Princeton under investigation by department of education

[Ostroeuropa]

Following a series of statements from faculty about how Princeton is a racist institution and how racism is embedded into their university, the department of education has opened an investigation into the university noting that racist education institutions are prohibited from receiving federal funding. They have requested that the faculty supply the evidence they used to reach this conclusion.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4764414 ... from_embed

I have to say it's pretty top-tier bantz from the administration here. Progressive faculty will either be forced to backpeddle and claim they were making it all up, or actively argue for they should lose their federal funding. Alternatively, they can argue that things like Title 9 and Title 6 should be repealed.

If this works it could form a new way for administration to crack down on progressive identity politics in institutions. I don't actually see a way out in terms of how they would argue this case.

They have also demanded that the university provide a list of names, contact details, and so on of all persons their university has discriminated against since 2013 and an estimation of the damage they did that person and what financial compensation would be appropriate, citing the faculties statements that "the universities racism does damage to minority students". Essentially forcing the university to either concede a lawsuit before it is even filed, or to provide a list with 0 names on it. If they try and be clever and argue "Literally all the minorities are damage from racism", the administration can note they are non-compliant and were asked for names, and that they do in fact have a database that tells them "All the minority students names", so they should put them on the list and assign a monetary compensation they think is appropriate to each one.

GZ guys, you won. The administration is taking you seriously about being a racist institution. They're going to stick up for the minorities you damaged and force you to compensate them.

Eventually this kind of tactic might make people realize hiring identity politics types is a liability.

[Loben III]

This should be entertaining,

[Ostroeuropa]

This should be entertaining,

What do you think they'll go with? I personally expect they'll be non-compliant and just shout endlessly, repeat their nonsense talking points, lash out at Trump and "fascism" and so on. Non-compliance is really their only way to save face here and they can go around pretending the administration cracked down (And probably arrested some faculty for ignoring subpoenas) on them for doing nothing wrong.

If they comply with the investigation, they're completely fucked. Either they have to say they were making it all up and princeton isn't racist, or they have to shell out millions and millions in compensation and lose their federal funding.

[Loben III]

This should be entertaining,

What do you think they'll go with? I personally expect they'll be non-compliant and just shout endlessly, repeat their nonsense talking points, lash out at Trump and "fascism" and so on. Non-compliance is really their only way to save face here and they can go around pretending the administration cracked down (And probably arrested some faculty for ignoring subpoenas) on them for doing nothing wrong.

If they comply with the investigation, they're completely fucked. Either they have to say they were making it all up and princeton isn't racist, or they have to shell out millions and millions in compensation and lose their federal funding.

If they are smart about their public image they will comply

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you think they'll go with? I personally expect they'll be non-compliant and just shout endlessly, repeat their nonsense talking points, lash out at Trump and "fascism" and so on. Non-compliance is really their only way to save face here and they can go around pretending the administration cracked down (And probably arrested some faculty for ignoring subpoenas) on them for doing nothing wrong.

If they comply with the investigation, they're completely fucked. Either they have to say they were making it all up and princeton isn't racist, or they have to shell out millions and millions in compensation and lose their federal funding.

If they are smart about their public image they will comply

I disagree. Compliance means the end of them one way or the other. By ignoring reality and just retreating into spouting their ideological talking points while not complying with the investigation they will be able to still be seen as "The good guys" by their fellow ideologues.

Their public image is already tarnished by everyone who opposes their ideology and fellow ideologues are the only supporters they have left. But if they comply it will be the end of them, either because they will need to deny the university is racist, or fork out millions of dollars in compensation and bankrupt their institution.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

https://www.deccanherald.com/internatio ... 89267.html

Princeton University suffers from systemic racism...against whites, Asians, and Jews (who are by and large considered white). Racist universities that teach progressive bigotry should be defunded. It is time for whites and Asians to demand equality and racial redress for all students, not just blacks and Hispanics. Asian Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. The same goes for male students whose due process rights are under sustained assault from the woke establishment. Men's Lives Matter.

KAG. Four More Years.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If they are smart about their public image they will comply

I disagree. Compliance means the end of them one way or the other. By ignoring reality and just retreating into spouting their ideological talking points while not complying with the investigation they will be able to still be seen as "The good guys" by their fellow ideologues.

Their public image is already tarnished by everyone who opposes their ideology and fellow ideologues are the only supporters they have left. But if they comply it will be the end of them, either because they will need to deny the university is racist, or fork out millions of dollars in compensation and bankrupt their institution.

I see you endorse "deplatforming" now. They defend their pedestal or they get toppled.

I'm still on the fence about this. Better place to be than on a platform or pedestal.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree. Compliance means the end of them one way or the other. By ignoring reality and just retreating into spouting their ideological talking points while not complying with the investigation they will be able to still be seen as "The good guys" by their fellow ideologues.

Their public image is already tarnished by everyone who opposes their ideology and fellow ideologues are the only supporters they have left. But if they comply it will be the end of them, either because they will need to deny the university is racist, or fork out millions of dollars in compensation and bankrupt their institution.

I see you endorse "deplatforming" now. They defend their pedestal or they get toppled.

I'm still on the fence about this. Better place to be than on a platform or pedestal.

I'm in favor of deplatforming identity politics progressives and have been for a while.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This should be entertaining,

For you.

Others seeing your tag post will think "well this will be all shitposting until it gets locked"

You have prominence on this forum. It's time you lived up to it.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

https://www.deccanherald.com/international/world-news-politics/princeton-university-admitted-past-racism-now-it-is-under-investigation-889267.html

Princeton University suffers from systemic racism...against whites, Asians, and Jews (who are by and large considered white). Racist universities that teach progressive bigotry should be defunded. It is time for whites and Asians to demand equality and racial redress for all students, not just blacks and Hispanics. Asian Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. The same goes for male students whose due process rights are under sustained assault from the woke establishment. Men's Lives Matter.

KAG. Four More Years.

You were doing so well until you starting say "All Lives Matter" and then "KAG. Four More Years."

Never seen anyone lose my respect that fast.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I see you endorse "deplatforming" now. They defend their pedestal or they get toppled.

I'm still on the fence about this. Better place to be than on a platform or pedestal.

I'm in favor of deplatforming identity politics progressives and have been for a while.

You can't be in favor of deplatforming without being in favor of all its forms.
It is a tactic in the wide battlefield of individual speech, in which speech is all free but some speech drowns out other speech.
The "platform" amplifies an individual's speech. And I will not renounce that old model of media, just yet.
"Pay to be amplified" is ancient. Pay to mute speech is modern, it's only possible because of the vast amount of speech used to "mute".

I'm in favor of bad eugenicists and anti-vaxxers being muted, but not by law. I'm still on the fence about private enterprise who have funded one voice to prominence, or universities who have given the platform of academic rank to one voice, muting them for economic or reputational reasons.

This is not an easy issue. So much attention has been paid to government extending its powers in recent decades. But I'm rather forgiving of government, I think they're just trying to keep their share of power. Non-government powers have increased, as private enterprise and the people have obtained more information, acted on it, and gained more power. Power is control: individual power is control over one's individual environment (which is a choice in itself: they can move, get new friends, change jobs). Private enterprise operates all across the range of inanimate things (the rocks of miner) to individual consumers, and on to government, and beyond. Private enterprise surpasses nations, paying tax where it suits them best, operating sweatshops where the labor is skilled but cheap, influencing and sometimes overthrowing governments. Well you can see what I consider the greatest threat to individual liberty: it's the faction who are winning and set to conquer all.

IT has given everyone new options to control their environment. It's rather pathetic that you and I, individuals, glory so much in having a small audience, and speak as though it matters at all what we say. We have a small platform. Neither you nor I are prominent. It's enough for us, but it's a tiny fraction of the power we have to speak.

So yeah. Use deplatforming to go at your enemies, fight right on the front line of three or four expansionist factions (the people, media, government, private enterprise) and pretend that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" because it suits your combative mood. But when it's all said and dead, neither you nor I will be on the winning side. It will be twenty years from now and the new rulers will be some late entrant with a well-thought-out (ie AI) solution satisfactory too all the battered survivors. We live in the information age, and speech weak in information ... is nothing but noise.

[Vassenor]

https://www.deccanherald.com/international/world-news-politics/princeton-university-admitted-past-racism-now-it-is-under-investigation-889267.html

Princeton University suffers from systemic racism...against whites, Asians, and Jews (who are by and large considered white). Racist universities that teach progressive bigotry should be defunded. It is time for whites and Asians to demand equality and racial redress for all students, not just blacks and Hispanics. Asian Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. The same goes for male students whose due process rights are under sustained assault from the woke establishment. Men's Lives Matter.

KAG. Four More Years.

Define systemic racism in this context. What acts of the university are considered racist against those groups?

>progressive bigotry

...K.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm in favor of deplatforming identity politics progressives and have been for a while.

You can't be in favor of deplatforming without being in favor of all its forms.
It is a tactic in the wide battlefield of individual speech, in which speech is all free but some speech drowns out other speech.
The "platform" amplifies an individual's speech. And I will not renounce that old model of media, just yet.
"Pay to be amplified" is ancient. Pay to mute speech is modern, it's only possible because of the vast amount of speech used to "mute".

I'm in favor of bad eugenicists and anti-vaxxers being muted, but not by law. I'm still on the fence about private enterprise who have funded one voice to prominence, or universities who have given the platform of academic rank to one voice, muting them for economic or reputational reasons.

This is not an easy issue. So much attention has been paid to government extending its powers in recent decades. But I'm rather forgiving of government, I think they're just trying to keep their share of power. Non-government powers have increased, as private enterprise and the people have obtained more information, acted on it, and gained more power. Power is control: individual power is control over one's individual environment (which is a choice in itself: they can move, get new friends, change jobs). Private enterprise operates all across the range of inanimate things (the rocks of miner) to individual consumers, and on to government, and beyond. Private enterprise surpasses nations, paying tax where it suits them best, operating sweatshops where the labor is skilled but cheap, influencing and sometimes overthrowing governments. Well you can see what I consider the greatest threat to individual liberty: it's the faction who are winning and set to conquer all.

IT has given everyone new options to control their environment. It's rather pathetic that you and I, individuals, glory so much in having a small audience, and speak as though it matters at all what we say. We have a small platform. Neither you nor I are prominent. It's enough for us, but it's a tiny fraction of the power we have to speak.

So yeah. Use deplatforming to go at your enemies, fight right on the front line of three or four expansionist factions (the people, media, government, private enterprise) and pretend that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" because it suits your combative mood. But when it's all said and dead, neither you nor I will be on the winning side. It will be twenty years from now and the new rulers will be some late entrant with a well-thought-out (ie AI) solution satisfactory too all the battered survivors. We live in the information age, and speech weak in information ... is nothing but noise.

You seem to think that it's an all or nothing thing rather than a matter of pragmatism. Progressives are vastly overrepresented and have inundated society with their hatred and toxicity. We need a crackdown to redress this. I have no particular objection to them having platforms when they are monopolizing them less and when they are more suitably presented as what they are; a fringe group of hatemongers.

It is a corrective action I am proposing, not a perpetual policy. Think of it like anti-trust action. You can support anti-trust action without thinking all businesses must be totally atomized and destroyed because "If you support the principle you must support it in all instances regardless of context.".

Currently the progressive left is overrepresented by a massive amount and gatekeeping institutions, in addition their influence on society is harmful. It's time to break them up and reduce them to a statue more befitting them, namely 10% of the airtime and consideration and so on, 10% of the curriculum etc. Meanwhile the critics of progressive policy must have their views properly represented and acknowledged by these institutions as well.

Further, the laws and standards used to deplatform non-progressives being leveled at progressives for a change *would be* what you're advocating for by demanding it be consistent and applied everywhere.

For example, Frankie Boyle recently had a guest joke about killing white people on his programme. He wasn't punished, even by the BBC. Meanwhile, Dankulu goes to court for making a similar joke.

[Vassenor]

Also it takes a special kind of victim complex to look at an article about the university looking to redress the balance between the Eurocentric way it teaches history and how history actually is and start screaming about how that's racist against white people.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also it takes a special kind of victim complex to look at an article about the university looking to redress the balance between the Eurocentric way it teaches history and how history actually is and start screaming about how that's racist against white people.

It takes a special sort of victim complex to look at people discussing loneliness and how the dating scene is unfair to them and start screaming that they're actually misogynists. (Incels.).

This is a common tactic you guys use. Just because you are discussing something worth discussing it doesn't mean the manner in which you are doing so, the rhetoric you use, or the conclusions you reach are acceptable in polite society.

This is part of the reason people despise the progressive left and its stances on identity politics, they have poisoned the discussion of these topics and are preventing constructive discussion and solutions.

[Ethel mermania]

Use to be jews were the excluded ones based on race, now its the Chinese and korean's.

Welcome to America, the country the preaches fairness to individuals, but never does it.

[Valrifell]

What do you think they'll go with? I personally expect they'll be non-compliant and just shout endlessly, repeat their nonsense talking points, lash out at Trump and "fascism" and so on. Non-compliance is really their only way to save face here and they can go around pretending the administration cracked down (And probably arrested some faculty for ignoring subpoenas) on them for doing nothing wrong.

If they comply with the investigation, they're completely fucked. Either they have to say they were making it all up and princeton isn't racist, or they have to shell out millions and millions in compensation and lose their federal funding.

If they are smart about their public image they will comply

The public image of Princeton as a premiere Ivy League school with cutting edge STEM and medical research literally can not be tarnished due to it being several hundreds of years old. It will survive this scandal on sheer inertia alone. It is for similar reasons that UC Berkeley gets loads of interest and activity, something about having a lot of Nobel laureates is really appealing I guess.

It also won't go bankrupt, either, because the administration would be really stupid to drive one of their better universities to closure.

[Vassenor]

If they are smart about their public image they will comply

The public image of Princeton as a premiere Ivy League school with cutting edge STEM and medical research literally can not be tarnished due to it being several hundreds of years old. It will survive this scandal on sheer inertia alone. It is for similar reasons that UC Berkley gets loads of interest and activity, something about having a lot of Nobel laureates is really appealing I guess.

It also won't go bankrupt, either, because the administration would be really stupid to drive one of their better universities to closure.

But they're being insufficiently patriotic by admitting that the history of groups other than white people is worth studying.

[Valrifell]

The public image of Princeton as a premiere Ivy League school with cutting edge STEM and medical research literally can not be tarnished due to it being several hundreds of years old. It will survive this scandal on sheer inertia alone. It is for similar reasons that UC Berkley gets loads of interest and activity, something about having a lot of Nobel laureates is really appealing I guess.

It also won't go bankrupt, either, because the administration would be really stupid to drive one of their better universities to closure.

But they're being insufficiently patriotic by admitting that the history of groups other than white people is worth studying.

I just wish all this screaming at clouds wasn't so annoying to read.

[The Reformed American Republic]

https://www.deccanherald.com/international/world-news-politics/princeton-university-admitted-past-racism-now-it-is-under-investigation-889267.html

Princeton University suffers from systemic racism...against whites, Asians, and Jews (who are by and large considered white). Racist universities that teach progressive bigotry should be defunded. It is time for whites and Asians to demand equality and racial redress for all students, not just blacks and Hispanics. Asian Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. The same goes for male students whose due process rights are under sustained assault from the woke establishment. Men's Lives Matter.

KAG. Four More Years.

You were doing so well until you starting say "All Lives Matter" and then "KAG. Four More Years."

Never seen anyone lose my respect that fast.

This

[Washington Resistance Army]

What an absolute brainlet move from Princeton, good lord. They played themselves.

[The Reformed American Republic]

What an absolute brainlet move from Princeton, good lord. They played themselves.

They have good mental gymnastics teams.

[Picairn]

This investigation should provide universities an opportunity to reform affirmative action. The best forms of AA to me are only two: Income and Location. Students from low-income families and from remote regions should be given a hand up in admission.

[Valrifell]

I'm not understanding Request E, a convenient spreadsheet that lists anyone that was harmed due to race since 2013. It's not exactly like admissions or records' offices write notes that say "reason for rejection - race" on there. How is that enforceable? It would be impossible to know who was hypothetically negatively effected, even supposing that they would keep such records of events with all necessary contact information. Like, Princeton gets 35k+ admissions applications alone, I'm sure the total amount of paperwork the DoE is requesting they scour is far larger.

And again, there won't be a smoking gun because people don't openly reject applications and note that they were being racist about it. So I guess I'm just confused as to what anyone expects to find with this. They could easily turn up no names and get away with clarifying they are compliant with the specific provisions of the law and at the same time they were not misleading as their concerns are deeper than the letter of the law.

Request I is literally asking for names on who helped them write the letter, which I don't know but feels very skeevy. Gives me vague fears the government is going to try to force non-compliant academics out of academia, like they did in the Second Red Scare (F for Oppenheimer).

Anyway I don't think a letter from the President of Princeton warrented such a heavy-handed response in the first place, as it was essentially the run-of-the-mill "racism is bad and we here at [College] also think racism is bad and will fight it" message.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You can't be in favor of deplatforming without being in favor of all its forms.
It is a tactic in the wide battlefield of individual speech, in which speech is all free but some speech drowns out other speech.
The "platform" amplifies an individual's speech. And I will not renounce that old model of media, just yet.
"Pay to be amplified" is ancient. Pay to mute speech is modern, it's only possible because of the vast amount of speech used to "mute".

I'm in favor of bad eugenicists and anti-vaxxers being muted, but not by law. I'm still on the fence about private enterprise who have funded one voice to prominence, or universities who have given the platform of academic rank to one voice, muting them for economic or reputational reasons.

This is not an easy issue. So much attention has been paid to government extending its powers in recent decades. But I'm rather forgiving of government, I think they're just trying to keep their share of power. Non-government powers have increased, as private enterprise and the people have obtained more information, acted on it, and gained more power. Power is control: individual power is control over one's individual environment (which is a choice in itself: they can move, get new friends, change jobs). Private enterprise operates all across the range of inanimate things (the rocks of miner) to individual consumers, and on to government, and beyond. Private enterprise surpasses nations, paying tax where it suits them best, operating sweatshops where the labor is skilled but cheap, influencing and sometimes overthrowing governments. Well you can see what I consider the greatest threat to individual liberty: it's the faction who are winning and set to conquer all.

IT has given everyone new options to control their environment. It's rather pathetic that you and I, individuals, glory so much in having a small audience, and speak as though it matters at all what we say. We have a small platform. Neither you nor I are prominent. It's enough for us, but it's a tiny fraction of the power we have to speak.

So yeah. Use deplatforming to go at your enemies, fight right on the front line of three or four expansionist factions (the people, media, government, private enterprise) and pretend that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" because it suits your combative mood. But when it's all said and dead, neither you nor I will be on the winning side. It will be twenty years from now and the new rulers will be some late entrant with a well-thought-out (ie AI) solution satisfactory too all the battered survivors. We live in the information age, and speech weak in information ... is nothing but noise.

You seem to think that it's an all or nothing thing rather than a matter of pragmatism.

Well if you think that, you read my post very badly. You missed essential elements regarding the contention between different kinds of knowledge power.

But that's OK. I have never trusted you ideologically. And I'm not fully across this 'information warfare' method, so I should probably keep my powder dry.

Progressives are vastly overrepresented and have inundated society with their hatred and toxicity.

Fancy that. Citizens with more information at their disposal, subjugating the plain thinkers and outright morons of society.

That is so unjust. You should start a movement of under-appreciated artists and drag-racers and dissident economists and unemployed whalers.

We need a crackdown to redress this. I have no particular objection to them having platforms when they are monopolizing them less and when they are more suitably presented as what they are; a fringe group of hatemongers.

Yeah, well, I'm a leftist too, but I do not dig going after specific corporations for platforming speech that you (or I) do not like.

Nationalize the bastards. Fuck yeah. But I am not convinced Facebook or Google are bastards. They're just heads of a Medusa industry that is competing for power, with traditional material-based industries, the really quite large service industries, and government.

Speaking for government, I want this weird new industry based on the trade of information, on my side. I'm not for a crackdown.

It is a corrective action I am proposing, not a perpetual policy. Think of it like anti-trust action. You can support anti-trust action without thinking all businesses must be totally atomized and destroyed because "If you support the principle you must support it in all instances regardless of context.".

You want to hold back the tide. Give everyone else time to come up with a strategy.

I can respect that. I have always respected the "don't do that yet, let's all talk it over" kind of Conservative.

Currently the progressive left is overrepresented by a massive amount and gatekeeping institutions, in addition their influence on society is harmful. It's time to break them up and reduce them to a statue more befitting them, namely 10% of the airtime and consideration and so on, 10% of the curriculum etc. Meanwhile the critics of progressive policy must have their views properly represented and acknowledged by these institutions as well.

No. You're getting your ass kicked in the information age, by "progressives" who had the foresight to get themselves into under-paid and obscure positions of <information> power. And now you're whining that ... let's be frank ... you're too young and have wasted the years of adulthood available to you. You didn't go to college. That's someone else's fault.

Pick a side already. I'm with government. Private (for-profit) enterprise is the strongest player, but they also have the most to lose from the <information> army. I'm with the side that will still be there at the end. I'm with the indispensables. I'm with government!

Further, the laws and standards used to deplatform non-progressives being leveled at progressives for a change *would be* what you're advocating for by demanding it be consistent and applied everywhere.

You estimated "progressives" as 10% up the post. Please explain how 10% got "laws" written in their favour.

For example, Frankie Boyle recently had a guest joke about killing white people on his programme. He wasn't punished, even by the BBC. Meanwhile, Dankulu goes to court for making a similar joke.

I seriously the fuck don't care. What the hell are you thinking, ending a post about an epochal change in society, with some trivia about comedians?

There was some serious stuff in your post though. You are somewhat aware of the gravity of free information as a social force. We live in interesting times!