Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Stanford Football, Third Try Is A Charm

With Oregon's victory over Washington, Stanford has a clear path to the Rose Bowl.  Run the table and it's in.  This means wins against Arizona State, surprising Washington State, and, perhaps most difficult, Washington in the next three weeks.

For the third time, I'm asking Coach Shaw to add several plays to the offensive scheme.

(1) Play-action pass on first down from the power run formation.

(2) West Coast offense with its short passing game.

(3) Screen pass to fullback.

These additions to the offense early in the game will loosen up the linebackers, which will improve the prospects for the running game (and keep Bryce Love from getting smashed up at the line of scrimmage).

So on behalf of the thousands of Stanford fans, please give it a try.

Your football friend.

PS.  I watched unranked Missouri's stunning upset of No. 2 ranked Alabama in its September 8, 1975, season-opening 20-7 loss.  Alabama was committed to the running game.  Missouri stacked 9 defenders along the line of scrimmage and completely throttled Alabama's rushing attack.  Alabama persisted running the ball without success until late in the game, when the outcome was largely decided.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 5

This post wraps up my series on U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger.

In March 2005, Bush adviser Karen Hughes was named to a State Department post, Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. In late September 2005 she traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to open a dialogue with important Muslim countries. Her task was to persuade them that Bush’s War on Terror was not a War against Islam.

On September 26, 2005, Hughes met with a small group of Egyptians who had studied in the U.S. She told them “it’s sometimes hard to talk about difficult issues,” but that “we’re open to ideas.”

Prominent Egyptians told Hughes that the U.S. can improve its image in the Middle East only by changing its policies, namely, that its policies on Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and what the U.S. said was inconsistent with its [favorable] treatment of repressive Arab governments.

Hughes second stop was Saudi Arabia, On September 27, 2018, she told a group of Saudi women that they could be like her and have the right to drive and wear pretty clothes.

The Saudi women harshly criticized her for denouncing their culture and trying to force change on Saudi society. They told her that Saudi women were happy and did not like the image of unhappy Saudi women portrayed in the American media. These remarks met with applause from female colleagues dressed in the black abaya.

Next stop was Turkey. In a September 28, 2005, meeting with Turkish women active in non-governmental organizations, Hughes was harshly criticized due to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Hughes trip was a total failure. But the fault was that of Bush and his foreign policy team, not Hughes. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Egypt to talk about human rights. After a speech at the American University of Cairo on June 20, 2005, she got an earful from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

In October 2007, Karen Hughes resigned her position and returned to private business.

Bush, Rice, and Hughes were steeped in the paradigm of Western democracy. It was inconceivable to them that Middle East residents were not equally keen on American political institutions, practices, and values. Bush’s vision of a just war in Iraq to promote democracy was in marked opposition to views held by the region’s major powers.


Diversity and Inclusion


Every U.S. college and university adheres to the doctrine that Diversity and Inclusion of students, faculty, and staff is essential for educated Americans to interact productively in their political, economic, and social relations with foreigners of different racial, religious, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, gender, tribal, social, economic, and other distinguishing characteristics. Diversity and Inclusion further stipulates that interaction between different groups must take place under respectful conditions in which the values, ideas, and contributions of each group are made to feel welcome and equally valued.

No prominent individual has been able to persuade university leaders and faculty that the doctrine of Diversity and Inclusion on which all of U.S. higher education is predicated could possibly be wrong in any way.

Much as Chinese higher education is governed by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the Modern era, so too U.S. higher education is governed by Bush/ObamaThought on Democracy with American characteristics of Diversity and Inclusion for the Modern Era.

Let’s consider the counter-argument.

First, the story of Karen Hughes is self-explanatory.

Second, those instilled with (blinded by) D&I as the only acceptable view of human relations will be unable to acknowledge, much less deal with, reality when it differs from D&I.

Third, individuals who factually describe, let’s call them “fact-based realists (FBR),” poor or harmful conditions among peoples in different places around the world will be harshly criticized by Americans who descend from, or identify with, those persons. Americans of African, Latin American, Asian, and other backgrounds will accuse FBR of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth. FBR will be compelled to recant their “disrespectful” statements and/or resign their positions. In American parlance, FBR will be accused of “blaming the victims.”

Fourth, stating the fact that the vast majority of countries and active secessionist movements, some three-quarters of the world’s population, live in countries that prize Homogeneity and Exclusion will be deemed heresy, punishable by loss of job and social ostracism.

Fifth, in plural societies, rival groups do not respect and value each other. Rather, rival groups hate each other. Perhaps that explains Bush’s failure to understand that his vision of a unified Iraq is not shared by Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. Or, English and French-speaking Cameroonians. And on and on and on for dozens of countries and secessionist movements.

Foreign policy cannot be constructively conducted in a world driven by U.S. based identity politics that precludes FBR. It must go wrong. Think George W. Bush and Iraq. Think Barack Obama and Libya and Syria.


Politics in Plural Societies


Only now, that leftist intellectuals have rediscovered identity politics in the wake of President Trump’s presumed White-backlash election victory over Hillary Clinton, has identity politics come to the fore. The democracy school encompassing over 90% of U.S. political scientists has been trying to show that democracy is an unstoppable force spreading around the world, transcending group differences.

But in the past few years, these same scholars write of a democracy recession, a democracy depression. I’ll limit my comments here to Francis Fukuyama’s 2018 book entitled Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. In a summary article published on September 12, 2018, in The Hill, Fukuyama states that “The United States invaded Iraq in 2003, arguing that it intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a friendly democratic regime. Fifteen years later, that goal does not appear in sight.”

What went wrong?

“The underlying problem in Iraq is the absence of any sense of overarching national identity. There is no entity called Iraq to which citizens feel loyalty, in preference to their ethnic group, sect, region, or tribe.” (Did he not know that Sunnis and Shias have been enemies for twelve centuries?)

“Within the greater Middle East, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan have been embroiled in civil wars as a result of out-of-control identity politics.”

Fukuyama notes that the Democrat Party has changed from broad-based coalitions of the New Deal and Great Society to one based on its component identity groups. He blames that partly on Democrats who rejected assimilation to an overarching national identity and partly on Donald Trump and the rise of a new generation of right-wing identitarians. 

I’m not going to comment on the pros and cons of his recommendations for national service to cut across race, ethnicity, and class. You can buy his book, read them, and decide for yourself. What is important about his book, and a spate of others echoing the same theme, is that identity politics obstructs democracy. This is how they explain the democracy recession/depression and the rise of “nationalists” states around the world.

What is amazing has been their denial of FBR for decades, in which identities have been held in check by colonial powers and authoritarian regimes. FBR was not compatible with their global democracy activism.

Herein lies great danger. Diversity and Inclusion is an ideology. Ideology, as the late Professor William Riker stated, is a false view of reality. There can be no room for fact-based realists in the D&I utopian remake of American society. Conducting FBR foreign policy is going to be a nightmare for future presidents, secretaries of state, and secretaries of defense.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Two Wrongs Make A Right

First.  In my post of September 23, 2018, I criticized Senator Chuck Grassley’s handling of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I was premature and wrong.  Senator Grassley brilliantly shepherded Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

Second.  In my post of September 11, 2018, I wrote that Stanford was poised to win the football national championship, earning Coach David Shaw a ring.  I was premature and wrong.  Notre Dame and Utah obliterated Stanford’s defense and Shaw’s offense could not mount a successful running game.

To be fair to myself, I wrote that Coach Shaw had to make a modest change or two in his offensive scheme, beginning with a play action pass on first down from its power run formation.  Shaw did not.  After two failed runs into the teeth of the Notre Dame and Utah defensive fronts, Quarterback K.J. Costello had to run for his life trying to complete third-and-long passes against relentless defensive pressure.  Costello did a creditable job in both games, save one underthrown pass against Utah, keeping Stanford in contention for as long as he could, but to no avail.

After the game, Coach Shaw doubled down on his offensive scheme, reminding reporters that he has been successful during his tenure and that power football is Stanford’s philosophy.  During the break between the first and second quarters of the game, one of the ESPN broadcasters said that “Shaw is stubborn.”  Stanford can still make it to the Rose Bowl this season, but the prospects are not encouraging.  Watch for the opening offensive series in the next game, which will tell you all you need to know.

PS.  Still, every day brings a beautiful morning.  Hillary is not in the White House and that her friends are not holding high government office.  With Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the sun is brighter than ever.  The 80-90% left-leaning, Democrat Party faculty and administrators of the top 20 national universities wake up miserable every day, and will remain so through at least 2020, possibly (and hopefully) 2024.

Oh what a beautiful morning
Oh what a beautiful day
I’ve got a wonderful feeling
Everything’s going America’s way.

Keep winning Mr. President!

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Sexual Violence and Mental Health Illness Plague America’s Universities

A good way to pick up the intellectual trends in vogue at American Universities is to browse the web pages of the top 20 private national universities as ranked by U.S. News & World Report.

Diversity and Inclusion (sometimes also Equity) is the overwhelming topic on every campus.  Each university shouts from the rooftop its success in increasing the Diversity of its undergraduate student body.  Only 2-3 top 20 schools still have a non-Hispanic White majority.  Soon there will be none.

The effort has now shifted to Diversifying graduate students, faculties, staff, and top administrators.  It will take time before the current pipeline of Diverse graduate students completes their doctoral degrees and joins the faculties and rise through the administrative ranks to become presidents and provosts.

Diversity and Inclusion are moving at the speed of  bullet trains.  Anyone who stands in the way will be run over.  Anyone who fails to get on board or stands on the platform watching the train go by has a dim, perhaps no, future as a professor or administrator in tertiary education.

University officials are focusing on two more recent concerns--sexual violence and mental health.  Climate (sexual violence) surveys are ubiquitous.  Past surveys have revealed alarming levels of sexual violence against women.  In response, universities have expanded reporting, treatment, and adjudicating offices.

No top 20 university is even remotely considering returning to single-sex dorms and chaperoned parties.  Given the statements universities frequently release about sexual violence, it’s a wonder than millions of female students apply to universities and pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to put themselves in grave danger of sexual violence.

Mental health illness is the most recent problem gripping undergraduate students.  The exponential increase in mental health illness occurred at midnight on November 8, 2016, when Donald Trump was declared the next president of the United States.  Universities rushed to set up counseling centers to help undergraduates survive the night and the next few weeks and months.  Just as students began to recover from the trauma of Donald Trump, the months-long confirmation process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court pushed many students back over the edge.  Now they are stuck with both.

Student councils are adopting resolutions asking university officials to improve mental health facilities and services for students.

This may indeed be a good time to enhance mental health care in colleges and universities.  Students attending these schools are disproportionately left-liberal in political orientation.  If President Trump wins a second term in 2020, every campus will be overwhelmed with a surge in mental health illness among the students.

Universities may be partly culpable for the plague of sexual violence and mental health illness.  They talk about it every day, telling students to come forward and/or seek help.  Students having trouble keeping up with classwork may be persuaded that they need mental health counseling.  Female students may be afraid to go to the library or gym in the evening.

Most university presidents, provosts, and deans are hoping for Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives in the November 6, 2018, elections.  Winning the Senate too is probably beyond their wildest dreams.  But winning the House will give students and officials hope that Democrats will win the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2020.  Such an outcome, more than therapy, will reduce mental health problems on campus.  If the next president is a woman, fears of sexual violence will also diminish.

PS.  In the 1950s and 1960s, coeds had to sign out and in of their dorms between 7:30-10:30 pm on weekdays and 7:30-12:30 on weekends.  Overnight stays away from the dorm required parental permission.  The rule was in loco parentis.  There were probably some instances of sexual violence, but I do not recall reading a single story in the student newspaper during my undergraduate years, nor do I recall hearing a single story from male or female fellow students.

PSS.  Times change.  That was then.  This is now.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

U.S Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 4

Separatist movements are active movements with living, active members that seek greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region.  Some movements have de facto autonomy, which makes them a de facto (breakaway) state.  Some are proposed states that have a name for a seceding sovereign state.  Some are proposing autonomous areas that seek greater autonomy, but not outright secession.  Some movements are driven (largely) by ethnic identity, others by political ideologies or pressure groups.

This posts enumerates ethnic identity secessionist movements, listing country, ethnic group(s) seeking statehood, and name of proposed state.  (Wikipedia)

Africa (23)

Algeria.  Kabyle people.  Republic of Kabylia
Angola
     Lunda-Tchokwe People.  Democratic Republic of Lunda-Tchokwe.
     Cabindans,  Republic of Cabinda.
Cameroon.  The Anglophones of the NW and SW regions of Cameroon.
     The Federal Republic of Ambazonia.
Central African Republic.  Muslims in CAR.  Republic of Logone.
Equatorial Guinea.  Bubi.  Bioko Island.
Libya.  Toubu.  Tubouland.
Mali.  Tuareg, Songhai, Fula, and Arabs/Moors.  Azawad.
Morocco. 
     Sahrawi.  Sahrawi Aran Democratic Republic.
     Riffian.  Rif.
Namibia.  Lozi.  Free State of Caprivi Strip/Itenge.
Niger.  Tuareg.  Agadez.
Rwanda.  Twa.  Batwaland.
Senegal.  Diola.  Casamance.
Somalia.  Somali.  Somilaland.
South Africa.  Afrikaners.  Volkstaat.
Spain.  Canarians.  Canary Islands.
Sudan.  Fur, Zghawe, Masalit.  Darfur.
Tanzania.  Swahili.  Zanzibar.
Uganda.
     Ganda.  Kingdom of Buganda.
     Konjo People.  Yiira Republic.
Zambia.  Lozi.  Barotseland.
Zimbabwe.  Matabele.  Matabeleland.

Asia (49)

Burma (Myanmar).
     Arakan.  Arakan Federation.
     Chin.  Republic of Zo Asia.
     Kachin.  Kachinland.
     Karen.  Republic of Kawthoolei.
     Karenni.  United Karenni Independent States.
     Mon.  Mon State.
     Rohingya.  Northern Arakan State of Arakan Federation.
     Shan.  Federated Shan States.
     Wa.  Wa State.
     Kuki.  Zale’n-gam
     Zomi.  Republic of Zogam
China.
     Mongolian.  Republic of South Mongolia.
     Tibetan.  Tibet.
     Uyghur.  East Turkestan.
India.
     Kashmiri Muslims.  Kashmir.
     Naga People.  People’s Republic of Nagaland.
     Tripuri People.  Tripuri.
     Meitei People.  Manipur.
     Assamese People.  Assam.
     Bodo People.  Bodoland.
     Kamatapuri lects.  Kamtur.
Iran.
     Azerbaijani.  South Azerbaijan.
     Turkmen.  South Turkmenistan.
     Arabs.  Al-Ahwaz.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Baloch  Balochistan.
Iraq.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Turkmen.  Turkmeneli.
Japan.
     Ainu.  Republic of Ainu.
     Ryukyuan.  Republic of Ryukyu.
Laos.  Hmong.  Hmong ChaoFa Federated States.
Nepal.  Madhesi Peoples.  Madhesh.
Pakistan.
     Baloch.  Balochistan.
     Sindhi.  Sindhudesh.
     Balti People.  Balawaristan.
Philippines.  Moro.  Bangsomoro Republik.
Russia.
     Yakuts.  Sakha Republic.
     Tuvans.  Tuva.
Sri Lanka.  Tamils.  Tamil Eelam.
Syria.
     Druze.  Jabal Druze State.
     Arameans.  Aram.
     Assyrian.  Assyria.
     Syrian Turkmen.  Babirbucak and Northern Aleppo.
Tajikistan.  Pamiri.  United Badakhshan Peoples Republic.
Thailand.  Malays.  Greater Patani State.
Turkwy.  Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
Uzbekistan.  Karakapaks.  Republic of Karakalpakstan.
Yemen.
     Adeni Arabs.  South Arabia (State of Aden)
     Hadhrami Arabs.  Kathiri, Qu’aiti, Wahidi Balhaf, Mahra.

Europe (50)

Belgium
    Flemish Dutch.  Flanders
     Walloons.  Walloon Republic.
Denmark.  Faroese.  Faroe Islands.
Finland.  Aland swedes.  Aland.
France.
     Basque People.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Bretons.  Brittany.
     Corsicans.  Corsica.
     Savoyans.  Savoy.
     Occitans People.  Occitania.
     Provencals.  Provence.
     Alsatians.  Alsace.
     Normans.  Normandy.
Germany.  Bavarians.  Free State of Bavaria.
Italy.
     Friulans.  Friuli.
     Ligures.  Republic of Genoa.
     Lombards.  Republic of Lombardy.
     Southern Italians.  Ausonia.
     Northern Italians.  Padania.
     Sardinians.  Republic of Sardinia.
     Siciians,  Sicily.
     South Tyroleans.  Unification with Tyrol Austria.
     Venetians.  Republic of Venice.
Moldova.  Gagauz People.  Republic of Gagauzia.
Poland.  Silesians.  Silesia.
Russia.  Karelians.  Karelia.
Spain.
     Andalusian.  Andalusia.
     Aragonese.  Aragon.
     Asturians.  Asturias.
     Baleariacs-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Balearic Islands.
     Basques.  Basque Country.
     Canarians.  Republic of the Canary Islands.
     Cantabrians.  Cantabria.
     Castillians.  Castile.
     Catalans.  Catalan Republic.
     Galicians.  Galicia.
     Leonese.  Leonese Country.
     Navarran.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Valencians-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Kingdom of Valencia.
     Extremadurans.  Extremadura.
     Murcians.  Murcia.
Switzerland.
     Jurassien.  Free State of Jura.
     Ticinesi (Italian-speaking).  Unification with Lombardy.
United Kingdom.
     Cornish.  Cornwall.
     English.  England.
     Irish.  Reunification with Republic of Ireland.
     Ulster Scots.  Uster.
     Scots.  Scotland.
     Shetlanders.  Unification with Norway.
     Welsh.  Wales.
     Manx.  Isle of Man.

North America (6)

Denmark.  Greenlanders.  Greenland.
Nicaragua.  Miskito.  Communitarian Nation of Moskitia.
United States.
     Lakotah.  Republic of Lakota.
     Puerto Rican.  Puerto Rico.
French Overseas Departments.
     Martinican.  Republic of Martinique.
     Guadeloupean.  Guadeloupe.

(Note.  Provincial independence movements in Canada and State independence movements in the U.S. are largely territorial, not ethnic or racial.)

Oceania (8)

Australia
     Torres Strait Islanders.  Torres Strait Islands.
     Norfolk Islanders.  Norfolk Isand.
Chile.  Rapa Nui.  Rape Nui.
Fiji.  Rotuman.  Rotuma.
French Overseas Departments.
     New Caledonia.  Kanaks.  Kanaky.
New Zealand.
     Ariki.  Sovereign Kingdom of the Cook Islands.
     Maori.  Republic of New Zealand.
United States.
     Hawaiians.  Create native Hawaiian nations equal to Native American nations.

South America (4)

Argentina.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Bolivia.  Aymara.  Collasyu.
Chile.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Columbia.  Raizal People.  San Andres y Providencia.

Africa (23)

Algeria.  Kabyle people.  Republic of Kabylia
Angola
     Lunda-Tchokwe People.  Democratic Republic of Lunda-Tchokwe.
     Cabindans,  Republic of Cabinda.
Cameroon.  The Anglophones of the NW and SW regions of Cameroon.
     The Federal Republic of Ambazonia.
Central African Republic.  Muslims in CAR.  Republic of Logone.
Equatorial Guinea.  Bubi.  Bioko Island.
Libya.  Toubu.  Tubouland.
Mali.  Tuareg, Songhai, Fula, and Arabs/Moors.  Azawad.
Morocco. 
     Sahrawi.  Sahrawi Aran Democratic Republic.
     Riffian.  Rif.
Namibia.  Lozi.  Free State of Caprivi Strip/Itenge.
Niger.  Tuareg.  Agadez.
Rwanda.  Twa.  Batwaland.
Senegal.  Diola.  Casamance.
Somalia.  Somali.  Somilaland.
South Africa.  Afrikaners.  Volkstaat.
Spain.  Canarians.  Canary Islands.
Sudan.  Fur, Zghawe, Masalit.  Darfur.
Tanzania.  Swahili.  Zanzibar.
Uganda.
     Ganda.  Kingdom of Buganda.
     Konjo People.  Yiira Republic.
Zambia.  Lozi.  Barotseland.
Zimbabwe.  Matabele.  Matabeleland.

Asia (49)

Burma (Myanmar).
     Arakan.  Arakan Federation.
     Chin.  Republic of Zo Asia.
     Kachin.  Kachinland.
     Karen.  Republic of Kawthoolei.
     Karenni.  United Karenni Independent States.
     Mon.  Mon State.
     Rohingya.  Northern Arakan State of Arakan Federation.
     Shan.  Federated Shan States.
     Wa.  Wa State.
     Kuki.  Zale’n-gam
     Zomi.  Republic of Zogam
China.
     Mongolian.  Republic of South Mongolia.
     Tibetan.  Tibet.
     Uyghur.  East Turkestan.
India.
     Kashmiri Muslims.  Kashmir.
     Naga People.  People’s Republic of Nagaland.
     Tripuri People.  Tripuri.
     Meitei People.  Manipur.
     Assamese People.  Assam.
     Bodo People.  Bodoland.
     Kamatapuri lects.  Kamtur.
Iran.
     Azerbaijani.  South Azerbaijan.
     Turkmen.  South Turkmenistan.
     Arabs.  Al-Ahwaz.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Baloch  Balochistan.
Iraq.
     Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
     Turkmen.  Turkmeneli.
Japan.
     Ainu.  Republic of Ainu.
     Ryukyuan.  Republic of Ryukyu.
Laos.  Hmong.  Hmong ChaoFa Federated States.
Nepal.  Madhesi Peoples.  Madhesh.
Pakistan.
     Baloch.  Balochistan.
     Sindhi.  Sindhudesh.
     Balti People.  Balawaristan.
Philippines.  Moro.  Bangsomoro Republik.
Russia.
     Yakuts.  Sakha Republic.
     Tuvans.  Tuva.
Sri Lanka.  Tamils.  Tamil Eelam.
Syria.
     Druze.  Jabal Druze State.
     Arameans.  Aram.
     Assyrian.  Assyria.
     Syrian Turkmen.  Babirbucak and Northern Aleppo.
Tajikistan.  Pamiri.  United Badakhshan Peoples Republic.
Thailand.  Malays.  Greater Patani State.
Turkwy.  Kurdish.  Kurdistan.
Uzbekistan.  Karakapaks.  Republic of Karakalpakstan.
Yemen.
     Adeni Arabs.  South Arabia (State of Aden)
     Hadhrami Arabs.  Kathiri, Qu’aiti, Wahidi Balhaf, Mahra.

Europe (50)

Belgium
    Flemish Dutch.  Flanders
     Walloons.  Walloon Republic.
Denmark.  Faroese.  Faroe Islands.
Finland.  Aland swedes.  Aland.
France.
     Basque People.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Bretons.  Brittany.
     Corsicans.  Corsica.
     Savoyans.  Savoy.
     Occitans People.  Occitania.
     Provencals.  Provence.
     Alsatians.  Alsace.
     Normans.  Normandy.
Germany.  Bavarians.  Free State of Bavaria.
Italy.
     Friulans.  Friuli.
     Ligures.  Republic of Genoa.
     Lombards.  Republic of Lombardy.
     Southern Italians.  Ausonia.
     Northern Italians.  Padania.
     Sardinians.  Republic of Sardinia.
     Siciians,  Sicily.
     South Tyroleans.  Unification with Tyrol Austria.
     Venetians.  Republic of Venice.
Moldova.  Gagauz People.  Republic of Gagauzia.
Poland.  Silesians.  Silesia.
Russia.  Karelians.  Karelia.
Spain.
     Andalusian.  Andalusia.
     Aragonese.  Aragon.
     Asturians.  Asturias.
     Baleariacs-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Balearic Islands.
     Basques.  Basque Country.
     Canarians.  Republic of the Canary Islands.
     Cantabrians.  Cantabria.
     Castillians.  Castile.
     Catalans.  Catalan Republic.
     Galicians.  Galicia.
     Leonese.  Leonese Country.
     Navarran.  Unification with Basque Country.
     Valencians-Catalanics (those with Catalan Ancestry).  Kingdom of Valencia.
     Extremadurans.  Extremadura.
     Murcians.  Murcia.
Switzerland.
     Jurassien.  Free State of Jura.
     Ticinesi (Italian-speaking).  Unification with Lombardy.
United Kingdom.
     Cornish.  Cornwall.
     English.  England.
     Irish.  Reunification with Republic of Ireland.
     Ulster Scots.  Uster.
     Scots.  Scotland.
     Shetlanders.  Unification with Norway.
     Welsh.  Wales.
     Manx.  Isle of Man.

North America (6)

Denmark.  Greenlanders.  Greenland.
Nicaragua.  Miskito.  Communitarian Nation of Moskitia.
United States.
     Lakotah.  Republic of Lakota.
     Puerto Rican.  Puerto Rico.
French Overseas Departments.
     Martinican.  Republic of Martinique.
     Guadeloupean.  Guadeloupe.

(Note.  Provincial independence movements in Canada and State independence movements in the U.S. are largely territorial, not ethnic or racial.)

Oceania (8)

Australia
     Torres Strait Islanders.  Torres Strait Islands.
     Norfolk Islanders.  Norfolk Isand.
Chile.  Rapa Nui.  Rape Nui.
Fiji.  Rotuman.  Rotuma.
French Overseas Departments.
     New Caledonia.  Kanaks.  Kanaky.
New Zealand.
     Ariki.  Sovereign Kingdom of the Cook Islands.
     Maori.  Republic of New Zealand.
United States.
     Hawaiians.  Create native Hawaiian nations equal to Native American nations.

South America (4)

Argentina.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Bolivia.  Aymara.  Collasyu.
Chile.  Mapuche People.  Es:Wallmapu.
Columbia.  Raizal People.  San Andres y Providencia.

This list of 150 active secessionist movements seeking sovereign statehood excludes a small number of breakaway regions that are de facto sovereign states.  It also excludes well over another hundred plus active movements seeking greater autonomy within a sovereign state.  Any of the latter has the potential to intensify into a secessionist movement.

Summary

The number of sovereign, largely Homogeneous and Exclusive (H&E), states amounts to 196.  To this should be added 150 active H&E movements seeking statehood. Including breakaway de facto states puts the total number past 360.  Diversity and Inclusion in the United States is the outlier in the character of sovereign statehood.

As previously stated, demographic change has transformed the U.S. from an overwhelmingly White population to a plural society, in which no ethnic or racial group will be a majority by 2045.  Hyphenated-Americans of different backgrounds will have to live together in a single sovereign state for the foreseeable future.

The great challenge will be if Americans, whose life experiences are dominated by Diversity and Inclusion, will be able to successfully interact with the residents in hundreds of Homogenous and Exclusive countries and regions, whose collective lives are defined by borders, language and culture.

One can envisage a future in which Americans will have the concept of Homogeneous and Exclusive deemed heretical and drummed out of their consciousness.  How will they be able to understand and interact with H&E countries?

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Academic Freedom Hangs By A Thread

In a previous post comparing Chinese and American universities, I noted that applicants for a faculty position at the University of California must submit a Diversity Statement.

This is no minor detail.  In the section on Academic Diversity Statements under Academic Personnel for UC Santa Cruz, the last sentence unequivocally states that “Applications that do not include a Diversity Statement will not be forwarded to the search committee for consideration.”

What should be included in a Diversity Statement?  “Describe any experience or background that has made you aware of challenges faced by historically underrepresented populations.”  These include mentoring activities, committee service, research activities, teaching activities, and other activities that show how you have advanced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion among underrepresented groups.  In addition, applicants must describe the role they envision in contributing to Diversity in the next two to five years.  Applicants are also encouraged to discuss their philosophy of Diversity as a potential UC Santa Cruz faculty member.

Similar guidelines are posted on the web sites of UCBerkeley, UC San Francisco, UCLA (page 5), and other campuses in the UC system.

Applications will not be accepted for consideration without a loyalty oath to Diversity.  Diversity and Inclusion do not permit questioning or criticizing Diversity and Inclusion as official doctrine of the UC system set forth by the Office of the President overseeing all nine UC campuses and the Chancellor of each campus.  Of course, prospective professors can avoid taking an oath to Diversity.  Do not apply for a faculty appointment in the UC system. 

UC campuses are ranked numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 26, and 35 among the top 50 public universities in the United States.  It’s only a matter of time until Diversity Statements are required for faculty positions for the 23 campuses of the California State University System, all California Junior Colleges, and most universities and colleges throughout the United States.  Can Academic Freedom survive if the oath is required in the colleges and universities in most or all of the 50 states and federal territories with colleges and universities?

In Defense of Academic Freedom


Closer to home, on November 7, 2017, and February 21, 2018, Stanford’s president and provost posted articles on the Stanford's concomitant commitment to the free exchange of ideas and an inclusive campus culture.  Provost Drell acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to balance the principles of free expression with ideals of an inclusive community.  It is even harder to implement in practice.  When does Diversity and Inclusion curtail or give way to Academic Freedom?

In a statement released on July 20, 2018, Thomas Gilligan, director of the Hoover Institution, announced the Institution’s support of professor Mike McFaul, who the Russian government was seeking to interview.  Gilligan said, “The free expression of ideas is absolutely central to the academic life of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.  We stand behind professor Mike McFaul’s freedom of inquiry, thought, expression, speech, and publication—ideals that are fundamental to the mission of the university and to the Hoover Institution,  An assault on Mike McFaul’s academic freedom for the purpose of retribution and intimidation cannot and should not be tolerated.” 

A history conference held at Hoover during the 2017-18 academic year was criticized by the provost because it failed to include any female historian paper givers.  The provost stated that she did not want to see any more Hoover conferences with all male presenters.  The Academic Freedom of Hoover fellows to organize conferences as they deem intellectually appropriate was not defended as an exercise of Academic Freedom as it was for McFaul.

In practice, Inclusion trumps Academic Freedom.  It is likely to do so in the overwhelming majority of cases when the two principles conflict.

In marked contrast, conferences consisting of all Black, all Hispanic, or all female paper givers generally proceed without objection.  Over the past 8 years, I attended four events at Stanford’s Clayman Center for Gender Research.  None included a male of any racial or ethnic background.  No problem.

Time will tell if Academic Freedom can coexist with Diversity and Inclusion.  The spread of a required Diversity Statement has already eroded Academic Freedom in California.  Can Chicago hold firm or will it be “Apres Chicago, la deluge.”

It’s only a hop, skip, and a jump to extend the doctrine of Diversity and Inclusion to encompass Inequality Reduction.  Some campuses already use the broader phrase of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.  Applicants for a faculty appointment at the University of California and other schools could soon be required to complete an Inequality Statement, reporting what they have done to reduce Inequality, and how their research and teaching in the next two to five years will reduce it.

The best artistic representation of the Diversity and Inclusion requirement at the University of California is French painter Jacque Louis David's Oath of the Horatii.


Tuesday, October 2, 2018

U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 3

As all sectors of American society are moving to embrace Diversity and Inclusion in their missions and operations, the rest of the world is moving in the opposite direction, in the growth of state sovereignty, of “nation-states” with a common language, history, culture, and borders.

In 1946, there were 81 sovereign states.  Decolonization during 1948-1969 increased the number to 106 in 1959 and 145 in 1969.  Continued decolonization, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into its constituent republics and occupied territories further increased the number of sovereign states to 178 in 1979, 184 in 1989, topping out at 196 in 2017.  The number of sovereign states has nearly doubled since 1959.

The current number of sovereign states is likely to keep increasing.  The next post, Part 4, examines separatist movements around the globe seeking independence.  An additional number of movements is seeking greater autonomy, which have the potential to escalate into independence movements.  It’s possible that tensions among member states of the European Union may result in more separatist movements.

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Chinese and American Universities Have Much In Common

It is customary to hold a Convocation at the beginning of each academic year to welcome first-year students (frosh, freshers) to campus.  The presidents of Chinese universities tell students to follow their interests and passions, so long as they conform with Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.  The presidents of American universities also tell students to follow their interests and passions, so long as they conform with Diversity, Inclusion, Equity, and Social Justice.

China sponsors more than 100 Confucius Institutes on American campuses to teach Chinese language and culture.  American universities have dozens of affiliations with Chinese universities and some have even built their own centers on Chinese campuses.

Anyone seeking or holding a faculty appointment at a Chinese university should show how his/her teaching and research helps students and the Chinese people understand the application of Xi Jinping Thought to all walks of life in China.  Anyone seeking a faculty appointment at a University of California campus must include a Diversity statement that describes what the applicant has done to advance Diversity and Inclusion in his/her teaching and research.  For those who have no prior experience advancing Diversity and Inclusion, applicants must state how their proposed research and teaching will advance Diversity and Inclusion.  Faculty members must report every year what they have done to advance Diversity and Inclusion in their research and teaching.

Faculty in leading Chinese universities, if they are members of a political party, are overwhelmingly members of the Chinese Communist Party.  Faculty in leading American universities overwhelmingly donate to, vote for, and are registered members of the Democrat Party.

Chinese professors must acknowledge Xi Jinping Thought as the core of Communist Party doctrine and the Chinese Communist Party as the leading political force in China.  American professors, despite overwhelming allegiance to the Democrat Party, claim that they keep their politics out of the classroom (ha-ha).  After 50 years of attending lectures, seminars, conferences, and workshops, too many professors in the arts, humanities and social sciences inject their (leftist, Democrat party) politics into the classroom.  The situation has gotten worse in the past few decades.  The latter is politics in the classroom with American characteristics for the current era.

Chinese universities support the sinicization of Tibetans (Buddhists) and Uighurs (Muslims) into the broader Han culture, or Inclusion with Chinese characteristics.  Inclusion is definitely a (the current) central theme in the Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Social Justice philosophy guiding American higher education.

Chinese universities encourage students to earn doctoral degrees from leading American universities, especially in STEM fields.  American doctoral degrees are the global gold standard in STEM. For their part, American universities welcome (and recruit) Chinese students into their STEM doctoral fields.  Chinese graduate students usually pay full tuition.  Chinese students serve as teaching and research assistants.  Without Chinese graduate students, it would be hard to justify the large faculties in STEM fields.  China is less enthusiastic about its students earning doctoral degrees in the humanities and social sciences, save, perhaps, for economics.

One big difference still remains.  Chinese professors and students critical of Xi Jinping Thought can disappear.  American professors and students still have academic freedom to question official norms and doctrines, at least for now, unless University of California Diversity and Inclusion requirements take hold in every American university.  This show may be coming to a theater near you sooner than you think.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

U.S. Foreign Policy Faces Grave Danger, Part 2

The intellectual foundations of U.S. foreign policy lie in the teaching and research of leading American universities. A root cause of recent U.S. foreign policy failures is the marked contrast between political practices and institutions in relatively homogeneous nations with common ethnic/racial identities, values and interests that seek exclusive governance, as against the United States, where the practice of  diversity and inclusion that originated in American universities has spread to encompass the media, business, non-profit organizations, government, the armed forces, and every other social institution.

This contrast is not intended to proclaim the superiority of one set of political arrangements over the other.  Rather, it reflects major demographic changes that have transformed the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population during the past half-century, which differs from worldwide trends towards smaller and more homogeneous nations and 150 active ethnically-based secessionist movements.

The United States has changed from an overwhelmingly Non-Hispanic White majority of 89.5% of the population in 1950, to 88.6% in 1960, 87.7% in 1970, 83.1% in 1980, 80.3% in 1990, 75.1% in 2000, 72.4% in 2010, with an estimated 59.7% in 2020, 55.5% in 2030, 51.0% in 2040, becoming a minority of 46.6% in 2050, and 42.6% in 2060.   Barring major changes in fertility and immigration, Non-Hispanic Whites will be increasingly outnumbered by Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts, and mixed-race persons.

Demography compels all segments of American life to adjust to this new reality.  Universities are the spearhead of diversity and inclusion.  They assert that diversity and inclusion among their students, staff, faculty, and its centrality in educational content are needed to prepare students to interact with increasingly diverse populations in their schools, towns, cities, regions, and the country at large.  Universities claim that diversity and Inclusion foster understanding, knowledge, tolerance, and respect that will better enable graduates, including those engaged in foreign policy, to better deal with foreign peoples and nations.

In many parts of the world, the inverse of e pluribus unum, (traditional motto, from many one, appearing on the Great Seal of the United States) predominates.  The message of diversity and inclusion that American university graduates carry with them clashes with a growing worldwide trend toward homogeneity and exclusion, an emphasis on borders, language and culture.  It’s easy to understand how presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, reinforced by their respective foreign policy teams, made colossal mistakes intervening in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to first remove their leaders and then try to impose U.S. style democracy, which instead resulted in death and destruction.

Yugoslavia

No region better illustrates this harsh reality than the Balkans, which gave rise to the word “balkanized.”  Yugoslavia, created in 1918 as a new state, was composed of areas that had never experienced a common government and which for centuries had been under the domination of different foreign powers.  When the Communist Party came to power after World War II, five distinct Slav nationalities were given official recognition:  Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins.  The constituent units of Yugoslavia were Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. These diverse and regionally concentrated ethnic communities are separated by both religious and cultural practices.

Post-World War II elections were dominated by Tito’s Communist party, which was a collection of the various regional Communist parties rather than a centralized unified party.­

Upon Tito’s death in May 1980, which removed the unifying force, ethnic tensions grew in Yugoslavia.  Nationalism rose in all the republics and provinces.  Slovenia and Croatia agitated for looser ties and the Albanian majority in Kosovo sought the status of a separate republic.  Montenegro joined with Serbia in favoring Yugoslav unity.  Croatia took steps to strip Serbs of their rights in the republic.

On June 25, 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia.  The Yugoslav army was ordered to restore unity, but desisted, pulling out of Slovenia.  In Croatia, however, a bloody war broke out in August 1991 between ethnic Serbs in a portion of the republic they inhabited and the new Croatian army and police force.  Meanwhile, in September 1991, Macedonia declared its independence without resistance from the Yugoslav Army.  UN forces moved into the region to monitor Macedonia’s northern border with Serbia.

In Bosnia, in November 1991, Bosnian Serbs held a referendum that favored staying in a common state with Serbia.  The following January the Bosnian Serb assembly proclaimed a separate republic of the Serb people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The government of Bosnia declared the Serb referendum unconstitutional, but itself approved a referendum for Bosnian independence.  In response, the, the Bosnian Serbs declared their independence as the Republika Srpska.

The war in Bosnia between Serbs, Croats and Muslims followed shortly thereafter.  In March 1994, the Muslims and Croats signed an agreement, which reduced the warring parties to two.  The conflict ended in 1995 with the so-called Dayton Agreement.  Three years of ethnic strife destroyed the economy of Bosnia, caused the death of about 200,000 people, and displaced about half the population.  Bosnia was organized into two geographical units, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosniak-Croat Federation).  The presidency of the Bosnian Republic rotates among the three members (Bosniak, Serb, and Croat).   A national legislature makes laws for the republic with two-thirds of the delegates for both the upper and lower houses selected from the Bosniak-Croat Federation and one-third from the Republika Srpska.  Separate parliaments, which exercise regional power, are elected in the Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska.

The unity of Serbia and Montenegro gradually weakened.  By order of the Yugoslav Federal Parliament on August 4, 2003, Yugoslavia ceased to exist.  On May 21, 2006, Montenegrins voted in favor of independence, declaring their independence on June 3, 2006.  Serbia followed suit two days later.

On February 17, 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo, in a meeting attended by 109 of the 120 members of the assembly, unanimously declared independence from Serbia.  The 11 representatives of the Serb minority boycotted the proceedings.

As of April 2018, the breakup of Yugoslavia consisted of the following political units:

Slovenia 1991- (Ljubljana)
Macedonia 1991- (Skopje)
Central Serbia 2006- (Belgrade)
Serbia 2006- Vojvodina (Novi Sad)
Kosovo 2008- (Pristina)
Montenegro 2006- (Podgorica)
Croatia 1991- (Zagreb)
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1994- (Sarajevo)
Republic of Srpska 1992- (Banja Luka).

What was a once common Serbo-Croatian language has devolved into separate sociolinguistic standards for Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian languages.

Summary

As those educated in diversity and inclusion pursue their domestic and global vision, they will encounter opposite trends in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, where homogeneous and exclusive nationalities, cultures, and languages are the driving forces of political identity.