The other side of this story: https://web.archive.org/web/20030202084858/http://www.weirdr... I'm sure some hear will object to the tone of the article I am linking to, but if you are going to flag or downvote please tell me what the article gets factually wrong. Because regardless of any bias in attitude of the article's author, if the facts in the linked article are true (eg, Salaam admitting in court that he was carrying a 12" iron pipe, Kevin saying immediately upon apprehension: "Antron did it. The murder" before the police even knew a women had been left for dead in the bottom of a ditch) then at the very least the narrative is way more complicated than the New York Times narraitve that the "police were horrible racists, the arrested kids are totally blameless, 'heroes' even." (And note: it is fully possible that the police did in fact abuse their power to get a bogus rape conviction but also that these kids are not heroes, that they committed truly horrible assaults that night.)
"That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies."
Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they could turn away US merchant-ships without blowing them up. But with US shipping supplies to Britain, the only tool Germany had available was the submarine warfare, which is a much blunter tool.
From the perspective of an American citizen, I think that the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' pretext was bogus. The US should not have shipped supplies to either side, and then there would have been no submarine warfare against US ships.
- Michelle Obama's support of Beyonce's Black Panthers homage at the Super Bowl (if you are unfamiliar with how destructive the Panthers and the movement associated with it were, you can start here https://devinhelton.com/hate-group-history )
- The left's strategy of "electing a new people" -- favoring mass immigration from Mexico because it will help push liberal policies. This was stated openly in Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" and you see articles all the time about it (for example https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/... )
- The continued scapegoating of "white men" and "structural racism" as being the source of problems for minorities, even when you do a deep dive on the statistics and the situations that is clearly not the problem.
- Selective enforcement of the law, going after Republican associated people in groups, such as the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame... ), the IRS going after tea party groups, or the adminsitration trumping up charges against Peter Thiel's Palantir company
There are serious issues at stake, and a lot of bad behavior on both sides. The only way a two-party system works, is if when one party wins, it doesn't try to punish people who supported the wrong side.
Many endorsers have already committed to implementing changes consistent with the report recommendations – from revised essay questions and marketing materials, to the development of entirely new recruitment, scholarship and high school programs focused on community engagement and caring for others...."We don’t want students who do things just because they think they have to in order to get into college"
This is sort of an impossible goal. If you put something on the college application, and judge students by it, then you are certain to be selecting students who are doing that activity just in order to get into college.
At this point, I think it may simply be better to use a lottery to fill slots at the most selective colleges. Set a bar at 1400SAT, top 10% of class, and one significant extracurricular. Then award students additional points for slightly higher SAT or better class rank or more exceptional extracurricular. Do a lottery, with your chances weighted by total points.[1]
Top-ten schools are recruiting from a pool of over a billion people, that means that among the top 1% of that pool there are 100,000 students each year. Distinguishing among that top 1% is nigh impossible, and if you try to do it based on any measuring stick, you will just set off a red queen race. Asking for people to show that they contribute to the community on the application is not a recipe for producing people who can successfully contribute to their communities. It is a recipe for producing people who can create the appearance of contributing to the community. The two are very different.
[1] I'm sure this policy would have to be slightly more complicated when taking into account the needs of recruiting a competitive football team, or in rewarding the biggest donors. But overall, I think this kind of plan would work for filling most of the slots in college class.