Monday, February 25, 2019







Hundreds of British university students attempt to block Jewish Society

Hitler is still with us -- represented these days by Amnesty International.  Amnesty used to be reasonably impartial.  They are hard Left these days.  Israel has long been their big stumbling block.  They seem to have an instinctive hatred of it.  They certainly show no balance in their words about it.  When they look at Israel they see only "human rights abuses" and "war crimes", not the measures needed to ensure survival amid huge Arab hostility

Hundreds of students voted against the creation of a Jewish Society, after a member of the university's Amnesty International group urged students to oppose it on the basis that it is too “political”.

More than 200 Essex University students answered 'no' to the question "Should there be a Jewish society?"

Every new student group at Essex must win a majority in vote of existing society members in order for its creation to be ratified by the Student Union.  Recently ratified societies include the “K-Pop society”, the “Ted-X Society” and the “Pokemon Go Society”.

However, a representative of the university’s Amnesty International group urged students to vote against the Jewish Society, saying: “The society has mentioned it will celebrate Israeli national day which has nothing to do with Judaism.

“Until the society is politically neutral like every other religious society we will take a stance on this. So we urge you to please vote no until they are politically neutral”.

The Union of Jewish Students said it is “shameful” that a group “ostensibly concerned with human rights” has shown “such disregard for human decency and the rights of all peoples to freely explore and full express their distinct identity”.

Will Quince, the Conservative MP for Colchester, described the vote as "shocking" and "terrible". Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, added that the vote was "awful".

Meanwhile, the university has launched an “urgent” investigation into one of its academics who opposed the creation of the Jewish Society, reportedly exclaiming on Facebook that “the Zionists next want to create a society here at our university!”

Dr Maaruf Ali, a lecturer in computers and electronics at Essex, also shared a photo from a far-right website which claimed that one of the French policemen killed in the January 2015 attack by Islamist terrorists in Paris was actually “a Mossad agent live and well in Buenos Aires… a crypto-Jew in the service of Israeli intelligence”.

Amanda Bowman, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said the hundreds of that Dr Ali’s social media posts were “abhorrent”, adding that students who voted against the creation of a Jewish Society were guilty of "pure and simple” racism.

A University of Essex spokeswoman said: "As a university, we promote debate and deliberation of controversial issues and, within the limits of the law, encourage students and staff to express views with rigour and conviction.”

An Essex student union spokesman said: "We believe strongly in the power of democracy and as a Union led by students we give our members the opportunity to decide on everything we do, from who leads the organisation through to whether a society should be ratified. 

"It is important to us that this is process is followed properly and we therefore look forward to a free and fair vote concluding next week."

Kerry Moscogiuri, a director at Amnesty and International, said: “The comments made by a member of the University of Essex Amnesty group on the proposed manifesto for the new Jewish Society at Essex University do not reflect the view of the Essex University Amnesty Society and Amnesty International UK.

"Whilst they were well intentioned, their view to conflate Israel Independence Day with the human rights abuses committed by the Israeli authorities is wrong."

“Essex University has not had a Jewish Society for a number of years and there is definitely a need for one to be set up – a view that is championed by the Amnesty group there.”

SOURCE






Behind the Left's 'Free College' Mantra

It's more than buying votes; it's sustaining fiscally unsound colleges and universities   

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) was the first to call for what has fast become an obligatory policy position for all current Democrat presidential contenders — “free” college. As with health care, Democrats’ call for free college is a play for the votes of recent college graduates who find themselves saddled with thousands in college debt. Much of that debt is due to the steep increase in tuition costs seen over the past three decades — an increase that has outpaced the rate of inflation. CNBC reports that the average annual tuition cost at a public four-year institution for the 1987-1988 school year was $3,190 (adjusted to reflect 2017 dollars) while the average for the 2017-2018 was $9,970, an increase of 129%. For private nonprofit four-year institutions, the numbers are even worse with an increase over the same time period of 213%. In other words, the increasing cost of college is not a myth, so it’s understandable that Democrats would add this to their litany of “free stuff.”

But there’s a bigger picture here than simply seeing this as Democrats blatantly seeking the college vote. Back in 2011, Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen made the somewhat startling prediction that “50% of the 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. will be bankrupt in 10 to 15 years.” And Christensen was not the only one to sound the alarm, as the U.S. Department of Education and Moody’s Investors Service also projected that over the coming years the “closure rates of small colleges and universities will triple, and mergers will double.”

Thus far, the closure rates among four-year colleges and universities have ticked up slightly, but as Michael Horn writes in Forbes, “The total number of mergers and acquisitions from just 2010-2017 has doubled the activity that occurred in the prior decade, which further suggests that the Moody’s projections may be conservative.” Horn further points out that a combination of decreasing student enrollment, increasing online-program enrollment, and the fact that “at least 25% of private colleges now running deficits … and public colleges … expenses have outpaced revenue the past three years” is “a recipe for disaster.”

So, back to Democrats and their free college mantra. What Democrats are really after is the socializing of higher education. By doing so, they would prevent those fiscally untenable institutions from going under — via the taxpayer — while at the same time insuring that these enclaves of leftist ideology are enabled, without market constraints, to continue indoctrinating America’s youth.

SOURCE 






Free college for all is silly because not everyone should go to college

Progressives have long been advocates for free college. This is partly due to their belief that higher education is a "right" and should be given to all. Though it's true that education is of great importance, it does not mean taxpayers should be saddled with such massive debt in order to placate feelings.

Standing out from the pack of current Democratic presidential candidates on this issue is Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who does not support the idea of free four-year college. She said as much during a town hall Monday evening:

"No, I am not for free four-year college for all. If I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would. ... I've gotta tell the truth. We have a mountain of debt that the Trump administration keeps making worse and worse, and I don't want to leave that on the shoulders of these kids too."

Klobuchar's mention of the Trump administration as the reason to reject this idea is only partially correct. Yes, the national debt has increased in recent years under his command, but it was already high when President Barack Obama and his predecessors left office. If we're being honest, there has been little to no concern about government spending on both sides of the aisle. To add to that by way of free college tuition for all would be incredibly unwise.

One aspect of the college question that is rarely considered is the societal peer pressure to attend a four-year school upon high school graduation. In the United States, pursuing higher education is considered a rite of passage and the next logical step into responsible adulthood. How much has this desire to belong or please others contributed to mounting personal debt that does not lead to meaningful job pursuits? Is the tendency to ask high school seniors, "So, where are you going to school in the fall?" doing more harm than good?

Of course, there are plenty of fields that require at least a four-year college degree including healthcare, teaching, accountancy, engineering, and computer science, to name a few. In addition, other majors, including English or history, are helpful if a student plans to attend law school after undergraduate education is complete. But how practical are degrees in gender studies, art history, philosophy, and theater? Personal interest may drive students to choose these paths, but at the end of their education, what can they show for it other than student loan payments?

This is why I've always appreciated Mike Rowe's stance on the "college for all" mentality, which is directly related to the free college mindset driven by progressives and their ilk.
What I’ve opposed — consistently — is not the importance of higher education, but rather, the relentless drumbeat of 'college for everyone.' That’s the real problem, and it’s worth repeating. Because this cookie-cutter approach to education presupposes that all worthwhile knowledge can only be attained from a college or a university. That’s the most dangerous myth of all, and the unintended consequences are now self-evident — the vanishing of shop class in high schools, $1.3 trillion dollars of student loans, and 6 million vacant jobs that no one is trained to do. That’s the skills gap. It’s real, and it’s a massive problem for anyone who shares my addiction to smooth roads, cool air, and indoor plumbing."

In July 2018, MarketWatch reported that the construction industry was having trouble finding young laborers for their high-paying jobs that don't require a four-year degree. The shortage in this and other fields, such as HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work, will continue to have a ripple effect on the economy. Meanwhile, modern society is still convinced that everyone is both made for and must go to college in order to find personal worth and achieve future financial stability. Neither is true.

Along with rejecting the idea that taxpayers should pay for everyone to attend college, we should also be quick to remind others that college isn't the only path to success. There are other career pursuits that have just as much potential and best of all, won't leave a young person with student loan payments that already set them back at the starting line of adulthood.

SOURCE 



No comments: