“Liberal Breeding Ground”: Tennessee Lawmaker Calls For The End Of Higher Education

Sen. Kerry Roberts of Springfield has called for the end of higher education, which he dismisses as a “liberal breeding ground.” It is a curious view for a politician from a state with world-class universities which fuel the state’s burgeoning high tech industry and bring huge amounts of revenue in the form of tuition, support contracts and tourism. That includes Vanderbilt University, which is viewed as one of the world’s greatest universities. There is also the much beloved University of Tennessee with its statewide supporters of the Volunteers football team.

Roberts was on his conservative radio talk show on Sept. 2. He objected to a witness who supported the right to choose in a hearing, which he attributed to the menace of higher education. He then declared that we need to get rid of higher education to “save America.

It is a curious position since Roberts is saying that those with a higher education tend not to support his causes. Getting rid of higher education to combat the ideas of opponents is like banning English to silence critics.

Roberts as a B.S. degree from Lipscomb University 1983

52 thoughts on ““Liberal Breeding Ground”: Tennessee Lawmaker Calls For The End Of Higher Education”

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Independent Bob is writing longer sentences than you. His education is probably better than yours since he cites his sources.

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Your response proves my point.

  1. The entire centrally planned, means-of-production-controlled (i.e. regulation), redistributionist and socially engineered American welfare state is unconstitutional. Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…,” regulate merely “…commerce among the several States…,” and the right of individuals to private property is unqualified, absolute and allows no form of governmental intervention.

    The public education system is the propaganda platform, indoctrination center and re-education camp for American youth administered by the American Communist Party, aka liberals, progressives, socialists and democrats.

    Ben Franklin, 1787, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

    All of America’s lazy, greedy, striking thug teachers unions must be decertified. The collusion of elected local school boards and communist teachers unions must be annihilated through impeachment and decertification. One of the largest investor groups in the world is CALPERS, the participants of which conduct violent illegal strikes to confiscate tax dollars from abused taxpayers with the complicity of corrupt elected officials. The top line of the the communist public workers unions’ agenda is the acquisition of power; the bottom line is the confiscation of taxpayer dollars – necessary quality work and educated children are secondary, even tertiary issues – American teachers are embarrassed by global student success rates.

    Teachers strike for money then public workers are awarded “comparable pay.” In a free America under American free enterprise, workers are paid only the amount of money necessary to attract a workforce or market prices for labor. The breakdown occurs when teachers “strike” and break the law and contractual agreements by being Absent Without Leave from work; a removable. offense. Teachers aren’t paid for product success, teachers are paid for committing a crime. Understanding that teachers do no actual physical labor, function on the day shift in clean, comfortable, climate controlled conditions, a “job action” or “strike” is inconceivable and ridiculous. Who says crime does not pay?

    Teachers unions must be de-certified and AWOL teachers must be fired with extreme prejudice. Replacement workers must be hired at market rates – not at criminal striker rates. Local elections must be limited to taxpayers – workers and welfare recipients who receive checks from the government should not be allowed to vote to award themselves raises and to vote to corrupt local elections. Corrupt elected officials who overpay public workers must be impeached and convicted for abuse of power, gross and corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars. There is no need for taxpayers to fund Range Rovers and Mercedes Benzes in the teachers parking lots. Teachers should pursue great wealth in the free markets of the private sector. Communities get the education they can realistically afford, not the idyllic and utopian; not the Maserati version of billionaires. Teaching and much public work must be automated and digitized. Curricula must be constrained to imperative subject matter while eliminating the extraneous and superfluous. Grade inflation must be criminalized.

    Overpaid prima donna public workers must be brought back under the control of labor market parameters. Public employment is simply a communistic wealth redistribution program. Every public worker opening has 5,000 applicants in lines stretching for miles. Teachers with easy, repetitious jobs and little product success, firemen who extinguish 5 actual fires per year, policemen in the doughnut shop who foil one bank robbery per career must be returned to labor market reality.

    Perhaps most egregious is the use or misuse of “the children” by teachers who rehearse them in Protest 101 class, provide signs and time off so that the teacher’s pets might rally and protest in front of local television cameras to demonstrate their love for teachers and to tell district residents how the poor downtrodden teachers need and deserve yet another huge pay raise. Students don’t pay teachers, taxpayers do. Ridiculous!

  2. Turley provided a link where Roberts provided explained his comment. Of course had Turley included this statement in his post, the headline wouldn’t have been the clickbait he intended.

    “While the call for eliminating higher education was clearly hyperbole, I stand behind my general critique of liberal arts education in America one hundred percent.

    Many higher education institutions have unquestionably become liberal breeding grounds where radical values and hatred for America are fomented. Conservative parents are often spending (or borrowing) tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in an elaborate bait and switch. They sign up their children for education and advancement and instead receive intimidation and indoctrination.

    And with each passing year, leftist policies grow more aggressive in an attempt to normalize behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs that just a few short years ago were considered unhealthy, morally bereft, economically bankrupt and un-American.

    Hostile learning and working environments are suddenly acceptable when the leftists are zealously doing their duty of quashing any dissent. Repulsive stories abound of First Amendment rights abused, shamed or denied. There are no safe spaces for conservatives on many campuses.

    It’s time for conservatives – whose taxpayer dollars significantly fund these institutions of higher education – to rise up and demand the restoration of balance in our halls of higher education.

    Do we literally need to abolish higher education in America? Of course not. There are institutions that have found balance and they are to be applauded. But it’s time for lawmakers to question the efficacy of higher education in America, meaningless majors, liberal bias, and intolerance of traditional values and conservative points of view.”

    1. Olly, understand that academics at Ivy League Universities are not likely to share the same values as Southern Evangelicals. That doesn’t mean we need to purge academia to make it safe for so-called ‘real Americans’.

      1. Actually, college faculties don’t share the values of their surrounding populations, their students, the parents, the state legislature, or other people in the professions and in management. Nor are the various social disputes in the country at large manifest in college faculties or college administrations. You see careerism, Monovox, and witless sectarianism. What do we get as a society out of subsidizing these people? Nothing good, which is why justice and prudence demands they be liquidated.

      2. understand that academics at Ivy League Universities are not likely to share the same values as Southern Evangelicals.

        Did you eat paint chips as a child? They are not in the values business. Parents don’t spend 18 years raising their children with a certain set of values only to spend $$$ to have some academic (or institution) completely reset those values in a learning environment hostile to the values these children come in with. They are in the education business. Degree programs business. Preparing young minds with skills to enter the workforce.

        1. Olly, you used up that paint chip joke months ago. Think we don’t keep track??

          Parents are perfectly free to send their kids to colleges in keeping with their values. That’s what state universities are all about. Evangelicals can send their kids to Liberty U or Bob Jones. We don’t have to purge academia to reclaim ‘family values’.

          1. you used up that paint chip joke months ago. Think we don’t keep track??

            Hill, that was no joke. Anyway, you never answered the question. So out of concern based on your recent postings, I thought it best to ask again.

            Parents are perfectly free to send their kids to colleges in keeping with their values.

            No one said they weren’t.

            That’s what state universities are all about.

            WTF? But if they dare send their children out of state, they get the values they’re willing to pay for?

            1. Olly, if parents send their kids to another state, their kid might be influenced by that state. In many cases that’s a good thing. Some kids need to ‘get off the farm’.

              But if you don’t want your kids influenced by ‘smug east coast elitists’, then keep your kid in-state.

              But it’s not like east coast universities should have to create ‘safe spaces’ for kids fresh off the farm so their values aren’t compromised.

              1. Sen. Kerry Roberts: Hostile learning and working environments are suddenly acceptable when the leftists are zealously doing their duty of quashing any dissent.[Prove me wrong.]

                Hill: [Ah, I’ll take a shot] But if you don’t want your kids influenced by ‘smug east coast elitists’, then keep your kid in-state. But it’s not like east coast universities should have to create ‘safe spaces’ for kids fresh off the farm so their values aren’t compromised.

                Sen. Kerry Roberts: You did eat paint chips as a kid.

            2. OLLY – as we both know, eating lead paint is a continual problem. Especially in older communities, people painted over their lead paint with water-based paint or oil-based paint. But it was still there. And children have a way of picking their way to it. So, depending on your age, depends on your susceptibility to the paint.

                1. Olly, what we see from you is an obscure, vacuous argument papered-over with insults worthy of 7th grader.

                  Seriously! I don’t you even know ‘what’ you’re arguing here. You just see my name and think, “I gotta put this guy down”. It just reflects the stupid vindictiveness of Trump supporters.

  3. universities are among the oldest and most long term successful and socially useful organizations of the West

    we should not end them, just purge the rotten scoundrels at the helms, among trustees, and down below among faculty

    it would be throwing the baby out with bathwater to end the system as such. they are really treasures even in the most literal sense of the word

    1. Here’s a suggestion, Kurtz.

      1. Discontinue the high school diploma or equivalency as a general requirement for entering tertiary schooling. Instead, have disaggregated antecedents according to institutional type.

      2. Have the following sorts of tertiary institutions, which might be public or private:

      a. 2d chance high schools. This is for students who have unfinished certificates at the secondary level. They’d take the same regents’ exams and study the same sort of material. Most would be studying vocational subjects, but there would be academic classes as well. They’d differ from secondary schools in that space in these institutions would be rationed and subject to tolls.

      b. The general occupational institute. The institute would provide common support staff and physical plant for a set of occupational schools whose intellectual demands and admission screens would be variable. Some of the degrees available are the sort you’d see at a community college today, some you’d see at a baccalaureate college. With some exceptions, the length of the program would be 48 credits accumulated over a calendar year or two academic years, with a selection of programs requiring internships after completion of course work.

      c. Preparatory institutes. These would traffick in brief certificate programs and spot courses. Some would be following a standard certificate in order to gain admission to an occupational or professional school and some would be following a custom set of course to fill in gaps in their background. There would be some vocational subjects, but the offerings would be predominantly academic.

      d. Eccentric programs. These are programs which may have a similar aim or format as those in the general occupational institutes, but differ in crucial ways which make them bad fits. Such would be service academies (hands-on emphasis, esprit de corps sought), arts academies (impractical subject matter), agricultural colleges (rural locus, occasional presence of a research institute attached), and diploma programs (presence of an institution like a hospital, library, museum or archive with a work life as well as an instructional life).

      e. Professional institutes. These would be elongated programs for more demanding occupations, often have working institutions like hospitals appended, and often have research institutes appended. There would be four sorts of institution: the engineering institute, the medical institute, the law institute, and the veterinary institute.

      f. general research institute. These would be holding companies of research centers offering research degrees in vocational subjects NOS. Business administration and public policy primarily. Many of the faculty at the occupational institutes would train at these.

      g. Academic research institutes. Again, these would be holding companies of research degree programs, but in academic subjects, music, or theology.

      h. The college. This would be a set of departments which offer degrees in academic subjects, music, or theology. As a rule, they’d capture 12% of each youth cohort. About 1/3 would leave after a year and another 1/3 after their second year of study. A full 3-year course of study would be followed by just 1/3 of the entering class.

      i. Stand-alone programs, academic or quasi-academic: conservatories and divinity schools / seminaries primarily.

      A narrow conception of ‘university’ would encompass just ‘g’ and ‘h’. A broad conception would include that, the professional institutes, the general research institute, and some agricultural colleges.

      1. Tabby, your ideas here would be far too complex for any teenager or parent to fully understand. High schools would have to hold weekly seminars to explain all these options. As it is, the structure of student loans is so complex students and parents commonly makes mistakes that haunt them for years. So your ideas would create a warren of complexities that few could navigate.

        1. Tabby, your ideas here would be far too complex for any teenager or parent to fully understand.

          You’re projecting, Peter.

          1. Tabby, the student loan crisis is complex enough. Thousands of people are in financial straits because they took out loans they didn’t understand. So any effort to make higher education more complex to navigate is going to be a loser.

            1. Last I checked, Peter, the mean outstanding loan balance was about $45,000. The loan itself isn’t that esoteric, although there are lots of people who are wretched at financial planning. What they didn’t understand was that college itself is over-rated as a generator of human capital.

              That aside, financing is a separate issue from optimal service packages and options.

              Selecting from among the above may tax you, but it’s actually no more complicated that the contemporary multiversity. It’s just designed to effect a better match between student and institution and consume fewer years. (And fewer years of study means lower loan balances).

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on.

          DSS’s policy is worthy of discussion. It has a lot of merit and he seems to have put a lot of thought into it. That is something you didn’t seem to do with your answer. Now I know that you would be incapable of working under such strictures because it would require you to actually get off your ass and work. You cannot just tell your students to read Weart and get away with it. You actually have to teach something you might not be capable of.

      2. Excellent DSS! This will blow people’s minds. And then of course we already have those who it will only effect one half of what they’ve been allotted.

  4. Neither Vanderbilt nor the University of Tennessee are ‘world class’. That aside, what’s your plan for improving higher education, professor? And can you explain to us why baccalaureate granting-institutions must capture 45% of every youth cohort, instead of the 25% which was the norm ca. 1972 or the 6% which was the norm ca. 1928?

    Higher education today is a bloated and inefficient way of sorting the labor market. Repealing employment discrimination law and allow employers plenary discretion to screen applicants with written examinations, and the job-market signaling function of higher education largely evaporates. Replacing the baccalaureate degree with discrete 48 credit programs given over entirely to vocational training will discharge this function better than having a student meander about for four years and compelling them to pile up distribution credits. You can have longer programs for medicine, peri-medical occupations, engineering, and perhaps law. You can offer research degrees. However, less than 5% of each youth cohort is going to be going into those professions or benefit from such extensive education.

    As for liberal education, as recently as 1970 we managed passably with just 12% of each cohort cadging a degree in an academic subject or in the arts. The whole point of liberal education is education for leisure, right? Well, the man identifies a problem you won’t acknowledge. Many such disciplines are now apologetical in character or they exist to promote stupidity and vice. We’re not injured by refusing to provide public funds or philanthropic donations to such activity. Sociology, cultural anthropology, American history, and much of English literature are now a stew of intellectual scandal. Studio art faculties are commonly a scam. These disciplines do not need reform. They need a refoundation.

    The smart money says we could get by on a 55% reduction in the quantum of people enrolled in tertiary schooling, with a 75% reduction in enrollments in liberal education. Let’s do this.

  5. Leftist activists have infested the education system, from pre-K to graduate school. It is a valid argument that higher education has become far Left madrassas, encouraging Democrat politics to be part of the classroom, from literature to science.

    It’s not only universities. NPR and PBS used to bring the arts to everyone. Now, it is a constant stream of Leftism. I can’t watch or listen to it anymore. I used to enjoy listening to NPR on road trips, but I can’t stand it anymore.

    These are all institutions that receive taxpayer money, which means the Democrats get a significant boost without consent from all of us.

    This is wrong.

    Of course higher education should continue. It should just jettison politics by the road. This cannot happen on its own, however, as Democrats have been encouraged for far too long to bring personal politics into unrelated classes.

    Perhaps the answer is to withdraw public funding from any institution that promotes one political party over another. Otherwise, it can be considered as contributions to the DNC. After all brainwashing prospective voters is a significant contribution.

    In addition, if any university is going to promote a particular political view, and discriminate against another, then they should have to disclose that in their literature and signage. Otherwise promoting themselves as simply higher education is false advertising. Conservatives need to know if they will be discriminated against before they apply.

    Universities can be political. They just should not be given taxpayer money, and they should make this stance very clear to prospective students and their parents.

  6. “Now, surely, nothing but universal education can counter-work this tendency to the domination of capital and the servility of labor. If one class possesses all the wealth and the education, while the residue of society is poor and ignorant, it matters not by what name the relation between them may be called; the latter, in fact and in truth, will be the servile dependents and subjects of the former….education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men – the balance – wheel of the social machinery.”

    – Horace Mann 1848 (more here: http://jackiewhiting.net/Collab/Education/EdMann.htm)

    We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. that’s dynamite. we have to be selective on who we allow to go through higher education.

    – Roger Freeman, Education Adviser to Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon

    You get the idea. Roberts is a standard-issue Republican yahoo, but the essence of what he is advocating is not new. Opposition to education (in this case higher education), usually public education, has always come from the right, and it has always been based in fear that an educated populace will be in an intellectual position to pursue a fairer distribution of wealth and political power.

  7. Well, if you got rid of Women’s Studies, and a few other useless majors I think he is one to something here.

    1. Defunding these rotten majors which stir up most of the trouble is an obvious first step, if the aim is to stem the tide of rot

      A systematic purge however, would require a lot more.

      From the inside, the tools are all well known to the current admins. They just need a heavy stick waved at them from above.

      From the outside, you have most of all the following set of tools:

      — this requires a systematic cataloguing of “bad guys” in a relational database that is confidentially maintained and supplemented with current information on a constant basis. this is what the ADL, SPLC, and outfits like that do and it’s exactly what police and intel agencies do too.
      in America the “left” does it and the “Right” is almost totally disorganized and impotent by comparison

      this is happening from time to time by self directed writers and editors in the “right wing media” space and sometimes it trickles into the mainstream

      tough, but if you have lawyers who are well paid to carry the banner, they will march forward. the socalled “right” in america is nonexistent for the most part, outside the NRA it seems, the rare example to the contrary

      rich philanthropists know how to do this, but Geo Soros does it waaaay better. And there is a question of whether or not any truly “Right” billionaires exist in the world today. There are no Henry Fords or Thomas Edisons out there today as far as I know. I do not count the free-marketeer Kroch bros as right wingers. I am not talking about opening up markets. Geo Soros was already is doing that for the world for decades, nobody needed the Kroch bros to spread some more money around for the same. Anyhow, the funding for anything genuinely “Right wing” is almost nonexistent in America and I would not know if Europe ever recovered from world war one, apparently not.

      We can see the impact that a massive demonstration can have. Somehow they get organized in a way that always opposes nationalisms. While I am sympathetic to Hong Kongers, I have to wonder sometimes if the Chicoms arent telling the truth when they say Uncle Sam is behind this. Color revolutions, BLM, etc etc, there is a methodology there which seems obvious and repeated all over the world, and I doubt any of these massive type demonstrations are actually organized “spontaneously.” So, if they are engineered, then there are people who know how to engineer them; and their methods could be studied and applied given sufficient financing. Back to the last para comment.

      “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY” — expanding the metaphor

      all conflict which is social conflict, has war at the far end of the continuum. but it is just a continuum. politics, the life of the city, operates from total peace to total war. the American “Right” barely gets it. I see some signs that some do. William Lind was saying certain things that were picked up and implemented by Steve Bannon. I am not sure who else is getting the message. (Pretty much I wonder if anybody in “The West” besides Israelis really “Gets it” — one can tell that they do, that’s for sure. Which is perhaps why the rising European nationalist parties have strongly eschewed antisemitism at this time particularly where Israel is concerned. Martin Van Creveld, I like his books and have read them for many years)

      One generally has to resort to Communists to get good sense of total war by indirect means , as it exists today, what is involved. I am reading this fine book now and I recommend it: (from wiki)

      “Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally “warfare beyond bounds”) is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one’s opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.[1]

      Source of text
      The English translation of the book was made available by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service on the internet in 1999. Reportedly, the United States Naval Academy wrote to the authors to ask for permission to use this book.[citation needed] The book was then published in English by a previously unknown Panamanian publisher, with the subtitle “China’s Master Plan to Destroy America” and a picture of the burning World Trade Center on the cover. These additions were thought to be misinterpretations of the text, not intended by the original authors. A French translation was published in 2003.[2]

      The text has been cited by the U.S. government, e.g. on a military website by James Perry[3] who states:

      In February 1999, the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House issued Unrestricted Warfare, a book written by two PLA air force political officers, Senior Col Qiao Liang and Senior Col Wang Xiangsui. The venue for publication and the laudatory reviews of the book in official publications suggested that Unrestricted Warfare enjoyed the support of some elements of the PLA leadership. The Western press quoted various sensational passages from the book and described it in terms that verged on hyperbole. The book was not a blueprint for a “dirty war” against the West but a call for innovative thinking on future warfare.

      Weaknesses of the United States
      The book argues that the primary weakness of the United States in military matters is that the US views revolution in military thought solely in terms of technology. The book further argues that to the US, military doctrine evolves because new technology allows new capabilities. As such, the book argues that the United States does not consider the wider picture of military strategy, which includes legal and economic factors. The book proceeds to argue that the United States is vulnerable to attacks along these lines.[4]

      Alternative methods of attack
      Reducing one’s opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods “have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for…national security.”

      Lawfare, or political action through transnational or non-governmental organizations can effect a policy change that would be impossible otherwise. Because of the international nature of the modern world and activism, it is much easier for nation-states to affect policy in other nation-states through a proxy.

      Economic warfare
      Owing to the interconnected nature of global economics, nations can inflict grievous harm on the economies of other nations without taking any offensive action.

      Network warfare see iWar
      One of the better-known alternatives in this book is the idea of attacking networks. Networks are increasingly important in not only data exchange but also transportation, financial institutions, and communication. Attacks that disable networks can easily hamstring large areas of life that are dependent on them for coordination. One example of network warfare would be shutting down a network that supplies power. If there is a significant failure in the power grid caused by the attack, massive power outages could result, crippling industry, defense, medicine, and all other areas of life.

      Another instance of threats to nations within the scope of the concept of “unrestricted warfare” is terrorism. Terrorism is used by a group to gain satisfaction for certain demands. Even if these demands are not satisfied, a terrorist attack can have vastly disproportionate effects on national welfare. One only has to look at the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attacks against the United States, or the extensive security measures put in place after those same attacks. Terrorism erodes a nation’s sense of security and well being, even if the direct effects of the attacks only concern a minute percentage of the population.

      Defense against unrestricted warfare
      The authors note that an old-fashioned mentality that considers military action the only offensive action is inadequate given the new range of threats. Instead, the authors advocate forming a “composite force in all aspects related to national interest. Moreover, given this type of composite force, it is also necessary to have this type of composite force to become the means which can be utilized for actual operations. This should be a “grand warfare method” which combines all of the dimensions and methods in the two major areas of military and non-military affairs so as to carry out warfare. This is opposite of the formula for warfare methods brought forth in past wars.”

      As the authors state, the new range of options combined with the rising cost (both political and financial) of waging traditional warfare results in the rising dominance of the new alternatives to traditional military action. A state that does not heed these warnings is in dire shape.”

      1. Mr Kurtz – I think Trump may have read the book. He seems to be waging a nontraditional war against China.

        1. exactly he is. i doubt he read the book but he is the kind who feels such things in his bones

          if you are brought up with a certain mentality, regardless of class, but essentially, that of struggle, in a word– it’s clear enough

          1. Mr. Kurtz – whether he read the book or not, he has thrown China off its stride. 😉

  8. “It is a curious position since Roberts is saying that those with a higher education tend not to support his causes. Getting rid of higher education to combat the ideas of opponents is like banning English to silence critics.”
    Tut, tut all you want but Big Ed refuses to police its own leaving the government to do it. What do you do with a rogue institution? Subsidize it? I think we get rid of tenure, insert clauses in contracts against embarrassing the institution, impose strict curriculum guidelines, abolish useless majors like womyn’s and diaspora studies and implement fines for anti-social behavior like branding all white people racists. Profs have gotten high off their rarefied air long enough. Maybe when they come back to the real world, we’ll get real world solutions and lose the “safe spaces.”

  9. I’ve thought for a while now that education needs a new paradigm. It should be all on line so students can build their degree from multiple source and be taught be the best in the country. Professors could be teaching tens of thousands for $10-$100 a class and be making more than they would at the university.
    Everyone wins in this scenario:
    – Student gets taught by the best
    – Student is not subject to a bunch of liberal classes they may not want or need.
    – Students would only be paying a fraction of the cost of today.
    – Professor makes more money.
    – The better the professor the more students will want their coarse.
    – Business’s make out since students resume will be filled with relevant education.
    – No need for costly university buildings. Just have lab centers for courses that need that.

    1. Jim22 – do you foresee online universities with satellite testing centers and labs to be the future of education?

      1. I would imagine you would need lab centers for hands on course work. Lab centers would obviously require an extra charge for those classes requiring them. Think how awesome it would be to be able to build your own college with teachers that are the best in their fields. And, to really make the teachers union freak, just imagine being an expert at in a field of work and deciding to teach on the side to share your expertise and knowledge. It would remove all of the liberal touchy feely crap they make educators go through. Think how great this would be for youth to be taught by people with real world experience instead of out of touch sheltered professors none. It would almost be like an intern degree.

        1. Jim22,

          I agree with you, I see it clear as day & even more so as the people paying the freight are seeing what some of those lunatics in academia are exposing their kids to.

        2. Jim22 – most undergraduate lab work can be done on a computer. Currently all frogs are dissected on computers in high school biology labs.

      2. Karen S – Pearson was running the satellite testing services for the University of Phoenix throughout the United States.

  10. I never heard of Libscomb U. where the topic says this guy graduated from. Perhaps “ban” it. Or “fan” it for putting out this artFay. What is an “artFay”? Well if you went to college you would know. Colleges create conservatives too.

    Tennessee! Ten A Sea!
    Ain’t no place I’d rather be!
    Baby won’t you carry me!
    Back to …

Comments are closed.