Monthly Archives: August 2023

Harvard Admissions and Racism

Posted on by
Reply

David Phillips, Johns Hopkins University Vice Provost, wrote a letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal, published in the outlet’s Friday Letters section. In it he responded to a WSJ week-prior op-ed opining on Harvard’s still-racially oriented admissions technique, now transferred to Harvard’s applicant essay.

In furtherance of his defense, he made this astonishing claim:

In crafting a question that invites students to discuss their background and life experiences, including the effect of a host of different factors such as race, religion, or community, we explicitly tell prospective students in our online application and checklist section that Hopkins will consider applicants only based on their experiences as individuals, not based on information about their race. This is in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action, to which we explicitly refer.

No, Phillips’ question is in strict disobedience of the Court’s decision. If Harvard were considering applicants not based on information about their race, Harvard’s application essay question would not ask prospects about their racial experience. This is just another cynical attempt to consider race by hiding it inside a host of different factors, just as Harvard did with the admission policies which the Court struck.

If Phillips truly believes his claim, it would be a demonstration of just how deeply steeped he is in his racism, given a deep-seated obliviousness. If he does not, his claim demonstrates breathtaking dishonesty.

I Asked a Question

Posted on by
Reply

I asked the following question of Republican Presidential candidate and current North Carolina Senator Tim Scott last Thursday (17 Aug). I’ll follow up with Senator Scott’s answer, or lack, as the case may be.

Senator Scott,

Stipulate that there is a deep state swamp in the executive branch. There are bureaucrats between mid-level and appointed/nominated-senate-confirmed levels who refuse to go along with presidential directives. How would you, as President, go about removing those intransigent ones from federal government employ?

Thank you.

Eric Hines

Do your own Work

Posted on by
Reply

As the US begins, however tentatively, to start severing scientific ties with the People’s Republic of China, some American scientists are manufacturing an alarm and sounding off about it.

China has built itself into a powerful engine of scientific discovery in recent decades, partly with American help, and many in Washington fear that China could gain a security and military advantage unless the US takes decisive steps to cut off cooperation in scientific research.
Many scientists warn, however, that Washington would be severing ties as China is making its greatest contributions to scientific advancements, and cutting it off risks slowing American progress in critical areas such as biotechnology, clean energy, and telecommunications.

Never mind that those scientific achievements have been done with an American help that includes a very large fraction via intellectual property theft, IP gained through economic extortion (give it over, or you can’t do business in the PRC), and outright espionage.

Never mind, either, that other nation’s scientists—those of Canada, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, France, Ukraine(!), and on and on—are every bit as good as the PRC’s, if not better, from the greater freedom of those nations’ economic, political, and research environments. A disruption while the collaborations transition would only be transient.

There’s this aspect of the US-PRC science relationship, too:

The US depends more heavily on China than China does on the US in some strategic areas, according to an analysis by Clarivate [a specialist in science analytics] of studies in respected journals shared exclusively with The Wall Street Journal. Between 2017 and 2021, US-China collaborations accounted for 27% of US-based scientists’ high-quality research in nanoscience, for example, but only 13% of China-based scientists’. The gap in telecommunications was even wider, with collaborations accounting for 10% of China’s output but more than 33% of the US’s.

The science complainers do not see this threat? I’m not sanguine about degree of their…naivete. Regardless, it’s time to end that dependence.

Some of the plaints are just petty, though.

[Tian] Xia, the professor of medicine at UCLA, said he has stopped his research on birth defects because he doesn’t know how to work with embryonic stem cells. That was the expertise of his Chinese collaborators.

A grown man sulking like a toddler. It’s a pity. It’s not that difficult to find experts in embryonic stem cells; that general technology has been around for decades, and there are experts with birth defect-related skills outside of the PRC. Xia just seems upset because he doesn’t get to work with his buds in the PRC as easily as he wants.

Our scientists need to do their own work or collaborate with other scientists in the US and in our friends’ and allies’ nations, and stop sharing our secrets with our enemies.

It’s almost as if these complaining scientists consider their personal careers and researches more important than the security of the nation that encourages and fosters their researches and whose economic, political, and research environment facilitates the flourishing of their research programs, and of their careers.

Why Johnny Can’t Read

Posted on by
Reply

An increasing number of States are looking at passing laws blocking third-graders who can’t read (well enough) from being passed on to fourth grade.

Tennessee, Michigan, and North Carolina are among at least 16 states that have tried in recent years to use reading tests and laws requiring students to repeat third grade to improve literacy. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Nevada have all passed similar laws that will go into effect in the coming years.

Those laws, too, typically include extra tutoring, summer school, and…teacher training (what a concept that last is).

Johnny’s troubles began long before the Wuhan Virus Situation, but the school lockouts lockdowns during that period exacerbated the problem, and they were made manifest when parents, as a result of being locked out of their jobs at the same time, were able to see what actually was happening with their children’s “schooling.” Johnny’s situation was made even more obvious he went back to in-person school.

Know Betters and Coddlers, of course, object. Katherine Bike, a Knox County, TN, school board member, is typical:

I understand they might want to be tackling learning loss, but it’s truly the wrong way to do it. I think the whole thing is unfair.

Her idea of fair: she successfully “appealed” to keep her son from repeating third grade. Because promoting unqualified children to the next grade is what’s fair.

The Know Betters and Coddlers’ fear of what happens when Johnny is held back:

a defeated 18-year-old high-school junior dropping out against [Johnny’s mother’s] wishes.

No. The 18-year-old high-school junior will be defeated by his inability to read, not by his being a year or two older than his classmates.

This is the modern reason why Johhny can’t read. Know Betters and Coddlers don’t care that “can’t read” means can’t read.

Go Ahead On

Posted on by
Reply

IBM was interested in buying the Israeli chip maker, Tower Semiconductor, and the acquisition might have raised antitrust concerns in Israel, the US, the EU, and elsewhere around the world. Each of those antitrust concerns, if acted on, would have had effect only inside the nation raising the concern, however, making the matter purely a business decision whether to go through with the merger and simply not do business in the objection nation. Nobody objected, though, except the People’s Republic of China.

The PRC’s State Administration for Market Regulation balked and withheld approval, so IBM meekly quit the deal altogether, apparently in order to appease the PRC and preserve—IBM hoped—its other business concerns there.

Slow walking or outright blocking tech and other mergers with, or acquisitions by, American companies is part of the PRC’s economic aggression against us as that nation objects to our objecting to the PRC’s economic aggressions and to its tech and intellectual property extortion and theft. IBM is working, it seems, at cross-purposes with our struggle against the PRC.

Other moves by the PRC have included blocking

  • Qualcomm‘s acquisition of Netherland’s chip maker NXP Semiconductors
  • DuPont‘s acquisition of electronics-materials specialist Rogers Corp, an Arizona-headquartered company
  • certain PRC domiciled companies from buying memory chips from US chip giant Micron

It would have been better for IBM—and those other companies, too; IBM‘s managers don’t have a lock on timidity—to proceed with the acquisition and to eliminate the PRC’s antitrust concerns by not doing business associated with the acquisition’s chips inside the PRC or with businesses domiciled inside the PRC. Or for IBM, et al., to stop doing business with the PRC altogether.

It would have been a beneficial twofer had IBM gone ahead on with the acquisition: IBM and Tower merge, Israel, the US, the EU, and most of the rest of the world would reap the benefits of the merging, and IBM and Tower would be out from under the PRC’s regulatory thumb.

It would be beneficial for our nation, too, if the managers of our businesses had the courage to stand up to our enemies and walk away from them.