Post: #1

The best and brightest, folks.

The article's writer: Sandra Korn



Tagline on the Facebook photo:

Quote:and for a campus safe for students for all genders with an affirmative consent policy, and for divestment from fossil fuels!!

Looking at her article, this the new standard she proposes:

Quote:Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

She seems to think that research and funding has always had a political angle, therefore it makes sense to ratchet it up further.

Quote:It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just

Doing what's "right" is more important than finding out what the truth is.

Given this woman probably spends most of her days whinging about inappropriate social norms and conditioning, it's amazing she goes on to assume that she has found the Holy Grail, the Ten Commandments of Socialization that is necessarily sacrosanct and unassailable.

It isn't the closing of the American mind, it is the complete closure of the Left. There is nothing left to debate in the Left's mind. Mindless, petty squabbles over what essentially is nothing is what prevails in academia today. To pretend that "academic freedom" is an obsession on the Left is laughable. That is how they see themselves, but dissenting voices have largely been silenced for decades.

This ratcheting up is simply moral puritanism active at the "intellectual" level. The self-absorption plainly obvious, as they assume they are superior than non-liberals and we are in desperate need of rehabilitation at their judgement and closet-minded hands. I talk about these sorts of issues a lot, so I will leave it alone.

What she is unwittingly advancing -- and this has plagued the Left since the concept of technocracy took hold -- is a class-based society (an inherently unequal one). First, she perceives conservatives as a class lower than hers. As such, they need remedial guidance that she has gleaned from studying at Harvard. Second, is the assumption that the lower classes are too stupid to care for themselves.

She mentions race-based IQ differences as explaining the failures of blacks to achieve in proportion to their white counterparts. She regards science-based distinctions as racist, but fails to see socially-based arguments could very easily be racist. Cultural deprivation theories that engender the social perception of lower expectations for black people is often based out of racism. She doesn't even hesitate to question whether welfare, public schooling and affirmative action could based out a racial superiority context: "Those poor blacks, it's not like they could really take care of themselves. They are so culturally deprived, they need our help otherwise they won't make it."

Further, she is strongly in favor of a class-based society, but she doesn't see this since she is so smart, progressive and culturally superior, she naturally sees herself atop society, astride the ignorant teeming masses, as she hands down knowledge on how not to rape, how to raise your children based on gender theory, etc.

Since she is on top -- at least in her mind --- she is perfectly fine with letting the proles have equality. #feminism#diversity#finallyequality

Post: #2

2/10 WNB.

Aaahhh that was satisfying.

Post: #3

This needs to be reframed as a female issue.When women enter, freedom goes out the door.

This was bound to happen once the majority of college students became women. We've seen this type of thing before with: prohibition, the PMRC, porn wars, and even ban bossy. The article goes on to say:

"Korn's view...appears to be growing on colleges across the country, citing the case of Swarthmore College sophomore Erin Ching, who criticized the school for allowing conservative Christian thinker Robert George to speak on campus.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

Pro-life students at the University of Alabama were also told they could not express their views after the school secretly removed a poster some students found objectionable."

What will happen, I think, is that universities will start to be looked upon as "finishing schools" where Victorian-like women are warehoused for four years. The real work will be done at the technically-oriented and research-oriented male-dominated schools.

I see some of this going on already. In the Baltimore region, Johns Hopkins -- with its laughable, over-priced "writing seminars"* -- is now starting to play second fiddle to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where major research is being done at their gigantic Research Park facility. There is no way in hell the chancellor and provosts there would put up with this after building something of that magnitude.

* Enrolling in this program, word has it, is the route to making your writing unreadable, never getting published, and not selling if you do get published. But, hey, the academics LOVE convoluted sentences!

Post: #4

Wouldn't tell anyone about it, but WB.

Post: #5

She looks a tiny bit more bangable here. The problem is that this broad is probably an untamed wilderness below the neckline.

   

Post: #6

(03-16-2014 06:39 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Wouldn't tell anyone about it, but WB.

Would pump and dump and allow her to rationalize her "liberating" experience.

Post: #7

(03-16-2014 06:27 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  What will happen, I think, is that universities will start to be looked upon as "finishing schools" where Victorian-like women are warehoused for four years. The real work will be done at the technically-oriented and research-oriented male-dominated schools.

I see some of this going on already. In the Baltimore region, Johns Hopkins -- with its laughable, over-priced "writing seminars"* -- is now starting to play second fiddle to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where major research is being done at their gigantic Research Park facility. There is no way in hell the chancellor and provosts there would put up with this after building something of that magnitude.

Agreed, this is the Creators vs. Rulers distinction that Steve Hsu has mused about. Schools such as Caltech produce creators, whereas schools such as Harvard produce rulers.

From InfoProc (bolding mine):

Quote:To be precise, the Rulers are not just the most driven among the group described above, but also the luckiest. The Creators are actually drawn from a smaller population than the Rulers. In the world of Creators the ability threshold is higher and the volatility, although significant, is not as large as for HBS types trying to claw / smarm / cheat their way to the top.

...

Success in the Creator segment of the elite is more highly correlated with specific, observable capabilities like brainpower or creativity. A startup founder (or entrepreneur) has to have actually had (or at least recognized) a good idea and then, perhaps with help of team, implemented it. There is noise (luck), but signal to noise is not hopelessly small.

Of course, it is easier for women to "claw/swarm/cheat" (and charm and whine) their way into "Ruler"-spaces (such as Harvard) than to actually learn science and math to operate in "Creator"-realms.

Unsurprisingly, Caltech dominates in Nobel Prizes and patents, especially when adjusted for student-body size.

"At Harvard they believe they are the best in the world; at Caltech they know they are the best in the world." -- Vernon Smith

Post: #8

One thing I've learned is that a lot of women photograph well, but in person and video it's a lot less impressive. Here she is in the first few seconds of this video. She comes up again at 2:00. Judge for yourselves.

Post: #9

(03-16-2014 06:39 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Wouldn't tell anyone about it, but WB.

I hope you're lawyered up for the inevitable "rape" charge.

Post: #10

(03-16-2014 06:56 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  One thing I've learned is that a lot of women photograph well, but in person and video it's a lot less impressive. Here she is in the first few seconds of this video. She comes up again at 2:00. Judge for yourselves.

Oof. I tried, but I'm reluctantly turning onto:

   

Post: #11

Calling Jen Selter's plastic surgeon...

Post: #12

Sandra Korn?

Looks more like Sandra Kornstein. Or Sandra Kornberg.

Post: #13

(03-16-2014 07:09 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Sandra Korn?

Looks more like Sandra Kornstein. Or Sandra Kornberg.

Post: #14

The ridiculous price of education and terrible return on investment is going to go some way in eventually destroying all of this. Of course, as has been mentioned, these places will end up as finishing schools, but they won't all end up that way. All but the biggest brands are going to struggle to find enrollments.

Likewise, the points made about less prestigious universities doing the real work now are important.

Another important factor is going to be non-Western nations actually getting their acts together with their own universities. There are many reasons holding them back from doing so, but look out when they do. According to this ranking, the highest ranked non-Western university is The University of Tokyo (27), and there are only four others in the top 50, all of them in East Asia/Singapore. There are only another six between 51-100, again, all in East Asia/Singapore. If Latin America, India, or the Middle East can crack the top 100, but especially top 50, it's game over. The non-Western world is punching severely below its body weight.

Once these countries really get their acts together, there will be far fewer overseas students paying the inflated fees necessary to keep many Western universities afloat financially. Every girl studying feminism, even despite the outrageous fees she pays, is still being subsidised by a guy from East Asia studying biology or business. If Western universities lose those guys, they're screwed.

Post: #15

(03-16-2014 07:04 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Calling Jen Selter's plastic surgeon...

And an eyebrow stylist. Jesus, she looks like Peter Gallagher.

Post: #16

(03-16-2014 07:09 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Sandra Korn?

Looks more like Sandra Kornstein. Or Sandra Kornberg.

   

Post: #17

I read an article today from the NYT that sums up a big threat to academic freedom and the integrity of American universities. Here is the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/scienc....html?_r=0

The gist of is that funding for science and research is increasingly coming from private capital. From billionaires, private institutions, etc. This is in stark contrast to the old system, where funding for research had to come from governmental grants and programs.

Well, before you say, "Who cares? What difference does it make?", I will try to respond. (I almost think this subject is deserving of a thread in itself, but for now I'll just give the short version).

He who controls the funding has a way to steer the direction and scope of scientific inquiry. If you control the purse strings, you control the project. For hundreds of years, universities have been viewed as bastions of free thought. They should be places where scholars can question prevailing theories and dogmas, without having to fear arrest, persecution, or retaliation.

But this may be ending. Increasingly, we see higher education being eroded by politicization and privatization. In the long run, this could spell the end of free thought at universities. It's a very dangerous trend, and one that should be resisted.

Every time I turn around, I see a new example of some corporate deep pockets edging its way into the academic process. Governmental money is drying up, and to step into the void are the big-money guys. We're losing so much of our freedom year by year. And even our intellectual freedom, our very ability to question the concentrated forces of power, is under attack. Systems of power and control are always based on controlling access to thought and inquiry. And if you think this is no big deal, think again.

My point is: although this girl is an idiot and her ideas are awful, a parallel attack on universities is also happening from the big money guys. So, we need to keep that in mind.

Clueless students like this girl have little power. The real power in the US is wielded by the deep pockets.

Post: #18

(03-16-2014 07:31 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Once these countries really get their acts together, there will be far fewer overseas students paying the inflated fees necessary to keep many Western universities afloat financially. Every girl studying feminism, even despite the outrageous fees she pays, is still being subsidised by a guy from East Asia studying biology or business. If Western universities lose those guys, they're screwed.

^that is very true. also include lots of guys from the Middle East. I know lots of guys from the Middle east who come to studying STEM fields here in the US. once all the foreign students bail out on studying in the Anglosphere, game over for the academic leftist elite. but I already see their whole party starting to end. more and more people are seeing that college is just shit outside of STEM majors.

perfect example:

Post: #19

(03-16-2014 08:32 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I read an article today from the NYT that sums up a big threat to academic freedom and the integrity of American universities. Here is the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/scienc....html?_r=0

The gist of is that funding for science and research is increasingly coming from private capital. From billionaires, private institutions, etc. This is in stark contrast to the old system, where funding for research had to come from governmental grants and programs.

Well, before you say, "Who cares? What difference does it make?", I will try to respond. (I almost think this subject is deserving of a thread in itself, but for now I'll just give the short version).

He who controls the funding has a way to steer the direction and scope of scientific inquiry. If you control the purse strings, you control the project. For hundreds of years, universities have been viewed as bastions of free thought. They should be places where scholars can question prevailing theories and dogmas, without having to fear arrest, persecution, or retaliation.

But this may be ending. Increasingly, we see higher education being eroded by politicization and privatization. In the long run, this could spell the end of free thought at universities. It's a very dangerous trend, and one that should be resisted.

Every time I turn around, I see a new example of some corporate deep pockets edging its way into the academic process. Governmental money is drying up, and to step into the void are the big-money guys. We're losing so much of our freedom year by year. And even our intellectual freedom, our very ability to question the concentrated forces of power, is under attack. Systems of power and control are always based on controlling access to thought and inquiry. And if you think this is no big deal, think again.

My point is: although this girl is an idiot and her ideas are awful, a parallel attack on universities is also happening from the big money guys. So, we need to keep that in mind.

Clueless students like this girl have little power. The real power in the US is wielded by the deep pockets.

Big business, the corporatocracy ,and oligarch class realized a while ago that they make and keep more money when women have more of it and men have less. Any way to funnel more power and wealth to women they are all game for because that wealth always gets transferred back to them in the end (women don't save, protect, or transfer wealth because they are too selfish by nature. They waste away money on disposable/non-essential items at far greater rates then men).

Feminism was always a ruse to steal wealth from men by using institutional and political means to strip away wealth from men and give it to women, and then steal that wealth from women in one quick swoop.

Also, in regards to control and censorship big business always likes a PC atmosphere. They never like to draw attention or to stand out. With University now shilling to this base for money all this funding comes with BIG STRINGS that are attached.

I won't deny that higher education was always a camp of indoctrination. Hell the word "Doctorate" stems from that, as it it meant how well you could be a "square-cap" which was essentially a molded and crafted academic robot to whatever prevailing realm of thought dominated your school. You were pounded away methodically until you lost all of your natural intuitions and adopted the dominate levels of thought. You can see this even today as some of the more basic, dense, and robots you see are drooling Professors and other PhD holders whom can't think of a independent thought to save their lives. Most important scholars and masters of history were self taught or under mentorship, and followed intuition over prescribed rigid doctrines and rules. It was still important because even with that it still granted corners and avenues for radical thought and research to develop but this was a short lived period when a perfect world of free thinkers and resources met together under one roof (1880s-1980s?). It was short lived and for a while now Academia has been a steaming pile. What we see now is just the dead cat bounce of it all and them spinning the wheels for kicks.

Oh and for the record if that Sandra broad had a mega makeover she would possibly be hot (lost weight, feminine clothes, a hairstyle, etc). She is extra frumpy, greasy, and has a heffer body from a steady 12 year diet of crappy textbooks and cookies. It would take a lot of work, but it would be doable. She would be a mega project to take on but you can see the potential deep down under the grease and pudge.

1.5/10 WNB

Post: #20

From the comment section:

Post: #21

DOBA Wrote:One thing I've learned is that a lot of women photograph well, but in person and video it's a lot less impressive.

While this is true overall, I've more often than not been pleasantly surprised recently upon seeing a girl in real life compared to her photo or video. At least some good came out of my online dating adventures!

Post: #22

Time to bring Harvard's logo into the 21st century..

Post: #23

While that video doesn't help her case, I would probably still bang if I could duck tape her mouth shut first.