From Georgia State, A Woke Indoctrination Smoking Gun

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Rob Jenkins, a tenured associate professor of English at Georgia State University, recently wrote at Campus Reform about his interaction with a “gender studies” professor who took umbrage at his January op-ed criticizing Georgia’s university system for its “public syllabi head-fake.”

His point was that many professors hide their course’s political and social agendas behind sketchy course syllabi released publicly that don’t accurately represent what is being taught. In response, the state’s Board of Regents declared that instead of merely filling in a template with selected information, now faculty at public universities must publish the entire syllabi that they distribute to students.

Prof. Jenkins was pleased, but received an email from a colleague who described herself as a “gender studies professor.” She grilled him on why he put “transgender” in scare quotes, and what he thought were appropriate topics “in classes that discuss gender, sexuality, identity, and racial politics.” Jenkins answered that he puts “transgender’ in quotation marks because he believes people can’t change their sex and that the whole fad is manufactured. He also said that he doesn’t believe any topic is appropriate for classes that discuss gender, sexuality, identity, and racial politics because he thinks “gender studies” are a phony discipline that should not be taught at all.

The female professor didn’t like that, She accused Jenkins of promoting “right-wing” ideology and implied that he would be biased against LGBTQ students in his classroom. Jenkins wrote that her assumption is demonstrably false; I would add that it tells me that the “gender studies” prof is biased against students in her classroom who don’t toe the progressive line.People who can’t tolerate dissenting opinions and whom bias has made stupid usually assume everyone else is the same way.

Then, Jenkins writes, he discovered his woke critic wasn’t a “gender studies professor,” but a “history professor teaching mostly sophomore-level survey courses.” She just turned her history courses into propaganda on “gender, sexuality, identity, and race politics.”

“That’s exactly the sort of thing the state’s public syllabi policy is intended to expose: professors using their classroom to advance a political agenda that has, at best, a tenuous connection to the subject matter,” Jenkins writes. But how many state colleges around the country allow and facilitate woke ideological propaganda? How many glassy-eyed, brainwashed, doctrinaire progressives lurk on faculties, seeing the indoctrination of our rising generations as their sacred duty?

My guess: far too many. A daunting number. For society, the culture and our nation, a crushing number.

Updates On “The Great Stupid”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Let’s start our review of just how dumb our population, society and culture have become since The Great Stupid spread its dark wings over the land with the book covers above. The book, current on sale and display at Barnes and Noble among other stores, is called “Mona’s Eyes,” referring to the “Mona Lisa,” perhaps the best known and most famous painting of all, by Leonardo Da Vinci. But the publisher allowed the eyes being used on the cover jacket to be those of a completely different woman in a different painting by another famous painter. Those eyes belong to “The Girl With A Pearl Earring, by Vermeer.

Morons.

There is a silver lining here, however. In mocking that cover, “Instapundit’s” Ed Driscoll quoted a minor Ethics Alarms post from 2023 on a book about Pearl Harbor with a cover graphic showing German planes attacking our navy on December 7, 1941. I clicked on the link and was amazed to find myself reading my own post, which I had completely forgotten about. In the resulting phenomenon known as an Insta-lanch (this is EA’s third), that post got over 3,600 views (and counting) after only being read about 500 times in three years.

Meanwhile:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Glenn Logan, once a prolific blogger himself, is an EA veteran who periodically shows his talent for forceful commentary, as in his Comment of the Day finishing off the Washington Post editors with a rhetorical haymaker after I had softened up the miscreants a bit. I admire Glenn’s precision in pointing out just how disingenuous the paper’s protest over the FCC’s revitalization of the Equal Time rule, which would never have been necessary if TV “entertainment” hadn’t devolve into single party propaganda.

Here’s Glenn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…”

***

Consider this:

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.”

First of all, in its “explanation” of the Equal Time rule, the Post deliberately muddles the intent of Congress in passing it. Congress wisely (omg, did I actually write that??) thought that it would be in the public interest to prevent networks from supporting only one side of the public debate on the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. That spectrum, last time I checked, is still publicly owned, CBS is still a lessee and the subject broadcast was supposed to air on broadcast television.

For a Leftist outlet like the Post, fairness is supposed to be perhaps the most cherished touchstone of any debate, yet because reminding its audience of the two fundamental motivations for the FCC rule — fairness and the public interest — would undermine its argument, the post just glosses over them altogether and argues by implication that freedom of entertainment choice is the most important thing.

Again, it is with sadness that I observe many people, perhaps even a majority, are so unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking that they will accept this editorial as holy writ. But make no mistake — this was a malicious, deliberately partisan and utterly facile argument, and the Post knows it.

Verdict: Deliberately and intentionally unethical.

Unethical Quote of the Day, (Also Stupid): Theater Critic Nuveen Kumar

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“But I don’t think it’s necessarily antiwoke to tell an all-white story or to relegate nonwhite characters to the margins, if that’s where they fit the creative intentions.”

—Former Washington Post theater critic Naveen Kumar in the paper’s “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights.'”

Oh, well that’s really big of the critic, don’t you think? How generous of him! He is willing to concede that a director might still be regarded as a good person if he or she doesn’t cast actors “of color” (you know, like the critic) to play characters written as white, visualized by the playwright as white, in a story obviously about white people!

Yes, this fatuous, offensive statement came late in an essay that was already obnoxious, with the biased and reductive headline, “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights’.” [Gift link!] The Post post was defending, sort-of -but- not-really, Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” film, in which Heathcliffe, Emily Bronte’s hormonal romantic anti-hero, is played…

…by a white actor. Never mind that previous film adaptations have cast Heathcliff as white, notably the classic starring Lawrence Olivier in the role, probably because he was the best actor alive at the time.

Yes, it is true that the ethnicity of Heathcliff has always been a matter of debate: with Bronte describing him as “dark-skinned,” a “gypsy,” and a “little Lascar,” a term for South Asian sailors. The idea is that he is an outsider and at the bottom of the social ladder; that certainly would justify casting a black, Indian or other non-white actor, but certainly doesn’t mean he has to be played that way. (I would not think that casting Heathcliff as Swedish would work, but you never know: I could see one of the Skarsgaard boys pulling it off.)

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Oh No, Not Legalized Prostitution Again…

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

In Colorado, a bill that would decriminalize prostitution statewide is moving through the legislature. Its sponsor, member of the Party of Terrible Ideas (at least lately) Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, argues that the measure “would improve safety and health outcomes for sex workers.” More about that presently.

Senate Bill 26-097 would eliminate criminal penalties for consensual commercial sexual activity between adults, repealing existing laws against prostitution, soliciting for prostitution, keeping a place of prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. Pimping would remain illegal.

Commenter JutGory flagged the story for me and the commentariate with a post on yesterday’s Friday Open Forum, where it sparked some lively and thoughtful responses. I decided that the issue was complex and contentious enough to move the discussion here, under its own banner via an ethics quiz.

I recognize that quizzing on this topic is a departure for Ethics Alarms. Ethics quizzes are usually prompted by ethics close calls, dilemmas and conflicts where I lack my usual certitude about their ethical standing. That’s not the case with legalized prostitution. Way back in 2009, I began a post,

“A stimulating ethics alarm drill surfaced over at Freakonomics, where Stephen Dubner challenged the site’s  readers to help him compile a list of goods, services and activities that one can legally give away or perform gratis, but that  when money changes hands, the transactions become illegal. It is a provocative exercise, especially when one ponders why the addition of  money should change the nature of the act from benign to objectionable in the view of culture, society, or government. It is even more revealing to expand the list to include uses of money that may not create illegality, but which change an act from ethical to unethical.

Sometimes commerce turns the act wrongful only for the individual do the paying. Sometimes only the individual accepting the cash becomes unethical.  Money doesn’t corrupt these transactions for the same reasons in all cases. I see three distinct categories:

1.Abuses of economic power: situations where an individual or organization uses money to coerce or induce people to do something that is bad for them, those to whom they have duties, or society, such as prostitution…“

I stated thatwith prostitution, both the payer and the payee were engaging in unethical conduct. And they are.

Pages: 1 2

From The Ethics Alarms Archives: “What Is Wrong Is That We Do Not Ask What Is Right.”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I stumbled across this post from 2022 by accident, but feel like it is a good time to repost it. It sparks recall of one of the histories’s great thinkers, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) G.K. slaughtered Clarence Darrow in an Oxford debate over the existence of God—Darrow took the negative position, naturally, an assertion that he had won debates maintaining many times. After the debacle, Darrow commented, in essence, “My hat’s off to him. He was better prepared and won fair and square.” He was thinking, I believe, “Holy cats! This guy is smarter than me!” Chesterton, sadly, is mostly known today by Americans because of the PBS series dramatizing his “Father Brown” mysteries, stories Chesterton published as a lark. He was much more than second-rate Arthur Conan Doyle.

I also am moved to repost this because it was the sole guest post offered by my late wife, best friend, business partner and inspiration, Grace Bowen Marshall, who suddenly perished this month in 2024. She occasionally commented here, but her real love was literature, especially British literature. In her introduction she wrote in part,

“The first chapter of his 1910 book “What’s Wrong With The World” was a ‘bright-light’ experience for me. Though hopelessly outdated in some 21st century factual respects, it is considered to be one of his more interesting works because Chesterton examines the human thought process and how it affects the outcomes of different kinds of problems, reminiscent of the “observer effect.” G.K. was, in 1910, much more trusting of science and medicine than we are now, e.g., and did not address 21st century thought-process issues like the scientists’ tendency to do something simply because they can without considering if they should. Here is an excerpt from G.K. Chesterton’s “What’s Wrong With The World.”

Pages: 1 2

Will the Supreme Court Get An Apology From The Axis And The Trump Deranged? Nah. Of Course Not.

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Remember former Perkins Coie lawyer Bradley Datt, the ex-Perkins Coie litigator whose post-Charlie Kirk assassination Facebook Facebook entry began, “Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation and intolerance.The current political moment—where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican president to become a tyrant…”? The firm correctly fired the jerk, but such worthies as Unethical Website “Above the Law” and a lot of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends endorsed his “extremist Supreme Court” and “tyrant” analysis.

The U.S. Supreme Court just confirmed a major constitutional limitation on presidential power by striking down the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in a series of executive orders. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the President by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.

The opinion is here; analysis is everywhere, but what I care about right now is that when the centerpiece of the President’s economic program and foreign trade policy was before the Supreme Court, the alleged “radical” Justices did not rubber stamp it and did not “bend a knee,” but rather, as they are sworn to do, followed the law and the Constitution and ruled that President Trump had exceeded his powers. Three of the supposedly “radical” justices (if you’re not willing to distort the law in the direction the Axis favors, you’re radical), Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett, joined with the three lock-step progressive DEI Justices (a black woman, a lesbian, and the “Wise Latina”). They are the ones who apparently make up their hive mind on cases before they even read the briefs based on what Democrats want, to foil the Republican POTUS. Fortunately, the other six Justices have some integrity

Because, you see, Trump isn’t a “king,” and the system works, just as the balance of power among the branches of government is supposed to.

“Death By Lightning,” the Defamation of Dead Heroes, and the Betrayal of Julia Sand

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I finally watched the critically praised Netflex series “Death By Lightning” last night. Friends, knowing my obsession with Presidential history, had urged me to watch it. I had hesitated because I dreaded exactly what I witnessed last night. The limited series, based on Candice Millard’s best-selling history “Destiny of the Republic,” managed to both make me angry and break my heart.

Putting on my director’s hat and my film critic hat (kind of like Chester A. Arthur in the series wearing three hats on top of another during a drunken spree—one of many made-up scenes that completely misrepresented our 21st President), I’ll grant that the series was entertaining—especially so if one knows nothing about the events it alleges to portray—and well-acted by a strong cast. I also give it credit for portraying relatively accurately one of my favorite moments in U.S. political history. James Garfield, a brilliant but obscure Ohio Representative, was asked to deliver the Presidential nomination speech for fellow Ohioan Senator John Sherman, General Sherman’s brother, at the 1880 GOP National Convention. Garfield’s speech was so passionate, eloquent and inspiring that when he concluded, “therefore, I nominate the next President of the United States…” a couple of delegates shouted out, “Garfield!” before he could get out “John Sherman of Ohio!” Garfield was stunned, and as the convention descended into a deadlock, objected strenuously while over 35 ballots, rogue delegates began consolidating their support behind him until finally, on the 36th ballot, he was nominated against his will.

That does not, however, make up for the series’ worst omission and distortion of history.

I have posted several times here the remarkable, uplifting, ethically-enlightening story of Julia Sand, most recently on this past Presidents Day. She was the crippled spinster who wrote private letters to Vice-President Chester A. Arthur, then hiding in seclusion as President Garfield was being butchered by his doctors after being shot by lunatic Charles Guiteau. Her letters told Arthur that he could not only do the looming job he felt unfit for, but also that he had the inner resources to do it well.

She told the terrified political hack that he could muster the courage and character to do what so many other great figures in history have done when fate thrust them into a position where they were challenged to rise above their previous conduct and priorities. Arthur did in fact meet that challenge when President Garfield died, earning recognition as the “accidental” President who most surpassed public expectations.

I love the story, and I regard Julia Sand as the perfect example of how seemingly powerless, ordinary people can make a difference in our society, government and culture. Maybe she is the best example. Few could be more irrelevant to national affairs in the 1880s than an unmarried, middle-aged woman confined to a wheelchair. Yet Julia Sand probably changed history with her wit, commons sense, writing ability, wisdom and audacity. As an ethicist, I saw the story of Sand and Arthur, which I had never had encountered even in Arthur’s biography, the most important event related in “Destiny of the Republic.”

Yet “Death by Lightning” not only cut Julia out of the story, it gave her words to the dying Garfield and his wife, neither of whom spoke to Chester A. Arthur after Garfield was shot. I can only describe the snub as cruel. Here, at last, was the opportunity to let the public know about the amazing Julia Sand, and instead “Death by Lightning” uses her story to enhance the character of Garfield’s wife, Lucretia.

Lucretia was one of our most literate and influential First Ladies and deserves attention, but not at the cost of erasing Julia Sand.

Pages: 1 2

Friday Rainy Day Open Forum

/ Jack Marshall / 44 Comments

I used to complain about how much of Northern Virginia winters were spent in the rain, but the deluge overnight here, which is going to restart any minute, could not be more welcome. My neighborhood has been iced-over for weeks, with snow on the ground longer than any time during my decades long residence. (Naturally, this is just more evidence of climate change and global warming, “experts” say, and they know best.) The warm rain is ending that, meaning that walking my over-enthusiastic dog, Spuds, will no longer be life-threatening…at least not as life threatening.

I have too many things I want to write about, and as always, I am hoping to find some guest posts (as in “you write about it so I don’t have to” posts) here today when the dust settles. Olympics ethics stories will be especially welcome, because I refuse to watch the hypocritical spectacle or read about it unless someone sends me a tip. I am very tempted, however, to write about Elaine Gu, the all-American super-star skier who competes representing China in this Winter Olympics. According to the Wall Street Journal, Gu and Zhu Yi, a fellow American-born figure skater who now competes for China, were paid a combined $6.6 million by the Beijing Municipal Sports Bureau in 2025 for “striving for excellent results in qualifying for the 2026 Milan Winter Olympics.” In all, the two were reportedly paid nearly $14 million over the past three years. The payments were revealed when the Beijing Municipal Sports Bureau budget was posted online with the names of Gu and Zhu. Their names have since been scrubbed from the public report.”

Nice. Gu is revolting, and it also proves how far the Olympic have come from their original roots of extolling amateur athletic competition. Gu still is paid by some American corporations to be their sponsors. They are also revolting. Gu’s betrayal of her own nation raises the ethical issue of dual citizenship. She’s a great walking, talking, greedy, ethically-inert example of why we shouldn’t allow it.

But don’t get me started. You get started…

No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

….and you all know it as well as I do.

Proving that the Washington Post wasn’t recently gutted by its Gazillionaire owner Jeff Bezos to make it more fair and objective but just to try to save money while keeping it dishonest and partisan, the paper’s Editorial Board published a disingenuous, politically motivated and deliberately misleading editorial [gift link!]explaining that the Trump Administration’ resuscitation of the long dormant—but still on the books—FCC “Equal Time” rule is simply a pretense for using the regulation for political censorship. You see, as the Post editors “explain,” the rule is no longer needed! here is how they frame the current controversy:

“Passed by Congress as a part of the 1934 Communications Act, the equal-time rule says that if a broadcast station features a candidate for public office, it “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The FCC is charged with enforcing it. On Monday, Colbert said that CBS prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D). He claimed the network’s lawyers were worried about clashing with the FCC.

“CBS told a different story. It said Colbert wasn’t prohibited from airing the interview, but rather warned that it might “trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.” Talarico, a state representative, and Crockett are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas Senate race. The network claimed it presented Colbert with “options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”

“On Tuesday night, Colbert rebuked the network again, but the finger-pointing misses the point of how a zombie regulation created this mess in the first place.

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.

“Since the advent of cable news and the internet, the possibilities for transmitting information and entertainment have exploded. Colbert’s Talarico interview, for example, was posted on YouTube, where it already has more than 6 million views — far more than it probably would have received if not for this controversy. Politicians can compete for attention without government help….”

The Post’s subterfuge would be a legitimate argument except for the democracy-rotting condition that the paper is ignoring because it is part of it. That condition is the near total ideological monopoly of the entertainment industry, giving the Left—again, the Post and its pals—access to the controls of the powerful propaganda and indoctrination weapon television still is.

Pages: 1 2