We previously discussed how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) elected an outspoken activist as its president. The selection of Todd Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, was viewed by many as the AAUP doubling down on support for academic activism and opposition to intellectual diversity. Now the leading AAUP publication, Academe, has run ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.’ Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the essay repeats the tired rationalizations of faculty members to excuse their purging of schools of dissenting and largely conservative or libertarian voices.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education. Siraganian’s essay is particularly transparent in the effort to dismiss opposing views without seriously addressing the range of objections to the current state of academia.
Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts. While I agree with the need for such changes on faculties (and do not believe that faculty members like Siraganian will ever embrace diversity of thought), I do not like the government dictating such changes.
For liberals, it is impossible to deny the purging of faculties to create an academic echo chamber.
I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values.
That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.
There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.
There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.
Harvard has repeatedly found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.
Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.
The student body exhibits the same biased selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.
This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.
Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”
It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.
Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation. I have never argued for the hiring of Republicans or the imposition of a partisan quota. Rather, the surveys and self-identification of faculty are one of the few objective means to show how lopsided the ideological balance has become in our schools.
Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.
Notably, Siraganian argues that intellectual diversity can only be defended on “instrumental” grounds. My book criticized “functionalist” or instrumental arguments as rejecting core free speech values based on natural or autonomous values. Adopting functionalist models allows for endless trade-offs in speech.
The same is true for intellectual diversity. Intellectual diversity is not supported as a value in itself but only to the extent that it advances what faculty like Siraganian view as the truth or valid conclusions. Even if one were to confine support for intellectual diversity to its instrumental values, these advocates downplay the value of ideological diversity as key to any institution of higher education. She dismisses such claims, saying that “the pursuit of truth and the value of different opinions—do not work together seamlessly.”
The result, however, is the virtual jettisoning of real diversity. Higher education is currently “seamless” in running from the left to the far left.
I have spoken with various university presidents who privately admit that they want greater intellectual diversity but that departments refuse to make serious efforts to restore such balance. The AAUP and Siraganian are examples of why faculty members will not willingly diversify their ranks. They are now rationalizing their bias and intolerance through righteous rationalizations, claiming they are simply protecting students from harmful or subpar ideas.
Polling indicates that trust in higher education has hit a record low among the public. More importantly, numerous surveys consistently show that the intolerance of faculty members and the lack of diversity have chilled students, who are afraid to share their views in classrooms or on campuses.
Notably, many of these universities have overwhelmingly liberal faculties and student bodies; however, over 90 percent of students in some schools no longer feel comfortable speaking freely in classrooms. At Harvard, only a third of students feel comfortable speaking freely.
The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed higher education by destroying diversity of thought and free speech on our campuses. The effort of the AAUP and faculty like Siraganian to rationalize the basis for this intolerance is evidence of the hold of such bias. Faculty members would prefer to allow higher education to plunge to even lower levels of trust and applications than to allow for greater diversity in their departments.
Once again, we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance. We will need to focus on donors (as well as public-funding legislative bodies) to withhold money from these departments. Universities will not allow for opposing or dissenting views unless they have little financial choice. In this sense, we need to focus on public universities as the best ground to fight for diversity of thought. These schools, directly subject to First Amendment protections, can offer an alternative to schools like Johns Hopkins and Harvard for those who want to learn in a more diverse environment.
OT, interesting news, Why are fewer young people identifying as trans?
https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-are-fewer-young-people-identifying-as-trans/
As John Say has noted in the past, we are past peak wokeness. Now, we just need more and more younger people to push back against this nonsense. The other day I did read that Gen Z is turning to religion, namely Christianity.
Fewer people may be identifying as trans beause they are being attacked openly by the right. Choosing to remain anonymous as they once did before conservatives started losing their minds.
Gen Z is choosing to be more “spiritual” but not namely more Christian. They are not embracing organized religion still. Just not blowing off the idea of being more spiritual.
Wrong. If you are 18 or older, trans, have at it! I dont care! Love whomever you want! Same goes for the gay community! None of my business! Trying to “trans” children who do not know any better? Keeping it from their parents? Trying to get them drugs that just might turn them into mass shooters or assassins? That, I have a problem with.
We did not lose our minds. We just applied common sense. A trait leftists seem to be lacking.
I would favor making the whole trans-surgery thing illegal, for anybody, child or adult. You start playing into people’s stupid delusions, and where does it end? I have given the example before of Karen Carpenter, who identified as a fat person. If she went to a doctor and requested a gastric bypass, should she be allowed to? Heck no, the gal is nuts. Any doctor who would do that should be in prison. To hell with all this letting people do their own thing. That’s how we have ended up where we are in this country.
Reading Prof Siraganian 7 theses (by her own admission 4 are not independent which is an indication of befogged thinking), it seems that she is making some astonishing claims against the need to promote viewpoint diversity. One claim is promoting viewpoint diversity is fundamentally contrary to the academic mission of the pursuit of truth. To support this position Prof Siraganian constructs a straw man and then gleefully pokes holes in it. She brings up the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and reasons that it is idiocy to hire people to teach who are proponents of a triple helix structure. I certainly don’t think that anyone is arguing that. Pushing deeper into the position of Prof. Siraganian one has to conclude from her statements that 1) all intellectual activity is subordinate to objective truths and 2) these objective truths have all been discovered. Hence view point diversity is destructive to valuable intellectual pursuits because it would necessarily oppose objective truths. I am guessing that many in academia would dispute both of those notions. We can observe over periods of time that changes in music, art, literature, legal principles, economic principles, philosophy, … happen because there may not be objective truths that are either known or govern in all cases. Therefore new ideas and perspectives are of value. And I would also venture to guess that her colleagues would be astonished to think that all objective truths have been discovered and so viewpoint diversity is of no value to the discovery of new objective truths. If that is so then all STEM professors should be relegated to just teaching known facts and their current research rendered meaningless. That is clearly not so. It was not too long ago that the proponents of Eugenics and Newtonian physics thought they were pursuing objective truths. There are many areas in current academic debate that would benefit from view point diversity. These include public health policy in the face of pandemics such as COVID, constitutional law principles, historical assessments of political figures, micro and macro economic policies, applications and regulation of artificial intelligence, economic implementation of nuclear fusion energy capture, ….
Prof. Siraganian also excoriates people promoting view point diversity for using, in “bad faith”, the language of DEI. It seems that she has no problem with DEI, which among other things values ethnic and gender diversity, but has a problem with promoting intellectual diversity. She claims this shows bad faith by these viewpoint diversity advocates who generally discount the need for DEI. In doing so she conflates the idea of view point diversity with that of DEI. These are distinctly different with the one valuing products of the mind to achieve the stimulation of new ideas and the other valuing superficial physical attributes as a means to achieve a Marxist goal of social and economic equality.
Prof. Siraganian did point out that no one has defined view point diversity. I might also add that no one has determined how to measure it, or what an acceptable balance is. This is the same weakness that is rightly pointed out for DEI programs. The only true benefit will be social welfare for lawyers. I think that ultimately establishing an environment for a free market of ideas to flourish is the ticket.
Prof. Siraganian also pushes back on claims of skewed faculty political leanings. She cites economists David Hummels
and Jay Akridge who write, “The plurality of faculty self-report as neither liberal or conservative but instead as moderates, and a majority of faculty don’t register as members of either political party. The dominant middle is ignored.” In all fairness, it is not clear what a self described “moderate” is. As a concrete test is that someone who would vote for Kamala Harris? In a nearby city, the politics objectively range from very liberal to free range radical socialist. Almost all of the liberals self identify as moderates. From my knothole, it would be beneficial for a clearer picture of the best approach to instill the notion of a free market of ideas before we all gather in the public square with pitchforks and fascines to burn the heretics.
How is it that Conservatives and Libertarians who have been purged haven’t founded a new college or university that has such sweeping attractiveness to conservatives and libertarians as to be doubling in enrollment each of the last, say, 20 years? There should be millions of Conservative students in college level Bible study right now.
How is it the Conservative institutions like Liberty University rely primarily on religious doctrine rather than the excellence of outcomes to attract students?
From The Hill:
“Liberty has more than 50,000 undergraduate students who attend the school and a 99% acceptance rate”
99% doesn’t sound like they are applying any academic minimum requirements.
“The [Liberty] university states that it believes in “developing Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills to impact their world.””
Most of its enrollment is in online courses.
Even engineering: . “Simulating Genesis: Using Physics-Based Modeling to Illustrate the Bible’s Reliability in Science”
That should be a large enough outlet to a population which wants to avoid any liberals on campus. Maybe being ranked near the bottom of all national colleges is a clue.
https://www.uaustin.org/
Excellent point!
If Russell Vought and Robert Kennedy were deliberately trying on behalf of an enemy to sicken and kill Americans by destroying the public health structure – what would they be doing differently?
“It’s the [private sector], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
If it is done in the United States of America, it is to be done by free enterprise in the free markets of the private sector.
Congress may tax for and fund ONLY “debt,” “defense,” and “general Welfare.”
Congress may regulate ONLY “the value of money,” “commerce (i.e. buying and selling) among nations, states, and Indian tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
“If Russell Vought and Robert Kennedy were deliberately trying on behalf of an enemy to sicken and kill Americans by destroying the public health structure – what would they be doing differently?”
I’ll take that one for $500, Alex!
They’d assure us that if we allowed them to dump a market based health care system and they replaced it with a Marxist Obamacare public health structure, everybody would then have free/affordable health care and on top of that, we’d all save $2500 a year in health care costs!
No? That’s already been tried? Can I have one more chance?
They’d attempt to coerce – not persuade – an entire nation to surrender their bodily autonomy and subjugate themselves to those HHA entities demanding they subject their bodies to experimental vaccines that immediately failed on their claim that “If you take this experimental vaccine, you will never get Fauci Flu”. Those who refused would lose their jobs, would not be able to go out in public, not be allowed to travel to see family, etc.
How did I do?
One consideration would be for Governing Boards of Universities to take over the hiring process of faculty and remove it totally from the faculty depts or whatever runs the faculty. If the Governing Board is more evenhanded in its make up then that might help alleviate some of the narrowness of viewpoint. Possibly a way to open up to divergent opinions. The Faculty would probably riot at this step but then you could institute some firings of individuals due to their riotous behavior and open up even more spaces for diverse points of view.
On the other hand it’s probably not worth the effort.
It has been reported in some news organs that, as the rioting at Ivy League Schools and antisemitism has run rampant, parents are looking in other areas of the country and other schools to spend their hard earned cash for their children. Parents could be the key and the higher quality students may go elsewhere especially as the money continues to flee the Northeast. And the federal government can set almost any conditions for disbursing money. Almost but not every condition.
That big name university may help you get that first job but, strangely, after that corporations and businesses look at results. That is a whole different ball game.
One word for you: Privatization.
GEB,
I mentioned this in another comment, but colleges are not preparing students for the workplace. Although I would argue some of the responsibility lies with the parents.
Bosses are firing Gen Z workers in record time: ‘Yeah, checks out’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/consumer/article-13886905/bosses-firing-gen-z-workers-record-time.html
Get rid of the tax deduction for money going to universities. It screws things up. The tax deduction post WW2 screwed up healthcare.
Re: Conservatism Leads to Dictatorship. NO! It is the lack and the dismissal of conservative values that leads to more authoritarianism.
———-
George Washington
“Father of Our Country”
While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.25
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?26
[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.27
——————-
Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.20
We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.21
By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18]22
Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.23
————-
James McHenry
Signer of the Constitution
[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.16
————–
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.10
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.11
—————
Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.6
—————
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.4
There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.5
————-
John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.1
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.2
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.3
———–
https://wallbuilders.com/
Less than 10% of college graduates are humanities majors.
The rest, more than 90%, are at college with a highly focused career objective.
They are enrolled in the hard sciences, engineering, medicine, business school, law school, and so on.
25% of bachelor degrees are in STEM. 66% of doctoral degrees are in STEM.
There is no room in any of these curricula for conservative or liberal views.
Whether or not the vast majority of faculty identify as liberal is completely irrelevant. They are teaching hard sciences that have no room for opinions or political views.
All this nonsense by Turley is just a tempest in a teacup to keep the MAGA mob riled up about something that is completely inconsequential in higher education.
Sure there are a few crazy liberals at colleges teaching crazy stuff to humanities students, but their number is very small and inconsequential in the larger scheme of things.
Turley just likes to focus on these few liberal professors as part of his schtick to sell more books.
Science and engineering and medicine faculty, who represent the vast majority of faculty, have to be the smartest and most intelligent in their field. Consider that all the science Nobel prizes always go to university faculty.
These people just might be too intelligent to be conservatives.
You said 25% of bachelors degrees are STEM – the rest are not.
That is a problem
While the STEM feilds are close to the last holdouts against Woke nonsense in colleges – the non-STEM fields are dominated by left wing idiots.
Worse still this nonsense is making its way into STEM.
Law Schools and medical schools are overrun by woke nonsense.
“There is no room in any of these curricula for conservative or liberal views.”
That should be true, but unfortunately it is not.
“Whether or not the vast majority of faculty identify as liberal is completely irrelevant. They are teaching hard sciences that have no room for opinions or political views.”
But they are not – the vast majority of the faculty is NOT teaching hard sciences – and even in a STEM field you MUST pass courses outside of STEM taught by woke idiots.
Worse again – this is starting to invade STEM – medicine and law are over run by work idiots.
What do you want from your Doctor ? A land acknowledgement or a good diagnosis.
“Sure there are a few crazy liberals at colleges teaching crazy stuff to humanities students, but their number is very small and inconsequential in the larger scheme of things.”
ROFL
“Science and engineering”
Is in the process of being corrupted – and that was BEFORE it was invaded by Woke idiots.
We have had major problems in hard and soft sciences for most of my lifetime.
We have wasted 50 years on String theory in Physics and it will hopefully be tossed shortly.
Anthropology has stagnated for atleast as long until very recently. Now we are tossing most everything we previously thought true. The origin date for Homo Sapiens has been moved from 150K years ago to 300K and there is strong evidence that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals split 800K years ago.
Numerous areas of medical research have been headed the wrong direction for 40 years.
Climate science is putrefying Garbage. Anything that can not get within 2.5 std dev in forecasting is just plain wrong.
We are working through throwing out 70 years of work in Psychology.
1/3 of all scientific papers published can not be reproduced. Another 1/3 reproduce with no statistical significance – that means 2/3 of published papers are near useless.
That is your idea of functional hard sciences ?
“have to be the smartest and most intelligent in their field.”
No actually they do not.
The old adage – those who can do, those who can’t teach remains true today.
If you are building a bridge – who would you hire as engineer ? A college professor, or the practicing engineer that build dozens of bridges ?
As indicated above most published science can not be reproduced to any statistical significance.
Most published work – even the stuff that reproduces has Screwed up its statisticial analysis – frankly a significant portion of academics – even in hard sciences can not do basic math and statistics.
“Consider that all the science Nobel prizes always go to university faculty.”
A significant portion of Nobel winners are also people who practice in their fields – outside of colleges and universities.
Since 1901 842 people have been awarded the Nobel prize – most are no longer living.
Harvard has a faculty of 2500 – if every living nobel prize winner came from Harvard – that would be 1 in 5 professors.
But the reality is just in the US there are 1.6M professors.
That would mean if all living nobel winners were from US faculty that would be 0.03% of professors are good enough to win a nobel.
The US receives 71% of all Nobels – that means that it is closer to 0.02% of US professors are smart enough to win a nobel.
But just because ever professor is not a Nobel prize winner does not make them stupid.
At the same time – just because most Nobels are earned by college professors does not make all college professors smart.
Further – as Nassim Talib noted long ago – intelligence does not preclude idiocy.
Few of them post here – but I know a FEW smart left wing nuts. I do not know how they manage the cognitive dissonance. But it is possible to be both smart and a woke left wing nut.
Talib calls them IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
I noted above that very few professors actually practice in their fields – that is a major problem.
The quality of decisions people make correlates POORLY to their intelligence. I correlates most strongly to
whether they have “skin in the game” – whether their decisions will positively or negatively impact them.
One of the major problems we have in politics (and Government, and Universities) is broken incentives.
Politicians are rewarded for doing things that are popular – regardless of whether those actually work.
“These people just might be too intelligent to be conservatives.”
If you exclued libertarians who are normally counted as conservatives on average the IQ’s of liberals are about 1-2 points higher than conservatives.
If you include libertarians as conservaitves – the IQ of conservatives is about 4 pts higher than liberals.
The IQ’s of the much smaller body of libertarians are on average 20pts higher than either conservatives or liberals.
“Less than 10% of college graduates are humanities majors.”
How many times do you need to be schooled on that same ignorant point?
There are general education requirements that *all* students must complete, which includes courses in the Humanities.
Sam,
You are correct. I looked up a local community college for a two year AS degree in biology. It has a mandatory DEI class and two other GenEd requirements that amount to basically nothing.
My daughter had to take a mandatory DEI class to graduate.
As I stated in another comment, streamline college courses to those within those fields for the degree. Cut out all those useless DEI and GenEd courses to reduce time and costs. Then maybe college grads wont be in debt till they retire.
“Whether or not the vast majority of faculty identify as liberal is completely irrelevant. They are teaching hard sciences that have no room for opinions or political views.”
Please, if you want to get in line to just make crap up in your empty head and vomit it here, take your place behind GeorgeX.
Your fascist liberal professors weave their indoctrination into their curriculum, even in the sciences. You’ve obviously not financed 4 children through college, or you would know this.
“Whether or not the vast majority of faculty identify as liberal is completely irrelevant. They are teaching hard sciences that have no room for opinions or political views. All this nonsense by Turley is just a tempest in a teacup to keep the MAGA mob riled up about something that is completely inconsequential in higher education.”
And you Bolshevik Birthing Boyz are so demented that “hard sciences” courses teaching DEI, Alphabet Sex, and that boys can be women looks like pure silence to you!
You just might lack enough basic human intelligence to be considered to be mentally handicapped, needing an encouraging pat on the head for giving it your best shot in trying to form an opinion.
“They are teaching hard sciences that have no room for opinions or political views. “ “All this nonsense by Turley is just a tempest in a teacup to keep the MAGA mob riled up”
You are very nearsighted (near blind) and foolish to boot. I’ll give one example of how the left is destroying STEM education and one example of cause.
Grade Inflation. DEI.
DEar Prof Turley,
One can only hope ‘intellectual diversity’ in higher education is not contingent upon hiring more ‘conservative’ faculty.
[note. based on my experience, being intellectually ‘liberal’ and economically ‘conservative’ are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive terms.]
There is no ‘left’ or ‘right’ in the study of Statistical analysis – other than weighted polls. The dirt people, geologists, are a little shaky.. . but Organic Chemistry does not care about anyone’s political affiliations (trust me!).
The Law, afaict, makes no distinctions either,
*Perhaps, the psychology fields could help explain this highly contagious infirmary. ..
‘Goodbye’: Hegseth Shows Legacy Media Outlets The Door Amid Revolt Against New Pentagon Press Policy
Outlets have been told to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5 pm or surrender their press credentials within 24 hours, after weeks ago the new policy was introduced.
By: Tyler Durden – Oct 14, 2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/goodbye-hegseth-shows-legacy-media-outlets-door-amid-revolt-against-new-pentagon-press
There’s good reason for Terminating the Press when War is on the Horizon
Controlling the Narrative – Oh the Shock & Awe of it!
“We’re In Wars”: Ray Dalio Warns Of ‘Civil War’ & Soaring Debt
One thing is for sure about billionaire Ray Dalio; something bad is coming, at some point – because there’s just too much bad shit happening to reconcile. The Bridgewater founder has warned about a brutal AI war between the US and China (which Eric Schmidt recently echoed) and that the UK is in a ‘debt death-spiral’ (to moderate pushback), among other things.
By: Tyler Durden ~ Oct 13, 2025
[Link] zerohedge.com/markets/were-wars-ray-dalio-warns-civil-war-soaring-debt
F.Y.I.:
Trump was lauded by several world leaders in Israel yesterday, including the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, stating “He is genuinely a man of peace…the most wonderful candidate for the peace prize…saved millions of people. The world will remember you as a man who did everything to stop eight wars.”
🚨 BREAKING: In an incredible moment, the prime minister of Pakistan NOMINATES President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2026
“I would like to nominate this great president for NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!”
“He is GENUINELY a man of peace…the most wonderful candidate for the peace… pic.twitter.com/viBiUasRXK
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 13, 2025
“It’s the [toxic unconstitutional government funding], stupid!”
– James Carville
Speaker Johnson on Day 13 of the Democrat Shutdown: Bipartisan Majorities in Both Chambers of Congress Want to End the Shutdown. Only Chuck Schumer Stands in the Way.
Washington, October 13, 2025
WASHINGTON — On Day 13 of the Democrat Government Shutdown, Speaker Johnson held a press conference in the Rayburn Room of the U.S. Capitol to urge reasonable Senate Democrats to make the responsible, commonsense decision and vote to reopen the government. Speaker Johnson also highlighted the ongoing hypocrisy of Congressional Democrats who have voted to prevent government shutdowns their entire careers.
“Ending this shutdown is not a one-party exercise. Republicans do have control of Congress, but it still takes 60 votes to pass a funding bill in the Senate. All of this is the way the founders intended the process to work,” Speaker Johnson said. “Any Democrats who suggest otherwise are willfully misleading the American people.”
By: Speaker Mike Johnson Office – Press Release ~ Oct 13th 2025
https://mikejohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2722
Democrats Have Shut Down the Government
By: The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/government-shutdown-clock/
I can see a straight line from Rutgers to Professor Mark Bray to The Anti-Fascist Handbook to Professor Todd Wolfson to AAUP. AAUP is due to be called out to renounce or admit that line. Any response they make will be…….illuminating.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Johns Hopkins is private property, over which only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion.
Congress has no power to tax for and fund Johns Hopkins.
Congressional funding for Johns Hopkins is neither “debt,” “defense,” nor “general Welfare,” which consists solely of security and basic infrastructure that allows ALL to WELL PROCEED.
Unconstitutional funding for Johns Hopkins must never have begun and must now be terminated with extreme prejudice.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Yes, Johns Hopkins receives significant funding from the U.S. government, with nearly half of its total incoming funds derived from federal research contracts. It is the leading recipient of federal research funding among American universities and receives billions of dollars annually through grants and contracts from agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DoD).
___________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
_____________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To…collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property….
“The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.”
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX. The Democrats who blame the chaos they’ve created on the Supreme Court, not themselves: the Court that has given them what they couldn’t get at the ballot box.
The Confederate DNC who have now embraced Marx/Alinsky’s communist strategies since losing the Kluxxer Civil War and now put their fellow communists like Justices Jackson and Sotomayor on SCOTUS, polluting that court in hopes of continuing to get from SCOTUS what voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
And while GeorgeX and other communist Democrats want to blame SCOTUS – at the same time they howl in delight at the actions of Jackson and Sotomayor that they worked so hard to put on SCOTUS.
Most high school graduates would be better served going directly into the trades and/or a vocational school.
So true Darren
I wholeheartedly agree.
We should completely abolish all universities.
They serve no useful purpose. Everyone should just go to trade school.
We don’t need heart surgeons. It’s just plumbing. Any competent plumber could do your cardiac by-pass surgery.
We don’t need orthopedic surgeons. It’s just fancy carpentry. Any competent carpenter can do your hip replacement.
We don’t need electrical engineers. Any competent electrician could design and build the computer or smart phone you are using right now.
We don’t need aircraft engineers. Any competent aircraft mechanic could design and build an aircraft.
We don’t need pharmacologists or biochemists. Any competent pharmacy technician could develop the next generation of cancer drugs to save your life.
We don’t need dentists. There is no reason that a good denture technician can’t take care of your impacted wisdom teeth.
We don’t need marine engineers. Any competent sailor can design and build an aircraft carrier.
We don’t need nuclear engineers. Any competent boilermaker can design and build a nuclear reactor.
We don’t need architects. Any competent steelworker can design and build a skyscraper.
What we dont need is idiots like you.
AI Overview
No, the person Johns Hopkins did not go to college; he quit school at age 12 to work on his family’s farm. In 1812, at the age of 17, Hopkins left the plantation to work in his uncle Gerard T. Hopkins’s Baltimore wholesale grocery business. Later became a wealthy businessman and philanthropist.
Darren,
I was thinking of paid internships by companies. They would end up with a better employee. Or streamline college course work to focus on the field of study and not all those useless DEI, liberal education classes. Medical school only focuses on pre-med and medical studies. Engineering, focuses only on engineering related topics. They do not need art appreciation, or 16th century French poet lit. By focusing on field related course work, could also reduce both time and costs.
AI Overview
No, Bill Gates did not get a…college degree; he dropped out of Harvard University after three semesters in 1975 to co-found Microsoft.
Darren– “Most high school graduates would be better served going directly into the trades and/or a vocational school.”
I said the same to my grandson and it looks like he is taking that advice as are many of his friends. Plus learn how to handle money.
He got an after school job in high school and stuck with it and I suspect he learned more useful lessons by doing that then he learned in school.
Young,
Well said and I could not agree more!
By my own decision, I got a after school job. Worked through out most of high school in some capacity to include retail and fast food. It was there I learned a lot that I did not learn in high school. I opened my own bank account and got a ATM card, which was a new thing at the time. Through my own fiscal learnings, which I passed down to my own children, is how and why they are so successful at such a young age.
Upstate-
Congratulations for your learning path and for that of your children. I, too, worked after school and during summers. One time during a strike at my dad’s employer my small pay at a grocery store was the only cash coming in for our family of five. It helped but wasn’t enough of course and my grandmother gave me the cash to buy books for my senior year. It was kind–I resisted, probably embarrassed or too proud to take a handout–but she insisted so I got the books.
Darren, If you’re planning a 2028 run for the Oval Office,
You might want to consider John and Jackie Kennedy’s house in Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood,
as your first “official” residence in Washington. The Marbury House spans approximately 483 square meters and contains five bedrooms. The spatial volume spans three floors, featuring formal rooms on the main level and private quarters above. …
That is if you’re up for the run at the rose garden.
https://www.therichest.com/jackie-and-john-f-kennedys-georgetown-home-listed-for-75-million/
They will make more money and have more opportunity if they choose STEM and IF they forego the big name universities that put them in hock for life (unless they get a full pull scholarship).
An engineering or science degree is the same, whether you get it at a small college or university or one of the big names like Harvard, Stanford, etc. And an electrical journyman’s ticket is the same whether you did your apprenticeship at Elon Musk’s rocket factory or the local rendering plant that processes the offal from nearby slaughterhouses.
My father was a journeyman that held three tickets, his company forced him to go back for the later two after he originally held a welder’s ticket. He made a good life for himself from that. My middle brother went the trades route, became a heavy duty mechanic, and made a good life for himself. My youngest brother opted for three years of university for a chemical engineering degree, versus a four year apprenticeship.
Worked several jobs every hour he could during semesters and took classes during summer break as well to finish his degree in three years instead of four. Came straight out of university with that chemical engineering degree to go straight to work for Johnson-Mathy, being paid twice what my brother and my father ever made.
Oh… and he loved that job.
Assuming that trades are always better than college is the reverse of the ignorance that used to claim the trades were for dummies. Same abysmal ignorance, just going the other way. There is no “best” that you can claim fits most high school graduates, although they are all supposedly pretty much the same.
College or apprenticeship, you need to make the right choices and know how you’re going to pay for it, both physically and financially.
I image most high school graduates (not to mention their parents), don’t pay much attention to some guy making a buck in social media who decides they’re all carbon copies, and because they are clones, most of them would be better served going into trades or vocational school.
In due time, the historically liberal colleges will give rise to the desirability of AI tutorials providing the classic, conservative views envisioned by our founding fathers . . . A L L in due time.
“The classic, conservative views envisioned by our (?) founding fathers.”
– rbblum
____________
Indeed!
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not comport in the least with the communist American welfare state.
The Constitution is, and America was intended to be, maximally conservative.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
“The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.”
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX. The Democrats who blame the chaos they’ve created on the Supreme Court, not themselves: the Court that has given them what they couldn’t get at the ballot box.
The Confederate DNC who have now embraced Marx/Alinsky’s communist strategies since losing the Kluxxer Civil War and now put their fellow communists like Justices Jackson and Sotomayor on SCOTUS, polluting that court in hopes of continuing to get from SCOTUS what voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
And while GeorgeX and other communist Democrats want to blame SCOTUS – at the same time they howl in delight at the actions of Jackson and Sotomayor that they worked so hard to put on SCOTUS.
I respectfully disagree with the good professor. It is not the donors who we need to focus on. We need to offer students an alternative to these four year indoctrination camps that forces them to take useless DEI classes, captive audience to these biased professors and saddling them with debt nearly equal to or even exceeding a mortgage. Companies could offer paid internships to high school grads. Both book work and hands on, real world job training, with rigorous testing to ensure the intern masters the material. After two years, a final test/testing and the intern is certified in the field equal to a four year degree. None of the forced DEI, liberal studies classes that amount to nothing in the real world. None of the captive audience by biased professors. None of the debt.
Besides, knowing about grad inflation, the use of AI to do papers, that intern would be a better choice by far.
A recent survey found 6 in 10 employers are firing recent college grads within a year of hiring them. Colleges are not preparing students to enter the workforce.
How about hiring based on quality? Not race. Not gender. Not politics. Just can they do the job. Lying you are out. Plagiarism you are out.
And get rid of bogus ‘studies’ departments that accomplish nothing but filling faculty with radical grifters and lunatics and making universities look more like asylums than citadels of learning.
Be respectable to earn respect.
Young,
I was talking to a friend the other day. He mentioned they had a new hire, recent college grad. It was not that she could not do the job, it was she would show up late often, take time off when she did not have the PTO, was constantly complaining, would only do half of the job assigned to her and had her face in her phone all the time. His manager did his due diligence, did the paper work for performance non-compliance, after a lengthy discussion with HR and legal, and she was let go. My friend joked now a day, the job might require a college degree, but if you said and did show up on time, completed the job on time, didnt have your face in the phone all the time, they just might get a wavier to get a non-college type hired.
Most often the main quality that is hired for is “looks like me and acts like me and talks like me so I understand they will do as I expect I would do.” Look at how long it was before American baseball discovered that Black men could throw, catch, swing a bat, and run. It wasn’t liberals who were shutting them out.
“Look at how long it was before American baseball discovered that Black men could throw, catch, swing a bat, and run. It wasn’t liberals who were shutting them out.”
We used to call them “communists” until they demanded they be called “liberals” – which is pretty much the opposite of intolerant Kluxxer Democrats. And nobody thought to call FDR even a Marxist, while he was shutting Jesse Owens out of the White House after Owens cleaned up at the Berlin Olympics. FDR, racist and anti-semetic, was definitely not a liberal.
No, it was the racist Kluxxer Democrats. While Michael Jordan realized Republicans also buy running shoes, baseball team owners before Jordan was born knew that they also sold tickets and advertising to racist Kluxxer Democrats.
50,000 Klan Members March on Washington, D.C. in 1925. 150,000 People Show Up to Watch
https://flashbak.com/50000-klan-members-march-on-washington-d-c-in-1925-150000-people-show-up-to-watch-427903/
“ Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.”
Professor Turley is misrepresenting the facts regarding this claim. Joe Patrice was NOT discussing conservative faculty; he was referring to conservative students who have been complaining and practicing self-censorship out of fear of being mocked for expressing misguided ideas.
Patrice used an analogy comparing these students to someone who believes in geocentrism—the idea that the Earth is at the center of the solar system—as equally valid to heliocentrism, which states that the Sun is at the center. Naturally, a student who presents geocentric ideas as a serious viewpoint will face laughter and ridicule. Professor Turley argues that students or faculty who hold the view that geocentric theory has merit should be regarded with the same intellectual respect as heliocentric theory. This is fundamentally flawed; it is absurd to treat the geocentric theory as a valid perspective when it has been disproven repeatedly.
Patrice contended that these students deserve to be mocked and ridiculed, stating that conservative students are overly sensitive about expressing ideas similar to geocentric theory within today’s discourse.
Here GeorgeX tries to say that conservatives who believe that life begins at conception, or that a human life has just as much value at 23 weeks as 25, are equivalent to geocentrists.
George tries to equate 2nd amendment purists to flat earthers.
George tries to equate those who believe in limited government and meritocracy with people who believe the universe is 6000 years old.
What a pathetic gaslighter George is. Are you good at anything George? Cuz you suck at that.
But GeorgeX the Bolshevik birthing boy, doesnt think that people who believe women can become men should be mocked.
Cuz thats “progressive”, eh Georgie?
Anonynous tries to make sense and fails. Nothing you said makes any sense. Stick to insults, it’s better than trying for reading comprehension. You suck at it.
Everyone can read it George. They dont need your opinion. They have their own.
Your head in the sand approach to being mocked isnt going to help you.
“Nothing you said makes any sense. Stick to insults, it’s better than trying for reading comprehension. You suck at it.”
There you go again, GeorgeX: channeling every shortcoming, handicap, and failure in your life onto those you hate the most and blame for your shortcomings. If you couldn’t get off yapping at Professor Turley’s heels each day as you attempt imaginative insults you haven’t already worn out to direct to your host here, you’d probably not show up to pollute the comments space.
In the early 1900’s, Sigmund Freud, described channeling as a process by which his sexually dysfunctional psychiatric patients accused those they either desired to have sex with or alternately hated the most with their own sins, malfeasance, shortcomings, and general failures in life.
Freud’s belief is that his sexually dysfunctional psychiatric patients did that as a form of self-confession in order to relieve themselves of what little guilt they were capable of feeling.
I don’t think a battalion of psychiatrists could get your nasty twisted little commie mind unkinked.
What has Patrice EVER been right about ?
“ What has Patrice EVER been right about ?”
He’s been more right than Turley. The fact that Professor Turley mischaracterized what Patrice was talking about is a big clue.
He’s a real legal analyst compared to Turley. He’s pointed out how Turley doesn’t seem to understand what a heckler’s veto is. He had quite a field day with that one.
George. You just made a fool of yourself and your reading skills. Again.
George X: once again not only cosplaying to attempt to present himself as a beautiful young girl, but at the same time cosplaying as Monte Python’s Black Knight. Everything lopped off except for the head that has that fecal hole beneath his nose, proclaiming that GeorgeX won yet another one, while Professor Turley was once again defeated by GeorgeX.
GeorgeX, your daily hysterical yapping at Professor Turley is like a stray dog barking at a train going by in the middle of the night. The train not only doesn’t care about your hysterical barking – you’re so inconsequential he doesn’t even know you exist.
So glad you mark your posts, X.
OMG! georgie clown thinks that Patrice is talking about “geocentric STUDENTS.” Here is what Patrice said.
Patrice starts by quoting another, Banzhaf:
” At Harvard, for example, the editors of the Crimson wrote that they disagree sharply “that a more even distribution of FACULTY along a conservative-liberal binary would increase productive disagreement in any meaningful way. We find little reason to believe that. In fact, boiling down ideological and intellectual diversity to such limited labels strikes us as downright reductive.”
Then PATRICE says,
“An astute observation. Law schools have predominantly liberal faculty the way physics departments are overwhelmingly heliocentrists. No one — outside of Texas maybe — demands that schools hire more Ptolemaic geocentrist professors willing to offer a sympathetic voice to students who think the ocean swallows the sun every night. We should hold legal training to the same standard.”
See the part about “Ptolemaic geocentrist professors ?”
OMG OMG OMG!!! poor georgie cannot even comprehend this!!!!
“. . . a student who presents geocentric ideas as a serious viewpoint will face laughter and ridicule.”
A professional *educator* asks the student:
Why do you believe that? What are your *arguments*? What are some of the *arguments* against that idea?
On your side: A schoolyard clique uses “laughter and ridicule.”
Thank you for illustrating the pathetic psychology of academia’s mob mentality.
There’s plenty of money for education and research. What we don’t need is the government creating special classes of speech or ideology through selective grants. The truth is that already happened; powerful groups were built because the government picked winners and losers. Fixing that might take some government action, but it should be short-term and watched closely by Congress. Universities should protect freedom of thought, not hand it out only to those who serve the approved agenda.
Privatization.
________________
AI Overview
The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to issue grants….
AI Overview
The US Constitution does not grant specific grants to schools, corporations, or individuals….
What the Constitution grants or doesn’t grant, we have a lot of interference. I will first settle with what I suggested.
If you wish to sacrifice pragmatism for what you call perfect, you will end up with nothing.
So, not the Constitution but an illicit, arbitrary amendment?
You can call it an illicit, arbitrary amendment if you wish, despite it presently being approved by the Supreme Court. I don’t agree with what happened either, but if you are not pragmatic, you die. I choose life.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
“ There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.”
It’s NOT the faculty that is the problem. It’s what the students want. Notice how Professor Turley is only talking about the faculty and not the students.
If he wants greater diversity and inclusion of Conservatives and libertarian faculty in higher education then focus on how Conservatives and libertarians can promote their ideas and viewpoints to students and appeal to their curiosity. It seems Professor Turley is forgetting the most basic way to gain more ‘Republican’ faculty is to appeal directly to students. Do not whine about and attack faculty by party affiliation. It just shows how stupid Professor Turley’s approach is.
Students are currently being turned off by the Conservative ideas and viewpoints based on what Conservatives currently support and the culture wars. Conservatives are not doing themselves any favors when they openly support and encourage the very things that students oppose. That is why Universities and colleges that depend on students spending money on their schools cater to what they want. I mean, come on. It’s literally a free market approach and Conservatives and libertarians are upset about what students want not what THEY think students should want because of poor party affiliation ratios at higher education.
George
You ex bf already posted this exact rant for you below. Please keep up.
GeorgeX the Bolshevik birthing boy, seems to be completely unaware of the systemic pressure exerted on any college student (by both faculty and other students) to conform or be cast out.
If he denies it, we can all agree that he’s an idiot and completely out of touch, simply making up his own explanation for the liberal cesspool at university.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own”
——GeorgeX
“It’s literally a free market approach . . .”
You’re just making stuff up, again.
Academic appointments are run by a guild — with that guild controlled by the Left, further Left, and furthest Left.
“ Academic appointments are run by a guild — with that guild controlled by the Left, further Left, and furthest Left.”
And your proof of that is….?
“And your proof of that is….?”
You mean now it’s not acceptable to just make stuff up?
Those appointments are under the control of the school President and Board of directors who mainly respond to where the money comes from. Since the wealthiest people on the planet appear to be conservatives, it’s possible the money problem for getting conservative funding is conservatives are selfish and choose not to offer endowments and with them, influence the curriculum that colleges and universities offer that would appeal to conservative students.
“If he wants greater diversity and inclusion of Conservatives and libertarian faculty in higher education, then focus on how Conservatives and libertarians can promote their ideas and viewpoints to students and appeal to their curiosity. ”
Hmmm. Ain’t that what Charlie Kirk did, until a Liberal assassinated him???
Yea, only George thinks Kirk deserved to die, because he was a race baiting flat earther. Right George?
Just admit it. Stop mealy mouthing like a little baby back bltch.
Floyd,
Good point. However, what is really the focus is how illiberals keep conservatives and libertarians out so they can have a captive audience. They do not want a competing idea as we have seen, when in a debate, those illiberals lose. Every time. That is why they have to resort to things like the hecklers veto. To antifa violence. They have to silence any opposition to their ideology as their ideology fails in the face of reason. That is why they need and force DEI requirements on students to impose their illiberal view points and keep any other view points away from their indoctrination. There are lots of DEI and GenEd requirements students do not want to have to take and pay for, but are forced to for graduation. And that is what we need to focus on. The fact the illiberals know and exploit their captive audience to impose their illiberal view points on a captive audience. That is why they will never allow a conservative or Republican within their indoctrination camp.
Sorry. When I was on college (early 1970’s), the college experience was to be a broad base of ALL IDEAS and VIEWS. My best college teacher was a flaming liberal who accepted my conservative views and helped me be a better writer. And she graded on our ability to become a better writer, not on regurgitating her liberal views. Today’s students are denied the opportunity to explore the spectrum of views from left-to-right, and taught the conservative values are bad. I ACCEPT a professor’s rights to express their liberal positions; I REJECT the professor’s position that cancel students believing in conservative values.
No, The problem is that colleges and universities are not really accountable to anyone.
Government provides the lions share of funding and aside From Obama blackmailing colleges to gleefully adopt DEI, and Trump trying to do the reverse. all that really means is that there are no consequences for the poor choices of colleges and univversiies.
Absolutely – students who are paying for their education – should get the education they are willing to pay for.
But that is not the system we have, and worse still – students are mostly NOT being held accountable for the poor decisions they make with respect to colleges – or atleast not until they are out of college and face a mountain of debt to pay of that advanced underwater basket weaving degree.
College is an investment in your future. College today is a very poor investment that in many instances leaves you WORSE off than had you not intended – and burried under a mountain of debt.
What a Student wants is relevant – only if they are paying for it NOW, or if they are actually mature enough to understand that they are GOING to have to pay for it in the future.
One of the extremely accurate tests used to predict future success is to give a toddler a choice between 1 peice of candy now or two after a few minutes – those who can wait a few minutes for more are the ones who will be very successful in the future.
College today inverts that – you get all the treats now and you do not have to pay until way later.
That is a recipe for bad choices.
It is also the lesson that produces the most unsuccessful of people.
Just get government entirely out of colleges – cut ALL government funding of colleges entirely
And the problem will fix itself quickly.
State colleges and JCs are entirely public funding . There are philanthropic scholarships such as : native American studies requirement from reservation etc. Not Elizabeth Warren ty0es.
“Notice how Professor Turley is only talking about the faculty and not the students.”
Notice how GeorgeX has a weird love affair with Professor Turley, leading to him stalking the Professor every single day, yapping at his heels and then proclaiming he’s the smart one who defeated Professor Turley – while Professor Turley isn’t even aware that a pathetic creature named George/X even exists.
In today’s installment, GeorgeX proclaims that his Ouija Board informed him that students today want to pay good money for DEI, Woke, and Black Nationalist courses that have absolutely nothing to do with the degree program they’re enlisted in.
He wants us to agree with him that being compelled to take social justice courses is what a free market looks like.
Some people were dropped on their heads just after birth. GeorgeX’s mother grabbed him by the heels and repeatedly swung his head against a door frame.