#academic corruption

"I need a man, not an education"

"I need a man, not an education"

"I need a man, not an education"

"I need a man, not an education"

By: Office of Public Affairs

Published: May 14, 2026

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has completed a year-long investigation into the admissions policies and practices at the Yale School of Medicine.

Yale’s documents show that its leadership intentionally selected applicants based on their race. Yale’s documents reveal that they studied how to use racial proxies to circumvent the Supreme Court’s prohibition on using race to select students. Yale’s admissions data demonstrate that Black and Hispanic students have a much higher chance of admission to Yale than White or Asian students with the same test scores.

“Yale has continued its race-based admissions program despite the Supreme Court and the public’s clear mandate for reform.” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This Department will continue to shed light on these illegal practices, and demand that institutions of higher education comply with federal law.”

The investigation showed that, in general, Black and Hispanic applicants were admitted with consistently lower academic qualifications than their White and Asian counterparts. These facts support the Department’s finding that Yale violated the law by intentionally discriminating based on race in its admissions, in clear violation of federal law.

Medical schools use substantial federal financial assistance to train the next generation of doctors. The Department is continuing its focus on eradicating illegal race politics from admissions at medical schools, where quality and excellence are vitally important to public safety.

––

==

Hopefully this serves as a warning to every other institutionally racist university.

Let's see what I can do for this one.

cw: sexual exploitation obviously

It's parent-teach conference night, and Khan has made the decision to actually attend this year instead of taking his usual shift watching the door. He really upset Uzi last week, and he wasn't sure where he went wrong, aside from leaving her for dead. So he wanted to start making it up to her.

First things first, after missing school for a week, he'd attend the conference to figure out what he could do to support her in getting caught up. How was he to know that Uzi wasn't making any friends, and was failing all her classes? Has she been in detention this whole time? He thought she was just hanging out with others after school...

And to imply that his daughter was damaged in her code!?

"How is she like at home?"

She- when was the last time he actually talked with Uzi? The blank his mind drew made his chest ache.

Though, apparently it wasn't going to matter, after enough incidents, enough school missed, and most of all, letting those murder drones into the colony, Uzi's report file was finally large enough to get her expelled from school.

Khan was freaking out. It's not like there's a different school in this colony his daughter could attend. If she was expelled, she'd essentially be forced into being a high school dropout. He didn't want that future for her. He was so focused on keeping the colony safe with his doors, he didn't care about what his daughter wanted. The least he could do is make sure she had the chance to choose the life she wanted. She can't do that without finishing her education.

There had to be something he could to to change the teacher's mind.

So an olive branch was given. Khan was told to come back at the end of the day.

It got a bit complicated as Uzi returned from her self grounding with one of the murder drones, and the place was being wrecked by some monster as people began disappearing left and right. But eventually he was able to reschedule a time to meet with the teacher.

And he was told to strip.

The teacher lamented how he was hardly paid enough to make this job worth it, his ex wife divorced him years ago and he hasn't had time to date since, and while the trope was usually it would be a student offering sexual favors to keep their grade up, he isn't exactly keen on the idea of being pleasured by someone his daughter's age. A desperate parent however...

And so a deal was made. The teacher got to ride Khan every night, and the expulsion case on Uzi would never be presented. Additionally, fulfill his fantasies without complaint, and the teacher would make it his personal interest to boost Uzi's grade, and turn a side eye to any future antics.

Whenever the teacher's place was empty, Khan would force himself to visit each night. And when it was the teacher's turn to have custody over his daughter Lizzy, he'd go over to Khan's. Khan made sure Uzi was none the wiser, always pressing his head to her bedroom door first to check if she was blasting her "nightcore" music, before inviting the teacher in.

By: Colin Wright

Published: May 29, 2026

We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”

But that’s not really true.

Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.

And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.

This isn’t exactly new.

In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.

Two decades later, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and “queer performativity.” Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.

The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.

And today, the problem is even worse.

We now have serious science journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”

But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.

That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.

And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”

That is untenable.

So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society, and I decided to do something about it.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”

The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.

A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.

Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?

If yes, it gets published.

And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.

That’s how science is supposed to work.

Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.

That’s what we’ve done.