Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,460
» Latest member: mephisto
» Forum threads: 1,618
» Forum posts: 11,889

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 75 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 73 Guest(s)
Google, Majestic-12 [Bot]

Latest Threads
American History
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Martin Eisenstadt
04-01-2020, 07:08 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 137
Convict Hosts Dem Funder
Forum: George Gollin
Last Post: ham
03-31-2020, 11:11 PM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 13,628
I'm an Indian Too
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Martin Eisenstadt
03-21-2020, 05:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,156
Fitzwilliam Institute
Forum: Unaccredited vs. State-Approved vs. Accredited
Last Post: jhB123456
03-12-2020, 01:39 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 37,819
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: delafaide
03-05-2020, 01:39 AM
» Replies: 21
» Views: 69,546
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Martin Eisenstadt
02-10-2020, 08:54 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 671
Why Give $ to Socialist M...
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Fort Bragg
02-02-2020, 08:19 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 742
Merry Xmas You Assholes!
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: ham
12-23-2019, 07:54 PM
» Replies: 23
» Views: 68,876
President Trump Needs to ...
Forum: Distance Learning Discussion
Last Post: Fort Bragg
12-21-2019, 09:20 AM
» Replies: 20
» Views: 37,555
IL Progtard Maniac Shoots...
Forum: George Gollin
Last Post: Harrison J Bounel
12-16-2019, 12:41 PM
» Replies: 24
» Views: 25,305

  American History
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 03-26-2020, 03:34 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (2)

I was bored and the courses were free so I took American History I & II.  Funny how history has changed so much since the last time I took it 40 years ago.  I didn't know that the whole point of settlement of America from 1492 to 2020 was to abuse black people and nothing else.  It was odd the last time I took it from a communist prof in a yarmulke but this is nuts.  The other thing that's nuts is the amount of semi-literate black and female literature they stuff into an American Literature course.  Universities are now re-education camps.  Why do people put up with it?

Print this item

Posted by: Fort Bragg - 02-07-2020, 12:06 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (3)

That was disgusting, Nancy Pelosi tearing up her liquor bill in Congress.

Print this item

  Why Give $ to Socialist Mills?
Posted by: Harrison J Bounel - 01-26-2020, 02:47 PM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (3)

Quote:Preventing Suicide by Higher Education

Arthur Milikh

From the birth of the modern conservative movement, dissidents concerned with civic and liberal education have tried almost everything to reshape America's universities: from refusing to donate to their alma maters (as William F. Buckley prescribed), to funding tenure-track positions, forming independent centers on campuses to host outside speakers, organizing external supplementary seminars to make up for what students do not get in the classroom, and creating new academic departments. Despite 70 years of increasingly sophisticated efforts, conservatives are now begging on many campuses merely to be heard.

America's universities have been progressivism's most important asset, its crown jewel. For over half a century, they have served as the left's R&D headquarters and the intellectual origin or dissemination point for the political and moral transformation of the nation, especially through the sexual revolution and the identity-politics revolution. Universities have trained the new elites who have taken society's helm and now set its tone through the other institutions thoroughly dominated by the left: the mainstream press, mass entertainment, Fortune 500s, and tech companies. Universities have also brought to rural and suburban America these moral revolutions, converting generations of young people to their cause. Universities are arguably the most important institution in modern democracy — no other institution has such power to determine the fate of democracy, for good or ill.

Universities were meant be the one fixed place in democratic society insulated from the ceaseless motion of democratic life, with its petty passions, consumption, and moral and intellectual fashions. They were meant to serve as the guardian of the mind and its greatest fruits. In previous eras, segments of society (especially the clergy and the aristocracy) were devoted to protecting learning and a tradition of books. But democracy does not support such classes, and it was originally hoped that the universities would assume this role. Regrettably, they are no longer animated by their original purpose of serving republican self-government or the freedom of the mind. As such, they must be treated as political entities.

That the freedom of speech is under attack on many campuses should not be surprising, given that the freedom of the mind, of which speech is the expression, is rarely understood as their purpose any longer. Without that purpose, most American universities no longer serve the public good for which they were created and for which they continue to be publicly funded. Their transformation, which in turn has led to the transformation of the nation, has taken place with the unwitting assistance of American taxpayers — and amounts to defrauding the public. If citizens are compelled to pay for others to go to college, it should be to the benefit of the entire nation — forming good citizens and advancing useful sciences, rather than teaching the rising generation that the nation is irredeemably evil. Taxpayers have funded the research, bankrolled the student loans (including generous forgiveness programs), and allowed the universities and their enormous endowments to operate without paying taxes. These funding sources are the operational life blood of universities, but they can no longer be justified. In fact, it seems likely that the nation would be better off if the vast majority of America's more than 3,000 colleges and universities closed down.

An executive order signed by President Trump on March 21, 2019, gives administrators in 12 executive-branch agencies that issue research grants broad discretion to withhold funding from universities that suppress "free inquiry" and "undermine learning." This is a worthwhile half-step to chastening them. But given where things stand, bolder, more aggressive action is needed. If the universities are going to be rebuilt, only external force, rather than pleading or slight policy modifications, will work. Success in this could bring generational change.


Modern democracies have a special need for universities in a way that other regimes do not. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Letter to M. D'Alembert on the Theater concludes with a scene from Sparta where three generations — the frail, those in full bloom, and the young — sing together a song whose verses articulate the place of each generation in their ancestral order. Such a people does not need modern universities, as their existence is ordered by their traditions, laws, and gods. Our Enlightenment-informed republic, however, requires the production of citizens in accord with it. We cannot be a nation of war-like men guided by ancestral gods; we need citizens capable of commerce, modern science, rights-based self-rule, and political prudence. Perhaps most critically, our universities must actively correct certain vices stemming from the nature of our regime, seeking to forfend the mass production of souls modeled on mass tastes, suited mainly for intellectual and moral conformity, consumption, and industriousness alone.

The first traditional purpose of our colleges and universities is civic education, which aims to preserve the nation by creating citizens suited to it. Through civic education, citizens are prepared for political self-rule by developing rational habits of mind, the capacity for forming political judgments, and a moral character capable of self-restraint and toleration. Civic education also teaches reverence for something beyond the very strong forces silently guiding democracies, especially public opinion, with its overwhelming capacity to determine all tastes, objects of worship, and moral horizons. Civic education thus attempts to preserve images of human greatness against the sea of intellectual and moral conformity, while instilling at least a modicum of reverence and affection for the nation and the tradition upon which it is built — its history, its greatest individuals, and its contributions. Individuals are thus trained to become parts of a whole. Our natural-rights republic does not require mindless assent but can (and should) be defended rationally.

The second purpose of our universities is modern natural science. The origin of this goal is found in the works of René Descartes and Francis Bacon. Modern natural science, distinct from ancient science, is concerned with two different ends according to its inventors. The first is unlocking the inner secrets of material nature in order to increase human powers and thereby relieve man's estate. The second is articulating a comprehensive opinion of the material world and thereby ridding man's mind of reliance on natural and conventional prejudices.

The scientific enterprise requires large institutions, public respectability, and the employment of a multitude of minds that would otherwise be badly used in what Descartes calls scholastic "disputations." Moreover, because of the brevity of a single life, Descartes writes, "one man alone cannot perform all the experiments that can be useful." Generations of scientists must accumulate and build up scientific knowledge in order to penetrate more deeply the laws of matter. And since no one man is sufficiently wealthy to take on this expensive enterprise, entire nations must be engaged.

The power of the new nations created on the basis of Cartesian and Baconian Enlightenment depends on the new power of science. Alexander Hamilton, second only to Benjamin Franklin in his understanding of this aspect of the modern project, discusses in the Federalist Papers the extent to which industrialization and commerce, based on science, will be America's main comparative advantage against other nations, since conquest and empire, which contradict the natural-rights teaching, are not feasible sources of wealth and power for republics.

Science applied to industry is for Hamilton both defensive and offensive: It compels other traditional nations to compete on America's terms — scientific and commercial — a battleground on which we have great advantages. It is defensive because the effectual truth of science and industry will weaken other nations' attachments to traditional pieties, which can inflict harm on us. Moreover, since the genie of modern science is now out of the bottle, and other nations, some of them enemies, possess it and threaten to out-compete us, the United States has no choice but to succeed in this area.

But modern science is not and should not be the university's highest goal. In important ways, modern science exists uneasily alongside both civic education and liberal education, the highest goals of the university. Liberal education is concerned primarily with philosophical self-knowledge, which consists in confronting our own contradictions and errors: the prejudices that come from our own times (like the authoritative opinions that order the lives and self-understanding of most), and the prejudices given to all by nature. This purpose includes the quiet questioning of the modern scientific account of material nature as the final, comprehensive view. In this sense, the university's duty is to resist becoming merely utilitarian; that is, devoting itself wholly to serving the public's needs or demands, and thereby becoming its flatterers.

Today, these three ends are either corrupted or on their way to corruption in the great majority of America's universities. In their confusion about or open rebellion against these ends, America's universities too often create students in the opposite vein: ideologues with technical skills, despisers of tradition without insight (not to mention wisdom), or scientists without perspective. These problems are hardly new and have been the centerpiece of the conservative critique of higher education for more than half a century. What is new, however, is the thoroughness of the corruption, the impossibility at this point of changing course through conventional means, and the extent of the pernicious effects of these institutions on the nation as a whole.


Allan Bloom's remarkable 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind, is still unmatched in its treatment of the problem of America's universities. According to Bloom, beginning in the 1940s but blossoming in the 1960s, many American academics superficially and gleefully appropriated the tenets of Friedrich Nietzsche and his followers (especially Freud and Weber) in adopting a thin relativism suitable for democracy. Moral and intellectual relativism, these academics argued, would lead to a tolerant and open social order called multiculturalism. But relativism had two effects. The first was the thinning out of all cultures and opinions to make them serve the genuine goals that guided these academics: moral permissiveness and a conflict-free existence. The second, unanticipated, though truer outgrowth of relativism — which yielded the opposite of its first goal — was the elevation of "commitment," or unyielding moral attachment in the absence of an intelligible justification of its truth.

The contemporary manifestation of commitment is called "identity," and it is expressed especially through race and sexuality. Identity, as it is broadly understood today, is an unfalsifiable, self-created opinion of oneself or one's group that others must recognize, accommodate, and celebrate. Identity has become sacred, placed beyond questioning or criticism. But the sacredness of identity applies only to allegedly oppressed or marginalized groups. These are allowed to possess an identity, while the alleged oppressors must not only be denied an identity but must perpetually atone for the oppression stemming from it. Herbert Marcuse's goal of getting universities to teach that "history was the development of oppression" has not only succeeded — it is now publicly financed.

These doctrines stand in stark contrast to natural rights, the foundational teaching of America. Natural rights mean that human beings belong to a common humanity, not to an identity group. As such, all human beings have the same rights, which can be grasped rationally. Since all human beings possess rights, a political common good is possible, as is mutual understanding and rational persuasion. Deep commitments, to the contrary, imply real conflict.

A generation after Bloom's writing, identity fanaticism, having first gained institutional support in the universities, and now in the Democratic Party, has turned to demanding conformity and punishing dissenters. The next logical outgrowth of identity politics is suppression of free speech, as speech is the expression of a free, questioning mind. An example of this fanaticism is captured in a letter written by Williams College students to faculty members who supported the adoption of the University of Chicago statement in defense of free speech on campuses. For these students, enforcing the freedom of speech is merely a reflection of "white fragility" and "discursive violence," and is thus primarily supported by "white faculty," the oppressor group. This letter reflects beliefs widely held by faculty and students across the nation's universities. If universities once understood their purpose as seeking intellectual clarity, now rational questioning of identity theories is itself an act of violence.

In fact, raising the basic contradictions of dangerous and anti-republican theories in the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry has become impossible on most campuses — perhaps the only place in American society where such thinking could take place. How it is, for example, that deeply meaningful identity can emerge from an act of will remains unanswered. Nor can one ask why marginalization itself leads to a special knowledge of justice, rather than to distortion; and if marginalization grants access to the truth about justice, marginalization would then imply superiority in terms of human goods like moral purity and knowledge. Nor can one ask how meaningful identity can be present during the struggle against identity-denying oppression without identity being defined exclusively in terms of opposition and therefore lacking positive content. Finally, as these doctrines are applied to politics, should one conclude that the rights of the oppressor group should be taken away?

Without the moderating force of reason, fanatical identity attachments often terminate in anger and the desire for punishment. Since rational inquiry (or perhaps religious belief) could have once openly moderated these passions, in its absence, the new identities become these passions, and come to dominate the nation. The net effect is fanatical group attachments without a common good.

Writing in the late 1980s, Bloom's book presumed a high concentration of scholars devoted enough to seeking the truth in their fields — scholars whose minds were sufficiently open to the value of truth — so as to care about liberal education. These regrettably have largely disappeared. And Bloom did not witness the radicalization of university administrators, beginning in the early 2000s, who have doubled down on the identity-politics project. Indeed, the purpose of such university administrators, now found on nearly all campuses, is to forcefully secure the dogmas of identity politics and spread them to the nation by teaching students obedience to them.

Not only students' minds but their characters are formed by these new doctrines. Liberal education should cultivate the capacity for self-criticism, the opposite of self-satisfaction, which coheres with republican citizenship or opens them to philosophical self-knowledge. But teaching that all of history is merely oppression has the opposite effect: It creates the sense that the allegedly liberated individual or group is somehow on the cusp of history, and therefore possesses deep knowledge and insight, and it promises that rebellion leads to inner wholeness and honor. This spirit forecloses the capacity for subordinance to higher reason or belief in a political common good.

Moreover, asserting that human happiness is gained through non-rational identity creation — rather than self-exploration, attachment to one's nation, family, or romantic love — creates no wisdom for life, let alone philosophic wisdom, and leaves many young adherents confused and unhappy. Future citizens, statesmen, and free minds cannot emerge from such teachings. For instance, neither love nor families form as a result of teachings about a global patriarchal conspiracy against women. What forms instead is a war between the sexes, an ethic of using and being used, which, in turn, fails to form the virtues of character that are the groundwork from which love grows. Having destroyed any sense of belonging to a just order, what remains is anger and vengeance, the satisfaction of which determines one's self-respect. Students are often left to understand that there is no nation, love, or even gender — only open self-creation and, ironically, dogmatic conformity to this doctrine.

Institutions that aggressively advance such teachings and form young people on such a model are intensely hostile to the core ideals of American life. And such institutions should not be supported with public funds. Universities' tax-exempt status, we might recall, is granted only on account of the promise that they serve the public good. By this criterion, it is time to reconsider that status. The condition of our universities has degenerated to such a degree that action is required. Those still concerned with civic and liberal education have two specific levers of power at their disposal at the federal level: Federal research money can be revoked, and student loans can be returned to the private domain.


A nation that publicly funds institutions must obtain something beneficial from them. America surely benefits from some of the scientific research and discoveries produced by our best universities. But the sciences give many of America's flagship universities public respectability and thereby allow them to hold hostage public funding that supports their other, anti-republican, elements.

Total research funding given to universities is around $40 billion annually. Despite this large sum, there is currently no accurate and reliable publicly accessible online database that accounts for all money issued to all universities from all government granting agencies. Detailed designations of the money, to whom it goes, and exactly how it is distributed, are difficult to trace.

Moreover, since money is fungible, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a portion of these federal funds goes toward the administrators that serve as the ground forces of the identity-politics revolution. Nationwide, the number of university administrators increased by roughly 60% between 1993 and 2009. And universities collect overhead fees from research grants: The base rate averages 52% nationwide, and is far higher at some places, including 67.5% at Yale University. Distribution of these overhead fees is not publicly traceable, though one can presume they support the diversity administration, among other uses.

Just as identity politics has undermined civic and liberal education, so too are taxpayers funding "research" that may undermine science. For instance, as Elizabeth Harrington has documented, the University of California, Berkeley, received $1,999,886 from the National Science Foundation to "zero in on the ways in which students' stigmatized identities may be particularly sensitive to structure and belonging" in STEM concentrations. The University of New Hampshire received $999,752 from the National Science Foundation to "create systemic institutional change by scaling up the levels of awareness about and interventions used to address implicit bias in scientific research and learning settings." California Polytechnic State University received $570,890 from the National Science Foundation to systematically conceptualize "how labor segregation may relate to an ideological hierarchy between the social and technical dimensions [in Engineering and Computer Science] and influence cultural exclusions along intersecting vectors of gender and race." Iowa State University and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University received $368,695 from the National Science Foundation to study building "a gender and race microaggressions psychometric scale" that offers "An Intersectional Perspective to Studying Microaggressions in Engineering Programs." Similar examples abound. While it is easy to snicker at such studies (the costs of which amount to relatively little in the larger scheme of federal spending), one detects their underlying aim: enforcing identity politics in the sciences. The moral purification of the sciences may become more important than scientific progress itself.

Should the identity revolution fully impose itself on the sciences — among the last places in universities where the freedom of the mind still excels and is celebrated — they will wither on the branch as have the social sciences and the humanities, with untold losses to our national wealth, power, and prestige. This corrosion will be slow and hidden from the public eye, but likely irreversible once it is visible to all. Tocqueville foresaw this possibility and used the image of China as a warning to America. The Chinese, he says, long ago had refined arts and sciences:

Quote:The nation was industrial; most of the scientific methods had been preserved within it; but science itself no longer existed....The Chinese, in following the trail of their fathers, had forgotten the reasons that had directed them. They still made use of the formula without seeking the sense of it; they kept the instrument and no longer possessed the art of modifying and reproducing it. Therefore the Chinese could not change anything. They had to renounce improvement.

We should not assume that science will prosper forever in the absence of the right intellectual conditions.

What suicidal nation would continue to publicly fund institutions that intentionally or even semi-consciously undermine the strength and unity of the society that protects them? To set an example, President Trump (or future presidents) could use his March 21st executive order to remove federal research funds from a single university for a violation of students' freedom of speech. That money could then be given to a university that does fulfill its public purpose, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to use one example. The federal government could even pay to transfer the laboratories and scientists — or fund the creation of new national laboratories.

While this sounds radical, and although there is disagreement among conservatives, it is less radical than tolerating what is already taking place. While it is bad to interrupt scientific research in such a way, it is worse and more dangerous to maintain institutions working to sink the nation while hiding behind the prestige of science. The goal, again, is to make universities serve their fundamental purpose, which at this point can be done only by rebuilding them after they are significantly weakened.


America's taxpayers also continue to fund the corruption of the nation by footing the bill for student loans. Federal student-loan funding pays for the indoctrination of students and builds up the wealth, reach, and prestige of these institutions. Cumulative outstanding student-loan debt currently sits at over $1.5 trillion. Today, the federal government originates and services 90% of all student loans.

As the quality of education gets worse, the price of college tuition increases. It has grown almost eight times faster than wages over the last three decades, and there is no natural limit in sight. Will the government resist lending to students when, in 15 years, universities offer an even worse education, on campuses with even larger diversity infrastructures, where the cost is $150,000 a year?  In no reasonable world is money lent in such a fashion. But currently the U.S. government, which represents American citizens, does not say "no" to students — no matter how frivolous or corrupting the education they will receive, and regardless of how underqualified the students may be. The present arrangement of limitless lending has become a kind of scheme for universities. They slowly build up their administrative staff and their faux-educational facilities, thereby falsely justifying rising costs, all to create students hostile to the nation.

America's taxpayers lend out money to many students who simply are not suited for college. Among the incoming class of 2010 entering four-year institutions, the four-year graduation rate was 40.6%, the five-year rate 55.8%, and the six-year rate 59.8%. At some universities, the six-year graduation rate was below 10%. Though the decent goal behind allowing everyone entrance into college has not been achieved, the universities have greatly profited. But the students, for whom universities have deflated the entrance requirements with a view to their own enrichment, leave without a degree, indebted, and often humiliated. Since the university does not hold the debt, it has an incentive to let almost anyone in, and thereby gives students the impression that they can succeed, even if they are clearly unqualified.

The federal government must get out of the lending business, which means a return to the pre-1965 system where private lenders fund the education of those whom they believe will be able to repay their loans. Specifically, Congress should end the direct-loan program and the PLUS loan program, which provide federal loans to graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students. It should also, as was the case before 1965, not guarantee private loans. No private lender would give money for a degree in grievance studies that costs $300,000.

One solution for preserving liberal education for the best students is currently being employed by Purdue University. Purdue lends money directly to students whom it believes can successfully complete their educational programs; the university therefore has a stake in the students' success. That Yale's $30 billion endowment goes untouched while students borrow from taxpayers is unconscionable.

If we were to end the federal lending programs, as fewer and fewer graduate from colleges, the employment ecosystem and America's moral horizon would change for the better. Most practical degree programs can return to apprenticeship models. One does not need a four-year college degree to pass a Certified Public Accounting exam. Furthermore, the shortage of working-class labor in America is used to lobby for the importation of immigrants. Few Americans want to hang sheetrock after attending college. While having learned very little in classes, they have, however, often acquired a classist snobbery (and massive debt) that looks down on such labor — even if the wages for it might be higher than for the white-collar jobs to which they aspire.


Reforms like these would be catastrophic for key elements of the existing model of higher education in America. But they could be enormously helpful to forms of higher education that actually serve the nation and fulfill the purpose of the university.

Addicted as they are to federal funding, the administrators of our flagship universities may become more obliging, while mid-tier schools, having enriched themselves for too long from student loans, will close their doors.

If large parts of the current system collapse, donors can regenerate colleges in new forms. From the ashes, the best faculty could be plucked to teach in new institutions devoted to liberal education. Hillsdale College, for example, has raised nearly $1.3 billion over the past 20 years, entirely from private funds, and it does not accept federal student aid. It is likely that such private funding will be found to buy bankrupted colleges in order to make them anew.

The purpose of such proposals is not punitive. It is simple sense. Universities that spread poisonous doctrines no longer believe in the purpose of the university. While it is their right to disagree with this purpose, they should not be the beneficiaries of public funds. No society should be expected to subsidize its own corrosion.

Print this item

  I'm an Indian Too
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 09-19-2019, 12:34 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (3)

Elizabeth Warren looks like she has a chance.  She's loonier than Hillary.  Nice video.


Print this item

  Gruesome Greta
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 08-31-2019, 12:09 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (6)

Everyone's favorite Miss Asperger 2019, Gruesome Greta, sailed across the Atlantic so as to not use carbon but her crew flew back as she likely will because she now has no crew.  Her flying alone would have released much less carbon but environmental types are normally hypocrites.  And I bet she threw her turds over the side and likely choked a dolphin.


Print this item

  Gollin Brat Alma Mater Hit With $33 Million Judgment
Posted by: Armando Ramos - 06-15-2019, 07:15 PM - Forum: George Gollin - Replies (4)

Treble damages and attorney fees.  This is what happens when normal people get a load of what is happening on Marxist college campuses.  Turtleboy had the best take I saw:

Quote:Dumbass Oberlin College Students Cost The School $33 Million For Destroying A Family Owned Business They Called Racist After A Whiny Bitch Got Caught Stealing

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-11.00.49-AM-807x460.png]

Oberlin College’s most famous alumni is Lena Dunham. Nuff said. The private Ohio school also made headlines when their students demanded that the college pay them to protest, protested over cultural appropriation when they served Asian food and fried chicken in the cafeteria, and demanded that the college replace grades below C with a “conversation” with the professor because Karl Marx was racist.

Well, they’re back in the news again, and this time it’s because a local business called Gibson’s Bakery hit back against an Oberlin College outrage mob that falsely labeled them as racist and destroyed their business (which had been around since 1885), and now the college has to pay them up to $33 million:

An Ohio jury has ordered Oberlin College to pay $11 million to a bakery which said it was libeled and wrongfully accused of racially profiling students. Next Tuesday there will be a separate punitive damages hearing which could be a double award (meaning tripling the $11 million to $33 million). According to our reporter in the Courtroom, the jury awarded $11 million. Here are the details: Allyn W. Gibson was awarded $3 million, David Gibson $5.8 million, Gibson Bros. $2,274,500. The case stems from the November 2016 arrests of three black Oberlin students at Gibson’s Bakery and market near the college’s campus in Oberlin, Ohio. One student, Jonathan Aladin, was accused of attempted robbery for allegedly trying to “steal wine or otherwise illegally obtain wine” from the bakery, according to a defamation lawsuit. He would eventually confess in a written statement to buying alcohol illegally. Two other suspects, Cecelia Whettston and Endia J. Lawrence, were arrested and accused of misdemeanor assault, court documents state.

After that, Oberlin staff members tried to discredit the family-owned bakery, the lawsuit says. Oberlin College staff — including deans and professors — and students engaged in demonstrations in front of Gibson’s Bakery following the arrests of the three students, the lawsuit stated.  The suit also said Oberlin Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo and other college staff members “handed out hundreds of copies” of a flier to the community and the media stating that Gibson’s Bakery and its owners racially profiled and discriminated against the three students. 

The court documents include a copy of the flier, which included the words “DON’T BUY.” “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION,” the flier read, according to the lawsuit. The flier also listed 10 of the bakery’s competitors and urged customers to shop there instead.

Then in November 2016, the lawsuit stated, Oberlin College said it severed its business ties with Gibson’s Bakery. The shop had provided baked goods for the school’s dining services through a third-party company. While those business ties were reinstated three months later, the shop had already suffered severe consequences, the suit said. The combined effects of the “defamation, boycotts, demonstrations, and refusal to do business with Gibson’s Bakery was having a devastating effect on Gibson’s Bakery and the Gibson family,” the lawsuit stated.
[Image: Gibsons-Bakery-Oberlin-College-Flyer-Racist.png]

[Image: Bryan-Rubin-Photo-Editor_Gibsons_WEB.jpg]

[Image: Capture-JPG-4.jpeg]

[Image: Gibsons-Protest_1478898787013_7005508_ver1.0.jpg]

[Image: Gibson-Family-reacts-to-Oberlin-College-...623213.png]

[Image: Oberlin-College-Student-Senate-Resolutio...492113.jpg]

This is so satisfying in so many ways. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – there is nothing worse than being labeled as a racist in 2019. You’re better off being known as the guy who diddles the neighborhood kids, because at least he has a “disease.”  Once the mob has arbitrarily decided that you’re a racist they will not stop until you are destitute. They’ve been doing this for years, a lot of the time on college campuses, and someone finally had the balls to stand up and say enough is enough.

This is Elijah Aladin, the student who got caught stealing two bottles of wine, hit the clerk’s cell phone out of his hand when the clerk attempted to take a picture of him, and then assaulted him, along with two female students, inside and outside the store.

[Image: ScreenShot2017-11-13at1.16.43PM.png]

He of course played the “I’m an oppressed and marginalized person” card and got everyone at the school riled up that he was the victim here. According to his LinkedIn bio he attended Phillips Academy in Andover, a very expensive boarding school.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-8.39.23-AM.png] [Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-8.39.17-AM.png]

Very oppressed.

Now watch the body cam footage from the incident, and see for yourself what the whiniest bitch in the history of imaginary oppression did when the cops got there and found him on top of the clerk.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-10.15.22-AM.png]

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-09-at-11.39.03-PM.png]

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-09-at-11.38.33-PM.png]

The best part was around 1:50 when he says, “they’re going to kill me,” and the white savior lady urging the cops not to arrest him says, “No, he will not kill you.” Spit out my coffee at that one.

“Why do you think you’re going to get killed?”

“Because I’m scared of police! I’m a black man in custody of police.”

“Well I haven’t hurt anyone in my life.”

“I’m soo scared!!”

Either he’s so sheltered and brainwashed that he believes that cops automatically kill every black person they arrest, or he’s been trained to never take personal responsibility, blame other people for his own failures, and always play the race card when in doubt. I’m going with the latter.

That spoiled, rich, privileged little shitstain, is everything that is wrong with victimhood culture today. He tried to steal from a local family owned business that’s been there since 1885. He then assaulted the guy who he was stealing from, at a store where margins are probably razor thin. After being arrested he acted like he was the victim and asked why the store owner wasn’t arrested for defending his property and himself. And instead of the college expelling three ungrateful brats who attacked an institution that has been a business partner of the college for decades, they paid for their lawyers and led a protest outside of the business.

Of course it didn’t help the school for the lawsuit when all three of the defendants plead guilty, and issued strongly worded statements saying that Gibson’s wasn’t racist, and that the students were in the wrong.

[Image: 22278497-1.jpg]

Here’s video from a day of the protests. Lots of white guil[t] laden 19 year old white kids feeling good about themselves:

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.00-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.06-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.16-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.25-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.34-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.41-AM.png]
[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-06-10-at-9.46.51-AM.png]

Feelin cute. Might destroy a family owned business and in turn cost my college $33 million in order to feel good about myself later. IDK.

Almost every kid the reporter from a MSM outlet tried to interview said no. That about sums up how stupid these idiots are. They’re really good at writing “black lives matter” on a cardboard sign, but when you ask them to actually articulate why they’re protesting on behalf of three criminals none of them know what to say.

But those are just dumbass college kids, and that’s the nature of the beast. The real problem here, just like at 99% of colleges in this country, are the adults who brainwash these kids to think like this, and then encourage them to act like this. And justice was served on Friday when Dean Meredith Raimondo was found guilty along with the school itself. According to witnesses she was at the protest and facilitated it, rather than being the adult and reminding the kids that Elijah Aladin is a thief, not a victim. We know this because a black employee at the store testified against her:

Clarence “Trey” James, an African-American who had worked at the store since 2013, first denied that any racism existed in either the store’s treatment of its customers, or how he has been treated. “Never, not even a hint,” James said. “Zero reason to believe, zero evidence of that.” 

James said he had moved to Oberlin from Cleveland to have a better family life for his young daughter. He is a single-father of a teenager, and he said that he and his daughter were invited over Dave Gibson’s house for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.

James said he was working at the store during the protests and could see Raimondo directly outside the front door, as he was working the cash register near the front windows and store entrance. Raimondo has claimed she was merely at the protest because it was her administrative duty to oversee the safety of the students and to keep the event “lawful.” She has repeatedly said she was not an “active participant.”

But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.” 

The copy making was needed to get more flyers for the students to pass out. These flyers said Gibson’s had a long history of racial profiling, had assaulted the shoplifting students, encouraged a boycott of Gibson’s, and gave a list of other stores to shop with.

James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”

[Image: Meredith_Raimondo_Oberlin.jpg]

[Image: meridethraimondo_mg_1537-lpr.jpg]

[Image: panel_opener.jpg]

When you hire a woman who doesn’t understand that she looks like last call trash at the Blarney when she wears a sleeveless dress knowing that she has a full tat on your left bicep, this is what happens.

Oh, and if you’re gonna trash a locally owned business and might get sued because of it, you should probably make sure you don’t use your school email address:

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “FUCK ROGER COPELAND.”

“Fuck him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

“Fuck him.” This woman is what happens when white trash gets a Masters Degree in social justice.

Other administrators called the police liars:

Jones responded that the “Gibsons’ hands were not clean” and that the incident with Allyn D. Gibson was “not an isolated incident, but a pattern.” He also said the police report on the incident was “bullshit.”

While another one physically blocked someone from taking pictures of students protesting in a public area:

McDaniel said he started taking pictures with his cell phone, and a young man came up to him and started blocking his phone with flyers in his hand. McDaniel said he kept moving and the man moved with him, blocking his ability to take picture over and over. “I’m with the college,” the man answered when the former Oberlin College police chief asked him why he was blocking his ability to take pictures. McDaniel testified he found out later the man hounding him over picture taking was Julio Reyes, associate director of the school’s multi-resource center. 

“I told him ‘I’m going to just going to wait until your silly ass leaves and [I’ll] start taking pictures again without you trying to block me,.’ “McDaniel testified. “He answered that he was going to come back when I wasn’t looking and key my car.”

The school did nothing when students published this hilarious op-ed in the school sanctioned newspaper, blaming the Gibson family for pursuing a lawsuit against a school that had caused them financial harm by ending a business relationship because they sided with the thief instead of the victim.

News of the lawsuit — which is meant to bully and intimidate College students, faculty, and staff, and can be read in full on the Review’s website — was relayed to the College community almost exactly one year after students initiated a protest against Gibson’s Bakery following a violent altercation at the store involving College students.

“When people stand up for themselves and call out my bullshit it’s bullying.”

In reading the legal documents filed by the Gibson family, it is clear that their intention is to provoke an explosive, emotional response from students.

“Holding people responsible for damages is provoking.”

The documents also have racist undertones that further expose the core reasons for the lawsuit. The Gibsons have no interest in finding any resolution to this conflict — instead, they seek to assert their prideful moral superiority over the College, which they view as biased and discriminatory.

“Due process is racist.”

Didn’t help that they praised the Dean being sued too:

We should also lend our support to Dean Raimondo, who works tirelessly to support students. Even when students do not agree with her, her compassion and commitment to us never wavers.

The school responded to the lawsuit by canceling their contract with the bakery, which made them look a million times worse to the jury.

Let this be a lesson to virtue signaling SJWs – when you get woke, you go broke. The students in your school are powerless. Their protests mean nothing. They are gone after 3-4 years, but you and the local business have to keep a healthy relationship. Don’t let some privileged queefs running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt put you in financial ruin because you’re too gutless to stand up for them. Be the adult, expel kids who get arrested, and side with victims instead of criminals.

Print this item

  Perv Prof Uses DesElms Defense
Posted by: Herbert Spencer - 03-25-2019, 06:23 PM - Forum: Gregg DesElms - Replies (2)

The bastard might still be dead, but his sociopathy lingers on.  When this RA Gold Standard prof was captured for responding to a prostitution ad placed by the cops, he claimed he was just doing "research."   Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin   Yeah, right.  Because prostitution is an integral part of the "Web Technology" curriculum.  


Quote:U of M professor arrested after seeking prostitution
[Image: 800SolenFeyissaOlmstedCountyJail.jpg] Photo: Olmsted County Jail
Solen Feyissa.

March 21, 2019 02:59 PM

A University of Minnesota educator is facing possible charges after authorities say he responded to a false prostitution ad, according to a report from KAAL-TV in Rochester, a Hubbard-owned station. 

Police identified the man as Solen Feyissa of Rochester, according to KAAL.

Police said someone responded to the ad placed by police and made arrangements to meet at a local hotel.
The police report said Feyissa told officers he was a professor of web technologies at the University of Minnesota and claimed he was doing research as a part of his job. 

KAAL reports Feyissa was charged with engaging in prostitution in public, a gross misdemeanor.

Quote:U of M professor caught in prostitution sting
Friday, March 22, 2019 1:26 p.m. CDT
[Image: SOLEN_FEYISSA.jpg]
Solen Feyissa

ROCHESTER, MN - A University of Minnesota professor claims he was doing research when arrested in Rochester responding to a fake prostitution ad.

Police took out the false ad two years ago to find suspects looking to engage in sex and someone contacted them Wednesday afternoon. Investigators say 36-year-old Solen Feyissa arranged to meet at a hotel and pay $150 for services.

Feyissa was arrested based on the online conversation setting up the meeting for sex. He told detectives he was a U of M professor of web technologies and was doing research as part of his job.

Feyissa is charged with a gross misdemeanor count of engaging in prostitution in a public place.

Print this item

  Bill to Kill Ed Dept.
Posted by: Armando Ramos - 02-03-2019, 06:46 PM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (1)

Quote:Rep. Thomas Massie Reintroduces Bill to Abolish Education Department


by Dr. Susan Berry   1 Feb 2019

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) reintroduced a bill Wednesday that would abolish the Department of Education.

Massie announced his plan to reintroduce his one-sentence bill to end the department in a Facebook post.

“The bill states, ‘The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2020,’” wrote the congressman. “Neither Congress nor the President, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn.”

Massie continued:

Quote:Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school, or private school.

Massie’s bill was reintroduced as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced an executive order eliminating the federally incentivized Common Core State Standards – which were rebranded as the Florida Standards – in his state:

Quote:Common Core has failed teachers, parents, and our children. That’s why I am issuing an Executive Order to eliminate Common Core in Florida. We will streamline standardized testing, make civics a priority in schools and increase the literacy rate.

In an interview with Breitbart News in February 2017 – following the introduction of his original bill to eliminate the Education Department – Massie said people should take his bill seriously “because, for the first time since Ronald Reagan, we have a president in the White House who would conceivably sign this bill.”

The original legislation was proposed at a time when Massie believed he could get both conservatives and liberals on board with it.

He explained at the time:

Quote:I’ve had the bill prepared since December of last year in anticipation of offering it this year. But, as we received more and more phone calls from people who wanted me to vote against Betsy DeVos – and I had to explain to them that it is the constitutional role of the Senate to advise and consent, not the House – they would then ask me to do anything I could to oppose her nomination. And, so, this bill seemed like the obvious answer to their question: What can I do to oppose her nomination?

DeVos’s confirmation was opposed by groups on both the left and the right. Teachers’ unions and their political backers have opposed DeVos’s support of school choice – which they fear will divert funding from public schools to private schools. Additionally, groups that note the education secretary has promoted the massive federal education law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) also oppose DeVos. Like Massie, these constitutionally based groups would like to see the federal role in education end.

Though Massie’s bill does not address the details of how the department would dismantle its many programs, he said, when the original bill was introduced, that he would propose DeVos, President Donald Trump, and Congress “work to either devolve those programs to the states, or transfer the authority for those programs to other departments.”

“Ideally, all of these programs would be administered at the state level, including the authority for the tax collection,” he explained. “In fact, some of these programs could be done at the local school district level.”

“I like to point out that there are 4,500 bureaucrats in the Department of Education, and their average salary is $105,000 a year,” Massie continued. “I’ve seen that irritate a lot of people back in Kentucky who have to have bake sales to buy copier paper for their classrooms.”

In an interview with The New American, Massie observed that the Education Department was “established by unpopular President Jimmy Carter as a ‘re-election tactic, as a ploy.’”

“But I saw an opportunity to re-introduce this notion as a bill when everybody got upset about [Trump Education Secretary] Betsy DeVos’ confirmation,” he said. “That was the last controversial confirmation.”

In his post about the reintroduction of his bill, the Kentucky Republican noted:

Quote:President Ronald Reagan once said, “There’s only one way to shrink the size and cost of big government, and that is by eliminating agencies that are not needed and are getting in the way of a solution … By eliminating the Department of Education … we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children.”

Massie noted that the original co-sponsors of the bill included Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Jody Hice (R-GA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Chip Roy (R-TX), and Randy Weber (R-TX).

Print this item

  Online Degrees Lost Stigma?
Posted by: Martin Eisenstadt - 01-13-2019, 08:26 AM - Forum: Distance Learning Discussion - No Replies

Quote:Have Online Degrees and Credentials Finally Lost Their Stigma?
By Cait Etherington
December 17, 2018

A new report by Northeastern University’s Center for the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy has concluded that employers—specifically, human resources (HR) leaders—are now increasingly interested in candidates’ credentials, not simply their degrees. The study also found that most HR leaders no longer view online degrees or credentials as inferior to those earned on campus. But does this mean that the stigma that once shrouded online education has finally lifted?

When Online Degrees and Credentials Carried a Deep Stigma

In the early 2000s, it wasn’t unusual to hear people joking about online degrees and credentials. At the time, it was widely assumed that anyone with an online education was less qualified than someone who had sweat it out on campus in an actual classroom. The stigma of studying online wasn’t entirely unfounded. In the 1990s to early 2000s, “diploma mills”—unaccredited online programs—were widespread and operating with few checks and balances. 

In 2009, Norina L. Columbaro and Catherine H. Monaghan, researchers at the Cleveland State University, published an article analyzing dozens of studies and popular articles on employers’ perceptions of online degrees. By and large, they found that “gatekeepers”—for example, employers and hiring managers—“have an overall negative perception about online degrees.” In their survey, Columbaro and Monaghan also found several recurring concerns about online degrees. These concerns ranged from a perceived lack of rigor to concerns about the increased potential for academic dishonesty. Not surprisingly, the fact that online degrees were still associated with an earlier generation of diploma mills was also a concern. 

Among the many studies and popular articles included in Columbaro and Monaghan’s 2009 publication was a 2003 article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In the article, Gabriela Montell scathingly observed that online degree programs tend to attract “managerial wannabes, career changers, or academic hopefuls.” But as Montell noted, especially when learners pursue online PhDs, they tend to be “a flop on the job market.” While Montell notes that this is partly due to the fact that online PhD students typically graduate without teaching experience or a publication record (both important hiring considerations on the academic job market), she also notes that the stigma attached to online degrees doesn’t help matters: 

Quote:Even if a hiring committee has heard of the institution, the stigma associated with “distance” or “online” learning can still be a strike against a candidate … In fact, the stigma is so great that some administrators avoid using words like “online” to describe their nontraditional programs because doing so, they say, perpetuates a misperception that students are isolated from professors in the programs. 

Gaining Recognition and Prestige

Over the past twenty years, a lot has changed. Today, a growing number of prestigious universities, including Harvard and MIT, are embracing online learning. Companies like Coursera are also showing how online learning companies can successfully partner with established universities to deliver quality undergraduate and graduate degrees.  In addition, more than ever before, employers and hiring managers are indicating that they don’t care if a prospective employee earned their degree or credential on campus or online. 

In a July 2018 post on LinkedIn, Carolyn McIntyre, Founder and CEO at MoocLab and e-Learninglab, observes:

Quote:“Although the traditional degree certificate is still the more valued credential among employers in general, employers in today’s job market are looking for technically skilled, job-ready candidates which a traditional degree doesn’t always guarantee. Being able to show physical evidence of your abilities is becoming increasingly important in recruitment, and MOOCs can play a key role in this with many MOOC programs culminating in a practical capstone project, giving employers a clear picture of a candidate’s abilities.
Quote:“Moreover, having a transcript of MOOC certificates issued by some of the world’s most elite universities by the likes of MIT, Harvard and Stanford demonstrates in itself motivation, perseverance, dedication and entrepreneurship – traits that all employers will be looking for in a candidate. It is then up to the candidate to show tangible proof of the hard skills he or she has acquired through course certificates and transcripts as well as any evidence of completed project work.”

According to the Center for the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy’s new report, Educational Credentials Come of Age: A Survey on the Use and Value of Educational Credentials in Hiring, McIntyre’s perception that online credentials are gaining acceptance is also something shared by a lot of HR leaders. 

To find out what HR leaders think about online credentials, researchers at the Center for the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy designed and executed a national survey of 750 HR leaders at U.S. employers that spanned all industry sectors and organizational sizes. Their survey found that perceptions and attitudes about both online credentials and degrees are finally shifting. As the authors of the study write: 

Quote:“The online delivery of degrees is one of the most significant innovations in higher education over the last 20 years. Online education now accounts for 16% of all higher education enrollment in the U.S., at 3.1 million students. As online degree attainment has become more common, employer perception has been continuously evolving. In the early days, online degrees were often stigmatized by employers and associated with “online schools” in a market dominated by for-profit universities.Today’s online education landscape includes thousands of degree and certificate offerings from colleges of all types – including many of the world’s most well-known and prestigious institutions.”

Two of the study’s findings are particularly significant. First, the survey found that skills-based or competency-based hiring is currently gaining momentum; a majority of HR leaders indicate that they are making an effort to “de-emphasize” degrees and prioritize skills in their hiring strategy (23%) or are actively exploring and considering how to move in this direction (39%). While the study did find that “Employer awareness and experience with candidates who hold non-degree ‘microcredentials’ is still relatively low …  this is evolving rapidly in a growing market.” Second, the study found that online credentials are now “mainstream.” The majority of HR leaders surveyed (61%) believed that credentials earned online are of “generally equal quality to those completed in-person,” and this represents a significant increase over previous years’ surveys.

The Future of Online Credentials and Degrees 

In 2018, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that one out of three college students now takes at least one class online. The finding is notable since it suggests that even students studying on campus are increasingly completing at least part of their education in the online ecosystem. While the same article emphasizes that the medium is still often misunderstood by the general public, and sometimes within higher education itself, studies such as Educational Credentials Come of Age indicate that among employers, the stigma once attached to online degrees is rapidly melting away. 

For online degrees and credentials to continue gaining currency over the next decade, it will be important for researchers to continue tracking employer perceptions of candidates who have pursued their educations online. Long-term data on the success of these candidates, especially those who have chosen to forego a traditional degree in lieu of a “microdegree” or other type of alternative credential, may prove especially salient. If online learners, especially those who choose not to pursue a traditional four-year degree, prove successful over time on the job, the impact on on-campus undergraduate and graduate degrees could be profound.

Print this item

  Are They Nuts?
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 01-12-2019, 12:51 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (5)

Being a normal man is a mental illness.  Dressing up as a girl and having your buddies butt fuck you is apparently normal.  Welcome to 21st century academics.


Print this item