Excerpt from the documents:
Dear Faculty Colleagues,
I’m responding to Thea’s exhortation that we should attend the Racial Equity Institute Phase 1 Training scheduled for 4-5 March. In her message she made her ideological commitments clear. I’ll do the same, in the interests of free exchange.
I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance....
Posts
90 comments:
"Snacks, breakfast, and light lunch will be provided."
I bet they put cheese on everything.
Dukes leadership is terrible and the claim that the email here is "harassment" is absurd.
But they got what the key wanted. The professor will leave and Duke got a bit worse.
Dr. Griffiths resigned. What he wrote was absolutely true:
"The convictions that some of my colleagues hold about justice for racial, ethnic, and gender minorities have led them to attempt occupation of a place of unassailably luminous moral probity. That’s a utopia, and those who seek it place themselves outside the space of reason. Once you’ve made that move, those who disagree with you inevitably seem corrupt and dangerous, better removed than argued with, while you seem to yourself beyond criticism."
His colleagues, of course, proceeded to prove him correct.
Even more to the point, a Duke graduate said "Duke is a shitshow."
When I was in college, I considered going into academia. I am so happy I didn't.
What a collection of petty and vicious little minds.
This is the same school whose admin attacked the lacrosse team over nothing with zero evidence and no heads rolled when they did so and they turned out to be totally wrong.
He was right, of course. You spend a lot of money to send your kid to Duke, and then f I was still a hiring manager and not retired I'd quietly blackball any Duke graduate whose resume was presented to me. Same as I used to do with Ivy grads.
Reeducation centers for wrongthink? Some people don't read 1984 as a warning but a guide.
Dr. Griffiths resigned. What he wrote was absolutely true:
"The convictions that some of my colleagues hold about justice for racial, ethnic, and gender minorities have led them to attempt occupation of a place of unassailably luminous moral probity. That’s a utopia, and those who seek it place themselves outside the space of reason. Once you’ve made that move, those who disagree with you inevitably seem corrupt and dangerous, better removed than argued with, while you seem to yourself beyond criticism."
His colleagues, of course, proceeded to prove him correct.
Not unlike the Muslims who rioted after Pope Benedict invited discourse about Logos in Islam.
I had to laugh that the Dean appended PhD to her signature. What an sign of insecurity! It can be very hard to deal with such a person.
Yours,
MadisonMan, PhD
"to become an anti-racist institution."
to become - future, destiny, fate
If ever there was a time that God wanted you to burn your diploma, this was the defining moment.
The state should defund these anti-American and religious infidels.
Fascism in full force on University campuses everywhere. Reminds me of the Marquette kerfuffle with John McAdams.
This was covered in 1975 in John Gall's _Systemantics_ in the chapter "Administrative Encirclement."
The people who were hired to order pencils and pads wind up in charge of research. It's an institutional tendency.
Add political correctness and there are new kinds of pencils and pads, is all.
In an odd way, this exercise in jihad is more understandable at a divinity school than elsewhere. We know that, for the post-everything crowd running DDS, disagreement is a form of violence, criticism of the approved ideology is harassment, contrary opinions deny right-thinking comrades a safe space, and intolerance for dissent (at a Protestant school, but the dissenter in this case is a professor of Catholic theology) is the new tolerance. Blasphemy cannot be allowed to spread; heretics are fit only for burning at the stake. Welcome to the new medieval period.
In a normal universe, an institution that has become unmoored from the larger community on which it depends for support (here's looking at you, Duke alums), would be forced to correct such abuses when those alums finally noticed the craziness and stopped providing the required support. But institutions like Duke have gotten so hugely wealthy that corrective measures from the outside don't work quite like they used to. The corrective will have to come from an application of the Rules for Radicals against the formerly-radical-but-now-reactionary apparatchiks in charge. Sadly, these academic institutions are all in for a long decline.
Even if it does collapse into a cesspool...
Too late.
I agree, it's a shitshow. But obviously it's a shitshow that is succeeding - every contrary voice will be silenced or dismissed.
What the students think of all this I cannot imagine, and certainly the behavior of the faculty guarantees that the students will not be speaking their thoughts freely.
I still stand by my Chinese struggle meetings theory - this is exactly the same thing, and it will produce horrible effects. This also tends to explain the increasing spate of false harassment claims at universities - in the power struggle created, the only way to get to the top of the heap is to be the current victim.
The original invitation said they received funding from the college to put this seminar on. My question is how much did it cost? Who is making money on it? Why couldn't they find a volunteer to run it for free?
At one point in my past, I worked part time in a book store in a larger liberal city with several universities. I saw who people with liberal arts majors got jobs at colleges doing various non-instructing work.
" The Racial Equity Institute, LLC process is just that: an 18-month to two-year process."
"You have nothing in your shopping cart. Continue Shopping"
"Will this generate media coverage?"
Maybe the real purpose of The Racial Equity Institute is to make capitalism look bad.
There are very powerful people who have there entire career wrapped up in the university ethncic/gender grievance scam. They can do nothing else. They will fight for it to the last drop of blood, even if they know that it is bullshit.
Was it National Review Corner? A while back, they took a single public university in California and listed the titles to everyone employed as some sort of diversity or inclusion role. It was a lot. Maybe if we didn't spend so much on this sort of thing, we could lower tuition and students could graduate with less debt.
We have mandatory racial training where I work and I am sure most others do too. I wonder if this at Duke was the same thing. The training is not about learning anything - it's about having a good legal defense ready when, inevitably, a fired employee lawyers up and looks for a "racially hostile workplace" payday. We too have many employees like Dr. Griffiths who fret that their time is too valuable to spend in mandatory training. We have a good answer - it's mandatory. I do think however that a class with Dr. Griffiths would have been wonderfully interesting and amusing.
Retiring was the best option. After all, they pay you a pension, and you can proceed to your next life.
My theory is, that anyone who doesn't talk like Don Rickles, and is in charge of millions of dollars in state money, should be thrown out of an airplane at 30,000 feet.
You just can't trust those people. They are evil.
God sanctions immigrants from Hell to deal with these people. I always look forward to their obituary.
There are very powerful people who have there entire career wrapped up in the university ethncic/gender grievance scam. They can do nothing else.
I bet some of these powerful people were part of the day care child abuse grievance scam until Martha Coakley finally gave up the fight.
If this were a Catholic school of theology the proper thing would be to maintain dogmatic discipline. A lot of those probably don't, these days.
In this case its not supposed to be a school with dogmatic discipline, but yet it has got it.
There is a lot of money behind the dogma in all the non-tech areas of the leading universities. Yes this is paranoia, seen one way, but the uniformity of the tendencies of the system indicates something other than an organically occurring hysteria, even allowing for "the long march".
Despite an unprecedented, historical effort to judge people by the "content of their character", [class] diversity is a clear and progressive condition forced by divergent (e.g. liberal) principles.
the uniformity of the tendencies of the system indicates something other than an organically occurring hysteria
catastrophic, perhaps. anthropogenic climate change.
What do you expect, The President of Duke is still Richard Brodhead of Lacrosse infamy?
If I were Pfau, I'd be watching my back and my emails...
Self-flagellating university professors and administrators, check.
Authoritarian attempts to crush dissenting views, check.
Smug condescension toward those who dare to differ, check.
Put them all together and what have you got? President Donald J. Trump.
I read the email exchange last night. It was depressing reading. I have not interest in Duke Divinity School, but I have a lot of interest in the integrity of our colleges and universities. It saddens me that a tenured professor could be forced to resign over something that should be so inconsequential as disagreeing about the efficacy of inclusiveness training.
By which I mean, of course, the factors that caused America to elect Trump.
It's astonishing such childish people control these institutions. They really do believe an accusation of racism should automatically result in their preferences will be implemented.
And thus we see how the radical feminist expansion of "harassment" continues. Once it meant something everyone would agree is harassment. Then it meant something anyone claimed hurt their feelings even if no one else could understand how. And now is simply means "disagreement".
As long as you control the person making the decision you never have to worry about facts, logic, or demonstrating reasonable judgement.
What these training sessions teach is racism. If you are white, you are racist. You are racist because you are white. You cannot ever see the world other than as, first and foremost, a white person. Your whiteness determines everything about you, especially how you think. Your whiteness limits you as a human being.
Not because you are middle or upper class. Not because you were raised in a certain neighborhood. Not because of anything you've done. Because you are white.
In academe, the truth is prohibited.
I am a Duke alum and there is a reason my 2400 SAT child, who was admitted, is not there now. Our college visit sealed the deal. While in many ways Duke's ranking is higher today, it not half the school it was when I attended. The termites have been eating its foundation for years...
This exchange is truly pitiful, but not at all out of normal for Duke these days...
Disturbing but not surprising set of events. Couple things come to mind. We really don't know the behind the scenes interactions. That was a very professionally questionable dismissive response by Griffiths. People can be "right" but do so in a way that undermines collegiality. It suggests an issue with communication that likely wasn't new to this setting. I'm speaking from having no insight into the department, but just saying the email exchange is almost certainly not the first issue.
In a divinity school, there's not only content but also method, and that seems to be the key issue at hand. And his method undermined his content. He was frustrated, irritated, etc. but that is a reason to be more precise not more angry. He talks about the mission being about the triune Lord of Christian confession but his email utterly lacked any sense of love. He denied through his method what he was trying to affirm in content. Talking about Christianity without any sense of being informed in his attitude by it.
The other issue is this should indeed be one of the method of these training sessions. Namely, do these seminars "work". Pedagogically they tend to be confused. What is the goal? The "goal" seems to be the event itself, having the event is an expression of concern, even if there's not inherently new or constructive content that can be applied and is worth the already overbooked time of faculty. Faculty are always resistant to more administrative demands, and administrators always demand more. There has to be recognition of the mutual goals in light of the institution.
So, a better argument could have been made that addressed the issue of effectiveness, priorities, fundamental goals and how such events may better be structured so as to maximize both desired results (do these have Learning Outcomes?) and time availability. Better because it would have addressed the key issue rather than emphasizing the personal dismissiveness of the original email.
It is indeed an irritation to have to schedule one's time to hear already known and established assumptions. If there's a problem in the school, then more effective ways need to be found to address the actual problems, rather than 'punish' faculty for institutional sins by making them attend mandatory meetings.
All this to say, Griffiths had a good point to make, but his method suggests an inability to make it, even as he almost certainly spoke for a number of colleagues in his anger. Everyone agrees that racism should be fought against, but there's an assumption that debating method means debating cause, which is a clear fallacy.
There's also with this a question whether everyone wants to solve the issue, as they feed on the problem to maximize their own role.
Like with Moses, Griffiths seems to have let his anger undermine his leadership.
It'll be interesting to see the long term effects. Duke Divinity is a top notch place, with amazingly good faculty, but it's a brutal era for divinity schools and seminaries. By making all this public, Griffiths is giving a huge headache to the administration, probably way more than he would have had he stayed and kept this in-house.
Just reading the documents it is clear that with the resignation of Griffiths, the average IQ of the DDS facility just dropped 30 points. Not that IQ is a measure of importance or anything.
MaxedOutMama said...
I agree, it's a shitshow. But obviously it's a shitshow that is succeeding - every contrary voice will be silenced or dismissed.
So true. I'm shocked someone bold enough to speak out would then resign. I was hoping this (plus a few other events) would signal the uprising and we might be able to return academia to education. Instead it's just another scalp for the left wing radicals.
There's a new three-headed god in town, and Xi's got true believers galore, with fire in the belly to bring down adherents of the old gods (theistic or rationalistic alike).
"We know you'd like us to go away, but the Inquisition's here, and it's here to stay!"
I didn't read any overt anger or irritation in Prof. Griffiths' response at all. He was objective and to the point. Also, he made it clear why he felt it important to make the matter public instead of pursuing it in-house or behind closed doors.
Another vivid example of groupthink. For those who say this happens only in academia; don't make me laugh. This happens EVERYWHERE. I've experienced it in religion, business, blogs, politics and even what was supposed to he a welcoming social group.
It happens here.
Bottom line, I suppose, is that people don't like being criticized. Realistically, there are also times, especially with family, where avoiding controversy may be desirable. In other cases, an objective assessment tells you that disagreeing will go nowhere. Unfortunately, sometimes you get backed in a corner. My preference is to stay true to myself, but I can see how others will fold and/or equivocate. (In my field, this happens a lot with deadlines and time estimates--one solution there is to throw in lots of caveats.)
(One of the weirder places is Stackoverflow, where, for a while, "experts" who seemed more interested in posturing than helping were causing actual experts to avoid the site. The people who run Stackoverflow being some of the worse offenders!)
By making all this public, Griffiths is giving a huge headache to the administration, probably way more than he would have had he stayed and kept this in-house
I'm not sure he could have kept it in house at this point. The Dean and another colleague began proceedings against him. It became obvious they wanted his scalp. What are the options at that point? I agree the email was a bit rough, but the Dean's response escalated the situation. Someone has to be the adult here, apparently no one is.
For an academic, that was downright yelling, clearly emotional.
For intellectuals, emotions may be expressed in objectively seeming ways, but it's very clear when it's no longer entirely objective.
Does anyone in our society understand how to NOT hit reply all?
"Griffiths is giving a huge headache to the administration, probably way more than he would have had he stayed and kept this in-house. "
This is a good thing, isn't it?
If the institution is hopelessly corrupt, as it seems to be.
"Duke Divinity is a top notch place, with amazingly good faculty"
But top-notch at what? Top notch at being advocates of the strange modern paganism?
Is that a "top notch" that is worthwhile?
"One of the weirder places is Stackoverflow, where, for a while, "experts" who seemed more interested in posturing than helping were causing actual experts to avoid the site. The people who run Stackoverflow being some of the worse offenders"
Also, see "the history of the Church."
"But top-notch at what? Top notch at being advocates of the strange modern paganism?
Is that a "top notch" that is worthwhile?"
Duke is considered one of the top schools in almost any field of Christian study. While this might be a sign of problems, Duke itself still has of the best scholars in their respective fields in the world. For instance, Randy Maddox who was mentioned in the emails is one of the top experts in Wesley studies, both historical and theological.
The trouble, of course, is experts in a field aren't always the best at managing the politics and social aspects of university governance. But, then again, they don't want to, so often let issues slide until a breaking point.
At some point Luther has to nail his theses to the door.
If this is out of the question in an academic environment, then is that academic environment, as a place of broad views, worth preserving?
If this were a specifically sectarian institution, such a violation of dogma would justify removing the heretic, and that is proper. But this is supposedly not such a place.
" they don't want to, so often let issues slide until a breaking point."
Liberty requires breaking points, and bloodless academicism rather misses the point of the subject of religion.
Any decent Christian should have a powerful reaction against some of the stuff being required in that place. Diocletian demanded sacrifices to the pagan gods, and this is similar. This is not simply an academic-bureaucratic fight.
@Will - I was at Duke (briefly) in the early 80's and had fond memories. But the more I lived in Durham and learned, well, less fond feelings. A close friend has a daughter there and from what I've heard, I'm glad my son didn't get the ROTC scholarship that would have let him attend Duke.
Still not a Heels fan though.
_XC
To put it another way, what is the point of being an expert on John Wesley, if in order to do so one has to publicly worship Cybele?
Paddy O said...
For an academic, that was downright yelling, clearly emotional.
Any disagreement can be claimed as emotional or uncollegial by those who believe collegial means "support the consensus". If this email is considered frustration there's simply no way to stop the nonsense. I see why those in control desire this standard but I don't see why any reasonable person would agree.
Yes, but sometimes disagreements are emotional and uncollegial and seen as such even by those who believe the underlying point was correct.
Of course there's ways of stopping the nonsense. But there are also ways of perpetuating it by virtue signaling rather than constructive change.
" But there are also ways of perpetuating it by virtue signaling rather than constructive change."
Is there any hope, at all, of "constructive change"?
One can't change people whose livelihood depends on their dogma.
This doesn't seem likely. The only real resolution of this situation seems to call for dissolution of these institutions, replacement with others, or revolution.
"Liberty requires breaking points, and bloodless academicism rather misses the point of the subject of religion."
Note the existence of the Wesleyan Church, or other Holiness Churches, in light of history of Methodist Episcopal Church.
Like with much of politics, this issue seemingly caught in the waging war of binary positions, the idea that one side must be wholly right and the other wholly wrong. One side must be heroes and the other demons. They can't just be wrong, they must also be stupid and likely pernicious.
I don't like it when the Left argues like this mostly because I think it's a counterproductive approach.
But it could be the inflammatory exchange (from both sides) gets conversations moving because of the publicity that wouldn't have happened before.
"and seen as such even by those who believe the underlying point was correct. "
Is the fault in the fellow who disagrees, or in the emotional programming of those who hear him? Perhaps such a reaction is a defect in the professional culture.
Somehow I would get my hackles up when being indoctrinated even as a kid. Now they have actual punishments for failing to conform. ugh
"the idea that one side must be wholly right and the other wholly wrong."
This is very often the case, and cannot be finessed.
The best resolution, often, is to separate, and make sure that the dogma of one side is not imposed upon the dissenters.
"I don't like it when the Left argues like this mostly because I think it's a counterproductive approach. "
Its not counterproductive, it is effective.
If what you want is power.
Most decent people have difficulty in understanding other peoples ends if these fall outside of decency.
Unknown said...
Somehow I would get my hackles up when being indoctrinated even as a kid. Now they have actual punishments for failing to conform. ugh"
That's what baffles me about so many of the students. The rebelliousness of kids was celebrated in the 1960's. I bristled at being told what to do and how to live - although later in life I came to understand that many of the things the "old fools" told me were not so foolish.
Young people who just sit there and let instructors tell them they are innately sexist, racist, homophobic etc while they meekly agree with their elders - what's wrong with them?
R.R. Reno wrote this five years ago:
Where’s the best place to do graduate study in theology? . . . .
My criteria are as follows: (1) orthodoxy and support for graduate students who want to think with the Church, (2) intellectual rigor, (3) commitment to students, and (4) financial aid.
The top programs remain Duke Divinity School and the University of Notre Dame. Duke continues to be the program that best combines the intellectual and cultural confidence of the liberal mainline Protestant tradition (Duke’s heritage is Methodist) with a fresh, postliberal conviction that in today’s academic culture we need to focus on renewing and deepening the traditional and apostolic character of theology. That’s the legacy of Stanley Hauerwas, a longtime professor at Duke, and it’s an approach widely shared among the leading faculty: Paul Griffiths, Reinhard Huetter, Amy Laura Hall, Warren Smith, and others.
Duke is also the best place for anyone who wants to combine theology with biblical studies. Richard Hays (currently Dean), Ellen Davis, and Kavin Rowe provide leadership within the guild of biblical scholars. Hauerwas (Gospel of Matthew) and Griffiths (Song of Songs) have written biblical commentary. Huetter plans to write one as well.
You shall know them by their fruits. There are important, creative, and influential theologians in the rising generation of scholars, and I think it’s fair to say that a disproportionate number did their doctoral degrees at Duke over the last two decades.
"Young people who just sit there and let instructors tell them they are innately sexist, racist, homophobic etc while they meekly agree with their elders - what's wrong with them?"
They were indoctrinated in K-12.
That's where this starts, and is mostly complete by the time they enter university.
" the liberal mainline Protestant tradition "
Which is passing away rapidly. What benefit is there in all this scholarship, if there is also no faith?
The result seems to miss the point of religion.
I support this professor entirely. His position is dead on but what's even better is his career-suicide attack. He was undoubtedly expecting this would be it for him at Duke but he wanted to go out sending a message.
Message delivered.
" the liberal mainline Protestant tradition "
I don't think AA has had any threads on the ELCA or its liberal colleges. And to add to unknown said about forced to conform. The lefty students at St Olaf are going after non-political students if they don't support their agenda. And don't even talk about what happens to conservative students there.
Buwaya, you have reminded me of a Tom Wolfe essay written around 2000 or so which tied the founding of Silicon Valley in with the 19th century evangelical tradition. Wolfe looked at the life of Robert Noyce and some of the early Silicon Valley pioneers and noticed they came from Midwestern towns with strong histories of evangelicalism and credited that spirit with fueling their unconventional approach to technology, even if they ended up leading pretty secular lives themselves. Wolfe also noted that that spirit was almost dead in Silicon Valley and in the country and wondered if the American passion for innovation and discovery would survive with one of its’ wellsprings almost dried up. Very few people today even realize what a wellspring it was.
" wondered if the American passion for innovation and discovery would survive"
He was prophetic. Silicon Valley is not what it was. The rate of innovation, compared to even 15 years ago, is pathetic. They pretend to innovate, but they follow well-worn grooves. The industries here have been far more interested in consolidation than innovation.
buwaya, I heard a radio interview yesterday morning of Howard Root. He wrote the book "Cardiac Arrest, about the justice dept going after him. He started a medical device company in the early 90s. Started with just an idea and a little investment. Ended up being very successful.
He said he wouldn't do it today. Between healthcare costs, government regulations and other issues, starting a startup today is almost impossible. And because of that we are loosing out on innovation. Large companies will survive, but they aren't interested in a project that has less than a $10M return.
The book can be purchased via the AA portal.
https://www.amazon.com/Cardiac-Arrest-Heart-Stopping-Years-Hit-List/dp/1483588386
Well, Dr. Griffith is a Catholic, so at least the Pope's got his back...oh, wait.
Interesting case, of Howard Root.
http://www.startribune.com/deal-means-exit-for-vascular-solutions-ceo-who-beat-government-in-court/404379506/
For a short rundown on why he sold his company. He is a very wealthy man now, and I can't fault him for doing it.
He's right, and I've been saying the same for years. Peter Thiel has been saying the same. The overhead of regulation and litigation risk and etc. has been crushing the US economy, and the results are very visible, and regularly bemoaned, but the causes are rarely examined.
Absurdly, the current prevailing explanation is that technology has gotten too good and too complex, we are hitting the wall of being unable to create new products and services. Anything to avoid acknowledging that the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves, and that we must cut out and throw away the corrupt parts of the society.
The Duke thing I think is just a manifestation of the same zeitgeist in a school of theology.
Dr. Griffiths resigned, so crisis averted. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.
Paddy O: Disturbing but not surprising set of events. Couple things come to mind. We really don't know the behind the scenes interactions. That was a very professionally questionable dismissive response by Griffiths. People can be "right" but do so in a way that undermines collegiality. It suggests an issue with communication that likely wasn't new to this setting. I'm speaking from having no insight into the department, but just saying the email exchange is almost certainly not the first issue.
So there was likely an "issue with communication" that "undermine[d] collegiality", and you're pretty sure this exchange was "not the first issue", and you have "no insight into the department"...
...but you're sure Griffiths started it and is to blame for it.
Corporate world can be the same way with diversity training, etc. Of course, you make it mandatory, so people have to attend. And, yes, its at least partially intended as a hedge to potential litigation.
But the programming is really lame.
Shit, is that offensive to the differently-abled?
Damn I guess I'm due for re-training....
US corporate world was like this since the late 1980's at least, and maybe before that re sexual harassment.
That was indeed mainly for the sake of averting litigation.
The diff with Duke, as I see it, is the requirement to deny professed religious dogma. For a Catholic it is many things, including the explicit matter in the Catechism -
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
And there is a very great deal else, if one wants to run down the items in the Catechism vs all sorts of implicit and explicit things in such lectures.
Prof. Paul Griffiths doesn't suffer deans gladly.
Paddy O,
Are you in academia? If so, run for your life! You're being corrupted.
Seriously, if you think there is any collegiality possible with the sort of beings who would promulgate this sort of "training", I repeat: run for your life.
"Everyone agrees that racism should be fought against..." See what I mean? Corrupted already.
buwaya,
"To put it another way, what is the point of being an expert on John Wesley, if in order to do so one has to publicly worship Cybele?"
Threadwinner, right there.
Racism is a fierce, ever-present, challenging force, one which has structured the thinking, behavior, and actions of individuals and institutions since the beginning of U.S. history
Racism only began when the United States was founded. No racism before that. Nossir.
We are getting to the point that not going to college is a sign of intelligence.
Hey DDS, you remember that guy Jesus? He's mentioned in some of the history of religions courses. One time, Jesus said, Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone. If he said that to the DDS administration and faculty, he'd better duck fast.
"We are getting to the point that not going to college is a sign of intelligence."
A liberal arts degree at a private college runs a quarter of a million dollars. How about we just give $250,000 to some of the kids and send them to a tech school to learn a trade. Two years later they will still have $210,000 left. Enough to start up a business, using the skills they just learned.
Divinity School? I thought it was where they learned to make candy?
"Racism is a fierce, ever-present, challenging force, one which has structured the thinking, behavior, and actions of individuals and institutions since the beginning"
Sounds kinda like .... Satan. Maybe Anathea Portier-Young is getting her theologies mixed up.
"Like with Moses, Griffiths seems to have let his anger undermine his leadership."
Paddy, what do you mean by that? What leadership position did Griffiths hold? From my reading of events, the Dean teamed up with Portier-Young to railroad Griffiths into leaving.
Three items of note as I read the material:
- the phrase "unassailably luminous moral probity"
- the word "adumbrated"
- the reference to Herbert Marcuse’s account of “repressive tolerance"
Good stuff!
- Krumhorn
How about we just give $250,000 to some of the kids and send them to a tech school to learn a trade.
I interviewed a kid today who is joining the Navy to go to Nuke School. He is a programmer and knows about five programming languages (three more than I know) and he is joining the Navy to learn nuclear engineering. He is very near sighted and will need a waiver to get in but his ASVAB average score is 96. I think he is doing the right thing and will get a better education in the Navy,
He is talking about grad school after the Navy and is on the right track.
Duke, the Stanford of the East: all of the arrogance with but a touch of the academic excellence.
>>Divinity School? I thought it was where they learned to make candy?
And what do you think they do at a seminary, I wonder....
Remember when some guy said that he thought blacks were less intelligent and he was free to say so now that he was retired? The host of this site conflated that into he was saying he couldn't be criticized. She didn't argue why she thought blacks weren't less intelligent, she just called his opinion "racist". Basically someone wasn't allowed to have an opinion that wasn't the pc narrative. Oh, the irony.
Post a Comment