Below is my column in the New York Post on a growing crisis in higher education as enrollments and trust falls. Despite these trends, administrators and faculty appear entirely oblivious and unrepentant. They continue to alienate many in the country who view schools as pursuing indoctrination rather than education.
Here is the slightly expanded column:
In the 1930s, Bertolt Brecht asked “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” As someone who has been a teacher for over 30 years, I find myself increasingly asking the same question as trust and enrollments fall in higher education.
Trust in higher education is plummeting to record lows. According to recent polling, there has been a record drop in trust in higher education since just 2015. Not surprisingly, given the growing viewpoint intolerance on our campuses, the largest drops are among Republicans and Independents.
There has been a precipitous decline in enrollments across the country as universities worry about covering their costs without raising already high tuition rates. From 2010 to 2021, enrollments fell from roughly 18.1 million students to about 15.4 million.
There are various contributors to the drop from falling birthrates to poor economic times. However, there is also an increasing view of higher education as an academic echo chamber for far left agendas. For many, there is little appeal in going to campuses where you are expected to self-censor and professors reject your values as part of their lesson plans.
That fear is magnified by surveys showing that many departments have purged their ranks of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians.
In my new book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculties replicate their own views and values.
One survey (based on self-reporting) found that only nine percent of law professors identified as conservative.
Some anti-free speech advocates are actually citing higher education as a model for social media in showing how “unlikeable voices” have been eliminated.
Many of those “unlikeable” people are now going elsewhere as schools focus on degrees in activism and denouncing math, statistics, the classics, and even meritocracy as examples of white privilege.
Schools offering classic education are experiencing rising enrollments, but the growing crisis has not changed the bias in hiring and teaching. Despite repeated losses in courts, universities and colleges continue to deny free speech and diversity of thought.
The fact is that this academic echo chamber may be killing educational institutions, but the intolerance still works to the advantage of faculty who can control publications, speaking opportunities, and advancement with like-minded ideologues.
We have seen the same perverse incentive in the media where media outlets are seeing plummeting readers and revenue. Journalism schools and editors now maintain that reporters should reject objectivity and neutrality as touchstones of journalism.
It does not matter that this advocacy journalism is killing the profession. Reporters and editors continue to saw at the limb upon which they sit due to the same advantage for academics. For reporters, converting newsrooms into echo chambers gives them more security, advancement, and opportunities.
Recently, the new Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis was brought into the paper to right the ship. He told the staff “let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The response from reporters was to call for owner Jeff Bezos to fire Lewis and others seeking to change the culture. The Post has been eliminating positions and just implemented another round of layoffs to address the budget shortfalls.
In the meantime, trust in the media is at record lows — paralleling the polling on higher eduction. The result is the rise of new media as people turn to blogs and other sources for their news.
The same phenomenon is occurring in academia. People are now evading campuses with online programs. For those of us who believe in brick and mortar educational institutions, we may be watching a death spiral for some universities and colleges as administrators and faculty treat their students as a captive audience for their ideological agendas.
In the meantime, alternative educational opportunities are seeing a rapid rise. Take the Catherine Project, a project started four years ago, to offer free discussions of classic works that is also free from ideological indoctrination. The project has reportedly doubled in size since 2022.
With online educational technology, universities and colleges no longer have a monopoly on education. People have choices and they are increasingly choosing alternatives. To paraphrase Lewis, “let’s not sugarcoat it…People are not [buying our] stuff.”
We are killing our institutions through an abundance of ideology and a paucity of courage. Recently, interim Columbia President Katrina Armstrong actually apologized to students who took over and trashed a building in pro-Palestinian protests.
During the protests, a Jewish Columbia professor was blocked by the school from going on campus because he might trigger anti-Semitic students. Yet, Armstrong apologized for the alleged abuse of police and the role of the university in allowing them to be harmed, adding “I know it wasn’t me, but I’m really sorry.… I saw it, and I’m really sorry.”
Like many conservatives and libertarians, Jewish students and families are now reportedly looking for alternatives to schools like Columbia.
What is clear is that many administrators and departments will continue to bar opposing views and maintain the academic echo chamber. Many have tenure and expect to ride out the decline of their institutions while enjoying the acclaim of being academic crusaders. Of course, it will become increasingly hard to be social warriors if you hold a war and nobody comes.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”
“The mainstream media is not who you think it is… the mainstream media truly leans right.”
— Mark Cuban
Yep. You can be educated, a billionaire and still be an idiot.
Mark Cuban is proof that morons can become billionaires
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 26, 2024
I said the very same thing on this blog not one month ago!
I believe it was in response to some nonsense about Cuban from Gigi.
Were Cuban erudite, he would appreciate that the only thing the American Founders provided was liberty in the form of rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities, implemented by severely limited and restricted, infinitesimal government.
And that was well enough.
Would that he did, he would be completely unable to support the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who espouse Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” under the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which would ultimately be subsumed by the superior “Intelligentsia,” as it controls the nation through central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering.
Mark Cuban is a communist, a duplicitous fraud or an incorrigible moron.
Perhaps he is all three.
Patriotic and constitutional Americans aren’t buying what this Cuban is selling.
@Upstate
Indeed, that is the most ludicrous thing I’ve read in awhile. The only thing more pathetic is to try to paint Kamala/Walz as anything other than the most extreme left imaginable in the USA since its founding by showing us they can fix a Jiffy Lube problem with a car, or that, without any evidence whatsoever, Kamala served up fries. Shoot, people are trying their damndest, legitimately, to find any evidence she was ever in court as a ‘lawyer’. I am voting for a POTUS, not a meme to further an agenda. The kind of sad modern dems are probably literally breaks the perimeters for what is considered sane or adult. We will take it back together. We have to.
James,
I cannot believe he said it with a straight face and the hosts of the show did not LOL at him.
The response from CNBC’s Kernen when discussing Bidenomics, was pretty funny,
“She can take credit for the good things that happened with Biden, but she doesn’t have anything to do with the bad things?”
What is most troublesome about Harris/Walz is not so much that they are creatures of the left.
It is that they are creatures of Govenrment
Whatever the problem – govenrment is the solution.
That will fail nearly all the time.
And yet, idiots will vote for them.
@Upstate
Yup. That is so ludicrous on its face it doesn’t even warrant consideration. And it’s one of those things that is SO ludicrous, it beggars belief how anyone with two brain cells to rub together could believe it. Some of us have literally been bartered out od our own brains.
Yep. You can be educated, a billionaire and still be an idiot.
Yes, just as you can be an educated idiot, never actually ran or owned a business in your life, still get into politics as a radical, and suddenly become a multi-millionaire Marxist on a senator and/or president’s annual salary. Elected anti-capitalism Marxists becoming multi-millionaires… but only after learning how to get elected to the Senate or House.
Have Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama gone beyond multi-millionaire status to billionaire status yet?
Sadly, Mark Zuckerberg’s minions view this as going against community standards against spam. I took umbrage but mostly am disappointed things are worse not better at FB. This is important.
“disappointed things are worse not better at FB. This is important.”
Agree. I long ago demoted FB in my personal scheme of things. It is the only venue for me to keep in touch with a few people I know, and I occasionally buy or sell items on Marketplace (it sucks, but relatively, have you tried to do any of that on Craigslist lately?) Unfortunately, I know a number of people who continue to rely on it as a primary source of information, which is, as you mention, a real problem.
Kamala in a speech yesterday: Let it inspire us by helping us to be inspired . . . so we can solve the problems that face us.
(Liberal audience cheers)
That is beyond word salad. It is banality heaped upon banality. IOW, nothing new. Anyone planning to vote for that empty suit has no moral right to say anything negative about Trump supporters.
oldmanfromKansas——-Yes, Kamala’s speech is “beyond word salad.” It’s the whole dang produce section!
More of Turley’s efforts to justify the MAGA media of which he is a part, and its attacks on educated people like doctors, lawyers and economists who speak out against Trump and the dangerous Republican Christian Nationalist agenda. Turley claims: ” However, there is also an increasing view of higher education as an academic echo chamber for far left agendas.” And, Turley, just WHERE do you think this notion that higher education is nothing but an eccho chamber for “far left agendas” comes from? YOU are part of this agenda, since you went on the Fox payroll and sold your credibility and credentials to push the MAGA agenda. It is no secret that Trump and MAGA appeal to non college educated white people who feel that their self-perceived superiority is threatened by educated women and minorities. It started with Barak Obama, not only gettng elected POTUS, but being very popular in the US and abroad, as well as very successful. The attacks on educated people recently ramped up when Trump blew handling of COVID and went on the attack against doctors at the CDC and WHO because they refuted his lies about COVID–claims like COVID was no more dangerous than the flu, that it would go away when the weather warmed up, and they wouldn’t go along with his quack cures like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The arrogance of Trump believing HE should dominate CDC news conferences and go to the podium ahead of physicians who dedicated their lives to communicable disease prevention is stunning–but the gullibles bought it. If Trumpy Bear says take horse de-wormer, and if he doesn’t wear a mask, well, then COVID must be no big deal and there must be people making money from saying otherwise. Then, the US started setting new daily records for deaths and infections–higher than any other industrialized country–but, does that deter faith in Trump? No–the doctors must be lying–yeah, they’re all in on trying to take down Trump. So, if someone dies and the doctor said it was due to COVID, the doctor was probably lying. MAGAs refuse to believe death and infection statistics.
Then, you have the “wokeness” agenda–anything that non educated people don’t understand and don’t want to understand is wrong–like LGBTQ people and trans-sexualism. MAGA preaches lies and the gullibles believe it–according to Trump, he really won in 2020, even though all evidence proves otherwise; there are doctors killing healthy newborn babies–and when lawyers say this is murder and illegal in all 50 states–lawyers are lying. Trump says Haitian migrants who are here legally are illegals, and not only that, they’re stealing and eating people’s pets in Ohio–the MAGAs believe this, too, no matter how many times City officials in Springfield, OH and the Governor of Ohio say it’s a lie. Trump says he’s going to send in the National Guard, arrest and deport all of them. Trump said that schools are performing sex-change operations on children–where? –the school nurse’s office? Polls prove that most who identify as Republican BELIEVE these lies, and THAT’s dangerous. Turley has chosen to be part of this.
Trump makes all kinds of wild economic claims–like 20% tariffs (or even higher for some products) will raise trillions of dollars–even economists at his alma mater say this is not true–that tariffs are paid by the consumer- not the seller–and they will raise prices on everyday purchases, push up inflation and cost the average American family thousands more every year. He throws out promises to not tax overtime pay, tips and Social Security benefits–all without any evaulation of the impact doing this would cause, including cynical tax dodgers like attorneys, real estate brokers and stock brokers re-naming their pay as “tips”. Economists say that not taxing Social Security benefits will cause the fund to go broke sooner, resulting in lower benefits overall and delays in receiving benefits–all of which will hurt lower-income beneficiaries. But, the gullibles don’t believe economists–they’re some of those educated dumbaxxes, according to MAGA doctrine. If Trumpy Bear say’s it’s good–it’s good. They also don’t believe the truth about him and his finances–that he squandered millions of dollars in gifts and inheritances from his father and that he has a string of failed business ventures, all of which proves he can’t even manage his own finances, much less those of the biggest economy in the world.
Just keep in mind the next time you need a physician or lawyer that these people went to college and got an education. Remember that, too, when your child goes to school–his or her teacher also graduated from college, as did your investment advisor with whom you entrust your life’s savings. Would you want it any other way?
It’s Gidget!
Clutching those pearls of wisdom regurgitated by the Marxist-Socialist media again.
^^^ gigi has worked herself up into a real froth today.
Nothing new here, just move along.
I don’t have issue with reasonable well thought out opposing views, but people like you buried in a bubble are the problem…..
I notice that you, Tom, and the usual MAGA crowd are incapable of responding with counter arguments or facts to the things I write, so you attack me personally, all of which proves that you know that what I wrote is true.
I was thinking about the value of education especially today because I just got home from having surgery. I am so thankful for the wonderful and compassionate care I got from my surgeon, the anesthesiologist and especially the nurses. I thought about where we would be without the extensive education and experience that produced the quality of care I enjoyed today and how utterly ignorant it is for MAGAs to attack people who work so hard for so many years to get the education to be able to give me the quality of care I got today. It’s so sad that MAGAs have politicized education and that they pay people like Turley to go along with it.
Did you get your wisdom teeth pulled out? You don’t sound any smarter.
Shortly after surgery, within hours, you are able to get right back on your favorite blog site to continue with your same old same old same old diatribe, and you wonder why no one bothers to address you on the merits, that were already addressed the FIRST time you raised them, when was it? three years ago? Sounds like you needed a leetle leetle bit more anesthesia to ease out all that stuff piled up in your head. Maybe that would lower your blood pressure and take a few pounds off too.
yea, gigi was spouting off on this blog @1:00 this afternoon (^^^), then has surgery w/anesthesia according to her, and just 7 hours later, she has nothing better to do but get right back on the blog? WOW, what an admirable recovery and use of her time! She should have taken a few magazines from the outpatient area and found something more productive to do when she got home.
Yes, I was stable enough to go home the same day–I worked with my anesthesiologist who agreed to give me the least amount of sedation for the shortest time possible (without any narcotics) and some extra Zofran so I wouldn’t vomit–all so I could get home as soon as possible where I can recover best. I had family to help me. Of course, I had to go right back today for a follow up–and, I’m fine. I read my New York Times when I got home. So glad you are pulling for my recovery, Tom (I’m joking, of course), but that wasn’t the purpose of my post, which was to express my appreciation for the fine care I received, the product of which was the education all of my health care providers received. I kept thinking about how things would be if this was 100 years ago, when, incidentially, Jimmy Carter was born. Attacking higher education and especially health care professionals that we depend on to keep us healthy, is just plain stupid.
What you SHOULD be thankful for, is that no one is suing you for the repetitive garbage against Trump and “MAGAts” that you spill out every single day, yadayadayada—even on the day of your MINOR surgery (mole removal? tooth extraction? adenoma biopsy? face lift? Sonobella removal of abdomen fat?)
No one wishes harm for you, we just wish you would act your age and stop your hateful screeeeeeeeds.
what was left out was a colonoscopy, quick recovery and much less painful than getting the _ _ _ _ kicked out of her, so she couldn’t use JT’s honorable space to “dump it” anymore.
“And, Turley, just WHERE do you think this notion that higher education is nothing but an eccho chamber for “far left agendas” comes from? YOU are part of this agenda, since you went on the Fox payroll and sold your credibility and credentials to push the MAGA agenda.”
Poor gigs has no credibility and credentials to sell off.
She just comes everyday to pawn her baskets of deplorables to push her SILLY agenda.
And, Tom, what IS my “silly agenda” according to you ? I view it as speaking truth to power and telling the truth about Trump.
NUTCHACHACHA, Thank you so much for reminding us.
______________________________________________________________
“NON-COLLEGE EDUCATED WHITE PERSON”—BILL GATES
“Despite dropping out of Harvard University after only three semesters, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates managed to carve out a pretty good life for himself with his tech company and his philanthropic pursuits.”
– GeekWire
“Despite dropping out of Harvard University after only three semesters, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates managed to carve out a pretty good life for himself with his tech company and his philanthropic pursuits.”
Um, point taken, but I’m not sure Gates is the shining example I would have chosen. Yes, early in his career he prospered in the personal computer operating system business (testimony on whether that was more on talent, or on a complete lack of scruples is mixed). But later, he made common cause with the legacy rich, entitled, sleazebags of the world who are currently doing their damnedest to deprive the rest of us of our individual liberties to further expand their power over everyone and everything. Not to mention his adventures on Jeffrey Epstein’s little island.
Gates is possibly the highest value of contradiction of the author’s pejorative “non college educated white people” in this context.
You may personally prefer Jobs, Dell, Ford, Thomas, Rockefeller, Geffen, Ellison, etc.
Please accept my apologies.
* Imagine if Gates had stayed in college he wouldn’t be, might not be the doofus billionaire he is today.
NUTCHACHACHA, may we end unconstitutional affirmative action, etc., yet or do you still need it to attempt to make yourself appear to be a real person?
Gigenius,
Yesterday, instead of explaining WHY you lied about being an attorney and a nurse, you went off on some rant about Trump living in your head rent free.
Please answer the question. Are you claiming again that you are an attorney?
It was nurse, as I recall.
She has claimed both, within the last 6 months
@Gigi
You are stupid. I would ordinarily reserve that sentiment for the most extreme exceptions. But there is not question, Gigi: you truly are just an idiot. Believe it or not, that is actually not a particularly common thing, so there’s some bonus points.
In your case, I don’t even think you are paid, you just honestly don’t have anything better to do. Sad. And yes, you are ‘Natacha’. Do you honestly think we care, having watched you for years?? Why did you pick this blog to haunt, and how do you have so much free time to do it so regularly?
Natacha and Svelez are very much alive here, they are cowards, spewing the same nonsense for years, and we can very safely ignore them.
What of this is relevant to the article ?
Turley’s post had nothing to do with Trump or MAGA – which is living rent free in your head.
You are incapable of looking at anything without First considering how it relates to Trump
and next how it relates to MAGA
and then how it relates to republicans.
And in all cases – any issue that reflects positively on Trump, MAGA or republicans – Must be wrong, and must be crushed
Increasingly people do not trust our education system.
Justifiably so.
Regardless Trust is not a right, it is something that must be earned.
McD’s must earn your trust before you buy a burger.
MSNBC must earn your trust to expect you to tune in.
Harvard must earn your trust to get you to go there or donors to contribute or businesses to hire Harvard grads.
It does not matter why you have lost trust – you must fix that if you expect to survive.
Turley argues that loss of trust is because they have fallen off the left edge of the world.
If you have a better argument – MAKE IT.
People do not trust the media.
For the same reasons – though there are alternatives with the media – both rightly leaning and independent sources.
Do people Trust the right leaning media ? More than the left leaning media, but not all that much.
With respect to your idiotic claims – Trump/MAGA are absolutely an Anti-elitist movement.
Anti White over educated IYI’s lacking in common sense constantly shilling garbage that does not work.
Most – though not all of these cretins are WHITE.
Does Trump appeal to White working class men ? Absolutely.
And Women, and black working class men, and hispanic working class men.
While the political restructuring that is taking place was NOT created by Trump – he is most definitely capitalizing on it.
And it has NOTHING to do with Race or whiteness.
Though it has a great deal to do with the failures of a mostly white far left over educated elite that has lost any semblance of common sense and has failed in most everything they had done.
If you had the booming economy you claim you have – Trump would be toast.
And we SHOULD have that booming economy. Biden inherited an economy coming out of covid and stupid lockdowns.
Like Obama inheriting an economy coming out of a recession there should have been 3-4 years of 7+% growth.
And that is if Obama and Biden had DONE NOTHING.
Yet Obama averaged 1.68% growth coming out of a severe recession Only FDR has ever done that badly.
Biden inherited a 7% growth rate and fumbled it. Now we appear to be heading into recession – are 3+ years that have boosted inflation 20-30% and cost the average working class familiy 7K/year in spendable income.
All you had to do was NOTHING to completely dominate for a decade to come – just do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
But democrats can not ever do NOTHING – they can NEVER let things alone to improve on their own.
They have to destroy whatever they touch.
And you wonder why people are attracked to Trump ?
And you wonder why they do not trust you ?
You honestly wish to bring up Covid again ?
Ivermectin is not a miracle drug – but there is absolutely nothing that public health officials came up with that worked better.
Hydroxycloroquin at worst – did not harm – at best it has an eratic record of benefit.
I would note that both Ivarmectin and Hyrdoxycloraquine are well know antivirals that are used large scale safely throughout the world and that were promoted by very well respected medical profesionals throughout the world.
Regardless in what world do you face off against what YOU consider to be a civilization threatening epidemic and NOT try all the tools at your disposal ?
There were many expensive remedies from Big Pharma – which should get Kudos for their efforts – but those remedies FAILED.
OF the wide variety of steps taken to deal with Covid – from Masks to lockdowns to social distancing to vaccines, to Ivarmectin, to Hyrdoxycloraquine to …
NOTHING had a consequential benefit.
In FACT – possibly the most effective C19 preventative was being in good health and having normal levels of vitamin D.
That appears to have UNIVERSALLY resulted in good outcomes.
Was Covid worse than the flu ? Certainly it was NOT worse than the Spanish Flu. Ignoring the hype it is arguable that it was not worse than several other major flus that the world has seen in the past century.
Did people die of Covid ? Yes, Did it change overall mortality trends ? Absolutely not.
Covid replaced the flue and pneumonia at killing people who were likely to die in the next 6 months regardless.
Both US and global mortaily data show that mortality rates were declining for decades prior to 2013 and that trend reversed
and you can not even see Covid in the trend line for Global or US mortality.
Again it almost exclusively killed people who were going to die anyway.
I know it is hard for those on the left to grasp that everyone will eventually die.
But that is reality.
You say people do not trust (mostly white) highly educated experts – Why should they ?
Can you name a single think about Covid that YOUR hyped up experts were right about ?
You want to rant about Ivarmectine and HCQ – neither of those killed anyone.
I do not personally want to piss over the efforts of the Pharma industry to fight Covid, nor the vaccines.
But the FACT is they were a catastrophic failure.
There is no evidence they helped and a great deal of evidence they have harmed millions and killed others.
I absolutely want inquiry into that – because we need to do BETTER next time – and there will be a next time.
We NEED the technological ability to develop an effective vaccine from scratch in record time.
Trump proved all parts of that EXCEPT effective.
One of the reasons we should not be hiding vaccine development data is because we MUST learn and do better.
The way free markets learn is from studying failure
“Remember that, too, when your child goes to school–his or her teacher also graduated from college,”
All I can think about is that you claim to have gone to college. That is scary.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
“Just keep in mind the next time you need a physician or lawyer that these people went to college and got an education. Remember that, too, when your child goes to school–his or her teacher also graduated from college, as did your investment advisor with whom you entrust your life’s savings. Would you want it any other way?”
Yes, I would want a physician who studied medicine – not left wing nonsense. I want one who graduated because they were competent not because they fit on a rainbow
I want a lawyer who knows the actual law – not one who makes it up
I want my child to be taught to read and to write and to do math by all measues those college educated teachers of yours have FAILED.
I want an investment advisor who knows how to invest to make money not to foster failed left wing nut social goals.
I want economists that understand the actual laws of economics – which are NOT all that hard.
Not one still shilling stuff we have proven fails over and over.
I want the economists who were warning that the massive post Covid spending and stimulus would cause inflation,
NOT the pones who were advising spend, spend spend.
I want the economists who are saying that price controls – including price gouging laws are ALWAYS economically bad – price gouging laws actually cause shortages during emergencies.
I want economists who know that there is a point at which further increases in tax rates result in reductions in tax revenue.
Basically I want people NOT educated by the most elite left wing nut institutions in this country that are teaching doctors, lawyers, teachers and economists garbage that will make them WORSE not better.
Gig, the fight over tariffs is total nonsense.
From a purely economic perspective – the country with the lowest tariffs and subsidies has the greatest economic advantage.
This is WELL known and has been since the time of Adam Smith.
Whether it is Trump or Harris or Biden or Obama or … – Tarriffs are not primarily used to raise revenue (though I would note in the 19th century the US federal government was funded by Tariffs.
Today US tarriffs – whether by Trump or Biden or Harris or Obama are used as a part of foreign policy – not economic policy – though both parties often claim otherwise.
Trump threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico to negotiate a better Free Trade deal – and he got it.
Trump used Tariffs against China to counter their own misconduct – and Biden expanded those tariffs.
Trump used Tariffs against Iran to isolate Iran and diminish Iran’s ability to export terrorism, and to develop nuclear weapons.
Obama dropped those, and Biden dropped those – both with resulting bad behavior on the part of Iran.
Obama had a love hate releationship with Russia – fomenting the orange revolution, on one hand, and then striking the Uranium one deal on the other. With the garbage claims that Russia consequentially interfeared in the 2016 election Obama imposed all kinds of stupid restrictions – further marginalizing Russia. Trump was unable to relax these and thus unable to improve relations with russia.
The US should have sought improved relations with Russia starting with the collapse of the Berlin wall – instead the deep state – seeking to hold the power that the cold war gave them continued to cast Russia as a threat and an enemy to continue to hold power.
The US should have been trying to bring Russia into the west – not isolate it for the past 40 years.
Regardless we still have trade sanctions and Tariffs with Russia.
What will be different with respect to Tariffs between Harris and Trump ?
Trump will use the threat of tariffs to push actual free trade (not obama left wing nut managed trade) deals with Europe and other trading partners.
Trump should have negotiated a free trade deal with the UK post Brexit. The deal would have been trivial – anything made in the UK can be sold in the US and anything made in the US can be sold in the UK. All Tariff free.
Currently Trump is proposing a cut in corporate taxes for businesses who produce their products in the US.
On net this is probably not a good idea – but it has very real benefits as well as some negatives.
Further it is likely to just speed up reshoring efforts that are already happening.
Global trade has been restructuring since the financial crisis. Globalism – the managed trade substitute for global free trade concocted by the left as a means to attempt world governance is dying.
There are many factors. And overall the change is probably net positive.
Increasingly the US has no interest in the mid east and little interest in Europe. no interest in Africa.
Our focus is:
Our immediate neighbors – Canada and Mexico.
The Anglosphere – Canada, NZ, AU, and the UK.
The Pacific Rim
The western hemisphere in declining importance.
The US is likely – with the exception of israel ceding foreign policy in Europe, Russia, the mid east and Africa to Europe.
Europe is capable of dealing with those regions on its own – and the US no longer has national interests in those regions.
Africa is european problem.
The mideast is a european problem
Russia is a european problem – frankly Russia Badly needs to be and needs integrated into Europe.
In all of the above Tariffs as an actual economic tool – never come up.
Because they are a tool of foreign policy much more than economics.
Outside of those on Iran – can you name a single Trump Tariff that Biden/harris have removed ?
Trump owns Tariffs as a political issue. But the fact is that neither democrats nor Republicans are going to handle Tariffs differently – except that Trump will use them to leverage free trade deals – deals that democrats do not want.
Democrats are trying to preserve the failing globalist – as in global gevernance rather than global free trade regime that exists.
Harris will not use Tariffs as leverage against Europe – Trump will.
any economist that talks about inflation as anything other than a monetary phenomena is a MORON.
Inflation is by defintion a NET rise in prices – that is physically impossible without an increase in money supply. PERIOD.
With a fixed money supply – increasing gas prices MUST result in either lower prices elsewhere or less purchases (and therefore recession).
NET increases in prices can only occur with increases in money supply.
Price gouging does not cause inflation, price fixing does not cause inflation, war does not cause inflation. shortages do not cause inflation.
Only increases in money supply cause inflation.
US (and global) inflation was caused by the Fed buying US debt as government spending went wild. That injected trillions of cash into the US economy.
I got about as far as Gigi’s first sentence and realized how disappointed Gigi’s parents are that she didn’t at least try and make a more honest and more ethical living by being a street whore.
These colleges and universities need to start paying attention to the market place. Companies are looking to cut costs and as we have seen, DEI divisions and employees are the ones getting cut. We have seen many companies lay off DEI grads, with Microsoft being one of the latest. These DEI positions are not any kind of value add other then a waste of employees time while having to listen to these DEI grads drone on about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. I know. During the COVID lockdowns I overheard a mandatory zoom call my wife had to sit in on. It was just a waste of time. Last year, her company quietly fired their DEI grads.
Of course there are now a whole DEI department at colleges and universities that are totally dependent for their jobs. Given enough time, they will be back to being baristas as market demand for DEI dries up.
How marvelous!
Anonymous at 10:45 has it wrong. Remember at the Butler, PA rally where a skilled and educated firefighter was murdered? An emergency room physician was right there to assist him. Uneducated? Get off of your high horse! We are voting for Mr. Trump. My spouse has two college degrees. I am a Tech School grad. Our three children are all professional and are voting for Mr. Trump. The oldest is a defense contractor working to protect jerks like Anonymous @ 10:45. The middle child has a B.S. degree in Nursing. The youngest has his master’s degree in nursing. Uneducated? You had better rethink your sad idea again.
Trump admits he lied about losing in 2020. Turns out his voter fraud claims were just a bunch of BS to get money from MAGA.
And then someone pointed out this.
“Hey Donald Dump, Ashli Babbitt will still be alive if you admitted you lost on Nov 6th, 2020 instead of on Sept 25, 2024.”
https://crooksandliars.com/2024/09/trump-admits-he-lost-2020-election-little
Trump requested military assistance to ensure Jan 6 would not get out of hand, but the military rebuffed him because they were more concerned about “optics.”
https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/transcripts-show-president-trump-s-directives-to-pentagon-leadership-to-keep-january-6-safe-were-deliberately-ignored
Apparently, the military can refused orders from their commander in chief and get away with it . . . at least when the name of the commander is “Trump” – which apparently changes every single rule in society.
Anyways, all this complaining about Jan 6 is a red herring, meant to distract voters from thinking about the fact that a Harris admin will lead to continued destruction of America through open borders, high violent crime, high inflation, communist price controls, destruction of America’s energy sector, and probably nuclear annihilation. Dems are okay with nuclear annihilation if that is the price of keeping Trump from being elected. A truly evil lot.
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
Harris’s latest “interview” was such a disaster, she could not even answer softball questions without resorting to word salad in evading the questions.
Upstate – I didn’t see the interview, but I saw excerpts of a speech, which I quoted and commented on above (at 12:54).
The most secure election in history!
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-american-elections-are-flawed-and-how-fix-them-0
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/e-voting-refuses-to-die-even-though-it-s-neither-secure-nor-secret/
“And then someone pointed out this.”
The pertinent observation is that Ashli Babbitt would be alive today if some despicable, rotten cop hadn’t snuck out of his cowardly hiding place to take a pot shot at her for no rationally definable or defensible reason, assuming that the circumstances would allow him to gratify his psychotic needs by murdering her in cold blood, and enjoy absolute impunity from any just consequences of his horrendous act. To our collective, everlasting shame, that assumption has proved to be correct. FIFY, you puss-oozing rectal inflammation.
She would be alive if the frightened little DEI hire hadn’t plugged a unarmed woman in the neck. End of story.
ATS – where in this is there an actual admission ?
I read it and listened to it and found no such thing.
What he has said is that in 2024 he will get millions more votes.
Why ? So that he can overcome democrat fraud.
There will be Fraud in 2024 – way too much.
But a large number of factors mean that it will be less than half that in 2020.
Laws have been changed, loopholes closed. Not all but many.
Further we now KNOW how the fraud was conducted.
Catching it will be much easier.
While there will be fraud in 2024 – it is NOT likely to be enough to tip the election.
That alone reduces the likelyhood of fraud.
If Anonymous couldn’t post lies about what it claims Trump said and did (when not lying in defense of the Bidens and Harris), Anonymous wouldn’t be able to post links to websites ran by neo-communists and neo-Nazis whose specialities are being his fellow crooks and liars.
Dear Mr. Turley, Margot is right on the money. Why do we call these terrible ideologies other than what they actually are? The reason is, we too, who are crusading against socialism, and communism have been caught up in “political correctness”, not wanting to offend anyone. It is past time to call out the Universities who have professors on their staff participating in the attack on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Pack them up and send them all to Cuba, North Korea or Viet Nam. I hope they will enjoy the tiny apartment they will be forced to live in and share with 25 other people. Let’s call their bluff!!
What Happens if We Hold College and Nobody Comes?
Just ask Trump supporters, the least educated Americans. They partied in high school, didn’t do their homework, graduated with C and D averages, arrived into adulthood with no skills, and now whine and complain that their screwdriver turning job pays them sh!t wages, and blame Mexicans and China for taking their jobs. That’s what happens.
I am a Trump supporter, and so is my husband. I have a Master’s in Chemistry and a JD and also have both a law license and patent license. I practiced Intellectual Property Law. My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and was a researcher at GE Research & Development and helped start to spin off companies. We are retired.
We aren’t stupid.
It is the well-educated who know and appreciate the danger of manipulative propaganda.
Is that you, Tom? If this person really was educated, then they would see Trump for what he is and has always been–an actor, playing the role of a self-made boy-wonder billionaire real estate developer who has cheated and lied his way through life–someone who started an insurrection when he lost a free and fair election, someone who doesn’t understand the basics of how American government works–but, most of all, someone who lives for himself–the attention, adulation and power of the US Presidency. This person took bankruptcy 6 times, including for casinos that failed due to his lack of business skill, and who just can’t stop lying. How about: “Mexico will pay to build the wall”? This is a person who promises to use the power of the government to go after his enemies. He has been convicted of 34 felonies and has civil judgments against him for sexual assault and falsifying business records. WHY would you vote for someone like this, especially considering the Project 2025 agenda that he tries to deny, but which has a foreword written by Vance and chapters written by over 40 former members of his administration?
If you are retired, then consider what will happen if Trump cheats his way back into office–the 20% tariffs will cost you thousands more every year just to purchase the same things you buy now.
Has it ever occurred to you that Trump supporters favor him because of the results he brought during his 4 years, as compared to the results of the past 4 years? I can understand that his personality is off-putting to many people, but I want the man who can get the job done, and get it done well in terms of results: economically, crime-wise, border-wise, energy-wise, and international-conflict-wise.
Speaking of international conflicts, has it ever occurred to you that some people may be concerned about who is more likely to pull us back from the brink of WWIII and nuclear annihilation? Harris is on record as a pro-war, continue-fighting-the-Russians, cost-and-risk-be-damned candidate. America is over $35T in debt, and she wants to continue spending recklessly on a war that has little to do with vital American interests and is likely to turn into WWIII if we don’t change course. To me that’s disqualifying.
Trump is on record (and has a record) of being a let’s-make-a-deal, avoid-new-wars candidate. Perhaps the prospect of nuclear annihilation is a minor issue in your mind, but it is not irrational for other people who are slightly different than you to be a wee bit concerned about it.
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
It is not as much as voting for Trump but voting for secure borders, voting against forever wars, voting against pornography in elementary schools, voting for women’s rights, and more.
If Trump’s tariffs were so bad, why did Biden keep them and just last week add more?
Upstate – great point about the tariffs!
Project 2025 agenda that he tries to deny, but which has a foreword written by Vance
Where do you get this crap? LMAO
Gigenius
What became of Trump’s tariffs?
Reality is so inconvenient, isn’t it?
Is that you Gigi? Why don’t you try and make your parents more proud of you by taking up a more reputable and better paying trade as a street whore?
“ We aren’t stupid.”
That’s debatable
Here is Lawn Boy again, with his alter ego, pretending he has accomplished a goddam thing in his life.
He’s been a “Reagan conservative”, among other things lately.
With this personality, he pretends that higher education means you have a clue, even while demonstrating clearly that it does not.
That is, if we even believe that he has a degree, which I do not. Else, why would he have been relegated to mowing grass for a living.
Just to demonstrate his utter ignorance AND stupidity, I employ EIGHT “screwdriver turning” technicians, only one of which has a (unrelated) degree. Their pay last year ranged from $98k to $135K.
He wouldn’t know much about the real world, living in his basement and suckling the “gubment” teet.
^^This idiot sees “lawn boy” everywhere. Love it.^^
^^This idiot doesnt know what a “lawn boy” is…Love it.^^
I thought it was Obama’s boyfriend…
Anon just showed his/her bias again. Democrats are the smart educated people and Trump supporters are uneducated and dumb. I have a bachelors, JD, and PhD, published more than 10 academic books, 70 journal articles and 20 book chapters; and I will be voting for Trump.
What are your academic credentials, Anon?
DoubleDutch,
It is a stereotype some people play up, if you did not go to college, you are dumb. I have a good friend and neighbor who did not go to college and he is one of the smartest, down to earth common sense kind of guy I know.
Then I also know of some college grads who could not find their way out of a paper bag. Others have no common sense whatsoever. Some are very good at their professions in which their degrees apply but have no expertise in other fields which is perfectly fine. You are clearly accomplished in your field but you may not be say a diesel mechanic. Does that make you dumb? Of course not.
My sister is well educated. But poorly informed.
I am deliberately publishing this as anonymous – as I expect my pseudonymous posts to be evaluated based on their arguments NOT my credentials.
But you are begging me to demonstrate how stupid you are.
Lets see.
Class rank #7 – highest academic track. 5 yrs of HS math, 5yrs of HS science. College course while in HS.
HS in the top 10% nationwide.
Math tutor tutoring seniors as a sophomore.
National Merit scholar.
County Science fair winner in chemistry/Physics two years in a row.
Science fair paper published by Air Force.
Burrows Scholar in social sciences twice.
Letter in Football and Cross country senior year.
Fall Play.
Art awards.
Perfect score on ASVABS
Perfect scores on logic tests.
Recruited by every single military academy, and just about every engineering school in the country.
SAT’s in the top 0.25 %
National Honor society.
Georgia Tech for two years.
Graduated from Renselear Polytech with a professional degree and a minor in computer and systems engineering.
Published many times. Including in ACM.
Licensed professional for 30+ years.
Top Secret clearance for 2 years.
And that is just some of what I can remember.
When the Obama, Biden, and Harris’s voting block of Anonymous Welfare Queens try to tell you that plumbers and other tradesmen get paid sh!t wages rather than staying at home collecting their entitlements and benefits like they do. Because they apparently didn’t spend high school smoking dope, smoking meth, but graduated from schools in places like Chicago with A and B averages (because the teachers dreaded seeing their faces again the next year).
And then tell you they spend their time off pointing out what Illegal Aliens and the Welfare Queens’ fellow ChiCom commies are doing enormous damage to the country. It’s an outrage that they do that!
If the comments of interim Columbia President Katrina Armstrong apologizing to students who took over and trashed a university building in pro-Palestinian protests doesn’t convince you that “higher education” has lost the bubble, then nothing will. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article. Greg
My wife works at college that is facing steep declines in enrollment. There are a few of other factors in play besides DIE policies. One is the pandemic response is still on going. My wife had an issue with network access and went to IT, the whole department is remote. They allow students to be remote and some classes are still remote. Then there is the massive bureaucracy that would make the government blush. To be fair, much of it is the result of government policy (grant administrators, title 9 administrators, etc.).
Hers is a small school, it is ridiculous that they are trying to be a “research” institution – but they feel the need to play the college ranking game. Parents come into play, kids need to go to a high rank school rather than a school that gives the students the knowledge to get job and be successful. A BA in Women’s Studies from Smith College is better than a Nursing degree from a small nursing school, in most parents minds. 10 years post graduation, who will have a better career?
Don’t even get me started on academic language. When you make up words to sound erudite, you are stupid. Smart people can explain concepts in ordinary language.
Or the time I have spent at Harvard, thankfully I left in 2018.
Higher education is grift.
Can someone please recommend a good university that has a curriculum focusing on neurology? Specifically brain surgery and AI implant chips.
Yes. But pre op protocols involve wiring nipple clamps to a car battery and punching the accelerator. Slight draw back. But we really gotta want it. That’s what I say.
Facebook will not allow me to Post this piece. Guess it must be that good.
“Facebook will not allow me to post this piece…”
Facebook took down a post of a respected conservative bloggeur who lives in my upper Midwest college town. I divorced Facebook.
I would agree that the ideological bent at many college campuses is a driver for this – including the wholesale attacks on Greek life by administrations because of their “non-inclusive” practices (and, yes, I concede some real hazing goes on with some of these houses and they have brought some of this attention on themselves; however, it’s overwhelmingly the “white” fraternities and sororities that are the targets). The consideration of whether you’re going to get “bang for the buck” for the cost of education – either parents who have saved for their children’s college, or potential student loan debtors – is in part guided by the campus/university experience. If your kid is likely going to be vilified for their race/gender and/or political views, you’re not likely to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for tuition and housing so they can be abused on a regular basis and have a miserable experience.
Add to that the specialization required for many professional fields (especially STEM), and you have many colleges and universities abandoning (or significantly paring down) humanities requirements for degrees such that History Departments and others are suffering. The concept of the “university experience” and producing “well-rounded” graduates is dying, and the campus environment wrought by these “activists” is accelerating the demise.
Not enough racism, xenophobia and sheer nonsense in your colleagues’ lectures and it’s passing you off, Turls?
passing him off???
Is that English?
Slow down on that cooking sherry in the morning, Lawn Boy. It’ll be the death of you.
You can’t figure out what he was saying? If he used the right word, he has a chance of getting booted off. Darren can be quite picky.
Spell check on my phone, heckling cletus. Sorry I’ve offended your delicate sensibilties.
LAwn boy, ever playing the victim. He’s moved on from “stalker” to “heckler”.
He sees no irony in his daily heckling of “Turls”.
He just stands there, naked, and acts like he has clothes on.
Both descriptions fit you, Cletus.
Poor little victim, who heckles and stalks Turls daily, also has zero self awareness. Just stands there naked.
He also suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder. Should we pity him, or continue to give him what he wants?
I know we shouldn’t feed the addiction, but it’s so much fun!
Bwahahahahahahahaha
It seems pretty clear who is histrionic on this blog. Staff will be around shortly with your thorazine.
Well that just passes me off!
LMAO
But it’s all so confusing…
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Cultural Marxism Is the Main Source of Modern Confusion—and It’s Spreading
“While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers’ movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media.”
https://fee.org/articles/cultural-marxism-is-the-main-source-of-modern-confusion-and-its-spreading/
Thanks for link; I just opened it and perused. So far, my favorite paragraph:
“… The epitome of this movement is political correctness, -the war against having one’s own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate is impoverished, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes behind closed doors.”
” political correctness, -the war against having one’s own opinion.” Love it.
Very well said. In the Marxist Joyland, there are only opinions approved by the Proletariat, and opinions that will incarcerate you. No third choice.
In academia and journalism and everywhere else, conservatives promote freedom and diversity of ideas, while liberals promote censorship and ideological conformity … leading to the corruption and death of their industry. The Left creates nothing, it only destroys.
Being against math and statistics as “white privilege”? That’s like rejecting existence. IOW, psychotic.
Hmm, well now I never was fond of math and statistics. I spose that means I’m either not White, or White but not privileged. Or perhaps it means I’m Black and not privileged, or is that Black privileged. Gosh, it’s so confusing.
oldmanfromkansas,
“ In academia and journalism and everywhere else, conservatives promote freedom and diversity of ideas,…”
Really? Are you sure? Freedom? As in freedom of LGBTQ members to marry who they want? To make medical choices according to their needs? Express their ideas in academia, schools, books, read stories to kids while in drag? Those kinds of freedoms?
Last time I checked conservatives were working hard to make most of those illegal or ban them because they are not conforming to their valules.
Everyone tries to promote their own idea of the best legal framework in society. That’s part of living in a participatory democracy. Conservatives never cancel people’s ability to speak to advocate for what they believe should be done. They don’t censor. Conservatives believe in a free and robust marketplace of ideas where ideas and policies rise to the top through merit. The Left censors and enforces ideological conformity and cancel conservative speakers with alarming frequency.
As for freedom to “marry who them want,” that’s a dishonest way of phrasing it. Do LGBTQ advocates think people should be able to marry three-year-olds? Marry their cat or dog? Marry their sibling? No. The issue has always been about the very definition of marriage. Conservatives favored keeping the definition that has existed for thousands of years in all cultures and nations throughout the world. Those who favored a radical change of definition won through judicial fiat. Conservatives were not opposed to civil benefits for same-sex couples, but simply didn’t want to pretend marriage had a definition that it has never had.
“ Conservatives never cancel people’s ability to speak to advocate for what they believe should be done. They don’t censor.”
I’m afraid I have to disagree. I’ll use your example of defining marriage. Conservatives didn’t want gay people to be able to determine their commitment to each other as a marriage. Conservatives declared themselves to be the authority on how marriage is defined, and nobody else had the authority to define it as anything different. That idea was effectively challenged both legally and traditionally.
Conservatives did not like the idea that a homosexual couple’s marriage could have the same validity as what they consider a traditional marriage. They did not want them to have parity or the same legal benefits as a conventional marriage. They fought hard against it, and they certainly created false narratives to prevent gay marriage from gaining parity with traditional marriage. They wanted the same right to marry, including all its legal benefits.
Definitions change over time. Traditions change over time, and Conservatives appointed themselves as the only authority on what constitutes marriage, primarily because of religious belief. Legalizing same-sex marriage threatened that authority command of traditional values that they enjoyed imposing on others. Times change, and as is always the case, conservatives ultimately acknowledge the change over time.
Just because a definition has existed for thousands of years does not mean it cannot change or be challenged to accommodate evolving cultural norms.
wrong. wrong. and wrong again. Conservatives busted their butts to clarify that they were not opposing parity, legality, or equality.
The focus was semantically-centered on the use of the word “marriage.”
Conservatives consistently agreed to terms like “spouse,” “partner,” and even agreed that hospitals could include designated “significant others” as those who should be called in an emergency and (importantly) grant a say in the option of life-saving measures.
But that wasn’t enough for the button-pushers and the in-your-face others. Now, when my kid wants to learn about the world on Scripps News, he has to listen to host Chance Seales talk about “his husband.” Forcing me into conversations I was hoping I didn’t need to engage in until he reached puberty.
It’s like the return to Big Afro hair and Pride Parades during our holidays (good thing the little kids in strollers along the parade route don’t have any idea of what is being presented to them). Just keep on pushin’ those buttons.
yup. totally equal “civil unions” were wholly rejected by homosexuals, who wanted to be free to use terms like “marriage,” “my husband,” “my wife,” etc. Another example, Ellen Degeneres.
“ Conservatives busted their butts to clarify that they were not opposing parity, legality, or equality.
The focus was semantically-centered on the use of the word “marriage.”
Conservatives consistently agreed to terms like “spouse,” “partner,” and even agreed that hospitals could include designated “significant others” as those who should be called in an emergency and (importantly) grant a say in the option of life-saving measures.”
But that’s the problem. Here, you’re showing exactly what I was saying. Conservatives were dictating to them what terms they were ‘allowed’ to use to preserve the term “marriage” as they wanted it to mean for everyone else.
They declared themselves the arbiters of how same-sex couples could define their relationships. They didn’t want same-sex couples to represent their commitment as a marriage. Conservatives did not like the idea that others could define their commitment as a marriage like everyone else because they were of the same sex. All kinds of fear-mongering claims were made to argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Nobody was forcing churches and conservatives to preside or participate in a same-sex wedding. Many claimed they were going to be forced to officiate them.
george, look in the mirror at your face and listen to your own words. When you argue that “Conservatives were dictating to them what terms they were ‘allowed’ to use” and that “They declared themselves the arbiters of how same-sex couples could define their relationships,” —what you are essentially saying is that “non-Conservatives/liberals [can dictate] what terms they were ‘allowed’ to use” and that “They (non-conservatives/liberals) are free to declare themselves the arbiters of how same-sex couples could define their relationships.”
I would suggest that there are reasonable arguments on both sides. But it is you who is trying to polarize this issue, in particular, politically. Only your argument doesn’t fly.
Conservatism means think twice before upsetting laws of nature, tradition, logic, reason by normalizing a small minority of outliers..
“ what you are essentially saying is that “non-Conservatives/liberals [can dictate] what terms they were ‘allowed’ to use” and that “They (non-conservatives/liberals) are free to declare themselves the arbiters of how same-sex couples could define their relationships.”
That’s not what I’m saying. Conservatives did not like the idea that same-sex couples could have the liberty to claim that their commitment was a marriage. That they had no right to call it that. But they were ‘allowed’ to use other terms THEY were ok with.
Conservatives were the ones who wanted to control the definition of “marriage.” They went as far as enshrining it in state constitutions. They didn’t want to allow same-sex couples the liberty of defining their commitments as a “marriage.”
All they wanted was the benefits of marriage to be equal to those of the rest of the population and to be called marriage.
George – your engaged in abysmally bad word games and mangled logic.
As I noted before – The burden of proving the necescity for change – especially change that requires the use of FORCE aka govenrment – false on those demanding the change.
And that burden is HIGH – sustained super-majority support FIRST
It MUST be that way.
If it is not we degenerate rapidly to chaos as competing factions seek to impose their whims on us all.
You keep engaging in bad mind reading of conservatives – you are both mostly wrong and irrelevant.
The Burden of proof for Change involving Govenrment is ALWAYS on the party demanding the change.
I support gay rights – but still require that same high burden reach that – because change that is easily accomplished is easily taken away.
Also because like it or not – MM and FF relationships are NOT in many ways the same.
“Conservatives were dictating to them what terms they were ‘allowed’”
No conservatives were saying – words have meaning and you do not get to change the meaning of marraige without supermajority support.
You are always free to create new words that mean whatever you want.
You can not willy nilly change what already exists.
Nor would you want that.
Today homosexuals have equal rights. That was a difficult fight.
That is how it should be.
Easy come – easy go. Do you want some rapid change in societal norms to result in the obliteration of gay rights ?
That is not an unreasonable concern – we have seen in a relatively short period of time the rapid oblitaration of free speech rights accross the west. But for the Supreme court we would have lost them entirely.
And event with the Supreme court holding its ground on 2 centuries of progress on free speech we are still seeing lower courts get it wrong constantly. As well as democrats and academics completely ignore the law and constitution.
Free political speech – which has not been under threat since McCarthy now only exists in some places if you are willing to go to court over and over and over again./
“to use to preserve the term “marriage” as they wanted it to mean for everyone else.”
To preserve the term marraige as it has meant for millenia.
You have openly admitted that this was CHANGE.
You seem to think that all you have to do is say – “I want change” and you can have whatever you want – regardless of who are how large the opposition is.
That is not how it works.
Change is NOT a right – especially change that requires the use of govenrment FORCE.
Such change requires persuading a supermajority and sustaining that support longer than the passions of a moment.
And you would not want it otherwise.
Easy come, easy go.
Do you want gay rights – or any other rights to be swept away in the blink of an eye ?
The same “conservatism” that made those rights hard to secure, is what makes them hard to eliminate.
That is PRECISELY what conservatism means.
It has nothing to do with ideology, or policies, or gay rights.
It is about requiring those who demand change to prove to a supermajority of people that the change they demand is both good and necescary. That must take more than the blink of an eye.
“They declared themselves the arbiters of how same-sex couples could define their relationships.”
Conservatives are NOT the arbiters. The meaning of the words over the past milienia ARE.
You have everything upside down and topsy turvy.
Those who seek change are the ones required to prove to a very high burden the necesicty of that change.
The default is always that things stay as they are.
“They didn’t want same-sex couples to represent their commitment as a marriage.”
Off on another tangent.
First – those of you on the left have spent the past century destroying the meaning of commitment in marriage.
But that is not surprising – as the left does not give a schiff about meaning.
While it is true that change was needed – marraige was a straight jacket that people who really needed out could not escape.
Today we are at the opposite extreme – and that is YOUR fault.
You have destroyed values – like commitment in marraige, and the result is far more marraiges that disolve than is necescary or wise. Most divorced women end up in poverty – men do not. There are all kinds of bad consequences of divorce – not for all but for most people. There is also a destruction of the very meaning of commitment – not just in marraige but in everything else.
Kamala Harris tells us her values have never changed – but all her positions – that most people would call values change all over the place. Purportedly she still “fights for the middle class” – yet what that means today is radically different from what it meant 4 years ago or 4 years before that.
Sounds more like her constant values are really just constant feelings. That so long as she can rationalize to herself that whatever she wishs to do is for the good of the middle class – that is good enough, even if it is the exact opposite of what she wanted 4 years ago. We can accept people changing positions – when they can provide a good argument as to WHY their position changed.
Otherwise – the word “values” has no meaning – just like you have destroyed the meaning of the word commitment.
Again I do not really care if gay peoplke whis to “marry” – and there are bad marraiges – regardless, But the data unsurprisingly shows that with rare exceptions gay relationships are NOT the same as straight ones – which should not be surprising.
The dynamics of a relationship between a man and a women are different than between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. I have seen long term committed gay relationships. But they are the exception not the norm- even more so than hetorsexual relationships – which you – the left has undermined at great cost to society – and to the people in it.
This is precisely why we are required to move slowly and with supermajority support before making large societal changes.
You can not just say “its just words and definitions” – because it is not.
Words are the means by which we exchange ideas, they are the means by which most of us think.
Messing with the definition of words can have dramatic impact on society.
It can have positive impact, and it can more often have negative impacts.
“Conservatives did not like the idea that others could define their commitment as a marriage like everyone else because they were of the same sex.”
Not only are gay relationships not the same as straight ones, but male-male relationships are not the same as female-female ones.
Why would you presume otherwise ?
Even accepting that the love is the same – which is probably not proveable, that does not alter the fact that MF, MM, FF are just not going to be the same.
I would further note it is more than about “defining” commitment. It is about ACTUAL commitment.
You are constantly engaging in word play and mid reading as a substitute for reason, logic, and critical thinking.
You are simultaneously making the topic critical and trivial.
On the one hand – it is just words and we can change those as we please.
While at the same time you make it clear that the relationship of two gay people MUST be accepted as identical to that of two straight people – when there is no logical foundation to presume that is true.
In theory gay relationships could be superior to straight ones – in practice that is not the case.
But what is more important is they are not the same – at best they are similar.
YOU are sitting her arguing that Gay people want the same thing – but they can not have the same thing and also be gay.
Gay and straight are not the same thing. lesbian and male gay are not the same thing.
You ask for equal rights – fine – you were offered that.
But the concept of marraige predates govenrment – predates any understanding of rights.
” All kinds of fear-mongering claims were made to argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage.”
False, but so what. YOU seek change – the burden of proving to others that their fears are unfounded falls on YOU.
“Nobody was forcing churches and conservatives to preside or participate in a same-sex wedding.”
And yet you have been. The left has lost supreme court cases on specifically this issue.
Nor is it limited to presiding – you seek to force people to not just accept but to endorse, to proseletise, to support your views.
See the Master Cake case or 123Creative, or in the adjacent issue of abortion the Little sisters of the poor case.
The left has spent decades trying to drive religion out of existance. Pre PPACA 1/3 of US hospitals were catholic. Today there are almost none left. A significant portion of senior care fascilities were religious – increasingly they are being driven out.
You do not understand how the first amendment works. If the law and desired powers of govenrment constrain religious practice – it is ALWAYS govenrment that must yeild. It does not matter whether the issue is charity or healthcare or gay marraige.
You can not FORCE your views on others. you can not FORCE others to abandon that religious practice – such as charity, to accommodate YOUR values FORCED through government.
“Many claimed they were going to be forced to officiate them.”
And some tried to force exactly that. So far that has been thwarted by the courts.
Do you really believe that anyone should trust the people who say that hate speech is not protected – and then define hate speech as anything they do not like ?
You do not seem to understand – for good reason – you are not trusted.
we were also told that more rights for homosexuals would not mean prosethelitzing to out children, and yet here we are fighting over gay pornography in schools, and sexualizing primary school kids.
“As I noted before,….”
No John, as someone else noted before, then you just repeated it.
“Conservatives didn’t want gay people to be able to determine their commitment to each other as a marriage.”
That has been the norm throughout the world for the entirety of human history.
Even Democrats such as Obama opposed gay marraige – until they did not.
The core to conservatism is the almost always CORRECT assumption that the way things are is better than some randomly chosen alternative and that we should change the status quo only with super majority support and great forethought.
That is NOT BTW an ideology, it is a rational principle based on history, human behavior and reality.
“Conservatives declared themselves to be the authority on how marriage is defined”
No they declare PROPERLY that definitions should not be changed willy nilly.
Conservatives did NOT define marraige – that was done thousands of years ago.
All they have done is said that the definition of marraige – and many many other things should not be causually changed on a whim that is not even the whim of a majority much less a super majority.
“nobody else had the authority to define it as anything different.”
Again FALSE – the core of conservatism is that changes MUST occur with supermajority support and not in a heat of passion.
“That idea was effectively challenged both legally and traditionally.”
False. For all of human history marraige has been between a man and a woman.
In most of the world it still is.
“Conservatives did not like the idea that a homosexual couple’s marriage could have the same validity as what they consider a traditional marriage.”
Not relevant. The fact is that a homosexual couples marraige is NOT as valid as a heterosexuals. oOne of the purposes of marriage is procreating and providing a secure environment to raise a family. Homosexuals can not procreate with each other.
Most of us are familiar with the data that single parent families result in more children who do more poorly – more crime, more poverty, …
But the same is true of lesbian couples.
The best success at Raising a family requires role models – men and women.
I did not make things that way.
You are free to do differently – and frequently people starting with a disadvantage succeed, and those with an advantage fail.
But the data is the data, the odds are the odds.
We do not always get perfect choices – couples should not stay in bad relationships, because single parent families do worse.
But we should be careful about deliberately choosing patterns that have a higher probability of failure.
And That is the essence of conservatism.
“They did not want them to have parity or the same legal benefits as a conventional marriage. They fought hard against it, and they certainly created false narratives to prevent gay marriage from gaining parity with traditional marriage. They wanted the same right to marry, including all its legal benefits.”
You live in alternate reality.
Both parties fought gay marraige for a long time. Democrats changed their minds only SLIGHTLY before republicans.
Alabama – one of the more conservative states in the country specifically sought to create civil union laws – guaranteeing homosexuals the same legal rights as traditional marraige. This conflict was not about legal rights. Nor was it a republican democrat issue until the last minute. The democratic party did not support gay marraige until after it was already law.
“Definitions change over time. Traditions change over time”
They do. The core to conservatism is that those things MUST happen slowly and carefully.
The modern left is fixated on change. Most change is BAD – that is a FACT. Most change FAILS.
That is not to discount the importance of change – our lives do not improve without change.
But those of you and the left are NOT entitled to the presumption that whatever changes you seek are automatically good.
“Conservatives appointed themselves as the only authority on what constitutes marriage”
No, marriage as well as everything else is whatever it always has been – there is no need for an appointed authority, until those who seek change successfully persuade a supermajority of people that change is good and will not fail.
It does not matter WHAT the issue is – marraige or anything else.
What is, is. it is presumed to be correct, while it is not presumed to be perfect, it is presumed to be superior to alternatives – until supre majorities are persuaded otherwise.
“primarily because of religious belief.”
False and irrelevant.
“Legalizing same-sex marriage threatened that authority command of traditional values that they enjoyed imposing on others.”
What in god’s name does this even mean ?
Of course change threatens the status quo. As noted above – because the status quo – however imperfect has withstood the test of time, it is ENTITLED to the presumption of legitimacy, and any challenge to it must prove it is superior.
Authority, legitimacy ALWAYS rests with what is, over what is not. 90% of the time that proves correct – but not always.
“Times change”
For good and for bad.
You ignore that, and you ignore that times do not change by magic.
“as is always the case, conservatives ultimately acknowledge the change over time.”
Only those that are successful. The entirety of conservatism is to resist change to FORCE that change to prove that it is an improvement – most change is NOT an improvement. When any changes proves it is an improvement and gains supremajority acceptance it becomes the new status quo – that conservatism will then defend.
I would note that marraige is NOT yet a settled issue. While I am personally OK with gay marraige – most of the world is not.
Further we are in a period of globally dropping birth rates in most of the world. This is a massive and growing threat. It makes the lefts ranting about climate change look inconsequential. China has provent that policies to limit polulation growth were huge and disasterous mistake. We are already seeing policies strongly encouraging childbirth in many parts of the world.
As the problems of collapsing demographics increase there is a strong possibility that we will see government encoragement slowly transform to FORCE.
As you say “times change” – it is entirely possible that my childrens generation – in atleast parts of the world will see abortion as a heinous crime, and same sex marraige barred.
It is highly unwise to make change without compelling reason the basis of your argument – because as YOU say – “times change”.
“Just because a definition has existed for thousands of years does not mean it cannot change or be challenged to accommodate evolving cultural norms”
Correct, but it absolutely does demand that process is done with great care and slowly.
The left has on occasion pointed out that trans sexuality, and homesexulatity have existed forever, and have on rare occasions been encouraged. But the FACT is that over the course of milenia, the NORM has been heterosexuality with homosexuality discouraged.
That alone should REQUIRE you to think before blasting thoughtlessly ahead.
It should require you to contemplate, that if homosexuality has on rare occasions in the past gone public and then again faded into the shadows – maybe there are reasons for that ?
I am not trying to argue the issue of homosexuality – I really do not care all that much. Nor do I care about gay marraige.
What I am trying to poit out to you is that conservatism is NOT an ideology. It is a very important societal defense mechanism.
I would further note that it is almost always RIGHT.
You miss that because you see the history of successful changes that conservatism resisted.
You ignore all of those that conservatism has thus far successfully resisted.
Conservatism is NOT always right – conservatives are ALWAYS the impediment to change – successful change as well as unsuccessful change. It is just right 90% of the time, and that often saves us from disasterously stupid mistakes.
You rant “times change” as if that alone is justification for anything.
All change is REQUIRED to prove itself better than what it replaces.
Everything you claim about Conservatives – while USUALLY true of conservatives TODAY – is not universally true of conservatives through history.
The only political or ideological group that has CONSISTENTLY held the views you attribute to conservatives are libertarians
In the past we have seen liberals censor and liberals fight censorship. We have seen progressives censor, we have seen democrats censor, republicans censor. ….
-OMFK
“Last time I checked conservatives were working hard to make most of those illegal or ban them because they are not conforming to their valules.”
“I was against gay marriage until I was for it”—Barak Obama
“I was against gay marriage until I was for it”—Bill Clinton
“I was against gay marriage until I was for it”—Hillary Clinton
“I was against gay marriage until I was for it”—Joe Biden
“I was against gay marriage until I was for it”—James Carville
Funny, I don’t see any conservatives on that list. Maybe you should “check again”.
Conservatives led the agenda against gay marriage. That some democrats were undecided on the issue doesn’t change the basic fact conservatives were strongly against it. Democrats were more supportive of the idea.
Conservatives were against calling it “marriage.” Several states had already passes legislation for “civil unions,” but that wasn’t enough for the homosexuals. Of course, Democrats will agree to anything that brings more periphery into the fold.
“ Conservatives were against calling it “marriage.”
Well Duh. They wanted to dictate to same-sex couples how they could define their relationship. They didn’t want them to have the right to call their commitment a “marriage.” They declared themselves the sole arbiters who define marriage. They believe they have some higher moral authority that gives them the power to dictate to others how they can describe their relationship. They couldn’t understand that they were not the sole authority on what defines a marriage.
LMAO where did the term marriage originate, dumbass?
Its a RELIGIOUS rite. Can anyone be this ignorant on accident?
And there you go, speaking for others again. Why do you feel the need to do that?
Whatever marraige is – it predates law and govenrment, and with extremely rare if any exceptions it has been between a man and a woman – and BTW it still is.
The vast majority of the world still does not accept homosexuality, much less gay marraige, the rare societies in the past were homosexuality was not punished did not have gay marraige.
Regardless, Goerge is engaging in multiple fallicies, logic errors, and reversing the burden of proof.
The burden of proof for societal change is on those seeking the change.
It should not be necescary to explain why.
No they sought to preserve the status quo. And they correctly recognized that A is A and ~A is not A.
I would separately note – that your argument is garbage.
Relationships are defined by REALITY – not people. Defining words to accurately reflect reality is GOOD.
Defining them to misrepresent reality is BAD.
It is not Dictating to say you can not call a cow a horse.
Again no Conservatives are NOT the arbiters – millenia or tradition, millenia of law, and Reality are the arbiters
And the burden of proving the need for change is on those demanding change – NOT everyone else.
“That some democrats were undecided on the issue”
Read the quotes again, ya spastic idiot. They weren’t undecided. It just wasn’t politically expedient to maintain their stance.
You embarrass yourself every time you open your mouth.
Reality is not your forte.
NO Conservatives did not “lead” anything. There was not an Agenda against gay marriage – there was millennia of tradition and law against gay marriage.
The only agenda was that of gays. Which is fine.
Defending the status quo is NOT leading an attack.
The bruden of proof of persuasion is on those who seek change ALWAYS.
No Democrats were not undecided. They were against gay marraige until they were for it.
Just like conservatives.
The only difference being it took longer to persuade conservatives – and some still have not been persauded.
What you fail to grasp is that is how it SHOULD be.
Meaningful change is hard. It is not supposed to be easy.
Regardless the fundimental difference between conservatives and democrats is that democrats changed their minds faster.
That is not surprising, and it is why democrats should not have power – because they move too fast and without forethought.
They do so when they are right, and they do so when they are wrong.
And that is why conservative – which is NOT an ideology is supposed to be the default.
It si why govenrment is supposed to be conservative. it is why the courts especially are supposed to be conservative.
No one is stopping you from marrying whoever you want.
Buck V Bell is still unfortunately good law – you do NOT have the right to make medical choices as you wish – otherwise you could have refused vacination and remained in the military. Abortion is not a medical choice -though I absolutely support your right to remove a fetus from your body but that has no bearing on whether the State can require that you do so in a fashion that results in the survival of the fetus if possible.
You are free to Express your ideas. You are NOT free to make them required reading anywhere.
In what world do you believe you have the freedom to do ANYTHING with other peoples children ? That is absolutely absurd.
You are NOT entitled to be around ANYONE’s children without their parents permission.
The only children’s lives you have the RIGHT to influence are your own.
Yes, there are laws against pedophilia – are you actually trying to argue those are wrong ?
Are you actually arguing that you should be free to force college students, HS students or elementary students to read your writing ?
If we are going to force students to read anything – that should be Milton, or JS Mill, or Aristotle, or Dante, or Cervantes, or Plato, or Gibran, certainly not YOU.
Are you actually arguing that you have ANY rights with regard to children that are not your own ?
* It’s like bad parenting seen in Willy Wonka — oh sweetheart, I’m sorry you’ve spilled your milk. I put it too close to your hand.
Start listening for the apologies of conservatives. Yes, too many car wrecks but I’m not blaming anyone.
Adieu
As we’ve discussed in the past, Turley…, the reason there are fewer open R’s in academia is more due to the quality of their bias and rhetoric. In short, their message sucks and there’s not much of a market for it at the college level….
I mean, if you weren’t so close to tenured retirement, I’d tend to think your future teaching would have to be at an evangelical university, Turls.
Either way, unlike the guy you shill for politically who wants to eliminate the dept. Of Education, the actual market is shaping higher education rather than the efforts of censors, book banners, and anti intellectuals populating the side that wants to control the market as you advocate for in this op ed.
I completely agree with the point you made. It’s important to recognize that market forces significantly influence the dynamics of higher education. Professor Turley overlooks the fact that universities and colleges are shaped by the preferences of students and the demands of the market. It’s evident that conservative or libertarian ideas may not be as appealing to the majority of students. These viewpoints are often perceived as outdated or unappealing, especially when contrasted with the innovative and progressive perspectives that students are eager to explore.
In today’s world, students have the opportunity to witness how conservative ideologies are put into practice outside of academia. This firsthand experience often leads them to prioritize fresh and forward-thinking concepts over traditional conservative viewpoints. Students are drawn to courses that offer new ideas and diverse perspectives, including unconventional theories like CRT and gender studies. The demand for such courses reflects the evolving interests of students, and colleges and universities naturally respond to these market forces by providing the programs that are in demand.
Ultimately, higher education institutions are driven by the needs and preferences of students. By catering to the evolving demands of the market, colleges and universities can ensure that they remain relevant and responsive to the interests of the student body.
“are shaped by the preferences of students and the demands of the market.”
You’ve had this stupidity shoved up your ass a dozen times, yet you keep repeating it.
Histrionic Personality Disorder
It is characterized by a need for attention, even if its negative.
It indicates underlying emotional needs, like a desire for validation or recognition that isn’t being met in positive ways.
Most often it occurs in children, but it can extend into adulthood.
There is NO OTHER explanation for why someone would disrobe in public daily, the way Svelaz does.
^^^ I’m thinking our friend heckling Cletus has just taken a recent bust for public nudity and feels the need for some diesel powered projection.
He’s an idiot.
“ Histrionic Personality Disorder
It is characterized by a need for attention, even if its negative.
It indicates underlying emotional needs, like a desire for validation or recognition that isn’t being met in positive ways.”
Strangely, you display that behavior every time you respond to my posts. You tend to project your insecurities onto others when you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. Your childish insults show why they are a more accurate reflection of you.
+100
This was no childish insult, Svelaz. It was a diagnosis, and friendly advice to seek help.
Calling your own “contributions” constructive does not make them so. Aside from just purely dumb statements, you’ve been exposed hacking opinions from Teen Vogue, Google AI, various web pages, and JIMMY FALLON.
Every day, you demonstrate ignorance and many folks smarter than you, not just myself, point your shortcomings out to you. If you are insulted by that, do better. Don’t blame me.
There you go again. Showing the same behavior and childish insults.
George – I respond to your posts – because you can be counted on to say incredibly stupid things that provide oportunities for me to reply with arguments I want to make.
I wish you were significantly more intelligent – I would welcome a debate with someone on the left who was an actual challenge.
Your not.
From Dr. Science and the New Math
George ≠ Professor Turley.
George is < Professor Turley in education.
George is < Professor Turley in achievement.
George is < Professor Turley in accomplishment.
George is < Professor Turley in intelligence.
George is < Professor Turley in reknown.
George is < Professor Turley in popularity.
George is < Professor Turley in respect.
George is < Professor Turley in reputation.
George is < Professor Turley in debate.
George is < Professor Turley in reading comprehension skills.
George is < Professor Turley in legal knowledge.
George is < Professor Turley in mental acuity.
In other words, George is limit inferior (infimum) to the above set/sequence.
George is > Professor Turley in stupidity, and that negates all of the above.
it doesn’t negate them. It simply represents the sum total.
(Besides, one can be “stupid” but still be popular, or receive an education, or accomplish some things).
+100
Pretty much every faculty meeting everywhere has to address this topic. It’s a necessity in a market driven economy.
George – we absolutely agree – higher education should be left to market forces.
No subsidies, not govenrment loans, no loan forgiveness, no govenrment grants.
Let colleges and universities succeed or fail in truly free markets.
And Where can I bet heavily that either academia changes REALLY QUICK when subject to the discipline of free markets or it fails ?
To be clear George – students are buying an education – unfortunately far to few understand they are investing in their future – and that if they invest badly, they damage their future.
I would note that Students are a small part of the actual market for colleges.
At the top of the ladder are those who contribute to colleges. Alumni and others. That is where college endowments come from and for most institutions those dwarf everything else.
The next major market is prospective employers. Any college that leaves its students unable to get good jobs – has failed. The more expensive the institution the better the jobs must be.
The next major market is parents – because in most instances – you do not get to college without money from your parents and their agreement to guarantee your loans.
Students are among the least important markets for colleges.
But I agree with you – I am perfectly happy to allow real free markets (or even mostly free markets) to sort this out.
In a different but closely related market – Turley noted that those who own and manage WaPo (as well as other flagships of the left media) have told their employees the free ride is ending, they MUST compete in the free market – they MUST deliver value that people will buy and that constantly losing market share shilling left wing garbage is just not going to cut it.
How long is it that you think Bezos will keep funding WaPo ?
How long do you think shareholders will keep taking losses on CNN and the rest of the woke media ?
Yes, I am perfectly happy to trust the repair or destruction of academia to the discipline free markets.
I find it interesting that those of you on the left – SOMETIMES talk about markets and market preferences – but you only do so shallowly.
It is OK for students to make demands of universities – but it is not OK to require them to PAY for those demands.
That is not a free market, that has an actual name in economics – it is called a massive moral hazard.
That is what happens when those demanding and receiving a service are not the ones paying for it.
It always goes badly.
Fortunately, Dunning and Kruger are relatively recent and explain much of academia and its “market.”
In a publish or perish environment where the funding is coming from obama the mulatto marxist’s minions publishing nonsense is highly profitable. Publishing things like follow the scientific method or get off yo ass or not everything can be anything isn’t what sells to the people with the padded pockets.
As far as educating people, Education as an institution lost that as a primary focus in the late-pre DoE days when Education as a public works project became de rigueur.
And again, no one is censoring higher education from the right, just ask your thought leader shellyanene (w/e) rodriguez and her ilk.
I agree that Turly;s fears are overblown – because I have no problems with seeing academia crumble under the weight of its own failures.
Free markets work. Academia is not delivering value for value – even the left fully understands that – seeking to wipe out student debt is an open admission that students are paying more for education than it is worth. The left also rants about free college – again the value of anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree on. If we must drive the cost of education to zero – that is because its value has gone to zero.
You beleive differently – that is fine. Let education stand on its own.
If modern academia has real value – lets see if people pay for it – without subsidies, without loan forgiveness, without loan guarantees.
What you are not entitled to is to slop at the public trough for something that benefits only you – if that.
Regardless, Unlike Turley I expect academia to fix itself – on its own, in response to the recognition that it is of dwindling value and that fewer and fewer will pay for it. And if I am wrong and academia does not repair itself – then it will destroy itself.
The engine of the free market is creative destruction – malinvestment FAILS and the money goes elsewhere.
Professor Turley’s argument about why colleges and Universities are seeing lower enrollment numbers is completely off the mark. Numerous factors are contributing to the decline in enrollments. The cost of higher education is skyrocketing, and the job market is shifting away from a strong emphasis on college degrees. Trades and online entrepreneurship are becoming more attractive options for many. Additionally, the looming impact of AI on job markets, particularly in white-collar professions, is a significant concern.
Furthermore, Turley’s assertion about “purging conservatives” in higher education is simply absurd. He is calling for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education under the guise of conservative viewpoints. Advocating for more conservative representation in academia is essentially an attempt to promote viewpoint diversity and tolerance, which are the fundamental principles of DEI. How ironic. However, Turley’s habit of presenting his views in a misleading manner and using mischaracterizations undermines the credibility of his arguments.
“Advocating for more conservative representation in academia is essentially an attempt to promote viewpoint diversity and tolerance, which are the fundamental principles of DEI.”
Repeated this stupidity after being shown 18 ways he was wrong about it, just 2 days ago.
“However, Turley’s habit of presenting his views in a misleading manner and using mischaracterizations undermines the credibility of his arguments.”
“How ironic.”
LMAO
DEI – Discrimination Exclusion Inequity. DEI – Didn’t Earn It. Just another name for Affirmative Action that is totally insulting. Soft bigotry of low expectations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting viewpoints of diversity or tolerance. It is all about promoting melanin versus merit.
You didn’t show anything.
Showing his stupidity ^^^
“However,
Turley’sSvelaz habit of presentinghisJimmy Fallon’s views in a misleading manner and using mischaracterizations undermines the credibility of hisargumentslunatic ravings.“Numerous factors are contributing to the decline in enrollments. The cost of higher education is skyrocketing, and the job market is shifting away from a strong emphasis on college degrees. Trades and online entrepreneurship are becoming more attractive options for many. Additionally, the looming impact of AI on job markets, particularly in white-collar professions, is a significant concern.”
I’m sure you are prepared to quantify the impact of each of these, to prove your point. Or is talking out of your ass just a way of life for you?
It’s amusing that you can’t refute the point. That’s why you resort to insult and denigration. It’s an opinion. You can infer whatever you want from it. But I’m sure your urge to insult and mock is your way of compensating for your inability to provide something more constructive than mere insults and denigration.
I dont have to refute it. You have no basis. Just another Jimmy Fallon opinion.
Keep giving your opinion, and I will keep ridiculing you for it. Free speech.
‘George’, no matter what Mr. Turley writes about,
you always come here to tell him he was wrong about it.
If you’re not being paid (to do such a bad job) what’s your personal beef?
Or is it to show you’re smarter than most? That’s obviously not working.
To prove you have great ‘reading comprehension’? Another fail.
Why waste your time here? Just to be a contrarian? It’s baffling behavior.
False pride, it’s a terrible sin.
Svelaz clearly suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder.
It is characterized by a need for attention, even if its negative.
It indicates underlying emotional needs, like a desire for validation or recognition that isn’t being met in positive ways.
Most often it occurs in children, but it can extend into adulthood.
There is NO OTHER explanation for why someone would disrobe in public daily, the way Svelaz does.
I come here to engage in constructive criticism of his point or argument. It’s all fair game. I also present my own perspective, adding to the diversity of opinions. This blog is meant for open discussions, debates, and arguments against his position.
On the other hand, you don’t seem to contribute anything of value. Your intention appears to be solely to insult and belittle others’ opinions and attempts at discussion. It seems like you take pleasure in demeaning others. What are you bringing to the conversation? It seems like nothing. Your behavior meets the definition of a troll, and that’s quite pathetic.
Whine on, ya big baby. Just more attention grabbing for your HPD.
I call you out on your ignorance and lies daily. You don’t like that, so you try to gaslight that its about your poor little sensibilities. Hate it for ya, snowflake. Free speech.
Thanks for proving my point.
and what point was that, george? Somehow we all missed it, especially because you often argue against yourself in subsequent posts. (No i am not talking about anonymous posts, I am talking about George vs. George)
Thanks for proving my point, ya whiney baby.
The problem with DEI is not that it promotes diversity of thought. The problem is when unqualified people (of any race) are elevated to meet quotas. Your argument assumes that conservatives are not as qualified as liberals (which you seem to believe). I don’t believe that for a second.
I disagree. He clearly argues that qualifications have nothing to do with it. Only ideology. He is too stupid to realize he burns both ends of the rope toward the middle, with his asinine arguments.
It’s not only about race or qualification. DEI also applies to a diversity of ideas. Turley is adamant that diversity of ideas is essential, and he is right. But conservatives have taken the concept of DEI to be about discrimination against them, against white people, and that has never been the case. Conservatives made it out to be about race and accused those who promote DEI of being discriminatory or giving others a free pass just because they come from a different background. They weaponized the concept and made it into something to be fought against, something to fear.
Professor Turley’s argument supports DEI on the ideas and viewpoint perspective. He or his readers may not realize it but that is what he is arguing for. DEI. Diversity of ideas. Equality for Conservtives, and Inclusion of their values and views into mainstream academia. The irony of conservatives calling for defunding DEI initiatives and programs runs counter to what Turley wants.
Conservatives should have used DEI to their advantage and used the logic of the concept to include conservative values and ideas that are worthy of inclusion in colleges and universities. Turley would have had a much better argument with that approach.
“He or his readers may not realize it but that is what he is arguing for. DEI. Diversity of ideas. Equality for Conservtives, and Inclusion of their values and views into mainstream academia. The irony of conservatives calling for defunding DEI initiatives and programs runs counter to what Turley wants.”
I don’t know how else to say it. You’re an idiot.
You don’t know how to refute it so you go to your easy answer, insult. You offer nothing of value. You can’t.
He is correct. You are an idiot. The DEI you talk about places race above ideas, merit, and everything else. You talk much, but I don’t see you defending your ideas.
George NOW says, “Conservatives should have used DEI to their advantage and used the logic of the concept to include conservative values and ideas that are worthy of inclusion in colleges and universities. Turley would have had a much better argument with that approach.”
Wait, wait. Just a few hours ago, George said this:
“Furthermore, Turley…is calling for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education under the guise of conservative viewpoints. Advocating for more conservative representation in academia is essentially an attempt to promote viewpoint diversity and tolerance, which are the fundamental principles of DEI. How ironic.”
Can’t make this stuff up, folks (about george…)
Wait for it….”Obviously you have reading comprehension problems”—Svelaz the spastic
Translated
“I can’t explain why I contradicted myself, other than this is what happens when you have to try every day to find an opposing position, and dont really believe your own nonsense. So i try weak gaslighting. It’s all I have.”—Svelaz the spastic
HAHAHAAH! You do have reading comprehension problems. You keep proving it every day.
Childish whining from a troll ^^^^
Have we noticed how both George and Gigi get more insulting and angry in their daily posts?
The more they are backed into a corner with FACTS and LOGIC and REASON that challenge their posts, their response is to disappear, only to re-emerge the next day with onslaughts of new attacks against Turley and “the MAGATs”) It’s getting really funny.
You may be feeling confused if you believe that I have insulted someone or posted anything in anger. In my opinion, Turley is open to criticism, just like MAGA fans are. Once an opinion or statement is posted, it becomes open to challenge or rebuttal from anyone, and that’s the purpose of this blog.
If you feel the need to defend Turley from criticism or challenge because you believe he should be protected from criticism or mockery, that is your prerogative. However, I believe that Turley’s views and opinions don’t need protection from criticism by his loyal readers.
ohhhhh, you are so calm and reserved when called out. You fool no one. When was the last time you complimented or agreed with JT? Please, join Dennis and Gigi and create a trifecta to bring your horse home.
George, yes, “comments becomes open to challenge or rebuttal from anyone, and that’s the purpose of this blog ” (although it is erroneous and presumptuous on your part (and likely wrong) to declare purpose. Who do you think you are?
That being said, when fellow commenters engage you in debate, you respond with childish whimpers about their lack of reading comprehension and context skills. Then you disappear when cornered. Wholly farcical, coming from someone who shows no command of the topic at hand, or the ability to rationally discuss it.
Thank you.
You nailed Svelaz to the “T”.
He is as much interested in reasoned discussion as Dennis McIntyre. He just wants to come in here daily and spew his nonsense. If no one ever responded to him, how long before he would leave? I suspect never. There’s your answer.
“ That being said, when fellow commenters engage you in debate, you respond with childish whimpers about their lack of reading comprehension and context skills.“
Engage in debate? HAHAHAHAHA! You mean insults. You don’t engage in debate. You belittle and insult. When your reading comprehension issues are pointed out you get all offended and triggered. All you do is insult and belittle. You don’t offer anything else.
You dont even know who that was, Svelaz.
Idiot. I told you how to recognize the guy who likes to ridicule you (thats what it is, its not insults). You earn the ridicule every day. Like just now. Instead of defending your stupidity, you whine about being insulted.
“Professor Turley’s argument about why colleges and Universities are seeing lower enrollment numbers is completely off the mark.”
No it is one of several factors.
” Numerous factors are contributing to the decline in enrollments.”
Correct.
“The cost of higher education is skyrocketing”
And the quality is going down. You seem to beleive these are random accidents – they are not.
Declining education quality, increasing costs are the consequences of the failures of academia itself.
So you have just made Turley’s point.
“and the job market is shifting away from a strong emphasis on college degrees.”
Correct Because the value of a college degree is declining and the value of alternatives is increasing
Again making Turley’s point.
“Trades and online entrepreneurship are becoming more attractive options for many.”
Correct Because the value of a college degree is declining and the value of alternatives is increasing
Again making Turley’s point.
“Additionally, the looming impact of AI on job markets, particularly in white-collar professions, is a significant concern.”
Oh, God not the stupid luddite argument.
When EVER anywhere has the advance of technology EVER resulted in sustained job losses ?
That is a fiction that used to be beleived by the luddite working class.
You are now so stupid as to try to sell it to white collar workers ?
Please READ the laws of supply and demand. One of the coralaries is that supply creates its own demand.
In England in the 17th century excrement – $hit was a PRODUCT that people gathered and sold.
If AI displaces lots of white colar workers – just as spinning jennies diplaced mill workers in the early 19th century,
the large supply of available workers will inspire someone to find a productive and profitable use for them.
If the goal of a society is rising standard of living – then the economic principle of comparative advantage means that you use others – other people, other countries to do the low value work, and you focus on the high value work.
The purpose of education – whether college or trade is to increase the productive value of those being educated such that they are capable of performing ever higher value tasks.
That colleges are in decline means that they are increasingly unable to produce students whose productive value is greater than those from other sources.
You noted the alleged flaws in Turley’s assertion – yet each of your claims as to why enrollement is declining,
is another argument for Turley.
“Furthermore, Turley’s assertion about “purging conservatives” in higher education is simply absurd. He is calling for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education under the guise of conservative viewpoints.”
No he is calling for diversity and inclusion – not equity. Equity is by far the most damaging idea in existance.
Universities do benefit from diversity – racial diversity, cultural diversity and political diversity.
“Advocating for more conservative representation in academia is essentially an attempt to promote viewpoint diversity and tolerance, which are the fundamental principles of DEI. How ironic.”
No they are the fundimental values of DI – not DEI.
I would also note that the fact that Turley must note to DEI warriors like you that diversity requires the includion of conserviatives is a beautiful reflection of your own lack of self awareness and hypocracy related to your own values.
” However, Turley’s habit of presenting his views in a misleading manner and using mischaracterizations undermines the credibility of his arguments.”
How so ?Turley has made arguments – you are just lobbing mostly naked claims.
Support them.