Oy Vey Neri!

[Parsad]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-ackman-wife-accused-plagiarizing-024648968.html

 

Cheers!

[winjitsu]

LPs need to withholding their funds from Pershing and pressure Neri to step down (divorce). 

Give Ackmann a taste of his own medicine 

[Gamecock-YT]

I bet Billy lives in a glass house too

[Ulti]

Maybe wanna correct the typo in the title ( if you were using Yiddish)

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oy vey

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Ulti said:

Maybe wanna correct the typo in the title ( if you were using Yiddish)

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oy vey

 

Thanks Ulti!  I thought I put "Oy" down in the title...didn't notice till you did.  Cheers!

[Sweet]

 

[Spekulatius]

So are they going to take away her title? Because that’s what happened to other people.

[DooDiligence]

12 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

So are they going to take away her title? Because that’s what happened to other people.

 

If she can't remove an appendix she's not a doctor.

[Spekulatius]

27 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

 

If she can't remove an appendix she's not a doctor.

I am a Doctor but not of the kind that you want to have your Appendix removed from. My wife does not even trust me with a kitchen knife.

[Spooky]

The irony is too much.

[ICUMD]

Hard to respect this guy.

Reminds me of Animal Farm.

https://www.readthistwice.com/quotes/book/animal-farm

 

[dealraker]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I am a Doctor but not of the kind that you want to have your Appendix removed from. My wife does not even trust me with a kitchen knife.

I trust your investment slices quite regularly!   

 

 

[ValueArb]

OMG, does this mean she's not qualified to be president of Harvard University?

 

Academic fraud is a serious issue and apparently a rampant problem (resignation of Stanford President last summer as one example). If Oxman is still serving in academia they should investigate her.

 

But it seems like her situation is bit different than Gay's. Oxman appears to be out of academia, Gay was tasked in setting the example for thousands of professors at Harvard. Oxman is accused of not crediting others one time, in her dissertation, Gay was accused of doing same in virtually every paper she published. And every time Harvard attempted to squash Gay's fraud controversy by announcing they had reviewed the flagged papers and found the mistakes to be minor, then another batch of papers were surfaced where she made further "mistakes". It sure looked like Ms Gay wasn't very forthcoming with the internal investigation and that it was run subservient to the task of keeping her in office. 

 

Another issue with Gay is that she didn't publish much. I certainly don't understand what specifically qualifies someone to be president of a university, but it seems weird she got promoted so high when her academic credentials were so thin. If she's been promoted for managerial over academic skills I could understand that (but those skills sure deserted her during her congressional testimony). Whether she was promoted over more qualified academics because of the color of her skin or not I don't think anyone can say with certainty. But all the facts together create enough suspicion turned her into the perfect example for right wing sh*t stirrers.

[Gregmal]

Yea one of these is not like the other. I also don’t know what it has to do with Bill Ackman. Or is he liable for everything this women has ever done in her life?

[Eng12345]

I made comment the other day to a friend that when Harvard has people who've never stepped foot on a community college campus commenting on who should be presiding over the university then somewhere somehow Harvard has majorly screwed up - and I don't think it was just one bad congressional testimony. 

 

 

 

But what do I know? I went to a state school. 

[Sweet]

The testimonies of the University Chairs at Congress in December about anti-semnitism put Ackman on the war path.  
 

He wrote the below about DEI:

 

https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-ackman-how-to-fix-harvard?publication_id=260347&post_id=140327600&isFreemail=true&r=hur45

 

 

[james22]

 

[Gregmal]

52 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Exactly. It’s hilarious and breathtakingly stupid. The same people pushing feminist independence and bs ideology now wanna “gotcha” Bill over something his second wife apparently did in her professional endeavors….I emphasize second wife because it’s not like it’s his high school sweetheart; they both got together after already being far down the career path. No rational person would decide this is a reasonable “gotcha”…fuck I met my wife early in college and couldn’t tell you a thing she did or wrote about, nor could I do so in regards to her career related work.  Yet some elitist academic shitbag leaks to some low integrity journalist, and voila, now “they’ve really got him!”….nah, they’re about to get everything they deserve and more and it’s gonna be glorious. Literally one of the dumbest and most unnecessary “poke the bear” examples I’ve ever seen in my life.
 

 

Edited January 7 by Gregmal

[SharperDingaan]

Harvard is simply doing what all political staffers do, protecting their caesar; in defending the tribe, right or wrong has little to do with it. No different to majority rule, if you don't like the decision; either put up with it and sing in tune from the same songbook, or leave - your choice. Most all within academia, aren't going to leave.

 

Few dispute the merits of DEI; for most, execution is the issue. Go the 'all merit' route and you get incredible people, but not many; that was the purpose of the Rhodes and Beit Scholarships, etc. - find the best (whatever their colour, ethnicity, tribe/caste), send them to Oxford, train them up, and put them to work running the empire. Go the 'criteria' route and you get good people, but many more; i.e. niche vs volume business.

 

Ultimately, money talks; most would expect the major funder's to be making some changes. Nothing prevents DEI from being executed simultaneously in both the 'merit' and 'criteria' routes, other than 'fear of change'.

 

SD

 

Edited January 8 by SharperDingaan

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

Few dispute the merits of DEI; for most, execution is the issue. Go the 'all merit' route and you get incredible people, but not many; that was the purpose of the Rhodes and Beit Scholarships, etc. - find the best (whatever their colour, ethnicity, tribe/caste), send them to Oxford, train them up, and put them to work running the empire. Go the 'criteria' route and you get good people, but many more; i.e. niche vs volume business.

Execution is less important than what DEI means to people.  Execution is downstream of whatever your DEI belief happens to be.
 

If you believe DEI means fairness, equal opportunities and celebrating a diverse workforce the  it’s hard to execute that and mess it up.

 

If on the other hand you believe DEI means deciding there aren’t enough x,y,z identities, ethnicities and racial groups, and that needs to be corrected by ‘positive discrimination’ then there is no way to execute that fairly.  
 

And the problem is that many of these institutions believe in the later but package it in ways that give it a positive spin.

 

On Rhodes, the student body tried to get his statue pulled down.

[Dinar]

2 hours ago, Sweet said:

Execution is less important than what DEI means to people.  Execution is downstream of whatever your DEI belief happens to be.
 

If you believe DEI means fairness, equal opportunities and celebrating a diverse workforce the  it’s hard to execute that and mess it up.

 

If on the other hand you believe DEI means deciding there aren’t enough x,y,z identities, ethnicities and racial groups, and that needs to be corrected by ‘positive discrimination’ then there is no way to execute that fairly.  
 

And the problem is that many of these institutions believe in the later but package it in ways that give it a positive spin.

 

On Rhodes, the student body tried to get his statue pulled down.

oh, and let's not forget, the current receipients of Rhodes' scholarships are not scholars but activists.  Look at the Harvard winner this year - a supporter of Hamas if I am not mistaken and will be majoring in progressive activism!

[Gregmal]

What’s amusing too is what these clown liberals are doing internally. Both Musk and Ackman were pretty prominent liberals not more than a decade ago. 

[Sweet]

Musk and Ackman still are liberals it’s just there is a section of the liberal left that went far-left and went crazy.

[SharperDingaan]

Activism has always been the same game; it's just the names and methods that change. It's a fashion statement, a way to piss off the establishment, a way to be one of the cool/hip kids, and a way to get laid every Saturday night! Not many activists make it past their early 30's .... once school is over, and the mortgages/kids start to arrive 

 

The reality is that all microbes have to successfully compete, and the more resilient they are the more anti-fragile they are. Handicap the virulent microbes (thumb on the scale) and you just get a thriving community of fragile cultures .. until some other virulent microbe shows up. Whereas 'do nothing' and you get natural evolution; harsh, but at the end of the day we all survive.

 

Few dispute that 'thumb on the scale' alters opportunities; but most recognise that it's situation specific, and time limited. Women got the vote because they wouldn't put up with male pandering, and made it happen; DEI would have hurt them. Compensate a cultural genocide via 5-6 generations of positive DEI, to build a modern leadership (Canada's First Nations) is one thing... but do it 'forever', and it's just paternalism .... all over again.     

 

Rhodes would have been chuffed; if the new generations aren't aggressively biting the hand that feeds them, the donor must have been rubbish! To paraphrase Churchill, "Madam I might be drunk, but you're ugly; and in the morning I'll be sober!"  

 

SD

  

Edited January 8 by SharperDingaan

[RichardGibbons]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

If you believe DEI means fairness, equal opportunities and celebrating a diverse workforce the  it’s hard to execute that and mess it up.

 

It's quite clear at this point that DEI is the antithesis of fairness and equal opportunities. Among other things, it's racism re-branded, yet again.

 

It amazes me that after so many injustices, humanity just can't seem to tear itself away from the horrific idea that skin colour should dictate outcomes.