 demands? One for each virgin I suppose.
OT. Some really interesting findings about displaying 3D virtual spaces and how men and women process them differently (aka makes women sick). Some really interesting questions for 3d rendering… Unfortunately the article is framed as “OCCULUS RIFT IS SEXIST!” http://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be-sexist/
Money Quote: “Being an activist and a troublemaker, I walked straight into the office of the head CAVE researcher and declared the CAVE sexist.”
Trigger warning on the previous article though. The author refers to people who are “biologically” male and female. She is already being appropriately denounced in the comments.
How did this uttering of threats not result in criminal charges and the expulsion of these little felons?
As of 22:30 -0600 conservatives are PWNing the #INeedFeminismBecause
I wonder how many of these ‘occupiers’ spending $65,133 a year on tuition are ever going to be employable in the real world.
I’m trying to imagine how you’d describe such ‘activism’ on a CV: “I also spent weeks (and lots of someone else’s money) aggravating people in ostentatious ways, wasting their time and disrupting their work, laying siege to their offices and making ludicrous, self-flattering demands, and generally being full of myself. Because that’s who I am.” Well, maybe not quite like that. It’s a little too honest.
But as I’ve said before, this kind of obnoxious and narcissistic behaviour is regarded as a credential by many students on the left, as somehow self-validating, something to be proud of. It’s what elevates them within their own immediate peer group. They’re achieving their in-group status, their imagined radical chic, by imposing on others – people about whom they simply don’t care or for whom they show outright contempt. It’s more than a little symbolic that the disruption and clearing up are always at someone else’s expense. Despite the guff about “social justice,” their behaviour is fundamentally parasitic.
And who wouldn’t want to hire someone who wants to abolish capitalism, who hallucinates “white supremacy,” who dismisses dialogue as “racialized and white” and “gendered and masculine” and therefore invalid, and who threatens “physical action” if their absurd demands aren’t met?
[ Edited. ]
Despite the guff about “social justice,” their behaviour is fundamentally parasitic.
These airhead class warriors are an insult to all the people who could have gone to Dartmouth in their place and who would have made something of the opportunity instead of pissing about.
Steve2,
Wow, a 72 point manifesto! Let 100 precious little hothouse flowers bloom.
…and I thought they just had a large font on the sign. I wonder if this manifesto has been published anywhere?
David, the Guardian is on about cupcakes again. This time they’re a metaphor for fascism (or something).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/beware-of-cupcake-fascism
the Guardian is on about cupcakes again. This time they’re a metaphor for fascism (or something).
Oh my. Where to start? Mr Whyman really is desperate to let us know just how clever he is, what with being so radical and so terribly leftwing:
Though his disregard for basic facts – not least about the 2011 riots – isn’t exactly helping his case. It’s all rather, “Bow before my jargon, my needless enormous words. Just don’t look at the joins, or where the logic should be, or the things I just assume.” It’s actually quite dismaying just how thoroughly Marxoid fantasy damages the mind. And then I saw this. “Tom Whyman is a PhD philosophy student.” Yes, money well spent.
Rafi beats me to linking to gruaniad clickbait.
If you want to tell Dr Hanlon what you think about a college president capitulating to juvenile narcissists, why not email him?
President’s.Office@Dartmouth.edu
I think I will.
>It can make people tie themselves in knots, and lie and hallucinate –
I speculate on a cause. Oxytocin poisoning their brain.
Who wouldn’t want to hire someone who wants to abolish capitalism, who hallucinates “white supremacy,” who dismisses dialogue as “racialized and white” and “gendered and masculine” and therefore invalid, and who threatens “physical action” if their absurd demands aren’t met?
Leftism + identity politics = employer repellent. (Except in academia.)
employer repellent
Quite. I’m assuming their parents thought it was worth $63K a year just to get the aggravating little shits out of the house for a while. Though they’ll be back, I suspect.
Though they’ll be back, I suspect.
Probably for the rest of their lives. Having not been able to get any employment at all from bogus Women studies, or puppeteer classes.Including a useless Art degree.
These children will be slaves to loans for life, with no hope of work.
Most likely alcoholic by 30. Not married , playing computer games in their tiny cubicle of a room.
So, any word from riot enthusiast Laurie Penny about the riots currently convulsing the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?
Laurie? Laurie?
It’s difficult to believe that cup-cake piece isn’t a (poorly written) parody. What a tosser.
The totally impartial, not-at-all-activist IRS.
For more, see the 300-and-odd entries here.
“So, any word from riot enthusiast Laurie Penny about the riots currently convulsing the socialist utopia that is Venezuela?”
Nothing from Laurie, but Seamus Milne has it all worked out. It’s the racist middle classes.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/09/venezuela-protest-defence-privilege-maduro-elites
“What are portrayed as peaceful protests have all the hallmarks of an anti-democratic rebellion, shot through with class privilege and racism.”
Oh, and the Americans:
“It’s hardly surprising in the circumstances that Maduro regards what’s been going on as Ukraine-style US-backed destabilisation, as he told me.”
It’s hardly surprising that Shameless would buy into that self-serving lie.
Keep it classy, Guardian. Seriously, how delusional do you have to be to see what’s going on in Venezuela. Privilege and racism? Such things are found throughout ALL Latin American countries. I suppose a woman crying her eyes out in the subway (there’s a video of it) about the state the country is in, her frustrations with the current government and wondering what type of future her child is going to have is “privileged”. No wonder it’s so easy to joke about leftist douchebags and their rants about “privilege”. But then again, she is light skinned ….so I guess her own grievances don’t count.