This week, CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss was supposed to give the UCLA Burkle Center’s annual Daniel Pearl Memorial guest lecture on “The Future of Journalism.” It was a wonderful opportunity for students to hear from one of the impactful voices in the media. However, they will not be able to do so after a successful cancel campaign supported by faculty members. “that she believes Weiss has used the guise of free speech to attack people on the left whose opinions she does not agree with – and having her speak at a signatory lecture would legitimize these actions….To invite somebody who is working against that mission in highly powerful places just seems like anathema in the university mission.”
This statement is an example of the culture that is inculcated into students who become intolerant in college. It explains why students feel righteous in shouting down or interrupting speakers.
What is “anathema” to the academic mission is the viewpoint intolerance and orthodoxy shown by Peters and the faculty and students at UCLA. In accusing Weiss of attacking those with “opinions she does not agree with,” Peters demanded that Weiss be silenced as someone with opinions that she does not agree with.
The lack of self-awareness is a common element among many in higher education who claim to support free speech and intellectual diversity while purging universities of conservative or libertarian faculty or speakers.
The fact that UCLA would pick Peters to lead this Center speaks volumes about the culture in higher education. Peters felt complete license to speak as the Associate Director for the canceling of speakers with opposing views. Her overt intolerance was likely an advantage with other faculty members.
After years of surveys showing the purging of faculty ranks, there is no evidence that faculty members are willing to allow a diversity of opinions.
After years of viewpoint intolerance, schools like Yale have finally reached the point where there is not a single faculty member left who donates to the Republican Party or candidates.
In 2018, a faculty member who called for greater viewpoint diversity at Sarah Lawrence was the subject of threats and vandalism.
Samuel J. Abrams, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College, wrote about the problem almost ten years ago. His research showed that, while the faculty was overwhelmingly liberal, the administrators were even more so. In his survey of 900 college administrators, he found that liberal staff members outnumber conservative staff members by a 12-to-1 ratio: “A fairly liberal student body is being taught by a very liberal professoriate — and socialized by an incredibly liberal group of administrators.”
That was almost a decade ago.
This does not happen overnight or by accident. It is the result of faculty and administrators replicating their own views while effectively purging their ranks of conservatives or moderates.
Today, even liberal columnists like Ezra Klein have been subject to disruptive protests. It is rare for libertarian or conservative figures to be invited on campuses and these faculty members have succeeded in deterring others.
It is important for speakers to continue to appear on campuses despite these threats. We cannot yield to the mob.
Indeed, today I will be speaking at the University of Southern California from 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm PST at the USC Davidson Conference Center (3409 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007). I look forward to speaking about my book “Rage and the Republic.” I will then be speaking in the evening at the California Club.
Nazis and Hollywood: The Cinematic Capture of the American Mind. The modern habit of labeling every political opponent a “Nazi” has become a global reflex. The reason is simple: go to the movies. Between 1950 and 1989, over 1,000 WWII films were produced; since 1990, another 900 have followed, most focusing on the Third Reich*. Americans have “Nazis on the brain,” yet few possess any historical knowledge beyond the silver screen. Simplistic tropes like “Nazis are bad” and “Orange Man is bad” now dominate our discourse, primarily on the left, though the right is hardly innocent. While many recognize the movie villain, how many have actually read the harrowing histories of Treblinka, Auschwitz, Stalingrad, or Leningrad? Very few. Our understanding of fascism isn’t based on history; it’s based on Hollywood. Thanks.
*The complete list is online.
WTF? This thread is about B. Weiss not films.
Are you in a nursing home. Would explain your bizarre comments.
Well of course they would demand for Weiss to be canceled!! Leftists cannot tolerate any opposing view to their own. We have seen it in the past over and over again and again. Any and all opposing view must be silenced at all costs! Cannot allow students to hear any opinions other than the leftist approved doctrine, narrative and religion!!
Upstatefarmer, they can demand a cancellation. They are exercising THEIR free speech right to voice opposition or objection to Weiss speaking. There is nothing wrong with that.
The university was STILL willing to hold the event and accommodate Weiss. They did not cancel the event which is what Turley is implying. The security team Weiss employs chose to cancel the event citing unsatisfactory security. Weiss had the option of ignoring is security team if she insisted on speaking anyway. UCLA was still willing to hold the event.
I find that the need to have security for a speaker like Barry Weiss, who is hardly a flamethrower, hard to understand. How have we gotten to this point?
With the help of time.
…and the way the left and Trump personalize disagreements responding with the adhomimen attack.
This line of civility has been all but erased in national politics. Funny though, most everywhere else in our lives (family, work, school, church, clubs and organizations), Americans still practice norms of civility and decency.
Barnum,
When people call others Nazis, fascists, justify the use of violence to silence others to include assassination that is how we have gotten to this point. I have no doubt the security threat to Weiss is real, and would not put it past some deranged leftist to attempt real violence against Weiss.
Do you have an original thought in all that nonsense you post?
Wait … you’re been agitating to censor, remove comments from this blog, since way back. And here you are stating leftists only censor. Are you stupid or sumptin?
It’s amusing that everyone is bashing the school when it was Barry’s security team that chose to cancel the event. UCLA was still wiling to hold the event even with the petition and threats of resignations. But Turley made no effort to make that distinction because it would undermine the narrative implying UCLA capitulated to the mob which it did NOT do. It was Weiss who capitulated over security concerns from her own team.
We’re seeing the unmasked george… no AI to do his thinking (did I just say thinking?). Nothing worth commenting about.
Funny thing george, without AI you haven’t much to spew.
And you do? What do you add to the discussion besides useless griping about commenters?
And what do you add to the rants you spew here? You don’t discuss, you spew. That about right? Useless you say, and yet here you are griping that others are griping.
What AI model do you prefer? Pornhub or X?
Again, you’re not adding anything to the discussion. I’m offering a different take, an opposing view to Turley’s take on the Weiss “controversy” he alleges.
All you are complaints and insults. Come on man, if you want a real discussion, engage. But you’re clearly intent on just whining about what I’m saying.
We noticed that your recent comment are rather skimpy? Is that because you got caught using AI to fill you previous, 500 plus word comments, and now you have to resort to using you brain. Brain, did I just say brain? Sorry folks.
Got caught? I never said I don’t use AI. Who wouldn’t? It is a helpful tool for research. I’m not surprised you don’t use it. It’s there for you to use and take advantage of and….learn. I do use my brain, to figure out what to use for research and add to my own opinions or arguments.
You….just whine and insult. You don’t even add anything.
Different take? george you’re habitual liar.
How is that a lie? Care to elaborate? Perhaps you could post your own take on the issue or rebut my position without resorting to insults and whining.
Prove it. Cite your source(s).
“. . . UCLA capitulated to the mob which it did NOT do.”
It most certainly did.
In exactly the same way Minnesota “capitulated to the mob” by telling local police and the NG to stand down.
Who canceled the event? UCLA or Weiss?
Who chose not to drive the car with the two flat tires? The driver did.
While evading the fact that UCLA punctured the tires.
A topic worthy of investigation is the contribution of Schools of Education and their Leadership Programs, as well as Leadership Programs at Universities outside of Education Departments to socializing “incredibly liberal administrators.” There is a serious question as to whether these programs educate leaders or instead simply indoctrinate “leaders” in left/liberal viewpoints and perspectives. P.S. UCLA should be ashamed of itself for abandoning principles of free speech and academic freedom.
Reece Newman,
Well, the fact universities have purged nearly all conservatives in their faculty is a clear indication of “indoctrinate “leaders” in left/liberal viewpoints and perspectives.”
You just rewrote Turley’s opinion and passed it off as yours.
Upstatefarmer, the idea of conservatives or libertarians are being purged from academia is not supported by the facts. Turley only alleges that is happening without ever providing clear proof that is a thing.
Remember, it’s conservatives and some libertarians who are constantly bashing higher educations as useless and a waste of time while at the same time whining and complaining that they are being underrepresented at those same institutions they denigrate.
It’s their ideas that have a hard time gaining traction. Students are not attracted to or see their ideas as interesting enough to demand their inclusion. That’s just the way it is. Turley wants what is essentially an application of affirmative action policies, but for conservatives. Because he believes universities and colleges should be representative of the demographics of the nation’s political makeup. Except it’s the students who dictate what views they are interested in. Because they are the ones paying for it through loans or their parents.
The radicals in universities are making a mockery of higher education. They plug their ears and close their eyes, versus listening to the speaker and making their own decisions. Reminds me of the 1960s when I served 4 yrs in the military (I volunteered), and people said the military was the problem. They went to speakers and stood up and turned their backs, as if that was going to solve anything. They should know that by banishing the speech of others, they are guilty of drowning out free speech.
I understand why Bari Weiss did what a chief editor does when presented with the 60 minutes CECOT piece. She did NOT refuse to run it. She sent it back for rework, to add needed context. In today’s infowarfare battlefield, that act of upholding a standard of thorough, objective reporting against an attempt to cut corners is automatically oppo-branded as “pulling” the story. This is how infowarfare works. There is zero interest in narrowing areas of disagreement to keep them resolvable. That’s normal human interaction, which seeks harmonious outcomes after constructive conflict.
What we have now is spreading and amplifyiing areas disagreement into outright personal animus — demonization — with zero intent to resolve conflict. Rather, the only “peace” acceptable is a fantasized dominance-capitulation outcome.
The root word “warfare” in infowarfare captures the coarsened approach to listening and communicating. Thinking is reduced to taking a side, and then creatively crafting a warlike gesture.
The 60 minutes segment still aired without the added context from the White House. She pulled the story because it did not include a on camera comment from the Trump administration. It did have quotes made by the administration which Weiss thought was not enough to present a ‘fair’ reporting of the story.
When Weiss finally decided to air the segment it was aired during an obscure or “dead slot” during an NFL playoff game. Effectively burying the story. It was a pretty bad editorial decision.
Ho hum ….
We’re thinking, why all the fuss about your comments X?
They shed no ideas, insights or offer factual evidence. Its just you arguing with everyone anyone who bothers to check you, or don’t bother with you at all.
My personal opinion, give it a rest. You bore me.
No factual evidence? Turley is insinuating UCLA succumbed to the “mob” which led to the cancellation of Barr Weiss speaking engagement. I pointed out, factually, that it was Weiss’s security team who chose to cancel the event. UCLA was STILL willing to accommodate Weiss’s security concerns and even schedule the event at another time. The 11,000 petitioners had NOTHING to do with the cancellation or any UCLA decision regarding the event. None.
Turley incorrectly or falsely implied UCLA “bowed to the mob”.
BTW, nobody has checked me. Nothing stops anyone from confirming the fact that it was Weiss who canceled. Not UCLA or the 11,000 petitioners. Turley is using the fact that 11,000 people signed a petition, which IS a free speech activity and their right, to express an objection to Weiss’ speaking event. Turley is not telling you that even THAT is also a valid exercise of free speech.
Prove me wrong.
Fact and insinuation? BTW, Turley offered an opinion. You know what an opinion is, right?
George is in overdrive mode this morning. Already made 14 comments. I’ll bet 100 bucks that he makes 50 by lunch time. Any takers?
An opinion can insinuate a false narrative. You didn’t know that?
Opinions can also be used to peddle mischaracterizations of events using his “credibility” as a constitutional scholar and legal expert. Right?
Opinions that suppress key underlying facts (those that are needed to understand the credibility of the opinion) are the defining characteriatic of deceitful infowarfare (propaganda), when the speaker knows it’s not true. It’s often the case that false narratives are repeated without the secondary speaker knowing their thinking has been manipulated.
This is most likely the mistake Prof. Turley made with today’s column. I don’t think he intended to deceive.
The beauty of this blog site is that the misconception about who cancelled the speech has been rectified. Thank you X.
Refusing to accept the correction by personally demeaning X — and offering no factual rebuttal — that’s the hollowed out mentality of the know-nothing infowarrior. If Turley tomorrow accepts the correction, will you then demean him too?
Whether it’s the petitioning folks at UCLA (or their kind elsewhere), they denigrate the word “faculty.” When the term higher “education” is written, the word education must be placed in quotation marks because it means only more years of indoctrination.
Denigrate? Why would people petitioning be a denigration? Turley leaves out the glaring fact that petitions ARE also exercises of free speech. It’s people expressing an objection to another’s speech and that is also valid free speech activity.
What Turley is not telling you is that UCLA did not bow to the mob. It was still willing to facilitate the event and accommodate Weiss. But it was Weiss’s own security team who decided it the accommodations were not enough and chose to cancel the event. Turley wants YOU to infer the University capitulated to the mob when in fact it never did.
“It is important for speakers to continue to appear on campuses despite these threats. We cannot yield to the mob.”
Weiss yielded to his own security team. Not the mob. If Weiss was intent on speaking at the event she would have waved off her security team’s concerns and went ahead with the speaking event. Turley leaves out the fact that UCLA was willing to continue with the event despite the petitions and resignation threats.
Weiss is not as courageous as she thinks she is. A true journalist would have gone ahead with the event despite security concerns if she truly believes in free speech.
Quotes george, you should know by now, name the source.
The source is Turley’s article. You did read it, did you?
Then why didn’t you source it? You know about sourcing right? What’s the problem about you not sourcing? You’ve been caught lying and plagiarizing.
I thought you would be smart enough to figure it out. I guess I was wrong.
George you’re always wrong. If you’re not lying, you’re plagiarizing.
There is a reason that the Progressives want free college and indoctrination is it. Sending a child, and make not mistake these are children with unformed minds, to indoctrination camps is a well established practice.
There’s that word again: “indoctrination.” Add that to the list that includes “woke.”
Hahahahaha!
I bet you look for the buggy man under you bed.
@JG Gordon
I have no doubt that is precisely the reason years ago Obama declared a bachelor’s degree ‘the new high school diploma’. It’s a mess.
Literally the Inmates and the Insane Asylum Story over and over again at our Institutes of Dimwitted Learning. This is the same bunch that would have hanged Galileo if they had the opportunity. Only those thoughts approved by the Filthy Academic Illuminati may be presented to the low IQ College Student so they readily drink the Kool Aid without question – Hmmm, perhaps the definition of MORONS!!
“The LA Times reported that UCLA was turning to the common excuse of security concerns to effectively yield to the heckler’s veto.”
Turley frames the event as a cancellation by UCLA “bowing to mob pressure”. However, official statements from both the university and the speaker’s affiliates clarify that the decision to not move forward was made by Weiss’s team and CBS security.
Turley neglects to note that students and faculty who signed the petition or those who threatened to resign were themselves exercising First Amendment rights to oppose speech they found objectionable.
Judea Pearl, father of the journalist whom the lecture series honors, explicitly stated that “UCLA has NOT canceled Bari Weiss” and at no point did the university capitulate to politically motivated pressure.
Always miss the point?
I am guessing that in his latest contrarian comment X has either denied that Weiss was canceled or that if she was that it is a good thing. You see I stopped reading this fools comments because frankly it is sickening how far this little fascist will go in defending the indefensible.
Hullbobby, Weiss canceled herself. UCLA did not cancel the event. Weiss’s security team did.
I never said it was a good thing either. UCLA continued to try to accommodate Weiss’s security concerns, but it was her team that chose to cancel. Not the UCLA or the petitions to demand the cancelation. Weiss chose to cancel the event. She was not denied anything.
You stopped reading? LOL! You read them every time. That is how you end up whining about them.
What are you doing commenting about george’s comments.
You swore off reading commenters you hate. Which is everyone here. And yet here you are.
You on medication?
” You see I stopped reading this fools comments because frankly it is sickening how far this little fascist will” Source: hullbooby.
He’ll need some defending today, so in …. minutes his simp (upsatate farmer) will show up and …..
This is a george AI comment.
Leftwing fascists spread propaganda, and cannot bear for different opinions to be heard. The left has no confidence in their message being able to survive critical thinking. Thus, fascist professors, fascist students, and fascist administrators, all work to silence any voices with which they disagree. Goebbels would be proud of them.
Same comment you’re been replaying for the last … 3 months. Got anything else?
End All Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits or colleges
Outlaw public unions
Stop funding Democrats who HATE America!
End Federal Aid to colleges including student loan backing
Outlaw Public Unions, the political army of the democrats
Stop rewarding them for failure!
…but, but, but look over there. Trump criticized someone, that’s censorship, much different than out censorship of cancelling people and not allowing them to speak. Are these idiots even self aware in any way?
If you are to stupid to compete in the area of ideas you have to shut your opposition up before people figure out your level of stupidity and quit listening to you.
Sigh, professor Turley’s habit of quoting statements out of context continues.
This is the full context of Peter’s statement and why she threatened to resign,
“ petition demanding that the Burkle Center cancel the event received nearly 11,000 signatures. The petition cited Weiss’ alleged alignment with the Trump administration – including through her choice to pull the 60 Minutes segment – as reasoning for why she should not give the speech and accused her of making xenophobic comments.
Peters, who is also the Department of Political Science’s vice chair for graduate studies, said she plans to resign as associate director of the Burkle Center if it follows through with the event in any capacity. She added that she believes Weiss has used the guise of free speech to attack people on the left whose opinions she does not agree with – and having her speak at a signatory lecture would legitimize these actions.
“To invite somebody who is working against that mission in highly powerful places just seems like anathema in the university mission,” Peters said.”
Turley conveniently left out the part that makes Wiess and Turley hypocrites. When Weiss pulled a segment reporting on the conditions of the El Salvador Prison and the Trump administration’s deporting of immigrants there. It clearly had an unflavored view of the administration and exposed Weiss’s bias.
Then, Turley’s common “purging” refrain about conservatives which is also devoid of any context is used to show the alleged victimization of conservatives and libertarians at the hands of liberal colleges and universities. Which is still an odd argument to make when in fact it is conservatives and libertarians who eschew higher learning and often denigrate it as overpriced and unnecessary education. Conservatives and libertarian ‘academics’ tend to self purge because their ideas or views just don’t gain traction in colleges and universities. It’s not liberal faculties that are “purging” these academics. It’s students lack of interest and their poor ideas and outdated views. It’s just basic reality that seems to confound Professor Turley.
What a load of myopic BS.
That’s not an argument.
and neither is the heap of malarkey you just made.
TS:DR
It’s not student lack of interest. It’s a purge of all viewpoints that don’t adhere to Leftist dogma. When you have to submit a Social Justice statement with your application and when White Males are automatically screened out, it is quite clear to all involved the system is geared toward ideological indoctrination and promotes racism and sexism .
Cale Mars,
A purge of all viewpoints? So you are against removing DEI, transgender studies, CRT, woke ideas, etc? Because those are also viewpoints. Conservatives have been purging those viewpoints from academia for a while now which makes it, ironically, viewpoint intolerance.
George is obviously desperate this morning, he’s attacking everyone. Can’t wait until he goes after people’s grammar.
“conveniently left out the part..”
X, you must have been really impressed the first time you read that tactic on this blog, maybe even it was in response to one of your goofy comments. Just like, “It’s amusing that….
Glad we could teach you a few things, X.
Caleb Mars,
Well said. As we have seen, lefitsts will not allow for other viewpoints to be heard. Students are not even given an opportunity to voice their desire to hear a speaker speak. The faculty gets the speaker canceled before anyone gets a chance. Really do not think those who hire professors are not screening out anyone who steps even so much as a toenail outside of leftists dogma? This is not higher learning but indoctrination.
Upstatefarmer, DEI, was about allowing all viewpoints. Conservatives didn’t like that so they attacked those who held viewpoints supporting things like trans rights, CRT, systemic racism, etc. That is also viewpoint intolerance.
One problem of this universal political intolerance on campuses is that it is contagious. It spills over to everything these students do – even dating. So, it has come to the point where the only majors worth pursuing are those where students are actually taught to do something and to solve problems without bias. Majors such as engineering, sciences, and business are among these. Majors such as history were once an excellent prep for the law, but now new grads come to law school first as budding activists and second for the law.
Contagious? Have you carried out a study of student dating habits? Of course you haven’t.
You read too much MAGA propaganda.
Many such studies have been done. The point specifically that many, a majority of students, refuse to date anyone with differing political views. The condition is more prevalent among women. This is reported on the news frequently. You can google it if you don’t watch the news. Please keep up to date.
Done, then cite them if you’re going to steal their content.
Even the engineering and science courses are now infected, and actual science has given way to indoctrination. Recent graduates in these fields can’t be trusted to know what they’re doing, especially if they tick all the intersectional boxes, and were therefore guaranteed to graduate even if they learned nothing.
And your proof of this claim is?
And your issue with Milhouse’s comment is…?
Opening my goddam eyes. The same proof I have that rain is wet.
gdonaldallen,
Yep. Saw a study showing illiberal leftist women are less likely to date anyone outside of their political view point. Men were much less likely.
Another study showed the birth rate for conservatives was at 2.4 while progressives was at 1.6. The replacement rate is 2.1. So, progressives are literally (non-) breeding themselves out of existence.
Margaret Peters needs to be fired for preventing students of their rights of free speech by restricting them of the right to think for themselves by listening to other viewpoints and forcing them to only choose one side
Fired? Why? Because you don’t like her opinions? Self-awareness anyone?
She needs to be fired for not allowing other opinions to be expressed. If she doesn’t like someone’s opinion she can express her disagreements civilly and in her own time. She should not get to prevent them from speaking.
And frankly, yes, there is no room in academia for those who support censorship For free speech to exist, those who don’t believe in it must not be allowed to take advantage of it.
What about Weiss’s pulling of a 60 min segment on Trump’s use of an El Salvador prison? She pulled it because it was not going to paint the Trump administration in a good light. Censorship?
Turley “forgot” to mention that it was the Weiss security team who ultimately made the decision to pull out of the event citing inadequate security by the school. Turley claims the school engaged in a classic Heckler’s veto, but “neglected” to point out it was the Barry Weiss’s security team who made the decision to cancel the event.
11,000 people signing a petition is significant. What is telling is it was not the university who canceled the event. It was Weiss’s security team. UC Berkeley was still wiling to hold the event but it seems the security demands from Weiss were over-the-top for the university.
“Weiss’ team pulled out of the on-campus lecture, said Steve Lurie, the associate vice chancellor for campus and community safety, in an emailed statement. Her team cited insufficient security measures as reasoning for the cancellation, said Judea Pearl, the father of lecture namesake Daniel Pearl – a Jewish American journalist kidnapped and killed by Islamic extremists in 2002 – in an X post.
The university was prepared to provide security for Weiss, Lurie added.”
The choice to cancel the event was Weiss’s, not the university. She could have still held the event and the university would have held it. Weiss’s security team, which is weird for a journalist to have a security team, ultimately decided it was not satisfied with the university security arrangement.
I would love to verify both sides of this, but how can you ask why a journalist needs a security team? You have not been listening.
Why would Weiss need a security team? Can you make an argument for why it would be needed at the level the Weiss team demanded?
Does the name Charlie Kirk ring a bell? By the way, if you don’t have the courage to post under your own name you really aren’t worth paying attention to.
Allan Jenkins, Barry Weiss facing the same threats as Charlie Kirk?
Charlie Kirk was intentionally inflammatory and dared others to prove his controversial views wrong. He chose to hold events out in the open. Weiss is not as controversial or polarizing as Kirk was.
Rarely anybody posts under their real name. We have plenty of anonymousesses, and pseudonyms here. Even those ‘brave’ conservatives spewing racist tropes and bigoted comments.
Everyone gets attention here. Inducing my No. 1 fan…anonymous. The whiny one.
Another asinine statement by Xlax.
Allan Jenkins,
“Does the name Charlie Kirk ring a bell?”
Correct!
The university would not provide the level of security to ensure safety. As we have seen the level of violence expand on college and university campuses, and yet another would be assassin at Mar-A-Lago, of course Weiss would want security as violence against her is real. And the university then can defacto cancel her appearance by simply not providing the necessary security.
TS:DR
Calm down george, you’re gonna get a heart attack.
CBS is going down into the dumps. That is why Bari Weiss was hired. Journalism at CBS was becoming nonexistent, so she pulled an inflammatory piece for the writers to report, not advocate their typical hyperbole and mistruths. It might be shown in the future.
What about Weiss’s pulling of a 60 min segment on Trump’s use of an El Salvador prison?
What about it? That’s not censorship, it’s editorial judgment. It’s her decision whether something goes to air. None of her employees have any right to have their work broadcast.
She pulled it because it was not going to paint the Trump administration in a good light.
No, she pulled it because it was bad journalism. There was no genuine attempt to get the administration’s perspective. The administration offered it, the so-called “journalists” refused to listen.
But had she pulled it for the reason you falsely claim, that would have been no one’s business but her bosses’. They would not have been pleased with such a decision. But neither her employees nor the general public would have had any right to a say in the matter. It would simply not be their business.
Even SCSD is going to the dogs.
And yet we as a nation shower intolerant institutions like UCLA with tax exemptions, grants, scholarships and all manner of incentives. In addition, “degrees” from places like UCLA open the doors to the upper levels of our society.
It’s our tax dollars and tuition payments that are paying Peter’s salary and all the other costs of places like UCLA and what are we getting in return?
Unless you live in CA, your 99.9999% of your tax dollars do not pay for UCLA. But in 2024 they got $800 M in federal money. Your contribution was about ten bucks. Want it back?
Yes, I do. And so do most taxpayers. Give us each our $10 back.
Taxes? Nonrefundable.
You’ve made a persuasive case that UCLA does not need the $10 the government confiscated from me that I earned to support my family and gave it to UCLA instead.
I’ll also take back the money it confiscated from me and gave to all the other state and private colleges.
INCORRECT. OUR Tax Dollars DO FUND UCLA…something like 50%
Student Loans are backed by Federal Government! 50% of those either default or are paid off with some fraud like going to work for some public entity.
Federal funds make up over one-third of California’s state budget!
Man are you an idiot.
We were just thinking the same about you.
You still drunk?
Good luck today at USC. Interested to learn how you are received there.