“[W]e must labour to make society understand that without academic freedom it will lose something it needs far more than it realizes: the free pursuit of truth and knowledge, as contrasted with their pursuit only within approved patterns, and criticism of society according to reason rather than according to the policies of the government of the day.”, Sirluck (1974)
This note deals with a sensitive and emotionally-charged topic—sexual assault on college campuses—and we feel that the substance of the note is at risk of being consumed by the emotions surrounding that topic. This article is meant to address is political control of higher education through the use of federal funding guidelines.
What is Title IX?
Title IX is one portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The primary clause in the law states that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Enforcement of Title IX is handled by the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the Department of Education. Punishments for violation can include on-campus monitoring by agents of the federal government and even a withdrawal of all federal funds being received by the school (including student loans to enrolled students).
The law’s purview was expanded to include sexual harassment by faculty as a result of the 1979 Supreme Court case Alexander v Yale. The court found that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination and constituted a violation of Title IX. Over the course of the next twenty years, the law’s reach has been expanded several times and by 2000 included cases of student-to-student harassment.
The law passed with no opposition in an environment where achieving gender-equality was given priority over all other concerns. As a result, no thought was given by Congress as to the implications of the law beyond its proximate intent. Indeed, since that time, integration has been more than fully achieved—eliminating the need for the law based on the original intent of Congress.
In 1972, at the time of passage, 44% of bachelor’s degrees were conferred upon women; by 2009 (most recent data available) that number had reached 57.4%. As pointed out by Epstein (2003), the real social challenge is to explain the under-representation of men on college campuses.
The Human Capital Bubble And The Educational-Industrial Complex
To summarize this effect, investment in human capital is sensitive to real interest rates and rate of return expectations in the same manner as investment in capital goods. By artificially depressing real interest rates on student loans through guarantees and subsidies, the U.S. government created a boom in human capital investment.
Evidence of the bubble can be seen in Charts 1 and 2. The monotonic increase in loans outstanding (despite declines in all other forms of consumer credit) and the steady march upwards in inflation-adjusted borrowing bear the hallmarks of a single-minded bureaucracy.
In any investment bubble one can expect certain industries to grow rapidly and become very dependent on the continuation of the bubble; this case is no different. Not surprisingly, the industry most closely connected with a bubble fueled by student loans is higher education.
Business has been good in higher education over the past few decades. As we can see in Chart 3 below, teaching staff at post-secondary institutions in the U.S. nearly doubled between 1987 and 2011 (most recent data available). A large expansion of staff would be expected given that the number of students enrolled grew by 8 million during that period.
However, as we can see in Chart 4, even in the face of rapidly rising enrollments, the student faculty ratio has fallen significantly over the same period. As we said, business has been good.
Tables A and B below show in very stark terms just how important funds federally-provided funds (directly or indirectly) are for the higher education industry in the U.S. Nearly 30% of gross revenues for the higher education sector are the result of federal funding of one sort or another. Indeed, Table B shows us that the problem is even more acute at top institutions, which have become dependent to an existential level on federal grants to fund their research programs.
The simple fact is that, for many post-secondary institutions in the U.S., the threat of being cut off from federal funds is the threat of closure. Just as perversely, the institutions have a strong incentive to expand the power and scope of government in an effort to secure and enlarge their single-largest source of funds. Thus is born the educational-industrial complex.
Chart 5 below gives us a view of the growth in Federal post-secondary spending since the 1960s in inflation-adjusted terms. As we can see, funding exploded upwards in the early-2000s; primarily fueled by student loans and school grants (i.e. outright handouts).
The situation has developed such that when the federal government says “jump,” the higher education sector had better say “how high” if it knows what’s best.
This is not the first time a nation’s higher education system has been brought under the control of government through the sedating drug of subsidies. The quote below is drawn from an article written in 1974 by the then-President of the University of Manitoba, Earnest Sirluck. Sirluck’s goal in writing the article was to warn his colleagues against the dangers presented to academic independence as a result of the rise in government funding of higher education.
…a growing disposition on the part of governments to ‘co-ordinate’ universities fully with other educational institutions… which means to make them simply the upper level of a fully integrated educational system thought to exist solely to serve society’s needs as these are seen and interpreted by the government of the day. An ominous factor in this connection is that there is no longer an important deterrent in the form of a strong private sector. Many of what were originally private institutions survive and retain some of the trappings of independence, but not enough of the reality, having accepted and become dependent upon government financing…, Sirluck (1974)
Sirluck’s main point is that by accepting government funds institutions of higher education become hostage to the shifting winds of politics and, by extension, the machinations of the politicians of the day.
Indeed, the growing federal infringement on higher education in the United States is only now becoming apparent to post-secondary administrators. In response to the Obama Administration’s proposal to impose a federal ratings system on higher education, Jane Wellman, Executive Director, National Association of System Heads said this:
The proposal would be a huge change in higher education, with the federal government asserting itself as the definer of institutional goals and policy, and doing it through need-based financial aid. The federal government has never been in higher education policy before – it has just administered financial aid…
We believe Sirluck’s warning bears special significance in the context of the present-day U.S. The multiple shifts in control of Congress that have taken place since the mid-1990s have marked one of the most dynamic periods in American politics since the first decades of the 20th century. The last twenty years have been a political football match with two teams of severe partisans vying for power.
In any environment where there is a struggle for power, those who seek it will grab any weapon at hand with which to fight for control. It is in environments such as these that principle frequently falls victim to expediency. It is here where the story of Title IX meets the “War on Women” and the good-intentions of Progressive government meet the cruel realities of partisan politics.
The 2012 Election And The “War On Women”
Coming out of the “shellacking” of the 2010 election, President Obama and the Democratic Party needed a strategy to survive in 2012. A key factor driving the disappointing results for Democrats in 2010 was low turnout among single women. Single women are a fast-growing identity group that has become a core base of the Democratic Party’s coalition of identity-based special interest groups.
As we can see in Chart 6 below, in the decade leading up to the 2012 election the number of single women eligible voters had grown by 10 million – reaching near-parity with both married men and married women. In Chart 7 we see voting rates for single women are the most volatile among the married-unmarried demographic groups.
Indeed, although single-men men have a lower rate the volatility of their rate is below that of single women. Democrats needed to ensure single women would show up on Election Day 2012 in large numbers or the election would be lost.
By 2011, the heady optimism of Obama’s 2008 campaign was long gone — so the President and his party turned to a divide-and-conquer strategy. Taking a page from the Newt Gingrich playbook, the President’s re-election strategy was to smash the electorate into a million pieces and then try to pick up at least 51% of them by Election Day.
The tactic chosen by the Democrats to maximize votes was the paranoid and exclusionary “War on Women” campaign theme. The term itself was a product of legislative “Abortion Theater” in the aftermath of the so-called Conservative-revival of 2010.
In early-2011 the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives passed an anti-abortion bill pretending it could become law. Playing their part in the dance for the cameras, Democratic representatives gave breathless speeches pretending the bill might actually become law. During the debate over the law, the term “War on Women” was quietly born.
The term went mainstream in May 2011 upon the appointment of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (“DWS”) as head of the Democratic National Committee. The “War on Women” talking point was a favorite of DWS and the term was soon picked up by the mainstream media. According to Slate, between January 1, 2012 and April 12, 2012 the term was used 24 times in the New York times and 26 in the Washington Post.
The “War on Women” propaganda theme worked well in 2012 because it encapsulated visceral feelings of identity with an adversary-based narrative simple enough for the media and the general public to intellectually digest.
Enter Title IX As A Partisan Weapon
Once the Democrats had settled on gender-antagonization as a campaign tactic, they needed catalysts for action that would motivate young women to vote, donate, and volunteer for Democrats. To be effective, a political catalyst must be emotionally-charged and strongly divisive at a clearly-delineated point on the political spectrum.
What better a topic than sex?
In 2011, the ongoing political-kabuki theater taking place around Obamacare provided ample opportunity for the campaign-issue generation machine do its work. The “free” birth-control debate is a prime example of the attempts to artificially generate political catalysts to attract young women to the polls.
Another topic chosen to act as a key catalyst was the emotionally charged issue of sexual assault. This is where Title IX enters the picture and the story gets very ugly.
As discussed above, Title IX was originally enacted to end gender-based discrimination in academia. It was later expanded to include sexual harassment and assault, in the case of employees of the institutions receiving funds from the federal government.
It was not until the OCR’s Dear Colleague letter of April 4, 2011 that Title IX was applied to sexual assault by students; thus making schools directly accountable for the sexual behavior of students.
The date of the letter’s publication plays an important role in connecting the expansion by fiat of Title IX to the “War on Women” campaign theme. April 4, 2011 also happened to be the day President Obama launched his re-election campaign and Vice President Biden gave a major speech on sexual assault on college campuses at the University of New Hampshire.
Indeed, according to Henricks (2013), the letter’s drafting appears to have been rushed because it contains numerous logical and typographical errors. Another suspicious (and unusual) action taken by OCR with regards to this letter was that the office provided no notice-and-comment period.
Indeed, Prof. Cynthia Bowman, a law professor at Cornell, has argued that the omission of notice-and-comment means the letter has no legal authority. The omission of a notice-and-comment period was highly irregular and, in conjunction with other evidence, very suspicious.
In short, the changes to Title IX enforcement were designed to create a moral panic in one of the richest sources of eligible young women voters available for political exploitation – college campuses. As we can see in Table C below, the tactic appears to have worked as Obama’s net change in performance among young women between 2008 and 2012 was 6-percentage points better than for young men.
Given that unmarried women (of all ages) made up nearly a quarter of voters in the 2012 election, strength in this demographic played a major role in Obama’s re-election. Indeed, Romney beat the president by 7-percentage points among married women.
However, Obama won single women by a margin of 36 percentage points and this group had grown significantly relative to married women between 2008 and 2012.
The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter
For a detailed overview of the OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague letter, we encourage readers to see the cited paper by Dr. Stephen Henrick. Henrick’s critical review of the letter assesses the biases built into the OCR’s directives and the risk-averse responses by the schools to the new directives.
His assessment is that the rule changes are detrimental to due process and that the schools are not equipped to adjudicate cases of such magnitude both because of complexity and conflict of interest. We draw heavily from his analysis in this section.
As pointed out by Henricks, the letter “effectuates a presumption that all accused students are guilty and institutes four changes to increase the conviction rate.” The four changes are:
1) Lowering the burden of proof to “preponderance of evidence” for on-campus tribunals relating to sexual assault.
2) Establishing suspect evidentiary rules that do not require disclosure of exculpatory evidence or mutual discovery.
3) Requiring schools to inform the complainants of their legal rights, but not the accused
4) Giving the school’s Title IX coordinator power to revise any sanctions issued by a disciplinary proceeding.
Proponents of the policy argue the letter seeks to make the process more “equitable,” but the letter explicitly creates superior rights for the accuser.
First, only the complainant can ask the Title IX coordinator for a review. Second, only the complainant must be informed of their rights. Third, indifference to a claim of sexual assault is automatically an actionable violation. However, deliberate indifference to the innocence of the accused is not actionable.
Furthermore, both parties must be given the right to appeal all rulings, enshrining double jeopardy in the regulations. Even worse, the Title IX coordinator is given power to determine if “the complainant is entitled to a remedy under Title IX that was not available through the disciplinary committee.”
In other words, the committee is merely a puppet for the Title IX coordinator and can be overruled whenever the outcome of the proceedings is not the one desired.
Since publishing the letter, OCR has secretly been working to entice schools to re-investigate complaints. In exchange for dropping Title IX investigations, schools have been signing confidential agreements that include promises to re-investigate the complaints at issue.
No notice is given to the accused until the second investigation has already begun. Clearly, under these circumstances conviction is almost guaranteed as no school would defy the implied order to convict. Henrick offers in summary that,
The net effect of the administrative enforcement scheme is that schools have an incentive to convict anyone who is charged with sexual assault or rape as a matter of risk aversion for the institution. …Because OCR primarily cares about the complainant’s rights, as evidenced by its guidance and enforcement opinion letters, conviction carries a much lower risk of administrative enforcement than acquittal. Henrick (2013)
The natural response to the discussion above is: What would you replace the current system with, smart guy? Here again Henrick offers an insightful overview, which we agree with. Campus disciplinary committees simply have too many conflicts to handle such important and judicially-complex cases. As said by Henrick:
Unfortunately, institutions of higher learning are hindered by several powerful and problematic incentives to falsely convict accused students in these types of cases. Removing claims of sexual violence from college campuses to civil and criminal judicial systems is the only viable way to fix the problem and ensure that sexual assault adjudication is equitable and impartial for all affected parties. Henrick (2013)
Finally, Henrick offers a poignant response to those who say that the policies should be biased in order to counter-balance some historical or institutional wrong.
Justifying institutionalized unfairness to a given defendant in the exercise of power because of a perceived need to reform a broader social problem is contrary to the very idea of civilized justice. [W]hile recognizing that sexual violence is reprehensible, convicting the innocent to atone for society’s sins or to bring about change remains an unjustifiable use of authority and a dangerous judicial precedent. Henrick (2013)
Rolling Stone Magazine And Title IX
A recent example of Title IX’s ability to wreak havoc is the incident involving a Rolling Stone article detailing an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia (UVA). As it turns out, the story in the article was a complete fabrication and the article’s author, Sabrina Erdely, was (appropriately) condemned for a gross breach of journalistic ethics.
The article created a stir in the U.S. and prompted an extreme reaction by the UVA administration in a state of panic. Among other actions, the school immediately suspended all fraternities and in doing so effectively labeled every fraternity member in the school as a rapist. At first, it may seem that the school’s panic-stricken reaction to an article in a music magazine was overdone.
We disagree with that viewpoint. Indeed, in light of OCR’s 2011 Dear Colleague letter, the school administration’s actions were completely rational. As stated in the letter, “a single case of sexual assault or rape could be sufficient to raise a jury question about whether a hostile environment exists.”
The salacious and grotesque description of a (completely fabricated) gang rape immediately brought the school under the scrutiny of OCR. Given the Sword of Damocles hanging over the school, the administration’s unthinking and hyperbolic reaction seems quite prudent.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the case can be observed in the letter from UVA President Teresa Sullivan to the school’s students and faculty in response to the article (before it had been discredited).
We can demand that incidents like those described in Rolling Stone never happen and that if they do, the responsible are held accountable to the law. This will require institutional change, cultural change, and legislative change, and it will not be easy. We are making those changes. [Emphasis ours]
Here we see the efforts of the totalitarians bearing fruit. The only legislative changes applicable in this case would be an infringement of due process. As a public university, UVA is held to some of the standards of due process. With absolutely no evidence of an assault available, the school was unable to operate its Title IX kangaroo court to run the accused out of town.
The simple fact that a lie in a music magazine resulted in such an extreme reaction is evidence enough to unmask the malignancy of Title IX regulations in general and the Obama Administration’s political exploitation of the law more specifically.
Conclusion
Taken alone, the changes to Title IX enforcement instituted by the Office of Civil Rights would be outright bad policy. However, when combined with the immediate political motive driving the changes the policy becomes something much more insidious – the naked coercion of higher education for political purposes.
Prior to 2011, it was understood to be acceptable to coerce the schools in pursuit of utilitarian ideals. After Obama’s re-election, the precedent has now been set that it is acceptable to coerce the higher education system for purely political ends.
Readers can be sure that, now that a Democrat has used the tactic, the Republicans will be watching for their opportunity; then the act will have become commonplace and will be used repeatedly. Yet again, we see that the President’s undermining of the rule of law for his own convenience will do far more damage to liberty in the long-run than his ineffectual leadership in the present.
Additionally, the perversion of Title IX has serious economic consequences. The US’s vibrant and extensive higher education system has been a major driver of its culture of innovation and superior TFP contribution to growth. By subsuming the centers of free-thought in the United States to the dirty game of partisan politics, the United States has diminished its long-term growth prospects and taken another big step towards totalitarianism.
We close with a final warning from Sirluck:
If we believe, as I do, that academic freedom is the soul of the university, we must find additional means to support it, for as governments exercise increasing control over universities they will inevitably come under increasing pressure to control what is said and taught within universities. Sirluck (1974)
References
Sirluck, Ernest, “Causes of Tightening Government Control of Universities”, University of Toronto Convocation (1974)
Epstein, Richard, “Just Do It!: Title IX as a Threat to University Autonomy”, University of Chicago Law School Journal (2003)
Henrick, Stephen, “A Hostile Environment for Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault on College Campuses”, Northern Kentucky Law Review, 2013
Read More: A Brief Introduction To The Country Formerly Known As Sweden
The huge influx of women into tertiary education has spelled disaster to the quality of higher studies and created an entire generation of insufferable harlots. This article pulsates with truth. Instead of finding a stable and rational man as husbands, the current crop of young nubile ladies bought the education equality crap spewed by feminist overlords hook, line and sinker.
So off they trot into colleges and universities to prove the vapid slogan `grrrlll power ‘ only to end up majoring in laughably worthless degrees. Then right after graduation, they become retarded performance artist ala Sulkowic or harpy women rights activist. Instead of you know finding a real job that contribute something of value to society.
…and while she’s pursuing that 4 year degree in womens literature, she’s riding the cock carousel with 25 guys and wondering why men don’t take her seriously.
It’s just another example of something going bad once women get involved (and are the majority). Colleges (all of them) are becoming a laughing stock because they all pander to these adult “children” (for the money, of course).
Many of our laws regarding civil rights are now outdated and they need to be wiped off the books (or updated). They no longer represent the real population, today.
Women are the majority on next to every college campus but as you remark, many of the policies (still) in place are from when they were but a few.
As men have become the minority … and guys at some universities are endeavoring to discuss male issues and form groups, you see feminists and academia nutz silencing these men and targeting them as a “hate group.”
This is due to feminist desperation to maintain notion that women are “oppressed” as with it comes protected class status and all kinds of goodies like tax credits and funding specifically for women only.
The only thing that you can hope for is for the rise of men only private schools (no fed or state money). That way, men can really study (the old way) without this modern day bullshit distracting them. It’s how man (and civilization) flourished.
I was thinking of this exact thing. It wouldn’t even have to be officially men only. Just as long as it has only private funding and is run and taught in a way that will be attractive to men and unattractive to the average female. The question I know have is, are there any members on ROK qualified to start a school or teach at one? Anyone here good at raising private funds?
Sadly in places like Australia where I live, the government will copy your process’ and implement them here. Our only hope is that the financiers stop lending money for gender studies degrees because the return on investment is nil, and employeers avoid them like the plague due to their sophistic and disruptive personalities. Hopefully Jeb Bush and the Capitilist forces that run the U.S. will put an end to this disruptive conflict.
Women are so oppressed by higher education that they’re earning 60% of all degrees… Jesus Christ.
Yes but which degrees???
cupcake manufacturing
Sociology and psychology. And no this is not a joke.
Universities have also expanded in number and courses on offer. That takes in a lot of average IQ females. The female IQ Is mostly centred around the mean.
The institution has become extended care (after care) babysitting for the females after they reach ‘majority’ age. It is like graduated level boob tube media pulp that continues after they’re long out of diapers and is for the convienience of parents who were too lazy or inept to hands on teach and interact with their own children. In other words these grown kids are the same kids whose parents stuck them in front of the tv to kill time and ‘raise’ them while their minds were conditioned during their youth by the same ‘programming’ brainwashing.
Agreed.
The ones they choose to get, i.e., the easy ones.
and its men still doing all the inventing. the old forbes article has all the recent men who dropped out of school creating all the new IPO’s in silicon valley
Women don’t create, they take.
Women imitate not innovate. They invade male spaces and then when they get there they don’t know what to do.
They invade male spaces not because they want to be contribute to the team, but because they want to see who’s the alpha of the group so they can marry or fuck him.
60% of all the degrees in useless bullshit. Every womyn I know with a degree is in something useless, and now she’s trying to get an HR job. I’m sure the female role in the upcoming Student Loan Bubble is massive.
It’s sad that becoming a teacher has become the job for people who can’t actually do anything. Being a teacher should be a respected position in society but it’s been reduced to baby-sitting.
Those who can’t do: teach. Those who can’t teach: teach gym. Those who can’t teach gym: clean the school.
Dont knock PE teachers- the baddest, coolest dudes from my HS were those guys
And those who can’t clean the school, administrate.
respect must be earned, not expected. having a position of authority is a weakling’s way to power.
As a teacher who takes dogmatic pride in my work and the students i turn out i cannot disagree with anything you said.
Haha
Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.
indeed, if they cleansed academia of activist courses there wouldnt be much left for women
Amen Brother! Testify!
The bullshit factor is high among female degree holders. Despite getting 60% of bachelor degrees, women get less than half of all doctorate degrees and those are clustered in social sciences – particularly psychology – and education, as well as health sciences and communications (65%-70% of the degrees in those fields).
.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/2011/pdf/tab14.pdf
I’ve worked around and now a lot of women with advanced degrees. And their female behavior never changes. They’re just in better positions to catch a well-paid professional and nail him down. And the middle school antics they engage in are worse then women with no degrees. And do they contribute to their professions? I’ve never seen one add any value to their team.
I did my business degree at Ryerson University. Apparently, there is some deal with Petrocan where the employees get a scholarship for their kids to go to Ryerson (I don’t know if that still holds as this was almost 30 years ago). I meet a pair of blonde twins in my class. They were fraternal, not identical, although stupid people could not tell the difference between them. One was a 5 and the other was a 7 and stupid me, I date the 5 for about a month.
.
That never went beyond getting a bit grabby-feely but that was enough that the 7 was eternally “just friends” after that.
.
The point here is that you had two girls who had no particular interest in business but when given a free ride to university that is the field they chose to study. They were not there for their B.Comm, they wanted their MRS. I got dumped quite abruptly when I said that I had no plans to marry.
.
The soap opera gets better as my ex went on to date, marry and then divorce my successful gay friend. More fodder for another post. I have no idea if she divorce raped him; as far as I know they have no kids.
I once met a woman who told me her daughter went to the same university as me. I’ll never forget when I asked her what she was majoring in and she said, “Oh, she’s just there to find a husband.”
Wrong. They aren’t earning the degrees. Males outperform females in almost every subject on standardized testing. It’s the coursework culture, female teacher bias against male students (downgrading work equivalent or better than their female counterparts. See OECD report), the feminised curriculum.
“See OECD report”
got a link?
I think men’s enrollments would be declining even if Title IX was not in force. Guys are not seeing value in college degrees anymore and choosing other forms of enrichment.
Amen. My certificate for achieving the highest rank in my fraternal organization is displayed in a much more lavish and gilded frame than the one my college degree is in. Yes, I am making a statement with that!
Which fraternal organization would that be if you don’t mind my asking?
The Order of …….?
C’mon you can tell us
Water Buffalo. Also @disqus_LOfsgMZn2h:disqus.
haha – you had me for a moment. I thought you meant the British order of Buffalos.
My University B.A. diploma, which I received a long time ago, is still in the cardboard tube in which they mailed it to me as I refused to attend the worthless graduation ceremony. This diploma is in a bottom drawer in my dresser. Since then I got a couple of other degrees which have paid the bills nicely. Never attended graduation even once. All degrees placed in the bottom drawer. But my son just joined my old college fraternity and I have placed related items all over the house.
Because USican education is absolute garbage aimed at sustaining academics instead of students. Right now I am pursuing a degree, and I am suffering terribly because of these ‘core’ requirements forcing me to take classes run by incompetent women teaching subjects no one would normally take (thus the school making them a requirement to graduate)
More than anything else, it has been my university education that has made me sexist and chauvinist.
I think you’re right.
A professor friend of mine told me earlier this year that he was feeling nervous because undergrad enrolment in psychology declined by 25% since the last year. The university’s psychology program is massive btw.
He was just out of a meeting meant to develop marketing to fix the “problem”. It’s only a problem though because of the bloated university budget, nothing to do with quality of education.
Or the fact that outside of getting into the medical profession of psychiatry or getting a PHD in psychology, that program is absolutely and completely useless for getting a real job.
And realistically how many PhDs in psychology can the market absorb?
Sike major is good for HR gigs…my former HR Director had one(and apparently she was on LITHIUM- fantastic, eh?)
It was never about what the market could absorb, it was about delaying entry into the job force, hence the push for everyone to go to college starting in the late 70s/early 80s…this was the time when there simply werent enough jobs to go around, so this helped stagger entry into the workforce by 2-6 years
I’m not so sure… there does seem to be increasing demand for therapists.
It’s also because the Supreme Court decided in the 1970s, in Duke v. Griggs, that employers could not use IQ tests (because Asians and whites do better on them and we can’t have a meritocracy now can we?). A bachelor’s degree became the new IQ test. It just takes a lot longer and costs a lot more than an IQ test.
Glad you posted this- I read on article about this years ago, couldnt remember the details. I thought the plaintiff had worked at the local utility company for years, failed the test for promotion to management repeatedly.
Was the test an IQ test, or was it a test based on what skills were needed to make the jump into management??
Therapists… psh… I should just rent out my friendship to people…
Upon graduation and discovering that the degree is worthless, these graduates just double down and pursue a graduate degree. And when that doesn’t pan out, they go for thirds and pursue a PhD. Meanwhile their student debt shoots up to the stratosphere. They would have to start paying it once they are no longer in school. So in order to postpone that payment due date, they pursue another degree and thus become the professional student.
There were multiple plaintiffs, all of whom couldn’t pass either one of the two requirements the company had for promoting to management – a high school diploma or a certain score on a standardized IQ test. It wasn’t a skills/management test. The NAACP applauds it on their website because lower standards is something to celebrate.
chicks like to study it cause they like to finger all those feelz, but i wonder how many actually finish the studies. girl of my houseowner took advantage of the free education, but eventually decided it’s not so much fun. oh well.
Someone else apparently had the same idea:
http://rentafriend.com/
…
“Therapists… psh… I should just rent out my friendship to people…”
Five dolla, me friend you longtime 🙂
Beyond the extent that having any degree will help you get a job, a BA in psychology only helps if you study consumer behavior and work for a business or marketing firm. If you are grounded in game theory, that can open up some possibilities but that is as much economics as psychology.
.
Psychiatry involves getting an MD and to get into med school you need a whack load of science courses so that involves minoring in science and perhaps even taking extra courses just to get those requirements.. A masters degree in psych can get you into a counseling or consulting position.
The SATs are heavily g-loaded so they function largely as an IQ test by another name. Similarly, so are the GRE, LSAT, GMAT and most other standardized graduate admission tests. The MCAT is much more knowledge-based. The DAT is as well plus it also involves a physical skill assessment.
What’s Ironic is Title IX is supposed to be Gender Neutral but anytime it seems to be enforced is when women benefit.
I encourage any young male not to enter college. It’s four years of anti-male, feminist indoctrination where you now face a real chance of being hit with a bogus rape allegation (courtesy of the Obama Admin’s sexual assault rules) by a bitch begging for your cock magically changing her mind days later. She’ll have you quickly expelled from the school while you’re not allowed to defend yourself, question the accuser or prove you’re innocent and VICTIM of false allegation as the student paper will happily crown the lying cunt a heroic “survivor.”
But on the positive: You’ll still be required to pay back student loans with no degree and expulsion on record!
One of the most important points about Title IX is that the government cannot impose any other penalties on a deviating college. Therefore, a college that wants to ignore Title IX can do so if it’s willing to forgo federal money — a choice that would have several beneficial effects, not merely the exclusion of this bit of neofascist doctrine. I believe Hillsdale College has already made that choice, and has benefited by it both academically and socially.
Excellent longread. Articles like this make it worth wading through the clickbait.
I am very curious to see how the lawsuits of people falsely accused under this title IX against universities progress. Universities might very well get stuck between a rock and a hard place, where failing to uphold title IX legislation costs them federal funding, but upholding it gets them sued by the men they expelled on flimsy grounds, which may very well force universities to pay compensation/settle
What is the Supreme Court’s ruling on something like this? Or have they already said it’s ok to toss out due process?
How am I supposed watch mediocre-at-best sports without Title IX?
Don’t. It is no loss.
Hey do you have any experience with Kratom (no I’m not joking)? I want to try some for studying/productivity purposes.
This is the recommended distributor on ROK/GoodLookingLoser.
http://www.happyhippoherbals.com/?utm_source=ROK&utm_campaign=sponsoredpost
Seems they have strains like sleepy/moderate/hyper. Maybe I just answered my own question actually. I’m thinking of getting the newbie kit to try it out but I don’t want to spend money on chill-out or “trippy” strains.
Try ZMA- its a deep sleep aid, but it may induce intense dreams. I had a dream sean connery took over Scotland and became the king…I mean I woke up REALLY thinking this shit happened, I almost went to web to confirm it lol
The only one I have tried is Happy Hippo’s “Pleasant Green Hippo” strain and it gave me very deep and relaxing sleep, and worked fast. I would recommend it.
That would go down as one of the coolest days in history.
I’ve tried both Kratom and Phenibut and posted my results here:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/returnofkings/3_reasons_you_should_try_phenibut/#comment-2122374392
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/returnofkings/the_battle_over_public_libraries_shows_how_sweden_continues_to_push_a_cultural_marxist_narrative/#comment-2111482369
Thanks for the detailed info 😛
Maybe if enough of us took it simultaneously, we could make it happen haha
Excellent, informing article, thanks!
It was a very good article. Long though
Title IX also takes money generated by the football team and gives it to women sports.
So womens’ basketball teams get more scholarships than men’s basketball teams. which is a compete fucking joke of a policy.
Not to mention all the ‘title 9 coordinator’ jobs where some cunt female bureaucrat gets paid $100k a year to ‘comply’ (take money from mens sports) with the rules
Colleges are filled with women getting paid very well to teach worthless, bullshit liberal course. Federal loan dollars and Title IX ensure every snowflake gets her special treatment in the prime of her life.
However women are slow to understand how worthless a degree has become. Men have wised up to this fact while women don’t know any better
This article presents a very compelling and insightful analysis into a current social/policy issue. Although I enjoy the game/satire/etc.. articles as much as the next man, it is intelligent articles like this one that could turn this site into a real participant in the cultural debate. Do not stop with articles about self improvement, philosophy, the classics, game, or the ones that call out bullshit double standards, but please do try to publish more analytical articles like this one to show that the red pill or neomasculine viewpoints are founded on more than a knee jerk reaction to feminist bullshit.
Also, please carefully edit articles like this one. Although generally well written, there are areas where the points could be more concise, or the grammar is slightly awkward. Articles like this one should be subjected to multiple rounds of fine-toothed comb editing to ensure they are as tight as possible so that they can’t be easily discredited by some dumb feminist saying, “this guy is so stupid he can;t even spell correktly, so you shouldn;t believe antyhing else he says.” (misspellings, etc…intentional to provide yet another example of absurdly stupid feminist hypocrisy).
This is a professional grade article. Amazingly well done, and a damning analysis that must see the light of day outside the ‘sphere.
I do agree. It I nice to see something written well. Usually have to wait for Quintus articles for that.
American culture is fucked up politically. Libs are groveling as male feminists. Cons are posturing as white knights. Men get marginalized either way.
Title IX- proof positive the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The womens national soccer team is really wondering why they get less prize money than men. really. they lost to a 16 yr old boys national team and they wonder why they get paid less than men.
I saw one article wondering why lionel messi got paid more sponsor dollars than any woman. I’m sure there’ll be new legislation to fix this ‘inequality’ and we can just make all meritocracy illegal so women can play too.
women have no interest in a meritocracy. socialism is the only system they’ll vote for since they can’t compete at any level. whether its sports or a doctor working 70 hours a week they can’t really compete in any free market system.
“socialism is the only system they’ll vote for since they can’t compete at any level.”
Wish I could take credit for this gem: “Women are capitalists when it comes to their money, but socialists when it come to others money.”
I was thinking solipsism was the only system women would vote for.
The “War on Women” was manufactured in order to make Hillary immune from criticism. Any kind of political attack on her can be construed as sexism to the public. This is about power and nothing else.
Won’t work against two of her opponents.
Fiorina is a woman who can get away with it.
Trump is a man who doesn’t care if the liberal lynchmob calls him sexist.
great article. Title X is only US, but things seem to work very similiarly in western europe too. Equality & diversity departments set the key performance indicators which universities get assessed on. Research funding often gets linked to ‘projects’ which link in to these ‘progressive’ / social justice goals designed to improve representation, participation, “social inclusion” etc and the result if much the same: funding is linked to ideology. This article is mainly about the chilling (and socially engineering) effect of linking education to state funding, but even where the link isn’t direct, the way funding links to ideology often serves exactly the same purpose. Its no coincidence the result has been the decay and corrosion of knowledge as something which is pursued in an for itself rather than to achieve particularly political goals. You can trace it back to two ideas, firstly the idea that academia should pursue useful alumni (i.e. people qualified to perform jobs with social utility) – something which is necessary in large part for the functioning of society depends on having engineers, scientists etc and secondly the marxist idea that knowledge (philosophy) should be about changing the world rather than interpreting it. Its the influence of this second line of thinking which is killing the knowledge economy, not least because the upshot of trying to produce knowledge designed to ‘change the world’ seems in large part to be about ‘lying’ about what is the case. In other words our universities, instead of being about the pursuit of knowledge, as soon as they become beholden to ideology instead become factories for knowledge pollution, producing smog to cloud our ability to think or see clearly. The modern academy is in fact an anti-university, working against genuine knowledge
“… our universities [have] become factories of knowledge pollution, producing smog to cloud our ability to think or see clearly.” Well stated.
thanks
It never ceases to amaze me how a university can take a perfectly nice girl and destroy her mind. It’s like the old anti-drug use commercials. “This is your brain… This is your brain on women’s studies…”
its because women don’t think for themselves. you can shape them into anything. millennials think anything from their teacher is a law of the universe. that’s why were the most educated generation but most lack a marketable skill or even basic understanding of the economy.
Its interesting to note that even the increase in teaching staff is mostly from using lowly paid adjuncts, some of whom are paid less than one student’s tuition for the class to teach said class. Right now only about 16% of new positions are actually full time in higher ed. Even in traditionally rigorous fields like accounting or physics most classes, almost 70% are taught be either grad students or part timers. This does two things. First, it makes it easy to get rid of anyone who is seen as a trouble maker. Second, all of that money saved from actually paying an instructor a decent wage is then spent on administrators and useless programs like Title IX and diversity programs. The net effect is to lower the quality of education and turn universities in to a breeding ground for rent seekers and ideologues, even more so than it has been in the past. I general I don’t mind paying taxes to subsidize public higher ed and in general think its a good idea to have readily accessible education available for anyone who wants it. But at the same time funding self serving organizations whose aim in part is to destroy me is definitely something I would prefer to avoid.
I’ve noticed a lot of stem classes are substituted by TA’s or taught outright by one or a few. I’ve never been to a women’s studies class or in the department inner circle to see the heads. The social marxist ruckus on campus comes a lot from student groups and coalitions. The editorial circle of the college news rag is usually a similar motley collection of connected social marxist agitators. The kingpin sjw’s and demonstration ringleaders have financial backing but blend in and seem simple. They’re selected or sent to ‘work’ the campus and spin the demonstrations. ‘Follow the money’ should be done on them. Their pipelines will reveal many appearingly humble and grungy activists who rub elbows or hob knob with handlers who in turn have association with world class wallets and power figures.
Colleges are run like any business. That’s how you can tell they jumped the shark a long time ago. It’s about the money, first, and the education, second.
I attended college for a year and I noticed all of the worthless shit classes that I had to take (or were recommended by counselors). It reminded me of a carnival or circus where they were only keeping you around to drain more money from your wallet.
Bored…I moved on and educated myself working in the I.T. industry for years (with no student debt and much of my money in my bank account). Colleges are a racket and many men have gone on to produce or invent (struck out on their own for their fortune).
Men are truly the creators and inventors.
the real social challenge is to explain the under-representation of menon college campuses.
That’s easy. Men are viewed as rapists and second class citizens who aren’t even entitled to their right to due process on college campuses.
The real social challenge would be to explain why men would want to go to a place like that.
that and colleges are filled with useless social causes that appeal mostly to insecure young women
The “Federal Funding Graph” (chart five) shows four colors in the legend.
Perhaps my eyesight is failing me in my declining years (age 61), but for the life of me I cannot find data on the graph for “Student Grants”.
I even went through the bother of enlarging the graph:
http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/War-on-Women-Chart-5.png
when i was younger, convinced by my mother that my father was a selfish asshole for leaving us and not even paying her a lot for it, i took the chance when my dad came around to visit and told him: hey dad, after having not given me presents to so many birthdays and christmasses, i think it is fair that you should now compensate me by buying me a lot of stuff.
luckily, my dad is not a wimp and reacted amused at most.
compensation for past suffering is an illusion. it doesn’t exist. eat the shit, bitches.
this is a great article, thanks for putting in the work.
it’s really interesting. my first instinctive idea here is that obama wants vagina nostra to overtake the country and have a Herrenrasse of cunts.
but then it must be obvious to any machiavellian genius that women are not strong and will hardly go and conquer any countries, especially not (land-)whales – unless he wants to conduct submarine wars.
would be much smarter to wait for more immigrants or muslims. oh well, they are doing that, too.
i think it is plausible to assume that the people on top really just want to destroy the country and have fun doing it. maybe it’s obama, because he grew up in a colony and has all kinds of inferiority complexes. but then again, a single man can’t do this alone. somebody surely is having fun. and i have to admit that it is awe-inspiring to watch the destruction of the greatest of thing with it’s polar opposite: rationality with sheer ridiculous madness.
truly a masterpiece.
To be honest I’m not convinced academia needs to be coerced through funding – they seem to be the progenitors of equalism themselves
To this end I will offer a counterpoint. In China, universities are strictly regulated by Beijing via special liaisons. The liaisons’ jobs is to ensure that the universities promote nationalistic education and do not go too far off the deep end. Authoritarian like your example, perhaps, but for a much nobler purpose. In other words it is not so much government control, it is the minds of the people that must be won over from equalism.
ATTENTION BOYS: Comment before my comments are taken down
http://sfist.com/2015/07/10/ellen_pao_resigns_by_mutual_agreeme.php
U max power or h j simpson?
Here’s another one for you guys. A little off topic but right on topic for the theme. Many of you have probably heard of the man and woman whom were both recently arrested for having sex on a crowded Florida beach. The gal got, “Time served,” for 22 days in jail. The man involved in the exact same act, where no coercion of any sort is even being suggested took place, is looking at 2.5 years in jail. His sentencing has yet to happen. But even the man’s lawyer thinks 2.5 years is a good deal for an act that a favorite drink has been named after. Here’s a link to the story on Fox: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/05/28/woman-who-had-sex-on-florida-beach-will-avoid-jail-time-thanks-to-time-served/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork
He is also looking at lifetime sex offender registration too. She will not have a criminal record.
*&$^%
Here’s why you’re a moron. Putin doesn’t care about the Russian economy. He cares about the “Putin Economy,” which is about lining his accounts with billions of dollars. He is the head of the
Russian Maffia. Obama did not hurt Putin. He hurt the Russian citizens that Putin could care less about
——-..– http://www.WorldCareersProviders/ supertakecent/cold/marketing…
Equality means no gender based sports. One volleyball, basketball, baseball, rowing, track and field……team. Everyone has equal opportunity to compete for a spot on the team of their choice.
And how could anyone be against equality??