🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

DOCUMENTS: The University of Michigan’s “anti-racism and racial justice” cluster hire wrapped up last year—recruiting at least 20 new professors. I’ve acquired the proposals via a record request. They show how U-M aggressively hired social justice activists. 🧵🧵🧵

"Policing and decarceration, reparations and wealth inequality, the segregation underlying environmental racism as well as disparities in health and education: racial inequality has spatial dimensions," declares the cover letter for the hire in urban humanities.

If this isn't an explicit political litmus test for new hires, I don't know what is.

The cluster in indigenous studies, meanwhile, promised to hire scholar who would involve students in their scholarship "and social activism."

Then, in 2023, U-M launched the "Michigan Program for Advancing Cultural Transformation," which won a $15.8 million NIH grant but—and this is important, see below—also got $63.7 million from the university itself.

I acquired the Michigan Program for Advancing Cultural Transformation proposal, which makes very clear that the multi-million dollar hiring spree was designed to recruit "a critical mass of faculty committed to DEI."

And then the priests of the Overlord spoke unto the fallen and admonished them: “It is not the job of the oppressed to reform the oppressor. You are of no use to the collective. We need colleagues whose work will deepen and expand our capacity to dismantle the oppressive forces

I agree on value of govt-funded research @ universities. But portraying the Trump era as the start of politicizing research ignores NIH + NSF’s mixing of social justice issues w/serious projects You have to acknowledge this if you’re arguing why the govt should fund research

One of several ironies connected with "diversity" in higher education is that universities became increasingly similar at the same time they were promising to respect/honor/promote difference.

BREAKING: The Florida Board of Governors has rejected Santa Ono for the presidency of University of Florida. This is a massive win for conservatives—and an act of courage by the board.

Just learned from Pamela Paresky🎗️(Habits of a Free Mind) that the grad student who started the Carole Hooven cancellation at Harvard is an assistant professor now. Before that, she had a President’s postdoctoral fellowship, a program John Sailer has called a “scholar-activist pipeline.”

John Sailer wrote about it here: city-journal.org/article/univer…

In his investigative series for City Journal, John Sailer has been exposing how universities use a scholar-activist pipeline to get away with seeding academic institutions with ideological activists. Trust in higher ed has been in decline, and this pipeline helps explain why.

Academia has blatantly discriminated against conservatives for years, peaking over the last ten. If we somehow got a job, progs would do almost anything to cancel us. They still do. NYT doesn't care about academic freedom. It just wants to keep progressive hegemony normative.

Higher pay for the SES is a good idea a lot of people could get behind.

Check out this utterly insane academic book published by Duke University Press titled ''THE WHITES ARE ENEMIES OF HEAVEN.'' In it University of North Carolina Professor Mark Driscoll invents a new concept called ''Climate Caucasianism'' which argues that white men in particular

Universities, even private ones, rely heavily on public funds and a favorable tax/regulatory regime. Going forward, the primary way administrators can get ahead of external political pressures will be to reverse trends towards intellectual uniformity.

Very surprised this isn't bigger news, especially given all the talk of USAID, DEI, and corruption. But yesterday the government secured four guilty pleas for bribery to get over $550 million in special race-based USAID contracts. justice.gov/opa/pr/usaid-o…

NEW: The Harvard Law Review axes 85% of pieces using a rubric that asks about "author diversity." It even axed a piece by an Asian scholar after editors complained that there were "not enough Black" authors. We analyzed 500 new documents from HLR. What we found was shocking.🧵