Monday, June 18, 2018

Hate-filled ignoramus is a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

She seems a pretty unhappy lady.  I wonder what her problem is?  Maybe she is an incel.  Leftists do a lot of projectiong

A professor who has called Dr. Jordan B. Peterson an “incel” wrote a post Sunday saying that she “will not be silenced.”

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania philosophy professor Wendy Lynne Lee seemed not to be aware of the existence of Peterson’s wife and kids when she called him a “misogynist incel” on Twitter. An incel, or involuntary celibate, is shorthand for a man who has trouble attracting sexual partners and often checks out of the dating scene.

“Jordan Peterson: incel misogynist. Committed white nationalist,” Lee said in a reply to Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk, referencing a bibliography she maintains on “white nationalists,” where she has allegedly chronicled the University of Toronto professor’s “decent [sic] into rank bigotry.”

Lee deleted her tweet after The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out for comment, but not before TheDCNF took a screenshot of it.

“Jordan Peterson is, as Grant Maxwell puts it beautifully, an ‘intellectual misogynist,'” the professor explained to TheDCNF. “Maxwell shows that Peterson’s reading of Carl Jung is a gross misinterpretation for the sake of pandering to an essentialist and patriarchal worldview: ‘He evidently wants to return to unquestioned patriarchy by paradoxically claiming that “the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.’ This is an insidious sleight-of-hand in which, by denying that patriarchal oppression ever existed, men can continue to ignore what many women have been saying for centuries.”

The professor noted that Peterson dissuades his followers from engaging with disciplines “he sees as ‘corrupted’ by the supposed evils of feminism, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism” and identifies the Canadian author, as well as Jewish conservative figures Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz and Dave Rubin and right-wing commentator Ann Coulter as “white nationalists sources” in her bibliography.

Peterson replies:

“It’s clear that [Lee] has decided that it’s entirely acceptable to be careless with her words in relationship to me and my putative beliefs,” Peterson told TheDCNF. “Academics, whose trade-in-stock is words, should know better. She clearly believes (1) that her ill-advised statements are warranted, which they are not, and (2) that such actions, however ill-advised, are acceptable, ethically and factually.”

“It appears that she is taking her lead from articles like the recent New York Times piece that mischaracterized my views on monogamy,” the University of Toronto professor and author of “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” continued. “It is not obvious at all where she has acquired the evidence for my existence as a ‘white nationalist source,’ since no such evidence whatsoever exists anywhere. I would counsel those who wish to bring forward such groundless accusations to be duly cautious. Such shots in the dark have a nasty habit of backfiring.”

The Bloomsburg professor previously posted on Twitter “message to the haters: The Flag Will Hang in Distress in my office window until the Trumpian fascists resign,” referring to an American flag she has hung upside down in her office window, which overlooks the school’s quad, since President Donald Trump’s election victory in November 2016.

Bloomsburg student and Marine veteran John Fromille noticed the upside down flag, as well as signs reading “Biggest s***hole in the world is Donald Trump’s racist soul” in Lee’s window in March. Fromille took a picture of the professor’s display and wrote on Facebook in a post that subsequently went viral that Lee has the right to hang the paraphernalia, but distinguished between teaching and indoctrinating students, calling this latter method a “blatant and flagrant abuse of power.”

Lee asserted that she had two meetings with Bloomsburg administrators in a June LinkedIn post entitled “I Will Not Be Silenced: The Vital Work of Free Expression in the Academy in the Education of Free Citizens.” The first unnamed official allegedly told the professor that her signs could impair the university’s recruitment efforts, urging her to adopt an “alternative form of dissent” but letting her know that he “respected [her] right to free speech.” The second administrator purportedly informed Lee that if Bloomsburg rejected the philosophy department’s request to hire a new faculty member, he would be “pissed” because it be as a result of Lee’s actions. The professor still refuses to take down the upside down flag and has also advocated flag-burning.

“There are no objective facts supporting the claim that my flag protest has resulted in a reduction of freshman enrollment,” Lee told TheDCNF. “Enrollment across PASSHE has been on the decline for several years due to reasons mostly demographic and due to lack of adequate state funding thanks to the previous Republican administration.”

Aside from the president, Lee has attached the label of “alt-right” to outlets and organizations like college watchdog Campus Reform and student organization Turning Point USA, which lists as its mission “to educate students about the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government” and has minority members like Candace Owens, who serves as the group’s director of urban engagement.


UPDATE: Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, who has two children, threatened Wednesday to sue a Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania professor who called him an incel and a white nationalist.

“Please immediately retract all of your defamatory statements, have them immediately removed from the internet, and issue an apology in the same forum to Mr. Peterson,” Peterson’s attorney Howard Levitt said in an email to Lee obtained by Mic. Lewitt threatened to take legal action if the professor did not comply.


“That’s some apology,” Peterson noted to TheDCNF.

“I find it absurd,” Lee, who has authored “Contemporary Feminist Theory and Activism: Six Global Issues,” told Mic. “Many have actually said these things about Peterson and at much greater length. You can find similar language in several articles.”

But Levitt alleged that Lee’s stature as a professor with a Ph.D. means her claims bear more weight than do accusations made by other individuals.


UK: The ugliness of the ‘dead white male’ debate

Saying that black kids can’t relate to Shakespeare is deeply reactionary

Pity the ex-students of Mary Bousted, former English teacher and currently joint head of the National Education Union. If you’d sat through her lessons when she taught in Harrow in the 1980s, you might have asked yourself why you were studying an obscure Chinese novel and not Hamlet or Julius Caesar like the kids do at the posh schools.

If what she told delegates at the Bryanston Educational Summit last week is anything to go by, she might have told you that, while she didn’t have a problem with Shakespeare, his work was ‘intensely conservative’ because he ‘wrote a lot of the time to bolster the divine right of kings’. This is why, while others might consider Shakespeare to be the greatest writer in the English language, she isn’t very keen on schools teaching him. And according to Bousted, Chinese, Indian or Afro-Caribbean pupils aren’t interested in him either – because Shakespeare is white and dead.

Upon reading ‘if you prick us do we not bleed?’ or ‘this above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not be false to any man’, what kind of person – let alone teacher – thinks, ‘but you’re only saying that because you’re white’? The answer is: a philistine.

The term philistine’s current usage was coined by Matthew Arnold in his landmark 1869 book Culture and Anarchy. In it, he argues that the point of education is to pass on the best that has been thought and said to succeeding generations. It was precisely this attitude that Bousted was targeting in her Bryanston speech. ‘If a powerful knowledge curriculum means recreating the best that has been thought by dead white men – then I’m not very interested in it’, she said.

Although the complaints about dead white males appear distinctly modern, Bousted is actually restaging a battle fought over 150 years ago – between knowledge and skills. When Arnold writes of the ‘philistines’ in the 1860s, he has in mind the new class of industrialists who thought the ‘sweetness and light’ of classical learning was outdated and was holding England back from competing on the world stage.

They wanted new, mechanistic approaches to education, which would help to grow the economy. When Bousted calls for a skills-based approach to education, as practised in countries like China, and decries England’s curriculum as ‘not fit for the world in 2018’, she echoes the Victorian philistines.

In her speech, she tried to present herself as not being against knowledge per se. She employed the edu-speak equivalent of ‘I’m not racist, some of my best friends are black’, name-dropping Pope, Dryden and Shelley as authors she has ‘no problem’ with. She said that it is important for students to know ‘some of the best that has been thought and said’, but that they should also know that putting Shakespeare on the curriculum ‘was a choice that was made and a choice made by the powerful’.

In this, she doesn’t seem to understand what the contemporary debate over the role of knowledge in the curriculum is all about. In raising the question of the ‘powerful’ when it comes to knowledge, Bousted is alluding to the work of sociologist Michael Young. In his 2007 book, Bringing Knowledge Back In, Young establishes two opposing types of knowledge: ‘powerful knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of the powerful’. For Young, the ‘knowledge of the powerful’ is exclusively owned by the elites and is the knowledge that helps to sustain their position in society.

‘Powerful knowledge’, on the other hand, is learning that can liberate students from their social, intellectual and economic constraints. It is the sink-estate kid’s knowledge of Shakespeare, he argues, that will one day enable him to beat an Etonian to a place at Oxford. Bousted ignores this distinction. Powerful knowledge is key to the kind of social mobility that Bousted is calling for. But she confuses it with white privilege and attacks it instead.

Knowledge itself cannot be tainted by power. Literature and mathematics were once the possession of the most elitist, insular and privileged castes that have ever existed in human history. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach these subjects. The baby and the bathwater are different things. The works of Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer are sublime and universal. To judge their value on the basis of the colour of the skin of their author – or of the reader – is deeply reactionary.

Bousted’s speech might have excited a number of the new philistines for its attack on a knowledge-based curriculum and its seemingly progressive call for greater diversity. But for me at least, it was ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’.


Harvard report found Asian-Americans faced admissions penalty

Harvard University’s own internal research raised concerns about how Asian-American applicants are treated by the college’s admissions process, according to documents filed Friday in an affirmative action lawsuit against the school.

Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research completed three reports starting in 2013 that showed Asian-Americans faced a penalty in the admissions process, according to a filing by the Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit that is suing Harvard.

Harvard’s research office found that Asian-Americans would comprise 43 percent of an admitted class if admissions officers considered only academic qualifications and should make up 26 percent of the class when extracurricular activities and personal ratings are considered. Yet at that time, Asian-Americans made up 19 percent of the share of admitted students.

Harvard’s own reports offered no conclusions or explanations about why a gap in Asian-American admissions existed. But one of the reports noted that, “Asian high achievers have lower rates of admission,” according to the court documents.

Students for Fair Admissions, which is representing a group of Asian-American students, is led by Edward Blum, who most recently backed a challenge to race-based admissions at the University of Texas that involved a white student.

Blum and the organization argue in court documents that Harvard did nothing to address the inequity discovered by its own research into Asian-American admissions.

“Instead of taking even the most minor steps to address this problem, or conducting any further investigation, Harvard killed the investigation and buried the reports,” according to the organization’s court filings.

Harvard, for its part, argues that its use of race to ensure a diverse campus is legal and fair, and its old internal reports were preliminary and incomplete. The university instead filed court documents with new research showing that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

The new report, which reviewed six years of admissions data, found that being Asian-American had no material effect on gaining a seat at Harvard, according to court filing.

In fact, the admissions rate for Asian-Americans has grown by 29 percent in the past decade, Harvard officials said.

In its own court filings, Harvard argues that Blum and the Students for Fair Admissions having failed to convince the US Supreme Court to overturn the use of race in college admissions in the University of Texas case, are now trying again with Asian-Americans.

“Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors, such as personal essays and teacher recommendations that directly counter his arguments,” said Anna Cowenhoven, a spokeswoman for Harvard.

The competing documents, filed Friday morning in US District Court in Boston, are the latest salvo in the ongoing lawsuit. The case is likely to go to trial this fall and could test the use of race in college admissions.

The documents also show that Harvard has considered race-neutral admissions policies in recent years, including socio-economic factors and geography, but found that neither were sufficient.

“Harvard could not achieve the diversity it seeks or the educational objectives that flow from that diversity without considering race unless it significantly compromised other essential institutional objectives, including academic excellence,” Harvard said in its court filings.


No comments: