Ah yes, using inequity to try to achieve equity:
Universities ‘will give poorer pupils priority’: Private school teenagers will get short shrift in admissions as colleges look to prioritise the disadvantaged
This time, it’s not choosing Blacks over Whites, but poor over wealthy. Yup, I can just see how this will help the poor overcome the “systemic bias” of the British education system. It’s the academic version of the “magic dirt” theory: that somehow, exposing the poor to better education will somehow raise all of them into successful careers after graduation.
Now, I agree that the earlier system of admissions — whereby the son of Lord Snotnose-Dribbling was guaranteed a place at Oxbridge simply he was the future Earl of Dunfartin. But let’s be honest, here: private school education tends to produce better students than state-managed warehouses do. And yes, it’s unfair that a scion of a wealthy (or titled) man should have easier access to places like Eton or Harrow than those of a fishmonger in Whitechapel, ergo a better chance of getting into, say, Cambridge. But denying the “privileged” a place at university in favor of poorer individuals whose grades are worse than the former isn’t much better, is it?
Once again, they’re expecting equality of outcome by “equalizing” admission, when any fool will tell you from experience that it’s a fool’s pursuit.
But the Left have never allowed commonsense, history and logic to interfere with their stupid philosophy, have they?
From Stephen Green at Insty:
Via Insty comes this latest bastardy, in Eureka MO just west of St. Louis:
Faced with complaints from parents about the indoctrination of children, an official in Rockwood School District, Missouri, instructed teachers to create two sets of curriculum: a false one to share with parents, and then the real set of curriculum, focused on topics like activism and privilege.
I should point out that the foul “educator” who sent out this loathsome message is, like First Lady Jill Biden, a Doctor in Education (EdD).
And the next time someone tells me that homeschooling is wrong for children, I’m going to punch them in the face.
A constant whine among stupid people — professors and students alike — is that Literature classes should no longer have to read Shakespeare because he’s “not relevant to today’s world” or some such nonsense.
Now I can understand why students whine about reading Shakespeare, because they’re ignorant and immature, and “that’s not English, dude” — IDK wht u sez LOL — as though if it’s not “modern” then it’s not worth learning.
I will also disregard the usual cant about Shakespeare being beyond the pale because he’s, like, old and a Dead White Male Patriarch to boot.
Over at Taki’s place, David Cole has written an absolute masterpiece on Aaron, the arch-villian in Titus Andronicus (one of my favorite of all the Bard’s works, because if you think that Brian De Palma is the be-all and end-all of violent writing, Andronicus has him beaten by a country mile).
What Cole proves (as though any proof were needed) is just how relevant Shakespeare is in today’s world. And what Shakespeare proves is that when it comes to the human condition, there’s very little new under the sun.
Go there now and read it all.
And then read Titus Andronicus, for the full treatment of malevolence and violence.
Apparently some professor in Vermont has caused all sorts of issues by refusing to kowtow to the “racial equity” scam, asking: “Would you please stop reducing my personhood to a racial category in your teachings?”
Predictably, calls have gone out for him to resign:
A petition calling for the resignation of Kindsvatter has earned over 3,400 signatures. The authors state that Kindsvatter’s statements are “harmful to our campus’ community of color.”
A rival petition — which has garnered over 4,400 signatures — asks that Kindsvatter assume control of all diversity measures at the University of Vermont.
I think the will of the people should be obeyed.
And in an increasingly-rare show of testicular fortitude, our guy has refused to resign.
Over at Taki’s place, Ted Dalrymple takes aim (metaphorically speaking; he’s a Brit) at some total loony university professor:
Professor MacCormack’s book defeated me, not only sapping my will to read further but inducing a state almost of catatonia. It certainly cured me, at least temporarily, of my obsessional desire to finish any book that I have started. Her style made The Critique of Pure Reason seem as light and witty as The Importance of Being Earnest. She appears to think that the English plural of manifesto is manifesti rather than manifestos; I admit that it conjured up in my mind a new Italian dish, gnocchi manifesti.
Open the book at any page and you will find passages that startle by their polysyllabic meaninglessness combined with the utmost crudity. By chance, I opened the book to page 144 and my eye fell on the following:
The multiplicity of becoming-cunt as an assemblage reassembles the tensors upon which it expresses force and by which force is expressed upon its various planes and dimensions.
And Dalrymple notes:
I have known deteriorated schizophrenic patients to speak more sensibly and coherently than this.
No kidding. Let’s take a look at this paragon of literacy, shall we?
…and not in drag:
This Oz bint is, and I quote: “a professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England” (whatever “continental philosophy” may be). Also, Anglia Ruskin University is not part of Cambridge University, but a separate school with campuses scattered across several towns, Cambridge being but one of them.
One wonders what John Ruskin (after whom it’s named) would think of this example of its academic excellence.