Meritocracy is Dead - Diversity and Privilege in Higher Education
Meritocracy is Dead - Diversity and Privilege in Higher Education
The Current State of Affairs
Mandatory diversity has become the all-decisive mantra of tolerant inclusion at colleges, universities and institutions of higher education almost everywhere in the last twenty years. Diversity, on its face, is a wonderful and positive thing - who doesn't like a diverse range of friends, foods, colors, fashion or music? But when it comes to levels of knowledge and competency among the people who are to educate the next generation of society .... not so much.
A meritocratic approach to higher education is something most rational individuals would likely agree with. We want the best and the brightest, the smartest and the most competent to teach our young people. And among our young people, it is in the best interest of society to promote and support the most intelligent, productive, emotionally stable and altruistic. In my opinion, such a meritocratic approach would be the most effective approach to combating social injustice and inequalities.
Unfortunately however, meritocracy is dead at our universities. Mandatory diversity has replaced meritocratic achievement in the attempt to combat 'white privilege' as the cornerstone of multigenerational societal inequalities. It is worth noting that 'white privilege' is attributed primarily to straight white males of European descent and is perceived as a (perhaps even unconsciously) weaponized form of ethno-cultural hegemonic power. White women can also "suffer" from white privilege, but as an oppressed class are largely given a pass unless they openly advocate strong white male role models.
Advocates of the white privilege narrative have found ideological support amongst the advocates of militant third wave feminism and a considerable portion of the LGBQT-to-Infinity movement. Absurdly, if an individual is a white male (or female) and sufficiently conforms to or identifies with these ideologies, they will no longer be considered part of the "problem". If however they do not, even if they are against what the term 'white privilege' is intended to represent, they still benefit from it and are thus categorically complicit in the systematic oppression of all minorities.
This belief system has completely undermined the concept and execution of meritocracy in higher education. Once arbitrary (and I would argue ultimately meaningless) factors like race, sex, and gender orientation must be considered in determining who is best suited to fulfill a knowledge and competency-based position of educational responsibility, it is no longer meritocratic. This results in what is increasingly being termed 'minority privilege' - the systematic and institutionalized privileging of anything that is not straight white male.
The following video perfectly sums up the victimhood-olympics mentality that is being used to determine success in higher education and who will be allowed to educate future generations.
Educayshun
The Intentional Perpetuation of Inequality
I have borne witness to more examples of minority privilege during my two decades at the university than I care to remember, but I thought it might prove useful for those that actually advocate minority privilege to consider the real-life consequences of this belief system in the form of a few examples. A belief system that perpetuates exactly the behavior they are against, just directed against a new group.
A very clear memory: a young and naive student asked a full professor during a department conference why there were no scholarships for men, since there were so many for women. Her answer, toned to ridicule him for even daring to voice such a thought crime was, I quote: "There has to be an advantageous disadvantaging of men to provide for equality. I had hoped you would understand that by now." Orwellian doublethink wrapped in newspeak at its finest.
I was not much surprised by this response, this was the same professor who laughed and applauded when her SJW LGBQT advocate assistant told me, upon entering the professor's office, "On your knees, this is a matriarchy!" They both thought this was highly entertaining. Of course, if two men looked at a woman who walked into the office and told a woman, "On your knees, this is a patriarchy!" they would have both been fired for sexual harassment, likely without even a panel hearing by the university equality and integration board, but because they belonged to a privileged minority their behavior was considered not only humorous but just and appropriate as well.
The same university sent an email letter proudly exclaiming "94% of our doctoral candidates in our liberal arts departments are now women or minorities. An increase in this percentage is expressly desired by the administration." They weren't disadvantaging anybody on a meritocratic basis, of course not, they were just advantaging others on thec basis of their identity. That makes it okay.
I have watched numerous university positions at numerous universities in the last twenty years go to women or minorities that were less published, had less teaching experience, less didactic competence, poorer social skills and less command of their discipline than male applicants, not even because there were quotas, but because of the desire for "diversity" or "reparation for past injustices" on the part of the hiring board or non-academic bureaucrats who ultimately held the purse strings.
An over-exaggeration? Unfortunately not. Look at almost any announcements for an academic position at the university level today and what you will find is a phrase that extols the following (do a Google search if you care to): The University of _______ is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action employer. Minorities, women, veterans and individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply." or "The Universität _______ strives to achieve an increase in the percentage of women working at the university and, accordingly, expressly invites qualified women to apply for positions."
If instead it read something like: "The university is an equal opportunity, meritocratic employer. White passivist males of sound mind and body are encouraged to apply," or "The university strives to achieve an increase in the percentage of men working at the university and, accordingly, expressly invites qualified men to apply for positions." How exactly would that be any less discriminating from a meritocratic perspective?
Perhaps that is too much rationalism. I have tried this line of reasoning before and what I got back was "But, because institutionalized discrimination!" So let me get this straight: if some random white guy, or group of white guys, do something or create a system that another white man disagree with, that man should be held accountable for it and be thankful he can be disadvantaged because of it in the name of a greater social justice? Seriously? Has the cognitive capacity of the population been so stultified they can't objectively recognize the vicious hypocrisy and doublethink necessary to hold that position? Perhaps here it really is a matter of opinion, but I didn't seem able to get through to my interlocutor at the time.
Hint: You cannot get rid of inequality by treating people differently based on the color of their skin, their genitals or their gender belief system.
Revenge vs. Justice
Advocating minority privilege over meritocracy does not fight inequality, it perpetuates it. It also engenders feelings of resentment, sexism and racism by those who are disadvantaged by it. Why do you think there is so much hatred for cis white males today? Because they are perceived as having disadvantaged women and minorities. Now the victims want to be the victimizers. Catch 22 much?
Among the SJW crowd, it is now apparently fashionable to hold people accountable for things they have never done nor would never condone in the name of social justice. How just! It is practically biblical of the avenging atheists to visit the sins of the father upon the sons. How righteous!
Revenge is not justice. And today the social justice movement seems a lot more like a social revenge movement than anything remotely similar to justice. Countless millions of people are currently being demonized by charges of blanket racism and sexism from the (mostly radical leftist) politically correct thought police who remain adamantly opposed to recognizing the hypocrisy of their rhetoric or behavior. This is brainwashing at its finest. All hail doublethink!
The radical doublethink of privileging anybody based on their race or sex to combat racism and sexism is beyond mind-boggling. Rather than establishing a meritocratic system that requires the non-consideration of race and sex, the exact opposite has occurred. This is not a "response mechanism" to solve a problem, it is a reactionary swing of the pendulum that perpetuates and hastens the complete dissolution of social cohesion by transferring "privilege" to a new group. The very idea that the pendulum could now be swinging away from the SJW movement has resulted in its advocates engaging in preemptory defensive violence to silence words of opposition.
The pendulum needs to stop swinging, but whichever side happens to be profiting at the moment inevitably resists, causing ever more tension and causing the pendulum to swing all the more forcefully.
It has gotten much worse than many people know. The social justice crusade to impose the belief that "white privilege" is the bedrock of all injustice has taken a chilling turn. Silencing, disadvantaging, killing, raping, aborting , robbing and segregating whites has become considered justifiable behavior in the name of fighting racism. How exactly is that not hypocritical racist insanity? All of this idiocy was distilled and crystallized in the recent catastrophe that will hopefully become known as the death knell of the social justice movement and identity politics at Evergreen State College.
But I digress.
The Big Picture
Meritocracy in western civilization is dying in favor of a cultist ideology of victim adoration, where those who are perceived as the most victimized, disadvantaged and underprivileged are considered the most worthy of, well, anything and everything.
What so many of the young SJW crowd fail to understand is that true hegemonic power, derived from wealth and power, makes absolutely no distinction as to the race, color, sex, age, ethnicity or culture of an individual. The hyper-wealthy and truly powerful walk over the corpses of men and women, white, black and brown in their tireless pursuit of dominance. They don't care about you, me or anybody outside their money and power-based cliques. They want you feeling guilty or oppressed or attacking those around you so the real conflict never reaches the people at the top of power pyramid. While SJWs are berating their neighbors, colleagues and friends for not being tolerant or politically correct enough, while they are attacking the sheeple who (just like them) have fallen for the divide and conquer tactics, the über-rich are pondering how to keep the central banking system of indentured servitude up and running forever. They are what George Carlin called The Big Club.
I care about your ideas, not your race, sex or gender. I care about competency, integrity, reason and altruism. You are either fighting for freedom, justice and equality in a rational world, or you are mired in slave-think and attacking your fellow slaves.
To better understand this last statement, please view:
The Story of Your Enslavement
Conclusion
The current sociopolitical climate is a form of mass reactionary hysteria to the narrative of the radical Frankfurter School disciples that has taken root at the universities and in the controlled media throughout the west. If you are a SJW and don't understand the postmodern turn as ushered in by the critical theorists of the Frankfurter School, you are a dupe or, as the Marxists term it, a useful idiot for their cause. But that is a discussion for another time.
The death of meritocracy in higher education and the adoption of minority privilege and identity politics by society as a whole is an existential crisis for western democratic civilization and, at its root, is the result of ignorance and immorality masquerading as insight and empowerment. As long as the educational establishment propagates the ideology of retribution as justice the problem is only going to get worse. Unfortunately so many at the universities are so deeply indoctrinated into the belief system that inequality will eliminate inequality and that they are the good guys, it is literally impossible to reason with them.
Buckle up. It's going to be a wild ride.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante
.
.
.
Shot with a golden arrow,
.
.
.
Don't forget to upvote, follow and resteem! Comments always appreciated.
.
.
.
All gifs courtesy of Giphy
p.s. This post is a more developed response to Deva Winblood's post White Privilege? Yes, I am white.... Thanks for the encouragement Deva.
tag: education justice racism sexism privilege politically incorrect diversity
I don't think what you are saying is nearly as true as you seem to emphatically describe it. Have you been through diversity training?
Has anyone here, at their job, had to do this? Or are you just hearing about it on the internet from third-parties?
What are you no longer allowed to do, that you would be allowed to do otherwise? What are you missing out on? Real examples. You want free money?
That some people get free money in the form of scholarships, and others do not? Let's be reasonable here. Those things are donations, and should not be demanded. They will give to whom they wish.
What elements of free speech while in public are you missing? Is this unreasonable? Are you talking about just going up to a black or gay person, and rudely questioning them about something personal?
That is not reasonable behavior in public. We need to respect people, or else our society will become a dystopia where we cannot trust our community to serve us.
Let's be skeptical here. There are agendas at work that go in both directions, so don't fall for strongly worded, and divisive essays.
The writer himself may be hopelessly fooled, because it's not as if I'm unaware of memetic warfare, and the natural desire to convert people to a position that you have been convinced is true.
Even if it is not true.
The writer might be completely right, but let's look at our own experiences here, as many as possible. Report your findings as to what you actually experience while at a job or while in university, or other places in public.
If we get a big sample, perhaps we will shed light on this issue more accurately.
And do not lie, of course. Must it be said? Do not talk about internet arguments you've had with SJWs or whatever.
Let's keep this real-life focused; so go ahead and tell me what you've actually experienced regarding this, from institutions, and not just regular people.
Interesting response Heretic Kitten, I very much enjoyed reading it. I know it seems quite critical, but your reply is a text book example for why The Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation is required reading for anyone wishing to have a civil dialogue on a social media platform. All told, by my reckoning, you hit points 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22. That is really, really good for less than a page of text. I have to admit, I guess this is a troll test and I thank you very much for your reply and the instructional nature of it. What exactly did I learn?
Your first two paragraphs intimate incredulousness and indignancy so as to avoid discussing the key issue and focus on side issues that imply an unjust criticism of a group you perhaps consider otherwise sacrosanct. The topic here is if the active disadvantaging of individuals based on their sex or race is acceptable or not. I contend it is not. You?
Your third paragraph is a classic straw man, in which you amplify the significance of your interpretation (that I had a financial motive in reporting on someone else's question), then question my motive in reporting it so as to attempt to delegitimize the anecdote as motivated by greed. In that specific instance, the unspoken question was if funding programs should be based on sex or not. I personally contend not, they should be based on merit. You? I do however agree that many scholarships are private and the organizations that provide them should be allowed to give them to whomever they please.
Your segue into free speech and seeking to impugn my character by suggesting the desire to insult blacks or gays (i.e. racism or homophobia) is a poorly executed attempt to question the motive behind the post and imply that I am operating with a hidden personal agenda or other disreputable bias.
Of course there are agendas that go in both directions, that is exactly the point of the pendulum analogy that I drew towards the end of the post, which is very clear in advocating an equitable resolution based on meritocratic virtues and not politically motivated virtue signalling.
I am glad you're skeptical, but you seem so focused on impugning my character that you have completely failed to address the concept of meritocracy at all or the foundational argument of the post. Do you think meritocracy is how individuals should advance in society, work or anyplace else, or not?
Remarkably, you impugn and seek to discredit my real-life first-hand experience while calling for readers to provide you with their own first-hand experiences. Then you admonish them not to lie, which intimates that is what I have done, for all things take place in context, and you chose to comment on my post with that statement.
You finish up by creating a rumor monger presumption, which avoids discussing the issue by describing everything related as mere rumors and wild accusations. How does that rule of disinformation go again? Oh yeah, "If you can associate the material with Internet, use this fact to certify it (as having) no basis in fact."
If I may be so humble as to suggest you reread the post and actually address the issue of meritocracy, which is the core issue at stake here, then perhaps we can actually have a productive exchange instead of an exercise in disinformation argumentation tactics.
Thanks again!
I am playing the skeptic, not debating against you.
I am raising questions, so that people have a chance to think.
I really liked the exchange, thanks for taking the time!
I thoroughly enjoyed it myself!
p.s. Right, forgot to mention, yes I had diversity training before beginning my postdoc position where I was writing a habilitation with a gender studies focus. Ironically, the gender studies advocates I was exposed to were the worst perpetrators of what is colloquially known as "reverse sexism", i.e. misandry. Enjoy my answer to your post!
I too have taken master's level diversity training and while this piece is very well written, and brings up many good points. There is still a lot missing here.
Please elaborate! Or is this Gentleman's Guide #6/25?
Sweeping statements like "Meritocracy is dead at our universities" is rather aggressive in my opinion. I see a lot of absolutes being used here and it feels like that is being done to trigger some shock value in me.
Defending only your side as ferociously as you do is a turn off. It borders along the lines of racism, even if I agree with you, while I am also positive that was not your intention. You are obviously out to make some good points here, I can tell you are very eloquent, and very smart, but most folks will assume there is a bias when they detect such anger.
That anger and your consistent condescending tone throughout this post is not helping your case here, it is working against you. Your responses to critical thought applied to your paper by others is also rather aggressive, which is not going to draw anyone to debate, because it really feels like you want to fight about this more than anything else.
So while I am not going to argue with you, I can tell you what I would rather see, and why I personally think it would help your argument.
I think everyone could learn a lot by examining both sides of the argument in a much more serious fashion. I found you blatantly bashing the other side of the argument nearly resorting to name calling in some cases.
If you were to write about both sides of this debate in a more neutral fashion, you could more carefully draw lines and conclusions that allow people to think and make the decision for themselves. Probably even in your direction. This post clearly feels like someone is trying to think for me.
I have a feeling that is what @heretickitten is saying here too.
People who side with you may respond really nicely to this sort of work, and you can use it to rally your cause, if that is what you are really after. But if you are really trying to convince others to come to your side... If you are trying to create real change... Then it is going to take a more careful style of leadership and guidance.
You seem very passionate about it and you seem good to fit this bill. So I think it is something you should work on and consider Steemit comments as your peer review. Not as some sort of challenge for you to smash.
If you worked or lived in the educational institution as long as you say you have, then this should not be anything new nor offensive. This is simply constructive criticism because we like your work, and we want to see more.
Now that really was a well-crafted and balanced response, thank you. I actually felt good reading that because it addressed the text in a critical yet substantive manner.
Admittedly, I was not going for a neutral academic tone, nor did I address the genuine and legitimate concerns that lead to the institution of affirmative action/equal opportunity policies by people who meant well. True too that I was rather stringent in my condemnation of non-meritocratic practice, I was not going for a treatment of both of sides of the argument.
Meritocracy in other respects is most certainly alive and well in some corners of higher education. Grading for example (if one is fortunate enough to have an educator or supervisor who is not adamantly opposed to different opinions). Also within my network of friends at the universities, I have noticed that the liberal arts departments are much prone to a non-meritocratic mindset discussed than the natural sciences departments. As to my spirited defense of the piece, I can understand how in this context it comes across rather vehement, but logical fallacies deserve to be called out as such.
All of my writing for public consumption to date has been strictly academic with a rare excursion into fiction; this is admittedly the first social media / blog platform where I have even considered posting a written text that reflected a personal opinion and it is a learning process. I will definitely consider your constructive criticism when crafting future opinion posts.
Thanks again!
I doubt it is. @kidsysco is a friend of mine before steemit. I found it, and told people in the small slack channel we frequented about it. @kidsysco is really the only one from that channel that has consistently used steemit since then. While we don't always agree he does use his head so if it was Gentleman's Guide #6/25 it was not intentional on his part. :)
I actually think you and he will end up getting along splendidly. :)
Good to know, thanks for the feedback. I look forward to getting to know more people.
@heretickitten. I think you missed something, to say the least. But I suspect your questions only proves you are suffering from the core premise of the article. Diversity training! It's a bit astounding that you wrote this.
Not everyone who questions things belongs to the other side.
I am simply skeptical.
Wow! I'm glad I told you to do this, and boy howdy did you do it. You did far more than I was expecting. I voted you as high as I could, and I resteemed this. If I could do more I would. This is an exceptionally well written, and well thought out article. It also offers some first hand accounts which most of us likely have not witnessed. Some people may come at you in their straw man suits and attack you for anecdotal evidence as though you were trying to prove something based upon anecdotes. It is clear you were not, you were simply providing some personal experiences as back drop examples to illustrate the point you were trying to make. I spoke of minority privilege, but you made a new thing for me in this.
Social Revenge Warriors... how truly perfect.
I really appreciate the kind words. I know posting this may trigger some, but healthy debate is always a plus. I can stand by everything I wrote with a completely clear conscience.
Glad you like the turn of phrase Social Revenge Warriors, it came to me while writing the article, though I see now in Googling it that it has already been used 153 times. Too bad I wasn't the first!
I have been working on a piece about cultural misappropriation as well, but that is a minefield only recently laid and it is slow going. I am hoping to get that out some time soon.
Thanks for your response, upvote and resteem!
Feel free to reply to something I said like you did and let me know when you wrote something. It is easy to MISS things with the way the feed is inundated with material.
Oh I also promoted your post a small amount. :)
You were absolutely 100% right about the straw man attacks, they have begun. Thanks for your kind support.
It's really amazing when you read something that resonates and then you're justified by seeing familiar names in the comments. Not surprised that @dwinblood is on board. I'm also promoting this post and look forward to deeper dialog (which I know we'll have).
Glad my article resonated with you, I have posted a few more since I got back from vacation, would love to hear your take on them.
The deliberate dumbing down of America started in the 60's, and has since taken dimensions that can only be interpreted as having one goal: To stupidify a people so that they may love their servitude (and masters).
Home Schooling at all cost!
ch @globocop
Yes, Charlotte Iserbyt and John Taylor Gatto have done a lot of good work on the institutionalized indoctrination that goes on in public schooling (not I did not say public education). Some teachers today are aware of that and have gone into teaching specifically to try and salvage what they can.
Simply remarkable article and videos. It could not have been written any better. I'm sending a link to my family and friends. I subscribe to Doug Casey (the author and renowned speculator) and several of his financial newsletters and often get emailed articles he has written. He has written extensively about this same topic. We are facing an inflection point in history when I'm sure it won't be possible to turn this ship around.
Imagine if we chose professional athletes for NFL or NBA or Soccer based on diversity requirements or we selected our olympians bases on a requirement for equal number of Asian Americans, African American, Hispanics, Japanese Americans, etc. It would be nothing less than pure nonsense. Whether in sports or in hiring, you simply select the best based on merit and you ignore all the race, sex, size, shape, attractiveness, etc. All the noise being written about diversity and the shaming has reached a truly epic moment. I can't imagine having a business and not hiring the best person that can help the business compete and succeed. Period. But if the media keeps writing the diversity nonsense, eventually all the kids will grow up to believe the lies.
My first job after engineering grad school was at GM in one of their manufacturing plants. They were dying for lack of engineers to support the plant. The issue was a hiring freeze, unless it was a woman! A plant can be a pretty rotten place to work. There were few woman who wanted one of these manufacturing positions. Remarkably stupid. During this same position at GM, I learned that in order to make the cut of entering an apprenticeship program for a skilled trade, you had to pass an aptitude exam. However, if you had a certain color skin or were a woman they made sure you got in. There was a really nice African American woman who was an electrician. Overtime was offered to the tradesmen and tradeswomen in a balanced and fair way. I had this electrician on my shift for overtime several times. A piece of equipment would be down, I would ask for her help and she would ask me to tell her what I wanted her to do. Man or women, young or old, tall or short, didn't matter. What mattered was the aptitude requirement that was overlooked and the business suffered by having to always find workarounds.
I up-vote, resteemed and I'm following. I look forward to more articles!
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Your hypothetical about diversity in sports is one step closer to reality with the recent decision by the International Olympic Committee that transgenders can compete in the Olympics as their preferred identity. See here: "IOC rules transgender athletes can take part in Olympics without surgery" As you emphasize in your reply, it should be about merit, and as we would all suspect, I cannot agree enough.
I too am concerned that ever more people, especially among the young, believe that privileging one's subjective belief system over demonstrably objective truths is valid and does not have potentially negative consequences. I do however see what many are waking up to, and that many kids in Generation Z, growing up in the wake of the Millennials, sees that "something just isn't right" and isn't running off the cliff behind them. See one of many treatments of the topic here: "The student Left's culture of introlerance is creating a new generation of conservatives".
Aptitude and a good attitude are always advantageous! Thanks for the resteem!
Since you were looking forward to my next contributions, I thought I would let you know I have posted a few more since you visited my blog last! Cheers!
So much yes. This is not only the case at Universities, but also in the workforce. Gender and diversity targets are increasingly culling capable candidates from even having an opportunity to present themselves as being suitable for a role.
It is not equality in the current state, and when you argue this point, you get instantly shut down for being anti-equality. You have made this argument in a great and entertaining manner.
Thank you for sharing. Upvoted 100% and Resteemed.
I am glad you appreciate my manner of presenting the argument. Unfortunately, as I said in closing, many are just so deep in that they can't see the inherent contradiction in promoting unequal treatment to combat inequality. It is amazing how many texts about race or sex can be exposed for their intrinsic bigotry and irrational nature just by swapping out one color or sex with another.
I remember there was a subreddit which edited news articles / journal articles to change out pronouns to other words, then you had to guess if the article was written by a SJW or Neo-Nazi.
It was surprisingly difficult. Language does so much to impact upon our perceptions of the world, and my personal opinion is that everyone has a view, but if that view cannot be backed up with evidence (in an academic context) - then that view should not be considered as valid, unless there is the adequate, rigorous discourse surrounding it.
It is only through disagreement and pushing people outside of their comfort zones that we expand the sum total of human knowledge, and without this, without challenge, argument and development, we're pretty much doomed.
People are far too obsessed with their "safe spaces" :) The magic happens outside of them!
Excellent observations. Some of the people I have learned the most from hold very different perspectives than I, but it was the manner of our disagreements that made the exchanges so productive. While we both pushed each other outside of comfort zones, it was mutually understood that we were both searching for some kind of greater truth or mutual understanding together. It was rare that some compromise would not be found that enabled us both to maintain our individual stances and yet have a greater appreciation for the other's as well.
Exactly that sort of exchange seems threatened by the current belief in the right to "safe spaces" on college and university campuses. The intent of safe spaces may be a comfortable one, but I would contend it results in intellectual infantilization. And that may be what we are seeing today in the screaming apoplectic rage of the SJW crowd that appears to forebear logic or reason. That gives me something to think about...
Thank you for the intelligent responses to my comments. :)
Sounds like you've got an idea for another post in there, and I'd love to see it! ;)
Hell, I could almost write a post about that too! I've thrown a follow at you to see the future material that you produce. I only saw this post because it was resteemed. Please continue to produce excellent content like you have! :)
Hi Holoz0r, I've done my best to live up to this post in my subsequent contributions, since you requested I write more, I would be honored if you took a look at my blog. Cheers!
Great post!
My friend was recently dressed as Hitler at an LGBTQ+ event, and some social revenge warriors (straight and white of course) got upset in case someone found it offensive (no one did) and used verbal threats saying they were going to attack and kill her.
I wish I could say that kind of virtue-signalling by SRWs was surprising, but sadly it is par for the course. Nice to see an Irishman. Thanks for the reply!
Thanks for the great article. I am currently working on the preliminaries for a series of satirical theatre productions in Liverpool on this issue. You have given me many ideas to digest :D
There may be some more inspiration for your satire piece in my latest contributions, take a gander!
Now that sounds like a great project! I have always been fond of satire, especially for its ability to reveal the absurd. I will be following you to keep an eye on that.
great read
Thanks for the response. The golden Lady Liberty is a great avatar!
Upvoted and HIGHLY rEsteemed!
In consideration of this post, I'll be following as well.
Thank you and SteemON!
Thanks for the resteem!
source
Thanks for your support with this article, I have posted a few more on my blog that might interest you since this topic caught your fancy!
This is absolutely terrifying stuff you're sharing here, and I'm glad to be coming across more of it these days. The Wife and I just watched the "Educashun" video the other night. So at least clear thinking hasn't been completely eclipsed, yet!
It's especially frightening how college campuses are essentially setting up parallel legal systems. Someone on my facebook feed recently argued that a college student who was accused of rape should not be allowed to continue to attend classes on campus - whether they are found guilty or not. She felt that "the burden of proof to establish guilt within the court system was too high," and that attending classes with an accused assailant would be too traumatic, even if they never established guilt. As a "compromise," the accused could be allowed to continue their studies off campus, over the internet.
This kind of thinking is straight from the Soviet Union - or the Salem witch trials. The potential for Revenge, as opposed to Justice, here, is absolutely mind-boggling.
The example of the girl advocating ostracism for the accused from campus, even if found innocent by a court of law, has frightening implications. If you haven't seen the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" you should definitely watch it, it speaks to that topic in a poignant and tragic way. Thanks for your response!
Black Mirror definitely hits a lot of nails square on the head. I love that show.
Your appreciation of my Meritocracy contribution suggests you would like some of my more recent posts, I'd be pleased to get some feedback if you have time!
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll read them tomorrow when I've got a little more mental fortitude!
Good post.upvoted followed u wish u do same.
Thanks for the compliment, hope you liked the vids as well.