Two stories that came out a few weeks ago provide things great and small to mock.  Mona Charen provides evidence that applications to Dartmouth are fewer these days. It is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, as long as the Ivies, taken together, are able to send out more thin envelopes than thick. It might though, be the end of the beginning, in which the major retrenchments have so far been in obscure parts of higher education.
Dartmouth has seen a large decline in applications over the past year, down 14 percent. That's probably a good thing. Maybe it means that parents as well as prospective students are rethinking the allure of a school that marries a party atmosphere to political correctness. The cure, however, is not more sensitivity training and gender-neutral bathrooms.

The promiscuous culture rampant on university campuses leads to a coarser atmosphere and diminished happiness.There was a time in American education when educators felt comfortable in passing along moral values to the young. Now the only thing they seem to know how to do is pass on platitudes about inclusivity.
Which independent-minded people are capable of resisting, particularly as the Perpetually Aggrieved persevere in criminalizing normality, generally with the institutional prestige of U.S. News - anointed affiliations.

Meanwhile, John Hinderaker suggests that in intercollegiate debate, goalposts must be moved in order for all to win prizes.
College debating, it seems, has been radically transformed in ways that make it easier for African-Americans to succeed at it.
Apparently by making it difficult to distinguish forensics from a session of the dozens.

What's instructive, though, is that it's no longer de jure segregation or bad anthropology that's keeping some students down.
As for the notion of “privilege,” it is now clear that the debaters of our era were privileged in a limited but important sense. We were required to take the activity seriously and to meet high standards in order to succeed. For example, we did not have the privilege of ignoring the time limits on speeches, much less of blowing them off with obscenities. We took this for granted at the time, but it turns out to have been a privilege.
Have the Perpetually Aggrieved considered the possibility that as bad anthropology or Jim Crow give way to "privilege" and "intersectionality" and "microaggression" and some segments of some populations continue to underachieve relative to others, simpler explanations, ones that cast the Perpetually Aggrieved in a bad light, gain traction?

No comments: