Hoo boy, kicker here is he doesn't say he checks resumes for evidence the student is a legacy admit at whatever top school, and downgrades accordingly. Even though he complains about legacy admissions as hypocrisy in the letter. 1/
The takeaway is: look, legacies are a thing. It's hypocrisy to get all worked up about race and NOT about legacy admits. (True!) Therefore, the status quo must be ... preserved? That's crazy. It isn't even two wrongs make a right. It's one wrong makes a right. 2/
The larger takeaway is that the enthusiastically favorable response to this letter, by Weiss and co., is proof Weiss and co. are empirically and morally delusional on the subject, like the letter writer himself. Severely so. 3/
Setting aside the 'always the ones you most suspect' revelation that the author is, in fact, an enthusiastic, personal booster of systemic racism, in a professional capacity, the letter is a slurry of nonsense, resentment, questionable claims - and a few half-decent points. 4/
It's plausible the school has gone overboard - doing some things excessively, others in a pointless, performative way. It's perfectly reasonable to object, could be, that some of this stuff gets grifty. Institutions are worried about criticism. 5/
What they really want to do is not solve a problem but buy insurance against being accused of not having tried to. They want to be certified as going through the motions. For the most part that's 'mostly harmless' but sometimes it's kinda toxic, pedagogically, could be. 6/
Grant this is so, for the sake of the argument. (I do not think it unreasonable to grant it, even though this author is demonstrably racially resentful, hence an unreliable informant. I don't know what's up at the school. Worst case, it's ridiculous, verging on bad.) 7/
Grant this is so: the letter is still an obvious triple-decker shit sandwich - with a few prospectively palatable ingredients tucked in there! Who in their right moral mind looks at that and thinks 'looks good'? 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Maybe I'll pile on this thread later, with the rest. For starters, I think we can agree Biden don't jive. The word is 'jibe'. But it's one of those words people get wrong. 1/
So I got curious. Whence 'jibe'? The odd thing is that this usage is opposite to other senses, seemingly. 'To jibe' is to sneer; or steer a boat in a way I wouldn't describe as 'harmonizing' with the wind. 2/ google.com/search?client=…
The OED says it's a mystery but the first instance, from 1813 - "it curricle-izes or gibes in but too well with the passing anecdotes of the day" - seems to suggest a clear solution and it isn't the phonetic connection to 'chime'. 3/
New OBZ! Some delicate color here - lest one think Nietzche feels only contempt for these derpy denizens of the town. Do not these spots of color indicate an earnest wish on Z's, hence N's, part that the organ grinder not merely have his organs ground? 1/ onbeyondzarathustra.com/copy-of-gdfd-p…
Speaking of which! There is no 'team' in 'intestinal', but there is an 'I' and a 'test'. We are really getting to "Ye have made your way from worm to man, and much within you is still worm ..." 2/
Look at the little guy's face? Is he not - we? As Alexander Pope writes:
"So morning insects that in muck begun,
Shine, buzz, and fly-blow in the setting sun."
If this doesn't get 'likes' I'm complaining to the manager.
Incredible. Still only a few likes for a meme that has something for everyone: Neoliberals with a sense of detachment; anti-neoliberals; people who aren’t sure what ‘neoliberalism’ means.
Kerr BOTH thinks we should be talking about it as a thing that could be good AND that we are only permitted to use a word for it that implies it couldn't be good, 'court-packing'? C'mon, pick a lane. 1/
The D's need a philosophy of the judicial branch to counter 'originalist' argle-bargle from the right. 'Originalism' is a rhetoric not a philosophy (well, it's a bad philosophy, but so are most rhetorics.) But it's been hugely successful. 2/
D's need to counter that, undesirable as this is, the SC is now thoroughly politicized. Maybe it's all the fault of that darned Earl Warren, but, whatever, in recent decades the right has seen to it that its 6 R-appointed Justices are expected to be reliable partisans. 3/
Anti-court-packing rhetoric ratchets up a notch NR. Some of this is guilty projection. NR has to get behind R's; R's are increasingly behind the Jan 6 insurrection, so, in all decency, you gotta try to peel some 'thuggish treason' off your team, stick it to the other team. 1/
Even so this is a bit much. I think D's need to push back. R's have, for decades, evolved this extreme rhetoric in which whatever D judges do is 'activism', whatever R judges do is not. (At NR, Whelan has a column that makes liberal = activism an alleged analytic legal truth.) 2/
R's are always saying that D's are undermining the courts. But the opposite is true. R's have adopted a steady rhetoric that D judges, since they disagree with R's, who are doing the just plain right 'orginalist' thing, are illegitimate. 3/
The books do contain negative stereotypes. It qualifies as a genuine minor dilemma. It is a fascinating, ethically fiddly topic to argue! At the same time, one of the two major parties in the US has, as its sole policy goal at present, vote suppression. 2/ apnews.com/article/dr-seu…
This generates a minor meta-dilemma. I don't want to forbid people debating the minor dilemma (just how harmful is it to small children that Seuss contains negative ethnic stereotypes?) just because voter suppression is more clear and consequential. Which it for sure is. 3/