Below is my column in The Hill on the rise of advocacy courses and degrees in higher education. Activism has always been a valued part of our colleges and universities. Indeed, many departments have long incorporated advocacy subjects in their course of study, including in law schools. My concern is the degree to which advocacy is now overwhelming academics in some of these programs. It is often hard to tell the difference between advocacy groups and advocacy programs in these universities. For some schools, a new B.A. model — a Bachelors of Advocacy — is emerging in higher education.
Here is the column:
“Field trip for an extra 5 points.” The offer to students at the University of California-Berkeley sounded like a typical offer for students to go to a special exhibit at a museum or lecture at an institute. The “field trip” referenced by graduate assistant Victoria Huynh was joining a protest “against settler-colonial occupation of Gaza.”
This extra credit offer is all too typical of higher education today, where advocacy is now being taught as if it were a course of study. After an outcry, the school solved the problem by ordering “a number of options for extra credit, not just one.”
Many advocacy-based classes have course descriptions that sound analytical and clinical. The UC Davis course “Asian American Communities and Race Relations,” for instance, states that it covers “race relations and the commonalities and differences between Asian Americans and other race and ethnic groups.” However, the assignments and lectures often reflect a political viewpoint that students are expected to mimic if they want to excel in the class.
In this course, a screen shot showed that the class would discuss “Palestinian history in relation to class concepts like colonialism, imperialism, and Third World solidarity.” It is clear enough that “the solidarity” cannot extend to Israel.
Advocacy has increasingly displaced academics in higher education. Activism now permeates higher education as social justice becomes the touchstone for many departments. Today protests rather than Plato are more likely to be the concentration of many students.
Even journalism students are now sometimes told to drop “objectivity” and “leave neutrality behind.” Former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. explained that “pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects.”
Advocacy has long been part of graduate programs like law and social work, where students are trained to represent the interests of clients or other individuals. But now, advocacy and activism itself is being offered as a general course for students in place of education. Where protests were once defiant demonstrations held in the university yard, they are now a course of study in classrooms led by academic activists.
For example, Arizona State University offers a BA program entirely on “community advocacy and social policy” that focuses on “historically under-served individuals, families and communities.” Students “complete courses in two core areas: diversity and oppressed populations and social issues and interventions.”
Many schools offer “advocacy and social justice studies.” At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, students are offered the opportunity to “study social justice with distinguished instructors from a wide range of academic departments, from Afro-American Studies to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies.”
Camden County College offers a diversity and social justice degree based on the advocacy work of the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19 pandemic, which “revealed the depth of social inequality and its life-or-death consequences.” Others offer “a certificate of proficiency in social justice and an A.S. degree in Human Services, Social Justice Advocacy.”
These courses offer far left-faculty platforms to proselytize and politicize. It is often confined to one side of the political spectrum and occurs now on every level of our educational system. In academic departments, future primary and secondary teachers are taught that “teaching is a political act” that allows them to instill political and social values in their young pupils. Those students can then attend college and get degrees in activism and advocacy.
In New York, 1.1 million students were excused by the Department of Education to leave their classes to march against climate change. It seems doubtful that the same accommodation would be allowed for countervailing conservative causes like pro-life marches or demonstrations in favor of gun rights.
These courses dovetail with faculties that have moved radically to the left, with many faculty using their courses to espouse political viewpoints more than educate. The clear message to students is that they are expected to express the same views in their own analysis.
One professor erased any pretense and directly required students to contribute to her advocacy group as part of their training. In the meantime, conservative faculty find themselves censored or suspended for engaging in unpopular speech or attending controversial rallies.
Universities as a whole have largely purged their ranks of Republicans and conservatives over the last few decades. A new survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4 percent as “very conservative.”
Another study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only 9 percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools.
In these departments with advocacy and social justice components, diversity of thought runs from the left to the far left.
Some of these faculty advocates can teach by example. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. She later pleaded guilty to criminal assault, but the university refused to fire or discipline her.
Other professors continue to engage in violence or destruction in front of students in order to block pro-life or other views from being expressed on campuses.
The same blind rage was shown after the massacre of Israelis by Hamas this month as faculty rallied students to denounce Israel. UC Davis Professor (and undergraduate adviser) Jemma Decristo posted social media threats against the faculty and the families of those supporting Israel as possible targets. Decristo wrote: “one group of ppl we have easy access to in the U.S. is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda and misinformation…they have houses w addresses, kids in school, they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more.” This threatening language was accompanied by pictures of a knife and an axe, followed by three drops of blood.
The university eventually denounced Decristo’s violent, threatening comments, but it had no prior qualms about the professor teaching American studies to UC Davis students. She is part of the radical chic — the far left professors who have populated departments for years.
The emphasis on advocacy at the expense of education has also contributed to the increasing hostility toward opposing views on campus. These professors and students often show little tolerance for others’ views and “advocate” by canceling or silencing other views as “harmful.”
Many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students. They need to bring their passion and voices to the debates today over issues ranging from abortion to the environment to wars.
We have long benefited from intellectual activists in our country, but they were intellectuals first and activists second. They were thought-leaders who used classic education to advance societal change. As jobs and markets become more competitive, we are not doing these students any favors as we crank out thousands with few skills beyond staging demonstrations.
Jonathan Turley is J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
This explains a lot. $8.5 billion from Arabs to American schools with Cornell being a top recipient.
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=24195
It’s almost like having the SS fund Furher Principal seminars in our universities and being surprised when the students goose step between classes.
Of course the universities are drenched in antisemitism while presidents and faculty can’t rise above it. A few billion dollars has a lot of gravity.
I hope that for those “classes” teaching the evils of colonialism, that the students and teachers are required to shed themselves of the artifacts of colonialism: shoes, clothing with artificial fibers, under garments, electronics, meeting in modern designed buildings with lighting, heating, and air conditioning, eating packaged snacks and other foods such as pizza, pasta, eggs, and most foods from the Colombian exchange, etc.
Furthermore, with pre-colonial times, there was a distinct lack of demographic diversity. So the mindless mantra of “diversity is our strength” needs to be reexamined and re-framed as colonialist propaganda.
Just saying…
Almost immediately upon contact with European civilization Indians began to adopt European things and sometimes had white captives/slaves making white goods. By the time of King Philip’s War many of the Indians had flintlock weapons which were superior to the matchlock guns many whites used. That technology transfer continued for ages so that when Custer had his last battle many of the Indians had superior weapons, repeating, rapid fire carbines while troopers had single shot rifles that required extraction of a spent cartridge and inserting a single bullet into the chamber by hand. A single Indian could lay down a heavier volume of fire than several troopers. Then look at the famous picture of Geronimo kneeling, holding a rifle and glaring at the camera. See if you can see much of anything he is holding or wearing that is not of white manufacture. The merging of the two races was not as simple as many assume.
We, on the other hand, also received much from Indians. I’ve read that close to 85% of our current food has American Indian origin. You only have to think of corn and potatoes to know that is likely true. We inadvertently introduced smallpox to Indian life and they seem to have given us syphilis and tobacco.
Almost immediately upon contact with European civilization Indians began to adopt European things
Yet, they never could figure out the wheel. Geniuses that they are.
😂
“I’ve read that close to 85% of our current food has American Indian origin.”
Along with 85% of our high-tech communication system. After all, the Indians did have smoke signals.
Democrats defense of their cultural jihad vis a vis Marxist-based university academic programs, is reminiscent of Buck v Bell in how Justice Oliver W. Holmes embraced eugenics with a zealotry that bordered on bloodlust. Perhaps I understate. Democrats hate STEM and loathe evidence based medicine.
Now comes a Finnish adolescent psychiatrist who denounces America’s torture of children with their eugenic-like, sterilization via “gender affirming therapies”. Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala helped pioneer the Trans medical program that Finland and the UK once embraced then abandoned for lack of evidence.
Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
My country, and others, found there is no solid evidence supporting the medical transitioning of young people. Why aren’t American clinicians paying attention?
By Riittakerttu Kaltiala, MD
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor
The Truth About College Faculties
In 2020, the American Federation of Teachers surveyed about 1,900 adjuncts, also known as contingent faculty. These part-time professors often lack the advantages of being full-time faculty such as competitive wages, health benefits, retirement plans and job security.
Although 90% of these educators have at least a master’s degree, 60% make less than $50,000 per year, according to the federation report. Almost a quarter bring home less than $25,000 annually, below the federal poverty line for a family of four. Adjuncts also often go uncompensated for the routine tasks that come with the job – prepping for classes, holding office hours and serving on committees, the union’s study found.
Edited from:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2022/03/21/adjunct-professors-struggle-low-wages-no-health-benefits/7114938001/
……………………………………………………
Professor Turley generates these “Let’s all hate universities” columns on a regular basis. Which is peculiar for a man whose day job is teaching at a university. You wonder if Turley’s employer considers him a ‘disgruntled academic’.
A large share of academics today are indeed disgruntled. They are part time employees with no benefits or security. Most lack sufficient income to support a family.
Yet in all these columns Turley generates regarding ‘runaway liberalism at our universities’, he never, ever mentions all these part time faculty members. Perhaps their plight would undermine the idea that far-left flakes are running academia. Because it appears that universities are operating on cold business models where employees come last.
You make a valiant attempt at finding some sort of inconsistency, but it is ultimately unconvincing. There’s little doubt that, with a few exceptions, university faculties are conformist left-wing cabals with no dissent or independent thought allowed. That is well documented and has been for decades. As for the administration saving money by paying adjuncts a pittance, well, nobody ever accused liberals of being generous, and moreover, the administration is all about money, especially how they can allocate it to themselves. But the administration, while usually fairly liberal, are not as extreme politically as the faculty, and they are less about politics and more about money and prestige.
Unrelated, I read this and thought it might interest you:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/30/far-left-support-for-hamas-is-not-an-aberration/
I was sorry that you never responded to my last comment in our previous exchange, not sure if you saw it: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/10/19/are-rep-tlaib-the-new-york-times-and-other-media-guilty-of-disinformation-on-the-alleged-hospital-strike/comment-page-4/#comment-2334011
A.N.D.
Nerd, tell us what difference it makes if a math or science instructor is liberal or conservative.
Although 90% of these educators have at least a master’s degree, 60% make less than $50,000 per year, according to the federation report. Almost a quarter bring home less than $25,000 annually, below the federal poverty line for a family of four
“A large share of academics today are indeed disgruntled. They are part time employees with no benefits or security. Most lack sufficient income to support a family. ”
A large share of academics today…..even with ALL THEIR EDUCATION…. accept low level jobs doing scut work, because it is all they are qualified for. They are unable to find more gainful employment….stuck for ever in their safe cocoon of college life….never having to interact with the real world
Teaching isn’t scut work, and universities are part of the real world.
It sounds like the left has decided to dump Biden.
“Under legal pressure, the National Archives has located 82,000 pages of emails that President Joe Biden sent or received during his vice presidential tenure on three private pseudonym accounts, a total that potentially dwarfs the amount that landed Hillary Clinton in hot water a decade ago, according to a federal court filing released Monday.
The total of Biden private email exchanges was disclosed Monday in a little-noticed status report filed in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought against the National Archives and Records Administration by the nonprofit public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/archives-locates-82000-pages-joe-biden-pseudonym-emails-possibly?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Cornell’s president is saying that whoever posted the threats against Jewish students will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Are these types of threats protected by the First Amendment?
https://www.voanews.com/a/cornell-receives-antisemitic-threats/7332635.html
Cornell’s president is saying whoever posted the threats against Jewish students at Cornell will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Are these types of threats protected by the First Amendment or not?
https://www.voanews.com/a/cornell-receives-antisemitic-threats/7332635.html
Yesterday I was speaking with an old friend who’s still in business, (Construction) who was looking for a job superintendent. He had been disappointed in the applicants that have applied. He winnowed it down to two individuals and wanted to see their math capabilities and gave them a drawing with just one line with a 5-foot diagonal dimension and asked them to draw a ninety-degree angle using the 5 foot and the dimensions of two sides. Neither could figure out how to solve the problem, and to my friends disbelieve both were recent graduates of college. My friend was totally perplexed that such a simple question could not be answered, and posed the question during our conversation, [what has happened to our education system?] I told him I had no answer but that I still have some hair left!
Your friend’s description of the problem left something to be desired, like yours.
A 3, 4, 5 right triangle…
Duh…
Not necessarily. There are infinitely many right triangles with a hypotenuse of length 5.
OT: Estovir, since you are doing research that involves immunology would you like to comment on the following article with one paragraph enclosed?
“The loss of Bifidobacteria was discovered by comparing microbiome diversity before and after vaccination. Some patients may experience a decrease in other microbiomes after vaccination, resulting in reduced gut biodiversity. The absence of Bifidobacteria is linked to chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. Vaccination may also be associated with common adverse reactions, which could be influenced by the bacteria in the gut. A gut microbiome with low biodiversity is associated with poor health and aging.”
COVID ‘Vaccine’ Destroys WHAT Part of Your Body?
It plays a crucial role in maintaining overall health
https://amgreatness.com/2023/10/28/covid-vaccine-destroys-what-part-of-your-body/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=act_eng&seyid=97630
Your linked article, and its link to another article on Epoch Times, are both click bait. That is my opinion. You should make your own opinion, of course, but consider the following:
1. The “study” is not a study. It is an electronic poster abstract presented virtually at a GI conference meeting.
2. The “study” reflects data from 4 subjects.
3. There is nothing anyone can conclude from a sample of 4 individuals.
4. all vaccines do one thing: stimulate the immune system so that the immune system responds in the future to antigens that bare similar protein signature to the vaccine. Vaccines have nothing to do with gut microbiota.
5. When the immune system is provoked by anything, be it a vaccine, an illness, anxiety/stress, lack of sleep, cancer, chemotherapy, there is a drop in innate and adaptive immune cell count. the drop in “white cell count” leaves an individual open for an infectious illness. This is completely normal and expected. Consequently, when the immune cell count drops, gut microbiome surges because there exists a low white cell count of immune cells.
6. gut dysbiosis happens regularly due to illness, e.g. COVID-19, HIV, Hepatitis, etc
see:
Zhou Y, Zhang J, Zhang D, Ma WL, Wang X. Linking the gut microbiota to persistent symptoms in survivors of COVID-19 after discharge. J Microbiol. 2021 Oct;59(10):941-948. doi: 10.1007/s12275-021-1206-5.
Zhang F, Lau RI, Liu Q, Su Q, Chan FKL, Ng SC. Gut microbiota in COVID-19: key microbial changes, potential mechanisms and clinical applications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 May;20(5):323-337. doi: 10.1038/s41575-022-00698-4.
7. Why would a researcher go to the press with a poster abstract involving 4 subjects? Red flag
8. Your linked article concludes with the following:
Another study that was published in 2022 in the World Journal of Gastroenterology reinforced Dr. Hazan’s findings
Leung JSM. Interaction between gut microbiota and COVID-19 and its vaccines. World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Oct 28;28(40):5801-5806. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i40.5801.
Once again, it is not a study. The article published in 2020 is a review, and a poor one at that. It has a mere 23 references. Thus one individual, JSM Leung, from Hong Kong, China, wrote a review, based on 23 references. Why should anyone care? Had the review had a minimum of 150 references, then perhaps. 23 references does not an argument make. 4 patients in a sample size is not a study, nor is it even relevant. Additionally, the methods of the “review” are not known.
too many red flags. It’s click bait.
I’m finishing a manuscript for publication in a top tier cardiology journal. I have over 1,000 references. I need to trim them to 200. My manuscript is a review that strings together data from >200 original research studies (not reviews). the latter is key.
Any schmo can write a review article based on other peoples reviews. What’s the point? give us a review based on original research findings, and make them bullet proof research studies. Otherwise, no one is going to be impressed, other than Epoch Times type sensational organizations.
Be very skeptical when reading any news article about research. Look for the research study yourself, then take it to task. If it is a review, it is not a study. If it has less than 150 references, unless if the author is top notch, take it with a grain of salt. If a study has 4 individuals of a sample size, you have wasted your time in even reading it.
off to write more on my manuscript
Estovir, thank you for responding. I fully understand the concept of clickbait, but since there are two sides of the story (right or wrong) that continue, so will the questions.
Starting from the end and skipping all over, there is such a thing as consensus thinking, but that doesn’t lead to forward motion. The discovery of H. Pylori was in the nineteenth century, but only recently have we learned it is the cause of ulcers that we use antibiotics to cure. Throughout the years, people suggested a relationship between H Pylori and ulcers but laughed at it. My bet is they didn’t have a lot of citations but were on the right track, so I wonder about your rule of using the number of citations when considering the various thoughts that exist. That can lead to stagnant ideas. Skepticism is also necessary, so such characteristics and an open mind are needed when dealing with science.
Today, we hear more about the microbiome diversity of the gut and how it has more of an impact on health than previously mentioned. I think you might have included that in one of your responses.
We have indeed seen such changes in sick individuals with other diseases, but that doesn’t exclude the Pfizer vaccine from causing it. In the past, we used fecal material via enema to inject a healthier flora, though today, we can use pills to change it and add the needed bacteria.
We have successfully used vaccination for decades and inoculation earlier by about 500 years. But is the RNA vaccine the same type of vaccine as before? If not, we consider new and different thoughts or alternate thoughts. Whether the alternate thoughts theorists have any firm basis is open to question, but silencing the critics of the RNA vaccine isn’t scientific. We certainly have heard many problems with the RNA vaccine, which heightens our suspicions.
You say, “Vaccines have nothing to do with gut microbiota.”, but the indirect effects exist, or at least that is what you seem to say elsewhere. Could the spike protein have a heightened or somewhat different effect on the microbiome to accelerate something already expected?
When I read the article, I wasn’t looking for anything earth-shattering, wondering if replacing the microbiome as we might do when giving antibiotics could have some beneficial effects and alleviate some of the illnesses seen.
just now saw your reply. Sorry. See if what I posted for the second time helps
Im all for debate. Silencing is rarely a good thing within medical circles. At Mt Sinai in Miami Beach, 2000s, the debates, sometimes heated arguments amongst Jewish physicians, were spectacular, approaching legendary. Great teaching moments for all.
Monolithic thinking in science does not exist, but especially in medicine
“At Mt Sinai in Miami Beach, 2000s, the debates, sometimes heated arguments amongst Jewish physicians, were spectacular, approaching legendary. Great teaching moments for all.”
You might remember the chief of pulmonary medicine, either at U of M or Jackson Memorial, who decades ago found that chicken soup helped the pulmonary cilia eject foreign material. It was an effect not seen in other soups.
It led to a humorous discussion in one of the pulmonary journals (?Chest). The humor led me to the letters.
A patient admitted with bacterial pneumonia to St. Mary’s failed to improve after a week of antibiotics and got worse. They heard of some new miraculous treatments at Mt. Sinai, so she was transported there for further treatment.
At Mt. Sinai, they had the most modern treatment and gave her chicken soup, discharging her in three days. I don’t remember the entire discussion, but it involved the Torah, a double entendre of Matzoh being binding.
I provided this to prove even doctors have a sense of humor.
Back to medicine.
I presented the idea in that article because there is experience in the gut flora altering certain blood factors. Cytokinins caused immediate changes in the clotting system, so when I read the article, I thought about the effects on the immune system and the possibility of a prolonged effect based on the change in the flora. All of these thoughts (whether coming from experts or not) need consideration. I don’t think we have the answers to what happened with the vaccine, and since the virus was created and spread by man, we need to know more about its actions.
If there was any chance that alterations in the flora occurred, we have a simple solution, bioflora in pill form, used regularly by many.
I don’t think we have the answers to what happened with the vaccine, and since the virus was created and spread by man, we need to know more about its actions.
We? Who is we? Why did you ask my opinion?
If there was any chance that alterations in the flora occurred, we have a simple solution, bioflora in pill form, used regularly by many.
Epigenetics (as you surely know!!!) states our environment alters tissue and cellular phenotype so as to respond to endogenous and exogenous stressors. Why stop at gut flora? ear wax, hair follicles, keratinocytes, mucous membranes, every since tissue type impacts us systemically.
You often accuse commenters as being ignorant and stupid. You are speaking from experience
You have nothing but time on your hand, unlike me. Go take courses in immunology, cell biology, genetics, physiology, virology, and biochemistry, then approach me with intelligent, informed questions. I answered your previous comment in good faith. Never again.
“We? Who is we? Why did you ask my opinion?”
The virus threatened everyone and impacted life for a considerable period. Therefore, we are all involved for many needs and reasons.
Why would I not ask your opinion? You are educated and trained, up to date on the disease, and knowledgeable broadly. The article brought up the gut’s microbiome, so I was curious about any such suspicions and if using probiotics might be a consideration. I am not promoting science, but science not infrequently forgets about the simple things. We are learning that the gut’s bacteria have more of an impact on our health than before.
“Why stop at gut flora?”
I think it is likely that gut flora has more of an impact on our bodies than ear wax, along with the fact that there was no similar article on ear wax. Moreover, we know gut bacteria can influence the clotting mechanism, something seen in Covid deaths.
“You often accuse commenters as being ignorant and stupid. You are speaking from experience”
Why did you make this comment? You might be experiencing some discomfort because you dislike my questions, but the comment makes no sense.
Being ignorant is concluding without facts that lead to the conclusion. Being ignorant is not having an open mind. Being ignorant is not asking questions even if another might disagree with the questions asked, which can make one feel foolish. I do not feel that way because I have a lot of experience dealing in different fields and have been paid handsomely for my advice or asked to join in business ventures because of my experience then and now.
“You have nothing but time on your hand, unlike me.”
No. I have less time. Time is the only thing I lack more than enough of. You will learn that when you age a little more.
I indeed write on the blog. I worked all my life and did not need to work for a very long time. I have more than I need, and additional income is meaningless to me, though in retirement, I still earn substantial funds from a small amount of work that I refuse to give up. I pay for my lifestyle with investments while living far below my means. Yet you want me to study some of the most difficult subjects. 🙂
I already spent a ‘lifetime’ studying in the STEM field, so why should I continue to do so today? For the present, I have an interest in how people think, and that carries over to a different endeavor.
” I answered your previous comment in good faith. Never again.”
All my questions asked of you were in good faith, while at the same time looking for your more educated opinion. I probably appreciate your opinion more than most. I do not look for agreement. I am interested in the search. In this case, it was a simple one based on a simple non-scientific paper that provoked an interesting question in my mind, as explained above.
We have different beliefs and interests. That only makes things more appealing, not less. I am sorry you feel offended but such offense is not my intention. Presently, you are a scientist, and I consider myself a lay person in retirement.
I do not know why you want me to ask questions as a scientist rather than what I profess to be.
Maybe you can explain the problem we are having. It is a shame to part on bad feelings.
Could the spike protein have a heightened or somewhat different effect on the microbiome to accelerate something already expected?
Explain how. Be specific. You tend to write in generalities, often going in various tangents, but not making any providing any specific to support your arguments. I have already provided you with several pubmed links. Tell us how the spike protein has these so called effects. Again, be specific
Additionally, you wrote:
But is the RNA vaccine the same type of vaccine as before?
How is the RNA vaccine different than prior vaccines? Explain which vaccines you mean that are prior to RNA vaccines. There are many.
Importantly: What specific facts do you have to support your fears about mRNA vaccines? again, be specific.
Estovir, my question was hypothetical, based on an article and limited research you disagree with. I became interested because one can add bio flora to the body efficiently, inexpensively, and without significant risk. If there is a reasonable chance something can help and it fulfills those criteria, use it.
The spike protein carries blame for many things. We don’t know much about it, but too many questions are out there to neglect consideration of it as a potential problem.
You make it sound as if medical practice bases itself on absolute proof. That is wrong, and even those things found proven are often proven wrong later. Medicine uses a variety of levels of proof, but though it is generally best to stick to the highest level, often that is not good enough or the best.
“What specific facts do you have to support your fears about mRNA vaccines? again, be specific.”
I can only point to what is presented in the literature and by the media. I can also point to the disturbing fact that negative talk about the vaccine has led to the banning of those voices. That alone should create considerable doubt. Add to that the fact Pfizer won’t release all its studies, and though it has an approved version of the vaccine, it is not using it. To top all these questions off, we have billions of financial reasons not to trust Pfizer, our government departments involved with the vaccine, and its spokespeople like Fauci. Repeatedly, one can find reasons not to place trust in the vaccine without dealing with a scientific basis.
“How is the RNA vaccine different than prior vaccines?”
Are you saying that the RNA vaccine is the same as others? Are you telling me the other vaccines are RNA-based and created similarly?
Are you going to tell me single-digit-aged children should get the vaccine? Are you going to advocate everyone getting a third, fourth, and fifth booster?
It is not up to me to prove the inadequacy of a vaccine whose luster disappeared due to bad management. It is up to those pushing the vaccine to explain why it is needed and how the needs outweigh the potential problems. Many of the discussions surrounding the vaccine are proven lies.
Even if I was a named expert, I couldn’t be sure because the expertise a specialist has is limited in scope.
One more thing about proof. Some members of the group believe in God, and some members don’t. No one can prove either belief to be true. Does it matter if one can’t prove God’s truth if it improves how they live their lives? Same with medicine. Scientists can’t prove many things. A physician might take an educated guess, and if it seems to benefit an individual, even if the medicine is a placebo, it is a success and what a physician should do.
I failed to mention in item 5 that the provocation is excessive, e.g. mononucleosis, pneumonia, flu, HIV, COVID, etc. These illnesses often lead to reduced white cell count, e.g. Leukopenia, whereby gut microbiota can surge
When an immune system is provoked nominally, e.g. vaccine, antibiotics, some drugs (Cortisone-like drugs like prednisone, NSAIDs) white cell count surges, eg. Leukocytosis, whereby gut microbiota can drop
See:
Zimmermann P. The immunological interplay between vaccination and the intestinal microbiota. NPJ Vaccines. 2023 Feb 23;8(1):24. doi: 10.1038/s41541-023-00627-9.
Lange K, Buerger M, Stallmach A, Bruns T. Effects of Antibiotics on Gut Microbiota. Dig Dis. 2016;34(3):260-8. doi: 10.1159/000443360.
Weersma RK, Zhernakova A, Fu J. Interaction between drugs and the gut microbiome. Gut. 2020 Aug;69(8):1510-1519. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320204.
Funny. I don’t remember having that much spare time in engineering school. Problem sets, labs, and all that.
Advocacy/Indoctrination Majors. Soon to be required in kindergarten and it’s against the law to tell their parents. All aboard for the victory tour.
I watched “World on Fire” last night and world/national news this morning. It’s becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between the two.
Cindy, check out this song by The Country Gentlemen
“He Will Set Your Fields On Fire”
Advocacy majors have squeezed the lifeblood out of California. We are their Petri dish, and they are strangling us one regulation at a time.
Such nonsense. There are scarcely any institutions of “higher education.” Propaganda isn’t education.
Today, virtually all so-called colleges and universities have been replaced by Leftist Indoctrination Entities, aka LIES. The pupils of these LIES know nothing, understand nothing, and are simply dupes, dopes, and dummies.
Simple; just drop the appellations of scholar, academic, professor and replace those with more appropriate and truthful identifiers as activist, propagandist, zealot and provocateur. Now relabel academic institutions of all levels as indoctrination centers and end all government subsidies and private support that do not agree with such radical endeavors. With only Soros, Bezos and Zuckerberg type funding those businesses, they will be defunct in no time.
Jonathan: “Advocacy” has always been a part of university life. In the early 1960s, as a university student, I was exposed to advocacy in many ways–advocacy over the Civil Rights struggle in the South, the “free speech” movement, protests over US attempts to overthrown the Castro government and other issues. One day in one of my history classes, the professor announced there would be a protest over the Bay of Pigs invasion by the CIA. The professor told us that anyone who wanted to attend would be offered extra credit if they wrote an essay about their experiences. So “advocacy” has always been part of the academic experience.
Now on one hand you say “many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students.” But in the same breath you claim “advocacy has increasingly displaced academics in higher education”. Can’t have it both ways. Either you support advocacy or you don’t. What you apparently object to is courses that emphasize gender equality, race, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change and other subjects. The core of your argument is that “these courses offer far-left faculty platforms to proselytize and politicize”. It’s a frequent theme in your columns that the “far-left” has taken over academia and conservative professors have been “purged” from faculty. But these claims are not backed up with any proof.
I doubt the core subjects for graduation have changed much. What has changed is that colleges and universities are now offering course studies in equity, inclusion and diversity–subjects that appeal to the younger generation. It’s based on the old principle of supply and demand. The bottom line is students are not being force fed. At Camden County College, which you mention, it offers a degree in “Human Services, Social Justice Advocacy”. It’s not required for graduation. Students can choose other subject like engineering or science. That is the difference you overlook.
False dichotomy.
DM doesn’t understand what dichotomy means. So, as a public service, I’ll define it as two contrasting things, concepts, or ideas. But now that DM knows what you wrote, he may take umbrage with your comment. Fortunately, DM doesn’t know what umbrage means either.
Dennis: Never has your limited comprehension or understanding of what Professor Turley wrote been more evident or pronounced. It’s one thing to express an opposing opinion (which is welcomed here). It is another to completely miss the point of what is said, and turn it around for no reason other than to oppose.
(1) Your first paragraph states: “Advocacy has always been a part of university life…So ‘advocacy’ has always been part of the academic experience.”
Did you happen to read what Turley actually said, to wit, “Activism has always been a valued part of our colleges and universities. Indeed, many departments have long incorporated advocacy subjects in their course of study, including in law schools. My concern is the degree to which advocacy is now overwhelming academics in some of these programs…”
Try to read and reread what Turley said, until you understand what he is saying.
(2) Your second paragraph states: “Now on one hand you [Turley] say ‘many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students.” But in the same breath you claim ‘advocacy has increasingly displaced academics in higher education’. Can’t have it both ways. Either you support advocacy or you don’t.”
Actually, I (Lin) was rather surprised that you do not understand the difference. Let me put it more simply for you, Dennis.
Professors who encourage engagement and involvement in political discourse/activism is NOT THE SAME as professors imbuing students with THEIR OWN (the professors’) political views and proselytizing them, especially by virtue of their positions as professors. Do you see the difference?
(3) Your third paragraph states : “What has changed is that colleges and universities are now offering course studies in equity, inclusion and diversity–subjects that appeal to the younger generation.. [but] Students can choose other subject like engineering or science [if they want]. That is the difference you [Turley] overlook..”
This (your, Dennis’s) statement is so fatuous I (Lin) cannot bring myself about to address it.
Thanks for reading this, yours truly, lin.
Lin,
Great comment!
Well said!
Dennis McIntyre, you’re a deluded liar, here is the proof, me laughing at you, your quote, then the beat down:
LMAO
“But these claims are not backed up with any proof.”
You’re drowning in an Egyptian river.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-political-leaning/
very liberal 37+ %
liberal 45 %
_________________________
82% + demotard left
moderate 16% independent or lying lefties
conservative < 2 %
——————————-
UNDER 2% CONSERVATIVE OR REPUBLICAN FACULTY – I'D CALL THAT A PURGE AND JT HAS UNDERSTATED THE FACTS.
Suck it up buttercup.
The real question is WHY is it that we have to constantly prove what are well established facts.
Many on the left have actually REVELED in their gradual domination of acadenmia.
I suspect some time in the past there is a post from Dennis claiming that a left leaning faculty was a good thing.
But today suddenly what has been true for most of a century must suddenly be proven.
Contra you and prof Turley Advocacy has NOT always been a part of higher education. And in fact at various times in the past these institutions have been bastions of the status quo.
That is not to say that universities SHOULD be either pro-or anti-advocacy.
But we should atleast get our history correct.
I am not sure how giving extra credit for attending and writing about a bay of pigs protest is advocacy. But then I did not hear all of your professors remarks.
To the extent the intention was to examine advocacy – it belonged in Political Science, To the extent you were to observe and report it was appropriate to history.
And Yes, you can have it both ways. I can encourage students to drink Milk without requiring them to become dairy farmers.
Regardless, Advocacy is a VALUE – Values are inherently fungible, subject to balancing, extremely relative and sometimes in conflict.
I can value time with my wife, Time with my kids, time alone, I can also value what working more allows me to do – such as go to dinner and the theater with my wife, go to concerts with my kids.
But I must balance these values against each other, trying to optimize the results. But recognizing that I can not maximize one value without reducing another.
The same is true of most every other thing – which is AGAIN why we need to keep government out of it. Top down systems tend to pick a single value and dominate it over all else. While individuals do not even share the same values and the same weights for those values.
Regardless, a university can value advocacy while at the same time valuing other academic aspects and limiting advocacy to prevent it from sofocating everything else.
you claim that the purge of conservatives is without proof is laughably stupid. Myriads of studies of the views of academics back up Turley’s claim.
Must we CONSTANTLY reprove to you things that have been established long ago.
In the 1930’s conservatives in academia were successfully purging “liberals” in what was called a “dress rehearsal for McCarthyism”
Are you trying to claim that in the 1930’s the ideological makeup of universities was the same as today ?
Do you actually think before making absurd claims ?
There was a SLOW rise in the influence of the left in Academia through to Solzhenitsyn’s emergence which atleast briefly put the stake through the heart of academic marxism.
Post Solzhenitsyn we had the intellectual shift of the left from class warfare to culture warfare this was somehow supposed to make an end run arround the historic fact that the prior 100 years of leftist history was one of the worst bloodshed in human history. Somehow shifting the victim oppressor model from peasants to race, sex, culture or a bevy of other human attributes was going to change the FACT that when you frame politics purely in terms of victim opressor, the result is violence. And those gaining power have no problem employing violence against they political enemies and those sold on this victim opressor nonsense have no problems condoning violence against anyone labeled an oppressor.
Regardless, starting slowing in the late 60’s the extreme academic left shifted from class based marxism to a more general victim/opressor model and slowly built on that through the next several decades until by the late 90’s academia had become deep blue – or more accurately deep red. more than 90% of professors identified as not only on the left, but what ordinary people would call the far left.
The next major wave was the left takeover of college administrations, and that was followed by the shift in the student body – which was driven by admissions policies and by the political takeover of public education by the left.
This shift was so dramatic that starting in 2013 The lunatics took over the asylum. Students proved to be even more bat schiff crazy than administrators and professors and fundimentally took over colleges and universities. LEft wing professors and administrators found themselves targeted by even more radiucal students, and handcuffed by an ideology that forbade them from being adults and telling students they were not in charge.
Essentially we had a repeat of Mao’s cultural revoultiuon inside higher education.
Starting in approximately 2017 these radical students hit the workforce and have been wreaking the same havoc on businesses and institutions.
I would note that their damage has been greatest in the most consequential left wing Bastions.
Heritage is not being overrun by poorly educated clueless young left wing nuts. But the ACLU and the NYT have been.
The good news througout all of this is that – though increasing ACTUAL purges of conservatives have been rare. For the most part the left shift of academia has been driven more by blocking young conservatives from entry. The left has reserved purges primarily for its own.
Whether you like it or not Dennis the above is well documented FACT – we can debate my analysis of the driving forces. but the shifting makeup of academia, the shift in the political makeup of professors, then administrators, and then students is well documented. Poling of the politics of college professors dates back to the 30’s.
Is it possible for you to think before you post and cease these stupid claims that there is no evidence of things that are well established facts – and that depending on their mood even the left frequently accepts.
I presumed the purpose of a college education was to educate.
Aparently you think it is there to entertain.
I thought the purpose of college courses was to provide students with skill and knowledge that would benefit them in the real world,
not to provide for their academic pleasure.
Do we want engineers who can cite the marxist understanding of the culture roots of opression int he steel industry ?
Or ones that build bridges that do not collapse ?
The purpose of a college is not just to instill knowledge but to teach critical thinking – and that includes being able to distinguish what is an is not important.
Something your post demonstrates a woeful lack.
It is critical that students not merely understand the properties of steel and concrete, but that they are able to apply that knowledge to problems that they have not seen before.
While I have used structural engineering as an example – it is merely an example that is relatively easy to understand. The issues and factors are the same in physics, electronics, marketing, business, economics, and psychology.
AS I noted previously we have seen what has happened as students moved from the university to the real world. journalism is nearly dead in left wing bastions.
What little real journalism we are seeing today is coming mostly from independents and mostly from the prior generation of liberals. From the Barri Weises, to the Glenn Greenwalds, to the Matt Taibi’s
We are also seeing the FAILURE of our education system as this generation moves into the real world.
Just like you – these children beleive that nearly everyone shares their views and that the rest of us should be FORCEFULLY reducated.
And that is FAILING. People – even many of those on the left, want victoria secret models to be sexual fantasies – not nightmares.
They do not want gender indoctrination in childrens movies. They do not want “girlface” on their beer cans.
In some wierd ways I actually agree with you.
I am not looking to change colleges from the outside by force.
I do not want laws.
I want what the left has done in academia to be allowed to fail under its own weight.
With rare exceptions – conservative students are not going to ivy league schools any more.
And while the left dominates nearly all of academia – the far left mostly dominates the most elite schools.
I am all for letting them fail (or succeed) exactly as Budweiser has. AHB was not “destroyed” as a result of poor choices.
But it has lost 15%+ of its shareholder value – other companues have taken many of its customers. It will take decades – if ever to get them back.
If Harvard wishes to educate social justice warriors rather than the top scientists, engineers, and the captains of industry – it is free to do so.
Though I would end all government subsidies to education.
The FACT is that Social Justice Warriors are a low value luxury good. Engineers are a necessity.
I am happy to see those on the left rush en masse into low value fields, and then watch as the laws of supply and demand teach them the folly of their choices.
This is also why The Federal Govenrment MUST NOT bail students out from their unwise choices.
Free markets are by many orders of magnitude the most successful – probably the ONLY force that drives rising standard of living.
The key elements of free markets are:
Our freedom to make our own choices – whether we are buying or selling. That includes what to buy or sell, who to buy or sell to/from, how much to pay/charge, …
That those who make those free choices reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of those choices.
When you insultate people from the consequences of their choices, you create moral hazzard – and that harms all of us, lowering standard of living.
Now on one hand you say “many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students.” But in the same breath you claim “advocacy has increasingly displaced academics in higher education”. Can’t have it both ways
Geez, my Grandmother never made it to Jr High, and she was smart enough to understand “all things in moderation”
Retard
“Now on one hand you say “many of us encourage political activism and engagement of our students.” But in the same breath you claim “advocacy has increasingly *displaced* academics in higher education”. Can’t have it both ways.” (Emphasis added)
Someone felt like ignoring the word “displaced.”
“I doubt the core subjects for graduation have changed much.”
Then you doubt wrongly.
“‘Advocacy’ has always been a part of university life.”
That’s another of those Leftist statements that, shorn of context, sounds accurate. Then if you retain the context, you realize it’s BS. The context is *in the classroom*. And the essential issue is modern “academics” using the classroom as a propaganda pulpit. That is not education. That is proselytizing.
If a professor wants to advocate *outside* the classroom, that is his prerogative. If he does so *inside* the classroom, then he is a fraud.
Teaching can be difficult if the subject is difficult and the students are not well prepared for learning (or the teacher is unprepared for teaching.) Much easier is political advocacy. It requires no brains to throw around epithets.
What else was to be expected from the fatuous poseurs of the Baby Boom generation as they acquired administrative power via mere longevity? This is nothing more than silly 60’s-vintage “revolutionary” pretensions dressed up in pompous academic-speak. Eventually the passage of time and lack of results will dilute this poison. Students will reject the empty rhetoric of the “oldsters”, as they always do and always will. Undoubtedly they are already mocking them behind their backs.
Think this stuff is new? Not even close.
DEI has been in universities for decades. What you are seeing is nothing more than previously indoctrinated students now becoming faculty members as the ideologically incestuous activities expand. As a result, those universities debase themselves by producing an inferior product. And employers and entrepreneurs already recognize this and shop elsewhere for graduates. They realize that a grad that comes with a diploma from what was previously identified as a prestigious school is probably nothing more than garbage in fancy wrapping.
Take comedian Matthew Perry who has passed away, for example.
Matty wrote a book and became an “advocate” about the dangers of drug use. There is a problem though. Matty went to drug rehab 68 times.
Matty never worked with law enforcement to create a list of names, phone numbers, or addresses of the suppliers, street dealers or even king pins. Matty knew every dealer in LA.
Clue: Matty was a liberal Democrat.