Tag Archives: Princeton University

Trouble In The Tank

Posted on by

The Heritage Foundation is one of the major think tanks in the conservative movement. Lately there has been some serious trouble within that think tank. The dust-up is in the reaction to an interview Tucker Carlson did with Nick Fuentes. I question the wisdom of anyone giving a platform to Nick Fuentes, but the interview happened, and there was very little push-back from Tucker Carlson during the interview. Essentially, Tucker Carlson sat quietly by while Nick Fuentes repeated a lot of lies about World War II and about the Jewish people.

On Monday, The New York Post reported:

A senior conservative legal scholar who holds one of Princeton University’s top academic chairs has resigned from the Heritage Foundation’s board in protest of the think tank president’s defense of Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes.

Robert P. George, long regarded as one of the right’s leading constitutional thinkers, is the latest figure to step down amid an internal revolt that has already prompted at least seven other staffers, fellows and task force members to sever ties.

His departure came after a leaked video showed Heritage president Kevin Roberts standing behind Carlson in the wake of the host’s podcast appearance with Fuentes.

“I have resigned from the board of the Heritage Foundation. I could not remain without a full retraction of the video released by Kevin Roberts, speaking for and in the name of Heritage, on October 30th,” George wrote in a Facebook post announcing his departure.

“Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse,” he added.

The article notes:

George’s exit is just the latest sign of a widening rupture inside the conservative policy powerhouse, which has been hit by a series of defections since Roberts released the video defending Carlson.

In the clip, Roberts rejected calls to distance Heritage from the former Fox News host and insisted the group would not “cancel” either Carlson or Fuentes, whose extremist record includes Holocaust denial and repeated antisemitic statements.

The backlash was immediate. Members of Heritage’s National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism quit en masse, several scholars and fellows publicly walked away, and Roberts’ own chief of staff stepped down after amplifying posts attacking internal critics.

The only reason to give someone like Nick Fuentes a platform is the show the absolute intellectual vacuity of antisemitism.

Being Kind To Our Enemies While Dissing Our Friends

Posted on by

It is no secret that the Biden administration would like to reach a nuclear deal with Iran some time in the next year. The administration sees that deal as a potential ‘feather in its cap.’ The fact that the deal would not be worth the paper it would be printed on is purely incidental. The fact that it would not only give Iran a green light to create a nuclear bomb, but also require American taxpayers to fund that bomb is also not to be mentioned. After all, a feather in a cap is a feather in a cap.

On Wednesday, Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article a recent U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) symposium on deterrence.

The article quotes a Washington Free Beacon Newsletter:

WHAT WE’RE WATCHING: Making plans for a symposium on deterrence, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) decided that a top Iranian official cum Princeton professor, Hussein Mousavian, would make a good keynote speaker. Mousavian last made headlines when he was captured on Iranian television smirking about the regime’s threats to assassinate U.S. officials. He showed up in Nebraska to lavish praise on the defunct nuclear agreement and urge mutual nuclear disarmament. Our Adam Kredo has the story.

This is the video of the speech:

The article concludes:

…The idea that military personnel sat there and listened to it at their invitation is…disturbing.

Quotable quote (former State Department Special Advisor for the Iran Action Group Gabriel Noronha): “The decision to invite former Iranian ambassador Mousavian to speak to STRATCOM is unimaginably foolish. He is a pawn and propaganda agent of the Iranian regime, which explains why he is allowed to travel back to Iran.”

We are giving the people who hate us the weapons to destroy us.

Integrity Isn’t Racist!

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about Princeton University’s Honor Code.

The article reports:

A Princeton University student argued in a Sunday night opinion article that the school’s Honor Code unfairly impacts racial minorities, citing parallels to the U.S. criminal justice system.

The Ivy League school’s Undergraduate Honor Code lays out standards for student conduct that all undergraduate students must abide by and prohibits students from plagiarizing or cheating, according to its website. Emilly Santos, author of the op-ed and Princeton University student, likened the code to the United States criminal justice system to propose that it “disadvantages” minority students.

If all students are required to adhere to the standards of the Honor Code, how is it racist?

The article continues:

“Princeton’s Honor Code, tasked with holding students accountable and honest in academic settings, mirrors the criminal justice system in its rules and effects,” Santos wrote. “It is harmful to the entirety of the Princeton community: the fear it instills in students fosters an environment of academic hostility. But it is often most damaging for first-generation low-income (FLI) students — students who also often belong to racial minorities.”

Honor Code violations include “tampering with a graded exam,” “claiming another’s work to be one’s own” and obtaining a exam materials prior to the examination date, the website reads.

Students who violate the Honor Code may be reprimanded, suspended, placed on probation or expelled, according to the university’s website. Students who are suspended for a semester are not eligible for university financial aid for the repeated semester, according to the university, however Santos argues this harms FLI students who rely on financial aid and would be plunged further in debt.

If you are that easily intimidated by ‘academic hostility’, maybe you should go to a less expensive school where you are under less pressure to achieve. We used to teach children that cheating was wrong. I would hope that we will continue to do that.

Discrimination Based On Race Used To Be Illegal

Posted on by

On Sunday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article about a new program at Princeton University.

The article reports:

Last week, Princeton freshmen received an email regarding Morgan Stanley’s Freshman Enhancement Program. That program “is designed to help diverse rising sophomores in college gain a better understanding of the various businesses and career paths Morgan Stanley provides.”

If selected for the program, rising sophomores “will participate in a hybrid program consisting of virtual learning and an in-person component.” They will also receive what Morgan Stanley describes as “valuable training, as well as opportunities to network with each other and learn from Morgan Stanley professionals across our divisions.” And they “will have the opportunity to interview for the 2023 Sophomore Summer Analyst Programs for the specific track they are in.”

Who is included in the “diverse” group that will receive these benefits and advantages? That group includes Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and/or LGBTQ+ freshman undergraduate students in the class of 2025. Everyone else is excluded. In fact, the program description lists membership in one or more of the above-mentioned groups as a “qualification” for the program.

It’s fine, in my view, that Morgan Stanley, Princeton, and other colleges involved in this program want to provide opportunities to students from a diverse set of backgrounds and, in particular, students who come from low-income families. It occurs to me, however, that anyone who’s a freshman at Princeton has a good opportunity to enter the world of investment banking and financial services.

Princeton students from any kind of family and background already have “privileged” status in the job market. It’s far from clear that any of them needs to be “enhanced.”

In any case, excluding students on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and or sexual orientation is problematic and illegal. And that’s what Morgan Stanley’s program does. It makes no pretense of using a “holistic” analysis to identify freshmen who come from low-income families or from other backgrounds (e.g. recent immigrants) that might put them at a disadvantage in seeking employment with Morgan Stanley or other firms in the same field.

In my view, Morgan Stanley, Princeton, and other participating schools are violating federal civil rights statutes through this program. They are probably violating state law, as well.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, national origin, and sex. That has been expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Excluding white heterosexual males and females from the program is illegal.

There are also other Civil Rights statutes being violated.

The article notes:

Title VI states that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Its ban on discrimination extends, but is not limited to, admissions, recruitment, financial aid, and alike, but also academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing and employment.

The Freshman Enhancement Program seems to run afoul of Title VI by discriminating in the distribution of training and employment opportunities.

Title IX is similar to Title XI. It prohibits sex discrimination (including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity) in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Freshman Enhancement Program expressly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, Princeton seems to be violating Title IX.

I hope some of the students who are ineligible for this training program will hire some good lawyers and put an end to this foolishness.

The Cancel Culture Is Beginning To Cancel Their Former Heroes

Posted on by

The New York Sun posted an article yesterday about Princeton University’s decision to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson from its school of public affairs. This reverses a decision made four years ago when the topic was also brought up.

The article reports:

…That was in 2016, when Princeton’s trustees, reacting to concerns within the school community and given impetus by Black Lives Matter, appointed a committee to appraise the 28th president of America, decided to continue to honor him.

At issue then was “the position he took as Princeton’s president to prevent the enrollment of black students and the policies he instituted as U.S. president that resulted in the re-segregation of the federal civil service.” Wilson’s name was on not only the School of Public & International Affairs but also a residential college. The board followed the committee’s recommendation to keep Wilson’s name. It issued what seemed to be an important statement.

“Contextualization is imperative,” it said. “Princeton must openly and candidly recognize that Wilson, like other historical figures, leaves behind a complex legacy with both positive and negative repercussions, and that the use of his name implies no endorsement of views and actions that conflict with the values and aspirations of our times.” As the cancel movement spreads today, that plea for context seems even more important.

The article concludes:

So where does that leave us? Writing in 2016 of Wilson’s views on race, scholar David Kennedy said that “We can wish that he had possessed qualities of imagination and empathy that would have liberated him from those views, but he did not.” Kennedy concluded that “In a world where there is no shortage of evil, it surely seems perverse to highlight the imperfections, rather than the positive accomplishments, of those who tried to do their best.”

Four years after echoing Professor Kennedy’s judgment, Princeton has suddenly zeroed in on Wilson’s imperfections. Whether that will serve the cause of racial understanding at the university remains to be seen. How sad it would be were one of two Princeton graduates to lead America and Princeton’s only Nobel laureate in peace — not to mention the coiner of the motto “Princeton in the Nation’s Service” — confined to the margin of the university’s institutional memory.

We seem to have lost the concept of viewing history in its context. Slavery and racism are part of America’s past, but slavery is gone and racism is not the acceptable order of the day, as it once was. Renaming things and tearing down statues will not change what was. It is time instead to deal with what is and work to make it better.

The Growing Contempt For Freedom Of Speech

Posted on by

Walter E. Williams posted an article at Newsbusters today about the attack on free speech.

The Professor notes:

The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia ratification convention during its narrow 89 to 79 vote to ratify the Constitution. Virginia’s resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly and free speech could not be canceled, abridged or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo, in his article “Free Speech and Its Present Crisis,” appearing in the autumn 2018 edition of City Journal, explores the trials and tribulations associated with the First Amendment. The early attempts to suppress free speech were signed into law by President John Adams and became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later attempts to suppress free speech came during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and his generals attacked newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. It wasn’t until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.

Unfortunately many of our college campuses have lost the concept of free speech and open debate.

The article reports:

Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation’s college and university campuses. Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of Anthropology. Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year’s Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions.” As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make “claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”

Rouse is by no means unique in her contempt for our First Amendment rights. Faculty leaders of the University of California consider certain statements racist microagressions: “America is a melting pot”; “America is the land of opportunity”; “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”; and “There is only one race, the human race.” The latter statement is seen as denying the individual as a racial/cultural being. Then there’s “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” That’s “racist” speech because it gives the impression that “people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.” Other seemingly innocuous statements deemed unacceptable are: “When I look at you, I don’t see color,” or “Affirmative action is racist.” Perhaps worst of all is, “Where are you from, or where were you born?”

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.

I hated it when the neo-Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois, but that is what free speech means. The concept of hate speech is the antithesis of free speech–it is an excuse for censorship. If you are not comfortable enough in your own ideas to be willing to let others who do not share those ideas speak, then maybe living in a free country isn’t your cup of tea.

Filling A Bottomless Pit

Posted on by

In January of this year, I posted an article entitled, “If You Give A Mouse A Cookie,” relating to a children’s book published in 2013. The basic story line of the book is that if you give a mouse a cookie he will expect milk and other things to go with it. That story had to do with a company in Wisconsin that discovered that whatever concessions you make to a special interest group, they will not be enough. This story has to do with the tax situation in Princeton, New Jersey.

MSM posted a story today about a discussion in Princeton, New Jersey, about whether or not Princeton University should be tax exempt.

The article states:

Free lectures, admission to athletic games and concerts, even shuttles to Trader Joe’s are some of the perks that neighbors of Princeton University get from New Jersey’s only Ivy League school.

A growing number of residents, though, resent the gestures. Riding a national wave of discontent with nonprofit institutions, they’re suing to challenge the tax-exempt status of Princeton, whose $22.7 billion endowment makes it the fourth-richest U.S. university. The outcome could cut homeowners’ annual property taxes, averaging $17,699, by a third. It also could end the freebies that make Princeton a cushy oasis while other New Jersey towns, burdened by high public-worker costs and flat state aid, struggle to maintain basic services.

There are a lot of questions that come to mind after reading this. What is the budget of Princeton, and has anyone considered cutting the budget?

The article further reports:

The university pays its hometown about $8 million in annual levies toward a proposed $61.9 million municipal budget. It kicks in another $3 million voluntarily, a boost for emergency services and public works. The rest, the freebies, make for what the school calls positive town-and-gown relations.

So the tax-exempt University already pays more than 10 percent of the municipal budget, and now the city wants to take away its tax-exempt status. It’s interesting to me that the article cites the worth of the University to support its argument. This is classic redistribution of wealth. Princeton has acquired its wealth honestly. It belongs to Princeton. Now the municipality is trying to figure a way to take what has been rightfully earned away from the entity that earned it and give it to the city, which hasn’t earned it. Maybe it’s time that the City of Princeton redid its budget rather than resorting to legal theft.

Recovery???

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times posted an editorial about President Obama’s request to extend unemployment benefits for another three months. The original extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks occurred in 2008, at the height of the recession. According to the Obama Administration, the recession ended in the summer of 2009. So why do people still need two years of unemployment benefits?

The editorial reminds us:

Since the Great Recession began in 2008, Congress has supplemented the 26 weeks of jobless benefits traditionally provided by the states, extending them to 99 weeks.

Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be an issue because such extensions have been temporary, but Mr. Obama’s economy has spawned a jobless “recovery,” and more workers continue to join the unemployment line.

Democrats see this not as an opportunity to reconsider the failure of Obamanomics, but as an excuse to spend another $25 billion. The Senate will vote this week on a three-month extension with a $6.5 billion price tag.

…There’s a negative consideration to extending unemployment subsidies time after time. A 2008 Princeton University study comes to the obvious conclusion that workers are much more aggressive in their job searches as their benefits near the end, “increasing sharply in the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.”

Alan B. Krueger, a former chairman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, was a co-author of the report. A Swedish study, finished in 2008 as well, concluded that more generous unemployment benefits increased unemployment rates. The linkage, it said, is “fairly robust.”

The year before, Sweden reformed its unemployment compensation system, such that recipients could receive up to 60 weeks of benefits, but with a catch. The longer someone is unemployed, under the new program, the less he receives in assistance.

The diminishing benefits have been a powerful inducement to look for work.

Unfortunately, extending unemployment benefits has become a political issue, which means that no one is considering whether or not it will actually help or hurt the country or the economy. Until Congress includes enough patriots who want to do what is right for the country, we can expect to have more political gamesmanship on this and other issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta