No jail for Eric Clanton, the Antifa “ethics” professor who used a metal bike lock to assault seven innocent Trump supporters

This video shows a masked Antifa thug using a metal bike lock to smash the head of an innocent Trump supporter at Berkeley, California, in April 2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg

Some awesomely talented amateur sleuth observers at 4chan later identified the thug based on his partially visible face, his clothing, and several other things.

Any one of these things by itself is pretty meaningless. But taken together, it is extremely likely that they identified the correct person.

For specific details, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The police also did their own investigation, and when they searched the person’s house, they found clothing and other items that matched that of the person in the video. Phone records also show that the person was present during the assault.

And it turns out that the thug is left wing Diablo Valley College “ethics” professor Eric Clanton.

Clanton supports shoplifting, opposes private ownership of property, and has defended convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Earlier this month, we got this new article, which says that Clanton won’t be getting any prison time for his brutal assaults against seven innocent Trump supporters.

It says he used the metal bike lock to assault the heads of at least seven people. It also details the evidence the police found in his home tying him to these attacks.

It’s completely despicable that Clanton is not getting any prison time for what he did.

August 30, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Social justice warriors, Violent crime. 2 comments.

Real world evidence proves that affirmative action hurts black people

This article is from the Atlantic – not exactly a bastion of the political right.

It says that although the supporters of affirmative action have good intentions, the actual results are that the policy hurts black students. It hurts them by putting them into schools that are above their ability, so they either end up dropping out, or, they abandon the STEM major that they had wanted in exchange for an easier major.

It also talks about how blacks are more likely to have white friends at the school if the school does not have affirmative action, because people tend to choose friends who are of the same academic ability as their own.

It also talks about how blacks are happier at schools that don’t have affirmative action because there is never any question as to their qualifications.

It also says that the same problems happen with white students who are admitted for athletic reasons, and for legacy admissions too.

But most importantly, it says that blacks benefited when UCLA banned affirmative action. After the school ended affirmative action, the number of black freshman was cut in half. However, the number of blacks from these freshman classes who went on to graduate stayed the same.

In other words, UCLA’s elimination of affirmative action did not reduce the number of blacks who graduated from UCLA. Instead, UCLA’s elimination of affirmative action only reduced the number of blacks who dropped out of UCLA.

So instead of getting admitted to UCLA by affirmative action and then dropping out of UCLA because the work at UCLA was too hard for them, these blacks ended up going to easier colleges, where they were admitted based on merit, so they were capable of doing the work, and so they had a much better chance of graduating.

I’d also like to comment on this one sentence from a different article which was published in the New York Times:

“A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities.”

That sentence is in complete agreement with everything that is in the Atlantic article. That one sentence explains how affirmative actions sets blacks up for failure and dropping out by putting them into schools that are too difficult for them. We should get rid of affirmative action, and put blacks into schools that they get into based on merit. That way, they will have a much better chance of graduating.

Here is the Atlantic article. The bolding is mine:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action

Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students — and shroud the education system in dishonesty.

October 2, 2012

Affirmative action in university admissions started in the late 1960s as a noble effort to jump-start racial integration and foster equal opportunity. But somewhere along the decades, it has lost its way.

Over time, it has become a political lightning rod and one of our most divisive social policies. It has evolved into a regime of racial preferences at almost all selective schools — preferences so strikingly large and politically unpopular that administrators work hard to conceal them. The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper-middle-class minorities on whom they often inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working-class and poor people of all races are given short shrift. Academic leaders often find themselves flouting the law and acting in ways that aggravate the worst consequences of large preferences. They have become prisoners of a system that many privately deplore for its often-perverse unintended effects but feel they cannot escape.

The single biggest problem in this system — a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research — is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively — even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.

We refer to this problem as “mismatch,” a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures.

The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference — sometimes because of a student’s athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student’s race — that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him — they are teaching to the “middle” of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student.

The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and his classmates race ahead. His grades on his first exams or papers put him at the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.

When explaining to friends how academic mismatch works, we sometimes say: Think back to high school and recall a subject at which you did fine but did not excel. Suppose you had suddenly been transferred into an advanced class in that subject with a friend who was about at your level and 18 other students who excelled in the subject and had already taken the intermediate course you just skipped. You would, in all likelihood, soon be struggling to keep up. The teacher might give you some extra attention but, in class, would be focusing on the median student, not you and your friend, and would probably be covering the material at what, to you, was a bewildering pace.

Wouldn’t you have quickly fallen behind and then continued to fall farther and farther behind as the school year progressed? Now assume that you and the friend who joined you at the bottom of that class were both black and everyone else was Asian or white. How would that have felt? Might you have imagined that this could reinforce in the minds of your classmates the stereotype that blacks are weak students?

So we have a terrible confluence of forces putting students in classes for which they aren’t prepared, causing them to lose confidence and underperform even more while, at the same time, consolidating the stereotype that they are inherently poor students. And you can see how at each level there are feedback effects that reinforce the self-doubts of all the students who are struggling.

Of course, being surrounded by very able peers can confer benefits, too — the atmosphere may be more intellectually challenging, and one may learn a lot from observing others. We have no reason to think that small preferences are not, on net, beneficial. But contemporary racial preferences used by selective schools — especially those extended to blacks and Native Americans — tend to be extremely large, often amounting to the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points.

At the University of Texas, whose racial preference programs come before the Supreme Court for oral argument on October 10, the typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college-aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. This is the sort of academic gap where mismatch flourishes. And, of course, mismatch does not occur merely with racial preferences; it shows up with large preferences of all types.

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Given the severity of the mismatch problem, and the importance of diversity issues to university leaders, one might expect that understanding and addressing mismatch would be at the very top of the academic agenda.

But in fact it is a largely invisible issue. With striking uniformity, university leaders view discussion of the mismatch problem as a threat to affirmative action and to racial peace on campuses, and therefore a subject to be avoided. They suppress data and even often ostracize faculty who attempt to point out the seriousness of mismatch. (See, for instance, the case of UT professor Lino Graglia, who was condemned by university officials after he observed that black and Mexican-American students were “not academically competitive” with their white peers.) We believe that the willful denial of the mismatch issue is as big a problem as mismatch itself.

A powerful example of these problems comes from UCLA, an elite school that used large racial preferences until the Proposition 209 ban took effect in 1998. The anticipated, devastating effects of the ban on preferences at UCLA and Berkeley on minorities were among the chief exhibits of those who attacked Prop 209 as a racist measure. Many predicted that over time blacks and Hispanics would virtually disappear from the UCLA campus.

And there was indeed a post-209 drop in minority enrollment as preferences were phased out. Although it was smaller and more short-lived than anticipated, it was still quite substantial: a 50 percent drop in black freshman enrollment and a 25 percent drop for Hispanics. These drops precipitated ongoing protests by students and continual hand-wringing by administrators, and when, in 2006, there was a particularly low yield of black freshmen, the campus was roiled with agitation, so much so that the university reinstituted covert, illegal racial preferences.

Throughout these crises, university administrators constantly fed agitation against the preference ban by emphasizing the drop in undergraduate minority admissions. Never did the university point out one overwhelming fact: The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor’s degrees were the same for the five classes after Prop 209 as for the five classes before.

How was this possible? First, the ban on preferences produced better-matched students at UCLA, students who were more likely to graduate. The black four-year graduation rate at UCLA doubled from the early 1990s to the years after Prop 209.

Second, strong black and Hispanic students accepted UCLA offers of admission at much higher rates after the preferences ban went into effect; their choices seem to suggest that they were eager to attend a school where the stigma of a preference could not be attached to them. This mitigated the drop in enrollment.

Third, many minority students who would have been admitted to UCLA with weak qualifications before Prop 209 were admitted to less elite schools instead; those who proved their academic mettle were able to transfer up to UCLA and graduate there.

Thus, Prop 209 changed the minority experience at UCLA from one of frequent failure to much more consistent success. The school granted as many bachelor degrees to minority students as it did before Prop 209 while admitting many fewer and thus dramatically reducing failure and drop-out rates. It was able, in other words, to greatly reduce mismatch.

But university officials were unable or unwilling to advertise this fact. They regularly issued statements suggesting that Prop 209’s consequences had caused unalloyed harm to minorities, and they suppressed data on actual student performance. The university never confronted the mismatch problem, and rather than engage in a candid discussion of the true costs and benefits of a ban on preferences, it engineered secret policies to violate Prop 209’s requirement that admissions be colorblind.

The odd dynamics behind UCLA’s official behavior exist throughout the contemporary academic world. The quest for racial sensitivity has created environments in which it is not only difficult but downright risky for students and professors, not to mention administrators, to talk about what affirmative action has become and about the nature and effects of large admissions preferences. Simply acknowledging the fact that large preferences exist can trigger accusations that one is insulting or stigmatizing minority groups; suggesting that these preferences have counterproductive effects can lead to the immediate inference that one wants to eliminate or cut back efforts to help minority students.

The desire to be sensitive has sealed off failing programs from the scrutiny and dialogue necessary for healthy progress. It has also made racial preferences a force for economic inequality: academically well-prepared working class and poor Asian and white students are routinely passed over in favor of black and Hispanic students who are more affluent as well as less well-prepared.

The way racial preferences affect student outcomes is only part of the story. Equally relevant is the way the academic community has proved unequal to the task of reform — showing great resourcefulness in blocking access to information, enforcing homogenous preference policies across institutions, and evading even legal restrictions on the use of preferences. All of this makes the quest for workable reforms — which are most likely to come from the Supreme Court — both more complex and more interesting than one might at first suspect.

 

June 5, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Education, Racism. Leave a comment.

Mainstream media ignores Diablo Valley College left wing “ethics” professor Eric Clanton, who smashed a metal bike lock against an innocent person’s head

Earlier this month at Berkeley, California, a partially masked thug smashed a metal bike lock against an innocent person’s head.

Some awesomely talented sleuth observers at 4chan have identified the thug based on his partially visible face, his clothing, and several other things.

And it turns out that the thug is left wing Diablo Valley College “ethics” professor Eric Clanton.

Clanton supports shoplifting, opposes private ownership of property, and has defended convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Although it’s been several days since Clanton has been identified as the thug, the mainstream media has chosen to ignore what he did.

The mainstream media has failed to do its job.

Here are some articles and videos about the evidence that the amateur investigators at 4chan used to identify Clanton. Any one of these pieces of evidence by itself would not mean much. But when all of them are put together, the odds of it not being Clanton are infinitesimal:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/antifa-terrorist-beat-bloodied-trump-supporter-bike-lock-identified-professor-video/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/new-video-antifa-member-professor-eric-clanton-beating-trump-supporters-bike-lock-media/

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/masked-antifa-terrorist-who-beat-free-speech-supporter-bike-lock-identified

http://gotnews.com/marxist-public-college-professor-accused-murder-attempts-berkeley-free-speech-rally/

http://goldengatexpress.org/2017/04/23/berkeley-police-investigate-alumnus-connection-to-rally-assault/

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/4chan-identifies-masked-antifa-bike-lock-attacker-as-professor-eric-clanton/69758583/

http://conservativefiringline.com/activists-say-berkeley-anti-fascist-attacker-college-instructor-eric-clanton/

https://www.everipedia.com/eric-clanton/

https://twitter.com/polNewsNet/status/854908065472229376

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-66TH-TVuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBw_BlurdIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKydKJKTixo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQhtkonhc0

 

April 25, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , . Media bias, Social justice warriors, Violent crime. 1 comment.

Berkeley protesters form human chain to stop white students from getting to class

In my opinion, any college student who tries to physically prevent other students from getting to class should be expelled.

Whatever their actual goal was, the only result they could possibly get from this kind of thing is to show the whole world that they are bullies.

And please keep in mind that this is not just any college – this is one of the most prestigious colleges in the U.S.

Actually, it seems to be that the more prestigious the college, the more dumb the protestors are.

I’m guessing that in this group of protestors, there are probably exactly zero STEM majors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6dzZdceT4

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/berkeley-protesters-form-human-chain-stop-white-st/

Berkeley protesters form human chain to stop white students from getting to class

October 24, 2016

Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.

The demonstrators were caught on video blocking Berkeley’s Sather Gate, holding large banners advocating the creation of physical spaces segregated by race and gender identity, including one that read “Fight 4 Spaces of Color.”

Protesters can be heard shouting “Go around!” to white students who attempt to go through the blockade, while students of color are greeted with calls of “Let him through!”

Students turned away by the mob are later shown filing through trees and ducking under branches in order to cross Strawberry Creek, which runs underneath the bridge.

Protesting students went on to march through the Berkeley Student Union, chanting and disrupting students who are studying.

One student, who was not a part of the protest, tells the videomaker that the demonstrators are “being quite childish.”

“I agree with the right to protest, but disrupting the peace of others is not OK,” he says.

The group later occupies the school store, chanting “Students Over Profits!” They place an “eviction notice” on the store, which claims the university “wrongly allocated this two-story facility to third-party corporations, keeping in line with its intensifying legacy of prioritizing financial profit over student needs.”

Demonstrators finally made their way to an intersection in front of campus, where students blocked traffic and chanted, “Whose university? Our university!”

October 25, 2016. Tags: , , , , , . Racism, Social justice warriors. 1 comment.

Berkeley man dies after pro-Michael Brown protesters delay paramedics

http://thepunditpress.com/2014/12/23/berkeley-man-dies-after-pro-michael-brown-protesters-delayed-paramedics/

Berkeley Man Dies After Pro-Michael Brown Protesters Delay Paramedics

December 23, 2014

A Berkeley man has died thanks to protesters who claim they are protesting against unnecessary deaths.

The man, who lived in a Kittredge Street apartment complex, collapsed several days ago while protests were going on in the streets around his home.

Paramedics attempted to rush to his aid, but were slowed and sometimes stopped by protesters. The protesters were demonstrating in favor of Michael Brown, an African American teen who was shot and killed after he assaulted and charged at a white police officer.

The protesters claimed they were in the streets to bring attention to unnecessary deaths caused by rash behavior.

The Berkeley man was eventually reached by paramedics and rushed to the hospital, but he passed away there. His death was likely preventable, but help arrived too late because of protesters.

“Anytime there is a delay it causes us concern,” said Berkeley Fire Chief Gil Dong. “Our objective is to get there rapidly so we can start treating the patient.” He was not able to comment further because of privacy laws.

Separately, a staffer stated that “no one could get to” the man in need, who was experiencing shortness of breath, “difficulty breathing, and sweating.”

When the delayed paramedics arrived, the man was already unconscious.

 

December 23, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , . Health care, Politics, Racism. 5 comments.