Rick Mehta: Acadia clarifies, commingles, confuses - "I am no longer conflicted about Acadia University’s decision to fire psychology professor Rick Mehta. The university had plenty of good reasons to dismiss him... According to Hemming, Mehta’s reputational transgressions “include comments you made where you give Acadia a one-star rating and advise students not to attend the university since Acadia is pursuing a ‘social justice agenda’ and is not open to a range of perspectives. You also attack Open Acadia as a ‘cash cow’ that ‘treats its employees like dirt.’” Hemming also accuses Mehta of making “poisonous Twitter statements that Acadia should start saving money by cutting the Women & Gender Studies Program.” She cites divisive tweeting “that pits science against the arts,” and his disparaging of disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics. “In MacKay (Appendix 6),” Hemming adds, “there are multiple posts demonstrating conduct where you damage the reputation of the university.”"
He should have played it safe and just alleged racism and sexism, since universities are happy to be disparaged in those ways
Can Heterodoxy Save the Academy? - "“In 2015, people thought this new morality of fragility and vindictiveness was unique to American college campuses,” HA co-founder and New York University School of Business professor Jonathan Haidt tells me. “But in 2016, it was clear it was spreading to British and Canadian campuses.” Today, he adds, the phenomenon seems to have spread well beyond the academy, into the worlds of technology, entertainment, and journalism... Some academics admitted frankly that even appearing at the conference could have negative professional repercussions... With many of the high profile cases of campus extremism targeting female victims, Shepard wonders if her gender played a role in how she was treated. “Perhaps the radicals play on the fact that women are often more empathetic, so they try to get them to feel bad so they’ll desist”... “I think civility is overrated,” Angus Johnston, a historian of American student activism tells me. “We need to have spaces where our conversations with each other can be disruptive.” Johnston points to the history of student and civil rights activists who used disruption to create change. He also defends the protesters at Reed College. “It’s not a riot and it’s not burning something down or physical altercation.” When asked about Evergreen State—which did become physical—Johnston says the complexity of the situation makes it difficult to condemn as a singular act of violence. John McWhorter, associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, says the conversations aren’t happening, whether they are civil or not. “The issue is not whether or not we can have a spirited debate,” he tells me, “it’s whether or not certain views are allowed on campus at all.”... Haidt’s prescription is simple. “The administrators have to set norms before students arrive,” he says. “Protest is fine, shutting down others is not.”"
From 2018
The Impact of the Left’s Takeover of Academia on the Quality of Higher Education - "New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once warned that “Ideological certainty easily degenerates into an insistence upon ignorance.” And Jose L. Duarte, Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim and Philip E. Tetlock argue that political dominance threatens the self-correcting tendencies of science. They use the field of social psychology to illustrate three main dangers of ideological dominance: skewed topic selection, biased methodologies and misinterpreted results... If left-leaning researchers are dominant, prejudice against their favored subpopulations gets explored extensively, while prejudice against other subpopulations is neglected... Duarte et al. cite a survey in which participants agreed that the phrase “the efficacy of hard work” was a “rationalization of inequality.” Another group regarded disagreement with the statement, “If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major environmental catastrophe” as denial of ecological reality. As Duarte et al. point out, “the core problem with this research is that it misrepresents those who merely disagree with environmentalist values and slogans as being in ‘denial.’”... “a long-standing view in social-political psychology is that the Right is more dogmatic and intolerant of ambiguity than the Left,” but this conclusion is probably the result of only looking at topics where the right is more dogmatic than the left... politically imbalanced academic fields may harm students’ career prospects... I compared the ratio of Democrat to Republican professors in a number of fields with the share of students graduating from a program that passed a debt-to-income test called Gainful Employment Equivalent... Academic fields in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans by less than 6 to 1 fared well, with over 80% of students graduating from programs that passed the debt-to-earnings test. But, once you exceed a 6:1 ratio, performance declines quickly. In philosophy, Democrat professors outnumber Republican professors 18:1, and only 45% of students graduate from a program that passes the debt to earnings test. The pattern continues as fields become more politically dominated by Democrats. Art has a 40:1 ratio and 16% of students graduate from programs that pass, and religion has a 70:1 ratio and only 4% of students graduate from programs that pass. Sociology is a relative outlier, with a ratio of 44:1 and passage rates of 50%. But, while its passage rate is better than expected, given the dominance of Democratic professors, it still falls far short of the 80% passage rate of the more balanced fields... If they value their career prospects, students should be wary of severely politically imbalanced fields... administrators are erecting barriers to ideological diversity. The most visible of these is the growing trend of requiring diversity, equity and inclusion statements for faculty hiring and promotion. Such statements would be unobjectionable if they merely required new faculty to confirm that they will not discriminate against legally protected groups. But, in reality, these statements are being used as ideological litmus tests. As Jerry Coyne notes, the statements are graded and to pass “you have to swear fealty to an ideology.” John Cochrane calls them the new “loyalty oaths” and Abigail Thompson wisely observes that the “idea of using a political test as a screen for job applicants should send a shiver down our collective spine … Imposing a political litmus test is not the way to achieve excellence.” The University of California at Berkeley’s recent faculty hires illustrate the danger... Of 893 nominally qualified candidates, 679 were eliminated solely due to insufficiently woke diversity, equity and inclusion statements. In other words, Berkeley used a political litmus test to eliminate over three-quarters of the applicant pool... if Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. is correct that “angry demands, rather than rigorous arguments, now appear to guide university policy,” campuses are just a few student protests away from making these litmus tests mandatory."
The closing of the academic mind - "Campus censorship, according to some, is just a right-wing myth... It might be the case, these academics and commentators concede, that Oxford’s Selina Todd needs to be accompanied to lectures by a security guard. It may be true, they begrudgingly acknowledge, that Reading’s Rosa Freedman had her office door covered in urine. But these examples are blown out of all proportion, they argue, and, what’s more, they’ve been misunderstood – issuing death threats and pissing on doors are actually expressions of free speech not attempts to shut down debate. Phew! This week, a new report from Policy Exchange pushes back against the censorship deniers. Academic Freedom in the UK goes beyond a straightforward count of petitions and rescinded invitations. Instead, it explores a campus culture shaped by ‘widespread support for discrimination on political grounds in publication, hiring and promotion’. A survey commissioned by the report’s authors shows that ‘only 54 per cent of academics said that they would feel comfortable sitting next to a known Leave supporter at lunch. Just 37 per cent would feel comfortable sitting next to someone who, in relation to transgender rights, advocates gender-critical feminist views.’ This matters, they tell us, because a climate of political intolerance ‘threatens academic freedom, and likely results in self-censorship’. Too often, those who argue there is no campus free speech crisis see threats to academic freedom in a narrowly formal way. According to this view, unless university managers – or, even better, government ministers – specifically prevent lectures from going ahead or papers from being published, then all is well. The latest Policy Exchange report is useful because it shows that threats to free speech do not come neatly sign-posted. More often they emanate from within the broader cultural context of the campus and involve individuals self-censoring rather than risking becoming the target of petitions. Unfortunately, crisis deniers see nothing wrong with campus culture as it currently stands. To them, believing that sex is assigned at birth, that Britain is better in the EU, that global warming is the biggest threat facing the planet, and that structural racism is endemic, is simply common sense. These are not topics for political debate but the values that all decent people subscribe to... The same liberal view of the world is now shared by those who run the BBC, branches of the civil service, many NGOs and charities, the senior ranks of the police, advertising agencies and social-media companies. This, in turn, lends weight to the perception that elite values are not political but simply morally correct. For this reason, those who have never had a view that in any way challenges the consensus see no problem with free speech in universities"
Walkout at Milton Academy - "One of us, Harvey Silverglate, recently got “cancelled,” in a sense, for publicly mentioning a notorious term, often used as a slur. In one of those great ironies that characterize our historical moment, the impugned utterance was contained in a lecture on the importance of free speech in academia... Silverglate held up before the audience two books. One was entitled The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses, which Silverglate co-authored in 1998. The book focused largely on the struggles to protect free speech in higher education. The other book was authored by a Harvard Law School professor, Randall Kennedy (the co-author of this article). The title of that book is Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, published in 2002 and recently updated. As soon as Silverglate pronounced the name of Kennedy’s book, an audible murmur was heard from the audience. Silverglate tried to explain why it was essential that he pronounce the actual title of the book, rather than the frequent substitution, “the n-word.” He intended to point out that if one followed the fashionable rule that the infamous n-word could never be appropriately uttered in full under any circumstances, one would have to leave gaps in the writings and performances of, among others, James Baldwin, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Toni Morrison, Eudora Welty, Mark Twain, Richard Pryor, and Lenny Bruce. But amidst the clamor, a substantial part of the audience walked out... the walk-out tells us about the dangers that free speech and academic freedom face even in purportedly sophisticated, broad-minded, intellectually adventurous settings... If controversial opinions regarding what words and ideas may be aired are ruled out of place at a free-speech assembly at Milton Academy, we know that we have entered a perilous cultural moment in which debate is overwhelmed by unquestioning persecutions of perceived heresies. We probably would have let this matter rest, were it not for the fact that days after Silverglate’s address, the Public Issues Board sent out an email to the entire student body, apologizing for Silverglate’s purported infraction... The lessons taught by this sad tale are sobering. One is that it is apparently acceptable for students to signal their disagreement with a speaker by walking out of an assembly rather than subjecting his or her ideas to the testing that vigorous dialogue allows. We know that practices from higher education have permeated the K-12 world, and that today a third of college students believe that it is sometimes or always acceptable to shout down speakers, or to try to prevent them from speaking on campus. Another 13 percent believe that is it sometimes or always acceptable to block other students from attending a campus speech. Another lesson is that the educational authorities at a storied academic institution are so afraid of offending the sensibilities of censors that they would rather discourteously ignore a guest speaker’s request to respond to a mistaken charge than permit the airing of a full debate. What happened at Milton is hardly an attractive display of diversity, inclusion, or equity."
CRTC tells Radio-Canada to apologize for offensive language on air | Toronto Sun - "the public broadcaster violated Canadian broadcasting policy objectives and values... The decision stems from a 2020 episode of a radio show in which commentator Simon Jodoin and host Annie Desrochers discussed a petition to demand the dismissal of a Concordia University professor who had quoted a famous book with the N-word in the title. During the discussion, Jodoin and Desrochers repeated the full title of Pierre Vallieres’ controversial 1968 take on Quebec history several times. A listener filed a complaint with the CRTC after first being told by Radio-Canada’s ombudsman that the use of the word in that specific context did not contravene its journalistic standards and practices"
Future generations are going to think the "n word" is "niggardly", since they'll never see or hear the real word, since everyone is terrified of using it, even to discuss it
Liberals, stand up for this professor - "Oppressive. Terrifying. Disgusting. Those are some of the nicer words that my fellow liberals have used to denounce GOP efforts to restrict teaching around race in American classrooms... here’s what the vast majority of left-wing commentators had to say about the Peter Boghossian, the embattled Portland State philosopher who resigned yesterday after suffering abuse for speaking his mind: nothing. Zero. Silence. Crickets. We can’t have it both ways. If we want to resist the GOP effort to muzzle our schools and universities, we also need to condemn left-wing attacks on free speech and exchange. You can’t credibly accuse the other team of censorship when your own side is engaging in it, too... Portland State accused Boghossian of research misconduct, on the dubious grounds that he had failed to obtain permission from his university’s human-subjects office to study the journal editors he had tricked. Meanwhile, the university looked the other way as Boghossian was harassed for what he said and believed. He was spit on and threatened as he walked to class. Flyers were distributed around campus showing his face with a Pinocchio nose. Bags of feces were left at his door. When Boghossian brought in controversial speakers, their talks were disrupted. And the university did nothing to protect or defend him. Never mind that Boghossian was an enormously popular teacher, precisely because he entertained diverse points of view in his classroom. He was critical of shoddy scholarship around race and gender, which was enough to get him labeled a racist and a sexist."
To liberals, it is worse to ban stigmatisation based on race than to spit on someone
Judges Halt Race and Gender Priority for Restaurant Relief Grants - The New York Times - "Lawsuits brought by white business owners challenging a policy that prioritized applicants for pandemic relief grants on the basis of gender and race have thrown the federal government’s Restaurant Revitalization Fund into turmoil... When they created the Restaurant Revitalization Fund in March, lawmakers ordered the Small Business Administration, which runs the program, to include a 21-day exclusivity period. During that time, only applications from women, military veterans and “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals — defined by the agency as those from certain racial and cultural groups who also had limited financial means — would be approved. Others could file their applications, but had to wait to have their requests reviewed. The fund began taking applications on May 3 and was soon overwhelmed. More than 362,000 businesses applied, seeking $75 billion — nearly three times what Congress had allocated. Little, if any, money would have been left for applicants outside the priority groups."
From 2021. If you're against racial and sexual discrimination, you're racist and sexist
New York Times warns Hispanics could be new white supremacy - "A New York Times opinion writer proposed a new replacement theory. In the unfounded conspiracy theory, Hispanic Americans could replace white Americans in terms of engaging in campaigns of "anti-black racism." According to the New York Times article, Hispanic Americans would be the new face of white supremacy – but it would be deemed "lite supremacy."... Coincidentally in the past year, the New York Times has published numerous articles sounding the alarm that Latino voters are migrating to the Republican Party
Anti-racism cannot understand that racism is not black and white
Democrats who claim white supremacy is top problem ignore black racist killers - "where is all the damage from this white-nationalist army? Where are the wounds of those they have maimed and the cadavers of those they have killed? “Charlottesville!” Biden and the Democratic left shout in unison. Yes, James Alex Fields Jr. weaponized his car and murdered protester Heather Heyer during Charlottesville, Va.’s race riots in August 2017 — nearly five years ago... As Team Biden searches furiously for those touched by this supposedly ubiquitous white threat, black racists scream hatred and inflict dozens of casualties, some fatal... a black man named Frank James unleashed a smoke bomb on a Brooklyn subway train. He then fired 33 rounds from a Glock pistol. James allegedly shot 10 commuters, and 13 suffered other injuries. Five were hospitalized in critical condition. Amazingly, no one was killed... Frank James had nine prior arrests in Gotham and three in New Jersey. Meanwhile, police in Waukesha, Wis., report that Darrell Edward Brooks in November plowed his Ford Escape SUV into marchers and spectators at a Christmas parade. Brooks’ carnage killed six people and wounded 62 others. Brooks also is an outspoken, white-hating bigot... Noah Green drove up to a barricade on April 7, 2021, and charged two officers with a knife before a third fatally shot him. Green belonged to the anti-white Nation of Islam, led by notorious Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan. In October 2018, via Twitter, he decried “The Satanic Jew.” Farrakhan also said that people “call me an anti-Semite. Stop it, I’m anti-termite!” “I consider him my spiritual father,” Green said of Farrakhan. These cases confirm that Joe Biden and the Democratic left are lost in space. While they battle imaginary white nationalists, real-life black racists usher their victims into hospitals and cemeteries."
Jacob Rees-Mogg scraps ‘absurd’ Civil Service diversity training - "Jacob Rees-Mogg is banning all “absurd” wellness and diversity courses run in Whitehall. In an attack on “wokery” in the Civil Service, Mr Rees-Mogg said only “intelligent, sensible” courses would be offered to officials in future. He cited the example of a course run by his own department the Cabinet Office called “Check Yo’ Privilege” as an example of “ridiculous” diversity training. The course teaches mandarins to be aware of their own privileged position whenever making pronouncements about wider society. Mr Rees-Mogg, the Cabinet minister in charge of government efficiency, also questioned the motives of civil servants who took courses in their lunch hour, saying it was a “little bit cynical” that officials then went straight back to work rather than taking another hour to eat... “bad, mockable courses undermine our efforts to promote equality”... “There is work to be done, and there are only so many hours in the day and we want people using their hours productively”... "What if you had a course, let’s say: “Celebrate your inner Eurosceptic?” which perhaps we should ask Nigel Farage if he was willing to do. The Civil Service would be outraged. But it’s comparatively a political subject.”"
The term ‘Oriental’ is outdated, but is it racist? - Los Angeles Times - " It is now politically incorrect to use the word “Oriental,” and the admonition has the force of law: President Obama recently signed a bill prohibiting use of the term in all federal documents. Rep. Grace Meng, the New York congresswoman who sponsored the legislation, exulted that “at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good.” As an Oriental, I am bemused. Apparently Asians are supposed to feel demeaned if someone refers to us as Orientals. But good luck finding a single Asian American who has ever had the word spat at them in anger... And why should it be? Literally, it means of the Orient or of the East, as opposed to of the Occident or of the West. Last I checked, geographic origin is not a slur. If it were, it would be wrong to label people from Mississippi as Southerners... I see self-righteous, fragile egos eager to find offense where none is intended. A wave of anti-Oriental discrimination is not sweeping the country. Besides, the term has been steadily falling out of circulation since the 1950s, and it’s mainly used today by older Asians and the proprietors of hundreds if not thousands of restaurants, hotels, shops and organizations with Oriental in their name. The well-intentioned meddlers will create trouble for exactly the population they want to defend. My profession, Oriental medicine, is among those on the receiving end of the identity-politics outbreak. A funny thing I noticed is that my Caucasian (dare I say Occidental?) colleagues, not my Asian colleagues, are most eager to remove Oriental from public discourse. I suppose they’re busy shouldering their burden of guilt. Margaret Cho said it best: “White people like to tell Asians how to feel about race because they’re too scared to tell black people.” In my field, the word “Oriental” appears in the title of 17 of the 58 accredited graduate-level schools, 21 of the 33 state associations and eight of the 24 national associations... Are we really going to waste time, energy and millions of dollars to rebrand our entire discipline — rename our schools and boards, redesign corporate identities, websites and publications and send out thousands of revised diplomas — all to wipe away an insult that doesn’t exist? We have more important things to worry about. Big pharma is busy patenting the active compounds in the herbal formulas that Orientals have been prescribing for millenniums. The World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health have long recognized the efficacy of acupuncture (the mainstream of Oriental medicine) in treating dozens of conditions. More than 20 million Americans have used acupuncture. Yet neither Medicare, Medicaid nor federal employees’ insurance covers the procedure. Practitioners of Oriental medicine have struggled for years to gain acceptance with the Occidental medical community and with insurance companies and federal and state governments. Yet here we are focusing our efforts on language."
Instead of a precise word, we get all this confusion over "Asian"
Luxury Beliefs are Status Symbols - "What do top hats and “defund the police” have in common?... for humans, top hats and designer handbags are costly signals of economic capacities; for gazelles, stotting is a costly signal of physical capacities. Veblen, Bourdieu and Zahavi all claimed that humans—or animals—flaunt certain symbols, communicate in specific ways, and adopt costly means of expressing themselves, in order to obtain distinction from the masses. Animals do this physically. And affluent humans often do it economically and culturally, with their status symbols. A difference, though, is that human signals often trickle to the rest of society, which weakens the power of the signal. Once a signal is adopted by the masses, the affluent abandon it. There are historical examples of this. For example, in the middle ages, spices were expensive and only the elites could afford them. It was a hard-to-fake signal of one’s social rank and economic resources. But as Europeans colonized India and the Americas, the cost of spices dropped, and the masses were now able to obtain them. As a result of widespread use, spices were no longer a status symbol. Elites decided they were vulgar, and during the reign of France’s Louis XIV, court chefs banned sugar and spice from all meals except for desserts. Here’s another example. In the U.S., dueling was practiced primarily by the elite for many years. One key reason why it fell out of fashion in the early nineteenth century is because this ritual of dueling was gradually adopted by the lower classes. In response, the upper classes abandoned it because it was no longer prestigious. And then it was outlawed in the late nineteenth century... A 2020 study titled “The possession of high status strengthens the status motive” led by Cameron Anderson at UC Berkeley found that relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have a greater desire for wealth and status. In other words, high-status people desire wealth and status more than anyone else... who was the most likely to support the fashionable defund the police cause in 2020 and 2021? A survey from YouGov found that Americans in the highest income category were by far the most supportive of defunding the police. They can afford to hold this position, because they already live in safe, often gated communities. And they can afford to hire private security. In the same way that a vulnerable gazelle can’t afford to engage in stotting because it would put them in increased danger, a vulnerable poor person in a crime-ridden neighborhood can’t afford to support defunding the police... Expressing a luxury belief is a manifestation of cultural capital, a signal of one’s fortunate economic circumstances... individuals with higher income or a higher social status were the most likely to say that success results from luck and connections rather than hard work, while low-income individuals were more likely to say success comes from hard work and individual effort. Well, which belief is more likely to be true? Plenty of research indicates that compared with an external locus of control, an internal locus of control is associated with better academic, economic, health, and relationship outcomes. Believing you are responsible for your life’s direction rather than external forces appears to be beneficial. Here’s the late Stanford psychology professor Albert Bandura. His vast body of research showed that belief in personal agency, or what he described as “self-efficacy,” has powerful positive effects on life outcomes. Undermining self-efficacy will have little effect on the rich and educated, but will have pronounced effects for the less fortunate. It’s also generally instructive to see what affluent people tell their kids. And what seems to happen is that affluent people often broadcast how they owe their success to luck. But then they tell their own children about the importance of hard work and individual effort... When people express unusual beliefs that are at odds with conventional opinion, like defunding the police or downplaying hard work, or using peculiar vocabulary, often what they are really saying is, “I was educated at a top university” or “I have the means and time to acquire these esoteric ideas.” Only the affluent can learn these things because ordinary people have real problems to worry about. To this extent, Pierre Bourdieu in The Forms of Capital wrote, “The best measure of cultural capital is undoubtedly the amount of time devoted to acquiring it.”"
Rob Cassidy on Twitter - "Posting "wow pretty problematic" under every single person's Spotify wrapped and then responding "it's not my job to educate you" when they ask what I mean by that."
Meme - "the word "black" in spanish still don't sit right with me"
"The fact is that we dont use that word in bad ways"
"It doesn't matter, don't say it period. You're not black."
Jake Shields on Twitter - "Insult Islam you will fear for your life
Insult Judaism you will fear for your job
Insult Christianity and you will have nothing to fear
I’m unsure if this is a good or a bad thing for each religion just an interesting observation"
But of course, liberals keep bashing Christians
Genghis Khan through his actions reduced the global population by 11%. Even Communists and Nazis can't reach those numbers. No one condemns you if you like Genghis Khan though. He's just too far out and that's the underlying fear of woke libs, more time passing. - "Genghis Khan through his actions reduced the global population by 11%. Even Communists and Nazis can't reach those numbers. No one condemns you if you like Genghis Khan though. He's just too far out and that's the underlying fear of woke libs, more time passing. That's why there is a near constant drone of WW2 in the American curriculum. That's why it's the "founding myth" because they want the flow of history to be static, so the great enemies never become amusing historical records. The cultural change progressives desire is limitless, yet the sentiment they want to feel is static. They want to repeat the Civil Rights Movements and victory in WW2 perpetually.
More importantly, he's not white. Liberals still bash the Crusades, which were even earlier
Call your Christmas parties ‘festive celebrations’, civil servants told - "Civil servants have been told they must refer to their Christmas parties as “festive celebrations” and cannot drink alcohol if members of their team are sober in an attempt to promote diversity and inclusion... One civil servant at a major Government department said the team had been told to find a restaurant that did not serve alcohol in an attempt to avoid “excluding” a member of staff who does not drink... “Of course, no one should be expected to drink alcohol at work events and there should always be the option of non-alcoholic drinks for those who don’t want to or can’t. But it just feels a step too far to say that nobody is allowed to drink alcohol because of the beliefs of one member of staff.”... Ministers have attempted to crack down on “unconscious bias” training in the civil service, which Julia Lopez, then a Cabinet Office minister, said “does not achieve its intended aims”... In one course that has since been scrapped, civil servants were confronted with a scenario where a manager told a member of staff to remove a Christmas tree in case it offended Jewish or Muslim colleagues... In 2014, staff at the former Department for Energy and Climate Change were told to avoid using the phrase “Merry Christmas” in festive missives to colleagues to avoid causing offence."
We'll still be told that there is no War on Christmas and only deluded conservatives think it's a thing
Young People, Not College Grads, Drive Wokeness - The Atlantic - "Of the 36 percent of Americans over 25 who have at least a bachelor’s degree, the majority did not attend an elite or even very selective school. The University of Central Florida has more undergraduates than the entire Ivy League. A lot of American 45-year-olds attended a state school, run a small business, and watch Fox News. Those people are college graduates too... Only 10 percent of respondents agreed that we should say “pregnant people,” and just 14 percent think people should say “Latinx.” This suggests that not many people have embraced this style of speaking, but also that the “threat of wokeness” might be overstated, given that relatively few people appear to actually be “woke.”"
This didn't look at young college grads vs young non-college grads, though
Most Germans in 1930s Germany weren't Nazi party members. So the Nazi threat was overstated
Meme - Pragun Dua: "GUYS IM STUCK IN THE WEWORK LIFT"
slackbot: "Hi! 'Guys' is a gendered pronoun. We recommend alternatives like 'folks', 'all', 'everyone', 'y'all', 'team', 'crew' etc. We appreciate your help in building an inclusive workplace at Headout."
Pragun Dua: "FOLKS IM STUCK IN THE WEWORK LIFT"
PragerU Makes Pro-America Education For Kids, The Left Freaks Out - "Writing about the “Paloma Wants to be Lady Freedom” video left-wing magazine The American Prospect says it “is innocuously packaged, and at times seems to support immigration. But ultimately, as is the case with much of PragerU’s content, it embraces American exceptionalism, an important strand of conservative ideology.” The American Prospect then quotes an offending line about American exceptionalism in “Paloma Wants to Be Lady Freedom”: “I’m glad we went to Washington, D.C., Daddy. I love America.” I love America — horrifying, right? How did we get here? Why is expressing love for one’s country such a terrible thing? Indians love India. The Japanese love Japan. The Chinese certainly have no problem expressing patriotism and their belief in Chinese exceptionalism. Why is it that in this country it has become taboo to love America? Why is “Paloma Wants to Be Lady Freedom” and PragerU’s PREP program an outrage? Our nation’s breakdown of American history knowledge and pride have a lot to do with another book, “A People’s History of the United States,” by Howard Zinn. Published in 1980, this Marxist-inspired pseudo-history looks at every event in American history through the lens of class warfare... Zinn is no reputable historian; he is an activist. In fact, even leftist historians have pointed out his significant historical errors and omissions in the book. Zinn also openly admitted that he became a “historian” to inspire leftist social revolution: “I came to history with a very sort of modest objective, I wanted to change the world.” Young consumers of Zinn’s left-wing reinterpretation of the United States have been taught to see America as morally flawed, if not outright evil... The narrative of Zinn’s book has permeated all grade levels all over the country. The largest U.S. teachers’ union has a division solely dedicated to advancing Black Lives Matter and encouraging identity politics in schools, right in line with Zinn’s goals. And out of the 100 largest school districts, none have the words “America” or “patriotism” in their mission statements. This is why we see headlines like, “Illinois Teachers Shamed For Color Of Their Skin In Taxpayer-Sponsored ‘Antiracist’ Training,” “My Kids’ Public School Held A Workshop Teaching The Police Are Racists,” and “Elementary School Forces Third-graders To Deconstruct Their Racial Identities, Then Rank Themselves According To Their “Power And Privilege.”... The left’s methods work. They have indoctrinated millions of children into believing America is evil, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted. Most importantly, they want to maintain their ideological monopoly on America’s education system. That is why leftists are so upset PragerU is daring to arm parents, teachers and students with facts, stories, and counter-arguments to the leftist agenda being pushed by public school teachers, unions, librarians, and school boards"
We're still told that liberals don't hate their countries. Indoctrination is only bad when the right is allegedly doing it
