It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

Wow... all that stuff still seems relevant and contemporary to me.

How sad.

*doublepromote

For a 9 month employment, getting the start year and end year wrong by one year each, and not mentioning the true start date was late December, that's a pretty big lie to start with.

I've heard nothing of this alleged Larry King call....link? No recording, or any details that don't match her first iteration of this constantly morphing story? ...don't bother mentioning it or it just sounds like desperation.

Um....1) Ford had written contemporaneous notes about her attack.
2) Ford's FIRST HAND WITNESSES, not people she told a story years later, were mostly NOT HEARD, AND WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Yes, the double standard is quite conspicuous....but it's the Right's blatant double standard.

One likely attack with a credible professional accuser, multiple first hand witnesses unheard and contemporary evidence is ignored and denied even a full hearing, and one changing accusation of a totally unbelievable public attack in the halls of congress made by a non credible accuser with no witnesses, no evidence, and who never brought up her attack before even though her attacker has had constant elections for high office including VP twice...even when she was part of a group making other public accusations against the same man, her accusations are to be believed?!

You really have some nerve implying the double standard comes from the Left here. Such bullshit.

MAYBE she exaggerates?!? There's no MAYBE about it. Everything about her claims scream political lie from a proven liar. I can't fathom why anyone ever listened to her unbelievable story except out of desperation, needing so badly to have a Biden abuse story to counter Trump's decades long history of real abuses, both on tape and bragged about in multiple interviews like forcing his way into dressing rooms at his beauty pageants to ogle underage girls as they dress, trying hard to Fuck his friend's wives while he's married, forcibly finger banging any woman he finds attractive, all the way to multiple rape cases in court now.

Perspective
https://youtu.be/d_jzykOXx9o

Years of non stop coverage, hearings, investigations, accusations, and frothing rage over 4 dead Americans in high risk jobs at the hands of Muslims, now the same moronic fear mongers think the current officially confirmed 80000 (likely really at least twice that, 640000 if counted the same way as flu deaths Trumpsters quote) Covid citizen deaths and tens of trillions in losses don't warrant contemporary coverage of real time infection rates and skyrocketing death rate stats are now media fear mongering, not life or death vital information they otherwise wouldn't have because the current administration, Chinalike, minimized, hid, downplayed, and ignored the clear and present danger, and continues to do so every time Corona Don opens his feculent maw on TV.

Perspective

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

When Maher used it and Ice Cube came on to tell him how wrong he was I did sort of feel like its divisive power was perpetuated by the double standard it seemed to represent - black people can use it, white people can't. Honestly I thought it was all a bit hysterical (not hilarious), not that I doubted the authenticity of people taking offence, just that there was an obsession over the word rather then Maher's intent that only furthered the divide between black and white.

Now I think I missed the point. Naively I believed the end goal was to sterilize the word through usage, that the fact a word can cause offence is a sort of aberration. Recently I was made to understand that the word is venomous for good reason. It should be offensive because it represents not just a terrible history of slavery, but also of the continued oppression, both overt and insidious, that blacks experience.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and often I think that is how us whites use it. Mostly our intentions are good, we want to be part of that group... but we never will be because we will never experience that word the way a black man or woman will. I don't think I was a racist (well, so far as any of us are free from bias) when I used it before but I think it was ignorant and wrong of me. To only care for your own intent and ignore a word's symbolism is lazy and self interested.

I'd like a future where the word truly does lose contemporary meaning, but I don't think we get there by ignoring what it still represents to others.

$0.02

Sorry, but crawling out for help is not "brave".

Bravery is putting yourself at risk to help other people. Putting yourself through pain in order to survive is mere survival instinct. Most times, bravery is the opposite of survival instinct. People who run up to burning cars to help the occupants out are brave. Soldiers who storm machine gun nests are brave.

That word has been so watered down by the contemporary American need for "heroes" it's becoming meaningless.

You're probably looking for "Contemporary Art" but this piece might well be "Modern" by definition.

Anyway read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-Contemporary/dp/0230620590

Spoiler Alert: Rich people scamming other rich people who then scam other rich people later. It's a cycle of perpetuating false value because unless you're the very last person ever to hold the item, it benefits everyone to keep the false value alive.

The nuisances allude me as I read this book quite some time ago but it's fairly interesting.

I recently saw a contemporary video about how molten salt nuclear fission is much less risky in terms of meltdowns (not possible) and waste (much more manageable, and some waste products even being useful), and that this now seemingly abandoned method of nuclear energy might be the answer to many of our energy problems today. Does anyone know more about this? Is it a better alternative indeed? This video is a bit too technical for me, but I'd still like to think that this is a forgotten method of generating energy that might save us from completely wrecking the climate...

Is anyone else just baffled by this move?... this had to be one of the most politically stupid maneuvers I've ever seen.

Who really told McConnel to do this...

He, and MANY of his contemporaries are unbearable cowards but he isn't politically stupid.

Wow. Like many misinformed university students, he was not 'craving meat" and feeling unhealthy because he was vegan. He was feeling unhealthy because rather than eating unhealthy meat, he ate unhealthy processed fake shit.

Try greens, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, mushrooms, nuts, and seeds and you'll find yourself quite healthy. And, according to the preponderance of science (not funded by the meat and dairy industry) you'll be much, much more healthy. It's very similar to the smoking industry when they were found to be unhealthy.

It's also similar to the climate change "controversy" and anti-vax "controversy". Science is in complete agreement that a vegan diet is way more healthy than any other diet, but smoke screens are made so that people give up because they're confused, and frankly would just like to eat meat without feeling like assholes.

Check out nutritionfacts.org, a doctor who just goes through contemporary studies in nutritional science. Just the science.

Try starting here if you truly believe in science.

With the amount of money being spent by really smart people I'm sure something about it is valid. It's just, right now, they're all yammering about facts not in evidence. Also, as their quantum computers are actually slower and less powerful than contemporary computers, occam's razor would suggest it's a elaborate black box scam with a couple Raspberry Pies burbling away inside. Until they start using them to increase my FPS, I'm not buying into the technobabble.

I enjoyed this movie so don't let this article I'm about to post deter you from watching -- but it's something that has to be mentioned:

http://shashalaperf.blogspot.com/2011/04/voice-tricky-topic-of-race-and-voice.html

I'm not passing a judgement on this flick because especially in voice acting, people don't need to match the race they're voicing. Case in point, Phil LaMarr is one of my favourite contemporary voice actors and he has voiced a range of different races, including the Japanese hero in Samurai Jack.

Food for thought.

obviously what i said was a very general statement about a very nuanced and complex issue so there are going to be lots of examples counter to it with varying degrees of validity.

that said, one could counter your example by saying that the reason the people in that neighbourhood are so protective is precisely because of contemporary systemic racism: they've been ghettoize. education and opportunity has stripped away. one of the few things they have left is the ability to control their immediate area.

I thought DMT lasted much longer. I thought I had experienced it before. From his description it sounds exactly like Salvia.

Also, I agree with everything @newtboy says. Most of these videos have their little "educational use only" disclaimer at the beginning, but this guy actually sounds like he is advocating use (and irresponsible use in many of these cases), despite saying exactly the opposite.

Clearly he's not met many people who have had negative experiences; there are many.

Also, I can name many people, alive today, who have absolutely killed it in terms of contemporary success in the modern world, to speak to newts point about evidence of positive, individual evolution. If that's one way you measure success, I personally know multiple people who have made, literally, millions (billions in one case) and were significantly inspired by experiences like these in their lives. Two problems: It's an illegal substance, and it would be taboo to tie public figures names with it. Secondly, there are too many factors to attribute personal success to one event or influence, but there are also very few things in the world that can provide an experience so profound that it does impact your entire life long world view.