Silly “social justice” idiots have so contaminated the educational process, that there will, in the end, need to be a come to Jesus moment. The garbage they are spewing isn’t going to help any engineers get jobs. It isn’t going to help them with their design work. Even my own Purdue University is becoming something smelling of globalist trash.
MILO has an article with the following gem;
According to the leader of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education, the word “rigor” contains “sexual connotations” that perpetuate “white male heterosexual privilege.”
Donna Riley published idiocy in the latest copy of Engineering Education.
Riley defines rigor as “the aspirational quality academics apply to disciplinary standards of quality,” which, in her eyes, means that “rigor is used to maintain disciplinary boundaries, with exclusionary implications for marginalized groups and marginalized ways of knowing.”
If you think about what this bimbo is saying, you will go into fits of terror! Do you want a gyno-centric engineer designing a jet airplane that is based on “marginalized ways of knowing”? In other words, a deathtrap?
The following quote tells the rest of the story:
“My visceral reaction in many conversations where I have seen rigor asserted has been to tell parties involved (regardless of gender) to whip them out and measure them already.”
My response to that misguided loon would be to point out that I have one, she doesn’t, so mine is definitely longer. It doesn’t really require much engineering to figure that one out. I could not and would not work with a bimbo like that.
A spec is a spec. If the design or the implementation is flawed lives and money are wasted. That isn’t sexism, that is the real world. Riley is a mental defect who really needs to look into her meds…
There is a youtube video about Criterion Three and Criterion Five changes, 2016, to engineering education, that shows some of her sadly misplaced thinking:
She is speaking of the education requirements of engineers, throughout their careers. She fixates on:
“…attention and time must be spent on humanities and social science content…”
I wonder how she would feel about religious training? If you want to place more of a morality into engineers, wouldn’t religion be an excellent start? There are many Christians that would say “marginalized groups and marginalized ways of knowing”, in many ways, perfectly describes the hostile environment that colleges are to Christianity. Oh, wait a minute! When she says humanities and social science, she is really talking about the sjw agenda, which is really just an anti-white male doctrine that is based more on imaginary wrongs than facts. I believe the phallocentric bimbo is showing her hostility for white men…
How about engineering practices and standards instead. An engineer that is fixated on social engineering is not going to be very useful as a real engineer. If I need a chemical process designed, I don’t really care about your thoughts on globalism and its effects on penis length.
This video, really gets to the meat! In 2015, she was Professor, Dept of Engineering, Virginia Tech.
Her credentials are shown;
Bachelors in Chemical Engineering from Princeton.
PhD in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University.
Then she explains her insane position on rigor:
After listening to this cultural justice bimbo, I have say the following.
She is so concerned about penis length and firmess, that she needs to get a plastic friend and work out her issues. I am not impressed by penis length arguments. It shows that she is a sexist sjw bimbo relying of penis talk to make her silly points. I pity her students, both male and female. I pity any minority that has her as an instructor.
Any parent refusing to send their youngsters to Purdue for an engineering education has good reason not to do so.
The entire concept of engineering, when it is done right, is to avoid the social crap and deal with the technical issues. You know, those issues you are actually being paid to solve?