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

[J842P]

So, you think I'm right-wing?

Personally, I would have gone for obsessively anti-left.

Anti-woke is not anti-left. Indeed, there is a lot of friction between "leftists" and "the woke", where leftist means socialist left.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, your fantasies about "The Woke" have you attacking everything that you perceive to be "Woke".

You are fighting the good fight against the giant "Wokes" who exist only in your fever dreams. Fight on Don Metaphor!



No, but Trausti did. My comments regarding trolling were directed at him, until you decided to say the following:


That certainly seems like an endorsement of Trausti's view on trolling, but it really doesn't matter, as I did not put those words in your mouth, and I am not just going to let your laughing condescension slide.

That is the problem with the right wing these days, their only principal is "owning the libs".

So, you think I'm right-wing?

Yes, I think you are wholly infected by right wing anti-woke propaganda, and every thread you post here only solidifies that line of thinking. If you don't want people to think you are a duck, you should probably stop quacking.

Denying the existence of "the woke" is either dishonest or just delusional, and either way, it doesn't help your credibility.

Please direct me to where I have denied the existence of "the woke". When I capitalize "The Woke" I am referring to those who Metaphor imagines are woke when they aren't, and the fact that he is not using the term properly.

 

[J842P]

Yes, your fantasies about "The Woke" have you attacking everything that you perceive to be "Woke".

You are fighting the good fight against the giant "Wokes" who exist only in your fever dreams. Fight on Don Metaphor!



No, but Trausti did. My comments regarding trolling were directed at him, until you decided to say the following:


That certainly seems like an endorsement of Trausti's view on trolling, but it really doesn't matter, as I did not put those words in your mouth, and I am not just going to let your laughing condescension slide.

So, you think I'm right-wing?

Yes, I think you are wholly infected by right wing anti-woke propaganda, and every thread you post here only solidifies that line of thinking. If you don't want people to think you are a duck, you should probably stop quacking.

Denying the existence of "the woke" is either dishonest or just delusional, and either way, it doesn't help your credibility.

Please direct me to where I have denied the existence of "the woke". When I capitalize "The Woke" I am referring to those who Metaphor imagines are woke when they aren't, and the fact that he is not using the term properly.

Your claims that what Metaphor describes as "the woke" are not examples of "the woke".

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, your fantasies about "The Woke" have you attacking everything that you perceive to be "Woke".

You are fighting the good fight against the giant "Wokes" who exist only in your fever dreams. Fight on Don Metaphor!



No, but Trausti did. My comments regarding trolling were directed at him, until you decided to say the following:


That certainly seems like an endorsement of Trausti's view on trolling, but it really doesn't matter, as I did not put those words in your mouth, and I am not just going to let your laughing condescension slide.



Yes, I think you are wholly infected by right wing anti-woke propaganda, and every thread you post here only solidifies that line of thinking. If you don't want people to think you are a duck, you should probably stop quacking.

Denying the existence of "the woke" is either dishonest or just delusional, and either way, it doesn't help your credibility.

Please direct me to where I have denied the existence of "the woke". When I capitalize "The Woke" I am referring to those who Metaphor imagines are woke when they aren't, and the fact that he is not using the term properly.

Your claims that what Metaphor describes as "the woke" are not examples of "the woke".

The fact that I often do not agree with something or someone that Metaphor labels as "the woke", does not mean that I deny the existence of "the woke". I do occasionally agree with Metaphor, and have even articulated that assent in threads he has started. It doesn't happen all that frequently, but I can recall having done so within the past few months.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wonder if anyone else noticed this...

I didn't read the whole thread yet, but within the article referenced in the op was this nugget:
"...Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past..."

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.....

 

[Metaphor]

Yes you clarified it here:


Which prompted me to ask why you would post a thread regarding "embedded racism" at Princeton on a discussion board, when you "didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities" in that thread. Some refer to doing such a thing as "trolling", which I am sure you would never do, since it is against the forum rules.

I didn't post a thread about 'embedded racism'. I posted a thread about the virtue-signalling of major institutions. I was not trolling, but you are certainly deliberately ignoring three direct clarifications from me about my intentions, and in doing so you are implying I am a liar and that I am breaking forum rules.

My intention was not to discuss Princeton's admission policies. Indeed, I don't recall mentioning them once in my OP. My intention was to draw attention to another instance of the institutional left's virtue-signalling nonsense.

Indeed, as you have admitted, you "didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities" at all, thus my advice to take whatever it is you are trying to do here to a forum where discussion of thread topics is not the intended purpose.

You appear to be trolling me, or you have deep comprehension problems. That I do not want to discuss any aspect of racism at universities does not mean I don't want any kind of discussion at all. I've clarified this four times now. I am very happy to discuss the trend of institutions virtue-signalling their sins and redemptive pleas.

Sure, Jan. Might I remind you of the following admission you just made: "I didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities".

I think I understand now. You want the discussion to be about racism at universities, and you want it to be that so much, you've ignored four clarifications from me that I intended the OP to be about institutions and their virtue-signalling, and that's the topic I'd like to discuss very much.

I had thought my extended and sustained metaphor about Eisgruber acting like a penitent might have tipped you off about what I was interested in discussing, and if not that, my four clarifications on it.

I obviously don't have you on ignore, have not referred to you as such, and am attempting to engage in critical discussion regarding the topic. I will remind you again that I am not the one who said "I didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities" in a thread I started about racism at Princeton.

I didn't post a thread about 'embedded racism'. I posted a thread about the virtue-signalling of major institutions.

Maybe you should find out before you spout off about it then.

Maybe you should not dishonestly break up a response in the middle of a sentence.

Are the comments from the president of the University in relation to research projects?

The President made a very sweeping remark about the extend of racism at Princeton. It is prudent for the Education Department to investigate that, since it could apply to any number of areas where the University receives federal financial assistance.

 

[Metaphor]

Thank you for admitting you were in error.

I was not 'in error'. I made two small errors in the details. One of the errors (that Lululemon was a much, much, much bigger company than I had thought and therefore a much bigger capitalist success story) only serve to make my point even more salient.

The other error, about the exact word used by Lululemon to encourage anitcapitalist sentiment (resist versus dismantle) makes no difference to my observation that institutions have, or are becoming, fully Woke.

Well, I'm trying, but it is difficult when one is met with responses like "I didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities" while doing so.

I'm not going to correct you again on this.

If you call quoting Donald Trump directly "regurgitating left wing propaganda"

I didn't do that.

 

[laughing dog]

By the book, the DOJ should look into the matter. Of course, the DOJ has not being going "by the book" under Attorney General William Barr, but hypocrisy on the part of the DOJ is not a valid excuse for Princeton.

However, the DOJ's letter is really trolling. The fact that the current President of Princeton thinks that Princeton has participated in institutional racism for decades does not mean that previous Presidents believed that or that it is true, so it is not necessarily the case that Princeton University intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented anything in the years previous to this President. Moreover, if this President just became aware of Princeton’s systemic institutional racism, then Princeton was not knowingly misrepresenting anything up to this point.

IMO, Princeton University should call the DOJ's bluff and invite them to do a thorough investigation in which Princeton thoroughly co-operates.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder if anyone else noticed this...

I didn't read the whole thread yet, but within the article referenced in the op was this nugget:
"...Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past..."

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.....

If you had gone to a racist institution, wouldn't you want to find out for sure before you donate to it again?

 

[Metaphor]

By the book, the DOJ should look into the matter. Of course, the DOJ has not being going "by the book" under Attorney General William Barr, but hypocrisy on the part of the DOJ is not a valid excuse for Princeton.

However, the DOJ's letter is really trolling. The fact that the current President of Princeton thinks that Princeton has participated in institutional racism for decades does not mean that previous Presidents believed that or that it is true, so it is not necessarily the case that Princeton University intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented anything in the years previous to this President. Moreover, if this President just became aware of Princeton’s systemic institutional racism, then Princeton was not knowingly misrepresenting anything up to this point.

IMO, Princeton University should call the DOJ's bluff and invite them to do a thorough investigation in which Princeton thoroughly co-operates.

The letter was not from the DoJ but from Robert King at the Education Department
https://www.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2020/09/Princeton-Letter-9-16-20-Signed.pdf

The letter does not ask for evidence going back decades, but from 1 January 2015. Eisgruber has been president of Princeton from 2013 onwards, and he has been signing the declaration that the university is complying with all relevant laws.

 

[ZiprHead]

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).

That statement does not only mean the college is responsible for that racism. There are many ways racism could occur on campus but not be done by the school itself.

 

[Metaphor]

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).

That statement does not only mean the college is responsible for that racism. There are many ways racism could occur on campus but not be done by the school itself.

That's true, but Eisgruber's letter does not say the institution itself has clean hands.

If indeed the Princeton letter had said 'Princeton has complied with all laws regarding race and discrimination' somewhere, then the please explain letter from the Education Department would not have been needed.

 

[KeepTalking]

I didn't post a thread about 'embedded racism'. I posted a thread about the virtue-signalling of major institutions. I was not trolling, but you are certainly deliberately ignoring three direct clarifications from me about my intentions, and in doing so you are implying I am a liar and that I am breaking forum rules.

I will note that the thread title is "Princeton confesses its embedded racism; Education Dept reviews its compliance with the law", so it seems like embedded racism would be a topic of discussion in this thread. Also, when the perceived "virtue-signaling" involves that embedded racism, it makes sense to talk about racism in that context.

Sure, Jan. Might I remind you of the following admission you just made: "I didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities".

I think I understand now. You want the discussion to be about racism at universities, and you want it to be that so much, you've ignored four clarifications from me that I intended the OP to be about institutions and their virtue-signalling, and that's the topic I'd like to discuss very much.

I am certainly willing to discuss multiple aspects of the thread topic, but when you refuse to discuss the racism that is intrinsic to the topic, it makes it very hard for the discussion to go anywhere. Other topics related to the issue are the Education Department's bad faith interest in, and trolling of, the University President's comments.

I had thought my extended and sustained metaphor about Eisgruber acting like a penitent might have tipped you off about what I was interested in discussing, and if not that, my four clarifications on it.

And I would have thought that since your thread title references "embedded racism", that racism would be something you would be interested in discussing. Refusing to discuss it, when it is exactly what the University President's comments are about, and will have ramifications as to whether he was simply engaging in the apparently horrendous acts of virtue-signalling and redemptive pleas, is a bit of a cop out.

I obviously don't have you on ignore, have not referred to you as such, and am attempting to engage in critical discussion regarding the topic. I will remind you again that I am not the one who said "I didn't intend to discuss any aspect of racism at universities" in a thread I started about racism at Princeton.

I didn't post a thread about 'embedded racism'. I posted a thread about the virtue-signalling of major institutions.

I will once again point you to your thread title, and reiterate that since the virtue-signalling you perceive is in regard to embedded racism, it makes sense to discuss that embedded racism.

Maybe you should find out before you spout off about it then.

Maybe you should not dishonestly break up a response in the middle of a sentence.

We were discussing Federal Financial aid, and you brought up Federal Financial Aid that is not related to admissions. I asked you what Federal Financial Aid other than admissions aid Princeton receives, since you seemed to be knowledgeable. You then admitted ignorance on the topic you broached, and that is the pertinent info, not your subsequent attempt to pretend it doesn't matter. Regardless, I did pose a question regarding that second half of the sentence that is preserved below, so I don't see how I did anything dishonest.

Are the comments from the president of the University in relation to research projects?

The President made a very sweeping remark about the extend of racism at Princeton. It is prudent for the Education Department to investigate that, since it could apply to any number of areas where the University receives federal financial assistance.

The comments were very general, and did not seem related to admissions at all, which is where the Education Department usually gets involved. So, I am wondering what specific comments the University President made that would lead to DoEd investigation. If there were no specific comments that should concern the DoEd, then their launching an investigation, rather than simply asking for clarification seems excessive. When coupled with an administration that doesn't give a fuck about racism, including the cabinet head leading the DoEd, then it seems to me that as put forward by your fellow right-wingers, they are likely just trolling. I don't think that is a proper thing for the DoEd to be doing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wonder if anyone else noticed this...

I didn't read the whole thread yet, but within the article referenced in the op was this nugget:
"...Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past..."

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.....

*crickets*

 

[KeepTalking]

I was not 'in error'. I made two small errors in the details. One of the errors (that Lululemon was a much, much, much bigger company than I had thought and therefore a much bigger capitalist success story) only serve to make my point even more salient.

The other error, about the exact word used by Lululemon to encourage anitcapitalist sentiment (resist versus dismantle) makes no difference to my observation that institutions have, or are becoming, fully Woke.

Given that the second error entirely invalidates your contention that "for-profit, multi-million dollar corporations make announcements that they want to dismantle capitalism", yes you were in error.

I'm not going to correct you again on this.

I don't care whether you correct me or not, your apparent unwillingness to discuss a significant portion of this topic, that is reflected in the thread title, the president's comments, and the DoEd response to that, speaks volumes as to why you are actually here.

If you call quoting Donald Trump directly "regurgitating left wing propaganda"

I didn't do that.

Most of those anti-Trump threads I am aware of that you would label a "left wing propaganda" are simply quoting the idiot man-child himself. If you are referring to other threads, you will need to be more specific. I can get very specific about the right wing propaganda you have used as a jumping off point in previous threads.

 

[ZiprHead]

Given that the second error entirely invalidates your contention that "for-profit, multi-million dollar corporations make announcements that they want to dismantle capitalism", yes you were in error.

He was also in error that the company itself made the statement. It was a yoga instructor under contract with the company to promote it's products that made the statement.

The event was featured in an Instagram post in which Lululemon recommended other accounts to follow, including the host of the workshop, Rebby Kern.

The yoga instructor is a US-based brand ambassador for the firm.

Lululemon distanced itself after the irony of the message drew attention.

"We recently shared on our social channels an upcoming event organised by one of our ambassadors.

"This is not a Lululemon forum and it does not represent the company's views," a spokeswoman told the BBC.

 

[Axulus]

The key question is what examples of embedded racism exist at Princeton that still comply with all federal laws? The response to the "please explain" letter I think would describe this.

 

[Metaphor]

I will note that the thread title is "Princeton confesses its embedded racism; Education Dept reviews its compliance with the law", so it seems like embedded racism would be a topic of discussion in this thread. Also, when the perceived "virtue-signaling" involves that embedded racism, it makes sense to talk about racism in that context.

My thread title meant to summarise, as informatively as possible, the story covered in the OP.

I am damned if I do and I am damned if I don't. I deliberately made the thread title as 'non-sensational' as possible, and I wanted to include the two major beats to the story: Princeton's letter and the Education Department's response. But, whatever your expectations of what the thread would be about, my OP, and then my four clarifications on it, ought have made that clear to you by now.

I am certainly willing to discuss multiple aspects of the thread topic, but when you refuse to discuss the racism that is intrinsic to the topic, it makes it very hard for the discussion to go anywhere. Other topics related to the issue are the Education Department's bad faith interest in, and trolling of, the University President's comments.

"The racism" is not intrinsic to the topic. The topic--the topic I intended--was woke virtue-signalling by institutions, an unexpected consequence of it, and the complete disconnect between what 'racism' meant five years ago and what it 'means' now.

You have decided, despite the evidence in the OP and four clarifications, that the topic is whatever you want it to be. And despite our disagreement on what this thread is (or was meant to be) about, I disagree that the Education Department was trolling.

And I would have thought that since your thread title references "embedded racism", that racism would be something you would be interested in discussing.

You thought wrong.

Refusing to discuss it, when it is exactly what the University President's comments are about, and will have ramifications as to whether he was simply engaging in the apparently horrendous acts of virtue-signalling and redemptive pleas, is a bit of a cop out.

I'm not going to engage with this ridiculous derail further. If you want to discuss Princeton's embedded racism, start another thread. I'd be happy to engage in that thread in the terms of that thread.

I will once again point you to your thread title, and reiterate that since the virtue-signalling you perceive is in regard to embedded racism, it makes sense to discuss that embedded racism.

I'm not going to engage with this ridiculous derail further.

We were discussing Federal Financial aid, and you brought up Federal Financial Aid that is not related to admissions. I asked you what Federal Financial Aid other than admissions aid Princeton receives, since you seemed to be knowledgeable. You then admitted ignorance on the topic you broached, and that is the pertinent info, not your subsequent attempt to pretend it doesn't matter. Regardless, I did pose a question regarding that second half of the sentence that is preserved below, so I don't see how I did anything dishonest.

You brought up 'federal financial aid', not me. The Education Department has jurisdiction wherever federal funding/assistance/grants is given to universities, not just student 'financial aid'. You dishonestly tried to narrow the scope of the Education Department's interest.

The comments were very general, and did not seem related to admissions at all, which is where the Education Department usually gets involved.

You dishonestly tried to narrow the scope of the Education Department's interest.

So, I am wondering what specific comments the University President made that would lead to DoEd investigation. If there were no specific comments that should concern the DoEd, then their launching an investigation, rather than simply asking for clarification seems excessive. When coupled with an administration that doesn't give a fuck about racism, including the cabinet head leading the DoEd, then it seems to me that as put forward by your fellow right-wingers, they are likely just trolling. I don't think that is a proper thing for the DoEd to be doing.

I have already stated how Princeton might have avoided a letter or inquiry from the Education Department. But including such a sentence would have marred the aesthetic of Eisgruber's confessional.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder if anyone else noticed this...

I didn't read the whole thread yet, but within the article referenced in the op was this nugget:
"...Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose daughter attended Princeton and whose charitable foundation has donated to the university in the past..."

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.....

*crickets*

I already responded to this.

 

[Metaphor]

Given that the second error entirely invalidates your contention that "for-profit, multi-million dollar corporations make announcements that they want to dismantle capitalism", yes you were in error.

He was also in error that the company itself made the statement. It was a yoga instructor under contract with the company to promote it's products that made the statement.

The event was featured in an Instagram post in which Lululemon recommended other accounts to follow, including the host of the workshop, Rebby Kern.

The yoga instructor is a US-based brand ambassador for the firm.

Lululemon distanced itself after the irony of the message drew attention.

"We recently shared on our social channels an upcoming event organised by one of our ambassadors.

"This is not a Lululemon forum and it does not represent the company's views," a spokeswoman told the BBC.

Of course it was made by Lululemon - it was advertised on Lululemon's official Instagram. It is simply a sign that Lulelemon is so desperate to display its woke credentials that it didn't vet the content of its ambassador.

(I wonder if Lululemon still wants to decolonise gender?)