We are not blank pages, we do not have equal aptitudes, and to pretend that we do is to condemn the Stephens of this world to a life of running hopeless sprints against legions of Raouls.
What do students get for that price? I asked myself this question on a class by class basis, and have found an enormous mismatch between price and product in almost all cases.
The historical parallel between Jews and Asians is striking for a number of reasons—including the fact that both cases involve an explicit rejection of the idea that academic merit alone could be a tenable basis for admission.
It is nothing short of bizarre that an organization whose members study international conflict and know the value of dialogue over coercion opted for coercion from the outset.
Listen onSpotify Associate editor Toby Young talks to Dr. Eric Kaufmann, a politics professor at Birkbeck College and the author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, and Ben Cobley, author of The Tribe: The Liberal-Left and the System of Diversity. Eric Kaufmann recently wrote a
Alternative explanations that focus on the freely made choices of men versus women are usually spoken of only in hushed tones.
Conspiracy theories foreclose the possibility of explanation, because they postulate unalterable conclusions in search of evidence instead of following evidence to plausible conclusions.
I have been teaching at my university for almost 20 years, yet I cannot recall a single instance in which my students protested the expression of an offensive idea.
In a cultural landscape where partisan skirmishes regularly induce something approaching bloodlust on both sides of the political aisle, it’s safe to say that most Americans are roundly rejecting Cowen’s thesis at the moment.
If those who value free speech hope to convince the public of its enduring value, they would do well to more directly confront the poorly conceived theory behind progressive critiques, and the cynical abuse of public goodwill toward the vulnerable in society.
Bibi’s human rights must surely come first and, as Chishti asserts, Britain has a moral responsibility stand up for “core values” of religious freedom and justice.
Do we really think our era is so fraught and divisive that we must abandon our principles in order to achieve something that we absolutely will not achieve if we abandon our principles?
