Trump’s election dealt America’s highly educated liberal elites their greatest shock in a generation. For decades, these elites seemed to forget the very existence of class, overlooking America’s increasingly vast income inequality – and ignoring those Americans who didn’t have access to the Harvard Club. Trump single handedly changed this. Although inexcusably racist and xenophobic, his success rested, in large part, on his ability to speak to the deep resentments of a right-wing white working class.
“Fair and balanced.” This, infamously, was Fox News’s slogan until June 2017, but if you put aside the obvious jokes about Fox’s conservative bias, “fair and balanced” sums up what journalism, ideally, should be. The concept of journalistic objectivity—that the facts of a story should be presented fairly and impartially—is among the first things taught in any introductory journalism class. It’s been the cardinal rule of journalism for about a century, which has been enough time for conservatives to figure out how to outsmart it.
This past week, another thousand Hondurans gathered and departed from bus stations in San Pedro Sula, journeying northwest towards Mexico and, ultimately, the US. Hundreds did not wish for sunrise to begin their mammoth voyage, so left on foot in the rain in the dark.
Affirmative action is destined to soon die a swift and merciless death at the hands of American conservatism. First, a lawsuit against Harvard’s allegedly race-based admission process is working its way up to the Supreme Court. Second, and particularly fatal, the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority in the wake of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination will almost certainly rule against Harvard, which could outlaw affirmative action in college admissions.
Whether you’re looking for that one-unit wonder or an inspiring humanities class to fill your schedule, the Sphere has you covered this winter quarter. Peruse our course recommendations, arranged from lightest reading to heaviest.
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’,” wrote George Orwell in a 1946 essay. On campus, the same may be said of many words in leftist political discourse today. Students rally around terms such as “intersectionality” and “empowerment”, while “toxic” and “problematic” figures are fervently attacked. These words may feel comfortable and intellectual, but in reality they are almost entirely hollow. Seventy-two years ago Orwell decried the emptiness of political language. It is now high time that we scrutinized our own use of buzzwords.
On Monday, the Stanford Daily reported that the Stanford College Republicans had submitted a grant application to bring right-wing political commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza to campus sometime in winter quarter. In that article, the Daily quoted sources from within the ASSU that indicated that SCR’s grant request would likely not be approved, though they could very well bring him anyway.
Last week, Berber Jin argued in The Stanford Review that we should be more skeptical about need-blind admissions for international students, a proposal recently accepted by the university administration. He makes this case through falsely framing financial aid as a zero-sum game; he seems to believe that providing more assistance to the international community must come at the expense of helping underprivileged Americans. Like most Review articles, Berber’s piece presents itself as a hard-truth response to the supposedly misguided “feel-good” worldview of the left. But a closer look reveals just how misleading many of his claims really are. If Stanford wants to bring together the world’s brightest young minds and promote global social justice, it has to begin with need-blind admissions for international students.
This is a feminist manifesto for the Kavanaugh era. It calls for a reevaluation of the hysterical woman, an old archetype haunting our national conversation on gender relations. Both the right and the liberal establishment are uncomfortable with the hysterical woman, which is to say that they are uncomfortable with the messy ways that pain and anger get expressed and worked through. They use accusations of hysteria, a debunked nervous disorder connected to femininity, to disqualify women from civilized discourse. But for leftists and feminists, “hysteria” can still be of use. The hysterical woman represents a commitment to respecting and staying with the emotional aftereffects of trauma—a commitment to not only believing survivors, but also turning our shared experiences into a force for change.
This is second part of a two-part essay on “epistocracy,” defined by political philosopher and Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan as a system where the most politically-informed citizens have the most voting power. You can read the first part here.
There’s a lot of evidence that the United States isn’t nearly as democratic as it likes to think it is. Continue reading “Against Epistocracy: Why ‘Rule of the Informed’ Will Not Fix Democracy, Pt. II”