> Actually, those statements appear to be largely true and should be studied more to learn why. Actually, those statements are each demonstrably false, but it

> Actually, those statements appear to be largely true and should be studied more to learn why. Actually, those statements are each demonstrably false, but it is interesting to see those to whom the statements seem to appeal. The first is not even close to the definition of affirmative action, but it is the sort of cleverly defined rhetorical definition that some people like to trot out to try to attack affirmative action. You can tell the difference from an actual goal of such policies by the introduction of terms like ‘lowering standards’. For the second you are actually going to try to use the number of Nobel laureates to define the rate of ‘genius’ across a population? Seriously? If you are wondering why most Nobel laureates are men, maybe check out the research (1) and examine whether such a selection criteria actually even measures what you think it does. The claim that the introduction of women to higher education was the source of the rise of administrative overhead at colleges is simply too ridiculous to even bother refuting. To be honest, it is so silly that I went hunting on the spurious correlation site to see if they happened to have put that chart together. The problem with people who use terms like SJW is that they have very little support from data and reality, so they tend to aim for cheap rhetoric to compensate for weak arguments. (1) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0256-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0256-3] Surprise! It’s due to bias.