Yale

==

BESSANT YALE NEWS

From 1968 to 1970, the News published a cartoon strip called Bull Tales by Garry Trudeau '70, parodying the exploits of Yale quarterback Brian Dowling. The strip which was reborn as Doonesbury and syndicated in newspapers nationwide for decades.^[5]

During the student strike of 1970, in response to the U.S. expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia, the Yale Daily News announced that it did not support involvement in the student strikes occurring across the nation,^[6] making it the only Ivy League college newspaper to disagree with the protests.^[6] In response, fifty pro-strike demonstrators visited the News offices and called the editors 'fascist pigs'. In its editorial, the Yale Daily News warned that "radical rhetoric and sporadic violence, such as marked the weekend demonstrations at Yale, only added fuel to the 'demagoguery of Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, John Mitchell and the other hyenas of the right.'"^[6]

attack by trump, lomborg, shill?

2/20 d ravich new book Yale Broad-ies

DR says billionaires admit charters do not work, but persist? eg bloomberg

SEE YALE LAW JDV ALUM

Goliath 50M$ 440M$ betsy has control

NH, MI, WI ~ refuse to meet w/ bety and v pence?!

reed hastings ~ school bd, just corps?!

ALEC walton koch devos;

joann weiss sp?

uniform nat stds common core boon to vendors

---

an 4 25

NBC News reports the 2028 election is already underway with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) unleashing a blistering attack on Vice President JD Vance at the prestigious Connecticut university where he obtained his law degree.

“Let me say this as clearly as I can: JD Vance, your cold indifference to the lives of vulnerable immigrants betrays every principle that this law school was built to uphold,” Khanna said in a speech at Yale Law School. “Your affiliation with this law school is now a stain on the degree of every Yale graduate.”

“Vance has not only declared war on the courts, but on the universities. And it is no accident,” he continued. “As Stephen Kotkin observed in his study of Stalin, strongmen do not fear recessions or even failed wars as much as they fear the university.”

His speech came a day after the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in grants to Harvard University after it rejected Trump’s demands to address so-called campus “antisemitism,” which also happens to mandate the elimination of Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The demands also include banning masks at campus protests, merit-based hiring and admissions reforms and the targeting and disempowering of faculty and administrators the administration views as “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

IFrame Content

Almost 900 Yale faculty members published a letter to their leadership this week expressing support for standing up to the Trump administration alongside Harvard.

“We stand together at a crossroads,” the letter read. “American universities are facing extraordinary attacks that threaten the bedrock principles of a democratic society, including rights of free expression, association, and academic freedom. We write as one faculty, to ask you to stand with us now.”

Khanna noted Vance’s response to the mistaken deportation and offsite incarceration of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. Vance falsely refers to Garcia as a “convicted MS-13 gang member,” despite Garcia having no record here or abroad. He also falsely calls him “an illegal immigrant with no right to be in our country,” despite a 2019 protection order against his removal from the U.S.

“When Americans asked for due process, [Vance] answered not with reason, but with feigned rage — accusing us of sympathy for a gang member,” Khanna said.

Read the full NBC article at this link.

---

cmd

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2019/12/13513/eli-broad-pays-100m-move-his-ed-reform-producing-%E2%80%9Cbroad-center%E2%80%9D-la-yale

guk 1119

https://yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/23/harvard-yale-football-game-protest-fossil-fuels

Email: justin.farrell@yale.edu.

http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-tipping-point-2170296371.html?page=2

Work from Yale, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, continues a trend of defining the culpability of the so-called Climate Change Counter Movement (CCCM) in obfuscating climate science. This work looked at 164 organizations identified in other academic literature as being involved in the CCCM between 1993-2013 and included 40,785 pieces of textual content and more than 39 million words. Two main findings emerged: Organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have distributed content meant to polarize the climate change issue; and corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, confirming previous work showing the CCCM to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse.

Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change

Justin Farrell1 School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 Edited by Theda Skocpol, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 12, 2015 (received for review May 13, 2015)

...Ideological polarization presents increasingly important challenges for sustainability science and solutions for climate change. Much attention has been given to the outcomes of polarization by demonstrating its effect on individual choices about energy-efficient behavior (1), individual attitudes about climate change (2–6), and variation in individuals’ trust in science as a whole, especially among Americans who self-identify as politically conservative (7).

Climate change is not the first issue with scientific consensus to become so highly polarized (8, 9), but the magnitude of its ecological and human-health effects—and the socio-political roadblocks for mitigating emissions—have led to a wide body of attitudinal research documenting the current sociopolitical environment of polarization that exists. Despite this fruitful body of individual-level research, we have considerably less data and understanding about the underlying organizational and financial factors that made polarization possible in the first place.

Qualitative and historical research has suggested that well-funded and well-organized “contrarian” campaigns are especially important for spreading skepticism or denial where scientific consensus exist—such as in the present case of global warming, or in historical contrarian efforts to create doubt about the link between smoking and cancer (8–15).The primary way that contrarian campaigns create skepticism and ideological polarization is through the production of an alternative contrarian discourse (To be clear, the term discourse here refers to communication in an authoritative fashion about a particular topic or debate), which necessarily takes the form of written text and speech from organizations and individuals (11, 14).

Indeed, many scholars have examined climate change discourse in media coverage of climate change (16–21), but because of data constraints and the difficulty of gathering such complex and furtive data, we still lack a comprehensive data-driven understanding about the actual content and source of contrarian messages, as well as the complex organizational and financial networks within which they are produced.This study presents such an approach, and examines how the production of an alternative discourse is embedded within a particular social structure and how the content itself is influenced by particular funding sources. Important to this approach is the fact that in the United States, there are a growing number of grassroots lobbying firms who work on behalf of corporations, industry groups, and associations (22, 23). Along with this growth in corporate lobbying, other social and political opportunities have opened the door for movements like climate change contrarianism to flourish, such as weakening restrictions on political finance (24) and the concentration of corporate wealth more generally (25, 26).

With these factors in mind, and building on prior climate change research, this study asks three specific—and closely related—empirical research questions: (i) Of all of the organizations in the climate contrarian movement, which ones produced discourse? (ii) What are the specific themes contained in this contrarian discourse? (iii) Does the reception of corporate funding influence the thematic content and ideological language of this discourse? And, how do all of these factors change over time? These important questions have not been adequately addressed because of the difficulty of collecting and analyzing such large amounts of longitudinal textual content and funding data.

Given the breadth of actors in this movement and the sheer volume of texts produced, scholars have either focused on smaller samples of text (11–13), or on rigorously identifying the organizations

SignificanceIdeological polarization around environmental issues—especially climate change—have increased in the last 20 years. This polarization has led to public uncertainty, and in some cases, policy stalemate. Much attention has been given to understanding individual attitudes, but much less to the larger organizational and financial roots of polarization. This gap is due to prior difficulties in gathering and analyzing quantitative data about these complex and furtive processes. This paper uses comprehensive text and network data to show how corporate funding influences the production and actual thematic content of polarization efforts. It highlights the important influence of private funding in public knowledge and politics, and provides researchers a methodological model for future studies that blend large-scale textual discourse with social networks.

...who participate in the counter movement (14, 15). This study combines—and significantly extends—these important approaches with the use of novel computational data-collection methods. The first half of the data include a new social network of all known individuals and organizations who have participated in the climate contrarian movement between 1993 and 2013. As described in much more detail in SI Appendix, contrarian organizations are those identified by prior peer-reviewed research as overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific consensus on climate change. This large bipartite network includes 4,556 individuals (e.g., board members, employees, politicians, researchers) with ties to 164 organizations (e.g., think tanks, foundations, trade associations, grassroots

...

lobby firms). This population of organizations was built-up primarily from a published census of organizations and funding (12, 14, 15), and supplemented with lists from reputable nonprofit organizations (27, 28). The second half of the data include a new dataset of every text about climate change produced by every organization between 1993 and 2013 (n = 40,785 texts with more than 39 million words).

This massive corpus was constructed with the assistance of automated Python scraping scripts, which gathered, cleaned, digitized, and prepared for analysis the entirety of current and archival press releases, website articles, policy statements, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles. Any PDFs were converted to plain text with optical character recognition. (See SI Appendix for specific information about how these text and network data were collected and cleaned.) These data provide a comprehensive analytical framework for examining the influence of corporate funding on the discursive efforts of organizations to create ideological polarization around climate change.

The collection of organization ties and their total population of texts is the product of a real-life countermovement and do not suffer from the methodological drawbacks that hamper survey research or social laboratory experiments. Furthermore, it links the organizations involved in the movement directly with the texts that they produce, enabling analysis about how organizational features might influence the actual thematic content of the texts. With this approach in mind, the data also include several important organizational covariates, such as the year the organization was founded, its total assets, its mission focus, the organization type, and an organization’s influence on the transfer of information within the network (i.e., betweenness centrality) (29). Most importantly for the purposes of this study, the data also include a measure of corporate funding from entities that prior literature on contrarian movements have identified as especially influential (8, 9, 14, 15): ExxonMobil (EM) and the Koch family foundations (KFF). Relying on this past research, along with Internal Revenue Service data (see SI Appendix for important details), this measure records whether or not an organization in the network received funding from either of these entities between 1993 and 2013. Donations from these corporate benefactors signals entry into a powerful network of influence.

Analytical Approach...

Yesterday morning, 48 students launched a sit-in at Yale University to demand their administration divest from fossil fuels, and yesterday evening 19 were arrested for refusing to leave the building. Students asked their administration to pick a side: the people or the polluters. The fossil fuel industry that's wrecking our climate -- or the students, alumni, faith leaders, Nobel Prize laureates, and communities demanding that they get serious about this planetary emergency.

These brave students at Yale are not acting alone -- as spring warms up, young people at schools across the U.S. are turning up the heat. At Swarthmore and the University of Mary Washington, activists have been blocking administration buildings for weeks demanding that their schools stand on the right side of history. Now they need your help. 4/15

attacked by wfb and lewis pwl in memo

fox bs: widely recirc thru wattup etc

Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?

Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.

The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.

Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.

“It's easy to believe in the religion of global warming. It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

Groups that are concerned about global warming say the study results really show that politics is blinding otherwise-reasonable people.

“Climate contrarians know what scientists have found but they’re choosing to reject those findings, usually for political reasons,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.

He added that things would get better if people heard more from conservatives who worry about climate.

“The public just doesn’t hear often enough from conservative politicians and advocacy groups that are engaging in constructive debates on climate policy,” he said.

The study’s author, Kahan, also says that the global warming debate has become so politically polarized that people pick their side based on politics rather than what they know about science.

“The position someone adopts on [global warming] conveys who she is – whose side she’s on, in a hate-filled, anxiety-stoked competition for status between opposing cultural groups,” Kahan writes in his paper.

Kahan says that if global warming believers really want to convince people, they should stop demonizing and talking down to their opponents, and instead focus on explaining the science.

“It is really pretty intuitive: who wouldn’t be insulted by someone screaming in her face that she and everyone she identifies with ‘rejects science’?”

The author, Maxim Lott, can be reached on Facebook or atmaxim.lott@foxnews.com

Dan M. Kahan

Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology

Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. In addition torisk perception, his areas of research include criminal law and evidence. Prior to coming to Yale in 1999, Professor Kahan was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. He also served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90). He received his B.A. from Middlebury College and his J.D. from Harvard University.

:{EducationJ.D., Harvard, 1989

B.A., Middlebury, 1986}:

:{Courses Taught

Criminal Law & Administration

Evidence

Supreme Court Advocacy}:

===

Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. His primary research interests (for the moment, anyway) are risk perception, science communication, and the application of decision science to law and policymaking.

He is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars who use empirical methods to examine the impact of group values on perceptions of risk and related facts. In studies funded by the National Science Foundation, his research has investigated public disagreement over climate change, public reactions to emerging technologies, and conflicting public impressions of scientific consensus.

Prior to coming to Yale in 1999, Professor Kahan was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. He served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).

He is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Science and Civic Engagement and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/yale-students-fossil-fuels_n_5761546.html

There is no field evidence to support his claims, either. “[W]e found that in those kinds of landscapes where corn is being grown, the great majority of the ponds we sampled didn’t have any deformities at all,” wrote Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies professor David Skelly, who Mother Jones bizarrely tries to portray as an admirer of Hayes. “To my knowledge (and I have participated in two EPA panels that reviewed available results) nobody else has been able to get this ultra low concentration effect.” -- entine

==

GUIDE TO THE YALE FAMILY CHART

1) Rev. Nodiah Russell: One of 10 or 12 men who founded Yale University in 1701. Yale Trustee 1701-13. Pastor, First Congregational Church, Middletown, Ct. ca. 1691-1716.

2) Rev. JamesPierpont: Most celebrated of the Yale founders. Yale Trustee, 1701-14.

3) William Russell: Yale Trustee 1745-61. Pastor, First Congregational Church, Middletown, Ct. 1716-61.

4) Jonathan Edwards: Graduated Yale 1720. Ultra-Calvinist theologian, president of Princeton University (called then ``College of New Jersey'').

5) Rev. Nodiah Russell: Graduated Yale 1750.

6) Pierpont Edwards (1750-1826): Made Master of Connecticut Masons by the British Army occupying New York in 1783; he administered the estate of the traitor Benedict Arnold.

7) Aaron Burr, Sr.: Graduated yale 1735. President of Princeton University (``College of New Jersey'').

8) MatthewTalcott Russell: Graduated Yale 1769. Deacon of First Congregational Church, Middletown, Ct. for 30 years. Lawyer for the Middletown Russell family. Died ca. 1817.

9) Captain John Russell. Died 1801 or 1802.

10) Henry W. Edwards: Governor of Connecticut 1833, 1835-38. Protector of Samuel Russell's opium-financed enterprises, patron of William Huntington Russell's new secret society, Skull and Bones.

11) Aaron Burr, Jr.: U.S. Vice President 1801-08. Killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Secession conspirator. Acquitted of treason in 1807, but wanted for murder, he fled to England. Returned to U.S.A. in 1812. Wall Street lawyer, 1812-36. Hero of imperial Anglo-Americans.

12) Theodore Dwight (1764-1846): Law partner of his cousin Aaron Burr, Jr. Secretary of the secessionist Hartford Convention, 1815. He united the Connecticut pro-British party with Massachusetts ``Essex Junto.''

13) Timothy Dwight: Secessionist. President of Yale, 1795-1817.

14) William Huntington Russell (1809-85): Graduated Yale 1833. Founder of Skull and Bones Society (or Russell Trust Association), which came to dominate Yale. Founded prep school for boys, 1836. His secret organization spread in the 1870s to Phillips Academy, the Andover, Massachusetts prep school.

15) Samuel Russell: Born in 1789 in the main ancestral house of the Russell family of Middletown. This house had been owned by the co-founder of Yale, Nodiah Russell (1), and by William Russell (3) and his wife Mary, sister-in-law to Jonathan Edwards.

He became head of the Middletown Russells. He established Russell and Co. in 1823, which by the 1830s superseded Perkins syndicate as largest American opium smuggling organization. His partners included leading Boston families.

He founded the Russell Manufacturing Company, Middletown, in 1837; he was president of Middlesex County Bank. During the formative years of Skull and Bones, the fabulously wealthy Samuel Russell was undisputed king of Middletown.