skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It will keep getting worse and worse to every higher levels of stridency and self-parody until good people start to stand up.
More and more, it will be a small percentage of Gen X that will do it, then a higher percentage for each younger generation - and the generation now in high school will, I think, finally turn the table of those people who make their living promoting division, sectarianism, and yes - hate - based on something as useless as a person's DNA.
For today though, let's recognize a hero of the pushback. I give you Jason Morgan.
Jason Morgan, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student earning his doctorate there, has told his supervisor he objects to the school's mandated diversity training for teaching assistants (TAs) because leaders of the first session he attended essentially called him – and the whole class – racist.
...
Morgan, in his letter, called the first of the two diversity sessions, held Friday, "an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, 're-education') entirely unbecoming a university of our stature."
Oh my friends - that quote is just not enough.
Shall we quote his letter in full? Why yes, let's roll around in all its glory.
Dear Graduate Director Prof. Kantrowitz,
Please forgive this sudden e-mail. I am writing to you today about the "diversity" training that new teaching assistants (TAs) are required to undergo. In keeping with the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea, I am also blind-copying on this e-mail several journalistic outlets and state government officials, because the taxpayers who support this university deserve to know how their money is being spent.
As you are probably aware, all new TAs in the History Department are required to attend one orientation session, two TA training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Yesterday (Friday, September 20th), we new TAs attended the first of the diversity sessions. To be quite blunt, I was appalled. What we were given, under the rubric of "diversity," was an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, "re-education") entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and students at probably every other public institution of higher education in this country, have long since grown accustomed to incessant leftism. It is in the very air that we breathe. Bascom Hill, for example, is roped off and the university is shut down so that Barack Obama (D), Mark Pocan (D), and Tammy Baldwin (D) can deliver campaign speeches before election day. (The university kindly helped direct student traffic to these campaign events by sending out a mass e-mail encouraging the student body to go to the Barack Obama for President website and click "I'm In for Barack!" in order to attend.) Marxist diatribes denouncing Christianity, Christians, the United States, and conservatives (I am happy to provide as many examples of this as might be required) are assigned as serious scholarship in seminars. The Teaching Assistants Association (TAA)–which sent out mass e-mails, using History Department list-servs, during the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker, accusing Gov. Walker of, among other things, being "Nero"–is allowed to address TA and graduate student sessions as a "non-partisan organization". The History Department sponsors a leftist political rally, along with the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, and advertises for the rally via a departmental e-mail (sent, one presumes, using state computers by employees drawing salaries from a state institution). In short, this university finds it convenient to pretend that it is an apolitical entity, but one need not be particularly astute to perceive that the Madison campus is little more than a think tank for the hard left. Even those who wholeheartedly support this political agenda might in all candor admit that the contours of the leftism here are somewhat less than subtle.
At the "diversity" training yesterday, though, even this fig leaf of apoliticism was discarded. In an utterly unprofessional way, the overriding presumption of the session was that the people whom the History Department has chosen to employ as teaching assistants are probably racists. In true "diversity" style, the language in which the presentation was couched was marbled with words like "inclusive", "respect", and "justice". But the tone was unmistakably accusatory and radical. Our facilitator spoke openly of politicizing her classrooms in order to right (take revenge for?) past wrongs. We opened the session with chapter-and-verse quotes from diversity theorists who rehearsed the same tired "power and privilege" cant that so dominates seminar readings and official university hand-wringing over unmet race quotas. Indeed, one mild-mannered Korean woman yesterday felt compelled to insist that she wasn't a racist. I never imagined that she was, but the atmosphere of the meeting had been so poisoned that even we traditional quarries of the diversity Furies were forced to share our collective guilt with those from continents far across the wine-dark sea.
It is hardly surprising that any of us hectorees would feel thusly. For example, in one of the handouts that our facilitator asked us to read ("Detour-Spotting: for white anti-racists," by joan olsson [sic]), we learned things like, "As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda," "…there was no escaping the daily racist propaganda," and, perhaps most even-handed of all, "Racism continues in the name of all white people." Perhaps the Korean woman did not read carefully enough to realize that only white people (all of them, in fact) are racist. Nevertheless, in a manner stunningly redolent of "self-criticism" during the Cultural Revolution in communist China, the implication of the entire session was that everyone was suspect, and everyone had some explaining to do.
You have always been very kind to me, Prof. Kantrowitz, so it pains me to ask you this, but is this really what the History Department thinks of me? Is this what you think of me? I am not sure who selected the readings or crafted the itinerary for the diversity session, but, as they must have done so with the full sanction of the History Department, one can only conclude that the Department agrees with such wild accusations, and supports them. Am I to understand that this is how the white people who work in this Department are viewed? If so, I cannot help but wonder why in the world the Department hired any of us in the first place. Would not anyone be better?
There is one further issue. At the end of yesterday's diversity "re-education," we were told that our next session would include a presentation on "Trans Students". At that coming session, according to the handout we were given, we will learn how to let students 'choose their own pronouns', how to correct other students who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns, and how to ask people which pronouns they prefer ("I use the pronouns he/him/his. I want to make sure I address you correctly. What pronouns do you use?"). Also on the agenda for next week are "important trans struggles, as well as those of the intersexed and other gender-variant communities," "stand[ing] up to the rules of gender," and a very helpful glossary of related terms and acronyms, to wit: "Trans": for those who "identify along the gender-variant spectrum," and "Genderqueer": "for those who consider their gender outside the binary gender system". I hasten to reiterate that I am quoting from diversity handouts; I am not making any of this up.
Please allow me to be quite frank. My job, which I love, is to teach students Japanese history. This week, for example, I have been busy explaining the intricacies of the Genpei War (1180-1185), during which time Japan underwent a transition from an earlier, imperial-rule system under regents and cloistered emperors to a medieval, feudal system run by warriors and estate managers. It is an honor and a great joy to teach students the history of Japan. I take my job very seriously, and I look forward to coming to work each day.
It is most certainly not my job, though, to cheer along anyone, student or otherwise, in their psychological confusion. I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing. To all and sundry alike I explicate, as best I can, such things as the clash between the Taira and the Minamoto, the rise of the Kamakura shogunate, and the decline of the imperial house in twelfth-century Japan. Everyone is welcome in my classroom, but, whether directly or indirectly, I will not implicate myself in my students' fetishes, whatever those might be. What they do on their own time is their business; I will not be a party to it. I am exercising my right here to say, "Enough is enough." One grows used to being thought a snarling racist–after all, others' opinions are not my affair–but one draws the line at assisting students in their private proclivities. That is a bridge too far, and one that I, at least, will not cross.
I regret that this leaves us in an awkward situation. After having been accused of virulent racism and, now, assured that I will next learn how to parse the taxonomy of "Genderqueers", I am afraid that I will disappoint those who expect me to attend any further diversity sessions. When a Virginia-based research firm came to campus a couple of years ago to present findings from their study of campus diversity, then-Diversity Officer Damon Williams sent a gaggle of shouting, sign-waving undergraduates to the meeting, disrupting the proceedings so badly that the meeting was cancelled. In a final break with such so-called "diversity", I will not be storming your office or shouting into a megaphone outside your window. Instead, I respectfully inform you hereby that I am disinclined to join in any more mandatory radicalism. I have, thank God, many more important things to do. I also request that diversity training be made optional for all TAs, effective immediately. In my humble opinion, neither the Department nor the university has any right to subject anyone to such intellectual tyranny.
Thank you for your patience in reading this long e-mail.
Sincerely,
Jason Morgan
Soon, very soon - we will have a MIDN or Junior Officer stand up and push back. Sooner more than later methinks. I know some have pushed back on the sly ... but we should be close to an open stand before the end of the decade.
The fact that operating fixed wing aircraft has a long and bloody learning curve is no news to readers here - but this stuff coming out of Chinese state media is interesting. Via our friend Wendell Minnick over at DefenseNews;
In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
...
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.
To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters.
“Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”
Maybe they're taking lessons from the American maritime blogosphere. The flopping fish comment is exemplary.
Perhaps this is a push for the construction of a super-carrier like the Americans have ... or a pushback by proponents of land-based air?
Who knows, but interesting nonetheless.
Hat tip thinkdefence.
Don't be silly - we don't have it that bad at all. Historically, we are living in paradise.
That being said, nothing is forever and nothing is granted to be forever. That is one of the maddening things about the study of history ... all those annoying echoes.
Sometime in the mid-first century a.d., an otherwise little known consular official, Gaius Petronius, wrote a brilliant satirical novel about the gross and pretentious new Roman-imperial elite. The Satyricon is an often-cruel parody about how the Roman agrarian republic of old had degenerated into a wealth-obsessed, empty society of wannabe new elites, flush with money, and both obsessed with and bored with sex. Most of the Satyricon is lost. But in its longest surviving chapter — “Dinner with Trimalchio” — Petronius might as well have been describing our own 21st-century nomenklatura.
...
A country that once lost 600 legionnaires a minute at Cannae is reduced to gossiping about precious jewelry, exotic food, and sick gladiatorial games in the arena. Our elites go through some of the same bored melodrama. Withdrawal dates, red lines, deadlines, and leading from behind form our new rhetorical military. While Trimalchio parties in Pompeii on stuffed boar and sparrows (sort of like wagyu beef on a bed of arugula), somewhere to the unmentioned north legionnaires keep back the “barbarians” on the Rhine and the Danube. But they are as out of sight and mind as those who are camped out tonight in the Afghan highlands, or the “at this point, what difference does it make?” Americans killed in Benghazi, or the SEAL teams who dropped in on bin Laden while the president was playing card games with staffers.
Civil rights once meant an existential struggle between the oppressed and villains like Bull Connor with his dogs and fire hoses. Now Oprah is miffed over being treating rudely while eyeing a $38,000 purse in Switzerland; the NAACP wants sensitivity training for a rodeo clown with an Obama mask; American Idol’s failed contestants sue for “cruel and inhuman treatment”; near-billionaire rapper Jay-Z warns that the have-nots may riot; and a depressed former congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. was reduced to spending $750,000 of other people’s money on essentials like stuffed elk heads and Michael Jackson’s old fedora.
Just as Petronius’s world went on for another 400 years, ours may too.
You need to read the whole thing; classic Victor Davis Hanson.
As for me, I'm going to get a copy of The Satyricon, Complete
, modern translation, natch. The older translations kept the naughty bits in Latin, and I doubt my quarter-century old Latin will work that well, and the interesting worlds won't be in my dictionary.
Oh, as a final note; you can catch VDH in the second hour of Midrats from a few years ago.
As a final treat to round things off - you can go to the 24-minute point for the latest Clinton Foundation fundraiser.
In a great companion piece to our episode of Midrats two weeks ago about transition to the civilian world, our friend Peter Munson has what I consider a must-read post at his blog, Boats Against the Current.
Seriously, if you or someone you know is about to leave active duty, they need to read this article. Though it seems like a few months ago, it was just four years since I left active duty - and Peter's points are spot on.
Here are just a very few of the exceptional points he brings up, there are many more.
If you think you really need a master’s degree to break into the position you want, I recommend going for the most prestigious physical university you can afford/make work with your military duties. I’d avoid online or on-base programs.
Once you’ve narrowed down the degree you want, there are two options for selecting your program. You can go for a nationally or globally ranked program which will give you a wide network and instant recognition no matter where you are applying for a position. As an alternative, if you know where you plan on settling down, look for the best local program. This will provide you a more relevant local network, often at much lower cost and sufficient academic quality.
... the value of an MBA is more about the network than the knowledge, especially if you’re not looking to go into something technical like trading, so choose wisely. This is one of those instances where going for a regional power where you’re looking to settle down can be far better than shelling out for a national brand.
The most critical aspect to most job searches is your network.
For all the hype you hear about hiring veterans and how important your leadership experience is, you need to understand that no one cares. People care in an abstract way. They care in a personal way. But the system doesn’t care, for sure.
... you need to network. Hard. The best tool for networking is currently LinkedIn. Every military officer should have a LinkedIn account and should be building their network. If you’re a junior officer, keep contact with your old college friends and colleagues. As people start getting to the end of that first term, ensure that you connect with, follow, and get advice from those friends and colleagues who precede you. As you’re heading toward retirement, revisit your contact list and ensure you’re keeping in touch with those people that you might want to ask for help. The key is to keep in contact and get educated before you’re asking for a job referral.
Don’t be shy about connecting either. Veterans, especially successful ones on the outside, know how hard it is to make the transition. They will, for the most part, be happy to help. There is a “pay it forward” ethos.
... ditch the unsmiling promotion or command photo. Civilian hiring managers are already intimidated or misled enough about how we can only lead by ordering and how everyone has PTSD. Get a picture where you are smiling as warmly and welcomingly as possible.
For those of you who are afraid to have a photo at all, that is fine, but don’t expect to be clicked on when recruiters search for you. Most people with no photo have incomplete profiles, so people tend not to click through. For those of you who are worried about privacy issues, realize that except for the very few who have been religious about keeping their online trail to zero their entire life, a LinkedIn picture is the least of your worries. And unless you really are a practitioner of the dark arts (a staff gig at SOCOM doesn’t count) no one cares enough to come hunt you down.
One good way of highlighting your value whether in or out of the military is to explain how you made money, saved money, or reduced risk.
Speaking of Midrats, you can listen to Peter in the second hour of Episode 160 back in January here where we discussed his book War, Welfare & Democracy: Rethinking America's Quest for the End of History.
Interesting demonstration of the global economic center of gravity shift over time.
Always a good thing to judge a person, especially a Republican, by his enemies. Who he sets off - who can't stand them.
When the Left get deranged, half-cocked, personal and otherwise spastic - then you know you have them by the short-hairs.
They cannot argue the person's ideas - so they attack the person. Reagan & Thatcher were two perfect examples.
Check out this garden variety entitled North Carolina Democrat and NPR listener. Classic resident of probably somewhere in the Triangle between Durham, Raleigh, and the Peoples Republic of Chapel Hill.
Ramesh Ponnuru managed to give her the vapors. Fun to listen to. Ted Cruz derangement syndrome, indeed.
I've been listening to NPR for decades ... I think this lady has a bad case of selective listening.
It is almost as good written as spoken.
Yes, we’re calling from North Carolina having listened to your comments on NPR in the afternoon. And we were just quite stunned to hear you begin your comments with the comment, ‘I am a friend of Ted Cruz.’
Well, I can tell you in all the years that I have been listening to NPR, I’ve never heard any journalist begin commenting about an issue with the — making such a bold statement: They happen to be the friend of a particular politician.
And I just wanted to say that as far as I’m concerned, as a friend of Ted Cruz, this means that you are a friend of a severe narcissist and a vile liar and a terrorist. As far as we are personally concerned. He makes wild statements without any basis in fact such as ‘millions of Americans are being hurt by Obamacare.’ Really? Well, I would like to have specific identification of those millions and specifically how they are being harmed.
As far as I’m concerned, if I heard, if I turned on the television and I heard that he had been set on fire and thrown out of an airplane, I would not shed a tear. Also as far as I’m concerned, it appears that you are from another country and I highly suggest that you go back to that country and stir up trouble there instead of supporting terrorists in our Congress.
Thank you and goodbye.
So much yummy goodness there, from the multiple personality "we" to the wishing of painful death to those who you simply disagree with.
I think Chap used to date her.
.jpg)
