Just to fill in the Nooz, here are a few items:
First, there’s a Google Doodle (click on screenshot below) celebrating the “Rise of the Half Moon”, in which you can play a game demonstrating your knowledge of the lunar cycle.
*Slate has an article criticizing the institutional neutrality of universities (as embodied in Chicago’s Kalven Report). Why? Because these are parlous times (e.g., Trump is running and universities ust denounce him and his policies. The author happens to be the President of Wesleyan University!
This may seem straightforward, but in the wake of Oct. 7 and controversies over statements (or the lack of statements) concerning the atrocities, many academic leaders have embraced a doctrine of “institutional neutrality.” Recalling the bruising hearings with lawmakers in December 2023 and the campus protests of last spring, it seemed to many safer to celebrate a doctrine that called for silence. Few people, of course, want corporate-sounding university statements that say next to nothing while trying to please everyone, but now presidents, deans, and others are being told not to participate in debates about the issues of the day. After years of encouraging “more speech” as a sign of a school’s commitment to freedom of expression, the fear of offending students, faculty, and, especially, lawmakers and donors has led many academic leaders to retreat from the public sphere.
This is exactly the wrong time for such a retreat. Although academic leaders usually stay neutral about a candidate’s political statements, today’s campaign rhetoric is not politics as usual. The threats to higher education made by former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance are not subtle. Although for decades schools have interacted well with Republican and Democratic representatives, the brazen VP candidate has declared that “universities are the enemy.” The Trump agenda promises to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion departments and to punish those schools who do not live up to a right-wing version of civil rights standards. Trump has promised to close down the Department of Education and fire the accreditors who now certify which schools are eligible for governmental support. The folks who brought us the fraudulent Trump University now threaten to dismantle a higher-education ecosystem that is still (for now) the envy of the rest of the world. We must not be neutral about this.
The problem is, of course, that ideologues will always maintain that this ia a crucial election, and the university must pronounce on it. If ever there was a slippery slope, this is one. And the article makes an error:
External controlling of the curriculum, monitoring entrance exams, and policing faculty are direct threats to our educational missions, and these are not the only ones. Institutional leaders should also be speaking out against the mass deportation the Republican nominees threaten. So many of our schools have made a place for Dreamers, those students who were brought to the United States as children, and whose status in a second Trump administration is uncertain. Now Trump has promised to deport legal immigrants as well. His nasty nativism is antithetical to the recruitment of international students, a practice that has been a boon to higher education and to the world. We must not be neutral about this.
Apparently author Roth doesn’t realize that the University did issue an official pronouncement favoring protection of the Dreamers and legislation to keep them here. Other stuff that the overheated author wants us to issue statements about has nothing to do the mission of a University:
Educators should give up the popular pastime of criticizing the woke and call out instead the overt racism that has rippled through the Trump campaign over the past few months. The rhetoric about pet-eating Haitians is the most sensational example, but when a presidential candidate speculates about immigrants’ genetic disposition to commit crimes while also calling minorities “vermin,” we are fully in the zone of racist hate.
We do not call out stuff like making false assertions that Haitians eat dogs. Stupid though it is, what does that have to do with the mission of a university?
*Once again Anthony Blinken has made a futile trip to Israel to try persuading the Jewish state to lose the war. Apparently he envisions a Gaza ruled by the Palestinian Authority, a position he’s held for some time, and a position that’s beyond stupid.
The United States sees a new opportunity to revive cease-fire efforts after the killing of top Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar by Israeli forces in Gaza last week. But there’s no indication that the warring parties have modified their demands since talks stalled over the summer.
There was also no immediate sign of a breakthrough after Blinken met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials on Tuesday.
Israel blamed the failure of talks on Sinwar’s hard-line stance, but Hamas says its demands for a lasting cease-fire, full Israeli withdrawal and the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners have not changed. Hamas blamed the failure of the talks on Israel’s demand for a lasting military presence in parts of Gaza.
Apparently Blinken also touted an Egyptian plan for a limited hostage release in return for a short cease fire (not acceptable; they must let all the hostages go) and told Israel they have to keep the humanitarian aid flowing to northern Gaza, though Israel is trying to defeat Hamas there by providing humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate northern Gaza so Israel can impose a siege on Hamas to eliminate it there. But no dice: the aid must keep coming, and Hamas gets the lion’s share of it.
*Speaking of Israel, that country has had to change its plans for its reprisal on Iran for the recent missile attack; this is because Israel’s original reprisal plans were leaked from somewhere in the U.S. government (suspects have been floated).
Israel has been forced to delay a potential retaliatory attack on Iran after details of the planning were leaked from the US, Britain’s The Times newspaper reported Thursday.
According to the report, citing an unnamed intelligence source with knowledge of Israeli deliberations, Israel is worried that even though no potential targets were named in the leak, the details provided could help Iran predict certain patterns of attack.
The Times said Israel has developed an alternative plan but needs to war-game it before proceeding.
. . . “The leak of the American documents delayed the attack due to the need to change certain strategies and components,” the source said. “There will be a retaliation, but it has taken longer than it was supposed to take.”
Marked top secret, the documents first appeared online Friday on the Telegram messaging app and quickly spread among Telegram channels popular with Iranians.
I say Israel should go for Iran’s nukes, though of course the Biden administration, for reasons best know to itself, seems to have forbidden that.
*A Wall Street Journal poll reports that “Trump takes narrow lead over Harris in closing weeks of race.”
Explore Audio CenterDonald Trump has opened a narrow lead in the presidential race, as voters have adopted a more positive view of his agenda and past performance and a more negative view of Kamala Harris, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds.
The national survey finds that Trump is leading Harris by 2 percentage points, 47% to 45%, compared with a Harris lead of 2 points in the Journal’s August survey on a ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Both leads are within the polls’ margins of error, meaning that either candidate could actually be ahead.
The survey suggests that a barrage of negative advertising in the campaign and the performance of the candidates themselves have undermined some of the positive impressions of Harris that voters developed after she replaced President Biden as the presumed and then confirmed Democratic nominee.
. . . Views of Harris have turned more negative since August, when equal shares of voters viewed her favorably and unfavorably. Now, the unfavorable views are dominant by 8 percentage points, 53% to 45%. Moreover, voters give Harris her worst job rating as vice president in the three times the Journal has asked about it since July, with 42% approving and 54% disapproving of her performance.
Here’s a plot of who people would vote for, but note that the difference is well within the margin of error
By contrast, views of Trump have turned rosier. Voters recall his time as president more positively than at any point in this election cycle, with 52% approving and 48% disapproving of his performance in office—a 4-point positive job rating that contrasts with the 12-point negative rating for Harris.
Moreover, voters give Trump a solid edge in most cases when asked about the candidates’ agendas and policies. By 10 points, more voters have a favorable than unfavorable view of Trump’s economic plan for the country, while unfavorable views of Harris’s economic plan outweigh positive views by 4 points.
Favorability ratings, showing a big boost for Harris after Biden decided not to run. So much being made from a difference of a few points!
I have no idea whether this decline means anything, and, as Election Day nears, I am trying to pay less attention to polls. I well remember when the polls predicted a Clinton victory over Trump, and then I watched the election results come in while I was in Hong Kong (I’d already voted). As the needle moved toward Trump, I got more and more depressed, and as the election was called, I went for a long, rambling Walk of Despair, not even knowing how I got back to my hotel. This is what comes from paying attention to polls, especially when the elecdtion is this close.