[AmericaGreatness] Over the last three decades, elite American universities have engaged in economic, political, social, and cultural practices that were often unethical, illegal—and suicidal.
They did so with impunity.
Apparently, confident administrators assumed that the brand of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and other elite universities was so precious to the nation’s elite movers and shakers that they could always do almost anything they wished.
By the 1970s, non-profit universities had dropped pretenses that they were apolitical and non-partisan.
Instead, they customarily violated the corpus of iconic civil rights legislation by weighing race, gender, and sexual orientation in biased admissions, hiring, and promotions.
Graduation ceremonies became overtly racially and ethnically segregated. The same was true for dorms and "theme houses."
So-called "safe spaces," in the spirit of the Jim Crow South, reserved areas of campus solely for particular races.
Affluent foreign students often openly protested on behalf of designated terrorist groups like Hamas.
First-Amendment-protected free speech all but vanished on elite campuses. Any guest speaker who dared to critique abortion on demand, Middle East orthodoxy, biological males dominating women’s sports, or diversity/equity/inclusion dogmas was likely to be shouted down, or on occasion roughed up.
University administrators either ignored the violence done to the Bill of Rights or quietly approved when their rowdy students were turned loose on supposed conservatives.
But in their hubris, the universities began a series of blunders that may now end them as they once were.
They began gouging government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation by grabbing anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of individual campus grants as "overhead."
Yet they usually charged most private foundation grants a far more modest 15 percent surcharge—as if a lax government did not object to overcharging.
They pushed for a vast expansion of the student loan program, whose portfolio of federally guaranteed loans reached $1.7 trillion. But once the federal government guaranteed student loans against default, universities began jacking up their fees and tuition well above the annual rate of inflation.
Elite universities did not grasp that the more they began warping their curricula with diversity/equity/inclusion gut courses, radical green agendas, and postmodern race and gender theories, the less time they had to offer students their once gold-standard general education curricula of Western Civ, history, literature, philosophy, math, and science.
Soon employers started to notice that the new therapeutic courses were also married to race and sex-based admissions.
The SAT and ACT were, for a time, dropped. So were comparative rankings of high school grade point averages.
Soon, once iconic degrees were no longer any guarantee of the ability to write and speak well, think analytically, or compute competently.
Employers often began to prefer graduates from those state schools where DEI was muted, admissions were competitive, and teaching remained rigorous and non-ideological.
Finally, after October 7, 2023, growing anti-Semitism on campuses became unapologetic, overt, and violent.
Thousands of Middle Eastern guest students brazenly cheered on Hamas terrorists.
The campus Marxist orthodoxy that Jews and Israel were "victimizing white people" and Palestinians were noble "non-white victims" ensured that Jewish students were chased and physically attacked on campuses.
A disgusted public watched invertebrate administrators either greenlight the anti-Semitic violence or ludicrously deny it. "Canaries in the Coal Mine".
So, there was bound to be a public reckoning. And now it has arrived.
Congress will soon pass legislation that will tax the annual multimillion-dollar income from multibillion-dollar endowments at somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.
There will be no more "overhead" or "surcharges" on government campus grants allowed larger than 15 percent.
Those two reforms alone could cost some of the richest campuses nearly a half billion dollars a year in lost income.
Racially offensive DEI programs will disqualify schools from federal support.
Foreign student guests who break U.S. laws or violate university rules will have their visas yanked and be shown the door to go home.
Campuses will have to abide by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights or forgo federal funds.
All these remedies enjoy broad public support. IMO, the idea that everyone should go to college was (incredibly) stupid in the first place.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
03/13/2025 03:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If we're being honest with ourselves, pre-recorded lectures could replace almost all lectures from about 10th grade and up.
We now live in the 21st century, after all, and the "university" is a relic of the Middle Ages -- especially our widespread Sleep-Away Camp/Pajama Party model that is so widespread, costing tens and hundreds of US dollars.
#2
As far as being able to speak and write well, I can see an opportunity for honest testing organizations to spring up, and for a modest (compared to Ivy League costs) fee verify the verbal skills of anyone who applies to be so certified. These tests might include multiple choice exams, but also use other methods. Wouldn't it be a hoot to compare Ivy League grads so tested against home schooled GED grads?
#4
Companies are lazy, they treat their employees as a cost rather than an asset. Ever since Griggs vs Duke Power they default to various outside generated certification means to avoid having doing the hard work themselves upfront to filter qualified personnel.
#6
The Ivies increasingly now carry a DEI "taint" that makes their diploma suspect for anything STEM related, especially for minority graduates. Sad but true if you are honest. Smart businesses would be wise to favor solid state universities from red states to produce new employee candidates.
#8
While yes, pre-recorded lectures could replace lectures...most of my classes weren't lectures. Small school, less than 20 per class, questions and discussion encouraged. You can't beat having a knowledgeable, articulate instructor who can answer questions with a recording.
[Federalist] We found that concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police.
You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.
Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.
Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI.
WHAT WE FOUND
From 2014 to 2023, CPRC researchers found that armed civilians stopped 180 of 515 active shooting cases. Of the attacks in places where people were allowed to carry, we found that permit holders stopped 158 of the 307 instances. The FBI defines an “active shooting” as an event where an individual actively attempts to kill people in a public place — excluding shootings tied to robberies or gang violence. An “active shooting” could be as simple as a single shot fired at a lone human target, even if the shooter misses, to a mass shooting.
Civilians don’t succeed in stopping every active shooter situation, but the alternative isn’t perfection. Police officers are often at a disadvantage because their uniforms make them obvious targets, while civilians can stop an attacker before being noticed. Compare the numbers from active shootings stopped by police versus those stopped by armed civilians, and permit holders stack up pretty well.
In the 156 cases stopped by law enforcement, we found police accidentally shot the wrong person in four cases, killing fellow officers twice and civilians twice. That’s more than double the rate of civilians accidentally shooting a bystander (1.14 percent compared to 0.56 percent).
TV ISN’T REALITY
Even though law-abiding citizens who carry concealed firearms stop active shootings with few mistakes — in some cases with fewer mistakes than police — TV police dramas portray armed civilians as causing more harm than good in self-defense situations. These shows repeatedly push the idea that civilians shouldn’t play the hero and should instead leave everything to the police. Concealed handgun permit holders are portrayed as reckless vigilantes who leave a disaster behind them: accidentally shooting bystanders, interfering with law enforcement, failing to protect themselves, or even having their guns stolen and misused in crimes or accidental shootings.
Gun control organizations openly brag about working with producers, directors, and writers to push their gun control narrative. And many in Hollywood proudly admit their efforts to use television and movies to change the culture.
#4
A black CCH is more likely to shoot a black doing something that deserves it before a cop will because cops hesitate knowing that their 'employer' is more than willing to throw them to the wolves rather than stand up to the usual race hustlers.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
[ColonelCassad] Trump stated (I know, everyone "loves" this phrase) that a US delegation went to Russia to discuss with the Russian leadership the possibility of concluding a ceasefire.
Earlier, the Kremlin reported that it is not against a ceasefire in principle, but we need to see what the US is offering officially and then we will see. Based on the results of the talks in Moscow, a decision will be made on telephone talks between Trump and Putin. As expected, the Russian Federation will put forward counter-offers/conditions/demands, in the style of saying we are for peace, but... And then after the but, a certain list of conditions/demands.
Are there any signs that an agreement with the US is possible? Yes, there is. Of course, no one will tell us what kind of agreements. Which does not cancel out the questions on the topic of:
1. Will the US screw us over, as they have constantly screwed us over before?
2. Will the US be able to maintain control over Ukraine and the EU in order to force them to comply with the agreements?
There were and remain more than serious doubts on these issues based on the rich experience of the Minsk agreements, when all agreements and understandings were fundamentally violated. At the same time, the position of the political leadership of the Russian Federation is now publicly linked to the thesis that the West has constantly deceived us and we will not fall into new traps of empty promises.
In general, we are waiting for negotiations in Moscow and negotiations between Trump and Putin. One way or another, they will be a kind of bifurcation point that will mark the vector of the war - to an active spring-summer campaign or to a gradual winding down of the war with the division of spheres of influence.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
