Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Trump Could Blow Up The ACA Marketplaces Tomorrow By Stopping Subsidy Payments

Then 86 them. Healthcare is not a Right. It is a commodity. 

When Govt turns the provision of any commodity into a tax payer funded Right it becomes a textbook definition of fascism. 

Don't believe us? Go read the stories of the endless misery psychiatry has occasioned it's patients, often times through outright force though usually fraud and out right lying in fact or through omission at Mad In America. 

Yank its money from Govt out from under it, and you've solved a good 90% of the problem.


Kaiser Health News

The president has threatened to end the payments to insurers before, and now with the failure of the GOP's proposed bill, the deadline hangs like a guillotine over companies' heads. “My advice to the plans this morning was, ‘If you get it, cash the check quickly,’” one health care lobbyist who represents insurers said Tuesday.

Politico: Trump Threatens To Gut Obamacare Markets
Donald Trump holds a fuse in his hands — and he could decide to light it and blow up Obamacare insurance markets as soon as Thursday. That’s the deadline for sending out the next monthly Affordable Care Act subsidies to health plans to defray the cost of care for individuals with low incomes. The president has toyed for months with the idea of stopping the payments to force Democrats to the negotiating table to avoid the prospect of millions of vulnerable Americans losing access to health coverage. (Demko and Dawsey, 7/18)

Bloomberg: Health Insurers’ Next Obamacare Scare Is Just Two Days Away 
The health insurance industry’s Obamacare drama reached a climax on Tuesday, but it isn’t over. With Senate Republicans’ failure to advance their bill to replace Obamacare, insurers are facing a summer of uncertainty. President Donald Trump’s administration won’t commit to making critical payments under Obamacare. Health plans have pulled out of some markets, and raised rates in others. And there’s always the chance that Republicans could revive their effort to repeal the law. (Tracer, 7/18)

Reuters: As Obamacare Repeal Falters, Insurers Start To Press On Subsidies
A failed Republican effort to replace Obamacare raised new concerns on Tuesday for U.S. health insurers over whether the government will continue to fund billions of dollars in medical benefit subsidies. The healthcare bill under consideration in the U.S. Senate would have settled the funding question, but was scrapped after Republican leaders were unable to rally enough party members to win approval. (Humer and Abutaleb, 7/18)

The Washington Post: Affordable Care Act Remains Intact, But Consumers And Insurers Are Left With New Worries
The implosion of the Senate Republicans’ health-care ambitions leaves the Affordable Care Act intact for the moment — but immediately creates worrisome unpredictability for the 10 million Americans who buy health plans through the law’s insurance marketplaces. These consumers could face a rocky few months at the least, as the insurers on which they rely decide how to respond to the political chaos. Some companies could become more skittish about staying in the marketplaces for 2018, while others could try to ratchet up their prices depending on how events in Washington unfold. (Goldstein and Winfield Cunningham, 7/18)

The Wall Street Journal: Health Insurers Brace For New Uncertainty After GOP Bill’s Collapse
For the health-care system, it’s back to square one. Insurers, hospitals and state officials are facing the prospect that the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land for now at least, but they also are left with huge questions about how key aspects of the law will be handled under the Trump administration as deadlines loom for insurers’ decisions about next year. (Wilde Mathews and Evans, 7/18)

The Associated Press: 'Repeal Now, Replace Later' Has Immediate Consumer Impact
Consumers would feel the impact immediately if Republicans repeal "Obamacare" with no replacement. Problems could start this fall for customers buying individual health policies, say independent experts, with more insurers likely to exit state markets around the country, and those remaining seeking higher rates. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 7/19)

Los Angeles Times: The U.S. Spends More On Healthcare Than Any Other Country — But Not With Better Health Outcomes
Despite repeated attempts by Senate Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare debate in Washington appears to have collapsed — for now. The United States has much room for improvement when it comes to healthcare, experts said. “The U.S. spends more on healthcare, but we don’t have the same health outcomes [as other countries],” said Cynthia Cox, associate director at Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization that researches national health issues. (Etehad and Kim, 7/18)

But it's not all doom and gloom for some insurers —
Bloomberg: UnitedHealth Puts Obamacare In Rearview As Business Expands
UnitedHealth Group Inc. is putting its Obamacare struggles behind it just as Republicans in the Senate are trying to do the same. The biggest U.S. health insurer reported second-quarter results Tuesday showing expanded membership as it moved away from the Affordable Care Act and added customers mainly in the government funded programs for the elderly and poor: Medicare and Medicaid. The company largely quit Obamacare going into this year, after racking up losses selling policies to individuals last year. (Tracer, 7/18) 


This is part of the KHN Morning Briefing, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.

Thank You KHN.


Saturday, July 8, 2017

The Democrats' Soviet Insane Asylum For Trump

Mental Health: The bottom of political collectivism's unwashed garbage can.

frontpagemag
The Left’s faithful devotion to socialist-style “psychiatric” disposal of political dissidents.
July 7, 2017
Jamie Glazov


The former Soviet Union possessed many imaginative mechanisms to deal with the problem of enemies of the people who obstructed the path to socialist utopia -- now known as “social justice.” One of those mechanisms was the practice of confining individuals who were thinking the wrong thoughts to insane asylums. Indeed, if you caused any trouble for the commissars, a good inoculation of neuroleptics (powerful drugs used to “quiet” the symptoms of schizophrenia), forcibly administered through a tube in the nose, could do wonders in bringing your politically incorrect behavior to a halt.

Dissidents such as Natalya Gorbanevskaya, Pyotr Grigorenko, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin and Joseph Brodsky were all among the brave freedom-fighters who bore the brunt of the Soviet practice of institutionalizing dissidents in mental hospitals and force-feeding them mind-shattering drugs. Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Grigorenko suffered the same fate for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. Bukovsky was confined to a psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved "tranquilizing" injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts.

Today’s progressive Democrats are also faithfully journeying on an uplifting odyssey. Horrified by Trump’s opposition to Obama’s “fundamental transformations,” they have found their own neuroleptics in the form of the 25th Amendment and a bill seeking to impeach the president for being mentally unsound. Indeed, Trump has to be mentally deranged and unfit for office, because what other reason could possibly explain his frightening disagreement with the Left’s un-American creed of identity politics -- race and gender uber alles? What other factor could possibly be at play in his embrace of individual freedom and responsibility -- and in his rejection of group privileges and racial/gender hierarchies that, as David Horowitz has noted, can only be manifested after America’s Constitution is null and void?

Confronted by Trump’s shocking blasphemy against their anointed plan, several Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have now signed onto a bill that seeks to remove Trump by invoking 25th Amendment powers. The bill cites section 4 of the amendment, created in 1967 after JFK's assassination, that allows for an independent body to remove the president based on the determination that he has been mentally or physically incapacitated to carry out his duties. Raskin's initiative would activate a probe into whether Trump has been too far "incapacitated" to continue as president.

This effort is, actually, even sicker than the Soviet practice, since the amendment does not refer to psychiatric problems, but to actual incapacitation through assassination or stroke.

Raskin claims he is concerned that "something is seriously wrong" with Trump, citing a "sustained pattern of behavior" and several "errant and seemingly deranged tweets," which he believes are damaging to U.S. interests. But to anyone who hasn’t drunk the progressive Kool-Aid, it is obvious that Trump’s sustained pattern of behavior is not damaging U.S. interests. Instead, it is unhinging his political enemies and damaging the progressive assault on America’s social contract. Trump’s tweets do not warn, for example, that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam (an Obama meme) or that you can keep your doctor if you like him. They are singing the praises of America and calling out a corrupt media for its brazen lies and political partisanship.

The only reasonable observation in Raskin’s statements is that (to people like him): "it certainly doesn't feel like the ship is on an even course right now."

Consequently, the Democrats are now trying to steer the ship back into progressive waters. They are doing so by applying the lessons of the Soviet secret police -- in quashing those who disagree with them like Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov refused to toe the Soviet party line and be politically correct; therefore, like Trump, he was also obviously mentally ill. That’s why the Soviet authorities had to confine him in a closed ward of the Semashko Hospital in Gorky, where he was force-fed and given drugs to alter and enlighten his state of mind.

And now enter the new self-appointed social redeemers of our time: the progressive Democrats who are consumed with ferocious rage as they watch the horror show of an American president strengthening America and abandoning the enlightened course on which Obama’s ship sailed. There is no secret about what the true yearnings of the Raskin Gang are, but absent a totalitarian state to back them up, they are bound to fail.



Thank You Mr Glazov and FPM.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Researchers Find Brief Intervention For Preventing Self-Harm Ineffective

madinamerica
posted by Peter Simons July 4, 2017

Self-harm (such as cutting or burning) is one of the known predictors of suicide risk. The medical community has long been interested in potential psychological interventions that could target this behavior as a way of preventing future self-harm and/or suicide. A new study just published in The Lancet Psychiatry examines one such intervention: a brief worksheet for self-harm prevention. Unfortunately, the researchers found that their worksheet was ineffective at preventing future re-hospitalizations.

There is some evidence that psychological interventions can reduce self-harm or suicidal behaviors. Most of this evidence centers around longer-term psychological interventions such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). However, even this evidence has been rated as “low quality” in a recent (2016) meta-analysis by the well-regarded Cochrane Group. Other interventions did not merit even this distinction, instead, they were rated as “inconclusive.”

The authors of the current study attempted to improve this inconclusive research by using a large randomized, controlled trial design to study the effectiveness of their brief worksheet-based intervention. The researchers studied 518 patients, randomly assigned to either a brief psychological intervention or to a control group that received treatment as usual (no additional treatment). All patients had been admitted to a single hospital in the UK after a suicide attempt.

The researchers termed their worksheet a “volitional help sheet (VHS).” It contained a number of “if… then…” statements which the researchers believed could enable participants to identify alternative coping strategies when feeling the urge to self-harm or attempt suicide.

The researchers measured three primary outcomes: 1) the percentage of participants who were hospitalized again for self-harm; 2) the number of times individual participants were re-hospitalized for self-harm; and 3) the estimated cost-effectiveness of the worksheet.

The results were striking: there was no difference in the percentage of participants re-hospitalized, nor was there a difference in the number of times individuals were re-hospitalized. That is, the researchers determined that their intervention was completely ineffective for preventing self-harm.

After the failure of their primary outcomes, the researchers conducted secondary analyses to determine if their intervention might be helpful for any subgroup. In this posthoc analysis, the researchers found that people who had previously been admitted to hospitals for self-harm behaviors appeared slightly more likely to improve after the VHS intervention. The researchers state that because this was not part of their original study design, the finding needs to be replicated in future studies before it can inform policy or treatment decisions.

According to the authors: “For those with no history of self-harm hospital admission, the VHS might increase self-harm (i.e., do harm).”

The study was also limited in that it only examined re-hospitalizations. Most self-harm behaviors do not result in hospitalization, which means that it is likely that a large number of participants continued self-harming and simply were not identified during the follow-up period of the study.

In a commentary on the study also published in The Lancet Psychiatry, Katrina Witt writes that researchers hope to find “brief psychological interventions that require minimal expertise to deliver” since many people who admit to hospitals with self-harm and suicidality will not go on to receive mental health services. However, Witt also questions whether brief interventions will do more harm than good:

“These interventions also have the potential to increase rumination and negative affect, and potentially self-harm repetition, by serving as unhelpful reminders of negative experiences in the lead-up to the index self-harm event or during hospital treatment.”

As it stands now, these interventions may do more harm than good. According to the researchers, further study is needed to determine the efficacy of any of these interventions for reducing self-harm and suicidal behavior.


****

O’Connor, R., Ferguson, E., Scott, F., Smyth, R., McDaid, D., Park, A. . . . Armitage, C. J. (2017). A brief psychological intervention to reduce repetition of self-harm in patients admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 4(6), 451-460. (Link)


Thank You Mr Simons and MIA.



Most of this evidence centers around longer-term psychological interventions such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). However, even this evidence has been rated as “low quality” in a recent (2016) meta-analysis by the well-regarded Cochrane Group. 


San Francisco's DBT: COMMUNISM, SWALLOW IT 

Collectivist bullshit is what it is: Collectivist Bullshit.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Conservative Prof Loses Job After Spat With UCLA Admins

campusreform
Anthony Gockowski Investigative Reporter Jun 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM EDT


 

Keith Fink had objected to having enrollment in his popular free speech course slashed dramatically, a provocation he believes was contrived in anticipation of his upcoming "Excellence Review."

Three of the faculty members on the review committee were flagged by Fink in advance for potentially harboring bias against him, and the committee ultimately deadlocked 3-3-3.

The tie-breaking vote was left to Social Sciences Dean Laura Gomez, who took several weeks before deciding that Fink's contract would not be renewed.

A popular conservative professor has been fired by the University of California, Los Angeles following an “excellence review” that his defenders say was marred by “politically-motivated” bias.

Keith Fink taught as a communications lecturer at UCLA since 2008, long enough to prompt a routine “excellence review,” though as Campus Reform previously reported, at least two members of the faculty committee had demonstrated prior bias against him, including Department Chair Kerri Johnson.


"Keith will continue to fight for these principles that he holds dear."

[RELATED: Tenured conservative prof retires due to liberal persecution]

Johnson, in fact, arbitrarily limited the number of students who could enroll in his popular free-speech course, repeatedly placing caps on enrollment.

Still, the faculty committee deadlocked in a 3-3 vote on Fink’s case, leaving his fate in the hands of Social Sciences Dean Laura Gomez, who announced Tuesday that his contract would not be renewed because his teaching did “not meet the standard of excellence.”

However, Fink had routinely received glowing end-of-term course evaluations from students, earning an average “Instructor Rating” of 8.17 and an average “Course Rating” of 8.14 on a nine-point scale, both of which figures his colleagues called “very high” compared to the departmental average in their review letter.

[RELATED: Judge upholds Marquette’s suspension of conservative prof]

According to copies of end-of-term evaluations obtained by Campus Reform, students consistently described Fink as “one of the best instructors,” the “epitome of a role model,” and “inspiring and life-changing.”

In their letter to Dean Gomez, the faculty committee responsible for reviewing Fink’s teaching even conceded that “these indices skewed toward a favorable view of Mr. Fink’s teaching effectiveness,” but expressed concern over the “rigor” of his assessment of students, and the “climate fostered within the classroom.”

In response to the faculty committee’s letter, though, Fink demonstrated that his assessment of students was comparable to most other professors in his department.

Nonetheless, Gomez, in a five-sentence letter, notified Fink of his termination Tuesday, a move Fink’s teaching assistant Andrew Litt described as lacking “explanation likely because there are no credible arguments to be made that support the conclusion that Keith is not excellent.”

Indeed, Gomez’s letter offers little explanation as to the rationale behind Fink’s termination apart from stating that his “teaching does not meet the standard of excellence.”

Litt told Campus Reform that “no reason makes sense other than the fact that this review has been conducted in a politically-motivated viewpoint-discriminatory manner from the outset.”

[RELATED: Students say they feel ‘threatened’ by conservative views]

“Keith will continue to fight for these principles that he holds dear,” Litt added. “His termination is an injustice to the students and the taxpayers of the state, a threat to all teachers and academic freedom, and a slap in the face to the notion of due process and fundamental fairness.”

Campus Reform reached out to Gomez for elaboration on her decision, and will update this article if a response is received.



Thank You Mr Gockowski and Campus Reform.

UC Berkley Claims Right To Suppress Speech In Legal Motion

campus reform
Peter Van Voorhis California Campus Correspondent Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 AM EDT


 

The University of California, Berkeley is trying to get a judge to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit filed by conservative students after the school blocked Ann Coulter from speaking.

The students allege a pattern of administrators stifling conservative speech, such as the use of a vague "high profile speaker" policy used to deny Coulter and other conservative speakers a forum on campus.

The university's motion argues that the issue is "moot" because it has promised to replace its speaker policy, and that the speech restrictions in question were "viewpoint neutral."

The University of California, Berkeley is trying to get a judge to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit filed by conservative students after the school blocked Ann Coulter from speaking.

The suit alleges that UC administrators have systematically stifled “the speech of conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy,” claiming that Berkeley has selectively enforced a new “high profile speaker” policy in order to deny conservatives a platform on campus.

"I am happy that the university has finally realized their draconian policies need reform."

[RELATED: UC-Berkeley will not silence conservatives]

In a court document obtained by Campus Reform, attorneys for the defendants—who include UC System President Janet Napolitano and UC-Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks—petition the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the allegations as “moot,” arguing that it has since replaced the “high profile speaker” policy, and that in any event the school was within its rights to shut down Coulter’s speech because it didn’t do so explicitly on the basis of her political viewpoints.

“The alleged restrictions were viewpoint neutral because they were not motivated by disagreement with the speaker’s viewpoint,” the attorneys assert, adding that the restrictions were also “constitutional ‘time, place, and, manner regulations’ because they were content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interests in safety, education, and distribution of university resources, and left open ample alternative channels of communication.”

[RELATED: Berkeley riot shows conservatives aren’t welcome on campus]

Young America’s Foundation (YAF), which filed the lawsuit in conjunction with the Berkeley College Republicans, derided UC’s motion to dismiss as “bizarre” in a post on its website Thursday, pointing out that Berkeley has yet to unveil its new free speech policy and insisting that the school’s actions were “clearly viewpoint-discriminatory.”

“This weak attempt by the University of California, Berkeley to brush off their egregious free speech violations is staggering but unfortunately unsurprising given their demonstrated pattern of suppressing the First Amendment rights of conservatives on campus,” YAF spokesman Spencer Brown declared, pledging that “YAF will continue to stand up for students’ rights when their own schools engage in flagrant obstruction of free expression.”

[RELATED: Berkeley riot lays bare liberal hypocrisy on free speech]

“It is preposterous that the university is attempting to dismiss a valid lawsuit over the idea that they plan to make future policy changes,” Berkeley College Republicans member Naweed Tahmas told Campus Reform, saying he is skeptical that the new policy will be the panacea for free speech that university officials are promising.

“While I am happy that the university has finally realized their draconian policies need reform, it does not excuse them of their past actions,” Tahmas continued. “Given UC Berkeley's well-documented precedent of censoring conservative speakers, I have little faith that the university will take any substantial strides in making UC Berkeley the home of free speech again.”

[RELATED: Berkeley students want to fight fascism by banning speech]

CR President Troy Worden offered a similar assessment, saying the club is encouraged but not convinced by the school’s public statements on the matter.

“The UC Berkeley administration claims they have modified and codified their ‘high-profile’ speakers policy such that the First Amendment rights of the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America's Foundation are no longer in jeopardy,” he observed cautiously, saying the move “would be a welcome development if it does what university administrators claims it does.”

For now, though, Worden acknowledged that all conservative students can do is “await this new speakers policy” and hope it is “not aimed at shutting down conservative speech on campus.”

Spokespersons for UC-Berkeley did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

Thank Yu Mr Van Voorhis and Campus Reform.

UC Gets Massive Funding Boost Despite Secret Slush Fund

campus reform
Dan Jackson Campus Reform Intern Jul 03, 2017 at 11:55 AM EDT


 

The University of California system received a $131.2 million funding increase in this year's state budget, just months after a State Auditor's report found more than $175 million in undisclosed reserves held by the Office of the President.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has placed a hold on $50 million of that increase, however, until the system implements all 33 recommendations in the audit report and agrees to greater budgetary transparency going forward.

The University of California system is receiving a substantial increase in state funding despite a recent audit finding that administrators had been hiding a $175 million surplus from lawmakers.

According to The Daily Bruin, the 2017-2018 budget approved last week by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown boosts funding for the UC system by $131.2 million, in keeping with a deal struck with UC President Janet Napolitano in 2015 that forestalled tuition hikes for two years.


"It’s clear that the [UC system] can pay for additional students out of their discretionary budget."

That agreement, however, had been premised on the system’s claims that it would be forced to raise tuition by as much as five percent each year for five years without a massive infusion of cash, but an audit ordered by state lawmakers earlier this year appears to cast doubt on that assertion.

[RELATED: UC to investigate claims that Napolitano tampered with audit]

The State Auditor’s report released on April 25 found “more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves” amassed surreptitiously by the UC Office of the President, which even created a secret budget to spend some of the reserves on things like inflated administrative salaries and improvements to the president’s residence.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that state lawmakers have been sharply critical of the slush fund, pointing out that $175 million would have been enough to enroll 35,000 students in UC schools.

“There is more money out there to fund more California students at UC,” declared Democratic State Assemblyman Phil Ting. “It’s clear that the Office of the President themselves can pay for additional students out of their discretionary budget.”

Napolitano responded to the audit by saying that she welcomes its “constructive input” and plans to implement the recommendations contained in the report, though she also objected that it “fundamentally and unfairly mischaracterizes UCOP’s budget practices and processes.”

[RELATED:Lawmakers propose defunding Evergreen State amid protests]

UC spokesperson Claire Doan confirmed in a statement to the Bruin that the system plans to implement all 33 recommendations contained in the State Auditor’s report, but Gov. Brown is looking for extra assurance by placing a hold on $50 million of the recent funding increase.

The monies will only be released once the UC system meets several conditions, including full adoption of the State Auditor’s recommendations, curtailment of benefits for some administrators, and a commitment to greater transparency in its budget process.

Even with the additional funding, however, tuition at UC schools is already slated to rise.



Thank You Mr Jackson and Campus Reform.

UCLA Course Blames 'Car Culture' For 'Spatial Injustice'

Always nice to check in on just how far Out of their own minds the crowd who fostered Psychiatry's Illuminati U in SF have gotten.

campusreform
Toni Airaksinen New York Campus Correspondent Jul 03, 2017 at 2:31 PM EDT



  • A course being offered this summer at UCLA aims to teach students how "car culture" and other factors produce "spatial injustice" in Los Angeles.
  • The five-credit course fulfills graduation requirements in both Diversity and Social Analysis.
  • The University of California-Los Angeles is offering a technology class this summer examining how “car culture” contributes to “spatial injustice.”

    The course, “LA Tech City: Digital Technologies and Spatial Injustice,” will be offered through the UCLA Digital Humanities department and will be taught by Professor Todd Presner and Professor Dana Cuff.

    "The automobile has provided differential and territorial access to particular segments of [the] population."

    “Students will investigate spatial justice and injustice in the multi-ethnic city through the lens of three thematic technologies,” the syllabus states, listing cars and highways, the Internet, and film and media as factors that contribute to spatial injustice.

    [RELATED: CU-Boulder to offer ‘social justice living environment’]

    While Professor Presner declined to comment, he referred Campus Reform to the definition of “spatial injustice” by Edward Soja, who laments the “production of unjust geographies and spatial structures of privilege” within cities, which he argues can be “aggravated further by racism, patriarchy, heterosexual bias.”

    Rojas argues that while the inner-city working poor “depend on a more flexible bus network given their multiple and multi-locational job households,” as compared to “the relatively wealthy suburban population” in Los Angeles, “the accumulation of locational decisions in a capitalist economy tends to lead to the redistribution of real income in favor of the rich over the poor.”

    During the first week of class, students will learn how “roads and highways have contributed to racial and economic segregation” in Los Angeles because “the automobile has provided differential and territorial access” to “particular segments” of the city’s population, while other segments were displaced to make room for new infrastructure.

    The following lesson will focus on “mapping the divided city” to show how “roads operate as indicators of racial and economic segregation.”

    [RELATED: CA Dems propose free tuition funded by tax on millionaires]

    The course “will also address topics related to unequal representation in film, including whitewashing, problematic depictions of individuals of specific races and gender, and stereotyping,” the syllabus states, after which the focus will shift toward examining social media data in order to “capture the position of various communities on issues related to the divided city.”

    Students will earn five credits for completing the class, which fulfills both diversity and general education requirements for UCLA students.

    Neither Professor Cuff nor spokespersons for UCLA responded to requests for comment from Campus Reform.

    Thank you Ms Airaksinen and Campus Reform.