Nothing to see here

It appears the Review came out awhile ago and I missed seeing the online edition. Not much of a loss from the looks of it--the diligence of the staff apparently couldn't get around a lack of content.

The most earth-shattering coverage comes in the announcement that a Jewish fraternity is being considered. Any victory for the Greeks is a victory for the Review, right? Good writing, though, by Kale Bongers.

Good writing again by Scott Glabe tackling the curious case of Venezuelan politics, but it seems a curious focus for a Review article, especially given their statement (in this issue) that "we steer clear of... foreign policy." I personally would have liked to know a lot more about the plans of this Human Rights Foundation for campus events. Could this turn out to be one of the hand-holding, "otherawareness-raising-groups" groups the Review abhors?

Dan Linsalata's article on the McKinsey "probe" is informative, but hardly insightful. I wish there had been some real speculation on why the administration is finally addressing the administration's metastasis and in such a hurry. The best we get is that there was pressure from the Trustee Board. Oh. Really? Bombshell.

I'm not implying anything, but the editorial on divestment has a sentence that strangely repeats a claim that I made over at Vox in Sox, that "[t]raditionally, academia was the preserve of those who wanted to change the world indirectly; they used the pen’s might rather than the sword’s to influence others." I'd like to think that maybe my thoughts made some sense for once to the Reviewers, but they probably came up with the notion of indirect influence as a primarily academic pursuit independently.

Regardless, the editorial ends up saying that divestment was a bad thing because it could commit us to making all of our investment decisions based on moral criteria. I hardly need to point out the alarmism there. The problem with reductiones ad absurdum is that most cases never reach an absurd point except in theory.

The Steward's Folly editorial takes some unpacking, mostly because the author relies on a multitude of referential pronouns whose antecedents are unclear, or in regular speech, I'm not sure what specifically he's referring to half the time. I'll comment on this piece later today.

Finally, there are a myriad of typographical errors in the online versions of the articles--I am unsure if these typos are absent in the paper copies, but it signals a bit of a rush job at any rate.