The Daily Pennsylvanian student newspaper this week ran a story on how some faculty members are panicked at what they consider an existential threat to the safety and future of the institution. No, it is not another pandemic or a wave of terrorism. It is being forced to accept “viewpoint diversity.” The very prospect of hiring faculty with opposing views has led at least one professor to pledge to retire rather than teach in a diverse intellectual environment.
The outrage was triggered by a Dec. 12 email to the Board of Trustees from Marc Rowan, chair of the university’s Wharton business school Board of Advisors and a major donor. Rowan asked about protections for free speech and academic freedom on campus.
Pennsylvania has been regularly criticized as one of the least diverse institutions in the country and one of the most anti-free speech environments. It is ranked at the very bottom of colleges and universities on free speech protection in the annual survey by FIRE.
We have discussed the intolerance at Penn for years. Professors who have even allowed students to discuss issues like transgender status have been attacked for allowing diverse opinions to be heard in class.
Even questioning anti-racism statements is enough to trigger cancel campaigns and calls for termination at the school.
Conversely, it is a school where faculty are lionized for radical statements on the left, even racist language like calling Dr. Ben Carson a “coon.” The same professor, Dr. Anthea Butler, claimed that police held back rescuing children in Uvalde, Texas out of racism and declared that evangelical Christians are white racists who “may end up killing us all.” The MSNBC commentator was given a prestigious academic chair. She is also the chair of the department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. If a conservative were to espouse the countervailing views, the reaction on campus would be swift and predictable.
Penn has long maintained such orthodoxy by purging faculties of conservatives and showing little tolerance for dissenting views.
Now faculty are raising the alarm that they could be forced to teach on a campus with conservative faculty. History and sociology Professor Harun Küçük went on to warn that there could be pressure to hire academics with opposing viewpoints. Such diversity, in his view, is nothing short of “a hostile Republican takeover of a distressed institution. He explained that “viewpoint diversity” is “a code word for Republican hires” and that initiatives to protect free speech are nothing other than an effort to “re-engineer the University.”
If “re-engineering” Penn means reintroducing free speech protections and intellectual diversity, it would be a welcomed change. However, political science Professor Robert Vitalis said he plans to retire early to avoid having to teach on a campus with such intellectual diversity.
Cinema and media studies Professor Karen Redrobe even claimed that Rowan’s letter asking about free speech and academic freedom on campus could be unethical: “I think that any advisory board member or trustee who has participated in that kind of use of duress needs to be held accountable for behavior that undermines the educational mission of the University.”
These views are echoed by anti-free speech sites and writers. Sites like Above the Law have spent years ridiculing objections to the barring of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
What is most striking is the panic over the prospect of introducing a few opposing viewpoints on overwhelmingly liberal faculties. A 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% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The same is true at other schools. A study found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative. Another survey showed that 33 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.
The last few weeks have awakened donors to the rising intolerance and extremism on our faculties. Some donors have even pulled funding, including $100 million withdrawn from the University of Pennsylvania.
Donors (and state legislatures with state-funded schools) can use their leverage to force greater diversity of thought on our campuses. The problem is not that we have these radical faculty members. The problem is that we have comparably few faculty with opposing views. The diversity of opinion on most faculties runs from the left to the far left. Some faculty members now argue that intellectual diversity is not a core or essential value in academia.
If donors want to open up our campuses, they may need to close their wallets until real reforms are implemented in higher education.
Abject evil really is entrenched at elite universities. The Biden Administration’s chief terrorist sympathizer is now teaching a course at Yale on “Contending with Israel-Palestine.” I bet the tone of that course will be real objective, yeah riiiiiight.
Are you trying to say communists?
Why not simply cut to the chase, right/wrong, up/down, left/right, good/bad, communist/American?
“It is being forced to accept “viewpoint diversity.” The very prospect of hiring faculty with opposing views has led at least one professor to pledge to retire rather than teach in a diverse intellectual environment.”
************************
Cockroaches always scatter in the light. Nothing new. Sayonara, Professor!
Here’s all any institution needs regarding an intellectual or other genus of endeavor:
MERIT!
Those who lack merit, preposterously demand and require DEI, affirmative action, quotas, curriculum degradation, grade inflation, etc.
Affirmative action illicitly denies constitutional rights and freedoms to particular individuals, and is illicit and unconstitutional by public institutions.
Private institutions may implement affirmative action per the 5th Amendment right to private property which allows only the owner to “claim and exercise” dominion.
The Supreme Court has a sworn-oath duty to support the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution.
It does no such thing.
The Supreme Court is derelict and negligent, fails its duty, unconstitutionally legislates, and legalizes unconstitutional and socially engineered, redistributive, dictatorial communism.
Words mean things and the words of the Constitution demand and implement Freedom and Self-Reliance.
The private institutions cannot violate civil rights. “Affirmative Action” at its core is just racism couched in terms of enhancing opportunity instead of the more common denial of opportunity. Extending opportunity to a preferred race requires denying opportunity to other races.
Private institutions have some squish regarding religion, but not race.
OT, Crystal Hefner cashed in by selling her body and marrying a man she didn’t love (nearly 60 years her senior) for fabulous wealth. Now she’s cashing in again by playing the victim with a new book. In so doing she’s also breaking a promise to “only say good things” about her deceased husband. Sounds like a woman of virtue, someone with rock-solid integrity (if not rock-solid fake boobs).
Charming.
Melania Trump probably also cashed in by selling her body and marrying a man she didn’t love.
You’re delusional. That often happens with TDS patients.
No doubt that’s why she swats away his hand, rides in a separate car, doesn’t join him on the campaign trail. She renegotiated her pre-nup. She gets $ out of it, and he gets a younger woman (whom some consider attractive, if you like overly made up and pouty).
Hillary Clinton probably cashed in by selling her body to…
Oh, no! Wrong spouse. My bad.
E-w-w-w-w-w-w…
Professor Turley Writes:
“It is being forced to accept ‘viewpoint diversity’. The very prospect of hiring faculty with opposing views–
…………………………….
Just this week, Professor Turley concluded that free speech wasn’t working on these comment threads. It seems that Tom/Estovir was starting crack from the pressure of holding off liberal commenters.
Tom/Estovir has functioned as gatekeeper to these threads for several years at this point. In this capacity, Tom/Estovir has used a brigade of puppet commenters to attack liberals disagreeing with Turley’s opinions.
But all the profanities and homo-centric garbage Estovir has heaped at said liberals was doing nothing to stop their posts. So Turley finally decided that locking liberals out was the only way to keep his far-right opinions safe from challenge.
Yet here is Turley, just a few days later, chiding academics at other schools for their resistance to opposing views. And meanwhile, blog Stooge Tom/Estovir is launching a whole new line of puppets to mimic Fox News viewers.
Awww. Cry me a river.
Turley posts on the failure of higher education – and here you are proving his point.
Most people know by 5th grade that gatekeeping is controlling who gets in and out.
Criticism is not gatekeeping.
Turley has not attacked academics for resisting opposing views, he has attacked them for censoring.
There is a giant gulf between criticizing and blocking.
Free speech means that anyone can post as much as they want – including alleged stooges with puppets mimicking whatever they want.
There are no liberals on this board except Turley. There are progressives, conservatives, socialists, libertarians. lots of views.
But aside from Turley I can not recall a single liberal in years.
My criticism above is entirely apolitical.
It is entirely that you are so poorly educated and so unable to properly use words to communicate that your posts are nonsense and you prove Turley’s contention that higher education has failed.
Jonathan: What you missed in your column about Penn “liberal” faculty is what happened this week over at Jim comer’s Committee. Kevin Morris, a wealthy entertainment lawyer, was interviewed behind closed doors by Comer’s committee. And what was that about?
In 2019 Morris befriended Hunter Biden. Gave him $5 million in loans at a time when Hunter was starting his art career and recovering from drug and alcohol dependency. After the interview Comer made a public statement claiming the loans were part of a plot “to insulate then-presidential candidate Joe Biden from political liability” and “raises ethical and campaign finance concerns for President Biden”. Comer’s not so subtle insinuation was some of the proceeds of the loans found their way into Biden’s campaign and that Morris had no expectation of repayment of the loans.
In a letter to Comer, Bryan Sullivan, Hunter’s attorney in the closed door interview. immediately shot down Comer’s insinuation: “Not two hours after we left Mr. Morris’ transcribed interview, you issued a press statement with cherry-picked, out of context and totally misleading descriptions of what Mr. Morris said…” Sullivan went on to explain the loans were legitimate with “proper loan terms such as interest and a term” that were reviewed by the party’s lawyers.
Comer has a bad habit of cherry-picking witness testimony to fit his false narratives. Will we see anything different when Hunter Biden appears before the Committee at the end of February? Probably more of the same. That’s because it’s cherry-picking time for farmer Comer!
Dennis, do you honestly expect JT and his trump sycophant minions to want to hear anything truthful? I have given up on them, totally. They are not interested in truth, actually details that can explain something. They are only interested in power. And will do anything to keep that power. Trump has a history of loosing elections, he has a history of endorsing people that loose elections. He will be the Repo nominee and he will loose even bigger in November of 2024. But truth is not something they like.
What I have learned about trump and his “christian” evangelicals is they think Jesus said to drown the immigrants, kill the people in prison, Do not feed the hungry. rape women that do not respond to your advances. This is the Jesus they are now worshiping.
What I have learned about trump and his “christian” evangelicals is they think Jesus said to drown the immigrants, kill the people in prison, Do not feed the hungry. rape women that do not respond to your advances. This is the Jesus they are now worshiping.
Bob is advocating for govt by Biblical standards. Color me surprised
Was Sullivan under oath ? If not why are we to beleive he was truthful ?
As to your claims regarding Trump – then you should be very happy that he is the near certain republican candidate in 2024.
If he is such a loser and he picks losers, then you should be going out of your way to assure that Trump is the republican contender in 2024.
1000 illegal immigrants per year have drowned under Biden – that is many times the number under Trump.
The FACTs seem to indicate that left wing nuts like to Drown immigrants.
There is more evidence that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade than there is that Trump met Carrol or raped anyone.
In the entire world no one starves today but for warlord politics. Let go of the Mother Theresa card – Left wing nuts are responsible for poverty and hunger.
Trump is the first president since Ford to serve without starting a new war.
In Jan 2021 the world was more at peace than it had been in Jan 2017 and more than it had been in my lifetime.
WE had the first mideast peace deal since Camp David and the largest ever.
Palestinians and Jews were not killing each other.
I have no idea if those of you on the left “care more” about the poor or the hungry.
But if you do – the downtrodden should be terrified of your concern for them, because your attention to their wants and needs brings death famine, war and conquest.
In the entire world no one starves today but for warlord politics. Let go of the Mother Theresa card – Left wing nuts are responsible for poverty and hunger.
That is so true. Starving is a function of a failed govt. Not the lack of food production.
Everyone is so worried about the lack of basic supplies. But not everyone in Palistine was lacking. Hamas had all the food, fuel, water, and medical care they needed.
Dennis – obviously it makes sense to lend $5m to a crackhead who failed in the military, failed in building a legal practice, failed in personal relations, lacking in marketable skills, guilty of multiple felonies, and starting an artistic career with the talent of a below-average chimpanzee. Who would not want to do that?
I doubt Morris is stupid. I would be shocked if he did not protect himself from any potential criminal liability.
At the same time – you are an idiot if you beleive that Morris did this out of the kindness of his heart.
Or that Morris would loan millions to a crack addict if their father Was not Joe Biden.
Or that Morris expects that his repayment is going to be in Hunter Biden paintings.
Didn’t we hear that the Sales of Hunters art would be arms length with proper procedures to preclude any possibility that Hunter’s art would be used to engage in more influence pedaling .
Yet those claims all proved false.
We do not know whether the purchase of a painting of Hunters was a prerequiste to a political appointment in the biden administration – but it certainly looks like it.
But more importantly the claims that procedures were in place to prevent that was a LIE.
Sullivan is not under oath, I have no more reason to trust his claims that KJP, or any of the others involved with the Biden’s who have done
We were told that there were multiple “loans” to Joe that corresponded to Biden shell llc’s receiving funds from Chia or Ukraine.
No one has produced term sheets for those loans, or records of the loan being issued and payments being made and interest accruing.
Why should we beleive Sulivan’s claims that Morris and Hunter’s payments were loans and that they have been properly documented and handled ? If Sullivan/Morris wish to be taken as credible – they can produce the documents they claim to have – just make them public.
So far what it looks like is that Morris exchanged real money for worthless art.
It’s morris’s money – he can do with it what he likes – so long as he pays taxes properly.
As to claims that it is a campaign contribution – if it walks like a duck, …..
I do not care, constitutionally you can contrinue as much as you want to whatever campaign you wish.
Again it is Morris’s money.
If you think that Comer “cherry picked” testimony – the transcripts will come out soon, you can show us how Comer misrepresented testimony.
Or Sullivan – rather than lobbing grenades, could demonstrate Comer’s error.
Sullivan was present. He should be able to recall the testimony that is at odds with what Comer has said.
Again if as he claims this is all properly handled loans – don’t TELL me, SHOW me.
The evidence that we have so far is that these “loans” were repaid with purchases of worthless art.
That does not sound much like what Sullivan is describing. 2019 was 5 years ago.
I beleive Morris “loaned” Hunter more than $2M to pay his taxes.
A loan for $2M at 3% for 15 years – all incredibly generous terms that Morris would be stupid to offer, would lead to payments of almost 15K/month. At the current 9% that is 20K+/month.
A 5 year term which is much more likely for an unsecured loan from a drug addict would be payments of $40K/month
And yes Hunter was a drug addict at this time – this is almost exactly the time he bought the gun, that the FBI labs found traces of cocaine on its case.
So basically we have Morris lending an ACTIVE drug addict over $2M.
Dennis, you are entitled to beleive as Sulivan is claiming that Wealthy Lawyer Morris is just a nice guy who makes a business loaning millions of dollars to drug addicts out of the goodness of his heart.
But most people are not that guilible.
And frankly despite Sullivans claims – few beleive Morris is either.
Let’s take a look at a 5,000,000.00 loan. If you loan me money (assuming you had that kind of cash), I am required to pay a minimum interest rate (Federal AFR). If I am not paying this as I go, then compound interest accrues and these principal grows exponentially. In 2024, the Federal AFR rate is approximately 5%. You can gift me 18,000 per year. If I start to pay you back for that loan, at a generous rate of 6% on a ten year payback. That means I would pay you between 55,000 to 60,000 per month, each and every month for 120 months in order to pay this back. In order to earn enough post tax dollars to make the payment, I would need to earn 80,000-90,000 per month pre tax income just to meet this obligation (depending how good my tax accountant does their job). That means, just to pay this back over ten years, I must earn a million dollars per year. This does not count my other expenses. Let us say that you are generous and you want to cancel the loan, you cannot do more than 18,000 per year (0.36% of the loan amount over ten years). What you cancel, then becomes taxable income to me with the IRS. Don’t forget IRS Publication 525 that addresses bribes, foreign income, and illegal income. Yes, you guessed right. It is taxable.
So, if I were on this case, I would hire a team of forensic accountants who came out of the IRS and I could make short work of dispelling or proving any of these allegations. So, if there is nothing to hide, let the audits begin. Don’t forget, the IRS wants its money and if criminal activity is discovered, they can reach back further.
Who loans someone an unsecured “loan” for that amount? Are they just that kind? I only mentioned the Federal AFR. No institution or person in their right mind would make such an unsecured loan to someone at the minimum rates. I would love for people to line up and hand me bags of cash for doing nothing for it. This happens only in two situations. In a fairy tale and in those who live in a fantasy world of Washington D.C.
What does this have to do with Penn?
Nothing whatsoever. But Dennis brought up this subject as though a 5,000,000 “loan” to Hunter was a trivial thing that should not be investigated.
Daily routine (in La La Land): Wake up, brush teeth, have breakfast burrito, smoke crack and collect 5 million dollars in loans that cannot be possibly paid and bags of cash from sleazy foreigners with no expectations whatsoever, no strings attached. The every day citizen, would need an extra million per year in pretax income for ten years to service this debt. So, this is not an actual loan and should be audited and investigated?
He is handy, in my observation, to completely change the subject of a post, spew absurdities, throw a few stink bombs, regurgitate the daily propaganda talking points and dash away before he has to actually respond to comments.
Regarding the current status many university institutions, their actions and attitudes are shameful. It is good to see donors pulling their gifts and support. That will bring the schools back to the table with hat in hand.
They should start with a diversity of individuals, minority of one, lose their 1-2 compromises, their political congruence (“=”), their wicked solutions. #HateLovesAbortion
Then proceed to mitigate progress with a diversity of viewpoints.
OT
What’s wrong with this picture?
Can you say, political “witch hunt,” again?
Where the —- is the Supreme Court as the nation unravels?
__________________________________________________________________
Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office
Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
_____________________________________________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page
____________
Fani Willis and Nathan Wade consulted with and visited the White House on multiple occasions.
Penn professors: We welcome diversity — as long as everyone agrees with us! They’re doing exactly what they decry when Americans expect immigrants to assimilate into traditional American culture and values.
Without diversity of thought, no one can challenge what you say or claim to be true.
You can in essence rewrite history and as it goes unchallenged, it becomes accepted as the truth.
-G
The making of the ‘first’ traditional conservative:
https://daily.jstor.org/edmund-burke-and-the-birth-of-traditional-conservatism/
European conservatism and american conservatism have always been markedly different.
American conservatives have always been far more libertarian than their european counterparts.
It is very difficult to compare left and right in the US to left and right in Europe.
Margret Thatcher was a devotee of Hayek and the closest thing Europe has ever seen to a US conservative.
But Churchill, Johnson. Le Penn, and myriads of other european conservatives are quite different from american conservatives.
Until recently the US left – liberals, were also quite different from those in Europe. But with the advent of modern progressives if anything The US left has become far worse.
You just can’t make this stuff up. It is a race to the bottom.
Of course they don’t. Diversity of viewpoint is akin to heresy for these tie-died communist. Pretty funny that they themselves live off of capitalism’s funding of their own institutions, but that’s what happens when you live in a protected bubble: you lose sight of reality and perspective. Typical hypocrisy but tyd good news is the light of truth is shining on them as the rats scurry for a hiding place…..
Jonathan: So now it’s back to your frequent complaint–that at Penn it is “one of the least diverse institutions in the country and one of the most anti-free speech environments”. According to whom? Well, according to FIRE–which you cite for the proposition that Penn is “purging faculties of conservatives and showing little tolerance for dissenting views”.
And what is the evidence for the FIRE claim? Any evidence that universities have actually fired conservative faculty because of their views? Nope.
FIRE is not a neutral observer. Its whole agenda is to promote the advocacy of conservative views on university campuses. In 2022 FIRE raised over $103 million for litigation, opinion research and PR for that purpose. Much of its funding comes from right-wing groups like the Charles Koch Foundation. The Foundation makes grants to universities and gets naming rights for Chairs of departments. And that includes the right to appoint a “conservative” to the post. That’s what FIRE calls promoting “free-speech values”.
You have often complained that law schools have predominantly “liberal” faculties. No argument there. At GWU Law School, where you teach, you have said some of your students have come to you and said “it is the widespread fear of conservative students who have feared faculties with overwhelmingly liberal viewpoints”. The simple answer would be to explain to your students that your school uses a blind grading system to avoid bias. That means there is no “viewpoint discrimination” in grading. I don’t suppose you would give that simple explanation because it would undercut your spurious claim about “liberal” faculties discriminate against conservative students.
Apparently, in your ideal world there should be a lot more faculty “conservatives” who could counter the “liberal orthodoxy”. And how would that work out–say in a university physics department? Would that mean hiring more faculty that still adhere to the outdated Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe when the vast majority of professors follow the accepted heliocentric view?
I think you lost the battle long ago. So now you think the only solution is for donors to “close their wallets” until more conservatives are hired. It’s the Koch Foundation approach to hiring. That appeal won’t work because the new generation of students simply don’t find “conservative” views consistent with the world they live in. They reject the idea that “systemic racism” doesn’t exist, that women’s reproductive rights are not important and LGBTQ rights are not worthy of recognition. It’s the nut “conservatives” can’t crack and why their retrograde views have so little appeal!
Your logical fallacy is: false dichotomy.
So you think intellectual stagnation is like roller derby? Now that your side is ahead, you can stop the competition? In the Marxist World the people who pay the piper don’t get to call the tune. However, in real life, it doesn’t work that way. State legislatures and capitalist donors can defund Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination. Universities can do without zampolits, political officers that enforce the party line.
If math, science and engineering are not taught, because they’re racist, then modern society can’t be maintained. You can’t build a sewer system on DEI or Critical Racist Theory. So DEI & CRT are unsustainable.
FIRE is not a neutral observer. Its whole agenda is to promote the advocacy of conservative views on university campuses
Dennis as always rarely lasts a paragraph. This time he makes it to the 1st sentence of the 2cnd paragraph, to spit out a lie.
Fire is not conservative in word or deed. Show the examples to support your lie Dennis
Dennis you are an idiot.
Fire was founded in 1998 by University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate. None of these are conservatives.
David French – a harsh critic of Trump is a member of Fire and a past president.
Fire has become the pre-eminent organixation defending free speech int he untied states and has more recently expanded outside of Colleges.
It has represented both the left and the right. It has won free speech cases for people on the left and the right.
Increasingly Fire is defending more conservatives that those on the left – because the targets of censorship in education are increasingly on the right.
Regardless there is no ideological test for Fire to take a case.
Fire has also been the pre-eminent organization ranking colleges with respect to free speech. They have been doing that for over 2 decades.
This is nothing new, and their process is fact based and well documented and understood.
They evaluate both the student handbooks, the academic codes and the extent to which those codes are complied with.
They use ojective measures such as student and faculty disapline and dismissals over speech.
The current and long time director of Fire came from the ACLU of Northern California, the EnvironMentors Project in Washington, D.C., the Organization for Aid to Refugees in Prague, and the Fulbright program. and is a lifelong Democrat, Lukianoff is a liberal and an athiest.
FIRE has been listed as one of the Best Charities for Your Donations by Consumer Reports, has a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator, and a Platinum rating on GuideStar.
Fire has defended such right wingers as Bill Ayers.
Fire has called out conservatives such as Ben Stein when they have made FALSE claims of censorship. Fire does the best job of Tracking firings censorship, expulsions for speech on college campus’s of anyone. While conservatives have their free speech rights violated at about double the rate of liberals. All claims by conservatives of being censored are not true.
Yes, the same people who used to give to the ACLU now give to FIRE.
That is specifically because FIRE will defend free speech REGARDLESS of ideology.
In the past decade they have defended the free speech of conservatives at a bout twice the rate of those on the left.
That is because efforts to censor conservatives on campus are more than twice as common.
There is no political litmus test for Fire to take on a case.
If you are being censored on campus – Fire will represent you – left, right, pink or blue.
Examples of FIRE cases
Professor who posted “God is dead” on his office door
Professor placed on leave for showing a documentary about porn
Professor terminated for advocating marijuana PTSD research
Students trying to form a chapter of the NAACP
Students trying to start a gay and lesbian group on campus
Professor fired for defending BLM on Fox News after they excluded non-black people from an event
A student joking about hunting Antifa and ISIS members
A student distributing “Shut Down Capitalism” flyers
Dennis the problem with your idiotic response regarding blind grading is:
Students and professors get expelled or disciplined for speech that is NOT blind.
Further as Ben Shapiro who graduated with honors from Harvard law school explained – Conservatives must game the blind grading to do well.
Shapiro argued strongly with professors in class over garbage left wing positions they were taking on the law.
But when he went to take tests, he parrotted the party line and graduated with honors.
Blind grading protects students only if they LIE on there tests.
Is that really what you want out of education ?
One of the problems with the left’s near total domination of higher education is that much of what they are Schilling is WRONG, and we have known that for in many cases centuries.
Dennis – what a hoary and pathetic cliche’ — political conservatism is like geocentrism. This is silly. Ideas regarding nature lend themselves to proof via the scientific method, and thus geocentrism is now no longer taught. (Actually, it is also not accurate to simply say the earth circles the sun. It is more accurate to say they rotate around each other.) By contrast, political ideas do not lend themselves to scientific experiment or other acceptable forms of verification. Let’s consider the first if your incontrovertible political truths: systematic racism exists (“in this country” and “against blacks” is implied). Please identify how race is used to deny jobs, housing, education health care, or any other social goods to Afro-Americans in this country and what is the “system” by which this is done? Is the standard of living of blacks higher in the USA or in all-black countries in Africa? Are blacks trying to get out of this country or to get in? Are blacks better off in Democrat-ruled cities or Republican-ruled cities? Are blacks better off worldwide in socialist or capitalist countries? Do the differences in income and other measurable categories of social success occur only in the USA or also in other countries, e.g., England? Why would evil white Republicans’ racism harm blacks but not Asians, who are not white and not usually Christian ( another of the Left’s bugaboos)? You cannot persuasively answer any of these questions. You can just ritualistically repeat: “systematic racism.” The Left has no ideas. It just has rhetoric and a “systematic” plan to silence anyone who refuses to sing with the chorus.
Dear Prof Turley,
As a general rule, I’ve always enjoyed working for Professors. They pay in advance and don’t ask too many questions. I like that.
Otoh, some professors are better than others. I fondly recall the often acrimonious battles I had with the Dean of the Philosophy and Religion Dept. (Divinity degrees out the ying yang.) . .. but I digress.
Diversity of opinion, at many of these liberal arts institutions today, does not, by definition. include Trump University. There is only Trump and further away from him. Trump U. is not a matter of ridicule, it is an object of fear. Worse than Hitler. Far too dangerous to even study.
The whole world hangs in the balance.
*If you want to know how Dr. Anthea Butler came to believe Trump MAGA minions and white evangelicals “may kill us all”, all you have to do is watch the news.
This might explain a lot,
‘Them vs. US’: Divide among elites and rest of country widening ahead of 2024 election: Rasmussen
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/divide-among-elites-and-rest-electorate-widening-heading-2024-election
This us just one facet of the left in America moving over the last several decades from liberalism to despotism. Here’s a free course on the topic.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/american-left
Good article. I would call them Elitists, not the Elite. Elitiists in their own egotistical mind. As opposed to elite in wisdom and humility. Bongino calls them “stupid smart people.”
There is lots of data on a wide variety of factors that are driving the political divide,
and also explaining why it is almost entirely the left that is moving farther and farther and growing more and more paranoid.
I would highly recomend the work of Prof. Haidt – and Heterodox accadameny
Haidt started as an evolustionary psychologigist at UVA exploring moral foundations over different cultures and times.
One part of his work enabled him to distinguish those on the left from those on the right based on the weight each person gave to the 5 different key moral foundations he identified. But he had a troubling group of about 2% of people who clearly were a different set of moral foundations and did not fit into right or left.
I personally had exchanges with Prof Haidt over this more than a decade ago. Prof. Haidt has “discovered” libertarians.
Ultimately he found he had to add “individual liberty” to his other moral foundations and after that his efforts to identify people made sense.
Haidt has also done research examining how our education and parenting and social media are effecting our development and mental health.
He is one of the earilest to identify the rapid rise in anxiety and depression that started arround 2013 and has a very currious profile.
Anxiety and depression in 20 year olds are about double that of 50 year olds.
In women it is about double that of men.
It is higher in whites than other races.
It inversely correlates to religion.
It is about double in those who self identify on the left as those who identify on the right.
The patterns are so strong that if you are a white female progressive 20 year old – you have about a 75% chance of suffereing from anxiety and depression.
If you are male, conservative, and over 50 the rate is below 10%.
Several years ago when democrats controlled the House former facebook executives came to Congress to testify about the ways in which social media was not only destructive and anxiety producing, but that social media companies were deliberating amplifying those qualities to increase their revenues.
While I part company on their solutions, their diagnosis is absolutely correct and has been found in study after study.
Worse the negative impact of social media are even more amplified in the young, in females and in the left.
There is a long list of significant reasons why this is so, regardless it is inarguably true.
Lest we blame everything on social media, the way that we raise children today is also a major factor.
And again you can find massive amounts of evidence of this. Everywhere we look at with respect to children our efforts to protect them have made them fragile, and weak. And not just mentally but also in terms of health.
The cleaner we make the world we raise our children in the higher the rates of asthyma, and allergies – including potentially fatal ones.
Today those on the right are angry. They are very pissed about a system that is increasingly rigged against them.
And they are going to do something about it. They are going to Vote.
Today those on the left are angry. Though they are also prone to anxiety and depression.
Anger is empowering. Anxiety and depression are debilitating.
Those on the left are irrationally terrified that those on the right are coming to get them.
Many of us are concerned about Clinton’s rants about re-education camps for those on the right.
Mostly we know this country is not there yet and likely will not get there for sometime.
They are voting to prevent something down the road if this woke nonsense continues.
Conversely the left – and Biden is doing everything in his power to amplify this actually beleive that Trump if elected is coming for them.
Trump is purportedly going to lock up Gay and trans people – despite having the first openly gay US ambassador and openly gar cabinet member.
As Salena Zito Observed – Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally. Trumps detractors take him literally but not seriously.
Who here beleives that if Trump is not elected in 2024 that there will be anything approaching J6 in 2025 ?
The Right today – those opposing the left, are in this for the long haul. While they hope to be rid of Biden and left wing nuts in 2025, whether it is Biden or Trump ro whoever, they KNOW this is not the pivitol election for the salvation of the country.
Or more accurately – it may be, or the next may be. Regardless the tide will turn. if it does not – EVENTUALLY there may come a point at which actual insurrection is nececary. The declaration of independence makes clear that is justifiable, it also makes clear that we must try everything else first, and them more.
Who beleives that if Trump wins in 2024 there will not be violence and riots from election night through long past the inauguration ?
Those on the left do not comprehend the stupidity of their rants and weaponization of government over J6 and otherwise targeting political enemies is.
The left learned from the summer of 2020 that they can riot and loot and burn with little consequence.
The right learned that they will not be allowed to engage in political protests.
All that means is they will find other tactics.
Regardless every trend is going away from the left. The only question is when the balance tips.
How is it one can profess “diversity, equity, and inclusion” yet renounce “viewpoint diversity?” Are they not one and the same?
Of course they are. To conclude otherwise clearly evidences that postmodern extremists who hold themselves out as “liberal” are far from deserving of that historic designation. In fact, they quite clearly demonstrate themselves to be firmly “illiberal” for being wholly intolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.
These people have lost their minds, or at the very least are suffering from some form of mental illness. Ideas can’t hurt anybody – but we want to build our own bubble or echo chamber, and then have students pay to sit in it. No thank you!
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
― William F. Buckley
I’ve been saying the same thing. Not near as concise and intelligently expressed.
Someone cast aspersions on vocational schools. I guess that faculty member does not realize that the nation basically rests on the sweat and work of people who learned by experience or “vocational schools”.
Who builds your your house or your apartments, lays in the electrical, gets the plumbing in, gets the waste out, , tills the fields, harvests the food, lays the fiberoptic cable that allows you to use the internet at fabulous speeds, loads and unloads the ships, drives the trucks, and loads and unloads them, paves the roads, etc, etc. I would fear more a job stoppage by the blue collar world than a strike by college professors.
The present liberal professors need to just get some thicker underwear liners so they can handle the tendency to lose bladder and bowel control when conservatives start to speak and disagree with them.
GEB,
Well said.
They have very soft hands.
Soft hands from many solos.