MIT Cancels Lecture By UChicago Professor Who Criticized Diversity Programs

When I went to college at the University of Chicago, we often viewed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as our peer institution on the hard sciences. After all, both schools were composed of socially awkward, clueless geeks. That sense of nerd affinity was lost this week in a controversy over the cancelling of a lecture by Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, after complaints that he has criticized Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The cancelling of the event raises many of the concerns that we have previously discussed over the growing intolerance of dissenting views on our campuses — and the retaliation against faculty who challenge a new orthodoxy in our ranks.

Abbot was scheduled to give the John Carlson Lecture in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT on October 21. He received repeated messages from the school that the lecture was going forward even after some objected due to his criticism of DEI policies.

UChicago has always been an island of free speech despite the rising tide of censorship, speech codes, and investigations. It reaffirmed that position with regard to Abbot who faced demands for his termination or punishment for opposing DEI measures and suggesting an alternative. Once again, many faculty and students focused on silencing him rather than responding to his arguments.

Last year, Abbot objected that DEI measures were elevating the race or gender of candidates above their qualifications. He called for the school to reaffirm the long-standing position that academic slots would be filled by the best candidate without consideration to race, gender, or status. The response from  “58 students and postdocs of the Department of Geophysical Sciences, and 71 other graduate students and postdocs from other University of Chicago departments” was a letter calling for Abbot to be punished for expressing his views.

Then, to make matters worse in the eyes of the critics, Abbot did not recede into the darkness but continued to state his opinions. In August, Abbot co-authored a column in Newsweek headlined “The Diversity Problem on Campus.” He and his co-author Ivan Marinovic, an associate professor of accounting at Stanford Graduate School of Business, wrote “DEI violates the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment. It entails treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century.”

The two professors instead advocated for an alternative framework called Merit, Fairness and Equality, which would treat applicants “as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone.”

That was the final straw.  The anti-free speech movement on our campuses seeks to marginalize and silence those with opposing views. They make examples of those who fail to yield and remain silent by taking away conference invitations, publication opportunities, and the other critical elements to a full academic life.

Once the lecture was announced, the same pattern emerged as critics hammered MIT for inviting an academic who holds opposing views. Suddenly the lecture was cancelled and MIT Department Chair Rob van der Hilst reportedly went silent.

The site College Fix detailed academics and fellow scientists calling for Abbot to be canceled or demanding that MIT never again invite an academic with such opposing views.  For example, Caroline Morley (@AstroCaroline), Assistant Prof at UT Austin, expressed disgust and told MIT that next time “consider inviting someone who doesn’t hold deeply problematic views on equity in the sciences.” These are intellectuals who are appalled that a professor could still be invited to discuss an entirely separate topic if he holds an opposing view on academic appointments.

The academic flash mob pattern is now all too familiar. Few professors are willing to risk such isolation and shunning. These campaigns take everything of value from an academic if they stand up and express dissenting thoughts. That is why MIT betrayed not just its principles of free speech but academic freedom in cancelling this event. If we allow this mob mentality to take hold, what are we as intellectuals. You do not have to agree with Professor Abbot to oppose such cancellation campaigns.

As free speech advocates, we often support those with whom we disagree. In the past, I have defended extremist views on academic freedom grounds like those of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis also writes for the site “Lawyers, Guns, and Money.”) I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.

What occurred at MIT this month is a chilling reminder that even a premier institution will yield to anti-free speech campaigns. The problem is that few department heads or administrators want to risk their own careers in standing between a mob and a controversial speaker. The result is cringing obedience to a rising orthodoxy on our campuses.

 

152 thoughts on “MIT Cancels Lecture By UChicago Professor Who Criticized Diversity Programs”

  1. A person who applied to MIT and who was admitted to undergrad school, put the following paragraph on his application for admission:. I am brown, part Cherokee, part black, part Jewish and attend Muslim mosque. I am male but transgender. I have a dong which only pees. Please let me in. My SAT score was 6 percent and grades in high school were D average. Gentlemen: Let me in.

    1. Speaking of lying communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), Special Counsel John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham has indicted Michael Sussmann and has a plethora, a “…fresh round of subpoenas…,” according to Communist News Network (CNN), waiting in the wings.

      You are absolutely correct, Counselor, there’s a whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on ’round here!

      1. I went out with a waitress.
        That I hardly knew
        How was I to know? She was with the Russians too.
        Send lawyers, guns and money! Lard get me outta this!

  2. Only those without merit and who know it oppose merit-based evaluation. Oh and presuming another class of people don’t have the necessaries to succeed is the greatest form of bigotry I can imagine. The world is a heirarchy. Deal with it.

  3. Turley says:

    “The result is cringing obedience to a rising orthodoxy on our campuses.”

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom *of* speech; it does not guarantee freedom *from* speech. The Amendment secures the right of the people to criticize, not the right *not* to be criticized. There is no “safe zone” to exercise one’s freedom of speech.

      1. Unfortunately, common sense is not so common among Trumpists who still cling to the belief that the election must have been stolen on account of MASSIVE fraud. You should talk to them while you’re at it.

        1. If there was no MASSIVE fraud, as you claim, then audits shouldn’t find anything other than the usual, occasional and inadvertent errors that attend every election and which rarely affect the outcome.

          Considering Biden’s stated desire to “unite” the country and his claim to have received the most popular votes in the history of our republic, you’d think auditing the election and verifying its outcome wouldn’t be a problem. After all, if there is nothing to hide, there is no good reason to fear an audit…

          Perhaps auditing every election to verify its outcome, in the interest of preventing even the appearance of impropriety or fraud, is a good idea.

          1. Spanky says:

            “Perhaps auditing every election to verify its outcome, in the interest of preventing even the appearance of impropriety or fraud, is a good idea.”

            Not a bad idea. I would agree with your idea if you will agree that Trump should NOT have announced BEFORE the election AND any audit that the only way he could lose is if there was massive fraud. That was a bald-faced LIE was it not?

            1. Since there were, at the time of the election, widespread circumstantial and first-person accounts of serious irregularities in the voting process in many states, the only way to determine the truth of the matter would be equally widespread audits of those processes. Without comprehensive forensic investigations of these claims of fraud, it is impossible to know the factual accuracy of those claims, not to mention the actual outcome of the election — thus the election will remain a bitter and divisive national pill.

              As pointed out above, if there is nothing to hide, there is no good reason to fear an audit, which begs the question of why the Democratic Party and Washington Establishment are hell-bent on opposing such audits at all costs.

              1. I repeat because you missed it the first time:

                I would agree with your idea if you will agree that Trump should NOT have announced BEFORE the election AND any audit AFTER the election that the only way he could lose is if there was massive fraud. That was a bald-faced LIE was it not?

                1. That was a bald-faced LIE was it not? — JeffSilberman

                  You’ve missed the point as usual — it is impossible to know if Trump lied, or not, in his characterizations of election fraud, either pre- and post-election, given the widespread allegations of irregularities by poll workers, and other witnesses, at the time of the election. Until those allegations are resolved by comprehensive forensic audits and investigations, we cannot determine the facts, much less the truth, of the matter.

                  1. Trump said that the election was stolen BEFORE there was ANY EVIDENCE of ACTUAL fraud.

                    That was a lie then and now.

                    1. Any intelligent person would have been afraid that election security might not have been adequate based on the irregularities and illegal activities before election day.

                      Perhaps you are not aware of all those things that occurred. I wouldn’t be surprised based on your inability to see more than half the picture.

            2. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court: unlawful behavior skipping photo ID requirements for absentee voting.

              Arizona’s Senate : audit flagged 50,000 problem ballots.

              Georgia: mismanagement so wide spread that Fulton County’s (Atlanta) election system is in the process of being placed in receivership. Serious irregularities: double scanning of ballots ranging to possible voter privacy violations.

              Also DeKalb county Georgia:; improper chain of custody documentation; mishandling of ballots deposited in drop boxes.

              These are just a couple of irregularities where the election process was mishandled and open to fraud

              Considering the above, do you support audits of the election? YES or NO

              Considering the importance of fair elections do you support audits for every Presidential election? YES or NO

              Do you support proper methods to guarantee one citizen one vote based on the rules set forth by the states? YES or NO.

              1. Anonymous asks:

                “Considering the above, do you support audits of the election? YES or NO”

                YES, as long as they are not conducted by Cyber Ninjas.

                “Considering the importance of fair elections do you support audits for every Presidential election? YES or NO”

                YES, as long as the Presidential contenders do not lie that they *know* that the audits will reveal massive fraud BEFORE the audits are completed.

                “Do you support proper methods to guarantee one citizen one vote based on the rules set forth by the states? YES or NO.”

                YES, provided that the State rules do not contravene any existing or future federal voting statutes or Constitutional prohibitions.

                1. Define “Cyber Ninjas” and tell us if any of the people doing the audits are Cyber Ninjas. We need complete transparency, but some of those on the left have refused to provide transparency by releasing the necessary equipment and papers. I think if full transparency and accountability exist, good audits can take place despite ideologies.

                  “YES, as long as the Presidential contenders do not lie that they *know* that the audits will reveal massive fraud BEFORE the audits are completed. ”

                  What you are saying is you agree as long as those involved don’t hold opinions that differ from yours. That isn’t impartiality. It is the essence of extreme bias.

                  “YES, provided that the State rules do not contravene any existing or future federal voting statutes or Constitutional prohibitions”

                  How about those states that changed voting procedures against state constitutions?

                  You are saying yes, but it seems you agree as long as those involved concur with what you think. Trump went overboard on some things, but that changed nothing. His opinion was that he would only lose if there was a fraud. That is his opinion. I can’t say what would have happened if there weren’t campaign irregularities. I don’t even try to guess because so many factors are in play. However, Trump has a right to his opinion, and I can’t hold that against him.

                  You seem to base everything you believe on what Trump has concluded, not what you think.

                2. Joe’s nose has been getting larger and longer for decades.
                  Clinton’s lies and betrayal of his presidential responsibilities led to the holocaust in Rwanda.

    1. Although it is most distasteful to engage in any sort of attempted conversation with Jeff, I believe he has it totally backwards.
      Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right to express oneself in the public sphere, There is no such thing as a “freedom from speech” right, thus you don’t have the right to thwart the freedom of speech of another person. Therefore, the entire country is a “safe zone” to exercise one’s freedom of speech. If another person wants to criticize, that person similarly has the right to express that criticism, but not to obstruct the first person’s freedom of speech.

      1. EDO says:

        “Although it is most distasteful to engage in any sort of attempted conversation with Jeff, I believe he has it totally backwards.”

        Hey, don’t do us any favors by putting yourself out on our behalf by engaging with me, you pompous ass.

        I did NOT say there is a freedom from speech *right*! I said that the First Amendment does NOT guarantee a freedom from speech. You have no right NOT to be criticized. There are no “safe zones” in this country. The Right used to mock Liberals for wanting “safe zones” on campuses or have you forgotten that stance in your dotage?

        Furthermore, I did NOT say that one should obstruct another person from exercising their speech by, e.g., heckling. On the other hand, cancelling a speaker’s opportunity to give a speech is NOT the same as heckling during a speech. If cancelling the opportunity to have a platform to speak is an infringement, than you will agree that Fox News is wrong in banning Giuliani and other Trumpists to continue to spew the Big Lie on Hannity ‘s and Carlson’s shows.

  4. “Diversity Programs”…….. that alone is an oxymoron as we ALL know this is far from it’s intent , design and actual application . Obey is the whole undercurrent smell here. Obey or they will destroy you. It is patently no longer about education but indoctrination. This should worry all of us that still think.

  5. Dr. Abbot and his co-author Dr. Marinovich should both be commended. Their proposal – Merit, Fairness, and Equality – is an inspiring framework for positive change. Their ideas address many of the ills that have befallen our education system, while providing fair opportunities for everyone without discrimination based on group identity.

    At the same time we support Drs. Abbot and Marinovich and the free exchange of ideas, David McGee, the chair of the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) DEI Committee, EmmaLee Pallia, the EAPS DEI Officer, and the EAPS Department Head (who is doing a great job keeping his or her head below the public radar and avoiding accountability) should all lose their jobs. Their closed-mindedness and failure to act is depriving students of invaluable learning opportunities and by so doing is bringing a once-proud institution to its knees.

      1. In his Newsweek article Abbot stated this about his merit-based admissions regime:

        “Crucially, this would mean an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants, in addition to those based on group membership.”

        That’ll be the day! No way will colleges forego giving athletic scholarships to be competitive in football (and the huge TV revenue which it brings in) nor ending legacy admissions and forsaking the alumni financial contributions that entails. If colleges grant admission privileges to merit-challenged athletes and legacies, they can give an advantage to minority students who may not quite meet the GPA and SAT minimum qualifications of the institution.

        1. When everything else fails, fall back on the Four Ds: Deny, Deflect, Dissemble, Democrat. It used to work every time, but we’re on to it. The schtick is getting old.

          Do you support MIT’s decision to cancel Dr. Abbot’s lecture? If so, why is doing so in the best interests of MIT’s EAP students?

          1. MIT reserves the freedom to change its mind on whom to invite to speak. Abbot has no more right to speak at MIT than Giuliani has a legal right to appear on Fox News now that he has been banned. You may not like MIT’s or Fox’s decision, but that is beside the point. By all means, criticize their decisions.

            1. Ah yes, falling back on the the second D: Deflect. Do you support MITs decision to cancel Dr. Abbot’s lecture? If so, why is doing so in the best interests of the students in the EAPS department?

              1. I don’t know the answer your question, but that is beside my point that MIT is exercising its freedom of speech to make that decision.

                1. You have so much to say about so many topics. Heck, you even tried an amazing piece of mental jiu jitsu that used your professed hatred for your political opponents to call for more censorship. Censorship that will be directed to those that you hold in contempt. Just like Dr. Abbot.

                  Why? Progressives are terrified. Terrified that inspiring new ideas like those proposed by Dr. Abbot – Fairness, Merit, and Equality – will be heard. Terrified that they might lose their grip on power. Progressives will do anything to maintain that grip. Including preventing a prominent scientist from giving a scientific lecture at MIT. It is the 21st century version of a head on a pike.

                  Except it won’t work. Ideas can’t be suppressed.

                  1. Progressives are terrified. Terrified that inspiring new ideas like those proposed by Dr. Abbot – Fairness, Merit, and Equality – will be heard. Terrified that they might lose their grip on power. Progressives will do anything to maintain that grip.

                    They are losing. The data appears to support your claims

                    https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3824

                    Americans Give President Biden Lowest Marks Across The Board, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Say The Biden Administration Is Not Competent
                    October 06, 2021

                    President Joe Biden receives a negative 38 – 53 percent job approval rating, the lowest score he’s received from the American people on his job performance since taking office, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea- ack) University national poll of adults released today. In Quinnipiac’s last national poll released 3 weeks ago, he received a negative 42 – 50 percent job approval rating.

                    Today, Republicans (94 – 4 percent) and independents (60 – 32 percent) disapprove of the job Biden is doing, while Democrats approve 80 – 10 percent.

                    HANDLING OF ISSUES

                    Biden received negative scores in the double digits on all but one key issue when Americans were asked about his handling of …

                    the response to the coronavirus: 48 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove;
                    the economy: 39 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;
                    his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
                    taxes: 37 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove;
                    foreign policy: 34 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;
                    immigration issues: 25 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove;
                    the situation at the Mexican border: 23 percent approve, while 67 percent disapprove.
                    When it comes to Biden’s personal traits, Americans were asked whether or not Biden …

                    cares about average Americans: 49 percent say yes, while 48 percent say no, compared to 58 – 37 percent yes in April;

                    is honest: 44 percent say yes, while 50 percent say no, compared to 51 – 42 percent yes in April;
                    has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 – 44 percent yes in April.

                    More than half of Americans say 55 – 42 percent that the Biden administration is not competent in running the government.

                    1. “They are losing.”

                      Estovir, they may be losing, but the nation has slipped backward. To put it back on track will require better effort than I believe is available at present. The election of Obama was the turning point. The nation slipped from attempting to hold onto the rule of law to permit the rule of law to become something only noticed when convenient.

                    2. To put it back on track will require better effort than I believe is available at present.

                      I agree but I think the entropy is too great, and the self-regulation, introspection and humility nonexistent. I fear for our world like never before, and that scares me.

                    3. Estovir says:

                      “I fear for our world like never before, and that scares me.”

                      Desperate times call for desperate means. Trump in ‘24?

            2. MIT reserves the freedom to change its mind on whom to invite to speak. Abbot has no more right to speak at MIT

              Which has nothing to do with the problem identified.

              Centers of education limiting intellectual inquiry. No one said MIT can’t allow and deny speech. The hypocrisy is only allowing a single point of view. Cloistering students to expand their ignorance.

              1. Can you imagine what it would have involved for Jeff to write the following:

                Professor Turley reserves the freedom to change his mind on whom to invite to comment. Jeff has no more right to speak at Turley’s blog

                That would have a taken intellectual honesty and consistency, and we all know that must not happen with Jeff.

                carry on

                1. Estovir says:

                  “Professor Turley reserves the freedom to change his mind on whom to invite to comment. Jeff has no more right to speak at Turley’s blog.”

                  Correct.

                  Turley has been arguing that it is a violation of a speaker’s freedom of speech for a private concern to subject him to consequences for expressing his controversial opinion. He calls it the “Little Brother” problem as opposed to Big Brother censorship. I don’t recognize a Little Brother problem.

                  I believe people have- dare I say it- the natural right to discriminate against speech they do not wish to hear. That is a freedom people can exercise- not by heckling a speaker once talking- but rather by telling the would-be speaker, “Thanks, but no thanks. You are perfectly free to speak some place where people have an interest in what you are saying, but not here.”

                  People have no less freedom to control what goes into their ears than what comes out of their mouths. People are free to discriminate against speakers who have said things which they find repulsive. We will not agree on what is repulsive speech, and that is to be expected. Unpopular speakers per se are not a protected class under the Constitution. They can be discriminated against- not by government, but by the people.

              2. Iowan2 says “Cloistering students to expand their ignorance.”

                That’s one man’s opinion. Noted. MIT had a different opinion. C’est la vie.

                  1. Bob says:

                    “Excuse me, is that an open mind or no mind.”

                    It’s best to keep an open mind, but not so open that everything falls out. We have the freedom to close our mind to controversial speech just like I have the freedom to abstain from eating carpaccio.

                    1. “We have the freedom to close our mind to controversial speech just …”

                      But you don’t have the right to close the mind of others.

                    2. Someone says:

                      “But you don’t have the right to close the mind of others.”

                      I’m not. All those who wish to hear this MIT professor are perfectly free to do so at another time and place. It’s not unlike the government passing laws restricting protest marches to certain times and locations. Regulating time and place is not an infringement unless the restrictions are too burdensome.

                    3. ““But you don’t have the right to close the mind of others.”

                      I’m not. All those who wish to hear this MIT professor are perfectly free to do so at another time and place. “

                      In other words all ideas are created equal, but some ideas are better than others. Therefore, some ideas have a right to be spoken but only where Jeff permits it.

  6. Well, they’ve had a lot of practice and they have now come very close to creating the ultimate useful idiot. The useful idiots would have been more successful if they would have continued the “tactic by stealth” approach. Their hubris is day by day revealing that their reason for living is not the good of mankind but control by those with superior minds. Their hero Alinski would be disappointed in their open acts of suppression. He would say that they have failed his course in the art of the undercover operation. He would then declare that they are indeed idiots but they now have become not so useful. In history what became of the useful idiots when they were no longer useful?

  7. “as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone.” sounds kinda like;

    “….that they not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” ~MLK~

    By the standards of today’s mob MLK would be cancelled at best or _______ at worst.

    1. Many thanks for posting Tom Lehrer (still kicking at 93). You are obviously a gentleman of refined taste! How many pleasant afternoons I spent memorizing The Elements to “I am the very model of a modern major general”… fond memories. And I had never heard the Aristotle version before! My laughter startled the cats.

  8. Reading what you write is reading what flows through a demented person’s mind. You are wrong about everything, no matter which alias you use. Here is an example of a Democrat that floods your mind with junk. He is now the Jan. 6 commission chairman.
    ——-
    Jan. 6 commission chairman once sympathized with black secessionist group that killed cops
    Fifty years ago as a Mississippi alderman, Bennie Thompson defended the Republic of New Africa and participated in a news conference blaming cops for the group’s violence even as FBI saw group as waging “guerrilla warfare.” …

    For instance, Thompson’s Democratic colleague in Congress and the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois, famously cofounded the extremist Black Panthers chapter in Illinois in 1968 before he entered politics. Both the RNA and the Black Panthers were avowed supporters of insurrection, and at one point in 1967, armed Black Panthers stormed the state capitol in California.”
    —–

    Strange people on the left and stranger people that keep changing their alias.

    https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-commission-chairman-once-sympathized-black-secessionist-group-killed-cops?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Breaking%20Newsletter%20October%204%202021%2095552%20615bb0a870ab8&utm_content=Breaking%20Newsletter%20October%204%202021%2095552%20615bb0a870ab8+CID_14e15743dc73d4cc11f0f5551dd21201&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=Read%20More

  9. This is how academic consensus is attained. Academics agree if they know what’s good for them. Universities become hard Left madrassas, an echo chamber of the dutiful.

  10. “Distrust diversifications, which usually turn out to be diworseifications.”

    – Peter Lynch, One Up Wall Street, 1989

  11. “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

    – Karl Marx

  12. The problem with merit based academia and treating students as individuals is…. a large percentage of those individuals belong to a demographic that will be left behind and we can’t have Lilly-white and Asians kids making them look bad.

    1. No, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) denies individual dignity, conscience. and agency, and normalizes color blocks (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas (e.g. Jew privilege) , and affirmative discrimination (e.g. Choice).

    2. Wait. Affirmative action is unconstitutional.

      Please cite the Constitution wherein “equality” of outcome by any criterion is mandated.

  13. “What occurred at MIT this month is a chilling reminder that even a premier institution will yield to anti-free speech campaigns. The problem is that few department heads or administrators want to risk their own careers in standing between a mob and a controversial speaker. The result is cringing obedience to a rising orthodoxy on our campuses.”
    ——-
    It’s the same thing happening with Covid where no counterpoint to the mainstream narrative is allowed. MSM giants like the the NYT self-censor comments that go against the grain of the echo chamber narrative. Yahoo, Twitter and the rest of the social media do the same. You can’t have a fair and open discussion when anything counter to the narrative is self-purged.

    1. Jojo says:

      “It’s the same thing happening with Covid where no counterpoint to the mainstream narrative is allowed.”

      Exactly, just like when Liz Cheney dared to raise her “counterpoint” to the Trumpist election was stolen narrative, and she summarily was cancelled from her post.

      1. What a terrible analogy. No Its just Stupid.

        Cheney was elected by her peers to a leadership position. Another person was elected in her place. That is democracy in action.

        Do you believe congress should have the power to elect there own leadership?

        1. Cheney was democratically *cancelled” by the Trumpists for being unwilling to parrot Trump’s lies. It never would have happened had she kept her mouth shut by self-censoring.

  14. Set up a business for your high school grad to work at with you and then after a few years he or she takes over. Let em go to junior college nearby to learn about the world. Not a business degree so they can work at Bank of America.

      1. Maybe kids need to get some work/life experience BEFORE going to college. That way, they will be more able to tell the mesmerizing idealistic, pie-in-the-sky tripe from reality-based truth, and not let the professor get away with blatant indoctrination.

  15. If we don’t see a pattern at this point, we are just plain and simple stupid. Rest assured, ‘the sane middle’ is diminishing. The majority of millennials and gen z pretty much comprise the body that the Professor writes about every day. To think this will not affect the future is madness (these people will be judges, lawyers, and CEOs one day). And yet, we still insist on believing in the Tooth Fairy that is ‘the sane middle’. The sane middle was created, not born, and it gets UNcreated every time our laws are no longer taught or enforced.

Leave a Reply