GW International School Announces Policy Of Gender Diversity Of Panels

downloadA couple of faculty members at the Elliott School of International Affairs sent me an email yesterday from their dean, former Ambassador Reuben E. Brigety, II that they found unsettling and unwise.  The school has adopted a policy that all panels in the future at the school cannot be composed of a single gender and that “Non-adherence to this policy could result in cancellation of the event.”  The policy raises serious questions of academic freedom and the subordination of intellectual content in favor of the diversity policies. No one has suggested that Dean Brigety is likely to impose mandatory quotas and disciplinary actions.  He is an experienced diplomat at a nationally respected graduate school, though he has had controversial moments during this tenure as dean.  However, there has been no real discussion of the implications of these policies and how they impact the academic mission of universities like George Washington.

The email below notes that there are other diversity concerns including race, sexual orientation “and beyond,” but the current policy would extend only to gender.  However, that means that an academic panel may have to drop a male moderator or panelist who is viewed as more influential or knowledgeable simply because of his gender.  Academic panels have long been driven by their intellectual content regardless of the sex or race or other characteristics of the participants.

I have seen an increasing application of de facto quota policies at other institutions.  A few years ago, I was on a panel at the World Bank that had been long arranged and composed of international leaders in the field.  World Bank officials however panicked at the event when they realized that the four of us were all white males.  They solved “the problem” after some delay by randomly taking an African American woman from the audience and having her introduce everyone on the panel.  The draftee had no knowledge of the backgrounds of the panel or much involvement in the subject matter of the event.  However, it was viewed as essential if the panel was to go forward.

To the credit of Brigety, he is being open about a policy that is widely applied informally at schools.  I have been reportedly told that panels were changed because there was a need to add a panelist due to their race or gender.  In truth, I have generally found that the replacement was equally qualified as the person dropped. However, the eliminated panelist often is not told that they were removed because of their race or gender.

The concern of my colleagues at the Elliott school is not a desire to exclude people on the basis for gender or race or other criteria. Rather the message is clear that they are not to assemble panels based solely on the work and influence of the panelists. Indeed, under the policy, they are expected to bar a person based solely on his gender to achieve diversity goals.  That could easily be viewed as a form of discrimination against someone who would otherwise be the most qualified participant.

In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 525-526 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that immutable characteristics “bear no relation to ability, disadvantage, [or] moral culpability.”  In academia, intellectual content and contribution is the coin of the realm.  We are judged by our scholarship and our work, not by our race or gender or other immutable characteristics. Indeed, minorities face such discrimination from those who could not look beyond their personal characteristics.  Like all professions, we have fought prior discrimination and advocated for color and gender blind policies.  Many academics came to this profession to enjoy an environment that celebrates the mind and  where intellectual ability is the sole criteria for advancement and success.

Dean Brigety is not the first to demand that academic events be tailored to the race or gender of the participants rather than the quality of their work.  As discussed recently, a new study has called for a concerted effort to cite academics of color and greater diversity to make from the hold of “white heteromasculism” on research.  Geographers Carrie Mott (professor at Rutgers University) and Daniel Cockayne (professor at University of Waterloo in Ontario) has identified the reliance on research by white males as a “system of oppression” benefitting “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

Professors are reluctant to publicly question policies like the one at the Elliott School because they do not want to be called insensitive or worst yet sexist.  As a result, there has been little debate over such policies and discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics becomes the more in the name of diversity.  Many professors believe that intellectual contribution should be the sole basis for inviting speakers — a standard that rejects discrimination of any kind beyond the content of one’s work.  The focus of this traditional approach has been identify and counter any decisions that discriminated against academics on the basis  of other grounds.  The clear message sent by deans like Brigety is that no only are events subject to being cancelled but that academics responsible for such “Non-adherence” could face repercussions.

There are important diversity objects underlying this policy that are worthy of discussion and debate.  However, there is little real dialogue occurring on this difficult issue.

What do you think?  If panels must now be constructed to guarantee gender diversity, why should not race or sexual orientation also be required?

brigety-reuben_0Dear Faculty and Staff,

As we begin a new semester, please be aware of the following new policy for all Elliott School sponsored events:

Gender and Diversity Policy for Elliott School Events

Policy: Effective July 1st , 2017, for any panel, symposium, or multi-speaker event (3 or more

speakers) held at the Elliott School, there should be no single-gender discussion panels. If a panel consists of a single-gender, please ensure that the moderator is of a different gender.

Context: The George Washington University and the Elliott School recognize the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion within and beyond the university. To underscore the importance of this mission, we are actively looking for ways to encourage diversity throughout the school. We know that diversity spans a wide range of factors including race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, political beliefs, gender, and beyond— all of which contribute to a thriving intellectual community. In order to advance greater diversity at the

Elliott School, a new policy regarding gender at Elliott School sponsored events is outlined above.

Note: Non-adherence to this policy could result in cancellation of the event.

Thank you very much for your on-going efforts to make the Elliott School a welcoming place to work and study.

Reuben E. Brigety, II, Ph.D.

U.S. Ambassador (ret.)


Elliott School of International Affairs

The George Washington University

328 thoughts on “GW International School Announces Policy Of Gender Diversity Of Panels”

  1. It was single gender for millennia and no one was able to break down that practice. Something had to be done. Surely not only men are qualified to participate. There must be a FEW women. They don’r even say it has to be evenly divided, only that at least one woman must be a participant. That hardly seems to be an onerous requirement. I don’t think the world will end over this. Such a requirement would not be necessary if most university activities had not been MEN ONLY for so long, even enrollment. . It’s time for a little break from automatoc male authoritarianism. At this time, more women than men are earning degrees in colleges and universities. One day there may be a rule that at least one man must be allowed to participate in college and university activities.

    1. If a woman has published in a given subfield and she’s willing and available, they can invite her. No reason whatsoever to invite some random woman for no good reason.

    2. The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.” The population is imported. In 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America. American women are not bearing a sufficient number of babies. Without babies, there are no people. Without people, the female pursuit of the male role, the right to vote and extra-familial careers are entirely moot.

      Women simultaneously vote and slay the country.

      The 19th Amendment was foisted on America as the Devil’s paradox.

      The 19th is the consummate example of destruction of the very Constitution by Amendment.

      “…if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution…”

      James Madison

      Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

      ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

    3. “It was single gender for millennia and no one was able to break down that practice.”
      Do you realize how nonsensical this statement is?

        1. Your comment states that men have been keeping women down for millennia, when clearly over the majority of that time, I would say greater than 99.5% of it, responsibilities for men and women to ensure survival of a family group or tribe were dictated by physical characteristics and innate biological qualities (strength, risk-taking, breastfeeding, nurturing) or learned skill sets passed on by elders (hunting, cooking, food preservation, etc.). It is only recently that men and women have occupied the same spheres of potential WRT choosing a viable career path and earning a living, and women are advancing apace. It is nonsensical to claim that oppression against women has been occurring throughout (or IMO, ever), or are you really claiming that there were significant numbers of women who could have increased their sense of worth hunting a saber-tooth or fighting at Thermopylae if only their husbands and infant children weren’t so darned selfish?

            1. Sure, and while we’re at it, let’s just throw in Catwoman, Supergirl, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, etc. ad nauseum. 🙂

              1. Cape Cod Skeptic – normally I would not use wike but this article on Amazons is heavily footnoted.

                Here is the interesting section.

                Scythians and Sarmatians[edit]
                Speculation that the idea of Amazons contains a core of reality is based on archaeological findings from burials, pointing to the possibility that some Sarmatian women may have participated in battle. These findings have led scholars to suggest that the Amazonian legend in Greek mythology may have been “inspired by real warrior women”.[121]
                Evidence of high-ranking warrior women comes from kurgans in southern Ukraine and Russia. David Anthony notes, “About 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian ‘warrior graves’ on the lower Don and lower Volga contained women dressed for battle similar to how men dress, a phenomenon that probably inspired the Greek tales about the Amazons.”[122]

                Mounted Amazon in Scythian costume, on an Attic red-figure vase, c.420 BC
                Up to 25% of military burials were of armed Sarmatian women usually including bows.[123] Russian archaeologist Vera Kovalevskaya points out that when Scythian men were away fighting or hunting, nomadic women would have to be able to defend themselves, their animals and pasture-grounds competently. During the time that the Scythians advanced into Asia and achieved near-hegemony in the Near East, there was a period of twenty-eight years when the men would have been away on campaigns for long periods. During this time the women would not only have had to defend themselves, but to reproduce, and this could well be the origin of the idea that Amazons mated once a year with their neighbours, if Herodotus actually based his accounts on fact.[123]

                1. I read the same Wiki article before replying to you, Paul, but the Greek myths attribute capabilities to the Amazon warrior women that outstrip what is even claimed about the Scythian women or other steppe tribes. We could also talk about the native women encountered by Francisco Orellana in his explorations, but again, the fact is there are few examples to counter the overwhelming majority of historical data that men are warriors and women are not. One can always find tribes that organize themselves differently than is typical based on limitations of geography, food sources, longevity, religious practices, etc. However, at the root of survival is reproduction; your tribe won’t live very long if the majority of your repro-age women are off fighting wars.

                  1. Cape Cod Skeptic – you are not going to reproduce if you are dead. During the building of the West and the Great Indian Wars women fought side by side with their men.

                    1. Yes, women can shoot guns (and even arrows) quite effectively, but they are not as good in hand to hand combat or with swords.

                    2. Cape Cod Skeptic – did you not see Wonder Woman???? Not good with a sword???? And shooting three arrows at once. Please!!!!

                    3. Louise, you take yourself so seriously you cannot recognize humor in other people’s comments.
                      I recommend a good Scotch.

                    4. That tells more about you than anything I could say. It shows that the level of your intellect,is at the toilet training level.

                    5. Paul, cannot wait for the all-female Lord of the Flies! I’m so looking forward to the visual feast that will be adolescent/teen girls giving each other mani/pedis around an artificially constructed campfire (one of the gals brought some self-lighting logs, natch) while they whinge about how hard it is to deal with the frizzies and try to reach consensus over the best way to jury-rig a razor out of a stick and a piece of coral.

                    6. Cape Cod Skeptic – when I read Lord of the Flies, I thought the author had over stated the problem. Then I taught 7-8 graders and I realized he understated the problem. Male or female, they are feral.

                    7. Yeah, teen girls are catty and backstabbing, but they’re still more social and interested in talking about their emotions. Teen boys don’t do that. And most teen girls lack the ability (or inclination) to turn sticks into spears.

                    8. Cape Cod Skeptic – you clearly have never broken up a fight between girls. They get this death grip in each others hair and will fight to the death. Fights between boys are a lot easier to break up.

                    9. You are exactly right, no experience breaking up girls fighting. Sounds like cats in a bag….glad I only had boys!

                    10. Cape Cod Skeptic – and don’t forget, they have nails they are all growing like little claws.

                      Now, we had 5 boys and 1 girl and that girl could fight just as well as any of us boys. In the 8th grade, the boy sitting behind her started teasing her and pulling her hair, like boys do when they like a girl but don’t know how to act about it. My sister stood up, turned around and and clocked him square in the nose.

                      The school called called my mother in explaining that my sister really needed counseling. My mother who was teaching college explained to them that not only did my sister not need counseling, the kid was lucky all she did was hit him in the nose. 😉 She had 5 brothers and was capable of handling any male in the classroom. That stopped things. 🙂

                    11. Paul, having 5 brothers, of course your sister was an Amazon! 😛 And bravo to your mom, too! Hope the young man rebounded quickly and found someone more receptive to his awkward romantic gestures.

                    12. Cape Cod Skeptic – my sister finally had to move to San Diego to find a husband because every time some poor guy would come to the house to pick her up for a date, the 5 of us would be in the living room giving him the “You touch her and you die,” look. She married a CPO in the Navy. They have since divorced. She now happily lives in Carlsbad and takes the train to work in SD where she is a paralegal.

                    13. Ah yes, the negative consequences of protective brothers. LOL. Sorry to hear of your sister’s divorce, but great news she is doing well now.

                    14. Yes, women did everything men did, while they bore children, nursed them, cared for the whole family, cooked all the meals, did all the laundry and kept house. She fought in her spare time. Men hardly did anything else but proclaim that they were tough guys abd the head of the family.

                    15. Louise – men worked the fields, which was a dawn to dusk chore. They took their lunch with them. As the children grew, they were given tasks, first around the home and then around the farm. Finally, they started working with dad.

                      Both jobs were lonely. Mom was surrounded by beings who could not carry on a conversation and dad had no one except the horse or ox to talk to for up to 16 hours a day. And in the winter they were snowed in, so they could get “cabin fever.”

                    16. Louise – my point was that you made it seem like the woman was doing all the work. It was shared labor.

                    17. Well, perhaps you’ve had a taste of your own medicine, finally. How many times throughout history have women worked mightily beside a man only to have the man take all the credit for doing all the work or at least most of it, women being the weaker vessel, therefore needing to be directed by the man, and all that?

                    18. Louise – I do not know why you have your panties in a wad? I am a great supporter of women and their rights. I have problems with certain women and certain men, but not because of their gender.

                1. Of course I can, and I did, unlike you who must have had someone read it to you, replacing all the two syllable words with one-syllable ones.

                  1. Louise – tsk, tsk. Are we having one of those days? If you don’t believe the archaeological part, that is fine, but at least make a case for it.

                    1. Louise – how can I be a male chauvinist pig when I am making the case for the validity of Amazonian women warriors? You are both nuts and a bad speller.

                    2. Because you think that accepting the myth of Amazonian women is complimentary to women and also means you are not a misogynist. Neither is true. How about supporting real live women who are intelligent and able, but are not Amazons?

                    3. Louise – I do not believe Amazon women were a total myth and I do support strong women in all field. In fact, I think women should be drafted just like men.

          1. No I’m talking about job opprtunities in the 20th and 21st centuries. Perhaps,you are too young to have heard about sex and race discrimination in employment and education. There was a time when women were not allowed to enrol in certain colleges and universities. Women had a hard time getting jobs in engineering and mathematics or any of the sciences. There was a time when employment ads were headed by “Help wanted–Male.” Perhaps you should read some history. Believe it or not, the world did not begin with your birth.

            1. The last 117 years are not numerically represented by the word “millenia”. For Pete’s sake, history is replete with women of accomplishment in science, math, and other fields. Your arguments might find a more receptive audience if this was the 1960s, but it isn’t. FWIW, I’m a female scientist working in the field of toxicology/risk assessment for ~25 years. Before switching to BioChem in college, I was a ChemE major. All my professors were male, none of them treated me as a 2nd-class citizen. Mind you, this was at a Southern land grant university that had only officially accepted women students in 1963, because the school had a military corps and ALL STUDENTS were required to join. Prior to that, women attended classes there as early as 1911, but the school has a checkered past WRT women attendance due to the ridiculous interference by the state legislature, NOT b/c the academic community was biased.

              At the time I was a student, there were plenty of women in engineering, but they were outnumbered by the men, because of individual preferences in career paths and the fact that male students outnumbered female ones (stands to reason, it was a science/eng school). Women currently outnumber men at many colleges and universities, yet men still outstrip women in choosing higher level maths/CS/eng majors. Hmmm, wonder why that is? If there are 9 men applying for a job in an engineering field, and only 1 woman, are the odds high that the woman will be the most qualified? Why do you think there were signs that said “Help Wanted-Male”?

              Women have a hard time getting jobs in the biological sciences? Wow, guess my female Biochem professor at college (who was born in the 1910s), my female OrgChem and QuantAnalysis professors, and my female senior thesis advisor, who was one of the top researchers in the country in understanding nutrition and GI tract morphology, didn’t get the memo. Women are approaching parity if not beginning to dominate the biological sciences, they dominate the health care workforce, and they dominate veterinary science. Studies suggest this trend will continue in the fields of law and business. My lab in grad school had more women than men, both as PhD students and as post-docs. By the way, none of the female grad students in my lab went on to pursue an academic research career. Jobs where women make up a minority is due predominantly to the risk/reward breakdown of the field in question, and in areas where there is limited ability to take time off for childbirth and rearing and return to the workforce w/o measurable decrement in capability or knowledge. Steven Pinker has an excellent lecture available on youtube regarding differences between men and women, I recommend you listen to it. Jordan Peterson has also lectured extensively on this. Complaints by women of being held down are IMO, coming from individuals with middle of the road skills and intellect who claim sexism because they are being passed over for more qualified candidates. This will only increase now that we have multiple age cohorts accustomed to participation trophies.


    4. “One day there may be a rule that at least one man must be allowed to participate in college and university activities.”

      Louise, I look forward to the day. I expect that the inclusion of the one male will be made out of fairness, not due to dictate.

  2. Well, I was thinking that define a new gender subset and will sport some strange new physiological doodads. How is that boring panel of mere males and females going to represent me and all that stuff I got going on down there now??? Surely and outrage. Outrage I tell you. Panties are all twisted up around… well, whatever that all is.

  3. “The George Washington University and the Elliott School recognize the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion within and beyond the university.” —both “within and beyond”…

    So, check your privilege, white men.

    Oh, and the privilege of being a legal US citizen? Check that privilege too. I see the College Park Maryland City Council just voted to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Not just green card holders, but any illegal undocumented resident can now vote. Because, you know, they are ‘promoting diversity and inclusion’….so now the privileges of being a citizen are also meaningless.

    And we have Hillary running around screaming about the endemic sexism and misogyny that kept her out of the Oval Office. You know, because ‘it’s the misogyny, stupid.’

    White men, gird your loins.

    1. I doubt Maryland state law devolves to municipal governments (which are unimportant petty service providers in Maryland and absent most places) a franchise to determine voting eligibility.

  4. I dream of the day when I live in a world where someone’s gender, bedroom habits, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, or sexual orientation doesn’t matter in the workplace or university. Some day, people might get admitted to school, hired, retained, given a raise, and/or promoted purely on merit. People will be friends with one another based solely on their character and actions. One day, skin color will matter as little as hair color – a source of beauty and wondrous variety.

    It is a slippery slope for gender be a requirement for a university panel, admissions, or work. I’ve made the same argument against the Catholic Church requiring that all priests be male. I wondered why any male fresh out of seminary would do, but Mother Theresa could not be a priest. A deacon, yes. A saint, yes. But not a priest.

    Once you require panels be mixed gender, then by the same logic, they will be required to be a mixture of races, sexual orientation, sexual identity, ethnicity, etc. They will find themselves at a point where they need a physics panel, but in order to fill all the requirements of the panel, they will have transvestites, cis gender, bi-sexual, gay, heterosexual, non binary gender, female, African American, and Latino. Out of a panel of 12, they will manage to scrape together the right superficial requirements but not be able to fill it with 12 of the top experts on physics.

    So I ask you, what the heck does gender or race or anything else have to do with most academic topics? I could care less what gender a professor is; I just want to learn. When I was a woman in college, we had the attitude of gender gets left at the door and it’s all about what you can do. So prove yourself.

    1. “Social Engineering” and “Redistribution of Wealth” have only to do with the inexorable imposition of the principles of the Communist Manifesto and the complete abrogation of freedom, free enterprise, limited government, taxation only for General Welfare – not Individual Welfare, the right to private property “…in the exclusion of every other individual…” and the entirety of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.

  5. “Affirmative Action Privilege” is unconstitutional and must be abolished with extreme prejudice.

    “Affirmative Action Privilege” is not freedom and free enterprise, but dictatorship.

  6. “That could easily be viewed as a form of discrimination against someone who would otherwise be the most qualified participant.”


    Oh, sweet naivete, don’t you see that the “right” gender or race is the most qualifying factor — merit be damned. This is the Left’s version of a coup against their white male “oppressors.” Only a blind guy could miss it. Of course,it will fail miserably like the Reign of Terror but like that insanity, it will claim more than a few victims. Here’s hoping for a very Robespierean ending for this group of Montagnards!

    1. mespo – could the guillotine in the courtyard be far behind? That would certainly make sure the offenders took him seriously.

  7. There are gender fluid people also. So, some of those panelists should just claim they were “women” for that time and call it a day. Problem solved!

    1. I keep wondering why there isn’t a huge pushback by the LGBT+ infinity community against those claiming gender fluidity. I mean, you can’t be born that way (girl in a boys body) if people choose their gender based on how they feelz in the morning.

  8. These days, “gender” and “sex” have two different meanings.

    Are the panels required to be diverse in sex or diverse with regards to “gender?” If “gender” is the only qualification, then the solution is simple: any person at risk of being removed can just claim the gender identity of the opposite sex. There are no legal requirements which must be fulfilled in order to claim any gender identity.

    These days, thanks to ridiculous and dangerous laws which pander to pseudoscientific gender ideology, a person’s gender identity trumps their actual biological sex and must be recognized by law — but luckily anyone can claim any gender identity at any time, switching back and forth at their convenience.

    1. I think we should have flexible genders for these stupid policies. How many “Its” do you have to have? As an aside, can you image this numbskull representing our interests as an ambassador?

      1. Ambassadors apparently chosen because of the money they donate or prestige. Not having to be fluent in the country or even being slightly with its history.

  9. Is there a way to block the commenters who post again and again and again, just attacking other posters and never adding new ideas?

  10. The Nuns will have to take in men as nuns. To distinguish they can capitalize “Nun” for femailes and “nun” for men and “none” for those who wish to have sex.
    Dogs call catholics: cat o licks. I call all priests: pedophiles. Nuff said, it is getting ugly.

  11. In engineering and math, colleges aren’t able to entice enough women to join their ranks with scholarships and other accommodations. This then trickles to the PhD ranks as well.

    For every one female in the industry you will have 10 white males and 15 Asian males.

    There are brilliant females in the industry but not enough to sustain such a bynine rule like this.

  12. This sounds like reverse discrimination. Prof. Turley sez “I have been reportedly told that panels were changed because there was a need to add a panelist due to their race or gender. In truth, I have generally found that the replacement was equally qualified as the person dropped.”

    That might be true in academia, but my experience in the business world has been wholly different. Way too often a person was selected because of their race or gender irregardless of their qualifications. And everyone — including the person chosen — suffered in the long run because the person couldn’t do the job. Totally undermined morale.

    1. My experience has been like yours, Autumn, but JT is working in the legal world. Women are well suited and generally well represented (until they have to make choices re family, then it gets dicey). Same re minorities, although I will make no claims re representation vis a vis percentage of population. Other professional fields, especially upper levels maths and science, not so much. Women gravitate to fields with lots of social interaction, and in which their emotionality will not be a serious negative factor.

    2. Oh, one more thing I forgot to add. I try to read a few military blogs to get some perspective on foreign relations etc. from retired military officers. Perhaps this is just the ones I read and not a widespread opinion, but retired military officers (with any background in intelligence) generally have no patience for individuals with degrees in international relations. The latter are considered white tower academics with no real-world experience or understanding of facts on the ground. Just my take away; YMMV. If I can find some actual quotes, I’ll come back and repost.

      1. An IR scholar and a military officer have different skill sets. The military officer has more robust operational measures of competence. A great deal of IR concerns matters outside the purview of soldiers. It is true that force is the ultimate arbiter and as a rule most IR scholars have a weak understanding of the practical aspect of bringing force to bear and what the actuarial calculations regarding the use of force should actually be. This was bruited about during the Reagan Administration when it was noted that the military tended to be more conservative than the State Department about the use of force abroad. (As the military had been re VietNam in 1960). It’s atypical for professors born after 1938 to have a history in the military and especially atypical for those born after 1952. One IR scholar who I think may have been a combat veteran was Douglas MacDonald at Colgate. I see he’s retired, though.

  13. Squeeky raises an important point. How many genders have to be represented. And this is clearly going to mess with the Gender Studies program. They don’t want men on the platform.

  14. Just as with affirmative action, adjusting the genders and races at the top will prove to be a fool’s errand if a supply of credible candidates is not created. It all starts at the beginning. However, the top is the place to start. Affirmative action has done more to fast track the integration of Blacks into the professional levels than anything else. The greatest incentive a young minority student can have is to see an example of what is possible.

    How much of our society is wrong due to the status quo: our election process/oligarchy, our health care system/oligarchy, our education system/overly administered, our basic standard of living/ever lower, our basic quality of life/work way more than most other countries for way less, lots of cheap big screen TVs and cheap gas though.

    1. Ding-a-ling! You said, “The greatest incentive a young minority student can have is to see an example of what is possible.”

      Sooo, to accomplish that, we hire them, not because of their legitimate achievements, but because of their color? Sooo, why go to school, and study hard, and work hard, when you can get the reward by the simple virtue of being a Negro?

      Guess what, Isaac? You’re nothing but a racissst! Because you don’t think Blacks can achieve anything unless Mighty Whitey intervenes on their behalf.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. So, I’m a racist to be able to understand that ‘Mighty Whitey’ enslaved them, segregated them, and otherwise kept them down for centuries and should do something about it. That just makes you stupid. By the way, I grew up in Canada and France, watching people like you argue for the status quo. We watched while you cheered on the ones that made it through the lynchings, beatings, being banned from just about everywhere. You would have fit right in in Alabama, in the ’60s of the 19th or the 20th Centuries.

        1. No, YOU would fit right into the 60’s of the 19th or the 20th centuries because that is where you already live! In the past. Guess what, dude? It ain’t 1960 no more. The current year is 2017! That is well into the 21st Century!

          Blacks have been going to white schools for decades now, and they can even vote and stuff! And you know what? The stupid black idiots, in the 21st century, are sitting there popping out 72% of their kids out of wedlock, and into single earner households, and then complaining that it is the slavery, the lynchings, the Confederate flag, the Confederate statues, Institutionalized Racism, White Privilege, and all sorts of damn foolishness EXCEPT their own trashy behavior that is the cause of their economic disadvantage..

          And part of the reason Blacks don’t have to face up to their own pathetic failings, is people like YOU! People who secretly don’t believe that black girls can really be expected to take the free birth control pill every day, like she is supposed to. You know, because they’re such a primitive and simple people.

          Go look in the mirror, you raaacisssst!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

            1. No. Being “stump dumb”, is when a person thinks that merely calling someone “stump dumb” constitutes a valid argument, or a valid response to an argument. For example, a person like YOU! Who lacks the mental capacity to form logical arguments.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

          1. You really exposed yourself this time. Most of the time you just dance around masking your true self behind rhymes and base humor. You might seek some counseling; and be very careful of where you go with that rant. Believe it or not, some worlds are even narrower than yours. Be safe. Be quiet.

            1. You mean, that I shouldn’t say that sort of thing around Black people? Because they might go bonkers and kill me, or something? Or maybe I shouldn’t say things like that around Antifa, or SJWs? Because they will lay a baseball bat upside my head? Once again, it is YOU who has exposed yourself!

              You are scared to death that if the whole Victimology Narrative dies, then you will not get to go prissing around playing your sick, mentally-ill, Munchausen-by-Proxy-Sundrome “Mighty Whitey, Savior of Downtrodden Negroes!” game.

              Lookl Why don’t you just get into the whole dressing up like an animal, you know the Furries, scene? That way you can do sick things without hurting other people! Because enabling people to avoid confronting the reality of their own bad choices hurts them.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. Squeeky is frequently abrasive, but all I see here is that you, one more time, hide behind the magic argument trap door of “ur raysisst.” She puts some stats out there, why not rebut them, or challenge them, or something besides hiding behind “sensitivity.” We’re not talking religion here, no leap of faith. Either put up an argument or move along.

              I argue for arguing’s sake. I’ll argue either side, and have here. Squeeky makes a tough argument. You attack one part of it, and it just opens up a whole new can of worms that have to be rationalized. So argue already and quit hiding.

              1. slohrss

                There are no stats, just a rant. She throws every lump of drek she can get her hands on. She negates herself with her mindless ranting. I’ve been around from when it was very rare to see a Black in a professional position to now where it is almost common place. That didn’t happen without affirmative action. There’s your stat. It wasn’t only affirmative action of course.

                1. Just because you disagree with her doesn’t make her comments a “rant”. Your comments are generally unintelligible and incoherent, however.

                  1. FFS responded to issacbasonkavich’s comment: “Your comments are generally unintelligible and incoherent, however.”

                    Just because you said it, doesn’t mean it’s true, FFS.

                    (And I happen to disagree with your assessment.)

                    1. frankly – issac has a blind spot when it comes to Pres. Trump. He also is almost totally ignorant of American civics. He may have a grasp of Canadian civics. He could’ve run Hillary’s campaign.

                2. Yes, you were around when there were fewer Black professionals, and maybe in 1965, and even up to 1985 or so, affirmative action made some sense. But once you got more black professionals, then as you said it, ” The [] young minority student can had [] an example of what is possible.”

                  And what did those “young minority students” do with that wonderful example??? Those “young minority students” increased the illegitimate birth rate from about 40+% up to 70+%, and even as high as 84% in the pro-slavery, Confederate-loving, racist, Jim Crow stronghold of Minneapolis. Those “young minority students” began bailing on education, considering it to be “acting white.”

                  Sooo, did your mind change anywhere along the way? Did your thinking ever evolve? Hell no, you are still prattling on the same nonsense that you were back in 1965, even though more than 50 years have gone by. So I am left with several ways to look at you, and why you are still stuck back in 1965. One, you could just be very stupid. Two, you could just be such a partisan shill that you will parrot the Democratic Party Line without regard to Truth. Three, you are severely mentally ill, as opposed to being stupid, and are sooo anal-retentive and sooo Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy-ed to the point where you can not imagine a life where you are not playing Mighty-Whitey Savior of Downtrodden Negroes.”

                  In the natural course of life and time, ideas and concepts that make sense in one time period may no longer make any sense as time goes on. For example, in 1941, maybe it made sense to hate Germans and Japs and to want to kill them by millions. But that idea should have given way after the war, to be replaced by ideas of conciliation, and peace. Because time moved on. And anybody who 50 years later was still hating on Germans and Japs, we think those people maybe have some mental issues going on. If those people were still pulling scabs off World War II in say, 1995, we would positively think there was something wrong with them. Because life had moved on.

                  That’s who you are, Issac. And Betty Kath, and several others here. You guys are living in the past, and you love to sit around and pull scabs off things like the Civil War, Robert E. Lee, slavery, lunch counter discrimination. You haven’t noticed that the black illegitimate birth rate has soared to 72%, and that most black kids could care less about getting a good education, or that large numbers of those poor downtrodden Negroes have turned into a group of murderous savages and criminals.

                  Because you guys aren’t living in 2017. I am not even sure that you are sane. You take someone like Trayvon Martin, who was banging somebody’s head into a concrete sidewalk, and then whine and put on hoodies and sackcloth and ashes when the little monster gets shot.

                  You need to go take a long hard look in the mirror. Because your out-of-date ideas are only encouraging and enabling bad and destructive black behavior.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                    1. Out of wedlock births among white Anglos in the United States hit a plateau around about 2010 (at 30% of the total body of births).

                    2. As usual, you provide non sequiturs. No one is clamoring for the inclusion of poor uneducated white people to be better represented on school panels, or anything else. No one is clamoring for more welfare for whites because Rich People Privilege. Like is sooo common with you, you miss the point of things. And, you substitute a link for substantive arguments.

                      I truly believe, SWM, that you have a brain. Why you choose to not use it is a mystery to me.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    1. Before. I left the Dems in 2010 and vote 3rd party or R because I can’t stand the local Dem candidates. I’ve always been anti-interventionist, and liberal WRT social issues up to the current battles over free speech/revisionist history/special pleading. My thinking has most recently been informed by reading stuff by Jean Twenge and Benjamin Barber, as well as random, varied stuff on addiction and adverse effects of technology on learning and empathy. I’ve never engaged in identity politics, and the whinging over the last election really cemented for me the idea of mass delusion and the balkanization of American people by social media, La La Land, and the LSM. Then I stumbled across Prof. J Peterson’s Maps of Meaning podcasts and his talks on free/mandated speech on youtube last fall, then found interviews with Professor Sowell, and was very impressed. Wish I’d found him 30 years ago. (Sorry, brevity is not my forte.)

                    2. Thanks Cape Cod. You certainly are a late comer, but better late than never. I don’t like either party much, but the Dems have moved so far to the left that it is impossible to look at the party without almost total disbelief.

                    3. I’d say the same thing about Republicans moving so far to the right. Especially good if you want a fascist dictatorship, which I suspect every Trump follower wants in his heart of hearts. Who wants that pesky separation of powers? “We want strong arm totalitarianism NOW!”

              2. She puts some stats out there, why not rebut them,

                No, she has a single datum she recycles in post after post. Squeakkky actually is confounded by statistical data.

                1. No, I am not confounded by statistics. I just think that sometimes statistics miss the point. And sometimes they are flatly wrong. And one single datum that I keep recycling is a very important one, and obviously the importance and relevance of that one single datum has not sunk in on many people. Sooo, I will continue to thump on it.

                  In your world, you can come to decisions about a topic like crime, by sitting in a windowless room, and compiling and analyzing various data sets. You then arrive at a conclusion. You will determine, for example, that there is very little chance of a cop getting killed on the job. I submit that your conclusions will differ greatly from that of a cop, who is out there daily working in that environment.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

          2. Isaac, sometimes the way Squeeky says things can make me cringe, but she is removing the veneer off of the self-rightous. Self-rightousness often comes from from a lack of self esteem or is a cowardly way of enterring the conversation. I think, Issac you are a decent person, but your attitudes increase racisim, not decrease them. This nation made a mistake and paid for it with 600,000 lives. The English speaking world called for the end to slavery and has raised the economic standard of living for the entire world.

            No one or nation acts appropriately 100% of the time so you will always find things to pick away at. It is my belief that racism was becomming mostly non-existent before Obama except for those so old they could not change. Since Obama and the people who appear to be of your ilk took control, racism became more prominent.

            That is because some people like to play the race card or use the race card to further their ambitions. Should we call those people the New Racists?

            1. Allan:

              You said, “That is because some people like to play the race card or use the race card to further their ambitions. Should we call those people the New Racists?”

              You are so right about that. I used to think the cynical race card players were the main group keeping the Racism Narrative alive, but as time goes on I am beginning to wonder if the real villain are the ones for whom the “Racism Narrative” has just become their psychic crutch, the center of their whole life, their idee’ fixe.

              Isaac reminds me of Humbert Humbert, from the Lolita novel. He affects a sophisticated personnae, but underneath he is a complete mental mess, who is obsessed with blacks, the way that Humbert was obsessed with Lolita. Remember the look on James Mason’s face when he finally found Lolita three years later, and there she was this fat, pregnant mundane little hausfrau? And maybe, or maybe not, he realized that every thing he ever believed about her was all in his own head.

              I picture Isaac that way, and not just him, but several other commenters here. Except, their “strong, but downtrodden and oppressed, black woman” is revealed in the penultimate scene as Lakeesha-weesha, a 300 pound ghettopotamus, with 4 illegitimate little savages running around, and she’s laid up in the bed with some dude she just brought home to help pay the water bill before it gets off. And, on the TV screen in the background, is a Crime Stoppers spot featuring – you guessed it! – Lakeeshaweesha stuffing bottles of booze down her blouse and in her pants at a local liquor store. Something like:

              And then Isaac, faced with the choice faced by all those victims of Gross Cognitive Dissonance, must either finally cut bait with the whole Black Worship thing once and for all, or double down and start making excuses and calling other people names, sooo that he can continue to believe the silly stuff he has been believing for nigh on 60 years.

              Isaac, and others, faced with that choice, figuratively speaking, put on their hoodies, buy a bag of Skittles, and hit the streets!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. ” the ones for whom the “Racism Narrative” has just become their psychic crutch, the center of their whole life, their idee’ fixe.”

                You got it exactly right Squeeky. I believe them to be the New Racists that believe in their own superiority to such a degree that racism is an integral part of their lives.

                You seem to be extremely well read, something that should be more common among bloggers. You definitely need to get married and have children so that human intellectual ability isn’t extinguished by all these PC nuts and New Racists.

                1. Thank you, Allan! I try to read a lot. My goodness, but I am sooo many books behind that it isn’t funny. Plus, I am trying to get good at Sudoku to improve my math skills. I swear, I put the wrong darn number in the little box so often, even on the simple ones! I guess I should stop trying to do them in pen like I do the crossword, cryptogram, and jumbles.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                    1. I think it also helps you spot incongruities and patterns. Plus, the crossword is verbal, the cryptogram is verbal-logical, the jumbles are verbal, and the sudoku makes you use some other part of your brain other than the verbal. Sooo, I figure I give my mind a good workout. Kakuro and ken-kens are fun, too.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                  1. Squeeky, Sudoku is nice, but rather easy just like cryptograms which eventually turns into clear English without even using a pen or pencil. Your mind is very active and imaginative. You probably aren’t that bad in math, just possibly a lot better in in the liberal arts field. You are logical and that is the essence that is too often missed in some artsy folk.

                    1. I think if I just concentrated on them, without constant interruptions, I could do better. But there is always a phone call, or Penelope needs something typed, or needs me to come in and do intake on a new client, or go to court with her, or my mom needs scheduling help, or the birds and squirrels need feeding, or the cat pan needs cleaning out. Plus, I usually have two or three things going on in my mind at any one time. And more if I am wired up on coffee.

                      I do have this fear about cryptograms, that one day, I will come across one that I can’t solve, because some of those short ones can be hard. It’s never happened yet, but I have this unnatural fear that it will one day, and I will go down in history as a cretin or something. I wonder where thoughts like that come from??? Because that is a very stupid thing to worry about. It’s just a puzzle.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. With all those things you do Squeeky, how do you find time to work or the energy to work if the job requires any?

                      “down in history as a cretin or something”

                      You don’t have to worry. Not everyone can be a cretin and there are enough on this list that qualify that the list will run out of room before you get there.

    2. “Affirmative action has done more to fast track the integration of Blacks into the professional levels than anything else. ”

      On the otherhand before LBJ Blacks were integrating into the professions. What about those affirmative action Blacks that got into schools that were above their heads, not because they were less intellgent rather they were less trained as to what they were going to face. People failed where they would have greatly succeeded in another top notch school. What about the stigmata attached to a Black person when people wonder if he got where he was through his own efforts or through affirmative action.

      I have no problem in helping disadvantaged folk, but there are better ways then misfitting an individual with a university. In any event affirmative action was supposed to be temporary, but that is no longer the case.

      1. allan

        Affirmative action was and never will be the end all to the problems. Of course people have to overcome adversity and that is what makes some of our greatest citizens of the world, not only the US. However, in a society where being White was and to some degree still is an advantage, given the atrocious ways in which Blacks were kept down by Whites and to some degree still do; regardless of all the lost causes, allowing Blacks who are not in the top 5% but perhaps in the top 10% a shot at a once White only profession, is a move in the right direction. Any ‘fix’ can be abused and sometimes fall short. However, without affirmative action for the past few generations, there would be no where near the numbers of Black professionals and far more angry and capable Blacks festering away in low level jobs where they could easily perform as well as any other race, including the White race. Affirmative action is one imperfect move but a move that has paid off. A problem that took centuries to build up will not be eradicated in one century. It will take many generations and many moves in different ways to fix this. And, of course the vanguard doing the fixing must be the Blacks themselves.

        1. issac – you think being white is the end all and be all in America, you must read J.D, Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy. For most of us, it will be eye-opening. That includes me.

        2. “a shot at a once White only profession”

          Why Harvard? Why not University of Michigan which might be better for some? Why not look at where the deficiencies are and fix them with extra education so they excell in the areas that you are talking about. If you wish to end racism then you want those affected by racism to excel, not to be mediocre or poor. The latter defeats the purpose and that is in part where your solution leads.

          “without affirmative action for the past few generations, there would be no where near the numbers of Black professionals ”

          What proof do you have? Did you ever look at the research done pre and post Great Society? Do you realize how many law schools there are looking for students?

          Not getting into Harvard doesn’t mean that the individual needs to work at a low level job. Why should a well to do minority get the benefit of the poor minority or someone who is poor?

          You are acting as if Black people don’t have the same intellectual ability as white people. They do. They don’t need you to run their lives.

          1. allan,

            It’s curious that you accuse Issac of, “. . . acting as if Black people don’t have the same intellectual ability as white people.”

            Then, after gracefully admitting that, “[t]hey do”, you state that, “[t]hey don’t need you to run their lives.”

            What makes this exchange curious is that just above @ 1:44 PM you show concern for, “the stigmata [sic] attached to a Black person when people wonder if he got where he was through his own efforts or through affirmative action.”

            It’s gracious of you to be concerned about the ‘stigma’ a black person might be carrying because people, like yourself, wonder how they arrived at their standing.

            But, why is this anticipated stigma a concern of yours? Is this something you want to ‘protect’ black people from out of your altruistic nature?

            Doesn’t this concern of “Black people” being ‘stigmatized’ contradict your prior claims?

            P.S. Get a dictionary, your use of ‘stigmata’ reveals much ignorance.

            1. Otis, what I said is exactly correct.

              “It’s gracious of you to be concerned about the ‘stigma’ a black person might be carrying because people, like yourself, wonder how they arrived at their standing.”

              I wonder how anyone arrives at where they are. When I go to a doctor I want to go to one that was well trained. I don’t want to go to one who wasn’t and enterred medical school solely because of his money, his family, affirmative action or any other reason not based on merit.

              You like the word ignorance, so explain your own since you don’t you don’t seem to grasp what a contradiction is.

              Go ahead Otis, explain yourself a bit better. If you wish you can claim victimhood as well no matter what made you the victim. We all suffer from inequity, but the worst is those that suffer from terminal stupidity

  15. Under the dean’s approach, a scientific panel made up of Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi and Louis Pastuer would be banned. Replacing Einstein with Kim Kardashian would make the panel acceptable.

    A panel of inventors including Thomas Edison, Nickolai Tesla and the Wright brothers could not occur unless Lady Gaga was added to the forum.

    Our panel of industrialists would consist of John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Calamity Jane.

    I could go on. Other examples are welcome.

      1. And I will.

        A panel of jurists consisting of Sandra Day O’Connor, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be incomplete without the addition of Eddie Van Halen.

        1. OK, not a huge fan, but Van Halen is a more adept musician than Ginsburg a judge. And that’s saying a lot coming from me. Instead of Van Halen, how about Keith Richards?

      1. You do realize that the old LGBT acronym is now. . . LGBTQIAPK: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, Pansexual and Kink.

        But, I am finally an official sexual minority because I am “asexual”, although I kind of just prefer “celibate.” Because who knows if I might decide to hook up one of these years particularly if I am out and get drunk enough. . . Celibacy comes and celibacy goes, but I am not sure that “asexuality” does.

        But still, it is kind of fun knowing that I am an official victim now for two reasons- being a woman and being asexual. Sooo, everybody feel sorry for me, and visit my Patreon Page*!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        * I just remembered that I don’t have a Patreon Page, sooo if you feel sorry for me for being a victim, just make a contribution to the ASPCA, or your local non-lethal dog, cat, and critter shelter.

          1. Well, I am probably not a victim, and I may not be celibate forever. But frankly, I am just a lot happier not having to mess around with a boyfriend. I can go to bed when I want, and get up when I want, and watch what I want to on TV, and do what I want to in life. Plus, you don’t have to listen to some dork tell you how you ought to behave, and how you ought to dress, and all that crap.

            IMO, the only reason to get married is to raise children, and that is probably the only good thing that I am missing out on. Maybe I have some form of Aspergers or something, because I am quite happy being alone. I can socialize and be the life of the party if I want to, but at the end of the day, there ain’t gonna be no after-party. I don’t figure that women will always have this choice in life, and one of these decades, when we get our Hitler, abortion and birth control will be banned as part of the effort to put the country back on a sane course. I am just waiting for this to happen in Japan, which I think will make this move in the next 20 years or so.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky – well, you could have a friend with benefits or you could just steal a child and raise it on your own. If you go for the latter, you would have to be quick, mother’s don’t leave their babies unattended for long. 🙂

              1. I’m not a gypsy! 🙂 Plus, I think little kids need a father in the home. Most women are crazy in one way or another, and are only going to raise screwed-up kids by and large. Particularly if they were raised in single mother homes, too.

                Squeeky Fromm]
                Girl Reporter

                    1. Louise – you have to move into the 21st Century. This has to do with what is mutually beneficial for both parties.

            2. You do realize Squeeky that a house and an apartment can come with more than one room, right? It is nice to have a compatible mate and sometimes even children are a nice addition.They can produce more children that one can enjoy, but one doesn’t have to care for.

        1. You’d have to lose about 150 pounds first to actually have a choice regarding your celibacy.

          Not that this applies to you, but never underestimate the wisdom of those with experience.

        2. It must be sad to be 49 years old and never been kissed. Maybe one day Prince Charming will wander into an estate sale and fall in love with the fat, nasty, vicious woman behind the counter, despite her haranguing and abusing her own customers. Especially the ones with children or are monorities. Now who would want to kiss someone like that?

      1. The truth of the matter, I am not sure the pendulum ever really swung. I think most people are too busy taking care of their own lives to worry about a bunch of people with freaky sexual proclivities. You may see a lot of stories in the paper, or on TV about the various problems supposedly faced by the Queer Set, but that is because there are a lot of queer journalists and they think every body is obsessed by the same sick stuff they are.

        Our local paper must be chugging full of queers because they are always running some sort of pro-tranny, pro queer nonsense but I don’t think anybody ever reads that stuff beyond a few queers. Which is one reason why newspapers are falling on hard times. They seem to be out of touch with real life. and what real people are interested in.

        Most people will just go along with whatever the prevailing social moods are in the country, but when push comes to shove, they ain’t sending their young boys out in the woods with gay scout leaders. No more than liberals are going to send their kids to inner city schools, or move the family into predominantly black neighborhoods. Regardless of all the Tolerant Diversity speechifying and chest-thumping they do.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Oh the irony! The ideology of homosexuality is complete nonsense. Homosexuality does not perpetuate the race. Homosexuality is self-terminating.

          1. George: Oh the irony! The ideology of homosexuality is complete nonsense. Homosexuality does not perpetuate the race. Homosexuality is self-terminating.

            So is birth control and menopause and erectile dysfunction among heterosexuals. Shall we call the “ideology of heterosexuality complete nonsense, too?

            “I am not sure the pendulum ever really swung. I think most people are too busy taking care of their own lives to worry about a bunch of people with freaky sexual proclivities.”

            Certain Christians, especially, are never too busy to worry about someone’s “freaky sexual proclivities.” They thrive on them; they live for them; they can’t imagine life without them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.