University of Pennsylvania Anthropology Professor Theodore Schurr is apparently an academic recidivist in allowing a diversity of viewpoints in a classroom. For that offense, Dr. Schurr is again the subject of complaints and a call for suspension. Tolerating, let alone encouraging, such diversity of viewpoints in a classroom is now considered harmful and abusive.
Dr. Schurr would appear to be someone who fits in with the political profile of most faculties. He was one of the signatories on a letter attacking then-President-elect Donald Trump for alleged “racist, xenophobic, sexist speech and behavior.”
However, Schurr has some old-fashioned ideas of teaching, including the value of discussing opposing views on relevant subjects. In his course, “Sex and Human Nature,” transgender issues loom prominently in the subject matter and Schurr allowed students to share their different viewpoints.
That is now verboten on campuses where students are constantly told that they do not have to tolerate the opposing views of others. Indeed, we previously discussed the effort to fire University of Pennsylvania Professor Carlin Romano for questioning the language of a proposed statement on racism in the publishing industry.
It is also the university at the center over the long fight to terminate Professor Amy Wax for her controversial views.
Pennsylvania is ranked as “very poor” at 202 out of 203 in the recent ranking on free speech. Only Columbia University has a more hostile environment for free speech.
The school newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvania reported that the course is heavily attended because there is a mandatory “cultural diversity” requirement for students and it double counts for the separate “Living World Sector” requirement.
First-year student Haydr Dutta declared that Dr. Schurr (who has a long list of prestigious publications) was completely ignorant of the subject as it relates to transgender issues: “Things were a little horrifying because [Schurr’s] definitions about being trans were basically all factually wrong.” Haydr Dutta, who alternatively uses “Aiden,” is on the Trans/Nonbinary Committee at the LGBT Center.
Dutta added that the class fueled divergent thoughts and that there was a risk that students “walk out with these wrong views about what being trans means.”
Dutta told The College Fix that Schurr encouraged discussion of why trans healthcare could be controversial, opening up some students’ points that ‘a fair number of people detransition,’ that ‘taxes should not be spent on trans healthcare and should instead be going to a useful place like the military,’ and that ‘the treatment of transgender people is driven by big pharma who just want the money.’”
This is not the first time that Schurr has been targeted. In 2019, he was removed from teaching the “Human Nature” course, though he resumed teaching the course in 2021.
He is now under investigation by the university’s Title IX office. Among the complaints is that Schurr used the “deadname” of actor Elliot Page who was known as Ellen Page during the movie Juno but now identifies as a male.
Penn student Lex Gilbert also told The Fix that “when asked clarifying questions during class, he relied on students to give their thoughts and appeared to not know how to respond. He relied heavily upon extremely dense PowerPoints throughout the course.”
Another student, who remained anonymous, complained that “once we really got to the topic of gender and sexuality, the conversation got pretty uncomfortable.”
The controversy reflects a different culture at Penn from the top ranking university, The University of Chicago (where I attended).
UChicago shocked many in 2016 when it sent a letter to incoming students that promised an unfettered and uncensored education without the protection from disturbing or offensive ideas. While most schools are actively curtailing free speech, its letter warned the students that they will not be protected against ideas or given “safe spaces.”
The origin of the letter is found in a policy produced at the University of Chicago in 2014-2015. The Chicago Statement’s key provision declares that a university’s
“fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.”
The Chicago Statement also states unequivocally that students cannot “obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views.” That latter statement stands in contrast with many academics who believe that stopping others from speaking is free speech.
The complaint raises both free speech and academic freedom issues. While this first-year student believes that Dr. Schurr is ignorant of the subject matter of his course, he was selected to teach the subject at one of the premier universities in the world. In addition to receiving tenure at Penn, he is a Consulting Curator in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, and the Director of the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Schurr was assured that he could do so with the full benefits of academic freedom — the touchstone of higher education. Penn now faces yet another test of its commitment to that principle.
Nevertheless, students have already reportedly been allowed to take just a credit for the course or transfer to other classes due to their discomfort.
Although the name suggests otherwise, the University of Pennsylvania is a private school. At one time it was considered to rank among the world’s finest universities. I don’t know if that still holds, there being so many very good universities now.
In other free speech news, Miami-Dade elementary schools are now barred from reading Amanda Gorman’s poem, The Hill I Climb, for no reason other than that an unnamed person complained about it.
I’ll bet none of those children know of the Federalist Papers, or the Articles of Confederation.
The poem is nothing but a blank canvas to lead to pushing the Dept of Education propaganda.
To repeat for the nth time. There is a finite amount time to explore educational content. Until the students are reading and ciphering at grade level, esoteric drek, falls off the list of possibilities.
None of which excuses it being BARRED.
None of which excuses it being BARRED.
Sure it does. If the education establishment insists on focusing on content to indoctrinate, instead of teaching them how to read and write, the adults are going take back control.
ATS has a problem. He isn’t accurate at least to date.
“A Florida parent tried to get Amanda Gorman’s poetry banned, complaining it could “indoctrinate students.”
The school says it moved the book, but any student can still read it.”
It doesn’t sound like the outcome is decided. But more important we hear the lightweight talking about censorship which is what the left has been engaged with continuously. For many years they even have censored science.
Professor Turley,
Your article fails to mention the syllabus of the course. Was the professor’s comments about the federal government’s budgetary decisions relevant to the course? Based on an old syllabus of the course, I don’t see how any of that is relevant. If I am paying $60K a year for Penn education, and I take a class on X, but instead, the professor went off on a political tangent that was irrelevant to the stated subject material, I would be upset as well. Wouldn’t you?
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~valeggia/Sex%20and%20Human%20Nature%20Syllabus,%20Fall%202010.pdf
If students in your law course wanted to discuss the NFL rather than your legal course, would you allow that “free speech” to disrupt your class?
Part of the problem with your framing of the issue is that you assume an infinite number of minutes may be allocated for open discussion. That, however, is not the case. As a result, there has to be some way to create a hierarchy of speech in an academic course, such that the primary purpose of the class – the COURSE MATERIAL – is given its due.
It seems like the Professor either didn’t want to teach the stated subject material, or believed the course material was not long enough to justify an entire class and preferred to fill that time with political discussion intended to make his students uncomfortable.
preferred to fill that time with political discussion intended to make his students uncomfortable.
“uncomfortable”. There’s a fate worse than death…..well….no I guess it isn’t. If by uncomfortable, you mean students are asked to support their assumptions…that’s the core of higher education.
Iowan, is that all you discerned from my post? Did you ignore the prior sentences?
If the professor’s content has zero relevance to the topic of the course, then the students should not be asked to support their assumptions, precisely because it is NOT the core of higher education.
Hence the example in Turley’s law course. It would be inappropriate in a course about environmental law, for example, to have the professor hound students on whether they support the Washington Commanders new name, don’t you think? Do you think that line of questioning is central to the professor’s higher education duties? Absolutely not.
“If the professor’s content . . .”
Until you have evidence for your “if,” it remains arbitrary. And the rest of your speculations are just noise.
Your noise, per usual, has an insidious purpose — to deflect from the actual topic: That the professor is being targeted for his *ideas* and for upsetting the eternally aggrieved.
If I am paying $60K a year for Penn education, and I take a class on X, but instead, the professor went off on a political tangent that was irrelevant to the stated subject material, I would be upset as well.
Then you must be really steamed that, after Trump was elected, many elite colleges spent the rest of the entire week in one big gripe-slash-counseling session instead of teaching classes, much to the chagrin of any tuition-paying student who didn’t have TDS.
Yes. I would absolutely be “steamed” by that. What is your point?
(I love how folks on this blog think that everyone has to pick a “team.” Sometimes, free thinkers don’t have a “side.”)
“Was the professor’s comments . . .”
Your MO, yet again:
Pose an arbitrary, off-topic question. Then assume the answer you want. Then criticize the strawmen you’ve created — all to deflect and to smear.
In a twisted way, it’s clever.
Incidentally, your “tangent” canard is not even what triggered the student complaints or the University investigation.
Hahaha, that’s hilarious – I was once subjected to a course in “critical thinking,” required in my major, that consisted almost entirely of the professor’s harangues against meat, the war machine, Big Pharma,, and any newspapers other than the NYT and the Christian Science Monitor.
Oh, and exhortations to join him in his 10-day juice fast, and exploring of why it was fine, indeed almost a moral imperative, for him to have married one of his students from a previous university, and now to throw her over in favor of another, younger and prettier student.
But sure, for this prof to decide a little lecture time to the US budget is a bridge too far!
I know I am old but when I was a college student there would never have been a FRESHMAN lecturing a professor. That says it all.
Sounds like your college was a bastion of free speech then?
Why couldn’t a Freshman express their ideas freely?
My daughter expressed her opinion on a topic and her professor did not like her opinion and told her to shut up in front of the whole class.
My daughter said it was like all the air was sucked out of the room as every student knew the professor was in the wrong.
After class the professor apologized to my daughter out of ear shot of the rest of the class.
The professor was a leftist.
At least he apologized.
Why couldn’t a Freshman express their ideas freely?
Its like booking an appointment with chiropractor, to address your painful hip, instead lecturing the Doctor about Chiropractic being a scam.
Agree or disagree, but she signed up to be educated, not debate the Professor.
You cannot become “educated” without the ability to “debate the Professor” and any Professor that takes issue with a student for their intellectual curiosity should choose a new profession.
She told the Anthropology Professor he didn’t know anything about human sexuality. That’s not intellectual curiosity. Its regurgitating propaganda. This transgender circus is quickly fading. The Queers have turned on the movement, and the science is against the propaganda.
This Professor has not changed his views over the last 2 decades, because his view is informed by his scientific examination if available evidence
You cannot become “educated” without the ability to “debate the Professor”
Why do Colleges have 300 seat lecture halls? No to facilitate debate. Lots of college is shut up and learn.
Of course the point is not that the freshman COULDN’T speak, but that the freshman might give the professor the benefit of the doubt for having knowledge and experience relevant to what the freshman wanted to learn.
Those days are over, apparently. The less real-world experience or actual education you have, the more you rely on your feelings about how the world should be, the more eligible you are to be considered an authority.
Hullbobby when I was a freshman in college our chemistry professor made sure that everyone has a right to question his material or make sure he’s doing what he is supposed to do. If you are having trouble understanding something or anything else nobody should hesitate to speak up. He reminded us that WE are paying for this. WE are the customers. That WE are paying him to teach us and we have every right to make sure that WE are getting our money’s worth. He understood his position clearly. He made sure students understood theirs by pointing out that students are not there to just take whatever they are being told. You can question the professor anytime. “Speak up, you paid for it”. Made sense then, still does now.
You can question the professor anytime
She made a statement. An anthropology professor did not grasp sexuality and transgender.
I can tell a jet engine engineer with 20 years on the job, he has no idea how a jet engine works, but evidence proves me wrong instantly. The problem the left has with transgender, rest precisely with the science of anthropology. This student is too ignorant to have an opinion, let alone challenge a person with decades in the study.
“I can tell a jet engine engineer with 20 years on the job, he has no idea how a jet engine works, but evidence proves me wrong instantly.”
You can tell an engineer how a specific jet engine works. Because all follow the same principle doesn’t mean they all function the same way. Right? Some have more efficient designs, others have different ways to arrange combustion chambers, different gearing, etc. Right? They all work on the same basic principle, BUT they are NOT the same.
The same can be said about gender. There is a basic principle that there are two genders. But that doesn’t mean they are all the same. Even in the animal kingdom sex orientation can change from male to female. The fact that is proven to be possible does not negate the fact that a similar condition can exists in human anthropology. There ARE gay animals who exhibit homosexual behavior. Clearly it’s present in human behavior too. Right? There are even people born without clearly developed sexual organs. It’s rare, but they do exist.
You can tell an engineer how a specific jet engine works.
That is NOT what I said. AND it is not what happened to the Prof. A freshman that most likey would fail, attempting to define Anthropology told the Professor he got transgender wrong. Well excuse me, but they girl would not know how to make such a statement. The Prof is working inside his discipline, using known parameters, that the girl doesn’t know exist. She is clueless what science the Prof is using, let alone voice disagreement.
“The Prof is working inside his discipline, using known parameters, that the girl doesn’t know exist. She is clueless what science the Prof is using, let alone voice disagreement.”
He’s certainly no human biologist. That doesn’t mean he is not fully aware of new research or papers alluding to what the student was mentioning. How do we know if the professor is not aware of new findings that the girl may be aware of? Would that be possible? No?
He’s certainly no human biologist. That doesn’t mean he is not fully aware of new research or papers alluding to what the student was mentioning.
You are no more aware of your ignorance than the freshman student. Grasping at straws as you are. This is an Anthroplogist working inside HIS disciplined.
I’ve said it twice now, my bet, you still have no idea what that means to this event.
Are we to assume that this young woman had expert knowledge about transgender…ness? Because that’s the analogy you’re trying to draw.
What she was doing was telling the engineer that he didn’t know how engines work because she’d flown in a plane once and her “lived experience” “informed” her that it couldn’t possibly work the way the engineer said it did.
Just curious, does the student get to grade the exams?
If you are ” triggered” by a ” microaggression” and need a ” safe space” you are a PU**Y! Grow the F**K up!!!
I’m gonna post a comment, Hullbobby remember, this is post number 3 for your reference.
Turley says, “That is now verboten on campuses where students are constantly told that they do not have to tolerate the opposing views of others.”
Does that mean students must tolerate opposing views at the other campuses where it is not verbotten? Opposing views are not tolerated here according to Hullbobby’s constant whining. Especially mine.
Nobody is required to tolerate any view they don’t agree with. Conservatives want to ban or restrict discussions on topics such as CRT, transgender identity, reading to kids while dressed in drag, etc. because they don’t tolerate such topics, discussions or views. So much that legislators push for unconstitutional laws banning or prohibiting discussion of such views. Shocking. According to Turley they are supposed to tolerate it. No?
What about those conservatives whining that their views are not being tolerated or are ridiculed and gripe to their professors about feeling…uncomfortable expressing their views because they are…conservative? It seemed THEY were needing a ‘safe space’ of their own for protection from the ridicule and mockery of their views. Why don’t they tolerate opposing views to theirs even if they are expressed mockingly? According to Turley they are supposed to tolerate them regardless of how much it hurts their feelings. No? Yes?
Montana just passed a law banning reading to kids in drag regardless of what book is being read. I’m surprised Turley isn’t fighting for the performers right to free speech. Simply reading to kids in drag is not “sexualizing” kids or anything. Right? They would be still be violating the law even if they were reading the Bible to kids dressed in drag. Yikes! Clearly unconstitutional. Right? Wrong?
Conservatives want to oust groups that NAM THEM!
Svelaz equates freedom with letting kids go to strip shows??? Kids can’t partake in drag and guess what else they can’t do, smoke, buy a gun, drink, drive, strip, have sex with adults, serve in the military, work etc etc.
Can a parent let a kid drive? Can a parent let a kid smoke? Drink? Look up unemancipated.
Hulbbobby, they are not strip shows. In fact even in Florida undercover state agents went to a drag event where children were present and they witnessed none of that many claims happens at drag shows where children are present. Yet DeSantis still claimed they were exposing kids to lewd acts.
Kids can partake in drag. They do it all the time. You don’t remember pictures of kids wearing their mom’s clothes for fun? That is technically being in drag. Everyone use to thing that was just kids having fun. Now prudes and paranoid prone sissies like yourself are all raging about children being sexualized despite their parents knowing it’s not what YOU claim it is.
Parents can let kids drive, in farms they do it all the time. I thought it was tradition. As soon as they can reach the pedals they can drive on the farm. Many drive ATVs too. GASP!! You didn’t know that?
A parent let a kid smoke at home if they want to. Drink? HA! Parents’ do it all the time. There are those parents who let their kids try it. You know, that “one sip only” that was not going to harm them if they were curious enough to what all the mystery about alcohol is. The majority don’t like it and move on to being kids.
Clearly you’re being extremely paranoid and prudish over things you think are happening because idiot extremists are telling you. You are certainly gullible and easily manipulated.
By the way this is post No. 4. Are you keeping track man?
Idiot.
Anonymous, nice rebuttal. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
No, the word idiot is written across your forehead.
You are a sick individual who needs to be kept away from children.
You need to find our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, repent for your sins and wickedness.
To corrupt children as you seek to is a clear sign you have aligned yourself with Satan and evil.
If only you were to repent, you may be forgiven for your trespasses of evil.
Until then, you are a servant of evil and should be exiled from the good graces of civil and God fearing people.
I shall pray for your soul, even if by your comments are to be damned to eternal hell.
Drag in itself is “sexualizing”. The mentally challenged narcissistic ugly crossdresser is there for the purpose of confusion and grooming. Why would you be for this?
Why is it sexualizing? What does that even mean?
ATS, first you don’t know what a woman is. Now you don’t understand the idea behind sexualization. There is so much you don’t know, yet you wish to impose your viewpoint.
Jim22, is belly dancing sexualizing? Such performances would be banned according to Florida law. Museums would be covering up paintings depicting nude figures and statues would be draped over. Because they are sexualizing children. Right?
Svelaz talks without knowledge. Tell us what paintings of statues have been draped over in Florida museums based on Florida’s laws.
Once again your big mouth demonstrates your ignorance.
reading to kids while dressed in drag, etc. because they don’t tolerate such topics, discussions or views. So much that legislators push for unconstitutional laws banning or prohibiting discussion of such views.
The core word in your lie infested post. ‘kids’
limiting content according to age is not censorship.
What is censorship, the government punishing an accomplished professor for no reason other than he fostered discussion.
Iowan2,
“The core word in your lie infested post. ‘kids’
limiting content according to age is not censorship.”
What content is that? Reading Doctor Zeus in drag? How is that harmful
YOU and I watched Bugs Bunny dress in drag on TV every Saturday morning. Were you sexualized? Did you turn into a raging homosexual or transgender individual as a result of watching Bugs Bunny or even Elmer Fudd? Clearly you know it’s not true, but somehow you are convinced that someone dressed in flashy costume depicting a overdressed lady is over the top. Next you’re going to demand that clowns tone down their attire because it may encourage kids to be….nut jobs? GTFOH.
Svelaz going to the mat defending groomers and pedophiles.
I would welcome the return of the whole library of Bugs Bunny cartoons. Sadly the left has gutted that catalog of joy because if made leftists uncomfortable.
I see they are doing a remake of the Life of Bryan….and they are being forced rewrite and ttake out the funny stuff that makes the snowflakes uncomfortable.
Iowan2, priests were pedophiles and groomers. Those reading to kids in drag are not. They are just reading to kids…in front of their parents too. Obviously those parents know they are not doing what the prudes and paranoid think they are. Because they seem to dwell waaaaaaay too much on what “sexualizing” is.
“I would welcome the return of the whole library of Bugs Bunny cartoons. Sadly the left has gutted that catalog of joy because if made leftists uncomfortable.”
I was for the violence and racist insinuations which I had no problem with. But today it would be conservatives and YOU who would demand they cancel Bugs Bunny because it depicts….GASP!!! Cross dressing and kissing same sex characters. Yikes!! That would be sexualizing children. Right? Right Iowan2? They should censor those parts, no?
Just curious, who’s defending pedofile priest?
What content is that? Reading Doctor Zeus in drag? How is that harmful,
Wrong question.
What does being in drag add to the development of the child?
Iowan2,
“Wrong question.
What does being in drag add to the development of the child?”
Nothing. YOU watched Bugs Bunny dress in drag, kiss characters of the same sex, getting shot in the face, blown up, etc. Did that affect your development as a child? My guess would be no. But somehow you can’t grasp the idea that YOU once had regarding those issues that were put in front of your eyes every Saturday morning will do exactly nothing to those kids. Just like they didn’t do anything to you. Men dressed in drag on TV long before this was an issue. People KNEW it was just men in drag.
Even the FBI’s Hoover is famous for being a cross dresser. He was a closet transgender individual perhaps?
Here is what I asked
“What does being in drag add to the development of the child?”
This is the classic svelaz off target response
will do exactly nothing to those kids.
It does make my point.
The drag shows benefit one group, svelaz admits the kids get nothing from the experience
So all the benefit is to the adult men that get to practice their sexual kinks out in public, focusing on Children
Svelaz is adamant, those adult men MUST have access to the children!
Iowan2, nope. You’re obsessing on what the men in drag are thinking despite the fact that you have absolutely no idea what they are thinking.
I pointed out some examples that went right over your head that were expressions identical to what you see as ‘perverse’ but you had no issue with the same ‘perverse’ expressions from YOUR childhood experiences. That you can’t grasp the correlation is telling.
Then you pose a lie about what believe because your ignorance is dominating your thoughts.
“Svelaz is adamant, those adult men MUST have access to the children!”
Fail. Not even close to a try.
What would a man be thinking, as he dresses as woman, accentuating the breasts, and lips, and legs displayed in nylon stockings with peek a boo, garters, High heels to draw attention to his butt? All of that, and breaking their neck to get in front of children.
It is a sexual kink.
You are promoting hooking up the pervert with children. Even though you admitt, there is NOTHING in the performance that advances the development of the child.
Carry on groomer.
People KNEW it was just men in drag.
But not anymore, remember? Now a man in drag may be – in fact probably is – a transwoman and, by definition, just as much a woman as a person “assigned female at birth.”
Drag queen story hour oughtn’t to be any worse than clown or magician story hour… except for two things: 1. The general sexified nature of drag costuming (not every single drag queen is going for sexy, but when you think “drag queen,” it’s hard not to picture tight low-cut slinky dresses and big boobs, isn’t it?), and 2. the trans lobby’s shrill insistence that this ridiculous caricature of womanhood is in fact a woman, and needs to be paraded in front of children because children need the caricature as a role model.
In short, the drag queens who were just following in the footsteps of burlesque performers don’t get to do that anymore. Now their costuming and performance are a battle cry, whether they want them to be or not. And they can’t claim ignorance of it either.
It’s too bad; I used to think watching drag performances was fun. As usual, the left has sucked all the joy out of it.
Some ideas are just too dangerous to discuss without proper guidance from our moral and intellectual bettors.
That’s why we need leftist censorship.
As I have previously said, I will say I’m a “girl” all day if it puts me in close physical proximity to Jennifer Connelly in her shower, dressing or bedroom.
antonio
Pronouns: she/hers
“Some ideas are just too dangerous to discuss without proper guidance from our moral and intellectual bettors.”
Like…CRT?, Wokeness?…white privilage? Etc. right? They are too dangerous for discussion in schools too. No?
Like…CRT?, Wokeness?…white privilage? Etc.
First you tried the lie, this was all college content, and only as a hypothesis. Not factual.
Now you claim excluding k-12 children is censorship.
First year students — right out of high school — telling a seasoned tenured professor that he’s “ignorant.” You gotta love the narcissism, arrogance and in-your-face stupidity of today’s privileged college mutts.
Speech made them uncomfortable? Wow. If you wanted a safe space then you should never have been born. Life is risk, life is danger, life is fragile and tenuous. It can be frightening in some aspect every day. The universe tries to kill before you are born and every day after you are born and eventually and always it succeeds. Smoke that.
Stand there and look into a person’s face and eyes as you are examining them and that lung cancer, that has failed all treatments, suddenly pops through a major pulmonary artery and they exsanguinate up through their nose and mouth right in front of you. You see the horror on their face and the expression slowly fades away and death takes them. And that’s just in a hospital. Saw that twice before I ever even got to the pulmonary and critical care fellowship and then it got worse.
I never served in the military but I know they see much worse as do the police or firefighters. It will scar you to the very foundations of your soul to see things like that. Those things are so beyond uncomfortable that they are not even on the same scale. I’m uncomfortable when I stub my toe and condemn myself for not wearing shoes in the house, but you shake it off and go on. Accept the risk, go barefoot. Learn uncomfortable, it is your lot in life, otherwise you’re dead and you have no discomfort at all.
A good day is when you’re alive and the uncomfortable titer is low.
GEB,
Well said.
Like to think some of these coddled and pampered children will learn a lesson or two in the upcoming recession.
Kinda like the 199,047 laid off tech workers (in the last 5 months) are experiencing now.
I help train medical school graduates (Residents and Fellows) and medical science PhD postgrads. Their deficit is not necessarily in the basic medical sciences, but rather emotional maturity. Read Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ by Daniel Goleman, a prescient work on what we are seeing today in university student bodies. You can not give people Emotional IQ in schools. It starts at home and is molded by in person relationships, particularly by having mentors. Ours is a society without mentors, committed fathers and mothers, respected wise men and women. With the stifling of in person interactions, and supplanted with online “relationships”, none of the aforementioned should surprise anyone. Students fear open discussions because they can not control the unexpected trajectory.
Sherri Turkle at MIT gave a brilliant presentation years ago on this topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4&t=394s
San Diego State University academic liberal psychologist, Jean Twenge, diagnosed our cultural problem all too well. This is what populates our universities.
Thank you. Everyone should watch Sherri’s youtube. It truly is excellent. (And distressing that it’s already a decade old!)
It looks like we have developed a generation of emotionally deficient young people.
outhousecounsel,
“It looks like we have developed a generation of emotionally deficient young people.”
Exactly!
They also lack the grit to endure any kind of hardship.
Estovir,
Well said.
Will have to add that book to my next winters reading list.
Estovir, your post are really great. I have to commend you.
ENOUGH! let us be adamant – no longer will we refer to them as; universities, colleges, institutions of higher learning etc. but now they must be called what they are – prog/left indoctrination centers for the total annihilation of free thought and enlightenment.
The population of individuals who claim to be transgender is disproportionately White and has disproportionately well educated parents. That statistical aberration is obviously a topic relevant as an anthropological discussion. Professor Schurr should pose that factual information to his students and ask them why they think it is so.
Young heads full of transgender mush want protection from a professor who won’t play the game. So sad. Now the timorous admins and ideologues of Penn State will have to find a way to dump him so they can hang onto their cushy jobs and fat salaries. Such is the state of higher education in America. Everyone sees the rot, no one will do anything about it.
Penn is not Penn State.
This freshman student came into the University already indoctrinated on trans issues and taught to believe that controversial topics should only be addressed by someone holding the same point of view as hers/his — as if their point of view is the only one that matters. The idea that a university should provide safe spaces (I like to refer to them as cocoons) to protect anyone who might be intellectually “slighted” by an alternative point of view should be the issue here — not the point of view of the professor. It is evidence that it is the junior high and high schools that must be examined as crucibles for intolerance.
A few days ago I argued with Svelaz about the insanity of the CUNY “Professor” who was caught throwing a tantrum at the Pro-Life students. Of course Svelaz defended the “Professor” and said that she wasn’t even yelling and that it was all overblown. Well yesterday the “Professor” was shown taking a machete to a reporter and has since been fired by CUNY. Today Svelaz will ignore the issue and just move along to be wrong on something else. Like Biden and corruption.
Hullbobby, first you moan and whine that I “post 200 times a day” on a daily basis. Now you are griping that I won’t post a comment on an incident I have no idea happened? LOL!!!! I thought you wanted me to shut up. Make up your mind man. Your post just confirms that all you like to to is whine and moan when things don’t go your way. You know…a tantrum. Too ironic perhaps?
Svelaz, you are lying. The other day you came at people for saying tha the professor was screaming and you said, you actually said, that she wasn’t even yelling. Well she was yelling, she did throw the STUDENTS materials on the floor and today she is unemployed and of course you just move on to the next asinine take of yours.
Hullbobby, what “other day”? If you can’t specify exactly what I said you certainly are not paraphrasing what I might have said correctly and can’t accuse me of lying either. Because even you don’t know exactly did I say.
How long ago was this “other day” you’re talking about? Even you don’t seen sure about what I said. So you can’t really accuse me of lying when you can’t pin point exactly what I said.
BTW how many posts does this make? 8 or 9? I lost track, damn.
Then you make this weird assumption that I would comment on a story that I have no clue it was even out.
If individual you are mentioning was wielding a machete in a threatening manner I sure hope she got prosecuted and held to account. Right?
Irrelevant, actually, whether she was “yelling”. She perpetrated assault and vandalism.
That behavior alone should have been sufficient for her to be placed on a mental health leave.
Nah, just a couple of misdemeanor charges. Nothing fancy like you suggest.
Chasing someone with a machete is serious. I’m surprised you don’t realize that.
Wait a minute.
They want to discuss sexuality with 6 year olds, question them about what sex they are, have pornographic material in the libraries but these “students” get uncomfortable?
Perhaps they should go back to a pre-K safe space.
I feel “triggered” that you allowed such a wide diverse range of discussion in the comments, so much so I think I need a “safe space”… and who can I report you to, …to express how “uncomfortable” I was made to feel reading this?
And who can I blubber too after you’re fired or retrained or lobotomized or whatever they do to you wayward professors these days in the judgment halls of the woke? I can’t be left alone with these feelings, I may do myself an injury or something.
Please let me know when my safe space is ready.
Time to end all federal aid and loans to colleges. Also TAX all non-profits where anyone gets paid $100k+, if you can pay a million a year for staff…you are a FOR PROFIT!
UPENN received $100 Million from China, paid Biden a Million Dollars a year for a NO-SHOW Job!
Time to end the Democrat Indoctrination Centers that produce people who can’t even pay back the money spent on them!
College Campuses are now have luxury foods like sushi, luxury facilities, travel programs, etc.
Time to bring back the BASICS.
exactly….and yet another bold lie that Biden repeats with little pushback or ‘on-the-spot-fact-checking’ from the fake news media:
Joe Biden’s illusion: “Matter of fact, for four years, I was a full professor at the University of Pennsylvania.”
Reality check: “According to the tax forms he has released, Biden received more than $900,000 from the university for holding the position between 2017 and 2019. His post “involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.”
Reality check: “According to the tax forms he has released, Biden received more than $900,000 from the university
U Penn took $54 million from China. So The ‘Big Guy’ did not get his customary 10% for the Big Guy. Only 2%. Of course, we have evidence at least 6 Biden Family members and more Biden business partners were included in the grift, so several cut outs were available to funnel the rest cash to “the Big Guy’
These schools are not going to be defunded. Many posters here discuss these issues as though any of these people care one whit about law or rules or fairness -they don’t. It’s up to us. Stop sending your kids there. It is the only solution, the fed isn’t going to do diddly, and you better believe the institutions won’t. Stop putting butts in chairs.
𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐘𝐒𝐈𝐒: 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐔𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐧
● Between 2017 and 2019, UPenn received $61 million in gifts and contracts from China.
● Campus Reform has previously covered the influence of the Chineese Communist Party’s funding of U.S. higher education.
Gabrielle M. Etzel | Reporter
January 19, 2023, 10:00 am ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21042
𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇: 𝐔𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐬
● Campus Reform Correspondent Recruiter Shaila Mehta and Video Editor Nick Clavi interviewed students at the University of Pennsylvania asking them their thoughts on their school accepting donations from China.
Nick Clavi and Shaila Mehta
February 6, 2023, 10:43 am ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21235
𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
● A recent post to the Department of Education’s blog, Homeroom, called on schools to ‘ban the box,’ or remove the criminal background question from admissions applications.
● The Department also recently announced the Second Chance Fellow program and updated its Beyond the Box guide.
Austin Browne ’24 | Senior Ohio Campus Correspondent
May 17, 2023, 4:13 pm ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=23129
𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐲’ 𝐢𝐬 ‘𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭’ 𝐭𝐨 𝐔𝐒 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐁𝐂𝐔
● ‘I’m not saying this because I’m at a Black HBCU.’
● President Joe Biden delivered the keynote address for Howard University’s commencement ceremony.
Travis Morgan ’26 | California Campus Correspondent
May 22, 2023, 1:20 pm ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=23291
𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐅 𝐆𝐈𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐎: 𝐖𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
● Colleges fail to produce an engaged citizenry capable of participating in the American system. This erosion of American values undermines the principles of free speech, intellectual diversity, and open debate.
Nicholas Giordano | Professor, Suffolk Community College
May 18, 2023, 2:00 pm ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=23225
𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐬𝐲𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬
● Governors in Maryland and Utah took similar measures last year, emphasizing the need for skills over qualifications.
● Higher Education Fellow Nicholas Giordano argues that ‘as four-year institutions continue to push a far-left agenda, students are not learning the practical skills needed in the workplace.’
Gabrielle M. Etzel | Reporter
January 23, 2023, 4:00 pm ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21063
𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐬𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐕𝐨𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐬 ‘𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐚 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬’
● Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos wrote an op-ed recommending greater transparency of foreign donations to American universities after the Biden administration relaxed oversight.
● President Biden dropped Trump-era investigations into foreign donations, putting a stop to what DeVos argued was ‘just scratching the surface of… undisclosed foreign money.’
Shelby Kearns | Associate Editor
February 13, 2023, 1:20 pm ET
https://campusreform.org/article?id=21292
Depressing but not surprising.