Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks. While 98 percent of the political donations went to Democrats, not a single professor could be found who gave to a single Republican candidate. The complete lock for Democrats is in a country that is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
The Yale Daily News reviewed more than 7,000 Federal Election Commission filings from 2025 listing Yale as the employer: “Of 1,099 filings that included ‘professor’ in their occupation, 97.6 percent of the donations went to Democrats, while the remaining 2.4 percent went to independent candidates or groups,” the student newspaper reported Jan. 14.”
The study reinforces the recent Buckley Institute report, which found that, of the 43 departments surveyed, 27 entire departments contained zero Republican professors.
Even if the study missed a couple of donations, the radical imbalance is a reflection of the lack of diversity at the school. It is not a perfect point of comparison. There can be a conservative or libertarian faculty member who does not make donations and does not register with any party.
Moreover, those of us who have criticized the lack of diversity have not argued for partisan criteria in faculty appointments. Rather, these are metrics that help show the lack of diversity. Many scholars prefer to dismiss these criticisms as speculative or unproven. However, the problem has long been obvious and these studies reinforce what critics have said for years.
One professor is quoted as acknowledging the apparent problem. Carlos Eire, a history and religious studies professor, said, “It’s true, there is very, very, very little intellectual diversity at Yale and at most institutions of higher learning when it comes to politics.” Professor Eire added,“Academics in the US, Canada and Europe have been leaning left for the past three or four generations. And this is something that shows no signs of being corrected or correcting itself anytime soon.”
He is correct.
I was asked by the president of a top-ranked university how he could reverse this problem. He was convinced that the lack of intellectual diversity was causing lasting harm to higher education. I told him that one thing is clear: you cannot rely on faculty members to restore diversity.
I was at a dinner not long ago with a Harvard Law Professor who told me and others that he could not be expected to vote for a faculty candidate with whom he disagreed. Two of us objected that we do that all the time to reinforce intellectual diversity. He was entirely unapologetic and unyielding that he would not vote for faculty candidates who embrace conservative views of the Constitution that he considers wrong.
Faculty members have privately acknowledged for years that they have largely eliminated conservatives and libertarians, but rationalize their records on not finding “intellectually promising” conservative candidates. If the imbalance involved race or gender, a court would crush arguments that the lack of diversity is some unintended consequence of the applicant pool.
University presidents must create enclaves of diversity outside these departments, through institutes and centers that faculty members do not control.
Take Harvard.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Some faculty are more honest than others.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
Yale, however, is now a perfect echo chamber where moderate, libertarian, and conservative students (if they can make it into the school) are left to self-censor and avoid backlash for their views.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
My own alma mater in Philadelphia, the Cradle of Liberty, used to promote fairly traditional American values. No more. The Ivies want to be “international” entities. Then, why should we, why should government give the institutions any support? They cannot even represent the United States if faculty is so disproportionate in political outlook.
Think how upset Yale’s football players would be if after being run over and embarrassed the first time they faced another team they discovered their university had an unwritten policy against hiring coaches with backgrounds in defensive football?
Faculty members have privately acknowledged for years that they have largely eliminated conservatives and libertarians, but rationalize their records on not finding “intellectually promising” conservative candidates.
If that’s their excuse, then they’re being dishonest (although it is not clear who Professor Turley is quoting here). In my years of interacting with and being taught by faculty members at good-quality universities, the conservative ones were intellectually superior to the liberal ones. It was the difference between disciplined, logical thought, versus emotional warm fuzzies, hand-waving, and moral posturing. That is an oversimplification, I realize, but it captures the essence of the difference. The conservative faculty members as a whole were, generally speaking, more thorough and disciplined in their reasoning process.
There are virtually no Republicans left in Congress or in state legislatures. MAGA is the opposite of what Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln supported.
MAGA hijacked the Republican name, but there are few real Republicans left in America.
Republicanism means government officials follow the laws enacted by current and previous Congresses. Republicanism means officials follow their Oath of Office to follow the U.S. Constitution.
A better title should read “Yale receives no donations from foreign style authoritarians”.
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
The America First idea has always been around. Trump just packaged it into a nifty campaign slogan.
As I have stated on the good professor’s blog before, when a party, either of them, no longer represents the voter, it is the right of the voter to change parties, make a new party, re-make their party, or vote for someone or party who does represent their best interests.
Do I agree with everything that is MAGA? Of course not. But it is a lot better than what the Republican party was before. And it is WAY better than anything the far-left wing of the Democrat party has to offer.
Very good Upstate. That’s also why I can support the MAGA movement in principle without putting on a Republican jersey. My support isn’t about party loyalty, but whether a movement aligns with first principles, popular sovereignty, and constitutional limits on power. Parties are tools, not identities.
There’s also a more subtle concern. Political parties naturally divide the country into factions. That may make life easier for politicians, but it accelerates the decay of independent thought among the electorate. Once everyone is expected to wear a jersey, reasoning gives way to team loyalty and accountability erodes.
Additionally, if citizens are expected to declare their colors, then politicians should be required to do the same — not with party jerseys, but with badges showing who finances their campaigns. Transparency should run both ways in a self-governing republic.
OLLY,
Thank you very much! I take that as a great compliment coming from you.
Someone noted there are more Americans whom identify as Independent than Republicans and Democrats. I do not see that as a bad thing. The only real downside is we cannot vote in the primaries.
However, I do feel as an Independent it affords us to step back from the idea of party loyalty to examine a party, either one of them, or a candidate with a more objective eye.
The only real downside is we cannot vote in the primaries.
And guess who that benefits? Closed primaries benefit parties, not citizens. Losing them is the price of independence — and often the point.
This brings back memories of Yale gang rapes and house parties.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember how she got there or when she left.
“So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard Rowland, 1919
____________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
In a counterproposal designed to ease tensions with the United States, on Thursday Greenland suggested that Donald J. Trump acquire Jeffrey Epstein’s island instead.
“President Trump has no roots on our island,” Greenlandic government spokesman Hartvig Dorkelson said. “Epstein’s island, on the other hand, must stir many happy memories for him.”
Acknowledging that Epstein’s island “could benefit from rebranding,” Dorkelson said, “More than the Kennedy Center, this is a place that should have Trump’s name on it.”
Meanwhile, Trump ramped up his imperialist rhetoric, declaring that the US needed to own Lapland in order to corner the world market in laptops.
Trump never was on the island that the evidence shows. But, many of the sex parties happened down the street from Mara Lago at Epstein’s Palm beach mansion, where Trump visited many times. Pedophilia also happened at Epstein’s New York home. And, when Trump did his teen beauty pageants at Mara Lago, Epstein served as a judge a number of times, one which is documented on video as Trump and Epstein gaze at teenage girls doing a runway show at Mara Lago.
Clearly, God intended for men to love and desire females.
This psychotic pervert is repeatedly accusing the President of the unnatural and criminal without providing a scintilla of complaint by any individual or evidence.
Of course, modern norms are arbitrary and unnatural.
Ban for Life and Scroll Past his rubbish.
___________________________________________
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
__________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
While the Bible does not explicitly state the age of any woman at her marriage, historical data and biblical scholars generally agree that the youngest age for a wife was likely between
12 and 14 years old, coinciding with the onset of puberty.
________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
While the specific age for reproductive capability varies per person, the following represent the average ages for the onset of fertility in 2026:
Females: Age 12.5. This is the average age of menarche (first period) in the United States. While ovulation can occur slightly before the first period, regular fertility is typically established shortly after it begins.
Males: Age 13.4. This is the average age of spermarche (the first occurrence of sperm in ejaculate). Though males enter puberty between ages 9 and 14, they generally become capable of reproduction when viable sperm production begins around age 13.
So says the Dork.
It is quite telling that the left’s push for Diversity does not extend past skin color. Why not intellectual diversity? Is there no room in the hallowed walls of academia for conservative principles and thoughts?
jimboct, The deeper issue isn’t left vs. right. It’s purpose.
Universities in a constitutional republic exist to form citizens capable of self-government. That requires exposure to competing ideas, serious disagreement, and the ability to reason through conflicts without coercion. Intellectual diversity isn’t an add-on to that mission — it’s central to it.
If “diversity” stops at surface traits and excludes viewpoint diversity, then it abandons the very function higher education is meant to serve in a free society. You can have demographic variety and still produce intellectual conformity.
The question isn’t whether conservative ideas deserve space because they’re conservative. It’s whether a republic can survive when its institutions stop training people to argue ideas at all.
As a conservative who attended graduate school in the 1980s, I learned early how hostile academia could be to dissenting viewpoints. I specialized in Russian foreign policy and once attempted to attend a lecture by Richard Pipes, only to be nearly blocked from entering the auditorium by protesters. That experience left a lasting impression: universities lose credibility and strength when they allow ideological gatekeeping to replace intellectual engagement.
This is why I admire thinkers like John McWhorter today. His argument is simple and compelling: academia would be far healthier if all viewpoints were allowed onto the table and then subjected to equal, rigorous challenge. Ideas should rise or fall on their merits, not be protected or suppressed by institutional consensus.
However, it is crucial not to confuse that principle with what passes for “free thought” in the MAGA movement. MAGA rhetoric often uses the language of intellectual freedom as a smokescreen, not to expand debate, but to justify silencing ideas it dislikes. While it is legitimate to challenge excesses such as the reflexive tendency to blame white society for all systemic problems—a notion that became both pervasive and intellectually unserious—MAGA goes much further. It operates on the premise that its conclusions are so self-evident that opposing views, particularly liberal ones, should be excluded altogether.
McWhorter himself refuses to engage with MAGA for precisely this reason: it is not a serious intellectual project. Its aim is not persuasion or problem-solving, but provocation. Immigration enforcement provides a clear example. Highly visible tactics designed to inflame opponents may generate outrage, but they are neither efficient nor conservative. When one party controlled both Congress and the presidency, there were straightforward, non-theatrical policy options available—such as targeting the economic incentives that enable illegal residency. Fine or imprison landlords who fail to show their tenants are US citizens or documented. Instead, disruption and symbolic conflict were prioritized because they produce emotional payoff. MAGA loves the chaos.
This is why MAGA should not be mistaken for conservatism. Conservatism, at its best, values order, restraint, effectiveness, and peaceful governance. MAGA thrives on antagonism and contrarianism, not durable solutions.
The irony is that if academia truly embraced open inquiry—welcoming all ideas and subjecting them to equal scrutiny—I doubt MAGA-style thinking would survive very long. Stripped of grievance and spectacle, it offers little intellectual substance. It’s for or against whatever Trump’s whims are, on any given day. A genuinely open academy would not strengthen extremism; it would expose it.
So what? Yale is place of learning and academics. Two concepts poisonous to Republicans.
So what? Yale is place of learning and academics. Two concepts poisonous to Republicans.
Academic Republican black American university professors found to be poisonous traitors to the racist Democrats’ communist souls:
Dr. Ben Carson
Dr. Walter Williams
Dr. Thomas Sowell
Dr. Shelby Steele
And not a single one of them got into Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc through DEI/Affirmative Action, but instead through meritocracy.
Your move, Tovarisch…
It is not learning or academics. It is indoctrination.
Indoctrination of what? I’m assuming you went to high school, so what was that all about, maybe some biased American history, bow to the federal gov., the big bad communists, something along those lines. No need to answer, you’ll embarrass yourself as usual.
Why, indoctrination of DEI studies.
Oh, no. History should be taught the good, the bad and the ugly. My high school history did not go far enough into the bad and the ugly parts. But that is also why my parents bought us an encyclopedia set. I learned more about WWI, WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam, JFK, MLK and the civil rights and more than high school.
Bow to the federal government? Of course not. That is why elections are so important.
Not any more. It’s become a place for indoctrination. All federal funding should be stopped immediately.
The Ivy league and many other large private and public Post-Secondary Education systems (Universities and Colleges) have little to do with either learning or academics as we have seen in the current US “Educational Culture” (read that as the base of teachers’ unions).
They are certified indoctrination institutes. Look at our measured success in education based on scoring (39th, last I looked).
This is willful ignorance. For one to become educated (actually, less ignorant), one must recognize that there things one does not know. If you recognize you don’t know how to change your oil, you can seek out someone who does and have them teach you. But, if you assume it is unimportant or you think you already know everything about cars that matters, you’ll soon be stranded on the side of the road scratching your head, wondering why your car died. For these universities, the ‘check engine’ light just came on and they have no clue what it means.
RE: Ivy League alignment.
The home of Washington Post Reporter Hannah Natanson (Harvard, 2019, Georgetown Day School, 2015, Managing Editor of the Harvard Crimson, member of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service awarded to the WP team for their [now debunked] Jan 6 reporting) — “an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor—endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security.” One of her sources appears to be a government contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator with Top Secret Clearance in Maryland.
Can’t wait to see her Medal of Freedom award from the next Liberal President
Whoever was smart enough not to publish the classified information that could endanger troops or the mission deserves thanks.
I respect your opinion :Young. However, why do these investigations begin – THEY WERE PUBLISHED!!! Also, as we’ve seen with the New York Times, “no kings” payed protesters and propagandists, Congressional Investments, and just outright betting (not to mention RussiaGate), these leaks ARE being published. After all, look at the benefits (ex. Walz position to attack Law Enforcement Agents, LA Mayor Doxing of LEOs so their homes and families can be attacked, . . ., lies that are from “anonymous” source that are not only unverifiable, but are indefensible.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-has-complained-about-pam-bondi-repeatedly-to-aides-fd424df3
Welcome to America.
The most popular bromide spoken by left-wingers is that “diversity is our strength.” They do not believe that.
I’m sure they explain it all away to themselves as all Republicans are racist, misogynist, homophobic and trans-phobic.
They would never consider for a moment that it might be their own fault.
Ivy League becomes Kudzu League.
Weed removal needed.
Is this – When do Justices become legislators? Jeopardy question…
Kamala Harris was right when she said, we aren’t going back. We’ll never see the United States again presumably.
So it goes unfortunately…
Everyone have a lovely day.
OT – Minneapolis
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,” close the border, rescind rebel sanctuary cities, compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens, issue mass temporary work permits with no path to citizenship, revoke birthright citizenship, make English the sole official language, commence a war to defeat the rebellion, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms, and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save, not the Union, but the Nation, eradicate the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era, blah, blah, blah…”
X, using his Anonymous Confederate persona, is copying and shyte posting his weekly screed again…
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 occupying American universities and others like X, The Racist Democrat Communist Formerly Known As George.
Maybe, just maybe, there are more conservs. at Yale than meets the eye. Maybe they’re donating to democrats so they won’t become targets when in fact they support conservatives. I wonder what the average donation is? That would gauge the degree of their liberalism. The fake liberals donate over $100 donors to avoid suspicion and really are conservatives, while the $10 donors are real liberals.
I think this can be determined by asking Yale students if they sense and can identify any fake liberal professors at Yale.
A large body of research has demonstrated that as a person acquires more education, they tend to become more liberal in their political viewpoints. For example, several studies demonstrate that with increased access to higher education, people demonstrate fewer authoritarian and racist viewpoints. Obviously, most college and university professors are highly educated, so it stands to reason that more available candidates for these positions are going to lean LEFT. To counter that, as I believe Professor Turley is suggesting universities do, one would need to give MORE weight to those candidates who are RIGHT leaning, despite them maybe not having the same credentials as a LEFT leaning candidate – to ultimately establish more diversity of opinions among all professors. That is something called Affirmative Action. I’m honestly, really happy to see Professor Turley do a 180 on this topic as he has so frequently spoken out against Affirmative Action. It really demonstrates that Professor Turley is willing to change his mind on things. Kudos.
lol .. . I’m pretty sure Turley used to be a ‘left-wing’ professor.
*you’ll have to buy my book for further details.
dgsnowden says lol .. . I’m pretty sure Turley used to be a ‘left-wing’ professor.
lol… I’m pretty sure dgsnowden didn’t even make it to college as a Guest Democrat Demonstrator
*binge watching the communist Young Turks for your news does not qualify as a college education.
Silence piggy! .. . you’re lucky I’m not your professor, if you ever had one.
How do students determine any professor’s political affiliation, anyway? Do professors have a ‘R’ or ‘D’ beside their name? .. . eg. Professor Turley, R, G. Washington University?
Inquiring minds want to know.
*show me your papers please .. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geuNkCmPXAM&t=634s
Please document the studies to which you refer. I hold that the more highly educated these liberal people and academics become, the MORE authoritarian and racist, not less, they become, Their authoritarianism is manifest by their contempt for persons of opposing political beliefs and the racism of some is manifest by their contempt of, and prejudice toward, white people, especially white males.
Hi Vincente,
Here’s a good recent study:
Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, Lenka Dražanová, Artem Gulish, and Kathryn Peltier Campbell. The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes. Washington, DC: McCourt School of Public Policy, Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2020.
AI Summary: This study finds that higher education—especially liberal arts—significantly reduces authoritarian attitudes by fostering critical thinking, civic responsibility, and interpersonal trust. It shows that college graduates are less likely to support authoritarian leadership and more likely to engage in democratic processes. The report positions education as a protective force against authoritarianism, especially in times of crisis.
link: https://www.natcom.org/resources-library/academic-work-on-education-anti-authoritarianism-example/#:~:text=Carnevale%2C%20Anthony%20P.%2C%20Nicole,especially%20in%20times%20of%20crisis.
Anon: Then please explain why “highly educated” liberals are so intolerant of people with opposing views, to the point where they have called for the death of conservatives.
Vincente says: Anon: Then please explain why “highly educated” liberals are so intolerant of people with opposing views, to the point where they have called for the death of conservatives.
I will give that poster the benefit of the doubt, in that he did post the link to at least the one study he was using to defend his post. Whether he wrote it himself or used AI to compose his answer, I did not bother to address.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the source is as important as the content. Looking at the mission statement of the group who allegedly peer reviews what is (claimed, I suppose) a refereed journal, my position is that does more to destroy the claims made in that post rather than support those claims.
This is a group/journal whose precise raison d’être is defending everything these universities were doing in the period of their surveys. Defending the anti-Semitism, conservative/Republican groups and speakers being attacked and driven off campus, professors calling for the murder of then President Trump.
This group is everything that these universities they attempt to defend are. They use the same dog-whistle prejoratives i.e. “right wing fascism”, etc that is part and parcel of Democrat Marxist theology.
I wonder if the OP actually read any of the content before deciding it could be safely used to defend the claims in his post?
Your Ai is hallucinating because it’s trained by brainwashed twinkies. It’s a phony appeal to authority and you know it.
The universities get a lot of government funding, so they pander to the party of big government. They brainwash students into being Democrats, Democrat students elect Democrat pols, Democrat pols fund silly grants for universities, and the cycle repeats. It’s a business model and always has been, but like all parasitic endeavors, it’s about to kill the host ($39 trillion in poison).
The universities are getting rid of conservatives because professors with agency don’t support corrupt business models masquerading as enlightenment.
The universities have spent decades convincing women to hate men and children, and now the birth dearth is depriving the schools of students. You hope Democrats can come to the rescue with more funny money for student loan debt, but even young people are starting to get wise to that trick, so your next gambit will be to get the Democrats to fund the universities directly with taxpayer debt instead. Some students might be that immature, but taxpayers and bondholders are not.
Instead of consulting Ai, I suggest you read Peter Turchin and find out how parasitic elites always destroy themselves. Spoiler alert: it starts with self-delusion.
And pretending you’re smart because you’re pathetic ego needs attention, use latin phrases in your comments. Look at me, I’m smart! SF.
“Hi Vincente, Here’s a good recent study:”
Hello; I respect your honesty and the provision of that link. I would suggest to you that the study at that link support both Vincente’s and my views that college faculty and the students they indoctrinate are becoming MORE discriminatory, authoritarian, and more exclusionary. Far more than they were before.
I not only took the time to read the paper – but also the mission statement of the organization that is apparently a refereed journal. I assume you did precisely the same i.e. read their mission statement?
See anything in their mission statement that might make you question their impartiality? And the papers they might publish that defends what universities are doing and that they’re defending and pushing?
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE UNDER ATTACK
Academic freedom and tenure are under attack across the U.S. and globally. Coordinated attacks on critical scholarship, especially work advancing inclusion, diversity, equity, and access (IDEA), are reshaping higher education through restrictive legislation and political pressure.
Rather reminiscent of the famous/infamous Kellerman study that the CDC first funded, and then attempted to use to justify gun bans and confiscations as a public safety measure.
I’m open to you trying to change my mind on their purpose to defend what these universities are doing, and publishing papers like this to defend it.
you say: “despite them maybe not having the same credentials as a LEFT leaning candidate.” The problem is that the people doing the hiring for colleges consider left-wing political views to be “credentials.”
edwardmahl,
Be interesting to see if two people applying for the same job at a college, were both qualified for the position, one had it listed as a member of some left leaning club/organization, or member of the Democrat party chapter, and the other right leaning club/organization, or member of the Republican party chapter, who would get the job.
That’s it? You’re contribution. I’ll bet you do the same in your pathetic existence.
For example, several studies demonstrate that with increased access to higher education, people demonstrate fewer authoritarian and racist viewpoints.
Interesting post… aside from the fact the findings of those studies clearly miss the anti-Semitism and racism that is at the core of the universities being discussed today.
The trademark we’ve seen over the past two years is totalitarianism and racism/anti-Semitism. And it’s not new. Not having seen the studies mentioned, they appear to be self-congratulatory – not actual academic work.
I believe that there is also a somewhat pragmatic reason for liberal professors….these guys become Peter Pans because they’re spending their days with people between the ages of 18 and 22, and they want to be popular.
If you think like a child, you write like a child, Time to grow up.
If you think like a child, you write like a child, Time to grow up.
It’s too early in the morning for the Democrat movie theater to be having a childrens’ matinee showing of the Democrat Commie Clown Show.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where a deeply emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else.
This is an internal defense mechanism which allows mentally ill people to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt, seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Mr. Turley, you are an excellent resource for anyone who agrees, or disagrees, with your reasoning. Major colleges and universities have few conservative professors for a reason . . . they despise conservatives as if they were “uneducated”.
Elites in higher education should take off their blinders and sit down and listen to others with whom they disagree. However, that wouldn’t happen since professors would view conservatives as uneducated and unworthy of their time.
Turley: “Affirmative action and DEI practice is bad for the country!”
Also Turley: “We need affirmative action to hire more Republicans and diversify University faculty!”
Also also Turley: “Please buy my new book!”
Dear Prof Turley,
According to Gallop polling, 46% of Americans identify as ‘Independents’, 27% identify as Republican and 27% identify as Democrat.
Perhaps, Yale (& the Pew Research center) should employ more ‘Independents’ if they want to accurately reflect the political diversity of Americans.
*when you think about it, perhaps “we shouldn’t even have an election”?
“It’s some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don’t win the midterms,” Trump said. He boasted that he had accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”