|
The life of the mind in Toronto
Another slice of life in higher education and in Canada: University of Toronto president under fire for remark. Read it — I have no idea where to begin. Posted by Jim Kalb at November 15, 2002 09:22 AM | Send Comments
“Brown said an apology from Birgeneau isn’t enough. He must extend a hand to African students in Toronto to help them attend university.” Those two sentences say it all. The point, all along, was to advance the agenda of providing more handouts to blacks. Decent people accept a sincere apology when one is offered. But when someone has an axe to grind, and is looking for an opportunity to be offended, no apology is ever appreciated or sufficient. This was a power play, pure and simple. Birgeneau inadvertently provided them with a tactical opening. Their stubborn refusal to consider more charitable interpretations of his intent proves, I think, that they saw it that way. Posted by: Charlie on November 15, 2002 12:06 PMThe article is among other things confirmation that merely stating an objective fact can get one thrown out from under the protection of the liberal big tent: just observing, without at all advocating, that some students may be avoiding the university because of its racial mix — an objective fact — is to be a racist. Notice too that one must at all costs avoid being called a “racist”. To be a “racist” is to be a subhuman untermensch oppressor, and we all know that subhuman untermensch oppressors have forfeited their rights and have nothing to say that is worth listening to. These untermensch must be eliminated one way or another in order for the new world of the new free and equal supermen to emerge. One of the current techniques being used is multigenerational genocide by mass immigration without assimilation. I suppose that might be better than some of the more impatient methods used by liberals to exterminate the untermensch, but in the long run the objective and result are the same. The university president’s main error was in failing to categorically condemn those students who avoid the university in the same breath in which he observed the fact of their avoidance. It is critical to identify and focus on the oppressors in order to be sure that they can be eradicated through compulsory “reeducation”, or if necessary through more aggressive means. I’d begin by asking to see some statistics and evidence, instead of assuming that the statement is true and going off on another anti-liberal rant as a result. Well, it isn’t so much that he stated it as an actual fact as that he raised it as an objectively possible fact that he found anecdotally plausible. Presenting a hypothesis about a possible objective state of affairs without simultaneously condemning that possibility as a horror is what placed Birgeneau in danger of being thrown out of the Tolerance Tent. If I were to say “maybe Hitler did not think he was lying; maybe he really believed what he said he believed and yet still did what he did; what are the implications of that possibility?” I would be treated in similar fashion (although I am not a life long civil rights activist so I expect I would have less teflon than Birgeneau). So merely exploring an objective possibility in order to determine its objective implications is enough to forfeit ones’ rights and exit the big tolerant tent. And anyway, to be precise, “some students may be avoiding the university because of its racial mix” is an apodictically true statement. No further evidence is required in order to make the “may” assertion true, although comprehensive information about the states of mind of all applicants, if such knowledge were possible in principle, could conceivably falsify it. So Birgeneau was vilified, made to publicly apologize, and told that public apology was not enough, all because he made an objectively true statement. I don’t have any problem with any of that in the abstract, but it is certainly hypocritical of tolerant liberals. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 1:05 PMHe’s the President of the most prestigious university in Canada and he was speaking in a public forum. If that is his contention, then it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence. He couldn’t, so he apologized. Mis-speaking and apologizing for it is one thing. It’s stretching things to see it as any more, whether it is those who are looking to be offended from the left OR the right. Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:09 PMGiven that Birgeneau was accused of being a racist rather than of having the facts wrong Jane’s point is a nonsequitir. Matt, perhaps you should read this article in which no one is accused of being a racist before dismissing my comments as a non sequitur because you’d rather believe the incident was just another example of liberal oppression. I’m not sure if the html link is working from the preview pane, so will post the link here as well: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=30C28C85-80D8-40F5-9CAB-6755B3D038CF Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:39 PMMurphy Brown, of the Organization of Parents of Black Children, says in the article to which Mr. Kalb linked: “For him to say white students are not attending the university because there are too many students of colour, that was shocking to say the least,” she said.”I don’t know if he’s a racist. The remarks that he made there were racist,” she said. Brown did not say that she thought he had the facts wrong and that those facts should be determined. Brown did not advocate a study to determine if in fact white students avoid the university because of its racial mix. I expect that Brown would probably find the proposal to perform such a study “racist” as well. Jane is of course welcome to discuss other articles as she sees fit. I however was addressing the article actually linked in Mr. Kalb’s original posting. When Jane attempts to change the subject by introducing a different article that is also a nonsequitir. I don’t like his statement for the simple reason that it insinuates that prospective white students are at the very least slightly racist. However, I don’t know the precise context, nor do I know his evidence (he may have anecdotal evidence). Above that, if one does believe that Western society is fundamentally racist, as many left-wing intellectuals do, then all he was doing was reasserting the prevailing orthodoxy. In summary, then, I can’t quite understand anybody calling his comments racist or questioning his committment to racial diversity, as many clearly have done. Posted by: Owen Courreges on November 15, 2002 1:50 PMMatt, please persist in finding one person with a goofy point of view and treating it as an example of liberal oppression in Soviet Canuckistanian academe. And please shift the rules of posting as we go along to ensure that no one can legitimately question your contention in your view. Yes, liberals are oppressive. Next. Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:58 PMOwen, I agree…the man mis-spoke during a heated debate. And he’s apologized. Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 1:59 PMMethinks Jane doth protest too much. I didn’t “find” anything, I was just discussing the actual article in question from the perspective of this antimodern politically incorrect rightist. That is what this blog is for. Perhaps Jane really thinks that pointing out her nonsequitir and subsequent attempt to change the subject is “shift[ing] the rules of posting”, but if so it is going to be difficult to have a rational discussion with her. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 2:22 PMMatt, the subject is, as stated in the original post: “Another slice of life in higher education and in Canada: University of Toronto president under fire for remark.” I responded to that…and no one is forcing you to either read or respond to my comments. No one is forcing you to discuss the article or incident in question with anyone other than another like-minded “antimodern politically incorrect rightist.” Here I thought that the people on this blog sounded fairly well educated and could handle more than one source, or go beyond the text. I still think that, despite this little exchange. So do carry on with those of like minds. Happy discussing! Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 2:49 PMOwen Courrèges says, “I don’t like [Birgeneau’s] statement for the simple reason that it insinuates that prospective white students are at the very least slightly racist.” People have tastes in people, Owen, which are none of your or the government’s business. If people’s tastes make them prefer to attend university among a certain ethnic group and not among a certain other one, that’s their affair. Stick your nose where it belongs, please. And Jane, yes — to the extent liberal government refuses to mind its own damn business in this and so many other ways, it is oppressive. It is holier-than-thou. It is trying to get the mote out of its neighbor’s eye while there is a log in its own eye. It is being a nosy busybody and people are frankly sick-and-tired of it. Liberal and left-wing governments and government bureaucrats need to be told, once and for all, where to get off. Unadorned: I’ll bet that you don’t know what the racial mix is at the U of T. And I’ll bet that you don’t know there are no quotas. And I’ll further bet that you don’t have a clue about recruitment-acceptance rates at the U of T. In fact, I’ll bet that you don’t have a sniff of the state of postsecondary education in Ontario at all, or the political bent of the provincial government (which has nothing to do with the story in question, by the way). Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 3:02 PMMr. Courreges comments do I think articulate the true situation *from the liberal perspective*. From the liberal perspective it should appear odd that Birgeneau was accused of racism when all he did was affirm leftist orthodoxy in his remarks. There are problems with the perspective itself, though, starting with the notion that “racist” is a well-defined category to begin with. Jim Kalb’s writing on the vindication of stereotypes is particularly helpful here. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:03 PMJane mistakes my pointing out of her change-the-subject technique for an unwillingness to discuss other subjects. I am more than willing to discuss other subjects, other articles of related interest, and other aspects of whatever is of current interest. I am unwilling to treat a change of subject as if it addressed the original question, though, because to do so would require me to compromise basic rationality. Jane seems to think that when she said: “He’s the President of the most prestigious university in Canada and he was speaking in a public forum. If that is his contention, then it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence. He couldn’t, so he apologized.” that that addresses the problem of why Birgeneau was called a racist. It does not. It addresses a different possible problem of why some may have questioned Birgeneau on the facts, but the question of why he was called a racist is clearly unrelated to Jane’s issue. I pointed out the nonsequitir. When I posted a quote from one Murphy Brown, whose point of view is a theme of the article from start to finish, Jane accuses me of: “…finding one person with a goofy point of view and treating it as an example of liberal oppression…” She then included a link to an entirely different article as a way of reinforcing this attempt at changing the subject. It is entirely possible, of course, that Jane simply does not want to talk about why Birgeneau was called a racist, or that she did not realize that my posts were addressing the implications of Birgeneau being called a racist. Now if Jane wants to engage in civilized discussion of just about anything that is certainly possible here. There are a few things she will find are not tolerated here, though. I was going to say that one of those things is intellectual sloppiness, but that is not quite right. Intellectual sloppiness is tolerated; but attempts to take one’s own intellectual sloppiness and pin responsibility for it on others is not. Gentlemen do not tolerate that sort of thing. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:27 PMIf I were a gentleman as evidenced by my opponent in this tit for tat, I’d snidely point out Matt’s pseudo-intellectual redundancy in a former post, instead of concentrating on the issue at hand and make some comment about intellectual sloppiness. But I’m not. So I won’t. Or I’d question the use of the passive voice..”was called a racist”…by whom? By a wingnut, but here I thought the topic wasn’t “wingnuts say stupid things and get into print”, but “life in higher education in Toronto.” Tsk tsk…poor little antimodern. Life is tough when no one wants to just agree with you. Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 3:43 PMI suppose I can interpret Jane’s comment to mean that she doesn’t think anyone important has called Birgeneau a racist, and that therefore focusing on it as an issue with implications is intellectually sloppy. Given that we have two articles on the table, and the central theme of one of them is that Birgeneau is accused of racism for his remarks, I don’t know why she would come to that conclusion; if in fact it accurately represents her POV. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:51 PMAnother wing nut on the site Jane pointed out thinks Birgeneau’s comments were racist: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=95644BF8-A948-450E-A98A-BB6201F2EF9D “Regardless of whether he is racist or not racist, he made those comments, which were racist,” Emily Sadowki, president of the association of part-time undergraduate students, told the campus newspaper, The Varsity. “He represents this institution — which is racist.” Clearly there is more than one wing nut out there, so I’m not sure why they should be off limits to discussion. Of the three articles we now have on the topic two of them give air time to the view that Birgeneau’s comments were racist. As with everything there are other points of view as well, but again I am not sure why discussing this one should be considered off limits. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 3:57 PMIt isn’t just the wingnuts, its the journalists too. Or maybe the journalists are winguts themselves. From the article: “As to the question of what Mr. Birgeneau actually meant with his comment, that is difficult to answer — because we do not know what definition of the word ‘diversity’ he had in mind at the time. If Mr. Birgeneau meant diverse in the dictionary sense — ‘unlike in nature or qualities; varied’ — then his comment is difficult to defend, for it would imply that white students are repelled by the fact that a wide variety of non-white students may be found on the U of T campus. Such a statement is not only offensive, it is factually inaccurate. As such, it can only be construed as a gaffe, and Mr. Birgeneau is correct to apologize profusely for it.” So if Birgeneau actually meant to imply the possibility that students are avoiding the institution on account of race, simply making that conjecture about a possible factual state of affairs is offensive. It also implies that we’d better be careful about what the meaning of the word “is” is in our public discussions, unless we want to face the moral wrath of offended liberalism. As I said, methinks Jane doth protest too much. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:14 PMJane says, “Unadorned: I’ll bet that you don’t know what the racial mix is at the U of T. And I’ll bet that you don’t know there are no quotas. And I’ll further bet that you don’t have a clue about recruitment-acceptance rates at the U of T. In fact, I’ll bet that you don’t have a sniff of the state of postsecondary education in Ontario at all, or the political bent of the provincial government … “ In response, I stand by my original statement: ” … [I]f [displacement of white students is] taking place on a quotas basis, [that] is wrong and is yet one more example of the oppressiveness of liberals.” Jane, you say “there are no quotas.” I do not believe you. (No one on this planet in his right mind would.) We can be sure of certain things without having to look them up. One is that the sun will rise tomorrow. Another is that there are racial quotas at the U. of T.
Unadorned: the article to which I just provided a link says the following: “As things stand, the University of Toronto does not have an official affirmative action hiring or admission policy.” Heaven only knows what the actual policy is, since every public institution in America and Canada has nondiscrimination requirements. I don’t know enough about Canuckistan to be helpful on that, and on whether whatever-the-policy-is can properly be implicitly construed as quotas, but at first brush the evidence is against. Matt, thanks, but liberal liars camouflage things in many ways. They have racial quotas. Count on it. Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 4:34 PMUnadorned: I do agree that often a modest reform hides an even more deadly reform, but I am not much on conspiracy theories. Something as big, universal, and as public as liberalism isn’t going to be able to hide a secret cabal of subterfuge very well, and the hiring and admission practices of a university are a fairly public affair. “Quotas” to most mean a formal requirement for proportional representation, and obviously the UoT does not have that. I suppose if your point is that the de-facto system acts as if it had such a formal requirement that is an argument that could be made, but you can hardly place the burden of making that argument on Jane. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 4:42 PMJane’s article doesn’t give any air time to direct accusations of racism against Birgeneau, its true. The central theme is that Birgeneau is deeply apologetic about the whole affair and thinks that maybe even something good can come of it. He says: “I don’t mind people pushing me on diversity because it’s important. If any members of the community use my misstatement as a sort of excuse to push for continuing emphasis on diversity, that I don’t mind, as long as it’s constructive.” So its all nice and friendly under the big liberal tent. Birgeneau doesn’t have to be sent off to a retraining camp after all. “So its all nice and friendly under the big liberal tent. Birgeneau doesn’t have to be sent off to a retraining camp after all.” You’re right, Matt — looks like he’s back in his dog collar and leash, barking all the right words. “I suppose if your point is that the de-facto system acts as if it had such a formal requirement that is an argument that could be made, but you can hardly place the burden of making that argument on Jane.” How’s this for a burden, Matt? — I’ll give one year of my income to the person who can convincingly demonstrate that that University doesn’t have racial quotas, “affirmative action,” or some equivalent or form thereof. Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 4:56 PMUnadorned, providing a monetary incentive is a nice gesture and all at least for those with intellect for sale, but it doesn’t consititute an argument. The claim that the institution has a system of practices which are intended by elites to directly result in proportional representation is not an unreasonable one, but making a claim of quotas, then redefining it to mean implicit quotas, and then stepping back with folded arms to say “prove me wrong” doesn’t make it any more credible. It is a subjective expectation, but it implies no tectonic shift in intellectual burden of proof. “I bet I’m right” is an expression of confidence perhaps, but it is not an expression of either factual evidence or reasoned argument. You made an assertion. Jane said “prove it”. You responded “I know I’m right”. I said “well, this article says you are wrong, but if you meant this other thing then you might be able to make an argument.” You said “I’ll bet my salary on it.” Folks can have whatever conversations they want, I suppose, but again the burden of proof is on the assertion. Posted by: Matt on November 15, 2002 5:10 PMUnadorned, The point was that I think Birgeneau is wrong. I don’t believe any significant number of whites were actively avoiding the university because of something as trivial as racial diversity. If they were, sure, it is their business — I simply think that it is a silly preference to have, and if based on racism is simply wrong. I’ve a right to my opinion about other peoples’ personal decisions, just so long as I don’t render those decisions illegal without further justification. Posted by: Owen Courrèges on November 15, 2002 6:33 PMThanks, Matt, for that clarification. My offer stands. Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 7:37 PMHow can the U of T have quotas when it has none? And further how can the U of T tell who is what race when the question isn’t asked on the application form…AA Psychic Hotline? Posted by: Jane on November 15, 2002 8:05 PMIt is true according to that article that there is no “affimative action policy”, so in all likelihood there is no formal goal for proportional representation. Racial quota systems are generally though to be a subset of all possible affirmative action. Unless the article is outright wrong the most Unadorned can argue is that there are de-facto quotas but not formal quotas. Clearly Jane has the right of it based on the current information on the table. I don’t know why an application question ought to be considered the only way of determining the ethnic makeup of the campus. There are plenty of other ways, and in fact more accurate ways since application questions about race are notoriously innaccurate. On the other hand this whole branch of the discussion seems rather pedantic unless I am missing something. Who cares if there are numerically accurate measures of the ethnic makeup of the campus, or if there are formal goals to achieve quantitatively proportional representation? The political issue is not methodological. The political issue is whether there is a policy of liberal multiculturalism, and clearly there is. Why do the details matter except as fodder for useless argumentation? Matt says, “The political issue is whether there is a policy of liberal multiculturalism, and clearly there is.” Jane, why cannot liberals see that multi-culti means no-culti-at-all, and to have multi-culti you must first-and-foremost have culti without which no multi-culti is possible? Next time you paint a picture, Jane, mix all the colors together before you start, and paint with just that. Next time you’re in an ice-cream parlor, ask the clerk to melt a little of all the varieties in the microwave, pour them together, and refreeze that for your serving. Next time you’re in a restaurant, ask the waiter to mix all his wines together for you in a bottle. I mean … we ARE talking about no-brainers here, n’est-ce pas? Or am I dreaming again? Posted by: Unadorned on November 15, 2002 10:44 PMUnadorned, while you are off on your tangent, do bear in mind that TORONTO as a city is multicultural, that the University of Toronto is very selective, and that there are no quotas. As for multiculturalism and race, I recommend you to a study by Doug Daniels in which he argues that ‘white” is as political as it is a matter of culture. Or does that matter in your drive to prove something about liberalism? Posted by: Jane on November 16, 2002 2:05 AMJane says, “Unadorned, while you are off on your tangent, do bear in mind that TORONTO as a city is multicultural, that the University of Toronto is very selective, and that there are no quotas.” Off on my tangent? I’m off on no tangent, Jane. I said to Matt that my offer stands. Matt may think you have won. Matt’s entitled to his opinion. So’s everyone else on this Forum. The University of Toronto has racial quotas, so-called affirmative action, or some equivalent or form thereof. I’m not going to go up there posing as a reporter and ferret out how they do it. I don’t have time to personally go and unmask each lie the foaming-at-the-mouth way-out radical Left tells, only to have them shove yet another one in all of our faces as they continue to advance their agenda. That’s not how the game’s going to be played — not by me anyway. Put that in your “off-on-a-tangent” pipe and smoke it, Jane. As for the second half of your post, it was contentless. Posted by: Unadorned on November 16, 2002 9:10 AMTo anyone who believes the U. of Toronto’s claim that racial preferences in student admissions are not used: Can you still feel so certain after reading this article (below) that racial preferences in some way, shape, or form, are not used there, perhaps covertly? After all, the article states frankly that the U. of Toronto does have a racial preferences policy in place which governs the hiring and promotion of faculty members. It also seems to say that in student surveys conducted by the University, half of students there “self-identify as belonging to a visible minority.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “visible minority” does not mean Jewish-Canadians, Irish-Catholic Canadians, Italian-Canadians, or Armenian-Canadians. I wonder if half of the Canadian population which is served by the U. of Toronto is made up of “visible minorities”? Here’s the article: http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin3/021122D.asp Posted by: Unadorned on November 26, 2002 12:33 PMI think the earlier dispute was about quotas. It is indisputable that admission policies at Western universities positively promote racial preferences under the label “diversity”. The question was whether there are formal quantitative targets. The left has made a point of avoiding such targets as a way of insulating itself from criticism; my own position in that earlier thread is that the left may well be able to claim that there are no “quotas” but that the claim is irrelevant. David Duke Diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder
David Duke has a combination of other mental illnesses that The Psychopath is defined in the dictionary as a person David Duke gets great gratification in the act of hurting The lack of moral development lets the person feel no guilt or Characteristic List * be glib or superficial The antisocial tends to have short lasting relationships if David Duke is very intelligent and knows how to manipulate The diagnosis of a sociopath or psychopath is very difficult 1. Failure to conform to the social norms for lawful behavior, as 2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or 3. Impulsivity failure to plan ahead; 4. Irritability and aggressive, as indicated by repeated physical 5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 6. Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by failure to keep a job 7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by indifference or rationalizations * must be older than 18 to be diagnosed with it Anti-Social Personality Disorder is found in as much as 75% of After the age of 30 David Duke fights less and performs If a person is diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder Characteristics of Borderline Disorder Violating the rights of others and age appropriate societal *OFTEN BULLYING, THREATENING, OR INTIMIDATING OTHERS; *OFTEN INITIATING FIGHTS; *USE OF A WEAPON THAT CAN CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM TO OTHERS (BAT *PHYSICAL CRUELTY TO PEOPLE AND ANIMALS; *STEALING IN A CONFRONTATION WITH VICTIM ( MUGGING, PURSE SNATCHING, *FORCING SOMEONE INTO SEXUAL ACTIVITY; *DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY - DELIBERATE FIRE SETTING WITH INTENTION TO *DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF OTHER ‘S PROPERTY IN OTHER WAYS; *DECEITFULNESS OR THEFT-BREAKING INTO SOMEONE ‘S HOUSE, CAR, *FREQUENT LYING TO GET GOODS, FAVORS AND AVOID OBLIGATIONS; *STEALING ITEMS OF NON-TRIVIAL VALUE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE *SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE RULES- OFTEN STAYING OUT ALL NIGHT *RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME AT LEAST TWICE (ONCE NOT RETURNING FOR A *FREQUENT TRUANCY FROM SCHOOL, SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT IN *RACIAL INJUSTICE COMPLEXES The diagnoses of David Duke is extremely difficult because The inability to diagnose and treat properly leads me to —- BOOKS Wing, John Kenneth, Reasoning About Madness, Oxford Press, Oxford 1978 Milt, Harry, Basic Handbook on Mental Illness, Scribner, New York, 1974 Hales, Dianne, Caring for the Mind, Bantam Books, New York, 1995 ARTICLES Salama M.D., Aziz A., The Antisocial Personality, The Psychiatric Malaney M. D., Kathleen R., Patients with Antisocial Personality Unknown, unknown, Psychopathic Patients Pose Dilemma For Physicians Hare Ph.D., Robert, Predators, Psychology Today, Feb. 1994 Hill, Heather, Monsters In Our Midst, Homemaker ‘s Magazine, Oct. 1995 VIDEO The World of Abnormal Psychology Personality Disorder |