Tuesday, August 22, 2017


School group kicked off university campus over Trump hats



I think there was more going on here than has been acknowledged.  Just from the photo above it is clear that these girls were born lucky. Their long blonde hair, short shorts and great legs said to black bystanders:  "You can never be this attractive".  They stood out as the lucky ones of society and reminded blacks present that the luck of birth was not with them. Their presence was a slap in the face to black self-esteem.

The Left have done a great job trying to persuade blacks that black is beautiful but it's a hard sell.  Outside primitive tribes, the worldwide ideal of beauty is Nordic.  Even Japanese ladies blond their hair and Korean ladies have their eyes widened.  All men (and women) are NOT equal and never will be



AN AMERICAN university has kicked out a school group for wearing "Make America Great Again” hats after a student complained about “whitey girls tryna be problematic”.

Twitter user Essence Dalton posted a photo of a group of high school girls visiting Howard University on Sunday, one of whom was wearing a distinctive red Donald Trump hat.

“Who told these lil yt girls they could come to THE HU like it was about to be some joke,” she wrote, adding that “they don’t even go here they’re just locals posted up in the annex tryna be problematic”.

Howard University is a historically black, private university in Washington DC. Its student population is about 86 per cent African-American, 3 per cent white and 3 per cent Asian.

In response, the Howard University Dining Twitter account wrote: “We will take any action necessary to ensure that HU students feel safe & comfortable in our dining spaces. This group is no longer on campus.”

“However what happened to my friend and I today was absolutely pathetic. My friend Sarah and I are on a trip to Washington DC with two schools, one being our own, Union City, and the other being Central Tech.

“We have been able to sight see and visit many different historical places in DC without being harassed by anyone for supporting Donald Trump. Today we visited Howard University for lunch. Sarah was wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat, I was wearing my new Trump shirt I had just recently purchased, along with my own Trump hat.

“Walking to the cafe, a man said ‘F*** y’all’ to me. While we were waiting in line not knowing that HU is a predominately ‘black’ school, which either way SHOULDN’T MATTER, a man came up and stole Sarah’s hat.

“We had never even engaged with the students. Half of us weren’t even through the doors yet. Fortunately one of our supervisors was able to retrieve it. We were harassed continuously. The students took videos and pictures of us saying WE were being ‘disrespectful’, and that ‘us being caucasian, we should have known better’.

“After a lot of hate, our head supervisors decided it would be a good idea to keep the peace and find somewhere else to eat. When we got on the bus, a girl from Central Tech told us to ‘remove our hats because we are racist’.

“This is America. These are the people who are racist and disrespectful. It’s unfortunate that more Trump supporters have to fear going places than others. I will never be embarrassed for supporting Donald Trump. I will always support OUR president when, and wherever, I please.

SOURCE 





Ivy League schools brace for scrutiny of race in admissions

A Justice Department inquiry into how race influences admissions at Harvard University has left selective colleges bracing for new scrutiny of practices that have helped boost diversity levels to new highs across the Ivy League.

Harvard and other top-tier colleges closely guard the inner workings of their admissions offices, but they defend approaches that consider an applicant's race among other factors as a way to bring a diverse mix of perspectives to campus. While the schools believe they are on firm legal ground, experts say the investigation could inspire new challenges.

"They're pulling the scab off a wound that was healing," said Anthony Carnevale, who has studied affirmative action programs and leads Georgetown University's Center for Education and the Workforce. "This could erupt in a bunch more cases."

At the eight Ivy League colleges including Harvard, Yale and Princeton, the number of U.S. minority students in all incoming classes grew by 17 percent between 2010 and 2015, while overall enrollment in those classes grew by less than 2 percent, according to the latest federal data. By 2015, minorities accounted for more than 43 percent of all incoming students in the Ivy League, up from 37 percent in 2010.

The trend partly reflects the demographics of an increasingly diverse nation, but the schools also consider race for reasons including a desire to reverse historically low numbers of minorities at elite universities that in some cases began admitting nonwhite students only in the last 75 years.

"We're aiming for diversity on our campus and we're achieving it," said Christopher Eisgruber, president of Princeton University. "Universities have a compelling interest in pursuing diversity in their student bodies through a holistic assessment of factors."

Eisgruber said he is not surprised by the "continuing political controversy," but it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the Justice Department investigation.

At Brown University, the inquiry was a topic of discussion last week, school spokesman Brian Clark said.

"The courts have held that colleges and universities may act affirmatively to achieve the educational goals at the core of our academic excellence at Brown," Clark said in a statement. "Through our race-conscious admission practices, Brown assembles the diverse range of perspectives and experiences essential for a learning and research community that prepares students to thrive in a complex and changing world."

Word of the investigation startled some who thought the affirmative action debate was settled after the U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas. That case was brought by a white student who contended she was rejected from the school while black students with lower grades were admitted.

In the Harvard case, investigators are looking into a 2015 complaint brought by a coalition of 64 Asian-American groups that allege the school uses racial quotas to admit students and discriminates against Asian-Americans by holding them to a higher standard. The Justice Department said it's revisiting the case because it was left unresolved by the previous administration.

Harvard said its practices are legally sound.

"Harvard remains committed to enrolling diverse classes of students," Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane said. "Harvard's admissions process considers each applicant as a whole person, and we review many factors, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Despite the growth in the nonwhite student populations, the schools acknowledge their diversity efforts are aimed largely at drawing students from underrepresented races and ethnicities, a category that often includes blacks and Latinos but not Asian-American students.

Princeton's Eisgruber said the last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of Asian-American students on campus, while growth among other minorities has been "more modest." The trend has been similar across the Ivy League, where U.S. minority students other than Asian-Americans made up only 24 percent of incoming students in 2015. By contrast, those minority groups made up 35 percent of the U.S. population last year, according to Census estimates.

Some who oppose race-conscious policies have said they're encouraged by the Justice Department's inquiry, while supporters see it as political posturing by President Donald Trump's administration. Still, some advocates fear there could be a chilling effect among schools that will wonder if they'll face scrutiny next.

Natasha Warikoo, a scholar of race and education at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, said research has indicated some schools already have been backing away from race-conscious policies.

"I think that has to do with the legal context and this fear of being hit with a lawsuit, and the Justice Department just adds a layer to that," Warikoo said.

Others said the Supreme Court has set a clear precedent upholding colleges' right to consider race.

"The foundations are set and they are longstanding," said Art Coleman, managing partner of the Education Counsel consulting firm and a former deputy assistant Secretary of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights under President Bill Clinton. "My hope is that it would do nothing to affect institutions that are pursuing issues of diversity and inclusion on campus."

SOURCE 






Australia: Preschools and libraries to be forced to vet all books and toys to ensure play spaces are 'gender equitable' and don't stereotype boys and girls

Darebin is run by Green Left fanatics who seem to disagree with just about all normal things

A guide book intended to quash gender stereotypes picked up by children in play areas has been produced by the Melbourne's Darebin City Council.

The Creating Gender Equity in the Early Years guide sets out to help children's services monitor gender equality across resources including books, toys and posters, The Australian reported.

The guide will encourage preschools, childcare centres and libraries to audit tools that may play a part in unbalanced gender roles following research violence against women is connected to gender inequality,  

'It is important to not only think about who is where and how often, but are they doing there?' the guide states.

'What are the storylines of their play telling you about what the children think are the normal roles for women and men?' 

Darebin Council's preventing violence against women officer Teneille Summers said research reflects the link between family violence and gender equality. 

'If girls are interested in playing with dolls, that's fine, as long as we're not preventing them from exploring other interests as well,' Ms Summers said.

She believes it is about creating opportunities for both sex in all areas of the play corners.

'I think early years educators are considering a lot of this ­already but they wouldn't necessarily think about it as preventing family violence. But that is what they are doing.'

SOURCE



Monday, August 21, 2017




Student demand grows faster at universities with higher graduate salaries, surprisingly enough

British universities that boast high graduate salaries have seen a bigger uptick in applications over the past five years than universities with lower average post-university wages, new research shows.

The data suggests that students are increasingly being drawn to institutions that can virtually guarantee they will get a well-paid job after graduation.

According to property company Savills, which looked at UCAS application numbers and linked them to graduate salaries, universities with higher graduate starting salaries have seen significantly greater increases in demand from prospective students since 2012.

For example, Imperial College London graduates earn an average of £30,600 in their first job post-graduation - more than £5,000 above the UK average. And applications at Imperial have grown by 22pc since 2012.

Graduates at The University of Bristol go on to jobs that pay £2,700 above average, and the university has seen a 20pc increase in applications since 2012.

Southampton graduates earn £2,800 more than average and applications there have grown 26pc, while Royal Holloway graduates earn £1,900 more than the UK average and applications have risen by 24pc.

On the other end of the spectrum, York St John, where graduates earn £20,300 per year on average, has seen its applications fall by 9pc since 2012.

Northampton University has seen its application numbers fall 3pc over the past five years. Its graduates earn £3,200 below the UK average.

Lawrence Bowles of Savills said: “For every difference of £1,000 in average graduate salary, applications grew by an extra 1.9pc."

Last month, research from the IFS showed that students entering university this year can expect to face debts of more than £50,000 once they graduate. "With such a high liability, it’s no wonder students are flocking to universities with higher graduate salaries," Mr Bowles said.

SOURCE 






The Trans Juggernaut Wants Your Kids, And Public Schools Are Just The Beginning

Parents are finding fewer and fewer ways to protect their children from being used as guinea pigs inside an experiment constructed by unelected bureaucrats.

If you had argued pre-Obergefell that de-sexing marriage would lead to drag queens leading preschool storytime in public libraries and public schools hounded into hiding their mandatory sex ed curriculum from parents after a settlement requiring trans-friendly “education” starting in kindergarten, you would have been called an unhinged bigot. How could what two consenting adults do privately have any effect on whether five-year-olds are told they should consider cutting off their penises? Preposterous. Fear-mongering. Wild-eyed insanity.

Or not. Rod Dreher’s “Law of Merited Impossibility” strikes again: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.” As I’ve written before, Obergefell and related caselaw, which are still developing, are turning out not to be about what consenting adults do privately. They are the spear tip of a wholesale shift in law that is already negatively affecting children, because at its heart is the principle that sexuality is genderless.

As theologian N.T. Wright pointed out to the Times of London last week, “Nature…tends to strike back, with the likely victims in this case being vulnerable and impressionable youngsters who, as confused adults, will pay the price for their elders’ fashionable fantasies.”

This is likely why the transgender movement is targeting the young: They are vulnerable and impressionable, prepuberty pose better as either sex and therefore look less terrifying than adult transgenders, and once locked into the trans body morph will never truly be able to escape. Devastated people are prime candidates for exploitation by their pretend advocates. Also, locking in trans-policies now is a way to preclude debate before more extensive data and personal experience can fuel the inevitable backlash.

Of course this is bad for kids, but it’s not about kids. They’re just pawns, as usual. It’s about politics. Pushing transgenderism not only destabilizes a key component of a child’s identity but also contributes to early sexualization that is linked with mental illness and risky behaviors. Early exposure to and lack of clear parental direction about sex is also linked with increased gender confusion, which is precisely what we’re seeing as clinics for cutting and pasting children’s hormones and body parts explode inside a media environment that glamorizes this form of child abuse.

Parents are facing fewer and fewer ways to protect their children from being used as guinea pigs inside an experiment constructed by unelected bureaucrats. Here we’ll discuss two recent examples: one specific and one more general.

You Can’t Know What We’re Teaching Your Kids About Sex

Kelsey Harkness recently reported on the brewing situation at a public charter school in Minnesota. Charters are public schools often created and run by a board of a coalition of local parents and community leaders. Everyone who attends has to choose to do so rather than be assigned to attend automatically through geographic attendance zones, like most public schools. They usually provide a safe haven for families looking for a sound alternative to traditional schools, which are on average of lower academic quality because they do not have to compete for students.

Saint Paul’s Nova Classical Academy is ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the top Minnesota high school. But it has been transformed into a rainbow Trojan horse after Dave and Hannah Edwards sued Nova for not including pro-transgender materials starting in kindergarten to accommodate their five-year-old son, whom they claim is transgender. Parents began transferring their kindergarteners out of the child’s class when they came home saying things like, “Mom, I think you can choose if you want to be a boy or a girl,” according to interviews with The Daily Signal.

The little boy began wearing a female uniform and accessories, and classes began to include pro-trans picture books endorsing gender fluidity. This month’s settlement after 16 months of litigation requires the school to make all uniforms available to both sexes, pay LGBT organizations to “train staff” in politically correct behavior every three years, and “not adopt any gender policy that allows parents to opt out of requirements in the gender inclusion policy because of objections based on religion or conscience.” This lawyer and Federalist contributor, after reviewing the settlement, said it appears to ban the school from even notifying parents of its sex policies.

The circumstances are even more suspicious and shocking than a prohibition on telling parents what their children will be learning about human biology: Dave Edwards is an academic in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Psychology, whose pending PhD is being funded by a taxpayer-funded grant and who specializes in transgender education. As a school consultant and trainer on gender identity, he now personally profits from doing “training” of the kind his family’s settlement forces on Nova. Here’s from his website, GenderInclusiveSchools.com.

There are more curiosities in the family’s case. Edwards’ LinkedIn profile lists him as a “founding staff member of Venture Academy Charter School,” also in Saint Paul, a high-profile school funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which uses its deep pockets to seed “education reform” with far-left ideas and personnel. Edwards started his career in a heavily Gates-funded teaching fellowship known for its politically progressive staff.

Rather than enroll his son in the school Dave helped create, the Edwardses chose to apply for Nova at approximately the same time Dave stopped working at Venture Academy and began pursuing his doctorate with a focus on transgender school compliance. This was almost three years after the family decided the child was gender-fluid when he began emulating Beyonce’s dancing at two years old. In March 2016, after their son had attended Nova for seven months, the Edwardses withdrew him, but continued to press their lawsuit.

“The daily influence of this little boy, who very much looks like a girl, all the accessories … they’re really doing it up with him,” said a mother whose six-year-old was in kindergarten for those few months with the Edwardses’ son when he was five. Since lawsuit-induced policies have been adopted, Nova has lost a tenth of its students.

Nova Is Just a Tip of the Spear

Nova is a test case for what trans activists want to perpetuate nationwide — and not just in public schools, but also in private and home schools. An 8-year-old drag queen groomed by his parents says “If you want to be a drag queen and your parents don’t let you, you need new parents,” the underlying, totalitarian belief of the movement he represents. The easiest initial access point is private school choice programs, but activists are also targeting all private schools through accreditation bodies. The accreditation attack is currently most visible in higher education, but it’s spreading to K-12.

You read that right. Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are morally equal to racists.

Since President Trump appointed school choice proponent Betsy DeVos as education secretary, Democrats have demanded to know why she supports giving parents freedom to choose their kids’s schools when so many hinterland bigots will choose schools that don’t let boys shower with girls or lie to developing minds about basic biology and its implications for their identity.

These questions led to a media divebomb this summer on a Christian school in Indiana that accepts voucher students and whose policies reflect the Ten Commandments’ prohibition against sexual immorality. Subsequently, Indiana outlets have begun investigating which in-state private schools are “anti-LGBT,” meaning require students to adhere to centuries-old prescriptions for chastity that apply to those of all sexual attractions.

Through reviews of publicly posted handbooks and phone calls, journalism nonprofit Chalkbeat Indiana found 27 “anti-LGBT” schools and created a comprehensive database of in-state private schools’ sexuality and admissions policies. Just in case, you know, rainbow protesters wanted to show up at a few, or know where to enroll their gender-dysphoric kindergarteners and then sue.

It also quoted a professor who says “allowing some schools to discriminate against LGBT students on the basis of religion is no different than racial discrimination.” You read that right. Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are morally equal to racists. It’s not surprising, then, that in this political environment about 80 percent of Indiana private schools keep their sex policies off the Internet and don’t return reporters’ phone calls to reveal them.

In Indiana, private schools must be accredited by either the state or one of seven private accreditors approved by the state board of education to accept students through one of the state’s two private choice programs. Chalkbeat, another Gates Foundation grant recipient, singled out the Association of Christian Schools International, an organization with 3,000 member schools, for offering a sample sexual ethics policy that repeats standard Christian teachings about the proper use of sexuality — within marriage between two opposite-sex people.

Discrimination Based on Behavior Is Not Like Racism

Chalkbeat referred to sex-specific policies and safeguards as “discrimination,” implying an equivocation between racial discrimination and behavior expectations. But race is an immutable fact, not a behavior. This is one of the reasons discrimination on its basis is so unjust. Yet we as a society discriminate based on behavior all the time, and we must to stay civilized, as well as to preserve our constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of association.

None of us are safe unless we band together and stop this crazy train in its tracks.

We sometimes treat the sexes distinctly, and create special, sometimes separate, environments for those who are emotionally troubled. There are sensible reasons for these that are not in the same ballpark as racism. The leftists harping on this topic are essentially demanding a religious litmus test — the adoption of the moral belief that every sexual practice must be affirmed — as a precondition for educating children. It is starting with public and private schools, but will eventually encompass “outliers” such as homeschoolers. None of us are safe unless we band together and stop this crazy train in its tracks.

A key problem is that Republican-led statehouses are the ones guarding school choice programs, and these same statehouses can barely muster the votes to protect children in public schools from being forced into unisex shower and sleeping quarters. Just two days ago Texas Speaker Joe Strauss torpedoed a special session that was set to consider both a bathroom bill and a school choice bill, and the state is in desperate need of both. Despite the lack of federal laws banning sexuality-based policies even when rational, such as in public showers and sports competitions, courts are already busy writing this religious (and antiscientific and inhumane) litmus test into existing sexual-privileges laws for women.

Chalkbeat put its recent set of articles on these topics under the heading “Choice for Some.” It’s an ironic slogan given that the logical end of their rhetoric is choice for none. Eradicating all social and ethical policies based on the distinctions between the sexes herds everyone into an Potemkin genderless society whether we consent to that arrangement or not. Some may feel that’s progress; others may call it totalitarianism.

SOURCE 






Final British high school exam results 2017: Boys beat girls to top grades for first time in 17 years amid tougher exams

Boys are beating girls to top A-level grades for the first time in 17 years - with 26.6 per cent of boys achieving coveted A* or A grades compared to just 26.1 per cent of girls.

The dramatic reversal of fortunes is thought to be fuelled by the new "tougher" A-levels, which have less coursework and no modules. Girls have outperformed boys every year since 2000.

In the 13 subjects that have a reformed syllabus and course structure - devised by former education secretary Michael Gove in a bid to raise standards - the top grades of girls have drastically declined.

The gender gap across all subjects, which sees boys 0.5 points ahead of girls for A* or A grades, has reversed on last year - when girls were 0.3 points ahead of boys.

It has been falling over the decade, standing at 1.5 points in 2011, 1.4 points in 2012, 0.8 in 2013, 0.5 in 2014 and 0.4 in 2015. In 2011, 27.7 per cent of girls achieved an A* or A - compared to 26.2 per cent of boys.

A sample of results for 18-year-olds in England, provided by the Joint Council for Qualifications, shows that in the new raft of 13 reformed subjects, the drop in A or A* grades for girls fell 1.1 percentage points compared to just 0.2 points for boys.

The subjects are art and design,  biology,  business,  chemistry,  computer science,  economics,  English language,  English language and literature,  English literature,  history,  physics,  psychology and  sociology.

The share of top grades is equal for boys and girls in these subjects at 24.3 per cent.

It comes as the proportion of A-level exams awarded the highest results has risen for the first time in six years, with more than one in four entries scoring at least an A grade this year, despite efforts to make them tougher.

National figures show that 26.3 per cent of A-level entries scored an A* or A this summer, up 0.5 percentage points on 2016. It is the first time the A*-A pass rate has risen since 2011.

The rise comes amid major changes to the qualifications, with the first grades awarded in 13 subjects that have been reformed, with a move away from coursework and modular exams throughout the course, making them more challenging for students.

The figures, published by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) also show boys have pulled further ahead at the highest grade.

The statistics, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, also show:

The overall A*-E pass-rate has fallen by 0.2 percentage points to 97.9 per cent. The proportion of entries awarded the highest result - A* - has risen 0.2 percentage points to 8.3 per cent

Among the 13 reformed subjects only, results are down slightly compared to the equivalent subjects in 2016

When comparing 18-year-old results, the proportion of A* grades for these courses is down 0.5 percentage points to 7.2 per cent, A*-A grades have dropped 0.7 percentage points to 24.3 per cent and A*-E results have fallen 0.5 percentage points to 98.1 per cent.

Figures showed a huge spike in the number of entries for a small range of subjects, including computing, with a 33 per cent rise in the number of A-level students sitting the exam in 2017, compared with last year. This included a 34 per cent increase in female students - 816, up from 609 in 2016.

There was a 12.8 per cent increase in the number taking political studies, and a 1.7% rise in those taking Spanish at A-level.

But there were dips in the take-up of other languages - with a 2.1 per cent drop in those doing French and a 4.7 per cent decrease in students sitting German.

Elsewhere, entries for history - one of the most popular A-levels by number of students - fell by 8.1 per cent.

Data showed a 3.3 per cent increase in entries for maths, but there was a significant drop in those sitting English.

SOURCE 

Sunday, August 20, 2017






UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events

Color me skeptical

Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeley’s 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nation’s top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a “Free Speech Year” as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold “point-counterpoint” panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeley’s free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

“Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,” Christ said in an interview. “We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.”

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus’ federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a “tent city” in Berkeley’s iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellor’s daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeley’s free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

“Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are,” she said. “That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.”

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is “more speech” rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

“You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious,” she said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the “the surest form of safe space.”

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables — and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, “We want to eliminate all gray areas … and make sure there’s clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.”

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christ’s focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

“I want her to really protect free speech because there’s really high political tensions here,” Nguyen said of the chancellor. “We’re at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.”

SOURCE 





‘Stress Reduction Policies’ Let Students Choose Their Own Grades

A professor at the University of Georgia created a “Stress Reduction Policy” that allows students who feel “unduly stressed” to choose their own grades, according to a Monday report.

Richard Watson incorporated the policy into two business courses, Campus Reform reported. The syllabi have since been updated to remove the policy, but an archived version of one is available.

“If you feel unduly stressed by a grade for any assessable [sic] material or the overall course, you can email the instructor indicating what grade you think is appropriate, and it will be so changed,” Watson said in a syllabus revised Friday for MIST 4610: Data Management. “No explanation is required, but it is requested that you consider waiting 24 hours before emailing the instructor.”

The “Stress Reduction Policy” also states that students may leave group work whenever they desire and choose to have their grade not reflect that segment of the course. All exams will be open-book.

“Only positive comments about presentations will be given in class,” the policy continues. “Comments designed to improve future presentations will be communicated by email.”

“While this policy might hinder the development of group skills and mastery of the class material, ultimately these are [a student’s] responsibility,” Watson states in the policy. “I will provide every opportunity for you to gain high level mastery.”

MIST 4550/6550: Energy Informatics, another course taught by the professor, apparently also had the policy, according to Campus Reform. However, both course syllabi were updated Aug. 8 with the policy removed.

Watson is the J. Rex Fuqua distinguished chair for internet strategy at the University of Georgia.

“The University of Georgia applies very high standards in its curricular delivery, including a university-wide policy that mandates all faculty employ a grading system based on transparent and pre-defined coursework,” the University of Georgia said in a statement. The university noted that the professor had removed the policy from the syllabus.

Watson did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

SOURCE 





This Nationwide Program Is Teaching Millions of Students to Become Leftist Snowflakes

Parents beware: A program called Challenge Day that applauds a culture of victimhood is planting the leftist agenda into young minds under the guise of anti-bullying education.

The program uses the power of peer pressure and groupthink to impress upon high school students the idea that everyone is a victim.

Challenge Day is no small initiative. According to the program’s website, it has been held at more than 2,200 high schools nationwide and reached millions of students.

Challenge Day purports to teach tolerance and acceptance, yet nearly every member of its board of directors and Global Leadership Council is politically left of center.

Of the 17 members of Challenge Day’s board of directors, 15 openly support leftist leaders and causes, and two have an unknown affiliation, according to Federal Election Commission records and personal social media accounts. Of their 22-person Global Leadership Council, 17 of the members support leftist leaders and causes.

This is an organization that preaches diversity but is not politically diverse itself.

The most concerning member of Challenge Day’s global governing board? The former “green-jobs czar” under President Barack Obama, Van Jones.

While Jones was in jail after a mass arrest, according to the East Bay Express, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color—I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’”

When in high school, I myself participated in Challenge Day. At 16 years old, I was a junior at Grosse Pointe North High School, a public school outside Detroit.

I was asked to step forward if I were ever called a bad kid, tried to run away, isolated myself, was made fun of by someone I trusted, or felt as if I were treated differently because of my skin color.

Approximately 100 of my peers joined me in this exercise. During this session, I felt pressured to cry, and if I didn’t cry I was made to feel heartless. Whenever someone burst out in tears, we were asked to raise our hands in unity with our hands in a “love gesture.”

In truth, it felt like an initiation ceremony for a cult.

Everyone was asked to confess their challenges. At that age, I learned to move on from my struggles and show strength when faced with adversity. Yet, I felt compelled to come up with something to say with a tear in my eye.

It felt “cool” to be a victim and to cry during public “apologies.”

During the exercise, I finally came up with an experience that fit the program’s conception of victimhood. On Election Day in 2012, I wore a “Mitt Romney for President” T-shirt to school.

In a discussion about the election, one of the students sitting next to me in class opined that those who refused to support Obama were racist.

So, at Challenge Day when asked to step forward if I had been treated differently because of my skin color, I did. Yet, students did not display the “love gesture.” Instead, I was met with blank stares.

Perhaps I would have been better off apologizing for my sex or my skin color.

Although schools often ask for the permission of parents before students participate, the program largely leaves parents out of the equation and often unaware of the curriculum of the program, or what their children say that day.

Organizers do not apprise parents of any identified problems and, as a result, parents may not know if their children need actual professional help.

Recently, Challenge Day’s leftist indoctrination became even more apparent.

After the election of President Donald Trump, the organization released a statement on its website implying that Trump is a bully, noting, “Since the election, reports have arisen of young people on campuses all over the United States who do not feel safe on campus due to acts of violence, bullying, racism and intimidation.”

Challenge Day conveniently left out the fact that the president has encouraged no such behavior and that many of these reports have been proven false.

Furthermore, the organization forgets the countless reports of violence against conservative students, including the violent riots at the University of California, Berkeley when conservatives attempted to speak there, the left-driven riots and arson during Trump’s inauguration, and the anti-Trump May Day demonstrations in Portland, Oregon.

In the same statement, Challenge Day’s endorsement of the politics of privilege becomes more apparent. It said: “We stand in solidarity with all of our communities; from the marginalized to those who have privilege and are committed as allies.”

Challenge Day even released a “Post-Election Kindness Grant.” The grant goes to schools that “have experienced post-election bullying” and want to participate in Challenge Day programs.

It must think the general public is naïve when it says that the grant is not driven by a leftist agenda. From my research, Challenge Day’s “post-election” statement and grant were not issued after previous elections.

If a school doesn’t receive a “Post-Election Kindness Grant,” it can always rely on the taxpayer. According to Challenge Day’s website, schools “have used a variety of federal, state, and foundation grants to pay for Challenge Day programs.”

According to its website, “Common grants include School Climate Transformation Grants, GEAR UP, TRIO programs including Upward Bound, i3 Grants, School Improvement Grants, and Title 1 funding, among others.”

Yes, the taxpayer is footing the bill for additional leftist indoctrination programs in high schools.

No longer are young people taught to find the good in people and society, to be optimistic, to be self-reliant, to be hopeful, and to have good relationships with their families.

Programs like Challenge Day teach students to find divisions constantly: Everyone and everything is racist, poses a direct threat to their safety, or is the product of some form of social privilege.

Instead of teaching resilience, respect, and independence, students are taught to break down and cry, discuss their feelings, and check their social “privilege.”

Want to end bullying? Teach the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Or, teach the great commandment: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” That’s all you need.

The kind of victimhood culture that Challenge Day promotes has devastating consequences for our society. This is particularly the case when students become adults who are unable to recognize the importance of free speech and individual responsibility.

If Challenge Day is coming to your child’s school, hold the school’s leadership accountable. Ask how the program is funded or if a comparable program promoting individual responsibility and traditional values is offered.

Also, the Department of Education should ensure that federal funds no longer finance programs with such fractious ideological agendas.

Until students, parents, educators, and public policy leaders take action against snowflake-producing programs such as Challenge Day, our society will continue down this perilous path of political correctness and national division.

SOURCE 








Friday, August 18, 2017



Student who claimed she was raped on a Michigan college campus is charged with falsely reporting a felony after admitting she fabricated parking lot assault

More "campus rape culture"

A woman has been charged after falsely claiming that she was raped on a college campus.

Mary Zolkowski, 21, claimed that she was attacked and raped on February 22 while walking to her car outside Delta College in Bay City, Michigan.

She then spoke with police but told them she saw only her attacker's hands and had 'kind of blacked out' during the incident.

When police began to look into her claim, she said she wanted no part of the investigation and refused a physical examination, according to court documents seen by Michigan Live.

She reportedly went to campus the following day to tell college staff she had dropped her studies because of the rape, but it was later found she had in fact dropped the courses before reporting the rape.

Nearly a month later - after police had found no evidence suggesting there had been a rape in the campus parking lot - Zolkowski told university staff she had actually been raped by a friend in an apartment elsewhere while drunk and unable to consent before driving to the college.

Court documents show she apologized and stressed that she did not want the man to be charged.

But when the man was interviewed by police, records show he said Zolkowski had previously told him she was trying to get her fees refunded by Delta. 

He also showed them text messages from Zolkowski in which she claimed she had been raped outside a Walmart store on February 22, the same night she claimed she was raped in Delta parking lot.

In May, it emerged the woman had spoken to Saginaw Township Police Department to claim the man she previously said she had sex with while intoxicated had in fact thrown her to the floor and raped her.

But she again modified her claim, according to records, to state that she had consented to sex but had intended to tell the man to stop. She added, however, that the sex was over before she had the opportunity to do so.

She has now been charged with one count of falsely reporting a felony and could be punished with four years in jail and a fine of $2,000 after appearing at Bay County District Court. Zolkowski will next appear in court on August 29.

SOURCE 





University of San Francisco to host blacks-only student orientation

Segregation revived by the Left

The University of San Francisco this week is scheduled to host a segregated orientation dedicated to black students, a program that takes place in addition to its standard welcoming activities for all students.

The Black Student Orientation is slated for  Aug. 18, the day prior to the university’s New Student Orientation.

The day-long event–billed as having been “designed by Black students, faculty, and staff to welcome new Black students to the USF Black Experience”–will “address the specific and particular needs of African American/Black students at USF,” according to the school’s website.

The program includes workshops such as “Community Building” and “Creating a 4 Year Plan.”

The College Fix reached out to Kim Harris, assistant director of orientation programs at the private, Catholic institution, to ask if the school provides any other ethnic-based orientation programs.

“Not that I know of,” Harris responded via e-mail. “But we do have a mostly first generation [orientation] program…This group is comprised mostly of students of color.”

Harris told The Fix that the Black Student Orientation is being run by Dr. Ja’Nina Garrett-Walker, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at the university.

The Fix reached out repeatedly to Garrett-Walker for comment regarding the history of the Black Student Orientation, as well as for elaboration on the “specific and particular needs of African American/Black Students at USF.” Garrett-Walker did not respond.

Garrett-Walker has a history of activism at the University of San Francisco. In 2014, she implemented a campus-wide campaign called “Check Your Privilege,” designed to raise awareness of social inequality and privilege.

The campaign defined privilege as “unearned access to social power based on membership in a dominant social group.” Participants were encouraged to sport t-shirts that indicated the attributes that applied to them—with permanent markers, they could check off items such as White, Male, Christian, and Cisgender.

One poster associated with the campaign informed readers: “If you’re confident that the police exist to protect you, you have white male privilege,” while another claimed that the expectation of having holidays off of work denotes “Christian privilege.”

On Garrett-Walker’s website faculty profile, her research area is listed as “identity development for Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and emerging adults.”

Earlier this year, The College Fix reached out to the University of San Francisco for information regarding a “White Privilege Resource Guide” created by the university in the wake of Garrett-Walker’s privilege campaign. Following The Fix‘s inquiry, USF attempted to cover up the identity of the author of the guide.

SOURCE 






Number of British pupils planning to go to university 'at lowest level in 8 years'


Good! University used to be for clever people-Now its 3yrs of indoctrination at the hands of Leftwing radicals,debt & a worthless degree

Fewer young people now aspire to attend university, according to a new poll, with many citing financial concerns or saying they simply do not like the idea.

Around three-quarters (74 per cent) of secondary school pupils are planning to study for a degree – but this figure is at its lowest level since 2009, according to the Sutton Trust survey.

In 2013, more than four-fifths (81 per cent) said they wanted to go to university – and last year around the proportion stood at 77 per cent.

In the annual Sutton Trust poll, which questioned more than 2,600 11- to 16-year-olds in England and Wales, around one in seven (14 per cent) said they were unlikely to go on to higher education, compared with 11 per cent last year, and 8 per cent five years ago in 2012.

Of those who said they were unlikely to go to university, seven in 10 said they did not like the idea, or did not enjoy studying, while nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) had financial reasons, such as wanting to start earning as soon as possible or debt concerns. More than two in five of these respondents (44 per cent) thought they were not clever enough, or would not get good enough results, while a similar proportion (42 per cent) did not think they would need a degree for the jobs they were considering.

Of those who said they were likely to study for a degree, around half (51 per cent) said they were worried about the cost of higher education, up from 47 per cent last year.

Money concerns

The biggest money concern was tuition fees, followed by having to repay student loans for up to 30 years and the cost of living as a student.

The study has been published amid a growing debate about the future of tuition fees, which now stand at up to £9,250 a year for universities in England.

Ucas figures show 32.5 per cent of English 18-year-olds entered higher education last year, the highest recorded entry rate for England.

The increase meant that young people were 4 per cent more likely to go to university than in 2015 and 31 per cent more likely than in 2006.

The Sutton Trust said its findings are an important indicator of young people's plans before they sit their GCSEs.

System 'badly in need of reform'

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: "It is no surprise that there has been a fall in the proportion of young people hoping to go into higher education.

"Our own separate research has shown that graduates will be paying back their loans well into middle age, affecting their ability to go to graduate school, afford a mortgage and decisions on having children.

"With debts up to £57,000 for poorer graduates and soaring student loan interest rates, the system is badly in need of reform.

"It is outrageous that someone from a council estate should pay more than someone from a top boarding school.

"This reform should include means-testing tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants so poorer students face lower fees and lower debt on graduation."

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the ATL teaching union, said: "It is no surprise that young people are unwilling to take on the huge debts now required to attend university, particularly since the average student leaves university with debts in excess of £50,000.

"Many young people who have experienced their families’ financial struggles as children will be wary of taking on such a huge burden of debt.

"Cuts to university budgets have also affected widening-participation programmes, so there is less money for outreach programmes to help disadvantaged young people aware of the opportunities in higher education.

"The increase in disadvantaged young people not applying for university is as a result of the government abolishing maintenance grants for students from low-income homes, and allowing universities to put up their fees further if they reach agreed standards in teaching.”

Universities minister Jo Johnson said: "The reality is that young people are more likely to go to university than ever before, with entry rates for 18-year-olds rising every year since 2012.

"Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are 43 per cent more likely to enter higher education than in 2009.

"Our student finance system ensures that costs are split fairly between graduates and the taxpayer. However, there is still more to do to ensure that students get value for money.

"That is why we have created a new regulator, the Office for Students, that will hold universities to account for teaching quality and student outcomes through the Teaching Excellence Framework."

SOURCE 


Thursday, August 17, 2017



Why Trump is good for black education and advancement

Conservatives stand for equality of opportunity, equal justice under the law, and a colorblind society. We also believe in results, not intentions. Liberals tend to have horrible results with their good intentions when it comes to economic policy, especially as it pertains to black Americans. Polls show consistently that what blacks care most about today is jobs and economic opportunity.

Barack Obama, our first black president, won well over 90 percent of the black vote, yet from an economic perspective he delivered poor results. Black incomes from 2009 to 2014 fell more for blacks than any other racial or ethnic group. Just as an example of good intentions run amok: policies like raising the minimum wage increases had a statistically significant negative effect on black teenage labor force participation rates.

I would argue that two factors hold back economic progress for blacks: a lack of jobs in inner cities and poor educational opportunities. On both of these, Trump is delivering positive results. The black unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point in the last year, black labor force participation is up, and the number of black Americans with a job has risen by 600,000 from last year. Preliminary data show black wages and incomes up since the election.

It’s early for sure, but so far Trump has done more for black economic progress in six months than Obama did in eight years. The other issue that is critically important to black and Hispanic economic progress is good schools. No president has done more to advance school choice so that every child can attend a quality school public or private. In cities like Washington D.C. and Milwaukee, 90 percent of the children who benefit from these programs are black.

Trump wants to increase these vouchers and scholarships more black children. The idea is that good schools should be available to all children regardless of race or income. As the black parents I spoke to who participate in these scholarship programs have told me, “Why does Barack Obama get to send his kids to private schools, but not us?” Good question and one that no liberal has ever been able to answer.

Amazingly, the people who oppose the school choice program for black Americans that Trump is advancing are liberal elites. The same people who denounce Trump for what happened in Charlottesville, hypocritically oppose Trump’s ideas for better school options for black children. School choice is arguably the civil rights issue of our time and liberals side with teachers unions not African American children.

So is Trump a racist who doesn’t care about the future of black Americans? He is creating jobs, higher incomes and trying to give a better education to every disadvantaged child in America. That is a pretty darn good civil rights record.

SOURCE 





British education Director Argues Smacking Is ‘Tactile’ Contact In Debate On ‘Good Morning Britain’’

An education expert explained why she believes smacking children can be acceptable as it is a part of the “tactile” relationship parents have with their kids.

Kate Ivens, education director of charity, Real Action, and vice-chairman for the Campaign for Real Education, was asked by Jeremy Kyle on ‘Good Morning Britain’ whether smacking should be an “ultimate” punishment or a “regular” punishment.

“I’m saying we have a tactile relationship with our children,” Ivens responded on Tuesday 16 August.

Ivens continued: “We hug them, we kiss them, we breastfeed them and so on and there are times when, like a child running out into the road, I remember when my children did that and I shook them [and said]: ‘Never you do this again.’ “After that my children would run freely down the road with complete freedom and always stopped at the curb, always.”

The ‘Good Morning Britain’ debate followed a Twitter poll the ITV show ran that showed - out of 6,979 votes - 55% of respondents agreed with smacking, while 45% disagreed.

Ivens continued: “Is it always wrong? I think the thing about smacking is, in order to be clear, because there’s so many interpretations of what a smack is, people feel like they have to come down on one side or another.”

A former teacher, Sue Atkins, spoke on the show about why she disagreed with smacking. ″The problem with smacking is where do you start and when do you stop?” she said. “It’s hard; what if you’re angry and you actually lose the plot and you smack a child?

“I used to be a deputy head and class teacher for 25 years so if a child hits another child in the playground, you say that’s aggression.”

Ivens replied to Atkins, saying: “I don’t think you are being violent I think you are making a tactile contact with your child.”

Previously speaking to HuffPost UK on the topic of smacking, Amanda Gummer, child psychologist and founder of Fundamentally Children said she believes the current law around smacking is “just about right”, arguing kids who don’t have the cognitive or emotional ability to understand consequences may, on occasion, benefit from a physical consequence.

“It is the context that is paramount here,” she continued. “If a child knows he/she is loved unconditionally and has consistent boundaries, and an emotionally stable home, and has received an occasional smack for repeated dangerous behaviour, it is very different from a child who lives in fear of getting smacked inconsistently and for the mildest of misdemeanours.

“It is this second form of discipline that is most damaging to a child’s emotional development.”

SOURCE 





Australia: Business backs Coalition’s higher education reforms

Business is backing the Turnbull government’s higher education reforms, describing them as modest and a chance to take stock to assess whether Australia’s uncapped demand-driven university system is delivering the best outcomes for students and industry.

Universities are running a fierce campaign against the Coalition’s reforms, arguing they represent the most significant over­haul in the sector for two decades and will result in a “double hit” on students paying more for a lower quality education, staff cuts and jeopardise Australia’s $22 billion a year education export industry.

But the government disputes this, countering the overhaul is necessary because taxpayer funding to universities has been a “river of gold” and the demand-driven system needs to be put on a sustainable footing for future generations.

Jenny Lambert, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s director of employment, education and training, said the business group was supportive of the package because it offered a chance to put “a little bit of brake on the system”, make some modest changes and send further signals about universities being efficient and effective.

The tertiary overhaul — which introduces a 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend on universities next year and in 2019, ties about $500 million a year in university funding to performance improvements and requires graduates to begin paying back their HELP debt at 1 per cent when their income reaches $42,000 — was the largest savings measure in the budget handed down in May. The reforms are worth $2.7bn across five years but are stalled in the parliament.

“We don’t know that those who have been pushed to attend university — who may not have previously done so — do they find their medium to long-term outcomes have justified that decision or have they been disappointed or let down by the system?’’ Ms Lambert said.

“If the medium-term evidence shows us that they (universities) have been more efficient, they have been more effective, and student outcomes start to go up in this uncapped demand-driven system, then we can say ‘well, we’ve got the settings about right and we need to make sure the universities can afford to deliver the quality of education that everyone expects.’ ”

Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the higher education reforms were essential and not onerous.

“We’re confronted with around $50bn of student debt with a quarter not expected to be repaid, taxpayer funding for universities having increased at twice the rate of the economy and per student revenue increases of 15 per cent while costs have only grown by 9.5 per cent,” he said.

“Universities will still see 23 per cent growth in taxpayer funding, all we’re asking is for them to operate within a more sustainable rate of growth. That’s not a cut but it will make higher education more sustainable into the future.”

SOURCE


Wednesday, August 16, 2017



Scotland: Poor students losing out as schools offer fewer subjects

Children from deprived families are facing “completely unacceptable” restrictions on their education because schools in poor areas teach significantly fewer subjects than those serving the middle classes, The Times can reveal.

A new analysis of Scottish government data showing deprivation levels, alongside a school-by-school breakdown of the number of Highers on offer, shows a direct link between how affluent a catchment area is and the variety of curriculum subjects available to pupils in their senior phase.

In the schools serving Scotland’s poorest communities, an average of 17.2 subjects are on offer. But, in schools where less than one in four pupils lives in a deprived postcode, teenagers can expect to choose between 23 subjects.

Previously, the Scottish government has sought to explain a disparity in the number of subjects available by saying that the Curriculum for Excellence allows headteachers the flexibility to take “different approaches” to meet the needs of pupils.

However, opponents said that evidence showing a clear link between deprivation levels and the extent of subject choice will undermine Nicola Sturgeon’s claims that her government is prioritising the need for all children to have equal opportunities irrespective of their background. The figures will also call into question the SNP’s success in closing the gap in attainment levels and life chances between rich and poor.

When confronted with the findings, the Scottish government said that it believed “it is important that local authorities and schools offer a broad range of subject choices that meet their pupils’ needs and aspirations”.

The analysis of subject choice was made by comparing data on the number of subjects on offer at more than 200 schools — published earlier this year by the Scottish Conservatives after freedom of information requests — and Scottish government figures on school deprivation levels.

Liz Smith, education spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives, said: “This analysis appears to show that the poorer the background of a child, the fewer options they have at school.

“That’s completely unacceptable, and has to change as a matter of urgency if we are to make progress with the attainment gap. Much of this will be related to teacher recruitment, and that’s something the SNP has sole control over. There will be some cases where children can study other subjects at different schools, but that is hardly an ideal scenario.

“Nicola Sturgeon has said education is her top priority, but that claim is wearing thinner by the day.”

Previously, teachers have said that a staffing shortage is having an impact on the number of subjects on offer, with deprived schools often finding it more difficult to recruit and retain staff. There is also evidence to suggest that parents of middle class children are more likely to engage with how a school is run and lobby headteachers.

While generally schools will all offer common subjects at Higher level, such as maths, English and history, some children will be denied the opportunity to study less common subjects such as psychology, media, economics or computing at their own school.

Experts have previously warned that Scotland’s system which allows a wide variation in subject choices and curriculum flexibility, could discriminate against poor students because “more socially advantaged” parents were better placed to ensure their children made the best decisions about what subjects to take.

SOURCE 






Low-income students remain rare at elite universities

As the Trump administration takes aim at race-based college admissions policies, many of the country’s most competitive schools, including Ivy League universities, are struggling with an equally vexing problem: how to create more economic diversity on their campuses, giving strong students of modest means the same opportunities long available to children from the nation’s wealthiest families.

Selective colleges in Massachusetts and across the country have made some progress in expanding their ethnic and racial diversity. But when it comes to admitting and educating students from low-income families, many of these schools have made little headway — or fallen behind.

Even some schools that make generous financial aid available have trouble recruiting qualified applicants from among the country’s neediest families. In many cases, such schools aren’t even on those families’ radar. And many poorer students have limited access to SAT prepatory classes, private counselors, and the college-level coursework in high school that can put them on track for admission into a selective university.

“It seems to me that having a multiracial aristocracy is better than an all-white aristocracy, but it’s still an aristocracy,” said Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who has advocated that colleges use socioeconomic factors in admissions. “Every university president will say, ‘We look for strivers and give them an advantage in admission.’ But the bottom line data suggests things haven’t changed.”

Nationally, 40 percent of undergraduates receive a Pell Grant, federal aid for students who come from lower-income families. But at the eight Ivy League institutions, Pell recipients accounted on average for just 16 percent of undergraduates, according to 2014 data published this summer. (At Harvard, that figure is 19.3 percent.)

High-achieving, low-income students, often the first in their families to attend college, struggle to feel they belong on elite campuses.

Advocates for low-income students say these elite schools should aim for at least 20 percent.

The underrepresentation of Pell recipients isn’t just an Ivy League problem. Many selective schools, including Tufts University and Northeastern University, let in only a meager number of low-income students. At Tufts, the share of undergraduates who receive Pell aid has been about 11 percent in recent years. At Northeastern, 13 percent of about 13,200 undergrads came from low-income families, according to data compiled by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce.

That has happened despite the number of high school students seeking undergraduate degrees remaining high and an overall increase in Pell recipients.

Recent research from the Equality of Opportunity Project also indicates that some of the most competitive schools in America have enrolled more students from families at the top 1 percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom half of income-earners. In addition, at many selective schools the share of low-income students declined or remained flat between 1999 and 2013, according to tax data culled by the project, a collaboration of several noted economists.

Muna Mohamed, a 19-year-old student at Tufts, said she didn’t need to see the data to know about the wealth gap on her campus.

“You can see it,” said Mohamed, whose family moved to Lewiston, Maine, from Somalia. “It is apparent in the university how many students come from wealth.”

In the winter, the school is awash with undergraduates in Canada Goose parkas, which sell for nearly $1,000 apiece, she said, while she has to work two jobs to help pay for expenses not covered in her generous financial aid package.

Mohamed, who applied to Tufts on a whim and a desire to leave Maine for a more cosmopolitan experience, said many students from her public high school don’t even have the college on their list. They don’t bother, she said, because they think it’s too expensive, not realizing that the school offers significant financial aid and support to low-income students who get in. Or perhaps they have never touched base with a college recruiter, whose visits may not be well-publicized, she said.

“It’s not part of the culture much, so you don’t do it,” Mohamed said.

Officials from Tufts and other colleges said they are trying to reach more low-income students.

Karen Richardson, dean of undergraduate admissions at Tufts, said the university concluded a $95 million scholarship fund-raising campaign last year that has allowed it to offer a record $21.7 million in need-based grants to the incoming first-year class.

Northeastern in the past decade has more than doubled its investment in financial aid. Officials there noted that the school does a better job than many of its peers in helping low-income students climb the economic ladder.

Other colleges are also expanding their recruiting efforts, making it easier for low-income students to apply, eliminating merit-based aid in favor of need-based financing, and ensuring that cost isn’t a barrier for families and students who would otherwise qualify. Some elite schools now pay to fly low-income high school students to campus to meet admissions officers.

Yale University is among 30 institutions, including all the Ivy League schools, that last December signed on to the American Talent Initiative, which aims to attract, enroll, and graduate an additional 50,000 lower-income students by 2025. Yale officials said the school has also created more room for low-income students, in part by increasing its undergraduate class size. This fall’s first-year class includes 61 percent more Pell recipients than the class enrolled in 2013, said Karen N. Peart, a spokeswoman for the university.

Some rich schools with hefty endowments, including Harvard, allow needy students to attend for free. Since Harvard launched its program in 2003, the number of first-year students who qualify annually has increased by 100, to 320 students annually in a class of about 1,600.

Harvard has also increased by 4.7 percent its share of students who come from the bottom 40 percent of income earners between 1999 to 2013, the highest increase among all Ivy League schools, according to data from the Equality of Opportunity Project.

At the same time, the percentage of students from low-income families at some of Harvard’s peer universities has decreased or barely budged, according to the data.

“We aggressively recruit for students from low-income backgrounds,” said Sally Donahue, director of financial aid at Harvard. “It would be great if highly selective schools would have more low-income students, but it gets complicated.”

Schools want to ensure that they admit students who will thrive on their campuses, and those who come from higher-income families, attend rigorous high schools, and have the resources to get academic tutoring are better prepared to match up with highly selective universities, Donahue said.

Advocates, such as Kahlenberg, have pushed for a class-based affirmative action that would more directly benefit students who rise above the disadvantages of poverty.

But improving access to college for lower-income students can be expensive, requiring that the school provide not only financial aid, but also money for intensive recruiting and more academic and financial help once students arrive on campus, said Katie Fretwell, dean of admissions and financial aid at Amherst College.

“It takes a big endowment, and it takes a commitment from on high,” she said. Amherst’s endowment is $2 billion.

Amherst College, where last year nearly one in four students received Pell aid, recruits at charter schools — including the Academy of the Pacific Rim, Boston Collegiate Charter School, and Prospect Hill Academy in Greater Boston — and works with nonprofits that help match high-achieving, low-income high-schoolers with scholarships. In addition, Amherst has recently accepted more transfer students from community colleges. About 60 percent of the 100 transfer students that Amherst accepts during a four-year period are from community colleges, Fretwell said.

When elite schools do provide access, it can be a life-changing experience for students.

Kaelan McCone, 20, a political science and French major from Greensboro, N.C., said he was able to complete an unpaid internship in Spain this summer because of a grant from Amherst.

He and his more wealthy classmates have had similar opportunities, McCone said, even though his father works for UPS and his mother is a retired teacher.

Still, it’s hard to avoid some differences at a school where the median family income for students is $158,200, McCone said.

Some students leave the country frequently, he said, and others eat out at a nice restaurant every week without a second thought. When he was submitting his taxes, a friend asked him why his family’s accountant didn’t take care of the paperwork, said McCone, who worked at a food bar, as a tour guide, and as a Spanish tutor to earn spending money.

“I can’t afford to spend $20 for a meal every Saturday night,” he said. “Instead, I work.”

Some higher education researchers warn that as the US Justice Department targets race-based admissions policies with its investigation into whether Harvard’s practices discriminate against Asian college applicants, turning to socioeconomic factors in admissions isn’t the easy replacement to creating diversity on campus.

If only socioeconomic factors are used, schools are likely to lose some of their ethnic diversity, said Rachel Baker, an assistant professor of education policy at the University of California Irvine who has studied the issue.

Still, if elite colleges want more lower-income students on their campuses, they have to start paying more attention to income in admissions decisions, Baker said.

Right now, there’s little evidence that income is a strong factor in admissions decisions, which could lead to higher education becoming even more segregated by class, she said.

Poorer students will remain in community colleges, state schools, and for-profit institutions, where resources and access to business networks are scarce, while the rich graduate from well-funded, selective institutions, Baker said.

“We cling so strongly to this idea that college is an equalizer, with stories of homeless to Harvard,” Baker said. “But it’s not common. It’s not widespread. By and large, where you go to college is very strongly correlated to your upbringing.”

SOURCE 






More campus censorship: "White lives matter" rally planned for 9/11 cancelled

One cannot really blame the university.  With antifa on the prowl there could well have been real violence and possible death.  They have achieved their aim of silencing alternative voices on campus

A “WHITE lives matter” event scheduled to take place at a Texas campus on September 11 has been cancelled by the university amid security fears.

Texas A&M University abruptly cancelled the planned rally on its campus next month after pressure from state politicians, who said hatred should be rejected in all forms.

Former A&M student Preston Wiginton began organising the white supremacist gathering after Saturday’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia turned deadly. He notified the media with the headline, “Today Charlottesville, tomorrow Texas A&M.”

A&M university said in a statement that the rally had been cancelled because of “concerns about the safety of its students, faculty, staff and the public”. It added: “Linking the tragedy of Charlottesville and Texas A&M creates a major security risk on our campus.”

At least one person died and 16 were injured when a car ploughed into a group of anti-racism counter-protesters in Virginia.

Rally organiser Mr Wiginton had invited prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer, whose presence sparked massive protests when spoke on the campus last December. “I think that was a stepping stone for white people to realise that there are issues, and they feel comfortable enough now to talk about them,” Mr Wiginton told local newspaper The Eagle.

But the university said it still supported free speech but circumstances had changed and the “threat to life” had compelled it to cancel the event.

The cancellation came hours after Dallas Democratic Representative Helen Giddings gave a House floor speech while nearly all of the chamber’s 150 members stood beside her. She urged university administrators to “unequivocally denounce and fight against this violent group” adding “all of us in the state of Texas want to say with one voice, Texas will not stand for hate.”

Austin Republican Representative Paul Workman added that a petition being circulated for A&M graduates in the House was attempting to “keep this from happening on our campus.” The chamber then held a moment of silence for victims killed and injured in Charlottesville.

Similar sentiments came from the Texas Senate, which also held its own moment of silence.

Local Republican Senator Charles Schwertner has said he had planned to attend a counter protest of the A&M rally. Although the group may be allowed to meet at the College Station campus, Schwertner said, “The First Amendment also allows us to respond in kind, to stand up and say what we believe as a society, as Americans and as Texans. We should not stand for bigotry, for violence, for racism.”

Dallas Democratic Senator Royce West said he would also go to the Texas A&M campus on 9/11. “We will do everything in our power to make sure those days gone by will not be repeated. I’m confident they won’t be,” he said, recalling the Jim Crow-era of segregation and discrimination. “We will stand strong against those hate groups, Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan.” Mr West added: “My 17-year-old grandson asked me yesterday, ‘Should my generation be more like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?’ I had to pause and listen to the hurt in his voice and doubt in his ability to pursue the American dream. I didn’t answer the question ... That’s where we are in America today.”’

SOURCE 

Tuesday, August 15, 2017






The Failure of Sex Ed Is Killing Our Daughters

Back in May, NPR picked up on the story of one New Jersey nurse, Lauren Bloomstein, who died after giving birth to her child. In a shocking case of medical malpractice, the woman died of preeclampsia. It’s a condition common enough to be used in the scripts of Downton Abbey, yet it remains un-researched in the American medical community. What’s worse, according to a follow-up story at NPR, far too many women are completely unaware of the symptoms of preeclampsia and other medical conditions that can arise during pregnancy and labor.

Most of these women have college degrees. One featured in The New York Times is a molecular virologist who only thought to pursue medical attention for her high blood pressure postpartum because she’d read Bloomstein’s story online:

The ER doctor told her that she was feeling normal postpartum symptoms, she said, and wanted to send her home even as her blood pressure hovered at perilous heights. Several hours passed before he consulted with an ob/gyn at another hospital and McCausland's severe preeclampsia was treated with  magnesium sulfate to prevent seizures.

Without Bloomstein's story as a warning, McCausland doubts she would have recognized her symptoms or persisted in the face of the ER doctor's dismissive approach.

Upon request, NPR received 3,100 similar “near death” stories from mothers who were misdiagnosed, either before being discharged from the hospital or shortly thereafter. Women who “wished” they would’ve known what a high blood pressure reading looked like, or who had no clue that their placenta should have come out in one piece. What kind of education had these women received regarding pregnancy and birth? And what does that mean for today’s young women who will hopefully become tomorrow’s mothers?

If these women relied on their high school sex education classes they were at a near-total loss when it came to reproductive health. Public school curriculums dead-set on preventing pregnancy focus heavily on sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and “using protection.” As for pregnancy itself, senior students often get a glimpse of a woman giving birth before they pass out in horror. Young women are never given so much as the opportunity to discuss the dynamics of choosing to have children in today’s world, let alone the biology of reproduction, let alone what should go right and what could go wrong.

Today’s Common Core standards for sex education are even worse. They explicitly state that “pregnancy and reproduction” curricula address "information about how pregnancy happens and decision-making to avoid a pregnancy.” By 12th grade, students are expected to reiterate positive and negative prenatal practices. Labor, delivery, and postpartum care are completely left off the list.

Pregnant women are given loads of information on breastfeeding and probably attend a birthing class or two. They’re often too consumed in the search for daycare to actually focus on what will happen to their bodies postpartum. All they know is they need to get back to work in a minimum of 6 to 12 weeks, with a few weeks tacked on if they have the dreaded C-section. Conditions like preeclampsia or retained placenta rarely surface in discussions with medical professionals unless you’re a high-risk patient.

That is most likely because the discussion regarding complications associated with advanced maternal age is strictly taboo. Both medical professionals and journalists avoid the uncomfortable role advanced maternal age plays in the growing maternal mortality rate (MMR) because geriatric pregnancy has become a cultural expectation.

While pushing off motherhood to the age of 35 and beyond may be a social norm, it puts a heavy burden on women’s health. Preeclampsia, the condition that killed Lauren Bloomfield, is on the rise. Researchers attribute the condition in large part to “delaying childbirth” and the multiple births associated with “increased use of assisted reproduction.” In an excellent analysis of the factors associated with the rising maternal mortality rate for Arc Digital, Iron Ladies founder Leslie Loftis comments:

…  If we dismiss the role that maternal age plays in our rising MMR, then we will miss designing the proper responses. We will fail to warn women how to plan or what to look for.
In fact, that is what we do now.

Sex education curricula that does not include serious discussions on risk factors in pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum fails our girls. Young women deserve the kind of education that permits them to self-advocate in the delivery room, not just the bedroom. Common Core sex education fails in this regard. As a result today’s educators put the lives of an entire generation of women and their future children at risk..

SOURCE 






Asian-Americans Complicate the Affirmative Action Narrative

The concept has been bastardized to promote a spoils system that makes a complete mockery of the word "equal."

“The purpose of affirmative action is to promote social equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons like years of oppression or slavery.” —HG.org, a legal resource website

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925. It included a provision instructing government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 adding sex to the list, and again requiring federal contractors to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities via affirmative action.

Since then, the concept has been bastardized to promote a spoils system that makes a complete mockery of the word “equal” — as in the “equal protection of the laws” ostensibly guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Thus, progressive heads are exploding with regard to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times. It reveals the Justice Department is seeking attorneys willing to explore “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” The Times initially insisted this project is aimed at “suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.”

Wrong. As DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores put it, the DOJ is pursuing a complaint filed in May 2015 by a coalition of 64 Asian-American groups against an unnamed university. Since such a coalition filed a federal complaint against Harvard in 2015 alleging racial discrimination, it’s safe to say the Ivy League school is in the DOJ’s crosshairs.

The most problematic aspect of the case for the nation’s progressive quota-mongers? One minority group is challenging allegedly preferential treatment given to other minority groups.  It doesn’t get more disruptive of the affirmative action narrative than that.

One might be forgiven for noticing that in virtually all leftist diatribes about the victimization of minorities — diatribes that inevitably include excoriating America for its legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and numerous other race-based evils — Asian-Americans are rarely part of the mix. Perhaps it’s because the culture of victimhood the American Left has successfully inculcated in many black and Hispanic communities is largely rejected by Asian-Americans, who do not view government’s thumb on the scale as a prerequisite for their success.

Even more problematic, they are unencumbered by America’s slave-owning legacy progressives use to induce guilt and justify their quota schemes.

Thus, in an effort to keep the narrative alive, CNN insists the Trump administration’s real motive is to “play to a conservative base that has long abhorred practices that offer a boost to racial minorities, potentially at the expense of whites.”

In the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the issue on several occasions, ruling three times that race can be used as a “factor” with regard to admissions. In the most recent case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court ruled 4-3 in favor of such programs, provided universities present strong evidence they are narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity by “ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to meet its compelling interest,” Kennedy wrote for a majority.

What, exactly, constitutes compelling interest? As dissenting Justice Samuel Alito noted, UT didn’t offer any evidence about how much race factors into admission decisions, whether its plan placed more minority students in classrooms that ostensibly lacked diversity, or why its plan favors black American and Latino students, even as it appears to damage the prospects of Asian-Americans. Alito wrote, “By accepting UT’s rationales as sufficient to meet its burden, the majority licenses UT’s perverse assumptions about different groups of minority students — the precise assumptions strict scrutiny is supposed to stamp out.”

Two University of Michigan cases from 2003 also highlight the institutional acrobatics used to justify quotas. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court struck down the use of a mathematical-based admissions system that awarded extra points to minority candidates — simply for being minorities. But in Grutter v. Bollinger, it upheld the law school’s supposedly more individualized review, because it served “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

Yet what, exactly, are those benefits, and how are they quantified? Several studies have asserted that diversity provokes more innovative thinking and better group performance in a variety of settings. Yet how such conclusions are reached in the absence of a “control group” suggests politics trumps science.

Thus we are left with the dubious proposition that diversity is beneficial … because to assert otherwise constitutes bigotry.

Yet the cases SCOTUS and other courts have adjudicated revolved around minorities versus whites. By focusing on Asian-American complaints against Harvard, the DOJ is taking a sledgehammer to the presumption that racial quotas are a reasoned response to “white privilege.”

As The Wall Street Journal explains, the percentage of Asian students admitted to Harvard has remained around 20% since 1993, despite the fact that the Asian share of the U.S. population “has increased rapidly.” The paper further notes Asian representation is much higher at University of California campuses — where the use of race as an admissions factor was banned in the 1990s.

Yet the real discrimination is found in the race-based approach to Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. “All else being equal,” the paper reveals, “an Asian-American must score 140 points higher on the SAT than a white counterpart, 270 points higher than a Hispanic student, and 450 points higher than a black applicant, according to 2009 research from Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and co-author Alexandria Walton Radford.”

Harvard insists its “holistic” approach negates that disparity. Yet if that’s the case, how does it explain that legacy students — children of former students — are two to three times more likely to be admitted than students whose parents didn’t attend Harvard?

“There is a version of affirmative action — legal, generally popular and arguably more meritocratic — that higher education has not yet even tried,” wrote columnist Dave Leonhardt in 2012. Leonhardt revealed economically disadvantaged students “receive either no preference or a modest one, depending on which study you believe.”

It shouldn’t take a study to figure out what merits genuine consideration in college admissions. The same public that despises race-based admissions heartily favors giving a break to low-income students and those whose parents didn’t attend college.

Would economics-based affirmative action mollify the bean-counters? In a column for Diverse Issues in Education, Emil Guillermo asserts Asian students are being used as proxies for whites in the battle to dismantle affirmative action. Like so many progressives, he recognizes the mortal threat of affirmative action litigation that doesn’t include a Caucasian component.

It will be fascinating to see how people whose power depends on the continued cultivation of minority group grievances against an “endemically” racist white majority manage to cope.

Right now, “holistic,” in all its intentionally ambiguous glory, appears to be the linguistic tool progressives will use to maintain race-based quotas in college admissions.

If that fails? Perhaps “Asian privilege” will become part of the progressive lexicon.

SOURCE






Halle Berry Says Her High School Was Racist. Her Classmates Lit Up Facebook to Set the Record Straight

By Paula Bolyard



Is it just me or does it seem like every last celebrity has a story about his or her miserable childhood? It's almost like having a sob story is a job prerequisite for these people. Actress Halle Berry is certainly no exception. For years she's been giving interviews recounting tales of the racism and bullying she experienced as a biracial student in a predominantly white school. Most recently she complained to People about her high school, where Berry claims there were only "like 3 out of 2500 students" who were black.

The  X-Men actress says she was bullied “because of the color of my skin.”

“Because my mother was white and my father was black… we got called Oreos and names, and kids just didn’t understand, so we were different. We were the brunt of a lot of jokes. So, I think my need to please and my desire to achieve was because I was constantly trying to prove that I was as good as the other white students. I felt very ‘less than,’ and I thought, ‘If I can beat them at everything, then I can be as good as them.'”

Only that's not the way her classmates remember it and they took to Facebook en masse to set the record straight. It all started when someone posted the People article on a private Facebook group called "You know you grew up in Bedford," which is the city where Halle attended high school. Former students immediately jumped on her comments. (I'm not including the full names because these comments below are from a private Facebook group.)

"Oh please," retorted Beverly C.  Jean M. said, "Never!".  "When did Bedford become (or was) all white???" asked Glenn R.?

After that, the comments started flying in, with dozens of her former classmates calling bull hockey on the Bedford High School graduate's story. They were eager to vindicate their beloved alma mater in their comments. Here are a few of them (unedited):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rachel W.: "Class of '86 here.....I didn't know Halle personally so while I certainly can't speak to her individual experience I can speak to how I looked at her and how all of my friends looked at her in high school. My female friends (black and white) and I thought she was gorgeous and wanted to look like her while my male friends (black and white) had massive crushes on her and wanted to date her. Curious also that she left out the fact she was elected Prom Queen by the entire student body, black and white."

Rob C.: "She's crazy, Bedford wasn't all white. I grew up in Bedford and Bedford heights 35 years, there are plenty of black folks then and still are."

Shannon T:  "I remember everyone always being in awww of Hallie. She was always gorgeous and everyone seemed to look up to her."

James D.: "Bullsh*t, She was in my art class at Bedford HS, I talked to her everyday, she was a cheerleader too and treated like a queen! I always had respect for her until now!"

Jeff A.: "I remembered reading an article 10 or more years ago where she stated the same things."

Cheryl M.: "She gave an interview on Lifetime about 20 years ago claiming all the same stuff"

Dawn T: "Halle is whining for attention. If she wanted to change the way things are she would be doing something, anything, for kids in her home town. She could easily afford to give a lot, but she doesn't. What has she done in the last thirty years to help Bedford cheerleaders? Any scholarships for local disadvantaged girls? Has she built a playground? A shelter? Put any Oakwood kids through college? Seriously? What has she done for the biracial kids walking the path that was so tough for her?"

Erna B.: "She is not telling truth as she was Prom Queen voted by the entire class. Bedford schools have always been mix and everyone was happy was pretty friendly."

Paul T.: "Class of 84. We were at least 40/60 and never heard anything other than how pretty she was. She was our prom queen in 84. Hollywood distorts things."

Cindy K:  "I know her very well. This is another 'Hollywood' story that makes for a good interview. She was NEVER picked on! She was popular and very outgoing... Years ago in another interview, she said she was beaten by a high school boyfriend and went deaf because of it, that never happened! On Oprah, she said she was accused of "stuffing" the ballot box because she won prom queen, that never happened! She tied with Vicki and won the coin toss! See the pattern here?"

Karen Z.: "I totally agree. She was popular. She was a cheerleader in the band as a flag girl I believe. Everyone likes her. It's all a story to get people to feel sorry for her. So sad she has to act that way."

Wendy P.: "This isn't the first time she has LIED about Bedford- 10 years ago in a Cosmo article she talked about how she experienced racism- I gaduated in '81 she graduated a couple years later w/my sister and my dad was her mailman- as previously stated she was super popular, all the guys wanted to date her, all the girls wanted to be her, I don' t know why she continues to say this- maybe for attention but I hate that it makes Bedford look bad"

Debbie M.: "Bedford was 35% minority when she attended. Being the principals daughter, I was called every name in the book. I had one student, who only knew who I was because I was "bud's daughter" call me bit*h every single day in the hallway. I had bottles and rocks thrown through my house windows. Bomb threats were called to my home. That's discrimination. But I dealt with it and I've never boo-hooed about it all over the media/Facebook. My brother was one of her best friends. He will attest that she is exaggerating. She needs to find something new to try to regain the spotlight."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On and on and on it went, with some people even including pictures:

To understand the reasons for the fury, a bit of the backstory is required. Halle graduated from Bedford High School in northeast Ohio in 1984 (two years behind me). During her tenure at BHS, she was class president, a cheerleader, editor of the school newspaper, and prom queen. We were in the band together during my senior year (she was a flag girl), so I saw her nearly every day at school. She was well-liked by students of all races and I don't recall anyone ever saying an unkind word about her. People knew she was modeling and in pageants, which gave her semi-celebrity status at the school. At the time blacks made up about 15-20 percent of the 1500-member student body (maybe more), which was higher than the general population in the U.S. at the time.

SOURCE