Hypocrite UCLA Professor Corinne Bendersky wants other women (but not herself) to become firefighters

Corinne Bendersky is Professor of Management and Organizations at UCLA Anderson School of Management, and is also the school’s faculty director of the Human Resources Roundtable Association.

She recently wrote this column for the Harvard Business Review, which is titled “Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive.”

In her column, Bendersky explains why she believes more women should be firefighters.

But she herself is not a firefighter.

My own personal belief is that a woman should choose her own career. If a woman wants to be a firefighter, that’s great. If she’d rather be a doctor, computer programmer, electrical engineer, astronomer, actuary, entrepreneur, stockbroker, accountant, electrician, plumber, carpenter, welder, or construction worker, that should be her choice too. But it should be what she herself wants, not what someone else like Bendersky wants.

I also believe that Bendersky is a hypocrite, because while she wants other women to be firefighters, she herself is not willing to be a firefighter.

Furthermore, I am in favor of meritocracy, and I am against affirmative action.

There already exists at least one real world example of affirmative action in firefighting. The following is an excerpt from my book Barack Obama Is Afraid of Sharyl Attkisson: The definitive guide to the shenanigans of America’s 44th president. It begins on page 59.

Obama made it so firefighters are hired based on race instead of on merit

The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, and Dayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.

It is extremely easy to pass the New York Fire Department’s written test.

The test is multiple choice.

And it’s open book.

And the questions are insultingly easy – here are three examples of actual questions from the test:

A group of firefighters and their officer respond to a fifth floor apartment in a seven-story building. When they arrive at the apartment, they are told that the contents of a wastepaper basket was on fire, and the fire was extinguished prior to their arrival. The officer instructs the firefighters to ventilate, or remove, the smoke from the apartment by first using a method that will not cause damage to property. Which one of the following would be the most appropriate method for the firefighters to use to remove the smoke?

A) Breaking out all the windows with a crowbar.
B) Pulling down the ceiling with a six-foot hook.
C) Cutting through the floors with an eight-pound axe.
D) Manually opening all the windows and removing the screen.

Firefighters are required to operate on the subway tracks during emergencies in the subway stations. Which one of the following would present the greatest threat to the safety of a firefighter working on the subway tracks?

A) A subway platform crowded with people.
B) Rubbish burning in a small garbage can located on a subway platform.
C) A subway car entering a station.
D) A maintenance crew working on the track.

Firefighters conduct building inspections to locate potential life-threatening conditions in the even there is a fire. Which one of the following would the most-serious threat to life in the event of a fire?

A) An unlocked front door in a building.
B) A locked basement door in a building.
C) A car in the driveway of a building.
D) A building with a missing fire escape.

In March 2011, Obama claimed that the above questions were “racist.”

Obama then ordered the New York Fire Department to hire black firefighters who scored only 30% on that test.

That’s 30% right – not 30% wrong.

30%, on an open book, multiple choice test, with questions so easy that you’d have to be a complete idiot to get them wrong.

One of the unqualified black people that Obama pressured them to hire is a guy named Michael D. Johnson.

As of May 2015, Johnson had been working as a firefighter for the past 11 months, and was getting paid an annual salary of $76,488 by the New York Fire Department for his job as a firefighter.

However, during those 11 months, Johnson refused to actually fight fires.

And his supervisors were afraid to fire him because they didn’t want to be accused of “racism.”

December 31, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Racism, Sexism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

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.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with Trump for rescuing the UCLA shoplifters from China

I understand why Trump rescued these guys.

But I’m not sure if I agree, or disagree, with what Trump did.

If they hadn’t been famous athletes, would Trump still have rescued them?

What kind of a message does this send? That’s it’s OK to break the law because you won’t have to pay the price?

And how dumb would someone have to be to shoplift in China, where the punishment is far more severe than in the U.S.?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ucla-basketball-players-admit-shoplifting-china-trump/story?id=51164270

UCLA basketball players admit to shoplifting in China, thank Trump

November 15, 2017

The three UCLA basketball players detained in China last week have admitted to shoplifting and thanked President Donald Trump for helping them return to the U.S.

The players are suspended indefinitely as UCLA reviews the situation, Coach Steve Alford said, adding they will not travel with the team and will not suit up for home games.

Last week, while in China for a game against Georgia Tech, the three players, LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill and Cody Riley, were detained for questioning following shoplifting allegations. The rest of the UCLA team returned home without them on Saturday. Ball, Hill and Riley returned to Los Angeles on Tuesday.

At today’s press conference Riley said he takes “full responsibility for the mistake I have made — shoplifting,” and said he is “embarrassed” and “ashamed.”

Riley thanked the Chinese police and government for taking care of them and he also thanked Trump and the U.S. government for intervening “on our behalf.”

“We really appreciate you helping us out,” he said.

“I will never do anything again to jeopardize UCLA’s reputation,” Riley said.

Ball apologized for “stealing” from the stores in China, calling it a “stupid decision.”

Ball said he “didn’t exercise my best judgment,” adding, “I’ve learned my lesson.”

He also thanked Trump and the U.S. government for helping and said he takes “full responsibility” for his actions.

Hill admitted to shoplifting and thanked the president as well, describing his actions as “stupid” and “childish.”

Alford called the players “good young men” who “exercised an inexcusable lapse of judgment.” The coach, who also apologized on their behalf, said he’s “extremely disappointed” and said the players “let a lot of people down.”

The shoplifting took place on Nov. 6, UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said.

On Nov. 7, police arrived at their hotel to interview students and search bags and the team bus, and once the three suspects were identified, they were escorted to a police station, Guerrero said.

On Nov. 8, the students were released on bail and surrendered their passports, he said.

On Tuesday, local authorities confirmed the students were free to leave the country, and the charges were withdrawn, he said.

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said in a statement Tuesday that “the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Chinese authorities.”

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said Tuesday, “Our primary concern remains the safety and well-being of all members of our community, particularly our students. I am grateful they are headed home.”

Block added, “When members of the UCLA family fail to uphold these values, we review these incidents with fair and thorough processes. In this particular case, both Athletics and the Office of Student Conduct will review this incident and guide any action with respect to the involved students. Such proceedings are confidential, which limits the specific information that can be shared.”

Trump on Tuesday said he personally appealed to China’s President Xi Jingping to help resolve the case. The president said Xi was “terrific” in response to his request and indicated he would intervene.

Today, hours before that players’ press conference, Trump tweeted, “Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!”

November 15, 2017. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump, Sports. Leave a comment.

White liberal protester to black cop: you don’t understand racism

In the video below, despite the fact that the black police officer tells the liberal protestor that he grew up in Jackson Mississippi where blacks and whites had separate bathrooms, and blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, the liberal protestor tells him that he does not understand racism.

At 1:24, the protestor says:

“You are a black man. You are kept down by your race even if you won’t accept it. It is a fact of your life.”

At 1:59 the protestor says:

“You’re a black man. You will never reach the same pinnacle as a white man in this system because you are black.”

Both of her comments sound horribly mean and condescending.

Also, while saying both of these things, the protestor sounds like she is angry at the police officer. She seems to be mad at him because what he says is the opposite of the politically correct things that she thinks all black people are supposed to say. She seem to have tremendous difficulty in dealing with the fact that black people have diversity in their opinions.

The police officer then goes on to say that he does volunteer work to help children of “my community,” which he says includes all races. The protestor then criticizes him because he considers his “community” to include all races, and she says that he should focus on helping the “black community” instead.

The protestor says she is a  U.C.L.A. student and her conversation with him is part of her research. But a legitimate researcher would never argue with the subject whom she is researching. Her so-called “research” is really just an attempt to “prove” that her pre-conceived notions are true, and she is not willing to accept any evidence to the contrary. The real world experience of this black police officer does not conform to the protestor’s theories, and so she has a tremendous amount of difficulty with accepting what he is saying.

As far as her claim that a black man “will never reach the same pinnacle as a white man in this system,” I wonder how she would explain that Barack Obama, a black man, is the most powerful person in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWqMYqFI2tg

 

 

December 12, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Political correctness, Politics, Racism. 1 comment.

“Education” majors accuse UCLA professor of racism for correcting their spelling and grammar

Here’s another reason why the “education” major should be abolished. Over at UCLA, approximately 25 “education” majors staged a sit-in, after accusing their professor of racism because he corrected their spelling and grammar.
(more…)

November 25, 2013. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Dumbing down, Education, Political correctness, Racism. 6 comments.