Princeton confesses its embedded racism; Education Dept reviews its compliance with the law

[Metaphor]

In early September, the President of Princeton University published an open letter speaking about the persistent racism at Princeton, and how 'racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself', with a call to action to address the racism. Not just at Princeton, mind, but in the world at large! (A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?)

Having been raised a Catholic, Eisgruber no doubt felt great psychological relief at confessing his sins and the sins of the institution he's running. Of course, an open letter isn't private confession like the Papists do, so perhaps he was more influenced by his Jewish self-identity to employ a supplicating spectacle in the style of a Viddui prayer. One wonders if he beat his chest at each admission.

While it's all the rage to profess to being racist (self-identified racist Robin DiAngelo simply can't stop telling people how racist she is), Eisgruber's unbosoming seems to have caught the ears of the Education Department, who have sent a 'please explain' letter to Princeton.

Education Department officials notified Princeton this week that they are examining whether the university’s “admitted racism” means that it made materially false statements when it for years assured the public and the federal government that it doesn’t discriminate based on race.

The Trump administration investigation will focus on whether Princeton ran afoul of the Higher Education Act’s prohibition on federally funded colleges making a “substantial misrepresentation” about their educational programs, according to a letter to Princeton, signed by Robert King, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education.


King wrote that Eisgruber‘s statement revealed that Princeton’s “educational program is and for decades has been racist,” raising concerns that the university has been making false assurances to the public and to the Education Department that it does not discriminate based on race.


King’s letter also warns that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past, may consider financial penalties or other action against the university as a result of the investigation.

The Education Department demanded that Princeton produce a range of records about its nondiscrimination policies, among other things, within 21 days and also agree to make university officials available for a transcribed interview.

Princeton eschewed making a surprised Pikachu face at the Education Department's response in favour of a statement admonishing the Department and reassuring the audience that, though of course it said it was racist, it didn't actually discriminate against anybody.

Princeton spokesperson Ben Chang said in a statement that the university “stands by our statements about the prevalence of systemic racism and our commitment to reckon with its continued effects, including the racial injustice and race-based inequities that persist throughout American society.”


“It is unfortunate that the Department appears to believe that grappling honestly with the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism runs afoul of existing law,” Chang said. “The University disagrees and looks forward to furthering our educational mission by explaining why our statements and actions are consistent not only with the law, but also with the highest ideals and aspirations of this country.”

The Education Department has really betrayed its naïveté here. There is no conflict between Princeton saying it is racist and also the years of federal funding it got while making assurances that it wasn't racist. You see, what the Department does not understand - as Ibram X. Kendi has helped the newly enlightened to understand - is that no action can be "not racist", it's either racist or anti-racist. The Department, when it asks institutions to not discriminate by race, is demanding its institutions to be racist.

Who knows how it will all work out, though I think there's no room for confessed racism-enabler Eisgruber to escape unchastened. The man has enabled racism for seven years atop his ivory tower. Relinquishing his position to a woman of colour would be a good first step.

 

[KeepTalking]

In early September, the President of Princeton University published an open letter speaking about the persistent racism at Princeton, and how 'racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself', with a call to action to address the racism. Not just at Princeton, mind, but in the world at large! (A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?)

Having been raised a Catholic, Eisgruber no doubt felt great psychological relief at confessing his sins and the sins of the institution he's running. Of course, an open letter isn't private confession like the Papists do, so perhaps he was more influenced by his Jewish self-identity to employ a supplicating spectacle in the style of a Viddui prayer. One wonders if he beat his chest at each admission.

While it's all the rage to profess to being racist (self-identified racist Robin DiAngelo simply can't stop telling people how racist she is), Eisgruber's unbosoming seems to have caught the ears of the Education Department, who have sent a 'please explain' letter to Princeton.

Education Department officials notified Princeton this week that they are examining whether the university’s “admitted racism” means that it made materially false statements when it for years assured the public and the federal government that it doesn’t discriminate based on race.

The Trump administration investigation will focus on whether Princeton ran afoul of the Higher Education Act’s prohibition on federally funded colleges making a “substantial misrepresentation” about their educational programs, according to a letter to Princeton, signed by Robert King, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education.


King wrote that Eisgruber‘s statement revealed that Princeton’s “educational program is and for decades has been racist,” raising concerns that the university has been making false assurances to the public and to the Education Department that it does not discriminate based on race.


King’s letter also warns that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past, may consider financial penalties or other action against the university as a result of the investigation.

The Education Department demanded that Princeton produce a range of records about its nondiscrimination policies, among other things, within 21 days and also agree to make university officials available for a transcribed interview.

Princeton eschewed making a surprised Pikachu face at the Education Department's response in favour of a statement admonishing the Department and reassuring the audience that, though of course it said it was racist, it didn't actually discriminate against anybody.

Princeton spokesperson Ben Chang said in a statement that the university “stands by our statements about the prevalence of systemic racism and our commitment to reckon with its continued effects, including the racial injustice and race-based inequities that persist throughout American society.”


“It is unfortunate that the Department appears to believe that grappling honestly with the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism runs afoul of existing law,” Chang said. “The University disagrees and looks forward to furthering our educational mission by explaining why our statements and actions are consistent not only with the law, but also with the highest ideals and aspirations of this country.”

The Education Department has really betrayed its naïveté here. There is no conflict between Princeton saying it is racist and also the years of federal funding it got while making assurances that it wasn't racist. You see, what the Department does not understand - as Ibram X. Kendi has helped the newly enlightened to understand - is that no action can be "not racist", it's either racist or anti-racist. The Department, when it asks institutions to not discriminate by race, is demanding its institutions to be racist.

Who knows how it will all work out, though I think there's no room for confessed racism-enabler Eisgruber to escape unchastened. The man has enabled racism for seven years atop his ivory tower. Relinquishing his position to a woman of colour would be a good first step.

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

 

[ruby sparks]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

That's what I was unclear about too.



Personally, I'm not a fan of calling things such as AA racism. I really don't buy the case. Ok you might, at a pinch, get me to reluctantly agree that technically, according to some definitions, it might be called racism, of a sort, strictly-speaking, but it's not a stretch I'm happy to make. It's definitely not, imo, the same sort of thing as what racism is reasonably and usually defined as, or actually is.

 

[Trausti]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

That's what I was unclear about too.



Personally, I'm not a fan of calling things such as AA racism. I really don't buy the case. Ok you might, at a pinch, get me to reluctantly agree that technically, according to some definitions, it might be called racism, of a sort, strictly-speaking, but it's not a stretch I'm happy to make. It's definitely not, imo, the same sort of thing as what racism is reasonably and usually defined as, or actually is.

Well, if you judge someone based on their race rather than as an individual, that might be racist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

So the Trump DoJ is now going as low as possible to take something well out of context to hammer a university. This shit is intolerable!

 

[Trausti]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

So the Trump DoJ is now going as low as possible to take something well out of context to hammer a university. This shit is intolerable!

No. It’s trolling the vacuous virtue singling. The response appears to be that the virtue signaling is not to be taken seriously. ‘Cause we all know it’s bullshit.

 

[KeepTalking]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

So the Trump DoJ is now going as low as possible to take something well out of context to hammer a university. This shit is intolerable!

No. It’s trolling the vacuous virtue singling. The response appears to be that the virtue signaling is not to be taken seriously. ‘Cause we all know it’s bullshit.

So, that's what our government, and specifically the DoJ, should be doing? Trolling the libs? Some great leaders we got, they remind me of schoolyard bullies.

 

[Trausti]

No. It’s trolling the vacuous virtue singling. The response appears to be that the virtue signaling is not to be taken seriously. ‘Cause we all know it’s bullshit.

So, that's what our government, and specifically the DoJ, should be doing? Trolling the libs? Some great leaders we got, they remind me of schoolyard bullies.

Ah, so when a university says there is institutional racism we should all just know it’s bullshit? ‘Cause it is bullshit.

 

[J842P]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

That's what I was unclear about too.



Personally, I'm not a fan of calling things such as AA racism. I really don't buy the case. Ok you might, at a pinch, get me to reluctantly agree that technically, according to some definitions, it might be called racism, of a sort, strictly-speaking, but it's not a stretch I'm happy to make. It's definitely not, imo, the same sort of thing as what racism is reasonably and usually defined as, or actually is.

So, you think that colleges like Harvard denying admission to Asian applicants by systematically rating their personalities of lower quality based on in-person interviews compared with other students isn't racist?

Let me ask you, if a company consistently decided not to hire African Americans because they tended to rate their personalities as to "loud and obnoxious", would you have a problem calling that racist?

 

[Trausti]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

That's what I was unclear about too.



Personally, I'm not a fan of calling things such as AA racism. I really don't buy the case. Ok you might, at a pinch, get me to reluctantly agree that technically, according to some definitions, it might be called racism, of a sort, strictly-speaking, but it's not a stretch I'm happy to make. It's definitely not, imo, the same sort of thing as what racism is reasonably and usually defined as, or actually is.

So, you think that colleges like Harvard denying admission to Asian applicants by systematically rating their personalities of lower quality based on in-person interviews compared with other students isn't racist?

This is an actual example of institutional racism that the woke progressives would deny.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. It’s trolling the vacuous virtue singling. The response appears to be that the virtue signaling is not to be taken seriously. ‘Cause we all know it’s bullshit.

So, that's what our government, and specifically the DoJ, should be doing? Trolling the libs? Some great leaders we got, they remind me of schoolyard bullies.

Ah, so when a university says there is institutional racism we should all just know it’s bullshit? ‘Cause it is bullshit.

No. I will, however, take your non-response as an endorsement of the view that the US Government, and the DoJ specifically, should be in the business of trolling libs, rather than governing or enforcing laws. It also seems that you want your leaders to be schoolyard bullies, and our nation the schoolyard. That's great as long as they are picking on someone other than you, but what will you do when no one is left, and you become their target?

 

[ruby sparks]

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

That's what I was unclear about too.



Personally, I'm not a fan of calling things such as AA racism. I really don't buy the case. Ok you might, at a pinch, get me to reluctantly agree that technically, according to some definitions, it might be called racism, of a sort, strictly-speaking, but it's not a stretch I'm happy to make. It's definitely not, imo, the same sort of thing as what racism is reasonably and usually defined as, or actually is.

Well, if you judge someone based on their race rather than as an individual, that might be racist.

No kidding. You think?

What would you like me to do, copy and paste what I already posted?

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone else find it more than just ironic that William Barr's DOJ asking if Princeton lied?

 

[Trausti]

Ah, so when a university says there is institutional racism we should all just know it’s bullshit? ‘Cause it is bullshit.

No. I will, however, take your non-response as an endorsement of the view that the US Government, and the DoJ specifically, should be in the business of trolling libs, rather than governing or enforcing laws. It also seems that you want your leaders to be schoolyard bullies, and our nation the schoolyard. That's great as long as they are picking on someone other than you, but what will you do when no one is left, and you become their target?

It’s against the law for the university to have racist policies. University announces it’s racist. If you don’t mean it don’t say it.

 

[Metaphor]

In early September, the President of Princeton University published an open letter speaking about the persistent racism at Princeton, and how 'racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself', with a call to action to address the racism. Not just at Princeton, mind, but in the world at large! (A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?)

Having been raised a Catholic, Eisgruber no doubt felt great psychological relief at confessing his sins and the sins of the institution he's running. Of course, an open letter isn't private confession like the Papists do, so perhaps he was more influenced by his Jewish self-identity to employ a supplicating spectacle in the style of a Viddui prayer. One wonders if he beat his chest at each admission.

While it's all the rage to profess to being racist (self-identified racist Robin DiAngelo simply can't stop telling people how racist she is), Eisgruber's unbosoming seems to have caught the ears of the Education Department, who have sent a 'please explain' letter to Princeton.



Princeton eschewed making a surprised Pikachu face at the Education Department's response in favour of a statement admonishing the Department and reassuring the audience that, though of course it said it was racist, it didn't actually discriminate against anybody.


The Education Department has really betrayed its naïveté here. There is no conflict between Princeton saying it is racist and also the years of federal funding it got while making assurances that it wasn't racist. You see, what the Department does not understand - as Ibram X. Kendi has helped the newly enlightened to understand - is that no action can be "not racist", it's either racist or anti-racist. The Department, when it asks institutions to not discriminate by race, is demanding its institutions to be racist.

Who knows how it will all work out, though I think there's no room for confessed racism-enabler Eisgruber to escape unchastened. The man has enabled racism for seven years atop his ivory tower. Relinquishing his position to a woman of colour would be a good first step.

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

The letter specifically says racism occurs at Princeton:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.

 

[ruby sparks]

The letter specifically says racism occurs at Princeton:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.

I’m a bit confused as to what exactly it is you are complaining about in this case.

 

[Metaphor]

The letter specifically says racism occurs at Princeton:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.

I’m a bit confused as to what exactly it is you are complaining about in this case.

I'm confused as to why you are confused, or why you think correcting KeepTalking is 'complaining'.

KeepTalking said:

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

But Princeton did not say it only had "racist assumptions from the past...embedded" but also that:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton

So, Princeton has admitted to ongoing racism, not just racist assumptions from the past embedded in current structures (though Princeton has not specifically admitted current racism in its admission policies, just racism in a kind of generalised sense).

 

[ruby sparks]

I’m a bit confused as to what exactly it is you are complaining about in this case.

I'm confused as to why you are confused, or why you think correcting KeepTalking is 'complaining'.

KeepTalking said:

Pointing out that "racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself" does not necessarily mean that the University is currently, or even recently, racist in their admission policies.

But Princeton did not say it only had "racist assumptions from the past...embedded" but also that:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton

So, Princeton has admitted to ongoing racism, not just racist assumptions from the past embedded in current structures (though Princeton has not specifically admitted current racism in its admission policies, just racism in a kind of generalised sense).

No I’m not talking about correcting anyone, I’m confused about what exactly you are complaining about, in the OP.

My best guess is that you’re doing that thing where AA gets put on a par with the racism that it is trying to do something about the effects of, and as such you are suggesting the president is a hypocrite. But if that’s the case I think you need to say it more clearly, because it’s not automatically obvious to me. Nor would I agree with you that he’s a hypocrite or that there’s a double standard, because the two things are not the same.

Or maybe that’s not what bothers you.

 

[Metaphor]

No I’m not talking about correcting anyone, I’m confused about what exactly you are complaining about, in the OP.

My best guess is that you’re doing that thing where AA gets put on a par with the racism that it is trying to do something about the effects of, and as such you are suggesting the president is a hypocrite. But if that’s the case I think you need to say it more clearly, because it’s not automatically obvious to me. Nor would I agree with you that he’s a hypocrite.

Or maybe that’s not what bothers you.

It is true that the president is a hypocrite, and, if the law allowed it, I am certain he would actively discriminate against certain races to achieve his goal. But, that isn't what I was complaining about. I wasn't really 'complaining'.

What I was doing was mocking Eisgruber for his vapid and vainglorious confessional, and mocking the transformation of the word 'racist', particularly in the past five years. I am certain Princeton has done nothing that the Education Department thinks is racist, because the Education Department has not realised 'racist' now means not doing everything you can to dismantle what race activists regard as racism all the time. His letter is a microcosm of the entire deranged state of institutions scrambling to be the next penitent parishioner in the new Woke religion.

And it is funny to see the Education Department take Princeton at its word that it is racist. And it's funnier still to see people say the Education Department shouldn't be trolling universities, completely oblivious to the fact that Princeton started it by trolling us.

 

[ruby sparks]

I honestly don't think I fully get it. Never mind. It seems to me that AA is, as often, being conflated here with something quite different, and I've said what I want to say on that already.