When you combine identity politics with favoritism, you’re bound to see this:
A group called the Asian American Coalition for Education plans to file an official complaint tomorrow with the federal Department of Education and Department of Justice noting that Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth have “unlawfully discriminated” against Asian-Americans in their admissions policies.
The Coalition, “which is composed of more than 100 local, state and national organizations,” claims the colleges “have the lowest acceptance rate for Asian Americans,” and maintain quotas for the (racial) group.
It also points out that Asian-American enrollment at Yale has declined “despite the number of college-aged Asian-Americans more than doubling since 2011.”
This is the first such complaint against the elite Connecticut university.
Just part of the toll of “affirmative action.” When you’re not the favored minority, you have to compete, even if the playing field isn’t level. What hypocrisy from both government and academia.
Another dishonest “journalist” has been unmasked. In this case, we’re talking about Katie Couric and her deceptively edited hit-piece on guns (you can see the scene in question and hear the raw audio at the link).
At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.
Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”
The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene.
The implication, obviously, is the activists for gun rights had no answer to Couric’s question. The problem is, however, they did … lots of them:
However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.
Of course, anyone with the IQ of a lemon realizes that felons are not likely to shop where background checks are performed. But hey, why deal in facts when you can deal in fantasy that furthers your obvious agenda. There’s been some who’ve remarked that other journalists have been silent about this. Of course they have. The left has made it clear many times that it believes that lying and deception are perfectly fine if it is done for a good cause – a good cause as they define it. The biggest sin is being caught in your lie or deception. Heck of a job, Katie!
Some people are beginning to question why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been indicted over her handling of classified material on her private server, especially since it seems that doing what she did is not really that much different than a sailor did recently:
A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.
Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.
Apparently none of the classified material was compromised but the sailor is going away for 3 years on Federal charges. But hey, those sorts of laws are only for “the little people.”
Another “cherry picked” story about SJWs, this time from The Atlantic.
Last fall, student protesters at Yale University demanded that Professor Nicholas Christakis, an academic star who has successfully mentored Ivy League undergraduates for years, step down from his position as faculty-in-residence at Silliman College, along with his wife, Erika Christakis, who shared in the job’s duties.
This is a very interesting and telling story. Erika Christakis wrote an email to the students of Silliman College after the Yale administration had put one out about offensive Halloween costumes. Essentially all Christakis was trying to do was empower the Silliman College students to make their own decisions concerning costumes and/or how they react to those that might offend. In reality, what she was doing was making the case that they were wise enough and mature enough to handle that without a directive from above.
Boy was she wrong. The article also points to the disconnect between what the students believe is the role of the college and what the faculty believe it to be. To put it succinctly, the difference between a parent and a mentor. Interesting read.
Meanwhile at Harvard:
Earlier this month, Harvard President Drew Faust announced that students who joined single-sex organizations would be subject to punitive measures. They would be ineligible for certain scholarships and could not accept formal leadership roles in official campus groups. The policy is intended to quash the existence of politically disfavored extracurricular groups, like fraternities. It will also hurt female-only clubs.
Of course Harvard is a private institution and can do whatever it wants, but in this case it generated a backlash that reached into the faculty ranks. It seems the faculty is a bit miffed about the unilateral nature of this directive and it appears they plan to kill it
A group of the faculty put together a resolution:
“Harvard College shall not discriminate against students on the basis of organizations they join,” the proposal reads.
The resolution is a shot across the bow for the administration, which would need faculty approval to implement the sanctions policy if it requires a change to the student handbook.
Faculty leaders interviewed by the Crimson said they weren’t consulted before the school announced the new policy
Now, if these colleges and universities would only stand up against the ridiculous SJW student demands and outrageous conduct, we might begin to believe the adults were in charge again.
Finally, the chief apologist for America is on the road again. Barack Obama visited Hiroshima and was photographed embracing a survivor of the nuclear blast there. On a human level, I get it. But this isn’t just some every day American choosing to do that. In fact, nothing the President of the United States does is done without some purpose in mind and frankly, the purpose that seems obvious, at least to me, is to physically express sorrow for the US doing what was necessary to win and end WW II.
Of course it is fashionable today to attempt to do things like that. Contextless gestures that ignore the reality of the history of the time. The fact that even after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the War Council split which meant the war continued. And Nagasaki brought the same result. It took the unprecedented intervention of the Emperor to finally see surrender happen. The Japanese had a 14,000,000 man home militia as well as over 2,000,000 troops. They’d saved many thousands of kamikaze craft (submarines, aircraft and boats) for use if invaded. Casualties were estimated to run about a million on the US side and untold millions on the Japanese side.
The one who should be hugging people is the Emperor of Japan, saying Japan is sorry to the dwindling survivors of Pearl Harbor.
Harry Truman got it right:
Have a safe Memorial Day weekend and don’t forget that Memorial Day is for honoring those who’ve fallen in service and defense of our country – like the sailors at Pearl Harbor.