Search the Lounge


« Global Kidney Exchange (GKE) to Overcome Financial Barriers to Kidney Transplantation | Main | Ohio State University Clinical Faculty Position »

November 22, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Mr. Steinbuch thinks this is a matter of being disappointed a Republican won. It was disappointment an unqualified sexist, racist bully and serial liar won. My level of disappointment would have been the same if an unqualified sexist, racist bully and serial liar had run on the Democratic ticket and won, and many Republicans were disappointed this year; to their credit.

J. Bent

I don't think anybody would be offering grief counseling if Rubio or Jeb had won. I also don't think the KKK would be hosting victory parades, nor would we be seeing the apparent uptick in hateful behavior and nazi symbolism, nor would we be seeing large protests in city streets. So maybe this isn't just a normal political loss?

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

America, America, AMERICA: TRUCK YEAH!!!!! Damn straight, Dean. The jury has spoken and it is never wrong. I voted for HRC and agree with Dean Martin here 100%. He's already normalized on Global Warming, backed off Hillary and we all know the wall is bullshit. The only thing that really matters is liberty, freedom and our Constitution. Everything else is gravy.


It is discrimination plain and simple. This fellow would likely not offer counseling if HRC had won. No wonder Trump won, the one sided prejudice is palpable in the media and academia.


Note how Filler implies that a critic of the embarrassing infantilizing is a racist, in a sort of juvenile way. He is attempting to discredit an argument about a completely unrelated issue with a tacit smear. Typical.

Hopefully, more taxpayers will begin to take note of the way that their tax dollars are being spent. Likewise, alums and other donors to private institutions will do likewise. Attention must be paid to how law faculties and administrators are spending their time.

After doing so much to ruin the reputation of so many law schools, so many members of law school faculties are now setting out to alienate even more persons. Their superficial, illogical, hypocritical and juvenile analyses of current politics is shocking.

If they showed some depth, some knowledge of political systems and theory, some insight into the Constitution and the republican form of government in the US, some sense of history, some examination of the Party they so slavishly defend, support and advocate, in sum, some observations that go beyond the level of twenty somethings getting their "news" from the Huffington Post, Facebook, and comedians, we could be at least be assured that law school faculties are capable and up to performing their function as educators.

Instead, we get this series of posts after the recent election, which are actually below the level we could expect twenty somethings to produce. Rather more like high school, really. Pathetic.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

If an adult law student needs therapy over an impersonal, shared loss like this, then they don't belong in an adversarial profession. The best therapy is to watch Colbert, contribute to the Southern Poverty Law Center and resubscribe to the Nation. Hell, run for office, your a lawyer soon. VoteTrump at 11:03 is right. This Kumbyaya stuff was a significant factor in HRC's loss.


"attempting to discredit an argument about a completely unrelated issue with a tacit smear"

I think it is relevant here that "Steinbuch... previously tussled with Schwartz" (tussled = filed suit), and at that point why not mention what the fight was about?

Snippet from Caron's blog (which itself I think is mostly taken from a "campusreform [ dot ] org" article):

“What we see [nationally] is that African-American fail the bar twice as often as whites, and that is statistically significant,” he pointed out, adding that his research indicates that African-American students would perform at the same level as their white classmates if they were held to the same admissions standards. “My school [UALR] in particular... ...bottom quartile of my class has a score below 149”—putting them in the danger zone, according to LST—“and of that 25 percent, two-thirds are African-Americans,” Steinbuch told Campus Reform."

“We pack the bottom quartile with African-Americans whose score profiles indicate a high likelihood of failure, but we don’t tell them that, and we don’t offer any form of remediation when they come here.”


Thank you Captain, enjoy the Holiday with Mrs. Captain.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Likewise, give my regards to Mrs. VoteTrump.



Your point is that you think that this man is a racist.

Which has what to do with infantilizing the students after the recent election?

Party stalwarts are always quick to accuse others of being racist, homophobes, xenophobes, etc. In fact, their entire campaign (almost) was based on the politics of personal destruction (remember: when they go low, we go high).

IMHO, it is this tactic that caused millions who voted for Obama to vote for T. The reason: the Party is not as holier than thou as its arrogant presentations suggest (see, e.g., Wikileaks) and at least half the electorate is fed up with the Party's lowball tactics. There are about 5000 counties in the US: in the recent Presidential election, 300 voted for the Party. Go ahead and assure yourself that the majority of those people in those 4,700 counties are racists. (And remember, your students come from American, not the bubble. Faculty members posting here are really making a mockery of their "concern" for student sensibilities by assuming that everyone agrees with their over the top, hateful hysteria.)

The Party has become hidebound and riddled with corruption and, rather than take a good hard look in the mirror, and rather than address ANY issue where the Party has erred, it simply denies, and then lashes out and attempts to smear its "enemies." The Party is so prone to accusing others, often based on the flimsiest of grounds, that it cannot even recognize its particularly vile form of denial and projection. This particular post, and some of the reaction to it (smearing an individual rather than address the grounds for the resignation) is ample proof.

Go ahead, now, CC. Respond by saying "you're another" about the Party's opposition. Precisely the point, my friend.


Anon the Captain is not tbe enemy. He is a bright guy who is from what I can gather a liberal and on the leftist side. But he is honest and I respect him and I too straddle the line and do at times agree with my leftist friends. He also will at times agree with us types. The problem you astutely note, and I agree with, is that nany on the Left are radical, naive, totalky out of touch and often arrogant. These folks push for an agenda. They want to strip me of my right to own an assault rifle, want me to accept feminism, tell me I have to accot at a couples only eveni g to guys at my couples only table, take away the right to say im proud to be a White man, tell me this country needs to take in all sorts whose values, norms and outlook inherently conflict with my norms and conduct which built this exceptional action. And...and...they call us "antisemites", "white supremacists", etc. Heck, I own an Isreali made Galil.
The simple truth is my crew has had it with multicultarism and having a certain agenda forced on us because you know, we are stupid deplorables that dont know better. The country is hurting and Trump at least is a breath of fresh air. Towns and factories have been devastated due to trade agreements and the powers that be dont give a damn. Trump has valud points. A cumulative 3 Trillion dollar trade deficit from trading with China over the last 15 years sure sounds like a very bad deal. Give him a chance. The absolute hysteria about Trump before and after the election shown in the media and in the media is an outrageous display of arrogance.

Hither and anon

Hey, anon, you're funny! From your county math ("One county, one vote!" -- amiright?), to your use of "hateful hysteria" as a label for something other than a Trump rally, to your description of the wrong party--sorry, Party--as "hidebound and riddled with corruption"...! Wow, that's some good stuff right there! The best, though, has got to be the way you manage to imply that the 2,000,000+ more voters who chose Clinton over Trump don't count, I guess because they come from those 300 "bubble" counties, not from "American" (sic).

Man, comedic genius and profound self-awareness all in one package... I'm in awe!


Hitler and awe

Great response!

And your point is that: the electors should be faithless, or that we should just ignore the Constitution, rewrite the rules and declare the winner of the popular vote the winner?

I guess all those lectures about accepting the results were just bs. Not my President! And, you say my comments are funny!

As for the new Party trope: this is just geography, not the majority (300 counties out of 5000), the 1.5% difference that you seem to rely upon is in part because the campaigns focused on the "swing" states and ignored the west coast.

The inescapable fact is that "the most qualified candidate in history," in your view, lost to what you clearly believe was the "most unfit candidate in history." Your response, as the post above suggests, seems to be that anyone who disputes the positions adopted by the Party is morally inferior. That was the problem; that attitude is not the solution. (Actually, there is no rebuttal in your comment; just, "you said this, ha ha!" and "you said that, ha ha ha!" which reminds one not of a twenty something, but of a pre teen.)

As for the "bubble" remember when Bill Maher used to do that routine about the republicans? Why can't members of the Democratic party acknowledge ANY fault, ever? Even when the facts are undisputed, it seems these partisans can find no wrong with themselves, EVER. That is the reason I refer to the "Party" because this is the stuff of unreason.

You have dismissed the facts, but haven't made a dent in disputing them.

And, most significantly, you are, as the Party members are so inclined, supremely hypocritical. My main observation about the original post was that "Faculty members posting here are really making a mockery of their "concern" for student sensibilities by assuming that everyone agrees with their over the top, hateful hysteria.)" The point: even you might acknowledge that the winner of the election won, and that means that it is likely that a portion - perhaps a large number =of students - should not be presumed to agree with your snide dismissal of the results of an election.

By reason of the outpouring of "sympathy" from law schools about the results of the election, it is they - and you - who are suggesting that voters "don't count."

Finally, pointing out a typo IS actually funny (unlike your post). Sandbox stuff coming from adults always serves for a good laugh. Well done!


Oh, sorry, I misread your handle, Hither and anon.


"Your point is that you think that this man is a racist."

Um, no. Not even close.

My point was, since Dan provided the opening by saying they'd tussled over diversity, I thought it might be further relevant to get to the meat of Steinbuch's point, which is: “[UALR packs] the bottom quartile with African-Americans whose score profiles indicate a high likelihood of failure, but we don’t tell them that, and we don’t offer any form of remediation when they come here.”

Since the time I posted my first comment, I scrounged a bit on the intertubes and find that UALR's student body is on the order of 15-20% "minority" in recent years.

Given Steinbuch's data indicating 2/3 of that bottom quartile are African American students (i.e., ~ 16%), that means all or almost all of UALR's black students are "packed into the bottom quartile".

If he's right in this, then he's also right that UALR is probably not doing most of these kids any favors by charging them $100K for a degree they (statistically, it seems) may never use.

Also if he's right in this, I can see why UALR wants desperately to keep this info under wraps, such as ignoring valid FOIA requests or attempting to condition their provision with secrecy orders, etc.

"Go ahead and assure yourself that the majority of those people in those 4,700 counties are racists." Again, not even close.

Pray tell, exactly what was in my comment that permits you to make such wild (and wholly incorrect) accusations?


(from Hither an anon) "the 2,000,000+ more voters who chose Clinton"

Yeah, and she's up almost 4 million in Cali alone.

So when the San Andreas fault faults and Cali falls into the sea, does that mean Republicans thereafter guaranteed to win the popular vote by significant margins?

Or would that changed circumstance alter how the campaigns are run?



I take your point. I associated your demonstration of facts regarding admissions standards as association with Dan's attempt to prove that infantilizing students was justified and that a resignation in the fact of criticism of that practice was wrongfully induced by a racist.

Your later comments suggest that you were actually in agreement with the critic (on the admissions policy issue). While I maintain that issue had more to do with Dan's attempt to smear and obfuscate than with the resignation arising out of infantilizing and stereotyping students, I accept and appreciate your clarification of your point.


Diversity programs need to be well run unless all you care about is a per se quota system. If Steinbuch’s comments are correct, UALR’s does not appear to be not well run. Note his final comments I quoted, “but we don’t tell them that, and we don’t offer any form of remediation when they come here”.

Why doesn’t UALR offer these students any form of remediation, and/or warnings that they’re in an at-risk group? Fear of hurting their feelings? Which would mean more $$ spent on grief counselors, I suppose. My LS had no concern for my feelings and felt free to tell me I was in an at-risk group, and to offer remedial assistance (despite 176 LSAT and high UGPA). I learned that the school’s administration had decided that engineers, as lovers of hard data and predictable outcomes, should have trouble coping with the squishy, no-correct-answers world of the law. I laughed it off, as did the other engineers in my class, but the point is that at one time at least some law schools weren’t afraid to offer additional help to those in groups viewed as being at-risk.

Otherwise, they’re just admitting too many people likely destined to fail (either at school itself or when writing for the bar) and are using these poor souls to make their budget. There’s another quite pernicious aspect to poorly run diversity programs, too. Asians and whites (who may or may not already be predisposed to bias) see that time and time again many of their URM fellows are struggling, and start linking it (unconsciously or openly) to skin color. As an engineer in a megacorp I sat on the diversity committee for several years and pointed out this harmful effect many times. I argued that we needed to offer higher signing bonuses for well-qualified minority applicants instead of waiving, for minority applicants, our required 3.5 GPA floor just to get some hired. I was always outvoted because the other members thought it would be unfair to give larger bonuses to minority newhires.

In my view, though, it was more unfair to keep watching our competitors, who were willing to pay better hiring bonuses, snag the well-qualified minority newgrads while we hired the leftovers with substandard GPAs. And then watched them flounder in a demanding R&D environment, eventually getting bounced around to other departments internally because managers were afraid to fire them. All the while, their Asian and white engineering colleagues continued to form their (wrong) impressions, because they didn’t know we were dipping down to the 2.6 +/- GPA level to hire, and of course I wasn’t at liberty to talk about it.

Looping back to the topic of this post ("Dan's attempt to prove that infantilizing students was justified"), I definitely agree with Steinbuch's main point, "If you tell people every time they lose they’re entitled to counseling, you elevate the perceived level of wrong beyond what it is".

Finally, as for “I accept and appreciate your clarification of your point”; well golly, how gracious of you. Had I made such an error in judgment and conclusion-jumping, my first three words in my reply would have been “I am sorry”.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad