#American Academic Leadership Institute

[mascrapping]

2023: Washington DC - AALI

The reason I was in Washington, D.C., was to attend the American Academic Leadership Institute (AALI), marking the second part of a year-long program. I had previously been to D.C. for the first portion of the institute in June 2022. This scrapbook spread was especially fun to create, as I chose a red theme to match the AALI logo and bring energy to the design. The training was held at the…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The CFPB is genuinely making America better, and they're going HARD

On June 20, I'm keynoting the LOCUS AWARDS in OAKLAND.

Let's take a sec here and notice something genuinely great happening in the US government: the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's stunning, unbroken streak of major, muscular victories over the forces of corporate corruption, with the backing of the Supreme Court (yes, that Supreme Court), and which is only speeding up!

A little background. The CFPB was created in 2010. It was Elizabeth Warren's brainchild, an institution that was supposed to regulate finance from the perspective of the American public, not the American finance sector. Rather than fighting to "stabilize" the financial sector (the mission that led to Obama taking his advisor Timothy Geithner's advice to permit the foreclosure crisis to continue in order to "foam the runways" for the banks), the Bureau would fight to defend us from bankers.

The CFPB got off to a rocky start, with challenges to the unique system of long-term leadership appointments meant to depoliticize the office, as well as the sudden resignation of its inaugural boss, who broke his promise to see his term through in order to launch an unsuccessful bid for political office.

But after the 2020 election, the Bureau came into its own, when Biden poached Rohit Chopra from the FTC and put him in charge. Chopra went on a tear, taking on landlords who violated the covid eviction moratorium:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cfpb

Then banning payday lenders' scummiest tactics:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/29/planned-obsolescence/#academic-fraud

Then striking at one of fintech's most predatory grifts, the "earned wage access" hustle:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

Then closing the loophole that let credit reporting bureaus (like Equifax, who doxed every single American in a spectacular 2019 breach) avoid regulation by creating data brokerage divisions and claiming they weren't part of the regulated activity of credit reporting:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

Chopra went on to promise to ban data-brokers altogether:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/13/goulash/#material-misstatement

Then he banned comparison shopping sites where you go to find the best bank accounts and credit cards from accepting bribes and putting more expensive options at the top of the list. Instead, he's requiring banks to send the CFPB regular, accurate lists of all their charges, and standing up a federal operated comparison shopping site that gives only accurate and honest rankings. Finally, he's made an interoperability rule requiring banks to let you transfer to another institution with one click, just like you change phone carriers. That means you can search an honest site to find the best deal on your banking, and then, with a single click, transfer your accounts, your account history, your payees, and all your other banking data to that new bank:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/21/let-my-dollars-go/#personal-financial-data-rights

Somewhere in there, big business got scared. They cooked up a legal theory declaring the CFPB's funding mechanism to be unconstitutional and got the case fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, in a bid to put Chopra and the CFPB permanently out of business. Instead, the Supremes – these Supremes! – upheld the CFPB's funding mechanism in a 7-2 ruling:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/supreme-court-lets-cfpb-funding-stand/

That ruling was a starter pistol for Chopra and the Bureau. Maybe it seemed like they were taking big swings before, but it turns out all that was just a warmup. Last week on The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner rounded up all the stuff the Bureau is kicking off:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-06-07-window-on-corporate-deceptions/

First: regulating Buy Now, Pay Later companies (think: Klarna) as credit-card companies, with all the requirements for disclosure and interest rate caps dictated by the Truth In Lending Act:

https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/06/cfpb-applies-credit-card-rules

Next: creating a registry of habitual corporate criminals. This rogues gallery will make it harder for other agencies – like the DOJ – and state Attorneys General to offer bullshit "delayed prosecution agreements" to companies that compulsively rip us off:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-creates-registry-to-detect-corporate-repeat-offenders/

Then there's the rule against "fine print deception" – which is when the fine print in a contract lies to you about your rights, like when a mortgage lender forces you waive a right you can't actually waive, or car lenders that make you waive your bankruptcy rights, which, again, you can't waive:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-warns-against-deception-in-contract-fine-print/

As Kuttner writes, the common thread running through all these orders is that they ban deceptive practices – they make it illegal for companies to steal from us by lying to us. Especially in these dying days of class action suits – rapidly becoming obsolete thanks to "mandatory arbitration waivers" that make you sign away your right to join a class action – agencies like the CFPB are our only hope of punishing companies that lie to us to steal from us.

There's a lot of bad stuff going on in the world right now, and much of it – including an active genocide – is coming from the Biden White House.

But there are people in the Biden Administration who care about the American people and who are effective and committed fighters who have our back. What's more, they're winning. That doesn't make all the bad news go away, but sometimes it feels good to take a moment and take the W.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

[jstor]

Edward Christopher Williams (11 Feb. 1871 - 24 Dec. 1929) was a pioneering African American librarian, educator, and scholar who played a vital role in shaping library collections at Western Reserve University (WRU) and Howard University. Born in Cleveland to Daniel P. Williams, a prominent African American figure, and Mary Kilkary Williams, a Clevelander of Irish descent, Williams embarked on a remarkable journey of academic and professional achievement.

Graduating from Adelbert College of WRU in 1892, Williams quickly made his mark as he assumed the role of first assistant librarian at the institution. His dedication and expertise saw him ascend to the position of head librarian in 1894 and university librarian in 1898. Eager to deepen his knowledge, Williams pursued further studies in library science at the New York Library School in Albany, completing the rigorous 2-year program in just one year.

Williams's impact on WRU's library was profound; he significantly expanded its collection and elevated its standards, establishing himself as an authority in library organization and bibliography. His advocacy for the establishment of a school of library science at WRU led to its inception in 1904, where he became an esteemed instructor, offering courses in reference work, bibliography, public documents, and book selection.

A founding member of the Ohio Library Association, Williams played a pivotal role in shaping its constitution and direction. However, in 1909, he left Cleveland to assume the role of principal at M St. High School in Washington, D.C. His tenure there was marked by his unwavering commitment to education and leadership.

In 1916, Williams joined Howard University as university librarian, further cementing his legacy in the realm of academia. Not only did he oversee the university's library, but he also directed Howard's library training class, taught German, and later chaired the Department of Romance Languages.

In pursuit of academic excellence, Williams embarked on a sabbatical in 1929 to pursue a Ph.D. at Columbia University. Tragically, his studies were cut short by his untimely passing later that year.

In 1902, Williams married Ethel P. Chesnutt, the daughter of Charles Chesnutt, a renowned author. Their union bore one son, Charles, who would carry on his father's legacy in the years to come.

Read more about Edward Christopher Williams here.

[palms-upturned]

For US unions like the UAW — which has thousands of members in weapons factories making the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used by Israel, as well in university departments doing research linked to the Israeli military — the Palestinian trade union call to action is particularly relevant. When the UAW’s national leadership came out in support of a cease-fire on December 1, they also voted to establish a “Divestment and Just Transition Working Group.” The stated purpose of the working group is to study the UAW’s own economic ties to Israel and explore ways to convert war-related industries to production for peaceful purposes while ensuring a just transition for weapons workers.

Members of UAW Labor for Palestine say they have started making visits to a Colt factory in Connecticut, which holds a contract to supply rifles to the Israeli military, to talk with their fellow union members about Palestine, a cease-fire, and a just transition. They want to see the union’s leadership support such organizing activity.

“If UAW leaders decided to, they could, tomorrow, form a national organizing campaign to educate and mobilize rank-and-file towards the UAW’s own ceasefire and just transition call,” UAW Labor for Palestine members said in a statement. “They could hold weapons shop town halls in every region; they could connect their small cadre of volunteer organizers — like us — to the people we are so keen to organize with; they could even send some of their staff to help with this work.”

On January 21, the membership of UAW Local 551, which represents 4,600 autoworkers at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant (who were part of last year’s historic stand-up strike) endorsed the Palestinian trade unions’ call to not cooperate in the production and transportation of arms for Israel. Ten days later, UAW Locals 2865 and 5810, representing around forty-seven thousand academic workers at the University of California, passed a measure urging the union’s national leaders to ensure that the envisioned Divestment and Just Transition Working Group “has the needed resources to execute its mission, and that Palestinian, Arab and Muslim workers whose communities are disproportionately affected by U.S.-backed wars are well-represented on the committee.”

Members of UAW Locals 2865 and 5810 at UC Santa Cruz’s Astronomy Department have pledged to withhold any labor that supports militarism and to refuse research collaboration with military institutions and arms companies. In December, unionized academic workers from multiple universities formed Researchers Against War (RAW) to expose and cut ties between their research and warfare, and to organize in their labs and departments for more transparency about where the funding for their work comes from and more control over what their labor is used for. RAW, which was formed after a series of discussions by union members first convened by US Labor Against Racism and War last fall, hosted a national teach-in and planning meeting on February 12.

Meanwhile, public sector workers in New York City have begun their own campaign to divest their pension money from Israel. On January 25, rank-and-file members of AFSCME District Council (DC) 37 launched a petition calling on the New York City Employees’ Retirement System to divest the $115 million it holds in Israeli securities. The investments include $30 million in bonds that directly fund the Israeli military and its activities. “As rank-and-file members of DC 37 who contribute to and benefit from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System and care about the lives of working people everywhere, we refuse to support the Israeli government and the corporations that extract profit from the killing of innocent civilians,” the petition states.

In an election year when President Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates will depend heavily on organized labor for donations and especially get-out-the-vote efforts, rank and filers are also trying to push their unions to exert leverage on the president by getting him to firmly stand against the ongoing massacre in Gaza. NEA members with Educators for Palestine are calling on their union’s leaders to withdraw their support for Biden’s reelection campaign until he stops “sending military funding, equipment, and intelligence to Israel,” marching from AFT headquarters to NEA headquarters in Washington, DC on February 10 to assert their demand. Similarly, after the UAW International Executive Board endorsed Biden last month — a decision that sparked intense division within the union — UAW Labor for Palestine is demanding the endorsement be revoked “until [Biden] calls for a permanent ceasefire and stops sending weapons to Israel.”

[darkeagleruins]

Presenting the King and Queen of the criminal illegal invasion, Samantha Power (born in the UK) and her husband Cass Sunstein.

GPS—they met together and separately at Barack Hussein Obama II’s war room/mansion in Washington, DC hundreds of times during the Biden/Harris Regime, 19 times since the election and 4 times since President Trump took office.

The circumstances surrounding the controversial financial and political of Samantha Power, a former USAID administrator, and her significant increase in net worth during her tenure in public office. Power’s wealth reportedly surged from $6.7 million in 2021 to $30 million by 2024, raises questions about how such a dramatic increase occurred despite her official annual salary of $180,000.

This financial growth has led to public scrutiny and allegations of financial misconduct within USAID under Power's leadership.

USAID, an organization tasked with managing billions in global funding, under audit for alleged misuse of funds, including spending on contentious programs like transgender initiatives and cultural projects abroad.

These programs served as conduits for financial kickbacks to lawmakers and officials, enriching them at the expense of American taxpayers. Powers funneled billions into NGOs financing the criminal illegal invasion of America.

Power’s husband, Cass Sunstein, also plays a key role in this narrative. Sunstein, a senior adviser on immigration policy at DHS during the Biden administration, allegedly shaped policies that created the “open-border” system.

This was seen as complementary to Power’s role at USAID, with Power funding programs to facilitate immigration while Sunstein ensured these policies were implemented. This was a coordinated “one-two punch,” enabling illegal immigration while circumventing any accountability or transparency.

Sunstein’s academic and professional background, citing his 2008 white paper, Conspiracy Theories, which advocated for government infiltration of online movements to neutralize narratives that could undermine U.S. military and diplomatic efforts.

This idea extended to behavioral influence strategies outlined in his book, Nudge, which became a foundational text for professionals working in counter-disinformation and media literacy.

The book emphasized shaping public behavior without overt coercion, using techniques like algorithmic manipulation, social media deplatforming, and other indirect methods to discourage dissent.

USAID’s role in psychological (gaslighting) operations was engaged in misinformation campaigns both domestically and abroad. Coupled with Sunstein’s advocacy for “raising the cost” of dissenting behavior, contributed to an erosion of free speech protections. Examples included penalties for questioning COVID-19 policies, such as job loss, social media bans, and reputational damage, all designed to discourage opposition without resorting to legal consequences.

There are even broader concerns about the interplay between government roles and private-sector enrichment, with a pattern of officials transitioning from public service to lucrative positions in finance or industry.

This “blob-to-banker pipeline” allows individuals to leverage insider knowledge for personal gain. For instance, Jared Cohen, a former State Department official, having transitioned to roles at Google Jigsaw and later Goldman Sachs, where his government connections reportedly informed investment strategies.

The current system has zero transparency, accountability, and erodes public trust.

USAID’s misuse of funds, coupled with Power’s rapid wealth accumulation, exemplifies the broader issue of financial exploitation within government institutions.

Word needs to get out. Share this post, do your own research, engage in discourse, and hold public officials accountable.

[uispeccoll]

Voices from the Stacks: Phillip G. Hubbard

Image: Phillip G. Hubbard in May 1990 (Faculty and Staff Vertical Files RG01.0015.003).

Phillip G. Hubbard was an engineering professor, administrator, civil rights champion, and distinguished member of the University of Iowa community. He was the first Black professor at the university and spent more than 40 years advocating for students and providing counsel to six presidents. In 1971, he became the first Black vice president at any Big 10 university.

Image: Hubbard in 1966, after being appointed dean of academic affairs (Faculty and Staff Vertical Files RG01.0015.003)

Hubbard was born in Missouri in 1921, but his mother moved the family to Des Moines, Iowa—where the schools were desegrated—so her children could have a better education. Hubbard attended North High School and shined shoes to save up money for college. He first came to the UI as an undergraduate student in 1940, when the university was still largely, if informally, segregated. Black men were excluded from university housing, and all students of color were discouraged from using the cafeteria and attending social events. Like many Black male students, Hubbard lived with a local Black family during his undergraduate years because of housing discrimination in Iowa City. Years later, Hubbard and his wife, Wynonna, would welcome Black students into their own home.

In 1943, Hubbard enlisted in the Army reserves but eventually returned to the UI to finish his BS in electrical engineering, graduating with honors in 1947. That same year, he was hired by the university as a research engineer, making him the first Black faculty member at the UI. He went on to earn an MA in hydraulics and mechanics, a PhD in engineering, and became an assistant professor in 1954.

Image: 1968 University of Iowa Hawkeye Yearbook

As the civil rights movement reached its peak throughout the United States, Hubbard helped to found the Committee on Human Rights to combat housing and employment discrimination in at the UI and in Iowa City. They investigated complaints and lobbied for Fair Housing ordinances, which were adopted by the city in 1964.

Hubbard was appointed dean of academic affairs at the UI in 1966, becoming the first Black administrator at a university in the state of Iowa. In 1971, he was named vice president of student services. During his leadership tenure, he was a staunch advocate for students of all walks of life. He fought for better undergraduate support and engagement and was admired on campus for his willingness to listen to student concerns. His steady relationship with students helped see the university through the turbulence of the Vietnam War and protests that rocked the campus.

Image: Hubbard featured in the 1967 University of Iowa Hawkeye Yearbook. He was known around campus for his dedication to uplifting students’ voices

In 1967 Hubbard spearheaded the Rust, Iowa, and Le Moyne for Expanding Educational Horizons (RILEEH) program, which created partnership between the UI and predominantly Black colleges in the rural south. RILEEH facilitated student exchanges, teacher training, and graduate research to help support under-resourced academic institutions in Mississippi and Tennessee. Later, Hubbard would recruit faculty from these same institutions to help build the emerging Afro-American studies program.

As part of his work to promote cultural studies at UI, Hubbard chaired a newly created committee on Afro-American studies in 1968. He encouraged students of all backgrounds to take classes in this emerging field. He saw inclusivity and cultural competency as vital in higher education, believing the university should produce well rounded students who are prepared to live and work in a diverse world. He advocated for the Afro-American Cultural House and the Chicano Indian American Cultural Center (now called the Latino Native American Cultural Center), understanding the importance of creating a welcoming and supportive environment for minority students.

To that end, Hubbard created Opportunity at Iowa in 1987, a program aimed at increasing diversity at the university through the recruitment and retention of minority students and faculty. This included scholarships, outreach to underserved public schools in Iowa, and summer workshops for highschoolers.

Image: Daily Iowan clipping announcing the newly created Afro-American Cultural Center. Hubbard was a huge advocate for the house and helped them secure their first location in 1968.

After more than 40 years of service, Hubbard retired from the UI in 1990, though he continued to advise Opportunity at Iowa. A year later, Union field (located south of the Iowa Memorial Union) was renamed Hubbard Park in his honor. In 2001, he received a lifetime achievement award from the Iowa City Human Rights Commission.

Hubbard passed away in 2002 at the age of 80. Today numerous scholarships, medals, and awards bare the Hubbard name, including the Philip G. Hubbard Human Rights Award and the Wynonna G. Hubbard Scholarship. As we reflect on his life and legacy, we should strive to honor Hubbard’s commitment to human rights and his dedication to uplifting students of all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Image: Hubbard with Students in 1983 (Frederick W. Kent Collection of Photographs).

Image: Dedication of Hubbard Park in August 1991 (Daily Iowan Archives)

Image: Hubbard Park today

To learn more, view the finding aid for the Phillip G. Hubbard Papers (RG99.0248), or visit us in person or online at the Iowa Digital Library. You can also search the Daily Iowan archives for articles on Phillip Hubbard’s work, or check out his autobiography My Iowa Journey: The Life Story of the University of Iowa's First African American Professor on InfoHawk+.

-Anne M, Olson Graduate Research Assistant

[mariacallous]

The recent weeks have obliged me to unearth some research I had hoped could stay on the backburner. In 2023, I wrote about the major forms of democratic erosion facing the United States: election subversion and executive aggrandizement. “Even a legitimately elected leader can undermine democracy,” I noted, “if they eliminate governmental ‘checks and balances’ or consolidate power in unaccountable institutions.” In 2022, I suggested that, if weaknesses in the formal institutions of American politics made it difficult to forestall additional assaults on the Constitution, the final backstop of democracy is civil society.

Historically, the United States has been fortunate to have a strong civil society. Many of these institutions have weakened. In this article, I quickly review how some sectors—the media, the academy, business, and mass voluntary organizations—are responding to “the most serious examples of executive branch malfeasance in American history.”

American civil society has essential nodes of power that must be energized in the coming days and for the foreseeable future. Not merely the individuals in these institutions, but the institutions themselves must coordinate to provide a public counterweight to the sharp lurch toward personalist rule. That work is not easy. Any more time lost to disbelief, silence, and acquiescence will make it much harder.

Some major media institutions have been slow off the mark. Major scoops have come from unexpected outlets, including independent journalists and the technology magazine WIRED, which was the first to reveal that Elon Musk’s young staff had the power to alter the $6 trillion Treasury payment system, a fact that Treasury officials had denied. (A federal judge has since blocked access. An earlier ruling had limited access to read-only, a problematic ruling given Musk’s conflicts of interest and the security threats posed by his unvetted and secretive young staff. It is unclear if either order is being followed.)

DC’s hometown paper, the Washington Post, should by rights have the best sources in the federal government, but the interference of the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos, in the planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and his prominent place at the Trump inauguration, may well be keeping whistleblowers away. The paper nonetheless has provided some important reporting, including this round-up of Elon Musk’s interference in government operations. The New York Times has buried several excellent, insightful analyses and essays deep in the paper, and adopted tortured euphemisms and vague, small-print headlines that leave their readers uninformed of the gravity of the news.

Academic institutions are largely silent, but that may be changing. Academics have for years been sounding the alarm about America’s democratic erosion, and many continue to provide vital analysis and context. See, for example, these analyses from Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Don Moynihan. But academia has been outspoken as individuals. Institutions have mostly remained silent—though they may be shaken loose from their apathy by the executive orders interfering with billions in congressionally appropriated funds for scientific research.

Coordinated public pronouncements from university leadership, especially from law and medical schools, would assist citizens in understanding the scope of the dangers confronting the country. Top hospital administrators and medical associations that have been quiescent in recent weeks need to make clear the immense public health costs of ill-considered, arbitrary, and unlawful interference with government-funded science. In addition, professional associations have the power to sanction their members, a power they should exercise in defense of the public sphere, as my colleague Quinta Jurecic has argued.

Business concerns are not yet being channeled into political action. Autocratic populist leaders damage the economy; their countries see their GDPs drop due to erratic policymaking, cronyism, and underinvestment in public goods. But, as I wrote last year, business leaders have a tragic history of misjudging these dangers. American business influence, moreover, has grown increasingly ideologically conservative and focused on narrow benefits like tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks.

Since the election, business leaders have truckled to the new administration—a trend many, including President Trump, have suggested is driven by fear of official reprisals. That fear is, of course, one of the common ways in which opposition to populist authoritarian leaders is eliminated.

It may be, however, that business will awake to the massive economic dangers posed by executive overreach. Opaque and unpredictable stoppages of congressionally mandated spending by federal agencies will ramify throughout the economy. An unvetted young individual meddling with the code that underwrites the Treasury payment system is, as one Treasury contractor wrote, an “unprecedented insider threat risk.” (That contractor has since been “removed” by their employer, Booz Allen, a consulting firm heavily reliant on government contracts.)

Mass mobilization is underway, but those efforts will struggle if elites continue to underplay the magnitude of the moment. Congressional offices have been flooded with phone calls. As the volume went from the usual dozens to more than 1,500 calls per minute, the phone system buckled under the strain. Advocacy organizations appear to have been caught flat-footed by the speed of Musk’s incursions. Small protests have occurred at government agencies and congressional offices, with union organizations often playing a key role.

Religious organizations have not yet been prominent in most public protests, but they have an essential role to play. As my colleague Jonathan Rauch has written in a new book, churches must combat the rise of what has been termed Christian nationalism.

More broadly, public opposition to the second Trump administration remains far smaller than it was the last time around, even though recent actions represent a far more aggressive assault on American governance. This is perhaps in part because Trump’s loss of the popular vote in 2016 provided an impetus for organizing before the administration even began. Whether the organizing gap will close is a critical question in the weeks and months to come.

Across all of sectors of civil society, coordination is key. Individual objections do not carry the weight of joint action. It is worth noting that censorship in authoritarian China does not focus on “negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state,” it silences “comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization.” Resistance to authoritarianism, like democracy itself, is a collective endeavor.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

If you are not a close follower of American college campus politics, you are likely to be unfamiliar with a woman who has been making headlines for over a month in the US and increasingly around the world. The lady in question, one Claudine Gay, was President of Harvard, one of the most renowned educational institutions in the world, until earlier this week when she resigned over plagiarism allegations.

Why does or should anyone care about this? Well, Gay’s decision to step down is the culmination of long-running efforts to address the cancer at the heart of Western societies: the idea that the way to fix injustices of the past is to commit injustices today.

Following her resignation, Gay’s defenders were quick to emphasise the racial dimension of this story. Ibram X. Kendi, for example, tweeted that “Racist mobs won’t stop until they topple all Black people from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing the structure of racism”.

And while his claims of this being a racist campaign are absurd, it is true that Gay was not targeted solely for seemingly adopting the personal motto: “I came, I saw, I copied”. She became a focus of major Harvard donor concerns and a media campaign led by Christopher Rufo – a man I would approvingly describe as the diversity industry’s greatest enemy – in the light of her mind-boggling testimony in Congress. Her statements, given alongside the Presidents of MIT and UPenn, revealed the core of the ideology the entire Western education system is based on in all its glory.

The oppressor vs. oppressed mindset which is - no matter how uncomfortable this may make some readers - cultural Marxism, says simply that white people and “over-performing” minorities like Indians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Americans should be discriminated against in hiring and student applications in favour of “underprivileged groups”. As a result, college campuses on which regular meltdowns have occurred for a decade over such “hate speech” as dressing in a Mexican costume for Halloween found themselves with nothing to say about pro-Hamas demonstrations and the harassment of Jewish students on their campuses in the wake of the October 7 attacks.

But even that is not painting the full picture. Yes, Gay, a darling of the diversity industry, was targeted for her plagiarism following her complete failure of leadership in recent months. But she was also partially targeted because of the assumption, if not outright conclusion, that the reason she was appointed in the first place was, to put it mildly, not merit alone.

After all, Gay’s primary achievement is not stellar academic work, exemplary managerial skills or even charisma and force of personality. She was appointed President of Harvard following a distinguished career in fields like “improving diversity” and researching “race and identity”. To put it bluntly, many people believe that she is a diversity hire and the reason she pushed the DEI ideology that eventually led to her appalling testimony in Congress is that she is herself a beneficiary of it.

To be clear, she has not been forced out for being black. She has been forced out for being placed in a position for which she had neither the skills nor experience to succeed and then failing in it. This is the rotten legacy of affirmative action, which, as Thomas Sowell explained decades ago in 90 seconds and in many of his books since, hurts the very people it is attempting to help:

If allowing students to enter universities in which they are destined to fail for the sake of diversity harms them, then what might be said about hiring people for leadership roles in major institutions in which they are destined to fail? This harms not only them but also the people who work and study at those institutions.

To be clear, I have no evidence that Claudine Gay was hired ahead of better, more qualified candidates. But it is not hard to imagine that a position holding the prestige, reputation and nearly $1-million-a-year salary the role of Harvard President commands could have been filled by someone with more executive experience, academic achievements and other relevant expertise.

This is the other curse of the counterproductive attempts to artificially increase the presence of “underrepresented” groups in employment and education. Because everyone knows that some people are routinely given unfair preferential treatment, it becomes easier and easier for the rest of us to suspect specific individuals of being there for reasons other than merit.

So here is the truth: we must return to pursuing the goal of a colour-blind society immediately. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. All discrimination is wrong. And because it is wrong, it will create precisely the kind of resentment that Claudine Gay is now facing. She is seen as the standard-bearer of the DEI industry and is being treated as such by people who have had enough.

All of us must be treated on the content of our character. When we refuse to follow this principle, we hurt everyone: white, black, hispanic, Asian, Jewish. A healthy society relies on the equal treatment of all individuals. The fact that we have to say this out loud in 2024 is a sign of how far we’ve fallen.

DEI must be dismantled. This will take years, perhaps decades. But, in recent weeks, for the first time in a long time, we have grounds for optimism.

[eretzyisrael]

by Rachel O'Donoghue

The past academic year saw an unsettling rise in antisemitism on American college campuses as anti-Israel protests swept through some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. Initially, college administrations, seemingly paralyzed by indecision, justified these disruptions under the guise of protecting students’ rights to express themselves—even as protesters commandeered campus spaces with “anti-Zionist” encampments that effectively ostracized Jewish students.

The situation reached a breaking point after disastrous congressional hearings led to the resignations of Harvard President Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill, casting a harsh light on university leadership’s ineffectual handling of protests. At institutions like Harvard and Columbia, these demonstrations escalated into aggressive actions, prompting reluctant administrators to call in police and impose disciplinary measures on some student protest leaders.

While these resignations and official responses might have signaled a potential turning point, evidence suggests little has truly changed.

Harvard University, for example, has long grappled with allegations of campus antisemitism, from the Cornel West tenure controversy to recent scenes of blatant hostility toward Jews. Last year, one of the most disturbing incidents unfolded at the Harvard Business School during a “Stop the Genocide in Gaza” protest, where a pro-Israel student attempting to film the event was reportedly surrounded and assaulted by a crowd chanting, “Shame, shame, shame.”

However, he announced in July that Harvard had reversed its decision, releasing a video in which he declared, “Make no mistake, the reversal of these charges is not a reflection of the good nature of the institution but a demonstration of the power of our organizing. When I rejoin my peers this fall, we must understand our movement is working, that our momentum is growing, and that Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.”

[mithliya]

I reject feminism not because of some misguided belief that women belong in the kitchen, or because I think women should be subordinate to men. American feminism, as a long and complex ideology spanning centuries, is often divided into “waves”. Each is a movement within a movement, all dedicated to making life better for women, but with slightly different goals. The suffragettes who fought for our right to vote are known as the first wave. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is a splinter group dating back to the second wave of feminism in the 1960s that feels fourth wave feminists of the modern era have lost touch with their roots (Grady). This is the group that spawned the misandrist, or men-hating, feminists. 

“Oh woe is me!” cries the radical feminist, also known as the radfem, as she types on her Macbook Pro. She furiously posts about how she was “mansplained” to that day at work when she couldn’t get the new coffee machine to work, and how her creepy coworker complimented her new blazer. “How dare he!” she mutters. The radical feminist clutches her privilege like barnacles to the bottom of a pier, seeing anyone who dares disagree with her as the underpaid workman hired to pry her off.  

Is this a stereotype? Certainly. Radical feminists are real people, after all, with stories and personal histories like everyone else, who are just as deserving of the right to speak their mind. But the fact remains that they use their right to speak to erase trans people, push their narrative of victimhood, and violently campaign against sex workers. When a group brimming with hatred and anger for those even more marginalized then they are is loud enough to be conflated with people fighting for equality, rather than further discrimination, there is a problem (Preen). And the problem is radical feminism, which has to go—and if this means getting rid of feminism altogether, then so be it. 

“TERF” is an acronym that stands for  “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”; however, those who identify with this particular sect of radfem denounce the label as a slur and prefer the name “gender critical”. Discerning readers will note that this is an unapologetic euphemism. 

Gender critical, in this case, doesn't mean that they are critical of the institution or concept of gender as a whole. Rather, it means they don’t believe in the existence of trans people and actively seek to erase them. These are people who only believe in biological sex, both primary and secondary sex characteristics, who refuse to use preferred pronouns, and who would seek to push through legislation that would cause numerous problems for transgender individuals. Now, one could argue that these are small subsets of productive, non-extremist communities, lurking online like internet trolls. But these communities are larger than you’d think, considering a subreddit called r/GenderCritical on Reddit has over 54 thousand members. These people have massive platforms to spread hate and enormous echo chambers of radfems who think just like them. 

A high-profile radfem group called The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF for short) has been particularly active lately in the justice system. They wrote a “Declaration of No Confidence in LGB Movement Leadership” (Women’s Liberation Front). 

The “LGB movement”. 

The entire petition is dedicated to somehow getting the “LGB Movement” to denounce transgender people and pay “restitution” to those they have wronged by campaigning for trans rights. The post sounded academic, perhaps even sounded reasonable if one didn’t read too closely. But it calls the surgeries and hormonal treatments that trans people use to alleviate their dysphoria, which is a mental condition, mutilation. They call it “irresponsible” for trained medical practitioners to allow, or even recommend such treatments.

Typical TERF dogma is to say that trans women are really just men who have a fetish for seeing themselves as women, which they call “autogynephilia” (Blanchard). All of these are just excuses for these women to discriminate against trans people while hiding under the feminism label, twisting the movement that historically fought for equality to their own ends.

This isn’t limited to niche Reddit communities or the odd militant organization. J.K. Rowling herself, a woman beloved by many people for writing the Harry Potter book series, was recently criticized online for tweeting her support for a woman named Maya Forster, who had posted transphobic sentiments on her twitter. Radical feminism may be a small group, but they are incredibly loud, and their dogma is pervasive. It’s seductive in that it makes you feel superior by playing upon your existing preconceptions of evil, dangerous men. The narrative of a faceless oppressor you can blame all of your problems upon is painfully easy to buy into. For example, you’ve probably been ignored or talked over by a man at least once. Chalking it up to how “all men are terrible people” is easy. And the whole idea that it’s time for women to be on top, for women to be in power when we have been historically oppressed, has a nice symmetry to it—some bitter irony for the other gender, right? It’s easy, and it’s symmetrical, but responding to oppression with oppression is the opposite of progress.

Tied into their anti-trans dogma, radfems are also strongly against sex work in all its forms. To them, there is no safe version of sex work—it’s all exploitation and “for the men”. This goes hand in hand with the victimization of women, because to these people, no woman in sex work could be in control of her own life (“Subcultures and Sociology”). This, of course, ignores that sex work is dangerous enough without privileged women, who likely have never needed to work in that particular field, trying to pass legislation to make it even more dangerous. 

The blatant victimization of women that pervades radfem dogma exists right there in the name of WoLF. The need for a “liberation front” itself implies that women are slaves, and a radical feminist would make the argument that we are, oppressed and enslaved by the patriarchy as we seem to be. But a deeper look into their website reveals more. 

Their membership page says that “Please note that we are a women-only organization, intended to serve and include biologically female persons who survived girlhood” (Women’s Liberation Front). Putting aside the blatant transphobia that is par for the course by now, the issue is with the phrase “survived girlhood”. This phrase implies that growing up female is some sort of Hunger Games-esque battle for survival. I don’t know about you, but my girlhood consisted of watching Disney Channel and eating cookies. I didn’t need to fight for the right to grow older, not in the ever-progressive Bay Area. 

And while this may be a different case in other countries, perhaps one with more restrictive laws than the US, it is important to note that WoLF is an American organization dedicated to making changes in America. Rather than fighting actual battles for women’s rights where women are actively oppressed by repressive laws and policies, and rather than aiding women suffering in abusive households, this “Women’s Liberation Front” is writing strongly worded letters to nobody in particular and pushing a narrative of victimization. 

An article written by the Independent in the UK expounds upon this idea that “Misogyny should be recognised as a hate crime for the same reason that misandry should not be: women and girls are systematically oppressed and exploited by men and boys” (Smith). This was about the issue of making misogyny a hate crime—should misandry, the hatred of men, fall under the same umbrella? This author argues that no, it should not be, because apparently our “systematic oppression” negates any reason for similar protections to be given to men. There are several issues with this idea of systematic oppression, the most glaring of which is how it makes women the victims. It makes us seem helpless, exploited by a system we cannot control. This demonstrates the inherent hypocrisy of radical feminism. These are the same women who virulently campaign against being seen as children, for whom their own autonomy is a right they must protect against the ruthlessly exploitative patriarchy. And yet they cast themselves as victims, adopting the infantilization they claim to oppose. 

Radical feminists don’t have it entirely wrong, however. Some of their goals seem downright reasonable rather than rabid, one of which is their goal to have women’s only spaces. These are spaces they describe as being for women only, such as gender-segregated showers and changing rooms, correctional facilities, and rape trauma centers (Women’s Liberation Front). Radfems do not believe that there should only be showers, changing rooms, prisons, and trauma centers for women; rather, they should be separated by gender. Which, of course, is not an utterly unreasonable expectation. Having gender-neutral showers, especially once past the age of puberty, would be uncomfortable and invasive. 

The problem with radfem’s “women’s only spaces” is two-fold. For one, they would seek to exclude trans women from such spaces on account of their “not being real women”. The sheer transphobia of such a sentiment cannot be ignored, despite the field of landmines that the issue of trans women in female prisons can be. But on top of that, there’s a growing sentiment among radical feminists that men are an utterly different species from women. Not in the strict denotation sense, of course, but that because of their different biology and supposed different experiences growing up, no man could ever sympathize with female issues and female struggles. No man should ever be allowed to weigh in on supposedly “female-only” issues. 

There is this growing divide between men and women during a time when the entirety of humanity needs to stand together on global issues. Climate change comes to mind, as do political conflicts and the return of measles due to anti-vax ideology. By emphasizing this divide, radical feminists push people apart. Movements, especially ones calling for great change, only succeed when the people behind them are united. When they are not—when there are splinter groups, competing ideologies, and those who refuse to hear one another—they fail, every single time.   

This is perhaps said best by the Washington Post, in an article saying that radfem fixation on the apparent bad behavior of men distracts from real problems (Young). But more importantly, it colors the movement as a whole. I am not a feminist, and I never will be—at least, not until there is a distinct ideological separation between actual gender equality and, as the article puts it, raking men over the coals for perceived slights and the crimes of their ancestors (Young). 

But above all, I reject this idea that womanhood is pain and the narrative of oppression that privileged women on the internet want me to believe. I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the feminist movement until they themselves refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of radical feminism, and neither should you. It is only when there is a near-unanimous rejection of the monster this movement made that there will be any ideological change; indeed, any societal change.

Blanchard, Ray. “Early History of the Concept of Autogynephilia.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34, Aug. 2005.

Goldberg, Michelle. “What Is a Woman?” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 9 July 2019, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2.

Grady, Constance. “The Waves of Feminism, and Why People Keep Fighting over Them, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 20 July 2018, www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth.

Kearns, Madeleine. “TERF Wars.” National Review, vol. 70, no. 22, Dec. 2018, p. 25. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=132993584&site=pov-live.x

Preen, Katy. “Radical Feminism - a Good Idea in Theory.” Medium, Medium, 19 Apr. 2018, medium.com/@KatyPreen/radical-feminism-a-good-idea-in-theory-e3ba0e56ecc3.

Smith, Victoria. “'The Fact That We're Considering Making Misandry a Hate Crime Should Concern Everyone'.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 16 Oct. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/voices/misandry-men-hate-crime-women-sexism-racism-feminism-a8586591.html.

“Subcultures and Sociology.” Grinnell College, Grinnell College, haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/radfems/.

Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF). “Become A Member.” Women's Liberation Front, Women’s Liberation Front, 2014, womensliberationfront.org/become-a-member/.

i read the first few paragraphs and then gave up bc youre an obvious MRA + boring + stupid + misinformed.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Matt Lamb

Published: Jan 31, 2025

ANALYSIS: Kendi’s center has significantly scaled back following massing spending with little results. He will now create something similar at Howard University

Professor Ibram Kendi and Boston University will shut down the Center for Antiracist Research on June 30 as the “antiracism” proponent moves to Howard University.

Kendi will start a similar center at the Washington, D.C. historically black university, focused on “advancing research of importance to the global African Diaspora, including inquiry into race, technology, racism, climate change, and disparities.”

The “Institute for Advanced Study” will be “[b]uilt on the highest standards of intellectual inquiry,” according to a news release from Howard.

However, Kendi’s Boston U. center failed to deliver on many promises. The university and center ignored at least twenty requests for comment from The College Fix about productivity during that time. A 2024 analysis from The Fix found the center had been largely quiet in the past year. The scaled back version, following overspending by Kendi, produced little. The university investigated the center and cleared Kendi of any wrongdoing.

The center started off with strong fundraising, including $10 million from former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. It also had the benefit of being started in summer 2020, as Black Lives Matter grew in prominence and corporations and governments focused on “antiracism” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” principles. Kendi himself did quite well during that time, hauling in $35,000 for 60-minute speeches. A 2021 analysis estimated Kendi had made around $300,000 from speaking gigs, an amount that has likely eclipsed half a million dollars by now.

Following layoffs of about half the staff, which disproportionately harmed racial minorities and thus violated the principles of “antiracism,” Kendi moved to focusing on fellowships.

But The Fix spoke to one “research affiliate” who did not even know she had been accepted for a position until being contacted for comment on what the role entailed.

Boston U. heralded some of Kendi’s work, including the “COVID Racial Data Tracker.” But Kendi and his team did little on that project – rather a team of volunteers from The Atlantic did the work and the publication shut down new data collection in March 2021.

His center existed at Boston U. for five years, after he left a similar project at American University. For the last two years, representing 40 percent of his time there, the center did practically nothing, while Kendi wrote zero academic papers at least during the first three years he was there.

As The Fix reported in Sep. 2024:

 The latest post on the Antiracist Tech Initiative blog was from August 2023, as was the most recent update from the Racial Data Lab. On a page titled “What We’re Working On,” nothing is listed from this year. No policy reports or convenings have been published since 2022, and no amicus briefs have been submitted by the center since 2023. The Model Legislation Project also has not been updated this year. The Antiracist Legal Education Project advertises an event from September 2023 as “upcoming,” while the annual Antiracist Book Festival was not held in 2023 or 2024. A Vertex Symposium, which is also described as an annual event, has not occurred since 2022.

Kendi was quick to accuse his critics of racism when questions were raised about his leadership, even though some of them were racial minorities, such as scholar Saida Grundy.

“I have been disappointed in journalists who report criticisms of a Black leader without asking for evidence to substantiate those allegations,” he told The Daily Free Press. “Racist ideas about a corrupt Black leader running a dysfunctional or toxic organization are so ingrained that reporters don’t feel the need for evidence.”

==

Of course he did. He has no other cards to play because he's a full-blown fraud.

"If you hold me responsible for all the things I did, you're a racist." This is how liars and ideologues like him deflect.

But it would be racist not to hold him accountable, as we do other leaders and managers. There's nothing more racist than saying, well, since you're black we should hold you to a lower standard because we just can't expect that much from you.

What I will say is that Howard University deserves everything it's going to get.

[sarkariresultdude]

Fulbright Scholarship Results Are Out – Congratulations to the Awardees!

 The Fulbright Program, hooked up in 1946, stands as one of the maximum prestigious international instructional exchange projects, aiming to foster mutual information between the USA and other nations. Each year, thousands of scholars, college students, and professionals from around the globe are decided on to take part in this program, embarking on possibilities for superior studies, college lecturing, and graduate have a look at in the U.S. The choice technique is pretty aggressive, reflecting this system's commitment to academic excellence and cultural alternate.

Fulbright Scholarship Result Requirement 

Recent Developments in the Fulbright Program

As of March 2025, several noteworthy events have spread out within the Fulbright community:

Funding Freeze and Its Implications

In February 2025, the U.S. State Department initiated a brief pause on spending to study its programs and sports. This decision has drastically impacted programs like Fulbright, Gilman, and Critical Language global scholarships. Consequently, many students who depend upon State Department funding have located themselves stranded, both inside the U.S. And abroad, facing monetary uncertainties. This abrupt investment freeze has affected over 12,500 American college students and professionals presently abroad or scheduled to participate in State Department programs within the subsequent six months. Additionally, extra than 7,four hundred global contributors in U.S.-based applications were affected. 

AP NEWS

2025 U.S.-ASEAN Visiting Scholar (USAS) Program Nominees

Despite the funding challenges, the Thailand–United States Educational Foundation (Fulbright Thailand) introduced the interview results for the 2025 Fulbright U.S.-ASEAN Visiting Scholar (USAS) Program. Four prominent nominees had been decided on:

Professor Dr. Montarop Yamabhai: Professor of Molecular Biotechnology at Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima.

Dr. Orawan Sriboonruang: Knowledge Management Manager on the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Centre for STEM Education, Bangkok.

Assistant Professor Dr. Piya-on Numpaisal, MD.: Associate Dean on the Institute of Medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima.

Dr. Totsanat Rattanakaew: Agricultural Research Officer, Expert degree, on the Land Development Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok.

These nominees will continue to the final choice method carried out with the aid of the U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta. 

FULBRIGHTTHAI.ORG

Fulbright 2025 Cohort Selection in Pakistan

The United States Educational Foundation in Pakistan (USEFP) discovered the choice of the Fulbright 2025 cohort. From 1,a hundred ninety applications spanning a hundred thirty five universities, 88 applicants had been chosen—70 for grasp's applications and 18 for Ph.D. Applications. This cohort's choice underscores the program's willpower to academic advantage and management capability. 

USEFP NEWSLETTER

Understanding the Fulbright Selection Process

The Fulbright selection system is meticulous, designed to pick out applicants who now not handiest excel academically however also reveal ability for leadership and a commitment to fostering mutual know-how. Key components of the selection process encompass:

Project Proposal & Grant Purpose: Evaluators check the nice and feasibility of the proposed undertaking, such as its relevance to the host country and its ability impact.

Applicant Qualifications: This encompasses the candidate's academic and professional report, relevant education, accomplishments, extracurricular activities, and language education if required.

Contribution to the Fulbright Mission: Reviewers don't forget how the candidate and their task will enhance the Fulbright purpose of selling mutual understanding amongst international locations via network engagement and other activities. 

FULBRIGHT ONLINE

Opportunities and Challenges Ahead

The recent funding freeze affords considerable challenges for current and potential Fulbright scholars. The uncertainty surrounding monetary support has left many in precarious conditions, highlighting the need for clean conversation and contingency making plans.

Despite these challenges, the Fulbright Program keeps to provide worthwhile opportunities. For example, the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program for the 2025-2026 cycle is about to release, presenting over four hundred awards across six world regions. The utility system is scheduled to begin in February 2025, with a closing date in September 2024.

[coochiequeens]

I'd rather be called a TERF than be someone who is ok with TQ+ organizations dedicated to minors without the commonsense approach of vetting the adults in the organizations or someone who pushes TQ+ studies without caring that the author is a pedo.

By Genevieve Gluck April 16, 2024

A gay couple who co-founded a Swiss LGBTQIA+ youth organization are being investigated by the public prosecutor after sexually exploiting two teenagers who were in their care. The men had created locations for their youth group, Sozialwerk.LGBT+, for children aged 13 and up in the city of Chur and in the municipality of Buchs, Switzerland.

While their identities were concealed by the press in Switzerland, Reduxx is naming the men involved as Holger Niggemann and his husband, Björn.

Holger, 42, is alleged to have had sexual contact with two 17-year-olds who had sought help for bullying with the organization. Holger was a board member of the group at the time, while his husband Björn was the business manager. The two men are said to have had a three-way sexual relationship with one of the teens, a 17-year old boy, according to a report by Tages-Anzeiger.

Numerous documents substantiate what happened in the group, including text messages, emails and voice messages, reports Tages-Anzeiger. Founded in 2020, Sozialwerk.LGBT has received public funding to set up facilities for at-risk youth as young as 13 who believe they are LGBT+.

During an investigation into the allegations, local media spoke to fifteen people close to the group to check the veracity of the allegations. The majority of those who came forward decided to remain anonymous.

One exception is Daniel Huber, a former board member of the association, who, with one other board member, reported the couple to public prosecutor Annina Grob, co-director of Avenir Social, the professional association for social work in Switzerland.

“For us, the behavior of the two is a total abuse of power, and the young people also felt that way. I brought it up again and again,” said Huber, who attended the meetings as a teenager before joining the board in a leadership role. “It is important not to look away from such behavior.”

According to statements from anonymous sources, the Niggemanns also took the 17 year-old boy on vacation to Germany with them.

See rest of article

By Genevieve Gluck April 13, 2024

Reduxx can reveal that a Dutch-American academic with a history of advocating for the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships has had a working relationship with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Theodore Sandfort’s research has been presented at the organization’s symposium as recently as 2016.

Sandfort, a Columbia-affiliated academic and LGBT activist, previously worked with self-declared pedophiles in the Netherlands, documenting adult men’s sexual abuse of boys as evidence to support his theory that adult-child relationships are “predominantly positive.”

Prior to relocating to Columbia University, Sandfort received a PhD in Clinical Psychology from Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He was also the Chairman of the Interfaculty Department of Lesbian and Gay Studies at Utrecht University and Director of the Research Program “Diversity, Lifestyles and Health” at the Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Research.

A faculty member at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, Sandfort has also been employed as a Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences, and worked at the university’s HIV Center alongside former WPATH president and Director of the institution’s Gender Identity Program, Walter Bockting. Like Sandfort, Bockting relocated to Columbia University from the Netherlands, having completed his doctoral degree in psychology from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Bockting and Sandfort also worked together in a professional capacity while acting as members of the editorial board for the academic journal Psychology and Sexuality in 2015.

The following year, in 2016, research co-authored by Sandfort was presented at a WPATH symposium in Amsterdam.

The paper, titled “Gender nonconformity and peer victimization: Sexual attraction and gender differences by age,” focused on the experiences of Dutch same-sex attracted adolescents aged 11 to 18. The study concluded that gender non-conforming youth were bullied by their peers, leading Sandfort and his colleagues to recommend that “key educational messages that address sexual and gender diversity should be delivered during childhood before early adolescence.”

However, Sandfort’s prior work dealt with sympathetic portrayals of pedophilic relationships between adult men and adolescent boys. In recent years, he has also had access to vulnerable youth in New York City’s foster care system, and, in 2020, he was dismissed from this position when his troubling research history dealing with the sexuality of children came to light.

In 1983, Sandfort authored an article for Youth and Society (Jeugd en Samenleving) titled “Erotic moments in working with children,” a small-scale study of sexual desires among five adult group leaders for the children in their care.

The men described deriving sexual pleasure from working with children, specifically when exercising together, bathing the children, or holding them on their laps. One man, identified as “Lex,” spoke of being aroused while “tickling” children aged “2 or 3,” wearing only his underwear, and proceeding to touch the toddlers’ genitals.

See rest of article

[tmarshconnors]

"If you're stupid enough to buy it, you'll pay the price for it one day."

James Dimon is an American banker and businessman who has been the chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase since 2006. Dimon began his career as a management consultant at Boston Consulting Group.

Born: 13 March 1956 (age 68 years), New York, New York, United States.

Leadership at JPMorgan Chase: Jamie Dimon has been the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase since 2006. Under his leadership, JPMorgan Chase has become the largest of the big four American banks and one of the most prominent financial institutions in the world.

Early Career: Dimon started his career as a management consultant at Boston Consulting Group before moving on to work with Sandy Weill at American Express and then at Commercial Credit.

Education: Dimon holds a Bachelor's degree from Tufts University and an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar, one of the highest academic honors.

Crisis Management: Dimon is renowned for his management during the 2008 financial crisis, where JPMorgan Chase not only survived but also acquired Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, solidifying its position in the banking sector.

Personal Background: Jamie Dimon was born on March 13, 1956, in New York City. He comes from a family with Greek heritage and has a strong personal connection to the banking industry, as his grandfather was a Greek immigrant who was a broker and a trader in the Greek stock exchange.

[mariacallous]

Facing an increasingly suspicious research climate, a growing number of Chinese scientists are leaving the United States for positions abroad, the latest indicator of how worsening U.S.-China relations are complicating academic collaboration and could hamstring Washington’s tech ambitions. 

Chinese scientists living in the United States have for decades contributed to research efforts driving developments in advanced technology and science. But a growing number of them may now be looking elsewhere for work, as deteriorating geopolitical relations fuel extra scrutiny of Chinese researchers and Beijing ramps up efforts to recruit and retain talent. Between 2010 and 2021, the number of Chinese scientists leaving the United States has steadily increased, according to new research published last month. If the trend continues, experts warn that the brain drain could deal a major blow to U.S. research efforts in the long run. 

“It’s absolutely devastating,” said David Bier, the associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. “So many of the researchers that the United States depends on in [the] advanced technology field are from China, or are foreign students, and this phenomenon is certainly going to negatively impact U.S. firms and U.S. research going forward.”

From semiconductor chips to artificial intelligence, technology has been at the forefront of U.S.-China competition, with both Washington and Beijing maneuvering to strangle each other’s sectors. Cooperation, even in key sectors like combating climate change, has been rare.

From 2010 to 2021, the number of scientists of Chinese descent who left the United States for another country has surged from 900 to 2,621, with scientists leaving at an expedited rate between 2018 and 2021, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Nearly half of this group moved to China and Hong Kong in 2010, the study said, and a growing percentage of Chinese scientists have relocated to China over the years. 

While this number represents a small fraction of the Chinese scientists in the United States, the uptick reflects researchers’ growing concerns and broader apprehension amid a tense geopolitical climate. After surveying 1,304 Chinese American researchers, the report found that 89 percent of respondents wanted to contribute to U.S. science and technology leadership. Yet 72 percent also reported feeling unsafe as researchers in the United States, while 61 percent had previously considered seeking opportunities outside of the country. 

“Scientists of Chinese descent in the United States now face higher incentives to leave the United States and lower incentives to apply for federal grants,” the report said. There are “general feelings of fear and anxiety that lead them to consider leaving the United States and/or stop applying for federal grants.” 

The incentives to leave are twofold. Beijing has funneled resources into research and development programs and has long attempted to recruit scientists, even its own, from around the world. For one of its initiatives, the Thousand Talents Plan, Beijing harnessed at least 600 recruitment stations worldwide to acquire new talent. “China has been really trying to lure back scientists for a long time,” said Eric Fish, the author of China’s Millennials. 

But this latest outflow of Chinese scientists accelerated in 2018, the same year that then-U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled the China Initiative, a controversial program that was aimed at countering IP theft—and cast a chill over researchers of Chinese descent and collaborations with Chinese institutions. In 2020, he also issued a proclamation denying visas for graduate students and researchers affiliated with Chinese universities associated with the military. 

Although the Biden administration shut down the China Initiative, experts warn that its shadow still looms over Chinese scientists. More than one-third of respondents in the PNAS survey reported feeling unwelcome in the United States, while nearly two-thirds expressed concerns about research collaboration with China. 

“There is this chilling effect that we’re still witnessing now, where there is a stigma attached to collaboration with China,” said Jenny Lee, a professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. 

The challenges are emblematic of how the breakdown in U.S.-China relations has thrown universities into a geopolitical firestorm, particularly as some states’ lawmakers pressure them to sever ties with Chinese counterparts. On the U.S. side, interest in Mandarin language studies and study abroad has plummeted over the years, largely the result of worsening ties, Beijing’s growing repression, and the coronavirus pandemic. Today, while there are roughly 300,000 Chinese students in America, only 350 Americans studied in China in the most recent academic year. If interest continues to recede, experts warn of spillover effects that could hamper Washington’s understanding of Beijing. 

“We’re losing a generation of people who are knowledgeable about China,” said Daniel Murphy, the former director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University. “I’m concerned that the United States is going about this issue in a way that excessively focuses on risks of the academic relationship, without due consideration for the benefits. And I think we see this in a whole host of arenas, and that it’s bipartisan.”

At the same time as a growing number of Chinese scientists exit the United States, new students appear to be facing higher barriers to entry as student visa denials and backlogs reach record high levels. According to a blog post by the Cato Institute, student visa denials peaked at about 35 percent in 2022—the highest rate recorded in two decades. 

Student visa denial data is not available by nationality, but Bier, the Cato Institute expert who wrote the piece, said that there is a high degree of correlation between denial rates for B-visas, or tourist visas, and student visas. “Having reviewed the B-visa denials in China, it’s pretty clear that the Chinese overall visa denial rate has increased significantly over the last few years and is at a level now where it’s the highest it’s been in decades,” he said. 

Just as some Chinese scientists are looking abroad, these challenges are pushing a growing number of international students to turn elsewhere for academic opportunities. Students are increasingly heading to countries like Canada, Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, all of which are opening their doors to high-skilled workers and researchers. To attract more talent, the United Kingdom has issued “Global Talent” and “High Potential Individual” visas, which allow scholars from top universities to work there for 2-3 years and 1-5 years, respectively.

Universities are being impacted “by geopolitical tensions, by political agendas, and so it’s certainly inhibiting U.S. universities’ ability to attract the best and brightest,” Lee said.

[plethoraworldatlas]

Wednesday, May 1, 2024 — New York, NY — Last night, Columbia University students were ambushed by hundreds of New York Police Department officers in a surprise attack on the student encampment calling for divestment from Israeli apartheid and genocidal warfare. 

Over a hundred students were arrested as police used ladders to climb into a university building, “pushed protesters to the ground and slammed them with metal barricades.” One student was thrown down a flight of stairs, according to video footage, as hundreds more called for the police to stand down. The NYPD Strategic Response Group marched on students with riot gear and broke into university buildings—at the request of the university President Minouche Shafik. 

The NYPD wreaked terror on Columbia’s student body last night. They violently dispersed protestors and have been invited by Shafik to occupy the campus through graduation to ensure no protest tents are set up on the campus’s public spaces again. 

“We have never seen more lawlessness in recent months than when Columbia University deployed droves of law enforcement on their own students who have for weeks exercised their First Amendment rights—and rights as students—to demand that investments in Israel’s war machine end immediately amid the genocide of over 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza,” said Dr. Osama Abu Irshaid, Executive Director of Americans for Justice in Palestine Action.

AJP Action condemns Columbia University’s abdication of its responsibility to student rights and student safety. University leaders have a responsibility to uphold academic freedom, including students’ constitutionally-protected right to protest. 

We call on the Department of Education to investigate Columbia University’s collaboration with the NYPD to attack students despite documentation of students’ consistently peaceful protests. The attacks have disparate impacts on Palestinian, Muslim, and other students of color on campus and endangers all students for exercising their rights. This follows a trend across the country. At least one Muslim student at Arizona State University was handcuffed by police last night as well before officers ripped her hijab off; she was seated and did not resist arrest. 

Not only has Columbia University failed to protect its Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students in particular, it has allowed all Palestine solidarity activists in its community to be subject to public doxxing and attacks by faculty, staff, members of foreign militaries, and elected officials alike. The university has testified against these students in Congress and mischaracterized their peaceful protests in order to repress views unpopular with major donors and pro-Israel Members of Congress.

AJP Action expresses staunch support for the students and their demands—along with the demands and rights of students across the country: at UCLA, Yale, University of Minnesota, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin - Madison, and at dozens more campuses that have been attacked by law enforcement at the behest of university leadership. We also call on President Biden to condemn attacks on students and heed the popular movement to end support for Israel’s war in Gaza and to pursue diplomatic pathways to peace. 

As students seek legal action for the attacks yesterday, we stand by them and bear witness to the clear violations of their democratic rights and the widespread attacks on the integrity of higher education institutions in the U.S.