EDUCATION Comments turned off

Feminist Academic Launching Masters Program in ‘Masculinities’ By Toni Airaksinen

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminist-academic-launching-masters-program-in-masculinities/

Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York, will soon become the first college in the nation to offer a master’s degree in the emerging field of “Masculinities.”

The Master’s Program in Masculinities will be a 30-credit online program offered through the school’s Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities, which aims to “disseminate research that redefines gender relations to foster greater social justice.”

The center counts feminist icons such as Gloria Steinem, Eve Ensler, and Jane Fonda among its Board of Directors, and it is led by Michael Kimmel, a feminist academic who most recently wrote a book on “angry white men” suffering from “aggrieved entitlement.”

Speaking to PJ Media, Kimmel said Thursday that the degree will likely launch September of 2019, pending state approval. The proposal for the degree is “now working its way up the SUNY ladder to Albany having passed all Stony Brook screens,” Kimmel explained.

“The curriculum of the course is to study masculinities through the lenses of the social sciences and humanities,” said Kimmel, adding possible courses could be on “literary representations of masculinities” or on “male development from within the framework of developmental psychology.”

Kimmel was quick to note that he doesn’t use the phrase “toxic masculinity.” Instead, Kimmel says he takes an “intersectional” approach to the study of masculinity.

“As to our approach … we focus on a life-course perspective, are sensitive to variations among men, and adopt an intersectional approach, as would be the norm in Gender Studies programs today,” said Kimmel.

Target audience? Well, that depends. Kimmel anticipates that students will come from a variety of backgrounds. Some likely will have just graduated college. Others, he believes, will be teachers and counselors looking to deepen their understanding of boys and men. CONTINUE AT SITE

BOOKS Comments turned off

Sydney Williams reviews “On Grand Strategy” by John Lewis Gaddis

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“Grand Strategy: The alignment of potentially infinite aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities.”“This, then, is a book about the ‘mental’ Hellespont that divide such leadership,on one shore, from common sense on the other. There ought to be free and frequent crossings between them, for it’s only with such exchanges that grand strategies – alignments of means with ends – become possible.” JohnLewis Gaddis

This is a short book (313 pages), with a large sweep of (mostly) Western Civilization, especially of its military leaders and observers. Professor Gaddis is the Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale. As well, the book is, as Victor Davis Hanson wrote in a review for The New York Times, “…a thoughtful; validation of the liberal arts, an argument for literature over social science, an engaging reflection on university education and some timely advice for Americans that lasting victory comes from winning what you can rather than all that you want.”

In ten essays, Professor Gaddis carries us from Xerxes, Pericles and Octavian to the Founders, Napoleon and Bismarck. He juxtaposes Augustine with Machiavelli, Elizabeth I with Philip II and Clausewitz with Tolstoy. He focuses on three U.S. Presidents: Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, showing us why Lincoln and FDR were successful, while Wilson failed to realize his dream “to make the world safe for Democracy.”

He cites maxims. Isaiah Berlin quoting the Greek poet Archilochus of Paros: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Augustine: “The higher glory is to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with a sword.” Machiavelli: “…a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” Clausewitz, author of the unfinished On War: “war…must be subordinate to politics and therefore to policy.” F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said brilliance is the ability “to hold opposing ideas in [one’s] mind, while retaining the ability to function.”

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Harvard Hospital Taking Down Portraits of White Men Portraits of medical legends moved because they ‘reinforce white men are in charge’ Elizabeth Harrington

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

http://freebeacon.com/issues/harvard-hospital-taking-portraits-white-men/

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, is taking down its prominent display of its past medical legends because too many are white men.

Diversity and inclusion initiatives prompted the removal of 30 portraits from the hospital’s Bornstein Amphitheater because the paintings reinforce “that white men are in charge,” one professor said. The Boston Globe first reportedthe news, writing that past white male luminaries will be dispersed to “put the focus on diversity.”

Portraits that had hung in the amphitheater for decades will now be moved to less visible areas like conference rooms and lobby halls.

Dr. Betsy Nabel, the president of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said she made the decision to get rid of white men after reading the minds of minority students looking at the portraits.

“I have watched the faces of individuals as they have come into Bornstein,” Nabel told the Globe. “I have watched them look at the walls. I read on their faces ‘Interesting. But I am not represented here.'”

“That got me thinking maybe it’s time that we think about respecting our past in a different way,” she said.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

More Misery in Missouri The university continues to struggle with fallout from the 2015 protests.

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-misery-in-missouri-1529103599

Indulging protesters can be expensive, as the University of Missouri is discovering three years after students successfully demanded the resignation of the president and chancellor. Last week the school said it will have to eliminate 185 positions on top of 308 cut last year.

Apparently fewer parents want to send their kids to a school where activism eclipses academics. Between the fall 2015 and 2017 semesters, freshman enrollment dropped by 35%. Lost tuition accounts for $29 million of the university’s current $49 million budget shortfall.

In response, Mizzou has had to lay off employees, decline to renew expiring faculty contracts, and leave positions unfilled after retirements. The university is also cutting back on travel and phasing out low-demand courses, among other austerity measures.

Mizzou claims more aggressive recruitment from neighboring states’ schools has contributed to the enrollment decline. And it says growing maintenance, research and personnel costs have contributed to the budget strain. But “we know the perception of Mizzou was a key factor in the difficulties we had over the past two years,” adds spokesman Christian Basi.

Much of the public outcry concerned free speech, and Missouri has tried to improve on that score. Since 2015, all campuses in the Missouri university system have adopted the Chicago Principles, which guarantee “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.” But other speech policies at Mizzou remain ambiguous, earning it a mediocre yellow rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that tracks free-speech on campus.

In May 2017, the university signed a $1.3 million contract for three years of outside PR help. This year it has spent $1.8 million on ads to recruit and enroll new students. The school has added $8 million to its scholarship budget and will decrease the cost of student meals and housing next year.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Jordan Peterson and Conservatism’s Rebirth The psychologist and YouTube star has brought the concepts of order and tradition back to our intellectual discourse. By Yoram Hazony

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jordan-peterson-and-conservatisms-rebirth-1529101961

Jordan Peterson doesn’t seem to think of himself as a conservative. Yet there he is, standing in the space once inhabited by conservative thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol. Addressing a public that seems incapable of discussing anything but freedom, Mr. Peterson presents himself unmistakably as a philosophical advocate of order. His bestselling book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” makes sense of ideas like the “hierarchy of place, position and authority,” as well as people’s most basic attachments to “tribe, religion, hearth, home and country” and “the flag of the nation.” The startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation.

Mr. Peterson, 56, is a University of Toronto professor and a clinical psychologist. Over the past two years he has rocketed to fame, especially online and in contentious TV interviews. To his detractors, he might as well be Donald Trump. He has been criticized for the supposed banality of his theories, for his rambling and provocative rhetoric, and for his association with online self-help products. He has suffered, too, the familiar accusations of sexism and racism.

From what I have seen, these charges are baseless. But even if Mr. Peterson is imperfect, that shouldn’t distract from the important argument he has advanced—or from its implications for a possible revival in conservative thought. The place to begin, as his publishing house will no doubt be pleased to hear, is with “12 Rules for Life,” which is a worthy and worthwhile introduction to his philosophy.

BOOKS Comments turned off

EUROPE’S COMING DARK AGE BY JAMES KIRCHICK (PODCAST)

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

Once the beating heart of world Jewish life, Europe has given way to the United States and Israel as home to the overwhelming majority of Jews. In fact, 21st-century Europe is once again shedding its Jewish population as it becomes an increasingly harder place for them to build their lives.

How did this come to pass? How can it be that less than a century after the Holocaust wiped out most of European Jewry, the continent’s remaining Jews face an increasingly hostile environment?

This is just one of the many question Jamie Kirchick tackles in his new book, The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. In this podcast, Kirchick joins Jonathan Silver to discuss the book. They begin by examining the roots of Europe’s current economic and geopolitical discontents. But the conversation soon turns to the present situation faced by Europe’s Jews as the continent struggles to deal with a growing immigration crisis and resurgent populism on both the Left and the Right. As they explore the post-Cold War history of Europe, the decline of its cultural confidence, and the perilous future of European Jewry, Kirchick and Silver push us to consider the prospect of a Europe without Jews and what that would augur for the continent and the world.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on June 16th, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-fbi-no-bias-conclusion-may-not-supported/But who knows?

You’ve got to hand it to Michael Horowitz: The Justice Department inspector general’s much-anticipated report on the Clinton-emails investigation may be half-baked, but if it is, it is the most comprehensive, meticulously detailed, carefully documented, thoughtfully reasoned epic in the history of half-bakery.

Why say do I say the report “may be half-baked”? Why don’t I just come out and declare, “The report is half-baked”? Well, I figure if I write this column in the IG’s elusive style, we’ll have the Rosetta Stone we need to decipher the report.

See, you probably sense that I believe the report is half-baked. But if I say it “may be” half-baked . . . well, technically that means it may not be, too. I mean, who really knows, right?

If that annoys you, try wading through 568 pages of this stuff, particularly on the central issue of the investigators’ anti-Trump bias. The report acknowledges that contempt for Trump was pervasive among several of the top FBI and DOJ officials making decisions about the investigation. So this deep-seated bias must have affected the decision-making, right? Well, the report concludes, who really knows?

Not in so many words, of course. The trick here is the premise the IG establishes from the start: It’s not my job to draw firm conclusions about why things happened the way they did. In fact, it’s not even my job to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong. The cop-out is that we are dealing here with “discretionary” calls; therefore, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude. Consequently, the IG says his job is not to determine whether any particular decision was correct; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness, the decision was defensible. And he makes that determination by looking at every decision in isolation.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The FBI Hates Trump—and His Voters, Too By Julie Kelly

Posted By on June 15th, 2018

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/15/the-fbi-hates-trump-

During his recent book tour, ex-FBI Director James Comey made it clear that he detests Donald Trump.

Comey mocked Trump’s appearance—commenting on his “orange skin” and the bags under his eyes—and compared the president to a mob boss. He said Trump is unfit to be president, and even questioned his marriage. On Twitter, Comey taunts the president with self-aggrandizing tweets and suggests Trump’s day of reckoning will soon arrive. During an interview last spring, Comey’s wife admitted she and her daughters voted for Hillary Clinton and attended the Women’s March to protest Trump’s presidency the day after the inauguration.

But as the old saying goes, a fish rots from its head, and that certainly is the case with Comey’s FBI. (Trump fired Comey in May 2017.) Several passages in the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on the agency’s handling of the Clinton email investigation illustrate the FBI’s culture of contempt for Trump, before and after the election.

Comments from key law enforcement officials—lawyers and investigators—about Trump were vile, demeaning, and childish. But their ridicule was not isolated to Trump. These public servants were unsparing in their contempt for the voters—the very people who fund their salaries and pensions.

The Case of Strzok and Page
Let’s start with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI lovers who are connected to the Clinton email probe, the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. We know from previously-reported text exchanges that Strzok and Page harbored a deep disdain for Trump and a political preference for Clinton. The IG report confirms their bias after reviewing more than 40,000 messages between the two:

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Refugees and the Arab States – Part Three by Denis MacEoin

Posted By on June 15th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12334/refugees-arab-states

Whereas refugees arriving under the UNHCR are entitled to be granted asylum and eventually citizenship, the UAE is clear from the start that it wants to send its refugees back home. Back home to what? To a half-ruined country still ruled by one of history’s most brutal dictators hand-in-hand with Iran, Russia, and Hizbullah?

As the years pass, as more and more countries struggle with poverty, conflict, religious extremism, terrorism, ethnic divisions, governmental incapacity, corruption, and declining levels of education, huge sections of the world’s rapidly growing population will look in vain for safe places… The Western states who support the UNHCR cannot possibly handle this without suffering internal decline.

In the first part of this series, as many surveys have shown, we saw how difficult it has been, and apparently remains, for many Muslims to be assimilated into non-Muslim societies.

In Part Two, we examined how difficult it remains to allow Syrian and other refugees even to settle into other Muslim and Arab countries, including places such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, which have taken in millions.

In this final part, we shall look at the remaining Muslim countries, which have taken in few or no refugees from the Syrian civil war. These are the richest countries in the Arab world, and the least troubled by disintegration. Many are generous in their funding for humanitarian aid, but that money is donated on the understanding that the refugees are looked after by the UNHCR and the countries they have already reached. Seeing why may be a help.

In 2014, Amnesty International published a short article, “Facts and Figures: Syria refugee crisis & international resettlement”, in which it stated that “The six Gulf countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain – have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees”.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Final Nail in the ACLU’s Coffin by Alan M. Dershowitz

Posted By on June 15th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12507/aclu-leftist-partisan

The director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: that the ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties; it has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that for the first time in its history the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda and other agenda-driven political goals.

The headline in the June 8, 2018 edition of The New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections – and reinventing itself for the Trump Era.” The article continues:

“In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the A.C.L.U. is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.”

Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of The New Yorker, “Fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980’s and 90’s, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression.” I know, because I served on its National Board in the early days of my own career. In those days, the Board consisted of individuals who were deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach and political equality. Its Board members included Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right-wingers and left-wingers — all of whom supported neutral civil liberties.