Category Archives: political correctness (PC)

Roger W. Smith, “‘Hamilton’ actor disses VP-elect; a few comments in response to a Broadway “lecture”

Leave a reply

 

Re:

“‘Hamilton’ Cast’s Appeal to Pence Ignites Showdown With Trump”

by Patrick Healy

The New York Times

November 19, 2016

*****************************************************

Some highlights, as per the New York Times story:

A controversy erupted two days ago when the cast of the Broadway hit “Hamilton” made a politically charged appeal from the stage on November 18 to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was in the audience, urging him and Mr. Trump to “uphold our American values” and “work on behalf of all of us.”

On Saturday, November, 19, one supporter of Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter that the “Hamilton” statement was “a staged hit job.” Another wrote that actors should never “humiliate a member of the audience.”

Mr. Pence’s “Hamilton” seats were bought, not provided by the production as complimentary seats, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction.

President-elect Trump caused further controversy when he tweeted: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place. The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”

Vice President-elect Mike Pence attended the performance of “Hamilton” on Friday, November 18. Afterward, a lead actor, Brandon Victor Dixon, who plays Aaron Burr in the show, read a statement: “You know, we have a guest in the audience this evening — Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out but I hope you hear just a few more moments,” Mr. Dixon said. As some in the audience booed, Mr. Dixon hushed them, then added, “Sir, we hope that you will hear us out.”

As Mr. Pence stood by the exit doors, Mr. Dixon said:

We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us — our planet, our children, our parents — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.

From the The New York Times:

The plea to Mr. Pence was written by [Lin-Manuel] Miranda; the show’s director, Thomas Kail; and the lead producer, Jeffrey Seller, with contributions from cast members, according to Mr. Seller. In an interview after the show, Mr. Seller said he learned “very late that Mr. Pence was coming to the show, and the creative team and cast members quickly reckoned with how to respond.

Actor Brandon Victor Dixon’s statement is on YouTube at

 

*****************************************************

Commentary by Roger W. Smith

I would characterize Mr. Dixon’s remarks as insipid and inane, a weak tea.

patronize — treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

That’s precisely what actor Brandon Victor Dixon did in his statement.

I would say, apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of MORAL superiority.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   November 20 2016

 

*****************************************************

Readers’ comments

The following are some comments generated by and in response to the controversy, mostly from the Washington Post and New York Times websites.

 

THE WASHINGTON POST

If you are hired to wait the president’s table at a restaurant, what you don’t get to do is use that as an opportunity to lobby your political views. So too with actors at a performance. It was not only presumptuous for a relatively obscure (outside of Broadway anyway) stage actor to give the VP elect gratuitous advice on how to govern in accordance with the Constitution, but completely out of line.

I would fire him and any waiter, server, flight attendant, steward, physician, nurse, or any other entertainer or service person hired to serve the president or vice president who fails to keep in mind their job description. People pay $175 to see a Broadway play, not for tinhorn advice outside the script delivered by an airheaded actor.

— Stephen Gianelli

 

Right on target. Thank you. Amidst all the bloviating, someone is capable of talking sense about this ridiculous contretemps, started by producers and cast who thought they would not only put on the performance of a play, but would give a sermon at the end.

— Roger W. Smith

 

Who needs to go to the theatre to be preached at? What turned people off from traditional religion was the judgmental attitude and arrogance. Now, we have the church of the left. But unlike regular church, these people are trying to turn every public area into a sanitized zone for their ideology. Save us from the neo-Puritans.

— Anonymous

 

The audience, all of whom paid also, were most pleased by the gracious and moving response of the cast to an opportunity to address Mr. Pence, whether he wanted to be addressed or not. So was a great swath of Americans, the majority of whom do not support this evil administration-to-be. No one cares that you would fire that wonderful cast — they have the warm support of millions in this country. Like it or not, you are living in history, and like it or not the free people in America will protest this election, and like our founding fathers are not concerned about your disgruntled sensibilities. At all.

— Anonymous

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Is this the new normal? If someone you don’t like comes to your show you single them out and embarrass them to make your political statement? I don’t see how this helps. Why not welcome all kinds of people to see your show?

— Jan LP, Northern California

 

Diversity, huh? Yes, the cast of Hamilton is multi ethnic, but that’s where the diversity comes to a screaming halt, since apparently everyone thinks exactly alike and reflects uniformly only one extreme side of the political spectrum. Not one member of the cast, crew or productive team diverges in any way from the leftist progressive agenda, and all are presumably Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton for president. Lockstep, group think, all the way down the line.

So, diversity of ethnicity…. you bet. Diversity of thought and ideology…. non-existent. Some diversity. The booing was classless and the lecture immature and embarrassing. Can you imagine what would happen if Trump himself attended a performance? It would make Diaghilev’s Paris premiere of the Rite of Spring in 1913, which featured a full scale riot, look like high tea by comparison.

As weird as this sounds, I think the cast and creators of “Hamilton” should keep their noses out of politics. Stick with churning out the toe tappers and providing a memorable, entertaining evening at the theater and leave it at that.

— Thomas Field, Dallas

 

While I agree with the message, the actions of the “Hamilton” cast were inappropriate. it was heckling in reverse. Mr. Pence came to see your play and deserved the same respect as any other paying customer who was hoping for an evening of entertainment (and perhaps some enlightenment).

— Honey Feeney, Harrisburg, PA

 

Pence attended the performance, didn’t he? That alone signals an open mind. Only those hoping for Trump and Pence to fail would attempt to convey Pence’s attendance into a liability.

— Anonymous, Cedarburg, WI

 

It is ironic and paradoxical that an actor will single out an audience member to accuse someone for supposedly lacking tolerance for diversity and not provide the stage for equal time and diversity! A perfect example of hypocrisy and not being tolerant of diverse opinions! Shame on you Mr. Dixon and the producers of this Broadway musical!

— Anonymous, Southern California

 

I think the cast of “Hamilton” should seriously petition the producers to lower the thousand dollar plus ticket prices so more of us “diverse” numbers could see the show. And, I don’t mean nosebleed balcony seats.

Anonymous, Florida

 

Here we go again. Those highly educated, lovers of diversity and tolerance liberals shaking their finger at the soon-to-be VP because 60 plus million Americans voted for him. Those liberals who love everyone….so long as you think like them! Otherwise, they’ll kick the you-know-what out of you, or try to humiliate you in public. That’s their definition of tolerance, I guess.

— J. G. Smith, Fort Collins, CO

 

Brandon Victor Dixon [the actor who read the statement after the performance] has lived a life of privilege, having attended St. Alban’s, Columbia and Oxford, on his way to being a rich actor. His supercilious lecture to Mike Pence was horribly condescending – he could have used the moment to wish the Vice President good luck and success, as a start to bringing the country back together.

It’s to Pence’s credit that he responded with grace and dignity, politely listening to the pompous thespian squawk (still speaking in voice) about first world problems. It brings to mind Pauline Kael’s famous quote, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them,” and reinforces the belief that liberals are out of touch with the rest of the world. Which is why Hillary lost the election.

— Anonymous, Texas

 

“Mr. Dixon, who read the statement after playing the nation’s third vice president, quickly replied with a post of his own:

“@realDonaldTrump conversation is not harassment sir. And I appreciate @mike_pence for stopping to listen.”

It wasn’t a conversation. It was a monologue, a lecture, a bit of an accusation which didn’t give Pence a platform to respond to what was unexpectedly shoved in his face.

I think Mr. Dixon’s speech, and tweet, were very gracious and I don’t take much issue with it. But, it does seem like this seems to be how the left communicates: a monologue which requires one to listen to a laundry list of perceived wrongs and gripes in which the accused isn’t allowed to disagree or dissent.

— Anonymous, San Diego

 

*****************************************************

“It never ceases to amaze me how liberals desire acceptance and diversity for everything except political philosophy.”

— Matt Borges, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party

 

*****************************************************

Addendum:

See also:

“Hamilton’ Duel: Addressing the President-Elect on His Own Blunt Terms” (Critic’s Notebook), by Ben Brantley, The New York Times, November 20, 2016

I am forwarding to you a link to an opinion piece by Ben Brantley in yesterday’s New York Times.

I thought of you because the piece supports (energetically) your point of view re the “Hamilton” cast’s remarks after the performance which Mike Pence attended on Friday.

Of course, I thoroughly disagree with Brantley.

I thought his piece, while he used clever arguments earnestly made, was actually weak and jerry–built, and was unconvincing. I am disappointed in Brantley.

I know you won’t agree (!), but there’s no harm in considering and sharing different opinions, right? Isn’t that what the defenders of the “Hamilton” cast are trying to say in their defense?

— Roger W. Smith, email to relative, November 21,2016

 

*****************************************************

Addendum:

The curtain call taunt of a “Hamilton” cast member to Vice President-elect Mike Pence was a public and premature chastisement, grossly impolite and impolitic. It was a perfect example of liberal cultural overreach, importune and embarrassing to a decent man whose only offense was to have given the show his nonpolitical attendance.

Art and politics are often mixed, but post-performance editorializing to a particular member of the audience is simply bad manners.

— Peter Hutchinson, Phippsburg, Me., letter to editor, New York Times, November 22, 2016

Frank Bruni in defense of the “deplorables”

Leave a reply

 

Other factors conspired in the party’s debacle. One in particular haunts me. From the presidential race on down, Democrats adopted a strategy of inclusiveness that excluded a hefty share of Americans and consigned many to a “basket of deplorables” who aren’t all deplorable. …

Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. …

Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn’t remotely tactical. It’s a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.

“The Democrats Screwed Up” by Frank Bruni, The New York Times  November 11, 2016

Frank Bruni, ‘The Democarts Screwed Up’

 

*****************************************************

Three cheers for Frank Bruni. Finally, someone has actually spoken out against the views of the fanatical politically correct crowd: the new orthodoxy. (Well, that’s not quite right. Others have.)

And, defended the “deplorables.”

I’ve recently been called a “deplorable” myself!

 

—  Roger W. Smith
  
   November 14, 2016

 

*********************************************************

See also:

“Will the Left Survive the Millennials?” by Lionel Shriver, op ed, The New York Times, September 23, 2016

Lionel Shriver, ‘Will the Left Survive the Millenials’

Ms. Shriver, a noted American author, brilliantly and incisively makes points along the same lines – to the effect that a new “totalitarian orthodoxy” is setting in — already has: the orthodoxy of the politically correct left.

the sacking of Billy Bush

2 Replies

 

Who is Billy Bush?

The nephew of former President George H. W. Bush.

The cousin of former President George W. Bush.

A former anchor of Access Hollywood, a weekly television program, and the former host of a nationally syndicated talk and music radio show.

Most recently, until just a few days ago, he was a co-host of the third hour of NBC’s Today show.

I had never heard –- before a couple of weeks ago, that is – of Billy Bush. I had no idea who he was and had never seen him on television.

 

******************************************************

On October 17, 2016, NBC News fired Bush.

Why?

As is well known, he was caught on tape in a vulgar conversation about women with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before an Access Hollywood appearance. The story was broken on October 8, 2016 in the Washington Post, which gained access to the tape.

It seems that practically everyone has seen the tape, which is three minutes and six seconds long and is on YouTube.

On the tape, Bush is heard laughing as Trump talks about his fame enabling him to grope and try to have sex with women not his wife.

Bush said later that he was “embarrassed and ashamed” by what was caught on tape.

 

******************************************************

A few thoughts of my own, for what they’re worth.

I would be embarrassed myself if I were caught taking part in such a conversation and it were made public.

I did not find the conversation interesting or edifying. Bush appears foolish and callow on the videotape.

He is heard laughing — appreciatively, at least on the surface — at Donald Trump’s lewd remarks.

He has little to say himself except for:

commenting with two or three words on a sexy woman’s appearance saying that she looks “hot as shit”;

when Trump says ‘when you’re a star … you can do anything,” Bush answers, “whatever you want”;

he makes an admiring comment about a woman’s legs.

For this, he has been fired?

This is a serious offense?

 

******************************************************

How would I react if someone made Trump like disclosures to me?

I might react with disapproval, although I doubt I would vent it. If this were the case, I would probably clam up and be stone faced.

I might laugh a bit nervously and try to show I am “one of the boys.”

I don’t know.

Who cares?

The point I would like to make is that our society has gone bonkers when it comes to public morality. For the offense of laughing at lewd remarks about hitting upon women, one gets fired from one’s job?

I don’t care personally about Billy Bush. I am not interested in his career.

But I do feel that his “punishment” is ridiculous.

 

******************************************************

It has been and still is the case in repressive, totalitarian societies that freedom of expression is not permitted. So, that if, say, you insulted Stalin in the USSR, you might have been denounced and executed.

Similarly, I would not recommend, if one lives in North Korea or happens to visit there, making fun of a poster of Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Laughing or showing disrespect in such totalitarian states can be sufficient to get you a long sentence in prison at hard labor, at the minimum.

Laughing at the lewd remarks of Donald Trump in today’s repressive cultural milieu can cause you to lose your job.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   October 2016

A Response to the “Cultural Appropriation” Zealots

Leave a reply

 

fiction-and-identity-politcs-lionel-shriver-sppech

 

Attached in the above Word document is the full text of a speech by author Lionel Shriver, “Fiction and Identity Politics,” which Ms. Shriver delivered at the Brisbane Writers Festival on September 8, 2016.

As noted in The New York Times, “Ms. Shriver criticized as runaway political correctness efforts to prevent artists from drawing on ethnic sources for their work.” She “was especially critical of efforts to stop novelists from cultural appropriation.”

The buzzword used by those who want to institute such bans is Cultural Appropriation.

Ms. Shriver’s speech is a devastating attack on the anti-cultural appropriation faction of the PC crowd. It demolishes their presuppositions, though, of course, they will never admit it; Ms. Shriver has already been subjected to virulent counterattacks.

The piece is extremely well written; well thought out; tightly knit; focused; effectively backed up with and illustrated by cogent argument, counterpoints, and supporting examples. Miss Shriver doesn’t miss a beat.

Her speech speaks for and stands by itself. I cannot imagine, had I been asked or had occasion to write such a speech, ever saying it better.

I would merely like to add the names of a few works of fiction (and one work by a composer) that come to mind, works that would probably be banned if the “cultural appropriation” zealots had their way:

Moby-Dick (Queequeg)

Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Hadji Murad (Leo Tolstoy)

Huckleberry Finn

James Joyce’s Ulysses (Leopold Bloom)

Porgy and Bess

 

— Roger W. Smith

   September 16, 2016; updated November 2025i 

 

****************************************************

Also noteworthy, and right on the money, are the comments of Janice Gewirtz in a letter to the editor published in the The New York Times of September 16, 2016:

Perhaps the most absurd tenet of the spreading political-correctness takeover is the objection to “cultural appropriation.” I hadn’t realized that it had jumped, scarily, from the college campus to the critics of writers. Hats off to the novelist Lionel Shriver for speaking out against it at a writers’ conference in Australia.

One writer actually walked out of Ms. Shriver’s talk because it was a “celebration of the unfettered exploitation of the experiences of others, under the guise of fiction.” Isn’t that almost the definition of what fiction is? Will someone soon claim that men should not write about women?

Writers of fiction need to be unfettered to explore the limits of their imaginations, period.

— Janice Gewirtz

Cultural Appropriation – NY Times 9-16-2016

 

**************************************************

See also:

“Lionel Shriver’s Address on Cultural Appropriation Roils a Writers Festival,” The New York Times, September 12, 2016

‘Lionel Shriver’s Address on Cutural Appropriation Roils a Writers’ Featuval’

 

“Lionel Shriver Praises Cultural Appropriation Attacks ‘Super-Sensitivity—While Wearing a Sombrero: We Need to Talk About Kevin author hopes current trend  of political correctness is a ‘passing fad,” By  Robby  Soave,  The New York Times, September 14, 2016

‘Lionel Shirver Praises Cultural Appropriation’

 

“In Defense of Cultural Appropriation,” op ed by Kenan Malik, The New York Times, June 14, 2017

Malik. ‘In Defense of Cultural Appropration’

 

 

 

 

 

ban “The Merchant of Venice”?

2 Replies

 

The following is my response to:

“The Merchant of Venice’ perpetuates vile stereotypes of Jews. So why do we still produce it?,” by Steve Frank, The Washington Post, July 28, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/28/stop-producing-the-merchant-of-venice/

*****************************************************

Guess what? I don’t agree with the benighted author of this article.

Surprised?

I had lunch on Tuesday, July 26 with an emeritus professor with whom I have become friends due to common interests.

I think he may be Jewish, am not sure. His wife is Jewish and is very active in advocacy of Jewish causes.

He is an opera lover. One of his favorites is Wagner. He told me that he can’t get it out of his mind what a horrible person Wagner was in so many respects.

But he continues to listen to the operas, loves and admires them.

Sorry. You don’t ban Shakespeare.

You do not ban the poet and playwright who wrote such memorable lines as:

The pound of flesh which I demand of him

Is deerely bought, ’tis mine, and I will haue it.

The playwright who coined more words and phrases in our language than any other.

The peerless writer who cannot and will never be equaled in the realm of English literature.

The writer who, in the view of one eminent citric, Harold Bloom, “not only invented the [modern] English language, but also created human nature as we know it today.”

Prejudices and anti-Semitism notwithstanding, Shylock is a memorable character. It was Shakespeare who created him. Shakespeare, to whom we owe gratitude and reverence, notwithstanding what may have been his views.

We don’t approve, are horrified when fanatical Islamists destroy holy shrines on the grounds of enforcing their view of religious purity.

Shakespeare is an icon whose works must not be censored.

 

— Roger W. Smith

     July 2016

 

****************************************************

Addendum:

“The Merchant of Venice” is currently playing at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC.

Some other comments (responses to the op ed) published on the Washington Post website include the following, with which I agree.

Let’s see: “Taming of the Shrew” for sexism, “Othello” for disparaging people of color/foreigners, all the history plays for rampant historical inaccuracy, “Romeo and Juliet” for romanticizing teenage suicide…. And that’s just for starters and just Shakespeare.

Well, gee, let’s just not produce anything set in any controversial time and portray it accurately. If we’re going to start assuming that people are, or have to remain, so ignorant of what they are seeing as to not be able to realize that the way people are speaking to each other is a historical bias and not a present-day way of speaking… then why bother teaching history or literature at all? If we’re going to start suggesting that by using the correct wording to portray how people spoke to each other at the time, that we’re creating hate… then you might as well start digging a really big pit to burn all the books and movies in because people have actually been trying to be more and more historically accurate over the years (the fools!).

It’s a play. It isn’t a documentary.

The author [Frank] seems in favor of the idea that the past should be judged purely by today’s standards and not in context. Maybe he should come up with a politically correct version of the Bible for example? Should be about half the size of any other Bible.

Why tilt at this little windmill when the mother ship of anti-Semitism is all around us? Read the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible and the Jews demanding that Jesus be killed and accepting the resulting curse on them and their children. That is obviously written by someone who was in a conflict with the then-current Jewish leadership, and was designed to stir animosity rather than to accurately portray events. Then there’s all the stuff about Pharisees. The Bible has surely been responsible for a heck of a lot more anti-Semitism than Shakespeare.

“The Merchant of Venice” does not perpetuate any stereotype of Jews. Audiences don’t stream out with hatred of Jews ignited in them nor even the seeds of hatred planted in their minds. Those few in the audience who are already anti-Semitic — and they are few in modern English speaking societies — are not going to get any more stoked up in their anti-Semitism. Those who are not, the majority, will simply enjoy a work by the greatest dramatist and poet of our culture with all its intricacies and observations about human nature.

Banning the play, simply to ameliorate the discomfort of those who would ban all discomforting speech on PC grounds, is to perpetuate intolerance for real. Watching the play is the lesser evil, by far.

“Merchant” is the latest casualty of that creeping disease called political correctness, which is busily tearing up the U.S. Constitution’s free-speech guarantee. We still have free speech — unless, of course, it offends somebody.

the Asian quota

Leave a reply

 

In my blog on affirmative action (June 26, 2016)

Affirmative Action

I observed that there exists an Asian quota in college admissions (affecting Asian-American students, that is), similar to a Jewish quota in college admissions that once existed.

It is an insidious and unfair that college admission officers won’t acknowledge or admit to — they deny the very existence of such policies or practices. It’s something akin, if I may paraphrase from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, to saying: “all applicants are equal, but some applicants are more equal than others.”

Listed below (following my Addendum) are some recent articles in the subject, in order of publication, most recent first.

 

— Roger W. Smith

  June 2016; updated January 2022

 

***************************************************

addendum:

Roger W. Smith, email to a friend, January 30, 2017:

I noticed an article in today’s Times:

“White Students’ Unfair Advantage in Admissions,” by Andrew Lam, The New York Times, January 30, 2017

which I feel is excellent and makes sound, substantiated points.

I am sharing it with you because a few months ago, we were discussing Asian American quotas in college admissions. At the time, you said that you were not aware that it was a problem or that this type of discrimination existed.

At that time, I said to you I was against affirmative action, which I feel is reverse discrimination. We kind of agreed to disagree.

For a long time, I debated with myself about affirmative action and wasn’t sure what I thought. I believe I was initially for it.

 

***************************************************

articles re the Asian-American quota:

 

An Ugly Game of Race Preferences

By   William McGurn

The Wall Street Journal

January 10, 2022

‘An Ugly Game of Race Preferences’ – WSJ 1-10-2022

 

White Students’ Unfair Advantage in Admissions

op-ed

The New York Times

January 30, 2017

 

Are elite colleges biased against Asian Americans?

CBS News

May 25, 2016

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-elite-colleges-discriminating-against-asian-americans/

 

Why are so many Asian Americans missing out on Ivy League schools?

The Guardian

May 24, 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/24/why-are-so-many-missing-out-on-ivy-league-schools

 

Asian Groups Target Ivy League For Racial Discrimination

The Daily Caller

May 22, 2016

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/22/asian-groups-target-ivy-league-for-racial-discrimination/#ixzz4Cxr4aRVt

 

Fewer Asians Need Apply

City Journal

Winter 2016

http://www.city-journal.org/html/fewer-asians-need-apply-14180.html

 

The model minority is losing patience

The Economist

October 3, 2015

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21669595-asian-americans-are-united-states-most-successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever

 

Former Ivy League admissions dean reveals why highly qualified Asian-American students often get rejected

Business Insider (businessinsider.com)

June 10, 2015

http://www.businessinsider.com/sara-harberson-explains-why-asian-american-students-get-rejected-2015-6

 

To get into elite colleges, some advised to ‘appear less Asian’

Boston Globe

June 1, 2015

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2015/06/01/college-counselors-advise-some-asian-students-appear-less-asian/Ew7g4JiQMiqYNQlIwqEIuO/story.html

 

Asian Americans Deserve Better in Ivy League Admissions

The Huffington Post

May 28, 2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bev-taylor/asian-americans-deserve-b_b_7453198.html

 

Harvard’s odd quota on Asian-Americans

Chicago Tribune

May 23, 2015

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-asians-enrollment-harvard-colleges-perspec-0524-20150522-column.html

 

Harvard discriminates against Asians as it once did to Jews

New York Post

May 19, 2015

http://nypost.com/2015/05/19/harvard-discriminates-against-asians-as-it-once-did-to-jews/

 

Asian American groups file racial quotas complaint against Harvard University

The Guardian

May 16, 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/16/asian-american-groups-file-racial-quotas-complaint-against-harvard-university

 

For Asian Americans, a changing landscape on college admissions

Los Angeles Times

February 21, 2015

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

 

How to Beat the Asian Quota at Elite U.S. Colleges

Synergy Educational

September 25, 2014

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140925141410-326401920-how-to-beat-the-asian-quota-at-elite-u-s-colleges

 

Statistics Indicate an Ivy League Asian Quota

op-ed

The New York Times

December 3, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota?emc=eta1

 

Is the Ivy League Fair to Asian Americans?

The Atlantic

December 21, 2012

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/is-the-ivy-league-fair-to-asian-americans/266538/

 

Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?

op-ed

The New York Times

December 19, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html

 

The Myth of American Meritocracy

The American Conservative

November 28, 2012

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

 

*****************************************************

See also my post:

Harvard does not discriminate against Asian-Americans (except that it does).

Harvard does not discriminate against Asian-Americans (except that it does).

Lee Bollinger on diversity

Leave a reply

 

“Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-rounded education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.”

— Lee Bollinger, President, Columbia University

http://www.newsweek.com/pro-diversity-essential-135143

 

*************************************************

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger believes that diversity is essential to a liberal education. How essential he spelled out in the above oft quoted remark.

What a shame that Shakespeare didn’t think to write a play about it; that medieval theologians did not debate or write about it; that it does not tend to be a central issue in international relations or discussed by world leaders in summit meetings.

Just think, a student could be getting the benefits of Shakespeare’s undeniable “writing skills” (we must grant him that), for example; improve his or her vocabulary and diction while at the same time broadening horizons with respect to tolerance and understanding of “others” — of characters like Othello and Shylock, for example.

Shakespeare’s could have used his plays to impart hortatory lessons: racism in Othello, anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice, ageism in King Lear, sexism in The Taming of the Shrew, and so on. With an inventive mind like Shakespeare’s, the possibilities for politically correct instruction are huge.

Too bad Shakespeare never thought of it.

Does not speak well for Shakespeare. No wonder his status and desirability as an anchor in the curriculum (he used to be required reading in high schools) have been lowered a bit. Too bad he didn’t have the benefit of a twenty first century education. Come to think of it, he only attended grammar school! And, there was no diversity training then. So much the worse for The Bard and his benighted fellow students.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   August 27, 2016

Affirmative Action

Leave a reply

 

This post has been prompted by my thoughts over the past couple of days re the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (June 23, 2016).

But, first, a digression of sorts.

 

****************************************************

My father graduated from Harvard College in 1950. I have his yearbook.

There were around 1,300 students in the graduating class.

Glancing through the yearbook, one can see that:

Most of the graduates were WASPs. Many (at least a half) were from New England.

Jewish graduates represented a little over ten percent of the graduating class (according to a statistical summary at the back of the book). One of them was Henry Alfred Kissinger, a Government major.

There were three African American graduates, one of whom was premed, the other two of whom were active in varsity athletics.

 

****************************************************

Re affirmative action-related issues that have arisen since my father’s college days — and which won’t seem to go away — it seems that one can say, viewing them in a historical context, that:

Blacks traditionally have been accorded zero opportunities — including denial of opportunities for higher education (to say nothing of the abysmal education blacks have customarily been accorded at other levels). Of course, this is changing, but I am speaking here from a historical perspective.

There was a “Jewish quota” at elite schools for more than half of the twentieth century; it had eased somewhat by my father’s time.

An “Asian quota” seems to exist today. This is perhaps hard to prove, but no one seems to be talking about the need for steps being taken to overcome or reverse the effects of such an insidious (unacknowledged) policy.

 

****************************************************

Is there not an answer to discrimination in college admissions? May I make a “modest proposal”? How about admitting students based on academic ability without taking race into account?

Seems simple? Undoubtedly, it’s too simple for the PC types and admissions officers who go to great lengths to devise formulas for ensuring “diversity” on campus.

I can’t help but think of an analogy derived from the literature of another era and country: “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen. The emperor was parading in public, naked. But no one dared to call attention to it. Until a child who didn’t “know better” spoke up.

Admitting students based on academic ability and/or academic promise without taking race into account.

What’s wrong with that?

Aren’t all citizens supposed to be EQUAL?

But then, that’s simple. I’m obviously not sophisticated enough to weigh in with an opinion about such a contentious and complicated issue.

After all, there’s something at stake here. Am I too stupid, you may be asking, to see that? Admission to the best colleges is desired because it is seen — has been, as long as I or anyone else can remember — as a ticket to advancement and privilege and as an engine of social mobility.

“In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the University of Texas’s diversity goals were not amorphous but ‘concrete and precise,’ satisfying the constitutional requirement that government racial classifications advance a compelling interest” (New York Times, June 24, 2016)

In a blistering dissent, Justice Samuel Alito “described those goals — concerning ‘the destruction of stereotypes,’ promoting ‘cross-racial understanding’ and preparing students ‘for an increasingly diverse work force and society’ — as slippery and impervious to judicial scrutiny” (ibid.).

The destruction of stereotypes … promoting cross-racial understanding … preparing students for an increasingly diverse work force and society.

What about goals such as (to pick a few at random, drawing mainly on my own experience as a college student):

teaching calculus: what pleasure I took from my freshman calculus course – it was so aesthetically satisfying and it wasn’t offered in my high school;

reading Shakespeare: I read half of Shakespeare’s plays in a course with a noted professor that I took in my freshman year;

learning foreign languages: I took French and Russian in college; Russian isn’t offered in most high schools;

stimulating students in terms of thinking for themselves and of strenuous intellectual endeavor.

Too high minded? I don’t think so.

I thought this is what college is supposed to be about.  (Columbia University President Lee Bollinger would disagree.)

My wife made a remark to me last night. She said that when she was in college, a private university with high admission standards where she majored in mathematics, she was focused on the course content. Her parents had not had the opportunity to attend college. She was motivated both in terms of her intended career and because of her interest in the subject matter. As did I, she felt privileged to have good professors.

She said she didn’t care or particularly notice who was sitting next to her.

But, then again, that’s too simple.

Or is it?

 

 — Roger W. Smith

    June 25, 2016

 

****************************************************

See also:

Roger W. Smith, “Lee Bollinger on Divesity”

Lee Bollinger on diversity

 

Roger W. Smith, “The Asian Quota”

the Asian quota

a view with which I fully agree

Leave a reply

 

I am not a Donald Trump supporter.

But, for what my opinion is worth, I think it’s high time that people came to their senses about issues raised, supposedly, in an article published in the The New York Times of May 14, 2016

Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private

By Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey

‘How Donald Trump Behaved with Women Private’ – NY Times 5-14-2016

See letter to editor of The New York Times below, plus additional comments of mine, which follow.

— Roger W. Smith

   May 17, 2016

 
************************************************************

Your article about Donald Trump and women is truly laughable. So the man likes pretty women — that is front-page news? Your reporters interviewed dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over four decades, and this is what you found: He likes women, promotes them, mentors them and comments on their appearance. Tell us something we did not know!

— Jeanne Hosinski (letter to The New York Times, May 17, 2016)

 

***************************************************

The following is an exchange I had on Facebook with a relative who responded to and commented on the above post of mine.

a relative:

How about the recent times when he publicly and gratuitously insulted women on national television?

response from Roger W. Smith:

I acknowledge that Trump did do this (insult women via the media) and that it does not speak well for him. You are right to bring it up. But the article in the NY Times never mentioned these recent instances and instead delved into Trump’s past to show, for example, that he was known as a ladies’ man in high school (as if this proved something).

I felt it was full of trivial information that they dredged up pointlessly, which the letter writer put well. There was no substance to the article.

I feel that there is underlying point that is being made in the article – that there is something wrong about men being attracted to women. This is a point of view with which I disagree.

Roger W. Smith, letter to editor, New York Sun

Leave a reply

Roger W. Smith, letter to New York Sun, May 22, 2003