Cornell University has long been an example of an academic echo chamber where conservative and libertarian faculty have been largely purged from departmental ranks. For example, a study by The College Fix found that Democrats outnumber Republicans 98 to 1 among Cornell professors across six of the humanities departments. Cornell professors disrupt events, launch campaigns to fire the remaining conservative faculty, and foster a cancel campaign culture on campus. However, the faculty recently decided to review its own record and found . . . wait for it . . . that there really are no concrete measures needed to address their own overwhelming ideological bias.
According to a 238-page faculty report from the Committee on the Future of the American University, there was no consensus on ideological bias or how to handle it. Moreover, some faculty members insist that, while there is an ideological imbalance, it is not a problem because liberal faculty can explain or incorporate conservative values when needed.
The report boldly states that “[t]his report asks how the university must adapt to honor its quietly revolutionary purpose in American life. The answer cannot leave the university exactly as it is today.” However, one thing apparently does not have to change: the faculty’s ideological orthodoxy.
The report has that certain feel of an academic confab product, including a self-congratulatory observation that “disagreements did not curdle into outrage.”
The report acknowledges the ideological diversity problem but leaves it maddeningly undeveloped and ultimately unaddressed:
“The committee takes these concerns seriously without endorsing every version of them. A university that cannot model genuine pluralism of thought, that cannot hold and argue across deep disagreements without dissolving into either enforced consensus or performative conflict, is not promoting learning.”
For example, the Committee considered the fact that “[v]iewpoint diversity within the professoriate is one of the most frequently invoked concerns.” It noted that only “a single stakeholder suggested that graduate programs are the university’s most durable leverage point for producing a more intellectually and ideologically diverse new generation of faculty.”
However, it then notes: “[t]hat claim received no sustained engagement in our graduate-education conversations, even as the underlying concern about homogeneity, self-censorship, and viewpoint diversity generated some of the most extensive commentary anywhere in the committee’s process.”
Some struck out at conservatives complaining about the lack of diversity while others insisted that the priority for faculty should be to increase Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring for criteria like race and sexual orientation.
Architecture professor and Dean Milton Curry and chemistry Professor Abraham Stroock, however, explained that ideological diversity is merely a Trojan horse to attack higher education:
“Viewpoint diversity (associated with conservatives’ assertion that universities suffer from the bias of a majority of left-leaning faculty and are incapable of teaching countervailing views), far from being inclusive, is the fulcrum from which a constellation of organized vicious attacks on higher education have emerged.”
Others complained that DEI was not given sufficient attention. Durba Ghosh, a professor of history in Cornell’s College of Arts and Sciences, complained: “[w]e bypassed a definition of diversity in the service of concluding the report; yet our evasion renders the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion vulnerable to complete erasure.”
She added a warning that “[a]s a historian, I am reminded that the groups that are calling for viewpoint diversity these days are descended from the groups that opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion over a half century ago.”
It is an ironic argument since liberal faculty have picked up the very cudgel once used by intolerant faculty to bar voices on the left or faculty based on race or gender. I have written about the rise of a new McCarthyism in our politics that is also evident in higher education. That includes the forty percent of faculty who admit that they will vote against any Trump supporters regardless of their academic credentials, writings, or accomplishments.
Other academics have called for professors to “recant” views on subjects like birthright citizenship or face isolation and other repercussions.
Many faculty members have rejected free speech and intellectual diversity arguments to restore greater balance in our universities. 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.
Given that history, the Cornell study is a disappointment but hardly a surprise.
After The Indispensable Right was released, I spoke with several university presidents who agreed that ideological bias in hiring was undermining higher education. However, they were looking for some way to address the problem, given the refusal of departments (which generally control hiring) to change their hiring practices and bias. This report is an example of the type of hardened siloes that presidents must deal with in raising, let alone addressing, this obvious problem.
As I have maintained in these conversations, faculty members have not and will not change their hiring practices. They are fully aware of the virtual purging of all conservative and libertarian faculty from their ranks. Privately, they will acknowledge that inescapable fact. However, they refuse to make any meaningful changes.
As the Cornell report recognizes, this generation of academics has left higher education at its lowest level of public trust. It is destroying this profession. While there are various factors in play, it is due in part to the inability to allow for greater diversity of viewpoints. It has alienated many who might consider higher education but see no appeal in going to universities that are an echo chamber for the left.
As I have previously written, parents and students who value free speech must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to constitutional guarantees. Except for outliers like the University of Chicago and other private universities that hold the line on free speech, orthodoxy at private universities remains a barrier for many conservative and independent thinkers.
Public universities may be the final line of defense for free-speech advocates. However, even those universities show the same hiring bias. The difference is that they are more sensitive to public pressure to restore balance.
Legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses. Too many faculty members continue to treat citizens like a captive audience. They are expected to continue funding their departments, while faculty exclude conservative or dissenting views held by many, if not most, citizens in a given state.
If faculty members want to maintain echo chambers for their own viewpoints, they should seek private donors to sustain such intolerance and orthodoxy.
Legislatures can demand evidence that schools are maintaining an intellectually diverse faculty in determining the level of continued support from citizens.
When some of us have argued for such campaigns, academics hypocritically claim that we are calling for political litmus tests or hiring based on political parties. It is an absurd argument that I have previously addressed, including in The Indispensable Right.
The call is for donors and legislators to withhold funding until they see real reforms, including greater diversity on faculties. They are not directing the hiring, but looking at the results. The faculty members objecting to such calls have watched passively (or actively supported) the purging of conservative or libertarian faculty from universities and colleges.
For years, I have raised concerns about the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values. There is no evidence that faculty members (including those acknowledging the loss of virtually all faculty from the right of center) are honestly willing to reform their schools.
That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many facing rising tuition costs and relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.
The Cornell Report has many compelling sections on adjusting to the new realities of higher education. However, when it comes to ideological bias in hiring, the report is little more than another academic shrug.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Another scandal, this one involving Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney. According to the Wall Street Journal, certain Venezuelan banker named Velutini was indicted on bribery charges and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. But, he wanted a clean criminal record, so he hired Alina Habba, at the time the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey (until she had to resign because she was not properly appointed). The deal provided for $10 million per year with bonuses, for a total of $50 million to serve as “general counsel” for a new company Velutini started called “Concord Partners”, a company with no discernable actual presence or business operations. Habba resigned in December, 2025, the same month that Trump gave Velutini a total and complete pardon. Of course, Trump and his administration deny that Habba had anything to do with the pardon granted to Valutini. The Wall Street Journal reported that the going rate for Trump pardons is $1 million.
Hunter Biden laptop and the MSM coverup.
Hunter Biden shaking down Chinese business man with Joe Biden sitting next to him.
Joe Biden bragging he threaten to withhold money from Ukraine if they did not stop a corruption investigation.
Joe Biden was going to withhold funds unless a corrupt prosecutor, one that had failed to pursue corruption investigations, wasn’t fired.
AND the Republicans held hearings, issued subpoenas, and came up with–SQUAT! There was NO “Hunter Biden Scandal”, but there’s plenty of Trump scandals, and we’re not even 2 years in. Trump and his cronies KNOW they’ve committed crimes, and, at least are going to be investigated, so he’s getting the pardons all rolled out. He is quoted as saying that anyone within 200 ft. of the White House will be pardoned.
As to Ukraine, which is our ally, Trump has done everything in his power to enable Putin to kill more and more Ukrainians and do more and more property damage. Does anyone believe the story that Elon Musk, on his own initiative, throttled back the Starshield sattelite that Ukraine depends on to counter incoming Russian drones and missiles? If that is true, then Congress should immediately issue regulations for Starlink and Starshield, because it has way too much power–our military and government depend on these systems, too, but no one really believes that Trump didn’t order the throttling back because he’s clearly putting his fat thumb on the scale to try to help Russia kill more Ukrainians to try to force Zelenskyy to capitulate. AND, WHY would Musk decide to help Russia bomb Ukrainians anyway? What’s in it for him? Another question–what are Musk and his “tech bros” doing with the government personal information on us that they downloaded to their computers? WHY were they allowed to access and download this information in the first place?
Trump is purchasing diesel from Russia, under the proffered theory that it will ease the price of diesel in the US (which it won’t) and has issued an Executive Order that the sanctions imposed by Congress will be ignored. Russia will use the billions of our tax dollars Trump will send them to attack Ukraine and kill more people. AND, everyone knows that Russia is helping Iran to attack us. As one commentator put it, we HAD won the Cold War until Trump came along. It would be unthinkable that a US President would not only side with Russia against an ally, but that a member of the President’s administration (Witkoff) would call a murderer like Putin a “humanitarian”. God only knows what deals Trump, via Witkoff and Kushner, are trying to work in Russia. Oh, and he’s going to give away billions of our tax dollars to farmers to try to make up for the high cost of diesel, so we’re going to pay, one way or another.
The Hunter Biden scandal was derived from material on his own abandoned lap top. He and his uncle had been running a pay for play operation for > twenty years and they hardly hid it.
The Republicans tried and tried to prove a quid pro quo but failed. There was never any evidence of any money paid or favors granted, despite the endless pounding by MAGA media, including Turley.
Daily TDS crap from ANON.
Thanks for the fantasy.
LBJ was on his way to prison for the Bobby Baker scandal until JFK was assassinated; that changed everything for LBJ.
Thanks for the issue of your imagination.
When has anything you posted been true.
Regardless, do you really want to get into presidential pardons ?
Biden’s ? Obama’s ? Clinton’s ?
Something approaching 70% of billionaires may be conservative.
It may be that rational billionaires support freedom and self-reliance.
That makes perfect sense; the parasites feed on everyone with the full support of liberals.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
“In one selected sample of U.S. billionaire families, roughly two-thirds contributed predominantly to Republican causes.”
– GPT-6 Luna
Myriads of donors contribute to both parties.
That said – until this election cycle democrats have raised on average 50% more dollars from Billionaires than Republicans.
Personally I do not care much.
Each of us should be free to spend out own money however we please.
But as YOU do care – maybe you should look at the data.
In other words, Cornell is a communist indoctrination facility, communist re-education camp, and communist propaganda factory.
One wonders how products of Cornell ever create wealth.
Oh, I know, they all become “lawyers,” right?
They prosecute careers funded by the redistributed wealth of the communist American welfare state, which taxpayers pay for throughout their lives and which is derived from the corrupt “one-man, one-vote dictatorship of the poor”—Karl Marx’s proletariat (i.e., the hired help).
It’s laughable that ANYONE in higher education would want to hire a so-called Republican these days. Anti-science, anti-Democracy, fascistic, homophobic and racist? Beyond that – they are just cruel. Look what Ramaswamy’s campaign just did to his opponent – with NO remorse. It’s disgusting. I wouldn’t want to live NEXT to someone like that, let alone have them educating my child. Why is that so hard to understand?
Funny, the science proved 90 some percent of the COVID hysteria to be false. Just like those questioned shutting down the economy, closing schools, mask mandates etc. were later proven right.
Seems the only ones who are anti-Democracy are Democrats. Turley points that out when Democrats come out and say it. And when Democrats do say it, they are the ones who sound like fascists.
“I wouldn’t want to live NEXT to someone like that, let alone have them educating my child. Why is that so hard to understand?”
Yep. There is more of that well known liberal intolerance and hate.
Wow! all this Trump winning is REALLY pissing off the dumbocrats!
hehe. We are on top and you losers are “over there”.
Your posts is proof of the problems with colleges.
Republicans are anti-science ? I thought we had 10 more years to sop Global Warming in 1980, or 1990,
or the artic would be ice free by 2006 or on and on and on.
Can you name a SINGLE suposedly scientific projection of doom and gloom by the left that has EVER proved true ?
How about all the covid nonsense ? Can you name something about Covid that the expects on the left got right ?
Fauxi needed a pardon to evade jail for his lies to congress
Facism is a form of socialism
Everything in the state
nothing outside the state
nothing against the state
Benito Musolini the founder of Facisms definition of fascism
That is YOU
You do know that several in Trump’s cabinet are openly gay ?
And there were openly gay people in Trump’s prior administration ?
As well as blacks.
Politics is cruel – John Adams accused Thomas Jefferson of miscegenation, Jefforson accused Adams of being gay.
Both became president – and the Hamilton Burr duel that reslted in Hamilton’s death was indirectly a result of the political slander of Jefferson and Adam’s
We have seen too many feckless democrats get elected.
I do not know the truth about Acton – though there appears to be alot more bad nees that just her estranged mother.
YOU do not know the truth about Acton.
I do know that if you can not take the heat you should get out of the kitchen.
I do not want anyone educating my child that says boys can be girls anymore than I want someone telling my children they can fly.
The solution to the ideological straitjacket most schools are trapped in is not new external rules to force diversity. The mind locked worldviews of the vast majority of left leaning ideologues are impregnable to such approaches. The simplest and most elegant approach is to use market capitalism to defund the ideologues manning the bastion walls while leaving the core free to regrow restoring the old highly esteemed university systems. Why and how did the left manage to seize control? Higher education in this country has always leaned leftward. What allowed it to metastasize was a free flowing funding source that threw off market restraints on the left’s worst impulses.
The solution is to restore restraint on that source. The source has been government guaranteed student loans. The early guarantees were to private companies and banks with a government guarantee subject to certain qualifications but this intermediate step was removed when Obama instituted direct guarantees which accelerated the rot. The reason guaranteed student loans are so corrosive is that the school accesses the borrowed funds up front regardless of later default outcomes. The graduated student is on the hook for repayment regardless of the program of study. Years later when the loan defaults the government pays off. Schools get the money up front and bear no consequences when it defaults. The schools were then free to indulge their every impulse. This is at bottom why students became consumers to be pleased and professors’ responsibilities shifted towards ensuring those consumers are satisfied. Free money leads to malinvestment on an ever grander scale.
The simple solution is to restore consequences for the institutions receiving the funds up front when the loans default much later. When loans default the government should charge back to the schools some percentage of the losses e.g. 10 or 25% or 50%. That’s it. Schools have other sources of funding including alumni, government grants, etc. so the effect will take time but will be irresistible.
STEM subjects, departments, and faculty will be relatively safe given their graduates tend to repay their loans. However, the more left leaning subjects will soon become extremely costly to sustain and school managements will be forced to institute rules limiting student admission to these subjects, or even eliminate them altogether, along with their faculty. Management and faculty will be incentivized to take renewed interest in actually teaching their students to think and perform. Faculty and their subjects unable to measure up will be forced out because ideological indoctrination will become too costly to continue. Students as consumers will become extinct. The balance will shift from students as consumers to students studying hard to please professors and perform well. Professors will demand students perform because their own positions will depend on it.
The lynchpin is removing free funding access to government guaranteed student loans. Student loans will still exist but access will become restricted to those that can demonstrate merit to the school admissions committees. Likewise access to esoteric academic subjects will be demand and merit based. DEI and related grievance majors will become extinct (along with their pseudo professors). Universities downsize and become less expensive. The rapid cost increases for tuition of the last few decades were driven by access to these free monies from government guaranteed loans so we’ll see a rapid deflation in higher education costs.
Otiose8: And maybe ending government guaranteed student loans, likely the reason for the rise in college cost since Obama, will eventually reduce college professor pay (in aggregate) and eventually result in the end the grift of government funding —> inflated tuition —> increase in professor salary —> political donations to democrats. Government funding of higher education is looking very similar to the federal funding of NGOs and nonprofits whose members then donate to Democrats in order to keep the grift going.
The free money has inflated a bubble that once removed will deflate. As it deflates the incentives within schools to lean (and donate and promote) toward leftist beliefs will ease off. Hopefully we’ll see higher education refocus on excellence in academic pursuits and abandon its current grievance framework. Much of the excess free money is channeled towards those leftist causes. Once losses set in paying for and promoting those causes they will die off.
Just get governent out of subsidizing ANYTHING.
Can you identify anything ever where that has worked out well ?
This is fundimentally an issue of freedom
Free markets will allocate resources and production to what we want and what we nee proportionate to how much we want and need something, and how much we produce.
Everything govenrment does in the economy distorts that – which means what we get is no longer determined by OUR values as individuals, but by those with power.
You may think you have a small voice as an individual – but your voice is added to all others who have the same value and what you want is delivered based on the number and intensity of all voices.
Further often the free market can deliver what YOU want AND what others who have different values want.
When government steps in everyone gets what those in power want.
Of course colleges will end up hiring liberals. They are the ones that accept science and the scientific method. It is not “ideological bias” when a school refuses to hire a racist, bigot, or homophobe. Defending authoritarianism, supporting fascism, and abusing students is not “viewpoint diversity”. Colleges are right to keep such toxic professors away.
These the same liberals who think there are like some 100 different genders, children can be a different sex every day, or even cats?
“So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard Rowland, 1919
Bravo. And here’s Talarico who wins the Democrat primary for US Senate who is on the record saying God is non-binary; there are at least six genders; and more beliefs like those
Better than Paxton who spent the 4th of July of our 250th year as a country in London, England with his mistress. You justify voting for that….that’s on you.
Bill Clinton taught America that character doesn’t matter – remember that? The only thing that counts is the political policies the candidate will implement.
Yeah – I get it. Worshipping Trump requires you to sort of disregard ethics, good judgement and character – to expect that your leader is an amoral, grifting liar. As long as you get what YOU want, it’s worth it, I guess. God Bless America.
Securing the border, deporting criminal illegals, fighting for law and order, voter ID, and secure elections, yeah, that is what I voted for. A lot better than what we had with Biden. Laken Riley’s parents would agree. Better than anything the Democrats are offering now and for the future.
I pointed out the lesson that Bill Clinton taught us. You appear to have reading comprehension problems. As for Trump, we didn’t elect a pastor-in-chief, we elected a bodyguard to protect America from people like you. Bodyguards are rough and uncouth, as they’re supposed to be to get the job done, which is all that matters. It has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with civilizational survival.
1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault 2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault 3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault 4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault 5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape 6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault 7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear 8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear 9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment 10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault 11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault 12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault
Presuming you are correct – so what ? He was not being blown by an intern in the oval.
Talerico does not have rational views.
I would not trust a man who cheats on his wife.
I trust a man who beleives that men can magically become women even less.
If it is a choice between the lessor of two evils – Paxton wins.
Paxton is also corrupt, has been impeached by his own party, and is not a real Christian.
Obviously being ok with corruption and lying is ok in your book.
How do we know God is a man? Just because WE assigned it a gender does not prove his is indeed…male.
God never identifies as a male. For all we know God could be female, or no gender at all. Remember God can be anything he/she/it chooses. Right?
These the same liberals who think it is perfectly okay for grown men to dress up as Tammy Faye Bakker make up rejects and swing their junk in the faces of kids under the age of 10? And they approve of those same kids putting money down those mens underpants or whatever it is they are wearing? And they call it “art?”
Of course colleges will end up hiring COMMIES!! Fixed it for you ANON!!
You don’t do much thinking.
You must have “China virus”.
First off, I generally support JT’s efforts to preserve First Amendment rights and enjoy reading his opinions on various legal matters. It is very difficult to find a knowledgeable, level-headed, and relatively unbiased champion for constitutional rights who doesn’t minimize concerns over actions that harm those with conservative values. Based on my observations so far, JT best fits that bill (if you know of others, I’m all ears).
But… (and please take this as constructive criticism):
This column is one of many where JT criticizes the collegiate community for its unwillingness to clean up its own house when it comes to discriminatory actions against non-progressive faculty and students, and I strongly agree that this criticism is well deserved. What I’d really like to know, from an insider, is what the climate is like at George Washington University. How is JT treated by his colleagues there? Is he allowed to publicly comment on how these issues manifest themselves at GWU? If GWU needs reform, is there any action being taken to implement it? How best can conservative faculty oppose an oppressive, left-leaning bias? Must faculty risk their careers to do so? Will his attempts to remedy these issues be restricted to other universities, or will they include his own?
I suspect the reason we haven’t heard many firsthand accounts in detail is that he would face serious disciplinary action if he were to expose too much dirty laundry to the public. If that’s the case, it would be enlightening if he could explain the typical restrictions and risks faced by faculty members who speak out in a way the administration and peers disapprove of—ideally, in a way that wouldn’t put his own position at too great a risk.
Turley doesn’t appear to have any co-authors to his columns from his institution.
Is it fear of reprisal or simply avoidance of public embarrassment?
“. . . explain the typical restrictions and risks faced by faculty members . . .”
He has numerous times in other columns. And there are countless other sources documenting the same abuse, e.g., the National Association of Scholars, FIRE.
Not sure why you’re fixated on GWU.
I wouldn’t say I’m fixated with GW, it’s just that when he speaks of GW it’s a firsthand account, but when he speaks of other colleges it’s hearsay.
When you speak, it is hearsay. When Turley gives an opinion on free speech, it is a valuable opinion.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Turley does every day.
Yet it was Cornell who wrote the paper in the first place. Explain that one to us.
ANON makes up crap daily.
I went to a community college in what is now a liberal bastion, silicon valley. I took the business classes I needed to get ahead in my job. I have little knowledge of or desire to go to the east coast. As I read about all these issues with the faculty and students being an echo chamber, I wonder if it is only in the humanities, arts and other social courses?
Do any of the other departments have the same issues of extreme liberalism? I would think that the professors in physics, accounting, business and maybe law are concerned about the facts and critical thinking rather than philosophy. Are the students in these fields more inclined to just quietly get their knowledge without screaming for attention like the liberal arts professors?
The loci of trouble are the provost’s office, the student affairs division, and HR. Occupational faculties devoted to teacher training, social work, and library administration are a problem. On the arts and sciences faculty, trouble is found in the performing and studio arts, in the humanities, and in sociology, cultural anthropology, history political science, human geography, and psychology. The most notable problem is, however, that all the energy is on the side of ruin. The rest of the faculty do nothing.
NB, the trustees are useless.
Based on your different color of avatar than the other X, I say thank you and wonder when parents and children will wake up and look for alternatives. It doesn’t have to be trade schools, just ones that can discard the vitriol and teach what the students need to succeed.
If you are the other X i am surprised that you are so civil.
It’s in all departments, rcs. It’s social justice as far as the eye can see. These schools aren’t interested in the best product.
The rot started in the humanities and social sciences, and that’s where it’s the worst. However, there are pockets of rot in the hard sciences and business. As just one example: A professor I know at a prominent MBA program got into trouble for defending capitalism.
A 286 page report that couldn’t even come up with a definition of “diversity”?
Diversity?
Praising at the alter of the solid waste collection regional landfill.
Private universities that accept government funding should be required to publicly disclose annually the salaries of their faculty, as do public universities. I would also include the hours that they personally teach undergraduates and the number of graduate students for whom they are the primary mentor, and whether or not that faculty member has tenure. Taxpayers and potential donors deserve this data to see what they are actually paying for.
They should be required whether they ‘accept’ federal largesse or not.
Be careful. I am not saying you are entering the removal of private property rights; rather, you might be crossing the line.
It’s a regulatory measure with nothing to do with their property rights. Business corporations are compelled by law to issue financial statements. Compelled disclosure is a matter of transparency.
“It’s a regulatory measure with nothing to do with their property rights.”
x, I am not sure what you are saying. You agreed with Vincente’s comment: “required to publicly disclose annually the salaries of their facult……”
Are you saying that a private university business accepting no federal funds has to reveal proprietary information such as salaries?
No they are not – Publicly traded companies are – that is basically a requirement that SHAREHOLDERS must be informed about the financial status of the company. If you want your stock traded on an open market you are required to disclose your finances to potentional purchasors of your stock
There are no financial disclosure laws regarding private businesses.
You are required to correctly pay your taxes, and that requires a tax return which is PRIVATE.
Proving you paid your taxes correctly may require financial records – but those are your business and govenrment can not obtain them without a subpeona.
Businesses often share financial records with government to shorten investigations and avoid subpeonas,
But outside of publicly traded companies financial disclosures are not and can not be constitutionally required.
It is not constitutional to impose requirements n private actors aside from not violating the rights of others.
The university is truly a place of knowledge. Freshmen enter with a little, seniors leave with none, knowledge accumulates.
Cornell’s faculty is reminiscent of Nazi Germany when it too had only 1 against 98.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2F63f0cb11199c28cd24e8a7e647f027d07564c65a%2Fc%3D0-18-886-518%26r%3Dx803%26c%3D1600x800%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2015%2F07%2F03%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F635715148908241472-german.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=fd21cfd918afd7280f99418722680a40e67cc53ede1935b4776c589dcb8b1904&ipo=images
Bad analogy. More like the court of Louis XVI.
OT: Feel free to hijack any foods being exported because you paid for it. That can be done at docks, trucking, packaging etc. You paid for it as Kenya has become part of the American welfare system.
The Boston tea party. 😂
Have a good day.
Pro Publica is flogging this. It’s inane. The point of development aid is to improve the productivity of the countries in question and that’s done by imparting human capital. That requires instruction. Relief supplies are for when you have an acute issue, like a natural disaster or intramural warfare. In a country as poor as Kenya, there is going to be a background rate of deaths from malnutrition in an ordinary year. Life expectancy at birth is now over 60 in Kenya and has increased by more than 30 years since 1960. The country is not suffering a public health crisis.
Professor Turley seems to have missed the true utility of the DEI framework. For years, he has sounded the alarm over a lack of ideological balance in higher education, decrying what he terms a purge of conservative and libertarian faculty. Ironically, what Turley is actually demanding is a strict enforcement of DEI principles, just repackaged for the political right. By definition, his vision relies on the core tenets of DEI: Diversity of thought, Equity via equal representation for conservative viewpoints within a liberal-majority environment, and Inclusion of right-of-center scholars on university faculties.
However, Turley overlooks a glaring contradiction: the conservative movement continuously bashes higher education as an elite space or an indoctrination camp. By attacking and actively avoiding the very institutions they wish to influence, conservatives undermine the mechanism—DEI—that could actually justify their inclusion. Diversity initiatives do not have to be limited to demographic metrics; they can encompass a genuine plurality of political thought.
The very study Turley mocks subtly underscores this reality. If he truly wants to foster an environment receptive to conservative viewpoints, he should highlight qualified conservative scholars actively seeking these roles, rather than complaining about a vague purge without providing data on who was actually excluded or rejected.
Ultimately, if conservatives want a seat at the academic table, they must present a concerted, good-faith case for why their perspectives possess scholarly merit. Instead of merely griping about institutional bias, Turley should encourage conservative intellectuals to constructively engage with academia rather than simply attacking it from the outside.
George X Professor obviously and as usual missed the true non-utility of the DEI framework.
Still got a hard-on for Turley eh George.
X
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Turley has consistently criticized the hypocritical application of DEI, -not DEI itself.
\What school did you go to?
No. But you do. Try again
OK, GSX, you don’t have a reading problem, but then you must have a comprehension problem.
This this this exactly. Turley has bemoaned DEI practices and lauded the SCOTUS for helping to dismantle them in higher education – but now insists that Diversity of political affiliation be considered during hiring more conservative. So Diversity ONLY when it suits him. How convenient. Further – he never defines ‘conservatism’ which meant something entirely different 30 years ago than what it does today. Any reasonbly-minded person would be cautious in hiring a modern conservative who supports Trump today – or as the late Lindsey Graham correctly labeled him, ‘a race-baiting, xenophobic, bigot.’ Who wants that type of person educating the next generation?
Is this GSX or an equally ignorant anonymous? Turley doesn’t want DEI; he wants merit to be the basis for hiring professors and matriculating students. Stop changing context.
You’re dealing with people for whom there is no truth. Their understanding of counterarguments is that you’re trash talking htem.
X is so wrong about this. In fact DEI hiring is illegal and a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination based on religion or creed is illegal. I would suggest to X that he needs to carefully consider what penalties Harmeet Dilhon might enforce on these arrogant and ideological advocates for open racial and viewpoint discrimination.
It is just a biased lie that encouraging conservative intellectuals to “constructively” engage with academia will cause any change whatsoever. Whenever conservative intellectuals like Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk do this they are threatened with violence and often encounter actual physical violence including assassination. X needs to remove the beam from his own eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of conservative or even old fashioned liberal (enlightment) intellectuals. It’s just a farce and shows a complete lack of self awareness.
You’re assuming X operates in good faith.
==
Higher education has responded to civil rights law with try-every-door noncompliance. They don’t think they’re actually bound by law, which is enacted by people they fancy are inferior.
==
Here’s a suggestion in re PRIVATE higher education (1) turn off the money taps. Except for disaster relief and contracts awarded by sealed bids, they get nothing not intermediated via customers. If they have a medical center, it can receive insurance re-imbursements. If they admit a veteran, his tuition voucher you turn in will be redeemed in cash. That’s it. No grants, no loans, no loan guarantees, nada. (2) require they make formatted disclosure statements. If they lie on those statements, prosecute the corporation and prosecute officials. Send dean somebody-or-other to prison for perjury. (3) insist their interstate agreements to provide educational services are according to spec; i.e. abolish the baccalaureate degree. (4) let them hire who they want, admit who they want, and impose discipline as they want so long as they are in compliance with their own contractual obligations. NB, officials should be personally liable for torts contra students.
==
In regard to public higher education, eliminate their admissions offices. Have a central state admissions office where students submit a simple application which consists of a demographic sheet, their board scores, achievement test scores, HS transcript, and a printed list of state institution they have rank-ordered per preference. The office concocts for each student a composite score from a vector equation of which the board scores, &c are arguments. You distribute the preference cards to each applicants first choice, then rank-order the piles according to composite score. For each institution, you have a target value of admissions letters to send which is computed by dividing the desired number of freshman matriculants by the historical yield ratio for that institution. For each institution, you run down the rank-ordered preference cards until you arrive at the nth card, ‘n’ being your target value for admissions. Identify the state school with the highest composite score at position ‘n’ in the rank ordering. Positions 1 through n make for that schools body of admitted students. They you distribute the cards of those not admitted to their second choices and re-rank the cards in each pile as you now have new cards in the pile. You repeat this process for however many state institutions you have until you have identified all those to be sent letters of admission.
==
Faculty hiring is a tougher issue. You might incorporate a state ombudsman’s office, a performance auditor &c. to subject faculties to scrutiny.
It makes perfect sense that the left is terrified that voters will be deluded by the lies of opposing candidates or foreign countries or ….
Because YOU are so easily deluded.
Socialism is a FAILURE. No political system anywhere ever has failed so badly everytime it has been tried.
France is burning right now because of socialism.
Please do not explain the “DEI Framework” – ignoring the fact that in reality it is just chocolate covered $hit,
most of us have seen how badly it works in practice.
The left intentioally pits groups against each other competing over greivances and seeking the ultimate victim status.
In what world do you think that ends well ?
No Turley is not shilling for DEI.
He is arguing something different and much older.
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 2
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,
It is not necescary to prove that conservatives have been purged from academia – though the reality is we all WATCHED as it happened – and you are busy trying to demand proof that the sun rose this morning.
Did universities become dominated by the left through malice ? Yes.
Is that especially relevant at the moment ? No.
However education because a far left domain, it has done so at the expense of quality of education.
You can not teach – pretty much anything when you foreclose any but your own view.
As John Stuart Mill noted above 2 centuries ago.
If all you know is your own side of an issue – you know very little.
Until you hear other positions expressed by those who hold them strongly you can not know whether your own views are valid.
BTW conservatives do not need to sell the merits of their views.
Outside government subsidized academia and those infected with the left virus by that academia – the entire world is inherently conservative.
Economics is fundimentally conservative – or more accurately libertarian, and all other economic systems have failed to the extent they have diverged from those libertarian norms.
Conservatism BTW is NOT an ideology – libertarianism is, socialism is.
Conseratism is just the fundimental understanding that most change FAILS, that institutions that have existed for centuries however imperfect are with near certainty better than something new and untried
Look at ObamaCare – it is a complete disaster – rife with fraud, ridiculously expensive and accomplishing nothing.
Contra the lefts claims – there is no new positive trend in outcomes as a result – no one lived who would have died and getting rid of it will kill no one who would have lived. It has made healthcare and health insurance more expensive – that is all.
And ALL of this is predictable, and was predicted – subsidize something and in the long run all that changes is the cost – that goes up.
Standard of living rises as we produce more value with less effort and resources, NOT when we produce the same or less value with more effort and resources.
Subsidies NEVER improve things in the long run.
Regardless the POINT is that give a choice between trying something new or sticking with something that has worked for hundreds of years – the odds are about 7:1 that sticking to what works will be the better choice.
That is the core to conservatism. That is not to say we should never try anything new.
But it absolutely does state that just because some of us are not perfectly happy with how things are, does not mean that all or even most proposed changes are good. They are not
Getting change right is hard – that is why people who do so like Musk are so massively rewarded.
Even then – it still takes many failures before success. Musk blows up lots of rockets before they work.
How many times do you want to blow up healthcare trying to get it right ?
Libertarianism is an ideology – it is a very pro change ideology – it is the ideology that rewards successful change.
It is also an ideology that requires that everything outside the few things that can not change must be outside of government – because individuals in the free market can fail and try again.
When govenrment fails – we all suffer.
It’s been clear for many decades that a university education is a waste of time for most people. It’s not about education; it’s about marxist indoctrination. Students graduate “dumber” than they were when they entered! But, they can sure spout marxist nonsense & they now hate the US! The smart people today are being trained in vocational & technical schools & graduating with skills that will get them high-paying jobs for many years to come!
I challenge you to find one document at any liberal university or college stating they are indoctrinating students in marxism. And course catalogs don’t count. And no one has complained about mandatory or otherwise of marxist indoctrination.
Source DDG AI: “There are no U.S. schools with mandatory Marxist indoctrination. However, some critics argue that certain educational curricula, particularly those incorporating Critical Race Theory (CRT), reflect Marxist ideas. This has led to significant debate about how history and social issues are taught in schools.”
Look at what’s for sale in the bookstore, look at course syllibi, and look at faculty bibliographies.
So? Students studying political science will be studying about Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and all kinds of other political views. It’s the whole point of going to university. To expand their knowledge.
It doesn’t ‘expand their knowledge’ if the faculty member in question does not offer alternative perspectives or he trashes them.
…And you are an example of such expansion of knowledge? Definitely not.
As the comment stated, course catalogs don’t count. Why do you think that was stated.
Just reading about Marxism does not make a for a Marxist you dumb-f.
How much time is so allocated, what are the alternative readings, and how are discussions led?
Course catalogs prove what? So where’s the overall proof? Course catalogs are no proof Marxism is forced on students. Cornell also has profs, who teach physics, math, social studies, animal science and you argue they’re all Marxists? You are truly a dumb-f.
“I challenge you to find one document at any liberal university or college stating they are indoctrinating students in marxism [sic].”
Sure. Because criminals always put a Post-it in their refrigerator: Rob bank tomorrow.
It’s called “stealth curriculum” and “stealth courses” — an academic con game that’s been widely known for decades.
Not that stealth. Have a look at the reserve readings. Have a look at their syllibi. Have a look at their own writings.
==
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
You are likely so poorly educated you have no idea where that came from
It’s an arms race between families. In 1928, shy of 6% of each cohort was receiving a baccalaureate degree. In 1960, the share was 16%. In 1980, 20%. In 1995, 27%. Now its 47%. It captures more and more of the function of sorting the labor market. To some extent, it’s displacing on the job training and apprenticeships, to some extent it’s just a signal of trainability we went without in previous eras. It’s also a substitute for ineffective primary and secondary schooling There’s a tremendous amount of wasted time, wasted effort, and expense involved. Anti-discrimination law restricts the franchise of companies to make use of more efficient alternatives like occupational testing. and HR personnel tend to use arbitrary screens to protect themselves against complaints from other elements of a company when a hire does not work out. The rotten little maraschino on top is the inane social ideology of the faculty and administration.
“displacing on the job training and apprenticeships”
Apprenticeship: Efficiency, flexibility, costs paid by employers.
Tax-funded Schools: Higher taxation with lower quality.
Is there a tax supported school to provide the blog with anonymous morons?
There are a couple of unpleasant characters here, one of them I’d guess a Correct-the-Record recruit, I would wager are drawn from the ranks of teachers, school administrators, or social workers.
All represent institutional compliance, top-down instruction, or ideological advocacy and lack intellectual humility and original thinking.
If the two things they lacked existed in universities and colleges, we would not have the present problems
I have no problems with apretiships,
But this is not about offering the perfect alternative. There is no such thing.
What is fantastic about free markets is that problems result in myriads of solutions – not one size fits all.
What is wrong with government and subsidized systems is that they drive homogenity – pretty much automatically.
Regardless there are many batter ways to educate that todays colleges
Yesterdays colleges for a start.
The objective is not to replace what we have with a specific better alternative.
It is to get rid of something that has failed, and let free people find whatever solutions work for them – likely many different solutions appropriate to the needs and values of many different people.
I think the majority could meet their goals and make themselves of interest to an employer with a two step program: 25 credits (six months) at a preparatory institute offering on point academic courses (with some business or technology courses for some field) followed by 48 credits (one calendar year) at an occupational school studying one subject. For some occupations, these might be supplemented with a stipended internship / apprenticeship. Only about 3.5% of the working population is currently engaged in occupations where the modal professional credential is a subject-specific course of study exceeding 60 credits.
What legislatures in red states should be doing is (1) restructuring their public higher education systems and (2) promoting alternatives to higher education.
==
One restructuring which could apply to institutions public and private is to prescribe boards of trustees of manageable size and require that (with some exceptions) they be elected via a postal ballot of alumni registered to vote in the state in which the institution is located.
==
Another would be to require that the renewal of a faculty member’s contract require the assent in a formal meeting of the majority of the serving trustees. that dismissal of a faculty member ‘ere his contract is up require the same, and that faculty members let go be due a severance settlement equal to the discounted present value of n years of salary and benefits, where n = 0.3 x Y, ‘Y’ being the number of years (pro-rata) a faculty member has been employed at the school. The faculty member’s compensation to be used as the basis for severance would be the mean of the previous six years (or fewer if he has been employed there fewer years) multiplied by a fudge factor. (Some faculty would be on non-renewable contracts of up to 6 semesters in length, some on renewable contracts under seven semesters in length, some on 7-12 semester contracts).
==
A Republican Congress could pass federal legislation to address permissible inter-state contracts in the provision of educational services. A school like Cornell recruits most of its matriculants from out of state. One thing such regulatory legislation could do would be to replace the baccalaureate degree with shorter programs which are more focused. Another thing such regulatory legislation could do would be to debar any promise of continuous tenure to faculty recruited from out of state. Another would be to require institutions to publish statements on the demographic segments of the institutions faculty, staff, and students, with civil and criminal penalties for lying applicable to the institutions and to individual employees. One thing they would be compelled to publish would be the median SAT and achievement test scores of each demographic segment of a given year’s matriculants and the GRE / MCAT / LSAT / GMAT scores of each demographic segment of the faculty.
==
Another thing federal legislation could do would be to debar mandatory ancillary charges by institutions, whether these charges be formally or constructively mandatory. The closest to a permissible mandate would be your bills at the bookstore and campus parking fines. Appended to this would be a required disclosure of an itemized list of students’ mean annual expenditure on ancillary charges. Institutions would post each year one set of room-and-board charges (one for individual students, married couples, and families) and one set of tuition charges (varying per the instructional unit). They would be compelled to publish as well the mean discount granted and the financing sources of the discounts.
==
And, of course, there is financing of institutions and students.
==
Higher education, like other parties, might be the beneficiary of disaster relief. Governments at all levels might offer term fellowships for faculty members to come work at particular agencies, fellowships which would include an indemnity to the institution for loss of the faculty member’s services.
Institutions or limited partnerships / corporations of faculty might place sealed bids on government contracts.
==
Governments at all levels might issue vouchers to finance staff development courses for their employees. They might issue vouchers to prospective employees in discrete occupations (e.g. ROTC).
==
The federal government might issue vouchers as veteran’s benefits.
==
The federal government might also broker interstate compacts to arrange for a given state to act as a provider of higher education services to the residents of another state or territory.
==
Institutions operating a medical center would receive Medicare and Medicaid re-imbursements, as well as re-imbursements under the employer-paid plans held by public employees.
==
The foregoing should exhaust the flow of funds from public agencies to private institutions and from public agencies to students in order for them to attend private institutions. It should also exhaust the flow of funds from the federal government and from local governments to public institutions.
==
State governments might issue tuition vouchers and room-and-board vouchers which students can present to in-state public institutions. The presentation of the voucher would exhaust the student’s obligation to the institution. Any student admitted to a public institution would have a contingent claim on such a voucher which they could exercise by paying a recipient’s fee each semester. The fee would be a function of the residency credit the student had accumulated throughout his life an of the number of vouchers of each type acquired to date. At this time you might get five discounted vouchers to pursue a certificate or associate’s degree, eight discounted vouchers to pursue a baccalaureate degree, four to pursue a master’s degree, eight to pursue a first professional degree, 12 to pursue a research degree. Do it differently if the degree architecture is amended. When you’ve run out your quota, you have to pay full freight for a voucher. The school takes the vouchers and submits them to dedicated state funds in return for cash. The funds are not financed by regular appropriations, but by a special income tax which fills these funds and nothing else.
Several factors explain why academics tend to cluster around seemingly contradictory positions and exhibit strong political conformity—to the point where conservative peers are virtually absent.
First, academia enforces institutional and intellectual conformity. In most academic disciplines, a single dominant theory prevails, and scholars are expected to operate within its boundaries. While the public often views academics as bold pioneers of truth, challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is professionally dangerous and can easily cost a scholar tenure. This pressure to conform extends beyond research into lifestyle, dress, teaching styles, grading standards, and, ultimately, political ideology.
Second, left-leaning ideology functions as a cohesive, structured worldview. Left-leaning political theories offer a comprehensive and predictable model for how society should function, serving as what chaos theory calls a “strong attractor” for academic minds. In contrast, free-market capitalist frameworks appear messy, decentralized, and difficult to model systematically. Many scholars struggle to embrace the concept that economic growth can “raise all boats,” even though history repeatedly demonstrates it – because they remain fixated on a zero-sum view of society.
It doesn’t. It’s a set of attitudes that they assert and never have to argue.
Irony? No. It’s fascism. Expecting anything honest or ethical from this type of self-appraisal from an institution is absurd on its face in academia. The inmates took over the asylum ling ago, this is simply how bad things had to get for anyone to notice or care.
What is happening in France or Britain would be us right now had the brakes not been applied in 2024; no such restraint has been instituted at all in academia.
The only thing that will change a University with Cornell’s problem will have to be a catastrophe. In other words the students quit coming and no revenue comes in. Pain such as lost revenue does focus the mind. This happens in the business world also. When the parents of the students at Cornell realize that they are buying a worthless product, then some adverse decisions will be made. The Business World can help correct this by downgrading the graduates of these Universities, if the students fail to perform once they leave the hallowed halls and get into the real world.
I dealt with many medical school graduates from the Ivy League as far back as the 1970’s onward and many had deficient educations, especially in actual patient care. It was a stark contrast to many graduates from lessor known medical schools where they still taught the basic fundamentals of medical practice and education. It has not improved. Since.
GEB
Your desired doom scenario is a joke.
You fail to consider that liberals and conservatives do want to attend Cornell. Enrollment is up every year since 2002.
https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/university-factbook/student-enrollment
Cornell needs to hire Bernie Sanders wife to head up the school. She is great at bankrupting colleges and forcing their closure! It could then rise from the ashes.
Got facts?
She was president of Burlington College, now closed. This isn’t that difficult.