The Culture Of Ignorance Strikes Again – In Academia, Where Counterintuitively It Usually Strikes

Reference:         https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-common-app-drops-question-about-discipline-citing-racial-disparities-11601494201?mod=djem10point

                Many students applying to college use what is called the “Common Application,” which is “submitted by more than 1 million students to more than 900 colleges and universities.”  Until now, it “requested that students disclose whether they’d been found responsible for a ‘disciplinary violation.’ That could be academic or behavioral misconduct, and would have led to probation, suspension or expulsion.”

                Seems sensible, doesn’t it?  If you are evaluating an applicant, isn’t their prior school disciplinary history something that can be fairly considered?  All other things being equal, wouldn’t you admit the kid with no disciplinary history over the one who has one?  Of course you would, though you might ask some questions before making that decision, like what were the circumstances of that discipline?  There certainly is plenty of rinky-dink discipline handed out in K-12, and sometimes administrators just have it in for certain kids, deserved or not. 

                But in keeping with a standard leftist theme preferring ignorance over knowledge when it comes to race issues (unless it supports the alleged notion of systematic racism), the Common Application is dropping that question about prior discipline, asserting that “racial disparities” make the question unfair.  According to the Common Application, “[b]lack applicants reported they were suspended or expelled more than twice as often as white applicants.”  It aims to “eliminate what it says could be an obstacle for Black students considering college.” 

                As the Wall Street Journal reports, “[a]fter a deep dive into its own data earlier this year, funded by a Gates Foundation grant, the Common App found that Black applicants marked ‘yes’ more than twice as often as white applicants.  Black women were three times as likely as white women to say they’d been disciplined.  And those who did give affirmative responses submitted applications at a lower rate. . . . . ‘It’s clearly inconsistent and inequitable and disproportionately impacting low-income and students of color,’ said Jenny Rickard, president and CEO of the Common App.” 

                Well, perhaps that might be true if one assumes the perspectives of blacks and whites are identical and both share the identical definition of “discipline”.  However, that is completely opposed to the views of the BLM, snowflakes, blackflakes and “social justice” loudmouths.  Their whole notion of “white privilege” supposes that whites have a different (and more advantageous) perspective than blacks, who have never had any “privilege” at all.

                And so what anyway?  Of course colleges themselves can ask the same questions on supplemental applications and presumably many do, or now will be forced to.  But to remove a question seeking plainly relevant information in an effort to simply hide the truth – whether that truth is fair or not – is just stupid.  The assumption that supposed “racial disparities” means that the information is useless is just stupid.  The assumption that discipline should be strictly in accordance with the relative percentages of the races is just stupid.  To deliberately deprive yourself of relevant information in the name of racial justice is just stupid. 

                The issue should not be whether or not you have the information, it should be how you use it.  This deliberate ignorance is a phony attempt to protect blacks at the expense of everyone else.  The message is certainly clear – you get a free pass if you’re black.  Every system one could ever envision is going to produce some level of racial or class disparities, but let’s not let that get in the way of pandering to the loudmouth minorities yelping at the door. 

These Sure Are Zany Times – Who’s A “She” And Who’s A “He” And What’s It All Mean?

Reference:         https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/a-transgender-man-is-suing-amazon-claiming-he-was-denied-a-raise-after-disclosing-he-was-pregnant/ar-BB19NA3M?ocid=msedgdhp

                As best we can tell, someone claiming to be a transgender “man” is really a girl who wants to be a guy and tries to look and dress the part, and takes the position that she really is a “he”.  And a transgender “woman” is a guy wanting to be a girl and claims he is really a “she”.  So, there is a girl that works at Amazon who claims to be a transgender “man.”  Somehow (not very mysteriously we suppose, but it seems sort of curious nonetheless) she (oops, “he”) got herself (“himself”) pregnant.

                So, in what must have been a pretty interesting conversation, she (“he”) told her (“his”) boss that she (“he”) was pregnant.  Now she (“he”) claims she (“he”) was denied a raise as a result.  And she (“he”) was harassed by other employees too – no surprise there.  According to the article, she (“he”) “was harassed about which bathroom he was using, demoted, and denied safety accommodations for his pregnancy.  In one instance cited in the lawsuit . . . [she (“he”)] was questioned for using the men’s restroom by another employee.  ‘Aren’t you pregnant?’ the coworker asked.”  Seems like a pretty fair question to us.  But this is the world we live in.

                Anyway, it’s an interesting legal conundrum and is likely to show up on a bar examination essay question at some point – do pregnancy discrimination laws apply to a she who acts and dresses like, and wants to be treated as, and claims that she actually is, and may have a legal right to be treated as, a he.  If an employer has to treat a she like a he just because she wants it and she (“he”) claims to really be a he, how can that employer be discriminating against “him” on the basis of her (“his”) pregnancy?  Sounds to us like this gal (“guy”) wants her (“his”) cake and wants to eat it too.  Nothing like cherry-picking your gender, we suppose.

                So she (“he”) wants to be a girl so she can take advantage of pregnancy discrimination law, but also wants to be a he so she (“he”) can take advantage of gender discrimination laws.  They teach you in law school about arguing “in the alternative,” but this seems to be a little over the top.  Well, we haven’t heard the end of this nonsense, not by a long shot.