#anna university admission

[nehasharmamaantech]

Anna University distance Admission

Signifies the start of the new academic year. Candidates can sign up for the Anna University distance Admission different undergraduate and postgraduate programs, which cover a wide range of educational subjects, using the admissions webpage. At Anna University, the admissions process is simple and fast.

For more information:-

Contact Us: 9625266808

E-mail: mbatourindia@gmail.com

Visit:- https://www.mbatours.in/anna-university-distance-education-mba/

[umeacademyindia]

Anna University Online Admission

Register now for Anna University Online Admission. The university is now all set to accept applications from candidates for its Online learning programs. The courses available at the university are accepted and approved by various National Ranking Councils in India. Excited to know more? Make sure to visit us at our official portal.  

[umeacadmy]

[shubhammaantech123]

Get the most out of your time and money with Anna University Distance Education. With a range of programs and experienced faculty at your disposal, you can gain a high-quality education without having to physically attend any classes. As an excellent option for Studying. The programs provide an enriching learning experience and access to the most current educational trends.

[orphiclovers]

Yoo Joonghyuk be honest. you imprinted upon Kim Dokja like a baby duckling didn't you.............this is really embarrassing, you look desperate. And it's exactly this naive, exploitable trust in very shady strangers that got you betrayed by Anna Croft 200 times!!

It's their 'first real conversation' and Yoo Joonghyuk's already traumadumping about his dead ex wife. WHY would you TELL HIM ALL THIS, I THOUGHT you were supposed to be repressed! you're coming off too strong! this is the opposite of repressed, he's leaking depression and sadness everywhere - lowkey an ick if I was in KDJ's position but to each their own...

And then.

UGHHHH whatEVERRRR in a moment of weakness he seeked out Lee Seolhwa hoping for comfort and familiatity and understanding and was rejected violently. And yet instead of being left alone and adrift, here he finds Kim Dokja saying, 'I understand.'

And that's so important for him to hear in this moment.

'Understanding' is what every single character in ORV seeks, yet by Kim Dokja's own admission here and and throughout the novel we know YJH never recieves it in TWSA. His biggest damage is loneliness and having no one to share his pain with. That's why it shakes him so deeply to be offered these words that he has always yearned for. And Kim Dokja knows this of course, that's why he says them.

Then, Yoo Joonghyuk assumes this is 'the power of a prophet' which does NOT bode well for how this situation must have gone in TWSA without Kim Dokja there. If after having his ties severed with Lee Seolhwa he later tried to find this understanding and comfort in Anna Croft, 'the prophet' being indirectly referenced here, it makes sense why he kept returning to her despite her betrayals.

No wonder, as she would have been the only person who remembers their history (no matter how hateful) and could be said to be the same woman that he remembers in the previous regression (which is what he stated he wanted from Lee Seolhwa). This is the power of a prophet that Kim Dokja is borrowing - he plays Anna Croft's role to Yoo Joonghyuk.

Like, of COURSE yoocroft kept coming back to each other, they could have never escaped each other's gravitational pull as the only people in the universe going through the same thing (until Anna Croft lobotomizes herself and leaves him behind for good that is).

...And then YJH tries to backpedal by saying 'no I still think you're bad you kidnapped my sister' like brother who are you trying to fool it's SO over for you.

[amphorographia]

Something interesting about Pathologic that I don't see people talk about very often is the fact that technically none of the protagonists are doctors and, of the three, it's actually Artemy that's the closest to a real physician.

The fact that Daniil is specifically referred to as a "Bachelor" of medicine is something that was always sort of confusing to me but is actually extremely telling when put together with all the other details we get about him.

There's an excellent video essay about Daniil's character by Horror Game Analysis which goes into more detail about this [x], but he points out two things about thanatology that I think are really significant:

It was first conceptualised as a field of study in 1903 by Ilya Mechnikov, a Russian-Ukranian immunologist and microbiologist, who felt that there was not enough known about the phenomenon of death itself; and

Thanatology straddles the line between the humanities and the sciences because it's investigations grapple with the physical, psychological, socio-cultural, philosophical, and spiritual elements of death

With all that in mind and Pathologic's ambiguous time period, Daniil could very much be read as the in-game world's equivalent of Mechnikov. Despite his (sort of) alignment with the philosophically-minded Kains, Daniil is consistently shown to be very much focused on the physical components of death. He came to the town hoping that "[Simon's] tissues will help [him] defeat death." Rubin, Artemy, Victor (and Lara, Yulia, Aspity, Anna, and Clara) all need him to collect and examine blood samples for evidence of the disease. Once the plague begins, his focus in on the creation of a vaccine - a tool for immunisation - instead of a cure.

All of the evidence points to Daniil, at his core, being a microbiologist and researcher. His medical knowledge, while far above average, is highly specialised and doesn't indicate that he has any practical experience as a physician. He's not a doctor, he's a bachelor of medicine using his theoretical and academic expertise to fight an impossible disease in the only way he knows.

Now, Artemy does have some practical knowledge. Isidor taught him about the traditional medicine of the town while he was growing up before sending him to "study modern medicine in the academy" when he was 16. However, in his opening description, all we are told is that Artemy is returning from several years of "travelling from town to town learning theoretical and pratical surgery." In Pathologic Classic, Artemy is canonically 26 years old so if he spent 6-7 years travelling, his formal medical education was likely either short or incomplete. Not to mention that the emphasis on Artemy as a surgeon and menkhu (much like Daniil as a bachelor and thanatologist) implies a very specialised area of expertise which, although closely related to practical medicine, is not the same thing.

This is reinforced in a number of ways. For example, while there are multiple dialogue options which let you dismiss the town's local medical practices, they appear mostly (or only) in conversations with outsiders - responding to Daniil's admission of underestimating the value of "steppe medical knowledge" with "there's nothing medical in their knowledge" and telling Block that he has "an education in the civilized world and ha[s] forgotten two thirds of the specific local practices." Ultimately, Artemy is more consistently aligned with the Kin's more bodily approach to medicine. That distinction between Kin and Town is important, since the traditional medicines Artemy makes are not valued or trusted by townspeople and the kin refuse almost all of the modern medicine (specifically antibiotics) sold in the town.

He also seems to be either unfamiliar or seriously out of practice with the more formal language of science and medicine a university-educated physician should know. At several points, Artemy is shown to be dependent on Daniil's medical knowledge, and various members of the town poke fun at him for asking clarifying questions - Boy: "You graduated from a university and this is your question…?" Rubin: "I thought you were [away] studying." Artemy's story is about trying to fill his father's role and, while he succeeds in becoming a menkhu, his position as the town's doctor is less clearly defined even after the plague. While he begins the game with the most practical experience of the three protagonists, the fact that he's not qualified to be a physician but has to act as one is what drives his story forward.

I won't go into Clara since it's obvious she's not a doctor. If anything, she's more like a personification of a cure for this one specific disease (just like her 'twin' is the plague). She couldn't reset a bone or diognose the flu any more than she could synthesise antibiotics or distinguish between bacteria in a blood sample. Still, she's an interesting comparison point and does serve to remind the player that the protagonists don't really represent different approaches to medicine, but different approaches to healing.

The Bachelor is the modern healer of formal scientific practices who sees healing as the result of understanding the body, disease, and their interactions.

The Haruspex is the traditional healer with the spiritual or ancestral right to protected knowledge and practices who sees healing as a reflection of cultural duty, customs, and community.

The Changeling is the divine healer chosen by a Deity (or Deities) to carry out their will on earth who sees healing as an act of religious faith and demonstration of the existence and power of God(s).

[coochiequeens]

“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.”

[ingravinoveritas]

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...

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

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].

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:

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?

[theacadominique]

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"

[marinaflamer]

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.

[upismediacenter]

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

[umeacadmy]

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.

[collegetour2]

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. 

[education100]

Anna University Distance MBA Program Review

Anna University, one of India’s most reputed technical and management institutions, offers a Distance MBA Program tailored for working professionals, entrepreneurs, and students aiming to enhance their managerial expertise without disrupting their current commitments. The program, offered through the Centre for Distance Education (CDE), combines academic rigor with the flexibility of distance learning, making it a popular choice among management aspirants.

In this article, we will comprehensively review Anna University's Distance MBA program, covering aspects such as curriculum, admission process, learning methodology, fees, benefits, and potential areas of improvement.

Overview of Anna University Distance MBA Program

Anna University is renowned for its robust academic frameworks and quality education. The Distance MBA program is designed to meet the evolving demands of the business world, focusing on imparting both theoretical knowledge and practical skills. It offers a broad range of specializations, allowing students to tailor their learning based on career aspirations.

The program has been recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Distance Education Bureau (DEB), ensuring adherence to high educational standards.

Program Specializations

One of the standout features of Anna University's Distance MBA is its diverse specialization offerings. These include:

General Management

Technology Management

Marketing Management

Human Resource Management

Financial Services Management

Health Services Management

Operations Management

Each specialization is carefully crafted to provide industry-relevant knowledge, equipping students to tackle real-world challenges effectively.

Eligibility and Admission Process

Eligibility Criteria

Educational Qualification: Applicants must hold a bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognized university.

Work Experience: While not mandatory, work experience adds value to the application, particularly for those aspiring for managerial roles.

Admission Process

The admission process is straightforward and conducted annually:

Entrance Test: Candidates must clear the Distance Education Entrance Test (DEET) conducted by Anna University or present a valid score from recognized national-level tests such as CAT, MAT, or TANCET.

Application: Interested candidates can apply online or offline, submitting the necessary documents, including academic certificates and entrance exam scores.

Selection: Based on the entrance test scores and eligibility criteria, shortlisted candidates are notified for enrollment.

Curriculum and Learning Methodology

Curriculum

The MBA curriculum spans two years and is divided into four semesters. It is structured to provide a strong foundation in business management and allow for in-depth study of chosen specializations. Core subjects include:

Principles of Management

Financial and Cost Accounting

Operations Management

Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

Strategic Management

Elective courses in the second year allow students to focus on their specialization. The program emphasizes practical applications through case studies, project work, and real-world problem-solving.

Learning Methodology

Anna University employs a blend of traditional and modern learning techniques, including:

Printed Study Materials: Comprehensive course materials are provided to help students study at their own pace.

Online Resources: Digital libraries and e-learning modules supplement the printed materials.

Contact Classes: Periodic contact sessions are held at designated centers, where students can interact with faculty and peers.

Assignments and Projects: These components encourage practical application of concepts.

Program Fees

The Distance MBA program at Anna University is affordable, making quality education accessible to a wide audience. As of the latest academic session, the total program fee ranges between ₹30,000 and ₹40,000, depending on the specialization. The fee structure is competitive compared to similar programs offered by other institutions, offering excellent value for money.

Advantages of the Program

1. Flexibility

The program is designed for individuals balancing professional and personal commitments. The flexibility to study at one’s pace is a significant advantage.

2. Reputation of Anna University

The brand value of Anna University adds credibility to the degree, making it a valuable asset in the job market.

3. Industry-Relevant Curriculum

The curriculum is regularly updated to align with industry trends, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared to meet contemporary business challenges.

4. Affordable Fee Structure

With its reasonable fees, the program democratizes access to quality management education.

5. Networking Opportunities

The contact sessions provide opportunities to connect with peers from diverse industries, fostering a rich exchange of ideas and experiences.

Challenges and Areas for Improvement

1. Limited Use of Advanced Technology

While the program incorporates online resources, there is room for improvement in integrating cutting-edge technologies such as virtual classrooms, interactive webinars, and AI-driven learning platforms.

2. Restricted Interaction with Faculty

The distance mode inherently limits real-time interaction with faculty. Expanding online live sessions could address this gap.

3. Geographical Constraints for Contact Classes

Students residing in remote areas may find it challenging to attend contact sessions. Increasing the number of regional centers could mitigate this issue.

Career Opportunities Post Completion

Graduates of the Anna University Distance MBA program find opportunities across various sectors. The program equips students with skills for roles such as:

Marketing Manager

Financial Analyst

HR Manager

Operations Manager

Business Consultant

The university’s strong alumni network also plays a pivotal role in enhancing job prospects for graduates.

Student Testimonials

Students and alumni often praise the program for its quality of education and affordability. A recurring theme in testimonials is the program’s practicality and relevance in professional scenarios. However, some also mention challenges with delayed responses to administrative queries, highlighting a need for improved support systems.

Comparison with Other Programs

Compared to other distance MBA programs in India, such as those offered by IGNOU and Symbiosis, Anna University holds its ground with its affordability and comprehensive curriculum. However, in terms of technological advancements and global exposure, it might lag behind premier institutions like Symbiosis.

Conclusion

The Anna University Distance MBA program is a well-rounded offering for individuals seeking to enhance their managerial capabilities without pausing their careers. With its strong academic framework, affordable fee structure, and diverse specializations, it is an excellent choice for aspiring managers.

[learningeducation29229]

Anna University Distance Education

Anna University Distance Education offers undergraduate, postgraduate, and diploma courses in the fields of engineering, technology, and management in a flexible mode. It was basically for working professionals who were not able to attend the classes and for those unable to go to the institutes because of various reasons. These courses are UGC-approved.