MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Cheeks on March 29, 2019, 03:42:00 PM
-
David Brooks from NYT
-
Gotta be better than the snooze fest that was Rehnquist.
-
blllleeeerrrrrggggghhhhhh
-
I admit it .. I have a man crush on David Brooks.
How do you scalp tickets to the commencement?
I assume .. will it be at the Chaluparena?
-
I admit it .. I have a man crush on David Brooks.
How do you scalp tickets to the commencement?
I assume .. will it be at the Chaluparena?
Just walk in, brother. No tickets required.
-
Thinking out loud ...
with Milwaukee being in a swing state, and having the democrat convention, do you think MU should ask the presumptive Democrat nominee to be the commencement speaker next year (May 2020)? (assuming we know by April 2020 who it will be)
For the record, I've never been a fan of Brooks. Find him boring on PBS.
Corrected ... added the word “in” ... happy chick?
-
Thinking out loud ...
with Milwaukee being a swing state, and having the democrat convention, do you think MU should ask the presumptive Democrat nominee to be the commencement speaker next year (May 2020)? (assuming we know by April 2020 who it will be)
For the record, I've never been a fan of Brooks. Find him boring on PBS.
Milwaukee is a state? No one tells me these things!
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/d962e8902b34db0e769a1d3c1fa03c27/tenor.gif?itemid=8960821)
-
I have always thought it is a great idea to celebrate the hard work of graduating seniors by picking a politician to speak and ruin the day for half of the attendees. Brilliant!
-
I have always thought it is a great idea to celebrate the hard work of graduating seniors by picking a politician to speak and ruin the day for half of the attendees. Brilliant!
If you are referring to Brooks .. he's not a politician. True, he's a conservative opinion writer and author -- and yeah, over 20 years he's likely written columns that tick people off .. but his speech won't be about politics at all.
His speech will be about character and happiness. I'll bet he does a riff about cura personalis -- and Real Chili.
It'll be about his organization, Weave, which travels the country to find "weavers" who try to heal social fragmentation and loneliness, who "live a life of community and not a life of self."
"The question for each of us is: What can I do today and tomorrow to replace loneliness, division and distrust with relationship, community and purpose? "
If that's not right in Marquette's wheelhouse, I don't know what is.
Signed,
David Brooks Fan Club, Milwaukee Chapter
https://www.youtube.com/v/uKcrGvQXJII
-
If you are referring to Brooks .. he's not a politician. True, he's a conservative opinion writer and author -- and yeah, over 20 years he's likely written columns that tick people off .. but his speech won't be about politics at all.
His speech will be about character and happiness. I'll bet he does a riff about cura personalis -- and Real Chili.
It'll be about his organization, Weave, which travels the country to find "weavers" who try to heal social fragmentation and loneliness, who "live a life of community and not a life of self."
"The question for each of us is: What can I do today and tomorrow to replace loneliness, division and distrust with relationship, community and purpose? "
If that's not right in Marquette's wheelhouse, I don't know what is.
Signed,
David Brooks Fan Club, Milwaukee Chapter
https://www.youtube.com/v/uKcrGvQXJII
There are some people who believe if a person expresses an opinion that differs from theirs, it's politics.
If a person expresses an opinion that is the same as theirs, it's The Truth.
-
I have always thought it is a great idea to celebrate the hard work of graduating seniors by picking a politician to speak and ruin the day for half of the attendees. Brilliant!
Yup. Although at least an elected politician theoretically makes half the attendees happy, and is known for some sort of message or work that is implicitly supported by the school that selected him or her. IMHO David Brooks doesn't bring any more to the table as a commencement speaker than he has in his articles and interviews in the last 30 years.
-
Yup. Although at least an elected politician theoretically makes half the attendees happy, and is known for some sort of message or work that is implicitly supported by the school that selected him or her. IMHO David Brooks doesn't bring any more to the table as a commencement speaker than he has in his articles and interviews in the last 30 years.
The hope with Brooks and/or a politician is they are good public speakers and therefore entertaining.
Plenty of interesting people in the world that are just not good at public speaking.
Arguably the most consequential person to ever speak at commencement was Mother Teresa in 1981. The problem was she is not a very good public speaker in english.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q-Xr2Rr7E
-
If you are referring to Brooks ..
I had no specific speaker in mind
-
Video of the commencement address.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9hT4kLoooTw
-
Video of the commencement address.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9hT4kLoooTw
His first 60 seconds he probably wants a do over
-
I've listened to 4-5 of his commencement addresses. His first few minutes are part of his standard routine, so some of those jokes are 5+ years old, reused every year.
Actually .. of that 20 minute speech .. I've heard 18 of it before.
-
Couldnt be any worse than the 2017 speaker...whom did not speak a word of English. Truly a low point.
-
Couldnt be any worse than the 2017 speaker...whom did not speak a word of English. Truly a low point.
Or having your commencement speaker be a serial rapist...
-
Couldnt be any worse than the 2017 speaker...whom did not speak a word of English. Truly a low point.
If you have a few drinks before the ceremony, none of them will speak English.
-
A transcript of the speech can be found on the Scoop Wiki:
https://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/commencement/2019 (https://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/commencement/2019)
-
David Brooks with an absolute scorching take in the Times today.
-
David Brooks with an absolute scorching take in the Times today.
I thought politics was out here.......
-
A transcript of the speech can be found on the Scoop Wiki:
https://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/commencement/2019 (https://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/commencement/2019)
I thought that was an excellent speech. Made this older gentleman think a bit about those decisions in my life. Thanks for posting the link.
-
I thought politics was out here.......
Didn’t get into specifics and didn’t link anything, and what’s political about a private institution making a choice in what they see is in their own best interest 🤔🤔🤔
-
Didn’t get into specifics and didn’t link anything, and what’s political about a private institution making a choice in what they see is in their own best interest 🤔🤔🤔
So we can now say things like Conway sure had a scorching take this morning, or Noonan, or Buchanan.....at this location without actually linking it? What could go wrong?
The hypocrisy from Harvard is the real story here, but that is nothing new. Group think apparently is diversity now.
-
So we can now say things like Conway sure had a scorching take this morning, or Noonan, or Buchanan.....at this location without actually linking it? What could go wrong?
The hypocrisy from Harvard is the real story here, but that is nothing new. Group think apparently is diversity now.
They did it to 10 kids two years ago over the exact same type of thing so their is a precedent but keep playing the teeny tiny 🎻
College admissions is literally judging kids on behavior and academics they did as kids. Every admissions letter has a clause about it being contingent on xyz. How is this different if a kid got admitted, then flunked out their 2nd semester of senior year?
New information came to light and they made a decision they feel is the best interest of their community.
And if this is group think, put me in the group that doesn’t use horribly racist language.
-
They did it to 10 kids two years ago over the exact same type of thing so their is a precedent but keep playing the teeny tiny 🎻
College admissions is literally judging kids on behavior and academics they did as kids. Every admissions letter has a clause about it being contingent on xyz. How is this different if a kid got admitted, then flunked out their 2nd semester of senior year?
New information came to light and they made a decision they feel is the best interest of their community.
And if this is group think, put me in the group that doesn’t use horribly racist language.
Sorry if I don’t hold 16 year olds to adult standards....because they aren’t adults....legally, maturity, etc.
The young man is fully qualified academically and was admitted as such. A campaign was put out there against him (that is American retribution today) because of his politics. You seem an honest broker Reinko, you know that is what happened here and the young man ousted walked through that yesterday. Meanwhile, there are examples where Harvard let similar statements go entirely unpunished by students, so the example of 10 kids previously is a nothing burger as they move goalposts and apply different standards of justice on same moral actions solely based on group think. Or we could look at The NY Times, maybe we should examine the racist commentary by one of their board members, Sarah Jeong....imagine if this young man just used her exact words (she is an adult), I’m Sure Brooks and the Times would have been just fine....right? That’s the hypocrisy.
-
Sorry if I don’t hold 16 year olds to adult standards....because they aren’t adults....legally, maturity, etc.
The young man is fully qualified academically and was admitted as such. A campaign was put out there against him (that is American retribution today) because of his politics. You seem an honest broker Reinko, you know that is what happened here and the young man ousted walked through that yesterday. Meanwhile, there are examples where Harvard let similar statements go entirely unpunished by students, so the example of 10 kids previously is a nothing burger as they move goalposts and apply different standards of justice on same moral actions solely based on group think. Or we could look at The NY Times, maybe we should examine the racist commentary by one of their board members, Sarah Jeong....imagine if this young man just used her exact words (she is an adult), I’m Sure Brooks and the Times would have been just fine....right? That’s the hypocrisy.
I am, and work in this field, so maybe I’m biased. But again, college admissions is literally the definition of judging kids on their behavior as kids. He took his AP classes as a child, was in lots of extracurriculars as a child, did awesome on his SATs as a child, and yes, made horribly racist remarks as a child.
So I think your example of adults being judged on their behavior as kids is apple and oranges in this instance.
-
Sorry if I don’t hold 16 year olds to adult standards....because they aren’t adults....legally, maturity, etc.
The young man is fully qualified academically and was admitted as such. A campaign was put out there against him (that is American retribution today) because of his politics.
The kid who made numerous racist statements isn't the problem. The kids who exposed his numerous racist statements are the problem.
Blameshifting 101.
-
If I read the Brooks article correctly, he actually said Harvard should have let him in.
It's a hard balance between forgiveness and accountability. I haven't followed the situation closely enough to make a judgement. But if the kid sincerely apologized for his behavior, I would have let him in.
-
If I read the Brooks article correctly, he actually said Harvard should have let him in.
It's a hard balance between forgiveness and accountability. I haven't followed the situation closely enough to make a judgement. But if the kid sincerely apologized for his behavior, I would have let him in.
Harvard apparently did not take his apology to be sincere. You also have to take into account that TPUSA, an organization who has a high profile individual in their leadership ranks who said what Hitler did wrong was go outside of Germany, cut ties with him. Harvard decided that it was in their best interest not to have such an individual enrolling. Also, since he wasn't enrolling until 2020 he has plenty of time to find a new school.
FYI - I also do not believe David Hogg should have been admitted; that was a classic Harvard "celebrity profile over qualifications" admit.
-
So we can now say things like Conway sure had a scorching take this morning, or Noonan, or Buchanan.....at this location without actually linking it? What could go wrong?
The hypocrisy from Harvard is the real story here, but that is nothing new. Group think apparently is diversity now.
DId you read the Brooks piece? He thought Harvard made a mistake.
-
The kid who made numerous racist statements isn't the problem. The kids who exposed his numerous racist statements are the problem.
Blameshifting 101.
Nope. The kid, correct term, made poor statements when he was a kid...he apologized for them. He took ownership of them.
Meanwhile, the school has admitted people with same transgressions and The NY Times has someone on their board that continues to use such language, but apparently that’s all cool. Meanwhile, this young man who did something at 16, is now retroactively punishes while the Times piles on all awhile having someone on their board that can say whatever she damn well pleases. That’s not blameshifting, that is is fact.
-
I am, and work in this field, so maybe I’m biased. But again, college admissions is literally the definition of judging kids on their behavior as kids. He took his AP classes as a child, was in lots of extracurriculars as a child, did awesome on his SATs as a child, and yes, made horribly racist remarks as a child.
So I think your example of adults being judged on their behavior as kids is apple and oranges in this instance.
He applied to Harvard as an adult, 18 years old. He took some of those classes as an adult. I know you have a lovely young daughter (we are connected on social media as you know), and I guarantee you Reinko that your daughter will do things at 16 that she won’t do at 18 and she will find repulsive that she did. The maturity level changes as teenagers is phenomenal. It is part of growing up.
The retribution tactics in this example by Harvard are grotesque considering the immaturity of 16 year old kids. That doesn’t excuse his remarks, but for people that often complain about black and white approaches to things, I find it curious that this isn’t squarely in the grey in between and some common sense deployed.
Apparently it is all the rage of late to see what people did when they were 16....I wonder if every yearbook in America is being looked at? Why not go back to what was said at 14 or 12. It is beyond ridiculous. Society is in a burn and prosecute phase whenever they can do it at this point. Toxic.
-
DId you read the Brooks piece? He thought Harvard made a mistake.
Yes I read it and correct, that was my reading of it as well. My initial question wa whether politics was now allowed back, i don’t think it is. I felt Brooks piece was political...in my opinion...but also correct in the main.
-
There is a reason why juvenile records are sealed, because they are juveniles and do things that lack maturity or reasonable actions. That isn’t blame shifting, that is the law. It is why I would side with that same approach here and error on stupid things said by young kid...same thing for Josh Hader and others that say dumb things at a dumb time in their lives.
-
Nope. The kid, correct term, made poor statements when he was a kid...he apologized for them. He took ownership of them.
Meanwhile, the school has admitted people with same transgressions and The NY Times has someone on their board that continues to use such language, but apparently that’s all cool. Meanwhile, this young man who did something at 16, is now retroactively punishes while the Times piles on all awhile having someone on their board that can say whatever she damn well pleases. That’s not blameshifting, that is is fact.
That's a very bad false equivalency. I mean, if you're going to play whataboutism - the sure sign of a strong argument - at least make sure the situations are remotely similar.
Anyhow, when it comes down to it, Harvard every year is faced with thousands more qualified applicants than it can enroll, and the line between accepted and rejected in many instances is razor thin. If Harvard decides that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments puts an otherwise qualified applicant on the wrong side of that line, that's not unreasonable to me. Apparently it is to you, as you seem to be arguing that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments ought not carry any serious consequences.
You're entitled to that opinion as well, and when you run a private university, you're welcome to accept such applicants to your heart's content.
-
That's a very bad false equivalency. I mean, if you're going to play whataboutism - the sure sign of a strong argument - at least make sure the situations are remotely similar.
Anyhow, when it comes down to it, Harvard every year is faced with thousands more qualified applicants than it can enroll, and the line between accepted and rejected in many instances is razor thin. If Harvard decides that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments puts an otherwise qualified applicant on the wrong side of that line, that's not unreasonable to me. Apparently it is to you, as you seem to be arguing that repeatedly spouting racist sentiments ought not carry any serious consequences.
You're entitled to that opinion as well, and when you run a private university, you're welcome to accept such applicants to your heart's content.
What’s unreasonable is holding something against someone they did at age 16 while allowing the same behavior by others to be ignored. I’m sure you will remain consistent in your arguments next time a 16 or 17 year old breaks the law and should be shown mercy.....or should they?
-
What’s unreasonable is holding something against someone they did at age 16 while allowing the same behavior by others to be ignored.
You've said this several times now, but can you show us recent instances of Harvard accepting students who've done this? As Reinko pointed out, Harvard has rescinded admissions previously under similar circumstances - as have other universities - but I'm not aware of cases in which they've allowed it.
I’m sure you will remain consistent in your arguments next time a 16 or 17 year old breaks the law and should be shown mercy.....or should they?
I'm not sure why the juvenile court system is relevant, given that we're not talking about anyone breaking the law or a government institution. But to answer your question, yes, a 16 or 17 year old who breaks the law needs to be held accountable and face consequences. Is that controversial?
-
A court of law and admission to a college are two very different things. Talk about a straw man.
Anyway I do think Cheeks has a point here. I think he should be admitted because redemption is a powerful human property. But Harvard is well within its eighths to deny. And they’ll be fine doing so.
-
I struggle with the argument that the applicant was too young when making these comments to be punished with rescinded admission. Admission to college is inherently based off nothing but a person's actions from when they are 15-18 years old. How is this not the most plainly foreseeable and age appropriate repercussion imaginable?
-
A court of law and admission to a college are two very different things. Talk about a straw man.
Anyway I do think Cheeks has a point here. I think he should be admitted because redemption is a powerful human property. But Harvard is well within its eighths to deny. And they’ll be fine doing so.
This is about where I'm at. Harvard is well within their rights to rescind based on this information but I also believe in forgiveness and second chances.
-
This is about where I'm at. Harvard is well within their rights to rescind based on this information but I also believe in forgiveness and second chances.
That's fine. I don't care whether Harvard admits him or not. Up to them.
I just think the narrative that this is some unfortunate kid who made a silly mistake and is really being targeted for his political views is asinine. His political views were known before he was admitted. If Harvard's issue were with his political views, they wouldn't have accepted him in the first place and could have avoided this whole kerfuffle.
-
https://twitter.com/samsanders/status/1141150756529065984?s=21
-
On the one hand, I do believe in redemption .. and that kids do stupid stuff. I'd be OK if Harvard reversed their position.
On the other .. (elite) colleges do indeed judge children on the basis of what they did in their youth. For every kid who stupidly utters the n-word and applies to Harvard, there are 1000 kids who did not and are dying to get into Harvard. I'm also OK with Harvard finding the next great kid who doesn't have that stain.
Regardless, it's. so. much. fun. to have this discussion so we can all grind our axes.
-
https://twitter.com/samsanders/status/1141150756529065984?s=21
Sam knows what's up. David's just a more intellectual Brit Hume. Winning the battle of relativity doesn't make you not a blowhard
-
That's fine. I don't care whether Harvard admits him or not. Up to them.
I just think the narrative that this is some unfortunate kid who made a silly mistake and is really being targeted for his political views is asinine. His political views were known before he was admitted. If Harvard's issue were with his political views, they wouldn't have accepted him in the first place and could have avoided this whole kerfuffle.
How do you know this?
His political views is what got a third party with an axe to grind to approach Harvard after the fact and demand they rescind his acceptance. This is the society we live in now. Meanwhile, David Hogg who couldn’t get in to a majority of schools he applied to (his own admission), will be at Harvard despite some outlandish comments....go figure.
The hypocrisy here of what some people do at 16 and get a pass because of age and others don’t because is truly interesting.
One other note Pakuni on your comment about Asian acceptance rates at Harvard....the Asian American population in the US the last 30 years has grown 29.4%.
-
NM. No value in debating some people.
-
This is about where I'm at. Harvard is well within their rights to rescind based on this information but I also believe in forgiveness and second chances.
As a "kid" (16) he engaged racist language in private messages. As an "adult" (18) he aligned himself with a political organization that is beset by multiple high profile racist incidents.
At what point does a coincidence turn into a pattern thus rendering a second chance unearned?
-
His political views is what got a third party with an axe to grind to approach Harvard after the fact and demand they rescind his acceptance. This is the society we live in now. Meanwhile, David Hogg who couldn’t get in to a majority of schools he applied to (his own admission), will be at Harvard despite some outlandish comments....go figure.
The grassroots effort to rescind the admission of Kashuv was begun by Laura Loomer and Mike Cernovich.
I'm sure you're familiar with the work of those two intellectual heavyweights.
-
There is a reason why juvenile records are sealed, because they are juveniles and do things that lack maturity or reasonable actions.
I am sure you care just as much about brown kids who have done nothing wrong but are taken from their parents at the border right?
Really you don't care about this guy. You care about making another anti-intellectual point.