1. A major ethics condemnation of Harvard will be posted soon; this is just the ours de vours...Harvard is disgracing itself and embarrassing its alumni one more time by awarding Hillary Clinton the once-prestigious Radcliffe Medal—it can’t be prestigious after this fiasco–for her “transformative impact on society” as part of the school’s graduation activities this week. Harvard says Clinton was chosen for the award because she’s a “champion for human rights,” a “skilled legislator” and “an advocate of American leadership” on the world stage.
Let’s get this straight up front, shall we? Harvard, headed by feminist social justice warrior Drew Faust, is giving an award named after Harvard’s now defunct sister school that championed female power, dignity, and achievement independent of men, to the woman who meticulously enabled, aided and abetted a serial harasser, sexual abuser, and philanderer by intimidating and disparaging his female victims, so she could ride on his coat-tails to achieve wealth, influence and power that she never could have attained otherwise. Once within reach of that power, she managed to botch two Presidential runs against unlikely underdogs, while reducing the feminist message to “vote for vaginas.” Meanwhile, she joined with her husband in creating a massive influence peddling business that made them both rich. Having lost a Presidential election that she only had to stay out of major scandals to win, she has become the only losing Presidential candidate in U.S. history to continue whining about her loss at every opportunity for 18 months, thus strengthening a negative female stereotype.
Did I miss anything? Probably. This is once more consolation prize Progressive Feminist Inc. is giving to Hillary as virtue-signaling, which is ironic, because it signals hypocrisy, corruption, and dishonesty. She is an ethics corrupter. She has made the culture, politics, society, and the nation worse. Harvard’s award is just one more example.
2. Not exactly Lincoln-Douglas…The recent Munk debate–part of a series series of discussions that the news media keeps calling “highbrow,” which only shows how lowbrow the news media is—considered the statement, “Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…”
What you call “progress,” I call thought control, censorship, and partisan bullying, and I say the hell with it. Race-baiting professor Michael Eric Dyson and left-wing pundit Michelle Goldberg defended the indefensible “pro” position, and probably believe it, too, which is depressing all by itself. The “con” side at least had glib, currently-in University of Toronto Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson, who has a best-selling book and who became a celebrity after winning a duel of wits with an unarmed British journalist. He was paired with British actor /entertainer Stephen Fry: these debates are so highbrow, the organizers don’t think anyone will watch them if they don’t have jokes. Even if the sides had been fairly constructed (any team with Michelle Goldberg on it has been sabotaged), it’s a terrible debate topic. The day the “pro” side wins is the day “1984” has arrived. Predictably, “con” won, and this was in Canada, which doesn’t have a First Amendment (the term “political correctness’ is inherently hostile to freedom of speech, and don’t think for a second progressives don’t know it.)
So, saddled with a losing argument, Dyson did what he does: he played the race card. “You’re a mean, mad, white man,” he said to Peterson at one point. End of debate, if I am moderating. When you have to stoop to ad hominem attacks, you’ve lost. An equally acceptable rejoinder by Peterson would have been, “And you’re a black son of a bitch.”
Technical knockout. And Dyson unmasked himself as the fraud that he is.
3. Fact Don’t Matter dept. Buried in the New York Times this morning—you know, that newspaper that has been lobbying for the repeal of the Second Amendment and publishing misleading charts about shootings in and around schools—was this article: Why Campus Shootings Are So Shocking: School Is the ‘Safest Place’ for a Child.
I know I’ve written about the disconnect between the Parkland anti-gun kids’ claim that schools are veritable shooting galleries and reality before, but this article exposes the dishonesty and irrational emotionalism of the post-Parkland garment-rending. Here, for example:
“While homicide is among the leading causes of death for young people, school is a relative haven compared with the home or the neighborhood. According to the most recent federal data, between 1992 and 2015, less than 3 percent of homicides of children 5 to 18 years old occurred at school, and less than 1 percent of suicides.”
Yeah, but you can’t blame the NRA, the Constitution, and Republicans for the other deaths. So we get this bizarre conclusion:
“Especially in the younger grades, school is the safest place they can be,” said Melissa Sickmund, director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice. No wonder, then, that news of a mass killing in a school building incites panic, grief and calls for policy changes far beyond the town or city that is affected.
What?? “This place is safer than anywhere else, so no wonder anti-gun zealots argue that it is so dangerous that children are terrified to be there and we need to drastically curtail Constitutional rights to save them.” That makes sense to the Times? The reason this disconnect exists is that the Times buries this report on page A13, while demanding safer schools on its editorial pages and featuring school walk-outs on the front page.
4. More Michael Cohen ethics. Cohen, we have learned, made money by influence-peddling, accepting money to put companies in contact with his client, the President. Is that legal? It’s not legal if you are benefiting from selling your own access—you know, the kind of thing the Clintons have been doing for more than a decade—but for a third party like Cohen to do it is just kind of slimy. Is it unethical? That’s a more interesting question. In all jurisdictions, it is unethical to use information acquired in connection with a representation to the detriment of the client or the benefit of a third party, and in many, it is unethical for the lawyer to benefit from using such information. All of these can be waived by the client’s consent.
If Cohen went to companies and said, “My client is Donald Trump, how can I help you?” that would be an ethics breach unless the fact that Cohen was Trump’s lawyer was not generally known. Under the ABA’s recent clarification, however, I think Cohen’s relationship with the President was generally known.
5. Wait…this guy still has a job? Liping Liu, a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio, sent an email to students letting them know that three groups of students may see their grades raised a “level or two.” The email stated:
The following categories of students may see their grades raised one level or two:
1) Female students (it is a national movement to encourage female students to go to information sciences)
2) Students who had earned scores in exams (especially final exams) demonstrating a higher performance than their calculated ones
3) Students who attended class but missed reporting attendance (as long as I can tell)
Liu later said that he was aware that his attempt to raise women’s grades could be “questionable,” but that he wanted to “test the water” anyway and see if the grade raises might “attract female students into future classes.” The test failed, for the school announced that it would not permit this obvious gender discrimination.
The professor has to be fired. He has to be. He has shown that he is willing to discriminate and hand out benefits, and presumably disadvantages, according to some warped and unethical social agenda. He has demonstrated that he believes the end justifies the means. He has rejected the principle of fair and equal treatment for all. His grading has no more credulity. He has no integrity. His judgment is terrible. He can’t be trusted. And he’s an idiot.
If the University of Akron continues to employ him, then all of these also apply to the University as a whole.