George Mason University is Virginia’s largest public research university, and in the coming years, the Science and Technology Campus in Manassas will become even bigger, according to the director of administration and operations for the campus, Ron Carmichael.
The expansion will bring two new academic buildings, four-degree completion programs and housing for undergraduates, as well as a possible town center. All of the changes are part of the university’s five- to eight-year strategic goal of more than tripling the current 1,000 full-time student population to about 3,550, according to Carmichael.
“There’s space in Prince William for this project,” says Carmichael. “Most of our programs will relate to physical science, engineering, IT, and we will continue to have recreation health and tourism, too, to make it a full-service campus.”
There are currently eight buildings on the Science and Technology Campus, including three research facilities, two academic buildings, one student housing facility for graduate students, a recreation and fitness center, and a performing arts center. According to Carmichael, building additional classrooms and research labs will help attract undergraduate students to the various programs offered at this GMU campus.
For more Education content, sent directly to your inbox, subscribe to our e-newsletter.
One of the two future academic buildings, which will be a 100,000-square-foot site consisting primarily of teaching labs, is currently in the design phase, with a completion date of spring 2023. Carmichael and his team have plans to discuss the addition of a second building, titled Academic VIII, in the spring of 2020, which will include additional classrooms and teaching labs within 200,000 square feet of space.
With more room for learning, there is an opportunity to bring four-year degree completion programs for undergraduates on campus, according to Carmichael. As of now, forensic science will be the first program to be implemented, followed by one or two others that will focus on education in a similar field. Plus, there will be space for undergraduates to live on campus by 2023, according to Carmichael.
A critical piece of the project, according to Carmichael, is the completion of a town center, which the staff at GMU is hoping to see approved and developed within the next six to eight months.
“If we are going to bring four-year programs on campus, then we need a hub for student amenities,” Carmichael explains. “We need coffee shops, laundry and quick-stops, all the things students depend on at a four-year campus. We might also see some active adult housing grow in the area, which would help provide more support toward the campus.”
In recent months, George Mason University started considering the addition of a state-of-the-art, specialty medical school that would admit 40 to 45 students for the starting year, if approved. Carmichael says the university is currently in the “fact-finding stage,” with plans to meet with a number of health providers in the area to gauge interest and see if the investment is worth it.
“This would be the campus where it would happen,” says Carmichael of the Science and Technology Campus. “We should know within the next 12 months if that’s a reality or not. But it’s really just exciting to think eight years down the road, we might have a new town center, new programs and continue the high level of research we are currently involved in.”
We know that academia is filthy with hard-left leaning professors and students, and it seems like college-aged Republicans are few and far between in academia. As it turns out, they’re not uncommon, they’re just incredibly quiet due to fears that if they’ll speak out, their professors will harm their grades.
According to The College Fix, an online poll from last month showed that Republican students kept their mouths shut about their beliefs by a whopping 73 percent:
The online poll was conducted in late August exclusively for The College Fix by College Pulse, an online survey and analytics company focused on college students. Only students who self-identify as Republican or Republican-leaning were polled.
The question asked: “Have you ever withheld your political views in class for fear that your grades would suffer?” Seventy-three percent of students who identity as “strong Republican” reported that they had, while 71 percent of students who identify as “weak Republican” said yes.
Even students who identify as Republican-leaning independents indicated they’ve kept quiet: 70 percent reported they have withheld their political views to protect their grades.
This is a sad ordeal. Higher education is supposed to be where your beliefs and understanding of things are tested, that is true, but not being able to express any beliefs out of fear is horrible.
Students were asked to make comments, and some of them are stories of being singled out by their professors who acted angrily toward them or witnessed a professor fail a student for having a right-leaning paper.
“I wrote a 19 page research paper on a Christian pro-life movement. I was the only one in the class that, when presenting my paper, had a “surprise visitor” (who was the teacher’s very liberal friend) argue [with] me about their views,” wrote a student from Western Kentucky University.
“I actually got yelled at by a professor for my views on gun control. It wasn’t an argument or anything, just plain one-sided insulting,” wrote another student from Notre Dame.
“When writing papers for gen ed classes? Absolutely. I know a guy who chose to write a pro-border wall argumentative essay for our super liberal professor and the prof just wrote “this whole paper is one big fallacy” and bombed him. Me? I wrote about the evils of horse racing. Perfectly safe topic,” wrote a student from Clemson.
“In my sociology class, my professor asked us if we would give our child hormone blockers if they believed they were transgender (that was the day’s lesson). One guy said he would rather teach his daughter to love her body the way it is than change it. She [sat] straight up said “so you would be a bad parent then? What was your name again?” Then she went to type something on her computer. Not a good day for him, I’m sure,” said a student from Arizona State.
College Republican groups are catching on and becoming more popular, but would likely be much larger in size if it weren’t for the fact that many students feel it better to keep their heads down and get the necessary grades to graduate.
Students pay a lot of money to attend Universities and would rather not sacrifice the time, funds, and their future by vocalizing their “wrong-think” in front of their professors. While it’s easy to say that these students should be braver and stand up for themselves, the real attention should be focused on the professors.
Something needs to be done about this infection, and stripping government grants and funding if even one student is failed due to his or her political opinion should be just the start.
Earlier this year, John wrote about the implementation of “adversity scores” being used by colleges when evaluating applicants and their SAT scores. This was a “tool” used to evaluate the economic background of students and basically awarded bonus points to those who came from less economically prosperous neighborhoods with higher crime rates. This led to considerable confusion and protests from high scoring students from middle-class backgrounds who felt that their own efforts were being penalized.
Well, the experiment has run its course (no pun intended) and the adversity score is being dropped. It was described as having been “wrong” and “confusing.” But is it really going away? The devil is in the details as always. (NY Post)
The non-profit organization that administers SAT tests will drop the so-called “adversity score,” which combined neighborhood and school factors to produce a single number to supplement a student’s test score.
The adversity score, which took into account factors like neighborhood crime rate and advanced classes offered at a school, was introduced about two years ago and used by some 50 institutions amid criticism that college admission favored wealthy applicants.
This doesn’t mean that the issue is entirely dead. The adversity score tool is being replaced with something called “Landscape.” But it doesn’t really sound all that different.
They were working with what they called the Environmental Context Dashboard, which does basically the same thing. They claim to have made improvements to it and then slapped a new name on it. Thus we arrive at Landscape. Here’s the thumbnail description of it from CNN.
College Board announced Tuesday it improved the Environmental Context Dashboard and renamed it “Landscape.” The new tool will allow schools, students and families to see the same information about high schools and neighborhoods that colleges see.
Colleges have long considered information regarding students’ high schools and neighborhoods when making admissions decisions.
So it sounds like they are still generating information about average incomes and crime rates in various neighborhoods and providing that to the schools. The only differences are that they won’t be hiding the information from the public and they won’t assign a numerical score. If anything, this sounds like a plan that’s even more open to abuse.
The real question here is whether the neighborhood where a child grows up should be reflected in the admissions process at all. Going back to the article John Sexton wrote in May (linked above), I tend to mostly agree with his take on it. We should have the ability to recognize when someone overcame a greater amount of adversity and managed to excel in school. From that perspective, if you have two students who scored very nearly the same on the test and one of them came from an impoverished neighborhood with high crime rates while the other was middle or upper class, perhaps a small edge could be given to the student from the poorer family.
But at the same time, it’s all too easy to imagine this process being taken several steps too far. If we start rejecting overachieving students based solely on the wealth of their parents and replacing them with poorer students who significantly underachieved in high school, how is that fair? All you’re doing is removing the incentive for anyone to excel.
College admissions remain a sore spot in this country and it’s a thorny problem that won’t be solved overnight. The recent rash of scandals involving Lori Loughlin and others isn’t helping matters either.
We’ve all been there: You’re about to cross the street, when suddenly you spot a sign with a stick figure, and you’re paralyzed by oppression. And it’s basically the same as the worst things that have ever happened to anyone in history, because you wisely and thoughtfully understand the high stakes and scope of potential human suffering.
And if there’s any justice in this world, you’ll one day be delivered from the horror that is straight lines drawn in a configuration that triggers you. Comprised of an absolutely soul-crushing hue.
Or you could just cross the street and go on with your life.
According to Campus Reform, a group of students at George Washington University erred somewhere between those two ideas, in the name of that most superior of all things on the planet — inclusivity.
New Woke Rules, so far as I can tell:
Most virtuous thing: inclusivity
Most unacceptable thing: anything “problematic”
Most inclusive thing: anything exclusively left-wing
Most racist thing: all things that can be said to be things
In a recent CR video, Campus Correspondent Ethan Cai polled GWU peeps: Would they be willing to sign a petition demanding a ban on the ubiquitous — say it ain’t so — white stick figure that signals “Walk” on pedestrian crossing signs, on account of its dastardly oppression?
Most in the clip gave a joyful Affirmative.
The college was chosen because of another mercilessly soul-crushing, problematic issue that the student body just voted to squash: its now-defunct mascot, George the Colonial.
As per the petition to junk George, his presence was “received as extremely offensive not only by students of the University, but the nation and world at large.”
Wow — these youngsters know about the whole world. Touché.
Indeed, Jerky George “[glorified] the act of systemic oppression.”
Here’s how CR’s goofy, phony-baloney petition read:
“As we students cross the street, we are told by the symbol of a white man when it is okay to cross. Many students from diverse backgrounds, including individuals of color, gender fluid individuals, and LGBTQA+ individuals, feel oppressed by this. … [We] vehemently urge the University to consider changing the crosswalk signs.”
Check out the results:
It’s almost as if you can hear the air leaking from their brains as they speak.
I wonder if any of the Woke Warriors — in an effort to banish the white light — have considered that light itself is white? In fact, in the video, they’re also standing in — yea, they are absolutely bathing in — white light. The light of the sun. They’re drenched in it. In the horrible, inherently and unbearably evil color of white.
No word yet on how they’ll be able to see the stick figure if it’s changed to black — the absence of all light. Will people being hit by cars be less “problematic”?
Either way, as I understand the rules to go, the black stick figure will be inclusive. Even though no human beings are actually black. Or — it should be noted in the consideration of how idiotic this entire thing is — white.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.
If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”
For some reason it’s the petty corruption of stories like this and the Lori Loughlin one, involving fatcats rigging the college process for their kids, that brings out my inner populist more so than the grand-scale corruption that the rich routinely engage in. You want to buy off federal regulators to protect your business’s bottom line? Eh, whatever. That’s something elite cretins in every society do.
You want to run a scam to get your kid a discount admission to university when poorer families are desperate for aid? Then we should turn you and your spawn into hot dogs.
Partly that’s me being parochial. Many of us know firsthand the financial burden of paying for school whereas influence peddling on Capitol Hill doesn’t reach us as directly. But it’s also partly the sense that the playing field should be a bit more equal for kids, at least. There’s so much time for the rich to game various systems to their advantage once they’re adults! At least give the teens from schlubby middle-class families a fighting chance.
Anyway, fire up the grill. It’s hot-dog time.
Parents are giving up legal guardianship of their children during their junior or senior year in high school to someone else — a friend, aunt, cousin or grandparent. The guardianship status then allows the students to declare themselves financially independent of their families so they can qualify for federal, state and university aid, a ProPublica Illinois investigation found…
ProPublica Illinois found more than 40 guardianship cases fitting this profile filed between January 2018 and June 2019 in the Chicago suburbs of Lake County alone. The parents involved in these cases include lawyers, a doctor and an assistant schools superintendent, as well as insurance and real estate agents. A number of the children are high-achieving scholars, athletes and musicians who attend or have been accepted to a range of universities…
In Illinois last year, about 82,000 students who were eligible for the [Monetary Award Program] grant, up to about $5,000, did not receive it because there wasn’t enough money. The grant is awarded on a first-come, first-served basis.
In other words, if you’re in the not-so-sweet spot between middle class, where your kid qualifies for aid, and quite rich, where the cost of education is of no consequence, you’re better off effectively emancipating them so that they can feed from the same trough of grant money as students in more dire need of financial help. The Journal looked at one case:
One Chicago-area woman told The Wall Street Journal that she transferred guardianship of her then 17-year-old daughter to her business partner last year. While her household income is greater than $250,000 a year, she said, she and her husband have spent about $600,000 putting several older children through college and have no equity in their home, which is valued at about $1.2 million, according to the property website Zillow. She said she has little cash on hand and little saved for her daughter’s education…
Today, her daughter attends a private college on the West Coast which costs $65,000 in annual tuition, she said. The daughter received a $27,000 merit scholarship and an additional $20,000 in need-based aid, including a federal Pell grant, which she won’t have to pay back. The daughter is responsible for $18,000 a year, which her grandparents pay, the woman said.
Once the guardianship was established, the daughter’s household income for federal financial aid purposes was a scant $4,200. And really, what else could the family in this case do?
What’s that, you say? They could have sent their daughter to a state school instead? Well … yeah, I suppose they could have.
Or they could have asked each of their children to attend state schools so that there’d be money left over to pay the youngest’s tuition? I guess they could have done that too.
Or they could have sold their million-dollar home years ago in anticipation of another round of tuition, downsized to a smaller place, and applied the monthly savings in housing costs to a 529 account?
Also an option, I reckon.
The Department of Ed is reportedly looking at tightening the rule for guardianships so that students who continue to receive financial support from their parents after a guardianship has been granted would be treated as still belonging to their parents’ household for financial aid purposes. That’s good, but I wonder how easy it would be to skirt it. In one case described by Pro Publica, the guardianship lasted for just a month; presumably it’d be easy for some of these families to gift their kid with, say, six months’ of living expenses before a short-term guardianship so that no support needs to be provided afterwards.
Unanswered exit questions: Are these cases only happening in and around Chicago, which is the focus of the two pieces quoted above, or is it a national phenomenon? Should the feds be able to recover grant money awarded pursuant to a fraudulent guardianship?
Finding the right college or university is overwhelming.
Taking multiple tours to see dorms, pass through dining halls and listen to lists of offered programs can have everyone seeing double, including you as the parent.
But new tactics have influenced college tours in a variety of ways, with some allowing students to get a 3D feel for the campus, simply by searching the web.
But what if schools are looking more deeply into who’s actually getting on campus? Could that be a determining factor on whether or not a student is accepted?
Catherine Ganley, owner and senior college consultant of Forword Consulting, and Colleen Ganjian, owner of DC College Counseling, say yes. They have helped hundreds of students in the DMV with the college transition and gave us the scoop on how students should go about touring schools they’re interested in, and being aware of the importance it may (or may not) have on their admissions. Highlights from our conversation are below.
How do you suggest students choose what schools to tour when they’re just getting started?
Ganley: I usually tell students that when they’re starting to tour different places to stop at as many universities as they can, just to get a sense of what they like. But I also find that touring is something we put a lot of pressure on for students, which makes them think it’s what they need to do. But I often tell students that I don’t care if they’ve toured the school before they apply, unless it’s a demonstrated interest school (where a college looks for prior engagement of the student in terms of enthusiasm and interaction with the school prior to applying). Rather than worry about where you’re going to tour, it’s more about what you want and where you can see yourself, and then really getting the feel of a place once you’re accepted, then you can decide.
Ganjian: I suggest taking a few Saturdays and checking out some of the colleges in your local area to get an initial sense of what their preferences might be, even if the student has no interest in those specific schools. We’re really lucky in Northern Virginia that we have so many different types of schools within a short drive! After seeing a handful in various settings, a student generally has a pretty good idea of the type of setting that might be more or less appealing to them and this can save a ton of time and hassle. I also suggest that students prioritize visiting colleges that consider demonstrated interest, which may be big contenders for early decision options. If a school does not consider demonstrated interest and it’s not necessary to visit, it might be wise to wait until the student is admitted to see if the school is a final contender.
Speaking of demonstrated interest, what is it and why is it important to be aware of?
Ganley: Demonstrated interest is like dating; there’s certain people that want to feel the love before you go on the first date. They don’t just want you to show up as a blind date. So, when you’re applying to demonstrated interest schools, they want to see how much “love” you’re giving them, even before you apply. Students need to be interacting with the emails they send (for example, clicking through links and engaging in the content), reaching out to the school about interest and definitely touring, if possible.
Ganjian: It’s really important to understand the concept as it’s a key factor in today’s college admission process. A generation ago, families approached the college visit from the perspective of the consumer; the primary purpose of the tour was to determine whether the institution was a good fit for the student. Things have changed a lot in recent years and the tables have turned. While it’s unfortunate that it’s reached this point (where schools determine a student’s perceived enthusiasm about the school and try to predict how likely a student is likely to enroll after admission), students need to show a lot of enthusiasm to ensure that they aren’t being cast aside for a lower-achieving peer that demonstrated more enthusiasm.
Since touring these schools is an important factor, what time of year should students be touring colleges?
Ganley: Get on campus when there are students, so not in the summer. If you go in early August, you’re not going to get the same feeling as when the students are moving throughout campus.
Ganjian: Definitely try to visit when students are on campus. If you can’t visit all of the schools while students are on campus, consider visiting none of the schools while students are on campus so that you can, at least, make an apples-to-apples comparison later on. There’s no way that a school you visit in the summer will be as appealing as a school you visit on a gorgeous spring day when everyone is hanging outside in the sunshine!
And in order to make the most of it, how should readers go about navigating the tour itself?
Ganley: I always start by encouraging students to wear some of their hometown or their high school T-shirts because it’s an easy way to get people to chat with you. And then we move on to what the student does and does not like initially. Sure, I want to know what the student likes, but I really want to know what they don’t like. What about this environment is not right for you? When you know why you don’t like the school, it helps to narrow down your thoughts and priorities. I also encourage parents to remind themselves that what they like as parents might not be what their 18-year-old cares about. Also, don’t judge a school by the tour guide. You might have the captain of the football team as your tour guide, and you could be more of a Dungeons and Dragons fan. The tour guide’s perspective is only one version that’s on campus, so there can still be a place for you there.
Ganjian: Most schools run multiple tours at once and ask the larger group to separate into a few different smaller groups with one tour guide assigned to each. In addition to trying to pick a tour guide that seems like they might have some similarities with the student, I highly recommend that students and parents split up for these tours and choose separate groups. I know it sounds crazy, but it’s actually a brilliant idea. They get two completely different perspectives and can compare, maximizing their time spent on campus. Better yet, they can both ask the questions they want to ask without embarrassing one another!
Any last tips that you have for students starting to tour and apply in upcoming years?
Ganley: Remember, not every school is going to have everything you want. I don’t usually push the mentality that there is one “right fit,” or a “dream school,” for a student, because that implies the wedding dress mentality: If you don’t pick the perfect one or wait to feel that “feeling,” you’ll regret the choice. This is four years of your life, and you do have the option to change it and transfer, too. Also, make sure to pay attention to the adjectives that a school uses to describe their ideal students. You may want to consider using those words back at them to let the university know that you’re a great candidate for what they’re looking for.
Ganjian: While there is plenty of information on the internet today that students can use to learn about the school, I think taking the tour and getting the feel of the school is more about the fit—the magical moment that occurs when a student steps on campus and feels “at home.” On that note, I would also like to say that some students visit a lot of schools and never have that “aha” moment. That’s fine, not everyone knows immediately that their college of choice is their dream school. It’s sort of like searching for the perfect partner, sometimes you know on the first date and sometimes you start out as friends for a while.
Looking for more content on colleges, universities and education in the NoVA area? Subscribe to our semimonthly Education newsletter.
It makes me laugh every time he complains about Fox News for being only 98 percent in the tank for him, which he did again last night, and nothing would be funnier than him declaring a Fox poll “fake news” on Twitter.
So let’s get the righty media ball rolling on Fox’s latest one and see if maybe the data will end up on his radar eventually.
“Do you feel Donald Trump’s recent tweets, in which he criticizes four minority Democratic congresswomen and tells them to go back to the countries they came from, were an acceptable political attack or did those tweets cross the line?” Fox asked. The good news for him is that a majority of his own party gave the proper loyalist answer and said the attacks were acceptable. The bad news is that they were virtually the only demographic that did, and even the Republican split was sufficiently narrow that you’re left with a strong sense here that loyalty is the *only* reason why some answered the way they did.
Democrats are -80(!) on balance on the question. Republicans are +20. Normally you’d expect approximately equal inverse partisan results on questions about Trump. A gap like that suggests that righties were pretty grossed out by his tweets too. The real tell, perhaps, is the split among whites without a college degree, a core part of Trump’s working-class base. They’re at 32/56, also decisively against him on this.
How about on the follow-up question, “Do you think Donald Trump respects racial minorities?” The last time Fox polled that subject, in August 2017, Americans split 41/56 on yes/no. Their opinion has since deterioiated further:
Republicans are a bit more firmly in his corner here, although again there’s a mismatch between them and Democrats in how they feel about the subject — and independents tilt far towards the negative at 25/62. Again, whites without a degree come down against Trump on this one, albeit narrowly at 42/47. In particular, both here and in the “cross the line” question, white women are strongly negative. But then, that’s a chronic problem for Trump. His chances of reelection rest heavily on men, just as the other party’s rest heavily on women.
So he did himself no favors with the Squad episode but he hasn’t hurt himself either. His job approval is 46/51, up slightly since last month, and his approval in handling the economy is a healthy 52/41. It may be that the “go back where you came from” stuff is already mostly priced into his political stock. It was gross even for him, but he’s routinely gross so how much can one really expect people’s opinions to shift? Speaking of the Squad, Fox also asked Americans about AOC and Ilhan Omar and found something interesting: They’re becoming more popular — *relatively* speaking.
Ocasio-Cortez stands at 34/41 favorability while Omar stands at 26/37, but the gap has closed a bit for each since the last time Fox asked about them. Maybe Trump’s attacks generated a bit of sympathy for them among the public, or at least enhanced Democrats’ partisan tribal identification with them. But it may be as simple as the two of them gradually becoming better known over time to voters in their own party. AOC has been underwater in favorability since practically the day she was sworn in as a congresswoman because righty media follows her closely and thus more righties know who she is. Liberals don’t pay quite as much attention to her, thus her favorables lag her unfavorables. But maybe that’ll change now that Trump has made the Squad national figures.
Which reminds me of an interesting new result from a different poll, this from Morning Consult. MC asked Americans if they thought the four members of the Squad represent the views of Democrats in Washington. Result:
A plurality of Americans say yes, the far-left wackaloon AOC and crew do indeed accurately reflect the views of congressional Democrats. That’s exactly what Trump wants Americans to think by attacking them: If he can make the Squad’s radicalism the face of the party, he can scare swing voters into sticking with him instead. Although as you scan the numbers there, you discover something surprising — it’s Democrats, not Republicans, who say AOC etc. represent the views of Washington Democrats. It’s not the opposition party that’s insisting that all Dems are as fringey as Ocasio-Cortez. It’s … her own party.
Although, if we’re being charitable, it may be that most of these people are merely ignoramuses, know little of the Squad’s politics, and are naturally assuming that they represent Democrats in Washington since they are, in fact, Democrats in Washington. Many Dems may falsely believe that AOC is a garden variety center-left liberal. Anyway, turns out when you ask the same question about whether Nancy Pelosi represents Democrats in Washington, the numbers soar to 58/18. Pelosi is still more of a face of the party than Ocasio-Cortez is.
Morning Consult also asked about Trump’s tweets, incidentally. Results: A majority, 53/31, thought they were racist and a bigger majority, 58/27, thought the “send her back” chant aimed at Ilhan Omar during his North Carolina rally was. I’m curious to see how he plays it the next time the chanting happens.
Colorado State University has an “Inclusive Communications Task Force,” and they have put together an Inclusive Language Guide to avoid hurt feelings on campus. Not only does it police language by telling readers what words and phrases to avoid, it suggests replacements so that “communicators practice inclusive language and [help] everyone on [its] campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.”
Campus Reform reports:
CSU lists both “American” and “America” as non-inclusive words “to avoid,” due to the fact that America encompasses more than just the U.S. By referring to the U.S. as America, the guide claims that one “erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.” The school suggests using “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” as substitutes.
The university additionally lists many gendered words and phrases to avoid. These include “male,” “female,” “ladies and gentlemen,” and “Mr./Mrs./Ms.”
“Male and female refers to biological sex and not gender,” says the guide. “In terms of communication methods (articles, social media, etc.), we very rarely need to identify or know a person’s biological sex and more often are referring to gender.”
“Straight” is another word to avoid, according to CSU. The guide explained that “when used to describe heterosexuals, the term straight implies that anyone LGBT is ‘crooked’ or not normal,” and says to use the word “heterosexual” instead.
I agree with this next one, but because it’s grammatically incorrect, not because of their nonsense.
According to the list, the phrase “handicap parking” should also not be used because it can “minimize personhood” and offend disabled people. The guide recommends “accessible parking” as an alternative.
Now, take a look at these:
“War,” “cake walk,” “eenie meenie miney moe,” “Eskimo,” “freshman,” “hip hip hooray!”, “hold down the fort,” “starving,” and “policeman” were among other words and phrases deemed non-inclusive by CSU.
I can only understand the problem with “eskimo” (the proper term is “Inuit”) and “policeman” (it should be the gender-neutral “law enforcement officer” or “police officer,” I guess). I suppose “starving” is offensive in its hyperbole. But why is “eenie meenie miney moe” problematic? Or the word “war” in and of itself?
Nicole Neily, president of Speech First, told Campus Reform that “even though these guidelines are suggested and not mandatory, they place students in the uncomfortable position of reciting politically correct talking points that they may not agree with. Words like ‘American,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ are used every day by billions of people around the world. When these students graduate, they’re in for a rude awakening!”
But don’t worry. It notes that “language is always evolving so this document will be updated periodically.” One hopes that they will decide in future iterations that these words are no longer offensive, but I don’t hold out much hope.
It costs around $10,000- $30,000 per year to attend Colorado State (depending on whether or not you’re an in-state student). How much of that tuition money goes towards paying people to suggest limitations on your rights like they do on this task force?
[Screenshot from Fox News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHH1AJtZ3Y]
You’ve most likely heard of the bribery/university enrollment controversy involving some of Hollywood’s recognizable faces (here and here). But earlier this week, FNC’s Tucker Carlson observed that the greater admissions scandal involves prominent Democrats.
Against a backdrop of Chris Cuomo working out, Tucker asked how the CNN star — who “can barely speak English” — got into Yale.
“There are nights when Cuomo emits entire paragraphs that mean nothing at all. Just pure gibberish. Like pig latin or dogs barking.”
Who’s Chris? He’s the dude who put down prayer and the prayerful (here). Additionally, he’s the brother of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed allowance for the murder of infants just seconds before birth (here) and claimed that America “was never great” (here).
The Fox host pondered:
“Is Chris Cuomo a secret genius? Does he have some amazing talent that’s invisible on TV? Maybe he speaks flawless Urdu? Or has a deep grounding in particle physics? Or can calculate pi to the final digit?. Actually, no — Chris Cuomo can’t do any of that. It turns out that he has an even more impressive qualification: His father was the governor of New York. If you want to get into a top American college, it’s best to have a parent who’s a well-known Democratic politician. That’s the most effective credential of all.”
Tucker’s list of the politically privileged whose offspring all got into exclusive schools included the following:
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Bill de Blasio (“the incompetent mayor of New York City”)
Sen. Michael Bennet
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Sen. Bob Menendez
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Subsequently, Tucker fingered the “sham” of earned access among the Democratic elite:
“How does this happen? Because our meritocracy is a sham. It’s fake. They tell you that only the most accomplished students get into these schools. They’re lying. Their friends’ kids get first dibs. Fellow members of their social circle. Kids whose families can help them down the road. The children of sympathetic politicians are an obvious priority for admissions officers. These are the same politicians who funnel many billions in tax dollars to colleges and universities every year. Letting a senator’s kid into Harvard is smart business. The quid quo pro is obvious. It’s a form of unregulated lobbying.”
Interesting point. It reminds me of a response I heard when the Tinseltown admissions story first broke — “Why didn’t they just do like all the other rich and famous parents: make a donation and bribe the school that way?”
With the more conventional method, as noted by the cable king, no one ends up in the slammer:
Remember the varsity blues scandal in California, where a group of socially-anxious soccer moms tried to game college admissions? This is far more corrupt, except nobody’s going to prison for it.”
Tucker sure knows how to get across a message.
Watch him go in the video above.
Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, and here
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”
The 2016 elections made a lot of people look very differently at presidential elections.
But not enough.
President Trump has gone on to not just change the game but change the field, the refs and the audience. The progressive Left has gone back to their old playbook, unaware that their stadium isn’t even half full anymore.
Instead of winning back regretful voters, the Democrats and their allies seem to be – almost unbelievably – creating more Trump voters for 2020.
So, in case the Democrat party needs more help adding new pages to that old playbook, here is a list of 10 surefire ways to create a new Trump voter in 2020.
1.Complain about how trump will never concede the election then when he wins refuse to concede the election. Then unironically complain for the next four years that if Trump wins again he will never concede the election.
2.Run with poorly sourced or downright false stories about the President that give people on the fence about Trump a reason to feel confident in disliking him. Then be forced to retract those stories one after another after another until no one believes anything you report on anymore. Push the fence-riders into a begrudging acceptance that perhaps Trump is right about “fake news” and that might mean he’s right about some other things too.
3.Take an immature, dim but proud socialist child and an anti-semite who is possibly an Islamist and refers to the most terrifying attack on American soil in modern times as an event where “some people did some things”and make them the faces of your party. Assure people that this is the future of the American Left. Make those skeptical of Trump even more skeptical of where the Democrat party is leading the country. Force people to choose between the “We Hate America Wonder Twins” and actual America.
4.Ruin every single great tv show and film with commentary on how awful Trump is and how horrible his voters are and how they are despised. Forget that over half the people you are talking about are your customers. Remind them repeatedly that your tolerance will never extend to them.
5.Dig into the past of every person who gains some kind of popularity. Dig up years-old tweets, high school emails, letters to grandmothers, drunk texts and comedy routines from 1995. Demand an apology and then tell people their apologies will never be enough. Destroy lives and careers forever and then laugh and laugh as you put your pitchforks away for another night. Never think that you’ll be the receiving end of those pitchforks one day.
6.Call black people and women brainwashed race/gender traitors for supporting Trump. Never ask for their genuine thoughts and opinions. Don’t treat them like people. Speak scorn and derision for them out of one side of your mouth while simultaneously preaching about being an ally to women and minorities out to the other side. There’s nothing like an over-confident hypocrite to drive people away from an ideology or group. Just ask anyone who’s ever left the Christian church.
7.Refuse to acknowledge that life in the big city is significantly different than life in flyover country. Keep looking down your nose at people who grow your food and deliver your oil. Tell them they need to accept that coastal sensibilities are American sensibilities. Push them to vote for Trump just to spite your snobby ass.
8.Make colleges and universities a tightly controlled bubble where no competing ideas are allowed to be heard, let alone suggested. Drive out centrist and conservative speakers with physical force. Get in their faces, spit on them, throw water and milkshakes, act like uncontrollable infants and then turn on your own brethren when they dare suggest that such acts are indeed childish and unpersuasive. Watch the college system fold in on itself as it collapses under the weight of its own ideological cowardice.
9.Make one of the most prominent legs of your platform a bizarre and unbending devotion to allowing babies to be killed right up until the very moment before they leave the birth canal. Justify it in the name of health. Ridicule people who feel even a little bit odd about taking such a hardline stance on infanticide. Make their votes a binary choice between literal baby-murder and Donald Trump.
10.Call everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. All the time. Always. Compare Trump to a man who murdered 6 million Jews and fly giant Trump-baby balloons whenever he visits. Never stop being overdramatic lunatics. Continue to make people feel uncomfortable in watering down the Holocaust, slavery and racism. Abuse the terms constantly. Make Americans numb to your rhetoric.
Follow these steps and you will surely guarantee another Trump victory in 2020. You’re off to a good start!