El día de hoy fue publicada una portada tendenciosa, por no decir amarillista, del Diario Exitosa, referida a una supuesta falta cometida por la actual Ministra de Educación Marilu Martens. La “denuncia” hecha por el diario “informa” que el hijo de la mencionada funcionaria fue beneficiado con una beca del Programa “Beca 18”.
La raíz de la denuncia proviene una ex trabajadora del programa Beca 18 quien aduce que fue despedida luego de no otorgársele esta subvención al hijo de Martens. La verdad es que ella era funcionaria de confianza de libre designación y remoción.
Al respecto, es interesante ver como el diario ha sobredimensionado esta situación de forma muy tendenciosa cuando:
1. Confunde el programa Beca 18 (subvención económica para buenos estudiantes con serias limitaciones económicas) con la Beca Presidente de la República (abierto para que cualquier ciudadano peruano pueda postular para estudiar un postgrado tanto en el Perú como en el extranjero).
2. La Constitución Política de 1993 señala que todo peruano tiene derecho a requerir o solicitar ante una autoridad publica un servicio o el otorgamiento de un derecho (art. 2.20).
3. El hijo de Martens aplicó a la subvención económica que otorga la Beca Presidente de la República, lo que es muy distinto a haber sido beneficiado con ella. Obviamente su ficha socioeconómica lo hizo no elegible.
4. La aplicación a la beca fue realizada en el año 2014, Año en que Martens aún no era Ministra de Educación (Funcionaria Publica), sino asesora, es decir funcionaria de confianza. Al respecto se puede notar la diferencia conceptual entre ambas categorías en la ley 30057, artículos 3.a y 3.e.
5. El hijo de la Ministra Martens ya era mayor de edad al momento de realizar el tramite en cuestión, ella no lo hizo postular a la beca. Dicho derecho esta consagrado en la Constitución Política del Perú de 1993 y las normativa emitida por PRONABEC (impedimentos para los familiares directos de trabajadores del programa).
6. El diario en cuestión aprovecha la paupérrima comprensión lectora de algunos peruanos para realizar una denuncia que hace agua por todos lados: “Ministra Marilú Martens hizo postular a su hijo en el programa Beca 18”.
7. Es interesante confirmar que el actual Director del diario en cuestión es Martín Valdivia Rodriguez (al respecto leer: Ex director de diarios, El Chino y El Men, ahora es director de Diario Exitosa). Obviamente este tipo de pasquines no solicitan declaración de la parte involucrada y publican con la mayor frescura una noticia tendenciosa (tiran la piedra y esconden la mano).
Si bien existe libertad de expresión y de prensa en el país, no es posible que se realicen acusaciones que no tienen asidero real. El titular de Diario Exitosa es un insulto a la labor informativa del periodismo en el país. Asimismo, no sorprende que los intereses por llevar a la actual Ministra a una interpelación en el Congreso estén motivados por grupos religiosos ultraconservadores que se la tienen jurada a cualquier Ministro de Educación que no comulgue con su postura anti inclusiva y que avala los crímenes de odio contra la comunidad LGBTQI (léase evangélicos radicales), asi como los propietarios de varias “universidades chicha”. Ver: Pleno aprobó derogatoria del DL 1323 en un duro golpe contra los crímenes de odio.
Diario Exitosa ha patinado horrible así como muchos borregos y “Trolls” de la oposición, quienes simplemente reaccionaron e insultaron sin analizar la fuente de la “noticia”. Incluso las declaraciones de los congresistas Lourdes Alcorta y Yonhy Lescano Ancieta demuestran una ignorancia supina sobre el caso. Ello dice mucho del nivel de comprensión y análisis de muchos peruanos en redes sociales, lo que asusta en demasía ya que el Perú puede llegar a ser un excelente caldo de cultivo para el desarrollo del triste y creciente fenómeno denominado “Fake News”.
Greg Lukianoff heads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates free speech. He tells Steve Inskeep that freedom of speech on college campuses has been attacked recently.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
We are in the middle of college graduation season, which is a season of high-profile commencement speeches. In 2017, some of the speeches are about speech, how we debate one another. On Friday, for example, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Wellesley College, her alma mater – the graduates there – that it’s too easy to avoid hearing anyone who disagrees with us.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
HILLARY CLINTON: We can shut out contrary voices, avoid ever questioning our basic assumptions. Extreme views are given powerful microphones. Leaders willing to exploit fear and skepticism have tools at their disposal that were unimaginable when I graduated.
INSKEEP: Some of the shutting out of contrary voices happens on campus. This year, planned speeches have been shut down from Berkeley, Calif., to Vermont. Many of those kept from speaking were politically conservative. But it all bothers a man who identifies as liberal, Greg Lukianoff. He’s a First Amendment lawyer and the head of an organization called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free speech on campus.
How common is it that a speaker who’s controversial or perceived as controversial is thrown off a campus or threatened with being thrown off the campus?
GREG LUKIANOFF: Overall – not that common. But it’s amazing that it happens at all, given that, particularly when it comes to commencement speakers, over the years, universities have become a lot more small-C conservative about who they invite. So they’re already being very careful with who they invite. So the fact that, in 2016, we saw 42 attempts to get speakers disinvited, both commencement and otherwise – we didn’t consider that a good trend. Let’s put it that way.
INSKEEP: How do people go about trying – attempting – to disinvite speakers?
LUKIANOFF: The way we distinguish is if the goal is either to get that speaker off the campus – essentially, that speaker can’t speak here – or to shout them down or, worst of all, of course, to engage in violence to prevent the speech from going on – like happened at Berkeley back in February.
INSKEEP: OK. So 42 times in one year – and there’ll be some more this year as you tally it up.
LUKIANOFF: And that was the worst year we’d seen. We have about 15 years of research on it. And we have – we actually have the largest database on disinvitation attempts because that’s really what we count because that is how we sort of take the temperature for tolerance, for listening to people you disagree with on campus.
INSKEEP: Is this reflecting the education itself – what’s happening in the classrooms?
LUKIANOFF: You know, I’m really wondering about that because, for most of my career – I’ve been working – fighting – for defending academic freedom and free speech on campus since about 2001. And for the overwhelming majority of my career, the single best constituency for free speech on campus were the students themselves. And people are sometimes kind of surprised to hear that.
And I’m like, no, no. Most of what we were fighting were administrators. It’s only around 2014 – 2013 – that we started seeing a lot of push by students for people to be disinvited, for new speech codes and new speech restrictions.
INSKEEP: Why don’t we listen to an example where there was a speaker on campus? And many people on campus disagreed with his point of view. It was the vice president of the United States, Mike Pence. He went to Notre Dame in my home state of Indiana and delivered a graduation speech. Let’s listen to a little bit of that.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe zones, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness – all of which amounts to nothing less than suppression of the freedom of speech.
INSKEEP: So Vice President Pence takes this opportunity on a campus to speak up for freedom of speech. As he’s doing it, some – not all – of the graduates are standing up and walking out of the speech. And there was a Notre Dame student who tried to explain to CNN why she thought that was. Her name is Aniela Tyksinski.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “CNN NEWSROOM”)
ANIELA TYKSINSKI: The walkout was in response to the fact that members of our own community felt unwelcome, uncomfortable, and even unsafe with the invitation of Mike Pence. And so political discourse should be happening in other contexts at this campus, not at our commencement.
INSKEEP: OK. So let’s just walk through that incident. Mike Pence speaking up for Notre Dame but criticizing campuses in general – the students saying, many of us felt unsafe. What do you make of all that?
LUKIANOFF: Well, I definitely think what the students did was entirely appropriate. I’ve been frustrated and saddened to see, in many cases, students either refused – they tried to shut down events in some cases or shout speakers down – in the case of Charles Murray and some cases – in the case of Ray Kelly at Brown several years back.
I do get a little worried when I hear people talking about using the word unsafe to mean basically uncomfortable. I do think that leads to problems where people sort of conflate opinions with violence. And that’s something that I’ve been increasingly seeing on campus. They don’t make a major distinction between those two things.
INSKEEP: Violence increasingly doesn’t mean setting a fire at Berkeley to stop an event. Violence means saying words that people don’t want to hear.
LUKIANOFF: And that’s a very bad trend. I wrote about – I wrote a short book called “Freedom From Speech” a couple years ago. And I said, if you create a situation in which a professor – when you say you feel unsafe, they assume nine times out of 10 you mean something more like uncomfortable. That’s a very dangerous situation for people who are genuinely unsafe. Certainly, like, when I was in college, if you said you were unsafe, you’d be like, oh, my God, we have to call the police. What do we need to do? Watering down terms that are so central to people’s actual safety is dangerous.
INSKEEP: So you like that the students at Notre Dame…
INSKEEP: Those who protested found a way to speak themselves…
LUKIANOFF: Absolutely, yeah.
INSKEEP: …Without actually interrupting Vice President Pence. What did you make of what Vice President Pence had to say?
LUKIANOFF: You know, of course, I’m always happy when people have nice things to say about freedom of speech. I did – we did chuckle a little bit, though, at the idea that Notre Dame is great on free speech. We classify them as a red-light school, which means that they have at least one speech code on campus. Now, Notre Dame doesn’t have to promise freedom of speech because it’s a private school. But they do.
INSKEEP: How common are speech codes, as you just called them?
LUKIANOFF: So when we first started evaluating most major colleges, it was around – 75 percent of universities maintain red-light speech codes. But there have been, like, 60 lawsuits (laughter) against speech codes since 1989. So they’re now down to about 40 percent.
LUKIANOFF: We are seeing some actual progress on that.
INSKEEP: They’ve been going down. Would you describe your own politics?
LUKIANOFF: Liberal atheist, as I sometimes get picked on for (laughter).
INSKEEP: OK. So you’re being literal – liberal atheist. As a liberal atheist, do your fellow liberals get a little upset when you criticize people who are criticizing conservatives or trying to stop conservatives from speaking on campus?
LUKIANOFF: It depends on who. You know, like, my oldest friends totally get it. But I will say it can be pretty exhausting to be in the middle of the culture war all the time because it is a situation where nobody assumes good intentions on the other side. They’re totally with you if it’s a speaker they like. But they totally hate you if it’s a speaker they don’t.
INSKEEP: So you’re OK even with Charles Murray, very controversial academic speaking on a campus.
LUKIANOFF: Yeah. I think that we need better practice in how to listen to people – even opinions that we despise.
INSKEEP: Greg Lukianoff, thanks very much.
LUKIANOFF: Thank you.
INSKEEP: He’s head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Howard University has reached a tentative agreement with the law professor it found responsible for sexual harassment over a test question about a hypothetical Brazilian wax.
This afternoon, professor Reginald Robinson’s attorney, Gaillard T. Hunt, released the following statement:
We have discussed the case with the University and we believe we have reached a mutually satisfactory solution. Professor Robinson regrets if anyone was offended by the test question.
FIRE reported on the case last week, which we noted at the time was part of a larger pattern of colleges and universities punishing constitutionally protected expression under the guise of addressing sexual harassment.
You can read more about the case in our press release.
Check back to Newsdesk next week for more on this development.
Case given by the professor translated in spanish:
P es dueño y manager de “Day Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.” P atiende tanto a hombres y mujeres. Entre otros servicios, P ofrece “Brazilian wax” y “bikini wax” – también llamados “Sphynx”, depilada total, o depilación estilo Hollywood.
Para prestar estos servicios, P contrató a A, un esteticista, certificado y licenciado por la escuela ubicada en el Estado en que P realiza sus actividades.
Un día, T visitó la compañía de P. T nunca había buscado tales servicios, pero sus amigos habían elogiado el trabajo de P. A se encontró con T en la mesa de atención. T pidió un Brazilian wax. -¿Un brasileño completo o modificado? -preguntó A a T. T parecía confundido, entonces A procedió a explicarle que un Full Brazilian (“FB”) implicaba depilar totalmente a T desde el ombligo hasta las nalgas, por lo que un FB requería que T esté desnudo de la cintura para abajo. Un FB además requiere que A toque el cuerpo de T y realice los ajustes necesarios para que este pueda acceder a todos los folículos del vello púbico de T. Asimismo, A le explicó a T cómo sería un “Modified Brazilian” (“MB”). Un MB le dejaría una fina franja de pelo en la parte superior de sus genitales, es decir, un “landing strip” (pista de aterrizaje). Así, T optó por un Full Brazilian.
Una vez más, A le explicó a T que tendría que tocar sus genitales para completar la depilación. T estuvo de acuerdo y firmó en el Contrato de Servicio el espacio donde reconoce la información brindada por A. T se desvistió en un salón privado, donde también bebió un té de hierbas caliente. Por pedido de A, T, quien estaba desnudo de la parte de abajo, se acostó en la mesa de depilación. Una vez sobre ella y con los tonos instrumentales como fondo, T cayó en un sueño ligero. Finalmente A completó el FB. Al despertar, T se sintió físicamente incómodo, preguntándole a A si lo había tocado incorrectamente. A, le dijo que no, y sintiéndose ofendido, se fue.
Semanas después, P recibió una carta del abogado de T, en la que T alegaba que A lo había tocado inapropiadamente, generando que T buscara consejería y medicación para tratar un Trastorno de Estrés Post-traumático. Habiendo trabajado con A durante 10 años, P respondió que A era un esteticista certificado y licenciado, que nunca había tenido quejas presentadas por sus clientes. T demandó a P, y por testimonio de A, Los abogados de P y T descubrieron que A había tocado a T correctamente durante el FB. Sin embargo, T todavía siente que los tocamientos de A fueron impropios. En la demanda, T alegó que A, envuelto en una aparente posición de autoridad, lo había inducido a través de representaciones falsas a confiar razonablemente en él, de modo que A podría causar daño a T mientras actuaba en el marco de su labor. Si P se hubiera opuesto, en efecto diciendo “Sí, ¿Y qué?” a los pedidos de T, ¿la corte se encontraría a favor de T?
(A) Sí, porque T había establecido que A era un empleado que fue colocado como esteticista, lo que permitió a A hacerle daño a T.
(B) No, porque T expresa e implícitamente consintió los tocamientos de A en cualquier manera razonable para que este le proporcione el servicio FB que aquél solicitó.
(C) Sí, porque P se benefició de los ingresos pagados por T en razón del servicio realizado por A.
A Howard University law professor says academics everywhere should be concerned by his school’s response to a 2015 exam question about a Brazilian bikini wax.
The school determined in May that the question by Professor Reginald Robinson constituted sexual harassment under school policy, report Law.com (sub. req.) and Inside Higher Ed in a story noted by TaxProf Blog.
The school placed a letter of reprimand in Robinson’s file, ordered him to attend sensitivity training and required him to submit future exam questions for advance review, according to a letter written on Robinson’s behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
The exam question, part of Robinson’s agency law course, asked whether the owner of a day spa would win a demurrer motion in a suit filed by a customer who claimed improper touching by the licensed aesthetician who performed the procedure. The exam question asserted that the customer had slept through the wax, but thought something improper had occurred upon awakening.
The aesthetician had warned the customer about touching that would take place during the procedure, and the customer acknowledged in writing having received the aesthetician’s information, according to the exam hypothetical. (The correct answer was that a court would not find in favor of the customer.)
After the exam, Robinson asked volunteers to discuss the test questions. One volunteer said the customer would not sleep through a Brazilian wax. Robinson switched focus, and when the volunteer declined to explain her answer choice, Robinson sought answers from another volunteer, according to FIRE’s letter.
Two students filed a complaint. An administrator who found the question constituted sexual harassment cited use of the word “genital,” the students’ suspicion that the question was crafted to reveal personal details about themselves, their belief the revelations had a negative impact on them, and the administrator’s belief that the exam scenario wasn’t necessary to teach the subject.
In its June 16 letter, FIRE asked Howard University to rescind the sanctions and to respond to its request by June 30. Howard did not respond by the deadline, according to a FIRE press release.
Howard’s punishment “does not comport with its own definition of sexual harassment or its promises of academic freedom,” FIRE wrote in its letter. “It poses a severe threat not only to professors’ rights but also to students’ ability to learn all areas of the law, including learning how to analyze situations that may make some students uncomfortable.”
Robinson released a statement about his case through FIRE.
“My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature,” Robinson stated. “Why? None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.”
The White House offered an unapologetic defense Thursday of President Trump’s tweets attacking MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski during a contentious televised press briefing.
Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders was grilled over whether Trump’s inflammatory tweet was beneath the dignity of the presidency, fueled a hostile political environment and set a bad example of how women should be treated by powerful men.
She responded by defending Trump and berating reporters for ignoring the president’s policy agenda on taxes, healthcare and infrastructure.
“The only person I see a war on is this president and everybody that works for him,” she said. “I don’t think you can expect someone to be personally attacked, day after day, minute by minute, and sit back. The American people elected a fighter.”
Sanders said Trump shows the dignity of his office “every day in the decisions he’s making, the focus and the priorities he’s laid out in his agenda.
“He’s not going to sit back and be attacked by the liberal media, Hollywood elites — and when they hit him, he’s going to hit back,” she said.
Trump’s outburst at Brzezinski escalated his long-running feud with the news media, a fight in which he appeared to gain the upper hand this week after CNN was forced to retract a story about the Russia probe.
But Trump’s decision to take aim at her looks, saying that the “Morning Joe” co-host had been “bleeding badly” from a “face-lift,” sparked bipartisan outrage in Washington.
“Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America,” GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted.
Critics on both side of the aisle took specific issue with Trump’s attack on a female reporter — Trump faced repeated allegations of sexism and harassment that bubbled up during his presidential campaign.
Kansas Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins tweeted Thursday that Trump’s comments were “not okay,” adding that “we should be working to empower women.”
But Sanders pushed aside the notion that Trump’s tweets were sexist or a bad example for how to treat women.
“Everybody wants to make this an attack on a woman — what about the constant attacks that he receives or the rest of us?” she said.
“I’m a woman, I’ve been attacked by that show multiple times, but I don’t cry foul because of it.”
When another reporter followed up by asking if Sanders felt that the tweet set a good example for her children, she deflected by saying that God is the “one perfect role model.”
The spokesperson chided reporters for not focusing more on policy questions and the White House’s legislative agenda, saying that reporters are more consumed by investigations related to Russia election interference and possible collusion between Trump campaign aides and Moscow.
“The media’s focus on priorities don’t line up with the rest of America,” she said. “America is winning, and that is what we like to talk about, but you guys constantly ignore that narrative.”
But critics say Trump’s Twitter broadsides against the media and the Russia investigation are distractions from his policy message.
In addition to the healthcare debate on Capitol Hill, Trump’s staff planned out a series of messaging events called “Energy Week,” featuring a presidential speech about energy development later Thursday. Those events have been overshadowed by the president’s attack.
It also undercut his call for unity after this month’s shooting at a congressional baseball practice that left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and others injured.
“We may have our differences, but we do well in times like these to remember everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country,” Trump said at the White House on June 14, the day of the shooting.
President Donald Trump made news on Thursday morning when he viciously attacked MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, calling her “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” and said she was “bleeding badly from a face-lift.”
Brzezinski shot back at the president on Twitter, posting a photo of a box of Cheerios that showed a child reaching for the cereal with the words “Made For Little Hands” printed across it.
Trump has long taken issue with accusations that his hands are small. Brzezinski called the president’s hands “teensy” during her show, “Morning Joe,” on Thursday morning.
But Brzezinski and her co-host and fiance Joe Scarborough have not always had a contentious relationship with Trump. During the early stages of his candidacy, the hosts invited Trump on their show regularly, boosting his campaign.
Here’s a look back at the president’s relationship with the co-hosts >
Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, had a particularly close relationship with Trump, which reportedly unsettled MSNBC staff, who found the chumminess between the candidate and both hosts “over the top” and “unseemly.”
As Trump’s campaign gathered momentum, the “Morning Joe” hosts became increasingly critical of his policies and rhetoric.
In the spring of 2016, Trump began lashing out at the two, tweeting in May that Morning Joe had become “hostile” and misrepresented his opinions. In June, Trump accused Brzezinski of going “wild with hate.” In August, Trump said that he would “tell the real story” about Brzezinski and Scarborough’s personal relationship, which had been the subject of widespread speculation. Trump targeted Brzezinski in particular, calling her “crazy” and “very dumb” and accused her of having a “mental breakdown” in a September tweet.
A few weeks after the presidential election, Brzezinski visited Trump Tower, reportedly to meet with Ivanka Trump about the MSNBC host’s seminar series for women.
In February 2017, Brzezinski further escalated her criticism of the Trump administration, calling it a “fake presidency” and banning White House counselor Kellyanne Conway from appearing on “Morning Joe,” arguing that Conway peddled “fake news.”
In May 2017, the “Morning Joe” hosts announced their engagement, ending the years of rumors. Vanity Fair reported that Trump offered to officiate the couple’s wedding, which he suggested be held at the White House or at his Florida resort, when they visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago in January.
Pastor (imbécil) chileno quiso ofender a gays y pisó bandera del Cusco. Como dicen, la ignorancia es atrevida y mantiene en la zona de comodidad a las personas, pero este tipo ya “pecó” de estúpido.