Greg Lukianoff is the president and chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which has taken over the non-partisan role of First Amendment protector that the ACLU abandoned over a decade ago. In an essay for the New York Times titled, “This Is No Way to Run a University” (gift link), he easily smashes some low hanging conservative fruit: Texas A&M University introducing policy changes aimed at a sweeping review of course materials aimed at purging state disapproved assertions about about race and gender ( according to a bill passed last spring by the Texas Legislature) from woke curricula.
The bill is almost certainly unconstitutional as state forbidden speech. Lukianoff highlights the fact that the law was interpreted at Texas A&M as mandating the elimination of some Plato works from a philosophy course on how classical ethical concepts apply to contemporary social problems, including race and gender. That is clearly a ridiculous result. The free speech activist writes in part,
“Texas A&M seems to have concluded that the safest way to handle the ideas contained in a classic text is to bury them. This is no way to run an institution of higher education. University administrators and state lawmakers are saying, in effect, that academic freedom won’t protect you if you teach ideas they don’t like. Never mind that decades ago, the Supreme Court described classrooms as the very embodiment of the “marketplace of ideas”: “Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom…Within the Texas Tech University system, which has more than 60,000 students, a Dec. 1 memo warned faculty members not to “promote or otherwise inculcate” certain specific viewpoints about race and sex in the classroom. These include concepts like “One race or sex is inherently superior to another”; “An individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive”; and “Meritocracy or a strong work ethic are racist, sexist or constructs of oppression.” The point isn’t that these concepts should just be accepted or go unchallenged; it’s that challenging them through a robust give-and-take is what universities are for.”
This would be indisputable, except that the writer, I assume deliberately, ignores the context of the Texas law and the reality of the problem it is addressing. Because the world of academia, along with other institutions, gradually ceased trying to promote critical thinking (that is, how to think) in higher education in favor of indoctrination (what to think), some of those ideas that Texas is trying to suppress aren’t just taught in colleges and universities, but are virtually dictated by them. Contrary positions may not be forbidden by law or policy, but they are disfavored, discouraged, and suppressed by social controls. I would place “An individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive” and “Meritocracy or a strong work ethic are racist, sexist or constructs of oppression” in that category.
Those views among others that flourish in our colleges and universities, I believe, are divisive, un-American, destructive, unethical, stupid, to be blunt, and cultural poison. Decades of Leftist infiltration of college faculties and departments along with biased institutionalized favor toward such dubious concepts as intersectionality were allowed to embed themselves in our schools, thanks to apathy and inattention by American society, Now that they dominate higher education, the ratcheting process that characterizes the Left’s long game (recently discussed here and here) appears beyond correction.
If the “marketplace of ideas” is already so corrupted that only unconstitutional laws have a chance of restoring ideological balance and neutrality, what is to be done?
I have absolutely no idea.
Ethics Alarms 
I wonder if the emasculation of males resulting from the social constructs that they are inherently oppressive – white or otherwise – will eventually lead to higher rates of violence against women. This usually happens in the animal kingdom when an animal is abused for an extended period of time.
I suggest that men, white ones in particular, grow a pair in college and challenge the indoctrination in the classroom. Make a scene and walk out of a class when a professor starts on that BS. Start demanding that such ideas are patently discriminatory and start suing the schools for creating a hostile environment. In other words learn the strategies used by the left and use them.
Let being expelled from a school be a badge of honor for challenging the orthodoxy.
I don’t know of many males who are going to college. Fewer still who finish. My kid is adamantly opposed to college and I can’t blame him. I honestly can’t see any value in it right now unless you’re going into the sciences. It’s too expensive and most graduates can’t even repay their loans. No wonder they’re angry.
This is one reason why many white young men simply do not care anymore about racism and sexism, and feel no guilt about embracing radical influencers such as Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes. Racism, sexism, fascism do have specific historical meaning, however in today’s context these words have simply become terms of abuse directed at people based on race and gender. Straight white males notice the contempt and the explicit discrimination against them, reason why Gen-Z white males voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2024. After Trump’s win the moral stigma and the fear that comes with it disappears; younger conservatives are not afraid to be called a racist anymore as this term has lost its power to shame. Same for the term sexist. Men are listening in to the Manosphere, and listen to influencers that openly name things by their name on issues of immigration and race.
IN the meantime college may be declining in importance for building a successful career and wealth. The meaningless degrees, the rising tuitions, and mounting student loan debt have a lot to do with that. Businesses are noticing too; why would they hire an uber woke graduate who checks all the right intersectionality boxes, but who most likely has been the beneficiary of affirmative action and DEI policies?
Legally I suspect that the power of the purse is a better way to sanction and punish than an unconstitutional law. Let those woke universities be run like businesses without support of the taxpayer.
I suggest that all involved, most especially educators and those outside education who are most vocal, learn the difference between indoctrination and teaching about a topic. I also suggest, no, I demand we eschew sexist metaphors; not “grow a pair” (a pair of what, exactly?), but instead, “strengthen intestinal fortitude”.
I suggest that you are in denial. Teaching about how white people are inherently racist, the United States is blight on humanity, that socialism is a superior form of government and how men inevitably subjugate woman is indoctrination.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Teaching about the concept that Whites are inherently racist would not be indoctrination. The concept itself would be examined, with facts and ideas both supporting and refuting the concept being presented.
Teaching about HOW Whites are inherently racist would be indoctrination because it includes an unproved, biased supposition, that inherent white racism exists.
Reviewing the history of the United States and illustrating that racism mostly has been Whites over minorities is teaching the history of racism, not adopting a point of view. But stopping there could be indoctrination, because it would imply that all Whites are racist. So, including facts about Whites opposing slavery, Whites opposing racism, and so on would be necessary, as would examples of racism not involving Whites.
Further, I have no doubt that indoctrination exists in our educational systems, which is why my comment was directed at educators as well as critics. I do not want educators claiming they simply are teaching a subject when they in fact are indoctrinating, and I do not want them to get away with such claims.
“I have no doubt that indoctrination exists in our educational systems“
The Gotch’s preferred term is INDOCTRICATION.
The Urban Dictionary is somewhat helpful in understanding this term. However, it does include a usage example which easily could be taken in a sexist, literal sense, implying that susceptibility to indoctrication applies only to cis-women.
I now expect C_G and CM to confer with each other as to how a d-less one could grow a pair, or, if there perhaps is some other preparation pertinent to opposing indoctrination.
Sorry HJ but the d-less ones have been calling the shots for a long damn time despite their claims of oppression. Look at men’s rights in child custody and divorce. What programs are explicitly for women and minorities – plenty. My point was that the objects of derision must stand up for themselves. Women and minorities have been doing just that for years. No testosterone is needed for them.
This notion that men exploit or oppress women is bunk when examined on a society wide perspective. Men objectify women and women objectify men the only difference is what are the characteristics each finds desirable. Men very often evaluate women from a physical standpoint while women tend to evaluate men from both a physical and financial perspective. each knows what outward appearance they must create to attract attention so who exploits whom?
I have never heard a man ever say he wants a woman that is subservient. I suppose there were some in the past but I have not heard any of that in my 69 years. I have heard that some men are immediately ruled out because they are short, have limited education or have limited financial prospects just as I have seen men ignore plain Janes. I have however never heard of a man rule someone out because of their finances or education
HTMl makes analogies easy.
Shouldn’t that last “Judenvolk” be “Herrenvolk” instead?
I suggest that all involved, most especially educators and those outside education who are most vocal, learn the difference between indoctrination and teaching about a topic. I also suggest, no, I demand we eschew sexist metaphors; not “grow a pair” (a pair of what, exactly?), but instead, “strengthen intestinal fortitude”.
Perhaps rather unlikely coming from me, however the men in my world are totally committed to the recovery of masculine definitions and recognize that there there is a huge physical and also (if you will) metaphysical difference between men and women. In this view, men have become infected with women’s attitudes and perhaps have been induced to believe they should become more feminine in order to complete themselves (?)
To a certain degree those who have, as a result of the failures of Conservatism in America (a Conservative in America is really a Liberal, even an activist Liberal, and they have as much of problems with more acute Right-leaning ideology as do the classic ‘Liberals”) as a result of the failures of Conservatism in America have moved to the so-called Radical Right or Extreme Right positions, carry it out in rather juvenile manner (like Fuentes, like Tate) but the impetus of ‘recovery’ is genuine indeed. It involves metaphysical principles as well as social and political principles.
Clearly this is unbalanced (as is everything in the American social body at this time) but there definitely is a kernel to be pursued. Think of the Chinese or Taoist notion that ‘ a man must be a man’ and ‘a woman must be a woman’ (and a son a son, a daughter a daughter, etc.) for there to come into existence a balanced, harmonious social world.
You can certainly find women on the blogs and on YouTube who recognize all this and do not desire to ‘be men’.
Another fact (at least it seems to me) is that all teaching is, strictly speaking, ‘indoctrination’ (but I do understand how you are using the word). You have to have defined a base (philosophically, existentially, also metaphysically) from which you are teaching. And you have to have some sense of what is ‘true’ and to distinguish it from what is ‘false’. That effort, even according to s somewhat loose cannon like Camillia Paglia, is essentially men’s activity. “If it were left to women we’d still be living in grass huts”. I know that this is not totally true, but it has a good deal of truth in it.
It is tough to rebalance though. Yet once you have the metaphysical definitions in place, then it become easier.
HJ
When women stop using the word bitch as a badge of honor, then I will stop using the metaphor in question. The point is men have to give up thinking they must take the crap they are served. However, whether it is intestinal fortitude or elevated testosterone from testicular fortitude, the point is the same and is not necessarily sexist.
Stoicism is one thing, being wimpy and afraid all the time is another.
Strategically I would recommend that every male start identifying as a woman on all applications, grants, loans or any other request for such identification. Break the system they are creating. Currently, the SCOTUS is going to rule on trans people in women’s sports and if they rule in favor of trans people as women simply because they identify as women then all men should start doing the same just to illustrate the problem of allowing people to identify as something they are not. All the programs geared for women and minorities will crumble under the weight of the discriminatory hypocrisy.
There is a solution, but it cannot be implemented because of the corruption of the judiciary (see Jack’s previous post). The state schools are clearly in violation of numerous discrimination laws and they should be held to account.
Boys are being discriminated in schools. Look at the current performance of boys v girls in GPA and test scores below.
https://aibm.org/research/boys-girls-and-grades-examining-gpa-and-sat-trends/
Compare this to the 1975 – 1995 figures here. This is clearly a Title IX violation.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96768.pdf
It is claimed that 20% of elementary school teachers are male, but I haven’t seen that and I doubt you have either. The real number is probably closer to 95% female. I am pretty sure this is clear evidence of sex discrimination by the schools and needs to be remedied. The 4 elementary schools my son went to had 0 male employees. Not even a janitor was male. This is clearly sex discrimination and should be remedied immediately.
Surveys show that at least 65% of public schoolteachers are Democrats. In the universities, it is MUCH higher. This type of viewpoint discrimination should not be allowed in public schools and the states need to outlaw it. The problem is, if you allow Democrats to be hired and they are allowed to determine hiring, the place becomes all Democrat eventually because Democrats are a cult that puts cult loyalty before merit. The concept of merit is considered evil to them. A solution would be to exempt Republicans from the taxes that support the schools (“Here is my Republican Card. This entitles me to a 60% property tax discount and a 3% sales tax discount”) or state-paid tuition at the private school of their choice. Since the schools are partisan, only that party should be required to support the schools.
The college population has been majority female since 1973 or 1974 (depending on if you define it as 50/50 or percentage of the population. Women are currently 61% of college students. The number in many surveys is below 60%, but it has been above 60% for some time in my experience. This is a massive Title IX violation.
https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
The schools are teaching state religion, which should not be allowed. If you see the word gender and it doesn’t refer to language, it is state religion. There is no empirical evidence for this ‘gender’ concept. It is an artificial construct, the astrology of the 21st century. You can tell it is a religion, because fields like anthropology are changing centuries-old protocols and findings to bring them in-line with the new ‘gender’ ideology. Answer me this, if you find a dead body with no markings or identification, what ‘gender’ was the person? Now, what sex was the person? Another example is schools are now making students use ‘meditation apps’ to track their ‘mental health’ and guide them. As another example, I believe Communism is also a religion. It has prophets, sacred texts, its propositions have been falsified every time they have been tried and its believers still have faith that they work, it is adherents are rabidly evangelical, it has competing denominations, and it requires a suspension of rational thought far greater than that of Scientology. I mean, I can’t prove that Xenu DIDN’T exist and I don’t have body Thetans, but I can show that Communism was disastrous every time it was tried and things don’t happen they way Communism says things will happen.
https://www.innerexplorerinstitute.org/
https://mindliftapp.app/about
The courts need to ban the teaching of these secular religions just like they ban the teaching of traditional religions. Either that, or the states need to go back to having official religions and teaching those in the schools, just for transparency’s sake (remember, we had official, taxpayer supported, state religions until 1845 and they were never ruled unconstitutional).
I haven’t even touched on the completely illegal racial discrimination perpetuated by these institutions. The deforestation of America would be required to put that to paper. The 1964 Civil Rights Act still exists, right? The Supreme Court even allowed it to be implemented a mere 60 years after it became law, didn’t they?
For all this blatantly illegal discrimination, shouldn’t the schools be held accountable for this by the firing of ALL implicated? That would mean every college Trustee, President, Provost, Vice-President, and Dean at the very least.
These wouldn’t completely fix the problem, but it would definitely help. Of course, none of this can be done because it would require the unanimous consent of all 600+ members of the federal judiciary. If just one objects, say a federal judge in Rhode Island, then the entire country will be barred from such reforms. So, step 1 would be to impeach the entire federal judiciary below the Supreme Court. This won’t happen, so unless executives are willing to start ignoring the blatantly unconstitutional rulings of these monarchical members of the federal judiciary, nothing can be done.
Comment of the Day.
https://archive.md/4s4zx
With respect to Texas A & M, the First Amendment question is clear.
The state has the authority to determine its curriculum. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 210 (2006) control.
This is far different than dictating the curricula of private schools. There is a little a state can do about a private school that seeks to indoctrinate students in pro-Nazi, pro-Communist, or pro-Hamas ideology.
I figure it’s difficult to deal with an adversary that refuses to adhere to your rules and your values. The modern day progressive does not believe in liberal values, those values that arose from the Enlightenment and were a bedrock for the formation of America. The progressives would happily impose unconstitutional bans on speech they found unacceptable. If the conservative bloc attempts something similar in intent, if limited in scope, the progressives will complain that the restriction goes against the conservative’s values.
It’s been suggested here and elsewhere that American politics is currently in an iterative prisoners’ dilemma scenario. The only way out of such a scenario is to treat the progressives to some of the restrictions that they inflicted on the conservatives, even if those restrictions go against liberal values. This would have to continue until the progressives call uncle, and agree to respect liberal values again. Would a temporary setting aside of some liberal values lead to a permanent rejection of them? Is it possible to use a liberal framework to deal with people who disregard a liberal framework and reject liberal values? Are liberal values only for those who respect liberal values?
There is another possibility. The left in this country is really trying to start a civil war. You see it in the Philadelphia Police Chief who called federal law enforcement ‘fake cops’ and ordered them out of ‘her’ city stating “You don’t want this smoke” or Minneapolis’ mayor telling federal law enforcement to get out. You also see it in the videos of Somali residents of Minnesota stating that white America better keep serving them or they and black America will make the whites pay or stating that you can ignore Elon Musk because he doesn’t have long to live.
I am really afraid that is where we are headed and I don’t think leftist America is really prepared for what happens if conservative America feels that their lives are in danger from leftists. If everyday conservatives are being targeted by leftists and they ALL aren’t immediately arrested and quickly sentenced to long prison terms, what will happen? What happens when everyday Americans see people being attacked by leftist mobs and instead of the mob being charged, the victim is charged with felonies for not submitting to their beating or death at the hands of the mob (remember, this is the reality of what has happened in Seattle, Portland, etc)? What happens when conservatives no longer respect the law or the government? When everyday Americans feel that their only option for safety is to kill their political opponents in their houses or on the streets, what will that look like? Most Democrats I know still have Biden/Harris (or Clinton/Kaine) bumper stickers on their cars. Everyone knows who had the “In this house, we believe…” signs in their yards.
I really am afraid this is where we are going. If the TDS sufferers can’t be reasoned with, I am afraid it is inevitable. If they won’t listen to reason or reality, their only option is to become even more radicalized until it breaks out in civil war. It is the logical destination to their journey. We need to find some way to treat TDS so that it isn’t always terminal.