Can You Guess? Professor Asks Students What Group is Known for “Violence, Deceit, Irresponsibility, and a Lack of Remorse”

We recently discussed how Wake Forest Psychology Professor S. Mason Garrison described conservatives as “guilty, anxious, and unable to handle stress well as children.” It was indicative of the overt hostility often encountered by Republicans and conservatives on our campuses today. Now, another psychology professor is under fire for a quiz that matter-of-factly explained that white men are characterized as a group for their abuse of others and lack of remorse for their violence and deceit. Like Professor Garrison, the resulting outcry reportedly led Professor Kirsten Bradbury to rescind the quiz. However, the incident reflects both the orthodoxy and hostility that now characterizes higher education. It also follows a familiar pattern when academics are called to account for such biased attacks.
Professor Bradbury gave a quiz as part of her “Personality Psychology” class and included a question that stated “[n]either race nor gender is determinative in Antisocial Personality Disorder.” It then asked:

“However, if we must go there, which sociodemographic group is most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse?”

Bradbury then added an addendum stating “Hint: They also happen to hold the most social power and because of that they can get away with the most wrongdoing.”

She gave four choices with three obviously absurd choices of middle class Latino families, female dentists and Asian men of all economic groups. The correct answer was, of course, wealthy white men.

Like many, Bradbury felt that she had license to engage in such racial stereotyping and disparagement. It reflects a culture today at universities that not only tolerates but fosters such proselytizing and intolerance.

We have seen attacks based both on race and ideology from professors over the years without any repercussions or even criticism from universities in many cases. We have previously discussed faculty who called for “detonating white people,” abolishing white peopledenouncing 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. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).

At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

On every level of our educational systems, it has become acceptable to demonize conservatives and oppose their teaching students. One school board member recently called for conservatives to be “culled” from faculties by “taking them to the slaughterhouse.” Many faculties have indeed “culled” their ranks of conservatives. A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican.

The survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.”  Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year. Yet editors at the newspaper assured students that eliminating Republicans or conservatives from the faculty was nothing to fear or regret.

Likewise, in an editorial column, the editors of the legal site Above the Law mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools. Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.  (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.

It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and by roughly half of the population are invalid to be taught.

It is not limited to faculty. Polls now show that 60 percent of students fear sharing their views in class, including some polls showing an even higher level of fear. There is a growing orthodoxy taking hold on our campuses with rising intolerance for dissenting faculty and students alike.

When this controversy arose, Bradbury simply offered a mild “my bad” and pulled the quiz. It was not because she issued an insulting and unsupported racial attack. She simply told students that “given the current rate of sociocultural and scientific change,” the quiz had “grown too stale to use.” No real apology and no action from the university. Just a shrug.

Imagine if a professor described black men in such disparaging terms. Would the University of Texas at Austin or its faculty remain silent?

When conservatives have uttered controversial statements, the response is quite different. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

Students often face such choices of losing points on exams or just mouthing the political bias of their professors. We previously discussed how historian Jon Meachum asked students in a quiz at Vanderbilt University “Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery?” When a student answered “false,” the answer was marked wrong.

Bradbury’s question and later shrugging off of the controversy reflects the intolerance and sense of impunity in higher education. She clearly has little fear that attacking white males would have any repercussions and felt little need to apologize for the attack. The response of the University of Texas reinforces the sense of license.

150 thoughts on “Can You Guess? Professor Asks Students What Group is Known for “Violence, Deceit, Irresponsibility, and a Lack of Remorse””

  1. As George Will said, professors are the dumbest smart people we have. (I would exclude professors who actually accomplish things outside academia.)

    The answer to the question is leftists are the most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse.

    Look at Hilary. She and Obama destroyed Syria, Libya, and almost destroyed Egypt and never apologized for any of it. Her reaction to the chaos in Libya was something like We came, We saw, he died .

    Look at BLM, blocking traffic of innocent motorists in LA and Minneapolis, shutting down the Mall of America, blocking the Minneapolis airport; getting away with it and never apologizing.

    Part of the transgender movement is doing the same thing.

    It’s always the left.

  2. I learned a long time ago, courtesy of my parents, that you mustn’t generalize about any particular group. Apparently no one taught the professor in question that valuable lesson.

  3. It’s not just ” academia” that is nullifying heterosexual white males… it’s industry. Anyone that works in corporate america can attest to the disgusting “woke” status of most HR departments. They are either overweight single women or lesbians and both absolutely despise white males.

    1. HR like politics is self selecting for those who should not be in HR.

      It is a non-productive role.
      We should apply the same criteria to HR matters as to corporate governance.

      HR policies that do not enhance shareholder value are improper.

      We support policies that improve a workplace for employees if and only if those policies result in greater productivity and more revenue or profits.

      The focus on profits may seem crash but it is actually important.

      Businesses profit most by delivering what we want and need most efficiently.

      This is core to the issues with AHB and Bud Light right now – do consumers want Woke Beer ?

      The answer is to let the market decide.
      I would note that there is obviously a market for woke beer, just as there is a market for patriotic beer.
      And Good tasting beer.

      Niche products can target niche markets. Mass market products must avoid offending almost anyone.

      Ultimately a focus on corporate profits accurately REFLECTS our actual values.
      AND it reflects the fact that our values are NOT uniform.

      There are SOME people whole will buy woke beer – and a free market will provide that
      Just not the flagship product of the maket dominant producer when that value offends more people than it attracts.

      1. ” It is a non-productive role.”

        You won me right there.. .HR’s function is to promote HR… that is all.

  4. If you want to know the truth about black men, ask black Pastor James David Manning. He tells it like it is in a 10 minute YouTube titled, “Her Name is Miss Ann”.

  5. Society looks to white men to build it, nurture it, protect it and to sustain civilization itself. But when those men forget God, He allows women to become liberated and hateful toward men. That not only destroys the white mans family, But it also allows a generation of Communists to take over and turn the next generation into homosexuals and sex perverts of every type. It becomes a very spoiled generation of kids who are easy prey for Communist professors in the education system. And yes, that includes religious colleges and universities as well. The racial strife and all the other issues are just the natural result of this scenario.

  6. the system is too far gone to be corrected from the inside. New collages and universities, no matter how rudimentary must be formed and supported by top students and faculty. It would take a few generations but in the end a new class of superior thinkers would make themselves evident, the graduates of todays “elite” schools and their faculty would soon be seen for what they are. The need then would be to absolutely keep out the old from infiltrating the new, a mistake made when the
    Frankkfurt school boys came to the USA.

    1. why bother funding STEM ? all the jobs are going to china or to H1B’s that are allowed to come to the US and take our jobs.

  7. Meachem published a 500-page hagiographic tome about HW Bush that gushes with praise for his “masterful presidential leadership” rounding up the globalist vultures to feed off Iraq in the first Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). (And feed they did all the way through to the “Oil For Food” program with grifters involved like Kofi Annan’s own son–this was described in detail on John Batchelor’s radio program but almost nowhere else).

    Meachem’s book omits one of the most important developments in the post-USSR world, the events at the close of Desert Storm where first HW Bush speaks publicly wondering aloud “what if the Iraqi people could throw off their chains” essentially triggering the Shia rebellion against Hussein–soon followed by the truly bizarre moment where Bush comes off the 18th hole after one of his notorious “speed golfing” soirees and suddenly states “I’m not going to get American kids involved in something that’s been going on for a thousand years”. US troops stood back and permitted the mass slaughter of upwards of 100,000 people; followed by the similarly bizarre scenes as US troops uncovered mass graves during W. Bush’s Iraq invasion and the Bush Backers like Sean Hannity cited them as justification for the invasion.

    It’s right up there with Walter Duranty fronting for Stalin’s genocide in the Ukraine (STILL denied by the ADL which calls it a “famine”) or the other NY Times reporter who fronted for Hitler (see the Tablet magazine feature “The NY Times’ Nazi Correspondent”).

    “Leadership” would have been taking Hussein out (voluminous evidence emerged he was ready to go the first time) and realigning the middle east cauldron of trouble with potentially at least western democracies. It would have been a moment to acknowledge the legacy of horrific policy mistakes like the Iran coup that put the Shah into power in the first place starting the sequence of events that resulted in the Iran-Iraq war. (The Shah was the linchpin of Henry Kissinger’s vision or how the region should work as he promoted OPEC’s oil price rise as part of a Grand Strategy to make him the “enforcer” for US interests–the oil money to be “recycled” through massive US arms sales.

    1. While I agree with alot of your assessments – fundimentally you make the Same mistake the Bushies make (and Obama, and Biden),

      Your disgreement is not with the use of US power to meddle in the affairs of other countries.
      It is with the specific ways in which we have done so.

      Assumed in your argument is that The US has had black and white choices and repeatedly chose black.

      The FACT is that at the very best we have backed the lessor of two evils. This is incredibly clear in the mideast.
      Who are the good guys – the Shah or the Ayatolahs ? Who are the good guys Ghadafi or those who replaced him ?
      Who are the good guys – the Turks, the Saudi’s, the Iranians ?

      I can go on an on. There are no good guys in the mideast. Even Israel who is far more moral than her enemies is far from a good actor.

      There is no such thing as “the good guys” in the mideast – and frankly anywhere in the world.

      We have the choice between trying to guess at the lessor of two evils, and staying out of conflicts where the US has no interest.

      Only two presidents in my lifetime have stayed out of Conflicts where there was no real US interest at stake.
      Nixon – oddly, who inherited Vietnam and worked diligently to get the US out while preserving US power prestige, and credibility in the world.
      You can criticise Nixon on many things including his handling of Vietnam – but he actively sought to GET OUT.

      Reagan comes close – he left Lebanon – wisely, but he invaded Granada, and ran a covert war in Central America.

      And Trump. Every Single other president has EXPANDED US involvement in foreign conflicts.

      This is a bipartisan problem.

      To bee clear – I have zero problem with the US denouncing despots throughout the world.
      But when we choose to support their enemies – we are ALWAYS chosing the lessor evil – or atleast trying to.

      You can not claim the moral high ground when you are in the mud fighting.

      The problem is not HOW Bush or Obama, or … intervened. It is THAT we intervened at all.

      US assistance to the mujahadein in Afghanistant contriuted to Driving the USSR out and to the collapse of the USSR.
      It also created the Taliban and Al Queda.

      Backing “the lessor evil” inevitably puts us in bed with corrupt and evil people.

  8. I was in graduate school in the mid 1970s. A newly hired professor who had come from Michigan routinely got himself worked into a purple rage about Republicans, businessmen, rural people in the West, and mainly cattle ranchers. He had derisive names for them all. He also browbeat students about their stupidity. Even 50 years later I consider him the worst bigot I have ever personally encountered. It’s been around and growing for a long time, this sense of entitlement and righteousness. From a few professors, to many students and finally to most of a college or university. It’s a disease.

    1. He must be the little devil on people’s shoulders whispering “bitter clingers” into Obama’s ear, “deplorables” into Hillary’s ear, and “semi-fascists” into Biden’s ear.

    2. Although I may not commit the same sins as some of these professors, that’s no reason for me to get the big head. The sins I do commit are more than plentiful enough and more than serious enough for me to burn for all eternity.

  9. One school board member recently called for conservatives to be “culled” from faculties by “taking them to the slaughterhouse.”

    And Jane Fonda went on the View and said pro-life Americans should be murdered (her exact words). Of course there were no repercussions.

    This from the crowd that says “speech is violence” when a conservative expresses a reasoned opinion in opposition to liberal talking points on some topic they care about.

    1. I warned friends about this coming insanity years ago, and none of them believed me.
      I had a single friend that I pointed this out to years before that.
      He agreed, said isn’t it great, they are so bad, I love it.

  10. O T
    Glenn Greenwald has an interesting podcast today on the hypocricy of American leftists, entitled “Key Left-Liberal Tactic: Hold Everyone But Yourself to the Highest Moral Standards (& Get Rich!)” He discusses those people who preach about the threat from “climate change” without giving up their private jets and yachts, or refuse to give up eating meat even though the stock animals are great contibutors to methane in the atmosphere. In other words, being a “progressive” means you don’t need to change your behavior to conform to your propaganda.

    1. “Climate Change” is emissions from China–the largest and fastest-growing source ever–disrupting weather patterns over North America. (It’s called the “Northern Pacific Storm Track” and you can watch it on the satellite view). The McKibbens and other thumb-sucking propagandists appear not to know which way the wind blows.

      This was published by Texas A&M climate research in 2014. No network TV or establishment press newspapers or magazines mentioned the study. (The NatGeo website had it the last time I checked the article was behind a paywall). “Climate Change” is corporate-run hackademic BS run by billionaires who want US citizens’ freedom stamped out and corralled the way they have the Chinese.

      1. But notice the cloud somehow dissipated and people were all fine. The earth is good at doing that!

      2. Google ” china brown cloud, NASA” .. satellite photos over china.. it looks like someone put a piece of glass over china then defecated on it.. and the idiots in this country are talking about cow flatulence.

    1. Sounds cool, but when your job is on the line? I have a personal friend who is among those professors who should be “brought to the slaughterhouse” and he’s currently fighting for his career. The lawyers will have their day and FIRE is already involved. This will not go well for the district.

  11. Jonathan: Now Prof. Kirsten Bradbury is the subject of your ire. Why? Because you accuse her of “racial profiling and disparagement”. Of whom? Well. white men of privilege and wealth. As a white man of privilege yourself (not necessarily of wealth) I can understand your consternation. I ,too, am a old white man who benefited from privilege but I don’t call people who point it out as being involved in “racial profiling and disparagement”. It’s false labeling by white men who fear the loss of power and prestige.

    So what specifically do you object to about Bradbury’s quiz that asks her psychology students the Q as to which group “is most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse?”. The correct answer was apparently “wealthy white men”. Who might fit Bradbury’s description? As you would suspect my first person of choice is Donald Trump. He used violence to try to overturn a legitimate election. Two of Trump’s organizations were found guilty of multiple counts of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records in NY. That takes care of “violence” and “deceit”. What about “irresponsibility” and “lack of remorse”? When Trump took all those top secret docs back to Mar-a-Lago wasn’t that the height of “irresponsibility”? Not to mention violations of several federal statutes. Has Trump shown any “remorse” for his criminal behavior? Nope. Trump still claims he had a right to hold onto all that classified material. The Trumpster is the personification of a wealthy old white man who exhibits all of Bradbury’s indicia for “Antisocial Personality Disorder”.

    So why should Bradbury apologize? Her students don’t think so. In a recent rating by students who took her classes 91 rated her as “Awesome”, 8 as “Great” and only 2 as “Awful”. Bradbury was given an outstanding teacher award in 2017–along with $25,000. Of course, Bradbury teaches at the Univ. of Texas at Austin. Austin is a lonely island of liberal thought in a sea of Texas right-wing extremism. That’s reason enough for conservatives like you to attack Bradbury.

    1. “It isn’t racist because Trump is white and wealthy, therefore it must be true of an entire group” is exactly the sort of take I would expect from someone who believes the instructor shouldn’t apologize because…she has good ratemyprof scores.

      Your comment, and the “thought” process behind it, is a towering work of vacuity of use only for protecting our species from warlike aliens seeking out intelligent life to extinguish. Perhaps they will see your comment first, and skip our planet.

    2. wow. (I am sure Prof Turley does not me to defend him). Prof Turley is not attacking Prof Bradbury. If you read any previous posting in the Academia section, I’m sure you can recognize the pattern. The leftists in the higher learning academies like Stanford, UTexas, BYU, are encroaching into others’ freedom of speech. It’s here at this web site, Prof Turley can point out to layman like myself this encroachment.

    3. Austin is a lonely island of liberal thought in a sea of Texas right-wing extremism. That’s reason enough for conservatives like you to attack Bradbury.

      This is completely unhinged.

      1. And from context it’s clear that

        “liberal thought” equates to racial hatred, and

        “right-wing extremism” means sensible economic and social policies that have led to a flourishing state which is attracting a huge net influx of Americans escaping liberal hell-hole states like California and New York which are literally imploding from liberal policies.

      2. Austin is a ridiculous island of leftist brainwashed people in a sea of Texas patriotism and brilliance…..reason enough for you to attack with no explanation.

    4. Soo… IF a “parent” decides to SHOVE “gender affirming care” on to thier kid(s) “JUST BECAUSE” and 10 years later the kid COMMITS SUICIDE…….HOW is it my fault?
      YES! Im one of those old white farts

    5. Why are you so focused on the author’s identity instead of the principles involved? “Wealthy” was mostly likely merely a fig leaf added to the usual category of people now so often demonized across so many major institutions, merely for how they were born. This likewise isn’t about your personal willingness, as one posturing older affluent white apparently progressive man, and it’s not up to you to volunteer anyone born with some of the same (particularly immutable, inherited, superficial physical) characteristics as valid targets for grossly generalized bigotry, let alone by a professor at a major public university. Universities are quite obviously increasingly intolerant left-wing monocultures. The power in such settings is against the people this professor attacks. “Wealthy” is after all already used all over left-identitarian circles as a proxy for white men. Even dirt poor white men, we’re continually told by people of this professor’s ideological ilk, are more privileged than any members of any other, supposedly “oppressed” groups. Texas is hardly the uniformly “far-right” hellhole you assert. There are several very large, very blue cities and counties which are growing rapidly. Some Democrats have been quite competitive statewide. And virtually every institution of higher learning from community colleges to research universities to private colleges and the places that surround them are ideologically left-leaning. It’s not just universities, though. Virtually all major institutions from media to arts to big corporations, to of course nonprofits and primary and secondary education have turned sharply, shallowly left-identiarian. This anachronistic idea that UT Austin in 2023 is some sort of rare normal liberal oasis in a bleak desert of know-nothing right-wingers is bizarrely out of touch. It’s also bizarre to me you seem to think the author is himself some dyed in the wool conservative. I guess if by that you mean “civil libertarian”, he is. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life and always associated civil liberties and the ACLU of a generation ago with principled liberals, not conservatives. If being a law professor who stands up for the same civil liberties that he did a generation ago, regardless of which side or team is involved, makes someone “right-wing”, that’s more a sad commentary on the surrender of liberals to authoritarian, identitarian progressives than it is about the right. It’s also laughable you have pretend the author is somehow unfairly piling on some poor professor (who is after all beloved by her students ! ) Which one is right in the constantly lauded mainstream of left identitarian bigotry at today’s institutions of higher learning – and which one is under continual scrutiny and pressure to have him fired, merely for daring to have been born male and white and for holding the same civil libertarian views he’s always held? And of course most shallowly, intolerantly woke kids at a now openly very left-leaning university in which everyone and everything is portrayed in made up, self-serving hierarchies of supposed oppression and victimhood, are going to approve of what an edgy professor who pushes these same narratives was doing by demonizing every universities favorite scapegoat and out group. Most were inculcated in this poison in high school and their consideration for admission likely heavily incentivized applicants expressing similar beliefs and belonging to similar causes. There are two types or groups everyone knows present day universities are openly hostile to and discriminatory against: conservatives and/or white men. You really honestly seem to be living in 1960 and imagining that’s still how things are. What’s really disturbing about your comment, though, is you seem to have no problem with someone is a position of real power, like a tenured faculty member at a (once?) top public university, using her power and discretion to stoop to wildly generalizing about and demonizing an entire group in the clumsiest, least insightful, let alone nuanced, least pedagogically useful, enlightening manner. Beyond her own obvious bigotry and effort to leverage her power to inculcate that as propaganda on a captive public university audience of students, let alone *grade them on it*, it’s just embarrassingly poor teaching. This is a professor at a major state university? Giving out obviously grossly biased, stereotype-filled ideological, identitarian assertions as if they were factual items to be graded right or wrong? I’d be appalled at her teaching if this had been a high school or community college instructor who thought her job was indoctrination. I can’t believe you actually seem to think asserting a list of ugly stereotypes about an entire group, mostly defined by sex and skin color, based on a professor’s own gross bigotries and biases, and purporting to present this as a factual matter and attempting to grade students on that basis is just fine. You don’t do that about any group, based on any agenda. Do you really not get that what gives principles meaning, and ensures they will be there to protect and ensure fair treatment to any group or individual, is applying them consistently – rather than making excuses about how it’s ok for your side to do x or y based on your own political biases and agendas?

    6. Wow! To bad you have your head Buried in the sand. We have a friend who’s daughter worked her butt off to keep getting scholarships throughout her college career. She came from a farming family and was homeschooled. She will graduate with her masters in Biology next month and the University of Maine took a 4000.00 dollar school away from her that she worked hard for so they could give it to someone less privileged. This is total
      BS. One who works hard to achieve things is the one whom should prosper regardless or color period.

    7. Dennis: Why, oh why do you feel guilty? Is it a mental disorder? I know you are not alone. There are tens of millions of you who feel like this. It will help to further destroy Western Civ, so go ahead I guess if it makes you feel better.

    8. Let’s consider you taking your white wealth and privilege and ridiculously naive bubble thinking for a stroll after dark on the streets of South Chicago on a weekend night. How long do you think it would take before you were hit over the head (or worse) by a member of a different socioeconomic cultural class that would routinely use violence to exert power and dominance over you, relieve you of your freedom and possessions and then walk away with no remorse or fear of consequences? Hmmm?

    9. To achieve success in most Western countries, “privilege” is not required. What is required are traditional Western values: a strong work ethic, the willingness to defer gratification, and the determination to seek good education and job skills. On the other hand, if you’ve been duped into thinking that being required to show up on time for your job is somehow oppressive, that compulsively consuming and selling sex and drugs from early adolescence conveys status, and that pursuing academic excellence is “acting white,” then you need to get a clue about how the world works Otherwise, you’re just the kind of useful idiot that Marxists will happily recruit into their grievance industry

    10. The pattern of violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse doesn’t reside in ‘a person’ or a skin color. Instead, it resides in a political party. It is the democrat party that encouraged and applauded the burning of cities. It is the democrat party that chanted defund the police, raised funds to post bail for violent criminals, and called it the Summer of Love. It was a democrat prosecutor who charged a man with murder when video coverage clearly proved he was defending himself from a criminal. The most dangerous cities in the U.S. are under democrat control. It is the democrat party irresponsibly refusing to secure our borders even as thousands are dying from drugs smuggled into the U.S. There is no remorse for the children who are being used for slave labor, and sex trafficking. It is our democrat president who allowed a Chinese spy balloon to gather intelligence from our military bases for a week. There is a very long list of democrat failures.

      It is our democrat president who, along with his son and other family members.are currently under investigation after receiving millions of $$$ from foreign adversaries.

      The infamous Jan.6 committee had nothing more than the allegations they started with after wasting millions of taxpayers’ dollars.

      What about the “irresponsibility” and “lack of remorse” when top secret documents were found dating back to when Biden was a senator and then more from when he was VP? Four different locations, none with 24/7 Secret Service coverage of premises or double-locked doors such as those at Mar-a-Lago. Not to mention Biden’s multiple violations of Federal statutes…

  12. This story out of Texas is good news, as it will hasten the demise of tyrannical, anti-science, anti-freedom of inquiry, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of association, anti-freedom of religion higher education in America. It will also hasten the realization by employers that, with few exceptions, a college degree has nothing to do with excellence in the workplace.

    1. A modern college degree is worse than useless. It is a communist indoctrination at a high cost that leaves the student unemployable and in huge debt.

Leave a Reply