lsuprof

No--this is very racist, not a "little" racist. It is based on a stereotype/prejudice that white people are unable to understand and/or comment on a particular type of music commonly associated with African Americans. (Of course there are many white Americans who listen to this kind of music and are free to comment.)

Imagine a white university professor saying that a black person is unable to comment on a piece of classical music, based on the stereotype/prejudice that black people are unable to understand and/or comment on a particular type of music often associated with European Americans. (Of course, there are many black Americans who listen to classical music and are free to comment.)

This is why companies--particularly those that sell products for which there is an easy substitute--should resist with all of their might from engaging in controversy and/or taking positions on political issues, particularly those that are highly polarizing. Anyone who would put the least bit of thought into this would realize that engaging this controversial issue is a lose-lose situation. Now AB has managed to upset a wide swath of people on both sides and will take a major hit, at least in the short run.

Bottom line: shut up and make beer.

quote:

---

Only instilling the idea that we ALL have implicit bias, and to keep that in mind when making business/HR decisions.

---

The suggestion that there is widespread implicit bias and that implicit bias is a major source of discrimination has been discredited in scientific research on the topic. For a good summary, see Singal's article on the topic:

LINK

The bottom line is that there is a diversity industry that is selling implicit bias as a major problem, and many employers have bought the implicit bias snake oil. Yet there is little evidence that there are reliable measures of the concept and that implicit bias affects on-the-job behavior.

Walter Williams was a major intellectual force, and he influenced my thinking considerably from the time I was an undergraduate student. He had a clear way of thinking about economics, politics, and race, and he stood as a contrarian to the way that many people in the United States--particularly those on the left and those who are committed to identity politics--think about matters racial. I suspect that he took a lot of heat from his university and scholarly peers for his contrarian arguments. I knew that he was getting up there in age, but I am deeply saddened to hear of his passing.

He is a major disappointment.

LSU is a public university governed fully by the First Amendment. As a government body, LSU cannot sanction a student, faculty member, or other employee for expression that is protected by the First Amendment. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment, so while the expression referred to in the original post is deeply offensive and hateful, it is fully protected. The student is fully entitled to the admission that has been granted by the university.

That doesn't mean that people cannot express their own views about his expression and stand in opposition to what he said. Individuals should not be subject to harassment, but those who object to what was said also have a right to free expression and can state that they object.

quote:

---

Re: the ridiculous BBT comparison LSU will never be CalTech.

We’ll never have the liberal arts programs like other state schools. Don’t have the funding or population necessary.

Academically LSUs bread and butter is the school of engineering and some of the business/marketing stuff. A few random undergrad and postgrad majors.

Kill a half dozen or so other universities and that could change.

---

This is a good post and a good take on the situation at LSU. Regrettably, state higher education funding is spread far too thinly for LSU to have excellence across the board. We throw too little money at too many colleges and universities to spend higher education dollars wisely or efficiently. LSU prioritizes engineering and the natural sciences, which makes sense, but any other units that have done well have done so on their own and without resources that are comparable to those provided at other universities. This is why excellence cannot be sustained over time in most departments. A given department can hire some good faculty and do a great job for a short while, but eventually the good faculty get picked off by better funded universities--LSU invests very little in retaining high-quality faculty--and the quality of the department returns to mediocrity. I have seen this pattern in my own department and in many other departments across campus. There are a lot of faculty working heroically to make their departments as good as they can be, but it is an impossible dream with the resources available to LSU.

"Hey Jude"--greatest song of all time.

Close second: "Yesterday"

You do know that 92% of Trump voters in 2016 voted for Mitt Romney in 2012? Voting for and supporting Romney in 2012 is no indicator of disloyalty to Donald Trump.

This is about as anti-science a statement as I can imagine, and the person making this statement is not a real scientist. He or she may pretend to be a scientist and to know something about science, and he or she may be paid money to pretend to be a scientist, but to be a real scientist one must engage in the practice of science. Being anti-scientific actually disqualifies someone from being a scientist, though regrettably it does not disqualify someone from pretending to be a scientist or from calling oneself a "science" teacher.

One of the things that one learns as a real scientist is that there are all kinds of differences among groups of people that are due to a wide range of causes. Sure, bigotry, prejudice, racism, and sexism can be reasons, but there are many, many other factors that explain inter-group differences. The lion's share of causal factors explaining inter-group differences have nothing to do with bigotry, prejudice, racism, and sexism.