I remember how it was -- JR
Professors Accuse Trump-Era 'China Initiative' of Racially Profiling Chinese Scholars
Over 100 professors at Stanford University are calling for an end to the "China Initiative" – a Trump-era program meant to prevent espionage and technology theft from China – by claiming that it fosters a hostile environment for Chinese workers at universities.
In a letter sent to the Justice Department last week, 177 Stanford faculty members argued that the program is harming academic settings by racially profiling and unfairly targeting Chinese researchers.
The China Initiative was first launched in 2018 with the goal of combating economic espionage, trade secret theft and technology threats associated with China's government. However, the Stanford professors argued that the initiative has since "deviated significantly" from its intended purpose by terrorizing Chinese scholars simply because of their ethnic ties.
"We understand that concerns about Chinese government-sanctioned activities including intellectual property theft and economic espionage are important to address. We believe, however, that the China Initiative has deviated significantly from its claimed mission: it is harming the United States' research and technology competitiveness and it is fueling biases that, in turn, raise concerns about racial profiling," the researchers wrote.
The professors claimed that investigations from the initiative are often fueled "not by any evidence of wrongdoing, but just because of a researcher's connections with China," and Chinese researchers have subsequently been prosecuted "without solid evidence."
"Moreover, racial profiling – even when undertaken in pursuit of justice – is both inconsistent with U.S. law and with the principles underlying our society, the letter added. "These actions do not just affect the prosecuted faculty but affect the many more university researchers who are targeted, investigated, and feel threatened by inquires initiated without prior evidence of significant wrongdoing."
The professors also argued that the initiative has prevented talented Chinese scholars from coming to or engaging with U.S. researchers, and is, therefore "harming the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the future of the U.S. STEM workforce."
In response to criticisms, Justice Department spokesperson Wyn Hornbuckle told Reuters that the government is "dedicated to countering unlawful (Chinese) government efforts to undermine America's national security and harm our economy," he said, adding "We take seriously concerns about discrimination."
Since the China Initiative was launched, the Justice Department has published details of at least 27 cases, some of which included guilty pleas, while others have been dropped or are remain ongoing, Reuters reported. Among those include charges brought against professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University.
Last month, more than 20 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) groups also signed a joint letter urging President Joe Biden's administration to pause the China Initiative and conduct an independent review of the program, according to Japanese- English newspaper Rafu Shimpo.
Representative Judy Chu (D-Pasadena), chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has also condemned the China Initiative and called for the program to be dissolved.
"Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime," Chu said in a statement, Rafu Shimpo reported.
**********************************************
Structural Racism? Try Public Schools
Persisting in collectivist education practices is systemic racism at its core.
Public schools have long been in a downward spiral when it comes to giving all students a good education. There are many reasons for this: lack of parental involvement, poor and dishonest teachers, and misuse of standardized tests. Perhaps the biggest indicator of this plummet is the poor performance of black children.
When playing with the different datasets of The Nation’s Report Card, the results are unmistakable. Black students consistently score lower than their white peers.
Why is that?
It’s certainly not for lack of money, which is the Left’s favorite way of trying to solve problems. The last census report states:
Of the 100 largest public school systems (based on enrollment), the six that spent the most per pupil in FY 2019 were the New York City School District in New York ($28,004), Boston City Schools in Massachusetts ($25,653), Washington Schools in the District of Columbia ($22,406), San Francisco Unified in California ($17,228), Atlanta School District in Georgia ($17,112), and Seattle Public Schools in Washington ($16,543).
The real reason may be that leftists have simply given up on trying to bolster black achievement. Instead of modeling their schools to help children achieve, they are content to sweep poor grades and test scores under the rug. If there’s no proof of malfeasance, then it can be ignored. This is a classic example of the bigotry of low expectations.
To compound matters, leftist educational policymakers and teachers unions have put roadblocks in the way of school choice, wherein funds that the government is already paying to the public school system would provide an opportunity for black students to get into schools that actually care to teach them.
Political commentator Rick Moran puts it poignantly: “There are pockets of black achievement even in the most violent, drug-ridden neighborhoods. They can be found in charter schools and private parochial schools. But instead of making it easier for black parents to send their kids to schools that will make the effort to educate them, teachers’ unions — and politicians who cater to their agenda — try to limit opportunities for back parents to take their children out of violent, failing schools.”
But the heart of the issue goes even deeper than bad policy and lack of school choice. Our education ideology is collectivist in nature. The current philosophy treats students like a number. In the public schools, that number comes with state funding attached. Here are some truths that this author can impart as a professional teacher:
No two children are alike or learn alike. Therefore, a public school system that tries to force each child into the mold of their own curricular practices is doomed for failure.
Large class sizes are detrimental to children. No matter how good and experienced the teacher is, children’s educational needs will fall through the cracks by virtue of sheer volume.
If education is not a value in the home, building the bridge to a love of learning is much more challenging — and in the upper grades, well nigh impossible.
Children should not be used as fodder for political cannons. There is such a thing as teaching bad ideas.
Teachers should be held accountable. This is achieved through the realization of common educational goals with the students at the center and not based on standardized achievement testing.
Persisting in these collectivist education practices is systemic racism at its core. All children are worthy and are gifted in their own way. They each have something to offer the world. They are not blank slates, activists, or a dollar amount.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/82646-structural-racism-try-public-schools-2021-09-13
***********************************************Fact Check: NPR Claims Scientific Evidence in Favor of School Masking Is 'Conclusive.' It's Not
It's time, once again, to return to the subject of school mask mandates, which we've explored on several occasions. In the United States, the elite consensus is that requiring masks in classrooms is what The Science demands, and dissenters are anti-science and anti-child. That tribal conclusion would likely come as a surprise in the United Kingdom and across much of Europe, where data and experience have led to dramatically different policies on the subject. In a previous post, I quoted a New York Magazine deep dive into the subject, a portion of which bears repeating:
Many of America’s peer nations around the world — including the U.K., Ireland, all of Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy — have exempted kids, with varying age cutoffs, from wearing masks in classrooms. Conspicuously, there’s no evidence of more outbreaks in schools in those countries relative to schools in the U.S., where the solid majority of kids wore masks for an entire academic year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
These countries, along with the World Health Organization, whose child-masking guidance differs substantially from the CDC’s recommendations, have explicitly recognized that the decision to mask students carries with it potential academic and social harms for children and may lack a clear benefit. To date, the highly transmissible Delta variant has not led them to change this calculus.
In that same piece, I wrote: "Not requiring students to mask up, or at least offering exceptions and opt-outs for parents, seems like an entirely reasonable public policy call for officials to make. If data were to emerge that masks are significantly effective in stopping the virus from spreading in schools, that would be one thing. We should always be open to data." A new report from NPR purports to demonstrate that such data exists and is "conclusive":
Notice the title of the piece is framed as a snarky fact check of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose parental opt-out policy is generally in line with Europe's approach (in fact, it's arguably more pro-school masking in some ways). But as writer A.G. Hamilton notes, the supposed evidence doesn't support the confident substance and tone of the headline. "This is selective misinformation," he writes. "CDC's own study determined that 'lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.' Europe has come to same conclusion." The difference in COVID spread between masks-required and masks-optional schools was statistically insignificant, according to a CDC study. More context:
A CDC study of Georgia schools published in May...found that COVID-19 infection was 37% less common in schools that required teachers and other staff members to wear masks, similar to the difference associated with “improved ventilation.” But the same study found that requiring students to wear masks was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in case rates.
In Florida, the CDC found that school districts without mask mandates had higher infection rates. But the researchers noted that smaller districts were less likely to require masks, and they also “had a higher proportion of students attending in-person instruction,” which likewise was “positively correlated with the student case rate.” The CDC says “most studies that have shown success in limiting transmission in schools” involved “prevention strategies” that included requiring “staff only or staff and students” to wear masks. The implication, of course, is that some schools had “success in limiting transmission” even without mask mandates or with mandates that did not apply to students.
In Florida, where many districts did not require masks, the CDC found that less than 1% of students were infected in schools during the first semester after they reopened in August 2020. During the same period, school-related COVID-19 outbreaks were likewise a minor problem in England, where students were not required to wear masks.
The NPR article asserts a powerful conclusion that simply is not justified by the actual available evidence:
Let's also recall that many of the people screaming loudest about the essential nature of student masking are the same people who wrongly fought to keep schools closed last year, harming millions of children (I'll also note that it has now been twice documented that teachers unions directly influenced CDC guidance, inserting special interest agenda items into the supposed science). One union boss was recently quoted claiming that learning loss is a myth, along with other nonsense. She's dead wrong, of course, as a growing mountain of data shows:
"How [are] we feeling about closures of 12-18 months?" Mary Katharine Ham asks, forebodingly. Meanwhile, as we approach the coming debate over child vaccination, here's former FDA chief Dr. Scott Gottlieb advising parents that the issue may not involve one-size-fits-all guidance:
Children basically do not die from COVID, which is a blessing that should impact public policy involving kids and COVID. And though the number of COVID-related hospitalizations among juveniles has clearly increased during Delta, it's not clear if the hospitalization rate also increased. And those very few kids who do end up in the hospital with or from COVID overwhelmingly survive.
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment