#anna university admission | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

pennyblossom-meta · 2 months ago

Text

The curious case of Anna Green on AO3

Initially a drabble meant to be written in one or two days, this has grown into a full fledged side fic from L's POV.

Dedicated to @lunalit-river and @scar8o. Thank you for always being so supportive 💜

Chapters (1/3)

Summary: L frowns, biting down on his thumb as he scans the opening lines of Near’s email, “There are barely any records on the ‘Anna Green’ who enrolled this year at To-Ho university. For all intents and purposes, she might as well be a ghost.”

“Ryuzaki, here are the files you asked for.”

“Thank you, Watari.”

The lights are off at this time of night, save for the dim glow cast by the wide monitor resting on a table adjacent to the wall. A humming lingers. It’s faint, incessant, — comfortable, L muses as he wolfs down the last third of a chocolate cake slice — much like static filling the air. Familiar. Drowned by the intermittent snores of the two detectives staying overnight, not quite a crescendo in the strictest sense; even as it grows in energy while the hours tick by. He’s noticed the symphony — though the term cacophony might be more accurate — tends to devolve into a nasal staccato with every 3 or 4 longer exhales, sometimes echoing in obnoxious discordance that makes him more and more certain he’s being pestered by the undiagnosed sequels of mild sleep apnea.

Chewing loudly, he glances at the digital clock on the bottom right corner of the screen; it’s close to a quarter to 5 in the morning. So late it’s almost early.

From the corner of his eye, he sees that Watari stayed behind to tidy up the room. Tilting his head to the left to get a better angle, he examines the slow, deliberate movements with scepticism; they’re as fluid as they’re contrived, as if practised to stall for as long as possible. He draws conclusions from the little things happening in the background; how the delicate china barely clinks against the small coffee spoons when stacked; sugary amanattõ wrappers gathered into a neat pile, set aside; the soft, careful sweeping near the walls so as to avoid rousing the two men from their sleep.

There’s words to be had; his gut tells him there’s a very much non-trivial chance that this will be a precursor to something.

A rustling of papers invites him to glimpse at Watari’s reflection on polished surfaces. It’s closer to 63%, now. Very well.

He skims through the first 10 pages for an overview, his gaze tarrying for a few seconds too long on the picture of a young woman before he turns his attention to the screen. Behind him, the soft brushing of Watari’s coordinated sweeps pauses for a moment and he knows, it’s as evident as rain in April, he stands corrected that this is where the knots will begin to unravel.

L frowns, biting down on his thumb as he scans the opening lines of Near’s email, “There are barely any records on the ‘Anna Green’ who enrolled this year at To-Ho university. For all intents and purposes, she might as well be a ghost."

Slurp

He chugs half the tea sitting in his cup, focusing on the scalding hot sensation in the back of his throat as he reads on, picking out bits and pieces.

“...no record that Anna Green was ever present for the entrance exams, though, allegedly, she has scores for them. Below average at best, mediocre to the point that, under normal circumstances, no one with this poor of a performance would be considered for admission. What’s even more intriguing are the reasons why To-Ho agreed to bend the rules for the one student, allowing this woman to bypass university policy and, not only sit for highly competitive and specific exams abroad, but also take up classes from different courses…”

Strange, indeed. Definitely something to look further into. L taps his index finger on the mouse, nail lightly grazing over the ridges on the wheel. He looks up, deep in thought. All this information does beg the question: who exactly allowed this to go overlooked? The university board? A rogue member of staff?

Someone with enough influence to bend the rules?

“...doesn’t exist as a citizen of any country…no travel records in any airline or shipping company coming into or out of Japan…"

Unlawful entrance under a false identity, most definitely. Or as part of a smuggling network.

"...the only data available is on the university enrollment process…impossible to find anything on the father; the mother’s records (kept maiden name, no mention of a husband or children) show a birthplace at a small town in Italy, 1955, right at the border with Switzerland, and nothing more of consequence...all records left blank from the age of 11 until her death in 1987…no significant medical records either, save for a short comment about the passing itself, as per the following transcription: ‘incidente, avvenuto il 18 gennaio nel Leicestershire, nel Regno Unito’, — filed by the grandfather, dead from prolonged illness by 1988 though ‘grief’ has been listed as a catalyst…”

A freak accident in Leicestershire, on January 18, 1987? What a coincidence that nothing more of substance could be retrieved from these records, save for vague and elusive information. He wonders if this secrecy is related to the father somehow, — he licks his lips to taste the faint remnants of black tea that linger on chapped skin and skims over the university records for the name, narrowed eyes resting again on the young woman's picture — this Atticus Cornelius Green. If that's even his real name.

He looks at the birthdates, realising that she would've been 6, going on 7, at the time of the supposed accident. Only one year younger than himself. It will be her 24th birthday soon, in little more than a month.

Scrolling down the email, he reads on.

"...tuition payments funnelled through Goodfellow's Bank, which appears to be a highly selective, privately owned financial institution based in Britain. Virtually unknown, with only 3 physical offices, total, in Europe and the United States, with no presence in Asia…registered under the apparently long-lived Gringotts Foundation, since the mid 1800’s. On the surface there's nothing questionable about Goodfellow's, though further scrutiny reveals said Foundation is also a major (and the only) shareholder, led by a series of individuals throughout the decades who do not exist beyond the trust…”

Sucking on his spoon thoughtfully, L tastes the dried grains of caffeine that cling to the bowl, agglomerating towards the tip. There’s a small chance that this is witness protection at work, but if so then it’s freakishly elaborate. Dead end after dead end and a myriad of red herrings meant to confuse anyone who investigates, while making it seem perfectly reasonable. Outstandingly legal. One would have to read between those creatively woven lines.

But then there’s the shadow bank. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it is a duck — or so the saying goes. Official police forces wouldn’t be able to resort to these underhanded tactics without a tangible need; and there would be an inquiry or requisition beforehand. Someone would have to budge. Things like these always leave a trail. Though the British Secret Services could potentiate such a scenario and there would be nothing to pursue, if they so wished.

But to what end? For a trip abroad? It didn’t make sense. There’s abuse of the law and then there’s playing around it, dangling the threads like a puppet master.

“...there’s no system to hack and therefore no personal data to retrieve. Any bank transfers seem to be made in person, at the London office. Though To-Ho lists two different addresses for foreign students; Anna Green’s file shows one in the UK and the other in Japan. The former is registered as the sole property of one Awarnach Greengrass near Windsor, dating to the late 1600’s, and has never been updated since. Otherwise, the several acres for this plot of land are not even accounted for in modern records — or pay taxes.

The latter address points to a building just a 5 minute walk outside of To-Ho. Records for the building show that it’s registered as having only 7 floors. However, the primary plans kept at the Ministry of Land and Infrastructure display a total of 8 — approved and built. The addendum was placed without rebuttal this past month of March, 4 years after the structure had been built and all apartments sold without exception. The previous proprietor of the 8th floor died mid-February and left no family to inherit, though his name was stricken from the more recent record updates…”

This isn’t like the hunt for Morello, with knotted threads and underworld connections; not when he discovered the swindles, the under the table deals with art galleries and high class politicians, in a spectacle of dazzling lights and charming conversations. Definitely nothing like Merri Kenwood’s indiscretions as the thrill-seeking second daughter of a wealthy family.

No, whatever he’s stumbled upon is much more insidious and has tendrils across the decades.

Narrowing his eyes, L quickly reads Near’s conclusion: “...the majority of these records are fabricated with the intent to appear official, when in reality they’re nothing but a smokescreen…”

He wonders if it’s a coincidence that he’s tripped over the proverbial basket of kittens, only to find a nest of snakes. And with the murders case ongoing, does this invalidate the theory that Misa Amane might be the Second Kira? No, they’ve gathered more than enough evidence for Amane in the past few weeks, but whether this is another loose thread…

“Watari?”

He feels rather than sees Watari approach.

“Any DNA match with the bloodied gauze?” he murmurs, confident on what the answer will be.

“None at all.”

“I see. Thank you.”

There’s only a very slim chance that this is related to the Kira case, but the coincidences are too many to believe that this is entirely unrelated. Or if it is, then there’s something else happening here. I’ve met Anna Green and I’m sure she doesn’t fit the profile for the First Kira — as for the Second, there’s nothing connecting her to Light Yagami or Misa Amane…am I overthinking this?

Wiggling his toes, L starts to draw his hand towards the box of chocolates on the table. He hears a light shuffle. “There’s also the matter of M,” Watari all but whispers, voice urgent and grim.

Ah, there is it.

He swallows a bonbon. “What about him?”

Hesitant, Watari glances over his shoulder towards the detectives sprawled on the sofas. Once he’s adequately sure that they’re still fast asleep, he continues, “It seems that M hacked into N’s server and somehow managed to decrypt your correspondence, along with all available research data on the case…”

His lips twitch ever so slightly. Behind him, Watari can’t see his amusement.

A scattered trail of crumbs — quite possibly with Near’s veiled consent. Sounds like a move to gleefully fuel Mello’s one-sided competition — or perhaps…

An allowance?

“Predictable, if unwise,” he licks the corner of his mouth, lapping at the bits of chocolate left behind. Hazelnut — and caramel. Slightly salty, but edible.

“— travelled to London on his own to investigate the premises of this Goodfellow’s Bank, but only found a closed shop with no visible schedule. Nearby residents confirmed they had never seen it open.”

“That would be the primary office in Charing cross Road (1), yes?”

“Indeed.”

“Then it’s a red herring, as expected.”

“Unfortunately that’s not all,” if possible, Watari lowers his voice even further, making L cock his head to the side as he strains to listen to this secret. “Days later, M stole a car and drove by himself straight to Windsor through the motorway, where he decided to prowl the farmlands until almost running out of gas. According to M’s report, he seems to have stumbled upon the property registered under the Green family — although his findings point to a derelict mansion in the middle of the forest, not a livable estate.”

Watari sifts through the stack of papers, picking the last set in the pile with the upper left corner folded into a neat triangle. N emailed, while M chose to fax , he whispers. L pinches the top of the file, his eyes moving quickly from left to right, up and down, until he’s made a mental map of the contents.

“ ‘...ruins surrounded by crumbling gates and overgrown English ivy that claimed the entire structure a long time ago…’ — I see, so it couldn’t be it at all. Yet another red herring,” he drawls, looking up at the ceiling. Shadows dance, long-limbed and distant, illusive. “Though this does give more credence to the witness protection theory, I’m still not sure…”

Is this indeed a case of false identity? Theft and blackmail? What’s going on?

He reads the last page and frowns. “M didn’t examine the property?”

A rhetorical question, to which Watari merely shakes his head. ‘...lost interest in a useless cat and mouse chase, not worth looking for clues here. Forgot to bring a lantern.(2)’ L puts down the file, placing it on top of the stack, thinking it’s a strange conclusion for Mello to reach, especially when he's so desperate to prove himself above Near. It pays for the overconfident to be thorough. And he knows that well enough, despite his impetuousness.

Lodging a fingernail between his two front teeth, L ponders over Mello’s words once more. The attitude itself is out of the ordinary.

Watari busies himself cleaning the crumbs under his armchair, in silence. Then, he tidies the stack, now out of order. Waiting for a follow up, no doubt; but these things can’t be rushed. L pours through photos of the landscape, scrutinising every inch of the images; any resulting from this adventure are blurry and pigmented, as if altered post-processing. An unfortunate accident, explained when the camera malfunctions shortly after Mello is — as he states in brash words, the offence visible even through writing — suddenly picked up by a police car on the motorway. The agents sputtered, perplexed that a 14 year old boy drove a stolen car. Roger had to pay a hefty fine to keep Mello out of juvenile prison. He also gets out of a damning record for underage driving, thanks to the many contacts at Wammy’s.

Lame-ass, he calls it.

As expected, Mello seems unhappy with this particular turnout. His intelligence combined with bubbling insecurities and a natural inclination towards the extreme, Mello has the makings of a fairly competent criminal.

L narrows his eyes, “Say, do we have the results on the ‘coin collection’?”

A rustle of fabric. Watari promptly pours him more tea, the robust aroma wafting upwards, “The bu is an authentic coin from the Edo Period, nowadays often on display at museums or secured by ancient history collectors. One single piece would be up for sale starting at 1.5 thousand, subject to the seller’s reputation.”

“There were at least 12 on the floor that night, some perhaps more obscure than currency from Edo if my eyes didn’t deceive me,” he taps his lips with one pale finger, looking thoughtful. “What about the other one?”

“The second coin is made of solid gold, though the minting — remarkable as it is — doesn’t match any known branch. The coinage alone is entirely unknown, even if it bears Gringott's Foundation inscriptions."

Could they really be collectibles, after all?

He nods. “Thank you for your diligence, Watari. As always,” he adds after a heartbeat, quietly slurping the remnants of his black tea, “Please file these away as soon as you’re able.”

L eyes the now neatly arranged stack. For the last time, he allows himself to stare at the picture on the first page before turning his attention back to the screen.

“Of course.”

Silent as a shadow, Watari leaves.

I have a lot of thinking to do. But she doesn’t fit the profile…and I’m certain Amane is the Second Kira, at this point. No, this is something else entirely.

Alone again save for the sleeping detectives, L finds that his fingers clench over his knees of their own accord, muscles taunt and knuckles blanching bone white as he looks out the window at the waking sun.

Another day, another mystery.

...

TBC

41 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 6 days ago

Text

“The IOC and the Algerian Olympic Committee are complicit in endorsing male violence against women under the guise of public entertainment on the world’s largest sports stage,” “They stood by as women were subjected to physical assault for spectacle, stripped of safety, fairness, and their lifetime achievements. All those involved must face swift and serious consequences.” - ICONS co-founder Marshi Smith

By Anna Slatz November 4, 2024

A shocking new development has emerged in the case of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif after a French journalist reportedly gained access to a damning medical report revealing Khelif has “testicles.” The news comes months after Khelif seized a gold medal in women’s boxing at the Paris Olympics.

The report was drafted in June of 2023 via a collaboration between the Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris, France, and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers, Algeria. Drafted by expert endocrinologists Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young, the report reveals that Khelif is impacted by 5-alpha reductase deficiency, a disorder of sexual development that is only found in biological males.

From the medical report conducted on Khelif.

The genetic abnormality influences the normal development of a child’s sexual organs. At birth, male babies impacted by 5-alpha are often incorrectly assigned female due to the presence of deformed genitalia that sometimes takes on the appearance of a “blind vaginal pouch.”

This disordered development typically becomes apparent by puberty, when 5-alpha adolescents begin to experience signs of masculinization such as muscle growth, hair growth, and an absence of breast tissue development or menstruation. Without access to a proper clinical examination, males with 5-alpha may incorrectly believe they are female into adulthood.

At the end of October, French journalist Djaffar Ait Aoudia obtained a copy of a thorough physical examination that was conducted on Khelif in order to verify the presence of a disorder of sexual development.

According to Aoudia, the clinical report reveals that an MRI determined that Khelif had no uterus, but instead had internal testicles and a “micropenis” resembling an enlarged clitoris. A chromosomal test further confirmed that Khelif has an XY karyotype, while a hormone test found that Khelif had a testosterone level typical of males. In the file, doctors also suggested that Khelif’s parents may have been blood relatives.

The report concludes by recommending Khelif be referred for “surgical correction and hormone therapy,” to help him physically align with his self-perceived gender identity, and adds that psychological support would be required because the results had caused a “very significant neuropsychiatric impact.”

This report coincides with an earlier admission by Khelif’s coach, Georges Cazorla, that the Algerian boxer had been subjected to an assessment at the Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital after being disqualified from women’s boxing by the International Boxing Association (IBA) in March of 2023.

In an interview from August, Cazorla tepidly conceded that the endocrinologists had determined there was a “problem with [Khelif’s] chromosomes” at the time. Despite this fact, Cazorla insisted that Khelif should still be allowed to compete against females.

Cazorla also stated that Khelif was placed on testosterone suppressants following the 2023 medical assessment. However, the International Olympic Committee has not submitted athletes to chromosomal testing since 1999 and, at the Paris Olympics, the only requirement to participate in women’s boxing was to have a female sex marker on legal documents.

Further confirmation of the boxers’ karyotype was given by Alan Abrahamson, an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, who is a specialist in Olympic sports and member of the International Olympic Committee’s press committee. In an August statement, Abrahamson said that he had personally viewed the results of the hotly-contested chromosomal tests ordered by the IBA in 2022 and 2023 which “concluded the boxer’s DNA was that of a male consisting of XY chromosomes.”

The news of Khelif’s leaked medical report comes after he won gold at the Paris Olympics in the women’s 65kg category.

In collaboration with the Independent Council on Women’s Sport (ICONS), Reduxx was the first outlet to break the news of Khelif’s participation in women’s boxing at Paris, raising alarm bells due to his previous disqualification from women’s boxing by the IBA. The news sparked a firestorm of controversy, with the IBA coming out in opposition to the IOC’s decision to allow Khelif to fight women in Paris.

Speaking to Reduxx on this latest revelation, ICONS co-founder Marshi Smith slammed the IOC and the Algerian Olympic Committee for allowing Khelif to continue his journey to Paris gold despite being fully aware he was genetically male.

“The IOC and the Algerian Olympic Committee are complicit in endorsing male violence against women under the guise of public entertainment on the world’s largest sports stage,” Smith said. “They stood by as women were subjected to physical assault for spectacle, stripped of safety, fairness, and their lifetime achievements. All those involved must face swift and serious consequences.”

Smith adds that she believes Khelif should be stripped of his gold medal, but doubts any action will be taken to rectify the injustice.

“We urge leaders in sports and governments worldwide to condemn the IOC and demand a public commitment to ensuring fair and safe sports for women from this day forward. This must never be allowed to happen again.”

#Paris Olympics #Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris #Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers #endocrinologists Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young #5-alpha reductase deficiency #Imane Khelif #French journalist Djaffar Ait Aoudia #Khelif has an XY karyotype #Khelif is a biological man #Georges Cazorla encouraged a biological man to box women #Revoke the gold #Yang Liu didn't win the Silver she rightfully won the gold

14 notes · View notes

ingravinoveritas · 1 year ago

Note

Why are people begging for Anna and Georgia to be in GO?! I’m genuinely wondering why cause they don’t fit in their world and if they were there, it wouldn’t be the Ineffable Husbands anymore, it would just be like a family reunion. Also, people wanting the girls to show up in GO as lesbian lovers to each other?? When have they ever been seen or hinted at any sort of affection towards one another? Georgia can barely stand her and Anna is….. meh. Barely on social media except only to post one occasional thing of Good Omens and then disappears into the night. Neil asking if Dottie and Sadie should show up in the next season and people asking if Georgia and Anna can play them…. It’s ironic cause the question was if Aziraphale should have a beard in season 3 and Neil took it as beards, someone used as a romantic partner to cover up the others sexuality. Veryyy interesting to see. Do you think Neil saying Sadie and Dottie are beards and people mentioning Georgia and Anna to play them means something?

It's honestly difficult to know where to start with this, because I have also noticed the uptick in people campaigning for Georgia and AL to be in season 3, apropos of seemingly nothing at all. There seems to be an assumption that Georgia and AL have the same kind of chemistry as David and Michael, when nothing could be further from the truth. By Georgia's own admission, she barely knew AL when the first season of Staged was filmed, and the entire "best friend" dynamic between them was faked.

A few years later, you have Staged season 3, where Georgia dyed her hair red to differentiate herself from AL since everyone kept saying they looked exactly the same. You also have a clearly established "throuple" dynamic between Michael, David, and Georgia that AL Is not at all a part of (and has seemingly been specifically excluded from), and Georgia only engaging with AL on social media when there is something to promote (such as Staged 3 being released on the BBC, to give a recent example) or on posts related to "business" things (Georgia commented on AL's new headshots, but not on the post for Mabli's first birthday, to give another example). Not to mention AL copying Georgia's personality and posting style at every available turn, because she desperately wants to obtain the same level of clout that Georgia has in the fandom. (This, despite Michael seemingly having faded her from his social media/any sort of public connection to her entirely.)

(Also, none of this even touches on what I mentioned in this post, about the sheer audacity in suggesting that AL and Georgia could play Aziraphale and Crowley, respectively, or how insulting that is to Michael and David...)

Now, however, we have this whole "Dottie and Sadie" business to contend with, which is on a level of ridiculousness I'm not sure I knew existed. Context, for those who may not know: "Dottie and Sadie" refers to Aziraphale and Crowley's fictional wives, which Neil started alluding to as part of his exasperated answers to questions on Tumblr. They are not real characters and have nothing to do with the GO novel itself. But it seems the fans have taken the idea of AL and Georgia as Dottie and Sadie and run with it.

Anna (who apparently has also started copying Georgia's habit of searching her own name on Twitter) has now added to the discourse with this QT today:

I'm truly baffled as to how so many people don't seem to see this for the attention grab that it is. This is a clear attempt at remaining relevant, as well as her trying to push her way into GO season 3. Yet it's telling that the part she is seemingly lobbying for is for a character that doesn't even exist, and has no bearing on the GOmens universe whatsoever.

What also bothers me (and I've heard this from a few people who've DMed me as well) is that this very much comes across as "straight girl making out with a friend as a joke." For all we know, AL could be bi, but she has shared so little of herself/shown no outward support for the LGBTQ+ community as to make it impossible to determine. Also the last thing Michael and David have ever done is play what is between them/Aziraphale and Crowley for laughs, so the fact that their connection and experience with their own queerness is so genuine only makes this comment from AL look incredibly fake, and like she is trying to be a pale imitation of them.

But again...and perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious part of all this...is AL apparently missing the entire point that Dottie and Sadie are beards. By saying she wants to play such a role, she is reinforcing the idea that she is only there to make Michael look straight, and that that is the purpose of their relationship. For as calculated as all of her posts/replies are, this almost feels like her accidentally telling the truth in the midst of a bunch of nonsense. Like you said: Very interesting...

I have more thoughts on GO season 3/the casting of family members--Peter worked well in GO 2, Ty did not--to share in my forthcoming analysis of the second season (I'm rewatching all of the episodes right now just to get everything fresh in my mind, but I will start writing/turn Anons back on soon), so I will end this here. But those are my thoughts on all these recent developments. Just hoping that all the fandemonium (fan pandemonium) dies down and we can have an honest discussion about season 3 one of these days...

#phantomstars24 #reply post #good omens #michael sheen #welsh seduction machine #david tennant #soft scottish hipster gigolo #georgia tennant #trying to provide a balanced perspective #but the obsession folks in the fandom have with georgia and al is really ott at times #also AL accidentally confirming she is Michael's beard may be the only good thing about this #i don't even know anymore #fandom woes #anna lundberg #discourse

40 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year ago

Text

By: Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman

Published: Oct 2, 2023

Note: A version of this article will appear as an invited chapter in the forthcoming volume The Free Inquiry Papers edited by Robert Maranto, Lee Jussim, and Sally Satel.

1. An age of unreason

The liberal enlightenment, humanism, and democracy are under siege. A once-obscure postmodernist worldview, Critical Social Justice (CSJ) [1-3], has escaped the academy and is quickly reshaping our institutions and society at large. Long-standing merit-based practices in science are rapidly being subordinated to practices based on the tenets of CSJ theory [4]. Increasingly, scientists must compete for funding, no longer only on the basis of scientific merit, but also on the basis of how their proposed research will promote the goals of CSJ. As an example, an NIH neurology program requires grant applications to include a “plan for enhancing diverse perspectives” with the goal to “bring about the culture change necessary to address the inequities and systemic biases in biomedical research….” [5] Similarly, funding for fundamental research in chemistry and physics now depends on researchers demonstrating their commitment to “promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence” [6].

In the academy, faculty hiring and administrative appointments are increasingly made on the basis of the candidate’s identity [7-9]. Merit-based admission to schools and universities is being weakened, with standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT being abandoned on “social justice” grounds [10,11]. K–12 is affected as well. Some school districts have stopped giving D and F grades in order to improve “equity” [12]. In math classes, activist teachers claim that getting the right answer and showing your work are white supremacist concepts and are advocating, instead, a supposedly anti-racist CSJ pedagogy [13,14]. Accelerated mathematics programs for gifted students, necessary to prepare them for advanced training and careers in STEM [15], are being dismantled in the name of “social justice” [16-18]. Many school districts have eliminated honors classes altogether in the name of “equity” [19]. The resultant weakening of the workforce has already contributed to the fall of the US from its position as the world leader in science [20].

In the university, faculty and staff are instructed to use Newspeak—neopronouns and other neologisms—in their written and verbal communications for the purpose of “inclusivity” [21,22]. To be avoided are such apparently un-inclusive terms as “strawman,” “brown-bag lunch,” and “picnic” [22–25]. Professional societies and corporations are following suit, proscribing terms such as “field,” “dark times,” “black market,” “double-blind study,” “nursing mother,” “hip-hip hooray,” “smart phone,” “homeless,” and “the French” [26–30].

In biology, an education paper recommends that teachers emphasize the sexual diversity across species in nature, which includes “organisms such as ciliates, algae, and fungi [that] have equal-size gametes (isogamy) and do not therefore have gametic sexes [that is, binary sexes, as mammals do].” This is supposed to promote inclusivity of LGBTQIA2+ students in the classroom [25]. Chemistry education also needs to be reformed, according to the journal Chemical Education, which published a virtual Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) collection of 67 papers exploring such topics as decolonization of the chemistry curriculum, chemistry and racism, and gender and sexual orientation identities in the chemistry classroom [31]. A recent paper in the same journal describes “a special topic class in chemistry on feminism and science as a tool to disrupt the dysconcious racism in STEM,” which explores “the development and interrelationship between quantum mechanics, Marxist materialism, Afro-futurism/pessimism, and postcolonial nationalism.” “To problematize time as a linear social construct,” the paper says, “the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of wave-particle duality was utilized” [32]. No, Deepak Chopra was not a co-author of the paper.

In STEM, prospective faculty are asked to pledge their commitment to the ideology of CSJ and to document their activism in advancing DEI [8,9,33,34]. Medical schools are abolishing long-accepted assessments of competency in order to improve racial parity in residency programs [35]. A pamphlet published by the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health claims that public health anti-obesity campaigns are an example of “fatphobia,” that public health’s “focus on body size is rooted in racism,” that “higher weight is not causal to worse health outcomes," and that “focusing on weight ignores systematic injustices” [36,37]. Under the doctrine of gender-affirming care, adolescents are offered life-changing transgender treatments, often after only perfunctory psychological assessment, despite the poor understanding that medicine currently has on the risks and benefits of these treatments [38–40].

[ Unreason and intolerance. Upper left: Yale students protest “offensive” Halloween costumes (2015). Lower left: Activists burn books by J.K. Rowling (2023). Right: Students at UC Davis disrupt a film viewing by throwing a bag of manure into the room. ]

Free speech itself, the cornerstone of liberal democracy, is under attack. As viewed by CSJ activists, free speech is dangerous, harmful, and equivalent to violence [41]. Adherents of DEI ideology believe that DEI should trump academic freedom [42]. Institutions essential for providing a platform for the marketplace of ideas, information exchange, and debate have largely abandoned their mission in the name of social justice activism. Articles in the press are infused with CSJ ideology [4]. Scientific publishers from Scientific American to the flagship journals Science and Nature have become mouthpieces for CSJ [43–56]. Universities, whose primary mission is education and truth seeking, have become complicit in censorship, scholarship suppression, indoctrination, and intimidation [57–59]. Universities and professional organizations have compromised their mission as seekers and communicators of objective truths by abandoning traditional institutional neutrality in favor of political activism, taking official positions on elections, police reform, abortion, wars, and other social issues [60,61], leaving dissenters out in the cold. Where debate, constructive disagreement, and discussion were once cultivated, conformity and dogmatism, enforced both top-down (by CSJ-infused DEI trainings [62,63]) and bottom-up (by ideologically driven activists [58]), now reign.

On campus, another essential provision of democracy, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no longer guides procedures for resolving conflict. Suspensions and terminations of professors without a hearing in response to offense taken by students, faculty members, or administrators has become commonplace (see, for example, Ref. 64–67). A predictable consequence is that there is now an unprecedented level of self-censorship by students and faculty [57,68,69]. Proposed changes to Title IX regulations will further erode the free speech of students and the protection of due process [70].

CSJ adherents accuse dissenters of being indifferent to existing inequalities and historic injustices, of being bigots, of having nefarious motives, and of perpetuating existing power structures. We reject these accusations. We oppose the practices of CSJ because they harm everyone, including those groups they purport to elevate [71-73]. It is precisely because we care about the existing problems in the world and about real social justice that we oppose CSJ.

What we are witnessing today—curriculum “decolonization,” the elimination of honors classes in schools, the ubiquitous war on merit [4], the imposition of political litmus tests for academic positions, Newspeak, the renaming of everything in sight, and on and on—are not isolated excesses perpetrated by a handful of overly zealous but otherwise well-meaning individuals; they are symptoms of a wholesale takeover of our institutions by an illiberal movement that currently has the upper hand. The current situation is not a pendulum that has swung too far and will self-correct [74]; it is a train hurtling full speed toward a cliff. Those of us unwillingly to go over the edge can either jump off—leave academia (or maybe start up alternative institutions)—or fight to get the brakes applied before it is too late. The remainder of this chapter is about the latter course of action.

2. Why we should fight

To put it simply, we should fight because it is the right thing to do. It is not only our duty to the next generation, but an opportunity to pay our debt to the previous generations of dissenters who fought against forces of illiberalism to create the free and prosperous world that we enjoy today [75,76]. By fighting, we, too, can fend off the forces of unreason and restore the values of humanism, liberalism, and The Enlightenment. Inaction and submission will only enable the further spread of illiberalism. The history of past illiberal regimes, such as the USSR and Nazi Germany, provide ample lessons and motivation to stand and fight today. The train is gaining momentum; the longer we wait, the harder it will be to stop it. We must act now, while we still can.

Although there are uncanny parallels with totalitarian regimes of the past [23,77–80], we are still living in a free, democratic society. Despite the advances of illiberal ideology, manifested by the rise of censorship, the spread of cancel culture [23,57,58,81–83], and the proliferation of institutionalized structures (such as DEI bureaucracies) to enforce CSJ ideology, the dissenters of today do not face incarceration in prisons, labor camps, and mental hospitals. Nonetheless, we can learn from history.

In his book To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter [84], Vladimir Bukovsky [85] describes his experiences as a dissident who refused to comply with the Soviets and challenged the regime. Bukovsky describes the apathy and complacency of the majority of the population at that time. People understood the corrupt and inhumane nature of the regime, but they chose to keep their heads down because—as the Russian proverb goes—“No man can splay the stone” (in Russian: плетью обуха не перешибёшь).

Because of this complacency, the economically bankrupt, oppressive, and inhumane Soviet regime lasted as long as it did (70+ years). But it was the actions of dissidents that ultimately catalyzed its downfall. Consider, for example, the impact of the books of Solzhenitsyn, who told the world the truth about the atrocities of the Soviet regime [86]. In addition to meticulously documenting the scale of the atrocities, Solzhenitsyn explained that they came to be, not due to deviations from the party line or shortcomings of its individual leaders, but as the direct result of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

In Bukovsky’s time (the late 1950s to mid-1970s), open dissent was rare. Growing up in the Soviet Union, I [Anna]—as most of my peers—did not even know dissidents existed. It wasn’t until Perestroyka in the late 80s, when I read Solzhenitsyn’s books and learned about Sakharov [87] that I found out. Yet, it is through the actions of the dissidents that the West came to understand the Soviet regime as an “evil empire,” and this understanding propelled the political forces in the West that ultimately decided the outcome of the Cold War. The impact of the dissident movement on the Soviet regime has been illuminated through a series of memoranda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, stolen and published by Bukovsky in his book Judgment in Moscow [88]. The acts of individuals splayed the stone after all.

I [Anna] was born (in the then-Soviet state of Ukraine) into the luckiest generation in the history of the USSR—the generation that witnessed the fall of the Wall when they were still young. We could escape to the free world, live as free people, and build successful and fulfilling careers in the West. Had the regime lasted another 20 years, my generation would have been yet another of the long list of those whose lives were ruined by the Soviet regime. I feel a personal debt to the dissidents of the day.

Now, it is our turn to be the dissidents and to fight the good fight.

Fighting for what is right is not just the right thing to do; it is empowering. Standing up and speaking your mind is liberating, even exhilarating; while hunkering down in fear, hoping the storm will pass, is a bleak experience. Being honest feels good, while being complicit in lies is dispiriting. Fighting the good fight puts you in control, whereas passive submission leaves you helpless. Whether we ultimately win or lose this fight, those who choose to remain silent will look back and ask themselves why they did not act when they could. As Martin Niemöller wrote after World War II,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Eventually, this illiberal movement, like those of the past, will come not only for the dissidents, but for the silent bystanders as well (and, eventually, for its own vocal supporters).

There are myriad excuses, as old as the history of totalitarianism and oppression itself, invoked to justify inaction, complacency, and collaboration. Bukovsky [84] enumerates a few of the more familiar: “What can I do alone?”; “I’ll be more effective after I get the promotion”; “It’s not my job; I’m a scientist.” “If I don’t collaborate, someone else will anyway (and I’ll probably do less harm).” These reasons may seem logical, even compelling; however, they are self-deceptions. Not pushing back against bad ideas allows them to spread. Not fighting back against illiberalism allows it to grow. Not standing up for truth permits the lies to flourish. Not confronting the CSJ ideologists permits them to advance. And when they advance, we lose. It is a zero-sum game.

The choice to fight in the face of potential consequences is personal [89] and not an easy one to make. But as you contemplate whether to act or to lay low, consider the importance of truth and integrity in your life. To paraphrase Bari Weiss: Worship truth more than Yale. As she says:

[D]o not lose sight of what is essential. Professional prestige is not essential. Being popular is not essential. Getting your child into an elite preschool is not essential. Doing the right thing is essential. Telling the truth is essential. Protecting your kids is essential. [90]

Sure, no one wants to become a martyr for free speech or experience bullying, ostracism, and professional damage [81,91–93]. Cancel culture is real, but the risks are not what dissenters to totalitarian regimes faced historically or face today—cancel culture does not put you in jail. One still can write a dissenting op-ed without the fear of being stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country, as Solzhenitsyn was for his writings [83]. We still can criticize DEI policies without fear of being put under house arrest, as Sakharov was for his vocal opposition to nuclear weapons and his unwavering defense of human rights [87]. But if we delay, some of the totalitarian nightmares of the past may become a reality. There are already worrying signs of this totalitarian-style repression in America: parents opposing CSJ in schools have been accused of terrorism and investigated by the FBI [94]; a journalist who wrote about collusion between the government and social media was paid a surprise home visit by the Internal Revenue Service [95]; a student who questioned the concept of microaggressions [96] at a mandatory training was expelled and forced to “seek to psychological services” [97]. These incidents in America today are chillingly similar to practices in Russia in the Soviet era, when the KGB routinely investigated dissidents, and dissent from Soviet ideology was considered a psychiatric disorder [84,88]. In the absence of resistance, this illiberal movement, like illiberal movements of the past, will gain ever more power, and we will face ever worse repression and erosion of individual freedom.

Inaction does not guarantee survival, but fighting a successful fight does. The only way to defend yourself against repression by an illiberal ideology is to stop the spread of the ideology.

The dangers of inaction are real, but how much risk one should take must be a personal decision [89]. Above all, it rarely does any good to get fired. Getting fired is playing into their hands. It’s one less enemy in the organization to fight against its ideological capture. Should all the dissidents get fired, the ideology wins. Full stop.

But it’s not hopeless. As we elaborate below, there are ways to maximize the impact of your actions and minimize the chances of negative consequences of resistance.

3. How to fight

Although there is no sure-fire roadmap to solve the current crisis, there are some do’s and don’ts. A recently published handbook, Counter Wokecraft (which we highly recommend), written by an anonymous STEM professor, provides concrete recommendations for staging the resistance [98]. It convincingly explains how small but deliberate actions add up to big change and elaborates on the perils of delaying action. In what follows, we offer our view on how to fight, and we share examples of successful acts of resistance that give us reason for hope. Small contributions add up, so do something rather than nothing. As Gad Saad writes in The Parasitic Mind:

The battle of ideas knows no boundaries, so there is plenty to do. If you are a student and hear your professors spouting postmodern nonsense or spewing anti-science drivel, challenge them politely and constructively. If you are a graduate and your alma mater is violating its commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, withdraw your donations—and let the school know why. If your Facebook friends are posting comments with which you disagree, engage them and offer an alternative viewpoint.... If you are sitting at your local pub having a conversation about a sensitive topic, do not refrain from speaking your mind. If your politicians are succumbing to suicidal political correctness, vote them out of office. [99]

1. Educate yourself; knowledge is power.

To effectively counter the ideology of CSJ, it is crucial to understand its nature and the tactics it employs. As two-time Nobel Laureate Marie Sklodowska-Curie said:

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so we may fear less.

Although Curie was referring to phenomena of the natural world, the observation applies equally to the world of ideas. By understanding the origins and tenets of CSJ, we can fear less—and fight more effectively.

For me [Anna] and my former compatriots, who were forcibly schooled in Marxist-Leninism and experienced its implementation as Socialism firsthand, it is easy to recognize the current illiberal movement’s philosophical roots [78,79]. We recognize the familiar rhetoric and the Orwellian co-option of the language: the media outlet of the Communist Party, which disseminated its lies, was called Pravda (Правда), which is Russian for “truth”; victims of Red terror were called “enemies of the people” (враги народа); Soviet troops invading other countries were called “liberators” (освободители); and nuclear weapons were developed with the slogan “nucleus for the cause of peace” (атом—делу мира). We are used to looking behind the facade of nice-sounding words and seeing their real meaning to those in power [100]. It is not hard to see that today’s “Diversity,” “Equity,” and “Inclusion” have about as much in common with the noble concepts of diversity, equality, and inclusion as Orwell's Ministry of Love had to do with love or his Ministry of Plenty had to do with plenty. (A more-fitting operational definition of DEI would be Discrimination, Entitlement, and Intimidation.) This linguistic tactic is used because it works. It has fooled many STEM academics and ordinary citizens and has enabled the illiberal ideology to get its foot in the door [3].

As Counter Wokecraft explains, the tactics CSJ employs to gain power in our institutions include the use of liberal-sounding “crossover words” to shroud the illiberal aims of the movement [98]. The concise essay “DEI: a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice in Science” by the same author offers insights into the philosophy that undergirds the CSJ movement and clearly elucidates its aims [3]. For a deeper dive into CSJ, we recommend the book by Pluckrose and Lindsay [1].

2. Use all existing means of resistance, but first and foremost, the official ones.

Mechanisms of resistance are available through existing institutions, even if the institutions themselves are failing to protect their mission [101]. These mechanisms can be exploited to change the institution from within.

Bukovsky describes how their dissident group worked within the legal boundaries of the Soviet regime [84]. He contrasts this approach with anarchism and revolutionary destructivism, which, he argues, lead to outcomes that are worse than the original evils. Bukovsky and his dissident comrades structured their activism and resistance within the framework of the Soviet constitution—which many legitimately considered to be a joke. When allowed to speak in court, Bukovsky framed his defense to emphasize the constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, for example, to peacefully demonstrate. Bukovsky attributes their success to this strategy. As an example of an important victory, he describes how he and his fellow political prisoners managed to resist and ultimately eliminate mandatory “corrective labor” for political prisoners. Following legal protocols, they rolled out a concerted effort of filing official complaints. Although isolated complaints never had any effect (they would be registered, duly processed, and dismissed), by flooding the bureaucratic system with a massive number of such complaints (which each had to be properly registered and responded to), they pushed the system beyond its limits. The sheer number of complaints compelled administrative scrutiny of the prison and its officers. And the prisoners won the fight.

Today, we can work within the system of our universities and professional organizations, even if they have already been ideologically corrupted. We can participate in surveys; communicate our concerns to leadership; nominate candidates committed to liberal principles to committees and leadership; vote against CSJ ideologues; speak up against practices that violate the stated mission of the institution [43,102,103]; publish well-reasoned opinion pieces [4,14,15,23,82,83,102]; and insist that our institutions adhere to their stated institutional (and legal) commitments to free speech and non-discrimination, such as being equal opportunity employers. Counter Wokecraft [98] provides concrete suggestions on how to effectively oppose the advances of the CSJ agenda by simply insisting that standard protocols of decision-making be followed—that is, through formal meetings with organized discussions that adhere to a set agenda, vote by secret ballot, and so on. In short, the existing governance structures and institutional policies can still be utilized to defend and even restore the institutional mission, even when the institution’s workings have been undermined by CSJ activists.

The following success stories illustrate the effectiveness of working within the system.

At the University of Massachusetts, a faculty group fought—and won—against a proposed rewriting of the university mission statement, which would have redefined the purpose of the university as engaging in political and ideological activism, rather than pursuing the truth [104].

Faculty at the University of Chicago succeeded in having departmental statements that violated institutional neutrality (by voicing collective support for specific social and political issues in violation of the University’s Kalven Report [105]) rescinded [106].

Also at the University of Chicago, in response to faculty complaints to the institution’s Title IX coordinator and general counsel, at least seven programs that gave preferences to specific races or sexes in violation of Federal regulations were discontinued [106].

The faculty of the University of Washington voted down a proposal to require DEI statements for all tenure and promotion candidates [107]. As reported to us, an email campaign initiated by a single faculty member was decisive in defeating the proposal.

At the University of North Carolina (UNC), the Board of Trustees adopted [108] the Chicago Free Speech Principles [109] and Kalven Report [105]. The former articulates the university’s commitment to free speech and is considered to be a model policy on this issue; the latter ensures institutional neutrality, prohibiting units of the university from taking stands on moral, political, or ideological issues, unless they directly affect the mission of the institution.

Also at UNC, responding to a faculty petition, the Board of Governors moved to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements from its hiring and promotion process. The mandate states that the university “shall neither solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement” [110].

In California, mathematicians organized a petition that has, so far, blocked the implementation of radical, CSJ-based revisions to the K–12 math curriculum [18]. At the time of publication, the fight is not over; but they’ve won so far.

A new nonprofit, Do No Harm, has been formed to fight against the encroachment of identity politics in medicine [111]. Among their successes, filings with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against two medical schools has resulted in the elimination of race as a requirement for certain scholarships. Scholarships “meant for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, [a] worthy goal, can and should be met without racial discrimination,” writes the organization’s founder [112].

Adverse publicity and mockery, too, can cause Universities, which are sensitive to their public image, to roll back woke policies, as the following examples illustrate.

The administration of MIT reversed its own decision and reinstated the use of standardized tests for admission [113], the elimination of which had been mocked by dissidents [114].

The Stanford University “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” website, which listed 161 verboten expressions, including “beating a dead horse,” “white paper,” “insane,” and even “American,” was taken down after sustained mockery in the press and on social media. The university’s president ultimately disowned the initiative and reaffirmed the university’s commitment to free speech [29].

At the University of Southern California, the interim provost made a clear statement that “the university does not maintain a list of banned or discouraged words” in response to the mockery [115] of an earlier memorandum the university's School of Social Work announcing the cancellation of the word “field” as racist [26,29].

At Texas Tech, the administration announced that it was dropping mandatory DEI statements from the hiring process [116], after details of how these statements influenced hiring decisions had been publicized [9].

These examples illustrate the maxim that sunlight is the best disinfectant [117]. We can use social media and the press to shine a light on the excesses of CSJ to bring about change.

Pressure from state governments can also force universities to change course away from DEI ideology. Facing threats from the state assembly to cut funding, the University of Wisconsin system has announced it will eliminate mandatory DEI statements for job applicants. As we are writing this chapter, the state assembly is also threatening to eliminate funding for administrative positions at UW dedicated to DEI [118].

Arizona has also dealt a blow to DEI ideology. The state’s Board of Regents has mandated that public universities drop the use of DEI statements in hiring. The move was in response to a finding by the Goldwater Institute that DEI statements, which were required in over three-fourths of job postings, were being used “to circumvent the state’s constitutional prohibition against political litmus tests in public educational institutions” [119].

Organizations such as the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have successfully used institutions’ own governing policies and bylaws as well as the law to defend scores of scholars who have been attacked for their extramural speech and threatened with administrative discipline or firing [120,121].

A move is afoot to strengthen universities’ commitment to academic freedom by encouraging them to officially adopt the Chicago Trifecta (the Kalven report, the Chicago Principles, and the Shils report). The “Restoring Academic Freedom” letter [122], which calls on universities to do so, has garnered 1700 signatures so far.

3. Don't play their game: You can’t win.

We are trained to seek compromises and solutions that bring different groups on board; we seek consensus. That is a fine approach under normal circumstances, when all agents are acting in good faith. But we must recognize that we are up against agents who are driven—knowingly or unknowingly—by an ideology whose goal is to take over the institution. Every compromise with them brings them closer to their goal [1,3,74,98,123]. Therefore, we must stand our ground.

A major advance in the spread of illiberalism has been the establishment of DEI bureaucracies in our intuitions to enforce CSJ ideology through policy [3,8,98,124-127]. It is important to understand the power of this system and to distinguish the system from the people. A DEI apparatchik can be a nice, well-meaning individual, who has been fooled by the movement’s deliberately deceptive language [1,98]; a cynical opportunist who seeks power and career advancement; or a True Believer. A DEI administrator may be completely unaware of the philosophical origins of CSJ, whose goals the DEI machine has been installed to implement. But just as a Soviet apparatchik need not have read Das Kapital to have been an agent enforcing conformity to Marxist doctrine, a DEI apparatchik need not have read the works of the critical theorists Gramsci, Derrida, Foucault, Bell, Crenshaw, and Delgado to be implementing CSJ-inspired ideology. But even participants who are naive of the movement’s history, philosophy, or ultimate goals are furthering its aims; they are still cogs in the machine. Do not be fooled by DEI administrators who may naively or deceptively deny that they are advancing CSJ ideology. They are, whether or not they know it or acknowledge it.

The power of the system—the DEI bureaucracy—and its ideological foundation make the motivations of the individual participants irrelevant. The story of Tabia Lee illustrates this point [128]. Lee—a black woman who directed a DEI program at a community college in California—questioned anti-racist and gender orthodoxy, declined to join a “socialist network,” objected to land acknowledgments and Newspeak terms such as “Latinx,” “Filipinx,” and neopronouns, and supported a campus event focused on Jewish inclusion and antisemitism. Lee describes her non-orthodox worldview as follows:

I don’t have ideological or viewpoint fidelity to anyone. I’m looking for what’s going to help people and what will help our students and how we can be better teachers and our best teaching selves. [128]

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

The establishment of the DEI bureaucracy in our institutions represented a tectonic shift from CSJ as a grass-roots movement to CSJ as an official power structure within the university equipped with a massive budget to promote its ideology [124,126,129-132].

A 2021 report by the Heritage Foundation [130], which documented the size of this new bureaucracy, identified 3,000 administrators with DEI responsibilities among the 65 universities they surveyed [124,131]. This number is in addition to the already extensive staff of Federally mandated Title VI, Title IX, and disability offices, who also perform DEI-related tasks. The new diversicrats already outnumber the mandated staffers. For example, the average university examined had 4.2 DEI personnel for every one ADA compliance administrator [124]. Given the sheer number of DEI officials and their generous salaries (one-third of chief diversity officers are paid more than $200,000 annually [132]), it is not surprising that DEI budgets are enormous; for example, in 2021, UC–Berkeley dedicated 41 million dollars to DEI [129].

The DEI bureaucracy is given official status within the university and is empowered to interfere in faculty hiring, to disseminate CSJ ideology by means of mandatory trainings, to infuse the ideology into teaching [10,13,16,25,31], and to curtail academic freedom [42,127]. Khalid and Snyder provide insight into the logic and financial incentives behind the DEI machine:

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

DEI Inc. is a logic, a lingo, and a set of administrative policies and practices. The logic is as follows: Education is a product, students are consumers, and campus diversity is a customer-service issue that needs to be administered from the top down. (“Chief Diversity Officers,” according to an article in Diversity Officer Magazine, “are best defined as ‘change-management specialists.’”) DEI Inc. purveys a safety-and-security model of learning that is highly attuned to harm and that conflates respect for minority students with unwavering affirmation and validation.

Lived experience, the intent–impact gap, microaggressions, trigger warnings, inclusive excellence. You know the language of DEI Inc. when you hear it. It’s a combination of management-consultant buzzwords, social justice slogans, and “therapy speak.” The standard package of DEI Inc. administrative “initiatives” should be familiar too, from antiracism trainings to bias-response teams and mandatory diversity statements for hiring and promotion. [127]

The DEI bureaucracy is a categorical enemy. Don't deceive yourself that you can work with it to accomplish good for your institution [128]. This bureaucracy is founded on ideas that are in direct opposition to the liberal enlightenment and humanism [1,3,4,42,79,99,125–128,133,134]. Their goals are not your goals; consequently, you cannot ally or compromise with them. We must, instead, focus our efforts on stripping the DEI bureaucracy of its power, ideally, ridding the institution of it completely. This will not be an easy fight, but neither is it an impossible dream. State legislatures are already taking action against DEI. At the time of this writing, 35 states have introduced bills that would restrict or ban DEI offices and staff, mandatory DEI training, diversity statements, and/or identity-based preferences for hiring and admissions [135]. Recognizing that such bills could go too far and compromise academic freedom, the Manhattan Institute has drafted model legislation that would abolish DEI bureaucracies on campuses while preserving academic freedom [136]. To date, at least one state, Texas, has enacted legislation based on the Manhattan Institute’s model [137].

Another reason not to attempt to work with the DEI bureaucracy is that CSJ ideology leaves no space for rational dialog. As explained by McWhorter [71], Pincourt [3,98], Pluckrose [1], Saad [99], and others, CSJ is not a rational or empirical worldview, but an ideology whose adherents have accepted a set of unfalsifiable tenets that may not be questioned. Thus, CSJ ideologues are not open to reasoned arguments that contradict their worldview; it is, thus, futile to argue with them. We need, instead, to reason with those of our colleagues who have not yet drunk of the Kool Aid.

Finally, since the goal of CSJ is to take over the institution, small compromises with them ultimately lead to large losses for us. Give CSJ an inch, and it will take a mile. Consider, for starters, the following example, in which the dean of the Duke Divinity School made the mistake of conceding to student activists, which led to ever-increasing demands and personal attacks on the dean herself [138]. “The chickens have come home to roost at Duke’s divinity school,” writes John Staddon. Dean Heath, the dean of the school, fully allied herself with the CSJ agenda, rolled out a variety of DEI initiatives, issued a self-flagellating editorial admitting the “structural sins” of the school, and forced non-conforming faculty to resign. Yet, despite these concessions, the demands of “marginalized groups” only grew stronger, culminating in uncivil acts, such as the disruption of the dean’s state-of-the-school address by “four dissident female students bearing bull-horns and chanting, ‘I am somebody and I won’t be stopped by nobody,’ followed by a rap, a little theatrical performance [of a rude nature].”

Staddon writes:

There is poetic justice in this incident. Despite the dean’s earnest attempts “to provide a welcoming and safe place for students,” even after she designed “a space for the work of Sacred Worth, the LGBTQIA+ student group in the Divinity School”—even after disciplining, and losing—Professor Griffiths [a non-conforming faculty], in spite all this, she has apparently not done enough! The LGBT folk want more, much more, in the form of 15 demands. “We make up an integral part of this community, and yet our needs remain deliberately unheard.”

The demands include:

“To appoint a black trans woman or gender non-conforming theologian” as well as “a tenure-track trans woman theologian” and a “tenure-track queer theologian of color, preferably a black or indigenous person.”

A dissident MIT website, the Babbling Beaver [139], illustrates the same point by a mock resignation statement by MIT’s former President Reif:

You would think giving them a Women’s and Gender Studies Program, hiring six dozen DEI deans and staffers, most of whom couldn’t pass 18.01 [MIT’s introductory math course] if their lives depended on it, and cancelling invited lecturers to appease shouting Twitter mobs would be enough,” lamented the weary lame duck. “But noooo ... The only thing I accomplished by giving in to the incessant demands was encouraging additional demands, each more strident than the last.” [140]

The statement is satire, but the concessions made by the president and the ever-increasing demands were real.

Stories of how CSJ, once it is let in the door, rapidly infiltrates the organization and eventually takes it over are too many to enumerate. We present but one example, where the process has been meticulously documented. The report, spon.sored by the organization Alumni and Donors Unite, explains how CSJ took over University of San Diego “first gradually then suddenly.”

Gradually, over the course of a decade, CSJ-DEI became sown into the university’s fabric through changes in hiring committees and curriculum. Then suddenly in 2020–2021 the administration, outside all normal channels of decision-making, initiated a hostile takeover of USD and adopted a radical woke agenda into nearly all facets of the university’s life. [141]

The devaluation of merit and intellectual honesty in the guise of social justice that we now witness will inevitably lead to the decline of our institutions, if not to their destruction [4]. A case in point is The Evergreen State University, which, in 2017, experienced a notorious CSJ uprising on campus [142]. Since then, the university has suffered a 25% drop in enrollment and has lost 45 faculty through lay-offs and attrition [143].

Learn how to recognize and take on categorical enemies [98]. Remember—it is a zero sum game.

4. Focus on truth, not partisanship. Do not fear verbal attacks.

When you take on CSJ, there is something you will need to come to terms with: you are going to be called names, and your views and beliefs are going to be distorted and misrepresented. These are standard tactics of the CSJ movement. Since the adherents of CSJ have adopted an ideological, rather than a rational, worldview, they cannot rationally defend it; so they use the only tools they have: personal attacks and strawman arguments. They will call you transphobe, racist, misogynist, alt-right, Nazi, etc., no matter what you say or do. They will use deliberate misrepresentation of your expressions to subvert and discredit them [98]. They will use the “Motte and Bailey” trick [144] to derail conversations. Learn about these tactics so that you can anticipate, recognize, and counter them [98]. As Gad Saad explains:

The name calling and accusations are locked and loaded threats, ready to be deployed against you should you dare to question the relevant progressive tenets. Most people are too afraid to be accused of being racist or misogynist, and so they cover in silence.… Don't fall prey to this silencing strategy. Be assured in your principles and stand ready to defend them with the ferocity of a honey badger. [99]

Because you will be attacked no matter what you believe, what you say, or how carefully you say it, there is no point in affirming in your interactions with CSJ ideologues that you are committed to traditional humanistic, liberal values. They don’t care. In her essay “I'm a Progressive, Please Don't Hurt Me,” Sarah Haider calls this practice of hedging “throat-clearing” and explains why it is not effective [145]. She also points out the hidden bigotry of it, that is, the implicit assumption that those on the other side of the aisle are inherently evil. Haider writes:

Before touching on any perspective that I knew to not be kosher among other Leftists, I tended to precede with some version of throat-clearing: “I’m on the left” or “I’ve voted Democrat my whole life.” I told myself that this was a distinction worth insisting on because 1) it was the truth and 2) because it helped frame the discussion properly—making clear that the argument is coming from someone who values what they value. But there was another reason too. My political identity reminders were a plea to be considered fully and charitably, to not be villainized and presumed to be motivated by “hate.” The precursor belief to this, of course, is that actual conservatives should not be taken charitably, are rightfully villainized, and really are motivated by “hate.” But I’m done sputtering indignantly about being mischaracterized as “conservative,” or going out of my way to remind the audience that I really am a good little liberal.

She goes on to explain that throat-clearing is counterproductive because: (1) it doesn’t work, you won't be spared; (2) it is a tax on energy and attention; (3) it is bad for you; and (4) it is bad for the causes you care about.

So we should stop worrying about our group loyalties and focus on our cause. Truth wears no clothes, so do not try to dress it up in partisan attire. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and move on.

It may be tempting to stay out of the fight in order to preserve friendships. It is true that some people you thought of as friends may turn against you—privately or even publicly. It has happened to us, and it hurts. But it also lets you know who your real friends are—those who stick up for you whether they agree with your views or not. And you will find new friends and allies who share your values. These relationships, forged fighting the good fight, will be enduring and empowering.

5. Do not apologize.

We cannot stress this enough. Your apology will be taken as a sign of weakness and will not absolve you—in fact, it will make matters worse. Apologies to the illiberal mob are like drops of blood in the water to a pack of sharks. Additionally, your apology can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, which can come back to haunt you in the event you need to defend yourself legally or in an administrative proceeding. The Academic Freedom Alliance advises: “If you confess to an offense you didn’t commit, or if you concede to a claim or accusation that is factually inaccurate or not truly an offense, the admission can and will be used against you.” [146] Recognize that the CSJ activists on Twitter do not care about your apology; they care about publicly flaying you in order to sow fear among other potential dissenters [147]. Someone claims to have been offended by your speech? Someone claims it caused them pain? Fine, that's their problem [148]. You know what your views are. And your friends do too. Stay on message.

6. Build a community and a network.

Communities and networks provide moral support and there is safety in numbers. Some groups already exist. The Heterodox Academy (HxA), for example, provides a platform to organize communities (e.g., HxSTEM is a community of STEM faculty) and to connect with colleagues who are open to reasoned debate, as per the HxA statement, which each member is asked to endorse: “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.” The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) also provides resources and support to those who push back on anti-humanistic policies, especially in schools, universities, and in the medical profession.

Organizations like FIRE and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) provide educational resources, opportunities to network, and—most importantly—protection, including legal representation. Join and support them. Build groups and act as a group—e.g., write an op-ed piece with a group of co-authors. Ten people are harder to cancel than one. Counter Wokecraft describes how to identify the allies among your colleagues and how to build effective resistance at your workplace [98].

Stand up for others. Next time they will do it for you. When you see a colleague being ostracized for what she said, think first, “Which parts of her message do I agree with?” not “Which parts do I disagree with?” If you agree with the main message, say so, and be charitable about imperfect expression. Way too often do we hear colleagues justifying their silence with excuses like “I agree with her in general, but she should have been more careful about how she said this or that.”

Some communities, including mathematicians and psychologists, in response to CSJ takeovers of their professional societies, have simply started new ones [149,150]. Perhaps we need more of these to send a strong message to the old societies that they need to change course. We see evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy; for example, the American Mathematical Society [151] cancelled its CSJ-dominated blog shortly after the establishment of the new Association for Mathematical Research [149], whose apolitical mission is simply to “support mathematical research and scholarship.”

In 2022, in response to increasing ideological influence and censorship in their profession, behavioral scientists founded the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, dedicated to “open inquiry, civil debate, and rigorous standards” in the field [152]. It publishes the Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, which commits to “free inquiry,” “rigorous standards,” and “intellectual exchange” [152]. Notably, its terms and conditions state that the journal will base retraction decisions strictly on the basis of the widely accepted COPE guidelines [153]; otherwise, the terms and conditions state, “We will never retract a paper in response to social media mobs, open or private letters calling for retraction, denunciation petitions, or the like....” [154]

There is even a new university—The University of Austin (UATX)—established in response to the current crisis in higher education [155]. The message on the UATX webpage—“We are building a university dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth”—makes clear what void in the American academy UATX aspires to fill [156]. That the university received over $100 million in donations and over 3500 inquiries by professors from other institutions within six months of the project’s announcement, makes clear the demand [157].

The success of such new initiatives will inspire more educators and scientists to stand up and defend the key principles of science and education. And it will send a strong message to our leadership. Even if we cannot appeal to their sense of duty, the financial considerations (Go Woke, Go Broke [158]) and the effect of negative publicity of the excesses of CSJ (such as DEI loyalty oaths, “decolonizing” the curriculum, renaming everything, and Newspeak [9,23,24,139]) may provide incentives to straighten out their act.

4. Conclusion

Will we succeed? Will we stop the train before it goes over the cliff? We do not know what will happen if we fight. But we know what will happen if we don’t. The task ahead might look impossible. But remember the USSR. It looked like an unbreakable power, yet in the end it collapsed like a house of cards. The Berlin Wall looked indestructible, yet it came down overnight. Recalling his 20 years’ experience in the gay marriage debate, Jonathan Rauch told us: “I can tell you that the wall of received opinion is sturdy and impenetrable...until it isn't. And that it's the quiet people in the room who are the swing vote.... and please illegitimi non carborundum [159].”

We are not helpless. We have agency and we should not be afraid to exercise it. We should fight not just because it is the right thing to do, but because fighting brings results. If we behave as if we were living in a totalitarian society, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Afterword

A Russian proverb says, “Fear has big eyes” (у страха глаза велики), meaning that people tend to exaggerate danger. Accordingly, it may feel like resisting the mob will inevitably lead to career damage. But this is not the case; the flip side of risk is reward. In recognition of her activism, including her publication of “The Peril of Politicizing Science” [23], which “launched a national conversation among scientists and the general public,” Anna Krylov, co-author of this chapter, was awarded the inaugural Communicator of the Year Award, Sciences and Mathematics, by the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences [160]. In “Victory Lap” [161], Lee Jussim, co-editor of the book in which this article will appear, documents how as a result of his public resistance to a mob attack on a colleague falsely accused of racism, his career enjoyed a variety of benefits including additional conferences invitations, massive positive public support for his activism, national attention to his scholarship, and an appointment to a departmental chair (with commensurate increase in salary), which he was offered because he had demonstrated that he could take the heat.

Stop saying "nO oNe iS sAyInG aNy oF tHiS!!" They are. You know they are. Dotted throughout the article are references to sources for quotes and claims. For the list of references, see: References.

Liberalism really is under attack. It's always been under attack from the religous right, but its influence has diminished over time, with society becoming increasingly secular and irreligious, or at least indifferent to religious influence. And principles like the US's First Amendment keep it, at least in theory, from breaching the threshold.

But where the religious attack is on the downswing, the attack from the illiberal left is on the upswing, and both more rapid and more successful, having infiltrated everything from government to science and even knitting clubs. And it hides behind nice-sounding words like "equity" and "diversity," people don't recognize it for what it is, and welcome it inside in a way they don't welcome religious intrusion.

This isn't about left vs right. It's about do we want a liberal society, or do we want a rampantly illiberal, or indeed anti-liberal society?

11 notes · View notes

theacadominique · 7 months ago

Text

wednesday, 4.17.24

today i:

did yoga with adriene

did a 30-minute strength workout

emailed a university re: being on the waitlist for their phd program

listened to ep. 4 of the coffee break french podcast

listened to ep. 17 of the artcurious podcast

finished reading "introduction to art historical analysis"

watched "how to do visual (formal) analysis in art history"

studied some french

scrolled through gradcafe and the grad admissions subreddit

went on a 1-hr+ walk

listened to the audiobook of fire and blood by george r. r. martin

watched an ep. of grey's anatomy

watched bill cunningham new york (2010, max)

artnews articles i read today (there's a lot):

"what is the venice biennale? everything you need to know"

"inside jeffrey gibson's us pavilion at the venice biennale, where color brings history to life"

"the 2024 venice biennale by the numbers"

"a guide to the 2024 venice biennale national pavilions"

"israel's national pavilion won't open until ceasefire is reached, artist says"

"venice biennale’s lifetime achievement awards go to nil yalter, anna maria maiolino"

#art history #bookblr #dark academia #gradblr #studyblr #french langblr #langblr

2 notes · View notes

marinaflamer · 1 year ago

Text

The Difficulty of College Admissions: Is It Impossible?

Soon enough, every senior experiences the dreaded pressure of writing their college essay. We all have to combine the most unique and important components of our lives and personalities into one 650 word essay. This seemingly impossible task is done by seniors from all over the country, giving colleges insight into their diverse pool of potential students. But what are colleges really looking for in their applicants?

On the surface level, they are looking to learn more about your growth as a person. One of the most common mistakes made in college essays, according to James Warren’s The Rhetoric of College Application Essays, is that essays “tend to focus too much on the person that influenced the writer and not enough on the writer himself.” I was also struggling with this problem. I wanted to write my essay about my childhood, but I was worried that by explaining it I would focus too much on my family rather than myself. It was hard for me -like many other seniors- to write solely about myself and how I grew, not the experiences and people associated with them. But ultimately colleges only want to learn about you, not your family or friends. One tip from the article was not to be too descriptive, and only use enough detail to provide effective background and context for the admissions officer. Using this tip I decided to only use around three examples from my childhood in my essay, and describe them in great detail. That way, I would have more space to write about my personal growth and improvement from those experiences.

Schools are also subliminally looking to see how you specifically stand out among the applicant pool. Colleges are always searching for ways to increase their student diversity, whether it be by race, sexuality, income, gender, religion, and countless other classifications and characteristics. In extremely selective schools like the Ivy Leagues, making yourself stand out means the difference between rejection and acceptance. Historically, being an outlier may have led to a rejection from some schools. But over the years differences have become a strength in college admissions. Anna Kirkland and Ben Hansen’s article “How Do I Bring Diversity?” explores how universities have leaned into diversity overtime, and now “characterize diversity as an organizational resource rooted in various employee skills and backgrounds.” Emphasizing diversity in your college essay shows the university you are applying to how you can contribute to their community, and be a unique part of their whole student body. People from different backgrounds acquire different skills that are each useful on their own, but even more powerful when grouped together. To display diversity in your essay, simply write about what makes you unique; whether it be your race, gender, religion, skills, or traits. These aspects will not only help admissions officers learn more about you, but introduce them to new ideas or concepts and expand their literacy.

A way to emphasize both diversity and your sense of self in the college essay is to write in your authentic voice. June Jordan, a famous poet, activist, and teacher, explores this concept in her book No Body Mean More to Me Than You and the Future Life of Willie Jordan. In the book she focuses on the subject of rhetoric in essays, specifically how Black English is different from Standard English. Jordan emphasizes that writers should always write in their own natural voice, while still acknowledging the audience and making sure they understand the text. In her passage Jordan states, “but if we expressed ourselves in our language wouldn’t that be suicidal to the wish to communicate…” Ensuring that the audience’s understanding of the essay will not be damaged by your writing style is essential. The goal is to expand the literacy of the audience while still writing in a widely receivable way. It is best for a writer to use a combination of their natural voice as well as standard English, to make sure their message is received by all. Afterall, some aspects of language do not translate between dialects. Writing in your authentic voice is a good way to incorporate parts of the writer’s culture into their essay. Even if it’s just a word or phrase, it adds a level of diversity to your essay. Jordan’s article helped me realize that I should incorporate parts of my own culture into my essay. The cultural elements may even be useful in explaining my childhood experiences.

Many seniors spend their last summer at home stressing over the unimaginable expectations of college applications, scrambling to find the perfect topic for their essay. But it doesn’t have to be that stressful. As long as you write an essay that represents an important and meaningful part of you, colleges will have all they need for their decisions. So don’t stress! All you have to do is emphasize your authentic self.

I took this picture of a flower arrangement I made. The flowers were gifted to me by my father and I put them in my mom's vase. To me, flowers represent my love for nature. They also represent how life can be beautiful, and I usually buy flowers to put in my kitchen because they liven up the room. I chose these flowers because my dad gave them to me and the vase was inherited from my grandmother. The flowers and the vase emphasize my values of nature and family.

2 notes · View notes

umeacadmy · 2 years ago

Text

Anna University Distance Education

No matter where you are starting from Anna University distance education is your first step toward success. The university provides flexible and achievable study options that can fit easily into your daily schedule. The courses have been designed to give students the same high-quality teaching and guidance that on-campus students enjoy.

#Anna #University #Distance #Education #student #admission #mba courses #studentlife #mba #bbc news

0 notes

collegetour2 · 2 years ago

Text

With the increase in internet usage and speed, a wide range of excellent options for providing Distance education have appeared on the market. These days, universities use them to deliver Distance instruction. The Anna University Distance Education program also adheres to this custom. The university developed the center for distance education to make distance learning programs available to a broad audience.

#Anna University Distance Education #education #student #admission #college #post graduate #books & libraries #news #graduate #mba #educators

0 notes

upismediacenter · 2 years ago

Text

OPINION: TED(ucation) TALK: Educational Crisis of the Philippines

Photo credit: Anna Dalet

After being halted due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the University of the Philippines College Admission Test (UPCAT) will return for the academic year 2024-2025. With this news in the limelight, discourse between those who prefer the UP College Admission (UPCA) and UPCAT arise centering on how one is more beneficial than the other, may it be on a personal level or a nationwide point of view. However, the real discussion gets drowned out in the discourse between two sides: Why is quality education not readily available to everyone? It is a question that one might simply answer with something like: “The government is trying their best to give each student the education they deserve,” when in reality, nothing has changed despite the government's attempts. From the lack of support, budget, or even equitable access—these are all evident in the educational system of the Philippines. The country has suffered, and continues to suffer from this age-old educational crisis, UP being no stranger to the struggle.

Persistence of inequitable access to higher education

To start, we must discuss the accessibility of tertiary education or higher education in general. According to data from a discussion paper by the Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies (PIDS), titled “Philippine Education: Situationer, Challenges, and Ways Forward”, in 2019, 49% of the richest decile managed to attend higher education whilst only 17% of the poorest could do so. This shows how the poor are underrepresented in state universities; even free tuition in higher education has yet to prove whether it helps increase the participation of students from poorer households. UP, a state university, has a student population that largely consists of students coming from the middle to upper middle class. From a journal article entitled “Quality, inequality and recent education reform” by Edita A. Tan, admission in UP varies across income brackets, the lowest at 3.5% among applicants from the poorest families and 16% for students coming from millionaire families. This contradicts the purpose of a state university to cater to those in the lower classes due to the free tuition it offers. This proves that tuition is not the only problem admittees face, but access too. The paper also discusses how free tuition and tertiary education subsidies or the pre-implementation analysis expected this problem as well: the more academically-prepared students who mainly come from richer families may bump off the less-prepared students from poorer households due to competition and limited slots.

Lack of budget and support

Quality education is not one-dimensional, hence, it cannot be solved easily without proper budgeting and support from the government—which the Philippines' educational branch suffers from the lack thereof. This deficiency manifests in the attitudes of prominent legislators like Senator Alan Peter Cayetano towards the premier state university, questioning the management of its budget. Such a challenge seems senseless however, when considering that despite taking up 23.41% of the total allocation for all state universities and colleges, UP suffered from a Php22.295 billion budget cut. The loss of funds not only affects the conducting of entrance exams but also the students, faculty and staff, the infrastructure plans of UP, and most importantly, the quality of education they get to provide.

To make matters worse, the government's allocation of the national budget suggests that quality education is not their priority. In 2022, the Department of National Defense (DND) had a 29.5% budget increase for its machinery and equipment outlay. On the other hand, the Department of Education’s infrastructure received a 40.7% budget cut, showing how the previous administration prioritized the military over education. As a whole, the education sector only got 16% of the total Php5.024 trillion proposed national budget.

Dated all the way back in the midst of the country suffering from the pandemic, various economic teams have warned the country that this pandemic will leave a generational effect on the state of its education. This only calls for greater priority throughout the allocation of the national budget which the government certainly overlooks. Due to resources being limited and the budget continuously getting slashed, UP, just like many other universities, could only accommodate so much without proper funding and support from the government.

Admissions: the UPCAT and UPCA

During the first time UPCA was used as a form of admission in the academic year 2021-2022, over 100,000 applicants hoped to get in but only 11,000 were admitted. Numerous students expressed their dismay in social media after the results were released, especially students from the Philippine Science High School or Pisay. In previous years, 90% of their students were admitted into UP but a Pisay Student-Organized Intercampus UPCA Inquiry showed a 50% drop in their system-wide UP acceptance rate. UP Office of Admissions director Francisco delos Reyes shared that since UP is a national university, they had to look at the different strata of our society in creating the University Predicted Grade for the UPCA. “As an excellence-equity admission system, 70% pagalingan, pero may 30% tayo for economic and geographic equity,” he said. Meanwhile, in AY 2019-2020, a total of almost 12,000 applicants qualified for admission, representing 13% of the 90,000 students who took the exam. Since 2017, UP has been receiving around 100,000 student-applicants, with this the university only has a 10% to 15% acceptance rate.

As a state university with free quality education, it is understandable why UP reaches around 100,000 applicants each year. Education is a must, and those who are unfated to get into a university would face even more challenges looking for job opportunities due to entry-level positions also requiring a diploma from a 4-year course. This further proves the point of the Philippines facing a huge educational crisis and how UP, being the face of the country's state university system, should be able to open its doors of opportunity for all students with dreams.

During the implementation of the UPCA, students expressed their concerns, stating that those who struggled in high school had expectations of UPCAT being their chance of redemption. Hence, the traditional exam is still seen as “the gold standard and a leveler for all applicants”, even by admissions director delos Reyes. However, former Student Regent Renee Co called to light how the examination reflected the flaws in the country’s educational system—pointing out that UPCAT favors those from science high schools and private institutions who have a wider range of available resources to further their learning. She also noted that although the modification of the admission system was a good move, the applicants' differences in circumstances and socio-economic factors still play a huge role in determining acceptance into the national university. “Students from families with lower economic opportunities do not receive the same quality of education, and their circumstances affect their grades,” said Co. She points out how only considering one part of the equation while leaving the other unattended, blows the inequalities of the educational system wide open, putting those who are already in a less favorable situation in one much worse.

Admissions of other colleges

The Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) is another state university with free tuition and requires applicants to take the PUP College Entrance Test. Data from 2012-2014 show that out of approximately 60,000 applicants every year, the percentage of admitted students is around 25%. The Ateneo de Manila University, a private higher education institution that provides quality education, on the other hand, has a tuition fee of over Php100,000 and a 10% to 20% acceptance rate. The acceptance rate of these three colleges are similar, with only PUP having a higher percentage due to its smaller count of applicants. As these universities have low acceptance rates like UP, this proves the lack of access to quality education, which could be made better in state universities since, ideally, they should be boasting significantly better rates than private institutions whose slots are inherently limited by business factors. Not to mention, state universities are backed by the government, whose funds come from nationwide tax revenue.

With the educational crisis that the Philippines is facing right now, being able to reach tertiary level education shouldn’t be an egregious experience. It also shouldn't be a system that benefits those with the capacity and resources because everyone has the right to experience free quality education. For this to be achieved we must call on the national government to rechannel funds and to prioritize education. It must heed the calls of the people that have long suffered from this educational crisis. Equitable access to education cannot be obtained without realization and action from those in power. For the children to become the said hope of the country, they must first receive the education they deserve. //by Yeshua Galicia and Grace Gaerlan

References:

Castillo, C. A. (2022, August 31). UP faces a P22.295B budget cut for FY 2023. University of the Philippines. https://up.edu.ph/up-faces-a-p22-295b-budget-cut-for-fy-2023/

Figueroa, B., Dacanay, P., Abella, M., Villasorda, E., Inocencio, J., & Sigales, J. (2021, September 16). As COVID-19 hits UP students and faculty, learning now 'survival of the fittest' – Tinig ng Plaridel. Tinig ng Plaridel. https://www.tinigngplaridel.net/2021/covid-19-hits-up/

Ibon Foundation. The neglect of PH education: Where do we go from here? (2021, October 5). https://www.ibon.org/the-neglect-of-ph-education-where-do-we-go-from-here/

Inquirer.net. (2022, September 5). Cayetano to UP suspending UPCAT anew: What are you doing with your budget? Inquirer.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1658862/cayetano-to-up-suspending-upcat- anew-what-are-you-doing-with-your-budget

Magsambol, B. (2021, July 17). UP admissions director: Other factors considered, not just grades. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/university-philippines-admissions-director-other-factors-considered-not-just-grades-results-2021/

Manila Bulletin. (2022, December 27). PIDS presses swift action on PH education crisis. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2022/12/27/pids-presses-swift-action-on-ph-education-crisis/

Mateo, J. (2019, April 2). 11821 pass University of the Philippines College Admission Test. Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/04/02/1906506/11821-pass-university-philippines-college-admission-test

Orbeta Jr., A. C., & Paqueo, V. B. (2022, August 23). Philippine Education: Situationer, Challenges, and Ways Forward. PIDS. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/document/pidsdps2223.pdf

PIDS - Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2022, October 28). Policy issue at a glance: The Philippines' education crisis: How bad is it and what can we do to solve it? PIDS - Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://www.pids.gov.ph/details/resource/infographics-policy-issue/policy-issue- at-a-glance-the-philippines-education-crisis-how-bad-is-it-and-what-can-we-do-to-s

Satinitigan, S. (2021, April 7). Freshman Applicants Raise Equity and Inclusivity Concerns Over Modified Admissions System in UP. Philippine Collegian. https://phkule.org/article/23/freshman-applicants-raise-equity-and- inclusivity-concerns-over-modified-admissions-system-in-up

Tan, E. (2017). Quality, inequity and recent education reform. The Philippine Review of Economics, 54(2), 110-137.

UPCA 2022 Announcement. (2022, March 9). University of the Philippines—Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ upsystem/photos/a.240579535964948/5473749639314552/?type=3&source=48&paipv=0&eav=AfaSm5iTriM__Fmp1oEpSyT9ndtG6JoMn262i8hLpWabmCVv4ch9cRg9PUFT7OE1iUU&_rdc=2&_rdr

#MC2023 #MC2024 #Opinion #English #Yeshua Galicia #Grace Gaerlan

4 notes · View notes