Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title says, Harvard University announced yesterday that it will require students who are applying for the Fall of 2025 to provide standardized test scores. Harvard follows a number of other selective universities in reversing course regarding tests. I have discussed several similar threads on the topic of standardized tests and I don't see much in this thread that is different from previous discussions. For years there was opposition to standardized testing because opponents believed that testing favored the privileged who could afford test preparation classes and multiple retakes. Then the COVID pandemic caused test centers to close and universities resorted to test optional policies. In the midst of all this the US Supreme Court, partially due to evidence that applicants with higher test scores were being refused admission in favor of minority students with lower scores, prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions. Joyful test supporters celebrated a return to a time in which the best and the brightest — as evidenced by test scores — would be selected for college. But standing in the way of that vision were test optional admissions policies which critics viewed as a way to continue admitting less qualified minority students. Now that selective colleges are again requiring test scores, this group believes their goal is being achieved. But, not so fast, at least if you believe university officials. As a string of prestigious colleges have reinstated test scores requirements, they have all consistently broadcast the same message. School administrators have argued that test scores, far from disadvantaging underrepresented minority students, can actually help them and, they argue, test optional policies have harmed rather then benefitted URM applicants. So standardized tests, previously viewed as a hurdle to the disadvantaged, are being reintroduced not in the manner that test supporters have hoped — as a clear cut means of distinguishing academic capability — but rather as a tool for increasing diversity. As the Washington Post article cited by the original poster quotes Harvard Professor Raj Chetty as saying, "Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity." The argument about tests has flipped 180 degrees. The argument being made by the universities is that a student from a disadvantaged background who has fairly decent test score may be seen as a better candidate than a more advantaged applicant with a higher score. By not submitting those less than top scores, these applicants have been hurting their chances. Now their chances will improve as the test scores are viewed in the wider context of a student's background. This raises two questions for me. One, are these school officials to be believed? Are they really going to select disadvantaged students with lower test scores than advantaged students they reject? Or, is this just a nice argument that makes the policy change more appetizing? Second, if schools actually do follow through and do this, won't they end up back in court?

Next was a thread posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum titled, "OJ simpson Died". Obviously, this thread is about the death by cancer of former football player and actor OJ Simpson. This thread has been a dilemma for me. Several years ago I introduced a policy that I call the "48 hour rule" by which I prohibit negative posts about an individual for the first 48 hours after their death. I started this policy after the death of former DC Mayor Marion Barry. Barry had many supporters in the area, many of whom were very upset by his death. But in threads about Barry's passing, their memories and expressions of grief were drowned out by hate-filled and often racist posts. I decided that providing a temporary safe space for those are grieving made sense. But I don't think that policy has ever been harder to enforce than in the case of this thread. Simpson is best known these days for the accusation that he killed his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial but found liable in a civil suit. What was immediately evident in this thread is that many posters take it for granted that Simpson was guilty and that his acquittal was, at least in part, racially motivated. As a result, I've had to struggle with issues such as whether saying that Simpson killed Brown and Goldman is a violation of the 48 hour rule? Ultimately, it appears that I lost that battle simply because I did not have time to sit and monitor every post in the thread. Much of the discussion is devoted to rehashing the trial, the evidence that was presented, and what posters believe were the ramifications of the outcome. Several posters see the OJ Simpson trial as a turning point in modern US history, blaming it for everything from the media losing credibility to the election of former President and current cult leader Donald Trump. I think such arguments are revealing, but perhaps not in the way those making the claim believe. Those who believe that the Simpson trial undermined trust in the media should research the term "yellow journalism" or the "trial of the century" involving the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. The merger of news and entertainment and the use of manufactured outrage to increase audience size was happening long before anyone had ever heard of OJ Simpson. Regardless, for the most part, the thread has turned into a relitigation of the Simpson trial.

The next most active thread was titled, "Lauren Sanchez's dress at the White House state dinner" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. For those of you who were recently knocked on the head and suffered memory loss, Lauren Sanchez is the partner of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Sanchez has long been the target of considerable animosity, as well as fascination, among DCUM posters. In many ways, Sanchez is the stereotypical DCUM poster's worst nightmare. A younger, beautiful woman who steals a successful husband away (though Sanchez is only a few months younger than Bezo's ex-wife MacKenzie Scott). The original poster is bothered by the dress that Sanchez choose to wear to a White House state dinner in honer of Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The dress, a low-cut, partially transparent, corset-style in vibrant red, was — in the opinion of the original poster — completely inappropriate. Sanchez and Bezos are easy to mock, more so given Bezo's vast wealth. He comes off as an insecure nerd suffering the biggest midlife crisis of the century and Sanchez as a try-too-hard, not-as-young-as-she-would-hope gold digger. Showing up at the White House looking like, as one poster put it, comic book villains is perfectly in character for the couple. Other posters rushed to the defense of Sanchez, and to an extent, Bezos. Sanchez' critics were just bitter, jealous, and probably ugly, women, posters proclaimed. There was nothing wrong with her dress, said others, and, by the way, did you notice the age difference between Robert De Niro and his date? There was probably more effort in this thread devoted to analyzing why posters don't like Sanchez as there were discussing Sanchez' fashion choices. As one poster put it:

I think she incites so much hate on DCUM not because she's next-level tacky (which she is) but because seeing that level of tackiness achieve a net worth that even all the strivers in the DMV who have tried SO hard to do everything right their whole lives are unlikely to ever even sniff just rankles the troops ...

Another poster added, "I want to see something amazing. What we get is a human version of a Bratz doll." Bezos also received his share of criticism such as that from a poster who wrote, "The dress is super tacky but it’s really Bezos that looks tacky for his massive downgrade in partners." Another declared, "She’s just a shameless succubus who has a mid life crisis dork wrapped around her finger. Big whoop. She’s a trashy embarrassment and he’s making a fool of himself." This seems like a lot to deduce from a simple choice of a dress, but what do I know? I'm also a dork named Jeff who just happens to like red.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "New girlfriend is blocking access to my best friend". The original poster explains that she dated a guy for two years and then, after they broke up, they became best friends. Now the guy is dating another woman who has forbidden the guy from having contact with the original poster. The original poster is sad that she has lost her best friend and wants to know what she should do about it. First things first, we received about 1 million reports asking if the original poster is a troll. Yesterday I spent much of my time fighting with the troll that some of you may remember from the "My wife is a bad sham" thread. That poster started at least 20 threads that we removed yesterday. When I was asked about this thread, I thought that it fit the pattern of that troll, but quickly ruled it out. Having decided that the original poster of this thread was not that troll, I didn't look further to see if the original poster might be another troll. Having done that now, the best that I can say is that there may be a kernel of truth in original poster's story but that much of it is probably made up. Alternatively, her earlier threads were made up. But, they can't all be true. What I think is accurate is that she misses her former boyfriend of two years. However, I don't think the "best friends" relationship has existed or existed for any length of time. Also, I don't think the original poster is married as she claims to be in her post. Whether or not the boyfriend has a new girlfriend or if that girlfriend is a drug user, I can't say. While I do believe that the original poster does truly miss her old boyfriend, I have no idea what she might hope to accomplish with this thread. Several posters accused the original poster of sock puppeting. I see no evidence of that. As best as I can tell, the original poster was not very active in the thread and most of her follow-up posts simply reinforced points made in the original post. I really was not interested in reading this thread so I only skimmed a few posts. It appears that while the original poster received some support, for the most part posters sided with the new girlfriend. The original poster admitted to having sent texts to her old boyfriend advising him to break up with the woman that the woman had seen. This was viewed as a legitimate provocation justifying the new girlfriend's demand that the boyfriend end contact with the original poster. Whether any of this is true, of course, is anybody's guess.