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.
30 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 5/23/2018: The Honored And the Dishonorable”
#1 Well, it’s a bunch of barking seals in Harvard admin, I bet they already went and have gotten their RBG tattoos as well.
#2 It was appalling watching Dyson always bring up the Race Card ™ . It was also quite annoying, that he speaks with a certain pomp and how he says certain words, to sound more intellectual, academic. he just sounds like an arrogant jerk. I can see how college students would be eating right out of his hand.
#3 we need to ban assault weapons of war. Wait, the guys didn’t use those? No matter, we still need to ban those, plus whatever he used. Wait, he used some of the most basic weapons available, that is a pump action shot gun a revolver? Ban that too! Although I like Jack’s earlier solution, banning children and schools. That solves the education and day care issues in one go!
What is ironic/funny is that Dyson is the really privileged one: if he were not black, he would have no career at all. His race is his shtick.
It’s sad state of affairs, that the race schtick is sufficient enough to build a successful career.
Dyson also seemed to contradict himself, when he was chiding Peterson for complaining about privilege while being successful, and that he needed to cool down. It would have been a great rebuttal to say, well, why are you always yelling about oppression, you’re successful, you don’t need to do this, stop whining and go on being successful without all this preaching.
“It’s sad state of affairs, that the race schtick is sufficient enough to build a successful career.”
And this is not new. The late Senator Robert Byrd built his career on being white and a klansman. (Guess which party?) He is the record holder for the longest sitting Senator ever.
As an aside, I was watching ‘Hee Haw’ last night (needed inane and mindless silliness mixed with nostalgia) and Sen Byrd was a guest. The man could play a fiddle and sing!
What was even funnier is that he was drunk off his ass the entire show, and it was obvious every time he was on the screen.
If I recall correctly, a great amount of WV is named in his honor, like parks, govt bldgs, highways, etc. He was very good at earmarks. He was also a good friend to the Clintons.
But Peterson would not stoop to that level.
Peterson mostly does a very good job at keeping his compusure and letting remarks like that just slide off his back.
He’d have to of course as they get lobbed at him nonstop. His interviews are great fun to watch
# 1- That’s right up there with Madeleine “We find the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children ‘acceptable’ ” Albright winning the ”Presidential Medal of Freedom,” the highest civilian honor given by the U. S. of A.
That award ”recognizes those people who have made ‘an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.’
And any mention of awards wallowing in deeply viscid ironic hypocrisy would be incomplete without the inclusion of President Barack “turns out I’m really good at killing people” Obama securing the Nobel Peace Prize.
I’m surprised that you would characterize Jordan Peterson as glib, Jack. The word ‘glib’ connotes a shallowness or lack of seriousness that I just don’t see as part of his presentation. The debate format does have the time limitations which almost encourage a shallow response; I suppose part of the art is managing to respond with substance, under time pressure, which I believe Peterson did fairly well.
I find him incredibly articulate and insightful. And not at all glib. He can appear to be provocative but only if you’re unaware of the issues he’s trying to high light. And yes, he is an angry man at times. Unchallenged cant makes him angry. As it should all of us.
I didn’t mean glib in its pejorative sense, but as “marked by ease and informality,’ which to me accounts for much of Peterson’s popularity: he’s an academic who doesn’t talk like one. I also think he sometimes makes complex issues sound more simple than they are
I’m undecided about whether he at times oversimplifies, or is really good at reducing complex ideas to bite-sized pieces, which is a valuable skill. His informality is key to his appeal, especially to young people I think.
I think I’m predisposed to think people have a strong tendency to make things appear more complex than they really are. Particularly in academia. If you create a complex field of study out of not much, you can be the expert.
Are you disparaging my PhD thesis: Snuffbox Sculpting Codifying Patriarchal Hierarchies Among the Lesser Belgian Nobility 1650-1652?
Sounds cool, did that examine the stresses from Spanish influene/attacks on materials and workmanship on coats of arms? 🙂 Hey, analyizing culture change in art is more elightening than revisiting/pushing the same thought police stuff that should be forgotten.
16th Century Hemaphrodite Haiku, here.
Hey! You plagiarized my doctorate the . . . Wait. No, you didn’t. I concentrated on the period from1672 to 1684,which saw the increase of using ceramic compacts to protect the snuff against humidity. Sorry. I got confused. Carry on.
A male professor who bumps up grades for female students should be fired for other obvious reasons as well, given the extremely high overlap between sensitive feminist “male allies” and total pervs.
Women’s grades should only be 79% of men’s grades.
1. You forgot unconvicted criminal… as in ‘with a cloth.’ Guilty of gross negligence in office (Benghazi Embassy had asked for more protection many times, protection was withheld during the attack).
The list is long.
2. This is why progressives won’t debate: they know they lose on facts. We are beyond debating: now they go straight to ‘racist’ just for disagreeing.
3. Jack, why you continue to read the NY Times is a mystery to me. Haven’t they proven they will lie about the color of the sky, if Trump comments on it? The rot in their stories HAS to pervade their entire corporate culture, or someone would have put a stop to their ravings. I don’t trust them to tell me water is wet without independent verification from at least three sources.
4. Wake me when the witch hunt has to drop all charges on Cohen. He is slime, but a criminal? Maybe, but no proof so far… Heck, not even any real theories about hypothetical crimes.
Just like the entire Mueller Investigation. Nothing to see here.
5. Prof Liu is not all that unique in academic circles today. He just got outed such that the media could not ignore him. This happens all the time: progressives push their agenda whether legal or not. See: ‘culture of rape’
EXCEPT for political reporting and punditry, the Times is so much more thorough, diverse provocative,and interesting than any other paper that there is no competition.
I think you live so deep in the Blue that you don’t even see the bias… but that is your prerogative
What?? What “blue”? I live in purple Virginia. I read about four papers a day, sometimes six. I cite the Times here for its bias so often I have to ding bias pieces I would like to write because it’s repetitious. How can anyone who reads here say I “don’t see the bias”? Click on the tag New York Times.
I am not so biased myself, however, that I can’t recognize a newspaper that is head and shoulders above all competitors, even with its outrageous slant.
It was not intended to offend
I’m only offended when someone replies to my comment with “HAHAHAHAHA” and I wasn’t trying to be funny…
I wonder if Liu would offer even higher grades to female students who shared their vaginas with him…
2. I wonder if the Munk debates were unable to find appropriate candidates for the pro side because Political Correctness proponents are generally self-aware enough on the optics of openly calling for censorship, and what’s left almost by definition scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
I think that’s likely.