As many criticize higher education for pursuing indoctrination over education, Oregon State University (OSU) appears to be doubling down on a mandatory woke curriculum. The university is under fire for its mandatory undergraduate courses on “Difference, Power & Oppression” (DPO). Much of the rhetoric on the university’s website reads more like the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) than an institution of higher education.
OSU requires all undergraduate students who enrolled after the summer of 2025 to complete two “Difference, Power & Oppression” (DPO) courses as part of its Core Education curriculum, including “Difference, Power & Oppression Foundations” and “Difference, Power & Oppression Advanced.”
This is all part of what OSU calls a “core curriculum” that teaches students to be “adaptive, proactive members” of society to “build a better world.”
The University of Chicago (my alma mater) developed a very different “core curriculum” that required students to take classes across different disciplines to gain proficiency in subjects from science to math to philosophy.
Schools like OSU have converted the mission into instilling a core ideological agenda, a mandatory agenda for shaping anti-racist social warriors.
The university explains that all students must take these courses to learn how to “disrupt” oppressive systems in the United States and around the world: “The inequitable distribution of social, economic, and political power in the United States and globally is sustained through systems of oppression, which represent a variety of discriminatory institutional beliefs and practices.”
Students are to be trained on how “beliefs and practices obscure the origins and operations of systemic oppression in daily life, such that this inequitable power distribution is assumed to be the natural order.”
The purpose is clearly to train activists to fight against the oppressive institutions and traditions in this country and abroad: “Such examinations will enhance and promote responsible, ethical, and anti-racist engagement by preparing students to understand and disrupt these systems as they manifest in their field.”
It is telling that the faculty and administration are not willing to let students choose whether to take such courses. It is not uncommon for such courses to be offered as electives, but OSU is requiring any graduate to sit through this indoctrination as a requirement for graduation. As Campus Reform noted, DPO courses have appeared at the Yale University School of Drama, the University of Virginia, and Northern Arizona University.
The school is using a public university to instill ideological values in students as a condition of their getting a degree. They are expected to “demonstrate, by using social justice theories, how historic constructions of racism and other forms of systemic oppression result in intersecting inequities – crossroads of oppression – experienced in current times (last 10 years).”
For many students, a college degree is an opportunity to demonstrate academic competence and pursue their own careers and values in society. State schools are critical in realizing a dream of a better life for many of these students.
State tuition of $38,568 a year remains the only accessible path to higher education (nonresidents are charged $65,013). However, faculty are using these students as a captive audience to their own ideological agenda.
The ultimate responsibility for this mandatory curriculum falls on President Jayathi Y. Murthy and her administration.
This controversy is also notable at a time when many faculty are objecting to state legislators seeking to limit funding or regulate the curriculum of their state schools. Faculty maintain that they should have full funding and full control over their institutions even as they create ideological echo chambers that exclude or marginalize a large percentage of students. Many citizens do not understand why they are compelled to fund universities that use these institutions for ideological indoctrination.
Oregon is obviously a heavily Democratic and liberal state. Other schools such as the University of Oregon have shown the same bias, including giving an award to an academic who criminally attacked pro-life advocates on campus. Likewise, states such as California are unlikely to push back on far-left agendas at universities. UCLA even has “activists-in-residence” to shape the political views of students.
However, many states still view public higher education as an opportunity to learn in an ideologically neutral and tolerant environment. Yet they face institutions that are openly hostile to the views of a majority of residents or create hostile environments for students who need to take advantage of the state education system.
Just as donors should decline to support private institutions without real reform and strong intellectual diversity, state legislators should use state funding to combat that ideological agenda of faculty.
If President Murthy and the OSU faculty want to use their institution to instill ideological values and disrupt the oppressive institutions of this country, they can clearly do so. However, they do not have to do it with state money. They can seek to support their institutions with private funds from liberal donors and allow the state to spend money on institutions with greater neutrality and balance.
As shown at OSU, the faculty are unlikely to change this environment. Conservatives and libertarians have been largely purged from departments. Many do not have a single such faculty member, according to surveys. At the same time, many, including the head of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), oppose institutional neutrality.
There must be a point where the most fervent liberals in states such as Oregon will recognize the harm that is being done to higher education by yielding to such ideological impulses. It is often hard to speak up for those with opposing values, but that is the test of principle.
What is most telling is the lack of self-awareness by these academics in their creating their own oppressive environment. In higher education, their mandatory courses are the very evidence of “systemic inequities” and “inequitable power distribution” that is “assumed to be the natural order.” It is a lesson that will not be lost on many students who find themselves isolated and marginalized in their own state school systems.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Hold on folks. The basics of these courses is a military-type introduction in combating ANY source of power. Its works are neutral. See nonviolent action at aeinstein.org
Note to Supreme Court:
Communism is unconstitutional.
Do your sworn duty.
Note to anonymous, communism is not unconstitutional.
Oh, You’re wrong! Maybe better check it out so you don’t run afoul of that law commie!
Note to MAGAs who call everyone with whom they disagree “communists”. Fighting against inequality and being aware of the assumption that the natural order should be inequality is NOT “communist”. It is as American as it gets:–from the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Article 1, Section 8, the 5th Amendment right to private property et al. absolutely preclude communism in the U.S.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
You’re conflating equality under the law and economic equality. In other words: the Declaration of Independence and the Communist Manifesto.
Sorry but it actually is. The US constitution created a republic with strong protection for individual rights and limited government.
The US is not a democracy – you could not vote the country into communism if you wanted to.
You would have to radically amend or abolish the constitution and that requires ratification by 38 states.
In the US you have the right to advocate for a communism,
The right to form a communist party
The right to seek office on a communist platform.
But you may not put significant portions of that platform into effect even if elected.
Communists are not illegal or unconstitutional.
But communism can not coexist with the US constitution,
The slaves said they wanted freedom.
Turns out they wanted everything you have.
Thou Shalt Not Covet
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Thou Shalt Not Steal
“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
– Karl Marx
Covet is to “envy”. It’s not Jealousy. Envy seeks to destroy the good others have and do.
Communists sin by coveting the success and wealth of others when what they should do is start a business or get a job or two, spend frugally, and invest conservatively for their futures.
Communists sin by coveting the success and wealth of others when what they should do is start a business or get a job, spend frugally, and invest conservatively for their futures.
The rationale given by OSU for these courses is, “The inequitable distribution of social, economic, and political power in the United States and globally is sustained through systems of oppression, which represent a variety of discriminatory institutional beliefs and practices. These beliefs and practices obscure the origins and operations of systemic oppression in daily life, such that this inequitable power distribution is assumed to be the natural order.”
This is classic reasoning from the debunked Standard Social Model. This model presumes: 1) Humans are born with general-purpose cognitive machinery (learning, rationality) but no domain-specific mental adaptations. 2) Culture provides the content that fills this blank slate. 3) Socialization explains behavioral differences across societies. 4)Biology plays a minimal role in shaping behavior. In other words we are born with a mind as a blank slate ready to be filled and influenced by our social culture.
This wrong for multiple reasons including: 1) A blank slate can’t do anything; the mind needs some innate capabilities, and 2) Donald Brown’s lengthy list of human universals require significant innate human behaviors. https://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm Thus human behavior and thinking cannot be satisfactorily explained by the Standard Social Model much less by the related Marxist ideology of oppressor vs oppressed.
Apparently in OSU, there are still true believers in the debunked Standard Social Model (and Marxist dialectics) and still believe that these courses will achieve a worthy objective. As in a 1975 interview Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” It would be fascinating if some independent-minded and enterprising OSU professor actually tracked any results.
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” — Thomas Sowell
Exactly!
Who the —- is tom so well? Is he a right tackle or a center?
Hopefully, the hapless Oregon students will learn their lessons well so that when the hardened socialists have taken control of the Republic and begin to dictate the daily lives of its citizens they will already know how to “disrupt” a real and authentic oppressive system.
Unfortunately for those investing (students, parental sponsors, and other financial supporters), the solution is simple. If you receive a CV with a certificate of indoctrination (AKA degree) from Oregon State University, the most appropriate response is immediate filing in the circular cabinet.
If this is their required oath of allegiance to ignorance, unfortunately it isn’t worth the time arguing or mentoring destroyed mental capability.
This is exactly the problem. A public university should be teaching students how to think, not what to think. Oregon State is requiring undergraduates to take courses built around the premise that American institutions are sustained by “systems of oppression” and explicitly says students should learn to “disrupt” those systems. That goes well beyond exposing students to competing political or social theories. When the university makes one particular ideological framework mandatory as a condition of graduation, it is using its institutional authority to shape students toward its own political and geopolitical worldview. Call it education if you want, but when dissenting perspectives aren’t given equal footing and participation is compulsory, it starts looking a whole lot more like indoctrination.
Well said, and worth putting next to what education was actually for at the founding. That generation’s formation was built to produce the self-government capacity a new constitutional republic required, reasoning through competing arguments, weighing tradition against reform, and arriving at your own judgment. That’s the whole point of a citizen capable of self-rule.
OSU’s mandatory framework runs the opposite direction. Instead of building the capacity to sustain self-government, it trains students to see the institutions self-government produced as systems to dismantle. That’s not a difference of degree from what education used to do. It’s a difference of purpose entirely.
Bunch of gibberish Olly. The Constitution does not mandate education or involve itself in educational policies of state government.
What the Founders may have wrote or said are just thoughts, just words on paper. They had no explicit governmental authority.
You make up a lot of BS Olly.
You’re right on the narrow point, the Constitution doesn’t mandate education, that’s a Tenth Amendment matter for the states. But that was never the claim.
The point was about what the founding generation understood self-government to require, not a constitutional mandate. Madison, Jefferson, and others wrote extensively about civic formation being necessary for a republic to sustain itself, that’s documented history, not “words on paper” with no bearing on anything. You can disagree with the argument. Calling it gibberish isn’t a rebuttal, it’s a skip.
May have wrote?
Well they might of.
(The first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, lived from 259 BCE to 210 BCE.) Even as far back is a coalition led by the Babylonians and Medes conquered the Assyrian Empire. Upon capturing the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, the conquerors systematically torched the city. This included the famous Royal Library of Ashurbanipal, Pharaoh Horemheb—instituted a massive campaign of cultural and historical erasure of Pharaoh Akhenaten (reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE) and Thutmose III, directed a systematic campaign to alter the cultural memory of Thutmose III and the Purge of Hatshepsut’s Reign (c. 1458 BCE)
This illustrates the same more subtle tactics to which the progressives have been aligned since their rise to power with the administration of Woodrow Wilson and earlier. Erasure of a culture is necessary to subjugate the pre-existing ideologies and replace them with determined placement of the ideology of the conqueror. I do believe that America has been under siege for at least a century and has just a tenuous grasp of its original ethos at this point.
@whimsicalmama
Very, very much agreed, and it is precisely what the global left is attempting. At present, it’s still with varying levels of success by place, but it is absolutely happening. The parallels across continents are too perfectly congruent for it to be otherwise. We are facing something we haven’t seen globally since WWII, in my opinion, and this time, people have been hoodwinked on a scale the Nazi Germans or post-Mao Chinese could have only dreamed about back then.
More subtle yet true thinking students will reject this BS even as they are forced to put thru it. They will emerge knowing the “plsybook” and be better able to counter it. One hopes anyway.
What BS.
Is that the best answer you have.
Lacking at best
Is that the best answer you have.
Lacking at best
I didn’t make you’re foolish comment. You did.
Any “public” school that’s funded by the taxpayers should lose ALL PUBLIC FUNDING when they decide to teach & promote only communism! Let them ask China & Russia for funding as they’re promoting their agenda!
Spoken like a true communist.
I know of no colleges in the US the promote Communism.
And your experience with America’s colleges is?
There may be no colleges or universities that promote Communism.
But there are DSA members who are in academia who promote socialism and some, Communism.
Colleges are supposed to teach, not indoctrinate, so if you are looking for a school that teaches communism, look at the New School for Social Research. They helped import the Frankfurt School, which promoted those ideas.
If you want an expert on Marxism, read Thomas Sowell. He’s not white, so people on the left should be enthralled with him. He got his PhD in Economics and was a committed communist, later writing a book on Marxism.
When is forced ‘education’ actually indoctrination? When it’s forced.
No one at OSU has been forced. Missed that eh?
Did you miss this part.
OSU requires all undergraduate students who enrolled after the summer of 2025 to complete two “Difference, Power & Oppression” (DPO) courses as part of its Core Education curriculum,
(all)
Repeat. No one a OSU has been forced to take those courses. They can take them if they want to abide by the OSU program, or transfer. Get that? Didn’t think so since you never went to a university. Or college. Or high school. Maybe as a janitor. A rational individual would just take the course, pass it and move on.
Your whole point is students can transfer to avoid indoctrination. And that somehow makes the indoctrinating institution seem better because they are not forced to refrain from transferring? Wow.
UCSD medical center… Fool
Given how out in the open this all is these days, I can only conclude that parents in these places are perfectly aware of and support what the universities are doing. This may very well be dimwitted ignorance on their part, but it’s the kind we can’t afford. Stop sending your kids, stop making donations, support cutting federal funding. Marginalization is the only thing that will work, and money seems to be the only thing these blue places understand.
“The university explains that all students must take these courses to learn how to “disrupt” oppressive systems in the United States and around the world: “The inequitable distribution of social, economic, and political power in the United States and globally is sustained through systems of oppression, which represent a variety of discriminatory institutional beliefs and practices.””
To better understand and to address the issue of global systems of oppression, the professors of these DPO courses should take their students on “study abroad”:trips to other countries and show their students how to disrupt oppressive systems there. I recommend they start with North Korea, China (concentrating on Hong Kong and Xinjiang), and Cuba. Doing so would provide their students a reference point when they study oppression and discriminatory institutional beliefs and practices in the United States, that is, if they were ever allowed to leave those countries.
I for one would like to learn how “disrupt” the city council where I live and vote. Corrupt as corrupt can be.
It may well be that’s what OSU meant by an “oppressive system”?
Turley ought to look deeper into the core curriculum at his beloved University of Chicago which includes courses that could be teaching the same things. The courses at Oregon State are a small part of the core classes which also teaches a wide variety of subjects. Here’s what you can find at the University of Chicago. If OSU taught about “Power, Identity, and Resistance.” There’s no telling how Turley would make that sound.
SOSC 11400-11500-11600. Power, Identity, Resistance I-II-III.
“PIR” is a social sciences general education sequence that introduces students to a variety of approaches in the interpretive social sciences. Appreciating this rich history requires openness to the methodological approaches advanced by thinkers of sometimes vastly different political orientations. We explore the philosophical foundations of modern social and political thought through critical, chronological study of original texts. As we begin, students encounter questions about the nature and limits of sovereign power and some of the ways identity and resistance take shape in relation to the state. As we extend our study of social science thematically and historically, the analytics of “power”, “identity”, and “resistance” continue to provide powerful lenses for understanding social institutions.
SOSC 11400. Power, Identity, Resistance I. 100 Units.
The first quarter of this sequence opens with the theoretical basis of the modern, liberal state – social contract theory. We consider how state power was legitimized by common consent and how principles of freedom and equality were anchored in accounts of “the state of nature.” We also think about who was party to this original contract and ask whether the prosperity and protection of some was implicitly premised on the exclusion or exploitation of others. As we examine the protections offered by the liberal state against excessive, arbitrary power, we interrogate the limits of state power and ask at what point can we resist it? We trace these dialogues from the seventeenth century through the beginning of the nineteenth century. Texts vary by year and have included: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Constant, Paine, Wollstonecraft, D. Walker, C.L.R. James
Instructor(s): Staff Terms Offered: Autumn
Prerequisite(s): These courses must be taken in sequence. Students registered in this sequence must attend the first and second class sessions or their registration will be dropped.
SOSC 11500. Power, Identity, Resistance II. 100 Units.
The emergence of the liberal state that we examine in the Fall quarter accompanied the rise of commercial society and industrial capitalism, so in the Winter quarter we turn to theories of political economy. Generally, we are concerned with the relationship between labor and human nature, the organization of economic life, and the relationship between the state and the economy. We pay particular attention to the depiction of society itself as a market and how the capitalist mode of economic organization was linked both to new possibilities for human emancipation and new forms of exploitation and subjection. But we also ask how distinct is the modern form of capitalism? And what do the organization of labor and trade, and the distribution of resources outside of capitalism tell us about the ways power can operate in relation to economy? Texts vary by year and have included: Smith, Marx, Durkheim, Mauss, Hayek, Kropotkin, Arendt, Friedman, S. Mintz, E. Williams
Instructor(s): Staff Terms Offered: Winter
Prerequisite(s): SOSC 11400. These courses must be taken in sequence. Students registered in this sequence must attend the first and second class sessions or their registration will be dropped.
“Turley ought to look deeper into the core curriculum at his beloved University of Chicago”. Why, the story is about OSU.
You didn’t read the part about Turley comparing OSU to the University of Chicago? Reading with comprehension isn’t your spiritual gift.
So what?
Spiritual gift? You silly black man.
Ah, there you are!
And there you are. You just couldn’t resist the cheese. For the record, I disagree with his characterization. You’re not silly, just ideologically bent.
“Reading with comprehension isn’t your spiritual gift.”
Seriously?! That insult from the person who didn’t understand a single word of the UChicago courses he posted?!
To “look deeper”? This prospective student needs a deeper look into remedial English at the school of his choice.
Sounds like the economic and political science course descriptions I took. Nothing nefarious in the descriptions. Didn’t make me a Marxist or Socialist. Only a proud capitalist.
Appreciate you posting the actual syllabus, because it makes the opposite point you were going for. Take a look at your own reading list. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Paine, Wollstonecraft, Marx, Hayek, Kropotkin, Friedman. That is social contract theorists, their critics, free market economists, and anarchists all in the same sequence.
If your goal was to show University of Chicago runs the same playbook as OSU, you picked the one course that proves it does not.
OSU’s own language says students must use “social justice theories” to demonstrate how “systemic oppression” produces “intersecting inequities,” in service of “anti-racist engagement.” One framework, one required conclusion, mandatory to graduate.
Chicago’s course asks students to interrogate the limits of state power using thinkers who disagree with each other on almost everything. You can leave that class a Hayekian or a Marxist and pass either way. Try leaving OSU’s DPO sequence having concluded the “systems of oppression” premise is wrong and see how that grade turns out.
Next time you want a comparison, find a syllabus that actually resembles the thing you are defending.
The point I wish to make is that I could take a few words and shape them to mean whatever I like just as Turley has. Did Turley post the actual syllabus? No. He does what he always does, shapes the argument as he likes and gives you good people targets.
You may have wished to make a real comparison here, but this isn’t it. Apples to apples means find the syllabus. There isn’t one that I could find. DPO is a category dozens of different courses can satisfy, no fixed reading list like PIR has.
What OSU does have is a faculty gate: professors need DPO Academy training in “feminist and critical pedagogies” before they can teach it. Post an actual DPO syllabus and we’ll compare it directly. Until then you’re comparing a course to a mission statement.
He graduated from Fisk University so there you go
Fisk’s is a black panther indoctrination camp.
Olly, they have metastasized the syllabus. A reverse engineered list of course materials would read as a bibliography of misery.
Well put Mike. That’s the problem in a sentence, there’s no single syllabus to reverse engineer because the requirement was built to be satisfied by dozens of different “misery bibliographies” instead of one accountable reading list. Makes the case for a rubric standard even stronger. If the content can’t be pinned down, the only thing that can be checked is whether a student who disagrees with all of it can still pass.
Um… you do realize its an opinion. Opining. He’s not making arguments, he’s describing an observation using his thoughts of that observation.
And how will these two mandatory courses enrich students with an understanding of medical sciences, A&P, and treatments/care/rehabilitation?
(Remember, nurses don’t diagnose.) By all means, don’t hold back. Extrapolate, please and thank you.
Sorry Enigma! Posted this under the wrong comment. sincere apologies.
Why are you requiring two courses of several to meet a particular need?
@enigmainblackcom
You negate your own point with your question. If the Professor should look into his own milieu that would imply there is something to look at in the first place, which was the entire point of this piece, and which you verify with your statement. You are a tool, dude, and forgive me, but you aren’t half as smart as you seem to presume yourself to be. I’d like to think your intentions are good, but the way you execute those intentions is frankly, stupid.
“Turley ought to look deeper into the core curriculum at his beloved University of Chicago [. . .] Here’s what you can find at the University of Chicago. If OSU taught about ‘Power, Identity, and Resistance.’ . . .”
That is the type of absurdity you get when the ignorant enter the field of academic curriculum. The child sees the same word in the course descriptions (“Power”) and mindlessly concludes: Oh, they must be the same content.
Those three UChicago courses are called “survey courses,” as in: Topic — “Systems of Government.” Course content — 1-3 semesters learning the various systems of government, from ancient Egypt to today. Assignments and readings *always* include competing theories of government, e.g., Locke, Marx, etc.
That is how academia ought to operate. That is education.
This, at Oregon State, is not: “The inequitable distribution of . . .”
That is propaganda.
That is how academia ought to operate. That is education.
That’s exactly the point I was making in response to enigma. He then realized (maybe not) his mistake with the The point I wish to make is that I could take a few words and shape them to mean whatever I like… as damage control, but instead turned around and stepped on the same rake. X will be on here soon to show enigma how a professional contrarian uses AI to find the rakes.
You honestly don’t know what OSU is teaching, only how Turley has framed it.
Dude, Turley clearly knows more about OSU’s curriculum than you knew about Chicago’s when you posted that syllabus. You handed us Hobbes to Hayek and called it a match. Turley quoted OSU’s own catalog language word for word. One of those is research. The other backfired.
“You honestly don’t . . .”
Ad hominem.
Always a symptom of desperation and intellectual impotence.
P.S. I do. Now what’s your ad hominem?
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then they had the capacity and acumen sufficient for the task.
And all of these courses are mandatory?
Enigma, once again, you are trapped in your own spin and hyperbole. OSU mandates the course Turley talks about. The courses you talk about are not mandated.
A good friend of mine is getting her Associates in Nursing. The state passed a law mandating any AAS RN has to get their BSN within so many years.
I looked up a few different universities offering a RN to BSN degrees.
One of them was mostly DEI courses with the word “Nursing” slapped in the title somewhere.
Another, had eight classes, of which only two were free upper level electives, one was a mandatory Diversity Gen Ed, and only one was upper level public health elective (I strongly suspect a DEI).
The rest had nothing to do with nursing, or the medical field.
SO. Forced to pay money for a degree that has little or nothing to do with nursing.
That sounds like a lie. You’re making that stuff up. And beside, its her life. So butt out.
But it is not a lie. Look it up yourself.
And she thinks it is BS too.
A whole lot of RNs think so too. What does Languages Other Than English, Humanities or Arts have to do with nursing or the medical field? Why saddle them with more college debt for classes that have nothing to do with the medical field?
Again, its sounds like a lie. Because it is a lie.
You are not very bright,
In UAlbany’s RN to BS Nursing degree completion program, you can expand your expertise while meeting the NY State requirement for nurses to earn their bachelor’s within 10 years of completing an associate degree.
https://www.albany.edu/cihs/programs/bs-nursing-completion
This is where you admit I was not lying, and you were wrong.
Again.
But, no one gives hoot about NY. And you just lie and twist words to make a incredible narrative.
Upstate was right. You not so much.
Ahh. When I point to a credible, NY university stating compliance with NY law proving I was not lying, annony has to resort to “no one gives hoot about NY.”
Then claims I lie and twist words to make an incredible narrative.
That would be a neat trick.
It is, after all, a NY state law.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/6905
Only to you cry baby
@Upstate
My sister is a nurse. This is added into employer mandates in places, as well, so even if you didn’t get in education, you get it on the other end. I predict the demarcation in healthcare quality will be glaringly apparent in the future due to all of this nonsense, and it won’t be because we haven’t socialized it. People will be leaving blue cities and states for care (already happened in my home state. People go to neighboring states for anything that is critical). They will not ever connect the dots. Really: the modern left is lost in toto, it can’t be brought back.
James,
Actually that was a discussion my friend and I had.
Saddle people with more mandates for things totally not related to a given field and watch people leave for better places.
Something she noted was a BSN did get better pay. And raises healthcare costs. For what exactly? A nurse who took a Art Appreciation class? Astronomy?
And, we have a nursing shortage in America. Throwing more road blocks is not going to make it better.
Frankly I think this is another “captive audience” situation. Enrollment in higher-education is falling. Why not mandate people to take useless DEI classes to keep their jobs and keep all those useless DEI professors and higher-indoctrination camps employed.
Saddle? Seriously? Then you state “leave for better places”. Um… Sounds like freedom of choice. The key term is free choice.
And this: “useless DEI classes”. You sound very ignorant. That what you don’t understand you … want to destroy. You sound like a proper Marxist.
Ano
You sound very ignorant.
*********************
Fool, read you’re own comments.
Oh, look! Annony having another one of his mental meltdowns.
What would one call a DEI class on “Difference, Power & Oppression” of which two of these classes are required for graduation?
Useless.
Again, when did I ever say I wanted to destroy anything?
Useless, yes.
If left to the choice of the students, it just may be few or none would take those classes unless forced too.
Then, the university would see no value added and cut the classes. Kinda like how corporations are doing the same with their DEI divisions and DEI grad employees.
@Upstate
Pretty much just, ‘Yup.’. Your point about people keeping their jobs, when really all they want to do is do their jobs well without the noise, is salient and completely accurate.
James
Thank you very much!
My friend and I came to a similar conclusion.
Hello James:
I think of one thing (not a typo): Untied States of America.
Tell your friend to look at Purdue University School of nursing. They have the courses to go from Associate to BSN as well as an excellent Masters for Nurse Practitioner in Geriatrics, Pediatrics, ObGyn, Family Practice and maybe more now.
GEB,
Thank you very much for the advice and pointing me/her in the right direction!
Upstate.
I sure hope they teach all the new nurses how to do a BP without a machine. Both my wife have seen that. Not good when the system goes down, and they do.
DustOff,
Yep.
One of the requirements was a stethoscope and their own BP cuff.
I gave her one of my sets.
Nice column Professor Turley: Question: Do we not know Oregon? Was this action a surprise to anyone?
The same state that totally legalized all drug usage has exhibited the same stupidity once again.
Stupidity? Why stupidity.
No one is forced to attend OSU. Free choice reigns in the USA.
If prospective students, and their parents, don’t like the setup, find another school. Easy eh?
ummm, Oregon STATE taxpayers don’t get that free choice you’re talking about though do they?
More lefty confusion about the word ‘free’.
Taxpayers? But they do have votes and they freely voted for the politicians who implemented and control the system.
Once the money leaves your pocket, it goes to the elected government to disburse according to the voters mandate.
Obviously you don’t live in Oregon. Or just sketchy on what Democracy entails.
@gdonaldallen
Agreed. Anyone that is still content to live there has to be on board to a degree, if not whole hog. When inevitably they expect the rest of us to save them from that stupidity – we shouldn’t.
There is a story about a corporation that needed to replace its retiring CEO. They decided to hire from within. They set up interviews with the CFO, the Senior Vice President of Engineering, and the Senior Vice President and General counsel. They asked the CFO “How much is 2 Plus 2?” Answer: “4”. “Thank you, we’ll let you know”Same question to the VP Engineering. Answer: “I’m not sure I have enough information. Are the numbers simple or complex? Are they real or imaginary? Are they base 2,10,8 or something else?” “Thank you, we’ll let you know”. Same question to the General Counsel. Answer: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is a matter of indifference to me. How do you want it to turn out?” We The People are looking for a few good critical thinkers. They are had with taught neutrality.
$38,568/year in-state, $65,013 out-of-state, and two DPO courses are a graduation requirement, not an elective. If federal or state loan dollars backstop that tuition, the accountability question isn’t optional. OSU’s public materials don’t show a grading rubric proving a student can reject the course’s premises entirely, argue the opposite position on the merits, and still earn an A. Until one is published, that’s a fair question, not an accusation. And if the answer turns out to be no, this isn’t curriculum. It’s a compelled ideological test funded by loans the student will spend a decade paying off.
Its 5 Am on SoCal.
A lot of mumbo jumbo Olly. Just take the course, pass it and move on.
The costs Professor Turley quotes are “all in” including room and board and books…and not just tuition. Very expensive for sure, and some lucky few will get the discounted rate (aka “merit scholarships”), but a little proof-reading/editing would be helpful to keep the story accurate.
Pull whatever cost figure you trust, tuition only, full cost of attendance, doesn’t change the point. Whatever the number is, most of it flows through federal and state loan guarantees. That’s the actual issue. Taxpayer-backed loan money shouldn’t be underwriting a mandatory course sequence unless the university can show a student who rejects the course’s premises entirely can still walk out with an A. Argue about the exact dollar figure if you want. It doesn’t touch the argument.
“unless the university can show a student who rejects the course’s premises entirely can still walk out with an A.”
I don’t think that’s the problem, Olly.
I think the problem is that it is a required rather than elective course, in the first place (as well as the funding issue).
Bad enough if it were an elective, without a counter-view course in some more neutral-but-instructive sociology topic.
But the fact that it is mandatory is enough for even a good RN student to suffer high systolic blood pressure.
lin, fair, and I’d merge the two rather than choose one. Mandatory is the underlying problem. Elective DEI content raises no accountability question because no one is forced to sit through it as a precondition of a degree. The grading neutrality test was never meant to fix the mandatory problem, it was meant to expose it.
If OSU can’t show a student can reject the premises and still pass, that’s evidence the requirement functions as ideological compliance rather than education, which is exactly why it shouldn’t be mandatory, or publicly funded, in the first place. The two points aren’t competing. One proves the other.
????
But that precisely requires an ex post facto analysis,
(not to mention a dubious one-at best-by the University), Olly.
Respectfully disagree with you on this one. No big deal. thx
Res ipsa loquitur. Without a rubric or syllabus in hand, outcome is the only evidence that exists. That’s not ex post facto, that’s just the data available. If OSU wants a different standard applied, they can publish the rubric prospectively. Until then we work with what’s checkable.
WHO NEEDS EVIDENCE, Olly? For what? (you say “…outcome is the only evidence that exists.”)
The point being made is that it is a required core course curriculum, no matter WHAT happens or WHAT the “outcome” shows. GOOD OR BAD OUTCOME, THE STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE THESE COURSES TO GRADUATE FROM OSU, GET IT?
Drop the caps, I can read fine.
That was never in dispute, mandatory is mandatory regardless of outcome. The outcome point was answering a separate question lin raised, whether the courses function as ideological compliance rather than education.
That’s a different claim needing its own evidence. But you don’t need that claim to object to compulsion itself. Required is required. No outcome data changes that fact, and no outcome data was needed to establish it.
“$38,568/year in-state”
That’s for tuition, room and board. Tuition and fees, alone, are about $16k/yr.
Which answers this question: “If federal or state loan dollars backstop that tuition . . .”
Public money most definitely does “backstop.” Last I checked, at public universities, students pay about 15% of the actual cost of tuition. The rest is subsidized by the public.
Good Sam, that actually helps the argument, not mine specifically, the point itself. Doesn’t matter whether the number is $16k or $38k. You just confirmed the public covers roughly 85% of the actual cost at public universities. That’s the backstop. Whatever the exact dollar figure, most of it is taxpayer money, direct appropriations, state subsidy, or federally guaranteed loans. If that funding stream requires students to pass through a mandatory course built on one ideological framework to graduate, that’s the problem. Not the sticker price. Thanks for nailing down the subsidy rate, it makes the case cleaner.
I have participated in other comment communities that had an “Ignore” button to give the participants the opportunity to cull from their own conversation any participants they found offensive or distracting. I wish this site had such an option.
I wish this site had such an option to ignore you.
We don’t need an ignore button. Those comments are a regular reminder of where the floor sits on self-government capacity. Seeing them are useful. It’s the baseline we’re not supposed to sink to. The point isn’t to filter them out, it’s to demonstrate we can hold a different standard right next to them.
OLLY,
Well said!
Standards Olly? You mean the lies you spew here. You were taken to the wood shed yesterday… author, book trilogy, careers, location. Olly you’re a pathological liar. And dishonorably discharged. Didn’t think anyone would find that out eh?
Honestly, you’re a real gift to this thread. You give everyone a chance to see exactly where that floor sits. I write about that dynamic in my trilogy (ourcivicspress.com), written by an honorably retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer. Feel free to keep going, you’re making the point for me.
OLLY,
Again, well said.
We are who we are. No need to make up anything or lie about anything.
Yet, here is the annony, making up things about us, like being dishonorably discharged, divorced, destitute, living in a trailer. Does not seem able to deal with the reality that we just might be who we say we really are.
Above, I pointed out facts, cited NY law, and the annony could only make up lame responses. Truly does go to show the floor of annony’s character.
And as you point out, he keeps making your point for him.
We all see it.
All true Upstate. However, I sincerely doubt he means any of it. It’s apparent to me he’s got one mandate, either self-imposed, or directed, and that is to disrupt this blog as a rage-baiter. He gets attention, but not the rage. I’m dubbing him from now on as the Floor. Cellar works just as well. 😁
Ano
You mean the lies you spew here.
___________________________________
Post away loser… You made the claim, now back it up
“Difference, Power & Oppression”
Let us call it what it really is: The systemic dismantling of the United States of America by disrupting norms, the destruction of a civil society, the break down of the family unit, the promotion of anti-Western culture, the destruction of law and order, the replacement of the republic with socialism/communism, the introduction of chaos, anarchy and even physical violence and or domestic terrorism.
That, is what they are promoting.
Correction, that is what they are forcing on these students in order to “graduate.”
It is not education. It is indoctrination. And the students have to pay for it in order to “graduate.”
As I have stated more than a few times, the original concept of higher education was to produce a well rounded, informed and educated citizen.
Now, it is a business that has transformed into indoctrination camps.
” The systemic dismantling of the United States of America”. Seriously? That’s an extremely paranoid comment..
You MAGAs have lots of issues. Americans can learn and think whatever way they want.
Obviously you don’t see it that way – you way or the highway, then you sound just like the people you want to destroy.
It is not a “extremely paranoid comment.”
It is an accurate one.
We know this by DEI/wokeism/DSA and to a degree Democrat’s own words, actions and policies. They are not even trying to hide it. They say it out loud.
What is “my way?”
And when did I ever say I wanted to “destroy” anyone?
Only a paranoiac would call it accurate.
You sound just like the people you want to destroy.
Oh, no. Poor, poor annony’s lack of critical thinking skills, ability to back up his assertions, higher-indoctrination is showing again. Cannot refute anything I said, point out where I said or even sound like I want to destroy anyone. Sounds more like his own paranoia is getting to him. Seeing things that are not really there.
Meanwhile, the DSA some Democrats have in fact stated they want to effectively dismantle the republic, by their own words, actions and policies.
The good professor has pointed it out many times.
That is not paranoia.
Critical thinking… the guy whose education level is high school spews big words.
You, like, Olly, spread BS here 24/7/365. Like Olly, you’re a failure in life, divorced and living in a trailer in upstate NY.
You latch on to Olly thinking something will rub off. Fail eh? And you don’t even know his real name. And you won’t use yours; you think you have credibility? You clown. You’re a mental midget striving for notoriety on a blog full of anonymous idiots and fools. You laughable old geezer.
Ano
What a joke you are.
You throw insults left and right. It’s all you do.
What a lousy life you must live.
Oh, no! Annony’s mental meltdown is only getting worse!
I point out how members of the DSA, and even in the DSA’s own website and platform is to dismantle the republic as the good professor has pointed out seems my critical thinking is superior to annony’s higher-indoctrination camp thinking.
The only thing annony can do in his mental meltdown is spew insults and lies.
Stating objectively true facts is not a feature or being paranoid. What he said is a perfectly accurate comment. The Democrat Party is openly aligning itself with communist revolutionaries for the purpose of ending the Senate, packing the Supreme court, abolishing police, and ending capitalism.
By aligning itself with revolutionaries, the Democrat Party is seeking a complete and total destruction of the United States economic and political system.
https://redstarcaucus.org/points-of-unity/#we-believe-in-the-creative-historical-power-of-revolution.
Another paranoiac.
Accusations of “paranoia” are as meaningless as accusations of “racism” have become.
And another paranoiac.
MAGA? What is extremely paranoid?
And another paranoiac.
What is a paranoiac?
The American way or the highway.
A constitutional republic…….IF…….you can keep it.
I’d go and take these 2 classes and report back but, alas, am unable to do. 😂. I just know they’re stellar offerings.
What is stellar are those behind this destruction and their goals.
What we do echoes in eternity.
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, September 17, 1787