From College Indoctrination to Corporate Intolerance

A day after an internal email by a Google employee was leaked to the press, a combination of ideological intolerance and scientific illiteracy led Google to fire James Damore for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” On the day he was fired, Quillette.com published several brief essays by academics on the science of sex differences, mostly vindicating his characterization of the relevant data. That night, hackers shut down the website, presumably to prevent readers from learning the truth: that there are average differences between men and women, that these differences are partly rooted in biology, and that these differences have predictable social consequences.

How did we get here? Why would such a carefully worded dissenting opinion earn someone so much scorn from the public, misunderstanding by the media, and a pink slip by the company he works for? How could an employee who expresses skepticism about a company’s policy, but doesn’t violate the company’s policy in any obvious way, be fired? And why would activists think it’s okay to use force to shut out dissenting voices on a website like Quillette?

Indoctrination Begins in College and Seeps into Corporate Culture

The problem begins in universities, where radical ideas are promoted and lauded as “progressive” and students are taught what to think instead of how to think.

Universities are populated by professors who are promoted based on increasingly specialized scholarship that is often inscrutable to outsiders. Few faculty are hired or recognized for their ability to bring insights from different fields together and help students see the big picture.

More importantly, while some universities nominally promote “critical thinking,” this phrase has come to mean the study of bizarre subjects like “critical theory” that use bombastic and abstruse language to criticize Western civilization. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, Newton and Darwin, are cast aside in favor of Foucault and Derrida, Lacan and Zizek. What most of us mean by “critical thinking” is that students should be taught how to challenge authority in a disciplined way by recognizing common biases. This includes, for example, understanding how statistics can be misused to fool us into accepting conclusions too readily, and becoming aware of how our political commitments can impede our ability to accept scientific evidence that suggests small but significant biological differences between sexes and races.

The point of a liberal education was supposed to be to bring familiarity with the ideals of the Enlightenment, the principles that guide scientific research, and the foundational texts that made the modern world. But this ideal is now considered quaint, and is increasingly rejected as an oppressive force rather than the foundation of a free and prosperous society.

Moreover, students are taught that political speech with which they disagree is “violence” that should be shut down at all costs. They avoid uncomfortable topics by retreating to “safe spaces” on campus and shout down speakers who do not toe the far left line. Too many administrators and faculty promote such behavior. Those who dare to disagree—like Allison Stanger and Bret Weinstein—are run off campus.

It is no surprise, then, that corporations are increasingly populated with young adults who do not know how to handle political views or scientific claims they have been taught are out of bounds of public discussion. When Google’s diversity officer replied to James Damore’s email, it was an incoherent affirmation of the company’s diversity policy, coupled with an accusation of sexism. It didn’t even attempt to cite reasons why the science Damore mentioned was wrong, or why his political views about diversity policy were misguided. It just asserted they were, and then used that assertion the next day as a pretext to fire him. This is what we get when university professors abuse their power and attempt to turn students into pawns in their political game, rather than autonomous agents with the capacity (but not yet ability) to think for themselves.

The Training of Journalists and Importance of Language

Journalists, and, by extension, journalism schools, are also to blame. A common route to writing for newspapers and blogs these days is to get an undergraduate degree in English or journalism, and then cover stories in politics that touch on economic controversies, developments in science, environmental issues like global warming, and international affairs like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Journalists can’t possibly know even a small fraction of what they need to in order to cover these topics, so they depend on experts. Good journalists exhibit epistemic humility, and commit themselves to deferring to a range of different experts in a particular field—in this case, for example, evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists who study the science of sex differences.

But this approach is increasingly unprofitable for journalists to the extent that there is an arms race to get a story out as quickly as possible in order to maximize clicks. Even when journalists are under less time pressure, the increasing consumer demand for articles that reflect their political preconceptions makes it difficult for responsible journalists to cash in on their talents by publishing a balanced account of a story.

So it is no surprise that the immediate reactions to “Google Gate” tended to use emotionally-charged words and assumptions that are inconsistent with the best available science on sex differences.

Some of the earliest headlines exhibited equal parts scientific ignorance and progressive bias in the use of language. When Gizmodo first published the email, the author omitted references contained in the original email and referred to it as an “anti-diversity screed” rather than an objection or an argument. Britain’s most popular newspaper, the Guardian, ran a popular story entitled “Google’s Sexist Memo Has Provided the Alt Right with a New Martyr.”

To describe a classical liberal who supports moderate efforts at diversity as a “martyr for the alt right” is to engage in guilt by association. And describing the author as a “sexist” simply because he believes in small average differences between the sexes contributes to a tendency to over-extend the term “sexist” so much that it drains the word of any moral bite. If believing in average differences between the sexes makes us sexists, then every rational person is a sexist. The best evidence is that there are small average differences in capacities, and large average differences in interests.

Group Differences: The Ultimate Taboo

When Steven Pinker published The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature in 2002, a common reaction to it was “come on, nobody actually believes the view Pinker is criticizing.” This was the reaction by the eminent philosopher from UNC-Chapel Hill and Cambridge University, Simon Blackburn.

It now appears that Pinker was not only describing reality, but writing a prophesy. If anything, the dogmatic commitment to the view that individual and group differences are purely the result of socialization or bias has increased over the past decade or so, despite the fact that evidence to the contrary is accumulating fast.

Universities typically begin their freshman orientation programs with bias training, and an assigned book or set of readings that emphasize the oppressive nature of Western civilization. Rather than celebrating Western achievements like religious toleration, constitutional democracy, and the scientific revolution, many faculty members and training programs focus on the wrongs committed by Europeans against other groups. Never mind that morally objectionable practices like slavery and colonialism were commonplace around the world and throughout history by nearly every society with powerful weapons and technology. Focus on recent sins in the West, and then use them to explain all achievement gaps.

Two concepts are especially prominent in these readings and bias training seminars: stereotype threat and epigenetics. Stereotype threat occurs when members of a group perform worse on a task after being presented with information that their group tends to do that task poorly. Epigenetics is the idea that a stressful environment can produce chemical changes that alter the expression of genes, which, proponents say, might account for why some groups perform worse than others. Yet the evidence that stereotype threat can explain achievement gaps is weak, and the use of epigenetics to explain group differences is even more tenuous.

At the bottom of these trends is a fundamental change in universities’ understanding of their own mission. The search for truth, wherever it may lead, has been replaced with a definite, inflexible worldview. Universities have abandoned their commitment to reason, evaluation of evidence, and freedom of conscience.

  • Zenith

    Universities are left wing dogma breeding grounds, and unabashedly so.

    We have been fools to let the issue fester as we told more and more kids to go to college.

  • cfishy

    YOU SEXIST!

    The only way to deal with these progressives is trolling. It’s why a troll master is in the White House right now.

  • SusanM123

    Great article.

  • Good discussion. Faculties at universities turned left when anti-war students stayed in graduate school to avoid the draft in the Vietnam War, This gave us leftist faculties which have perpetuated themselves ever since,

  • Chuck Pelto

    RE: Leftist/Prog Propaganda & the Uneducated Masses

    This is typical of these evil—Evil, adj., Knowing the Truth but denying it—people. They use the ignorance of the masses to build their militant army of foot-soldiers.

    Just look at them. For the most part, they are ‘youngsters’. People who have come out the the vaunted American public education system AFTER it stopped teaching people HOW to think over WHAT to think.

    You want to place the REAL blame for all of this?

    Thank a ‘teacher’ today.

    As someone wrote so prophetically so long ago…..

    Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive. Easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. — Lord Henry Brougham

    This generation of young adults is ready to be enslaved…if they are not already so….. 😛

    • DrOfnothing

      Bizarre, ignorant, semi-illiterate drivel.

  • John Kenna

    Great article, great surname.

  • princepsCO

    Excellent description of the current situation. Thanks for laying out the truth so clearly. I’ve been encouraging as many high schools students to know their interests and dreams and to avoid wasting their money on 4 year colleges in favor of community colleges and for-profit schools within their area of interest so that they can start earning a living and making a life without the crushing debt of the propaganda machine. A few even listen and seem so much happier when I catch up with their lives!

    • DrOfnothing

      I’m assuming this is sarcastic. If not, it might take the prize for being dumbest thing ever said on this site, and the competition is absolutely fierce in that category.

  • John Galt

    This is what happens to a society when the one true religion is abandoned….The void left in Men’s hearts will be filled by a false religion and intellectual darkness. Men with too much power and money control scholarships, bursuries and tenure for preferred professors who align with dangerous agendas….prepare for war!

    • Beestingza

      Sadly it seems true. I used to believe that atheism was the natural progression of humanity, but after seeing the results of Christianity being replaced by the new religion of multicultural intersectional feminist political correctness in places like Sweden and UK (and now the U.S.), I’m no longer a ‘believer’ in atheism as the answer to human irrationality. There simply may not BE an answer for human irrationality.

    • DrOfnothing

      So right! If only people would accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the ultimate truth, we would all be rescued from our folly. I have filled the void in my heart with a tasty bolognese, and every day is a saucy meatball of enlightenment.

  • Robert Burke

    The answer is to defund Prog (1984) Ed in K-12, university and grad schools; replacing the anti-brain and anti-republic pedagogy with Western (1776) Enlightenment. This prevents global insanity.

    No republic can be kept if public monies for education fund a 1984 system designed to destroy a) general intelligence, b) morals and c) love of laws and the US Constitution. Whereas in a free country private citizens can pay for communistic education… no free country could, without acting insane, believe it is a case of “let right be done” to not outlaw Prog (1984) Ed in K-12, university and grad school public funding. Making education non-Prog would thus prevent global insanity.

  • Pat

    The Guardian is most definitely NOT Britain’s most popular newspaper. And it gets less popular each year.

  • OpossumSaladSandwich

    These leftists are being taught they should “disrupt the system”, and are doing so, successfully. The problem is that they are losing control of the system as a result, and are pushing sane people to the right.

    The long and short of it is that we have way too many stupid people in higher ed, and many of them are teaching.

  • Dick Guzzo

    The conflating of SOCJUS with marxism, socialism, and general leftism is just as odious as the conflation between the “google memo” and sexism. On both sides is incredible ignorance, and for one, I’m sick and tired of these moronic hypocrites on the right coming in here with their own form of ideological indoctrination.

    • mreed12

      Really? So please cite examples of “moronic hypocrites on the right” who practice those same conflations that anger you so. And, for one, I’m interested in reading all about the non-marxist/socialists & non-leftists who do this same thing regarding these same subjects.

      • Beestingza

        I’ve yet to meet a SJW that wasn’t ostensibly Marxist and intersectional feminist, which is basically the same thing. No conflation going on there.

        • DrOfnothing

          An honest question here: what is your definition of a Marxist, in the American context?

      • DrOfnothing

        Hannity, Coulter, “Judge” Jeanine and everyone on Fox & Friends, for a start.

    • DrOfnothing

      Well put. This is the basic contradiction here, and throughout JMC articles. Behind the professed opposition to ideological slant is simply an effort to impose an ideological slant in the other direction and label it as “objectivity.” Laughable. Those on the political left still read and employ Burke, Nietzsche, Adam Smith and a whole host of other authors that the Right champions. Those on the right, on the other hand, simply slap a “Marxist” label on anything they don’t like and act as if that ends all possibility of debate. Worse yet, they go on (as this author does) to insist that they are the ones advocating critical engagement and open debate. Marx and Marxist thinkers, whether you agree with them or not, had insights to offer, and it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to dismiss them out of hand. One obvious example is how white working-class voters bought Trump’s promises to revitalise their economic position even though his actual policies are overwhelmingly oriented towards the wealthy. It’s a classic example of “false consciousness.”

  • DrOfnothing

    It is ironic that a piece criticizing the prevalence of ideology and lack of empiricism in US universities contains almost no empirical evidence and rests almost entirely on an ideological perspective for its analytical grounding.

    For example:
    ” Universities have abandoned their commitment to reason, evaluation of evidence, and freedom of conscience.”

    Really? Please point out the economics, biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine, computer science, nursing, business, law, accounting and vast array of other science and professional departments that have “abandoned their commitment to reason?” Last time I checked, all those students who have forgone “evaluation of evidence” are building highway bridges, developing vaccines, writing contracts, and operating successfully on your grandma Ethel’s hip with the benefit of the education you deride.

    Like so many other writers here (and almost all the comments), the author takes one small portion of the university faculty which are overtly politicized–the culture/area studies cohort–and makes glib and wholly inaccurate generalizations about the entire sector. This has no grounding in reason _or_ evidence, it’s just a rant, but everyone here laps it up because it conforms with their own uninformed prejudices and what they read in the National Review or hear on FOX News.

    It seems unlikely that the author has actually read (or understands) Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, or Zizek, nor have any of the commentators. You might not agree with their _ideology_ but you need to at least comprehend them before you condemn them. The ignorance of these thinkers demonstrated by JMC writers and commentators alike is appalling, but in an amusing way, since they are unwittingly using the arguments of the people they deride to bolster their own views. Take, for example, the constant harping about how the state is a tool for ideological programming. It appears in roughly 75% of the arguments presented in articles and comments on the JMC. Who actually originated that argument . . . Louis Althusser, a Marxist philosopher who drew on Lacan. What about the argument that government subtly encourages individuals to police their own actions (the “thought police” idea repeated over and over and over again here)? That would be Derrida’s ideas of “internalizing the discipline” and “governmentality.” If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Lacan, Derrida, and Althusser would indeed by most complimented by the repeated (mis) use of their ideas at the JMC!

    And, the Google employees letter, for those who care to read it, is full of pseudo-scientific nonsense (much like this article) such as “in addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females.” I wouldn’t trust the author of the letter to fix my garage-door opener, let alone work on cutting-edge tech.

    • Marc Domash

      The commentator states:

      pseudo-scientific nonsense such as “in addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females.”

      A simple counter example shows that such a claim is not pseudo-scientific nonsense:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1994/05/10/age-and-gender-vital-for-donner-survivors/e1b4553c-30ea-42c0-a371-d6236ca0bcf8

      Labeling arguments as nonsense by ignoring evidence (easily available in the popular press) is a common tactic of the illiberal left. Discourse analysis teaches us that the questions not asked are as important (sometimes more so) than those that are asked, similarly, topics that are not discussed or not allowed to be discussed are often more important than those that are. There can be arguments on both side of this question but it is not, on the face, pseudo-scientific nonsense.

      The author complains that attackers of the illiberal left are ignorant of the pioneering accomplishments of various philosophers. He is seemingly unaware that “the state [as] a tool for ideological programming” was put in place explicitly and with full knowledge of its effects by both the Bolsheviks and Nazis. Of course, these were not academic philosophers so these parties don’t count as originators. The commentator’s use of the word “thought police” (made famous by Orwell) indicates how these philosophers were basically being academically descriptive of phenomenon that were actually well understood.

      The author also complains “Like so many other writers here (and almost all the comments), the author takes one small portion of the university faculty which are overtly politicized–the culture/area studies cohort–and makes glib and wholly inaccurate generalizations about the entire sector.” This is both an acknowledgement that the complaints of both liberals and conservatives are valid and a demand that excesses be dismissed or at least tolerated. Balderdash! As I write this the news is full of Charlottesville and one dead there, casting aspersions on all white nationalists. Yet 99.999% of these nationalists are living out their benighted lives in places like rural Idaho yet we still judge them (rightly) on their ideology and the actions of a few. No free pass for excesses–Gitmo only had a few hundred prisoners but it was still torture.Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere–who said that?

      As far as “rigorous” academic work, the commentator is correct in that most departments on campus are actually attempting to use logical and scientific methods–so what? The trend is towards increased irrationality in thought and discourse and the increasing exclusion of subjects for discussion on the basis of the harm even discussion such topics might bring. The commentator might consider how he would answer the question “Why are all cornerbacks in the NFL African-American” and then ask how he would answer it if he didn’t want the campus commissars to come after him.

      Incidentally, I work on a college campus.

      • DrOfnothing

        1.) I don’t think the Donner Party can be employed as evidence of broad-based human nature. It was one incident in an extreme situation and, correct me if I’m wrong here, but cannibalism is not generally considered to lie on the general norms of human behavior.
        2.) The term “thought police” was coined by Orwell, but he was a.) well on the political left and b.) drawing on the work of cultural theorists. I don’t see what your point is here.
        3.) The argument is made that the small politicized minority is somehow radically transforming the university sector in the whole. It would be more accurate to say that universities have, since the 1960s, been the center of a counter-culture. They were moderate-to-conservative in the 1990s (which was liberal compared to the 1980s), largely apathetic in the 00s with the exception of identity politics, and, with the rise of Neoconservatism and, more dramatically, the alt-right and Trumpist populism, are moving once again towards a more militant counter-culture stance. The core of campus politics has, for many decades now, been the _students_ not the professors. The latter are a professionalized bureaucracy (as JMC writers love to emphasize) who, with a few exceptions, understand that political extremism of any sort would threaten their job status. The idea that college’s are dominated by doctrinaire Marxists is a complete fantasy.
        4.) Yes, the trend among the right-wing is, indeed, towards irrationality of thought, denial of science, and hypocritical condemnation of ideology in the midst of rampant ideological rhetoric.

        I would strongly suggest the author visits Canada or continental Europe for a less parochial perspective on the right v. left political spectrum, Marxism in the academy, and actual left-wing working-class politics.

        • Marc Domash

          1) The claim was made that protection of females was pseudo-scientific nonsense. I offered real-world evidence of a counter-example to the nonsense claim. I was not offering a general theory. The more general context underlying all of this is whether such concepts such as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology is valid or whether we are all the “New Soviet Man” and can be shaped according to whatever the whim of those with power. My point is this is a debatable topic, not “nonsense”. Incidentally, for another example, I was watching a documentary on the Saxon invasion of England (against the Celts) on Amazon recently. Thanks to DNA analysis, we now know that 90% of the offspring after the invasion came from the Saxons impregnating the Celt women. Apparently they killed or disperse the men and raped the females. This is sociobiology, so here’s another example.
          2) My point is that the (almost all post-war) philosophers you are referring to as those on the right “often unwittingly using the arguments of the theorists” does not require knowledge of these theorists, as what they are describing was historical practice well before these theorists wrote. So your supercilious dismissal of those who argue against your position but do not quote these philosophers is specious at best. One does not have to be a philosophy major to articulate a coherent and defensible view of an ideal human society.
          3) The concern is that ideas have consequences, which you, as an academic should embrace. Everyone thought Pol Pot was a Marxist wannabe when he was a student in Paris but then he actually got to implement some of ideas millions perished. Some of these ideas are good (who is for racism or sexism) but what is lacking is an concept of restraint in implementing policies related to such. This was what the Google memo writer was concerned about–being blamed for sexism when the composition of the Google workforce reflected societal populations. His mistake was bringing in biology rather than just stating 85% of CS majors are male, Google hires primarily CS majors, etc (I’m just guessing at these percents but CS majors are disproportionately male). While I believe an argument can be made about differences in biology affecting capabilities, this subject didn’t need to be broached for his primary point. Like most techno-nerds, he was politically non-astute. You, on the other hand, are quite astute–I notice you didn’t answer my question about cornerbacks in the NFL, almost certainly because you know any answer would put you on the wrong side of someone. My point is that this is the sort of question that can’t be asked in a university setting.
          4) Liberals (and moderates, I think) expect more from the left than from the right. The right is a reactionary, regressive, unChristian movement, whereas the left is for values that most humans believe. I lived through the Gingrich reaction and the reaction this time may make the Thermidor look like a picnic. The left needs to clean up its act and understand that, to paraphrase Freud, sometimes an individual is an individual.

          • DrOfnothing

            Fair enough, on most points. I don’t find the sociobiology arguments especially convincing when it comes to gender roles and capabilities, especially given the primacy of its cultural implementation over its physical aspects. I say this as an historian, not as a biologist. I would also be cautious about using the Anglo-Saxon invasion as an example. The British isles have been subject to successive waves of invasion, and though we can trace gene migration, it is profoundly difficult to draw any deeper social/historical consequences from this phenomenon. We can’t even measure, accurately, what the population was at the time, let alone the distribution of different language groups–the first accurate census was not until William the Conqueror’s “Domesday Book,” and even that was a tax record, not a head count.

            I didn’t answer your question about NFL cornerbacks because I don’t follow professional sports (see Bourdieu, “How Can One Be a Sports Fan?” on that topic).

            “The right is a reactionary, regressive, unChristian movement, whereas the left is for values that most humans believe. ” Well put. But the American left is not _really_ left, by any standards held beyond America. The whole political spectrum here is slanted towards the right, and there’s a massive amount (especially among the Trumpists) of downright paranoia when it comes to government full stop. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/13/donald-trump-white-house-steve-bannon-rich-higgins

    • Anomaly

      Congratulations! You’ve managed to avoid the central arguments in the article and instead focus on a dramatic final sentence that was added by an editor to end a punchy piece. You do realize editors often include dramatic titles and first or last sentences to get the readers’ attention, right?

      The last sentence was probably not worth including, but nothing whatsoever in the article is touched by your angry and defensive posturing. Do you seriously believe that most people on college campuses debate topics like evidence for average diffs between races and sexes in an even-handed way? Or that freshman orientations are just innocent and politically balanced attempts to start discussion? Or that trendy trash like “critical theory” isn’t on the ascendancy in the humanities? Try to understand your own political biases, and then address the central arguments in an article, not peripheral stuff editors add to make a final sentence sound catchy. In exchange, I’ll work on making final sentences less melodramatic. Deal?

    • Cre8tive Clyde

      Your and Marc’s discussion was the best part of this thread. Would love to have you two in a discussion forum because you are both clearly well educated in your fields. Unfortunately, that is a rare event. Mostly we get one side or the other ranting about how terrible things are. Am currently reading “The Rational Optimist” by Matt Ridley. Some great data.

      My favorite historian is from Great Britain, Diarmaid McCulloch, most especially his book “Christianity–The First 3,000 Years” (3000 is not a typo). Wonderful how he traces the various threads of the philosophies/thoughts of the age leading up to Jesus’ time and then the many threads since that time. Causes one to think deeply about Reality. And “Astrophysics for People In a Hurry” by Neil de Grasse Tyson will maybe cause one to think the following:

      King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

      Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities;
      all is vanity.

      Psalm 144:4 Man is like a breath; his days are like a
      fleeting shadow.

      Anyway, thank you for your keen discussion.

  • Jane S. Shaw

    A terrific article.

  • DrOfnothing

    Let’s address the elephant in the room here. We just had neo-Nazis descend on one of the country’s premier university towns, hold a torchlight rally, beat people with clubs, and then murder a counter-protester and put 20 more in the hospital. Two police officers also died (though it was a helicopter crash, not directly related to the disturbances).

    Any argument that Progressives are exaggerating the dangers of right-wing ideologies or that “Liberal indoctrination” is the most serious threat to universities and students is utterly farcical at this point.

  • cb-king1

    Some good insights here; however, the last paragraph clouds any truth found there with gross over-generalization: “At the bottom of these trends is a fundamental change in universities’ understanding of their own mission. The search for truth, wherever it may lead, has been replaced with a definite, inflexible worldview. Universities have abandoned their commitment to reason, evaluation of evidence, and freedom of conscience.”

    Really? Nooooo. Though over-steps can be found, and the firing at Google may even be one of them, in the article the writer seems to confuse the mission of the university with some specific oversteps. As stated, the mission is “the search for truth” and preparing students to be critical-minded; and (I would add) to live well in an open democratic environment. (The logical fallacy is at least “hasty generalization.”)

    However, the article also feeds into the broader attack on education AND its authentic mission that is going on as we speak (e.g., ALEC and the monied interests of the Kochs and the so-called “freedom caucus”). It’s exemplified in the idea that the University is and should be basically a business enterprise. But privatization and corporate takeover is, at its core (“bottom”), a closing-down of the author-stated mission–the open search for truth. That is, in the open university, and even though oversights occur, students can question anything on principle; whereas under private and corporate control, students can question anything EXCEPT the corporation and the private individuals who “own” them. BIG DIFFERENCE. Universities need moneyed support because we live in a capitalist economy; but their fundamental mission is NOT about making money for their “owners” or for Wall Street; but to educate. And as should be obvious to all, e.g., Putin, to make a lot of money does not mean you are an educated person.

  • bdavi52

    No…the problem does not “begin in universities”. It begins much, much earlier. So much earlier, in fact, that most students show-up for Freshman Orientation (or should I say “First Year Orientation” since FreshMAN is clearly sexist) already quite thoroughly KNOWING their Social Justice Catechism.

    And even to use the word “know” is misleading for it’s not as though these 18 yr. olds can articulate and argue the Progressive Philosophy; they can’t. They know it the same way they know they should wear clothes, and chew with their mouths shut. They know it the same way they bone-deep ‘know’ their own lives. They just KNOW.

    It’s learned in PreSchool….Grade School…Middle School…and most “academically” in High School. It’s learned when they watch their favorite TV shows and movies. It’s learned when every Talking Head repeats it, ad infinitum.

    And what do they know by the age of 18? They know that boys & girls are the same….they know that gender is fluid & subject to choice (a form of personal expression)….they know that racism is everywhere (and sexism and ageism and heteronormativity & cisgender bias)….they know that all Whites are Privileged (and that those who object to that label are also racist). They know that demographic ratios should be equivalently reflected in everything AND — when they aren’t — that the only possible explanation is bias. They know that their opinion on anything is just as good as your opinion on anything (even if you have a PhD in that subject and they’ve read nary a single book on the subject). They know that God is dead and Religion should be. They know that morality is what feels good….that Will is king….and Consent is the ultimate right.

    Worst of all they KNOW that Truth is relative …and that the pursuit of same is only a pathetic leftover from White Colonial Capitalist Oppression (all of which refuses to recognize that Truth is Relative).

    And what do they ‘learn’ when they go to College? That what they already know is right! Perhaps they pick-up some vocabulary; maybe they read a book or two or three; maybe they decide to fanatically follow some particular branch of Progressive Dogma (3rd Wave Feminism….Rape Epidemiology…Systemic Racism..Damnatio memoriae (the discovery & eradication of all evidence of past Wrong Thought))…but what College does is simply rubber-stamp and validate! (like most restaurants) “Yes, you DO know all the right answers and you did spend 4 years here doing something.”

    So when Google unsurprisingly fires an employee who suggests that the Emperor’s New Clothes are just a tad shoddy (and he soft pedals his criticism because he himself has already swallowed the Blue Pill and already knows such New Truisms as “Diversity & Inclusion are Positive Goods”) it’s completely normal. They fired him because he was wrong. Because he had the gall to suggest that what they already KNOW IS TRUE is not. And no, they did not counter his arguments or present conflicting data because they don’t need to. Why? Because , again, they already KNOW what they know is true!

    And only a racist, sexist, capitalist, privileged fool (and an evil fool at that) would deny it!