To be very clear, the only real evidence anybody has provided is that way more students at Stanford have registered disabilities than students at community colleges. And individual students have tweeted.
These stories want you to draw the conclusion that there are huge numbers of students who are faking disabilities and then getting access to accommodations that give them an unfair advantage in coursework, setting them up for an unfair advantage in the job market. But nobody has been able to provide evidence of these things. Are these students really faking disabilities? Or are students with means far more likely to have access to doctors who can identify these disabilities? Do the students with disabilities actually get accommodations that make courses easier for them in an unfair way? Do these improved grades give students a meaningful leg up in the job market? Nobody is pointing to evidence here. They just let you conclude that this is happening.
My spouse is a professor. There are oodles of students who have disabilities who don't receive any accommodations because their course is already set up to support these students well. This idea of structuring evaluations such that everybody is getting access to the things that a student with ADHD or whatever might get is increasingly common in universities.
> The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party.
Is it? I'm not aware of legislation introduced by the democrats, either when they were in power or today, that proposed anything resembling this. There are individual congresspeople calling for ICE to be abolished (which is not the same as having no immigration enforcement) but leadership within the democrats is very clear that they support extremely minor reforms like making ICE agents wear masks less frequently. This is considerably more minor than disarming ICE agents, which you claim would have nationwide support.
Boards of Regents consistently suck shit. The rather famous "put your body upon the gears" speech was about the Berkeley Board. Leftists largely hate the boards of both public and private universities. They are often megarich people with minimal understanding of pedagogy or even university administration.
What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?
College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."
The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans.
I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either.
So you've got a few options.
You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint.
You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke."
You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right.
Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?
Oh, I hadn't considered that there are complex and nuanced reasons why only white wrongdoing is discussed, and by others is ignored.
> Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans.
It is nothing of the sort. "Orientalism" is not about Barbary slave raids that emptied whole villages, about Ottoman invaders colonizing half of eastern Europe for centuries, or about the Islamic invasion of Spain. Instead it's focused on problematizing the fact that Europeans viewed these invaders as an 'other', and did not accept and welcome them as their own.
There is, notably, not a similar course chiding native Americans for seeing Europeans as 'other'. There's not even a course problematizing how Ottomans viewed [1] Europe.
You're free to invent further sophisticated reasons why this ridiculous cherry-picking is all perfectly natural and not motivated at all. I am done.
Orientalism is a discussion of how europeans engaged with culture from the near and far east, yes. That's a topic on europeans. And europeans engaged with this culture incompletely, which is not exactly a surprise for any community on the planet.
Again, the reason why we see more courses on Orientalism than the reverse is because of the continued disproportionate focus on european history in the academy. And at least for my professor friend who teaches indigenous american history, there is absolutely discussion of the ways that they understood and misunderstood europeans.
I do not understand how a modern authoritarian leader relates to this whatsoever. Does Erdogan have some say in history curricula at US universities?
A friend of mine was harassed by these sorts of groups for their teaching. They received death threats, hardcore pornography, and gore in their inbox from these chuds. The trigger was the availability of their course material online.
What is your point? I could burn $400 in my fireplace every year for 2,500 years before exhausting my current wealth. That doesn't mean it's not stupid.
Is he going to login to etrade to market sell 100 mil of Amazon stock every year? 20% cap gains and then whatever additional tax the gross amount incurs? That will also lower the price.
I’m just saying this is kind of an absurd amount for a mediocre newspaper with ok reach.
In principle, Bezos could be in this because he values journalism and wants to promote it. There is no reason why this couldn't be a patronage system where one of the richest people in the world spends their money on something good for society.
"We have a policy against endorsement" and "oh shit our megabillionarie owner is cancelling the planned endorsement at the last minute because he wants to avoid pissing off Trump" are two very different things.
But why are people ok with the fact that a newspaper was going to pick a candidate to begin with? Doesn’t that undermine their claims of non-partisanship?
Editorial boards publish opinion pieces. That is the function of the editorial page. Is "we believe that X will be a better president than Y" so different than "we believe that corn ethanol is bad policy" or "we believe that you should send your kids to public universities?"
Yes it is different. Because they go out of their way to claim that they are non-partisan. If you endorsed one candidate and the other one wins, how can we trust your reporting about the winning candidate for the duration of their tenure?
Nobody is claiming neutrality or specific issues like corn subsidies which cross party lines.
Then Bezos shouldn't have bought the newspaper. Especially if he wants to intervene in its coverage to avoid pissing off Trump.
"Buy a newspaper and smash it to bits while submitting to fascists" is bad, whether or not his investment is underwater. How much money has Bezos lost on the WP? I have a very small violin for him.
Lots of acquisitions in retrospect were bad or didn’t work out. Buyers don’t usually go in knowing it’s not going to work. Sometimes companies buy others for IP or to block competitors from IP even if the company acquired is getting shut down. Most of the time it’s because they see an upside -sometimes that goes sideways.
He may well have thought _he’d_ be able to turn it around —like buyers of perennially losing sports teams and then he figured out he was wrong. It happens without malice —if anything it’s seldom due to malice. People don’t like losing money.
reply