Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Russian women don’t need your help Amanda Foreman. But let’s examine the UK’s liberal, feminist value system that you find so righteous and peace loving

The UK’s Sunday Times published a truly astonishing, hateful piece of garbage. Extraordinary even by Western standards, mocking Russian women, labelling the country as misogynistic, and trashing the Christian Orthodox faith. We could not let this post fly without a response.

Published

on

0 Views

Amanda Foreman’s article for UK’s The Sunday Times, entitled, “A view from afar: Chest-beating Putin aims his vilest weapon at the West — misogyny” is disturbingly misogynistic. It is also extremely misandrist and openly racists towards Russian and Orthodox Christians.

Their are 3 probable and logical explanations as to why someone of Ms. Foreman’s reputation would pen such a hateful and poorly researched piece.

1. She is simply folding into the Western MSM party line…writing yet another propaganda hit piece against Russia and it’s President, in order to move the needle one inch closer towards division, conflict and war. Maybe she will be rewarded for her loyalty by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal sociopaths behind the curtain.

2. She is an angry and jealous women filled with sadness and envy after visiting Russia. What she saw was a society where the neo-liberal value system did not stick, and they were happier for it. Seeing a country proud in its tradition, leadership, religion and history shook up the author…and in order to compensate for those feelings, this post was born.

3. Is a trick. Yeah that’s right. Her post all about fooling western women into believing they are happy (when study after study suggests they are not…please google it and you will see what I mean), and tricking Russian women into believing they should behave like their western neighbours. Don’t fall for it. Russian society and Russian women are on the right path towards a better, more fulfilling life. Don’t let people like Ms. Foreman fool you into thinking their Western cat filled, Kim Kardashian, bar hopping days are enviable. It’s a path to debt, over consumption and emptiness.

I tend to believe that all three of the above reasons influenced, and eventually drove Ms. Foreman into writing her Sunday Times attack piece. What is remarkable about the entire rant, aside from how factually off the entire article is, is how hypocritical and racist this women comes out looking.

First some of the facts, for which Ms. Foreman should have done some very basic research into before making the claims she made in her post:

As for the article itself, it should be read as a case study in Russophobia rather than as a discussion of the position of women in Russia. We do not recognize reality in the article’s descriptions of Russia, Putin or Russian women and men (even the article admits that “boys and girls receive the same education and the same access to healthcare. There are no legal barriers to women owning property, having bank accounts or participating in the economy”).

As a matter of historical record many Bolsheviks were early feminists including the feminist pioneer and Soviet minister and diplomat Alexandra Kollontai and Russian women obtained and fully exercised rights of divorce and abortion long before most western women did.

Today there are many successful women in business, the arts and politics including the Chairman of the Russian Parliament’s Upper House, Valentina Matveyenko, and the Head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina. Incidentally the Judge who tried Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina (interviewed by the author) was also a woman.

Oh and just for the record, Victoria Nuland is indeed married to historian Robert Kagan. What Ms. Foreman forgot to mention is that Mr. Kagan is much more than a historian, he is a chief neo-con from a family of neo-cons (does the PNAC ring a bell?), directly responsible, not only for the Maidan coup, but also for the US – Iraq invasion of 2003…more on that later.

KAGAN-PNAC-FAMILY

Now the hypocrisy, oh the hypocrisy, where do I begin.

Amanda Foreman begins her post stating she has “visited a fair number of countries this year in the course of filming a documentary series on the history of women.” Well we suggest Ms. Foreman get on a plane and visit some countries that it appears she might have missed…or maybe she visited these places but was simply to wrapped up in her western ‘exceptionalism’ that she did not take time to notice the suffering of women and children, committed by her beloved neo-liberal value system.

Maybe Ms. Foreman should go to Iraq and speak to the millions of families torn apart by the US and UK ‘bombs of peace’  that have claimed the lives of 1,455,590 people. How many women died in Iraq? How many women lost their sons, daughters, husbands, fathers and mothers in Iraq? How many women’s hearts did your UK neo-liberal values break in Iraq?

Maybe Ms. Foreman should travel to Serbia. She should speak to the wives, mothers, and daughters who lost everything in NATO airstrikes that lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. How many women suffered, in the heart of Europe, so your neo-liberal values could flex their muscles, and ethnically cleanse thousands of Orthodox Christians. How many women’s heart did you break in Serbia?

How about Ms. Foreman visits Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and see the devastation, destruction and death that results from her neo-liberal dogma she champions so much.

Tired of the death your brand of feminism and social justice brings. Then Ms. Foreman should take a quick trip to Eurozone countries Greece, Spain, Italy, or Cyprus and see all the broken, homeless women pillaging through rubbish for something to eat…a direct result of European neo-liberal austerity.

Finally, let’s give Ms. Foreman a ticket to the Donbass, so she can live in a basement, in the dark with no heat, food or water…like the mothers and daughters of Novorussia do right now. Their homes get shelled day and night by this guy (below), who champions and kills in the name of Ms Foreman’s ‘European value system.’

After Donbass, Ms. Foreman can travel to Crimea and see a society that avoided the bloodshed her lovely Mrs. Nuland instigated, and bear witness to what real human rights and democracy look like…not one human life, not one women was killed thanks to Putin’s decision to protect Crimea.

Ms. Foreman’s path for women’s liberation is a path of death, debt and enslavement. If that is not misogyny, than I don’t know what is.

Ms. Foreman’s post is not only misogynistic, it is racist. It offends Orthodox Christians and Slavic people. Was it not enough to bomb Serbia to kingdom come, now you have to ethnically cleanse Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ukraine as well.

Tell us all Ms. Foreman, what is so wrong with a country wanting to embrace its history and religion, is this a crime. Last time I checked the UK was also a Christian country at its heart. What scares Ms. Foreman so much about ‘traditional’ religion? Is it because it gives people hope, love and inspiration…all qualities that the neo-liberal feminist despises, and can do without.

Why doesn’t Ms Foreman go to Saudi Arabia, or UAE, Indonesia or Turkey and explain to the Muslim population in those countries to do away with the teachings of Islam? I was under the impression that neo-liberal values were about acceptance and tolerance…unless of course you are of Orthodox faith, then in that case you either need to submit to western rule or be wiped out.

Be careful Ms. Foreman because Russians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians, and many more people subscribe to the Christian Orthodox faith, and when pushed, they will push back with a mighty force.

So next time, when Pussy Riot considers sticking rubber chickens in their vaginas, while inside the beautiful and sacred St. Basil’s cathedral, tell them to go to the Great Mosque at Mecca or The Wailing Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem and let’s see what fate will await them. Or maybe Pussy Riot can perform inside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in front of 10 year old children, how would that make you feel.

In Cameronstan, Pussy Riot may not be sent to prison for such actions, but in Cameronstan everyone is under the watchful eye of the NSA, fearful of what trumped up charge might await them if they step out of line, or fight for truth and justice. Just ask Julian Assange how his quest for freedom and truth is going behind the protection of the Ecuadoran Embassy, in the 51st state of the U.S.A.

Ms. Foreman, stay away from Russia and stay away from Orthodoxy. Russia doesn’t need more snake oil saleswomen. Keep your reality TV shows that degrade women to yourself. They make UK women look like sexual toys, waiting for a beer drenched man to play with, as they twerk for the attention of a random penis.

Russian women prefer the entertainment of the greats, like Nikolay Gogol, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, and Aleksandr Pushkin.

Contrary to your article, Russian women are not mindless bimbos, easily fooled by Western caricatures of an ‘evil Putin.’ Only Facebook zombies in your neck of the woods believe such nonsense.

Vladimir Putin was democratically voted into office, and is internationally recognised as the President of the Russian Federation. He represents the people of Russia, and has an approval rating above 85%. That’s a mandate Cameron could only dream of in his wettest of dreams.

Russian women have agency, they can judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Your post mocks the women of Russia and paints them as fools, who are too stupid to understand the politics at play, and now need the ‘all-wise British feminist’ to save them from the evils of their country, culture, and leadership.

Russian women do not need saving, they are stronger than you could ever imagine. Russian women are intelligent, capable and independent. They know how to survive, they have strong souls, full of passion, and can easily judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

And yes, much to your dismay, Russian women are full of beauty, culture, tradition, and femininity. While you are glued to the ‘Tele’ watching the Voice, they are at the Bolshoi or the Hermitage.

You want to change Russian women for the worst, take away their beauty, their brains, and their power, so that you can subjugate them to your rule. It will never happen. Russian women, hell all of Russia, is on to your game. So take your Russophobia, your Orthodoxphobia, your misogyny, and your misandry, and keep it away from MOTHER Russia.

P.S. Vladimir Putin will stop poking fun at Hillary Clinton when she stops calling Putin the new Hitler. Over twenty-five million Russians died in WW2 in order to defeat Hitler, and his Nazi army, so you and Hillary can enjoy the freedoms you take for granted…show some respect and learn some history.

References:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/article1483931.ece

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
22 Comments

22
Leave a Reply

avatar
22 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
xfwmrt5gzngfw5wtrjfgxe85mrwfqdcm59x4ctxckw54mtdfsgw9j5nwmtxm845wctfkdijtfdhskdsftrg83yrerxt5m8ct4ykwk7rdywx8t54w5ctxsdfmxdgecn5tbbn7w4bvt7xwn3554c5yt Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
johnpalissy
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: Russian women don’t need your help Amanda Foreman. But let’s examine UK’s liberal, feminist value system http://t.co/tzoS…

redpilltimes
Guest

A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http://t.co/tzoSh1ugib

PaulywarlyNews
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

paulsmith031158
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

Kupesa1
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

StephenFenton88
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

protivfachizma
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

LunaChavista
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

duncanmacmartin
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

MaartendeVries2
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

MaartendeVries2
Guest

@redpilltimes Hded by USA since 1948, ca 350 million human sacrifices, Violence of KKKapitalistic “Cannibalism” 2 quote many thru’ the Ages.

claugotz
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

bogomirbogolov
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

sasha031
Guest

RT @redpilltimes: A response to Sunday Times racist article on Russia. Let’s examine how many lives UK/EU neo-liberalism has destroyed http…

trackback

[…] Yes, Russian women have it rough without the vicissitudes of feminism. If only they lived in the more advanced and civilized United States, they could give up their maternity leave benefits. In fact, the United States is so far ahead of the curve in their lack of same that they are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not guarantee paid maternity leave for new mothers. […]

trackback

ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb

[…]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[…]

trackback

3nvb54wnxd5cbvbecnv5ev75bc

[…]one of our guests recently encouraged the following website[…]

trackback

Title

[…]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine several unrelated data, nonetheless genuinely really worth taking a appear, whoa did one study about Mid East has got far more problerms at the same time […]

trackback

Title

[…]usually posts some very fascinating stuff like this. If you are new to this site[…]

trackback

Title

[…]very few web-sites that transpire to become comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly effectively worth checking out[…]

trackback

Title

[…]Here is a superb Weblog You might Obtain Interesting that we Encourage You[…]

trackback

Title

[…]here are some links to web sites that we link to due to the fact we assume they are worth visiting[…]

Latest

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake Opposes Vote on Kavanaugh Until Leftist Accuser Has Her Say

The end of the Republic inches closer as Identity Politics knows no bounds: Republicans join the fight to delay Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via The Gateway Pundit


FLAKE OUT — ARIZONA SENATOR OPPOSES VOTE ON KAVANAUGH

Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Kavanaugh.

It’s Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media.

Via Mike Cernovich:

Kavanaugh’s accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist.

Via Zerohedge


Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing. And for the first time since Kavanaugh’s name was first floated in June, his nomination may be in jeopardy.

After allegations of decades-old sexual improprieties first surfaced last week, it looked as if Kavanaugh would easily surmount this obstacle. But we have to give the Democrats credit: They have lined up their dominoes perfectly. And on Sunday, they set their plan in motion when the Washington Post published an in-depth interview with Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The story detailed a blow-by-blow accounting of Ford’s allegations, as well as her explanation for why she neglected to share her experience until decades later. Tellingly, the story also noted that Democrats have been sitting on the story since July, and that Ford only decided to out herself after some unscrupulous members of the Judiciary Committee shared her identity with the press – or at least that’s what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office alleges.

While the allegations are relatively tame by #MeToo era standards (the incident allegedly unfolded when Kavanaugh was 17), it has apparently been enough for Democrats and a handful of turncoat moderate Republicans to successfully shut down a planned Thursday vote of the Judiciary Committee. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake effectively shut down the vote last night when he revealed that he wanted to hear more from Ford before voting. Without Flake, the Republicans’ 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee shifts to a 10-11 vote in favor of the Democrats. While Committee Chairman Charles Grassley has said he’d like the vote to proceed as scheduled, media reports say he is quietly working to organize a private call involving Ford and curious Senators in an effort to help mitigate their concerns.

But looking further ahead, Republican leaders might have more difficulty as Tennessee Republican Bob Corker – who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee but could still hold up the final confirmation vote – said Sunday that he’d also like to see Thursday’s committee vote delayed.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

“I’ve made it clear that I’m not comfortable moving ahead with the vote on Thursday if we have not heard her side of the story or explored this further,” said Flake, who has the power to stall consideration if all Democrats on the panel join him since Republicans only hold an 11-10 majority on the committee. Flake’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Corker of Tennessee, who isn’t a member of the panel but whose vote is critical to confirmation, also doesn’t want the committee to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation until Ford’s allegations can be heard, said his spokeswoman, Micah Johnson. The senator wants the allegations to be heard promptly, she said.

The backlash intensified late Sunday when Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that Thursday’s hearing should be delayed.

“Well, I think that might be something they might have to consider, at least having that discussion,” Murkowski.

[…]

“This is not something that came up during the hearings. The hearings are now over. And if there is real substance to this it demands a response.”

However, at least one of the Senate’s reputed moderates has stood up to the Democrats in an interview with the New York Times, castigating them for withholding this information until so late in the process (remember: Feinstein justified this decision by saying she had referred Ford’s allegations to the FBI, who reportedly added them to his background check file).

“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” Collins told The New York Times.

Collins asked if Democrats believed Ford, “why didn’t they surface this information earlier,” and if they didn’t believe Ford, “why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?”

“It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled,” Collins said.

Collins comments come after Ford spoke publicly about the alleged incident for the first time during an interview with The Washington Post that was published on Sunday.

On Monday, in the latest sign that Ford could appear at an embarrassing public hearing, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, told “Today” that her client would be willing to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She’s a credible person. These are serious allegations. And they should be addressed.”

The White House, for its part, is standing by Kavanaugh, and allowing the Senate to sort things out. According to Bloomberg, Kellyanne Conway said Ford should not be “insulted and ignored” in what appears to be an attempt to beat the Democrats at their own virtue-signaling game.

Still, according to a White House spokesperson, Trump isn’t giving an inch. Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim, citing WH spokesperson Kerri Kupec, reported that Judge Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied this allegation: “This has not changed. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement,”she said.

In fact, as Axios reports, Senate Republicans could “play hardball” by calling on Ford to testify before Thursday’s scheduled vote. Though Republicans wouldn’t surprised if Ford holds a press conference or gives a TV interview, which Axios says “would raise the stakes considerably.” Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote

To be sure, the Democrats’ goals here are obvious. After Sen. Corey Booker’s “selfless” decision to release unauthorized documents about Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush Administration failed to even delay the process, Democrats have now played their Trump card – no pun intended. Their goal: Delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at least until the Oct. 1 mark – the beginning of SCOTUS’s next term – to put a halt to any controversial decisions that could reverse important precedents. Of course, their ultimate goal is to stonewall the White House until after Nov. 6, when a few victories in the midterms might allow them to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination once and for all.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

University announces “White Awake” safe space for white students

The University of Maryland at College Park has set up a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Via Campus Reform:


Update: After publication of this article, University of Maryland-College Park changed the name of the group to “Anti-Racism and Ally Building Group,” along with a shorter description, which reads,  “Do you want to improve your ability to relate to and connect with people different from yourself? Do you want to become a better ally? Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.”

In a statement provided to Campus Reform on Friday, the university explained the name change: “Our Counseling Center acknowledges that we did not choose the right words in raising awareness about this research-based initiative, and how this group has been perceived is counter to the values of inclusiveness and diversity that we embody. Therefore, we are renaming the group to better reflect our intention and values.”


The University of Maryland at College Park announced Friday a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings about “interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

The support group, called “White Awake,” will help white students who may “sometimes feel uncomfortable and confused before, during, or after interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

“This group offers a safe space for White students to explore their experiences, questions, reactions, and feelings,” the description explains. “Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.” The description asks students if they want to “improve [their] ability to relate to and connect with people different from [themselves]” or if they want to become a better “ally.” The new group is now one of four in the university’s “Diversity Issues” program series.The group is being led by Noah Collins, who works for the UMD Counseling Center, and will be held once a week. Collins specializes in group therapy and is interested “especially in the areas of racial and cultural awareness,” according to his faculty bio.The safe space has been met with harsh criticism from students on social media.

“I am ashamed over the execution of white awake nor do I fully understand its clause. ‘How they can fit into a diverse world’? Why do they need to attend therapy sessions on how to be a decent human being in society?” a UMD student wrote on Twitter. “Why do they need to have these sessions to learn how to coexist?”

“Just like classes. You can’t take one class and feel like you have all understanding over a certain subject,” the student added. “It takes practice, it takes problems, it takes more than one course, so ‘White Awake’ has good intention but I am skeptical over the fairytale result.”

Campus Reform reached out to Collins and UMD for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication. If and when a comment is received, the article will be updated.


Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Grace_Gotcha

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Harvard Prof: Merit-based admissions ‘reproduce inequality’

Professor Natasha Warikoo is displeased that students she interviewed are motivated by “self-interest” instead of social justice.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Authored by Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform:


A Harvard University professor claims in a new academic study that merit-based admission processes at elite universities “reproduce inequality.”

Harvard education professor Natasha Warikoo draws on interviews with 98 white, native-born students at Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Oxford in “What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality,” published in the journal Social Sciences.

During interviews Warikoo conducted between 2009 and 2011, these students were asked to sound-off on whether they felt their school had meritocratic admissions and if they supported affirmative action. Many answered the second question affirmatively and hailed the benefits of a diverse student body.

But Warikoo seems concerned with students’ responses. Analyzing data from these interviews years later, Warikoo points out that students’ approaches to diversity suggest that they’ve “internalized” the tokenistic rhetoric of the school admissions office, even if they had disagreed with policies like athletic recruitment or legacy admissions before coming to campus.

“Unlike in other campus domains in which there is a history of social protest among college students, in the realm of admissions, students seem to agree quite strongly with their universities, and come to even more agreement rather than critique upon arriving to campus,” she writes. “They suggest that most actors in elite institutions espouse views that reproduce their elite status, rather than engaging in symbolic politics or protest.”

According to Warikoo, “US students espouse a collective understanding of merit,” but only “value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society.”

“They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups in society, as many scholars define multicultural state policies,” she elaborates.

Notably, Warikoo addressed the same issue in her 2016 book The Diversity Bargain, which criticizes white students for understanding “the value of diversity abstractly, but [ignoring] the real problems that racial inequality causes.”

White students “stand in fear of being labeled a racist, but they are quick to call foul should a diversity program appear at all to hamper their own chances for advancement,” Warikoo claims in that book, asserting for instance that white students “reluctantly agree with affirmative action as long as it benefits them.”

Her new study, too, criticizes white students for believing in meritocracy and supporting affirmative action, suggesting that white students only support affirmative action for selfish reasons.

One white student, Naomi, was criticized for saying “diversity is really how you learn here,” as Warikoo suggested that Naomi only valued diversity because it added to the “collective merit” of her cohort of students.

Warikoo also reports that “some students used the collective merit framework to express support for legacy admissions…even while lamenting the inequality legacy admissions engenders.”

She bemoans that, ultimately, the students she interviewed were more motivated by “self-interest” than a commitment to social justice.

“They value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society,” she writes. “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups.”

According to Warikoo’s interviews, students who attended elite high schools “no longer see a large number of their peers gaining admission to the likes of Harvard, Brown, and Oxford,” which they interpret “as evidence that the system is fair, even while ignoring the fact that students like them and their peers are vastly overrepresented at elite universities.”

The professor suggests that when the legitimacy of how they obtained seats at elite institutions gets called into question, students only become more convinced that they deserve to occupy those seats.

“This paper shows how admissions systems often reproduce inequality not only by how they select students, but also by defining ‘merit’ for admitted students in ways that will reproduce inequality in the future,” she concludes.

Warikoo claims that schools have “unequal” admission processes because black, working class, and first-generation students are underrepresented in student bodies. To fix this, Warikoo recommends that elite universities employ an “admissions lottery,” which the schools would use to randomly admit students who meet certain minimum standards.

“An admissions lottery would shift the meaning of selection from an absolute sense of merit—the best of the best—to an understanding that admission is somewhat arbitrary,” she predicts.

Warikoo’s study was published in the journal Social Sciences, which boasts of a “rapid peer-review” system. While most articles take months if not a year to be accepted, Warikoo’s article was accepted by reviewers in 48 days.

Though Warikoo initially agreed to answer a few questions by email, she ultimately did not respond to Campus Reform. Harvard University also did not respond.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending