同时，《哈佛深红报》指出，不能忽视这一波新闻周期的驱动因素——保守派活动家制造了一场全国性的愤怒，意图抹黑高等教育：最早提出剽窃指控的人之一，也是煽动了丢人的全国禁书风潮的保守派愤怒艺术家克里斯托弗·F·鲁弗(Christopher F. Rufo)，提出的所谓小学在教授有关种族问题的高级学术理论的指控，本身就是造谣。鲁弗在自己的推文中“直接而明确地告诉我们，他这样做是为了惩罚哈佛，进而惩罚高等教育的‘无知’”。
正如《纽约时报》专栏作家查尔斯·M·布洛(Charles M. Blow)所言：“黑人妇女看到她们的资历受到无情的攻击，她们的人格受到指责，她们的生活受到玷污。问题并不在于降低了她们成功的门槛，而是提高了门槛，以至于任何不完美都会被夸大为根本缺陷。这些女性被困在他人要求完美的监狱中。”布洛接着问道：当谈及克拉伦斯·托马斯(Clarence Thomas)大法官五花八门的道德问题时，这些人在哪里？
在拜登总统提名凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊(Ketanji Brown Jackson)担任最高法院法官的当天，传统基金会主席凯文·罗伯茨(Kevin Roberts)称她是一名“激进的法官”，并说“她有限的司法记录”显示她“一贯无视宪法”。现在，一个由前川普政府官员经营的智库呼吁对她丈夫的收入来源以及为纪念她宣誓就职而举行的活动的资金来源进行道德调查。
耶鲁大学教授伊利亚·安德森（Elijah Anderson ）曾经说过的一句话给我很大启发。安德森是耶鲁大学社会学和非裔美国人研究的斯特林教授（Sterling Professor，耶鲁大学的最高学术级别，授予被认为是该领域最优秀的终身教职人员），其作品有深远的社会影响。他说：“是的，平权行动的很多努力仅停留在让少数黑人受益的象征性意义上，但即便如此，许多被用来装点门面的黑人还是很成功，导致美国出现了历史上规模最大的黑人中产阶级。”
smeagolrocks:楼下，国会并没有错。The House of Representatives can pass a resolution expressing the sense of the House, ...
国会是在 Gay的听证会后通过的Bipartisan resolution 303对126，很多民主党议员投了赞成票。Stefanik虽然言论激烈但并没有滥用
****
"...for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness...
..Now this overdone or come tardy off, though it makes the unskillful laugh,
cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance overweigh a whole theater of others... "
(Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2)
ShalakoW 发表评论于
smeagolrocks: 楼下，国会并没有错。The House of Representatives can pass a resolution expressing the sense of the House, ...
国会是在 Gay的听证会后通过的Bipartisan resolution 303对126，很多民主党议员投了赞成票。Stefanik虽然言论激烈但并没有滥用职...
****
I understand they as the politicians need to show their hands after a highly tensed testimony, particularly for a politically unchallengeable reason, and passing a resolution is the best way of doing it. A resolution of vigorously condemning Gay's performance in general and her answer to that question in particular would, in terms of playing politics rather than being reasonable, have served their political need perfectly well.
Yet, to play safe (the safest) not for their sounding reason but for their own political career, they came up with the resolution to shield the political end of their own, instead of making a solemn statement for the well-deserved political cause. This overdone led their demand with no binding power to be easily ignored, and the otherwise strong purpose weakened.
Being bipartisan won't change this fact that they are cowards.
ShalakoW 发表评论于
smeagolrocks: "They have no …authority to do anything closely related to that” this indicates a prohibition rather than a mere suggestion of what they should or shouldn't do. BTW l excluded the F this and F that, as it doesn't contribute to a reasoned argument."
****
No, that indicates neither a prohibition, nor a suggestion, nor even an argument. It's stating a fact everyone knows, with an almost naked anger toward those politicians for their cowardice, if without the decoration of those high-flying Fs that I normally would have toned down to..."f@&k".
硅谷工匠 发表评论于
网上一个分析是，强大的势力遇到了不可侵犯的势力。
smeagolrocks 发表评论于
楼下："They have no …authority to do anything closely related to that” this indicates a prohibition rather than a mere suggestion of what they should or shouldn't do. BTW l excluded the F this and F that , as it doesn't contribute to a reasoned argument."
灵动的双子 发表评论于
欣喜地看到极左终于被反噬。
ShalakoW 发表评论于
smeagolrocks: 楼下，国会并没有错。The House of Representatives can pass a resolution expressing the sense of the House, including requesting someone to resign. ...
****
They of course "can", for they won't be fined for doing it. But should they mess up with the business of a private entity merely because they disliked the way the business was run, or even worse, an imperfect answer Claudine Gay gave to a politically loaded question the purpose of which was nothing more than to get her. Did you remember any evidence Stefanik had ever brought up to support her accusations?
They certainly "can" do that, but should they?
楼下，国会并没有错。The House of Representatives can pass a resolution expressing the sense of the House, including requesting someone to resign. However, such a resolution is non-binding and does not have the legal power to compel resignation. It serves as a formal expression of the House's opinion on the matter.
国会是在 Gay的听证会后通过的Bipartisan resolution 303对126，很多民主党议员投了赞成票。Stefanik虽然言论激烈但并没有滥用职权。
无言无语无声 发表评论于
她的学术履历真是像影子一样薄。你说破大天也无可奈何吧？她的傲慢给了DEI 致命打击。
ShalakoW 发表评论于
1
以哈战争后，美国大学持久的支持巴勒斯坦／反对以色列的游行，让共和党(极右派)看到了政治机会，通过一个响当当的政治口号，利用一个模棱两口的理由，几个似是而非的证据，极右派通过对极左派大本营(美国大学)的攻击，达到攻击对手民主党的目的。
无论是听证会本身，还是听证会上的政治叫嚣，都是政客的政治操作，不敢恭维但是民主政治的一部分，因此被视为"fair game“。这是美国政治／政客能做的最多了。
听证会之后的game，倍受挫折后的自我调节/如何调节，是美国大学自已的事情。这是美国的正常运作方式 -- 没有任何机构有绝对的权力。
2，
然而，听证会之后来自美国政治／社会的持续压力，无论是众议院通过"要求哈佛大学解雇校长 Claudine Gay”的决议，Stefanik持续政治压力，一些大款的持续威胁，都超越了美国民主政治运作的界限，成为与中共类似的政府插手决定“哪个想法活／哪个想法死”。共和党保守派崇拜的里根总统曾说，"Government is always the problem.” 而且，上任之初，以减少政府开支为名，里根曾考虑关闭"美国联邦教育部" －－教育是州自己的事情。看看现在的共和党极右派，如此动用政府权力，他们还能称自己是极右派么?
以美国自由灵魂为代价，Stefanik 在利用此事尽力为自己捞取政治成本。 这么做， it's more than just bridge too far, it is a betrayal of Conservatism instead.
3
事实是，在最高法院否定了大学 Affirmative Action 之后，美国很多的极左理念在被社会抛弃，或不得不做出调整。这是自由社会的正常现象／操作程序：自由意志的学术机构向社会提供新的理念，尝试之后社会自己决定接受／修正／拒绝。
Say you want the land of free?
ShalakoW 发表评论于
voiceofme: 但这是左派的DEI露出了破绽被对方揪出来了。所以，正确做法是纠正DEI中极端的做法。
****
1
用政治手段纠正？极左令人讨厌，但在言论自由大原则下, 作为一种政治理念，纠正它绝对不是政府的生意，而是让它在自由社会中被拒绝／被修正。
2
"美国众议院通过两党决议，要求哈佛校长辞职"? Who the fuck did those people believe they are? （这帮人TMD 以为自己是谁?)
美国不仅有极左的大学，还有极右的大学，都是言论自由的产物。如果国会认为自己有权追杀极左大学，日后国会也会觉得自己有权追杀极右大学. Hell No! they have no fucking authority to do anything remotely close to that. It's not their fucking business.
这是最大的原则，你希望放弃它？
3
Stefanik 打着"保护犹太人"的大旗举行国会听证会，就如文革中红卫兵小将打着"保卫毛主席"的大旗开批斗会。再去听听她与哈佛校长听证会上的对话，如果你还听不出来，那....你就听不出来，就如郑旭光至今还坚守在Stefanik 身边。
4
在听到 Claudine Gay 辞职后，Stefanik 居然不依不饶，"不能这么就便宜了她(大意)”? 她还想更加残忍？ For what？What else does she want to do to her? 残忍的政客不是中国才有，美国也是比比皆是。
Stefanik是川普的忠实支持者，成为川普的竞选搭档不要吃惊.
