In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The historian for Yale University's student humor magazine told TPM on Monday that it wouldn't surprise him if Ben Carson fell for the publication's prank involving a fake psychology exam when the GOP presidential candidate was a student there.
Aspects of the retired neurosurgeon's biography have come under intense scrutiny in recent days, including an anecdote in his 1990 book "Gifted Hands" about being dubbed the "most honest" student in a psychology course he took during his junior year at Yale. His camp pushed back hard Sunday on a Wall Street Journal report that called his telling of that tale into question.
Carson posted an article from the Yale Daily News to his Facebook page by way of corroborating his version of events. The article, dated Jan. 14, 1970, explained that the school's humor magazine, The Yale Record, published a notice for a psychology exam makeup session as part of an issue parodying the News. The WSJ noted that, according to the Yale Daily News' timeline, the "hoax" exam actually was held during the second semester of Carson's freshman year.
Carson referred repeatedly to a "notice" about the makeup exam in "Gifted Hands." He wrote that the other students filtered out of the room after agreeing that they could simply pretend they never saw notice of the makeup testing session. As for himself: "Like the others, I was tempted to walk out, but I had read the notice, and I couldn’t lie and say I hadn’t," he wrote.
“That does sound like a Yale Record kind of prank because it’s intense, you know. It goes on and on,” Michael Gerber, a satirist who is credited with rebooting the Record in 1989 and now serves as the historian for the foundation overseeing the magazine, told TPM. "That wouldn't surprise me."
Two former Yalies who managed the Record around that time were Tim Bannon and “Doonesbury” cartoonist Garry Trudeau. Bannon did not immediately respond Monday morning to a request for comment from TPM. Trudeau responded to TPM with a brief email: "I’m sorry, afraid I can’t help on this one."
Gerber cautioned that the two men, who graduated in 1970, may have already left the Record before it published the parody issue of the Yale Daily News and would therefore have no knowledge of the prank.
On November 10 2015 07:43 IgnE wrote: I agree wth xdaunt that it does seem weird the president would resign after protests about a shit swastika and some reports of isolated racism. It's unclear to me at this point how many incidents there were, whether the racism is coming from students/alumni/townies/rabblerousers, or whether there's other stuff we aren't aware of. It is Missouri, and Ferguson is still fresh in people's minds so maybe that has amplified tensions on both sides.
But still, it is odd. I am truly surprised he felt the need to resign. Unless it's pervasive racism among certain members of the student body or something, it seems weird the president is stepping down unless he's just being pressured by other officials to resolve this as quickly and quietly as possible. Or maybe his resignation is a sign of something bigger still to come that hasn't been mentioned in the reporting so far. It just seems like there has to be more to the story.
He was absolutely strong armed into resigning because of the football team's threat to boycott. They would lose more money on that game than they lose in his entire salary plus a severance. Schools rely on football money.
Yes, this is exactly right. The remaining question is still how pressure reached this critical mass and why.
Plansix are you replying to me? I wasn't really attempting to have any sort of connotation to my post, but it sounds like you are being sarcastic.
But if we go there, I will say I think it is unhealthy for someone to have bias towards solidarity with people who look like them over solidarity towards people in general. Actually, I think it's racist. But who wants to go there. Not most people, that's for sure. Can't touch that shit lol. At least not offline.
On November 10 2015 08:05 travis wrote: Plansix are you replying to me? I wasn't really attempting to have any sort of connotation to my post, but it sounds like you are being sarcastic.
But if we go there, I will say I think it is unhealthy for someone to have bias towards solidarity with people who look like them over solidarity towards people in general. Actually, I think it's racist. But who wants to go there. Not most people, that's for sure. Can't touch that shit lol
Your feelings aside, I would point out that no one listens to minority groups until they do this. Systematic racism has been a problem for the state of Missouri for a couple of years now and its been building for longer. The problems are not limited to just Ferguson and sadly the only way anyone gives a shit about them is if people take drastic measures like this. And yes, those feeling of oppression and being marginalized were not limited to Ferguson either. And to be clear, the department of justice found that Ferguson suffered from systematic racism in its police and government. But apparently the university didn't feel they suffered from the problems, despite the personal testimony of the staff and students.
So I understand that you don't like that minorities seem to all band together in what you perceive to be a biased manner. But to them, no one gives a fuck about them until they do. In this most recent case, the school gave lip service until the football team threatened to cost them millions. So in the sense that it is a problem that this is the only way minorities feel they will be listened to, I agree. But I don't' agree that its a problem the minorities are responsible for fixing.
And I wasn't being sarcastic, to be clear. This is how every disenfranchised group forces change, by banding together.
As a side note, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump jumped on this firing and made it a talking point. It fits perfectly into his rhetoric and he's a media savvy dude.
On November 10 2015 08:18 ampson wrote: As a side note, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump jumped on this firing and made it a talking point. It fits perfectly into his rhetoric and he's a media savvy dude.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a South Park episode.
I was first surprised when he resigned so quickly. But seeing him talk about it it is quite clear that he feels betrayed and is "broken" by the perceived betrayal. He clearly was a guy who saw himself as "one of the good guys" and in tune with minority groups and the progressive community. Then all this stuff happens and he responds in a way he thinks is appropriate (and progressive) and gets killed by the exact people he thought he was a part of.
Lol yeah, I'm sure he felt like part of the solution as he sat on his hands in the face of a burgeoning race issue that threatened the schools largest money maker.
I find it funny that conservatives are willing to overlook an obvious administrative failure on the part of such a highly paid public employee so long as allegations of racism are in the foreground . It doesn't take a genius to see that keeping the minorities that make your school's cash cow moo happy is a smart decision on the part of a highly public official like university provost or president. The man is incompetent if nothing else. I mean, come on, Ferguson isn't even that far away lol.
Well he's obviously incompetent. <insert zinger about university officials here>
But also because he doesn't understand the culture of his University. He either had to be a total warrior for the cause or be a defiant, principled person who truly believed in his positions.
I guess the question I would ask about the people skeptical of the systemic racism on campus or thinking this is just about the incidents mentioned in most articles, is when was it eliminated? What year are people imagining the clearly racist foundation the school was built on was no longer a systemic issue?
I would suggest what's different now isn't so much that systemic racism has come back, but that victims of it have had their voices lifted to a level they haven't had since the days of MLK combined with evidence not limited by the systemically corrupted and racist justice system. + Show Spoiler +
(For those who say that things would work better if protesters imitated King, please remind me why it was he stopped protesting again?)
I'm largely reluctant to make any strong claim on the topic; and mostly I think people are too sure of themselves one way or the other on the issue; none of us have actually been in the area for years to really know how things have been developing, and we're relying on media reports mostly. We could easily have an inaccurate estimation of the situation, so I urge caution in rushing to judgement.
On November 10 2015 08:45 cLutZ wrote: Well he's obviously incompetent. <insert zinger about university officials here>
But also because he doesn't understand the culture of his University. He either had to be a total warrior for the cause or be a defiant, principled person who truly believed in his positions.
Let's face it. The student body isn't going to settle for anything less than this guy:
I'm okay with the general idea of people using social shaming to curb undesirable behavior, but I tend to think that it's being taken rather far by some groups today. That said, I am not okay with using the government to conduct these types of social engineering projects except in extreme circumstances (such as desegregation).
On November 10 2015 09:02 zlefin wrote: I'm largely reluctant to make any strong claim on the topic; and mostly I think people are too sure of themselves one way or the other on the issue; none of us have actually been in the area for years to really know how things have been developing, and we're relying on media reports mostly. We could easily have an inaccurate estimation of the situation, so I urge caution in rushing to judgement.
Spend just a little time looking up the area and it should be pretty clear how things developed. I get not everyone pays attention (I've realized I was pretty clueless about indigenous people's struggles), but let's not pretend we can't easily see the area and campus have had these sorts of complaints going on for a long time.
On November 10 2015 07:57 Plansix wrote: Once again, the censorship term is thrown out when students reminded to think about their fellow class mates before picking provocative costumes. And this time by a professor, who decided the hill he was going to die on was racially insensitive Halloween costumes.
That doesn't seem like a big deal. But to a black student, it says to the school won't take them seriously if they report racism. And this is likely reinforced by their previous experiences with reporting racism in their life.
Did you watch the video of the prof talking to the group of protesting students?
On November 10 2015 07:57 Plansix wrote: Once again, the censorship term is thrown out when students reminded to think about their fellow class mates before picking provocative costumes. And this time by a professor, who decided the hill he was going to die on was racially insensitive Halloween costumes.
That doesn't seem like a big deal. But to a black student, it says to the school won't take them seriously if they report racism. And this is likely reinforced by their previous experiences with reporting racism in their life.
Did you watch the video of the prof talking to the group of protesting students?
On November 10 2015 07:57 Plansix wrote: Once again, the censorship term is thrown out when students reminded to think about their fellow class mates before picking provocative costumes. And this time by a professor, who decided the hill he was going to die on was racially insensitive Halloween costumes.
That doesn't seem like a big deal. But to a black student, it says to the school won't take them seriously if they report racism. And this is likely reinforced by their previous experiences with reporting racism in their life.
Did you watch the video of the prof talking to the group of protesting students?
You need to be more specific.
This is the husband of the woman who sent out the email defending the students right to wear potentially offensive halloween costumes.
On November 10 2015 07:57 Plansix wrote: Once again, the censorship term is thrown out when students reminded to think about their fellow class mates before picking provocative costumes. And this time by a professor, who decided the hill he was going to die on was racially insensitive Halloween costumes.
That doesn't seem like a big deal. But to a black student, it says to the school won't take them seriously if they report racism. And this is likely reinforced by their previous experiences with reporting racism in their life.
Did you watch the video of the prof talking to the group of protesting students?
This is the husband of the woman who sent out the email defending the students right to wear potentially offensive halloween costumes.
Entitled Ivy Leaguers gonna Ivy League. They will whine about not quite getting everything even though they have more opportunities than any other group of people in the history of the world. That is just what they do.
But a football team refusing to play football? That is a real statement. And then you have the pretty good set of evidence (poop swastika, multiple N-word incidents, racist structures of the past in that area). And now it looks like we have two resignations by people who had choice, cushy, high paying jobs. That is a lot of actual evidence lending credence to what this set of protesters is saying. Skepticism of claims is warranted, but you need to actually weigh the facts. The facts look strong in Missouri (stupid in Yale).
On November 10 2015 07:57 Plansix wrote: Once again, the censorship term is thrown out when students reminded to think about their fellow class mates before picking provocative costumes. And this time by a professor, who decided the hill he was going to die on was racially insensitive Halloween costumes.
That doesn't seem like a big deal. But to a black student, it says to the school won't take them seriously if they report racism. And this is likely reinforced by their previous experiences with reporting racism in their life.
Did you watch the video of the prof talking to the group of protesting students?
This is the husband of the woman who sent out the email defending the students right to wear potentially offensive halloween costumes.
Yeah, I don't really agree with him and the title of the video is fucking comical. Cyberbullies my ass. He is talking about free speech like something is being taken away. They have a right to wear the costumes and no one was removing that. The email in question said asked students not to wear them out of respect for their fellow students who are minorities. There is no requirement to do so, but the school is telling the minority students they are not required to like it either or remain quite about those costumes.
This is the shit we feel is important now, racially insensitive Halloween costumes? Like really? I will say the same thing I say every time someone complaints about people being upset about offensive jokes. If you tell an offensive joke and someone doesn't laugh, it was just offensive. To exist with minorities on campus, people might have to tone down how funny they think racist jokes are. Or maybe just use fucking common sense and wear racially insensitive Halloween costumes around minorities.
A Native American tribe that sought to open the nation's first marijuana resort, in South Dakota, burned its crop after federal officials said a raid was possible, the tribal president said Monday.
Flandreau Santee Sioux President Anthony Reider told The Associated Press the tribe had three weeks of discussions with authorities that culminated with a meeting in Washington that included a Justice Department official and U.S. Attorney for South Dakota Randolph Seiler.
Reider said the tribe wasn't told a raid was imminent — only that one was possible if the government's concerns weren't addressed. He said the main holdup is whether the tribe may sell marijuana to non–Native Americans. Also at issue is the origin of the seeds used for its crop.
Calls by the AP to the Justice Department's Office of Tribal Justice weren't immediately returned. A spokesman for Seiler said he would have no comment.
The tribe had planned to open a lounge selling marijuana on New Year's Eve. It was the first tribe in South Dakota to legalize the drug after the U.S. Department of Justice's decision last year to allow tribes to do so on tribal land.
EPT![[image loading]](https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnC3NegnG4rcy6Q/giphy.gif)
