What We Talk About When We Talk About Immigration
Focusing on immigration policy through the lens of political allegiance is both dangerous and often ahistorical.
A collection of 1204 posts
Focusing on immigration policy through the lens of political allegiance is both dangerous and often ahistorical.
As Hrdy sees patriarchal social practices as being rooted in our ancient evolutionary heritage, she argues that progress towards sex equality should not be taken for granted.
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.
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?
Last year, Google engineer James Damore was fired after an internal memo he wrote was leaked to technology website Gizmodo, causing an uproar within the company.
This increases the likelihood that individuals who cross the line by discussing sex differences will be warned not to repeat the behavior and will probably be okay as long as they comply.