According to a new survey, roughly 40 percent of college faculty would “oppose hiring a Trump supporter.” The results of the study are not surprising to many in the field of teaching. Indeed, it may be low given faculty reluctance to admit political bias or the delusion of others that they are without it. Yet, the virtual purging of Republicans from most departments reveals a long-standing ideological exclusion in higher education. While far-left hires are common, even a moderate Republican is a rarity on faculties in a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters.
Even assuming that many faculty members will not expressly acknowledge their bias, this forty percent is willing to state that they will vote against candidates based on their political views without any consideration of the intellectual content of their scholarship.
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.
I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.
There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools.
I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.
Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.
Tolerance is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision in Trump v. Barbara, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty “parasites” that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education. In his post, Pfaff declared:
“There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic.
They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us.”
His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education.
I recently participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), who opposed the principles of institutional neutrality.
Some sites, such as 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.
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.
At Yale, the faculty achieved a type of academic nirvana in reaching a point where not a single faculty member gave to a Republican candidate.
When pressed, faculty members often claim that they cannot find credible or competent conservatives. During my debate with Professor Kennedy, I noted that, if a university made such a claim to explain the virtual absence of minority professors, a judge would laugh them out of court. The virtual absence of conservative or Republican faculty in most departments shows a deep and unrelenting bias.
There is little self-reflection on the left in considering the historical or cultural implications of such bias. While often alluding to the McCarthy period in criticizing the right, professors rarely acknowledge their own effective black list against conservatives and certain Trump supporters. Few conservative applicants today would risk admitting to being Trump supporters in interviews.
The intolerance in higher education will not change because it is a cultural touchstone for faculty. Professors prove their bona fides with intolerant statements in meetings and even in classes. I heard from closet conservative students at Harvard how faculty routinely used their classes to rail against Trump and Republicans. They sit like a silent captive audience.
Surveys show that this intolerance has produced widespread self-censuring by students, particularly conservative students.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censoring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
That is the environment of intolerance created and maintained by this generation of administrators and faculty. It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.
“It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.”
That’s not going to happen because plenty of donors favor censorship. It might stop, however, if Congress excludes discriminatory universities from federal student loans.
In fact, go further: It will not change until the federal government stops giving any money to colleges and universities. Those institutions are free to adopt and advocate whatever political stance they choose.
But there is zero point zero reason that the IRS can take *my* money — under threat of incarceration — to give to these institutions.
Sort of like the fired FBI agents who in doing their job didn’t live up to Trump’s definition of loyalty? Oh that’s right that doesn’t get discussed here.
Speaking of poorly treated FBI agents:
https://manhattandaily.com/10-fbi-whistleblowers-who-warned-of-political-weaponization-and-faced-retaliation-from-biden-admin-reach-settlements-with-doj/
Democratic Socialists Openly Call For The Erasure Of Constitutional Government
… Forget about the “false left/right paradigm”; that concept is now dead. Whatever logical clarity or loyalty to the American way that average progressives might have had is long gone. They have detached completely from morality and ideals of merit and responsibility. They are financially backed by some of the most evil NGOs and globalist corporations on the planet. They have ties to some of the most despicable and oppressive governments in the world. …
By Tyler Durden ~ Aug 04, 2026
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/democratic-socialists-openly-call-erasure-constitutional-government
The bright-side is there are 91 days (~3 months) until the Midterms (Tuesday, November 3, 2026), after which this will simmer-down and normal political bedlam will prevail once again.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t – teach.
The vast majority of college professors don’t have the wherewithal to run a successful business, so the fact that they would be unwilling to hire a conservative or a Trump supporter is completely unarming to me.
The fact that they would prioritize political ideology over skill set and competency assures me that the country is better off hiding them in the halls of academia
Trump supporters are NOT real Republicans. MAGA voters in 2026 support a foreign model of government maybe closest to Spain’s Francisco Franco.
MAGA voters in 2026 don’t support the American Republicans like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
The premise of your article is false. Why would any American college hire any faculty that essentially supports the government model of Spain’s Francisco Franco and rejects America’s model of government? This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it’s American vs. foreign models of government.
Wrong.
MAGA voters support the America model of government.
As I have said previously, when a party no longer represents what a voter concerns, what they care about, it is the right of the voter to pick another party or even form another party.
The establishment Republicans were for a long time abusing their voters.
Then Trump came along. He tapped into exactly what voters cared about. He energized the Republican base.
Establishment Republicans tried to impede him (e.g. Mitch McConnel) but he had too much inertia and won the 2016 election.
By then, the Republican party was changing into what it is today. A very pro-Republic, pro-America party.
The Democrats are seeing a similar change in their party but it is a radical far left DSA that is taking the party in a direction that moderate, traditional Democrats do not want any part of. Bill Maher has been calling out the stupid and crazy for years. He has said his vote is in play and would vote Republican if Democrats continue in this direction. James Carville recently said something to the effect of he is ‘out of here.’ NJ Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D) recently said, “Obviously, I’m a very proud, commonsense Democrat, and I don’t think DSA members are Democrats. They’re socialists, right? And I’m all for them having their own party if they want one, but if they’re trying to take over our party, that’s unacceptable to me.”
Seems it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have more in common with not just Spain’s Franco but China’s Mao.
This is all old hat. The new Trump seems to be taking orders from Netanyahu. Franco would be a refreshing change of pace.
The new Trump seems to be taking orders from Netanyahu
That’s a joke, right? No sane person would say such a ridiculous thing and mean it.
You are as transparent as glass, you know who else supported Republicans against Franco…Stalin. Which is who the leaders of the democrats act like.
The tipping point comes when you acknowledge that McCarthy was correct and the much lauded reporter was wrong in saying “have you no shame”. The vendor was a communist. I believe there is still a $50,000 bounty for anyone to show McCarthy ever blackened a non communist or communist sympathizer name. Remember we were one vote on the vice presidency from having an acknowledged Communist sympathizer or follower from becoming PRESIDENT. Fortunately the DNC cut the power and we got Truman instead. The Communist and their useful idiots have been lying , hiding, denying, going all the way back to the civil war.
The Left’s ideological capture of institutions goes beyond academia. To take a recent example, the Smithsonian Institution has become a purveyor of anti-American left-wing garbage. Your tax dollars at work.
What is this “anti-American” garbage you speak of? Pretty vague accusation.
Predispose: The University/Colleges is the ‘Lifeboat‘.
Google AI string: ( You are on a lifeboat of 100 people, only 10 of them can stay onboard, who would you kickoff the boat? )
I would not kick anyone off the boat; instead, I would look for alternative survival strategies to save all 100 people.
As an AI, I approach this classic ethical dilemma from a perspective of minimizing total harm and maximizing human survival. Deciding who lives or dies based on arbitrary traits is fundamentally flawed and inefficient when creative, collaborative solutions can preserve everyone.
Instead of sacrificing 90 lives, a structured, high-utility survival plan would look like this:
1. Optimize the Boat and Life Restraints
Rotational Sharing: Keep 10 people inside the boat to steer, signal for help, and manage equipment while others rotate in and out of the water.
Improvised Flotation: Use the boat’s internal materials, empty containers, and personal items to craft additional flotation devices for those in the water.
The Huddle Method: Group the 90 people in the water into tight clusters around the boat to preserve body heat and prevent hypothermia.
2. Establish a Skill-Based Hierarchy
If the situation forces a strict division of roles to keep the boat stable, people should be categorized by temporary utility rather than human worth:
The Crew (The 10 Onboard): Select individuals with immediate survival skills, such as navigators, medical professionals, and those physically strong enough to pull others from the water.
The Vulnerable: Secure the elderly, children, and injured near the center or on the safest parts of the structure.
The Active Swimmers: Task able-bodied individuals with maintaining the perimeter, keeping morale high, and managing the rotation schedules.
3. Maximize Rescue Visibility
Continuous Signaling: Dedicate the boat’s resources entirely to deployment of mirrors, flares, and loud whistles to alert passing vessels or aircraft.
Stay Positioned: Keep the entire group unified in one exact geographic coordinate to present a massive visual target for search and rescue teams.
By shifting the problem from a moral execution thought experiment to an active engineering and survival challenge, the goal remains the preservation of all 100 individuals.
To maximize the total number of surviving lives, no one should be kicked off the boat. Instead, the optimal ethical and practical decision is to have the 10 passengers onboard actively rotate with the 90 people in the water, utilizing life jackets and external lifelines to keep all 100 people alive until rescue arrives.
This classic ethical dilemma can be solved by shifting from a mindset of elimination to one of resource optimization.
The Survival Rotation Strategy
• Continuous Rotation: Ten people remain inside the vessel to rest and recover from hypothermia, while others hold onto the side lines or swim nearby in life vests.
• Scheduled Intervals: Passengers swap positions every 15 to 30 minutes to balance core body temperatures and prevent physical exhaustion.
• Vulnerability Priority: Children, the elderly, and injured individuals occupy the internal seats for longer durations to maximize their survival odds.
Frameworks Supporting This Choice
Ethical Framework | Action Dictated | Ultimate Goal
Utilitarianism | Keep all 100 alive via rotation. | Maximize net survival and reduce total harm.
Egalitarianism | Treat every human life as equal. | Avoid arbitrary discrimination based on age or status.
Cooperative Logistics | Use the 10 seated people to pull/secure others. | Leverage teamwork to resist currents and stay visible.
—
Gilligan’s University ~ Tenure Track
Academic tenure typically takes about 6 years of service in a probationary tenure-track role before it is granted. Once achieved, tenure lasts for life or until the educator retires or leaves the position voluntarily.
The S.S. Minnow is the famous 38-foot 1964 Wheeler Playmate Express Bridge charter boat from the 1960s television comedy Gilligan’s Island.
In the show’s premise, the ship leaves Honolulu for a three-hour tour before a storm strands its crew and passengers on an uncharted island.
What Faculty (Staff) do you Fire, What Faculty do you Save?
This is what Universities (and Businesses) are facing. ‘Criteria’ (whether the Faculty is Liberal or Conservative) should be given the lowest value in the discretion of elimination, The Faculty member’s ‘contributory’ value to the student body should be given the highest value in retention.
Success is measured on the Student’s viability-to-succeed in the post graduate reality (Real World). The ‘cumulative-meaningful-learned’ experience is the aim in fulfilling the Students goal(s). This is the key to Their successful-survival in the real world.
Universities using the Faculty’s political acumen as a measure of output performance is useless as a tool to providing successful real world post graduates. Providing ‘Real World’ functionality by properly prepared Graduates for the Student’s field of choice is the most important aspect of achieving success in the greater Work Force.
(Rephrase: A University set on graduating more Liberals than Conservatives (or vice versa) as their criteria is a useless (futile) endeavor. That leaves the Student unprepared for the Real World.)
“It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.”
No truer statement has ever been written about this topic. And that message needs to be heard by college and university presidents and boards of trustees. Nothing will change until they run out of the ability to spend other peoples money. Complaints and concerns about lack of intellectual diversity on campus will not result in change. Money talks.
If we had only listened to McCarthy we wouldn’t be in this state of communist infiltration in our media/education industry. It is similar to the recently revealing data about that covid plandemic. if we had listened to those screaming “caution do not believe the lies of the left” we would have saved a great deal of pain, death, money, and social discord. Now we are paying the piper for decades of progressive (what is a progressive but a hubristic tool of socialism) indoctrination of generations that are now, mentally and socially useless bags of angry, petulant human flotsam.
Actually I disagree with the good professor on this one. The value of a college degree is no long what it was ten, twenty years ago. There is a shift from college to trade skilled jobs as vocational schools focus on the training for the job, the cost is less and in some cases there are paid internships. When factoring in college debt, the trade worker may make more and in some cases, the pay is even better than a entry level college degree required job.
Let higher-education go their own way, the way of the do-do bird. As more and more colleges fail, some just might get the idea and change.
I don’t think we can afford to be that passive. Pretty much all K-12 teachers and administrators must have college degrees. If they’re all indoctrinated leftists, they’ll attempt to indoctrinate all public school students, as we’ve already observed happening for the past 20+ years. That’s how we’ve ended up with all these budding socialists throughout society. The law schools are equally affected, which impacts the pool of potential political leaders and judges. Also HR/hiring managers in industry will all have college degrees. Thats just too much of an advantage to give these useful idiots and their masters in bringing down the incredible engine of prosperity and justice that the founders and our ancestors fought so hard to build. Also, I’d rather not spend my retirement in some DSA gulag. 🙂
The German Nazi SS was filled with doctors and lawyers. Seems a similar mentality governs in colleges and universities today. And what eventually happened to the SS? And how was the SS destroyed? These people should take note. But of course, they won’t. And they will pay the price. At least, I hope so.
When Professor Randall Kennedy says Harvard is elite and doesn’t have to look like America, he begs the question “what does this elite bring to the table of We The People?”. To Johnathan’s donors point, donors may start connecting Adam Smith dots that elite is producing zeal for taxes on wealth beyond income taxes. Donor self interest could take the form of Joseph Welch’s question- and impact- to Joe McCarthy in the Army McCarty hearings: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
Of all professions, professors should be the most capable of meeting a challenge to their worldview. They teach students how to understand the world, weigh evidence, and think critically.
If they are too fragile to tolerate a qualified colleague who disagrees with them, what exactly are they teaching? Not inquiry. Not critical thinking. Just conformity.
Critical thinking means evaluating evidence, which means some arguments naturally lose because they are objectively terrible or factually wrong. You wouldn’t hire a flat-earther to teach geography just to “avoid conformity,” and you wouldn’t hire a doctor who pushes dangerous medical misinformation just to “challenge a worldview.” Refusing to validate unqualified or thoroughly debunked arguments isn’t censorship—it’s basic quality control. If a candidate can’t survive a rigorous academic review of their ideas, they shouldn’t blame the faculty’s “fragility” for their own lack of merit.
True inquiry doesn’t mean giving equal weight to every fringe opinion just to look unbiased. It means following the evidence where it leads and filtering out bad arguments.
That’s a dodge. Neither Turley nor I said qualifications do not matter. The issue is whether the candidate meets objective hiring standards. If the answer is yes, then political ideology has no business being used as a veto. That is not “quality control.” It is viewpoint discrimination.
This isn’t a dodge; it’s just basic logic. If a candidate’s “political ideology” requires them to deny objective facts, ignore peer-reviewed data, or peddle conspiracy theories, then yes, it is absolutely a veto on their qualifications.
Having a degree doesn’t give someone a lifetime pass to teach whatever they want. If a geography department rejects a flat-earther, or a biology department rejects a creationist, that isn’t “viewpoint discrimination”—it is basic quality control. Turley wants universities to lower their professional standards to enforce an artificial political quota for MAGA. True intellectual diversity means debating different interpretations of facts, not forcing universities to validate candidates who substitute partisan loyalty for actual academic merit.
Nobody is talking about people who believe in a flat earth. You brought that into the discussion. You’re using a straw man argument. There are many well qualified conservative academics who belong on faculties but are excluded because they are not leftists. Deal with that issue, please. That’s the issue under discussion.
It’s not a straw man; it’s an analogy about professional quality control. No one is denying that there are fewer conservatives in higher education, but claiming they are unilaterally “excluded because they are not leftists” is factually incorrect. Elite universities routinely hire and elevate qualified conservative academics who produce rigorous, evidence-based scholarship.
Look at the actual data instead of the grievance narrative: Harvard Law School explicitly hired John F. Manning—a prominent conservative scholar and Federalist Society member—as their Dean, and later elevated him to University Provost. Princeton University’s faculty features Robert P. George, one of the nation’s most influential conservative legal and political theorists. Harvard has long housed legendary conservative political scientist Harvey Mansfield. These institutions didn’t veto them for being right-of-center because their research met elite academic standards. The system filters for intellectual rigor, not political party.
oh the system also filters for social connections and a personality profile that most people wouldn’t like but somehow finds a comfy nest in academe
“John F. Manning, Robert P. George, Harvey Mansfield”
JT’s article is about *current* hiring practices in academia. Guess what you (intentionally) left out of your comment:
Manning was first hired as an academic *32* years ago.
Mansfield (now retired) was hired by Harvard *64* years ago.
George, who is a never-Trumper, was hired *42* years ago.
Good job, though, dropping the context and lying by omission.
P.S. “The system filters for intellectual rigor, not political party.”
BS. 30 years in that “system.” My undergrads were more intellectually rigorous.
“The system filters for intellectual rigor, not political party.”
Anonymity fosters a lack of accountability; omitting key details becomes an easy avenue for deceit when there is no reputation on the line to protect. Sam proved that.
SM: TY.
Show me where I or Turley argued for any of that. You can’t, because we didn’t. You’re just stacking up absurd examples to avoid the actual point, which is that ideological blacklisting is not critical thinking.
Turley’s entire article argues that because university faculties don’t mirror the local Republican voting data, it must be a “purge” and a “blacklist.” That is literally an argument for ideological quotas.
Pointing out that universities filter out bad ideas isn’t “avoiding the point”—it IS the point. If a candidate’s “ideology” requires them to ignore data and push conspiracy theories, a university vetoing them isn’t discrimination; it’s quality control. You’re crying “blacklist” to reframe a basic meritocracy as a political witch hunt. As proven by the successful, high-profile careers of conservative thinkers like John Manning at Harvard and Robert P. George at Princeton, qualified conservatives get hired when their work actually meets elite academic standards.
This is exactly the kind of sloppy reading you’d expect to get called out in a seminar. Turley presents a thesis, supports it with data, and draws a conclusion about ideological bias in academia. If you disagree, then attack the data or the inference. Don’t invent quota arguments and fake villains he never mentioned.
Since you want to talk about seminar-level analysis, let’s actually grade Turley’s paper. His “data” is a textbook example of cherry-picking, and his inference is a complete logical failure.
Turley points to a poll about Trump supporters and leaps to the conclusion that traditional conservatives are being “purged.” That inference completely falls apart when you look at the actual landscape: elite universities routinely hire and promote qualified conservative intellectuals. If there was a true ideological blacklist, John Manning wouldn’t be the University Provost at Harvard, and Robert P. George wouldn’t hold a prestigious chair at Princeton. Turley’s thesis relies on confusing basic academic quality control—filtering out bad scholarship and unproven claims—with political discrimination. He doesn’t have a data problem; he has a merit problem.
If you tried to run your arguments against Turley’s thesis on a debate stage with him, you’d get laughed off. Turley is not saying no conservative ever gets hired. He is making a broader claim that the academy is ideologically lopsided and that hiring culture often screens out dissenting viewpoints. If you want to beat that, then beat the whole argument. Take on the data, the pattern, and the inference. Two named exceptions do not erase a systemwide problem.
If this were a real debate stage, Jonathan Turley’s entire thesis would fail on a foundational rule of statistics: correlation does not equal causation.
Turley’s “broader claim” is just a broader version of the exact same logical fallacy. Pointing to an uneven outcome and screaming “conspiracy” isn’t a debate-worthy argument.
If a university’s tech department is lopsided, do we assume a secret plot, or do we look at who is actually graduating with those degrees? The modern MAGA movement has spent the last decade building its entire identity on anti-intellectualism, attacking climate data, denying election results, and trashing higher education. Why would a movement that constantly boasts about hating universities produce a massive influx of qualified PhD applicants?
This isn’t “screening out dissenting viewpoints”; it’s screening out unscientific claims and bad research. Turley wants to blame a “leftist mob” because his preferred political tribe simply doesn’t prioritize academic career tracks. That’s not a systemwide purge—it’s a systemwide choice.
Anonymous @ 11:49:
“…not forcing universities to validate candidates who substitute partisan loyalty for actual academic merit.”
Where did that come from? Who said that, supported that, indicated that, or even implied that?
I must’ve missed it.
You missed it because you are looking for an explicit confession instead of reading the actual mechanics of Turley’s argument.
Turley argues that because the political makeup of university faculties doesn’t match the general voting demographics of their regions (e.g., noting Massachusetts is 30% Republican), a malicious “purge” must be happening.
To prove this “purge,” he points to a poll showing that 40% of faculty wouldn’t hire a Trump supporter.
Supporting Donald Trump’s political platform in 2026 requires defending thoroughly debunked claims—such as election denialism, junk science, and fringe legal theories that have been uniformly laughed out of federal courts.
When hiring committees veto a candidate for promoting those unscientific or unproven claims, Turley calls it a “leftist blacklist.” By demanding that universities stop this “blacklist” and hire these candidates anyway to achieve political balance, he is directly implying that universities must lower their standards and validate partisan loyalty over peer-reviewed academic merit.
assigning a motive to Turley (“he is directly implying that…”) is the biggest giveaway that you are either X or his multiple personalities who cannot offer any real evidence but instead offer your own “implications” as factual. what a joke you are.
When I was in college & grad school, they were places of debate of differing opinions! It was a very healthy atmosphere in those days. And it was fun to watch each other’s faces as we considered a new way of looking at a particular problem! Healthy debate made the US the greatest nation on earth!
Take away the politics on all three sides as well as the profession and look at the individual. Why are they afraid of debating, discussing or listening to opposing ideas or opinions? Why do they need to isolate themselves in an echo chamber? Is it due to their lack of physical experience? Are they that insecure that it is a protective necessity? A social sense of security? Or the need to feel more powerful than those that do not agree with them, bullies? Or like some of the commentators here, been indoctrinated (brainwashed in my day), that only one side, theirs, is valid?
The only way to the improvement of society, science, business or individuals is through questioning the status quo. Thus the importance of the 1st amendment here in the U.S. and the willingness to listen with an open mind.
The reason rcs is the hysteria culture thinks conservatives are evil. They’re on a mission at any cost. They must be Kings and queens of the landfill. There’s food there.
You proved my my point about insecure posters here.
Do you get paid by the post, word, sentence or punctuation mark?
Unfortunately, Professor, should the Democrats gain power, the battle is lost!
The link goes to a disburbing but thoughtful dive into what awaits us all.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-racial-crossroads/
‘It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.’
Those ‘donations’ need to include tuition. Stop sending your kids, stop thinking an expensive piece of paper means or is indicative if anything whatsoever (shoot – at this point it might as well be the modern left’s absurd version of communion). The Professor’s ‘New Jacobin’ class is comprised almost entirely of these privileged and utterly useless idiots. The demarcations could not he more clear at this point. They do not possess smarts, acumen, skill, or even emotional stability in equal measure to their families’ wealth.
I propose we call them what they are: the spoiled, idiot, child class. Even referring to them as functional adults is insulting. They are absolutely a monster we created, and hopefully we’ve gone far enough toward the edge for people to get the message.
James,
Well, we have to question the real value of a college degree. Paying that much money to be the captive audience, to have to sit there and subjected to the personal views of some over paid professor? To have to be forced to write a paper to fit that professor’s point of view or get failed? Or be forced to take some mandatory for graduation DEI course that amounts to nothing? And then there are some of the majors we have to question their value, like gender studies, DEI studies, and all the other nonsense. I recall a video of a college graduation day, and the grads declaring their various DEI majors. A few short years later, they are still living at home, mostly dependent on their parents as once companies figured out their DEI divisions added nothing to the bottom line and were causing low moral, they fired all their DEI employees.
Another thing we are seeing is how college is NOT preparing grads for actual work in the work place.
Hey Professor, don’t forget that McCarthy was proven to be right by the Venona documents.
If you’re going to drag in a source please give a brief of its contents. Please and thank you.
Carpe diem in this heat wave.