Main Edition
US
FR
Claudine Gay testifies in Washington DC last month (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
What do Nasra Abukar Ali and Claudine Gay have in common? Or, for that matter, the Somali Ministry of Sports and the Harvard Corporation?
The answer is straightforward: both Ali and Gay came unprepared onto a major public stage, failed spectacularly in their respective roles, and massively embarrassed their respective organisations.
In early August, Ali had dreams of winning the 100-metre sprint for Somalia at the International University Sports Federation (FISU) Summer World University Games in China. Her performance was a fiasco. She looked confused at the starting blocks. Once the race started, she was so slow the cameraman struggled to keep her in the frame. As for the remainder of the race, one Forbes reporter noted: “Ali completed the 100-metre dash in 21.81 seconds, an embarrassing finish that’s almost double the winning 11.58-second time run by Brazil’s Gabriela Silva Mourão and nearly nine 9 seconds behind the second slowest time of 13.15 seconds by Turkmenistan’s Alsu Habibulina — leading many to ask questions about how a runner, who has never competed in a major event and appears to be untrained, was able to compete on such a large international stage.”
When she finally made it to the finish line, she did a little skip and a hop of triumph. A video of her sloth-like performance went viral on social media, along with demands for an explanation.
In early December, Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard was called to testify in Congress and asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews on campus violated Harvard university’s code of conduct. Gay delivered prepared remarks, priding herself and her institution on protecting free expression and, after a pitiful exercise in evasion, settling on the answer that calling for the genocide of Jews on campus depended on the context. She did the equivalent of Ali’s hop and skip with her smiles and smirks. The video clip of her abysmal performance went viral along with demands for an explanation.
Back in Somalia, the most pertinent questions in Ali’s case were obvious. Where was her record? How did she qualify? Where were the gatekeepers? The Somali Minister of Sports ordered an investigation, which found that a relative of Ali had ignored or lowered the standards of athletic selection for Ali. He sacked the woman in question and apologised publicly. This may not be the end of corruption in the government of Somalia, but it ended the story there within about 48 hours.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHere is my take on why Gay’s opponents prevailed.
https://erikhildinger.substack.com/p/al-capone-meets-saul-alinsky
Thank you! I like it…
Thank you!
The late, lamented military theorist Sir Basil Liddell Hart would have described this as ‘The strategy of the Indirect Approach’.
Exactly!
Excellent essay! I am now a subscriber to your work. Thank you for mentioning it on UnHerd. As an Audible subscriber, I will get Saul Alinsky’s handbook, Rules for Radicals also.
PS:
My fight is against Australia’s absurd crime reality.
It is as hopeless as it sounds.
Having exhausted all legal avenues to stop a stalker ex-coworker’s crimes against me in Melbourne, Australia since 2009, fighting back is an alternative to the only solution to stop the stalker’s crimes: suicide. I never even dated the stalker. The sole law-enforcement in Australia is police with neither duty of care/accountability, while having a monopoly on what is a crime. Police criminality is wide-spread, deep-rooted and accepted like weather phenomena in Australia.
Everyone in the west suffers when our leading institutions have been infected by cancerous ideologies like DEI. Meritocracy is flushed down the toilet in favour of ideological conformity. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything thing to do with social standing and ideology. Black people with wrongthink are hated above all. The free market – of ideas, people, production etc. – has been the strength of the west over authoritarian regimes. When this is abandoned in favour of cronyism, it doesn’t make us any better than any banana republic.
We’ve never had meritocracy. All that’s happened is DEI has taken over from the old class system. Now instead of your family name and wealth giving you a colossal leg up (although those things still help obviously) it’s now your gender or skin colour doing the same thing
You are so predictable, like you’re reading from a script.
One of the Beverly Hills silly billies ?
So you’re suggesting kids from rich families don’t have any advantages over those from poor families?
Would you be in favour of banning private schooling as they do in Finland? (I’m aware a few exist but to all extents and purposes it’s gone)
If you believe in meritocracy then you’d be in favour of a policy that prevents those who were born wealthy from gaining an undeserved head-start over their peers surely?
This is a Leninist nonsense Billy Bob! Look at the author of this article and her own views, where did she come from how she feels about the legacy of the west and why is she willing to fight for it – especially its Christian frame.
So I can only assume that you believe wealthy children have no advantages over poorer ones?
If that’s the case why do parents fork out tens of thousands of pounds sending their kids to private schools if it doesn’t give them an advantage later in life?
And kids living with married parents also have advantages. Would you be in favor of banning marriage to level the playing field? Rather than banning private schools in the U.S., we’re now seeing momentum, after decades of public school failure in most large U.S. cities, for a voucher system that allows money to follow family school choices. And yet so called “progressives” fight this momentum at every turn. Ideology and politics, once again, trump common sense, practical solutions for leveling the playing field.
I never said I was in favour of banning private schools, my point was that we’ve never had meritocracy in any real sense of the world. A child from a wealthy background will nearly always earn more over the course of their lifetime than one from a poorer family. A few kids from rough upbringings do manage to make it to the top but it’s certainly the exception rather than the norm, hence why rags to riches tales are usually big stories.
At least the old aristocracy knew they were born lucky, this new breed of elite think they owe their success to nobody else and are blind to the leg ups they’ve received and as a result think they have no obligation to those left behind
You must be aware that the more people are sure of what they believe, the less they are willing to read about the beliefs of others. So, poorer kids don’t understand what they have to do to rise and richer kids don’t understand what the poorer kids are even talking about.
Of course being born to wealthy parents is an advantage. But it’s not just through connections (though that does happen), but also because they get a better education than the state provides.
I went to a comprehensive (UK), and not an especially good one. However, I didn’t fully realise how poor my school education was until I was in the workforce and encountered the generation above me, which had gone to grammar school. They had an advantage (one the left took away) not because of connections or wealth, but because they were better educated and able to perform at a higher level. That was meritocratic.
Taking away fee paying schools will be the same as taking away grammar schools. It won’t improve standards for everyone, it will remove the chance of some to attend higher performing schools.
It is not possible to win this argument. The whole of the world seems to want equality, not equality of opportunity. Grammar schools will not come back – imagine the mental problems for the children!! Fee-paying schools will slowly reduce in number.
The amount of education a child gets will only depend on the drive (and money) of the parents.
I was from a poor family living in a council house. My parents wanted better for me so they strongly encouraged me to pass the 11Plus. Then at grammar school, every evening they took an interest in what I’d done at school. They tested before a school test. This was not grim, forced labour – they were sharing their lives with me. Effectively, they were sacrificing themselves for me.
You simply cannot do that in a free society. The cost to freedom far outweighs any benefits you might hope to see. I think we have enough practical evidence of this from the twentieth century experiments.
And what will you do if science at some point shows that there is a significant genetic component to intelligence (which may turn out to be the case) ? Enforced state genetic engineering so everyone is “levelled” to the same starting conditions ?
And what about attractiveness ? As people like Dominic Frisby have correctly pointed out, the most discriminated against group in society is the unnattractive. How would you propose to stop people discriminating based on people’s looks and likeability ?
Where have I ever said anything like that was desirable, or that equity rather than equality should be the goal?
I merely said that we’ve never had true meritocracy, as I believe the advantages we receive in childhood (especially financial ones) will almost always be more important than ability or work ethic when we’re talking about a persons earnings or status over their lifetime
You should be entitled to spend your money as exactly you wish, and if that includes procuring a first class education so be it, and meritocracy be damned!
Unfortunately I agree with you, although I still feel the advantages of expensive private schools lie less in the actual education and more to do with the contacts made there.
We’re all guilty of nepotism, numerous mates of mine were put through their apprenticeships by working for the mates fathers for instance, which is the same thing just on a lower scale than those at expensive schools can manage getting parachuted into top jobs.
My point was the meritocracy is a utopian myth, we’ve never had it and never will. I’m more comfortable now than I would be if I’d grown up on Moss Side, but likewise I’d have coasted through life much easier if my old man had been an investment banker rather than working on a building site.
I’m not proposing any alternatives to the current system, it’s simply a bugbear of mine when people claim to have got where they are entirely on their own merits, when most are oblivious to the help they had along the way. This blind belief that we somehow live in some utopian meritocracy where everybody ends up where they deserve to me is absolute nonsense
See my post above. It is all about parental involvement, money or time. Don’t really agree with you when you say that private schools are about contacts. It is more to do with the idea that you are going somewhere to learn, rather than somewhere boring to waste time. Grammar schools were perfect because the pupils had worked (a little) to get there. They had achieved something by their own efforts and it was something to be proud of. But they did need support to get there.
Well as Pliny the younger put it so pithily nearly two thousand years ago:-
“Nothing is more unequal than equality itself.”
Pithy remark, yes, but the evidence of the last 2000 years is that it wasn’t quite the clincher that the younger Pliny hoped it was going to be!
Mericroacy is not a myth. If it were, I wouldn’t get on an airplane or even cross a bridge.
I think George W. Bush is a great example. His grades and test scores were low enough that he couldn’t get into Texas A and M or the University of Texas. But, because daddy and grandpa went to Yale, he was admitted. He received gentleman Cs there but was still admitted to Harvard for his MBA. Then there’s Jarod Kushner. Daddy got him into Harvard, despite low grades and test scores, by donating $2.5 million to Harvard. Another donation to NYU got Jarod admitted.
No one is entitled to buy anything they want, surely? Kidneys, methamphetamine, people – all things we deem it socially destructive to trade for.
I wouldn’t include private education in that, but I don’t think your principle holds.
No. This is far worse. With regard to universities, meritocracy wasn’t perfect at all say 50 years ago, and I’d agree it was heavily filtered by class, despite some efforts to find and support bright people from less advantaged backgrounds (e.g. scholarships). Though hardly perfect, the ideal of merit and excellence was there. Very unusual for a human society. While imperfect, the debasement of public institutions by promotion of apparatchik dunces like Gay didn’t happen. Do not think that under the new regime, class has disappeared: it’s just that the ruling class has now adopted DEI as an invisibility cloak to distract from their privilege, while class based wealth gaps and structural iniquities actually increase. This is in addition to the totalitarianism and identitarian nepotism of the new elites, that sneers at the ideals of universal principles and a fair go for all.
I certainly think this new policy of hiring people based on supposed ideological grievances is absolute nonsense and no better than the classed based one that preceded it, my point was that I don’t believe we’ve ever had anything close to meritocracy in practice.
When we’ve had 20 Prime Ministers who went to the same school, when half of the top 350FTSE company CEO’s and over a third of Oxbridge students (even that has dropped significantly in recent years due to social pressure) are from private schools, despite only 1 in 20 British children being privately educated I think we can safely say meritocracy is a pipe dream
It does not automatically follow that privileged Etonians are not worthy of top jobs. The system may be deemed unfair or unequal but you can still apply a merit test on the individuals. Rishi Sunak is a more intelligent, life experienced politician and mature thinker than Johnson, May , Miliband, Reeves and Cameron. Apply the Harvard/Gay to our DEI- compliant public sector here. There is ample and shameworthy evidence (Met/Fire Service/NHS/Public Health) that gender hiring in particular has gone rogue. Ditto the boardrooms of the City who must meet equality quotas. Hello Nat West, Aviva. DEI is an anti meritocratic State ideology rapidly damaging the inner workings of the State.
Perhaps going to a certain type of school and having a certain type of upbringing did actually produce a certain type of merit: the ability to govern a country or a big institution.
Traditional upper class child-rearing and education made men who were somewhat emotionally repressed, had taken some severe knocks in life but had bounced back, had a wide understanding of historical precedent and human nature, had seen military action, understood the need for prosperity and trade, loved their country, and had a faith in some higher power which informed their morality.
Not something we might wish for ourselves, our children, or even those we associate with. But it worked, and it’s better than being an academic rabble-rouser, a careerist apparatchik, or an emotional wreck on a mission to quell their own demons.
Typical of Maxist influenced commenters, you take an all or nothing position with regard to meritocracy. Either it’s perfect or it doesn’t exist at all. Sorry, but as an American raised in Montana and Illinois, by a Harvard educated father and a UC Berkley educated mother, I learned there’s a lot more to measure than pure dialectics.
As long as the West has meritocracy as a stated goal, and has a policy of allowing talented people a good chance of improving their condition, it’s better than a system that’s entirely based on political influence and family connections. If you’re looking for a dialectic , that’s the one you should consider.
Relatively free market capitalism is the goose that laid the golden eggs. It’s lead to the greatest explosion of widespread wealth in history. based on these expeirmental results, I don’t see any reason in the rush to kill free markets and return to a feudal socialism.
50 years ago smart people from poorer backgrounds went to grammar school, then got maintenance grants to take up university places whose fees were paid by the local authority.
Although cronyism has always played a role in every society, meritocracy was much more meaningful in the west 30-40 years ago. I came from lower middle class neighborhood, went to university and carved out a nice career. I would never ever be hired in that career today. DEI is actually the enforcement of the class system.
You are younger than me I think. In the UK look at the backgrounds of the academics such as Denis Noble or Allan Chapman. Look at the routes taken through night school. Look at Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society then. Class came back in the 1990’s. John Major or Ted Heath v Blair or Benn. There is no perfect system. Compare Prof. Carol Swain to Claudine Gay. You cannot assume Matt Ridley got his position because of his title any more than you can assume that any savage is noble.
Nah, this Billy Bob guy is right. We’re still a class obsessed society, we’re just in denial about it. It’s not Marxist to notice that.
It is true that who you know has often been more important than what you know and what “clan” you belong to has always had a subversive influence on your success in entering institutions and prospering in them in all societies. However, in the West the ideal that has been promoted is that the most competent are selected even if in practice the scales have been unfairly weighed in favour of those with the right connections. In the case of Harvard there is an explicit endorsement of this unfair practice in the Legacy Admissions rules that operates at the admission level but presumably the ideal that merit would prevail when it came to progress in the institution existed up to the introduction of DEI.
The problem with DEI is not that it seeks to correct the bug in the institutional system that favours the offspring of the already successful over those with a less favoured background. Rather it is that it does not support those whose background has actually held back their intellectual development and those without connections but arbitrarily supports those of certain skin colours and less formally those who are female and give ideological support to this new anti-meritocratic religion.
The result is that obviously intellectual lightweights like Claudine Gay embarrass the institutions concerned by revealing the new corruption at the heart of it.. We should stick with the ideal of merit while seeking to improve the chances of those without connections demonstrating such merit. More Ronald Fryer less Claudine Gay. Forget assuming skin colour is equivalent to disadvantage in a world where plenty of blacks are more advantaged than many whites.
Exactly . Claudine Gay’s family ( uncles and cousins) own a concrete company in Haiti . Don’t know how rich they are but they’re certainly not from a poor black social housing environment .
Working class people achieved incredible things even in the Victorian era and rose up through society’s ranks. They often had an abiding civic pride and gave back to the towns and cities in which they had their success.
I was born into a poor working class area, I passed the 11plus and although didn’t have a stellar career I’ve done well. Social mobility shuddered to a virtual halt for the working class under New Labour and never recovered.
Agreed. Black conservatives are the only genuine victims of White privilege.
” If you dont vote Democrat you ain’t black.”
Exactly.
I wouldn’t say white privilege. I’d say “progressive” privilege.
Or “woke privilege”.
” As for the university itself, the result is…at least a billion dollars in withdrawn commitments from various donors,”
A quick Google search shows the Harvard endowment stands at approx. $50 billion. So Harvard lost about 2% of its endowment because of this fiasco. Not trivial but not the end of the world either.
“… more congressional probing,”
So what? There has been congressional probing of DEI in colleges and schools for years with few results.
“…a slump in applications from prospective students,”
A quick Google search shows Harvard has an acceptance rate of 3%. So if fewer students apply, perhaps they’ll have to boost their acceptance rate to what? 6%? Hardly the end of the world?
“…and the trashing of its reputation.”
Really? What have we learned from this incident? That Harvard relies more on race, gender, and sexual orientation than on merit. Is that such a revelation? Admittedly, this was a particularly blatant case of DEI trumps merit, but it’s the same old game.
Harvard, and the other Ivies, don’t sell an education. They sell connections and a brand. They sell the equivalent of the old Masonic secret handshake. If prospective students and their tuition-paying parents view DEI as the price they must pay to join a particularly elite club, that’s what they’ll do.
Ultimately, this whole fiasco was about the special place Israel holds in the American consciousness, especially the “elite” consciousness. Major Harvard donors didn’t complain when males, whites, and Asians were being discriminated against–and they’re still not complaining.
Yes Eric Hildinger says it took her response to the antisemitism issue to get people (I assume he means Jews) to challenge her academic record . However maybe the success of this challenge will lead to more people taking the same approach in other elite universities out of concern for the general good .
To J Bryant. — Ouch. Good points — I too am unconvinced that this is a major hit to Harvard. But I’d interpret your last paragraph differently. The DEI stuff has rankled for years. True, many elites surely believe it all. Others may not, and might not even be aware there are strong arguments against the ideology, given its hegemony and it’s marginalisation of counterarguments. Also DEI Is extremely efficient at killing off any opposition, so many won’t reveal their concerns anyway, either due to their intellectual isolation or fear for their livelihood or stress levels. But in Gay’s case, those concerns could be denied as being just an undercurrent: unlike opposition to DEI, it was respectable to be concerned about the equivocation over calling for a renewal of H!tler’s project, and respectable to be concerned about the routine plagiarism that characterized Gay’s meagre academic output. For once, you could shoot even while keeping your head below the parapet.
We can but hope but we are seeing more corruption in high places than we have ever seen.
I don’t think that it was really all about Gay herself. She became a symbol of the frustrations that many people feel when they see heads of corporations, universities, colleges, military, high political offices, medical boards, medical professional orgs, engineering organizations, city mayers, police chiefs, DA’s and many other top positions held by women and non-whites. This happened slowly, first under the umbrella of affirmative action and then turbo-charged by DEI and media drumbeat. On TV, the faces of couples you see are not what you see around you. In private people talk about this sea change and feel short-changed. This is true even for non-white people who are not part of a preferred category.
I think, she just lit a fuse to the frustration.
You make a couple of fair points, but the biggest calumny is that those women and non-whites who make it to positions of leadership on merit alone are looked at from the same point of view, which is hugely unfair to them.
(No need to use italics, by the way, except for emphasis.)
I agree with your statement that DEI had its origins in the affirmative actions of the 1970s. During that time I worked for a major US insurance company that introduced thinly disguised racial quotas in the guise of affirmative action. Each department head was given a quota of AA hires each year. As a result we often had to work alongside AA hires who were woefully lacking in either experience or skills. As a result, they often failed. Now, with DEI they can fail and be promoted.
Less short changed than knowing that racism had a hand in pushing forward a person. In other words we readily see the fruits of racism. Which is a real problem for those people who worked hard and were gifted with a good brain (two powerful pillars) who cannot be distinguished from a distance.
I travelled the world 30 years ago and would ask all the European and Australasian travelers what percentage of the US population was black. They all assumed 30-40% based on all the attention paid to it. They also assumed a lot of things about America based on TV shows, which was also preposterous. Very few traveled long term in the USA (for a lot of reasons), so they didn’t know.
Keep in mind that the pool of excellence is proportional to some extent by the proportion of a particular groups number in society. A multiplicative factor is culture (which is why certain groups outperform).
Thanks for reading my Substack, Alan.
It was a pleasure , really interesting
Ouch. Good points — I too am unconvinced that this is a major hit to Harvard. But I’d interpret your last paragraph differently. The DEI stuff has rankled for years. True, many elites surely believe it all. Others may not, and might not even be aware there are strong arguments against the ideology, given its hegemony and it’s marginalisation of counterarguments. Also DEI Is extremely efficient at killing off any opposition, so many won’t reveal their concerns anyway, either due to their intellectual isolation or fear for their livelihood or stress levels. But in Gay’s case, those concerns could be denied as being just an undercurrent: unlike opposition to DEI, it was respectable to be concerned about the equivocation over calling for a renewal of Hitler’s project, and respectable to be concerned about the routine plagiarism that characterized Gat’s meagre academic output. For once, you could shoot even while keeping your head below the parapet.
But a lot of normal people hold Israel in special consciousness too. After WW2 the entire west “collectively” agreed that a genocide occurred in Europe to a cultural population that was irrationally targeted. Westerners that know History know what Jews went through in the 30s and 40s. The overwhelming majority of Woke people don’t know History and know not what they do. It’s an ideology. They’re given an oppressed/oppressor chart and they follow it. They don’t ask who’s the oppressor or why. The “experts” decide that for them.
I feel like Conservatives get so tripped up on the absurdities of Left wing philosophies that they forget that even absurd concepts like Post-colonial Theory, CRT and DEI hold kernels of truth. These are alchemical ideologies smashed together into a massive Entitlement Complex. Some concepts of DEI are actually valid because they’re based on a disability theory of helping those that truly can’t help themselves. Obviously that’s not what DEI does but I think alot of the people that buy into it actually think they’re progressing humanity.
I hear you. I get your pessimism but let’s for once step back and acknowledge that western civilization understands DEI better than it did last week.
A welcome contribution to this comment board, thank you. Yascha Mounk (a German-born American-Jewish academic who was recently interviewed by Freddie Sayers for this website) addresses both the kernels of truth and ultimate, disabling shortcomings of Intersectionality, CRT, Postcolonial Theory, and Foucault’s central claims about power–which form what Mounk calls the identity synthesis— in his new book, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time.
His critique gathers force and credibility from his good-faith engagement with the key thinkers of the aforesaid synthesis, whose work he does not caricature or simply dismiss. He also demonstrates deep knowledge of those who oppose the “new identitarians”. I strongly recommend the book.
In our current culture wars, most of those who are firmly entrenched in either camp have strawman ideas of what the other side wants and believes. Interestingly, Mounk shows that many of the most militantly woke have adopted debased versions of what Michel Foucault, Edward Said, and Kimberlé Crenshaw (and a few others) have argued, perversions and simplifications which those thinkers would not endorse, and have sometimes publicly rejected.
As usual, I admire your mission to promote genuine debate. I’ll run the risk of being demoted numerically, though, by noting a problem with your approach.
Not being a biographer, I don’t really care about Foucault, Said and Crenshaw (or any other influential leaders) as people–not even if I were to admire some of their personal characteristics: honesty, sincerity, integrity, courage or whatever. I care only about the ideas that they’ve created and inevitably left behind in the custody of others to elaborate or pervert. That is, I care about the vicissitudes of those ideas and their effects on society. What difference would it make if Marx and Engels had been kind and generous people who didn’t foresee how Stalin or Mao would interpret their Communist Manifesto to produce totalitarian dystopias?
No one can seriously argue that nothing in the writings of Foucault, Said and Crenshaw (or others) is insightful, that they came up without even a kernel of truth. Of course they did. They’ve observed the world and correctly identified some of the things that we all find there in daily life: contradiction, ambiguity or ambivalence, injustice, anxiety and so on. I don’t oppose Said, say, for observing that Westerners tend to see “Orientals” as “others,” which made it easy to justify imperial ambitions. It’s true. Rather, I oppose Said (or any of his followers) for suggesting that this is a uniquely Western phenomenon–and this is the core of postcolonialism– instead of a universal one. That’s not true. Therefore, I oppose many of the conclusions that either he or his followers have drawn from that observation.
I’m not sure what part of my comment you intend to respond to, Paul. I’m not talking about who they were as people either. And I don’t know if you think I have a certain “approach”, overall or in my above response to T Bone’s comment. If you do, I’d like to know just what my approach seems to be. I prefer to approach, embrace, and attack things from a variety of angles, holding with Ralph Waldo Emerson that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin or little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines”. (Of course, we can debate interminably what amounts to the foolish kind).
I agree on Marx, Engels, and Said** too, and said on another of these comment boards that I think Foucault’s work–from which I have read perhaps 200 pages*, resulting in a qualified respect–has had a “net pernicious effect” on our world. I’ve read key selections from Said’s Orientalism too, but I trust Yascha Mounk to do a better parsing of the works of all the “identity synthesizers” than I would ever have the patience and focus to attempt.
However, since you brought it up (apropos of an earlier exchange?): I do think that the character and actions of an author whose work has huge ethical and behavioral implications is of some significance. I would certainly receive the teachings of Jesus differently if I thought he had lived like Caligula or Herod. And I’m not going to fully lose track of the known historical reality of one Austrian-born dictator’s life and “struggle” either. (Yes, I played that card).
On the other hand, a idea-maker or idea-synthesizer should not be on the hook for every perceived effect of those ideas, nor every sawed-off jackass who claims to follow a given “ethical forefather”. Also, those ideas, however original, did not emerge from a void and would likely have been spoken or written into being by someone else, in some form, before very long.
Now, the level of responsibility rises when one marshals revolutionary forces of thought and attracts a great audience, as with Gautama Siddhartha or Karl Marx. People do not have to listen to such luminaries, but the volume and reach is a inescapable factor of note. They are more deserving of praise or blame for their utterances than the local lunatic, whom we may be forced to hear, but seldom listen to. At times our dismissiveness (or fear) is a mistake because even seeming or actual fools can channel a wise sentence or two. If only we could follow Francis Bacon’s advice more often:
*At first for academic work, then I read a bit more on purpose
**One can engage with authors in good faith and still reject or take issue with most of their conclusions, as Mounk does with Foucault, Said, and Crenshaw.
Sometimes, your approach is confrontational. Usually, however, it’s dialogical. That’s my impression.
Don’t worry about playing the “Austrian dictator’s card.” Even he said some things, after all, that were true. The Versailles Treaty, for example, really was based on revenge more than justice. And yet agreeing with that idea in Mein Kampf and in his many speeches, as many Germans and even non-Germans did, doesn’t lead inevitably to his own attempt to take revenge (let alone to indulge in mass murder).
But never mind such an extreme example. Heidegger is a more useful one. I’ve never found anything of value in his work, although I admit that I’ve always found his books very difficult to read, even in English, and that I gave up trying long ago. But I do know some very intelligent people who consider him the most important philosopher of the twentieth century. Go figure. Never mind that, his brilliant mind notwithstanding, Heidegger was a true believer in National Socialism, not merely a political opportunist. “There is only one will to the full existence (Dasein) of the State,” he said. “The Führer has awakened this will in the entire people and has welded it into a single resolve.” Even his later philosophy must be somehow related to, or even compatible with, Nazi ideology (which he never renounced), no matter how sophisticated it might seem.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that all or even many of today’s Heideggerians are Nazis. I just doubt that I could have useful intellectual engagements with those who feel a need to defend Heidegger. And ditto for people who feel a need to defend Marx, Foucault, Said, Crenshaw–or Gautama or Jesus for that matter. I prefer to argue about ideas, not about the people who create them or institutionalize them.
I accept your framing of two approaches I use: confrontation/challenge and dialogue/civil exchange. I’ll have more to say later about your other remarks, some that I’m tempted to say now, but I don’t have enough time to respond with the care and courtesy I prefer to use most of the time (but always with a cheeky or volatile edge not too far away from the niceness–that is also fundamental to who I am). Have a good Sunday, Paul.
I certainly “defend” both Jesus and Siddhartha but no one else you mentioned. I think it’s quite absurd to take the person’s conduct off the table when talking about a spiritual leader. I’m not trying to provoke or insult you by expressing my honest opinion that it is absurd, or at least quite odd, to divorce the ideas from the person altogether in such instances, where the life is an integral part of the teaching.
Here’s something I feel the need to address, Paul: You are scrupulously civil but not available for actual good faith exchanges on many issues. You rarely seem ready to learn anything, but only to teach. In effect you often prefer to lecture or declaim about a handful of ideas on which your opinions–or preferences, or logical conclusions, choose the term–are quite fixed, even calcified. I think you have quite a lot to teach and share, but your seeming unwillingness to learn from me or anyone you don’t already agree with–or just consider opposing arguments and new input with a genuinely open mind, in a way that might color or modify your established views in any significant measure–is quite dispiriting. I find you to be thoughtful, a nuanced and fair if rather severe and sometimes self-certain judge of things (I sometimes “approach” things that way too, I admit). But you almost never budge on anything.
I’m not sure how you reconcile your preference for deracinated ideas or disembodied abstraction with your fierce commitment to ethics and moral responsibility, which I judge to be sincere. You weigh the perceived real-world fallout of certain books or ideas but disregard the way they were uttered or to what intended purpose? In many cases, the means become the ends, so context and “approach” often matter a great deal. Sometimes rather less so.
I do find an inalienable link between thought and action, that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and vice versa, as with a literal N–i like Heidegger. A less extreme example than mine, sure, but still pretty extreme. Of course most people don’t fall so clearly to the good or bad, and some sifting or skeptical scrutiny is needed.
We know quite little about the person called Buddha, and that’s fine. We don’t need a photograph or a series of biographical videos in order to appreciate his teachings. But the community of unselfishness and nonviolence he created, the sangha which allowed for oral transmission of the dharma beyond his lifetime–before much of the teaching was ever written down–is an essential aspect of the ideas themselves. They were put in practice, modified and improved even, and that cannot occur in the abstract. Not from where I sit and breathe.
You’re welcome to keep posting contrary responses to my posts–and of course I can’t stop you!–and I admit that your pushback if often fitting and deserved, though it may sting a bit at times. Heck, especially when it stings. But your repeated announcement about your preference for ideas-only is nothing more than a stated preference. It does not hold any intrinsic superiority nor represent something that will or should appeal to everyone. In other words, I admit I’m not your ideal “idea guy”, nor do I aspire to be. There are ways in which we disagree or have divergent preferences that don’t make either of us wrong…right?
I do wish that your replies more often revealed sincere engagement with the parts of my comments you don’t consider frivolous or irrelevant, rather than seeming to use my perspective to launch into dissenting speeches that often sound a bit prepared. It could be that your problems with my center-left, cultural-preservationist views and “approaches” represent a more sincere engagement than I’m giving you credit for.
And sometimes I say intemperate, mean, silly, or weird things. When I find myself most guilty of this, I try to acknowledge it and sometimes make apologies. But the apologies don’t erase my overreach, and it would certainly be better if I didn’t lose balance or offend so much in the first place.
You remain one of my favorite commenters at UnHerd–especially when I’m not under your critical lens.
*Addendum about Foucault: I think he really was a contemptible person, who advocated legal sex between adults and 13-year-olds. His sneering cynicism, and the moral vacuum from which his ideas emerged, are absolutely connected to the truth–or lack thereof–in what he wrote. Some of it is of interest due his intellectual chops or if only for the reason that one should try to read influential books for oneself instead of trusting secondary critics or pre-emptively dismissing them.
However, if books are too offensive or unethical I totally support closing them after a fair trial, or throwing them against a wall, literally. Also, there’s not time to read all the really good books–a subjective measure, with schools of consensus–so why bother with corrupt ones? I’d never call Foucault “essential reading” and I don’t even think undergraduates should have his work assigned to them. I feel the same way about Nietzsche.
We’re obviously the only two still reading this discussion (for which I thank you), so I suggest that we continue it privately, if you like, after this.
No one has ever praised my social skills, AJ, and I don’t want to irritate you or anyone else. That’s one reason for my relatively rare entries (another reason being lack of time, especially when I agree with comments or have nothing much to add).
Actually, I’m not certain of why I felt an urge to add anything to your comment. As you must know from personal experience, some comments hit a nerve for reasons that are not immediately self-evident. In this case, I agreed with most of what you wrote. But I thought about your comment, of course, in my own context. So maybe what follows will clarify things at my end (although it might have little to do with anything at your end).
I worry about ad hominem arguments, which have become a way of life over the past few years–not only in the States but in many other places. It’s always easy to avoid or ignore arguments by shifting attention to those who make them. We can’t accept this or that policy, this or that claim, because its proponent is such a horrible person. This happens over and over in connection with Trump. Whatever his flaws, he sometimes said or did useful things (whether intentionally or not). But he’s an old story by now. On my mind since 7 October has been the war in Israel and its political fallout around here.
Consider the controversy over that infamous Congressional hearing about anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism at three prestigious universities, culminating in the resignation of Claudine Gay as president of Harvard. Last week, I read an excellent essay by Bill Ackman, the Harvard donor who was appalled by her incompetence–First, there was her inability to answer a simple but profoundly important question at the hearing about Harvard’s double standard, which offers protection to students who use their freedom of speech to advocate genocide as a weapon against Jews but not to their Jewish targets. He argued cogently that the underlying problem was not anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism but the inherent anti-Westernism of DIE at Harvard and its allied ideologies. Then, he commented on Gay’s history of plagiarism. He was glad, therefore, that she had finally resigned (albeit keeping her job as a teacher and her stratospheric salary). I sent his essay to my sister (despite our agreement not to discuss politics) who found it “interesting.” Later, though, she sent me another letter. In it, she mentioned the news that Ackman’s wife had just admitted to plagiarism. From this, my sister concluded (supported eagerly by CNN) that Ackman himself was guilty of relying on a double standard. Later on, he defended his wife (vaguely), even though she had done exactly what Gay had done. For that reason alone, my sister concluded (expediently from her point of view) that his argument against the double standard of DIE was worthless. From my point of view, Ackman’s analysis of DIE was brilliant even if he himself was inconsistent for supporting his wife.
I could cite many similar examples from all sides in public discourse. (I’m thinking of Thomas Jefferson’s opposition to slavery, for example, despite failing to free his own slaves.) I don’t disagree with your general point, AJ, about the relation between ideas and people. You weren’t thinking about any of this. But it’s indirectly related, and it was on my mind. I apologize for misrepresenting you.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply, Paul. It does you credit and fits with “the Paul I know”, to the slight degree that we are acquainted.
I understand where you’re coming from better now, and am in general agreement on your main points too. I also accept Jefferson’s opposition to slavery as a example of a meaningful stance whose importance and bravery–and even sincerity–is not erased by the element of hypocrisy in it.
As I think I made pretty clear, I did feel unfairly or inaccurately accused by parts of your recent replies. But I’ve made similar replies in my way too, including a few that were misdirected at you. Please forgive or disregard the portions of my recent replies that were harsh or came from a place of irritation.
Feel free to contact me if you like, though I’d rather not extend this current exchange from the point we are at now, and though we have come to an impasse on multiple occasions in the past.
Friendly regards and best wishes.
*I plan to leave the (un)herd when my latest trial subscription expires in a bit over a week. I at least need a break, as too much of the old, familiar contentiousness is taking hold, both in myself and in the commentariat as a whole.
We have only history to say whether Marx or Engels were “nice”. What communism and marxism fail to account for are variations in human nature. They thought we were all the same. We are not. Most of us do rhyme, which is where the social “science” (and marketing) come in.
People have been getting raw deals since Adam met Eve. We all try to find ways to “other” people. While the Irish were white, they were still Irish and discriminated against. The advantage of DEI is there is an endless number of raw deals that have happened starting long before humans inhabited the planet.
How does this create the ‘advantage’ of DEI?
Exactly there is an even more obvious sense of the west and the infidel as the ‘other’ in Muslim societies . In this country the progressives typically assume racists are white ( often working class whites ) and the ‘victims’ of racism are blacks or at least non whites.
Go tell that to the girls of Rotherham .
Postcolonialism seems to posit the west as morally inferior merely because for hundreds of years it has been more powerful economically and militarily , and that is absurd .
Postmodernism wasn’t meant to be applied. It was literally just a “Lens.” Jordan Peterson is the person that brought the idea of Postmodern Neomarxism into “public consciousness.” He caused everyone on the Left to flip out and claim he “didn’t get it” because Postmodernism doesn’t favor any one perspective. It turns out he was correct and what we’re dealing with is Applied Postmodernism that privileges an evolved synthetic form Marxism that we now call Intersectionality (see Lindsay and Pluckrose).
Because Marxism is Utilitarian; in a further (illiberal) synthesis of Bentham and Mill, where the “ends justify the means” it is militant in suppressing critique of itself. Marxism will always be guided by a Censorship Regime. It creates an environment of pre-censorship which leads to ideological conformity because people can’t question it. What we’re seeing now is that the Censorship dam has broke and people are angry about the thought suppression.
The next step is reengaging the many Leftists that got sucked into the Vortex. Plenty of them had no idea they were part of a militant speech suppressing ideology.
So Machiavellian Neo-Marxist Postmodernism, filtered through the lens of Grievance Studies? You’ve synthesized and in some sense mashed together quite a lot there but I think I mostly agree.
Foucault the effete aesthete seemed to view all things as a mere curiosity, devoid of any moral or essential qualities, so he may well have intended his brand of radical critique (which I don’t think he’d label “postmodernism”) as a mere lens, without any likely real-world consequences. There’s a famous debate between Foucault and Noam Chomsky from 1971, in which Chomsky, a fellow man of the far left, is astonished at Foucault’s totalizing amorality. He remains openly astonished to this day.
But I don’t think that’s true of Foucault followers, avowedly postmodern or not. Edward Said admired Foucault’s insights but was also aghast at his de facto nihilism. But he wanted institutional transformation, applied changes, even if he didn’t expect them to occur. So does Crenshaw and many others who could–by a stretch they’d likely reject–be called postmodernists.
Who knew that attempting to radicalize every undergraduate you can get your ideological tentacles into might backfire? They did know, the old-guard faculty-lounge socialists, or should have. Many young adults were and indeed are clueless as to what they were/are being spoon or even force fed. Some students will always be conformists, perhaps of middling intellect. (Radical Conformists or Conformist Radicals? Take your pick). Hyper-intellectualizations and gnostic speculations provide a sense or order and meaning for a while, even when the new creed says “all is chaos and nothing has essential meaning”. Fingers crossed–and nonviolent weapons stockpiled–for a better year on this front.
Excellent comment T Bone.
I agree that there are interesting “kernels of truth” in progressive thought worthy of amiable debate. It seems to me that the main problem with the progressives is not their ideas – though I disagree with many – but their tactics which are not only illiberal and inherently authoritarian but have proved hard to resist.
Gay’s downfall may have involved the plagiarism issues highlighted by a few conservative journalists but most would agree that it was powered for the most part by her alienation of supporters of Israel as a result of her lack of vigour in opposing anti-Semitism.
It is striking that the progressives’ most effective opponents have come from two groups: radical feminists and, recently, fervent supporters of the Israel. In comparison, the elegant arguments of traditional liberals with their reverence for truth and tolerance have had little impact. Neither group is noted for their enthusiasm for amiable good faith debate. If anything, they are as unscrupulous,dogmatic and intolerant of other viewpoints as the progressives.
Maybe we will be lucky and the clash of these various well motivated illiberal groups will lead to a revival in open debate and free speech and thus, by a circuitous route, back to a single well informed public debate of the sort that JS Mills would have liked. Perhaps victory for tolerance and free speech can come only from setting all the intolerant fanatics against each other. Maybe. If so, it would be rather ironic but not unwelcome.
The easiest way to sell a lie is to sprinkle in kernels of truth. Jews in Germany were in the banking system (a legacy that may continue to today), but it is likely due to the concept of usery whereby “believers” could not charge interest. In order for business to happen, people need to make money. If you loan money and cannot make any money, soon you stop loaning out money (because for a variety of reasons, maybe someone doesn’t pay the money back). No chance of gain with a chance of loss makes zero interest banking unprofitable. Since “Christians” and “Muslims” had usery laws, who was left to do the banking?? Just an example. Though maybe it is only held together by a kernel of truth….
Good post as usual. I agree that the “well-motivated illiberality” or targeted intolerance at both extremes of these debates is the key obstacle. I also share your hope for a “well informed public debate” in the spirit of JS Mill. I’d only note that when that happens we’ll being “going back” there for the first time. Not that we haven’t been closer to that than we are right now.
One kind of knows something is not right but explaining it in black and white does help. When you shine your light on it you become a target but the more light we have collectively the nearer we get to a solution.
The old Masonic handshake is alive and well but secretive.
“What have we learned from this incident? That Harvard relies more on race, gender, and sexual orientation than on merit. Is that such a revelation?“
More so than you think. At the very least, it confirms what many have suspected and does so in a very public manner. Whether anything changes is another matter.
People who knew what Harvard has become still now, but they have a concrete example to show skeptics. And this is on top of the lawsuit from qualified Asians denied admission. The pendulum has switched direction; how far it goes will be determined.
Indeed they sell the brand. But what if they despoil the brand? They can obviously recover with their copious resources. See “New Coke”. But it will require that they try. They have a lot of foreign students. Those students have their own connection networks (which is how THEY got there). Imagine if those full price paying students started not applying….
Males, whites and Asians are perhaps discriminated against in terms of admissions, hiring and tenure. But they have never been subjected to intimidation, threats, and violence, unlike Jewish students and pro-Zionist professors.
The only reason Gay was jumped on – clearly correctly – for plagiarism and thin scholarship (never mind her insane salary) was her defence of the freedom of speech in respect of Gaza. But of course it’s all a problem of DEI. How we are so easily divided!
Or maybe it was the insincerity of her defence of free speech, seeing that Harvard ranks last in the country under the FIRE rankings.
The same is happening at Oxford. I don’t know about Cambridge. Defintion of a woman in the New Oxford Dictionary: “The new definition of woman is ‘an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. ‘. And the new definition of man is ‘an adult who lives and identifies as male even though they might have been born as a different sex.
Obviously the fount of knowledge is beginning to drift into deception.
As you might expect Cambridge is even worse, and both should be ‘dissolved’ as Thomas Cromwell intended.
Please see my reply below
Not so. Under Gay’s presidency Harvard was ranked lowest for free speech by Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression. See https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings. Harvard sanctioned and terminated scholars, disinvited a feminist scholar because of her views on gender, and also espoused that “speech is violence.” The exception to this was Jews, in whose case she uniquely decided to stand up for free speech, stating that speech was not violence and that calling for the genocide of Jew could be permissible, depending on context. By contrast, mis-gendering – ie not using someone’s preferred pronouns – was widely sanctioned under the “speech is violence” mantra, which did not apply to Jews. Troubling that you seem to equate calling for the genocide of Jews as standing up for Gaza.
A misreading of Simon S’s uncertainly worded comment, I think. He seems to mean supporting free speech “with respect to the situation in Gaza”, with no mention of Gay standing up for or against anyone in particular.
Yes. The “clearly correctly” in Simon’s comment has been overlooked by those with jerking knees. This kind of thing happens all too often in Comments.
Genocide of the Jews is permissable depending on context? It is never permissable. She sounds like she would be well in with the Nazis.
If ‘they’ would have her which I very much doubt.
Thanks for this, which buttresses my point – we all know the real reason Gay was sacked was not plagiarism but her remarks on Israel and the Palestinians, which in defending free speech made a total nonsense of her and Harvard’s censorship stance on DEI. But because of DEI’s sacred status Harvard preferred not to make a point of that: DEI trumps free speech. Which way do we want it? My apologies for not having been clearer.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I get you and see your point. Take care
Freedom of speech for Palestinians but not white males.
Oh PLEEeeeze!!! Stop with the victim card. Be a man.
He is not playing the victim card, he is pointing out the contradiction in Harvard’s claiming to stand up for free speech on the one hand and cancelling people on the other.
White men can’t say anything I’m about to say anymore…oh wait, I said it anyway and I’m still here (not under my full name, granted, but I’m a part-time loudmouth in real life too). There is certainly some inverted bigotry against white males these days but the notion that we are persecuted to the point of being silenced is just silly, or insane. There’s an important difference between being silenced, imprisoned, or disappeared for speaking out and getting “judgy” looks or even losing a job. I’m not saying unpopular opinions justify firings or public shaming, but I appeal to my fellow white dudes: Don’t lose all sense of proportion.
Silly? Insane? How very disappointing, AJ. I’m not going to provide readers with a brief summation of what I learned from decades of research on men, masculinity, maleness and misandry. Anyone who is interested in all that can easily google me and my co-author. But I will say this, the effect on men of both gynocentrism (which ignores men) and misandry (which undermines or attacks men) has been devastating, not merely insulting or inconvenient. It shows up in studies on spiritual emptiness, say, and cultural alienation. And if you don’t care about those things, it shows up in the stats not only of school drop-outs but also those on suicide, crime, addiction and psychopathology.
You cannot brook any opposition to your emphatic opinions, and even seemed to deliberately misread the direction of my comment in order to pivot to your preferred idea-group, which approaches monomania, and is disappointing. You have come to certain conclusions in your research and writing, most of which I find at least somewhat persuasive. But your knowledge has not produced access to some adamantine wall of irrefutable truths, but informed assessments and judgments that are still somewhat limited and subject to human fallibility. And you tend to snap into a heated polemical mode, prosecuting and re-stating your case in a way unlikely to persuade any one who’s not already leaning toward your viewpoint, as I do lean when it comes to the topic of misandry. Are you concerned with being right, so convinced that you are already so right that you ignore all claims that don’t square with yours? Or chew them up just to spit them out as “disappointing” or whatnot? You have a good cause, but you have become a zealot, and that has a downside.
Are white men unable to speak up in most cases? Were they ever able to in all cases?
I’m responding to R Wright’s claim of “no free speech for white males”. This is not pertinent to your area of expertise, I don’t believe, except by a very pre-determined pivot.
All lives matter. All bigotry is wrong. Anti white-male prejudice certainly does exist and it has become more acceptable to be openly hostile to white folks, especially men, in some circles, in recent years. Without a doubt. But it has not reached “special victimhood” status in the way that some claim.
Are you practically “on my case” full time now, Paul?
And what does “be a man” mean to you, Clare? Have you ever been one? Do you understand that “be a man” has long been used (often by women) as a way of exploiting men and therefore, intentionally or unintentionally, of fostering “toxic masculinity” (that is, the pervasive belief than men are somehow not “real” men unless they’re always in control of themselves, of others, or both)? I can understand, reluctantly, if your preoccupation with women prevents you from any effort to understand the problems of men, but I do ask you not to be one of those problems.
One thing that is not very civil, or at least fair about some of your aggrieved responses–more of them earn that label of late–is the ease with which you say people “don’t care” or “make any effort” because they haven’t made the same effort you have, or don’t care in the exact same way. I don’t see you making much of an effort to understand other viewpoints in any charitable way. Your opponents often get “the doubt of the benefit”, so to speak.
This may not be received in the sincere way it is intended, but…I wonder if you are doing okay, Paul.
That is exactly right and that was Harvard’s dilemma
I gave an up but got a down. Nothing you said was untrue but she also said that the genocide of the Jews was permissable depending on context. We shouldn’t be free to use it to murder others. Free speech is a honest opinion not stirring up people to hatred. That is something else and should be stamped on. To have an opinion on the best course to run a country is okay I would think. We all know the difference between good and bad speech or should do.
The most sickening thing was how Gay in her statement made out she was the victim of racism, rather than those whose vicitmization she facilitated. Moreover, it wasn’t racism that got her sacked, it was racism that got her appointed.
Indeed. She had little alternative but to blame ‘others’. I formed the impression from the Op-ed in the New York Times that she was affronted by being questioned. Up until now she was a DEI protected person and therefore immune, and now – not so much.
Gosh!! Is this the writer who can’t think for themselves but needed an establish religion err cult to tell them right from wrong . Are they writing for themselves now or just for the new organization they joined ?
Wow many people are in the same cult as her.
Sit down.
The syntax is weak in this one.
I presume you are talking about her conversion to Christianity. I’m not a believer, but this has precisely nothing to do with the issue.
Well said. It really was sickening when she stooped to play the race card, and that nasty little weasel Al Sharpton backed her up. Neither of them has done race relations any favors.
“They” can’t help it, it’s in the DNA.
Very drôle
Who? AYAAN HIRSI ALI ?
More like it’s in the DEI.
Their mediocrity means it is the only card they have.
Some of these people aren’t even mediocre.
Just available for the check mark in the box.
Delusions of adequacy?
The whole DEI system is guaranteed to bring about conflict between the races.
Where does the idea DEI actually come from? Who seeded it nurtured it so that is became so quickly rooted and influential?
John Lindsay’s, ‘Cynical Theories’ explains it’s inception and development. Very good book.
James Lindsay (and his co-author Helen Pluckrose).
I second this recommendation — Cynical Theories is a fantastic book, one that everyone should read. Helen narrates the audiobook version herself.
James also has a website (New Discourses . com) where he has free access to all his podcasts about these topics.
This is definitely a comprehensive look at the subject of DEI, “grievance studies” and so forth. Funniest anecdote in it: a transwoman comes into a salon, demanding a Brazilian was on her testicles (because, well, I’m a woman), and the religiously conservative immigrant women running the salon are taken somewhat aback.
Perhaps ĺike most unfair, ( to the common man/woman ), new directives it is the very real fear of social upheaval which came upon the establishment after the criminal decision to lock up society because of those like Fauci who poisoned the well.
the play-book is well scripted by now, look to South Africa’s BEE policies (Black Economic Empowerment), look at its “fruits”, this is what is install for the West. In short, what you are seeing is the old by a new name, it used to be called Comminism (now to answer your question, that is where it comes from)
It isn’t “Communism”. Lazy analysis.
Agreed accept could I suggest substituting ‘guaranteed’ with ‘designed’ !
Not just guaranteed, but designed to do so!
Play the race card when all else fails. You can’t lose. Everything seen through the prism of race, not academic achievement or even talent.
I wait with baited breath for the first white, anglo-saxon male or female to play the race card. Bring it on.
“playing the race card” is as American as Apple pie.
The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America https://www.amazon.com/dp/1631492853/ref=cm_sw_r_u_apa_i_y7YLFbXQXB2KK
What was most striking to me – coming late to this and watching the congressional session only recently – was the absolute contempt with which she and the other women treated their questioners in the House of Representatives. They clearly felt quite invulnerable.
Agreed. They are obviously accustomed to pulling a thought w*nk out of their bag of postmodern drivel, and that being the end of the discussion.
She’s still on 900k a year. I wonder how the careers of those she chose to go after and cancel fared?
People like her pull down $900K in part at least because the bulk of the teaching faculty are adjuncts, pulling down $20K. Claudine Gay’s shortcomings aside, is any faculty member worth 45 times any other?
No unknown political science professor makes $900,000, even at Harvard. The M.D./researchers make $1,000,000+. A scientist like E.O. Wilson, who was groundbreaking in his field, as well as a prolific writer, only made $750,000 (read it in an article about him). Famous authors like Toni Morrison and Joyce Carol Oates didn’t make that kind of money. (Maybe Oates, as she taught at Princeton for 100 years). I think someone is exaggerating. I’d like to know where she got that figure. I read an article about the highest paid professors in the country, and they were all M.D.s or Nobel Prize winners and made a million or more. Of course, the highest paid employees of ALL of the universities were football coaches.
I can’t understand how they would promote people like this. Has the world gone mad?
A bit late to be asking that particular question.
The two most sickening things are that Harvard is keeping her on with an outrageous salary, and that the New York Times published her whining concoction so prominently. The DEI sect has learned nothing from all of this. Equity should mean taking some measures to level the playing field – but academically, Gay’s field was already level, and nothing was forcing her to plagiarize or to skimp on academic and mental effort. Inclusion and Diversity should mean welcoming colleagues from a range of backgrounds, not catapulting incompetents upwards – unless Harvard believes that Gay is the best a black woman can be and do? Which would be the true racism and sexism.
But it is good that they are continuing to double down on their errors in public. Eventually people will wake up to this madness. Sadly, it will take a long overshoot into the madness before things turn around. Hard to know if this is the turning point yet. But come it will.
I thought my pay was good; she makes ten times as much.
I wouldn’t mind if she were a film star or something were merit was obvious from performance.
DEI = ‘The Blackman is fundamentally inferior to the Whiteman’.
I commented above what it meant to me to be treated as inferior via offering me special treatment in the 1980s Australia as a female refugee from a non-English-speaking country. DEI’s intended beneficiaries will never know whether they really achieved what they are credited with, or they were given money/praise as someone’s proof of DEI compliance.
Otherwise known as the racism of low expectations.I have rubbed that into the faces of the woke DEi crowd on occasion, and tremendously enjoy watching them squirm. At least those who have the modicum of intelligence required to actually comprehend what was said; sadly, not all meet that criterion. Too many of these people are not even one-trick ponies, but can only give the impression of pulling off even one trick. It’s a terrible state of affairs.
DIE is essentially a false religion – leading people from the Truth. It cannot last.
DEI is indeed a pseudo-religious cult.
Wokus Dei
disagree, it is Communism in disguise
Agreed “Reverse racism is racism.” Vivek Ramaswamy campaign principle number 4. #Vivek2024
As a female refugee from a non-English-speaking country I was meant to benefit from Australia’s 1980s’ DEI. This implied my inability to compete on an equal basis. It was an absolute insult! DEI harms its supposed beneficiaries the most. See the price Australia’s aborigines pay for being treated as a special needs liability, unearned money and praise thrown at them.
Yabut broaden your thinking a little bit. With work, Gay can be seen as a Victim of Systemic: Her hiring was pure Systemic Racism, yes? Whitey put her in a position she was utterly unqualified for, thus insuring her failure and humiliation, thus Victimizing her!!
‘With work…’ ? Yes, if you define tedious and insurmountable brainwashing as ‘work’.
Good point. There is no way out of the maze.
And, it goes on. Denying that Gay has any culpability in her downfall is to suggest that black women have no agency – along with the racism of low expectations, this is the racism of black infantilism.
Just watched Nasra Abukar Ali running the 100m and reckon Claudine Gay could beat her, so there may be be a career opportunity in elite sports there for Gay if they introduce a DEI 100m.
I had a watch too…. she is carrying a lot of weight and to top it all runs awkwardly. It is cringeworthy.
It reminds me of that Irish girl swimmer, Olympian (?) whose urine sample contained mainly whiskey!
In her defense, most of her ancestors probably served in the Royal Navy.
The knock-kneed skip and hurrah at the end is worth a watch in itself.
There have been others.The Englishman who had never skied going in for the Olympic Ski Jump, and some delightful West African attempting to swim again in the Olympics. His remarkable knitted woollen trunks damn near drowned him.
Still those we were the days when we still admired the plucky amateur!
Most Blacks can’t swim even those born in Caribbean countries but still there’s a piccy of one (failure) from Jamaica outside the main pool in Leeds ‘pour encourager les autres’ no doubt.
Thank you for this.
Something I have not understood about this, isn’t peer reviewing supposed to be blind?
Peer review is in practice often perfunctory, lazy and uncritical. Like the rest of modern academia it tends promotes the fashionable not the truth.
And in specialised areas where there are only a few experts, it is difficult to make it really “blind”, unless the reviewers are not truly knowledgeable about the subject.
Hence a completely inaccurate article suggesting Jamaican slaves invented a key steel technology was waved through and the journal doubled down when it was exposed. Being woke and criticising the Patriarchy was more important than historical accuracy and rigour.
So true, and incidentally equally true of the hard sciences as the soft social sciences (which are not sciences at all in any real sense of the word),.
Too true.
No, that is a separate safeguard that is more common in STEM-subject research than the humanities or social sciences. Hence the specification of a “double blind and peer-reviewed” clinical trial.
I only have any first-hand knowledge of how things work in literature and language departments and would welcome any correction or clarification here.
The replication crisis is as big in medical science as it is in psychology and “social sciences”.
Maybe physical sciences and maths are safeguarded.
Thanks for the input, anecdotal as it may be. I detect some expertise or authority in your reply.
Peer review does not mean what people think it means. It’s taken as an endorsement of whatever conclusion is being drawn. That’s not true. A peer reviewed article mostly means that a legitimate research method was used and that the maths are accurate.
Indeed. Climate politics is mainly the culprit where this is concerned, in which the phrase “peer reviewed” is used in the media as a way of implying that a claim must be true. In fact even if it went further than what you’re saying here and was actually the assertion of truth that people want to imply, it would still only represent a statement of consensus which then could be falsified by hard evidence in the next piece of research.
The reason that climate politics is especially prone to over reliance on peer review in its mission to silence dissent is simple: there’s no evidence for the core assumption that climate change is both dangerous and predominantly driven by human CO2 emissions.
Much to agree with there.
However in all the criticism of Gay and Harvard, fully justified IMO, it’s odd how few have also commented on the Legacy Admissions issue at this institution – the favouring of applications from those who’s parents attended. You could not ‘ratchet-in’ inequity and inequality more specifically if you tried.
Would welcome those who may have better grasp of the details on this point commenting, but did Gay commit to tackling this or was it already dealt with fully and completely?
And those who criticise DEI, and much to criticise too, better be consistent on this point – it should be scrapped forthwith if not already.
Good point. Americans constantly congratulate themselves on their ‘democracy’, which is, in fact, the world’s most extreme plutocracy.
Worse than the United Arab Emirates?
While legacy admissions may seem unfair (and clearly they are since they tend to favor those coming from a legacy), it is also likely that the kids of parents bright enough to have got into Harvard (in the past) are also likely to be pretty bright. In other words, the progeny of two elite athletes are likely to be very athletic; similarly the progeny of elite doctors, scientists and lawyers are likely to be pretty smart!
Legacies at least get in on the achievements of their parents, and ensure a steady supply of donations.
There’s zero meritocracy involved in diversity admits, and no real benefits to prioritizing them.
Err and you think that is better and meritocratic? I think I’ve just highlighted that some of the DEI critics quite happy if their type retain some advantage. As bad as IMO.
How smart would Claudine Gay’s children be?
“An Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.
Touche. One would clearly have to exclude the children of parents who had been affirmative action/DEI recruits!
This did occur to me too…
Hitting the nail on the head! Especially this part: “D stands for the degradation of the standards once upheld at institutions such as Harvard; the E stands for their erasure; and the I stands not only for the indoctrination that follows, but also intimidation.” Exactly. But for me, the plagiarism pales in relation Claudine Gay’s lack of backbone: why couldn’t she stand up and say, “Harvard will not tolerate contemptuous, hateful treatment of Jews?” https://melissaknox.substack.com/publish/home
Ah, a relative. The brothers. The sisters. The uncles, aunts. The family, clan, tribe, and people who look like me.
The West spent hundreds of years eliminating this tendency from public life and morality. It wasn’t always successful, of course, but when it was, it was one of the glories of our civilisation. No other culture came near it. Fragile, but beautiful and of undoubted value to all who participated.
And then some idiots started giving it away.
According to an admittedly simplified historical narrative, much of what made up the Glory Days of the West (450–44 BCE and 1450–1910 CE?) went quite dormant for many centuries and needed a “rebirth”. The bulk of the better times also occurred against a backdrop of enforced servitude, superstition, inherited power, and early death that only occurs on a comparative scale today if we squint and exaggerate a great deal.
So yes, many have “started to” give it away over the centuries, and rather more effectively so than usual in recent years. But it won’t work. If you think it’s a fait accompli, “remember” the setting(s) in which the good old Renaissance took place.
Exactly. The “kernels of truth” that underlie DEI are based on preferences. We try to limit nepotism for example because we know it often results in mediocrity. That doesn’t stop it from happening, but our civilization has managed to limit it to some extent. Going to Harvard results in “preference”, which is why people struggle to get in there.
Maybe the Harvard grads for several generations could all get careers flipping burgers to eliminate the preference… But then we would have a harder time getting the burgers out the window… nevermind……
Mediocrity caused by DEI is not a bug, it is its intended feature. Unlike meritocracy, where no one owes anyone anything because they got there on their own merit, everyone appointed to a role because of DEI rules owes their fortune to DEI and so owes someone else. Benefitees have to show thanks and support to the progressives that gave them their opportunity.
Slowly an army of DEI defenders is created across the institutions, an army of individuals that can be mobilised for any progressive cause lest those individuals risk losing all that they have gained from DEI. A DEI nomenklatura has been created. Just like its communist cousin, many in the DEI nomenklatura can see its naked inequity, but they nonetheless defend DEI to defend their own interests. That’s why rational argument against DEI, pointing out its gross counterproductivity, achieves nothing: everyone knows it is poison, but for many their allegiance to it is necessary to pay their bills.
Communism wasn’t defeated by principles and morality. It was defeated by 45 years of the worsening relative poverty it created until one day a majority realised they’d be better off without it. Personal interest defeated communism. Sadly, that’s the only way DEI will be defeated so it’s going to be a long haul and we’re already poorer because of it. Expect more mediocrity, more failure, more corruption, more Claudine Gays.
In the meantime it’s probably best to avoid air travel – particularly with American carriers.
Is there not a theory that the high speed rail link to Manchester failed because DEI led to vast and unnecessary increases the cost of the project ?
They couldn’t find enough Trans sleepers to lay the tracks on. There only being 2 rails meant the non-binary trains would keep derailing.
HS2’s costs were mainly escalated by the selection of a ridiculous top speed of 250mph (for a small country like England) without a proper re-costing. Faster trains need straighter tracks so this caused the line of route to be really inflexible, requiring far more expensive earthworks and civil engineering. HS2 has now reduced the top speed to 225mph but only after the line of route was locked in so making few savings. If the top speed was 140mph about £40bn would have been saved at the cost of 15 minutes extra journey time. Try and find the cost benefit analysis for the original 250mph and you’ll find some glib statements.
Engineering projects often exceed their budgets, I wonder if when the project started the project budget was a realistic proposal? It would be great to have had super-duper trains – had the costs been bearable.
I retrospect, a 140mph line would have achieved almost everything that HS2 hoped to achieve but the press would have castigated the Government for its lack of ambition.
I heard this and while I doubt that the DEI requirements cost a big proportion of this huge project’s budget, I suspect it was a distraction that the engineers could done without.
Prejudice: Don’t confuse me with the facts my mind is made up.
Exactly. Well said. The parallels with the Other Equality Credo communism are well made. Just look at how it is fast corroding our vitals. Educational standards trashed to allow 50% of kids to go and impoverish themselves in Blairs Rightthink Unis. The smartest kids turned away by Woke Oxbridge and heading overseas. DEI prioritising candidates because of sex, sexual.preference or skin colour in modt professions like law politics and academia.
The positive discrimination and gender/DEI quotas in higher management of the last 15 years are directly connected to the attrition of merit in our public sector and now the City. Merit – like wealth – is now seen as negative and discriminatory within the deranged Equality Cult of our illberal Progressive State.
Was this post sent to the SIN BIN for a couple of hours
may I ask?
The glasses are the giveaway. She’s plainly hiding something; in this case, her total inadequacy.
Agreed, to add gravitas where there is patently NONE.
DEI must DIE!
Promotion and recruitment in Western Public Administration and, increasingly, business has been based on personal profiles rather than merit for too long.
This has impacted on our public services and decision making resulting in sub-optimal performance and outcomes.
Let us return to a meritocracy and celebrate achievement and ability rather than race, sex and creed.
In the end the businesses should crash but many stand through deception such as the big pharma companies.
“Diversity” is really just a nicer name for discrimination. “Inclusion” refers to “inclusive language,” which is really just a nicer name for censorship. “Equity” refers to ownership, not equality, and really is just the enforced equality of outcomes, which requires forcibly redistributing earnings, assets, school admissions, hiring, and promotions.
Renaming things is clever, as most people don’t look beneath the surface of things, particularly if they’re removed from the quotidian concerns of daily life. But facts remain facts, and objective reality isn’t changed by redefinitions.
The President’s press secretary can therefore tell us, with jesuitical truth, that illegal immigration is well under control. Our newest arrivals are, often, simply waiting for a court date.
That doesn’t mean there still aren’t millions of people here unlawfully, who need billions in public assistance. But it does sound better to say that they’re migrants who are here legally, and not unlawful entrants, particularly to the credentialed, bien pensant leftist gentry.
While our elites pride themselves on their self proclaimed moral and intellectual superiority, they rarely look beneath the surface of things, or behind all of the nicer-sounding redefinitions of unyielding reality.
And in the meantime, of course, “diversity” remains as discrimination, and years-long asylum claims result in de facto open borders. Those who observe the customary rules – obey the law, work diligently, live responsibly – are, as the author above notes, left seething.
‘Dei’ is the Latin word for god. There is nothing godly about the cult of DIE.
DIE must die.
Nations have always had false gods but maybe here we are seeing the return of the gods.
No comment. I just marvel at Ali’s excellent style of writing. The analogy makes the argument stronger.
“…the peer reviewers who overlooked her plagiarism;”
What would have happened to the reviewer’s careers and reputations if they had not overlooked her plagiarism? They chose the expedient path, and some maybe even thought the lie was justified by DEI, I guess.
DEI ; Discrimination, Exclusion, Incompetence.
I’ve had Division, Exclusion and Inequity for about 5 years now … but great … keep ’em coming!
So many of the worst grifters have turned out to be black women (who tick at least two boxes); think BLM, Princess Shola and Claudine Gay.
Is it time for us to have a discussion about ‘toxic femininity’ ?
Three boxes (lesbian).
What about the late fatty who ran KID’S COMPANY into the deck?
Claudine Gay’s name first came to my attention following the hounding of Roland Fryer by senior figures within Harvard.
Roland Fryer – as a brilliant young academic – had dared to push back against the BLM narrative (You can read the paper that got him in trouble here – https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf ). Professors Glenn Loury and John McWhorter had walked a similar path, but perhaps were too well established to be cancelled, or maybe just that their employers (Brown and Columbia respectively) were not quite such craven appeasers of the mob.
Claudine Gay (then Dean at Harvard) had, in the wake of George Floyd’s death, come out to unequivocally promote the narrative that American Police were at war with young black men and were “gunning them down” on a regular basis. Nearly all US Universities, and most Fortune 500 companies, went along with that story, just so as to appear to be on the right side of the culture war.
The DEI obsessed Gay leapt onto the bandwagon to advance an ID Pol agenda that would cement her place at Harvard and likely propel her up the career ladder towards the Presidency of the University – she declared that the BLM protests provided “a profound opportunity for institutional change that should not and cannot be squandered.” and used that as justification for extending faculty hires in “ethnicity, indigeneity, and migration,” alongside a commitment to hire and promote more staff from minority backgrounds and to appoint a Dean of (you guessed it) “Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging”. Gay offered the University her “personal commitment to be a partner and ally in the work for equity and justice,” No wonder, since she owed her entire career to DEI tick-box policies around hiring & promotion.
Prof Fryer, as a young black man who had escaped a pretty rough upbringing himself and made his way to Harvard, might have expected Gay to be onside, but when he dared to stand up against the race-baiters to calmly and with irrefutable stats prove their race-war narrative to be false, he painted a target on his back.
Far from being his “partner and ally”, Claudine Gay led the charge to see him stripped of tenure and cancelled.
Fryer’s experience was very similar to that of Zac Kriegman, former head of Data at Thomson Reuters, who also was hounded out of his job for daring to counter the BLM narrative with facts. (You can read his story at https://kriegman.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired – it’s well worth a read, and offers an extraordinaryaccount as to how the truth has been suppressed in order to promote a preferred narrative)
As I’ve described it several times before, we live in a curated reality, with the media and institutions acting as narrative stewards, rather than just bringing us a true picture of the world.
If you are an uncritical reader, limit yourself to only a handful of news sources or accept what you are told without a healthy dose of scepticism, then your impression of the world is mediated by organisations that will only bring you stories that sit within a certain narrative framework, or they’ll “interpret” them in such a way that you end up with a (cynically and deliberately) skewed version of the truth.
Fryer and Kriegman paid the price for daring to stand up for facts and the truth. The Claudine Gays of this world want to push their preferred narrative and don’t want facts and truth to intrude on that. Allowing such “Academics” to remain in their posts means that we endorse their right to push a distorted, partisan picture of the world onto their students. Thanks to the falsehoods in the media and from our institutions, many millions of people believe they live in a world that bears no relation to the real one they actually inhabit.
At the risk of hyperbole, I would suggest that the consequences of allowing such untrue narratives to persist constitutes a clear and present danger to society.
It’s more than a danger to society, it has undermined US society, values and eventually international competitiveness. Does anyone imagine that the Chinese will appoint third rate mediocrities to important roles because they belong to racial or sexual minorities? The US is over.
What might delay the takeover is that “the Chinese will appoint third rate mediocrities to important roles because they” are sons, sons-in-law or nephews of high ranking party members.
Sadly, unless we stop the rot, the West is over.
This woman was president of Harvard University…with 17 publications! That my friends is black privilege.
In 26 YEARS!
The correct vocative plural pronoun to be used when addressing the likes of Claudine Homosexual is “you people”.
Anti-Semitism isn’t really racism, as racism doesn’t usual result in pogroms or more modern massacres. The genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda weren’t because of racism. What the left-wing Harvard students propose is a strategic policy of human annihilation; who knows how they’d respond to deliberate ethnic cleansing of Gaza, they doubtlessly shouldn’t be encouraged there.
As for this American woman, she is a lame and toxic individual but she’s been handed her poisonous politics on a plate by far bigger forces. Preferment seems a dubious word in this context too unless it’s some modern racialist concept. The subs could tighten up on than rather than the whole house style lapse into other bad pseudo-academic habits but I suppose that stems from everyone referring to ‘woke’ all the time.
The truth is that Claudine Gay was nothing more or less than a Politburo Commissar of DEI and wokeness. And the Harvard Corporation was nothing more than a bunch of virtue-signaling, largely white, do-gooders. Both have done untold harm to both black students and faculty, not just at Harvard but in all walks of public life, business and government. From now on those black students and faculty will have to be three times smarter than everybody else to overcome any preconceived notions and suspicions, but the truth of the matter is that in the majority simply won’t be since they were affirmative action/DEI recruits and hires in the first place. It is quite incredible how the mighty Harvard has fallen so low.
That Harvard Corporation could certainly use some “diversity” by their own standard. Once again, the white elites put forward a figurehead to hide behind. I don’t really have a problem with the makeup of the board. Just notice that much like our hidden elites and their puppet “politicians”, they prefer to work from the shadows.