If ever there was a poster woman for progressivism, MA Senator Elizabeth Warren fills the bill. Known as “Fauxahontas” for using fake indian credentials to cash in on minority preferences, she has taken the Ted Kennedy Senate seat from the hapless Scott Brown and is now on target to out-liberal the liberal Lion.
One of the more interesting things to do with her is to disect her thinking via reading what she has to say about certain subjects. It gives one a good peek behind the curtain and into the “progressive” mind. For instance, here she is talking about the school loan program the government unilaterally took over:
Right now, in order to finance the United States government, we take in billions of dollars of profits for student loans, but permit billionaires to have enough loopholes that they pay at tax rates that can be lower than those of their secretaries.
This is a straightforward choice: We can take $75 billion and either way we’ll use it to protect tax loopholes for billionaires or $75 billion can be used to help students to refinance their outstanding student loan debt. It’s billionaires or students.
This particular quote is instructive in so many ways. First, note how she makes the point that government “permits” billionairs to keep their money via loopholes. Obviously she believes that’s something that shouldn’t be permitted, but more importantly in infers a belief that everything you earn belongs to government. The student loan program is simply an excuse for taking it if she has her way. If it weren’t that, it would be something else. But bottom line she believes government has a right to that money in the name of … well you call it – fairness? Equality? Whatever.
Secondly, what is the problem right now in terms of the cost of schooling? The price is to high. How does one get the price down? Competiton. That and you don’t subsidize the cost and lay off the cost of that subsizidation on students. If there is limited competition and vast subsidization, what is the incentive for colleges and universities to cut costs to compete for students?
That’s right, none. So what the government program that she wants to tax billionaires for is doing is helping to sustain, maintain and grow the higher education bubble.
Heritage’s Brittany Corona, a research assistant in education policy, has criticized the federal government’s involvement in the student-loan business, citing, in particular, the unknown long-term costs to taxpayers.
“Continuing to expand higher education subsidies through subsidized federal student loans and grants does nothing to put pressure on colleges to lower costs,” Corona warned. “In fact, access to easy money does the opposite, enabling universities to raise prices, knowing students can return to the federal trough for more financing.”
Sound familiar at all? Have we had previous experience with this sort of nonsense in the last 5 or 6 years?
When this bubble pops and collapses, I’m sure the Warren’s of the world will find some “private” boogyman to blame it on. But in reality, it will again be a government program that fueled the expansion of the bubble and the eventual collapse.
And the students? Well, they’ll still be on the hook to pay for their overpriced education for the rest of their lives, regardless of the interest rate.
“Outdated” because it confilicts with liberalism. Here’s a senior at Harvard’s view:
In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.
Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
And what is it called when one promotes the quashing of dissenting views that they find to conflict with their ideas?
Call is “social justice” or whatever you choose, it is plain old, Brand X “oppression”.
That’s right. Every oppresive regime in the history of our world has been intolerant of dissent and has taken action to quash it. Here we see the same old tired argument presented by a liberal to further the cause of liberalism. Don’t want to hear any dissenting voices, oh no.
And yet this newly trained “scholar” presents this as if it is a brand-new, brightly minted and spectacular idea. She’s a senior at Harvard and “is a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator”.
No kidding. What a surprise. There seems to be quite a concentration of potential oppressers in that particular field of study. There certainly seems to be a dearth of critical thinkers however (she probably comes from the school of “it hasn’t worked properly yet because I haven’t been in charge”). It’s a pity she didn’t take a run-of-the-mill world history course or two to see who else in the past has shared that bright idea with her. Past hell, there’s are entire countries which have implemented that exist now.
China, Cuba and North Korea come to mind.
Make no mistake, Barack Obama is a failed liberal, who, given the chance to advance the liberal agenda, has hopefully, at the very least, crippled it for years to come.
His poll numbers and the polling for ObamaCare tell the tale.
But why has he failed? Well I think this offers a pretty fair explanation:
The president and the officials around him are the product of the same progressive version of higher education that simultaneously excises politics from the study of government and public policy while politicizing education. This higher education denigrates experience; exalts rational administration; reveres abstract moral reasoning; confidently counts on the mainstream press to play for the progressive political team; accords to words fabulous abilities to remake reality; and believes itself to speak for the people while haughtily despising their way of life.
The education President Obama received at Columbia University and Harvard Law School — and delivered to others as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School — encourages the fantasy of a political world subject to almost limitless manipulation by clever and well-orchestrated images. This explains why the harsh exigencies and intractable forces of politics keep stunning the president, each new time as if it were the very first.
We’ve now had 5 years to study the results of this particular product and they’re not very pretty are they?
We’ve made these same points off and on for years. We have a commenter who visits here fairly regularly that also exhibits the very traits outlined above and is a member of academia. All anyone needs to do is read the nonsense he spouts to understand how pervasive this crippling process is. His one asset to this blog is he so aptly demonstrates the point of this post.
We’ve also said many times that you still have to face reality when all is said and done (or said and not done). That’s what Obama and his ilk are finally having to do.
Obama is and always has been a “give a speech and all is well” kind of guy. He was sure that the force of his speeches combined with his personality was indeed enough to calm the seas and have them recede. In his world, saying is doing. He had no need to have actually done anything or run anything. He was an intellectual who knew how things should run and be done. All he needed to do was enlighten the masses. And that’s what he’s attempted to do.
Except reality keeps biting him in the keister. Pass a law to totally remake the health insurance industry and then discover:
“What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.”
No kidding you incompetent boob. Ask anyone in the real world who has actually delt with the problem and they’d have been glad to tell you that. But he “discovers” it after he’s been a party to destroying the health insurance industry as we knew it. He blithely promised it would be easy and reality spit in his face.
Unfortunately the other part of reality is he’s not the one that’s going to suffer because he’s an ignorant boob. People facing medical emergencies with no insurance are.
Peter Berkowitz says that isn’t the only “discovery” this gang of incompetents made “on the job”:
In January 2010, in a Time magazine interview in which he was asked about the setbacks to his ambitious attempt to reach a final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, he remarked, “I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that.”
The problem, the president acknowledged, was that he and his team had failed to understand the domestic challenges faced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: “I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn’t produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.”
In June 2011, Obama again acknowledged that he had based a defining policy — the $830 billion stimulus package that he sold to the nation in the first month of his presidency as designed to take advantage of “shovel-ready” jobs — on false expectations. With unemployment at 9.1 percent and in the 27th consecutive month in which it had not fallen below 8.9 percent, he told his Jobs and Competitiveness Council meeting in Durham, N.C., that “shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”
On Nov. 4 of this year — five weeks after the calamitous online launch of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces, almost five years into his presidency and less than two weeks before he would reveal that the loss of insurance coverage by millions of Americans taught him that buying coverage was complicated — Obama said to the Affordable Care Act Coalition Partners and Supporters in Washington, D.C., “Now, let’s face it, a lot of us didn’t realize that passing the law was the easy part.”
Contrary to the president’s breezy attitude suggesting that these drastic miscalculations were not knowable in advance, we know that all were foreseeable because all were perspicaciously foreseen by critics from the beginning. (The only possible exception is the staggeringly inept rollout of the HealthCare.gov website, the magnitude of which caught even the president’s toughest critics off guard.)
Finally … finally, what many of us have been saying for years is evident to everyone. And because he’s so badly botched something that is important to everyone, they’re actually paying attention. Thus the 37% approval rating.
Right now, Barack Obama would love to have George W. Bush’s approval rating.
Very interesting read today by David Gordon in “Minding the Campus” (via Insty). In his piece he talks about the subject of history being at present in the best of times and in the worst of times, to mangle Dickens.
What am I talking about? Well, the blog in which Gordon’s article appears subs its title with “Reforming our Universities”.
Why is that important? We’ve talked about it in the past. It is where liberal America has set up shop for decades. And the effect is never been stronger than now. In fact, a lot of what you see as the changing attitudes in America can, I think – at least in part – be traced to academia.
Gordon notes its beginning:
This extraordinary bias began in the late 1960s with the anti-Vietnam war protests. Many participants, at least those who subsequently went into academia, have never gotten over it. Their fossilized views have made their own disciplines largely museums of dead ideologies. Another of the remarkable changes within the historical profession has been the growth of women’s history. With only a negligible representation in 1975, almost 10% of all historians today identify themselves as historians of gender and women’s affairs.
What bias is Gordon talking about? Well it’s a bias that he sees as “mangling history” to our detriment:
The evolution of the historical profession in the United States in the last fifty years provides much reason for celebration. It provides even more reason for unhappiness and dread. Never before has the profession seemed so intellectually vibrant. An unprecedented amount of scholarship and teaching is being devoted to regions outside of the traditional American concentration on itself and Europe. New subjects of enquiry — gender, race and ethnicity — have developed. Never have historians been so influenced by the methodology and contributions of other disciplines, from anthropology to sociology.
At the same time, never has the historical profession been so threatened. Political correctness has both narrowed and distorted enquiry. Traditional fields demanding intellectual rigor, such as economic and intellectual history, are in decline. Even worse, education about Western civilization and the Enlightenment, that font of American liberties, and the foundation of modern industrial, scientific and liberal world civilization, has come to be treated with increasing disdain at colleges and universities.
Now call me crazy, but you can see easily the effect of what Gordon is talking about today in the last election. Increasingly students (and that includes further down the academic chain in high schools) know less and less about our history and traditions and more and more about, well, women’s studies, gender studies, things which have little bearing on economic and intellectual history – for instance:
The problem with this is that it has helped force out many other kinds of historical enquiry. It is important to emphasize women’s role in society and in history. However, it is difficult to see how a feminist perspective could contribute very much to a purely economic history of the English industrial revolution (as opposed to its social consequences), or to a diplomatic history of Europe between the Napoleonic and the First World War. As a result, these kinds of studies are receiving ever less attention.
We all understand that women and minorities were mistreated. Got it. And we all know that was wrong, with 21st Century hindsight. But what happened back when all that bad stuff was going on, in terms of economic and intellectual history, is still critically important today.
Instead history’s “new focus” has helped bolster both the “victimization” and “entitlement” mentality:
Worst of all, women’s history has contributed to the current holy trinity of race, gender and class that dominates the historical profession. Under normal circumstances, the tight focus on victimization would soon fade. Since oppression studies explain so little, they soon become boring. But, as a part of a political chorus demanding ever-more extravagant entitlements for key voting groups, an essential part of the identity politics that is so destructive of national unity, the trinity is ensured a long life. Historians can grow tired of an intellectual movement. Politicians of a useful political tool, never.
There is also something else beyond the fanciful and fraudulent political and academic rhetoric of “equal opportunity – affirmative action.” That is jobs. Key voting groups designated as oppressed have been hired preferentially in the academy, most especially in the social sciences, including history. To justify these preferences, historians of gender and race must keep emphasizing oppression. How otherwise can their privileges be justified? Hence, the refiguring history to justify their positions in the professoriate.
We used to hear people laugh derisively when someone mentioned “political correctness”. But what you’re reading here is an example of political correctness run amok.
And it’s effect? Read James Taranto’s piece in the WSJ today. It’s an incredible example of political correctness gone nuts. I’m talking about Emily Yoffe’s answer to an obviously absurdly insensitive question addressed to her. However, her answer, among much of the left, is both appropriate and “correct”. It’s what they believe. It’s what they’ve been taught.
Will it get worse? Well, Gordon seems to think it will:
A remarkable generational change is also coming. Most of the historians in the declining fields, economic, intellectual and diplomatic history, earned their degrees more than 30 years ago. At the same time, more than 50% of the new PhDs are now trained in women and gender history, in cultural history (a watered-down version of social history), in world and African-American history. This is going to make an extraordinary difference in what kind of scholarship will continue to be undertaken, and how the past will be taught. The history profession, seemingly innovative and robust, is in fact intellectually debilitated, and sadly reduced in scope.
If you think it is bad in the history department, you’ve seen what is going on in the science department (
global warming climate change “science”).
Many have been hinting for years that the culture battle – the battle between individualism and freedom v. collectivism and entitlement- is being lost in academia. Gordon manages to put an exclamation point to the claim. One of the reasons our population knows less and less about economic and our intellectual history is because it has been waylaid and replaced with “disciplines” which stress entitlement and victimization.
Is it then a surprise when more and more of the population view themselves and this country through those lenses? And is it then any more surprising when they perceive government – more and more government – as the answer? Again, it’s what they’ve been taught.
Or perhaps it could be called the wages of the liberal cant (Camille Paglia):
Capitalism has its weaknesses. But it is capitalism that ended the stranglehold of the hereditary aristocracies, raised the standard of living for most of the world and enabled the emancipation of women. The routine defamation of capitalism by armchair leftists in academe and the mainstream media has cut young artists and thinkers off from the authentic cultural energies of our time.
Thus we live in a strange and contradictory culture, where the most talented college students are ideologically indoctrinated with contempt for the economic system that made their freedom, comforts and privileges possible. In the realm of arts and letters, religion is dismissed as reactionary and unhip. The spiritual language even of major abstract artists like Piet Mondrian, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko is ignored or suppressed.
Thus young artists have been betrayed and stunted by their elders before their careers have even begun. Is it any wonder that our fine arts have become a wasteland?
I’ve truly never understood how one does what is routinely done by those who denounce Capitalism – live on and enjoy it’s benefits while calling for its destruction. I don’t see how anyone who would describe themselves as intelligent could live with the contradiction.
Unless, of course, they have a completely twisted and warped understanding of what Capitalism is. And, frankly, that’s precisely from what most of them suffer. They’re spoon fed this ignorant pap without opposition. They get the one side. They have Capitalism defined and characterized as something it’s not and leave believing that definition to be true.
Obviously that mischaracterization would fall mostly within liberal academic pursuits I’m guessing (because they’re unlikely to be pursuing business or economic courses in those pursuits, and thus would never be exposed to what Capitalism is really). So Paglia’s point makes sense. These students are indeed “indoctrinated”. I don’t know how else you describe “teaching” with no balance, with no valid opposing view presented, as anything but indoctrination.
Of course, she describes the result of such a twisted orthodoxy. Art which must conform to the orthodoxy and, as a result, is mostly rejected by the vast majority of the real world. It has gone from being “edgy” and “out there” or a “comment on our culture/society/whatever” to being another example of the same old thing – bashing what others hold sacred or dear. They can’t imagine why others don’t like it or want it.
Of course, when it doesn’t sell, well, that’s Capitalism’s fault.
And why shouldn’t these enlightened few demand subsidies for their “art?” After all, we have no taste and certainly don’t have the intelligence to discern what is or isn’t profound. We owe them such support.
Capitalism? Well that stands in the way, doesn’t it? It requires they produce something of value to others, not just of value to themselves, doesn’t it.
Down with Capitalism.
A friend of mine sent along a link to a brand new blog written by a former Professor at Georgia Tech. He only has 6 posts up but I’m already intrigued. He takes on the Southern Poverty Law Center (which he once supported monetarily) and he also has a pretty biting review of academia, an institution within which he spent 40 years. His metaphor for academia, as the title states, isn’t that of an ivory tower, but instead that of the plantation:
The proper metaphor for the university is no longer the “ivory tower,” a shining refuge from daily life that promotes creative thought—if it ever was. A better metaphor is something more down-and-dirty. Like any metaphor, it only goes so far, but in its limited way may aid our understanding.
The modern university is a plantation.
I’m defining “plantation” as a large agricultural enterprise that raises and sells livestock and crops for profit. Antebellum Southern plantations were defined by slaveholding; after the War Between the States those that were left shifted to a different but hardly more moral system. This is what characterizes modern public research universities. Consider the parallels between universities and plantations:
Undergraduates are livestock. In an actual plantation, livestock are raised and sold for profit.
How much profit depends on quality, numbers and value. Undergraduates bring money in two ways. First is tuition and fees, and is the lesser contribution. The last estimate I heard, from two separate schools, was that tuition and fees accounted for 15% of the operating budget.* The greater contribution comes from State funding, which pays some number of dollars per student credit hour. This accounts for 35% of the annual budget, according to the same sources.
So the “livestock” are, in reality, a rather minor portion of the money coming in (tuition and fees) but worth a lot because of the government funding tied to the credit hours taken.
How is that a function of govenment again? And why, if that’s going on, have tuition and fees become so outrageous? Why are student loans so high?
To answer that question, it is high because it can be. Low interest loans actually don’t help the process and students, and more problematic, parents, have fallen for the siren song of academia – “we’re vital for you child’s future and success”.
Of course, the government end of it provides another incentive that’s not particularly good.
What’s important here is that moving undergrads through the system is how universities make a great deal of money. The better the students and the more of them, the more funding.
Some schools depend more on quality to attract students (or a reputation for quality, which isn’t the same thing), some more on perceived value for tuition money, whether that includes classes or party time. The principle is the same regardless. Profit (how much is left over from direct expenses for salaries, new buildings, fancy office furniture and so forth) depends on spending as little as possible on livestock production while maintaining a salable product. What’s the outcome? Large classes taught by the cheapest employees. Dependence on online services instead of real (and responsive) human contact. Discarding hands-on laboratories in favor of computer simulations. All of these make undergraduate production easier and cheaper.
Plantations not only have livestock, but they raise crops. And what are the “crops” of academia?
Research grants and contracts. Not research itself, but research done in order to receive outside money. Most people outside the university don’t know that grants, whether from Federal or State agencies, foundations or industry, cover not only direct costs such as equipment and salaries, but “indirect costs,” expressed as “overhead.” Overhead was originally intended to cover such necessities as building maintenance, lights, water, heat and so forth. Today overhead may add 45% or more to the cost of a grant. If, for example, direct costs amount to $1,000,000, the grant must be written for $1,450,000 or more. This $450,000, minus actual overhead, is what corresponds to profit, and can be used by administrators for pretty much whatever they want. Overhead from grants and contracts amounts to another 35% of operating budgets.
In the modern research university, obtaining grants is a requisite for employment. Yes, one can do research without external funding, but that doesn’t count, at least not for much. An assistant professor in science or engineering must obtain grant funds to receive tenure, regardless of other contributions. A tenured associate or full professor can’t be fired out of hand (most places) for a lack of funding, but can be punished in other ways. Forgoing raises, for instance. Having one’s teaching load increased and being assigned to basic undergrad classes, for another. Losing office space, lab space, or travel funding for conferences. Having fewer grad students. These may not seem terribly severe penalties to non-academics, but trust me, they’re very effective.
While there is nothing wrong with making a profit, this points to how government has again had a hand in distorting a market.
He goes on to discuss a lot more in the post that deals with academia today (to include recommended solutions). Worth the read and a new blogger to keep an eye on. Seems he’s gone through the halls of academia, survived there for quite a while and is now looking back and saying WTF? A valuable look and some interesting analysis.
A recently published study has found that many college and university students aren’t taught critical thinking skills while enrolled in their course of study. The study "followed 2,322 traditional-age students from the fall of 2005 to the spring of 2009 and examined testing data and student surveys at a broad range of 24 U.S. colleges and universities, from the highly selective to the less selective."
What they found was that about 45% of those students showed no significant improvement in their critical thinking skills during the first two years of enrollment. After 4 years, 35% showed no significant improvement.
The study is unique in that it is the first time a group of students was followed through their college careers to determine if they learned specific skills. As might be expected, academia is not at all pleased with the results.
"These findings are extremely valuable for those of us deeply concerned about the state of undergraduate learning and student intellectual engagement," said Brian D. Casey, the president of DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind. "They will surely shape discussions about curriculum and campus life for years to come."
The students involved in the study were tested using a standard test used to measure critical thinking ability:
The study used data from the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a 90-minute essay-type test that attempts to measure what liberal arts colleges teach and that more than 400 colleges and universities have used since 2002. The test is voluntary and includes real world problem-solving tasks, such as determining the cause of an airplane crash, that require reading and analyzing documents from newspaper articles to government reports.
As noted a significant number of students were unable to break out fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or "objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event", the study found. In fact those students who fell into this category had a tendency to be swayed by emotion and political spin.
An interesting finding of the study was that students majored in liberal arts courses of study were more likely to develop critical thinking skills than were those that majored in courses of study such as business, education, social work and communications.
Other findings were that students who study alone, rather than in groups, tend to develop critical thinking skills and that courses (such as the liberal arts) which require heavy loads of reading and writing also help develop those skills.
Obviously the answer, if the study is to be believed, is to increase the reading and writing workload of all students. The study found some obvious problems as it is today in many of the universities and colleges included:
The study’s authors also found that large numbers of students didn’t enroll in courses requiring substantial work. In a typical semester, a third of students took no courses with more than 40 pages of reading per week. Half didn’t take a single course in which they wrote more than 20 pages over the semester.
While it would be easy to fob this off on students seeking the easiest path to graduation, it is the school that puts the curriculum together and designs and approves the classes taught. The bottom line is the school is being paid handsomely to turn out graduates that can indeed think critically – a skill in high demand everywhere. Failing in that area at the percentages noted isn’t a student problem – it is a problem of academia.
The findings shot that colleges need to be acutely aware of how instruction relates to the learning of critical-thinking and related skills, said Daniel J. Bradley, the president of Indiana State University and one of 71 college presidents who recently signed a pledge to improve student learning.
"We haven’t spent enough time making sure we are indeed teaching — and students are learning — these skills," Bradley said.
Indeed. And it appears a "back to basics" approach would be most appropriate to bring the students not being taught those skills up to the level they need to be when they graduate. That means tough courses which test those skills routinely. That also means more work for those teaching the courses. The question is will colleges and universities take these findings seriously and do the work for which they are being paid? Or will it, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, remain as it is today, with universities and colleges turning out a high percentage of graduates for whom critical thinking is still an unknown skill?
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Irony alert – “Mean-spirited” Chancellor of UC Berkeley uses “hateful rhetoric” to attack political opponents
The LA Times brings us yet another example of the apparent immunity to irony most folks on the liberal side of the house tend to exhibit. This time it is the Chancellor of UC Berkeley – an institution probably considered the cherry on top of the sundae of liberal academia.
Apparently Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau sent out a campus-wide email in which he blamed the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson on Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and the failure to pass the DREAM act. The email was sent out Monday. Giffords was shot the previous Saturday.
In the email, Birgeneau said, "I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons."
Well, as a matter of fact, it is a coincidence that it happened in Arizona regardless of anyone’s views on the immigration enforcement law the state passed. In fact, it appears immigration wasn’t even on Loughner’s rather weirded-out radar screen.
Birgenau also made it clear he believed a "climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated" was also partly responsible for the shooting. Subsequent revelations seem to pretty much debunk this theory. 0 for 2.
Speaking of demonization and hateful speech, Birgenau went on to say, "this same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the DREAM Act by legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country,"
“Mean-spirited xenophobia”? It couldn’t be that many who opposed the legislation saw it as giving an unfair advantage to those who had chosen to ignore our laws over those who were playing by the rules could it? It couldn’t be that those who oppose the law have absolutely no problem with legal immigration and actually agree our system is broken and needs to be fixed, could it?
Nope, they must be “mean-spirited xenophobes” if they opposed the law. The irony impaired say so.
By the way, this is also a great example of “projection” – another thing the left seems to be unable to spot. Blame the other side for doing what you’re caught doing, i.e. using overgeneralizations, demonization and hateful speech to attack your opponent – while in the middle of decrying it.
It just doesn’t get much better than this.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Because, you know, its all about war and stuff.
The Washington Post rolled out what I consider an inevitable op/ed today about keeping ROTC off the campuses of Ivy League schools who banned it when DADT was in effect. Colman McCarthy, a former Post columnist who directs the Center for Teaching Peace claims that ROTC is essentially an anti-intellectual endeavor which can be opposed on moral grounds:
It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of "don’t ask, don’t tell." They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.
Another on the left wanting to limit your choices.
Of course those who reject military solutions to conflicts for reasons of conscience don’t mind being protected by those who graduate from other ROTC programs, one supposes. And so they are. It is always fun and easy to be against war if others are willing to fight them for you. And you won’t find the military against peace either – they’re the ones who have to fight a war and suffer the losses. However, they’re also some hard-bitten realists who recognize that there are evil people in the world who want to do us harm. They also recognize that you can be for peace all you want to, but if the other guy chooses war, you either fight or capitulate and live by his dictates for your life. I assume McCarthy rejects “just war” as a challenge to his “peace for reasons of conscience” as well.
But if you look closely at the words above, you get an inkling of the depth of ignorance Mr. McCarthy displays in his piece. In this country, “military solutions” are dictated by civilian authorities. That may have slipped past him when he was studying “Peacenik 101”. It isn’t the military that decides when to enter a conflict, it is, for the most part, civilian graduates of Ivy league schools who’ve made those decisions. I know – irony.
Anyway, I thought that was a bit humorous.
McCarthy, if you haven’t guessed, is a product of the ‘60s. And it shows in the smug shallowness of his presentation and the bits of stereotypical nonsense with which his piece is studded. It’s also a pitch for more “peace studies”, because, you know, we have women’s studies, and black studies, and LGBT studies. I assume he believes ROTC to be war studies and filled with Neanderthals and knuckle-draggers who want to be indoctrinated, given a weapon and pointed in the right direction with orders to kill everything in sight.
As a proud ROTC grad (and Distinguished Military Graduate) I owe a debt to the course of study. Like most who graduated from the program, I learned the basics of something our present CiC hasn’t yet learned – leadership. And the Army took it from there to the point that when I retired, I was both a pretty fair leader and darn sure a good evaluator of leadership. Other than perhaps a few on-campus organizations, it was the only opportunity to learn about leadership and to apply it in a real world environment. I don’t know about you, but watching Obama founder on the leadership rocks, I think it is a pretty critical skill.
But McCarthy’s objection doesn’t even consider that. He’s stuck in the ‘60s Vietnam time warp by which he evaluates everything now. And he’s really concerned about the Ivies becoming tainted now that DADT has been repealed:
However, being the good PC creature he is, he knows he’s got to be careful. Read this and shake your head in wonder:
To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I’ve had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring.
It isn’t “anti-soldier”? Well of course not – check out the moral equivalency in the next line. Your young son who joined the Army is now the equivalent of a Taliban terrorist who blinds young girls with acid, executes village leaders for cooperation with the Afghan government and uses the sports arena in Kabul to execute women who’ve offended its bizarre codes.
His reasons for “admiring” soldiers are just as tatty – for their discipline, loyalty, principles and sacrifices. Most of us assume these to be good traits. Admirable traits as McCarthy says. Where in the world does he think such things are taught? Certainly not in his peace studies apparently. Uh, Mr. McCarthy, try “ROTC”. Yup – it’s stock and trade.
Finally he panders a bit: combat veterans have lots of resolve and daring. Daring? Is there perhaps a bit of a yellow-streak peeking out from behind the word salad? And aren’t “resolve and daring” what has made this nation great? Wow – more admirable traits.
ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex.
Yeah, that warrior ethic thing is a real “taint” on intellectual purity, isn’t it – if you define intellectual purity as “what I deem important and nothing else”. Let’s review – loyalty, daring, resolve, discipline, principle and sacrifice. I have to agree those traits contained in the warrior ethic would be a real drag on “intellectual purity” wouldn’t they?
McCarthy calls the classes taught in ROTC “softie classes” that don’t require much intellectually. Well they’re certainly not advanced nuclear physics, but then they’re not designed to be. They are classes which lay the ground work for what is to come in the military. They are an introduction to the schooling the military will incrementally give its officers as they go on active duty and progress through the ranks. When I entered the Army I went to the Infantry Officer Basic Course which picked up right where ROTC left off. Given a few years of experience I went to my branch’s Advanced course, then the Command and General Staff College, etc. – all part of a planned military schooling cycle that turns out the leaders that we have commanding our military today – most of whom could easily pit their intellect against that of McCarthy and come out miles ahead.
As for the intellectual purity of a school being compromised by ROTC, if this demonstrably misinformed op/ed is an example of what such intellectual purity produces, ROTC would most likely raise the intellectual level of the school this guy attended. It just makes you wonder what he’s so afraid of.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner brings this little goodie to our attention:
The American public is still mired in doubt about the science and the economics of climate change, he said, but is ready for the kind of social shift that eventually brought success to the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.
“Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, few people in the 21st century see a moral problem with the burning of fossil fuels,” Professor [Andrew] Hoffman [of the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources] said. “Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery?”
So now skeptics of AGW are the moral equivalent of slavery defenders because they don’t agree that the science is there which supports the warmists view that man’s CO2 emissions are the driver of global climate change? Really?
If people might do anything during a 100 year retrospective it will be to look askance at the rhetoric this particular issue generated from one particular side. My guess is they’ll look at Hoffman’s analogy and shake their head in wonder at the absurdity of his claim.
I’m not sure what offends me more – Hoffman’s attempt to equate scientific skepticism with an immoral institution like slavery or his obvious ignorance of the fact that science is skepticism.
Hoffman needs to also get out more – there is little if any “social shift” in the making concerning this nonsense. The science is not settled (in fact it is badly discredited), there is no consensus and until there is much more solid evidence from the scientific community – not some divinity school drop out and failed presidential candidate – the public isn’t going to willingly sacrifice its economic well being on some incredibly expensive scheme concocted by warmists that most likely will have no effect whatsoever on the alleged problem.
But, then, what do we slavers know.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!