Dangers of University Campus Parties Can Have Lifetime Consequences: Party Now, Regret Later

Many University Campus and Frat Parties carry the risks of serial rapes, date rapes, with drugs slipped into many of the drinks, people encouraging young students to drink a lot when they are not used to the effects that alcohol and drugs have on their inhibitions and behavior (particularly underaged students who need to "party", socialize, and drink alcohol so badly that they go to fraternities to find it and end up being raped, beaten, and brutalized). This often happens on college and university campuses, particularly during fraternity "rushes", and more often to those entering freshmen girls who are so enamored with "upper classmen" that they feel "honored" to be invited and taken to frat parties where their "date" becomes one of the serial rapists, and then the university faculty either turns a blind eye to what has happened to them, or lies and says that the police have no jurisdiction over frat houses, or otherwise takes a morally equivalent stance towards what has happened, just when a young student needs strong guidance to report the crime to the police and see that the perpretators are prosecuted and prevented from doing this again to other girls. Many so-called "friends" and peers of raped and beaten girls have pressured the victims to "forget" what has happened to them and not report it because they think it might "ruin" their chances for getting invited to frat parties. Some fraternity members are even threatening victims not to report the criminal rapes and assaults, which include punching them in the faces, drugging them, getting them drunk so that they can be more easily serially raped, sexually abusing them with beer bottles, taunting, pressuring and intimidating new fraternity pledges until they join in on serial rapes as part of their "initiation" to join the fraternity, etc. The girls are covered in their own blood, with clothes ripped off them, bruised and beaten, and emotional wrecks for years to come -- all because they thought the "upperclassman" was so handsome and they thought it was such an honor to be invited by him to a frat party, and then "invited" by him to go "upstairs" to have sex (as some kind of "payback" for inviting the girls to the party), where they push the girls into dark rooms filled with guys who take turns punching, serial raping and taunting each other to abuse the girls with various objects. Please realize that you should not feel beholden to someone for inviting you to a party and should not feel like you have to let them have sex with you as payment for it; sex is an expression of love and caring, and should not be used as "payment" for something! A simple, "Thank you" is enough. You should seriously reconsider your relationship with anyone who tries to convince you that sex is required just because he treated you decently!

Some of the rapists even taunt the girls afterwards with statements such as, "I/we had a really good time (raping, sexually abusing and beating you)!" and drive some of the girls to the brink of suicide... or worse, cause extreme emotional pain and suffering (and future relationship and trust problems) for many years afterwards, and the perpretators still go free.

Search for an article by Rolling Stone about rapes on university campuses; I highly recommend students thinking about going to college and their parents read and discuss it thoroughly, and really understand what they are getting into and the potential consequences of frat parties, and of underage students who who are willing to risk everything in order to find a source of alcohol and a place to "party". Also, search FIRE for "rape problem".

Savage: Is a college degree still worth it?

"Is a college degree still worth it?" Savage wondered.

    I'm going back through my journals and looking back at all my years of seeking higher education.

    In my world, no one just settled for a bachelor's degree.

    Then I met people throughout my life who were very successful and didn't even go to college.

    In my day, the idea behind getting a liberal arts education was that you'd broaden your mind and become a well-rounded person.

    Today it's just the opposite.

    Is going to college worth it? Not unless you're going to something like medical school -- although I wouldn't recommend that either, because of Obamacare.

    Today, most of the universities have a bias towards women.

    Most scholarships and grants are given to women, minorities, illegal aliens and so forth.

    If your goal is to make a good living, you may as well bypass college.

    It's worthless.
[Especially when you consider that virtually all universities are run by liberals who will not allow diversity of opinion, and that college means paying your hard earned money for four more years of liberal / homosexual / Marxist / Alinsky indoctrination in the liberal agenda (in addition to the 13 years of public school indoctrination that you've already had, and putting yourself deeply into debt for many years afterwards for the "privilege" of allowing the liberals to brainwash you further.]

Doug Casey on Why College Is a Waste of Money

Justin's note: Today, instead of our usual market commentary, we're doing something special.

I recently sat down again with Casey Research founder Doug Casey to discuss a troubling trend: the fast-rising cost of a college education.

Read our conversation below to see why Doug says relying on -- and paying for -- today's educational paradigm "makes as much sense as entering a Model T Ford in the 24 Hours of Le Mans".

Justin: Doug, I recently had an interesting conversation with my sister.

She told me that her financial advisor suggested she start setting aside $500 to $1,000 a month to pay for her son's college education. That's because a four-year college education is apparently going to cost between $400,000 and $500,000 18 years from now.

Her advisor clearly arrived at this figure based on how fast college tuition costs have been rising, which is about 6% per year based on my research.

But you have to wonder if the cost can keep rising at this rate. It seems to me that no one will go to college if it's going to cost a half-million bucks.

What do you make of this trend?

Doug: Well, the first thing?my advice to your sister is to get a new financial advisor. I fear that she's relying on a complete imbecile. She should fire him immediately, and for a number of reasons.

Number one is his assumption that the trend of higher college costs is going to continue to a totally unaffordable level. In fact, the cost/benefit ratio of going to college is already so out of whack that the whole system has to change radically. A college degree, even now, is of only marginal value; most everybody has one. And things that everybody has are devalued. You're quite correct that colleges and universities today are dead ducks as businesses. Unless you're going to learn a trade, like doctoring or lawyering, or you're going for science, engineering, or math, where you need the formal discipline and where you need lab courses, it's a total misallocation, even a waste of money to go to college today.

So I applaud the fact that all these colleges and universities are dead men walking, that they're all going to go bankrupt. They are totally overrun and infested with cultural Marxists and progressives, militant leftists that are propagandizing kids with absolutely the wrong kind of values. It's astonishing that parents are willing to pay even today's prices to subject their kids to four years of indoctrination. So I'm glad that they're all going bankrupt.

Justin: But don't you need a college education to get ahead in life?

Doug: It's not necessary to go to college. You're likely to be corrupted, and indebt yourself like an indentured servant for many years to come. The question is: Do you want an education, or do you just want a piece of paper that says you logged the time in a classroom? These are two different things. Getting an education is strictly a matter of motivation and self-discipline, not paying money to sit in a classroom. If you've got half a brain, you realize that you want the knowledge, not the diploma, and there's no necessary correlation between them. Nobody can "give" you an education; it's something you must gain for yourself.

Most top universities now have their courses online. You can get an education by listening to these courses. And even when you're driving your car, you should be playing CDs by The Teaching Company. They have the best professors in the world giving command performance lectures. And you can hear them an unlimited number of times. This is much better than listening to some also-ran drone on, while you may have cut the class, or be half asleep, or not taking good notes.

Technology has changed the whole landscape of education. Its cost is approaching zero, not the stratosphere, as your sister's advisor seems to think. If the kids insist on going to college and indenturing themselves, as well as cluttering their minds with irrelevancies and false data, then they should only consider, say, Harvard, or very few schools like it. At least there the prestige, and qualifications for admission, are so high that the connections they make may compensate for the many downsides.

And anyway, Ray Kurzweil's right about the Singularity, in my opinion. And he's upped the date to when it's going to occur to 2029, which is only 12 years from now, at which point the whole world will have changed in ways that will change the nature of life itself. So forget about saving to send your kids to college; and that goes double for your grandkids.

Justin: I thought the same thing, Doug.

You see, my sister's advisor suggested that she and her husband set up a 529 plan, which is basically a tax-friendly way to save money for college. I asked her what would happen to the money if her son didn't go to college. She said she could use the money to pay her for grandchildren's college education.

But, like you said, the world is going to be very different 12 years from now. Who knows what it's going to look like 40 or 50 years from now?

Doug: Over the next generation the world is going to change totally and unrecognizably from the way it is right now. Technological change is compounding at an exponential rate. It's always been exponential, quite frankly. Ever since the invention of fire. But we're now in its later stages; it's like a Saturn rocket taking off, very slowly at first, but constantly accelerating.

It's going to be fascinating and fantastic to watch what happens over the next 20 years. And relying on, and paying for, today's educational paradigm makes as much sense as entering a Model T Ford in the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Justin: I agree 100%. We're living in very exciting times.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to speak with me, Doug. It was a pleasure, as always.

Doug: You're welcome.

5 Lucrative Jobs That Don't Require a College Degree

By Rebecca Zeines

When I was still in school, I remember thinking about college as an automatic next step in furthering my education. What I didn't think about were the actual professional outcomes I'd have with a degree in English literature and history from a foreign university.

My situation was not unique. Too often, I've seen young adults think about their careers and thoughtlessly include college as the means to get there, even if the degree they choose has little or nothing to do with the career to which they aspire.

I was fortunate to find a route that made me question the true value of my Bachelor's degree and find my career on my own terms. Going through Praxis, a for-profit apprenticeship program, taught me a lot about myself and the kind of work I excel in.

We've all heard phrases like this: 'Without a college degree, you'll never find a lucrative career.' And this: 'You'll never be able to choose what you want to do if you don't go to college.'

Both of those statements are inaccurate--and that's not a matter of opinion.

The job market of 2018 is drastically different than 30 years ago. At that time, college was still mostly for the elite, and a degree often meant you had undergone a thoroughly specialized learning track that suited you for a thoroughly specialized job. Things have changed a lot since then--the gig economy is a pretty recent phenomenon--and the landscape continues to change every day.

There are at least three clear downsides in the current career paradigm:

  1. In the US, college is exorbitantly expensive ($35,000 per year for private school, on average; $10,000 for in-state public schools). As a result, many college graduates find themselves immersed in debt for decades after they've earned their degree.
  2. The college learning process is too drawn-out for today's job market. Students who have gone for a degree in marketing, for example, will generally have no understanding of current marketing tactics, nor are they likely to be taught how to identify and master them as fast as modern markets demand.
  3. Many well-paid, high-demand careers are sneered at because they don't require a college degree.

Let's talk about that third point a bit more; even if you don't believe that college is basically dead, just think of this: You don't need a college degree to make it in the 'real world.' You don't need to spend thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of dollars and many years of your life to make it professionally. You don't need to sit in a class and listen to someone talk to you for hours on end.

No, if you want to find a profitable job, you don't need to go to college.

In fact, many profitable careers don't ask for any special qualifications--some employers will teach you the job themselves, and often, businesses will even pay for you to get trained. To name a few:

A recent Washington Post article states that there are upwards of 50,000 job openings for truckers, with businesses offering higher salary incentives to try to fill the ever-increasing openings.

Although the trucking industry can be a hard one, it's a career that can earn you as much as $80,000 annually in the first few years of work--with no degree required.

Glamorous, this job is not. Fulfilling and in-demand, however? Very much so.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that this trade is experiencing an increasing amount of demand for workers while paying almost $40 per hour, or a median $79,000 per year, without requiring any kind of higher education besides on-the-job training and apprenticing.

A physically demanding career, boilermaking is one of those jobs that, yet again, is desperately searching for staff.

As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, boilermaking can easily generate $30 per hour, or $62,000 per year, with no need to go to school--and that's only starting out.

For being a 'dying' job, being a plumber is surprisingly lucrative. If you choose to go the self-directed route, you'll be able to benefit from on-the-job training or apprenticing, which means that even as you're learning, you're getting paid.

Salaries can vary anywhere between $52,000 and $90,000 a year--much more than you can expect working as an overqualified college intern.

I could even go more general with this job title. Basically, if you like working on computers--especially the mechanics behind a working machine or website--you can launch a very prosperous career without going through school to gain the skills.

Web developers can earn a median salary of $62,000 and as much as $122,000 per year with a very low down payment on their education. Just like many non-trade and non-academic careers, this is a job you can essentially teach yourself thanks to the numerous tutorials and online courses you can find on the Internet today. (I'm a living example of that, although my trade is as an editor and a writer.)

What I hope you'll take away from this short list is that you don't need to go to school to find well-paying work. Many jobs still require (or, more precisely, say they require) a degree from a four-year accredited college. But the truth is you don't need to go the college route to make a lot of money or even find an interesting and challenging career.

In fact, choosing to go an alternative route rather than college might just offer you the freedom to change jobs as your interests evolve with time. You don't have to lock yourself down professionally anymore.

Get with the times, think for yourself, and realize: you don't have to go to college to be successful.

College is Dead: How the next generation will educate themselves (Isaac Morehouse) - YouTube Video
Everything old is new again. And Isaac Morehouse, founder of Praxis, is using a time-tested model of learning to disrupt higher education. With some basic technology, an entrepreneurial philosophy, and a fantastic team of people committed to mentoring young people, Morehouse has figured out how to change the game and challenge the college credential status quo. www.voiceandexit.com

Rebecca is a freelance editor and ghostwriter. After two years of traveling the world, she recently settled in Atlanta, Georgia, where she works for FEE and for MoneyCrashers.com as an associate editor, and for Thanet publishing as a ghostwriter. This article was sourced from FEE.org.

Selling a culture of ignorance to the young: key moments
By Jon Rappoport

Sam Cooke: Don't know much about anything, what a wonderful world

As my readers know, I've been documenting the downfall of education in America for a long time. My basic logic course, contained in my collection, The Matrix Revealed, is one antidote.

Aside from what happens and what doesn't happen in the classroom, the promotion of a popular culture devoted to glorifying ignorance certainly erodes children's ambition to learn.

Let's return to a "more innocent time" to pick up a clue, and a turning point.

Wonderful World, composed by Sam Cooke, Herb Alpert, and Lou Adler, broke on to the scene in 1960. It had legs. Later covers of the tune climbed the charts in 1965 and 1978, and then Cooke's original performance was resurrected as a hit in 1985 and 1986:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

Just another sentimental popular tune; who cares? No one; except the lyric awoke a vast underlying YES in many hearts.

I don't know nothin', but love will carry the day, and the world will be wonderful then.

The obvious message: there is a shortcut to happiness. Learning is beside the point. It's irrelevant. Just listen, the singer has found the key. He's basically ignorant, but it doesn't matter. If he can convince Her to love him, he has the answer the world has been waiting for.

He's the hero. He's the example.

Knowledge is just a con. It gets in the way. It creates adults. That's a horrible fate. Remaining a child wins the prize. Children don't have to worry. All they need is love. Let's somehow reduce EVERYTHING to THAT.

As for Sam Cooke himself, well, he began singing with a group when he was six, he later composed a number of hit tunes, he launched his own record label (SAR), he put together his own music publishing company and a talent-management outfit. I don't know what he knew and didn't know, but he knew something. He worked tirelessly for years. (At the age of 33, in 1964, he was shot and killed in a Los Angeles motel. The circumstances surrounding his death are in dispute.) Point is, the Cooke who was singing about being ignorant was far from ignorant---as is the case with many performers who convincingly launch childlike sentiments to audiences for mass consumption. But these audiences, enveloped in the "feelings," rarely bother to consider the source and the intelligence of the source.

Popular culture is a back-and-forth affair. The artist relays a quick dream, and the public buys it, because the dream arouses some latent idea that proposes a shortcut to happiness. An out.

The artist and his handlers are always looking for the fabled hook; the phrase that will pull in the crowd and galvanize their reaction.

Eventually, after years of swimming in pop culture, the tuned-up audience is conditioned to the notion that life's secret has to be one hook or another. Little else is important.

Certainly, work is not important. Striving is not important. Ambition is not important. One's own creative impulse is not important. Learning is not important. Those are all dead ends. Instead, something much simpler and easier (and vaguer) has to be the key.

In the realm of politics, there is a carryover. The answer in that arena would be simple, too. Greatest good. Love everybody right now. Kinder, gentler. I feel your pain. It takes a village. No child left behind. Hope and change. Yes we can.

Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

If you just took the last three lines of that lyric and eliminated the rest, you'd have...nothing. No hook, no impact. But add the "don't know" piece, and you're striking gold. Because the audience of mostly young people wants the "don't know." That's what they're looking for. A boil-down into the effortless item that allows them to win what they yearn for, by pleading ignorance. Perfect.

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
Don't know much about geography,
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra,
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don't claim to be an "A" student,
But I'm tryin' to be
For maybe by being an "A" student, baby,
I can win your love for me
Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be
Science book
French I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

I can't resist tossing off a salute to the Beatles, because if you think Sam Cooke was scraping the bottom of the barrel, his lyric was Shakespearean laid alongside the 1963 Lennon/McCartney offering, I Want to Hold Your Hand. This was not the Beatles of Eleanor Rigby or even Hello, Goodbye. It was the early rocket that set off the first US explosion of Beatlemania.

Get a load of this lyric:

Oh yeah I tell you somethin'
I think you'll understand
When I say that somethin'
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Oh please say to me
You'll let me be your man
And please say to me
You'll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It's such a feelin' that my love
I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide
Yeah, you got that somethin'
I think you'll understand
When I say that somethin'
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
And when I touch you
I feel happy inside
It's such a feelin' that my love
I can't hide
I can't hide
I can't hide
Yeah, you got that somethin'
I think you'll understand
When I feel that somethin'
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand

The single of the song sold five million copies in the US. It was folded into an album, Meet the Beatles!, which soon piled on another 3.5 million sales. The 1960s were off and running.

Nothing would ever be the same.

I'm told the real hook in I Want to Hold Your Hand is the opening phrase: "Oh yeah." The kids loved it right away.

And if you want culture, you've got to go to the kids. They know what's happening. They're on the cutting edge...

Of the cliff.

It quickly became apparent to ad agencies, and corporations, and politicians, and media barons, and even the medical cartel, that targeting children was the new Thing. Don't raise them. No. Bring the adults down to the child's level.

That was the breakthrough.

The kiddies want what they want when they want it.

Convert society into a diaper-dream.

Hawk that dream from Norway to the southern tip of Argentina.

Buttress it with psychological clap-trap.

Call it, I don't know, something like...


Yes, that'll work.

As long as no one THINKS.

Oh yeah.

If you reduce the English language to the level of the two songs I've presented here, why would children in school want anything more?

They already believe they know the secret of life.

And if the "secret" doesn't deliver the goods, it's an easy step for the children to then consider themselves victims.

After that, the trip downhill happens quickly.

Jon Rappoport
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com

How to homeschool when it seems impossible

Dr. Dobson: Christians Need Mass Exodus from Public Schools

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - The Globalist Agenda by John Gatto

Only Way to Save America is at the Local Level

New World Order Exposed - The Charlotte Iserbyt Story

Marx Madness: Calculated Chaos in America by David Fiorazo
How did one of the greatest Christian societies in the world decline to the point in which Bible-believing Christians may soon be criminalized in our own country? What happened to America's Judeo-Christian foundation? Consider the concept of "cultural hegemony" and let's look at some history...

How The Cultural Marxists Of The Frankfurt School Subverted American Education
Source: Zero Hedge Via Beau Albrecht of ReturnOfKings.com

Perhaps you've wondered why so many college professors are so left-wing. In your freshman year, you might have noted with dread?as I did?some of your fellow students "going with the flow" and molding their beliefs to fit in. Perhaps one of them was you, before you grew up and snapped out of it! The Frankfurt School is the answer to why so many universities are Social Justice Warrior factories. [?]
They had two strategies: ensconcing themselves into academia, and the criticism of society (hence "critical theory"). Ultimately, this meant ideological subversion and basically badgering society to death. (It seems incredible that they did so much without picking up a single rifle.) They stressed moral relativism and the "question everything" atmosphere that became the 1960s counterculture zeitgeist. A few of their books, such as Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse and The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, have become classics in academia.
Many of their students graduated and became professors elsewhere, just in time for the 1960s. Young people are at the most impressionable time of their lives, so indoctrinating college students was a very effective strategy. It's little wonder that campuses became hotbeds of student activism! College draft deferments (from having to go and likely die in Vietnam) surely helped them reach more students sympathetic to their message.

Further, the ideological seeds of the Frankfurt School?along with the Communist Party USA?fell onto fertile ground. There were several groups that they?cultural Marxists and garden variety Communists?infiltrated and subverted, for instance:

There was already a feminist movement, mostly moderate and mostly simply about equal rights (a goal which was nearly complete by then). Under leftist influence, second wave feminism began, which was anything but moderate and effectively about deconstructing society.

There was already a beatnik counterculture. With a little encouragement, this became a much larger youth counterculture, the hippies. Having a significant toehold in academia put the Critical Theory folks in a very good position to influence the young Baby Boomers.

There was already a civil rights movement, which the Communists had put a lot of effort into influencing. This included figures such as W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Stanley Levison (MLK's top advisor), and Frank Marshall Davis (called "Pops" in Obama's autobiography).

The gay movement was heavily influenced in the beginning by the Mattachine Society, founded by Harry Hay, of which most members were Communists.

Here's another gem I found. KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov noted that only 15% of the KGB's efforts were spying; the other 85% went into ideological subversion; this is what he was assigned to do in India, until he got disgusted with it and escaped. He explained, It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people? the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society...

Even though the Soviet Union fell apart twenty five years ago, the memes they launched are still out there. Many of the students the Frankfurt School taught became teachers and professors, who taught another batch of teachers and professors, and they're now indoctrinating our youth. Some others became ensconced in the media or in government positions. This is what Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci called "the long march through the institutions." Only a fraction identifies with Communism, but they still practice the party line even if few are aware of where their views originated.

If you've ever wondered where all of today's Social Justice Warriors came from, now you know the story.

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY: Muslim Brotherhood front group ?Muslim Student Association' demands TOTAL BAN ON SPEECH CRITICAL OF ISLAM
by BareNakedIslam
The Muslim Student Association at San Diego State University is calling on officials at the public, taxpayer-funded school develop a formal policy outlawing political speech they dislike and commentary about Islam that they find offensive and blasphemous under sharia law. Daily Caller "We demand that the SDSU administration enact a zero tolerance policy explicitly for Islamophobic speech [?]

Dr. Dobson: Christians need mass exodus from public schools
'Shocked' by millennials who would have put Hillary in Oval Office

Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America's Children (Hardcover)
by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman

"How many parents ? send their children to school so central planners can mold them into functionally illiterate cogs in a centrally planned machine, having just enough knowledge to do their preassigned task? How will such cogs be able to think critically, much less sustain liberty and the American experiment? The short answer is that they will not ? and that is the point." ? The Authors

Product Description

Utopian dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao are criminals ? genocidal psychopaths who have killed more human beings in the last hundred years than any other ideologues in history. They don't limit their murder to individuals, but to entire nations.

In the United States another form of utopians, the "progressives," have tried to destroy traditional America by strategically dumbing down her people. America's future is being crippled on purpose in order to fundamentally transform the nation, its values and its system of government. Laid out a century ago by progressive luminary John Dewey, the fruits of his schemes are plain to see today. Dewey got rid of the traditional intensive phonics method of instruction and imposed a "look-say," "sight" or "whole-word" method that forces children to read English as if it were Chinese. The method is widely used in today's public schools, which is a major reason there are so many failing public schools that cannot teach children the basics. This can only be considered a blatant form of child abuse.

American author and veteran educator Samuel Blumenfeld and journalist Alex Newman have taken on the public education establishment as never before and exposed it for the de facto criminal enterprise it is.

"Crimes of the Educators" reveals how the architects of America's public school disaster implemented a plan to socialize the United States by knowingly and willingly dumbing down the population, a mission now closer to success than ever as the Obama administration works relentlessly to nationalize K-12 schooling with Common Core.

The whole-word method of teaching children to read ? introduced by John Dewey and colleagues in the early 20th century and which permeates Common Core ? is a significant cause of dyslexia among students. Public education's war against religion, the "great American math disaster," promotion of death education and the government's plan to lower standards for all so that "no one is left behind" are destroying the logic, reasoning and overall educational prowess of America's next generation.

According to the Program for International Student Assessment, which collects test results from 65 countries for its rankings:
In reading, students in 19 other locales scored higher than U.S. students In science, 22 education systems scored above the U.S. In mathematics, 29 nations and other jurisdictions outperformed the United States

Journalist Henry Mencken said it best in 1924 when he wrote that the aim of public education is "to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality."

It is time to hold the Department of Education accountable for the crimes of the educators.

WND Exclusive Autographed Edition

Also available in a special "Autographed Edition." Signed books are precious treasures. An autographed book from your favorite author can turn an item of personal value into a cherished keepsake and a wonderful addition to any book collection.

About the Authors

Samuel L. Blumenfeld authored eight books on education, including: "Is Public Education Necessary?" "NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education," "The Whole Language/OBE Fraud" and "Homeschooling: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children."

Alex Newman is an international journalist, educator and consultant who is currently based in Europe but has lived on four continents. He has a degree in journalism from the University of Florida and has worked for numerous publications in the U.S. and abroad.
Product Details
Hardcover: 368 pages
Dimension: 6 x 9
Publisher: WND Books (April 14, 2015)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1938067126
ISBN-13: 978-1938067129

College prof defends slavery, rape under Islam
Muslim convert argues: 'Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God?'

*** Important ***
How University Betrays Students
August 29, 2009


(This article first appeared exactly five years ago.)

I'd only send my son to university if he had no talent.

He is going anyway, for the social life and the certificate. I warn him that after studying the Humanities and Social Sciences, he won't be able to think independently or absorb information that doesn't fit his programming.

The modern university is not devoted to truth, quite the opposite. Repressive fe-manism is rampant on campus but that is just a symptom of a more profound problem.

Modern Western "culture" is based on the fraudulent assumptions of the "Enlightenment," an intellectual movement dating from the Eighteenth Century. This in turn was the product of the Illuminist program to create a new(secular) world order by denying the existence of God and immutable natural and spiritual laws.

In practice this means Arts students study a bunch of atheists who are presented as if they were Gods. Their professors act as high priests.

Like deaf men tuning a piano, they try to explain the human condition without any reference to the Creator, Design or man's Divine Spirit.

They portray mankind as a forlorn animal in an amoral world, characterized by a merciless struggle for survival.

They celebrate human "freedom" by which they mean the freedom to reject God's Order, indulge animal appetites, and create an alienated and dysfunctional personal reality.

Illuminism is the Luciferian doctrine of Freemasonry. (Communism is another product of Illuminism. All leading Communists were Freemasons.) The mortar board that university graduates wear is a symbol of Freemasonry. Black gowns symbolize the occult. Arts students are unwittingly and gradually being inducted into a Luciferian/Communist cult.

God represents moral and spiritual absolutes like love, truth, goodness, harmony and justice. Belief in their reality is essential for our healthy development. While our culture pays lip service to them (this is how fraud works), it is frankly devoted to their demise.


Modern education and culture is designed to make us dysfunctional. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion confirms this. The Protocols is not an anti-Semitic diatribe. (They say it is because they don't want you to read it.) It is the blueprint of the New World Order, which is now in place.

Someone like Baron James Meyer Rothschild or Adolphe Cremieux wrote and revised it between 1855-1895 for a Masonic Secret Society, the Illuminati. The Illuminati represents a continuation of the feudal alliance of Jewish bankers and European aristocrats. The Illuminati created and financed Communism.

The Illuminati is bound by a devotion to Lucifer, the rebellious angel who defied God and said man will define reality. He is called "the bringer of light." Now do you understand the "Enlightenment"? The super rich want to be God and reshape reality to fit their interests. To do this, they need to sever our links with Reality, i.e. God (absolute truth, love and justice.)

Their means are unlimited, so are their ambitions. Here are some relevant statements from Protocol 16.

"In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism, the universities, by re-educating them in a new direction."

"We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order."

"Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism.... it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim. " (Protocol 2)

"We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us..."

We shall turn them into "unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them..."

Let me remind you of a passage from a 1930's Communist manual on brainwashing. "In the United States we have been able to alter the works of William James, and others, ...and to place the tenets of Karl Marx, Pavlov, Lamarck, and the data of Dialectic Materialism into the textbooks of psychology, to such a degree that anyone thoroughly studying psychology becomes at once a candidate to accept the reasonableness of Communism."

"As every chair of psychology in the United States is occupied by persons in our connection, the consistent employment of such texts is guaranteed... Educating broadly the educated strata of the populace into the tenets of Communism is thus rendered relatively easy." (II, Ch. 11)


Students encounter "The Cult of Great Men" the pantheon of modern pretenders who have usurped God's place.

Their every utterance is treated as Holy Writ. Scholarly articles are devoted to words that later turn out to be typos. In a graduate seminar, I witnessed a student read a list of filthy obscenities that had been censored from William Faulkner's novel "Sanctuary." After each expletive, the other students gasped with horror as though a religious artefact had been desecrated.

Professors are the overpaid priests of this secular cult. They have a vested interest in maintaining its shibboleths. They initiate students into a lifelong habit of mental servility. All knowledge comes from Great Men. Students can only aspire to analyze their meaning. A professor once told me I had failed because "only great men can say things like that."

The students' state-of-mind becomes passive and disoriented. He struggles to reconcile contradictory world-views.

One day I had an awakening. Don't these "great men" live in the same world?

Isn't it the one I live in?

Dare I think for myself?

Dislocation takes place in time as well as space. By continually studying the past, the student thinks nothing remains to be done. No manifestos remain to be written, no Bastille needs to be stormed.

While the world cries out for leadership, the new generation is buried in musty manuscripts writing footnotes to dead men.


As you've gathered by now, a Humanities education is not intended to uplift or empower. The world is owned and run by a secretive banking cabal and their inbred allies. Its goal, in the words of Cecil Rhodes, is to "gradually absorb the wealth of the world." Naturally it must obscure this plan. They want to make students their tools. Professors who don't play the game are fired.

If you haven't noticed, universities are not places of invigorating inquiry and debate. They are stagnant backwaters that reek of moral compromise and disillusionment.

Mankind is groping in the dark. "All we know is the wind that blows," Thoreau wrote. Our false confidence is based on material progress and technology, which Thoreau calls "improved means to unimproved ends."

"We have turned the brainless head of the goyim with progress," says the Protocols(XIII). With the exception of "material inventions" progress "like a fallacious idea, implies a departure from truth in all cases."

In other words, the Illuminists have infected mankind with the illusion that they are building a humanist utopia based on reason, when in fact they are constructing a neo feudal tyranny. This is the essence of "globalism" and the principle behind world events.

In conclusion, God is a Spirit or state of consciousness where ideals of justice goodness truth and love are self-evident. The Illuminists' first priority is to destroy Christianity and belief in God. They have to sever humanity from its metaphysical moorings in order to substitute a false reality conducive to their rule.

Humanities education today is a placebo, a substitute for a true education. It is a pretext for indoctrination, acceptance of which qualifies you for employment.

*** Important ***
The world will not be saved by acts of God but acts of men representing God. Our duty is to take these ideals seriously in our personal lives and bring them into the world. The cost of rejecting God is to become slaves of very bad men.

Comments for "How University Betrays Students"

TS said (August 29, 2009):

Those who are equally familiar with this term 'free' in combination with the term 'School' certainly shouldn't have any trouble following your current line of reasoning. Those who are not clear about this term, (or the realities behind 'Dumbing us Down,') really need to read the Underground History of Education, which is freely available at John Taylor Gatto's site: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/

If you only have limited reading time-*because to the idiots in your school's administrative suite*- you might just read chapters 1-5, and jump to the conclusion on 17 &18. The book ends on a decidedly upbeat note, as few writers besides JTG could do, (having previously undermined everything you held near and dear for over a hundred pages or so.)

Google 'Free School,' and you might also conclude that, today, there is no such thing as a freakin' 'free school' in the USA. John Taylor Gatto was clearly among the first and possibly the last of these education titans. However, there is one remaining Free-School in Syracuse, NY. Although their founders and longest running staff members have retired, it would be well worth your time to visit them if you are remotely concerned about the welfare of the future inhabitants of this planet.

L. said (August 29, 2009):

Dear Henry,

Being a recent graduate from a prestigious North American University, I have become more than acquanted at how Satan's agenda is being propagated in the name of "science" and "education". Whats worse, you pay an exaggerated amount for the indoctrination. My advice to University goers: Apply strictly in profession related courses (technical) and stay away from the Arts. Here is what I have to say regarding the major subjects and electives:

Economics: This is more like a spurned belief supplemented by graphs and statistics rather than a science. It relies mostly on the work of Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) which was released in 1776 (Year the Illuminati was formed and America became a Republic). Around that same year, Economics came into fashion as a "discipline". Since most students obviously hate the exercise of conscribing prosperity, inflation etc. to some graphs and statistics which can be used to justify almost anything (No Rothschilds are mentioned).

What is taught is of almost negligible practical value whatsoever; and instead establishes Adam Smith's worldview of human beings struggling like critters devoted to nothing but profit.This critter worldview is then polished by graphs and theories, which make it appear to have the blessings of the almighty demigod of science. Unfortunately, many students become influenced. I remember during one class, the professor deliberately mentioned how quotas for "minorities" decrease the total "potential" (everything is potential by the way) pie for everyone. This debate had white students whining and colored students cringing. Current Economics textbooks are painting the public sector and government owned corporations as evil in order to pave the way for complete corporate Enron style oligarchy.

Psychology: Everything from perversion to homosexuality can get its ready-made justification in the "science" of psychology which relies on the works of the oversexed wet-dreamer Sigmund Freud who not only saw phalluses in cigars but imposed this belief on all. Then there is Carl Jung, who advance Nazi-Illuminati agenda.

Sociology: Just because some dwellers of some island not in contact with the rest of the world have no institution of marriage and practice polyandry, we are to take them as role models free from the "negative cultural barriers" developed by us. The works of Maud characterize this insight. And by the way, anything including sexual attitudes are "social issues".

Biology: Thought Med students would be safe from indoctrination? Apart from Darwin's dogmatic personal philosophy masquerading as science, New Biology textbooks even feature a a page on Gaia pagan earth worship, an alternate belief being vigorously pedaled by the Illuminati.

Women studies: pure bottled feminism

History: In history, you may be tempted for some research and puzzle solving, but remember that no is listening in University. In fact your views may get you redflagged for your entire career as in the case of a girl I know. I would suggest writing your term paper as you like but then proof read your manuscript and edit out everything that is politically incorrect before submitting.

Submit the original to Makow! Remember that it doesn't matter what facts you have to support your thesis. Just go to your University Hall and look up at the names of the various private charities paying in millions to keep their agenda flowing through. Would the University chose you or them? Currently, most University history textbooks and courses are laden with a high dose of western/ White/American supremacism in order to prepare the West as canon fodder for the Third World War.

One of the ideas being vehemently promoted is The 'New American Century' which resembles a direct offshoot of the Neocon Project for the New American Century. This phrase was initially coined by Time magazine editor Henry Luce (Lucifer?) who started this catch phrase in an attempt to rally Americans for fighting for Communism in the Second World War. Prior to that, he was promoting fascism, which would in intermediary stage towards the transfer to Communism.
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/000561.html#sthash.fDQaDG54.dpuf

Universities: Liberalism is not only dominant, it is unchallenged
The Big Lie Exposed: Liberals Hate Diversity

By Jeff Crouere Saturday, May 10, 2014

Liberals are always preaching the values of diversity and inclusion. Regrettably, such platitudes are just rhetoric, because upon closer examination liberals hate diversity.

As evidence, just examine some recent and disturbing activities on the campus of Rutgers University. After former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was invited to give the commencement address, liberals went crazy. In February, the faculty council passed a resolution demanding that the university withdraw their invitation to Rice. Thereafter, student protesters stormed the office of the Rutgers President to express their disapproval of the selection and condemn Rice as a war criminal.

What is ironic in this whole series of events is that Rice is no conservative, but a very moderate Republican, who just happened to serve in the George W. Bush administration. Her academic and professional credentials are extraordinary and Rutgers students should have been extremely grateful to have someone of her caliber address them.

Unfortunately, only negative protests were heard from students and faculty, so Dr. Rice eventually decided to decline the invitation. In her letter to the university, Rice noted that "I have defended America's belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy."

Sadly, it seems that universities are no longer committed to free speech or open debate as only liberalism is allowed. This trend has been occurring across the nation for years. Whereas, universities are supposed to be laboratories for free discussion, embracing all ideological viewpoints; upon closer examination, liberalism is not only dominant, it is unchallenged.

On a regular basis, conservative speakers are either completely shunned or, if they are invited, verbally and even physically attacked on campus. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, among many others, has been targeted. Today, even moderates like Dr. Rice are unwelcome.

Among the top universities in the nation, the commencement speaker list for 2014 is a Who's Who of liberalism. Delivering graduation addresses this year will be former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Harvard University, Secretary of State John Kerry at Yale University, former Vice President Al Gore at Princeton University, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at the University of California- Berkeley, MSNBC host Chris Matthews at Ohio State University, President Barack Obama at the University of California-Irvine and First Lady Michelle Obama at Dillard University in New Orleans.

At none of these universities will there be protests from conservatives outraged at the liberal commencement speaker. Conservatives understand that the overwhelming majority of college professors and administrators are liberal. They are also not threatened by a liberal giving a speech. They are secure in their beliefs and will listen with respect, even if they disagree.

In contrast, liberals are totally threatened by an opposing viewpoint. They are not at all secure in their beliefs and are worried about their set of principles being tested by a contrary position. Thus, liberals exploded with discontent at the idea of Condoleezza Rice speaking at their university.

Liberal thought is pervasive and is dominant at almost all colleges and universities in the nation. As a result, parents pay $60,000 per year in tuition at prestigious institutions such as Tulane University for professors like Melissa Harris Perry of MSNBC and James Carville, former Clinton advisor.

It is no wonder that students graduate from college and then vote for Democrat candidates. It is only through experience and trying to maintain a household, paying taxes, opening a business, dealing with bureaucracy and red tape that many of these brain washed youngsters begin to see the fallacies of liberal policies in action.

Thus, the real world proves to be a more valuable teaching tool than the liberal indoctrination in those ivory towers.

Some good Colleges include:
Pensacola Christian College (http://www.pcci.edu/)
Hillsdale College (http://www.hillsdale.edu)
Patrick Henry College (http://www.phc.edu/)

The Myth of Moral Equivalence / Moral Relevancy
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

After more than four years as the United States Representative to the United Nations and a member of the Cabinet, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick in late 1985 returned to Georgetown University as Leavey Professor and to the American Enterprise Institute as a Senior Fellow, positions which she held prior to serving in the first Reagan Administration.

A prolific writer and researcher, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick is the author of five books, several monographs, and numerous articles on American political issues and foreign policy. Her books include: The Reagan Phenomenon, (1983); Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics, (1982); The New Presidential Elite, (1976); Political Woman, (1974); Leader and Vanguard in Mass Society: A study of Peronist Argentina, (1971); and Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition, (1978).

Editor's Preview: In May of 1985, at the request of the U.S. Department of State, the Shavano Institute for National Leadership sponsored a conference entitled "Moral Equivalence: False Images of U.S. and Soviet Values" in Washington, D.C. Forty-five participants from the United States, Russia, Great Britian, France, Italy, Latin America, and Central Europe accepted the invitation to examine the issue of an alleged "moral equivalence" between the two "superpowers." The attention this conference has received has been substantial. Articles have appeared in dozens of national publications such as Time, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Policy Review, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The New York Post, and The New York Times, as well as in over 500 other newspapers throughout the nation.

In the next three months, Imprimis will feature addresses by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Sidney Hook, and Joseph Sobran which will appear in Scorpions in a Bottle: Dangerous Ideas About the United States and the Soviet Union, an upcoming volume of the Hillsdale College Press. In this issue, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, who touched off the "moral equivalence" debate in London at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in April of 1984, discusses the assault on Western democracy which this doctrine represents.

One final note is necessary: In light of Hillsdale College's 142 year-old commitment to independence and its continuing battles in the courts over its refusal to sign federal compliance forms, the Shavano Institute refused to accept any funds from the State Department for the cost of the conference or its publications.

Harold Lasswell, a rather unlikely source for an argument against the doctrine of moral equivalence, said in his book, World Politics and Personal Insecurity:

The object of revolution, like war, is to attain coercive predominance over the enemy as a means of working one's will with him. Revolutionary propaganda selects symbols which are calculated to detach the affections of the masses from the existing symbols of authority and to attach their affections to challenging symbols and to direct hostilities toward existing symbols of authority.

He went on to say that constituted authorities perpetuate themselves by shaping the conscience of those who fall within their sphere of control. Hence, great revolutions are always deep ruptures of conscience. We are living today in a revolutionary era in which the force which purports to be the great world revolution of our times, Marxist/Leninism, seeks, by a variety of means, including skillful semantic manipulations, to extend its own hegemony.

The Soviets have made extraordinarily great progress in extending their own influence and projecting their own semantic rules upon the rest of the world. There was a time when an educated person found it persuasive to see important differences between the conceptions of civilization embodied, for example, in the U.S. Constitution or the British Constitution or the United Nations Charter, on the one hand, and the conception of civilization embodied in the theory and practice of the Soviet Constitution in any of its multiple mutations, on the other. And the conception of a bipolar political world has been similarly replaced by a prevalent worldview which rests on the belief that the world is in the grip of a contest between two superpowers. These superpowers contend for dominance and resemble one another in key respects. This image of moral and political symmetry has gained a wide acceptance not only in the Third World, but also among our allies and ourselves. Of my own statements about the false nature of this image, a colleague has said, "She talks about the moral differences between the superpowers, and when we fail to find any moral difference between Afghanistan and Grenada she makes it clear that we are dimwitted." I believe that anyone who fails to see a difference between Grenada and Afghanistan is not only seriously mistaken but very seriously confused, and that their confusion is a direct consequence of the Soviets' colossally effective assault on the realms of value and meaning which our civilization holds dear.

That assault has, it must be underscored, had many successes. In the speech which I delivered at Chatham House in London in 1984 on moral equivalence, the question was, "Is there a moral difference between the superpowers?" I quoted a number of English commentators on the United States and I did not name them. That was a demonstration of both restraint and diplomacy on my part. While a Washington Post columnist suggested that I had outdone myself in finding esoteric figures to quote to make my point, I can assure you that the persons whom I quoted were anything but esoteric. They are leading representatives of the major parties of our perhaps closest friend and ally, the United Kingdom. One of those persons, who will remain nameless here (I called him simply, an MP), asserted that there was an uncanny resemblance between the superpowers. Another charged that if governments assign to themselves the right to change the governments of other sovereign states, there can be no peace in this world and that this is perhaps the most dangerous age which the human race has ever known. And, he said, it is quite improper for honorable members to condemn, as we have, the violation of international law by the Soviet Union in its attack on Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan if we do not apply the same standards to the United States' attack on Grenada. In a recent debate at Oxford our Secretary of Defense barely won. He squeaked through to a victory on the question of whether there is a moral difference between the superpowers. In another debate Congressman Newt Gingrich, comporting himself brilliantly, lost on the question of whether U.S. policy in Central America was consistent with the moral values and traditions of Western civilization. He lost that debate, of course, to a Nicaraguan government official.

To destroy a society it is first necessary to delegitimize its basic institutions so as to detach the identifications and affections of its citizens from the institutions and authorities of the society marked for destruction. This delegitimization may be achieved by attacking a society's practices in terms of its own deeply held values, or it may be achieved by attacking the values themselves. The latter course was undertaken by the fascists and Nazi movements which rejected outright the basic values of Western liberal democratic civilization. They rejected democracy, liberty, equality, and forthrightly, frankly, embraced principles of leadership, obedience and hierarchy as alternatives to the hated basic values of democracy. Unlike the fascists, Marxists, of course, do not attack our basic values forthrightly. Instead, they denounce our societies in terms of our own values. They do not postulate alternative values; they postulate a radical critique of our societies and institutions by expropriating our language, our values. Thus democracies are attacked as not truly democratic, because they cannot guarantee economic equality. The argument follows that this makes political equality impossible and in the absence of political equality, it has been asserted that there cannot be free elections or freedom of any sort. Or the absence of perfect political equality in an electoral system means that the elections are a fraud. Their point is that a regime whose practices systematically betray their basic values is obviously a failed regime. If our practices betray our own deepest values then we fail; we are a failed regime. If we pretend to hallow values which our practices do not perfectly achieve, then we are guilty of falsification. So we are both a failure and a fraud. Obviously, such a regime does not deserve the loyalty or affection of either its citizens or its friends. Thus, if the United States is a fraudulent, falsifying society which exploits its workers and subjugates all in a facade of democracy, then it is obviously not worthy of respect.

The Soviet assault on liberal democratic legitimacy involves a very complex, comprehensive, multifaceted strategy. First, it involves a demonstration of the failure of Western democracies to meet their own standards which are regarded as utopian measuring rods. Second, it proceeds by continuous falsification of Soviet practices and assertions of Soviet loyalty to basic Western values. At the same time that it is suggested that we do not respect our own values, it is claimed by the Soviets that they do. Our flaws are exaggerated, theirs are simply denied. Third, the conclusion is, of course, inexorably arrived at, that there is, at best, not a dime's worth of difference between these two regimes.

Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy in its assault on liberal democracy and this is precisely why it entraps so many Western intellectuals who are themselves serious liberal democrats. Thus the slightest restriction on, let's say, the presumption of innocence of the accused is said to demonstrate the absence of the rule of law. The slightest failure of an electoral system demonstrates contempt for political equality. Any use of force in international affairs establishes the lawless character of the society. Now, it is a short step from having demonstrated that a country like the United States is not a lawabiding society to demonstrating that it is lost and that it is like any other lawless society. The Soviets can always claim "We are no worse than you. Even if we are a lawless society, you too are a lawless society, we are no worse than you." This is the "logic" of the doctrine of moral equivalence.

If practices are measured by abstract, absolute standards,practices are always found wanting. The communists who criticize liberal democratic societies measure our practices by our standards and deny the relevance of their practices to judgments concerning the moral worth of our own society.

An alliance among democracies is based on shared ideals. The process of delegitimization is, therefore, an absolutely ideal instrument for undermining an alliance, as well as for undermining a government. The NATO alliance among democracies simply cannot survive a widespread conviction among its members that there is no difference between the superpowers. It is not necessary to demonstrate that the Soviet Union is flawed, or deplorable. To destroy the alliance, it is only necessary to deprive the citizens of democratic societies of a sense of shared moral purpose which underlies common identifications and common efforts.

When our democratic allies can see no difference between American and Soviet behavior, then obviously there is no moral basis for a continuing association. There may be grounds in wartime under extreme duress for democracies to ally themselves with countries which are morally reprehensible, but there cannot be, for democracies, adequate justification for long-range peacetime association. It's perfectly clear that the tendency to self-debasement, self-denigration which has been so brilliantly commented upon by the French scholar Jean-Francois Revel and others recently is rooted in this practice of measuring Western democratic societies by utopian standards. There is simply no way that such measurements can result in anything but chronic, continuous self-debasement, self-criticism, and finally, self-disgust. The problem of dealing with this is complicated by the fact that the values in question are our own values. The response, of course, must be that it is not appropriate to judge actual social practices by utopian standards of political values. So, we must simultaneously affirm our values and accept their relevance to our practice while denying that they are the measuring rods that the Soviets claim they are. That is the challenge which confronts us, and is by no means an easy one.

Another major dimension of the Soviet assault on our values takes place through the systematic redefinition of the terms of political discourse. George Orwell, as usual, has said it very well in his Epilogue to 1984. He said the purpose of "Newspeak" was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to devotees of "Ingsoc," but to make all other modes of thought impossible. A heretical thought would literally be unthinkable so far as it is dependent on words. The systematic redefinition of terms of political discourse is very far advanced, making it very difficult to think thoughts other than those indicated by the definition. In real life, nowhere is this clearer than in the concept of human rights. Human rights, enshrined as the purpose of the United Nations Charter and at the heart of the American and the Western democratic tradition, have been redefined in contemporary international discourse and utilized by the great human rights organizations in their new definitions.

According to their new definitions, human rights violations are failures of governments, vis-a-vis their citizens. Terrorist groups do not violate human rights in the current vernacular; only governments violate human rights. Thus the government of El Salvador is continually attacked for gross violations of human rights in responding to terrorist assault. Guerillas are not attacked for violations of human rights, although they may massacre half of the inhabitants of a hamlet, dragging them from their beds in the middle of the night. That is not a violation of human rights by definition: That is a protest of a national liberation movement. The guerillas, by definition, are a national liberation movement. National liberation movements do not violate human rights. They have their human rights violated. National liberation movements assault societies and when governments respond, they (the governments) are criticized vigorously as repressive and unethical. I once encountered in a public presentation the assertion from an earnest young man that the government of El Salvador was guilty of the murder of 50,000, and this was proof, obviously, of gross violations of human rights and a sufficient demonstration that the government of El Salvador was unworthy of U.S. support. The fact is, of course, that approximately 50,000 people have died in El Salvador as a consequence of a guerilla war. But the government is simultaneously held responsible for maintaining order, protecting its citizens, and for responding to violence, so it is responsible for all the deaths in the society.

The semantics of human rights and national liberation movements are extraordinary. It is necessary only to look at the sober discussions of human rights in such places as the Amnesty International Reports or the Helsinki Watch discussions to see that those organizations and most of the people who discuss the subject today are using skewed vocabulary which guarantees the outcome of the investigation by definition. The "newspeak" of human rights morally invalidates the governments by definition and morally exculpates the guerillas by definition. The theft of words like genocide and the language which appears in documents like the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention are other examples of systematic comprehensive effort at semantic rectification.

In the United Nations, of course, genocide is regularly charged against Israel and only Israel is regularly described as violating the Geneva Convention. Along with the terms go the documents in which the values are enshrined and codified. What further complicates this is the effort not only to redefine values but to eliminate any epistemological standard--any standard of proof--by which events might be objectively observed and through which we might have appeal to the double bind in which the semantic falsification puts us. Totalitarian ideologies, including Marxism, are inevitably, invariably, anti-empirical. Not only do they deny that there is any sort of objective truth, they deny effectively empirical verification and procedures of empirical verification because they make truth, and not only truth, but reality, dependent on power relations, i.e., truth and objective reality are ultimately defined in a totalitarian ideology by those people who hold power. There is an elaborate ideological justification for this, according to which only Marxists are capable of seeing through the layers of obfuscation with which the existing exploiting powers have shrouded reality. Only the bearers of the totalitarian ideology have the capacity to de-mystify and define reality.

The totalitarian ideology, of which Marxism is the supreme example in our times, makes truth a function of power which is finally enforced by terror. Truth and reality are continually readjusted to serve the purposes of power at any given time. This is the reason that in 1984, history is continually re-written. It isn't just re-written once; it's re-written on a daily basis. And it is re-written from week to week and year to year to fit the requirements of the moment. Words, relationships, and events are redefined, and reality becomes a sub-category of politics. There is, then, no appeal from the arbitrary definitions of the revolutionary ideology. The redefinition of reality in the United Nations is dramatic. The first and most memorable examples which I witnessed were the attacks (they are annual, I later discovered) of Andrei Gromyko on the United States for intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and for destroying the possibilities for peace in Afghanistan. While that charge might not be too serious if it were uttered by someone in a position of less influence and power than Andrei Gromyko, it is very serious indeed when it is backed by the full power, in an organization like the United Nations, of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc. The charge that the United States is guilty of preventing peace in Afghanistan has now become a part of the negotiating position of the Soviet Union in which they suggest that the principle obstacle to the pacification of Afghanistan is American support for resistance forces in Afghanistan. That is an argument which one can hear in the United Nations anytime the question of Afghanistan is discussed. It is an argument which representatives of the mediators come and whisper quietly to us at the U.S. Mission or the State Department: Couldn't we try harder to understand that perhaps the biggest obstacle for peace is American support for the resistance movement?

Conceptions of reality are continually manipulated as part of the process of redefinition. There are many examples, but none more blatant than in the case of Nicaragua where the first symbolic redefinition/theft took place in the appropriation of the name of Augusto Sandino. Actually, Sandino was a nationalist and a patriot who was explicitly hostile to communism and who broke with the Salvadoran communist leadership precisely on grounds that the communists could betray the nationalist character of the revolution that Sandino stood for. There is a colossal theft and redefinition in the very name Sandinista. It matters because the name of Sandino has great prestige; he is a great national symbol in Nicaragua, a symbol of independence. It is a theft which both falsifies and confuses--confuses the Nicaraguans initially and confuses international observers about whether this government is nationalist, the bearer of authentic nationalist aspirations, or whether it is something else.

Semantic obfuscation in Nicaragua also proceeds apace with regard to the Catholic Church. The Nicaraguan government is probably the first to attempt, systematically, to incorporate the symbols of Christianity into a comprehensive fashion into state ideology. The establishment of a "popular church," a so-called parallel to the Catholic Church, is but one artifact of that effort to incorporate the symbols of Christianity. Most of the major rallies in Nicaragua today include the symbol of a soldier with his arms outstretched. It is a novel attempt to identify the Sandinista revolution with the cross. Christ is depicted on the cross and in the background there is a sort of shadow with its arms outstretched in the form of a cross. He is a guerilla with a rifle.

Along with this kind of redefinition, falsification, and utopianism goes something and that is a simply colossal historical denial, especially on the part of the Russians. Their systematic continuous denial of their own history and practices is epitomized by their denial of the Ukrainian famine, which was denied for decades successfully and is still denied today. The Ukrainian famine is a non-event in the view of Soviet interpreters of reality. But not only is the Ukrainian famine a non-event like the infamous Kaytn massacre in 1939, but the current shipment of arms from Nicaragua to El Salvador is a non-event as well. The experience of confronting a spokesman for the Nicaraguan government in a public arena and listening to him deny that the Nicaraguan government is engaged in the shipment and transshipment of arms in a deliberate attempt to destabilize the government of El Salvador is simply an extraordinary experience.

There is no more misleading concept abroad today than this concept of superpower rivalry and the concept of superpower equivalence. The concept of superpower rivalry is the first premise in a syllogism in which moral equivalence is the conclusion. Once you view the United States and the Soviet Union as contending for the world, you have already suggested a symmetry between their goals: to dominate the world.

The fact is, of course, that we do not seek to dominate the world. We do not seek colonies. We do, in fact, seek to foster a world of independent nations. But whenever anyone suggests that the world is dominated by superpower rivalries, they imply that we have some goal other than fostering and preserving a world of independent nations. Otherwise the concept of superpower rivalry makes no sense. But if there is only one power which seeks to undermine and subvert the independence of nations, then there is no question of superpower rivalry, and there isn't even a question of a contest between the United States and that imperialistic power. There is a contest between the imperialistic power and all other countries who desire to preserve their independence.

The very notion of superpower rivalry undermines, at the epistemological level as well as the political level, the notion of a serious distinction between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and also undermines the reality of the opposition of Soviet goals to the goals of all independent nations and the desires of all independent nations. It is very important to understand that not only are questions of politics involved here, but also the most basic questions of morality and meaning. In a very interesting little book, Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver said, "It is the nature of the conscious life of man to revolve around some concept of value." So true is this, Weaver added, that where the concept is withdrawn, the human being suffers an almost intolerable sense of loss. As our lives revolve around values, they also revolve around meaning and epistemological stability. We must recognize and defend a concept of meaning to which that concept of value is, of course, absolutely essential: a concept of epistemological stability, if you will, a concept of reality which is not, in fact, a function of power and does not shift from day to day to fit the political needs of a totalitarian group.

Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

Really Good Imprimis Monthly PDF Articles at Hillsdale


Indoctrinate U: Our Education, Their Politics (DVD)
By Evan Coyne Maloney

Product Description

Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. Though such despotic tactics are usually associated with totalitarian regimes, they increasingly describe life on America's university campuses.

"When we think of going to college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through energetic, ongoing, critical thinking and debate," says filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney in the stunning new video documentary "Indoctrinate U: Our Education, Their Politics." "But the reality is very far from the ideal. What most of us don't know is that American college students check their First Amendment rights and individual freedom at the door."

Hailed by the New York Sun as one of "America's most promising" documentary filmmakers, Maloney has assembled a scorching indictment of higher education in America today, one sure to make students, parents, trustees, lawmakers and concerned citizens sit up and take notice.

Produced by On the Fence Films, with the support of the Moving Picture Institute, "Indoctrinate U" makes the campus culture wars -- often treated as an abstract, hopelessly partisan battle -- intensely personal and unforgettably human.

When unsuspecting students and professors run afoul of the campus thought police, the results would make for great comic farce -- if real careers weren't at stake.

A hard-hitting yet humorous expos?f the breathtaking abuses of power in higher ed, Evan Coyne Maloney's "Indoctrinate U" shows what you won't see in the glossy marketing brochures of American colleges and universities.

The London Telegraph has called the long-awaited feature-length film, which runs 89 minutes, "as slick and incisive as anything by Michael Moore."

The New York Post calls it "alarming and funny." "Riveting," says the Wall Street Journal. "A terrific must-see," says National Review. And the popular Power Line blog calls it "a funny, humane and powerful film."

Product Details
* Directors: Evan Coyne Maloney
* Format: NTSC
* Region: All Regions
* Studio: On The Fence Films LLC
* DVD Release Date: April 10, 2008
* Run Time: 89 minutes


BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses
Whistleblower Single Issue - September 2005

Fall registration, the first day of class, and another crop of America's high school graduates have left home and hearth to attend college in the hope it will prepare them for life and career.

But from Harvard to UCLA and thousands of colleges and universities in between, what awaits them is nonstop leftist indoctrination, pervasive sexual anarchy and -- if they're not careful -- loss of their values and innocence.

What many parents have suspected and feared has been documented firsthand in the latest edition of WND's famed Whistleblower magazine, in a stunning edition titled "BRAINWASHING 101: Indoctrination and sexual corruption on America's college campuses."

"In true Whistleblower fashion," said managing editor David Kupelian, "we decided to tell this incredible story in the most compelling, 'insider' way possible -- by letting college students themselves expose what really goes on in the closed society of the college campus."

Young people featured in this issue include Ben Shapiro (nationally syndicated columnist, author of "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth" and a recent UCLA and Harvard graduate), Abby Nye (a Butler University graduate and author of "Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus") and Hans Zeiger (author of "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America," a Hillsdale College graduate and a Washington State representative).

Meanwhile, the "older generation" -- in the persons of WND editor Joseph Farah and managing editor David Kupelian, plus Jim Nelson Black, public policy analyst and author of "Freefall of the American University" -- round out Whistleblower's look at the unrelentingly subversive agenda that dominates most American colleges today.

Together, this month's team of whistleblowers prove conclusively that, while sky-high tuition costs have more than doubled since the 1980s, the level of sexual corruption, anti-Americanism and radical political and cultural indoctrination at America's colleges has increased even more.

"Very simply, if you have a child in college or who may soon be headed toward college, you owe it to yourself -- and to your child -- to read this issue of Whistleblower," said Kupelian.

Highlights of "BRAINWASHING 101" include:

* "What are we teaching, anyway?" by Joseph Farah, demonstrating the persecution on campus of believing Christians for attempting to stand up for traditional morality.

* "A crisis on campus" by Jim Nelson Black, a powerful overview of how America's colleges are corrupting the minds and morals of the next generation.

* "Ward Churchill backs fragging," which shows how the controversial "9-11 prof" suggests rolling grenades under line officers.

* "Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro -- a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

* "How Western culture has been turned upside down" by David Kupelian, showing what's really behind multiculturalism and political correctness, which started on the college campus and have now grown to permeate society at large.

* "Behind closed doors: Surviving and thriving as a Christian on a secular campus" by Abby Nye, a gripping and eye-opening look at the gauntlet a Christian faces when attending a secular college.

* "Hindsight: Advice to other Christian students at secular colleges" by Abby Nye.

* "Solutions" by Ben Shapiro, wherein the recent UCLA and Harvard grad and author offers specific steps for ending the leftist stranglehold on America's major universities.

* "A school for future leaders," profiling Virginia's Patrick Henry College, created especially for Christian homeschoolers.

* "Young Americans turning right" by Hans Zeiger, in which the author, columnist and now state legislator provides real hope that many young Americans, despite all the forces arrayed against them, are headed in the right direction.
"This is one of those issues that you just can't put down," said Farah. "It is a fantastic read, and will leave you with no doubt whatsoever that America's colleges today have become radical indoctrination centers -- and your kids are the target."


Freefall of the American University (Hardcover)
By Jim Nelson Black

An alarming, thoroughly researched account of how today's universities are indoctrinating students with flagrant liberal agendas and what must be done to make them institutions of truth, honor, and integrity once more.

Product Description

An alarming, thoroughly researched account of how today's universities are indoctrinating students with flagrant liberal agendas and what must be done to make them institutions of truth, honor, and integrity once more.

It's happening in colleges all across the country. Instead of being educational institutions designed to encourage the free discussion of ideas, universities have become prisons of propaganda, indoctrinating students with politically correct (and often morally repugnant) ideas about American life and culture.

This book exposes the liberal bias in today's universities, providing hard evidence, in clear and unimpeachable terms, that shows how today's colleges are covertly and overtly proselytizing with leftist slants on sexuality, politics, and lifestyles.

Jim Nelson Black dares to name names and provide specific and credible insights from faculty members, administrators, professional observers and analysts who have witnessed and chronicled the intellectual and ethical collapse taking place within the academy.

This book offers a broad overview of the issues from the history of the problems to several analysis from a broad range of academics and professionals. It also provides observations of the university students themselves, in their own words, from schools all across the nation.

Product Details

* Hardcover: 288 pages
* Publisher: Thomas Nelson (September 22, 2004)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0785260668
* ISBN-13: 978-0785260660
* Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.5 x 1.5 inches


The Marketing of Evil (Autographed) (Hardcover)
By David Kupelian


"David Kupelian dares to tell the truth." - Dr. Laura Schlessinger

"Now watch the cockroaches run for cover." - Michelle Malkin

"In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book." - Rabbi Daniel Lapin

(Please write the personalized inscription you would like, or inscriptions for multiple copies, in the "Comment" field during checkout)

Product Description

Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation -- from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.

"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive -- in a word, evil.

In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.

For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."

Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement -- which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes -- faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth. From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry.

In the end, "The Marketing of Evil" is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "temptation" -- the art and science of making evil look good.

Product Details

* Hardcover: 256 pages
* Publisher: WND Books (August 2005)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 1581824599
* ISBN-13: 978-1581824599
* Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.3 x 0.8 inches
About the Author:

David Kupelian is the managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, the world's largest independent news Web site. He is also a widely read online columnist and the driving force behind the acclaimed monthly news magazine Whistleblower.


"David Kupelian dares to tell the truth about the overwhelming forces in our society which take us far away from our original American concept of freedom with responsibility, happiness with commitments, and traditional values. 'The Marketing of Evil' is a serious wake-up call for all who cherish traditional values, the innocence of children, and the very existence of our great country." -- DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER, talk-show host and author

"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in 'The Marketing of Evil,' David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture. If you really want to understand the adversary's thinking and help turn the tide of battle, read this book!"
-- DAVID LIMBAUGH, syndicated columnist and author

"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time: The effort to change America's mind on issues like abortion, homosexuality, church-state separation, and more, is a well-thought-out strategic campaign that uses the methods of Madison Avenue to market rank lies. But the good news is that the truth will eventually win out, and Kupelian's important and groundbreaking book makes enormous progress toward that end."
-- D. JAMES KENNEDY, Coral Ridge Ministries

"Every parent in America needs to read this book. David Kupelian skillfully exposes the secular left's rotten apple peddlers in devastating detail. From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice,' the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive -- with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines a light on them all. Now watch the cockroaches run for cover."
-- MICHELLE MALKIN, Fox News Channel

"Over just a few years, life in America has become indescribably more squalid, expensive, and dangerous. Like the dazzling disclosures in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, 'The Marketing of Evil' irresistibly exposes how it was done. It will elicit an involuntary 'Aha!' from you as you discover who did it and your soul will soar with optimism as you discover the only way we can undo it. In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book."
-- RABBI DANIEL LAPIN, Toward Tradition

"Marketers are out to get America's youth, and they'll stop at nothing to do it. In 'The Marketing of Evil,' David Kupelian treats parents to a rare insider look at exactly how our children -- and adults too -- are being lied to, confused, and seduced by radicals and phony experts. The game's over, folks -- the con men have been exposed. I urge every parent to read this eye-opening book."
-- REBECCA HAGELIN, the Heritage Foundation

"Did you ever want to know -- I mean really know -- how and why America is being transformed from a unified, Judeo-Christian society into a divided, false, murky, neo-pagan culture? Even if you think you know the answers to those questions, in fact, especially if you think you know the answers, you must read David Kupelian's 'The Marketing of Evil.' So clearly does it expose the incredible con game to which Americans have been subjected that it offers real hope -- because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions."
-- JOSEPH FARAH, WorldNetDaily

"Excellent! Simply excellent. If you want to solidify your Christian worldview -- or just understand what the culture war is all about -- you owe it yourself to read David Kupelian's 'The Marketing of Evil.'"
-- DONALD E. WILDMON, American Family Association

As a very special added bonus, when you order "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom" from WorldNetDaily's online store, you can also receive -- FREE -- three issues of David Kupelian's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine, which many have called the best news magazine in the world. That's a $22.50 free value! (Offer for 3 magazines good in the U.S. only.) Watch for the free offer during checkout.

Product Reviews
Score: 5

Name: Nedd Kareiva, former director - Stop the ACLU Coalition
Review Date: 3/26/2012 10:36 am
Rating: 5

The Marketing of Evil
There's a saying that you can put lipstick on a pig and dress him up to look real pretty but beneath the lipstick and garb the pig is still a pig. David Kupelian identifies the players who have glittered today's proverbial pigs, strips their facades and like the baseball umpire, calls them for what they are - evil. And until and unless Americans understand the difference between good and evil and call evil for what it is, the cultural state of America will continue spiralling downward. Anyone seeking to grasp the root of America's decline and willing to articulate it and the solutions to reversing and defeating it in the public arena must read this book.


Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth
By Ben Shapiro

With sharp wit and unexpected wisdom, attorney and recent college student Ben Shapiro reveals the truth about how American universities push their liberal views and agendas on today's students.

When parents send their children off to college, they hope they'll return more cultivated, knowledgeable and astute -- able to see issues from all points of view. But, according to author Ben Shapiro, there's only one view allowed on most college campuses: a rabid brand of liberalism that must be swallowed hook, line and sinker.

In this explosive bestseller published by WND Books, Shapiro, a recent college student himself, reveals how America's university system is one of the largest brainwashing machines on the planet. Examining this nationwide problem from firsthand experience, Shapiro shows how the leftists who dominate the universities -- from the administration to the student government, from the professors to the student media -- use their power to mold impressionable minds.

Fresh and bitterly funny, this book proves that the universities, far from being places for open discussion, are really dungeons of the mind that indoctrinate students to become socialists, atheists, race-baiters and narcissists.

"Benjamin Shapiro... future president of the United States."
- Larry Elder

"Ben Shapiro's columns are smart, informative and incisive. He is wise beyond his years without losing the refreshing fearlessness of youth."
- Ann Coulter

"If you haven't yet partaken of Ben Shapiro's writings you are missing out. His columns are crisp, witty and topical. More than that, they are provocative, controversial and courageous."
- David Limbaugh

Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture
By Jack Cashill

Hoodwinked tells the stories behind the fraud and reveals an unsettling pattern of institutional deception most recently exampled in the treachery perpetrated by the liberals' newest darling, Michael Moore.

For the last century, many "progressive" intellectuals responsible for shaping the way we think about guns, corporations, the legal system, sex and even our very history have been completely fabricating the facts. And yet they have been published, praised, promoted and protected by the cultural establishment who have their own leftist agendas advanced by their liberal lies.

Jack Cashill could not believe his good luck when pseudo-Indian and fabricator par excellence, Ward Churchill, first made the news. Cashill had been looking for a handy way to personify intellectual fraud in all its subversive, self-loathing glory, and there stood Colorado University's Professor Churchill. Churchill, alas, is the iceberg's proverbial tip.

For a century, "progressive" writers and filmmakers -- multiculturalists like Churchill and Alex Haley, sexual revolutionaries like Kinsey and Margaret Mead, quasi-Marxists like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and radical naturalists like Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson -- have been using falsehood and fraud as primary weapons in their assault on traditional American culture.

For years, an unconnected squad of literary detectives, anthropologists, scientists and historians has been picking off the frauds and their enablers one by one. Taken together, the work of these critics is devastating. Jack Cashill's "Hoodwinked" synthesizes their dogged research and reveals the depth and breadth of the corruption at the very foundation of contemporary intellectual culture.

Fish Out of Water
Abby Nye has a very real concern about the influences surrounding Christian students in secular colleges and universities. This book includes tips for dealing with hostile professors, maintaining strong faith and honoring God in one's academic career.
By Abby Nye

"From the perspective of a parent with college-age children, I thank Abby Nye for confronting us so boldly with the reality of what Christian students face in the secular world of academia. Children need to be prepared for this experience -- or they need to avoid it. This book is a needed wakeup call to a nation with its head in the sand about indoctrination, brainwashing and mind control taking place at America's colleges and universities."
- Joseph Farah, Founder of WND.com

"The ancient Greeks differentiated gnosis, theoretical knowledge gained at a distance, from epignosis, knowledge gained through intimate, personal experience. Abby Nye's sprightly-written account of pressures to conform to anti-Christian thought patterns and lifestyles is particularly valuable because it is wonderfully epignostic. Written by a thoughtful young lady with fresh classroom experience, 'Fish Out of Water' is the perfect gift for a Christian student entering a secular college."
- Professor Marvin Olasky, The University of Texas at Austin (Editor in Chief of WORLD magazine)

"'Fish Out of Water' is a must read for every parent and every policy maker in America. Abby Nye's candid account of the trials and tribulations of a committed Christian trying to make her way on the campus of one of today's modern universities is helpful and hopeful. Knowing what is happening at the academy is helpful and knowing that there are courageous and principled young people like Abby Nye gives hope. We highly recommend this important first work of one of tomorrow's great Christian writers!"
- Congressman Mike Pence and Karen Pence, Columbus, Indiana

It is hardly surprising that many young Christians find their faith tested upon entering a university. Secular institutions today are rife with professors who are not only unbelievers, but who actively mock religion, all under the guise of "academic freedom."

Abby Nye, not so far removed from the experience, is concerned about the influences swimming around Christian students who find themselves in secular colleges and universities. She has written a practical "how-to" book on navigating the pitfalls.

Includes tips for dealing with hostile professors, maintaining strong faith and honoring the Lord in one's academic career. Perfect for high school graduates entering college or freshmen already swimming in the strong current of campus liberalism.

"Fish Out of Water" fills an enormous void in preparing young students for the university experience. Learn:

* Key insights from a current graduate student's perspective
* Strategies for engaging and responding to abusive peer and administrative pressures on campus
* Practical advice for surviving in a faith-challenging environment

Product Details

* Paperback: 229 pages
* Publisher: New Leaf Press (June 20, 2005)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 0892216212
* ISBN-13: 978-0892216215
* Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.2 x 0.5 inches


THE COLLEGE ILLUSION: Why chasing a degree so often ends in financial and educational chaos
WorldNet Daily Whistleblower, April 2012 Issue

Here's a quick preview of the April issue of Whistleblower which will soon make its way to the mailbox of every subscriber:

The upcoming April issue -- "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION: Why chasing a degree so often ends in financial and educational chaos" -- will change forever the way you look at education in America. Guaranteed.

College, we're constantly reminded, is not just the key to a good career and financial security; it's a virtual baptism into a greater and more fulfilling life. Yet today this almost sacrosanct belief in college is disintegrating before our eyes. "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION" will show you why.

From the stratospheric price-tag (and resulting massive student debt) to the notoriously leftwing classroom indoctrination, to the Maoist brainwashing (yes that's right, brainwashing) forced on freshmen, to the in-your-face sexual anarchy, to the totalitarian level of political correctness and intolerance toward traditional moral and religious values, the modern secular university has become an incubator for a different kind of American.

In fact, the college experience has now accrued so many negatives -- while all-too-often failing to deliver on the promise of career and financial security -- that young people in the age of the Internet and gee-whiz communications are exploring other ways to receive the "higher education" they desire. New options abound!

This, my friends, is the kind of extraordinary information and insight you get only from Whistleblower, which is why I'm asking you to renew your subscription today. Remember, while WND brings you the latest breaking news every day as no other media organization dares to do, it is Whistleblower that connects all the dots to reveal where things are heading and what it all means to you. I think you'll agree, knowing where things are heading and how to protect yourself and your family has never been more important.

Please remember also that when you subscribe to Whistleblower, you're providing vital support to WND, without which we cannot operate. The simple fact is, it costs WND millions of dollars every year to bring you the truth 24/7, all at no charge to you. We can do that as long as you support us through your subscriptions, donations and purchases. And our No. 1 product -- our flagship, which every loyal WND reader needs to be getting every month -- is Whistleblower. (http://superstore.wnd.com/SUBSCRIPTIONS/Whistleblower-Magazine)

I realize these are tough times financially, and so, to make it as easy as possible for you to stay with us, we have a very special offer for you right now.

Through the end of March, when you renew your Whistleblower subscription (http://superstore.wnd.com/SUBSCRIPTIONS/Whistleblower-Magazine-Renewal), in addition to getting $10 off (pay $39.95 instead of the usual $49.95) you'll also receive two free gifts:

First, you'll get a copy of one of the most eye-opening, forward-looking and controversial DVD documentaries of our time, titled "Trans-Humanism: Destroying the Barriers" by Ken Klein Productions with Thomas Horn (http://superstore.wnd.com/sales/New-Noteworthy/Trans-Humanism-Destroying-The-Barriers-DVD)

Documenting the opening of a bizarre scientific "Pandora's Box," the filmmakers reveal that behind closed doors, researchers have breached the genetic codes that separate the individuality of animal and plant species.

Everyone knows, for example, that in the area of food production, new hybrid plant species have been scientifically engineered, with their derivative products commonly appearing on supermarket shelves. But quietly, for two decades, scientists have taken the knowledge of genetic engineering to a frightening new level, merging animal DNA with human DNA, creating the potential and unthinkable reality of super-human, non-human entities. You read that right.

These developments, along with their looming and terrible consequences, held back from the public eye, are exposed in this important and sobering new documentary.

"Trans-Humanism: Destroying the Barriers" blows the lid off a secretive area of technology where science may indeed be going way too far. (http://superstore.wnd.com/sales/New-Noteworthy/Trans-Humanism-Destroying-The-Barriers-DVD) (A $24.91 value, yours FREE when you renew!)

Second, you'll also receive Whistleblower's special issue titled "THE PLOT TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION." (http://superstore.wnd.com/SUBSCRIPTIONS/2010-2008/Whistleblower-Single-Issue-September-2011)

The practice of ignoring, distorting and perverting the Constitution has today become a high art. It is, in fact, literally the modus operandi of Barack Obama's presidency. In a relentless campaign to "transform America" from history's most successful constitutional republic into a huge entitlement society based on all-powerful central government and massive wealth "redistribution," Obama and his administration have shredded the Constitution in every conceivable manner.

As President Obama pursues his obsession to transform America into a European-style welfare state, he is seemingly oblivious to the fact that European welfare states are currently imploding, one after the other, descending into bankruptcy, chaos and anarchy. This issue of Whistleblower documents the disgraceful -- and impeachable -- extent to which Obama acts with utter disregard for the Constitution he swore a solemn oath to uphold. (A $7.50 value -- FREE when you renew!)

"Get a college education."

That piece of advice has long been one of the most universal and unquestioned beliefs of the Western world.

College, we're constantly reminded, is not just the key to a good career and financial security; it's a virtual baptism into a greater and more fulfilling life.

Yet, as dramatically documented in April's Whistleblower magazine, "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION," this almost sacrosanct belief in college is currently disintegrating before our eyes.

Even as Barack Obama attempts to buy off the youth vote by promising ever more government student loans and promoting college as a virtual civil right for the masses, a new reality is taking hold: For many, college is not the smartest thing to pursue after high school.

Obviously, to go into medicine, law, engineering or similar fields requiring standardized formal training and professional certification, higher education is still a must. But the idea, unquestioned for generations, that college is the ideal destination for all high-school graduates -- that even those who have no particular interests or career focus should just go to college anyway, take courses, meet people, enjoy the wild social life, and try to obtain some sort of four-year degree while racking up crushing debt -- is increasingly being questioned ... and rejected.

There are many reasons, the most publicized of which is cost: Like everything else subsidized by government, today's price-tag on a four-year degree from a prestigious school is stratospheric, meaning most graduates either come from wealthy families, win major scholarships, or -- much more often -- incur huge debts requiring decades to pay back. Daily news stories spotlight America's hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed college grads with gigantic debt burdens.

Then there is the jarring reality that the vast majority of professors lean left -- many far left. This is no trivial matter, and predictably results in the ongoing indoctrination -- some call it brainwashing -- of millions of students every year. Indeed, the leftwing, secular-socialist orientation of the modern university has played a gigantic role in the steady transformation of the American mind.

"When young people's values and common sense are hammered and manipulated for four or more years by authority figures bent on propagating a leftist worldview," says Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "many students emerge from college profoundly changed -- for the worse."

Alongside the far-left politics is an almost surreal level of in-your-face sexual anarchy -- often openly and officially celebrated on campus. And the flipside of such a hyper-sexualized and "tolerant" campus culture is an extreme intolerance toward traditional Judeo-Christian moral and religious values and the students that hold them.

As "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION" documents, the university experience has now racked up so many negatives -- while increasingly failing to deliver on the vaunted promise of career and financial security -- that young people in the age of the Internet and gee-whiz communications are exploring other ways to obtain the "higher education" they desire.

Highlights of "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION" include:

* "The very high cost of college" by Joseph Farah

* "The college illusion" by David Kupelian

* "The college scam" by John Stossel, urging readers to rethink the notion that an expensive degree is necessary for success

* "College students given $100,000 to drop out!" by Art Moore, on why a top tech entrepreneur is paying youngsters to try an alternate route to success

* "Higher education the next bubble to burst?," on what's likely to happen to the astronomical cost of college

* "The dangers of 'higher education'" by Thomas Sowell, on the negative and surprising consequences of the growth of "soft" curricula

* "What you're paying for your child to learn at college" by Dennis Prager, who quotes college presidents admitting the true purpose of higher education: "to undermine your dad's values"

* "Colleges as 'boot camps' for gay activists" by Bob Unruh, showing how "Queer Studies" amounts to a full-fledged LGBT indoctrination program

* "Major study proves the left owns America's colleges" by David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer, demonstrating why "Most students graduate without ever taking a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint"

* "Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro, a shocking, eye-opening first-hand account of wanton sexual anarchy on the modern college campus, where the prevailing attitude is: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine."

* "Women prostituting themselves to pay for school" -- although they prefer to call it "seeking an arrangement" between "sugar babies" (students in need of financial support) and "sugar daddies" (older men who provide financial support in exchange for companionship and sex).

* "Student loans now surpass credit card debt" -- incredible, but true

* "College freshmen undergo Maoist brainwashing" by David Kupelian, on new students being compelled to endure mandatory "diversity seminars" strikingly similar to personality modification techniques perfected by Chairman Mao Zedong in communist China

* "Is college really worth it?" by Phyllis Schlafly, on why government should get out of higher education to bring down costs

* "Surprise! Psychologist exposes bias in the academy" by Art Moore, on the "statistically impossible" lack of true diversity in America's universities

* "College: A dangerous place for men" by Phyllis Schlafly, exposing an Obama policy on sex accusations that deems males guilty until proven innocent

* "Far too many people are going to college" by Walter Williams, on how "higher ed" has been dumbed down to keep students coming and the money flowing

* "God's new Harvard" by Alyssa Farah, on Patrick Henry College, a school America's founders would have been proud of

* "How Hillsdale thrives with no government aid"

* "A college degree? Not for my kid" by Patrice Lewis, on why, for many, "higher education" no longer has the value it once did

* ...and much more!

Fortunately, there is hope! "New options abound," says Kupelian. "The Internet -- as revolutionary today as the Gutenberg printing press was five centuries ago -- offers endless opportunities for learning, including taking college courses from home. Trade schools, distance learning, community college, going into business, apprenticeships, internships and a hundred other opportunities beckon."

He adds: "All that is necessary is to break free of the paralyzing fear that not graduating from college will result in failure. It's not true."


If you prefer, you may order a single copy of the April issue, "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION": http://superstore.wnd.com/Whistleblower-Single-Issue-April-2012

How much is that psychology degree worth?
Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jan 28, 2015 7:47 PM

The Republican leadership in Congress still hasn't held hearings on why college is so expensive, although I proposed the idea two weeks ago. Of course, it's been a month since the GOP took control of Congress, and they also haven't voided Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty, passed e-Verify, a fence bill, or the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act.

Democrats are on offense all the time, even when they've just had their legs cut off. They announce absurd agenda items and then indignantly demand to know why Republicans are refusing to deal with the free unicorn-rides proposal. Obama is a lame-duck president and, three months ago, his party was slaughtered in midterm elections. And yet, I gather that his State of the Union address consisted of a litany of insanely expensive, utterly pointless ideas.

And Republicans fall for it every time. They consider it a major victory to come back with a free-market approach to surrender.

In response to Obama's 'free' community college idea, Republicans should say: We're not giving you anything, and, in fact, we're demanding answers from the entire 'higher ed' establishment. You'll be surprised how liberating and fun it is to go on offense, Republicans.

The GOP needs to hold tobacco company-style hearings, hauling in the presidents of various universities and asking them to justify their multimillion-dollar salaries.

We want professors explaining, under penalty of perjury, exactly how much they make per hour for their rigorous schedules of two classes a week, summers off, and full-year 'sabbaticals' every few terms.

Also, we'd like to know how driving the getaway car for a cop-killer constitutes a qualification to teach college.

College professors relentlessly hound the rest of society for its crimes ?" racism, sexism, 'white privilege' ?" look what you're doing to the environment! Why are we paying them, again? There's no visible reason most of these people should be teaching at all. How about they explain their value to the taxpayers who subsidize their cushy lives?

Other than engineers, economists, and quarterbacks, no one acquires any marketable knowledge at college. The sole purpose of a degree is to function as a substitute IQ test. If employers were allowed to give applicants 15-minute intelligence tests, they'd have the exact same information as knowing what college a person attended.

But they can't do that, so families have to spend a quarter of a million dollars [up to a half million dollars at some] to give their kids the parchment equivalent of an IQ score. High school kids who get into good schools should present employers with their college acceptance letters and skip the going-to-college part.

Republicans need to force colleges to issue reports, just like drug companies, attesting to the average cost, and the average salary, for every degree. It will cost you $160,000 to receive a degree in Spanish literature and will take you 88 years to pay that back.

Trust Ann ?" liberals will go wild. That's how you'll know you've struck gold.

They will scream bloody murder, accuse Republicans of 'McCarthyism,' say it's too burdensome to collect this information and how can you put a dollar value on a college education?

They better be able to put a dollar value on a college degree! That's how it's being sold. Obama doesn't say it's important to go to college to learn to think analytically, read critically, or be exposed to different ideas ?" none of which occurs at most colleges, anyway.

No, that's not the pitch. The pitch is: You're going to fail in this economy without a college degree!

If colleges really believe their product is worth anything, why don't they guarantee their own student loans? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for everyone's tuition?

According to the colleges, their graduates are going to earn all sorts of money! At least that's what they say when they're conning teenagers into taking out colossal student loans.

'It's burdensome' is not an excuse accepted by the government in any other context. It doesn't work for businesses being forced to come up with reams of information for the IRS, the EPA or OSHA. And the taxpayer isn't on the hook for the deceptive promises of any other industry ?" except hucksters for home mortgages and student loans.

I would like to hear college presidents explain that what they do is totally different from any other company.

Democrats need to be exposed as hustlers for the most fraudulent, overpriced scam in the country. There's no other industry that has politicians flacking for it, much less conniving to prevent consumers from getting truthful information about the merchandise.

Going after Big Education is all upside for the GOP. College professors and administrators already vote 98 percent for the Democrats. In fact, it's a triple-play for Republicans: They would punish a liberal constituency, strike a blow against the principal vehicle of liberal indoctrination in America, and the middle class will love it.

The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile

It's no secret that the US educational system doesn't do a very good job. Like clockwork, studies show that America's schoolkids lag behind their peers in pretty much every industrialized nation. We hear shocking statistics about the percentage of high-school seniors who can't find the US on an unmarked map of the world or who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was.

Fingers are pointed at various aspects of the schooling system--overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding, teachers who can't pass competency exams in their fields, etc. But these are just secondary problems. Even if they were cleared up, schools would still suck. Why? Because they were designed to.

How can I make such a bold statement? How do I know why America's public school system was designed the way it was (age-segregated, six to eight 50-minute classes in a row announced by Pavlovian bells, emphasis on rote memorization, lorded over by unquestionable authority figures, etc.)? Because the men who designed, funded, and implemented America's formal educational system in the late 1800s and early 1900s wrote about what they were doing.

Almost all of these books, articles, and reports are out of print and hard to obtain. Luckily for us, John Taylor Gatto tracked them down. Gatto was voted the New York City Teacher of the Year three times and the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. But he became disillusioned with schools--the way they enforce conformity, the way they kill the natural creativity, inquisitiveness, and love of learning that every little child has at the beginning. So he began to dig into terra incognita, the roots of America's educational system.

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes."

By the turn of the century, America's new educrats were pushing a new form of schooling with a new mission (and it wasn't to teach). The famous philosopher and educator John Dewey wrote in 1897:

Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.

In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly--the future Dean of Education at Stanford--wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products... manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."

The next year, the Rockefeller Education Board--which funded the creation of numerous public schools--issued a statement which read in part:

In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply [from our ranks]. The task we set before ourselves is very simple... we will organize children... and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

At the same time, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.

In that same book, The Philosophy of Education, Harris also revealed:

The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

Writes Gatto: "Another major architect of standardized testing, H.H. Goddard, said in his book Human Efficiency (1920) that government schooling was about 'the perfect organization of the hive.'"

While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process."
In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could think for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker-drones, with a razor-thin slice of the population--mainly the children of the captains of industry and government--to rise to the level where they could continue running things.

This was the openly admitted blueprint for the public schooling system, a blueprint which remains unchanged to this day. Although the true reasons behind it aren't often publicly expressed, they're apparently still known within education circles.

[syn: Two Kinds of Education]

The Shocking Truth About Public Schools
Please Research the following evil men:
John D Rockefeller
John Dewey
JP Morgan
Andrew Carnegie

You must understand that school is simply a social-engineering center that wants to dictate the beliefs of young children. Creativity must be halted to ensure that popular belief maintains and that people cannot see through the false facade of bankers, politicians, and many other severe issues.

Top Comments
Once when solving a problem in math class, the teacher yelled at me when I showed my work on the board, I got a five minute lecture during which I was called a "disruptive influence" just because I did the problem using a simpler method. I asked her why I needed to learn this new method and she replied "so you can do? your taxes". Then I said, "So, your telling me that when I do my taxes I will get audited if I use the so-called wrong method but still get the right answer?" For this incident I...

Thank you for this video. My son is home educated and will never go to public school as long as I'm alive and well! My son pursues intellectual studies:Latin,Greek,Mathematic­s,World? History (not falsified American History) Music,Astronomy and various Sciences,and other worthwhile pursuits. He is taught to question what he is being told and to analyze information for himself. I am nurturing my son to be an independent,liberal thinker and an entrepreneur, NOT a corporate slave.

[syn: Two Kinds of Education]

Education System - Charlotte Iserbyt - Telling It How It Is (Parts 1-4).(Mirrored)

[syn: Two Kinds of Education]

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms.

Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - E Book download is NOW FREE TO ALL!!!



Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the '80s on government activities withheld from the public. Her inside knowledge will help you protect your children from controversial methods and programs. In this book you will discover:

*-how good teachers across America have been forced to use controversial, non-academic me

*-how "school choice" is being used to further dangerous reform goals, and how home schooling and private education are especially vulnerable.

*-how workforce training (school-to-work) is an essential part of an overall plan for a global economy, and how this plan will shortcircuit your child's future career plans and opportunities.

*-how the international, national, regional, state and local agendas for education reform are all interconnected and have been for decades.


[syn: Two Kinds of Education]

November 10, 2014 Money & Career

Reviving Blue Collar Work: 4 Myths About the Skilled Trades


“Consider the reality of today’s job market. We have a massive skills gap. Even with record unemployment, millions of skilled jobs are unfilled because no one is trained or willing to do them. Meanwhile unemployment among college graduates is at an all-time high, and the majority of those graduates with jobs are not even working in their field of study. Plus, they owe a trillion dollars in student loans. A trillion! And still, we push a four-year college degree as the best way for the most people to find a successful career?” -Mike Rowe

For better or for worse, what we do for a living often defines us. It’s one of the first questions we ask people when we meet them for the first time. It’s where we will end up spending 90,000 hours of our life, over the course of 40-some years. Unfortunately, most people count themselves as unhappy with their work (by two to one worldwide!). Pop culture endlessly makes fun of the drone-like office employee, and yet that’s where most of us are.

Is there a better way? Are there careers that would engage us, provide for us, and make us happier? The answer is a resounding yes, but with an important caveat: young men should expand their search for such a career beyond the white collar gigs that are pitched to most of us from our first day of secondary ed. For modern high school students, the default path is graduating from high school, going on to a four-year college, and then finding work in an office (in fact, there are nearly twice as many business degrees handed out as any other single degree). But college simply isn’t for everyone. (http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/17/is-college-for-everyone-10-alternatives-to-the-traditional-4-year-college/) And neither is a lifetime of sitting at a desk. Luckily, there’s a world of satisfying, good paying jobs beyond the cubicle wall.

Today we will begin a 3-part series encouraging young men (or older men looking for a career change) to consider learning a trade. In this first article, I’ll point out four of the common myths and stereotypes surrounding the trades. In the second article, I’ll get into the benefits of being in the trades (of which there are many). After that, we’ll get into the nitty-gritty about how to find careers in skilled labor. Then once the series is done, we’ll do a bunch of So You Want My Job interviews with skilled laborers in order to get a personal, inside look at what it’s really like to work as a tradesman.

Let’s get started by exploring the myths that have made the path of blue collar work something most young men don’t even contemplate taking.

The 4 Myths of Skilled Labor

Welders, plumbers, electricians, machinists — they’re in higher demand now, and have greater benefits, than they ever have. While our nation endures record unemployment for young people, there are literally thousands upon thousands of trades jobs available (very good jobs, mind you) that go untaken because there aren’t skilled laborers to take them.

This wasn’t always the case, though. A century ago, the nation’s workforce looked much different. In 1900, 38% of all workers were farmers, with another 31% in other trades such as mining, manufacturing, construction, etc. Only about 30% of the workforce labored in service industries (defined as providing intangible goods). Fast forward 100 years, and you see almost the exact reverse. In 1999, over 75% of the labor pool worked in the service industry (most often in an office), and farming saw a precipitous decline to a mere 3%, and other trades down to 19%.

While the number of laborers in the skilled trades has sharply declined, there’s still a great need for this type of work. These blue collar men and women literally keep our nation’s infrastructure intact – from our electrical systems, to our plumbing, and even the nuts and bolts that keep our buildings together. There is an ever-widening skills gap occurring in our nation because of the fact that young people aren’t considering those careers. This means there are good jobs available, but no talent to fill them. It’s for this reason that Mike Rowe, former host of the popular show Dirty Jobs, is advocating for a return to blue collar work through his foundation and scholarship fund. And it’s not just him; high schools across the country have begun to recognize the need for skilled work, and are becoming career training centers rather than simply liberal arts institutions that exist solely to prepare students for college. State politicians are campaigning and recruiting on behalf of construction companies, because state-funded projects simply can’t find tradesmen to weld or to install elevators.

There is good work and good money to be had in the trades, so why aren’t more young people picking up their hard hats? I talked with Kevin Simpson from Pickens Technical College, as well as a couple folks from Emily Griffith Technical College (both here in the Denver area), to find out their take. What do these colleges see as the main culprit? Stereotypes. Our nation’s workers are holding on to stereotypes about blue collar work and about trades that may have been true fifty years ago, but simply aren’t the case anymore. There are a number of myths that folks hold about skilled trades careers; let’s take a look and get to work dismantling them:

Myth #1: Blue-collar work is “beneath” white-collar work.

“My plea, then, is that the country school should make farm labor and all labor honorable; should dignify it; should show that the environment of the country furnishes inexhaustible resources for intellectual life.” -Francis Parker, The Country School Problem, 1897

“Blue collar and white collar are two sides of the same coin, and as soon as we view one as more valuable than the other, we’ll have infrastructure that falls down, we’ll have a skills gap.” -Mike Rowe

Since ancient times, manual labor has been looked upon as a job for slaves; for the lesser. The upper classes did their work with their minds — philosophized, ran cities and nations, sold goods (though for a long time even merchants were looked down upon, since in handling money they were inferior to those who made their living purely through cognition). Egyptians, Greeks, white Americans in the 1800s — these groups of people spurned physical labor, and forced others to do it for them. It was hard, and as our human tendency is to seek comfort where we can, it was a mark of status to be above it.

During the industrialization period at the turn of the 20th century, manual labor lost some of its stigma. It was where the economy was going, it was where most of the jobs were, and there was the sense of it being absolutely essential to the building up of the country’s quickly expanding roads and cities. As learning a trade was a definite step up from being a cog in the factory system that had arisen in the 1800s, skilled craftsmen gained a greater measure of respect.

After WWII, however, more and more folks began enrolling in 4-year colleges, spurred on in large part by vets getting their tuition taken care of by the US government through the GI Bill. Virtually unlimited free education? Who wouldn’t take that deal? If you could make a living with your mind and not have to physically work hard, all the better.

As the 4-year education trend gained steam, teachers and administrators began to play more of an advisory role towards students, helping them decide where to go, which colleges they could get into, etc. These counselors guided their best and brightest students towards prestigious 4-year institutions, while shuttling poorer performing students towards tech or vocational schools. Learning a trade became thought of as the career track for those who couldn’t hack it in college, and no young man wanted to think of himself as second-rate.

The increasing number of college graduates coincided with an economy that was shifting from manufacturing and agriculture to a more intellectual and service-oriented market. Today, over three-quarters of Americans work in some kind of white collar position.

Thus, with the image of blue collar work diminishing and the market for white collar jobs expanding, it began to be cultural dogma that if a young person wanted a good, respectable, well-paying job, the only option was to go to college. More education was always seen as better, the assumption being that the more education someone has, the smarter they are, and the better job or life they’ll have later on. Trades, on the other hand, often require less schooling (by about half, in most cases, but sometimes as little as a third or quarter as much), and so this career path became associated with lesser prospects for success.

Thus, by the latter third of the 20th century, both the respectability and desirability of learning a trade had greatly diminished, while the distance between white and blue collar workers had exponentially grown.

Yet this belief that different work means lesser work, is hardly inviolable. And it’s about time we questioned it, and asked, “What defines ‘better’ anyway, in terms of a career?” Trades jobs have in many cases become better paying and more stable than most office jobs. In the past, it was a sign of cultural status to be a businessman rather than a lowly factory worker. As our economy shifted to the service sector, the difference between wages and quality of life was great enough that being a businessman really was a better job. But today, in many trades or blue collar professions, those gaps are simply no longer present based on how we define good jobs — largely in terms of pay, stability, autonomy, benefits, work-life balance, etc.

Further, learning a trade need not mean that you’re not cut out for college, or that your mind is second-rate. You can be quite smart and still choose to make your living with your hands. The idea that you can either be an intelligent white-collar worker, or a dumb blue collar brute, is an extremely false dichotomy. You could easily be an electrician during the day, and a devourer of the great books by night.

So too, it simply isn’t the case that your day-to-day work in the trades won’t engage your mind:

Myth #2: Blue-collar work isn’t creative or intellectually stimulating.

Another barrier to the trades is that there is a false notion that the work is mindless and tedious. Young people today want to be intellectually stimulated by what they do; they want to be creative and innovative, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. The desire to create is a worthy one and is actually a defining marker of maturity. The issue is that we limit ourselves in how we think we can attain those qualities in our workplace. Surely it can only happen in a modern, minimalist office with a Mac and iPhone at hand, a big whiteboard on the wall, and fancy coffee at the ready, right? How on earth could creativity happen in a blue uniform with an auger in hand, getting to intimately know the inside a toilet?

The reality is that any job in the world includes mindless and tedious tasks. That’s just how it goes. In fact, a lot of office jobs are more tedious than you’d expect. A recent study showed that a staggering 90% of office workers waste time during the day on non-work-related activities — largely, surfing the web. Makes sense, though, doesn’t it? Nobody can be fully productive over the course of an 8-hour workday. Perhaps what’s more surprising is that over 60% are wasting at least an hour at work, and 30% are wasting 2+ hours. Why is this? The vast majority state that they’re either unchallenged, unsatisfied with their work, or are plain bored. Does that sound like an invigorating, stimulating workplace?


It could pretty easily be argued that the trades offer more intellectual stimulation than the majority of office or even entrepreneurial jobs out there. Think about the residential plumber or electrician. He’s out and about all day, seeing new places, meeting new people, and grappling with new problems. There could be any number of issues as to why a toilet isn’t unclogging or why a particular outlet isn’t working. The tradesman will start off testing the standard issues and fixes, and if that doesn’t work he’ll utilize increasingly complex troubleshooting procedures to determine the root cause of a problem. He’s executing problem solving skills and quick thinking in a way that many of us in white collar jobs never have to. The skilled trades simply offer a different type of creative outlet than a job with a startup in a trendy office. That’s what Matthew Crawford, author of Shop Class as Soulcraft, found to be the case. After going to college and taking a mind-numbing white collar job, he discovered that being a motorcycle mechanic actually provided him far more stimulation and satisfaction than he had ever gotten working behind a desk:

“The satisfactions of manifesting oneself concretely in the world through manual competence have been known to make a man quiet and easy. They seem to relieve him of the felt need to offer chattering interpretations of himself to vindicate his worth. He can simply point: the building stands, the car now runs, the lights are on. Boasting is what a boy does, because he has no real effect in the world. But the tradesman must reckon with the infallible judgment of reality, where one’s failures or shortcomings cannot be interpreted away. His well-founded pride is far from the gratuitous ‘self-esteem’ that educators would impart to students, as though by magic.”

Myth #3: You have to follow your passion, and welding isn’t your passion.

“Follow your dreams!” is a phrase that our culture is in love with these days. The idea is that in high school or college you’ll realize what you love to do, and then get an education that follows so that you can have your “dream job.” What this actually ends up doing though is simply filling teens and twentysomethings with a whole lot of angst about what to do with their lives. When options are seemingly limitless, we have a really hard time choosing. We end up thinking that our lives are ruined if we don’t find that one thing we really love doing.

Thankfully, and although this is extremely hard to realize sometimes, your life isn’t limitless. The reality is that most people, especially in their late teens and early twenties, have no idea what they actually want to do. But because of the stereotypes that surround blue collar work, they go to business or law school by default, because having an office job is better than being an elevator technician. How could anyone possibly be passionate about fixing elevators? The answer to that might surprise you.

There’s a lot of work being done to show that passion or fulfillment in your workplace doesn’t come through “following your dreams,” but a whole host of factors that are very different from that outdated advice. In fact, research is finding that passion follows hard work and being good at what you do, rather than precedes it. What this means practically is that if you grease your elbows and master the trade of being a plumber, you’ll actually come to enjoy your work.

The truth is that our “passion” ends up being a combination of what we’re good at and what we work hard at. Fulfillment at work is more about mastery and autonomy and balance than about a pre-existing passion. Love for your work rarely springs from fulfilling a built-in burning desire in your heart to do that one thing in the world and that one thing only. In fact, turning a hobby you’re passionate about into a job is often a surefire way to kill that burning desire good and dead.

To learn more about the myth of finding your passion, I cannot suggest strongly enough that you listen to Brett’s podcast with author Cal Newport. It’s one of my favorite AoM podcasts of all time, and one I think every teenager and twentysomething (and beyond, really) should listen to.

Myth #4: Dirty, hard work is undesirable work.


In Mike Rowe’s new book, Profoundly Disconnected, he tells the story of being in his high school guidance counselor’s office in the late 1970s and seeing the above poster. “Work smart, not hard.” While the sentiment may have been more akin to “Hard work alone is good, but being smart is important, too!” the high school student probably read it as, “Yes! I don’t have to work hard if I’m smart!” The students who saw these posters in the late 70s and early 80s are now running companies and passing that belief onto younger generations, even if in subconscious ways. Beyond those CEOs, there are authors, podcasters, “lifehackers” — all advocating working smarter rather than harder, thereby bypassing the menial, boring stuff. Heck, you can work a 4-hour week and make millions! (Or so is claimed.)


Thankfully, with Mike Rowe’s help, that message is being put in its rightful place: the garbage. He’s replacing it with a new message: “Work smart AND hard.”

The truth is that the world belongs to those who hustle. Ambition without elbow grease won’t get you anywhere. Even this generation’s career heroes — the late Steve Jobs, Zuck, Richard Branson — work(ed) insanely hard at their jobs. You only see glitz, but they’ve burned more than their fair share of midnight oil.

Yeah, you think, but working hard with your brain sounds better than working hard with your brawn. It’s true that there are different kinds of hard work, but they’re both hard in their own way. Each type of hard has its own pros and cons, and the hardness of physical labor doesn’t automatically make anyone less happy than the difficulty in typing at a computer all day.

Over the course of Mike Rowe’s stint as host of Dirty Jobs, he came to discover something very interesting about hard, dirty work. Before he started that job, when he was in the brainstorming phase of the show, he expected the people he ran into to really hate their work. But one after another, almost without fail, they loved it. He in fact called them the happiest group of people he’s ever seen. I’ll repeat: passion for your work will follow your working hard at something and achieving mastery in it. Swinging a hammer every day is never going to be as hard as filing TPS reports from 9-5, if you’re hating every single minute of it.

Beyond hard work, many trades are also simply dirty and grimy. We’ve recently highlighted our culture’s obsession with being clean. Antibacterial soaps and boiling stuff rule the day. This attitude carries over into how we view work. We want things to be neat and tidy and minimalist, just like that clean and beautiful Apple laptop sitting on your clean desk.

When we grow up uber-clean as children, we end up with an aversion to stuff that’s dirty or gross. And the reality is that a lot of tradesmen end the day with dirty hands. While there are some trades that don’t get grimy, Kevin Simpson estimates that about 90% do. Plumbers, electricians, construction workers — these are jobs where you shower at the end of your day, not the beginning.

In a sterile society, dirty jobs become undesirable. Perhaps that’s why their pay is increasing and job demand in the trades is higher than ever before. Mike Rowe believes that our culture is heading to a point where an hour of plumbing is going to cost more than an hour with the psychologist. If you can get over your fear of dirt, grime, and sweat, you have the potential to make a far better living than your office-dwelling peers. And you may even discover that it feels good to be using your body and hands every day, that it’s satisfying to be in touch with the elements, even when those elements are grimy, and that nothing feels better than taking a well-earned shower when you actually have dirt to clean off.

We’ve now covered the myths of working in the trades. In a couple weeks, we’ll get into the benefits and why every young man, or anyone considering a career move, should look at skilled labor. For now, I’ll leave you with a beautiful ode to manual labor in the form of an excerpt from a speech given by Luciano Palogan to the Philippine School of Arts and Trades in 1910:

Nothing great or good can be accomplished without labor and toil.

The days when manual labor was looked upon as a disgrace and the time when it was considered as the occupation of the degraded man have passed away. The days have disappeared when the student walked a block to call a “muchacho” to carry his books to school. And the unsoiled, soft, and cushion-like hands, the pride of the young man a few years ago, have gone out of fashion.

The Filipino has turned over a new leaf. He now realizes that manual labor is not a disgrace but an honor; that it is not manual labor that places the man in a low rank among men in society, but it is manual labor that raises him to a higher standard of life.

Manual labor squeezes the sweat out of the muscles and roughens the hands, but in turn it restores strength and increases their size. Roughness of the hands and scorchings of the sun on the face are the truest badge that a man can wear to show that he belongs to the great society of the workers and not of drones.


August 22, 2014

Art of Manliness Podcast #78: The Myth of Following Your Passion

In today’s episode I talk to Cal Newport, author of the book So Good They Can’t Ignore Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love. In his book Cal makes that provocative case that “following your passion” is terrible career advice and can actually cause people needless anxiety and problems in their lives. Instead of “following your passion,” Cal argues that seeking mastery in your job is the starting step to cultivating work you love.

Show Highlights

  • How following your passion can lead to anxiety and misery
  • What the research says on what makes work fulfilling (hint: it’s not following your passion)
  • The difference between the craftsman mindset and passion mindset
  • Why your focus should be on developing “career capital” and not following your passion
  • Why you need autonomy in your work to be happy (and how you can get it)
  • And much more!


I highly recommend you pick up a copy of So Good They Can’t Ignore You.  It’s one of the best books I’ve read this year. More young people need to read this message. Also, check out Cal’s blog Study Hacks for tips and insights on studying in college as well as on developing the craftsman mindset in your work.

Listen to the Podcast!

Listen to the episode on a separate page.

Download this episode.


Once again we return to our So You Want My Job series, (http://www.artofmanliness.com/category/so-you-want-my-job/) in which we interview men who are employed in desirable jobs and ask them about the reality of their work and for advice on how men can live their dream.


A Rebirth of Liberty and Learning
There are two ways of education. Hillsdale College has a "core curriculum" which is entirely different than Liberal Marxist Core Curriculum...

Imprimis - More Great Articles:

MISEDUCATED LIBTARDS: Why Are Some "Educated" People So Politically Stupid?

Why are so many highly intelligent people so liberal?

The most obvious answer to the paradox of 'intelligent liberals' is that Universities, and even High Schools, have become infested with liberals / Marxists who miseducate their students. Though certainly true, the psychological roots of the mental disorder known as 'liberalism' run much deeper than these superficial intellectual causes.

During the formative years, children are praised for parroting back their ABC’s and 123’s. At an early age, the child’s delicate mind is already being conditioned to equate obedient regurgitation with praise, love, and self worth.

The little scholar is proud of himself.
(see pictures at link: http://www.tomatobubble.com/libtards.html)
The conditioned Pavlovian connection between regurgitation and praise is made at an early age.

The brightest young learners are singled out to receive the most praise. Proud parents enthusiastically reinforce the praise of the teacher, showering the impressionable child with hugs and kisses. The inflation of the intelligent child’s ego, and the reflexive association of regurgitation with rewards, (including parental love!) are taking root.

Parents naturally praise good grades. The child thus associates regurgitation with parental love.

With subjects such as reading, writing, and math, the system of obedient regurgitation and praise is a necessary and effective model of teaching. That’s because the ‘3 R’s’ are what they are. They cannot be distorted.

Repetition & praise is the only way to teach 'The 3 R's"

But with subjects such as History, Philosophy, Economics, Current Events, Political Science, and ‘Environmental Science’, the regurgitation / reward model leaves the student vulnerable to manipulation and erroneous information.  

They may be smart, but their critical minds are still not developed.

The ego gratification associated with the regurgitation & praise model is reinforced throughout Middle and High School. It is during this time that the, ‘gifted & talented’ students are separated out from their ‘inferiors’ and taught to repeat such rubbish as:

* America’s Constitution is outdated.
* Karl Marx was a great philosopher.
* The Civil War was about slavery.
* FDR’s New Deal saved America.
* Germany started 2 World Wars.
* 6 Million Jews were gassed in ‘The Holocaust’.
* Picasso was the greatest artist.
* Einstein was the smartest man who ever walked the face of the Earth.
* Senator Joe McCarthy was evil.
* Martin Luther King was a Saint.
* Capitalism is about greed and socialism is about charity.
* Men and women are the same.
* There is no such thing as race.
* Man ‘evolved’ from ocean scum.
* Global Warming is a proven fact.
* There are no government conspiracies.
* Homosexuality is normal.
* Guns and religion are evil.

Note: Many 'conservatives' also hold some of these views. We'll address them in another article.

The next big ‘doggie-treat’ for the young ‘straight A’ parrot, comes when she is accepted to a ‘prestigious’ University.  Now she knows that she is really smart!

College Acceptance!

At college, the star student continues (to his benefit, and to his credit) to regurgitate the complex material of challenging subjects such as physics, engineering, statistics, calculus etc. However, he may also obediently regurgitate the Marxist crap contained in other subjects (electives). Because he has never had cause to question the undeniable veracity of the math and science content presented to him, why would he question what any other textbook or teacher tells him?

Gullible college students swallow the poison spewed forth by Marxist professors.

By now, the bright young scholar has been so psychologically conditioned that he is incapable of distinguishing between the fact based regurgitation of the objective courses (math, science, etc.), and the propaganda based regurgitation of the subjective courses (electives, humanities, etc). His ego is literally addicted to the praise/good grades of whatever godlike Marxist Professor is instructing him. The hard earned (and expensive!) diploma represents the ultimate doggie treat and confirmation, in his mind, that he knows it all.

"This degree means I'm smarter than you!"
(see pictures at link: http://www.tomatobubble.com/libtards.html)

Taught to believe that ‘educated’ people read The New York Times, attend Modern Art exhibits, and watch Bill Moyers on PBS, the trendy post-Graduate libtard’s belief system is further reinforced by the Marxist Media culture.
(see pictures at link: http://www.tomatobubble.com/libtards.html)

Otherwise intelligent liberals worship their morning newspapers.

Bill Moyers is a psuedo intellectual sophist propagandist.

When challenged on his belief system, the ‘educated’ libtard’s entire self worth is suddenly threatened. Telling him for example that Global Warming is a bunch of Marxist hooey is the equivalent, in his reactive mind, of saying that 2 + 2 is not 4! Because his bloated ego simply cannot bear the discomfort of being out-of-sync with the 'in crowd', the miseducated libtard will despise you, and insult you. His mental disorder runs deeeeep!

Condescending, arrogant, and smug in his false education and self worth.

The ‘educated’ libtard is merely an advanced Pavlovian show dog. Through years of studious regurgitation and positive reinforcement, he may have learned to design bridges, repair mangled bodies, program software, build companies from scratch, or design rockets. But he has never been taught the lesson of humility! He knows not how to philosophize – to think his own thoughts – to understand the world - to understand the inner nature of man - to be his own man. And his tragic 'hard wired' arrogance (insecurity) will prevent him from ever trying to.

The most easily conditioned breed of 'dog' is the newspaper-reading 'educated' libtard.

Mike King consults with philosopher friend from a local stable.
(see pictures at link: http://www.tomatobubble.com/libtards.html)

This Christmas, remember the "starving artist" behind TomatoBubble.com

Let's make 2014 the year to reach more lost minds and souls than ever before.

I want you to wake up;
to wake others up;
to know you are free to think for yourself;
to protect your rights;
and to resist tyranny.
From: Fighting an "Invisible Force" (http://www.henrymakow.com/fighting_an_invisible_force.html)

Social Control through popular culture, mass media, ideological divisions, religion, fear and anger, drugs, public education
(See the many links and pictures that go with this article at the above link.)

"No one rules
If no one obeys."

Social Control
(welcome to Lewis Mumford's megamachine
or how to become a mindless human robot)
"For a machine to run smoothly and predictably,
its parts must be standard and hence replaceable,
features which contribute, respectively,
to modern depersonalization and anxiety."
- Charles Eisenstein

"We can in the foreseeable future, develop macroscopic assessments of our social order, predict our future and put social processes under control. I am reasonably convinced that social technology can be developed so that it would be possible to gain considerable control over many societal processes. American social science has been, in large measure, geared to the needs of the ruling elites of our social institutions. The literature of social accounting can be thus viewed as an ideology which justifies the emergence of a new ruling class that will provide "objective", "scientific" and non-ideological advice to the "rulers" of society." - Michael Springer 1970,Social Indicators, Social Reports and Social Accounts: Toward the Management of Society
"Control's real name is bondage. The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some rights produces a better society, then by giving up all our rights we could produce a perfect society." – Citizens' Rule Book
"The maniacal lunatics in control of our society know exactly how human beings tick and they are masters at manipulation." - Bruce McDonald

Social control through popular culture and mass media
Social control through ideological divisions
Social control through religion
Social control through fear and anger
Social control through drugs
Social control through public 'education'
no child left behind

Social control through popular culture and mass media

Social control has and always will be a problem for each and every form of government.

Government is, after all, simply a mechanism with which to control a culture or society.

Laws are written with the intention of creating a blueprint for the normal functioning of the society to which they apply.

Social control will always be a problem for government because each and every human is unique.

Human uniqueness is a problem for government because what makes
one person perfectly happy is likely to make another totally dissatisfied.

For this reason it is in the best interests of government policy makers to get the populace to conform to a certain manner of social behavior that the government policy makers believe to be the best template for society. To get the populace to conform government policy makers will use any method that is socially acceptable, including enlisting corporate support and facilitation, to change the manner of behavior of the populace so that it conforms to the desired model of acceptable citizen behavior.
"It will be found, as men grow more tolerant in their instincts,
that many uniformities now insisted upon are useless and even harmful." - Bertrand Russell
Human behavioral modification comes in many forms and guises.

The most successful modification of behavioral is done through methods which leave the modified individual unaware of the behavioral modifications.

Naturally, as all humans are unique, there will be some who can not modified in the way that those in control of a society find appropriate.

Government policy makers that are idealists will want the members of the society to conform to their particular brand of ideology.

Government policy makers that are fervently religious will want the members of society to conform to their religious beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other enlightened men that founded America understood the power of charismatic religious leaders to use religious dogma to manipulate both the populace and those that hold the reigns of power. To guard against the power of charismatic religious leaders the Bill of Rights contains the First Amendment forbidding government establishment of religion.

Unfortunately these enlightened men did not foresee the advent of mass media
and the ability of wealth and power to manipulate popular opinion and thought through mass media.

A democracy can only function correctly is the voting population is fully
and accurately aware of the actual issues facing the social culture.

In America today monopolized corporate mass media defines the issues to be debated, discussed and analyzed.

Government, corporate and mass media power is dependent upon mass media ability to manipulate the truth.

Cable companies, television and radio stations, newspapers, and magazines are corporate institutions founded with the intent of generating profits and/or manipulating public opinion - with the hopes of generating future profits. ("Think tanks" are typically supported by corporate "sponsers" while quasi-governmental corporatist propaganda organizations may generate profits.)

Cable companies, television and radio stations, newspapers, and magazines are not altruistic.

Cable companies, television and radio stations, newspapers, and magazines are hired by corporations to sell the public 'goods'.

Mass media, corporations and governments are amoral - without morals. They can not have morals as they are not living sentient beings. Rules or laws may be in place to define the boundaries of acts that can and can not be committed by mass media, corporations and government but these rules do not give a conscience to a non-living institution and many times more money can be made if laws are disregarded.

In truth mass media is interested only in generating advertising dollars
by selling the products of the corporations that employ them with corporate advertising dollars.

As mass media totally saturates the American consciousness during waking hours
Americans have unknowingly been initiated into the cult of materialistic consumerism.
American popular culture in the 21st century is all about consumption, consumption of goods or consumption of experiences.

Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class" (1899) established the notion of conspicuous consumption.

"Property is, after all, a social convention, an agreement about someone's exclusive right to use a thing in specified ways. However, we seem to have forgotten this. We seem to think that property belongs to us in some essential way, that it is of us. We seem to think that our property is part of ourselves, and that by owning it we therefore make ourselves more, larger, greater." - Charles Eisenstein

As a political economist ThorsteinVeblen understood consumer desire and the commercial logic that powers it.

{The reason for conspicuous consumption is easy to understand. People are enchanted by the possession of material objects. The more one possess' the more one becomes godlike. The godlike man with the 15,000 square foot mansion on the hill with Monet, Picasso and Andy Warhol hung on the Brazilian Rosewood walls; a Bentley, a Rolls Royce and a Jaguar in the 8 car garage; a trophy supermodel wife; a Gulfstream private jet at the local airport and other homes in Taos, Aspen, the Berkshires, Lahaina and Newport, Rhode Island must be some kind of wizard or magician (or perhaps he is just another vampire!)}

Americans accumulate possessions quickly to discard them in the dark spaces under the stairs as the anticipated happiness wanes and newly discovered objects of desire distract.

"As we deep-sixed worn croquet mallets, rusted weed-whackers, magazine back issues and untold objects that no longer had meaning or use in our current lives, we began to feel lighter, freer. With each item sold or given away we began liberating ourselves from an outmoded way of living that had been weighing us down in more ways than mere bulk. In this journey, we moved away from the idea that "we are what we have." - Ciji Ware

When we let go of "stuff" we discover that the only lasting, dependable security comes from controlling less not more, opening up to life, loosening the rigid boundaries of self, letting other people in, and become tied - that is more dependent, not less - to a community of people and the community of nature.
"Natural processes are cyclical.

What comes from the earth eventually returns to the earth in a form usable to other living beings.

There is no linear buildup of waste, no linear drawdown of essential resources.

Industry, on the other hand, is linear in that it starts with resources and ends with waste -
economically valueless, even biologically hazardous substances that must be disposed of.

Since "resources" such as the social, cultural, natural, and spiritual wealth begin outside the domain of money, their commoditization and depletion makes us by definition richer, adding to gross domestic product. Meanwhile, because these resources are not endlessly recycled, their depletion accompanies a corresponding growth of material, social, and spiritual waste: slag heaps and slums, toxic waste dumps and toxic bodies, dying lakes and wrecked cultures, degraded ecosystems and broken families.

The linear character of the modern economy is obviously unsustainable, because both resources and the earth's capacity to absorb waste are finite. The modern economy therefore represents an outright denial of humanity's participation in nature, and embodies a belief that the laws of nature do not apply to us." - Charles Eisenstein

Daniel J. Boorstin, a great American historian, was summoned before the House Un-American Activities Committee and accused of Communist ties. Daniel Boorstin writings had un-American activities in mind: to undermine gratuitous consumption through intellectual sabotage. Daniel Boorstin was a brilliant de-bunker of celebrity, of the absurdities of materialism and the ruinous contradictions of acquiring status through material objects. (Truly a hero!)

"Nearly everything we do to make life more interesting, more varied, more exciting, more fabulous,
more promising, in the long run, has an opposite effect." - Daniel J. Boorstin (See Frank Lloyd Wright )

Popular culture, as presented through mass media:

turns fantasy into myth while driving a false understanding of reality into the subconscious;
destroys traditional mytholigical structures and replaces them with ego fulfillment myths;
con-vinces people possession of material objects defines their individual value in the social cuture.
How do we deal with the trap that desires lay for us?
Eliminate as many manufactured desires as possible.
Refuse to desire that which you do not need!
Simple pleasures rarely disappoint!

"Consumer product producers empower kids as shoppers legitimizing their uninformed tastes, mercurial wants and detaching them from their gatekeeper mothers, fathers, teachers and pastors."
- Benjamin R. Barber

"To minimize the role of paternal gatekeepers, corporations often seek to undermine the authority of parents. In their advertisements, corporations portray parents, often in jocular veins, as stupid, out of date and out of touch with the children's reality, and they frequently ridicule parental concerns for health and safety." - Linda Coco

"How often do you see adults in children's ads? It's very rare. When you do, the adults either don't know anything or they try to stop you from getting what you desire." - Diane Levin, professor of education and media culture at Wheelock College

Children are being taught that everything is for sale;
that desired "things" will make you happy;
that desired "things" have more value than intangibles like relationships;
(especially those relationships that keep you separate from your desired things like mom and pop);
and that providers of the desired "things" love you and only want you to be happy.

See the many pictures and links that go with this article at: http://www.unique-design.net/library/control.html

"You hoped your little girl's Disney princess obsession was harmless, didn't you! It will not have escaped you, Mothers of America, that Disney Princess' rarely slay dragons, play sports, pilot jets or do open-heart surgery. I was not thrilled when my 3-year-old informed me that she wants to be "a pwincess" when she grows up. "You are a commoner," my 3-year-old shrieked, and adjusting her tiara ran off to watch Disney Princess Enchanted Tales. (In 2007 Disney's "Princess" franchise raked in $4 billion.)" - Rosa Brooks 03/08

"Little girls who want to be princesses and wear cute little clothes are assuming the classic stereotyping of the many misguided families who believe that little girls should be the lesser handmaidens of boys who too frequently grow up to be boys."- Ralph Mitchell 04/08

"Undermining the role of parents has been a strategy marketers have exploited to sell their brands through the development of "kids only" products and marketing themes. Kiddie marketing often strives for the "nag factor", an actual measurement by the advertising industry of the extent to which an ad drives a child to pester the folks about a purchase." - Jamie Court

The 'nag factor' is a marketing strategy that takes manipulation of children to the extreme.

Lucy Hughes and her colleagues at Initiative Media,
with the help of child psychologists, analyzed nagging behavior in children and put it to work.

20 to 40% of all purchases adults make are made because children have nagged them into making the purchase.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that children under the age of eight years
are unable to understand the intent of advertising and accept advertisements as the truth.

In 1981 the Federal Communications Commission lifted restrictions on children's advertising reflecting the supply side unfettered market economic theories of the Chicago School of Economics - that market solutions trumped regulatory solutions.

"The average American child sees 40,000 advertisements a year on television. Comparing the marketing of today with the marketing of the past is like comparing the BB gun to the smart bomb. All aspects of children's lives - their health, education, creativity, and values - are at risk of being compromised by their status in the marketplace." - Dr. Susan Linn, psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School

- From 1992 to 1997, the amount of money spent on marketing to children doubled, from $6.2 billion to $12.7 billion. Today it is estimated that over $15 billion is being spent.

- American children influence purchases totaling over $600 billion a year.

- American children spend almost forty hours a week outside of school consuming televised media.

- 65% ofAmerican children eight to eighteen have a television in their bedroom as do 32% of children two to seven and 26% of children under two.

- The marketing industry has found that American babies are requesting brands as soon as they speak.

- In 2000, a federal report from the General Accounting Office called marketing in schools a growth industry.

- More American children recognize the Budweiser Frogs than Smokey the Bear.

- 85% of American parents would like to see children's television programs advertisement free.

- Commercial marketing tactics of fast food have created epidemic levels of childhood obesity, type II diabetes and kidney stones. (Kidney stones - too much salt, not enough water!)

"The aggressive marketing of fast food and confectionery to children does influence their dietary choices early in life, and it puts them at greater risk of becoming obese or overweight later in life. A major concern is childhood diabetes. General practitioners are seeing more children than ever before with type II diabetes, and that's a disease associated with poor diet and lack of exercise. Children can be extremely vulnerable to television advertising promoting fast food."- Verity Newnham

Limit TV

Popular culture as espoused through television also works to divert attention from other things of more importance, like the direction in which America is headed, which mass media does not want you to think about.

Have the enemies of liberty already succeeded by turning popular culture into the worship of the celebrity, a form of idol worship?

The truth is the enemies of liberty have also used the television to create fear and to militarize our children.

"There is an association between the number of hours that the television is on at home and early childhood aggression." - Catherine Taylor

"They mingled among the pagans and adopted their evil customs." - Psalm 106:35

Do not allow yourself to fall for the advertisers market propaganda and become a mindless human robot/corporately conditioned consumer clone !!!

See mass media

See G. Clotaire Rapaille

See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

See F. Scott Fitzgerald

See Claude-Frederic Bastiat
(See http://www.unique-design.net/library/control.html for links)

Class Warfare (a Marxist technique)

We've been torn apart and pitted against each other with:
Politics, religion, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, age...
This is how they control us.
It's time to
and put them to rest.

Social control through ideological division
A simple way to control a population is to divide that population
into diametrically opposed ideological camps.
Liberal versus conservative! Left-wing versus right-wing! Socialism versus corporatism!

What difference does it make in reality?

"I have been saying for the some time now that America has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporation, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican." - Gore Vidal

Vote for Nobody
Nobody will keep election promises.
Nobody will listen to your concerns.
Nobody will help the poor and destitute.
Nobody cares about you & your family.
If Nobody is elected, things will be better for Everyone!
Nobody tells the truth.

"There are the corporate owned candidates on the left and the corporate owned ones on the right. A couple of them speak the truth and have less than a snow-ball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. That sure is a rich field of choices, yesiree. Almost all are millionaires, and only one or two speak of a national health plan - the same two that for some odd reason the corporations wouldn't back if the alternative were a nuclear holocaust." - Jim Stevens 07/08/07

"The two-party system is the political system of the corporate elite, who switch party affiliations when they find it convenient; many of them throw equal money at both parties." - Shamus Cooke

"Washington's criminal class is bipartisan." - Stephen Lendman

"We are hammered 24/7 with the "far left" and "far right" points of view, pounding us, beating us upside the head with purely political theatrics in order to make us believe it's real. It's not real. It's a con!" - Bruce McDonald

"Our two-party system is a fraud, a sham, a delusion. On foreign policy, trade, immigration, Big Government, we have one-party government, one party press; conservatives are being played for suckers." – Patrick J Buchanan

"George Wallace made famous the slogan that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Many observers have noted that while the two parties use different rhetoric and aim their spiels at differing segments of the population, it seems to make little difference who actually wins the election." - Gary Allen

One of the best ways to control a population is to turn one segment of the population against another - divide and conquer. To divide and conquer all you have do is find divisive issues like - abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, gun control, etc. that neatly partition the population into segments which battle each other while leaving the rapacious corporate agenda unchecked.

"We are constantly being manipulated, constantly being played against each other, political, racially, religiously, sexually, in every way you can think of. As long as those in power can keep us fighting with each other, they are free to do whatever the heck they want with utter impunity. Both parities are responsible for where we are. Both parties totally ignore the Constitution because if they enforced it they couldn't be doing what they are doing with the powers of government. It's one big selfish free-for-all. " - Bruce McDonald

Ideological division, although working well, does not work swiftly. The best time to divide a unified target population is by taking advantage of, or causing, an upheaval.

When the oil companies got the Army Corp of Engineers to dredge the MRGO on the lower Mississippi river, a straight channel cut through the bayou to accommodate supertankers, they surely must have known that a large hurricane focused on the mouth of the MRGO would send a storm surge directly into the heart of New Orleans. Once the MRGO was cut all the corporate fat cats and government bureaucrats had to do was lay the proper "bets" and wait for a large enough hurricane, Katrina, to clear the land sending the poverty stricken people of New Orleans into a diaspora.

"In the case of the war on Iraq, as of September 2005, fully 60% of the Americans want America to pull out some or all of the troops. That is one heck of a base on which to build a movement and a party. The Democrats, in the individuals of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and others, are calling for "staying the course and even sending more troops. This can be accounted for by the fact that the Democrats are beholden to the same special interests as the Republicans: the oil tycoons, the barons of the military-industrial-mass media-corporate complex and those that thrive on empire, from the major banks to Bechtel and Halliburton. Take, for example, Senator Dianne Feinstein (net worth between $43,341,462 and $98,630,021 in 2005), who is for "staying the course." Antiwar sentiment is solid in California, yet she refuses to embrace it even though it would strengthen, not weaken, her. No, the Democrats are simply the other war party." - John V. Walsh

Republicrats: the party of, for, and by the corporations.
Two corporate religions in Amerika: "Republican" and "Democrat". Separation of Church and State?

Corporate interests have hijacked our political system.

"Paradigms of Republican vs. Democrat or Conservative vs. Progressive have been designed for obfuscation and entertainment." - Catherine Austin Fitts

"The thought police of the Democratic and Republican establishments get to foment political witch hunts while pretending they somehow stand above ideology." - Emanuele Saccarelli

"By electing pro-war Republicans and Democrats for office, we effectively choose bombs, bullets and death instead of healthcare and public transportation." - Stacy Bermingham

The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats in a Nutshell:
"Democratic government raises taxes and gives away money to welfare recipients with no incentive to rise above their situation, and that annoys hardworking Americans. Republican government cuts taxes for the wealthiest while using deficit spending to pay top dollar to no-bid contractors with cozy political ties. That also annoys hardworking Americans." - Terrence Hartwell

"Important decisions are not being made on the basis of what is best for America, for the democracy or for taxpayers, but what is best for a corporation or for the financial coffers of those in government who believe that being elected or appointed to public office provides the very best cover for the attainment of personal riches. The country and its citizens are being ripped off for the gain of a few. Corporate lobbying should be radically restricted. Corporations are not citizens." - Lewis Redding

"Opposition, n. - in politics the party that prevents the government from running amuck by hamstringing it." - Ambrose Bierce.

The myth goes that corporations along with religious interests dominate the Republican party. The Republican party platform of 2008 claimed to be winning the "war on terror"; ushering in an "ownership era"; building an innovative, globally competitive economy; strengthening our communities and protecting our families. The Republican party claims to be the party of morality, family values, the American entrepreneur claiming it will protect us like a strong stern father.

The myth goes that government employee associations and unions, minority interests, immigration interests, sexual orientation interests and feminist interests dominate Democratic party ideology. The Democratic party platform of 2008 touted honest leadership and open government; real security; energy independence; economic prosperity and educational excellence; a healthcare system that works for everyone and retirement security. The Democratic party claims to be the party of the working American, the underdog, the party of reason claiming it will protect us like a gentle compassionate mother.

The truth is both parties are running blindly working to fulfill short term corporate needs while many individual members are corruptly increasing their personal wealth through their position in government. (see revolving door, Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld)

"From the North American Free Trade Agreement supported enthusiastically by President Clinton to the recent Peruvian trade agreement passed by the Democratic Congress, the gentrification of the Democratic Party is nearly complete. A party, once proud of its support for organized labor and indeed the working man, has thrown in with corporate America. How can this be explained? It's the way we finance our political campaigns. The working folk of America cannot afford the high price tag for well-paid lobbyists the way multinational corporate entities can and do." - Bob Teigan

"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult." – Andre Marrou

"Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free." – Harry Browne

"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They believe government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage." – Walter Williams

"Multiple political parties are a fact of life throughout Europe and most of the West. Today the only countries without strong multiparty political systems are America and a number of third world military dictatorships." – Thomas H. Naylor

"I guess it's not the plan that counts, but the words in which the plan is wrapped. Semantics count for everything, and it's obvious that the resolute Republicans are better at semantics than the weak, flip-flopping Democrats."- Bruce Barnbaum

"The professionalization of political campaigning is moving into governance. It's taking structures that were set up to elect and defeat candidates and saying: Whenever you have a policy debate, we're going to come in and we're going to create the same dividing lines." -Kathleen Hall Jamieson, University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center

Why have Americans allowed themselves to be herded into ideologically division by politically divisive rhetoric?

Why are moral issues the basis of the difference between the political parties?

Freedom and liberty are defeated if Americans are forced to return to a time when the government dictated the morality all 'subjects' were to adhere to and which idol to worship!

The American Constitution does not give the federal governement the right to legislate morality!

The government today is the direct result of your choosing the "lesser of two evils" for generations!

Election Fraud
Jane Balogh had no problem registering her dog Duncan to vote. The only way election officials learned Duncan was a dog was because Jane Balogh pointed it out to them in an effort to show how easy it is to fraudulently register non-existent citizens to vote.

Katherine Harris purged the voter rolls of thousands of black voters who she claimed were "felons" before the 2000 election. Investigative reporter Greg Palast proved that many of those purged were not felons. Carl Rove and Tim Griffin initiated the elaborate scheme to purge thousands of African Americans from the voter rolls.

Two election workers were convicted in January of 2007 of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election. Jacqueline Maiden, coordinator of elections of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct by an elections employee. Jacqueline Maiden and Kathleen Dreamer worked behind closed doors for three days sorting ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. Ohio gave George W. Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat John F. Kerry.

"Casting ballots is important, but counting the ballots is just as important. It is even more important that citizen observers actually see the ballots being counted. This isn't happening. Election officials in many counties are at best uncooperative and at worst blatantly hostile to observers. Until that culture of secrecy is changed voters have no reason to trust any election system, electronic or paper." - Diane K. Mitchell

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
– Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili)

"Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." – Rudolph Rummel

Neither the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is concerned with the average middle-class Americans upon whose backs the prosperity of America was built. Both parties need massive amounts of money to purchase air time to run their political campaigns from media companies that are licensed to use the airwaves which are owned by the American people. Both, due to this need of massive capital infusions, are dependent upon the only group that has the kind of money that is necessary to run a political campaign - corporate donors.

For Americans to regain control of their government Americans need to listen very carefully to the mass media pundits and then realize that six conglomerates control nearly all the media in America. Americans need to listen for what they are not being told is to blindly accept mass media's version of reality. Americans need to stop tuning in to hear the latest titillating gossip about this missing person, that sensational murder and the escapades of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

For Americans to regain control of their government Americans need to listen very carefully to the purveyors of fear and terror and reject outright those that use fear and terror as political capital and who profit handsomely from their security related investments. Americans need to come to a consensus and demand unspun reality not the reality of hidden weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a nuclear weapons building programs in Iran that never really existed. Americans have to stop listening to self serving men like Donald Rumsfeld who has made a fortune selling stockpiles of Tamiflu to the federal government just in case there is a flu outbreak or like Dick Cheney who has made a fortune off the war in Iraq through his Halliburton stock holdings.

Do not allow yourself to fall for the propaganda and become a mindless human robot - a corporately conditioned consumer clone!!!

See C. S. Lewis

See Louis Lamour

See John Maynard Keynes

Social control through religion
All religious dogmas require believers to suspend belief in their senses,
their experience and their understanding of natural reality.
(This was done initially and primarily to give the individual a change to build a
different understanding of reality upon which to rebuild an emotionally shattered life.)
It is a myth that institutionalized religion is necessary to create a moral person.
Institutionalized religion is not about God but about social control.
Adherence to popularly accepted social controls does not create a moral person.
(see religious dogma)

Social control through fear and anger
"The crowd neither wants nor seeks knowledge, and the leaders of the crowd, in their own interests, try to strengthen its fear and dislike of everything new and unknown. The slavery in which mankind lives is based upon this fear." - Georges Ivanovitch Gurdjieff

"The primary method by which governments increase their control is by creating fear." - Charles Eisenstein

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - and menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
"I am watching television, reading newspapers and magazines and listening to radio, and all I get is fear 24/7. I wonder when we stopped being the home of the brave." - John Berger

There are several methods in which to control a population. One is to instill fear.

"The actual danger to the population posed by insurgent operations, notably terrorist tactics, is often far lower than the perceived danger." - Counterinsurgency Operations manual prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, October 5, 2009

Most Americans have very little to fear from terrorists. If you happen to work in a monumental building that has become an icon or archetype of American wealth and ideology you may rightly fear terrorists.

The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were just such as icon. Patriotic Americans mourn the slaughter of the innocent men and women that were ruthlessly murdered. Patriotic Americans rue the use of deaths of innocent men and women as a cynical tool to manipulate public opinion.

“It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.” - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

“It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 911 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 911 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited." - Raymond McGovern

“We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 911. I think you almost have to look at the 911 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.” - William Christison

“I think the 911 Commission has taught me that we need to be extremely rigorous and extremely tenacious in pursuing that truth, because there is a corporate mentality in this country that is working against allowing the truth to surface, even in tragedies, such as the 911 tragedy." - Melvin Goodman

“There are enough discrepancies and unanswered questions in the 911 Commission Report that under a friendly administration, the 911 investigation should be re-opened.” - Robert Baer

"I am forced to conclude that 911 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war." - Robert David Steele
“The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 911 Commission Report is treasonous.” - Bogdan Dzakovic

"The commissioners knew a lot more than they included in the 911 report. They sold out.”- Steve Elson

“Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise -- including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots -- have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 911 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 911 is false and that, therefore, the official ‘investigations’ have really been cover-up operations." - Senator Mike Gravel

“We have an absolute requirement to know what happened on 911. And no stone should be left unturned. And the 911 Commission Report was not up to the task. And there must be a re-opening of the investigation, so that we the people of the United States know what occurred on that horrific day.” - Maj. Scott Ritter

"When you think about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 911 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why." - Jon Gold 9/25/2008

the facts speak for themselves

"Fox News has learned some United States investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the United States, who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11, 2001." - Brit Hume

"Since 911, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A highly placed investigator "evidence linking these Israelis to September 11, 2001 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.

Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, 2001, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in America.

Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid '90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity."

Documents state agents, "targeted and penetrated military bases," the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, "stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units." - Carl Cameron

"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

{Aside note: Disney released the simplistic mega-budget movie, made with full cooperation from the Pentagon, Pearl Harbor which featured a large ensemble cast, including Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin, Jon Voight, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale, Cuba Gooding Jr., Dan Aykroyd, Jaime King, and Jennifer Garner. Many Pearl Harbor survivors dismissed the movie as grossly inaccurate and pure Hollywood. Pearl Harbor was widely received with cynicism and overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics and the public. Released May 25, 2001 and despite lamentable reviews "Disney unexpectedly decided in August 2001 to extend the film's nationwide release window from the standard two-to-four months to a staggering seven months and expanded the number of theaters in which the film was showing, from 116 to 1,036" according to Matthew Alford. After the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 the success of the movie Pearl Harbor was assured. As well when the media and federal government beat the war drums they could point to the attack on the Twin Towers as the "New Pearl Harbor" and anyone who did not know what they were talking about could view the wildly inaccurate fictional Pearl Harbor movie. A win-win situation for the neo-con propagandists, the Israelis and their corporate brethren especially as Americans then went on to approve of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq despite no evidence linking the hijackers to the controlling government of either Afghanistan and Iraq. The hijackers were identified as Saudi.}

The crumpling of the Twin Towers ended an era of blind confidence, to claim that it was unexpected is patently ridiculous!

Ramzi Yousef, an Islamic terrorist, detonated 1,500 pounds of explosives in the underground garage of the North Tower of theTwin Towers. American structural engineers had allowed for enough redundancy in the structure to keep it from failing. Anyone that understands steel high rise structures understands that what is to be most feared in a steel structure is a fire. Although this is true there has never been a fire in a steel structure which has caused the entire structure to fail until the Twin Towers and the Central Intelligence Agency building collapsed. Oddly enough even burning jet fuel with plenty of 'office' combustibles should not have burned hot enough to cause structural failure!

If you work in an American icon, Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol building, the Empire State building, any large government structure, you should consider the fact that the building in which you work may become a target. This fact alone is likely to instill fear. When working in an icon you are taking a risk, presumably you are well compensated.

If you use mass transit you are at risk. Hijackers may take control of the plane on which you are flying and fly it into a building. Taking the train is not necessarily safe as the multiple bombings of the commuter trains in Spain and London will attest.

If you do not work in a American icon and do not use mass transit you need not worry about terrorist attacks unless you happen to be downwind of a nuclear reactor or chemical manufacturing plant. Maybe you live near a oil refinery or near a liquified natural gas storage facilty. Did you know that North Korea has long range missles with, very possibly, nuclear warheads that can reach the Western coast of America? San Francisco? Los Angeles ?

are you afraid yet? have i succeeded in instilling fear? or have i made you angry?

Now that your emotions are aroused you will react on that emotion - as originally predicted by the speaker or author.

George Orwell's "1984" long ago recognized that it serves those in power to keep our attention focused on perceived threats. Many a social psychology experiment confirms the principle: A perceived enemy serves to quell dissent within any targeted social culturalgroup. Emotional fear and anger responses cause people to vote their "gut" feelings and abandon reason. Enlightened individuals will want to check their fears and angers against the facts and to resist those that intend to cultivate a climate of fear.

When working Americans assume that politicians have their best interests in mind they are using faulty logic.

Of the three major terrorist actions to occur within the past few years in America two of them were perpetrated by former American soldiers.

The Oklahoma Federal building bomber, Timothy McVeigh fought in the Gulf War and was flunked out of being an American green beret.

The sniper, John Allen Muhammed, was trained as a sniper by the American military.

Other American soldiers turned terrorist bomber include Vietnam War veteran Raymond Luc Levasseur and Eric Robert Rudolph.

In 2009 Major Nidal Malik Hasan, trained as an army psychiatrist, went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood Texas killing 13 and wounding 30 others. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan worked at the Darnall Army Medical Center treating soldiers for stress after returning from Afghanistan or Iraq. Major Nidal Malik Hasan "worst nightmare" was deployment to Iraq.

{"Fort Hood base personnel have accounted for more suicides than any other Army post since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, with 75 tallied through this July. Nine of those suicides occurred in 2009, counting two in war zones." - Robin Abcarian, Ashley Powers and Josh Meyer}

But what about the other terrorist attack that took place in 2001 - the weaponized anthrax attacks - presented as perpetrated by the Baath party Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein?

Letters containing weaponized anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices begining on September 18, 2001. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle recieved letters containing weaponized anthrax at their offices on October 9. Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle were stalling passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001. Five people died and another seventeen were infected. It was later determined that the weaponized anthrax originated at Fort Detrick or the Dugway Proving Grounds.

{"Fort Detrick deputy commander Richard Spertzel told investigative journalists Bob Coen and Eric Nadler that "the material that was in the Daschle/Leahy letter was "1.5 to 3 microns in particle size" and characterized the refinement "as super sophisticated ... phenomenal." When investigators attempted to examine samples under a microscope, "it readily floated off the slides."

The "genetic fingerprint" and "extraordinary concentration" of the weaponized anthrax used in the attack would require a team of individuals, and not a proverbial "lone nut" to produce a biotoxin possessing such exquisitely lethal characteristics. The inescapable conclusion is that the anthrax used to murder five people, sicken dozens of others and terrorize the rest of us, could only have come from a state program or one operating under contract to a government agency." - Tom Burghardt}

In the run up to the invasion of Iraq Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations in February 2003 that Saddam Hussein had "mobile weapons laboratories" to wage biological warfare.

"They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." - David Christopher Kelly

Apparently Dick Cheney's claim that democracies do not breed terrorists is either incorrect or we no longer live in a democracy but a oligarchy or plutocracy.

"We have quietly become a plutocracy.
Democracy is dead and the working class descends into ruin." - Gary Blinn

"In a market-driven plutocracy shamelessly parading as a by-the-people democracy, moving toward true justice is virtually impossible." - Frederic E. Bloomquist

"It appears that when George W. Bush says the "America is safer but not yet safe," he means to begin scaring us again. When we talk about security, we are actually making people question it. I am saddened that elections are now based on fear. Terrorism being used for political ends by our government against us is a kind of terrorism and constitutes psychological abuse. Americans must become fully aware of this and, as a society, reject this unethical, destrutive type of manipulation." - Robert E. Griffin

Politicians that use fear to garner votes are evil men that pretend to care about citizens but actually do not!

"The continual drama of disaster is anesthetizing. I am numb from the sheer number of warnings. I have heard the warnings, however valid, too many times." - Kathleen Clary Miller

"Those who use fear to control others inevitably find themselves controlled by fear as well." - Dan Sewell Ward

"Throwing around a potent word like "terrorism" only cheapens it. The federal Homeland Security Department's list of juicy terrorist targets is so broad and flawed that it includes the Amish Country Popcorn Factory, a petting zoo and a Mule Day parade among the vulnerable sites. Indiana - not California, not New York - was the state with the most terrorist targets (8,591). With the same lavishness, the George W. Bush administration is frenetically classifying documents as "secret", and even reclassifying information that had been public for years; "top secret" will cease to mean anything at all." - Patt Morrison

"By just giving Americans the good news and hiding the bad news, the George W. Bush administration undermines the bedrock of America. Give Americans all the news and let the citizens give their elected representatives an up-or-down vote." - Richard Dickinson
The Politics of Fear

Social control through drugs
(See http://www.unique-design.net/library/control.html for links)

"Isn't it a coincidence that governments everywhere want to educate children? Government 'education' / indoctrination, in turn, is supposed to be evidence of the state's goodness and its concern for our well-being. The real explanation is less flattering. If the government's propaganda can take root as children grow up, those kids will be no threat to the state apparatus. They fasten the chains to their own ankles." - Lew Rockwell

Social control through public 'education'
(or a short quick trip through the halls of behavioral modification through indoctrination and conditioning)

"Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found State education. It has been discovered that the best way to ensure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery." – Benjamin Disraeli

"I've since come to understand the reason school lasts thirteen years. It takes that long to sufficiently break a child's will. It is not easy to disconnect children's wills, to disconnect them from their own experiences of the world in preparation for the lives of painful employment they will have to endure."- Derrick Jensen

Children who's will can not be broken are diagnosed as having ADD (attention deficit disorder), ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) or ODD (oppositional defiant disorder).

"Free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production." - Point 10 Communist Manifesto, Karl Heinrich Marx aka Karl Heinrich Mordechai

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all;
it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level,
to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality." – H L. Mencken
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people: as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty." - Adolf Hitler

In 1890 Andrew Carnegie wrote a series of eleven essays called "The Gospel of Wealth", a treatise which essentially stated that free enterprise and capitalism no longer existed in the United States, because he and Rockefeller owned everything, including the government, and that competition was impossible unless they allowed it. Eventually, says Carnegie, the young children will become aware of this and form clandestine organizations to fight against it.

Carnegie proposes that men of wealth form a synthetic free enterprise system based on cradle-to-grave schooling. The people who advanced through schooling would be given licenses to lead profitable lives. All licenses are tied to forms of schooling. This way, the entire economy can be controlled and people have a motivation for them to learn what you want them to learn. It also places the minds of all children in the hands of a few social engineers.

"If this finding were to prove useful to the committee, it would be necessary to define the public interest.

We believe this would be found in the principles and the form of the Federal Government as expressed in our Constitution, and in other basic founding documents. This will explain why subsequent studies were made by the staff of the size, the scope, the form, and the functions of the Federal Government for the period 1903-53, the results of which are set forth in detail in the report by Thomas M. McNiece, assistant research director, entitled "The Economics of the Public Interest.

These original studies of the public interest disclose that during the 4 years 1933-36 a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a revolution . They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been "transferred heavily to the executive branch of the Federal Government, that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this revolution had occurred without violence and with full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate: In seeking to explain this unprecedented phenomenon, subsequent studies pursued by the staff clearly showed it could not have occurred peacefully or with the consent of the majority unless education in the United States had prepared in advance to endorse it.

These findings appeared to justify two postulates, the first of which was that the policies and practices of institutions purporting or obliged by statute to serve the public interest would reflect this phenomenon, and second, that foundations whose trustees were empowered to make grants for educational purposes would be no exception.

On the basis of these, after consultation with counsel, I directed the staff to explore foundation practices, educational procedures, and the operation of the executive branch of the Federal Government since 1903 for reasonable evidence of a purposeful relationship between them.

Our ensuing studies disclosed such a relationship and that it had existed continuously since the beginning of this 50-year period.

In addition, these studies seemed to give evidence of a response to our involvement in international affairs.

Likewise, they seemed to reveal that grants had been made by foundations, chiefly by Carnegie and Rockefeller, which had been used to further this purpose by directing education in the United States toward an international frame of reference and discrediting the traditions to which it had been dedicated, by training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the executive branch of the Federal Government, by decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community, and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition, by changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life, by financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature

To insure these determinations being made on the basis of impersonal fact, I directed the staff to make a study of the development of American education since the turn of the century, and of the trends and techniques of teaching, and of the development of curricula since that time . As a result it became quite evident that this study would have to be enlarged to include the accessory agencies to which these developments and trends have been traced. The work of the staff was then expanded to include an investigation of such agencies as the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Research Council, the Social Science Research Council, the American Council on Education, the National Education Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical Association, the John Dewey Society, and the Antidefamation League.

The select committee of the 82nd Congress did not ask the representatives of the foundations to explain why they were indulging in propaganda, in view of large grants to organizations, projects, and persons which are promoting special interests or ideologies. These representatives were also not requested to explain activities of foundations which are, in fact, influencing legislation, inasmuch as their grants frequently have an outright political objective rather than an educational one.

Large foundations have a tremendous influence on the intellectual and educational life of our country. These foundations, possessing huge sums of untaxed wealth, seem to be dedicated to promoting specific views on such matters as the welfare state, the United Nations, American foreign policy, the nature of the American economy, and so on, rather than presenting objective and unbiased examination of these issues .

Extensive evidence that I have examined shows that organizations which are primarily committed to a given ideology have received large grants from some big foundations over many years, and in numerous instances they have received such grants simultaneously from different foundations . The assets of the large foundations are tax exempt and, therefore, ought to be spent on projects and organizations representing the views of all of the people and not only of a segment dedicated to a specific ideology.

'Since the activities of some of the large foundations appear to be biased in favor of a particular ideology, in reality they are indulging in propaganda calculated to influence legislation on both domestic and international matters . Under such circumstances, these foundations are violating their charters given to them by the United States Congress and are betraying a public trust.

In the realm of the social sciences many foundations have not observed the highest standards of scholarship and ethics, which require the presentation of only factual and unslanted material. In fact, the want of ethics and the misrepresentations of some foundations are so low that a business corporation doing the same thing would be condemned by the Federal Trade Commission and held guilty of false advertising."


"In our dreams. . . people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. . . . We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple. . . we will organize children . . . and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way." - Rockefeller's General Education Board

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you teachers to make all of these sick children well by creating the international children of the future." - Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry, Medicine and Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, address to the Association for Childhood Education International in Denver (1972)

a mind altering device
our high schools are obsolete
no child left behind
public education then and now

Did you know that public schools have a financial incentive to diagnose your children with ADHD and ADD?
(Excerpt: See picture at http://www.unique-design.net/library/control.html for more info, and for links)

Consider the following:

Children are dependents.
Children are the prisoners of their parents and their schools.
Children are sentenced by compulsory education and truancy laws to school.

Schools/prisons may be used to serve the following purposes:

teaching literacy and mathematics - a goal that can be met in six years.
vocational education or preparation for a higher education - goals hindered by compulsion.
Social control, which requires and justifies compulsion.

"Education – compulsory schooling, compulsory learning – is a tyranny and a crime against the human mind and spirit." – John Holt
"Public schools open to everyone were basically put into operation not as a benevolent gesture to spread knowledge, but as a system to inculcate patriotism, national values, and fill the job gaps in our social structure, keeping the economic network running as smoothly as possible. That is why it was made compulsory." -Lew Paz
"There is wide use of drugs to medicate boys, especially, against their natural tendency toward action, the better to "keep things on track." I taught briefly in a public high school and would have loved to have set up a Ritalin fogger in my classroom. It is a rare person, male or female, who is naturally inclined to sit still for 17 years in school, and then indefinitely at work." - Matthew B. Crawford
Using pubic schools (prisons) as academic institutions for social control makes them de facto criminal psychiatric facilities, depriving children of liberty and, in some cases, labeling them with a psychiatric diagnosis in order to facilitate current and future social control. School administrators, teachers, child psychiatrists, child psychologists, social workers, grief counselors, the pharmaceutical industry and the many other businesses that profit from the education racket are not the friends of children as they proclaim. The economic and existential self-interests of these do-gooders are inimical to real education and rational discipline.

"The regime of control tightens inexorably in our schools, many of which now have video cameras, police patrols, chain-link fences, random unannounced locker searches, metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, networks of informants, undercover police posing as students, and a comprehensive system of passes so that there is a record of each student's authorized whereabouts at all times. What a perfect preparation for life in a prison or a totalitarian society!" - Charles Eisenstein

"When will we have a governor who sends his own kids to public schools? Maybe then he would see what we parents see every day - bloated class sizes; few counselors; hardworking teachers who deserve more, not less; and deteriorating buildings and landscaping that make schools resemble penal institutions." - Catherine Smith

In the beginning the current educational systems were designed by foundations set up by industrialists to inculcate children into their roles in the industrialized factories, business' and institutions of an industrialized America.

This education inculcated children to live by the bell, move through life as if on conveyor belts and, most importantly, to follow instructions mechanically.

This dark tunnel vision of instruction attempts to create a conforming army of mindless human robots with their soul's corrupted by a split between the highly compartmentalized, contradictory, conflicting thoughts and ideas of specialized mechanized systems and their life as an organic being.

The descendants of these industrial corporate barons have attempted to create a robust economy for these mindless human robots.

Industrial corporations need a never ending stream of "customer service representatives", "aggressive telemarketing specialists", "instant food preparation equipment operators" and "procurement and shipping experts", in other words mindless "factory" workers or mindless human robots.
"Just beneath the superficial justifications for mass forced schooling lies the first level of its true motivation: to create a population suitable for the demands of the industrial economy.

The artificial reality that the factory system created was a mass-produced reality, a generic reality of standardized products, standardized roles, standardized tasks, and standardized lives. The more we came to live in that artificial reality, the more separate we became from the inherently fascinating realm of nature. In schools the standardized curricula, trained operators, classification of product via "grading" are all reminiscent of the factory. The resemblance is not accidental - schools were designed by some of the same efficiency experts who designed factories - and the dehumanization is the same as well.

Factory discipline was alien to the independent, self-directed farmers and artisans that made up pre-industrial society, and the question of how to instill labor discipline was discussed at length by the intellectuals of the day. One solution was outright force: the driving of peasants off the land through enclosure, the use of militias to enforce strike prohibitions, and mostly the motive of extreme economy exigency.

Another solution was to condition people from childhood to accept, and even to desire, work that was partial, trivial, mechanical, dull, repetitive, and unchallenging to thought or creativity." - Charles Eisenstein

"Systemically under-educating a population is one way to ensure future generations are qualified to work at McDonald's without stepping out of line, or asking too many questions, or asking the wrong questions, or knowing what questions to ask." - Francine Prose 11/04/07

On June 25, 2007 in a Supreme Court decision that declared that students are not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

"Early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled “a core of common values” in students. In the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order. To meet their educational objectives, schools require absolute obedience." - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

The innovative critical thinking Americans need to guarantee the viability of bright future for the American culture is not on the agenda, in private or public schools.

"What are schools for?
I can offer a single answer: in our culture, you have to follow the money. Because teachers aren't paid enough and school budgets virtually mandate large (and crowded) classrooms, schools can't be about teaching and learning. So teachers baby-sit. That's what schools are for: to baby-sit the kids until they're old enough to get jobs to earn money and pay taxes." - John H. Geerken

If anyone has a question as to this reality, that American public education is designed to create mindless human robots that earn money and pay taxes, then think about the reality children experience today with the policy of zero tolerance.

A 5 year old pinches a classmates butt. The result - cited for sexual harassment.

A 5-year-old boy at a public school in Stockton, California is arrested by police and handcuffed with zip ties because he committed "battery on a police officer".

A 6-year-old girl down in Florida was "throwing objects, hitting administration personnel and screaming uncontrollably" so police handcuffed the 40 pound little girl and shipped her off to a mental institution for evaluation.

In San Mateo, California a 7-year-old special education student iss blasted in the face with pepper spray because he would not quit climbing on the furniture.

In New Haven, Connecticut a 10-year-old boy is arrested by police for giving another student "a wedgie" on a school bus.

In Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested by police, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing a plastic butter knife to school.

A 12 year old with ADD tells other students in the cafeteria line to save some potatoes for him - if they do not he will "get them". The result - charged with making a "terrorist" threat and incarcerated for several weeks in a juvenile detention center.

In Texas, a 12-year-old girl was recently arrested by police for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck. She was formally charged with a misdemeanor.

A 12 year old First Class Boy Scout accidently brings his Swiss army knife to school. The result - 45 days suspension, expulsion and enrollment in an alternative school for juvenile delinquents.

A 12-year-old girl at a school in Forest Hills, New York wrote "I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her desk. The police were called out and she was marched out of her school in handcuffs in front of all her friends. Messages of love are not to be written on desks !

A 13 year old is assigned to write a "scary" Halloween story. He writes a story about a rampaging gunman at his school. The result - six days spent in jail for making a "terrorist" threat.

A 13-year-old boy at a public school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was arrested by police for burping in class and takn to a juvenile detention center.

A 17 year old shoots a paper clip with a rubber band, misses his target and hits a cafeteria worker. The result - expulsion.

A teenage couple in Houston, Texas poured milk on each other during a squabble. They were arrested by police and sent to court.

"In November 2011, a 14-year-old student in Brevard County, Florida, was suspended for hugging a female friend, an act which even the principal acknowledged as innocent. A 9-year-old in Charlotte, North Carolina, was suspended for sexual harassment after a substitute teacher overheard the child tell another student that the teacher was “cute.” A 6-year-old in Georgia was arrested, handcuffed and suspended for the remainder of the school year after throwing a temper tantrum in class. A 6-year-old boy in San Francisco was accused of sexual assault following a game of tag on the playground. A 6-year-old in Indiana was arrested, handcuffed and charged with battery after kicking a school principal.

Twelve-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was arrested and handcuffed for doodling on a desk. Another student was expelled for speaking on a cell phone with his mother, to whom he hadn’t spoken in a month because she was in Iraq on a military deployment. Four high school students in Detroit were arrested and handcuffed for participating in a food fight and charged with a misdemeanor with the potential for a 90-day jail sentence and a $500 fine.

In 2010, some 300,000 Texas schoolchildren received misdemeanor tickets from police officials. One 12-year-old Texas girl had the police called on her after she sprayed perfume on herself during class. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, over 90,000 kids were entered into the criminal justice system during the 2009-2010 school year, and over 500 of those were arrested at school.

Zero tolerance policies, the driving force behind the criminalization of schoolchildren, punish all offenses severely – no matter how minor. " - John W. Whitehead

Students "disciplined" under the policy of zero tolerance tend to be even more disruptive later on - imagine that!

America's current educational system is obsolete in a time with the waning of the Industrial Age when the preeminence of a nation, a culture or a society is going to depend upon the ability of a culture to be flexible, to be fluid and to be dynamic.

Children will rebel against school authorities, against social ethical norms and against society in general if Americans continue to attempt to teach children in a mechanical rote manner designed to prepare children for a life in the factory dominated society, especially when that society no longer actually has factories - think "Made in China"/Wal Mart.

"The whole realm of thought and opinion is utterly unsuited to public control; it ought to be as free, and as spontaneous as is possible. The state is justified in insisting that children shall be educated, but it is not justified in forcing their education to proceed on a uniform plan and to be directed to the production of a dead level of glib uniformity." - Bertrand Russell
The truth is that authoritarian restraints on the individual that engages in critical thinking is extremely hypocritical in a culture that flouts "liberty" and "freedom". The requirement that all individuals submit and adhere to the currently in favor false political dogma creates the resentment that feeds anti-social tendencies in the individual.

public education in the mid 20th century
educators main function was to teach academics.
educators did not forcibly administer drugs to children.
educators assumed that parents were competent to teach their children life lessons.
educators recognized that adolescence is a time filled with intense sexual urges doomed to frustration,
children received neither sex education nor condoms in schools and there were fewer teen pregnancies.
educators believed some children were good and some were bad but children did not use or abuse drugs, legal or illegal.

public education in the 21st century
"educators" main function is social control, not academics.
"educators" deny the intensity of adolescent sexual desires.
"educators" forcibly administer drugs to children believing it is their duty to control a child's mind.
"educators" sentimentalize childhood as an age of innocence and worry free happiness
while claiming some children are mentally healthy and others are mentally ill.
"educators" assume that parents are not competent to teach their children life lessons, that only "professionals" are qualified to teach children "sex and drug education," "interpersonal skills" and "conflict resolution."

"In the 1940s a survey listed the top seven discipline problems in public schools: talking, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, getting out of turn in line, wearing improper clothes, not putting paper in wastebaskets.

A 1980s survey lists these top seven: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, assault. " - George F. Will

"Want young people to want to come to school?

I have the secret solution: make it a place they want to be.

Assume that learning is innate, something that happens all the time in life, something that until forced to do, most people enjoy and seek.

Want to make sure attendance is as high as possible?

Make it optional - that is the incentive to do everything possible to make sure people really want to be there.

Dissatisfaction with the current one-size-fits-all, top-down bureaucratic public schooling system has already led to millions opting out completely.

Forget tired old fixes for a creaky old system.

Don't make us opt out.

Let's spend that public school money locally, creating schools unique to each community as places where people want to be together, living life for real and learning in the process." -Sally Rosloff

a mind altering device
"Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority." – Walter Karp commenting on the public school system
"I have witnessed "crafts" that children are trotted through which consist of children doing as they are told, step by step, sometimes without even understanding what they are doing, and rarely taking any pride in their finished work.

Indeed it would be too messy, too chaotic, to let the children loose with the raw materials of creativity.

Of course, creativity that must be constrained to a controlled area and result in a predetermined product is not creativity at all; it is labor.

No wonder the children are so lackadaisical, so unmotivated.

They are preparing for an adulthood of following instructions.

They are preparing for an adulthood of work, of labor, of being functionaries of the Machine." - Charles Eisenstein

"My granddaughter in second grade has little enthusiasm for school. When she started kindergarten, it was only a half-day, and I was shocked to find that they sat together on the carpet for a solid 1 hour and 45 minutes without even a tiny break - just memorizing letters, numbers, days of the week, etc. Even the artwork they did was all pre-cut and figured out by the teacher, so that all the children's work looked identical. And homework is a dull, repetitive, time-consuming waste. What a far cry from the wonderful kindergarten my own children had, including dress-up, block play and so much enrichment, not to mention the all important socialization that took place. All of my children went to fine colleges, and none were forced into such heavy academics at such a young age. I feel sorry for today's children for they are not permitted to be children at all."- Nancy Horowitz

"A school's curriculum is a mind altering device.

A school's curriculum is a means through which children's minds are shaped with ideas, skills and beliefs about the Earth. What we teach the young is extremely important - we need to be careful about what we teach and equally as careful about what we do not teach.

Routines may be good for the assembly line, where surprises are not wanted but creative thinking abhors routine. Our schools are managed by an industrial ethos that prespecifies and then measures outcomes.

Due to this mechanization there is an increased need for the arts as a counterbalance.

Arts teach children to exercise that most exquisite of capacities,
the ability to make judgments in the absence of rules.

Existing primary public education emphasizes fealty to rules.

The rules that the arts obey are located in our children's emotional interior; children come to feel a rightness of fit among the qualities with which they work. There is no rule book to provide recipes or algorithms to calculate conclusions. They must exercise judgment by looking inside themselves.

The arts also teach that neither words nor numbers define the limits of our cognition; we know more than we can tell. There are many experiences and a multitude of occasions in which we need art forms to say what literal language cannot say." - Elliot W. Eisner, professor of education and art at Stanford University

"There are many kinds of intelligence. Academics taps only a few of our abilities. We must offer an education program for all students, not just the academically talented." - Louis Rosen

"The current evaluation system assumes that a child must be competent in all areas and makes no allowance for great variations in skills and interest."- Joe Konn

"As a third-grade teacher, I see the problems with the one-size-fits-all system. We are losing so many students. There used to be many options for high school students - vocational education, auto shop, graphic design classes, home economics. Now, with the current thinking that all students must go through a college preparatory program in high school, many are choosing to drop out. If they could have other options, they too could make many successful contributions to society. We still need plumbers, electricians and auto mechanics, so why not provide these classes for students who have no intention of going to college but are interested in these careers." - Susan Branman

"Is there any mystery to the dismal condition of education in America? We either don't care about it, don't want to pay for it or are afraid of it. In any case; our growing ignorant, arrogant antipathy will prove to be more dangerous to our democracy than any terrorist." - Gary E. Murphy

"Our high schools are obsolete.

They were designed to meet the needs of another age.
Today, even when they work exactly as designed,
our high schools cannot teach our kids what they need to know.

In the international competition to have the best supply of workers who can communicate clearly,
analyze information and solve complex problems, America is falling behind.

Today only one-third of our students graduate from high school ready for college, work and citizenship.
In district after district across the country, wealthy white kids are taught algebra, the others,
most of whom are low-income and minority students, are taught how to balance a check book.

This is creating an economic disaster.

Until we design high schools to meet the needs of the 21st century,
we will keep ruining the lives of millions of Americans every year."
-Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft, American aristocrat

(Note: In Bill Gates vision there are only the wealthy and low income. What happened to the middle class?)

"High school should be a time for exploring options and interests so individuals can decide their future direction. What we seem to have is a very narrow tube that everyone is funneled through; few fit, and the rest have to fend for themselves." - Linda England

"After the privatization of public education everyone will get to choose a school that reflects only your own social values. No need for the competition of ideas or critical thinking. So the curriculum will be up to the school to determine. I am certain that the growing percentage of us who have McJobs will welcome this opportunity to spend a large portion of our income on education and choose an ideology at the same time." - David Strauss

"David Gelernter* points out that global rankings place our seniors 19th among 21 surveyed countries in science and suggests that all education be privatized. If any of the 18 countries ahead of us had achieved its position by abolishing public education, he might have a point. In fact, none have; public education is universal among advanced industrial democracies. Perhaps logic is not on the curriculum of the private school system David Gelernter wants to bring in to replace the public schools that have, in his words, 'forfeited their right to exist'." -Eric Mankin

"There's so much stress. I think we have done our children a great disservice. They are driven in every part of their lives." - Elizabeth Downing

no child left behind

"Education, and the life of the mind generally, is a matter in which individual initiative is the chief thing needed; the function of the state should begin and end with insistence on some kind of education, and, if possible, a kind which promotes mental individualism, not a kind which happens to conform to the prejudices of government officials." - Bertrand Russell

"No Child Left Behind provides strong sanctions on schools based solely on performance in English and math. Because of these aggressive sanctions, many elementary schools have all but abandoned art, science, social science and physical education to avoid being identified for sanctions. No Child Left Behind is undermining a rich, balanced curriculum and will continue to do so unless lawmakers stop the circus acts and get to work for our students." - Scott P. Plotkin

"It takes only average intelligence to note the pratfalls of the No Child Left Behind Act. Analyzing a bazillion lines of student data over a variety of tests reveals few surprises. Fixing some parts of No Child Left Behind may very well result in a new crop of inadequate measures. Such is the stuff of standardized testing, and such is the stuff of investing annual funding in testing to get results we already know." - Michael F. Katzman

The No Child Left Behind program was just another smoke and mirrors game played by the George W. Bush administration. The reading program, Reading First, was beset with conflicts of interest according to the Office of the Inspector General. Over $6 billion was given away in government contracts to implement the Reading First program. After six years the Department of Education has declared that the Reading First program failed to improve reading comprehension. Even though the Reading First program proved to be a failure in increasing reading comprehension it was a rousing success in privatizing public funds and maintaining the status quo of government give-aways to corporations. I wonder who owned the stock?

"The Inspector General’s report illuminates the corruption involved in the Federal Government’s attempts to micro-manage reading instruction. Numerous states had their applications for millions of dollars worth of Reading First grants rejected because they did not plan to use the funds for Direct Instruction." - Gary Stager

Direct Instruction is a program designed by Zionist Vampires Siegfried "Zig" E. Engelmann, who married Zionist Vampires Therese Piorkowski. So the federal government approved of an indoctrination program designed to indoctrinate young children in Zionist Vampires philosophy.

"A crucial element in the implementation of Direct Instruction in most cases is change. Teachers will generally be required to behave differently than before and schools may need an entirely different organization than they previously employed. The popular valuing of teacher creativity and autonomy as high priorities must give way to a willingness to follow certain carefully prescribed instructional practices. The urgency for immediate remedies stems from an understanding that the longer things are not as they should be, the more difficult it will be to change them." - The National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI) a non-profit corporation

After looking at some of the instructional material I found these sentences to be typical of the type of conditioning used in the program: Lesson 1 - I am mad; He made me mad; She is mad at me - (wrath). The rat is sad;The cow ate fish; I made a wish - (fantasy). Is she a rat? - (derogatory). Lesson 2 - Paint that nose; (personal insufficiency); A cat can talk; Is that shark mad? He was riding a cow; This dog can talk; Did the bug have a home? She told the ball to roll; The elephant was sad; I wish I could fly; The tiger ate ice cream; A pig had a yellow wig; The animal looked very angry; The bug was a talking animal; She was flying like a bird - (fantasy). My boss will be proud; You must leave this house; We want to read good books; You must pay that man; Can you remember the rule? (subservience); That snake was a sneak - (derogatory).

When I learned how to read the primary readers were reality based. See Spot. See Spot run. See Jane. See Jane run. See Jane run with Spot. Think what you will but the important part of Direct Instruction is conditioning pre-concieved notions and built-in prejudice. Fantasy is preferable to reality; Some people are less than others; Wrath is acceptable; Subservience is required of lesser humans.

Perhaps none of the above about public education awakens anger in you then perhaps maybe you would like to hear another little story:

When my youngest son reached his senior year in public high school my wife was surprised, knowing our son's views, to hear from a military recruiter who asked to speak to our son stating that he had expressed an interest in joining the military of the United States. This recruiter called several times asking to speak to our son.

Finally I asked my son if he had expressed an interest in joining the military and he said "No. Do you think I am crazy?"

It was only later that I learned what had truly transpired. A law had been recently passed, the No Child Left Behind Act, this legislation had been touted by the George W. Bush administration as the way to make sure that all children received a quality education.

I have a sister-in-law and a sister who are both teachers. They both feel this law was ill thought out and did nothing to enhance education, only created more meaningless testing and paperwork. (Since then it has been learned that many public school administrations decided to teach and test the same way private schools teach individuals applying for state trade licensee - i.e.. lawyers, architects, contractors, cosmetologist, etcetera . They teach the students how to take the test as opposed to teaching them the broad knowledge that such tests are meant to decipher in the tested individual.)

But this ‘testing' is really beside the point because the real purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act was to obtain lists of children graduating high school for the military recruiters!

Your child will not be ‘left' behind because the No Child Left Behind Act was meant to ensure that your child, as well, could become fodder for the great American war machine!

"George W. Bush can brag all he wants about his No Child Left Behind Act, but anybody who has ever worked with children knows that its quotas and threats are more suited to assembly-line production than education." - Kurt Page

See John Locke

See John Milton

The American public needs to stand up and say, "We refuse to be mindless human robots!!!"

See the links and pictures that go with this article at: http://www.unique-design.net/library/control.html

Also search this page for "Common Core" (without the quotes).

Many great articles on Schools and Eduation by Charlotte Iserbyt:

How University Betrays Students

Rival Religions: Christianity vs. the Public Schools
Written by Gary North on November 29, 2013

 Five decades ago, R. J. Rushdoony’s book on American education, The Messianic Character of American Education,  was jointly published by the tiny publishing house, Presbyterian and Reformed, and the newly created Craig Press. It remains the most academically rigorous critique of the philosophy of progressive education ever written. Its title tells all.

This book was a follow-up on his 1961 book, Intellectual Schizophrenia. In that book, he set forth the Christian case against the concept of neutral education. He also set forth the case against tax-funded education.

Rushdoony received an M. A. degree in education from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1940. He had assembled by 1963 what most people would regard as an immense personal library, and heavily represented in it was the field of education. He had access to superior libraries, including Stanford University. This is why he was able to reference so many obscure publications that had not seen the light of day in decades. They may have not seen the light of day for a century.

In The Messianic Character of American Education, Rushdoony presented the primary theme of the book on page 2:

But if skills are only a necessary but subordinate part of freedom, then in themselves they cannot constitute a liberal education, however necessary to it. The question again remains basically a religious question, and, to its credit, progressivism has been essentially a religious movement, as indeed has been the whole of the movement from Horace Mann to the present, to liberate man by means of a universal system of state-supported schools.

Rushdoony went through the primary source documents relating to the two dozen founders of American progressive education. Most of the documents which he cited had been long out-of-print. They had been long forgotten. Most of the founders of progressive education had been forgotten by 1963. Only a handful of specialists in the history of the education were ever aware of most of these individuals. So, the book represented not simply educational revisionism, but a much-needed introduction to the educational philosophies undergirding the system of tax funded education in the United States.

There had never been another book like this. There was no comparable introduction to these two dozen figures in one volume. There was no place for any researcher to go to gain access to their names, a summary of their philosophies, footnotes to what they actually wrote, and an assessment of what their influence was.

Second, there had never been a comprehensive critique of these individuals and their philosophies. There were critiques of progressive education. But there was nothing comprehensive. There was nothing that took a fundamental principle of interpretation, namely, the religion of salvation by tax funded education, and then demonstrated, citation by citation, from the original sources, that the founders of American tax funded education really did believe in this religion.

He made it clear in this book that tax-funded education from the beginning was a systematic attempt by Unitarians and humanists to undermine Christianity in every aspect of its influence. He made it clear that this was not a peripheral issue for these people. On the contrary, it was the center of their philosophy. They pursued their competing views of how the public schools should regenerate individuals and society, but they were united in this principle: the Christian worldview must be eliminated, and Christian families must not be allowed to inculcate such a worldview in their children. The public school system was designed from the beginning as a religious enterprise. This had never been made equally clear before. He had the footnotes to prove his case. This is why the book represents a turning point in the history of Christian education in the United States.

Over the years, it was this book which Christian parents used, and Christian lawyers used, to defend their refusal to send their children into the public schools. As the homeschool movement began to expand in the 1980s, various state agencies began to put pressure on families who pulled their children out of the tax-funded school system. The parents claimed that they did so on religious grounds. By doing so, they invoked the First Amendment, as applied to the states by means of the 14th Amendment. But they had to prove their case. They had to prove that they really were pulling their children out on the basis of religious noncooperation. This book became the Bible of the resistance movement. With this book, parents had access to a systematically Christian critique of the systematically anti-Christian philosophy which undergirds the entire American public school system.

Rushdoony in the mid-1980s became prominent as an expert witness in homeschool cases. He was the primary witness in the most important of these cases, Leeper v. Arlington, a Texas case. In the cross-examination, he destroyed the hapless attorney who represented the Arlington Independent School District. The transcript is here. The court awarded settlement fees of about $700,000, or twice that in today's purchasing power. The state appealed. The Texas Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 in favor of the plaintiffs. That ended the school districts' harassment of homeschools in the state of Texas...
For the rest of the article: http://www.garynorth.com/public/11822.cfm

Today, the homeschool movement is spreading rapidly. This is following a fundamental law of economic theory, namely, that when the price of anything declines, more of it is demanded. As the cost of delivering information on the World Wide Web declines, so do the prices charged for homeschool curriculum materials. Sometimes they are free of charge. In any case, it is quite possible to educate your child at home for about $500 a year. This compares very well with the typical public-school price tag to the taxpayers of something in the range of $11,000 per year. Of course, in really substandard systems, such as the Detroit public schools, the cost is around $15,000 a year. When it comes to tax-funded education, not only do you not get what you pay for; the more you pay, the less you get. Ultimately, however, the issue is not the cost. The issue is religious. It has to do with the worldview that a parent wishes to transfer to his children. Therefore, the issue is also about the authority of parents to determine this worldview as well as the methodology used for imparting it to their children. It has to do with the authority of the family...

For the rest of the article: http://www.garynorth.com/public/11822.cfm

29 Shocking Facts That Prove College Education Is A Money Making Scam
Posted on May 9, 2013 by Deus Nexus

DN: The evidence is right in front of their face – and yet the average American zombie still refuses to wake up to the fact that he/she is a debt-slave, born into a system that only wants to bleed him/her dry. Are you a young indebted adult ready to wake up from The Matrix:

A Message For The Newbies

Reposted from: Activist Post By Michael Snyder.

College education in the United States has become a cruel joke.  We endlessly push our high school kids to invest tens of thousands of dollars and at least four years of their lives to get a college education because they won’t have any sort of a “future” without it.  So they sign up for decades of debt slavery and spend years listening to pompous windbags fill their heads with utter nonsense.  The sad truth is that most college courses are a total joke and they do very little to actually prepare those students for the real world.
I know – I attended public universities in the United States for eight years.  Most college courses are so easy that the family dog could pass them.  When they finally graduate, our young people discover that they were lied to all along.  The promised “good jobs” are not there for most of them, but the huge debts that they committed themselves to will follow them around permanently.  When you are just starting out and you are not making a lot of money, having to make payments on tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt can be absolutely crippling.  This is why I say that college education in America is a giant money making scam.

Our young people are seduced by the idea of college being a five year party that will provide an automatic ticket into the middle class, but the reality is that the only guarantee is that it is a ticket to serfdom unless you have wealthy parents that are willing to foot the bill for you.  And bankruptcy laws have been changed to make it incredibly difficult to get rid of student loan debt, so once you have signed up for student loan debt slavery you are basically faced with two choices: either you are going to pay it or you are going to die with it.

Yes, college graduates do make more money and they do have a lower unemployment rate.  But most of them are also burdened by absolutely suffocating levels of student loan debt that will haunt them for decades.

So who is really better off?

If you can get someone to pay for your college education that is great.  Because otherwise you are probably getting a rotten deal.  The following are 29 shocking facts that prove that college education in America is a giant money making scam…

#1 In 1993, the average student loan debt burden at graduation was $9,320.  Today it is $28,720.
[Note: the author includes links to proof of each of his statements; click the above link to the full article to see them.]

#2 In 1989, only 9 percent of all U.S. households were paying off student loan debt.  Today, 19 percent of all U.S. households are.

#3 Young households are being hit particularly hard by student loan debt.  In America today, 40 percent of all households that are led by someone under the age of 35 are paying off student loan debt.  Back in 1989, that figure was below 20 percent.

#4 According to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Americans owe more than a trillion dollars on their student loans.

#5 According to the Federal Reserve, the total amount of student loan debt has increased by a whopping 275 percent since 2003.

#6 Approximately 65 percent of all student loan debt is owed by those under the age of 40.

#7 The delinquency rate on student loans is currently 14 percent and it is steadily rising.

#8 The delinquency rate on student loans for students that attended a “for profit” college is an astounding 23 percent.

#9 Today, 34.9 percent of all student loan borrowers under the age of 30 are at least 90 days behind on their student loan payments.

#10 Since 1986, the cost of college tuition has risen by 498 percent.

#11 The cost of college textbooks has tripled over the past decade.

#12 The average cost of a four-year college education is projected to soar to $120,000 by the year 2015.

#13 Back in 1952, a full year of tuition at Harvard was only $600.  Today, it is over $35,000.

#14 According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, approximately 167,000 Americanscurrently have more than $200,000 of student loan debt.

#15 At most U.S. colleges and universities, the quality of the education that you will receive is very poor.  Just check out some numbers about the quality of college education in the United States from an article that appeared in USA Today….

- After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.
– Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago.
– 35% of students report spending five or fewer hours per week studying alone.
– 50% said they never took a class in a typical semester where they wrote more than 20 pages
– 32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.

#16 One survey found that U.S. college students spend 24% of their time sleeping, 51% of their time socializing and 7% of their time studying.

#17 Federal statistics reveal that only 36 percent of the full-time students who began college in 2001 received a bachelor’s degree within four years.

#18 27 percent of those with student loan debt said that they moved back in with their parents after college.

#19 14 percent of those with student loan debt said that they delayed marriage because of their student loans.

#20 Real earnings for young college graduates have fallen by 15 percent since the year 2000.

#21 If you think that you will be able to “beat the odds” and land the job of your dreams once you graduate from college, perhaps you should consider these numbers….

-In the United States today, approximately 365,000 cashiers have college degrees.
-In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees.
-In the United States today, there are more than 100,000 janitors that have college degrees.

#22 The federal government has begun docking the Social Security payments of elderly Americans that are behind on their student loan payments…

According to government data, compiled by the Treasury Department at the request of SmartMoney.com, the federal government is withholding money from a rapidly growing number of Social Security recipients who have fallen behind on federal student loans. From January through August 6, the government reduced the size of roughly 115,000 retirees’ Social Security checks on those grounds. That’s nearly double the pace of the department’s enforcement in 2011; it’s up from around 60,000 cases in all of 2007 and just 6 cases in 2000.

#23 According to a survey of 4,900 recent college graduates,more than half of them regretted choosing their major or their school.

#24 One poll found that 70% of all college graduates wish that they had spent more time preparing for the “real world” while they were still in school.

#25 48 percent of all recent college graduates have not been able to find a job in their chosen field.

#26 During 2011, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.

#27 According to the ABA, only 56 percent of all law school graduates in 2012 were able to find a full-time job that requires a law degree.

#28 The median student loan burden for medical school students that graduated in 2012 was $170,000.

#29 Close to half of all recent college graduates are working in jobs that do not even require a college degree.

When you are overwhelmed by nightmarish student loan debt that you can never get away from, it can literally take over your life.  A recent Businessweek article shared some real life examples of this…

If student loans are good debt, how do you account for the reaction of Christina Mills, 30, of Minneapolis, when she found out her payment on college and law school loans would be $1,400 a month? “I just went into the car and started sobbing,” says Mills, who works for a nonprofit. “It was more than my paycheck at the time.” Medical student Thomas Smith, 25, of Hamilton, N.J., is $310,000 in debt and is struggling to make ends meet even before beginning to repay his loans. “I don’t even know what I eat,” he says. “I just go to the supermarket and buy the cheapest thing I can and buy as much of it as I can.” Then there’s Michael DiPietro, 25, of Brooklyn, who accumulated about $100,000 in debt while getting a bachelor’s degree in fashion, sculpture, and performance, and spent the next two years waiting tables. He has since landed a fundraising job in the arts but still has no idea how he will pay back all that money. “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s an obsolete idea that a college education is like your golden ticket,” DiPietro says.

What about you?

This article first appeared here at the American Dream.  
Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

Related Post: Most Americans Are Debt Slaves

For young people thinking of going to an expensive university, you might consider various other options: smaller colleges, community colleges, in-state schools tend to be more affordable, multiple scholarships, vocational or trade schools, courses offered on the internet, internships are quite valuable, however stay away from for-profit schools that advertise on television.

Are visits by parents to schools a threat to the NWO and what teachers are doing to students?
Why "No Parents Allowed"?
When we were in school, several parents were there on a regular basis helping out in the classroom or the library, chaperoning field trips, or leading special reading or art programs. They were just doing their part to improve our education.
But parents are not allowed in public schools today. Sure, there are those increasingly rare exceptions. But in general, a parent cannot even visit, let alone sit in on a class or become a regular part of the classroom community. And those terrific school districts sprinkled around the country who do still allow parents entrance grant it as a privilege, not as a parental right.
Washington Times columnist Jay Matthews recently lamented this fact in an article called "What's Wrong with Parents Visiting a School?" Matthews had spoken with two sets of parents, each of whom had asked to sit in on a class with their child, whom they were looking to enroll in the school. In each case -- one in Fairfax, VA and the other in Arlington -- the answer was a solid, "No."
That's not to say schools should open their doors to just anyone. But Matthews' article highlights the bigger picture -- even parents familiar to the school and with children in attendance are being walled out by government regulations and bureaucratic policies.
We have come a long way from the 1986 Department of Education report which asserted -- as the first principle in the Classroom section of the report -- that "Parental involvement helps children learn more effectively." And by depriving our schools of the parental presence, these policies have robbed the parents, the teachers, and especially the students of a terrific resource.
So, what if you are that parent and your child is in that school? How can you impact what and how your child learns? The answer is, you can't.
According to the Supreme Court's decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), citing Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), any government action that "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents or guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control" is unconstitutional. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the Ninth Circuit determined in Fields v. Palmdale (2005) "that the Meyer-Pierce right... does not entitle individual parents to enjoin school boards from providing information the boards determine to be appropriate...." And the current Supreme Court has chosen not to review that court's decision, leaving it as binding law in the west and as a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.
So once your child steps onto school grounds, you no longer have a say. You have been effectively "walled out," and the schools can do (including forced vaccinations, abortions, giving out birth control and encouraging sex to very young students -- and they instruct students NOT TO TELL THEIR PARENTS) and teach whatever they want. Here's what the court in the Palmdale case decided:
"Parents...have no constitutional right... to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide...when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.... Although the parents are legitimately concerned with the subject of sexuality, there is no constitutional reason to distinguish that concern from any of the countless other moral, religious, or philosophical objections that parents might have to other decisions of the School District -- whether those objections regard information concerning guns, violence, the military, gay marriage, racial equality, slavery, the dissection of animals, or the teaching of scientifically-validated theories of the origins of life."
In 1997, father David Parker found out the hard way that he could not even opt his child out of teachings his family found offensive. His story and others are told in the new docudrama Overruled: Government Invasion of Your Parental Rights now showing (free!) at OverruledMovie.com
Consider these comments by three viewers of the film:
 "This is very possibly the most important 35 minutes you will spend in front of your computer this year, and maybe in your life!" -- JohnSc001 on YouTube
 "The movie really opened my eyes about an area of government invasion into American's lives I did not know existed." -- Dale W. on Facebook
 "So shocking! Thanks for letting us know what's going on." -- MrDiscostarship on YouTube
 Please take a few minutes to see for yourself how parental rights in America are being eroded right under our noses. Then find out what you can do to stop it.
Will schools continue to wall out all parents as they have in recent years? That remains to be seen. But one thing we already know -- we as parents are powerless to stop them, unless we take a stand and demand that traditional parental rights be restored!

Who's making a killing off student loans?
We look at five lenders that are raking in serious cash from America's debt-ridden graduates

Five things you can do right now to help stop the economic plundering of our world

On my NWO page [http://www.distance-healer.com/NWO.html] and Latest page [http://www.distance-healer.com/Latest.html] there are many links from Charlotte Iserbyt, Dr. Blaylock and others about how the Illuminati are controlling the schools, jobs, politicians (especially the primaries -- notice how no real conservatives are allowed to win?), how they're using vaccinations, chemtrails, asparatame, mercury, fluoride, indoctrination in schools and colleges, and other methods to dumb us down, so that we won't notice them implementing the NWO. Everything was sworn to secrecy until just recently; now they say that they've dumbed people down and indoctrinated them enough that they can come right out in the open! Charlotte's father was a big wig in the Skull and Bones, and she has all kinds of books and documentation to prove what she says in the video interviews and PDF's that I'll include links to. One thing that the Wall Street Occupiers don't realize is that the Bilderberg's/CFR/Trilateral Commission are pulling Wall Street's (and, by extension, our) strings. They switch their power from one group to the other (back and forth) as people find out about one or the other and focus on that particular group.

There are people purposely spreading disinformation by giving opposing viewpoints to anything and everything: it's called "moral equivalency", and its purpose is to keep people from knowing what is right and wrong (to better control the "sheeple"), and to keep Big Pharma and the AMA's wallets full. Our own government actually has people engaged in spreading disinfo by leaving comments on Blogs, and in the conventional news media (TV, Radio, Newspapers, magazines), as well as in colleges and public schools.

One doctor I heard of said, "well, there are better and safer methods of treating cancer, but I'm not allowed to tell you about them". There are too many other doctors who won't even listen and refuse to even come out of their offices into the waiting room (the receptionist stops and screens people like this) to see the former patient who they've previously sent home to die (after they are done torturing him with chemo and radiation) and he stops in to show them that he has been healed through natural methods and is now healthy because that would mean moving out of his "comfort" zone and admitting that he's been killing people. The ADA is even going so far as claiming that studies are now showing that mercury in vaccines and fillings is "good" for you, because if they admitted that it isn't and they've been poisoning people all of these years, people would sue them. The government only allows doctors to cut, burn or poison cancer patients. There is a lot of history about this on the following sites:
(although the background information about why people are brainwashed into accepting toxic "treatments" instead of being given better and safer ones along with dietary and lifestyle advice is helpful, be careful about the cancer treatments on this site as some of the information is faulty).

A Rebirth of Liberty and Learning
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College

LARRY P. ARNN is the twelfth president of Hillsdale College. He received his B.A. from Arkansas State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. From 1977 to 1980, he also studied at the London School of Economics and at Worcester College, Oxford University, where he served as director of research for Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill. From 1985 until his appointment as president of Hillsdale College in 2000, he was president of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. He is the author of Liberty and Learning: The Evolution of American Education; The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution; and Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government (forthcoming).

The following is adapted from remarks delivered during a gala event held at Hillsdale College on October 9-10, 2013, to launch a six-year campaign to raise $470 million for capital and endowment—the Rebirth of Liberty and Learning Campaign.

There is a proper way to educate and there is a proper way to govern, and they are both known. Today we do these things in a different way, which presents a serious and perhaps fatal problem for our country. But repair is possible.

Take education first. The word “education” comes from a Latin word meaning “to lead forth.” And if you think about it, “forth” is a value-laden term. Which way is forth? The Bible tells us to “raise up a child in the way he should go.” But which way should he go? How does one come to know the answer to that? After almost 14 years as a college president I’m an expert on young people between 18 and 22, and I can tell you that if you ask a young person today which way is the right way to go, more often than not he or she will answer: “It depends on which way you want to go.” Young people today give that answer because they’ve been taught to give that answer. But it’s the wrong answer, and the activity of getting from there to the right answer—the activity of coming to know which way is the right way—is education. Thus “to lead forth.”
Two Ways of Education

At Hillsdale College students read a lot of old books, including Plato’s Republic. In the Republic they read the story of Gyges’ ring—a ring that makes the wearer of it invisible. One of Socrates’ interlocutors in the Republic, a young man named Glaucon, raises the question: Why would a man in possession of such a ring not use it to do and obtain whatever he wishes? Why would he not use the ring’s powers, for instance, to become a tyrant? In response, Socrates turns the discussion to another question: What is the right way for a man to live? What is just by nature and what is unjust?

These Socratic questions were once at the center or core of education, and they remain at the center or core of education at Hillsdale College. But in American education as a whole, these questions have been abandoned.

Let me give you two examples of how the new way of education differs from the old. One concerns the use of the word I just used—“core.” Here at Hillsdale we have a core curriculum—a thing most American colleges and universities have watered down or done away with—which is a core group of courses that all students, regardless of their major, are required to take. A true core, as I’ve described, has a unifying principle, such as the idea that there is a right way to live that one can come to know. Compare that to the use of the same word in describing the latest bright idea of the education establishment—the so-called Common Core—which is an attempt by bureaucrats and politicians to impose national standards on American schools. When one looks into Common Core, it becomes clear that it has no unifying principle in the sense I have described. And it has destructive effects. But the point I want to make here is that its only stated object is career preparation.

Bereft of the kind of questions posed by Socrates in the Republic—or the kind of questions raised in the Bible, or in the plays of Shakespeare—modern education treats students chiefly as factors of production, as people to be trained for productive jobs. And although we all wish productive jobs for our children, as parents we know that they are not chiefly job seekers or factors of production. After all, how many of us, if we were given the choice of our children earning a lot of money and being bad, or struggling economically and being good, would choose the former?

My second example of the turn taken by modern education goes to the heart of the problem. Here is a passage from the Teacher’s Guide for Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition, published in 1991 by the College Board—the influential organization that, among other things, administers the SAT exam. It is written by an English professor from Agnes Scott College in Georgia.

. . . AP teachers are implementing the best of the new pedagogies that have influenced leading institutions of higher learning. Perhaps most importantly, as Arthur Applebee explains, “objectivity” and “factuality” have lost their preeminence. Instruction has become “less a matter of transmittal of an objective and culturally sanctioned body of knowledge,” and more a matter of helping individuals learn to construct their own realities. This moves English courses away from the concept of subject matter to be memorized and toward “a body of knowledge, skills, and strategies that must be constructed by the learner out of experiences and interactions within the social context of the classroom.” Emphasis is on the processes of language and thought, “processes that are shaped by a given cultural community and which also help students become part of the cultural community.” Contemporary educators no doubt hope students will shape values and ethical systems as they engage in these interactions, acquiring principles that will help them live in a mad, mad world (emphases added).

Could the difference be more stark between the older and newer ways of education? Between leading students toward an understanding of the right way to live in a comprehensible world, and telling them they must shape their own values and make their own reality in a world gone mad? And by the way, think of the definition of “reality”; then think of making one’s own reality. Do you see that it destroys the meaning of the word to use it that way?
Two Ways of Governing

The difference between the old and the new way of governing is directly connected to this turn in education. One way to see the difference is to see that laws in America used to be simple and beautiful. They were written with care, and citizens could read them quickly and understand their meaning. Of the four organic laws that founded America—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution of the United States—none of them was more than 4,500 words long.

The Northwest Ordinance, adopted in 1787 and passed again in 1789, contains the following beautiful sentence: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Accordingly, Congress proceeded to give 1/36 of the land in the vast Northwest Territory—including Michigan and four other states—as an endowment, controlled by the states, to support education in each township. One of the finest laws written subsequently was the Homestead Act of 1862, by which ten percent of U.S. land—over 270 million acres—passed into the hands of individual citizens. The Homestead Act was 1,320 words in length.

Compare the Northwest Ordinance and the Homestead Act—perfect examples of the older, constitutional way of governing—with the new bureaucratic way of imposing central control through rules and processes that no one can understand. Compare them, for instance, to the Affordable Care Act, which when it was passed in 2010—and this does not include the countless rules and regulations it has generated over the past three years—ran to 363,086 words. This law—and in the true sense of the word it wasn’t a law at all, but something different—was not readable or comprehensible to any member of Congress who voted for it or to the citizens whose lives it was aimed at manipulating in a detailed and intrusive way. Could anything be uglier? And is it surprising, being governed in this way, that the richest nation in human history is going broke?

Let me mention two characteristics and dangers of the new way of governing. First, if you look at the size of the federal budget, you see that in economic terms the government is beginning to rival in size the rest of the country. Less and less do we have a large and thriving private sector—which is where the Constitution placed sovereignty—in control of a limited government that owes its authority to the governed.

That the Constitution placed sovereignty in the people, outside the government, means that the only way the people can maintain their sovereignty—the only way they can control the government—is through elections of representatives. But as the government becomes almost as big, in economic terms, as those who elect it, the government itself— with its clients and friends—becomes increasingly influential in the electoral process, while people who make their living independent of the government become less influential. This trend could prove fatal to our country, because at some point if it continues—and we can already see the beginnings with attempts to regulate political speech—the idea of free elections will become problematic.

My final point is that this new way of governing actively opposes America’s founding principles. Consider an example from the College’s recent history: What could more directly contradict America’s bedrock principle of human equality than the attempt by bureaucrats at the Department of Education to force Hillsdale, whose charter prohibited racial discrimination long before the Civil War, to count its students by the color of their skin?

James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution, and when he suggested in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution receives its authority from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he was expressing what was then the common view. Here is the famous statement of those principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . .

Compare that confident statement of principles to this passage from President Obama’s 2006 book The Audacity of Hope:

Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course . . . (emphasis added).

How did Barack Obama come to believe something so foreign to America’s heritage as the idea that in the name of liberty we must reject absolute truths—which necessarily includes rejecting those truths I just quoted from the Declaration? And how is it—because this is a bipartisan problem—that not once in the course of two long presidential campaigns did an opponent of Barack Obama think to point out his unequivocal disagreement with the principles we celebrate as a nation on the Fourth of July?

Do you recall what I said about the connection between the new way of education and the new way of governing? Given what is now taught in our schools, is it any wonder that our leaders today behave like wearers of Gyges’ ring who have not given thought to the questions raised by Socrates in the Republic, or to the connection between the principles of the Declaration of Independence and civil and religious liberty?

The means of repairing both education and government today is the activity that takes place at Hillsdale College. Through its undergraduate and graduate programs, its Kirby Center in Washington, D.C., its extensive online learning program, its charter school initiative, its multiple outreach activities, and its publications such as Imprimis, Hillsdale seeks to radiate that activity to every corner of the nation in every possible way. This is the work needed to save our country, and it is the purpose of Hillsdale’s “Rebirth of Liberty and Learning Campaign.”

Copyright © 2013 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

About Imprimis

Imprimis is the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College and is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political and educational issues of enduring significance. The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered to Hillsdale College-hosted events, both on-campus and off-campus. First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over 2.7 million subscribers.

33 East College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 • Tel: 517-437-7341 • Fax: 517-437-3923

© 2012 Hillsdale College. All rights reserved.

The Virtuous Life: Chastity

It’s been interesting to watch this series unfold this week. Though I knew it would be controversial, I wasn’t sure what to expect and how much interest there would actually be in the topic.

Men and Porn: An Introduction
Men and Porn: Why Is the Pull of Porn So Strong?

The Possible Pitfalls of Porn

How to Quit Porn



6 Truths about Pornography - Why Sexually Explicit Material will Destroy You


VIDEO: Why Pornography is so Addicting

Illuminati Use Sex to Degrade Us

Porn is Making Men Impotent

Managing the Male Sex Drive

Illuminati Use Porn to Wage War on Society

Porn, Feminism Result in Heterosexual Breakdown

Is Porn Killing Sex in Japan?

Japan is Dying

Relearning Heterosexual Love

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

America's Media-Driven Descent Into Depravity

How to Quit Mindlessly Surfing the Internet and Actually Get Stuff Done

Pornography and Masturbation

3 Man Killers: Money

3 Man Killers: Power

3 Man Killers: Sex

14 Red Flags to Look Out for in a Relationship

Stop Living for the Approval of Women

If You Are Thinking About Suicide, Read This First



Other articles:

Are College Degrees Now for Losers? Here's the Scoop...

Over $100,000 of College Debt remaining for the student (not counting what the parents paid, borrowed and still owe) to get a $37,000 a Year Job as a File Clerk

It Takes a B.A. to Find a Job as a File Clerk or other menial job today because employers are using unrelated and useless degrees to screen people out so they don't have so many applicants applying for their jobs

Toddlers in New York City Cram for a Kindergarten Entrance Exam
At age 4, kids are expert test-takers. They have to be. If they don't score well, they will have to attend a public school.
Yes, a public school. A New York City public school. The kid is doomed. Rich parents dread the thought.
At $30,000 for kindergarten, there is still intense competition. Think of $400,000 for a kid's education, K-12. That gets him into college. Then it's another $250,000 (they usually insist upon private college instead of much less [usually free, with Pell Grants, etc.] community college). Then grad school.
Then unemployment. Or maybe 'would you like fries with that'?
Read more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/02/19/toddlers-in-new-york-city-cram-for-a-kindergarten-entrance-exam/

Re: New Trend: Well-Paying Professional Careers, No College Debt...
America's next bubble, poised to burst and splatter across the country, is student loan debt -- today close to $1 trillion.
Even worse, the government's long campaign to steer so many kids into getting college credentials has resulted in massive degree inflation... to the point that such degrees have become functionally worthless. The dream of using college to sail into cushy white-collar jobs is now being exposed as a mirage.

For people in their twenties, many are finding that getting decent jobs is a matter of their families' connections -- or their parents willingness to let them continue living at home. Or both.

And the myth that people who work with their hands are losers is falling apart too. Especially as plumbers, electricians, and others with practical skills that people actually need (along with some hustle) are raking in more money than dentists and other white-collar occupations. For the first time in history, the number of college-educated jobless workers exceeds those with a high-school diploma or less, according to Labor Department data.

What a mess for families who took out second mortgages to brave government-created college cost inflation to get their kids college degrees that are, well, essentially worthless in terms of career success!

CNBC cited a Barclay's report concluding that this debt is "becoming one of America's structural challenges." For instance, the balance of "federal student loans outstanding in the past decade ($583 billion) is larger than the size of the government's TARP bailout package ($431 billion)."

A New Trend? Well-Paying Professional Careers -- No College Necessary

Currently, nearly one million job vacancies -- and growing -- are available. The pay: around $40,000 to $60,000 a year, close to $100,000 with overtime; and if you're a go-getter, you could gross $300,000. At minimum, a high-school diploma or equivalent is all you need to get started. What are these jobs?

Back in 2009 Jim Rogers famously said, "...it's the farmers who will have the Lamborghinis, not the brokers on Wall Street." This hasn't happened; not yet. But, Rogers was commenting on commodities, and how "physical stuff" is becoming more valuable to society and as investments.

These good-paying American jobs are factory jobs and truck driving jobs. Jobs that produce and transport real stuff.

Who Got the Better Deal? A Trade School Grad or College Grad?

For some time I've been advising a number of younger Americans to ditch the idea of getting a college degree and embrace some form of trade school. People need mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and engineers. To qualify for today's manufacturing jobs, one can get special training at a trade school for a fraction of the cost of most universities.

One article about the growing popularity of trade school programs compared a brother and sister.
The brother:

1.Attended a two-year accredited manufacturing program that included machining, CNC, and tool and die making.
2.Total cost: between $8,000 and $10,000.
3.Hired by an aerospace company for $45,000 base, plus overtime.

The Sister:
1.Attended a four-year university and studied teaching.
2.Total cost: much higher, with $45,000 debt.
3.Now works as a fifth grade teacher for $36,000.
The father of the two said, "My daughter is an awesome teacher. But who do you think got the better deal?"

Not the Stereotypical Dark, Dangerous, and Dirty Factory Jobs Most People Imagine

Instead, today's American manufacturing jobs require highly skilled professionals. They include welders, machinists, Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine operators, and related craftsmen. These workers need to understand and use networked computers, read Computer Aided Drawings (CAD), handle 3-D software, and accurately calculate shop math and geometry.

America's factories employ high-tech, precision machines, and independent thinking operators.
With overtime, and depending on experience and area of specialty, a factory worker could earn nearly $100,000. The biggest challenge for employers is finding skilled help.

Approximately 600,000 vacancies exist in American factories nationwide, according to a Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte report.

Energy companies the world over need geologists -- another great field for a younger person to contemplate as an alternative to the oversupply of attorneys in this country.

Trucking has a similar challenge. According to the Truckload Carriers Association, as many as 200,000 long-haul trucker positions are open nationwide. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the need for trained drivers will grow another 20% over the next seven years.

The median wage for a trucker is just under $40,000; the top 10% earn more than $58,000. And with a bit of an entrepreneurial spirit, one can become an independent truck driver (small-business owner) and gross around $300,000.

Is This a Temporary Fad, or a Long-Term Trend?

It's a bit early to tell, but for over a decade we've outsourced factory and manufacturing jobs overseas; in the process we've lost the skills in the marketplace. (Not to mention older workers are retiring.)

With the government pushing everyone into getting college degrees, trade schools have lost demand, high schools ended vocational classes, and factories stopped apprenticeship programs.

According to MFG.com president Mitch Free, it can take at least a year to train someone with entry-level manufacturing skills, plus one or two years of apprenticeship at a factory.

It will take a while to build back the numbers of skilled workers. But this translates into stable job security for those in the business.

Truck driving has a quicker turnaround. Training for a commercial driver's license takes about eight weeks.

Other longer-range factors:

1.The weakening dollar is raising foreign currency costs;
2.Rising wages overseas, such as in China (wages are growing at 15% -- 20% a year, according to Boston Consulting Group) are reducing their "low-cost" advantage;
3.Rising fuel costs make it less practical to ship and transport materials great distances;

All these factors make it less friendly to manufacture overseas. Indeed, both MFG.com and MacRAE's Bluebook (online industrial and manufacturing directories) have noticed an uptick in inquiries for U.S. manufactures over the last few months.

An internal survey conducted by MFG.com revealed 40% of its members experienced new orders that would have otherwise gone overseas.

In a CNBC report, "the Boston Consulting Group found more than one third of U.S.-based manufacturers with sales greater than $1 billion are planning or considering bringing production back to the United States from China."

The market is changing. For one thing, technology is making it economical to quickly design a new product and have it manufactured in a matter of weeks, rather than months.

How Do You or Someone You Know Qualify For These Jobs?

You can find a program online by searching "trade school" and your city. Some other key words to search online are "welding," "CNC," and "machinist."

A trade school certificate can take one to two years to complete, depending on the skills you want to acquire. Typical costs for the entire program run around $6,000-$10,000. (Note: apprenticeships are usually free; the employer pays you while you learn on-the-job, and pays for your night school classes. See about apprenticeships below.)

Truck driver school typically costs about $6,000.

If you or someone you know is looking for a new career, these positions provide good, honest work, making and delivering things people want and need. Think about this before taking out a second mortgage to create yet another unemployed college graduate!
Yours in Freedom and Prosperity,

Lee Bellinger, Publisher
Independent Living

My son, like I am, is against being railroaded into college (even Christian colleges) unless he first has his heart set on a career that only college will prepare him for. Too many students nowadays go to college to learn things that used to be taught in Jr High and high school, and many employers that I've spoken to are simply using the requirement of an unrelated college degree as a screening tool to reduce the number of applicants that they have to interview for a given job position; they actually admit that the expensive degree is not useful for the job, and that they have to teach the applicant with on-the-job training anyhow! Unfortunately, college has become a big business, with many offering 4 year degrees for $500,000 to major in things that can be learned on the job in apprenticeships in 4-6 mos. Starting 2 yrs before my son graduated, Christian colleges began inundating us with hype about why everyone absolutely needed a college degree without even asking what career my son would go in, and without even researching if there were any jobs for graduates having the expensive degrees that they were offering. They didn't even mention that most careers don't require college, and that the market for jobs that require college is mostly saturated. There is more need for CNC machinists and other technical and skilled people, and a person should first decide what he or she wants to be before limiting his or her choices to those for which college is required. In deciding upon a career, a student should not first look at the programs of study / degrees that colleges offer (and for which there often isn't even a market -- maybe colleges should just start offering Ph.D.'s in taxi-cab driving, since most end up driving a cab), but instead should choose their career goal by researching the future job market in that field, working conditions and what they'd be doing in that job, salary, etc. (See below and elsewhere on my college pages for more info).

Electricians, Plumbers, HVAC, Carpenters, and many other professions earn more than the average college graduate and don't put themselves in $200-500k of debt and have to also pay the interest on the debt, and don't forgo 4+ years of lost income (lost because you were not working during those years in college).

There was a story about a man who borrowed money to get his Ph.d. and who owes over a million dollars, along with interest and penalties. He cannot find a job in the field that he got the degree in, and the interest alone on the debt is over $150,000 a year, which he could never pay, since jobs in his field, even if he were able to find one, only pay $35,000 per year -- so, even if he had a job, the interest would be adding to the debt faster than he could pay it -- and the government is now trying to find him and put him in jail. For what? It's a no-win situation with no way out: what do they expect him to do?

My son's in an HVAC apprenticeship that pays $35-60k after 4 years, and pays $15-20/hr while learning; night classes are paid for by the employer. This is better than spending $500k for 4 years of the "college experience" (drugs, alcohol, sex, partying, etc.) and then not being able to find a job in the field you majored in, or even if you do happen to find a job, find one that pays enough to enable you to repay all of the money that you and your parents borrowed (i.e., a job that pays enough to justify all of the money that the degree cost your parents and you (along with all of the income that you lost because you were not working during those years in college).

On top of that, guidance / vocational counselors in schools are telling students not to worry about how much a school costs or if their parents can afford it: there are all of these mysterious "grants and scholarships" that they say will pay for everything. Too late, the parents and students find out that, even if they are fortunate enough to be awarded some scholarships, they usually have to pay and borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, also. Part of the problem is that colleges are raising their tuition, room and board, and other costs far more than other industries, and the government, instead of forcing or encouraging them to reduce them (or at least to not increase them), just increases the amount that they loan the parents and students, in order to get them into even more debt that they may not ever be able to get out from under. If the student has interest in, perserverance, ability and aptitude for a career that requires college, and the money to pay for it, (and there is no way to work in the field and have the employer pay for night classes towards a degree), there are 2 year community colleges that are free or almost free, after the Pell Grant payments that they can apply for. Their in-state tuition runs about $1500-2000/yr, and their faculty helps students get jobs. High School counselors have been telling students that they cannot get degrees in Graphics Design, Nursing, and other fields in a 2 year community college, and instead steer them towards very expensive private 4 year colleges. Even after a very unusual number of scholarships ($250-300k) due to sickness in the family, one student and her family still had to pay almost $100k for her 4 year degree so that she could land a job for $30k/year. She could've gone to any of several 2 year colleges for free and gotten the same job with no debt. Even if a particular career absolutely requires a 4 year degree for entry level, and it's not possible to enter the field with a 2 year degree and have the employer pay for the remaining classes that you would take nights, after working, then there are 4 year state colleges that the student can transfer to, after finishing the first 2 years at a community college (since the 2 year college's cost is much less than the 4 year state college; and the 4 year private college is much more expensive than either of these.)

Go to trade school, young man
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis points out, 'College is not a requirement for a fulfilled life'
by Patrice Lewis

Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer whose latest book is "The Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable." She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 20 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit her blog at www.rural-revolution.com.

About two years ago, I got a call from a dear college friend. We chatted for a long time, catching up on each others' lives. Among the news was that her son Tim had just graduated from college with a degree in civil engineering.

"That's wonderful!" I said. "Where is he working?"

There was a short silence. "Well, actually, he's working at the gardening department of Home Depot," she admitted. "He couldn't find a job as a civil engineer."

This conversation stayed with me because it illustrates the problems so many highly qualified, highly educated college graduates are facing in today's job market. Competition for employment is intense in a depressed economy, and many young people are unable to fulfill their dreams and realize their ambitions.

This is why an article on soaring trade school enrollment caught my eye (http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/manufacturing-trade-schools/index.htm?iid=HP_LN). The article discusses how much in demand skilled workers have become, with paychecks comparable or exceeding those with college degrees. The students attending these schools range from young people right out of high school to older unemployed college-educated workers returning to school to learn a trade.

Once upon a time it was simple: Like clockwork, ambitious kids graduated from high school, attended the college or university of their choice, graduated, found a job in their field and worked steadily throughout their adult years.

This recession (some call it a depression) has changed all that. Too many ambitious college-educated young people emerge into a workforce that cannot support them and does not want them. Even before the 2008 market crash, there was a glut of overly degreed workers. And now we hear sad stories all over the nation every June about how newly minted graduates fight for jobs as baristas at Starbucks. Meanwhile their earning potential is crippled -- crippled, often for life -- by crushing student loan debt.

But it's more than just a depressed economy. Over the last few decades, the media, government and of course universities have convinced us that the only way to be happy, productive and successful is to get a college degree in ... anything. Those who opted for vocational school were considered second-class citizens.

To fulfill their expectations, students take out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans to get degrees in Equality Studies or English Literature, only to discover upon graduation that there are few jobs in those areas. Their ego might be boosted, but not their earnings potential.

I come from a family that values education to the nth degree. My parents sacrificed and went deeply into debt to send their children to college. Now that they're older, they simply cannot fathom that the situation has changed for their grandchildren and that the single-minded pursuit of a degree may no longer be the best option in today's economy. The world my parents grew up in is gone. With the current job market, I feel it is irresponsible to push college on young people without regard to their prospects for employment after graduation.

This is the issue facing our 16-year-old daughter, who expressed a strong interest in two separate fields of study: library science and nannying. She loves books, and she loves children. What to do?

I explained that most librarians are employed by county governments, and library funding has been cut drastically by financially strapped counties all over the nation. Whereas her targeted nanny school (http://nanny-governess.com/) has a long waiting list (http://nanny-governess.com/joblistings.html) of families seeking accredited nannies. Our daughter decided that her prospects for employment are much higher as an accredited nanny than as a degreed librarian.

To young people thinking about their future, I urge you to ask yourself this question: Are you going to college because you have a burning career ambition only a college degree will fulfill? Or are you going to college because you're "supposed" to, even though you haven't yet decided on a field of study?

My husband and I -- who both have master's degrees in the sciences but who make our living with a woodcraft business -- met dozens of people during our college years who hadn't declared a major. Their goals were vague. They were simply in college because it was the thing to do, and it was expected of them.

But college costs have soared, making such vague goals a mighty pricey thing. According to CNNMoney, "For more than two decades, colleges and universities across the country have been jacking up tuition at a faster rate than costs have risen on any other major product or service -- four times faster than the overall inflation rate and faster even than increases in the price of gasoline or health care. The result: After adjusting for financial aid, the amount families pay for college has skyrocketed 439 percent since 1982. Costs are soaring twice as fast as inflation, even as salaries for graduates are falling. Time to examine the old belief that college is worth whatever you can pay."

Whereas my daughter can emerge from nanny school, credentialed and qualified, for significantly less than $10,000. Her employment prospects are near 100 percent, and her earning potential is tremendous.

My friend's son chose the field of civil engineering because he's a responsible young man who was trying to maximize his earning potential in order to one day support a family. It was not necessarily because of his burning desire to be a civil engineer. Ironically he now feels he can't pursue marriage until such time as his job situation improves.

For young people today, I urge you to realistically consider your future based on the jobs market versus the cost of education. If you truly want to be a doctor, by all means begin the educational process to fulfill that ambition. But if you're not sure what you want to do, I beg you not to waste your money (or your parents' money) on overpriced educational institutions that will shackle you in debt and provide you with a useless degree ... especially when your friends who went to vocational school are earning over $70,000 a year.

As a side note, my friend's son Tim has returned to school. Machinist's school. With his knowledge of civil engineering, being a machinist is a natural fit; and he believes it will provide better job opportunities. You see, he met a young lady, and they'd like to get married and start a family. Tim knew he couldn't support a family while working at the gardening department of Home Depot.

It's a smart young man who learns from his mistakes. I urge other young people (and their parents) to learn from Tim's. College is not a requirement for a fulfilled life.

Find out more in Whistleblower magazine's April 2012 issue: "THE COLLEGE ILLUSION: Why chasing a degree so often ends in financial and educational chaos"

Manufacturing boom: Trade school enrollment soars

Desperately seeking Americans for factory jobs

Dumping China for American job shops

$100K manufacturing jobs: What's uncool about that?

States to manufacturers: We want you ASAP!

Manufacturing is my future
Keeping "Made in USA" alive and thriving has had its challenges. Here are six individuals -- young Americans and factory veterans -- who are committed to keeping that mission alive.

Nine months in trade school. Job guaranteed.

(Excerpt: see full article at link) ...To get into the program, students need a high school diploma or the equivalent and can go part-time or full-time.

The starting salary for the new hires averages about $40,000 a year, with the potential to jump to $55,000 to $65,000 in less than two years, he said...

Jimmy Hodges, dean of applied technologies with Wallace State Community College in Hanceville, Ala., is also seeing high job placement with his graduates.

The school's two-year accredited manufacturing program, costing between $8,000 and $10,000, includes machining, CNC and a course in tool and die making.

Hodges, a machinist himself, said Wallace is getting close to placing 100% of its students, too, driven by a pickup in auto and other manufacturing in the state.

He hopes these stats help change a persistent misconception about manufacturing. "Young people in the country think manufacturing is nasty and dirty," he said. "Not so. It's clean, high-tech, and the pay isn't bad."

Hodges' son graduated from Wallace's manufacturing program in 2005 and landed a $45,000 base pay job with an aerospace maker. "With overtime he's making much more," he said.

His daughter opted for a four-year degree in education from the University of Alabama.

Her starting salary as a 5th grade teacher is about $36,000, said Hodges, adding that she also has $45,000 in student loans.

"My daughter is an awesome teacher," he said. "But who do you think got the better deal?"

(The above was an Excerpt: see full article at link)

Northeast Indiana: Hundreds of factory jobs go unfilled

Manufacturing: Not just a man's job

Manufacturing is my future
I'd encourage my daughter to do this

Inside Caterpillar: Help wanted

Manufacturing boom: Trade school enrollment soars

How to Become an Electrician Apprentice

How to Get an Apprentice Electrician License

National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee: Program Options
What Do Electrical Workers Do?
There are four specialty areas where you will find electrical workers. These four areas are best described by the type of work done in each of those areas.
* Outside Linemen are the electrical workers who install the distribution and transmission lines, that move power from power plant to a factory, a business, or your home.
* Inside Wireman are electrical workers who install the power, lighting, controls and other electrical equipment in commercial and industrial buildings.
* VDV Installer Technicians are electrical workers who install circuits and equipment for telephones, computer networks, video distribution systems, security and access control systems and other low voltage systems.
* Residential Wiremen are electrical workers who specialize in installing all of the electrical systems in single-family and multi-family houses or dwellings...

How to Become an Electrician in Virginia

Virginia DPOR Tradesmen Program (Apprenticeships)
Tradesmen Program
The Board for Contractors regulates individual tradesmen who engage in the trades of electrical; plumbing; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); gas fitting; water well construction; elevator mechanics; backflow prevention; and building energy analysis. (Although the term "certified" is used, state certification of these trades is mandatory, not optional.)
[Note: most state governments have information on their websites, like the above link for VA, about apprenticeships that are available and requirements for them; you can search for them on the internet]

Virginia Department of Labor and Industry - Registered Apprenticeship

Virginia Department of Labor and Industry - Registered Sponsors and Apprenticeship Occupations

Virginia Department of Labor and Industry - Search by Occupation Title and City/County

Virginia Board for Contractors
Approved Tradesman Formal Vocation Training Providers
The following list of educational providers has been approved by the Board for Contractors to conduct the formal vocational training that must be completed as a prerequisite to licensure as a Virginia journeyman tradesman. The Board for Contractors also accepts as formal vocational training courses in the trades administered at accredited educational facilities, such as Virginia Community Colleges and technical schools associated with Virginia local school divisions. [Search your state for vocation training providers.]

Office of Apprenticeship Sponsors Website (Federal)

Search Program Sponsors Database (Federal)

HVAC Technician
Penn Foster is approved in VA for the classroom portion of apprenticeship programs for Electrician, Plumber, and HVAC:
It may also be in approved other states -- check with your state. Penn Foster mails you books and you take the exams online and may be able to complete the course in as little as 9 months if you study hard and do well. Other options are to go to night school, which is usually paid for by the firm that hires you as an apprentice. The company may require you to work for them a certain amount of time (a year or two) after they pay for your training, and may require you to get at least "B" in each course that you take one night a week for 3 hours.

Look up the trade that you're thinking of going into in the Occupational Outlook Handbook, by typing it into the search box on this page (and find out how the future outlook and number of job openings looks for that particular career, what you will be doing day to day, what training you'll need, what the pay is, etc.):

Other pages at the Occupational Outlook Handbook

Occupational Outlook Handbook A-Z Index of occupations

Before paying for a college degree, or studying to become an apprentice or go into a particular job field or career, first Check for jobs in that field (to see how many there are, where they are located, what their requirements are, etc.) on:

Walmart Jobs:

Kroeger Jobs:

7 High-Growth Jobs That Don't Require a College Degree
Skilled Labor Jobs Provide a Financially Feasible Alternative to College

Is College Worth the Money?
"What are your plans after you graduate from high school?"
For most recent graduates over the last few decades, the answer has been automatic and unequivocal -- college. With more and more jobs making a bachelor's degree a minimum requirement, there has never been a greater emphasis on higher education. And for the most part that's a good thing as more education is almost always better than less.
But times are changing.
First of all, the sheer increase in cost just to attend college has been steadily climbing year over year. College Board's survey of college pricing found a "moderate" cost to attend an in-state public college is $22,261 per year, while it'll cost $43,289 per year to attend a private institute of higher learning. Assuming you're like most Americans and can't foot that kind of a bill out of pocket, you'll have to take out student loans. Which means depending on what you choose to study and eventually make a career out of, your return on investment might not be worth the high cost of college.

8 Jobs You'll Love That Pay $50,000 a Year
Jobs (and Paychecks) You Can Fall in Love With

8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment
These Careers Might Make You Happy, But Fail the Tuition ROI Test
College: Is it Worth It?
What's more expensive than going to college? Until recently, the answer was easy: not going to college. Numerous studies over the years have shown that individuals with college degrees significantly out-earn those with high school degrees by $1 million or more over the course of a lifetime.
But as the cost of education increases faster than inflation and the economy remains relatively weak, people are beginning to question how they spend their education dollars. As student loans hit the $1 trillion mark and more and more graduates are faced with years of paying staggering monthly payments, many are starting to ask themselves, "Is it worth it?"
[Note that many of these careers used to not require any degree for an entry level position; you could learn on the job, and often, if you wanted to, you could go to night school and have th employer pay for it.  Then colleges started offering 2 year degrees for them, and next, 4 year degrees (and usually include a lot of filler courses that have nothing to do with the career and are intentionally included and made to sound essential in order to run up even more debt for you.) Worse yet, the 4 year degree programs often don't cover a significant amount of the essential training required for the occupation, while most 2 year programs (e.g., for Graphics Design, etc.) not only cover the essentials, but Community colleges often are free with Pell grants, etc., and they help you get a job after graduating. Community colleges are a much better choice than high priced 4 year colleges. Guidance Counselors at many schools tell students not to worry about how much a school costs, that there are grants, loans, etc., and even lie and say that community colleges don't offer that major. Check with some community colleges yourself; the major may be called something different (e.g., Graphics Design might be called Graphics Illustrator, Web Design, Studio Art: Graphic Design Option, etc.) You should worry about the cost; even after "grants and loans", you and your parents will still end up owing a lot more than if you attend a community college (especially if it ends up being free), and the quality of education is better and more geared to the skills needed to actually get a job in the field.]

Easy Online College Degree Programs to Complete From Home

Secret Job Interview Techniques That Will Get You Hired
Carole Martin Shares Her Tips to Boost Your Job Interview IQ

Some excellent colleges that teach not only academics, but also morals and values [but first, see elsewhere on this page before deciding to go to any (even Christian) college]:

Pensacola Christian College, P.O. Box 18000, Pensacola, FL 32523-9160 (http://www.pcci.edu/) 800-PCC-INFO (800-722-4636). Email: info@PCCinfo.com

Patrick Henry College, One Patrick Henry Circle, Purcellville, VA 20132 (http://www.phc.edu/) 540-338-1776. Email: admissions@phc.edu 

Liberty University, 1971 University Boulevard · Lynchburg, VA 24502 · (434) 582-2000 http://www.liberty.edu/

Hillsdale College, 33 East College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 -- Tel: +1 517 437-7341, http://www.hillsdale.edu/ (they also have a free monthly publication, "Imprimis", containing lectures given to college students by nationally-renown speakers: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

Suckered: How Colleges Suck in Students on College Loans
Written by Gary North on September 17, 2012

The old line, "never ask a barber if you need a haircut," needs an update: "Never ask a college career counselor if it's wise to take out a loan." The answer in both cases is "yes."

One student borrowed $150,000. His excuse: "I did not fully understand the extent of what I was getting myself into," one former student, who took out $150,000 in loans, told the researchers. "All I knew was in order to pay tuition, I would need to take out private and federal loans. I was also repeatedly told by several people that I would easily be able to pay off the amount, even though it seemed pretty steep. When I graduated and fully did the math, I knew I was in trouble."

I would call this student a victim of a poor high school education. I would also call him a victim of the college. "According to the survey, 80 percent of borrowers either learned about their loan options from a college counselor or website. These schools are already providing information. They may just need to provide better information." On the contrary, they are providing excellent education: for the college.

Parents say nothing., High school counselors say nothing. College counselors offer help: lots of debt to pay high tuition to the college.

The students should look out for themselves, but they don't.

"Gee, why didn't someone tell me?" Because they refused to ask.

The 1% of the Student Debt Crisis: Owing $150,000 in Loans

John Stossel - College is a RIP OFF!

College Degrees are Killing the US

Glenn Beck- Is college worth the price?

Peter Schiff -- Just skip college!

Let Them Skip College

The College Trap by ABC News

You can read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of American Education free online here: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

The American education system is doing exactly what the industrialists designed it to do - mold naturally curious children into mindless workers who are basically still children, wanting all the latest "toys" out there and wanting them right now! We don't need to spend more $$$ on the current educational system. It's too efficient at what it was created to do as it is.

Traditional schools are preparing us to be mindless drones. School is nothing but job training. It prepares us to be working, taxpaying consumers who keep the economy going. Its purpose is not to enlighten us.

Is a college degree required for success?
By Ellis Washington

Professors seemed to have only two things in common: they were personally ambitious, and they had renounced religion.
-- Paul C. Vitz, Ph.D. (Lecture notes delivered at Columbia University on the psychology of atheism)

Universities are our great fall,
They teach only propaganda, that's all:
Gramsci rules, no doubt,
Marx! Lenin! they shout;
Until America is left in a pall.
-- Paul (writer at www.WND.com)

The 19th century (Age of Enlightenment/Romanticism) and the early 20th century (Progressive Era) saw the ascendancy of the academy, colleges, universities, higher education. With the academy came its attendant associations where the intellectual class, especially since the 1950s and 1960s, increasingly sought to cement its newly exalted position as the controller of society and dictator of culture.

Solidifying its education monopoly, the academic class over time would control the very gates of higher education, admissions, course requirements, degree offerings, graduation, licensing, college accreditation, degree certification, tenure -- the very access to success in this life. Many people believe that to be "successful" in today's society, one must have a degree. Yet, did you know, dear reader, that long before the academic bureaucracy became entrenched in society ordinary people did extraordinary things without degrees?

For example, as late as 1954 there was a man that sat on the Supreme Court of the United States that not only never graduated from a prestigious law school, he only had one year of law school under his belt. He had no judicial experience, yet his legal mind was so superior to his contemporaries, FDR tapped him to become a justice on the Supreme Court (1941), and Truman four years later appointed him to be chief prosecutor for the U.S. at the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46). That man was Robert H. Jackson.

Other justices of the Supreme Court were appointed without graduating from law school or taking the bar exam (Benjamin Cardozo) or who lacked impressive judicial experience (Frank Murphy), the latter a lowly circuit court judge from Michigan before he was appointed to the high court by FDR. But how can this be?

In art, the correlation between a college degree and artistic genius are nil. As a matter of fact, there appears to be a reverse correlation between not going to art school or getting an art degree with artistic excellence. None of the greatest artists, sculptors or architects whose works we revere today had a "degree" -- not Galileo, Rembrandt, Rodin, Bonticelli, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Van Gogh, Manet, Monet, Goya, Picasso, etc. None went to what we today call "art school" or received a degree in "art studies," yet they were able to exercise their gifts without paying homage to some irrelevant, bureaucratic association or certification board that incidentally knows absolutely nothing about who or what makes transcendent art.

In classical music, the same is true all of the greatest composers and musicians whose music transcends art, including Josquin, Palestrina, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Chopin, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Schoenberg and Berg. None graduated from a "school of music" or received a degree in composition, music performance, music education or music business, yet they ascended the very steps of Parnassus in music, and they were able to exercise their gifts without paying homage to some self-aggrandizing, bureaucratic association or certification board who with Pharisee-like fanaticism guard the portals of the academy, to graduate schools and thus to prestigious universities, well heeled positions in society and economic success, affluence and notoriety. This monopoly over the mind of We the People by the academy through higher education must be deconstructed.

When an honorary Ph.D. degree was granted to Benjamin Franklin (one of the greatest inventors of the 18th century and a high school dropout), he later wrote in his autobiography that he was loath to publicly acknowledge that honor despite the fact he did path-breaking work in physics and invented bifocals, the odometer, the lighting rod, electricity and many other great innovations we still use today. Franklin also helped write the Constitution, was ambassador to France, founded the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and the American Philosophical Society.

Other geniuses of humanity that did not have the Ph.D. or in some cases no degree at all include:
Noah (no college, saved all humanity, for 4,000 years had built largest boat until the Queen Mary)
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (no college)
Jesus Christ
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
George Washington (no college, commander in chief, president)
Alexander Hamilton (our first and greatest secretary of treasury, taught himself law by reading law books)
Abraham Lincoln (no college, no law school but a lawyer and our greatest U.S. president)
Frederick Douglass (ex-slave, abolitionist)
Booker T. Washington (ex-slave, college builder)
Albert Einstein (had trouble finishing high school)
Alexander Graham Bell (college dropout)
Thomas Edison (no college)
Harry Truman (no college, judge and president)
Sam Walton (no college, founder of Wal-Mart)
Mother Teresa (no college)
Bill Gates (richest man ever, dropped out of Harvard as a junior)
Rush Limbaugh (college dropout, media genius)
I don't mean to denigrate the necessity of degrees in modern times (I have three), or associations or certifications, but just to state that like all organizations or bureaucracies of man, they are intended not to improve the quality of education or improve the standards of academic disciplines, but to centralize academic, educational and administrative authority in the hands of a university oligarchy. This centralization of educational authority determines who gets a degree, who gets that coveted Ph.D., MBA, J.D. or M.D., who can belong to their elitist academic associations or be bestowed with the coveted certification, or maintain the indispensable college accreditation. These certification and accreditation organizations have little to no correlation whatsoever to academic worthiness or vocational excellence. Why do they exist? Follow the money.

These associations, certification boards and accreditation institutions generate billions of dollars in annual revenue to determine college accreditation and fund the test-taking bureaucracy (MEAP, ACT, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, KAPLAN, BAR-BRI, etc.). In this land of milk and honey, it's all about the money, power and control ... not knowledge or wisdom.

Thank goodness humanity's best and brightest made their contributions before this entrenched and intractable education bureaucracy we call the academy came along with their degree requirements, academic associations, certification boards, teacher and professorial unions telling them that they had to have their stamp of approval to make such stellar contributions to humanity.

If you think that I write from hyperbole, I challenge the reader to take any core curriculum, examine any canon of great works, scrutinize the credentials of any of the geniuses the academic class venerate as the foundation of their disciplines, study and codify in their textbooks or write Ph.D.s about, and you will conclude that the following somber aphorism is most true: A professor is a mediocrity that is an expert on the works of great men.

College Grads Find Big Degree Of Debt, Difficulty
American families start to wonder whether cost of college is worth it

The Great Recession sent millions of Americans scurrying back to school to improve their chances of securing jobs. But the difficulty that recent college graduates have had finding work -- after taking on unprecedented loads of debt -- has sparked a lively debate about whether a college degree opens doors the way it once did in the job market.

Enrollment in college and other postsecondary schools surged at double-digit rates during and after the recession as young people and middle-aged workers alike sought to hone their skills and burnish their resumes in hopes of finding better-paying jobs or, in some instances, any job.

The surge in enrollments sent student debt soaring to near $1 trillion, making it the fastest-growing and largest category of consumer debt in the U.S. economy.

But the payoff has been less than impressive: Recent college graduates are having as hard a time getting work as many non-graduates, while they are burdened with debts of as much as $100,000 for obtaining their degrees.

The estimated 8.5 percent unemployment rate for recent graduates is more than twice the 3.9 percent rate for older college graduates and higher than the 8.1 percent rate for Americans with only high school degrees.

Many graduates have been forced to take temporary or part-time jobs -- or even work without pay -- while staying with their parents and postponing marriage, buying a house and pursuing other life goals. Since the recession, the earnings of recent graduates have fallen by about 5 percent, reflecting their diminished prospects.

Adding to this predicament, at least 40 percent of graduates took out loans to get their degrees, but have little wherewithal to repay them amid the dearth of well-paying jobs. The growing strain is prompting students and their parents, many of whom co-signed for the loans, to reconsider whether college is either affordable or worthwhile.

While middle-class families are quietly voicing their doubts, some prominent and influential skeptics are loudly questioning the importance Americans have traditionally placed on getting college educations.

Peter Thiel, an entrepreneur who dropped out of Stanford University and made billions of dollars as co-founder of PayPal, said most people don't need a college degree to be successful in business or the job market, unless they are going into medicine, academia or other areas where higher education clearly is needed.

To prove his point, Mr. Thiel set up a foundation that offers to pay a couple of dozen of the nation's most talented students each year $100,000 to drop out of college and become technology entrepreneurs. He believes the young turks and society at large will be better off with fewer people earning bachelor's degrees.

Education bubble?

"We have a bubble in education like we had a bubble in housing in the last decade," the Silicon Valley mogul told CBS' "60 Minutes" last month. "Everybody believed you had to have a house. They'd pay whatever it took. Today, everybody believes that we need to go to college, and people will pay whatever it takes."

Mr. Thiel said college has been oversold as a ticket to a good job. He noted that an average plumber with no college degree makes about as much as the average doctor who has attended many years of college and medical school.

Moreover, the most talented young people who attend Harvard or other Ivy League schools often get funneled into careers on Wall Street, where the pay may be lucrative but the work benefits primarily the wealthy and is not that productive for the larger economy and society, he said.

At the other end of the spectrum, for-profit colleges, which tend to attract less-accomplished students, have become like "subprime mortgage lenders," he said, adding that applicants are persuaded to go deeply into debt to get degrees of sometimes questionable market value.

Many students at for-profit schools don't complete their education and end up in what analysts consider the worst of all worlds -- with no degree but loads of debt.

"People are being conned into thinking that this credential is the one thing you need to do better in life," Mr. Thiel said. "And they're actually not any better off after having gone to college. They typically are worse off because they've amassed all this debt."

Mr. Thiel's criticisms are borne out by the plight of recent graduates, more than half of whom are either unemployed or "underemployed," such as in entry-level restaurant or retail jobs, as they wait for better opportunities.

Despite the troubles for recent graduates, economists and academics say there is no reason to discount the value of college. Although a college education in some cases may have diminished in value as a result of the recession, they say, it still is the best way in the long run for young people to secure better jobs with better pay.

Drop out or stay?

Some are harsh in their assessment of Mr. Thiel's critique.

"Thiel's encouragement of dropping out is, to be frank, just plain stupid," said Susan Thompson, an analyst at iShares, an investment firm. "The chances of college dropouts becoming successful entrepreneurs like [Facebook founder] Mark Zuckerberg or [Microsoft founder] Bill Gates are pretty rare."

Studies show that people with bachelor's degrees earn on average 84 percent more over their lifetimes than high school graduates, she said. Moreover, listings for most of the best jobs specify that a bachelor's degree is required -- including jobs working at Mr. Thiel's hedge fund, she said.

"To be sure, college is extremely expensive, and it's getting more costly by the year," she said, but a careful weighing of costs and benefits shows that the roughly $31,000 in debt that a typical graduate takes on will more than pay for itself in higher earnings.

President Obama has weighed in squarely on the side of more education rather than less. He frequently encourages young people to stay in high school and go to college. His administration has made it easier for Americans to obtain loans for college, loosened and capped repayment requirements, and championed efforts to keep student loan interest rates low.

The Treasury and Education departments last month released a study showing that college graduates with full-time jobs in 2011 earned 64 percent more per week than high school graduates -- the biggest gap in wages between the two groups since 1915. The report noted that the federal government now provides 55 percent of all financial aid for undergraduates.

Some critics say the easy availability of student loans is part of the problem because it encourages colleges to increase their costs, knowing the government will provide financing.

College costs surge

The phenomenal growth in student loans is a result of increased enrollment and soaring costs, which have far outstripped inflation and growth in family incomes. Between 2000 and 2010, surveys show, college tuition and fees rose by 92 percent while the median family income rose only 18 percent.

But the explosion of student debt also reflects the shrinkage of other sources of college funding in recent years, as stock market turmoil cut into the value of endowments and budget troubles led to cutbacks in state subsidies.

State support for higher education fell by 11 percent between 2008 and 2011 as the recession cut deeply into state revenue and forced draconian budget cuts. Student loans have filled the gap as other sources of funding dried up.

John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities, called the sharp increase in student debt "worrisome," but he still recommends that young people pursue college degrees, given the better income prospects of graduates over the long run.

"Debt burdens are becoming increasingly difficult to manage," he said, driving up delinquencies and bankruptcies while complicating and often delaying the transition into independent adulthood.

Mr. Silvia also rejected Mr. Thiel's comparison of the explosive growth of student debt to the housing bubble in the past decade. At its peak, mortgage debt totaled $14 trillion -- far more than the $1 trillion total of outstanding student debt today, he said.

Moreover, the money spent on college will more than pay for itself in higher incomes, while the money spent on expensive homes during the housing bubble often proved to be poor investments, he said.

More jobs require degrees

"A growing share of jobs in the economy use some cognitive thinking, and these jobs tend to require a college degree," he said, adding that the number of jobs requiring postsecondary education will only increase.

Heidi Shierholz, an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, said the difficulties of recent graduates reflect the extraordinary weakness of the job market after more than 8 million people lost their jobs during the recession.

The 5 percent drop in earnings of recent graduates since 2008 contrasts with the robust 19 percent growth in wages graduating classes recorded between 1995 and 2000, when the economy was booming and unemployment fell below 4 percent.

"The stark difference between these two economic periods illustrates how the wages for young graduates vary considerably depending on the health of the U.S. labor market," she said. "Young graduates who enter the labor market during periods of strength face much stronger wage prospects than young graduates who enter the labor market during periods of weakness."

Peter Morici, business professor at the University of Maryland, said students should keep in mind that not all college degrees are equal. What people study in college makes a big difference as far as their future employability and earnings.

"A worker with a bachelor's degree in petroleum engineering earns about $120,000, while a degree in counseling psychology fetches just $29,000," he said. "Even business degrees differ dramatically in value. Finance, accounting and supply-chain majors are worth a lot more than general business and human resources management graduates."

John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., an outplacement firm, agreed that graduates with degrees in accounting, engineering, information technology, financial services, sales and marketing, and human resources are more likely to find jobs than people with other majors.

But he added that the overall job market for recent graduates is gradually improving as employers increasingly realize they cannot forever rely on older workers and must recruit and train the workers of the future.

"Last year was slightly better than 2010, and this year should be slightly better than 2011," he said. "Unfortunately, those expecting a rapid turnaround and sudden burst in hiring will be disappointed. Entry-level hiring is nowhere near pre-recession levels."

The Skill Set of the Young and Smart
Jeffrey Tucker
November 24, 2012
(via email)

Dear Laissez Faire Today reader,

The unemployment rate for 19-24 year olds hasn't moved much since 2008, and the reality of the tight job market has fully dawned on the young people I've spoken with about this. They know that odds are against them and that it takes extra effort to make a go of it following college graduation. They are also aware that this represents a dramatic change from every decade since the end of World War II.

I recall that no one in my college graduating class worried about jobs. They wondered if they were choosing the right profession, whether more degrees were necessary, whether it would be good to move near or far, and that sort of thing. But the notion that we would suddenly find ourselves unemployed for a long time, or even longer than a week, never occurred to us.

Back in the day, young people would graduate college and go on long trips to Europe, follow the Grateful Dead, hang out in the college town for a year with their buddies, or casually do odd jobs until the time seemed right to get serious. We had marketable skills and we knew it. We were the sellers of services and the market was buying. The "land of opportunity" still thrived.

No more.

I've observed two general reactions to this among young people. Some let the problem sneak up on them and melt into despair when things don't go their way. These people have a sense that they did everything right: good schools, decent grades, graduating on time. They sent out hundreds of resumes but got back nothing in return. Now they are living with Mom and Dad, saddled with a terrible debt they can't pay, and increasingly bitter at the world and contemplating the indignity of a minimum-wage job.

These people followed the rules but the rules betrayed them. Now they blame everyone else. They blame the system, and they are right that they system is rotten. They blame their counselors, and it's true that older people have been blindsided by this too. They blame the 1%, and there is no question that the system is rigged in favor of the well connected. I completely understand this attitude but there is a problem: it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Anger, excuses, and protest gets no one any closer toward actually fixing the problem.

What intrigues me more are the students who are refusing to let the problem defeat them. They have seen three classes of graduates leave the college cocoon and face the cruel world, and they have seen who succeeds and fails. Among this group, you will find not panic or worry but a strange calm and confidence that they will be among the minority who will find a good-paying position in their field of choice. Having talked to many of these people over the last year, I've discerned the common character traits and skills sets they focus on.

* Hard Work. All the students who have confidence about overcoming the odds are extremely busy for school, work, or professional preparations. I've met engineering majors (talk about time consuming) who are also cross-country runners who train 3 hours per day, every day. I've also met students who are pre-law who work for very low pay at law firms, just as a way of getting experience. Even students who are music majors accept every gig they can.

They take internships when available. They work odd jobs. They rise early and get to bed on time. They don't take off summers, and the weekends are full of tasks.

These students are preparing themselves for a life of very hard work. They don't party. They watch what they drink. They avoid personal relationships that threaten to distract and bog them down. They are not members of social fraternities and sororities. Social life is way down the list of priorities. They top priorities are school, grades, work, and making and saving as much money as they can.

All of this matters for the future. The biggest annoyance that employers have is being saddled with a new employee who knows not the meaning of work. They have been through four years of partying and sloth. They long for this to continue...with pay. This is more obvious from a resume than one might think. On the other hand, a student who has references from a wide number of established people who can speak with confidence about a prospective employee's work ethic overcomes this fear, and has a much better chance going forward.

* Technical Skills. At the dawn of the digital age, I looked forward to a time when all young people knew programming skills, could fix their own computers, and had vast literacy in navigating the new world of technology. Wow, what a disappointment! It's astonishing how widespread computer ignorance is today. And it seems to be getting worse.

What I had not anticipated is that the easier that devices would become, the fewer skills people feel that they need to acquire. It is not uncommon that young students today are only good at updating their Facebook accounts. And the following fact still astonishes me: many students today can't even type.

This is absolutely absurd. Learning to type has never been easier. You can go to typingpal.com or any number of services and learn in the course of ten days to two weeks. It should be rather obvious that a job candidate who is one one-finger pecking is going to fall to the bottom of the list.

But it takes more than typing skill. Database management, photo editing, video making, website management, basic code -- all of these are important. A candidate who can speak Geek is in a much better position than one who cannot, even if the job in question doesn't seemingly involve computer skills. Young people who can't navigate essential software with some competence are essentially advertising their lack of drive and their unwillingness to add value to the great enterprise of the digital age.

* Low Debt. True, it is not long possible to work your way through school, and this is tragic. Unless the parents have a substantial income or savings, there is a good chance that a student today will have to take out a loan. But minimizing that is essential. Smart students understand this. The more debt you have when you leave college, the fewer choices you have when you leave. You want to be in a position to accept relatively low pay and work your way up, without having your finances crushed by debt obligations.

The horror stories here are legion, and the alert students know them all. This is why they look for every scholarship opportunity, ever work/study program, every chance to make a few bucks. Also important: spending as little money as possible. Social spending is the great bane of a student's existence. Decline to go partying if it means being stuck with a big and pointless bill at the end. There are ways to date that do not involve breaking the bank. Doing without a car is a luxury that pays returns later. It all comes down to frugality. This is an essential financial skill that can and should be cultivated in college. It will be needed all throughout life.

* Network Building. As regards Facebook and Twitter, let's just say that many students in the past have made mistakes. Smart kids know this. They learned to use social tools wisely. They watch their privacy settings. If there is any image that shows drinking or partying in a crazy place, it is untagged. All status updates must be intelligent. And they should be relatively few on Facebook. It can even be advantageous to make your name unsearchable, though that alone can raise suspicions among future employers.

A tool that smart students have started using that most students do not is LinkedIn. This is the professional network, and here you can start forming contacts in your field and generally cultivating a professional online personality. This requires careful thought and some elbow grease but any applicant with an impressive profile and a large network immediately becomes more attractive to the job market.

These tools are there to help people navigate the tight labor market. It is never too early to start doing what is necessary to build up a well-thought-out digital profile and presence. These tools can be your best friend or your worst enemy, depending on how you use them. But they should be used. An applicant who is invisible to in the digital realm might be suitable for a position in the national security apparatus but it is increasingly strange in a commercial world.

* Practicality. I love liberal arts and the cultivation of broad and highly educated minds as much as anyone. But the smart set of students understands that this alone will not cut it in the marketplace today. Practical skills cannot be neglected, whether they are in accounting or engineering, and math and science generally. The last generation that could get by in life without having actual technical skill in practical areas of life graduated two decades ago.

To be sure, some people are called to a serious vocation as a professor in literature, philosophy, and the arts, and that's fantastic. But these are pretty much the only people who can completely neglect hard sciences and practical skills in life. The smart set understands that the liberal arts are essential to have a broad view of the world, but that these alone are not enough to make a go of it in today's world.

As much as we talk about the trials of young people today, we all know that some will make it through and thrive in the future. This is true even in the hardest of times. And for graduating students today, these are indeed the hardest of times. To be sure, the lack of opportunities today is not the fault of its victims; it is the fault of terrible public policy that has raised the cost of hire, distorted economic structures, and punished entrepreneurship. Because there is little chance of this changing anytime soon, it pays to get on the right side of history and start preparing for the tough road ahead, so that you can face it with confidence.

Jeffrey Tucker

P.S. Another problem among students today: they don't take reading seriously. The Laissez Faire Club is devoted to changing that. We are providing the tools people need to start the process of self education, which is absolutely necessary given the curriculum in today's colleges. We provide the books, the tutorials, the community, and more. Might you consider giving a gift subscription to a student you care about? Register them here and send the logins their way when you receive them.

When a Loan Isn't a Loan: Government, the New Debtors' Prison
Douglas French
December 17, 2012
(via email)

An old banking buddy of mine has been out of work for a full year. I met up with him yesterday, and he told me the good news that he has finally found work. It's not enjoyable. But it pays better than sitting at home.

His time of unemployment had been doubly tough because his son was also out of work at the same time. The proud father seemed happier that his son had also found a job.

"And since he works for a nonprofit, they will pay his student loan," he said.

"What?" I said, not sure that I was hearing right.

"If you go to work for the government or a nonprofit, they will pay your student loan."

I told my friend that I'm thrilled for him and his son, but that I'm stunned that these sorts of incentives are in place to drive debt-laden college graduates to government and nonprofit jobs.

After all, this means taxpayers are footing the bill for these loans, on top of paying for government salaries that are, of course, a dead weight on private enterprise.

Well, it didn't take much digging to find the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) that was passed by Congress in 2007. According to Forbes, "The program promises to absolve remaining balances on the federal student loans of qualifying borrowers who make 120 monthly loan payments under eligible plans."

To be eligible, you must make these payments while working for the government or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The way to maximize the government forgiveness is to sign up for the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan or the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan.

So say a theoretical student graduates from law school (to use an example provided by Forbes) with $120,000 in debt and takes a job as a public defender making $45,000 a year with a 3% annual raise.

According to Isaac Bowers, senior program manager for educational debt relief and outreach at Equal Justice Works, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, that person would be eligible for roughly $151,000 in forgiveness if the young lawyer enrolled in the government's Income-Based Repayment Plan and repaid about $48,570 in 120 payments.

There is a complete alphabet soup of debt forgiveness programs for those working on the government payroll. Various states have their own programs, as do cities, universities, and so on. Of course, these programs are all subject to funding, so hooking up with a federal government job offering a debt forgiveness program is the safest way to go.

Mark Kantrowitz tells Forbes that loan forgiveness options at the federal level are the most reliable. "Even if they get canceled, existing borrowers are likely to get grandfathered in," he said. "And they're not in danger of being canceled. There would be too much of an uproar if they were."

Meanwhile, MBA graduates gainfully employed in the private sector whipping up lattes and the like are struggling to make payments. This past quarter, 11% of student loans were 90-plus days delinquent, which "for the first time exceeds the 'serious delinquency' rate for credit card debt," William Bennett writes for CNN.com.

Students are graduating with mountains of debt and moving back in with their parents when they can't find a job, or at least one that provides enough to pay rent and student loan payments. This isn't some isolated circumstance. One in five families is shouldering student loans debt, according to Pew Research Center. But for households headed by someone younger than 35, the percentage is a whopping 40%. Back in 1989, that number was less than 20%.

Over a quarter of households headed by someone aged 35-44 has student debt, more than double the 11% for this age group in 1989. The average amount of student debt per household has nearly tripled (in adjusted dollars) in the same time frame, rising from $9,634 in 1989 to $26,682 in 2010. The result?

Mr. Bennett makes the very salient point that student loans are risky, and the government, which makes 93% of student loans, is an irrational lender. Someone pursuing a degree in anthropology can borrow just as much and at the same rate as a student earning a marketable degree like say, nursing.

But the government keeps on shoveling out the money. After all, Obama once told Congress,

  "Tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma."

To that end, the Department of Education handed out $133 billion in 2010 and another $157 billion in 2011. And still students are borrowing like never before. But for what? The Associated Press reported earlier this year,

  "About 1.5 million, or 53.6%, of bachelor's degree holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41%, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields."

My friend went on to tell me that his daughter is nearly done with graduate school. I asked if he had been shouldering the burden of her education costs.

"No. Student loans."

I asked if she had racked up a six-figure loan balance.

"Yeah, probably."

I let out a groan. He quickly added, "but she'll probably work for the government."

The mortgage debt crisis has been replaced in the public view by the student loan debt crisis. Total student debt outstanding is approaching $1 trillion. And while students are graduating with fancy degrees, jobs that pay enough to service the debt are few and far between.

The taxpayer just can't escape funding the higher education racket. Your state taxes provide direct support. Your federal taxes are funding direct aid and student loans. And now graduates have a compelling reason to find a place on the government payroll with you footing the bill. After all, student loan balances can't be discharged through bankruptcy, but they can be through government employment.

Douglas French

P.S. The higher education racket is just one area of common knowledge I take on in my new book, The Failure of Common Knowledge, which will be available to Club members for free in a couple weeks. If you haven't joined the Laissez Faire Club, now is the time. Give yourself the gift of freedom, literature and ideas this holiday season.

7 High-Growth Jobs That Don't Require a College Degree
Skilled Labor Jobs Provide a Financially Feasible Alternative to College

'search US Salaries
'search Canadian Salaries
* Browse Job Openings

The Best Jobs of 2013
The Worst Jobs of 2013
Jobs Rated 2013: Ranking 200 Jobs From Best To Worst
10 Things to Never Put on Your Resume
5 Questions You Should Never Ask in a Job Interview: Could these words be costing you your dream job?

Also see my "Public Education,NWO"  and "NWO" web pages for more about how Progressive Education is being used to destroy today's youth, skilled jobs that don't require college, etc.:  http://www.distance-healer.com/NWO.html (search for resume, job, DOE, school, education, Common Core, college, homeschool, dating, morals, moral equivalence, moral relevancy, Gatto, Dewey, Delphi Technique, Progressive, NWO, etc.)

Modern Schooling And The War Against Competition
By Daniel Taylor

'Competition is a sin' -- John D. Rockefeller Sr.

In many respects we don't have a free market economy. We have cartels, which are the escape from free market, not the natural progression of free market. They wage war against competition, not by the traditional means of attracting consumer confidence, but by taking the reigns of power in government itself and wielding it against its adversaries. The Rockefeller dynasty represents the epitome of cartels. Rockefeller's partnership with Germany's pharmaceutical giant I. G. Farben in 1929 formed the most powerful cartel in history.

Lecturer and Professor of Arts Education Sir Ken Robinson appropriately calls this system a 'relic of the industrial age'.Our modern schooling system was crafted as a tool of the Anglo-American Establishment in their quest to remake society. To monopolize thought and human potential is the ultimate form of domination. All of us are potential competition with untapped ability. The question at the forefront of the elite's mind is this; How is this potential competition dealt with? As John D. Rockefeller Sr. famously proclaimed 'Competition is a sin.' How will a pyramidal structure of society be maintained? How will society be standardized to meet the needs of an industrial nation? Our modern schooling system, in the elite's minds, was an answer to these nagging questions.

One of the greatest open secrets of our modern society is that many household names have managed to squeeze out from under the thumb of the system -- by dropping out of school or not receiving degrees -- and have flourished. These people were able to discover their own personal strengths and weaknesses by testing themselves in the real world. The 'one right way? schooling system didn't dictate what lesson needed to be learned, and especially when. They didn't wait their turn. The fact that the very architects of our modern schooling system (John D. Rockefeller Sr. and Andrew Carnegie in particular) were dropouts should tell us something. Let's ask the question; Why would these men -- who became the immensely wealthy captains of the industrial era -- embark on a crusade to place the nations? people under a schooling system that they obviously didn't want or need, and ultimately escaped from?

One answer can be found by reading one of the first statements from the General Education Board (1906), founded by John D. Rockefeller Sr. and Fred T. Gates. In it, we read:

'In our dreams' people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply.'

The 'supply? that is referred to in this statement are the individuals that have passed through the social sorting mechanism of modern schooling and are likely not a threat to the establishment. Ordinary people are the competition here; they are the target of the molding hands. French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, in his attempt to explain modern despotism, writes in Democracy in America (1835),

'the sovereign, after taking individuals one by one in his powerful hands and kneading them to his liking, reaches out to embrace society as a whole. Over it he spreads a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules, through which not even the most original minds and most vigorous souls can poke their heads above the crowd. He does not break men's wills but softens, bends, and guides them. He seldom forces anyone to act but consistently opposes action. He does not destroy things but prevents them from coming into being. Rather than tyrannize, he inhibits, represses, saps, stifles, and stultifies, and in the end he reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the government as its shepherd.'

Lecturer and Professor of Arts Education Sir Ken Robinson appropriately calls the modern schooling system a 'relic of the industrial age'. Robinson recalls in his book The Element, 'Some of the most brilliant, creative people I know did not do well at school. Many of them didn't really discover what they could do -- and who they really were -- until they'd left school and recovered from their education.' Robinson is describing the natural response to the kind of 'education? that the General Education Board sought in 1904, which has continued to the present day.

Another open secret that has festered in our institutions is the fact that eugenics molded and infiltrated the education system, along with the intelligentsia of 2oth century America. The very standards by which 'intelligence? is often measured, namely IQ tests and SAT's, were created and promoted by open eugenicists. Such individuals included Lewis Terman, member of the America Eugenics Society, and creator of the modern Stanford Binet IQ Test, and Carl Brigham, inventor of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).

Lewis Terman writes in the 1919 textbook The Measure of Intelligence, produced while he was a member of the faculty of Stanford University,

"Among laboring men and servant girls there are thousands like them feebleminded. They are the world's 'hewers of wood and drawers of water.' And yet, as far as intelligence is concerned, the tests have told the truth"?

Nicholas Lemann explains the function of the 'Great Sorting? -- standardized testing -- in The Atlantic Monthly,

'Just as important as, or more important than, the effect of the Great Sorting on the composition of the American elite has been its effect on everyone else. We have a different social order now. Henry Chauncey -- who, when ETS was beginning, privately compared the situation in testing to that of railroads in the 1850s -- helped to create the human equivalent of the standard gauge, which nationalized and systematized the mobility of people instead of goods.'

If everyone followed the directives of the education establishment line for line from gradeschool onward, our society would undoubtedly be totally stagnant. If everyone complied totally with the 'one right way,' 'one size fits all' method, invention, innovation and development would be stifled completely. Some of the most significant developments that contributed to the creation of our modern society were created by individuals who had little to no formal schooling. Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, had around three months of formal schooling. Henry Ford, most famous for his assembly lines and Ford motor company, dropped out in 8th grade.

Our system of schooling is good for social sorting and command and control, but the dynamic human spirit and the kaleidoscope of diverse intelligence that inhabits it is absolutely crushed under its dead weight. Everyone knows this intuitively. That's why there are always individuals within the structure of the system who kick sand into the gears of the machine. Again, this is not by accident. The pyramidal structure of society cannot survive unless the masses are schooled in this way. Economically speaking, it doesn't make much sense to stifle this untapped potential in humanity. It does make absolute sense, however, when viewed from the eyes of the elite who want to freeze society in order to maintain dominance regardless of the cost. If a true scientific monopoly over human thought and potential were ever created, its founders would wield immense power. Bertrand Russell succinctly explained this scientific method of control through the schooling system in his 1954 book 'The Scientific Outlook.' Russel wrote,

'the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.'


As the political world is trembling and paradigms are shifting, an awareness of the true power structure of the world is spreading. The schooling industry is not immune to the effects of these paradigm shifts. Homeschooling is growing exponentially while warnings of another bubble about to burst in the American economy are sounding -- this time from the college industry. The National Inflation Association is warning that 2011 could be the year that the college bubble is set to burst, stating, 'College education could possibly be the largest scam in U.S. history.' The sheer number of people that are now going to college has dramatically dropped the value of college degrees, while tuition is skyrocketing. The NIA '?believes that any recent high school graduate with $30,000 saved for college who invests that money into silver and becomes a minimum wage apprentice for the next 4 years, will likely have enough money in 4 years to buy a median priced U.S. home.'

As with any entrenched system and ideology, it will fight to stay alive. Students are being fitted with GPS tracking technology to ensure no one is unaccounted for. Inattentiveness and rebellion is medicated into passive acceptance with Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs. Because this system goes against the grain of humanity, it is by its very nature easy to beat. There are plenty of solutions. In seeking these solutions, we must be wary of establishment initiated 'reform? that attempts to fix a 'broken system? that is doing exactly what it is meant to do. A recent article from the California Teachers Association pointed out the significant influence of large foundations like the Gates Foundation in 'reforming? the school system. As the article explains, the funding from these groups comes with strings attached that demand more 'top-down, authoritarian style' administration and more standardization.

John Taylor Gatto is a former award winning schoolteacher from New York. His many books, including The Underground History of American Education and Dumbing us Down, explain from a teachers perspective the modern 'schooling? industry. His latest book, Weapons of Mass Instruction lays out a step by step action plan for students to take part in. It's called the Bartleby Project (http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=297) available in PDF form here (http://www.oldthinkernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Bartleby-Project.pdf);  Its target -- Standardized Testing. If we can begin to make cracks in the system, Gatto explains, one of the best places to start is the standardized testing industry. Gatto writes simply,

'let a group of young men and women, one fully aware that these tests add no value to individual lives or the social life of the majority, use the power of the internet to recruit other young people to refuse, quietly, to take these tests. No demonstrations, no mud-slinging, no adversarial politics -- to simply write across the face of the tests placed in front of them, 'I would prefer not to take this test.'

The Bartleby Project (see below on this page) should allow no compromise. That will be the second line of defense for management, a standard trick taught in political science seminars. Don't fall for it. Reject compromise. No need to explain why. No need to shout.

An old man's prayers will be with you.'

Reflections on 'Weapons of Mass Instruction?
by Daniel Taylor

I've been researching the history of our schooling (there's a difference between schooling and true education) system in the United States for a couple of years now and I've found some amazing as well as angering information. I've read all of John Taylor Gatto's books on the subject to help me understand just how it came to be. He is a former New York state teacher of 30 years. He finally quit, saying that he couldn't hurt children anymore. I can't do justice to his way of explaining our school system in his books, but here are some of my own reflections on his latest book, Weapons of Mass Instruction.

It's easy to see how the spark of life can be squelched in the schooling system. I experienced it myself, as did everyone who has been through public school. Easily managed people make for an easy day for the elite of society. Incomplete, predictable people are the products of forced schooling. Imagination, creativity, and original thinking have no place in the schooling system. There are a variety of reasons we have the school system that we have, but I'll use one example. When wealthy industrialists like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (who were both, ironically, high school and elementary school dropouts respectively) created their vast empires, they made the rational finding that self-reliant, independent, creative, inventive people didn't make good workers. Our current consumer economy would shrivel if schooling didn't produce masses of people who were incomplete, who couldn't cure their permanent state of dissatisfaction by creating their own entertainment.

Gatto points out that School doesn't allow for the development of a unique consciousness. Here's an anomaly, or perhaps a view into what real education is: In almost every branch of society there are industries, arts, inventions, revolutionary ideas, and scientific achievements that we wouldn't have if it weren't for the dropouts that created them. We wouldn't have the computer industry of today if it weren't for a handful of dropouts. Virgin airlines was created by a dropout. The mapping of the human genome was pioneered by a dropout and a homeschooler.

I guess having more degrees than a thermometer isn't that important after all, is it? When I consciously made that realization, a whole world opened up that had been sealed off by my well schooled thought process. America didn't used to be like this. Open source learning, as John Taylor Gatto calls it, used to rule the day. We wrote our own scripts, we weren't actors in somebody else's play.

Only you can educate yourself. School can't do it for you. School wasn't meant to educate you, as Gatto points out, it is designed to put you in your place. Permanently.

For parents who have children in the school system, there are ways to counter school's detrimental effects on young people, other than removing them completely from it. John Taylor Gatto writes in Weapons of Mass Instruction, 'School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they'll never be bored.'

Gatto points out that School doesn't allow for the development of a unique consciousness. With the advent of television, even less time is allowed for this critical development outside of school. I remember taking long hikes every summer from an early age in the beautiful Michaux State park. Having time in a quiet forest to hear nothing but the sounds of nature allows for a time of solitude, a time for introspection. This was one of the pieces of a firm foundation that provided me with a sturdy shield against the 'Weapons of Mass Instruction? of public schooling, as Mr. Gatto calls them. I wasn't immune to all of them, but no one is. The truth of what Gatto is saying hits home for all of us that went through the school system. Whether we want to consciously realize it or not, our gut tells us that something wasn't quite right with our experience in school. Vital time that our ancestors used to gain their bearings in the real world and discover their own strengths and weaknesses is now pre-empted sitting in school classrooms. For those that have a solid foundation to hold them steady through their 12 years of confinement, the detrimental effects of schooling are dramatically lessened.

Gatto's 'Guerilla Curriculum? involved getting his students involved in 'real world? activities. He found that many children had an addiction to television. They were seeing only simulations of things that they could be doing in the real world. He gave students the choice to do a walk (by themselves if they chose to do so) around New York City, observing the business of the grown up world, taking notes, and even doing apprenticeships. Anything they saw on TV, as Gatto describes, now paled in comparison to the thrill of actual risk taking and engagement.
School teaches us to police ourselves. Choking fear of ridicule keeps too many people from doing anything out of the ordinary, from thinking unconventionally, from taking risks. Imagine if the public schools of today had gotten hold of the self-reliant, unpredictable, independent people that made America. Their self determined, inventive, imaginative and self confident ways would have them branded with too many labels that the school system hands out to fathom. George Washington had little to no official schooling, with nothing more than an elementary school education. He made his own path.

Could it be that the elite are deathly afraid of the average man and woman? It makes sense that the elite of society would have us police ourselves, to artificially limit our potential. If they allowed us to be free from their system, we would prove far too dangerous. They can't have too much competition. They have to hold back the tide of humanity. One of the most powerful insights in John Taylor Gatto's new book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, comes from an 11 year old boy that Gatto met named Andrew Hsu. Gatto writes,
'When asked to describe the most important lesson of his life, the one which held the most influence over his choices, he said it was a story told to him by his father about the method used to train fleas to swing on trapezes, drive little chariots, (or pull them) and all the wonderful things fleas learned to do to amuse kings and courts in world history. The story his father told goes like this:

If you put fleas in a shallow container they jump out. But if you put a lid on the container for just a short time, they hit the lid trying to escape and learn quickly not to jump so high. They give up their quest for freedom. After the lid is removed, the fleas remain imprisoned by their own self-policing. So it is with life. Most of us let our own fears or the impositions of others imprison us in a world of low expectations.'

Why have we been convinced to think so little of ourselves, instead relying on expert opinion? Could it be the conditional self-esteem that we were taught in school? It's hard to break our conditioning, but it's not impossible. The human spirit is resilient.

Invitation to an Open Conspiracy: The Bartleby Project
by John Taylor Gatto

Comment from Old-Thinker News: This excerpt is from John Taylor Gatto's new book, Weapons of Mass Instruction. He has given permission to re-print his Bartleby Project proposal on the internet un-cut and not for profit. The goal of the project is to strike at the heart of one of the central directives of the schooling system: standardized testing.

Update -- 4/26/11: The Bartleby Project has gained momentum in the two years since Old-Thinker News published Mr. Gatto's proposal. A website dedicated to the project has been launched at: http://bartlebyproject.com, where 225 people have signed up to participate in the project. Also, Timothy D. Slekar, Head of the Division of Education, Human Development and Social Sciences at Penn State Altoona has publicly contemplated asking his son to participate in the rejection of standardized testing.

This piece may be circulated without cost on the Internet, but only if used uncut and cost-free. The Bartleby Project is taken from Mr. Gatto's book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, New Society Publishers 2008. ©2008 by John Taylor Gatto.

If you read this to the end, you'll discover that I'm inviting you to join a real conspiracy, call it an open conspiracy, with real consequences on millions of real lives. I know that sounds megalomaniacal, but be patient. If we pull this off, a great many will bless us, although the school industry few will curse us. This is about a project to destroy the standardized testing industry, one in which you, personally, will be an independent unit commander. This adventure is called 'The Bartleby Project, for reasons you'll learn in just a little while. And keep in mind as you read, this has nothing to do with test reform. It's about test destruction.

We've all taken these tests. After graduation few of us think back on this ugly phenomenon unless we have little ones of our own being tested, and have to live through the agony of watching them stumble. We lose touch with the rituals of testing because, upon entering adult life, we inevitably discover that the information these glorified jigsaw puzzles generates is unreliable, and very misleading -- absolutely nobody ever asks after the data. We see that those who test well are more often circus dogs than leaders of the future.

Nothing inside the little red schoolhouse does more personal and social damage than the numbers and rank order these tests hang around the necks of the young. Although the scores correlate with absolutely nothing of real value, the harm they cause is real enough: such assessments are a crowning glory of the social engineers who seized final control of institutional schooling during the presidency o Franklin Roosevelt. They constitute a matchless weapon of social control, wreaking havoc on winners and losers alike. Standardized testing is the tail wagging the entire monster of forced institutional schooling.

The frequent ceremonies of useless testing -- preparation, administration, recovery -- convert forced schooling into a travesty of what education should be; they drain hundreds of millions of days yearly from what might otherwise be productive pursuits; they divert tens of billions of cash resources into private pockets. The next effect of standardized testing is to reduce our national wealth in future generations, by suffocating imagination and intellect, while enhancing wealth for a few in the present. This occurs as a byproduct of 'scientifically? ranking the tested so they can be, supposedly, classified efficiently as human resources. I hope the chapters of this book have done some damage to these assumptions, enough to recruit you as a leader in The Bartleby Project. If you show the way, others will follow.

We've reached a point in North America where it isn't enough to claim moral loftiness by merely denouncing them or muttering about them in books and essays which only true believers read. Standardized testing, which has always been about standardization and never about quality standards, must no longer be debated, but brutally and finally destroyed if schooling is ever again to take up a mission of intellect and character enhancement. And so, as I told you earlier, you'll be invited to lead -- not join, but lead -- a plan to cut the testing empire off at the knees; a plan to rip its heart out swiftly and cheaply. An incidental byproduct of the Bartleby Project will be to turn the men and women who create and supervise these murderous exercises into pariahs, but that isn't the point.

No organization will be required to oversee This simple plan -- or, rather, thousands of organizations will be; all local, all uncoordinated. Otherwise, we will be certain to be co-opted, marginalized, corrupted -- as all reform organizations become in time: and one as powerful as the Bartleby concept would be quickly subjected to sabotage were it centralized. To make this work -- and soon you'll know what it looks like specifically -- requires exactly the kind of courage it took to sledgehammer the first chunks out of the Berlin Wall, a currency in ready abundance among teenagers -- the rightful leaders. I'll briefly mount a case why such a project is needed and then introduce you to its spiritual godfather, Bartleby the Scrivener.

On May 8, 2008, the New York Sun reported that despite legal mandates which require physical education be offered every school day, only one kid out of every twenty-five received even the legal minimum of 24 minutes a day. The New York City comptroller was quoted by the Sun, saying that physical training was a major concern of parents. But then, parents have had no significant voice in school for over a century. The story gets even darker than you realize.

Quietly, over the past decade, a national epidemic of obesity and diabetes has appeared in children as young as five. The connections between food, lack of exercise, and these twin plagues have been recognized for a long time. Diabetes is the principal cause of blindness and amputations in the US, and obesity is the leading cause of  heart disease and self-loathing. That the non-fat are revolted by the fat, and discriminate heavily against them should not be a mystery, even to the stupid. Fat kids are punished cruelly in classrooms and on the playground.

In the face of these sobering facts, that thousands of schools still serve familiar fast food -- and also non-proprietary fatty foods like liverwurst and bologna as nutrition -- should have already caused you to realize that school is literally a risk to the mental and physical health of the young. Coupled with the curious legal tradition which makes serious lawsuits against school-generated human damage impossible, I hope you will try to convince yourself that behind the daily noise and squalor, a game is afoot in this institution which has little to do with popular myth. Standardizing minds is a big part of that game.

In the news story cited, a representative of New York City's Board of Education declares, 'we're beginning to realize student health is a real core subject area.' Think about that! The city has had a hundred year near-monopoly over children's daily lives and it's only beginning to realize that health is important? Where is evidence of that realization? Don't all schools still demand physical confinement in chairs as a necessary concomitant of learning?

When lack of exercise has clearly been figured as a main road to diabetes and obesity, and both conditions are well-understood to lead to blindness, amputations, heart disease, and self-hatred, how can law only provide 24 minutes of exercise a day, and be so poorly enforced that only one in twenty-five gets even that? Doesn't that tell you something essential about the managers of schooling? At the very least, that 96 percent of all schools in New York City break the law with impunity in a matter threatening the health of students. What makes it even more ominous is that school officials are known for and wide for lacking independent judgment and courage in the face of bureaucratic superiors; but something in this particular matter must give them confidence that they won't be held personally liable.

You must face the fact that an outlaw ethic runs throughout institutional schooling. It's well-hidden inside ugly buildings, masked by dull people, mindless drills, and the boring nature of almost everything associated with schools, but make no mistake - under orders from somewhere, this institution is perfectly capable of lying about life-and-death matters, so how much more readily about standardized testing?

If the bizarre agenda of official schooling allows its representatives to tell the press that after a hundred years they're beginning to learn what Plato and Aristotle wrote eloquently about thousands of years ago, and that privileged sanctuaries like Eton, Harrow, Groton, and St. Pauls have practiced since their inception, that physical health depends upon movement, you should be reluctant to assign credibility to any school declaration. Under the right pressure from somewhere, schools can easily be brought to act against the best interests of students or faculty.

This is what has happened with standardized testing, post WWII. Some teachers know, and most all teachers feel it in their bones, that the testing rituals cause damage. But human nature being what it is, only a few dare resist, and these are always eventually discovered and punished.
I began my own schooling in 1940 in the gritty industrial section of Pittsburgh ironically named 'Swiss-vale,' continued it for the most part in the equally gritty industrial exurb, Monongahela, during WWII and its aftermath, and concluded my time, served forcibly, in the green hills of western Pennsylvania, very near where Colonel Washington's late-night killing of French officer Jumonville precipitated the French and Indian War (Washington didn't do the killing himself, but he took the heat).

As compensation for confinement, schools in those days were generally places of visible morality, powerfully egalitarian, and often strongly intellectual under the rough manners of the classroom. Faculties were always local, which meant among other things that each school employee had a local reputation as a neighbor and citizen; they existed as people as well as abstract functions. Curriculum prepared far away, and standardized testing, was hardly in evidence even at the end of the school sequence for me, in the 1950s. Each classroom at my high school, Uniontown High, was personalized to a degree which would be considered dangerously eccentric today, and hardly tolerable.

And yet, boys and girls schooled that way had just finished ruining the tightly schooled dictatorships of the planet. We boasted often to ourselves, teenagers of the 1940s and 1950s, that unlike those unfortunate enough to live outside the US, we carried no identification papers, feared no secret police. Compared to the exotic liberty of those days of my boyhood, American society of sixty years later smacks a bit too much of a police state for comfort. To imagine old ladies being patted down for explosives at airports, or the IRS invasion of one's home, or the constant test rankings and dossiers of behavior managed through schooling; to imagine machinery purchased for home use spying on intimate choices and reporting those choices to stranger, would have been inconceivable in 1950.

A river of prosperity was lifting all boats in the US as I finished my own public schooling in 1953. My father was a cookie sales man for Nabisco, a man with no inheritance or trust fund, yet could cover my tuition at Cornell, own a new car, send my sister to college, pay for clarinet lessons for me and painting lessons for my sister, and put something aside for retirement. Schooling was considered important in those days, but never as very important. Too many unschooled people like my father and mother carried important responsibilities too well for pedagogical propaganda to end the reign of America's egalitarian ethic.

The downward spiral in school quality began in the 1950s with changes which went unnoticed. Schools were 'rationalized? after the German fashion? increment by increment they were standardized from coast to coast. By 1963, standardized tests were a fixture, although very few extended them any credibility; they were thought of as a curious break from classroom routine, a break imposed for what reason nobody knew, or cared. Even in the 1950s, curriculum was being dumbed down, though not to the levels reached in later years. Teachers were increasingly carpet-baggers, from somewhere outside the community in which they taught. Once it had actually been a legal requirement to live within the political boundaries of the school district, just as it was for police, fire fighters, and other civil servants, but gradually families came to be seen as potential enemies of the 'professional? staff; better to live far enough away they could be kept at arm's length.

Morality in schools was replaced with cold-blooded pragmatism. As Graham Greene has his police chief say, in Our Man in Havana, 'We only torture people who expect to be torture.' Ghetto kids were flunked and nearly flunked because that was their expectation; middle-class/upper-middle-class kids were given Cs, Bs and even As, because they and their parents wouldn't tolerate anything else.

School order came to depend upon maintaining good relations with the toughest bullies, covertly affirming their right to prey upon whiners and cry-babies (though never cry-babies from politically potent families). The intellectual dimension was removed from almost all classrooms as a matter of unwritten policy, and since test scores are independent of intellect, those teachers who tried to hold onto mental development as a goal, rather than rote memorization, actually penalized their students and themselves where test scores were the standard of accomplishment.
Horace Mann's ideal of common schooling was put to death after WWII; students were sharply divided from one another in rigid class divisions justified by standardized testing. Separation into winners and losers became the ruling dynamic.

By 1973, schools were big business. In small towns and cities across the land schoolteaching was now a lucrative occupation -- with short hours, long vacations, paid medical care, and safe pensions; administrators earned the equivalent of local doctors, lawyers, and judges.

Eccentricity in classrooms was steeply on the wane, persecuted wherever it survived. Tracking was the order of the day, students being steered into narrower and narrower classifications supposedly based on standardized test scores. Plentiful exceptions existed, however, in the highest classifications of 'gifted and talented,' to accommodate the children of parents who might otherwise have disrupted the smooth operation of the bureaucracy.

But even in these top classifications, the curriculum was profoundly diminished from standards of the past. What was asked of prosperous children in the 1970s would have been standard for children of coal miners and steel workers in the 1940s and 1950s. Many theories abound for why this was so, but only one rings true to me: From WWII onwards it is extremely easy to trace the spread of a general belief in the upper realms of management and academy that most of the population was incurably feeble-minded, permanently stuck at a mental level of twelve or under. Since efforts to change this were doomed to be futile, why undergo the expense of trying? Or to put a humane cast on the argument, which I once heard a junior high school principal expound at a public school board meeting: Why worry kids and parents with the stress of trying to do something they are biologically unable to achieve?

This was precisely the outlook Abraham Lincoln had ridiculed in 1859 (see Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life); precisely the outlook of Edward Thorndike, inventor of 'educational psychology? at Columbia Teachers College; precisely the outlook of H. H. Goddard, chairman of the psychology department at Princeton; precisely the outlook of great private corporate foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie; precisely the outlook of Charles Darwin and his first cousin, Francis Galton. You can find this point of view active in Plato, in John Calvin, in Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza, in Johann Fichte, and in so many other places it would take a long book to do justice to them.

As long as ordinary Americans like Ben Franklin's dad were in charge of educating their young, America escaped domination from the deadly assumptions of permanent inferiority -- whether spiritual, intellectual, or biological -- which provide the foundation for rigid social classes, by justifying them. As long as the crazy quilt of libertarian impulses found in the American bazaar prevailed, a period which takes us to the Civil War, America was a place of miracles for ordinary people through self-education. To a fractional degree it still is, thanks to tradition owing nothing to post-WWII government action; but only for those lucky enough to have families which dismiss the assumptions of forced schooling -- and hence avoid damage by the weapons of mass instruction.

As the German Method, intended to convert independent Bartleby spirits into human resources, choked off easy escape routs, it wasn't only children who were hurt, but our national prospects. Our founding documents endowed common Americans with rights no government action could alienate, liberty foremost among them. The very label 'school? makes a mockery of these rights. We are a worse nation for this radical betrayal visited upon us by generations of political managers masquerading as leaders. And we are a materially poorer nation, as well.

School's structure and algorithms constitute an engine like the little mill that ground salt in the famous fable -- long ago it slipped away from anyone's conscious control. It is immune to reform. That's why it must be destroyed. But how?

We will start at the weakest link in the German school chain, the standardized tests which are despised by everyone, school personnel included. The recent past has given us two astonishing accomplishments of citizen action -- no, make that three -- which should lift your spirits as you prepare to ruin the testing empire - instances of impregnable social fortresses blown to pieces by disorganized, unbudgeted decisions of ordinary people. Call these examples 'Bartleby Moments.' Think of the ending of the Vietnam War, when young people filled the streets; think of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall; think of the swift dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Bartleby Project
By the end of WWII, schooling had replaced education in the US, and shortly afterwards, standardized testing became the steel band holding the entire enterprise together. Test scores rather than accomplishment became the mark of excellence as early as 1960, and step by step the public was brought, through various forms of coercion including journalism, to believe that marks on a piece of paper were a fair and accurate proxy for human quality. As Alexander Solzhenitzyn, the Nobel Prize winning Russian author, said, in a Pravda article on September 18, 1988, entitled 'How to Revitalize Russia:?

No road for the people [to recover from Communism] will ever be open unless the government completely gives up control over us or any aspect of our lives. It has led the country into an abyss and it does not know the way out.

Break the grip of official testing on students, parents and teachers, and we will have taken the logical first step in revitalizing education. But nobody should believe this step can be taken politically -- too much money and power is involved to allow the necessary legislative action; the dynamics of our society tend toward the creation of public opinion, not any response to it. There is only one major exception to that rule: Taking to the streets. In the past half-century the US has witnessed successful citizen action many times: In the overthrow of the Jim Crow laws and attitudes; in the violent conclusion to the military action in Vietnam; in the dismissal of a sitting American president from office. In each of these instances the people led, and the government reluctantly followed. So it will be with standardized testing. The key to its elimination is buried inside a maddening short story published in 1853 by Herman Melville: 'Bartleby the Scrivener.'

I first encountered 'Bartleby? as a senior at Uniontown High School, where I was unable to understand what it might possibly signify. As a freshman at Cornell I read it again, surrounded by friendly associates doing the same. None of us could figure out what the story meant to communicate, not even the class instructor.

Bartleby is a human photocopy machine in the days before electro-mechanical duplication, a low-paid, low-status position in law offices and businesses. One day, without warning or explanation, Bartleby begins to exercise free will -- he decides which orders he will obey and which he will not. If not, he replies, 'I would prefer not to.' To an order to participate in a team-proofreading of a copy he's just made, he announces without dramatics, 'I would prefer not to.' To an order to pop around the corner to pick up mail at the post office, the same: 'I would prefer not to.' He offers no emotion, no enlargement on any refusal; he prefers not to explain himself. Otherwise, he works hard at copying.

That is, until one day he prefers not to do that, either. Ever again. Bartleby is done with copying. But not done with the office which employed him to copy! You see, without the boss? knowledge, he lives in the office, sleeping in it after others go home. He has no income sufficient for lodging. When asked to leave that office, and given what amounts to a generous severance pay for that age, he prefers not to leave -- and not to take the severance. Eventually, Bartleby is taken to jail, where he prefers not to eat. In time, he sickens from starvation, and is buried in a pauper's grave.

The simple exercise of free will, without any hysterics, denunciations, or bombast, throws consternation into social machinery -- free will contradicts the management principle. Refusing to allow yourself to be regarded as a 'human resource? is more revolutionary than any revolution on record. After years of struggling with Bartleby, he finally taught me how to break the chains of German Method schooling. It took a half-century for me to understand the awesome instrument each of us has through free will to defeat Germanic schooling, and to destroy the adhesive which holds it together -- standardized testing.

Signposts pointing our attention toward the Bartleby power within us are more common than we realize in the global imagination, as Joseph Campbell's splendid works on myth richly demonstrate (as do both Testaments of the Bible), but we needn't reach back very far to discover Thoreau's cornerstone essay on civil disobedience as a living spring in the American imagination, or Gandhi's spectacular defeat of the British Empire through 'passive resistance? as bold evidence that as Graham Greene should have taught us by now, 'they? would prefer to torture those who expect to be tortured.

Mass abstract testing, anonymously scored, is the torture centrifuge whirling away precious resources of time and money from productive use and routing it into the hands of testing magicians. It happens only because the tormented allow it. Here is the divide-and-conquer mechanism par excellence, the wizard-wand which establishes a bogus rank order among the schooled, inflicts prodigies of stress upon the unwary, causes suicides, family breakups, and grossly perverts the learning process -- while producing no information of any genuine worth. Testing can't predict who will become the best surgeon, college professor, or taxicab driver; it predicts nothing which would impel any sane human being to enquire after these scores. Standardized testing is very good evidence our national leadership is bankrupt and has been so for a very long time. The two-party system has been unable to give us reliable leadership, its system of campaign finance almost guarantees we get managers, not leaders; I think Ralph Nader has correctly identified it as a single party with two heads -- itself bankrupt.

I don't  know what do do about that, but I do know how to bring the testing empire to an end, to rip out its heart and make its inventors, proponents, and practitioners into pariahs whose political allies will abandon them.

Let a group of young men and women, one fully aware that these tests add no value to individual lives or the social life of the majority, use the power of the internet to recruit other young people to refuse, quietly, to take these tests. No demonstrations, no mud-slinging, no adversarial politics -- to simply write across the face of the tests placed in front of them, 'I would prefer not to take this test.' Let no hierarchy of anti-test management form; many should advise the project, but nobody should wrap themselves in the mantle of leadership. The best execution would not be uniform, but would take dozens of different shapes around the country. Like the congregational Church, there should be no attempt to organize national meetings, although national chatrooms, blogs, and mission-enhancing advisors of all political and philosophical stripes will be welcome. To the extent this project stays unorganized, it cannot help but succeed; to the extent 'expert? leadership pre-empts it, it can be counted on to corrupt itself. Think Linux, not Microsoft. Everyone who signs on should get an equal credit, latecomers as well as pioneers. Unto this last should be the watchword.

I prefer not to. Let the statement be heard, at first erratically and then in an irresistible tide, in classrooms across the country. If only one in ten prefer not to, the press will scent an evergreen story and pick up the trail; the group preferring not to will grow like the snow ball anticipating the avalanche.

What of the ferocious campaign of intimidation which will be waged against the refuseniks? Retribution will be threatened, scapegoats will be targeted for public humiliation. Trust me, think Alice in Wonderland; the opposition will be a house of cards, the retribution an illusion. Will the refusers be denied admission to colleges? Don't be naive. College is a business before it's anything else; already a business starving for customers.

The Bartleby Project begins by inviting 60,000,000 American students, one by one, to peacefully refuse to take standardized tests or to participate in any preparation for these tests; it asks them to act because adults chained to institutions and corporations are unable to; because these tests pervert education, are disgracefully inaccurate, impose brutal stresses without reason, and actively encourage a class system which is poisoning the future of the nation.

The Bartleby Project should allow no compromise. That will be the second line of defense for management, a standard trick taught in political science seminars. Don't fall for it. Reject compromise. No need to explain why. No need to shout. May the spirit of the scrivener put steel in your backbone. Just say:

I would prefer not to take your test.

An old man's prayers will be with you.

The Economics Of College
By Thomas Sowell
April 22, 2008

A front-page headline in the New York Times captures much of the economic confusion of our time: "Fewer Options Open to Pay for Costs of College."

The whole article is about the increased costs of college, the difficulties parents have in paying those costs, and the difficulties that both students and parents have in trying to borrow the money needed when their current incomes will not cover college costs.

All that is fine for a purely "human interest" story. But making economic policies on the basis of human interest stories -- which is what politicians increasingly do, especially in election years -- has a big down side for those people who do not happen to be in the categories chosen to write human interest stories about.

The general thrust of human interest stories about people with economic problems, whether they are college students or people faced with mortgage foreclosures, is that the government ought to come to their rescue, presumably because the government has so much money and these individuals have so little.

Like most "deep pockets," however, the government's deep pockets come from vast numbers of people with much shallower pockets. In many cases, the average taxpayer has lower income than the people on whom the government lavishes its financial favors.

Costs are not just things for government to help people to pay. Costs are telling us something that is dangerous to ignore.

The inadequacy of resources to produce everything that everyone wants is the fundamental fact of life in every economy -- capitalist, socialist or feudal. This means that the real cost of anything consists of all the other things that could have been produced with those same resources.

Building a bridge means using up resources that could have been used building homes or a hospital. Going to college means using up vast amounts of resources that could be used for all sorts of other things.

Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.

Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.

That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.

When you pay the full cost -- that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses -- you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.

Whether someone goes to college at all, what kind of college, and whether they remain on campus to do postgraduate work, are all questions about how much of the resources that other people want are to be taken away and used by those on whom we have arbitrarily focused in human interest stories.

This is not just a question about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole society's standard of living is lower when resources are shifted from higher valued uses to lower valued uses and wasted by those who are subsidized or otherwise allowed to pay less.

The fact that the Soviet economic system allowed industries to use resources wastefully meant that the price was paid not in money but in a far lower standard of living for the Soviet people than the available technology and resources were capable of producing.

The Soviet Union was one of the world's most richly endowed nations in natural resources -- if not the most richly endowed. Yet many of its people lived almost as if they were in the Third World.

How many people would go to college if they had to pay the real cost of all the resources taken from other parts of the economy? Probably a lot fewer people.

Moreover, when paying their own money, there would probably not be nearly as many people parting with hard cash to study feel-good subjects with rap sessions instead of serious study.

There would probably be fewer people lingering on campus for the social scene or as a refuge from adult responsibilities in the real world.

Those who argue that the taxpayers should be forced to subsidize people who go to colleges and universities seldom bother to think beyond the notion that education is a Good Thing.

Some education is not only a good thing but a great thing. But, like most good things, there are limits to how much of it is good -- and how good compared to other uses of the resources required.

In other words, education is not a Good Thing categorically in unlimited amounts, for people of all levels of ability, interest and willingness to work.

Nor is there any obvious way to set an arbitrary limit. These are questions that no given individual can answer for a whole society.

The most we can do is confront individuals with the costs that their choices are imposing on others who want the same resources for other purposes, and are willing to pay for those resources.

Those who cannot bring themselves to face the tough choices that reality presents often seek escape to some kind of fairy godmother -- the government or, more realistically, the taxpayers.

When the idea of conscripting taxpayers to play the role of fairy godmother (like Obama plans to do) for some arbitrarily selected favorites of the intelligentsia, "the poor" are often used as human shields behind which to advance toward their goal.

What will happen to the poor if there are no government subsidies for college?

If this argument is meant seriously, rather than being simply a political talking point, then there can always be some means test used to decide who qualifies as poor and then subsidize just those people -- rather than the vastly larger number of other claimants for government largesse who advance toward the national treasury, using the poor as human shields.

Another option would be to allow students to sign enforceable contracts by which lenders would pay their college or university expenses in exchange for a given percentage of their future earnings.

That way, students would be issuing stocks to raise capital, the way corporations do, instead of being limited to borrowing money to be paid back in fixed amounts -- the latter being equivalent to issuing corporate bonds.

Not only would this get the conscripted taxpayers out of the picture, it would also make it unnecessary for parents to go into hock to put their children through college.

Still, the financially poorest student in the land could get money to go to college, with a good academic record and a promising career from which to pay dividends on the lender's investment.

More fundamentally, it would confront the prospective college student with the full costs of all the resources required for a college education.

Those who are not serious -- which includes a remarkably large number of students, even at good colleges -- would have to back off and go face the realities of the adult world in the job market. But not as many jobs would be able to require college degrees if such degrees were no longer so readily available at someone else's expense.

If individuals issuing stock in themselves sounds impossible, it has already been done. Boxers from poor families get trained and promoted at their managers' expense, in exchange for a share of their future earnings.

Even some college students have already gotten money to pay for college in exchange for a share of their future earnings. However, in the current atmosphere, where college is seen as a "right," there has been resentment at having to pay back more than was lent when the recipient's degree brings in large paychecks.

What is truly repugnant to some people about college students issuing stocks as well as bonds is that this not only takes the government out of the picture, it takes the intelligentsia out of the picture as prescribers of how other people ought to behave.

Reality can be hard to adjust to. The most we can do is see that the adjustments are made by those who get the benefits, instead of making the taxpayer the one who has to do all the adjusting.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Is Prestige Worth It?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The obsession of many high school students and their parents about getting into a prestige college or university is part of the social scene of our time. So is the experience of parents going deep into hock to finance sending a son or daughter off to Ivy U. or the flagship campus of the state university system.

Sometimes both the student and the parent end up with big debts from financing a degree from some prestige institution. Yet these are the kinds of institutions that many have their hearts set on.

Media hype adds to the pressure to go where the prestige is. A key role is often played by the various annual rankings of colleges and universities, especially the rankings by U.S. News & World Report. These rankings typically measure all sorts of inputs-- but not outputs.

The official academic accrediting agencies do the same thing. They measure how much money is spent on this or that, how many professors have tenure and other kinds of inputs. What they don't measure is the output-- what kind of education the students end up with.

A new think tank in Washington is trying to shift the emphasis from inputs to outputs. The Center for College Affordability and Productivity is headed by Professor Richard Vedder, who gives the U.S. News rankings a grade of D. Measuring the inputs, he says, is "roughly equivalent to evaluating a chef based on the ingredients he or she uses."

His approach is to "review the meal"-- that is, the outcome of the education itself.

The CCAP study uses several measures of educational output, including the proportion of a college's graduates who win awards like the Rhodes Scholarships or who end up listed in "Who's Who in America," as well as the ratings that students give the professors who teach them.

Professor Vedder admits that these are "imperfect" measures of a college's educational output, but at least they are measures of output instead of input.

Some academic institutions come out at or near the top by either input or output criteria but there were some large changes in rankings as well. Among national universities, the top three are the same-- but in different order-- whether ranked by U.S. News or by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. They are Harvard, Yale and Princeton, according to Professor Vedder's think tank, and Princeton, Harvard and Yale in the U.S. News rankings.

Among the liberal arts colleges, however, there were some big changes. Although Williams and Amherst were the top two in both rankings, Washington & Lee moved up from 15th to 6th when ranked by Professor Vedder's group and Barnard climbed from 30th to 8th.

Whitman College, which was ranked 37th by U.S. News on the basis of the college's inputs, jumped to 9th when evaluated on its output by Vedder and company. Wabash College jumped from 52nd to 10th. West Point rose from 22nd to 7th.

One of my own favorite measures of output-- the percentage of a college's graduates who go on to get Ph.D.s-- was not used by either set of evaluations.

Small colleges dominate the top ten in sending their alumni on to get doctorates. Grinnell College, which was not among the top ten on either the U.S. News list or on Professor Vedder's list, sends a higher percentage of its graduates on to get Ph.D.s than does either Harvard or Yale.

No given criterion tells the whole story. In fact, the whole idea of ranking colleges and universities is open to question.

To someone who is making a decision where to apply, what matters is what is the best institution for that particular individual, which may not be best-- or even advisable-- for that applicant's brother or sister.

"Choosing the Right College" is by far the best of the college guides, partly because it does not give rankings, but more because it goes into the many factors that matter-- and which matter differently for different people.

What Professor Vedder's study does is provide yet another reason for parents and students not to obsess over big-name schools or their rankings-- or to go deep into hock over them.

Education and Entrepreneurship
By Arnold Kling : 01 Dec 2006 

"...we need a completely new stream of teachers to staff a new vision of what our high schools should look like."
-- Carl J. Schramm, The Entrepreneurial Imperative, p. 181

I have been losing interest in the contests between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. I am more anxious about the outcome of the struggle between innovators and incumbents in the field of education.

The incumbent policy is more of the same. Both parties in Washington champion more government involvement in primary education and more subsidies for existing colleges and universities.

The innovative policy is to support any alternative to our current education system. Ultimately, we would trust consumers to keep the best alternatives and discard the rest.

Wizard-of-Oz Diplomas

One politically popular idea is to try to send more young adults to college. This may seem appealing, but in reality we already have too many students in college who lack sufficient basic skills.

In November, after grading a batch of papers, I posted the following notice to the web site for an economics course that I teach at George Mason University:

Many students did poorly with writing quality. If it were up to me, a lot of you would be taking remedial English classes. I would advise everyone to think twice about using the word "on." For example, it is wrong to say, "The book discusses on economic growth" when the proper sentence is "The book discusses economic growth."

My recollection from my career in government and business is that written communication skills still matter. Out of over 100 students in my class at George Mason, no more than a handful could function in any capacity in a job that required writing a memorandum. Over half of the students are utterly incompetent when it comes to grammar and syntax. They have no ability to communicate complex ideas. Yet I do not fail these students. I feel that I must reserve my F's for the students who do not turn in papers at all.

I fear that many of the students who pass will go on to earn Wizard-of-Oz diplomas, which signify nothing. Students will claim to be educated, but employers will know otherwise. The phenomenon of the Wizard-of-Oz diploma has discredited the college degree.

My oldest daughter discovered that her degree qualified her for secretarial positions. She soon decided to try law school instead. As her experience illustrates, although the average salary differential between college graduates and non-graduates remains high, the marginal college graduate is earning little or no premium.

More Differentiation

While politicians champion more homogeneity in education (national standards; send everyone to college), my guess is that what we need is more differentiation. Students are heterogeneous in terms of their abilities, learning styles, and rates of maturation. Putting every student on the same track is sub-optimal for large numbers of young people.

Some students -- probably more than we realize -- are autodidacts, meaning that they teach themselves at their own pace. One of the brightest students in my high school statistics class simply cannot handle the structure of a school day. He is motivated to learn on his own (he was curious to read my book on health care and asked me for a copy), but he is demotivated by most of his classes.

Some students are not suited for academic study. We speak of the proverbial auto mechanic, but in fact the best career path for many of these students in today's economy would be in the allied health fields. Unfortunately, this career path is blocked by occupational licensing requirements, which prevent many otherwise capable students from pursuing careers in dental hygiene, physical therapy, or similar professions. If we had the equivalent credentialism at work in auto repair, you would need four years of college plus two or three years of post-graduate education just to work on a car.

Carl Schramm, quoted above, believes that many young adults would benefit from courses in entrepreneurship. Certainly, this would be at least as developmentally beneficial as the community service requirements imposed on so many students today, particularly if the entrepreneurship classes were hands-on and not merely theoretical. If it is difficult to imagine today's educators providing entrepreneurial experiences to students, then Schramm would argue that the solution is to replace many of today's educators.

In my economics class at George Mason, the first exercise I give students is to plan a start-up business. My goal, however, is not to teach them to be entrepreneurs. It is to help them appreciate the central role of entrepreneurs in the economy and to understand that a business is not a rich uncle, but an enterprise that wrestles with sales and costs in an attempt to make a profit.

Another educational issue that ought to be subject to experimentation is the mix among lectures, small classes, and self-paced instruction. Computers and the Internet create possibilities that did not exist 20 years ago. In theory, I could bring outstanding economics lecturers to my students over the Internet, and then break my class into discussion sections for close personal interaction.

Entry Barriers

Education suffers from major barriers to entry. Any industry that has strong entry barriers will suffer from a lack of innovation and sub-par productivity.

Some of the entry barriers are natural. Reputation is important in affecting the choices of parents and students, and the costs of building a reputation as a school or university are high.

However, many entry barriers in education are artificial. One of the biggest entry barriers is that government aid to education is given to incumbent institutions, rather than to parents and students. It is difficult for an entrepreneur to compete with a school or college that receives a hefty subsidy from the government. Changing the form of government aid from institutional assistance to vouchers would be a major step toward removing entry barriers in the field of education.

Another entry barrier is the accreditation process, which is controlled by the incumbents. Imagine what would happen in another industry, such as supermarkets or landscaping services, if in order to start a new business in that industry you had to become accredited by a board consisting mostly of incumbents in that industry. Nobody likes competition, and it is easy to think of excuses not to accredit a newcomer, especially an innovative upstart. If we had such an accreditation system in place in other industries, competition would be stifled, and the incumbents would be under no pressure to improve service or reduce costs. Creating a consumer-oriented accreditation board would help to lower this important entry barrier.

In my view, the key to improving education is removing entry barriers and allowing alternative schooling experiments (such as apprenticeships, tradeschools, etc.) to flourish. From this perspective, the politicians of both parties who are most strongly "pro-education" are in fact the biggest obstacles to improvement, since their policies serve only to entrench the educational establishment.

Preserving liberty and restoring constitutional precepts are impossible as long as the welfare mentality prevails, and that will not likely change until we've run out of money. But it will become clear, as we move into the next century, that perpetual wealth and the so-called balanced budget, along with an expanding welfare state, cannot continue indefinitely. Any effort to perpetuate it will only occur with the further erosion of liberty.
The role of the US government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the federal government got to public education was the Land Grant College program. In the last 40 years, the federal government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations, and curriculum manipulation. In 1900 it was of no concern to the federal government how local schools were run at any level.
After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations.
Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.
The one good result coming from our failed educational system has been the limited but important revival of the notion that parents are responsible for their children's education, not the state. We have seen literally millions of children taken from the public school system and taught at home or in private institutions in spite of the additional expense. This has helped many students and has also served to pressure the government schools into doing a better job. And the statistics show that middle-income and low-income families are the most eager to seek an alternative to the public school system.
There is no doubt that the way schools are run, how the teachers teach, and how the bills are paid is dramatically different from 100 years ago. And even though some that go through public schools do exceptionally well, there is clear evidence that the average high school graduate today is far less educated than his counterpart was in the early part of this century.
Due to the poor preparation of our high school graduates, colleges expect very little from their students, since nearly everyone gets to go to college who wants to. Public school is compulsory and college is available to almost everyone regardless of qualifications. In 1914, English composition was required in 98% of our colleges; today it's about one-third. Only 12% of today's colleges require mathematics be taught, where in 1914, 82% did. No college now requires literature courses. But, rest assured plenty of social-babble courses are required as we continue to dumb down our nation. (No wonder U.S. students rank 36th in the world!)
Federal funding for education grows every year, hitting $38 billion this year, $1 billion more than requested by the administration and 7% over last year. Great congressional debates occur over the size of a classroom, student and teacher testing, bilingual education, teacher's salaries, school violence, and drug usage. And it's politically incorrect to point out that all these problems are not present in the private schools. Every year there is less effort at the federal level to return education to the people, the parents, and the local school officials. For 20 years at least, some of our presidential candidates advocated abolishing the Department of Education and for the federal government to get completely out of the public education business. This year we will hear no more of that. The President got more money for education than he asked for, and it's considered not only bad manners but also political suicide to argue the case for stopping all federal government education programs. Talk of returning some control of federal programs to the state is not the same as keeping the federal government out of education as directed by the Constitution.
Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved, but there's no evidence of any benefit, and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense!
It's argued that if the federal funding for education did not continue education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at a private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better--and all done in the absence of violence and drugs. A case can be made that there would be more money available for education if we just left the money in the states to begin with and never brought it to Washington for the bureaucrats and the politicians to waste. But it looks like Congress will not soon learn this lesson, so the process will continue and the results will get worse.
The best thing we could do now is pass a bill to give parents a $3,000 tax credit for each child they educate. This would encourage competition and allow a lot more choice for parents struggling to help their children get a decent education.
-- From "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" by Dr. Ron Paul

For many students, their desire to go to college has nothing to do with education but rather "for the college experience" -- sex, drugs, and partying -- so-called "fun" and wasted money (and future years of both the parents' and students' lives paying it back). Caroline makes the case that the same money that a good college costs, if wisely invested, will often outweigh any possible differences in wages due to the college degree (especially in these non-serious students who many times never read a book again after they get out of college). This is not to say that for some students attending college for the right reasons who are going into certain fields for which college is required that college will not be a benefit, but going to college has become a "right" today, with students and parents alike not even thinking if it is necessary in their particular case. In many countries, a college diploma is now required for the most menial jobs: it's an additional hurdle to weed out the multitudes of job applicants so that the potential employer doesn't have to decide between so many applicants.

A classic example is in the Philippines a bachelor's degree minimum is required to cook the fries at Mc Donald's or to be a cashier at Metro Gaisano's, and a master's degree or Ph.D. is required to progress higher (manager, etc.) -- and it doesn't matter what the degree is in, since it's just an arbritrary hurdle to reduce the number of applicants for any given position. The consequences of this are that many families and students virtually starve, and go into debt for long times, to send their kids for meaningless degrees. This is happening here also, with almost every parent being brainwashed into thinking that they are somehow "depriving" their children if they don't send them to college right after high school. Some colleges, such as Yale University, recognize that many students are not mature enough to know what they want to do in life and suggest that they work for a few years until they know themselves better, rather than waste money and get a meaningless degree in liberal studies or liberal arts. They may also find that they are not suited for college -- wait! Did I say something politically incorrect? Surprise -- some kids are not suited for college. They are much better off spending their parent's money going to trade school and becoming a skilled tradesman (or woman), or becoming an apprentice and learning on the job. A good tip-off is that they hate books and only read glossy dating magazines.

Many students do not realize that learning is a lifelong commitment and think that once that get that "piece of paper" that this is the end of it. Employers routinely replace people who feel that way and won't continue to educate themselves through self-education, books (yes, you oftentimes actually have to even spend your own money to buy them, although a growing number of employers will reimburse for them -- but the important part is that you need to have the initiative and drive to ask for them, and then to study them once you get them.) Getting a diploma and then not keeping your knowledge up to date is a complete waste -- a waste of your time, future earnings (paying off student loans) and your parent's money. If you are not a studious person who enjoys or has the drive to keep your newly acquired knowledge current, I strongly advise you to reconsider your motivation for wanting to attend college.

Another less-known fact is that going to a state junior college, and then transferring to a state four year university afterwards (if required for your particular occupation) is much less expensive and every bit as good quality-wise; any vocational counselor will admit that if asked. It's what you put into your education that you get back from it (providing you select good teachers and they use good books that you can relate to -- but nothing says you can't buy your own additional books to help you understand the instructor's-chosen book, and I strongly advise you to do so if you cannot understand the required book). Also, once you get your foot in the door and get hired in your chosen profession (with a high school or A.Sc. degree), many employers will reimburse your tuition to continue your education, so that you can use more of your earnings towards a house, car or savings instead of spending many years paying back student loans.

Many students cause great hardship to themselves and their parents by refusing to consider less expensive alternatives that are every bit as good. Another thing that both parents and students are usually not aware of is that, although the average salary differential between college graduates and non-graduates remains high, the marginal college graduate is earning little or no premium (see above article "Education and Entrepreneurship" regarding "Wizard-of-Oz Diplomas".

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (Paperback)
by John Taylor Gatto

In this tenth-anniversary edition, Gatto updates his theories on how the U.S. educational system cranks out students the way Detroit cranks out Buicks. He contends that students are more programmed to conform to economic and social norms rather than really taught to think.
This radical treatise on public education has been a New Society Publishers' bestseller for 10 years! Thirty years of award-winning teaching in New York City's public schools led John Gatto to the sad conclusion that compulsory governmental schooling does little but teach young people to follow orders as cogs in the industrial machine.

Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future (Hardcover)
by Ben Shapiro
"Ben Shapiro is quickly emerging as one of our most refreshing and insightful voices on the popular culture."
Based on first person reporting, interviews with refugees from the porn industry, conversations with psychologist, educators, and students and a telling cultural critique Shaprio captures a generation.

Our universities have largely abandoned the search for truth and many former radicals (e.g., "Professor" Bill Ayers and others) seek to brainwash their students. Same sex dorms and bathrooms do demystify relations between the sexes and deter romantic love. Many pop stars are tarts and actively promote alternative lifestyles. Paris Hilton is "a fabulously rich slut" and Rap music is not indicative of black experience in America. Television definitely is a cesspool, Hollywood champions homosexuality in many a film and Pornography has a glamour today it does not deserve.

The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom (Hardcover)
by David Kupelian

Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation?from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history. 

The Marketing of Evil reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. 

Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive?in a word, evil. 

In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country. 

For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression." 

Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement?which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes?faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers. 

No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth. From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry. 

In the end, The Marketing of Evil is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "tempation"'the art and science of making evil look good.

From the Back Cover
"The Marketing of Evil is a serious wake-up call for all who cherish traditional values, the innocence of children, and the very existence of our great country." 'Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talk-show host and author
"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture." 'David Limbaugh, syndicated columnist and author
"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time. ... [An] important and groundbreaking book." 'D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries
"From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice,' the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive?with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines a light on them all." 'Michelle Malkin, Fox News Channel
"Like the dazzling disclosures found in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, The Marketing of Evil irresistibly exposes how it was done." 'Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition
"The game's over, folks'the con men have been exposed. I urge every parent to read this eye-opening book." 'Rebecca Hagelin, the Heritage Foundation
"The Marketing of Evil offers Americans real hope?because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions." 'Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com
"Excellent! Simply excellent." 'Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association

Of Knights and Fair Maidens: A Radical New Way to Develop Old-fashioned Relationships (Paperback)
by Jeffrey L Myers
Joshua Harris, Best-Selling Author of I KISSED DATING GOODBYE

"Jeff and Danielle prove that God's plan for relationships is not out-of-date or old-fashioned--it's for the adventurous, courageous and most importantly, romantic Christian single who wants God's best in relationships and marriage."

Congressman and Mrs. Jim Ryun
"We have been blessed by reading Of Knights and Fair Maidens because it is so practical. Every Christian should have a copy to use as a handbook for relationships!"

I Kissed Dating Goodbye (Paperback)
by Joshua Harris
While most Christians agree to seek purity and save sex for marriage, few have been given a blueprint for how that should affect their view of dating and love. In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Joshua Harris exposes the "Seven Habits of Highly Defective Dating" and offers a realistic outline of how to have a biblical vision of marriage. Harris contends that one must begin with a new attitude, viewing love, purity, and singleness from God's perspective rather than thinking that love and romance are to be enjoyed "solely for recreation." In such well-named chapters as "Guarding Your Heart" and "What Matters at Fifty," Harris encourages the reader to look at one's character rather than reveling in infatuation, to regard love as a truly selfless, biblical act rather than a feeling. He refutes the concept that we are victims of "falling in love" (that it is beyond our control), saying that "God wants us to seek guidance from scriptural truth, not feeling. Smart love looks beyond personal desires and the gratification of the moment. It looks at the big picture: serving others and glorifying God." Before you roll your eyes, moaning that this sounds terribly unromantic, know that Harris does a superb job of couching his convictions in the sincere belief that if we are purposeful in our singleness and date with integrity, a fulfilled marriage awaits us--in God's timing. --Jill Heatherly --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Joshua Harris's first book, written when he was only 21, turned the Christian singles scene upside down...and people are still talking. More than 800,000 copies later, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, with its inspiring call to sincere love, real purity, and purposeful singleness, remains the benchmark for books on Christian dating. Now, for the first time since its release, the national #1 bestseller has been expanded with new content and updated for new readers. Honest and practical, it challenges cultural assumptions about relationships and provides solid, biblical alternatives to society's norm.

Tired of the game? Kiss dating goodbye.

Going out? Been dumped? Waiting for a call that doesn't come? Have you tasted pain in dating, drifted through one romance or, possibly, several of them?

Ever wondered, Isn't there a better way?

I Kissed Dating Goodbye shows what it means to entrust your love life to God. Joshua Harris shares his story of giving up dating and discovering that God has something even better?a life of sincere love, true purity, and purposeful singleness.

Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship (Paperback)
by Joshua Harris
Joshua Harris follows up his bestselling I Kissed Dating Goodbye with Boy Meets Girl, the story of how he met and married his wife, Shannon. Where Harris's first book encouraged readers to throw off modern ideas of romantic fixation, Boy Meets Girl goes to the next level and urges single Christian men and women to pursue courtship, and ultimately marriage, thoughtfully and prayerfully. Knowing that many readers will balk at the idea of premeditated courtship, Harris insists that dating should not be emotional recreation but rather a careful decision rooted in obedience to God. While the anecdotes used to reveal true-to-life scenarios about dating pitfalls are somewhat elementary (and geared to those in their 20s), Harris succeeds in hammering home the point that obedience to God's word, selfless love, community, purity, and satisfaction in God are the most important aspect of any relationship. The last section of the book is particularly practical, discussing forgiveness of past sexual sin, questions to ask before tying the knot, and how an understanding of our sinful nature can lead to conflict resolution. For Harris's mere twentysomething years of life experience, his maturity and devotion to God are sincere evidence that he has indeed practiced what he has preached, resulting in a passionate relationship with the love of his life. --Jill Heatherly

From Publishers Weekly
In 1997, Harris's I Kissed Dating Goodbye became a phenomenon both in the publishing world and the Christian singles scene. Dating, Harris suggested, was an ungodly and unbiblical activity that Christians should reject in favor of a more old-fashioned, marriage-driven courtship. In this follow-up book, Harris guides Christians who are eager to say "I do" through the maze of finding a mate. His practical tips are set against the autobiographical backdrop of his own successful courtship with Shannon, now his wife of two years. Harris's words of wisdom aren't terribly innovative; they are the bread and butter of Christian relationship books claiming that good communication, sexual abstinence, friendship and fellowship are at least as important as romance.

The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values (Paperback)
by Alan Sears
As a result of the work of the American Civil Liberties Union and their war on America, we now live in a country where the church has been progressively silenced, parental authority has been undermined, children are less safe, and human life continues to be cheapened-both at birth and death. While the ACLU and its allies in the media have positioned themselves as the great defenders of freedom, they are in reality eliminating the freedoms of millions of Americans. Sadly, most Americans are unaware of the extreme positions of the ACLU.
But there is hope. Many Americans are waking up to the dangerous agenda of the ACLU. The ACLUvs. America will clue readers in to the culture wars afoot and will equip them to become effective agents for liberty and freedom against the ACLU's onslaught.

How I Found the Right Woman

Academic Cesspools
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The average taxpayer and parents who foot the bill know little about the rot on many college campuses. "Indoctrinate U" is a recently released documentary, written and directed by Evan Coyne Maloney, that captures the tip of a disgusting iceberg. The trailer for "Indoctrinate U" can be seen here.

"Indoctrinate U" starts out with an interview of Professor David Clemens, at Monterey Peninsula College, who reads an administrative directive regarding new course proposals: "Include a description of how course topics are treated to develop a knowledge and understanding of race, class, and gender issues." Clemens is fighting the directive, which applies not to just sociology classes but math, physics, ornamental horticulture and other classes whose subject material has nothing to do with race, class and gender issues.

Professor Noel Ignatiev, of the Massachusetts School of Art, explains that his concern is to do away with whiteness. Why? "Because whiteness is a form of racial oppression." Ignatiev adds, "There cannot be a white race without the phenomenon of white supremacy." What's blackness? According to Ignatiev, "Blackness is an identity that can be plausibly argued to arise out of a resistance to oppression." Bucknell professor Geoff Schneider agrees, saying, "A lot of our students, I think, are unconsciously racist." Both Ignatiev and Schneider are white.

The College of William & Mary and Tufts and Brown universities established racially segregated student orientations. At some universities, students are provided with racially segregated housing, and at others they are treated to racially separate graduation ceremonies.

Under the ruse of ending harassment, a number of universities have established speech codes. Bowdoin College has banned jokes and stories "experienced by others as harassing." Brown University has banned "verbal behavior" that "produces feelings of impotence, anger or disenfranchisement" whether "unintentional or intentional." University of Connecticut has outlawed "inappropriately directed laughter." Colby College has banned any speech that could lead to a loss of self-esteem. "Suggestive looks" are banned at Bryn Mawr College and "unwelcomed flirtations" at Haverford College. Fortunately for students, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has waged a successful war against such speech codes.

Central Connecticut State College set up a panel to discuss slavery reparations. All seven speakers, invited by the school, supported the idea. Professor Jay Bergman questioned the lack of diversity on the panel. In response, two members of the African Studies department published a letter criticizing Bergman, saying, "The protests against reparations stand on the same platform that produced apartheid, Hitler and the KKK." Such a response, as Professor Bergman says, is nothing less than intellectual thuggery.

For universities such as Columbia and Yale, military recruiters are unwelcome, but they welcome terrorists such as Columbia University's invitation to Colonel Mohammar Quadaffi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yale admitted former Taliban spokesman Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi as a student, despite his fourth-grade education and high school equivalency degree.

On other campuses, such as Lehigh, Central Michigan, Arizona, Holy Cross and California Berkeley universities, administrators banned students, staff and faculty from showing signs of patriotism after the 9/11 attacks. On some campuses, display of the American flag was banned; the pledge of allegiance and singing patriotic songs were banned out of fear of possibly offending foreign students.

Several university officials refused to be interviewed for the documentary. They wanted to keep their campus policies under wraps, not only from reporters but parents as well. When college admissions officials make their recruitment visits, they don't tell parents that their children will learn "whiteness is a form of racial oppression," or that they sponsor racially segregated orientations, dorms and graduation ceremonies. Parents and prospective students are kept in the dark.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org/) has published "Choosing the Right College," to which I've written the introduction. The guide provides a wealth of information to help parents and students choose the right college.

Academic Cesspools II
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 7, 2007

In last month's column "Academic Cesspools," I wrote about "Indoctrinate U," a recently released documentary exposing egregious university indoctrination of young people at prestigious and not-so-prestigious universities (www.onthefencefilms.com/movies.html). I said the documentary only captured the tip of a disgusting iceberg.

The Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a frontline organization in the battle against academic suppression of free speech and thought, released information about what's going on at the University of Delaware, and probably at other universities as well, that should send chills up the spines of parents of college-age students. The following excerpts are taken from the University of Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training document. The full document is available at www.thefire.org.

Students living in the University's housing, roughly 7,000, are taught: "A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)" This gem of wisdom suggests that by virtue of birth alone, not conduct, if you're white, you're a racist.

If you're white and disagree with racial quotas, preferences and openly racist statements made by blacks to whites, and you call it reverse racism or reverse discrimination, here's the document's message for you: "Reverse racism: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'" I agree with the last sentence. Racism is racism irrespective of color.

A white University of Delaware student might not have an ounce of ill will toward any race. According to the university's document, he's a racist anyway. "A non-racist: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim'). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent."

Then the document asks, "Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, 'I'm not a member of any race except the human race?' What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn't want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people."

I doubt whether this racist nonsense is restricted to the university's housing program. Students are probably taught similar nonsense in their sociology, psychology and political science classes. FIRE's outing of the University of Delaware's racist program elicited this official response from Vice President Michael Gilbert, "The central mission of the University, and of the program, is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas." (According to thefire.org, as a result of public exposure, and without condemning this racist program, on Nov. 2 President Patrick Harker ordered the mandatory re-education halted pending a review.)

It's a safe bet the university did not highlight this kind of learning experience to parents and students in its recruitment efforts. Nor were generous donors and alumni informed that they are racists by birth. I'd also guess that this kind of "education" was kept under wraps from the state legislators who use taxpayer money to fund the university.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Academic Intimidation
By Thomas Sowell
December 18, 2007

There is an article in the current issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education -- the trade publication of the academic world -- about professors being physically intimidated by their students.

"Most of us dread physical confrontation," the author says. "And so these aggressive, and even dangerous, students get passed along, learning that intimidation and implied threats will get them what they want in life."

This professor has been advised, at more than one college, not to let students know where he lives, not to give out his home phone number and to keep his home phone number from being listed.

This is a very different academic world from the one in which I began teaching back in 1962. Over the years, I saw it change before my eyes.

During my first year of teaching, at Douglass College in New Jersey, I was one of the few faculty members who did not invite students to his home. In fact, I was asked by a colleague why I didn't.

"My home is a bachelor apartment" I said, "and that is not the place to invite the young women I am teaching."

His response was: "How did you get to be such an old fogy at such a young age?"

How did we get from there to where professors are being advised to not even have their phone numbers listed?

The answer to that question has implications not only for the academic world but for the society at large and for international relations.

It happened because people who ran colleges and universities were too squeamish to use the power they had, and relied instead on clever evasions to avoid confrontations. They were, as the British say, too clever by half.

"Negotiations" and "flexibility" were considered to be the more sophisticated alternative to confrontation.

Most campuses across the country bought that approach -- and it failed repeatedly on campus after campus, when caving in on one set of student demands led only to new and bigger demands.

The academic world has never fully recovered. Many congratulated themselves on the restoration of "peace" on campus in the 1970s. Almost always, it was the peace of surrender.

In order to appease campus radicals, all sorts of new ideologically oriented courses, programs and departments were created, with an emphasis on teaching victimhood and resentments, often hiring people whose scholarly credentials were meager or even non-existent.

Such courses, programs, and departments are still with us in the 21st century -- not because no one recognizes their intellectual deficiencies but because no one dares to try to get rid of them.

One of the rare exceptions to academic cave-ins around the country during the 1960s was the University of Chicago. When students there seized an administration building, dozens of them were suspended or expelled. That put an end to that.

There is not the slightest reason why academic institutions with far more applicants than they can accept have to put up with disruptions, violence or intimidation. Every student they expel can be replaced immediately by someone on the waiting list.

In case of more serious trouble, they can call in the police. President Nathan Pusey of Harvard did that in 1969, when students there seized an administration building and began releasing confidential information from faculty personnel files to the media.

The Harvard faculty were outraged -- at Pusey. To call the cops onto the sacred soil of Harvard Yard was too much.

It just wasn't politically correct. And, as a later president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, could tell you, being politically correct can be the difference between remaining president of Harvard and having to give up the office.

Authority in general, and physical force in particular, are anathema to many among the intelligentsia, academic or otherwise. They can always think of some "third way" to avoid hard choices, whether on campus, in society, or among nations.

Moreover, they have little or no interest in the actual track record of those third ways. Having to learn to live with intimidation by their own students is one of the consequences.

PCC College Welcome

America has left many of its great founding principles -- hard work, personal responsibility, and initiative -- which are important in the daily lives of citizens and those in authority. At Pensacola Christian College, these same attributes, guided by the overriding goal of doing right before God, have helped this ministry grow to become what it is today. In academia, the desire to be highly accepted before secular institutions easily produces a spirit of elitism (pride) within a college's faculty, administration, and student body. This leads Christian institutions to develop condescending professional pride.

We are thankful PCC's student body, faculty, and administration demonstrate a happy, wholesome spirit'devoid of elitism, pride, and arrogancy. We are thankful for what God has done in our midst, not what man has achieved, and we do not desire secular (worldly) acceptance.

Over 11,000 PCC graduates are scattered around the world'the majority maintain a wholesome spirit reflecting the biblical values on which this institution was built. PCC has an excellent Christian and academic program with dedicated faculty and administration on a beautiful campus. Come bring your family for a visit, and experience the vibrant, wholesome environment for college young people!

America's headlong fall into socialism has received much attention in recent days. Evidences of this decline arise daily in politics, academics, and economics.

Yet, the path to socialism can actually be traced to the progressive socialists of the late nineteenth century with the beginning of the modern era and great advancements in science, industry, and psychology. Our citizenry and churches had reached such a self-sufficient complacency that people began to question -- and soon abandon -- the authority and precepts of God's Word. This thinking soon permeated every area of American life.

John Dewey and others promoted their social agenda academically through progressive education. At this same time, the scientific community began to question the Biblical account of creation and to embrace Darwin's theory of evolution. Historians tell us that a socialist movement sweeping through American politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries produced a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. For the first time in American history, the Constitution was openly criticized and reinterpreted.

Today, as Christian citizens, we are often appalled at the overwhelming degradation in our country. Yet, America's founders intended that her people enjoy freedoms based upon values that align with God's Word.

Only a return to Biblical principles can prevent the rise of socialism in America.

* Dr. Troy Shoemaker, Academic V.P. at PCC

Texas Boots Liberal Bias From Textbooks
by Phyllis Schlafly

'don't Mess With Texas? is a popular slogan in our most prosperous state. By a 10-to-5 margin, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) just told liberals to stop 'messing? with social studies textbooks.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education.

For years, liberals have imposed their revisionist history on our nation's public school students, expunging important facts and historic figures while loading the textbooks with liberal propaganda, distortions and cliches. It's easy to get a quick lesson in the virulent left-wing bias by checking the index and noting how textbooks treat President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

When parents object to left-wing inclusions and omissions, claiming they should have something to say about what their own children are being taught and how their taxpayers? money is spent, they are usually vilified as 'book burners? and belittled as uneducated primitives who should allow the 'experts? to decide.

The self-identified 'experts? are alumni of liberal teachers colleges and/or members of a left-wing teachers union.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education, department of education and curriculum committees.

Texas is different'the Texas State Board of Education is elected, and the people (even including parents!) have a voice.

In most states, the liberal education establishment enjoys total control over the state's board of education.

Texas is uniquely important in textbook content because the state of Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks. Publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, so Texas curriculum standards have nationwide influence.

The review of social studies curriculum (covering U.S. government, American history, world history and economics) comes up every 10 years, and 2010 is one of those years. The unelected education 'experts? proposed their history revisions, such as eliminating Independence Day, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Edison, Daniel Boone and Neil Armstrong, and replacing Christmas with Diwali.

After a public outcry, the SBOE responded with common-sense improvements. Thomas Edison, the world's greatest inventor, will be again included in the narrative of American history.

Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.

Liberals don't like the concept of American exceptionalism. The liberals want to teach what's wrong with America (masquerading under the code word 'social justice?) instead of what's right and successful. The SBOE voted to include describing how American exceptionalism is based on values that are unique and different from those of other nations.

The SBOE specified that teaching about the Bill of Rights should include a reference to the right to keep and bear arms. Some school curricula pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

It's no secret that the people who control public schools are at war with our nation's history, culture and achievements.

Texas curriculum standards will henceforth accurately describe the U.S. government as a 'constitutional republic? rather than as a democracy. The secularists tried to remove reference to the religious basis for the founding of America, but that was voted down.

The Texas Board rejected the anti-Christian crowd's proposal to eliminate the use of B.C. and A.D. for historic dates, as in Before Christ and Anno Domini, and replace them with B.C.E., as in Before the Common Era, and C.E.

The deceptive claim that the United States was founded on a 'separation of church and state? gets the ax, and rightfully so. In fact, most of the original 13 colonies were founded as Christian communities with much overlap between church and state.

History textbooks that deal with Joseph McCarthy will now be required to explain  'how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in U.S. government.' The Venona papers are authentic transcripts of some 3,000 messages between the Soviet Union and its secret agents in the United States.

Discussions of economics will not be limited to the theories of Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith. Textbooks must also include Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market theory.

History textbooks will now be required to cover the 'unintended consequences? of Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. Textbooks should also include 'the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.'

Texas textbooks will now have to mention 'the importance of personal responsibility for life choices? instead of blaming society for everything and expecting government to provide remedies for all social ills.

It's no secret that the people who control public schools are at war with our nation's history, culture and achievements. Since taxpayers foot the bill, it is long overdue for a state board of education to correct many textbooks myths and lies about our magnificent national heritage and achievements.

After a public comment period, a final vote on the Texas standards is expected in May.
Phyllis Schlafly, 'texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias From Textbooks?, Townhall.com 3/16/10. Used by permission.

Jersey School Calls off Dress Reversal

A New Jersey elementary school asked third grade boys to dress up like girls to celebrate Women's History Month.

According to parents in New Jersey, asking third grade boys to dress up like girls shouldn't be part of a graded assignment. At an?elementary school, the teacher'sent a letter home asking parents to cross-dress their kids for a 'fashion show? that 'just happened? to coincide with the homosexuals? Day of Silence.'

The mom?who led the charge against the idea, said her son was horrified at the idea and begged her not to make him do it. 'My husband and I are very open-minded, but?[t]he school system is trying to introduce alternative lifestyles in a sneaky way. At nine years old, I'm not ready to have the conversation with my son about homosexuals, lesbians, and cross-dressing.' The principal?got so many complaints she ultimately cancelled the event, claiming her teacher had been 'misunderstood.'

Actually, parents understand? the point of this exercise was: to give the transgender community an opportunity to indoctrinate their kids!

(Purposefully omitted was the name of the school, teacher, and parent. Check source of article for that.)

Tony Perkins
Washington Update, frc.org, 4/14/10

Who Killed High Academics?
by Paul Greenberg

State educators believe the most important thing is the number of students handed a diploma, whether they can read it or not'.

The latest institution of higher learning seeking to lower [academic scholarship] is the University of Arkansas, which is out to attract more students to its campus'. And what better way than to whittle away at the core of the core curriculum it once offered?indeed, demanded?of those who studied there? Never mind how much or just what those students may learn; the important thing is the number of students handed a diploma, whether they can read it or not'.

Scholarship is scarcely the highest priority of this state's public universities. That minor detail comes pretty far down?if it makes the list at all'.

These days the biggest concern at this state's 4-year universities is their low graduation rates. It seems many are called to these schools, but only 38% are chosen to graduate within 6 years.

That statistic?made the front page of the paper a few weeks back: 'Arkansas? university graduation rate 38%.' The graduation rate at 2-year community colleges is even lower?17%....

Citizens are supposed to be shocked, alarmed and moved to action by the low number of entering freshmen who manage to become graduating seniors in this state. But what else would you expect when you consider how poorly the kids are being prepared for college?

Last time I checked, more than half the graduates of the state's high schools (54.6% last year) needed to take remedial courses in math, English or reading to learn what they should have learned in high school.

The reaction of the state's educators has been pretty much what you'd expect: Churn out more graduates by lowering standards even further'.

The university's core curriculum is to be reduced from the current 66 to 35 credit hours. 'What we're trying to do in the state,' explains the chancellor, 'is get more students with baccalaureate degrees. Anything we can do to make it seamless and make it an easier transfer (from smaller colleges) to the university is good?'.

To quote Jim Purcell, who directs the state's Department of Higher Education: 'we're in a state where we're really trying to increase our graduates.' It's the number of graduates that count, you see, not whether they're being educated'.

After all, why should a scientist know something of Shakespeare, or a student of foreign languages take geometry? Why study a foreign tongue at all when everybody in the world now speaks English, or should? Why should a degree of familiarity with the King James Bible be expected of any but pre-ministerial students? Or a course in genetics be of any interest to students in the humanities? Such notions are so?classical.

A broad liberal education is the antithesis of a technical, specialized education, which is what results when each department of the university decides for itself what general education courses it will require for its specialty.

The term liberal education derives from the concept of an education suitable for the free -- those who enjoy liberty.

Education, like modern society itself, is now to be broken down into specializations. 'Why should not all students, whether in physics or phys-ed, be required to have much the same core curriculum, or liberal education'?

Lest we forget, the term liberal education derives from the concept of an education suitable for the free'those who enjoy liberty. Rather than being enslaved by their own ignorance.

'Who Killed Scholarship'? Townhall.com 6/9/10 © Tribune Media Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Permanent Politicians & Tenured Professors
by Scooter Schaefer

Tenured professors have little or no accountability for their actions or words.

[In November '09] a concrete and tangible measure of hope and real change was introduced on Capitol Hill?in the form of a constitutional amendment that would place term-limits on members of the House and Senate. Simple yet compelling, the amendment would oust those deemed 'permanent politicians?'.

[Republican Senator Jim] DeMint summed up the disparaging condition of Washington D.C. perfectly in support of his amendment: 'As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork?in short, amassing their own power.'

Apply a similar litmus test to higher education in the United States, and the policy of tenure draws stark comparisons. Emboldened by increased control over curriculum, position in high-level committees and seemingly impenetrable job security, tenured professors have little or no accountability for their actions or words. And, just like a permanent politician, a tenured professor's incentive for achieving success becomes exclusively self-controlled and self-serving. Whether that is to gain notoriety, receive more funding for pet projects, or to pursue an agenda, the measurement of success is left to the individual'.

Inevitably proponents of tenure will defend its purpose of protecting the free speech rights and academic freedom of its members. However, to say that selected professors are guaranteed these liberties with no exceptions while others are not produces perhaps the worst product of tenured reign, an academic caste system between the haves and the have-nots.

The 'haves? are secure in their tenured positions, enjoying academic freedom, the pursuit of their own agenda, and in most cases the power to decide who will join their illustrious club. The 'have-nots? are those whose positions are not set in stone, whose academic freedom and pursuits are frequently scrutinized by their'tenured counterparts, and whose path forward often hinges on their ability to obtain job security in the form of tenure.

What has not changed either on university campuses or in Washington? is corruption, trading favors, jockeying for funding, and as DeMint aptly put it 'amassing their own power,' by a network of permanent professionals.

Seldom do we see an elected official actively seek restraint rather than pursue excess to their own power'. In the same regard, our public institutions and colleges should pursue true academic integrity by seriously reconsidering the disingenuous businessas- usual practice of tenure, and replace it with one that encourages real change.

First appeared in Townhall.com 11/19/09.

America's Schools Social Indoctrination
by Phyllis Schlafly

What caused children of the 'religious right? to change their moral imperatives so dramatically?

Why did 18-to-29-year-old evangelicals vote for Barack Obama despite his apostasy on the fundamental moral issues of abortion and samesex unions? They voted 32% for Obama, twice the percentage of that demographic group who voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Social Justice Indoctrination Many of these young people identify 'social justice? as the reason that led them to relegate the prime moral issues of life and marriage to the back burner. But the term 'social justice? does not define a moral cause?it is left-wing jargon to overturn those who have economic and political power.

What caused young evangelicals, the children of the so-called 'religious right,' to change their moral imperatives so dramatically? Most likely it's the attitudes and decisionmaking they learned in the public schools, which 89% of U.S. students attend.

Propaganda Centers

The public schools took a major left turn in the 1960s, when humanist John Dewey and the instructors he trained at Columbia Teachers College began their put-down of objective truth and authoritative notions of good and evil. In the 1970s, Sidney Simon's best-seller Values Clarification taught students to cast off their parents? values and make their own choices, often aided by Kinsey-trained sexperts determined to change our sexual mores.

By the 1980s, many radical antiwar activists of the 1960s had become tenured college professors, so teachers colleges and public schools opened their doors to 'social justice? instruction. Among these '60s radicals was Weather Undergrounder William Ayers, who?emerged as a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Ayers developed quite a following as he taught resentment against America. In 2008, he was elected by his peers as vice president for curriculum studies of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of education professors and researchers'.

Ayers became a leading advocate of 'social justice? teaching -- i.e., getting students to believe that they are victims of an unjust, oppressive and racist America'.

Ayers has been on a decades-long mission to transform education into anti-American indoctrination and to get young people to demand government control of the economy, politics and culture. We see the result in the 2008 post-election surveys: 7 out of every 10 voters between the ages of 18 and 29 now favor expanding the role of government and agree that the government should do more to solve the nation's problems. It's obvious which party and which candidates will get their vote'.

70% of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 now favor expanding the role of government.

The National Association of Scholars reports that use of the term 'social justice? is today understood to mean 'the advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through statesponsored redistribution.' That is academic verbiage for Barack Obama's assertion that he wants to 'spread the wealth around.'

Methods of Indoctrination

Rethinking Schools is a Milwaukee-based organization that publishes instructional materials to assist teachers how to 'weave social justice issues throughout the curriculum.' Lessons include 'Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers? and 'Reading, Writing, and Rising Up: Teaching About Social Justice and the Power of the Written Word.'

The thinking of teachers is further molded at expensive conferences, financed by billing the taxpayers. The National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) sponsors seminars with titles such as 'Our Work  as Social Justice Educators,' 'Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary Schools,' 'Dismantling White Privilege and Supporting Anti-Racist Education in Our Classrooms and Schools? and 'Creating Change Agents Who Teach for Social Justice.'

This 'social justice? curriculum results in a heavy cost in time not spent on the basics. Young Americans who are exposed to Ayers? radical left-wing ideas generally have little background information to help them evaluate bias and errors'.

Phyllis Schlafly 'Public Schools Change Young Evangelicals? Values? townhall.com 12/30/08.

Islam's Influence in Our Schools Christian Action Network

Information sent out by the Christian Action Network informs that some public schools across the country are teaching and practicing the Muslim cult with their students.

In Bryon Unified School District, California, seventh grade students were given an 'Islamic Student Guide? which specifically states: 'From the beginning you and your classmates will become Muslim.' The program has been upheld as constitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This same school taught or asked students to: (1) Recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with, 'In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,' (2) Memorize the Muslim profession of faith: 'Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger,' (3) Chant 'Praise be to Allah? in response to prompts by the teacher, (4) Profess as true, the Muslim belief that 'the Holy Quran is God's Word,' (5) Give up candy and TV to demonstrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, (6) Take an Arabic name from a list of 30, (7) Play a game called 'Race to Mecca,' (8) Wear an emblem of the Muslim star and crescent moon around their necks, (9) Recite the following jihadist prayer: 'Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: 'March in the cause of Allah,' you linger slothfully in the land'...if you do not fight, He will punish you sternly and replace you with other men.'

Public schools across the country are teaching and practicing the Muslim cult with their students.

In Nyssa, Oregon, students are taught: (1) How to say Muslim prayers, (2) The Five Pillars of Islamic Faith, (3) Key scriptures from the Koran, (4) To dress up as Muslims, (5) To perform Islamic skits, and (6) To build Muslim props.

A suburban school in Dallas allows Muslims to leave class to pray. A Minneapolis school allows Muslim students to organize an hour of prayer on Fridays. In Dearborn, Michigan, Muslim students are given two days off to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.
In Irmo High School in Columbia, South Carolina, students are required to:
(1) Create a pamphlet which would teach people about Islam,
(2) Discuss the Five Pillars of Islam.
(3) Students were told that all religions are based on Islam,
(4) Taught that the United States is a 'Judeo-Christian-Muslim? nation.
(5) Muslim students are allowed to use the school library for prayer each day.

Christian Action Network in Maranatha, Baptist Watchman, 9/09. Phyllis Schlafly 'Public Schools Change Young Evangelicals? Values? townhall.com 12/30/08.

Pensacola Christian College Update Magazines (PDFs) with more great articles (like the above):

A great college that you might encourage your children or grandchildren to attend:

Some great articles at another great college that you might encourage your children or grandchildren to attend:

Examples (many more at above link):
Robert Herbold: K-12 Establishment is Putting America's Industrial Leadership At Risk

Gilbert Meilaender:  C.S. Lewis on Moral Education

Larry Arnn: The Crisis and Politics of Higher Education

Arlan Gilbert: Hillsdale College and Imprimis

Larry P. Arnn: Education, Economics, and Self-Government

Edward Erler: Michigan Affirmative Action Cases: An Historical Perspective

Edmund Fairfield: College and the Republic

Sky Dayton: Education in the Internet Age

William Brodbeck: What Hillsdale Means

Robert Hanna: Hillsdale Approach to Teacher Education

Victor Davis Hanson: Classics and War

Dinesh D'Souza: Multiculturalism: Fact or Threat?

Ward Connerly: Leadership, Character, and America's Future

Lawrence Reed: A New Direction for Education Reform

Larry Arnn: Hillsdale and America

Ward Connerly: Content of Our Children's Character

Various Authors: Hillsdale I Know

Steve Forbes: Training Minds and Hearts: Principle-Centered Education Reform

Margaret Thatcher: Challenge of Educating for 21st-Century Citizenship

Fritz Steiger: Putting Children First

Virginia Gilder: Want Better Public Education? Support Private Vouchers

Theodore Forstmann: Competitive Vision for American Education

Jennifer Grossman: How Philanthropy Is Revolutionizing Education

Thomas Sowell: Minority Schools and the Politics of Education

Thomas Sowell Archives

Racial Quota Fallout By Thomas Sowell

The Big Hoax By Thomas Sowell

01/17/12: An Ignored 'Disparity'
01/18/12: An Ignored 'Disparity': Part II
01/19/12: An Ignored 'Disparity': Part III
01/20/12: An Ignored 'Disparity': Part IV

Race and Economics

College admissions voodoo

Power versus knowledge

Silencing whom?

Summer de-programming

The "working poor" scam

Race Card Fraud

Gun Control Laws

Gun control hypocrisy

Gunning for guns

Shooting the helpless

Gun control myths

Gun-safety starts with parental responsibility

Mass shootings and mass hysteria

The sniper and the gun controllers

Who is promoting violence?

"Friends" of blacks

Victimizing blacks

"Racism" in word and deed

Drugging children

Race and IQ

Teaching to the test

Race rationales vs. results

"Diversity" in India

The IQ exemption

Who needs "Black history month"?

Race and the new century

Forced to volunteer

Childish labor laws

Holding parents responsible

A 'Duty to Die'

Filtering History

Equality or pay-back?

Are You an 'Extremist'?

De-Programming Students

Education or incitement

School to school

Affirmative Action and Gay 'Marriage'

Bookstore ghettoes

Recycled 'racism'

Playing blacks for suckers

Sorting by race

Race dialogue: same old stuff

Bigot is as bigot does
by Linda Bowles

Are educators above the law?

Tired of race?

International affirmative action

Immigration taboos

Legalizing the illegals

"Living wage" kills jobs

Liberals, race, and history

Race and Cant

Academic freedom'?

School performances

School disasters

The dangers of "equality"

I'm a victim of 'racial profiling'

Blacks and bootstraps

Spinning education

Teachers' union lies

Teachers' union gall

The politics of education

Campus orientation

Wake up, parents!

Another double standard

Do 'minorities' really have it that bad?

The illusion of education reform

The tests made me do it!

Testing integrity

The 'Education' Mantra

Dependency and Votes

Wasting minds

Too much "education"?

School choice wars

Too many Ph.Ds?

Moral bankruptcy in the schools

Dumb is dangerous

Bad Teachers

Good teachers

French student riots

A Reply to teachers
What teachers object to most often is my pointing out that the people who teach in our public schools are drawn overwhelmingly from the bottom half of college students. A recent book -- "The Conspiracy of Ignorance" by Martin Gross -- says the bottom third but, in any case, we are talking about having our children taught by the dregs of the college-educated population.
Outraged teachers seem to think that this is some sort of personal opinion or bias on my part, based on some inexplicable desire to "bash" teachers.
Various kinds of psychobabble reasons have been suggested for such malign intentions. It never seems to occur to them that the reason I say it is because it is true...

Julian Stanley and bright children

Academic intimidation

Prestige Versus Education

Global warming swindle

Education: Then and now

The education bill

Blacks, Hispanics and education

'Change' Is Not New

The Fallacy of 'Fairness'

The Great Escape

Academic Hypocrisy By Thomas Sowell

Keith Butler: Bishop Butler Addresses Academy Students

Alexandra York: The Fourth "R" in Education: Reading, WRiting, Rithmetic, and ARt

John Fund: Politics, Economics, and Education in the 21st Century

Ward Connerly: Back to Equality

BalintVazsonyi: Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of Direction

Wade Horn: Why There Is No Substitute for Parents

Robert Hanna: Hillsdale Academy: A Model for America

George Roche: The Mission of Hillsdale College: An Inside Perspective

Linda Chavez: Hispanics and the American Dream

Michael Medved: Protecting Our Children from a Plague of Pessimism

Patrick Fagan: Real Root Cause of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of the Family

Robert Blackstock: Hillsdale College and the Western Tradition: Exploring the Roots of Freedom

Robert Novak: Political Correctness in the Newsroom

George Roche: How Government Funding Is Destroying American Higher Education

Clarence Thomas: Education: The Second Road to Freedom

George Roche: Hillsdale College vs. the Federal Bureaucrats?Again

Polly Williams: Inner City Kids: Why Choice Is Their Only Hope

Patrick Rooney: Private Vouchers: A New Idea in Education Reform

Larry Woiwode: Television: The Cyclops that Eats Books

Barry Asmus: Building an Unlimited Future

Christina Sommers: Teaching the Virtues

George Roche: The Corruption of Education: Failing Colleges, "Political Correctness," and Federal Funding

Dan Coats: America's Youth: A Crisis of Character

George Roche: Sesquicentennial: Hillsdale College, 1844-1994

Charles Sykes: How Colleges Are Failing Our Students

Christina Sommers: Feminism and the College Curriculum

Lynne Cheney: Why We Need a Core Curriculum for College Students

Warren Brookes: Public Education and the Global Failure of Socialism

Gerda Bikales: Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Bilingual Education in Our Schools

WilliamAllen: The Civil Rights Revolution

John Willson: Dilemmas of the Christian College Athlete

Jeane Kirkpatrick: The Myth of Moral Equivalence

George Roche: How to Put Our Schools on the Road to Renewal

Carl Henry: The Crisis of Modern Learning

Tom Wolfe: Idea Fashions of the Eighties: After Marx, What?

John Muller: Educational Bankruptcy and the Hillsdale Vision

Teaching and Academic Life

Truly Private Education

Coping with Ignorance

Something-for-Nothing Syndrome

New Left, Watergatend American Higher Education

Noble Lie and the Women's Movement

Bias of Network News

Liberating Education

Educational Inflation

Decadence and Recovery in American Education

Urban Crime: Its Causes and Control

Why Attend College?

Many Students Do Not Belong in College:

Only people who love studying, reading and keeping up-to-date (many college "graduates" never read a book again after graduating), since almost all of what a student learns in college will be out-of-date by the time he or she graduates (especially in technical areas, but even in other fields, such as psychology, etc.), he will need to continously attend seminars, classes and/or study books to keep current in their chosen profession (and to keep employable, so their employer won't replace them with a younger, more up-to-date, person with a lower salary. This former college professor says that only students scoring in the top 5-10% on nationally standardized tests, who have the perseverence, diligence, and love of learning to persist through a college degree, and whose parents can afford it, should attend college. Many of his college students, and this is typical of many, could not even read well enough to even understand college-level textbooks -- certainly, not fully (and too many do not want to read, anyhow -- they're there for the "college experience": partying, drinking, alcohol, sex, socializing, etc.)
Too many people hand their child a college catalog and tell him (or her), "Here -- look through these professions (that require a college degree) and pick something that appeals to you", instead of determining first which professions they are interested in, have the ability, aptitude and personality traits for, and for which there are enough actual job openings, and only having them attend college if the profession they want to go into requires a college education. There may be other occupations that are equally interesting to them that do not require a college education and this is important to consider and discuss, especially when finances are limited.

Many guidance counselors tell the students not to worry about money -- that they will "find" them grants/loans, etc. that will cover the cost, and discourage them from working while attending college at night (and having their employer pay for it) or attending junior colleges for 2 years and then, if the occupation actually requires a 4 year degree, transferring to a state 4 year college  -- and the parents (and students) end up borrowing so much that it takes many years to repay it. Coupled with the interest, it is often many years before a student even breaks even (especially if the student ends up working in another field, or doesn't graduate, or if the student majors in a field for which there are no openings).

A hidden cost that is often overlooked and can be substantial (4 or more years salary) is the income that is lost while a student is in college vs if they worked full or part time in either another profession, or while having their employer pay for their college via night-school (in effect, this is college for free).

College is such a big business today that many colleges offer courses (usually at the junior high school level) and degrees for subjects and skills that do not require college at all (and never did), in order to increase their revenue base.

(See the link above for more details).

Time to Investigate the Department Of Education
American Education Fails Because it isn't Education
- Tom Deweese Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The debate over public education grows more heated. Regularly, reports are released showing that the academic abilities of American students continue to fall when compared to those in other countries.

Twenty years ago the U.S. ranked first in the world in the number of young adults who had high school diplomas and college degrees. Today we rank ninth and seventh, respectively, among industrialized nations. Compared to Europe and Asia, 15-year-olds in the United States are below average in applying math skills to real-life tasks. The United States ranks 18 out of 24 industrialized nations in terms of relative effectiveness of its education system. Knowledge in history, geography, grammar, civics and literature are all in decline in terms of academic understanding and achievement.

To solve the crisis, politicians, community leaders, and the education community all preach the same mantra. Students fail, they tell us, because "expectations haven't been set high enough." We need more "accountability," they say. And every education leader and nearly every politician presents the same "solution" to the education crisis: more money, better pay for teachers, and smaller classroom numbers so the children get enough attention from the teachers.

Consequently, there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world. First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152. The U.S. is also a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world. Yet the slide continues. American students grow more illiterate by the year. How can that be? We're doing everything the "experts" tell us to do. We're spending the money. We're building more and more schools. We're raising teacher's pay.

Every American should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers. It is a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the education system, and more pay for its members. It also seeks to make work easier for its members -- smaller classrooms. Clearly the NEA is not about education -- it's about money and a political agenda.

Clearly the nation's education system is not teaching the children. They can't read or work math problems without a calculator. They can't spell, find their own country on a map, name the president of the United States or quote a single founding father. America's children are becoming just plain dumb.

Yet we have been focusing on a massive national campaign to "fix" the schools for the past two decades or more. Now we have ultra high-tech, carpeted, air-conditioned school buildings with computers and television sets. We have education programs full of new ideas, new methods, and new directions. In the 1990's we set "national standards," accountability through "national testing" through Goals 2000. Through that program we declared that every child would come to school "ready to learn," "no child would be left behind," and pledged that our kids would be "second to none" in the world. Above all, we've spent money, money and more money. The result, American students have fallen further behind, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math, 16th in science, and dead last in physics.

With all the programs and attention on education, how can that be? To coin a well-worn cliché -- "it's the programs, stupid." More precisely, it's the federal programs and the education bureaucracy that run them. It is simply a fact that over the past twenty years America's education system has been completely restructured to deliberately move away from teaching basic academics to a system that focuses on little more than training students for menial jobs. The fact is, the restructured education system has been designed to deliberately dumb-down the children. (Note: the NEA hates that phrase!)

Most Americans find that statement to be astonishing and, in fact, to be beyond belief. Parents don't want to let go of their child-like faith that the American education system is the best in the world, designed to give their children the academic strength to make them the smartest in the world. Politicians continue to offer old solutions of more money and more federal attention, almost stamping their feet, demanding that kids learn something. Programs are being proposed that call for teacher testing to hold them accountable for producing educated children. More programs call for annual tests to find out if children have learned anything. The nation is in panic. But none of these hysterical responses will improve education -- because none of them address the very root of the problem.

The truth is, none of the problems will go away, nor will children learn until both parents and politicians stop trusting the education establishment and start ridding the system of its failed ideas and programs. Parents and politicians must stop believing the propaganda handed down by the education establishment that says teaching a child in the twenty-first century is different and must be more high tech than in days past. It simply isn't so.

Today's education system is driven by money from the federal government and private foundations, both working hand-in-hand with the education establishment headquartered in the federal Department of Education and manned by the National Education Association (NEA). These forces have combined with psychologists, huge textbook publishers, teacher colleges, the healthcare profession, government bureaucrats, big corporations, pharmaceutical companies and social workers to invade local school boards, classrooms and private homes in the name of "fixing" education.

The record shows that each of these entities has benefited from this alliance through enriched coffers and increased political power. In fact, the new education restructuring is working wonders for everyone involved -- except for the children and their parents. As a result of this combined invasion force, today's classroom is a very different place from only a few years ago.

There is simply not enough room on these pages to tell the entire history of education restructuring and transformation. It dates back to the early efforts by psychologists like John Dewey, whose work began to change how teachers were taught to teach in the nation's teacher colleges. The changes were drastic as education moved away from an age-old system that taught teachers how to motivate students to accept the whole scope of academic information available. Instead the new system explored methods to maneuver students through psychological behavior modification processes. Rather than to instill knowledge, once such a power was established the education process became more of a method to instill specific agendas into the minds of children.

As fantastic as it seems, the entire history of the education restructuring effort is carefully and thoroughly documented in a book called The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book was written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a former official at the Department of Education in the Reagan Administration. While there in 1981 -- 1982, Charlotte found the "mother lode" hidden away at the Department. In short, she found all of the education establishment's plans for restructuring America's classrooms. Not only did she find the plans for what they intended to do, she discovered how they were going to do it and most importantly why. Since uncovering this monstrous plan, Charlotte Iserbyt has dedicated her life to getting that information into the hands of parents, politicians and the news media.

Iserbyt's work details how the process to restructure America's education system began at the beginning of the Twentieth Century and slowly picked up speed over the decades. The new system used psychology-based curriculum to slowly change the attitudes, values and beliefs of the students.

The new school agenda was very different from most peoples' understanding of the purpose of American education. NEA leader William Carr, secretary of the Educational Policies Commission, clearly stated that new agenda when in 1947 he wrote in the "NEA Journal:" "The teaching profession prepares the leaders of the future... The statesmen, the industrialists, the lawyers, the newspapermen...all the leaders of tomorrow are in schools today." Carr went on to write: "The psychological foundations for wider loyalties must be laid...Teach those attitudes which will result ultimately in the creation of a world citizenship and world government... we can and should teach those skills and attitudes which will help to create a society in which world citizenship is possible."

Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the Father of Outcome-based Education (OBE) said: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." B.F. Skinner determined that applied psychology in the class curriculum was the means to bring about such changes in the students values and beliefs simply by relentlessly inputting specific programmed messages. Skinner once bragged: "I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule." Whole psychological studies were produced to prove that individuals could be made to believe anything, even to accept that black was white, given the proper programming.

The education system is now a captive of the Skinner model of behavior modification programming. In 1990, Dr. M. Donald Thomas perfectly outlined the new education system in an article in "The Effective School Report" entitled "Education 90: A Framework for the Future." Thomas said: "From Washington to modern times, literacy has meant the ability to read and write, the ability to understand numbers, and the capacity to appreciate factual material. The world, however, has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The introduction of technology in information processing, the compression of the world into a single economic system, and the revolution in political organizations are influences never imagined to be possible in our lifetime... Literacy, therefore, will be different in the year 2000. It will mean that students will need to follow:

* Appreciation of different cultures, differences in belief systems and differences in political structures.
* An understanding of communications and the ability of people to live in one world as one community of nations...
* In a compressed world with one economic system...it is especially important that all our people be more highly educated and that the differences between low and high socio-economic students be significantly narrowed...
* Education begins at birth and ends at death...
* Education is a responsibility to be assumed by the whole community...
* Learning how to learn is more important than memorizing facts...
* Schools form partnerships with community agencies for public service projects to be a part of schooling...
Rewards are provided for encouraging young people to perform community service."

In this one outline, Dr. Thomas provides the blueprint for today's education system that is designed to de-emphasis academic knowledge; establish the one-world agenda with the United Nations as its center and away from belief in national sovereignty; replace individual achievement with collectivist group-think ideology and invade the family with an "It takes a village" mind-set. Dr. Thomas' outline for education is the root of why today's children aren't learning. These ideas permeate every federal program, every national standard, every textbook and every moment of your child's school day.

Upon election, Former President Bush declared education to be his number one priority. His first legislation to reach the hill was a major education policy proposal called: "No Child Left Behind." The president said education was the hallmark of his time as Governor of Texas where he imposed strict guidelines for annual testing. He says he wanted to confront the growing problem of American illiteracy and the low standing of test scores. And the president said, "We must focus the spending of federal tax dollars on things that work."

To those ends, the former President's education policy proposal addresses four specific principles including: 1) Annual testing to assure the schools are actually teaching the children and achieving specific educational goals. 2) Restore local control by giving local and state school boards the "flexibility to innovate." Said the former President, "educational entrepreneurs should not be hindered by excessive red tape and regulation." 3) Stop funding failure. President Bush proposed several options for helping failing schools to improve. 4) Give parents a choice to find a school that does teach. Former President Bush gave schools a specific period of time to improve. If they failed, parents would be given the option of going to another, more successful school by way of a voucher plan.

On the surface these proposals sounded to many like fresh new ideas to take back local control of the schools and run the federal programs out the door. But time and a closer examination proved otherwise. In fact, President Bush himself unknowingly summed up the problem with his education program with one statement: "Change will not come by disdaining or dismantling the federal role of education."

To the great disappointment of many, President Bush decided to completely ignore the very root of the education problem -- the federal government and its programs. Instead, President Bush's proposal accepted the incorrect conclusion that the problem with education is simply an over blown bureaucracy that wastes federal funds and fails to enforce clear standards by rewarding bad schools. His numerous statements that "no child will be left behind," came straight from the decade-old motto of the Children's Defense Fund, the group that claims Hillary Clinton as one of its leaders. By being so off-the-mark, there just is no way the Bush proposal could appropriately address a single school reform issue.

First, his plan to restore local control was directly tied to the use of Title I federal funding. Title I is one of the main federal programs to directly fund the "at-risk" catch-all devise now driving the invasion of in-home social workers; the establishment of in-school health clinics; the enforcement of pop diagnosis by teachers and administrators that has put millions of children on Ritalin. Title I is the root of the education establishment's attack on families.

Second, by leaving the federal Department of Education intact, President Bush left in full force the machinery now driving the education system. State school boards are simply outposts of the federal bureaucrats. They are of the same mindset, driving the same programs in the states that are dictated by the federal office. Local ideas from local teachers and parents have no chance of a hearing in these vast bureaucracies. Failing to address this behemoth simply dooms any attempt to improve education.

President Bush made much of the testing program in the state of Texas, which shows scores up by dramatic numbers. His first Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, owed his appointment, in a great way, to his leadership in the Texas testing program. But a close look at what actually took place in Texas caused concern.

Under Governor Bush, Texas established a statewide achievement test called TAAS, which is administered annually to every public school student from third grade through twelfth. Texas officials tout the fact that, today, Texas reports an 80% passing rate. The test is given the credit for the dramatic increase because, as Bush then proposed on the federal level. TAAS was touted as providing "accountability" and an annual measuring stick to determine how students are progressing.

However, Texas colleges reported that Texas-educated students still couldn't read, even after getting good grades on the TAAS test. Why? Because so much emphasis is placed on passing the test that teachers have begun to "teach to the test." Even months before test day, teachers pressure students to be ready. They become little more than cheerleaders. Schools fly banners, hold pep rallies and the pressure builds to pass the test. Classroom time is spent practicing for the test rather than just focusing on well-rounded academic curriculum. Rarely do classes branch off into anything that's not on the test.

Why such pressure? Because teacher salaries and job security are tied to the results. Schools have even been found to cheat on the results. Is this what parents have in mind when they call for accountability? This is the heart of the Bush plan. Under it, parents may see test scores go up, but they will find that their children still can't read.

The Bush plan ignored the existence of the social scientists who have made psychological guinea pigs out of the children. It ignored the role of the Department of Education as a teacher training lab which brags that, in just two weeks, it can completely change the attitudes, values and beliefs of good, academically-focused teachers, and turn them into pliable facilitators to help dumb-down the very students they sought to teach. Nothing was changed in the classroom under the Bush plan. And the same plan flourishes under President Barrack Obama.

From the start of his administration, President Bush made it clear that he had no intention of getting rid of the Department of Education. Consequently, the Republican dominated Congress dropped its intentions to de-fund and remove the Department of Education. However, it is not possible to make the changes that Americans are hoping for without taking that step. Bush's plan simply used warm and fuzzy rhetoric to further institutionalize more of the same. His voucher plan has proven to be little more than a Judas Goat to lead private schools into the nightmare of federal programs, which attack and feed on any school that accepts federal money. And so the cancer grows.

While promising to fix American education, the President doomed any hope of it by insisting on keeping the establishment intact. The "No-Child-Left-Behind" Act simply succeeded in institutionalizing the failed policies of Goals 2000 and School to Work. And that's why American education continues to fall.

It's time to ignore the agenda of a self-interested labor union and begin to look at the real reasons why American public schools are in crisis. What is robbing our children of the ability to get a good education?

Americans who want to rid the nation of this plague have little choice but to insist that their representatives in Congress begin a complete investigation into the Department of Education and its policies, its waste, and its fraud on the taxpayers, parents and children of this nation.

Perhaps then, as the facts are exposed under the hot lights of a Congressional hearing, the American people will begin to understand that the problem with education isn't low paid teachers and crowded classrooms -- but rather, is the result of a cynical, deliberate attempt to dumb-down America to promote a radical political agenda. For that is the truth.

Do We Need the Department of Education?
by Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute
January 2012

Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his B.A. in history at Harvard University and his Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has written for numerous newspapers and journals, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and National Review. His books include Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, What It Means to Be a Libertarian, and Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality. His new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, will be published at the end of January.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on "Markets, Government, and the Common Good," sponsored by Hillsdale College's Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education's constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I'm sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America's limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard. I don't think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate. I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education. But I am in a small minority on that point, so let's move on to the pragmatic questions.

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere--in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but--notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith's admission to the University of Mississippi--the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for "yes," especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement. Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention. When the push for President Johnson's Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills--the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education didn't come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

(3) So what is the federal government's track record in education?

The most obvious way to look at the track record is the long-term trend data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Consider, for instance, the results for the math test for students in fourth, eighth and twelfth grades from 1978 through 2004. The good news is that the scores for fourth graders showed significant improvement in both reading and math--although those gains diminished slightly as the children got older. The bad news is that the baseline year of 1978 represents the nadir of the test score decline from the mid-1960s through the 1970s. Probably we are today about where we were in math achievement in the 1960s. For reading, the story is even bleaker. The small gains among fourth graders diminish by eighth grade and vanish by the twelfth grade. And once again, the baseline tests in the 1970s represent a nadir.

From 1942 through the 1990s, the state of Iowa administered a consistent and comprehensive test to all of its public school students in grade school, middle school, and high school--making it, to my knowledge, the only state in the union to have good longitudinal data that go back that far. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills offers not a sample, but an entire state population of students. What can we learn from a single state? Not much, if we are mainly interested in the education of minorities--Iowa from 1942 through 1970 was 97 percent white, and even in the 2010 census was 91 percent white. But, paradoxically, that racial homogeneity is also an advantage, because it sidesteps all the complications associated with changing ethnic populations.

Since retention through high school has changed greatly over the last 70 years, I will consider here only the data for ninth graders. What the data show is that when the federal government decided to get involved on a large scale in K-12 education in 1965, Iowa's education had been improving substantially since the first test was administered in 1942. There is reason to think that the same thing had been happening throughout the country. As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story. American education had been improving since World War II. Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

I will not try to make the case that federal involvement caused the downturn. The effort that went into programs associated with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the early years was not enough to have changed American education, and the more likely causes for the downturn are the spirit of the 1960s--do your own thing--and the rise of progressive education to dominance over American public education. But this much can certainly be said: The overall data on the performance of American K-12 students give no reason to think that federal involvement, which took the form of the Department of Education after 1979, has been an engine of improvement.

What about the education of the disadvantaged, especially minorities? After all, this was arguably the main reason that the federal government began to get involved in education--to reduce the achievement gap separating poor children and rich children, and especially the gap separating poor black children and the rest of the country.

The most famous part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was Title I, initially authorizing more than a billion dollars annually (equivalent to more than $7 billion today) to upgrade the schools attended by children from low-income families. The program has continued to grow ever since, disposing of about $19 billion in 2010 (No Child Left Behind has also been part of Title I).

Supporters of Title I confidently expected to see progress, and so formal evaluation of Title I was built into the legislation from the beginning. Over the years, the evaluations became progressively more ambitious and more methodologically sophisticated. But while the evaluations have improved, the story they tell has not changed. Despite being conducted by people who wished the program well, no evaluation of Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement. If one steps back from the formal evaluations and looks at the NAEP test score gap between high-poverty schools (the ones that qualify for Title I support) and low-poverty schools, the implications are worse. A study by the Department of Education published in 2001 revealed that the gap grew rather than diminished from 1986--the earliest year such comparisons have been made--through 1999.

That brings us to No Child Left Behind. Have you noticed that no one talks about No Child Left Behind any more? The explanation is that its one-time advocates are no longer willing to defend it. The nearly-flat NAEP trendlines since 2002 make that much-ballyhooed legislative mandate--a mandate to bring all children to proficiency in math and reading by 2014--too embarrassing to mention.

In summary: the long, intrusive, expensive role of the federal government in K-12 education does not have any credible evidence for a positive effect on American education.

I have chosen to focus on K-12 because everyone agrees that K-12 education leaves much to be desired in this country and that it is reasonable to hold the government's feet to the fire when there is no evidence that K-12 education has improved. When we turn to post-secondary education, there is much less agreement on first principles.

The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper--genuinely meaningless, if you don't know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work? The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper. When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution, he likes to answer, "Oh, maybe six or seven." The situation at his college is not unusual. The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking. It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.

The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A. It has been its enabler. The size of these programs is immense. In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion. It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars. Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college. The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs. Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that its policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges. But I view that as part of the Department of Education's indictment, not its defense.

What other case might be made for federal involvement in education? Its contributions to good educational practice? Think of the good things that have happened to education in the last 30 years--the growth of homeschooling and the invention and spread of charter schools. The Department of Education had nothing to do with either development. Both happened because of the initiatives taken by parents who were disgusted with standard public education and took matters into their own hands. To watch the process by which charter schools are created, against the resistance of school boards and administrators, is to watch the best of American traditions in operation. Government has had nothing to do with it, except as a drag on what citizens are trying to do for their children.

Think of the best books on educational practice, such as Howard Gardner's many innovative writings and E.D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge Curriculum, developed after his landmark book, Cultural Literacy, was published in 1987. None of this came out of the Department of Education. The Department of Education spends about $200 million a year on research intended to improve educational practice. No evidence exists that these expenditures have done any significant good.

As far as I can determine, the Department of Education has no track record of positive accomplishment--nothing in the national numbers on educational achievement, nothing in the improvement of educational outcomes for the disadvantaged, nothing in the advancement of educational practice. It just spends a lot of money. This brings us to the practical question: If the Department of Education disappeared from next year's budget, would anyone notice? The only reason that anyone would notice is the money. The nation's public schools have developed a dependence on the federal infusion of funds. As a practical matter, actually doing away with the Department of Education would involve creating block grants so that school district budgets throughout the nation wouldn't crater.

Sadly, even that isn't practical. The education lobby will prevent any serious inroads on the Department of Education for the foreseeable future. But the answer to the question posed in the title of this talk--"Do we need the Department of Education?"--is to me unambiguous: No.

Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Richard Vedder, Professor of Economics, Ohio University
May/June 2012

RICHARD VEDDER is the Edwin and Ruth Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University and director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. He received his B.A. from Northwestern University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Investor's Business Daily, and is the author of several books, including The American Economy in Historical Perspective and Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 10, 2012, at Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL STUDENT financial assistance programs are costly, inefficient, byzantine, and fail to serve their desired objectives. In a word, they are dysfunctional, among the worst of many bad federal programs.

These programs are commonly rationalized on three grounds: on the grounds that assuring more young people a higher education has positive spillover effects for the country; on the grounds that higher education promotes equal economic opportunity (or, as the politicians say, that it is "a ticket to achieving the American Dream"); or on the grounds that too few students would go to college in the absence of federal loan programs, since private markets for loans to college students are defective.

All three of these arguments are dubious at best. The alleged positive spillover effects of sending more and more Americans to college are very difficult to measure. And as the late Milton Friedman suggested to me shortly before his death, they may be more than offset by negative spillover effects. Consider, for instance, the relationship between spending by state governments on higher education and their rate of economic growth. Controlling for other factors important in growth determination, the relationship between education spending and economic growth is negative or, at best, non-existent.

What about higher education being a vehicle for equal economic opportunity or income equality? Over the last four decades, a period in which the proportion of adults with four-year college degrees tripled, income equality has declined. (As a side note, I do not know the socially optimal level of economic inequality, and the tacit assumption that more such equality is always desirable is suspect; my point here is simply that, in reality, higher education today does not promote income equality.)

Finally, in regards to the argument that capital markets for student loans are defective, if financial institutions can lend to college students on credit cards and make car loans to college students in large numbers--which they do--there is no reason why they can't also make student educational loans.

Despite the fact that the rationales for federal student financial assistance programs are very weak, these programs are growing rapidly. The Pell Grant program did much more than double in size between 2007 and 2010. Although it was designed to help poor people, it is now becoming a middle class entitlement. Student loans have been growing eight to ten percent a year for at least two decades, and, as is well publicized, now aggregate to one trillion dollars of debt outstanding--roughly $25,000 on average for the 40,000,000 holders of the debt. Astoundingly, student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt.

Nor is it correct to assume that most of this debt is held by young people in their twenties and early thirties. The median age of those with loan obligations today is around 33, and approximately 40 percent of the debt is held by people 40 years of age or older. So when politicians talk about maintaining low interest loans to help kids in college, more often than not the help is going to middle-aged individuals long gone from the halls of academia.

With this as an introduction, let me outline eight problems with federal student grant and loan programs. The list is not exclusive.

(1) Student loan interest rates are not set by the forces of supply and demand, but by the political process. Normally, interest rates are a price used to allocate scarce resources; but when that price is manipulated by politicians, it leads to distortions in the use of resources. Since student loan interest rates are always set at below-market rates, too much money is borrowed for college. Currently those interest rates are extremely low, with a key rate of 3.4 percent--which, after adjusting for inflation, is approximately zero. Moreover, both the president and Governor Romney say they want to continue that low interest rate after July 1, when it is supposed to double. This aggravates an already bad situation, and provides a perfect example of the fundamental problem facing our nation today: politicians pushing programs whose benefits are visible and immediate (even if illusory, as suggested above), while their extraordinarily high costs are less visible and more distant in time.

(2) In the real world, interest rates vary with the prospects that the borrower will repay the loan. In the surreal world of student loans, the brilliant student completing an electrical engineering degree at M.I.T. pays the same interest rate as the student majoring in ethnic studies at a state university who has a GPA below 2.0. The former student will almost certainly graduate and get a job paying $50,000 a year or more, whereas the odds are high the latter student will fail to graduate and will be lucky to make $30,000 a year.

Related to this problem, colleges themselves have no "skin in the game." They are responsible for allowing loan commitments to occur, but they face no penalties or negative consequences when defaults are extremely high, imposing costs on taxpayers.

(3) Perhaps most importantly, federal student grant and loan programs have contributed to the tuition price explosion. When third parties pay a large part of the bill, at least temporarily, the customer's demand for the service rises and he is not as sensitive to price as he would be if he were paying himself. Colleges and universities take advantage of that and raise their prices [as much as 40% per year] to capture the funds that ostensibly are designed to help students [and have no incentive to reduce their costs when the government will loan the students whatever the colleges demand. Politicians do not tell their (almost exclusively) fellow liberals and supporters in colleges to keep their fees under control and reasonable, but instead tell the rest of us that inflation and rising government debt is our fault, and that we should conserve, cut back on everything and practice austerity]. This is what happened previously in health care, and is what is currently happening in higher education.

(4) The federal government now has a monopoly in providing student loans. Until recently, at least it farmed out the servicing of loans to a variety of private financial service firms, adding an element of competition in terms of quality of service, if not price. But the Obama administration, with its strong hostility to private enterprise, moved to establish a complete monopoly. One would think the example of the U.S. Postal Service today, losing taxpayer money hand over fist and incapable of making even the most obviously needed reforms, would be enough proof against the prudence of such a move. And remember: because of highly irresponsible fiscal policies, the federal government borrows 30 or 40 percent of the money it currently spends, much of that from overseas. Thus we are incurring long-term obligations to foreigners to finance loans to largely middle class Americans to go to college. This is not an appropriate use of public funds at a time of dangerously high federal budget deficits.

(5) Those applying for student loans or Pell Grants are compelled to complete the FAFSA form, which is extremely complex, involves more than 100 questions, and is used by colleges to administer scholarships (or, more accurately, tuition discounts). Thus colleges are given all sorts of highly personal and private information on incomes, wealth, debts, child support, and so forth. A car dealer who demanded such information so that he could see how badly he could gouge you would either be out of business or in jail within days or weeks. But it is commonplace in higher education because of federal student financial assistance programs.

(6) As federal programs have increased the number of students who enroll in college, the number of new college graduates now far exceeds the number of new managerial, technical and professional jobs--positions that college graduates have traditionally taken. A survey by Northeastern University estimates that 54 percent of recent college graduates are underemployed or unemployed. Thus we currently have 107,000 janitors and 16,000 parking lot attendants with bachelor's degrees, not to mention bartenders, hair dressers, mail carriers, and so on. And many of those in these limited-income occupations are struggling to pay off student loan obligations.

Connected to this is the fact that more and more kids are going to college who lack the cognitive skills, the discipline, the academic preparation, or the ambition to succeed academically. They simply cannot or do not master well much of the rather complex materials that college students are expected to learn. As a result, many students either do not graduate or fail to graduate on time. I have estimated that only 40 percent or less of Pell Grant recipients get degrees within six years--an extremely high dropout or failure rate. No one has seriously questioned that statistic--a number, by the way, that the federal government does not publish, no doubt because it is embarrassingly low.

Also related is the fact that, in an attempt to minimize this problem, colleges have lowered standards, expecting students to read and write less while giving higher grades for lesser amounts of work. Surveys show that students spend on average less than 30 hours per week on academic work--less than they spend on recreation. As Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa show in their book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, critical thinking skills among college seniors on average are little more than among freshmen.

(7) As suggested to me a couple of days ago by a North Carolina judge, based on a case in his courtroom, with so many funds so readily available there is a temptation and opportunity for persons to acquire low interest student loans with the intention of dropping out of school quickly to use the proceeds for other purposes. (In the North Carolina student loan fraud case, it was to start up a t-shirt business.)

(8) Lazy or mediocre students can get greater subsidies than hard-working and industrious ones. Take Pell Grants. A student who works extra hard and graduates with top grades after three years will receive only half as much money as a student who flunks several courses and takes six years to finish or doesn't obtain a degree at all. In other words, for recipients of federal aid there are disincentives to excel.

* * *
If the Law of Unintended Consequences ever applied, it is in federal student financial assistance. Programs created with the noblest of intentions have failed to serve either their customers or the nation well. In the 1950s and 1960s, before these programs were large, American higher education enjoyed a Golden Age. Enrollments were rising, lower-income student access was growing, and American leadership in higher education was becoming well established. In other words, the system flourished without these programs. Subsequently, massive growth in federal spending and involvement in higher education has proved counterproductive.

With the ratio of debt to GDP rising nationally, and the federal government continuing to spend more and more taxpayer money on higher education at an unsustainable long-term pace, a re-thinking of federal student financial aid policies is a good place to start in meeting America's economic crisis.

Plagiarism in Colleges in USA

Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition

Success Without College by Linda Lee
Editorial Reviews
Praise for Success Without College:

"In this brilliant, brave, and oh-so-needed book, Linda Lee explodes the myth that all young people must stay on the same conveyor belt through college or perish. That myth has led to the demise of many a young person, and their parents along with them. Now Ms. Lee shows us another way. This book is a godsend. Millions of parents and their children will benefit from discovering the alternative paths explained in this book. Written with the warmth of a mother, and the research, analytic skill of a New York Times editor, Success Without College appears like an angel in the midst of massive suffering. At last, a guide to a better way."
--Ned Hallowell, M.D., author of Driven to Distraction and Connect

From the Hardcover edition. -- Review
Product Description
College may not be right for your child at all, or right just now: this book proves that there is Success Without College.

If your child seems indecisive about college, don't read the riot act, read this landmark book instead. College is not the only alternative. A New York Times editor and concerned parent tells you why and helps you to find happy alternatives to starting college before your child is ready.

As an educated, committed parent, Linda Lee harbored the usual expectation of a prestigious college degree as the illustrious preface to a top-flight career for her child. Some fifty thousand dollars and several disastrous report cards later, Lee recognized that her seemingly rational expectations were proving far-fetched and that her son was simply not ready for college. Moreover, she was shocked to discover that his experience was not the exception but the rule; only 26 percent of students receive a bachelor's degree within five years.

Why, then, are parents led to believe that their children must go to college immediately and that it is the right choice for everyone? If not attending college worked for Bill Gates, Harry S. Truman, Thomas Edison, and William Faulkner, why can't it work for your child and what are your alternatives?

Success Without College is a groundbreaking book that reveals the surprising facts of why many bright kids are not suited for college (or at least not right after high school). Lee's accessible, knowledgeable style informs parents why this should be more a source of pride than shame by providing profiles of students and parents from around the country and their creative, positive solutions to the college dilemma. With a college education now costing an average of a hundred thousand dollars, maybe it's time for American parents to reconsider: Do you really need college to succeed?

You don't have to go to college. That's very easy to say, and very hard to believe. The expectation of a college degree has become a traditional aspect of American parenting. A college diploma has become such a popular symbol of personal success and culture that 66% of U.S. high school graduates go to college, up from 14% only 60 years ago, but out of all teh college students in America, only 26% get degrees after 6 years. Why have we come to believe that college is right for everyone, or that our children should go there right after high school? With a college education now costing an average of more than one hundred thousand dollars, maybe it's time for American parents to reconsider: do you really need college to succeed?

Don't have a college degree? You're in good company -- consider these success stories, some of whom didn't even graduate from high school: Peter Jennings; Joan Baez; Thomas Edison; William Faulkner; Harry S. Truman; Bill Gates; Jane Austin.

From the Inside Flap
If your child seems indecisive about college, don't read the riot act, read this landmark book instead. College is not the only alternative. A New York Times editor and concerned parent tells you why and helps you to find happy alternatives to starting college before your child is ready.

As an educated, committed parent, Linda Lee harbored the usual expectation of a prestigious college degree as the illustrious preface to a top-flight career for her child. Some fifty thousand dollars and several disastrous report cards later, Lee recognized that her seemingly rational expectations were proving far-fetched and that her son was simply not ready for college. Moreover, she was shocked to discover that his experience was not the exception but the rule; only 26 percent of students receive a bachelor's degree within five years.

Why, then, are parents led to believe that their children must go to college immediately and that it is the right choice for everyone? If not attending college worked for Bill Gates, Harry S. Truman, Thomas Edison, and William Faulkner, why can't it work for your child and what are your alternatives?

Success Without College is a groundbreaking book that reveals the surprising facts of why many bright kids are not suited for college (or at least not right after high school). Lee's accessible, knowledgeable style informs parents why this should be more a source of pride than shame by providing profiles of students and parents from around the country and their creative, positive solutions to the college dilemma. With a college education now costing an average of a hundred thousand dollars, maybe it's time for American parents to reconsider: Do you really need college to succeed?

From the Back Cover
Praise for Success Without College:
"In this brilliant, brave, and oh-so-needed book, Linda Lee explodes the myth that all young people must stay on the same conveyor belt through college or perish. That myth has led to the demise of many a young person, and their parents along with them. Now Ms. Lee shows us another way. This book is a godsend. Millions of parents and their children will benefit from discovering the alternative paths explained in this book. Written with the warmth of a mother, and the research, analytic skill of a New York Times editor, Success Without College appears like an angel in the midst of massive suffering. At last, a guide to a better way."
--Ned Hallowell, M.D., author of Driven to Distraction and Connect

About the Author
Linda Lee is an editor and writer for the New York Times. She frequently contributes to the Style, Art & Leisure, and Business sections. The article she wrote for the education life supplement in 1998 entitled 'What's the Rush? Why College Can Wait? generated an enormous amount of mail. In addition to the more than eighty articles she has written for the Times, Lee is the author of several books. She lives in New York City.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

If you want a better job, intellectual stimulation, social advantages, a springboard to success...a college education may be the dumbest investment you can make.

* True or False: --
Q: A college education is excellent career preparation.
A: False. Most liberal arts college graduates are unprepared for any career.

Q: A college education is a solid financial investment.

A: False. If the money spent on a Princeton student's education were put into a savings bank instead, the interest would net him over one million dollars by age 64-twice as much as the projected earnings of a male college graduate.

Q: A college education is a spring-board to success.

A: False. 58% of the people who earn over $15,000 a year never went to college.

Before you spend a fortune on a college education, consider the facts and the alternatives. The Case Against College - Caroline Bird's fascinating book that separates the myths from the realities.

All great truths begin as blasphemies.

Here is who belongs in college: the high-achieving student who is interested in learning for learning's sake, those who intend to become schoolteachers and those young people who seem certain to go on to advanced degrees in law, medicine, architecture and the like.

Here is who actually goes to college: everyone. That everyone includes the learning disabled and the fairly dumb, those who have trouble reading and writing and doing math, slackers who see college as an opportunity to major in Beers of the World, burned-out book jockeys and the just plain average student with not much interest in anything.

Think about your high school class. Now think about the 76 percent of those students (80 to 90 percent in middle-class suburbs) who say they expect to go to two-year or four-year colleges. You begin to see the problem?

Pamela Gerhardt, who has been teaching advanced writing and editing at the University of Maryland for six years, says she has seen a decline in her students' interest in the world of ideas. In an article in the Washington Post on August 22,1999, she noted: "Last semester, many of my students drifted in late, slumped into chairs, made excuses to leave early and surrounded my desk when papers were due, clearly distraught over the looming deadline. 'I can't think of any problems,' one told me. 'Nothing interests me.'"

Her students, she said, rejected the idea of writing about things like homelessness or AIDS. Five male students, she said, wanted to write about the "problem" of the instant replay in televised football games.

Ever since the Garden of Eden, people have been complaining that things used to be better, once upon a time, back when. I suppose it is possible that, thirty years ago, students were just as shallow and impatient with education as they are today. But I don't think so. It could be that a college education is wasted on the young, but it is more likely that a college education is especially being wasted on today's youth.

Of course, there was a period twenty-five years ago when Cassandras argued that college was a waste of time and money. Around the time that The Overeducated American was published, in 1975, Caroline Bird wrote a book called The Case Against College. Her book has been out of print for decades (but is available used). But there are arguments that seem very familiar to me: that Madison Avenue sells college like soap flakes, that going to college had become a choice requiring no forethought; that students weren't really there to learn and that college was no longer an effective way to train workers.

But primarily Ms. Bird argued that "there is no real evidence that the higher income of college graduates is due to college at all." She cited as her proof Christopher Jencks's report "Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America," which pointed out that people from high-status families tended to earn more than people from low-status families, even if they had the same amount of education.

College, Bird pointed out twenty-five years ago, "fails to work its income-raising magic for almost a third of those who go." Moreover, she said, "college doesn't make people intelligent, ambitious, happy, liberal or quick to learn new things. It's the other way around. Intelligent, ambitious, happy, liberal, quick-to-learn people are attracted to college in the first place."

Or, as Zachary Karabell asked in the 1999 book What's College For?: The Struggle to Define American Higher Education, "on a more pragmatic level, does college truly lead to better jobs?"

He answered his own question with "Not necessarily. The more people go to college, the less a college degree is worth." He goes on to point out that the Bureau of Labor Statistics includes in its list of jobs that require a college degree "insurance adjuster" and "manager of a Blockbuster video store." Is that what you were foreseeing for Joey when you wrote that $25,000 tuition check?

Caroline Bird was outraged over the expense of college in 1975. A Princeton education, she said, would cost $22,256 for tuition, books, travel, room, board and pocket money--for four years.

Twenty-five years later, the price for that Princeton degree has grown to $140,000, including room and board and books, but not travel money and pocket change. It's even more than that, if you factor in the student's lost wages. Because of the low unemployment rates at the end of the nineties, anyone with the IQ to go to Princeton could make at least $15,000 a year with only a high school diploma, and perhaps more. So tack on at least $60,000 (if the student knows computers, make that $120,000) in lost wages while Jared or Jessica was busy at Princeton studying Shakespeare. That puts the price of a college degree from a fine Ivy League school at more than $200,000.

Is it worth it today? Perhaps even less so than in Caroline Bird's day, primarily because students no longer seem interested in ideas, and because it is so much easier to make money just by hopping onto the Internet.

"I agree that from the perspective of society as a whole, it would be better if fewer people went to college," Robert Frank told me. He's the popular Cornell economist, and the author of Luxury Fever and other books. "Economists often challenge this notion by citing studies that show significantly higher wages for college graduates," he said. "But all these studies say is that the people who attend college are better, on the average, than those who don't. They don't tell us how much value is added to them by attending college. From the individual's point of view, it still often pays to attend college, since employers so often use education as an initial screening device. Everyone wants the best-paying and most interesting jobs, after all, which assures that there will always be a surfeit of applicants for them. So employers who offer such jobs have every incentive to confine their attention to college graduates. But that doesn't mean that we'd be poorer as a nation if fewer people went to college."

An article in Newsweek (November 1, 1999) by Robert J. Samuelson said: "Going to Harvard or Duke won't automatically produce a better job and higher pay. Graduates of these schools generally do well. But they do well because they are talented." The article was titled "The Worthless Ivy League?"

Brigid McMenamin wrote a blistering piece in Forbes magazine (December 28, 1998) called "The Tyranny of the Diploma." Beyond listing the usual suspects in the computer field who did not complete college--Bill Gates, Michael Dell--she pointed to the young digerati who are making $50,000 to $80,000 a year and more at age sixteen. At a time when most kids in college say they are there "to get a job," these kids may wel1 skip college in order to jump in on the booming Internet business.

Moreover, as Ms. McMenamin recounts, almost 15 percent, or 58 members, of the Forbes 400 (a yearly listing of the most successful business leaders), had either, as she put it, ditched college or avoided it altogether. In terms of wages, she said, brick masons and machinists had it all over biology and liberal arts mayors. As a capper, she stated: "A hefty 21 percent of all degree-holders who work earn less than the average for high school grads." She didn't even bring up plumbers, electricians and car mechanics.


Almost half a million teenagers drop out of high school every year, according to the United States Department of Education. In New York City, half of the entering freshmen don't graduate from high school. There is every reason to be alarmed about high school dropouts.

Yet there is nothing stopping a high school dropout from becoming a plumber, or a computer programmer, and earning a great deal more than most holders of a degree in European history. One sixteen-year-old New Yorker, Cooper Small, dropped out of Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan in his junior year--over a bad grade in English, even though his GPA of 97.4 ranked him, he said, third in his class.

By that point he had begun working as a computer programmer, making $175 an hour. He then enrolled in Simon's Rock in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, as a freshman in college without a high school diploma.

That's the millennial example: a seventeen-year-old who is off to college without a high school diploma, making more than his professors and doing it through building web pages.

OK, so those are the computer geniuses, the ones who may not even need a college education. But what about the kids who want to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers? Fine, they should go to college, though I'll tell you, in the course of this book, about a medical school in the United States that takes students straight out of high school. Meanwhile, parents should be aware that in 1990, 75,000 people with college degrees were working as street vendors or door-to-door salesmen, 83,000 college graduates were working as maids, housemen, janitors or cleaners and 166,000 college grads were working as motor vehicle operators, according to the July 1992 issue of the Monthly Labor Review.

Jennifer might get that expensive degree in marine biology, but she also might just as easily end up a waitress/ski bum in Aspen who picks grapes in the south of France during the summer to pay for her room and board.


Future doctors and lawyers constitute only a small portion of the students going to college. Going to college is epidemic, especially among middle-class families, whose students have nothing more in mind than just...going to college. These are students who have a sense of entitlement about the enterprise. They may enroll in business classes because that seems to be the way to get rich, or they may major in communications with some vague idea of getting into broadcasting.These are the students who see their college degree as getting their ticket punched, so they can go out in the world and get a good job and become the consumers they have been raised to be.

Listen to Sarah Williams, who recently left a high position in marketing at Unilever to take a flier on an Internet start-up. "I found high school in Greenwich, Connecticut, pretty boring," she said. She enrolled in the University of Colorado and then dropped out. "I would never use 60 percent of what I needed in order to graduate," she said. "Jobs want people who are specialists," she concluded. "Not people who are well-rounded."

Or, as Mr. Karabell says in What's College For?, "Today's students represent a generation of pragmatists who want knowledge that they can apply to their lives." Mr. Karabell, who has taught at Harvard and Dartmouth, wrote that today's college students are looking for usable skills. And if they think that way at top schools, imagine the attitudes prevalent at the local community college.

Despite the fact that half of all college students matriculate at community colleges, which essentially offer training and remedial education, Mr. Karabell said, "The public still retains romantic notions of college and still sees a college degree as a special achievement."

Those romantic notions of success through college mean that parents treat all education up until college as mere prelude. Many middle-class parents buy homes in school districts where they are assured that 85 to 90 percent of graduates go to college--and where no guidance counselor would dare suggest otherwise.

At New York City's selective public high schools like Bronx Science, Stuyvesant and (in the humanities) Townsend Harris, the number of students heading off to college is close to 100 percent. And then there are the private prep schools, either day schools or boarding schools, for which parents pay up to $20,000 a year to guarantee that their children get into good colleges.

But here's a thought. College professors tel1 me that three-quarters of their freshmen have no business sitting in a college classroom. The professors were not talking about open enrollment, or remedial classes; they were primarily talking about spoiled, immature and lazy middle-class kids, the kind who are filling even some of the best college classrooms and who have no interest in studying what is being taught.

Saying that "everyone" needs to go to college (that is to say, everyone in the middle class) at age eighteen is just as arbitrary as saying that everyone at eighteen should become a race car driver or a concert pianist. Many kids just aren't ready. Some may never have the aptitude to do college-level work. And a surefire way to make sure that your reluctant son or daughter will never graduate from college (or experience the pleasure of learning for learning's sake) is to insist that he or she go to college "just to see what it's like." What they will see is that, for them, it's like hell.

From the Hardcover edition.

University Of Destruction: Your Game Plan For Spiritual Victory On Campus
Author: David Wheaton

The statistic is staggering: As many as 50 percent of Christian students say they have lost their faith after four years in college. For far too many students, the transition from home life to campus life is traumatic--what begins as a University of Instruction often ends up being a University of Destruction...with long-lasting negative effects and no guarantee of return. Relating his own experiences at Stanford, David Wheaton describes the three Pillars of Peril you will face in college-sex, drugs/alcohol, and humanism-and presents a game plan for victory over these pitfalls based on raising your spiritual GPA. You will also receive practical advice on dating, friends, choosing the right college, and how to get back on course if you have gone astray. Headed to college? Already there? Let University of Destruction show you how to be an Overcomer on campus!

Dumbing Us Down The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Education
Author: John Taylor Gatto

A highly praised bestseller for over a decade, Dumbing Us Down is a radical treatise on public education that concludes that compulsory government schooling does little but teach young people to follow orders like cogs in a machine. This Special Collector's Hardcover Edition celebrates 100,000 copies of the book in print, and the book's on-going importance and popularity.John Gatto was a teacher in New York City's public schools for over 30 years and is a recipient of the New York State Teacher of the Year award. A much-sought after speaker on education throughout North America, his other books include A Different Kind of Teacher (Berkeley Hills Books, 2001) and The Underground History of American Education (Oxford Village Press, 2000).

Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
In this tenth-anniversary edition, Gatto updates his theories on how the U.S. educational system cranks out students the way Detroit cranks out Buicks. He contends that students are more programmed to conform to economic and social norms rather than really taught to think.

Product Description
With over 70,000 copies of the first edition in print, this radical treatise on public education has been a New Society Publishers? bestseller for 10 years! Thirty years in New York City's public schools led John Gatto to the sad conclusion that compulsory schooling does little but teach young people to follow orders like cogs in an industrial machine. This second edition describes the wide-spread impact of the book and Gatto's "guerrilla teaching."

About the Author
John Gatto was a teacher in New York City's public schools for over 30 years and is a recipient of the New York State Teacher of the Year award. A much-sought after speaker on education throughout the United States, his other books include A Different Kind of Teacher (Berkeley Hills Books, 2001) and The Underground History of American Education (Oxford Village Press, 2000).

The Marketing of Evil How Radicals Elitists and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom
Author: David Kupelian

Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation?from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.

The Marketing of Evil reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive?in a word, evil.

In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.

For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."

Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement?which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes?faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth. From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry.

In the end, The Marketing of Evil is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "tempation"'the art and science of making evil look good.

From the Back Cover
"The Marketing of Evil is a serious wake-up call for all who cherish traditional values, the innocence of children, and the very existence of our great country." 'Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talk-show host and author

"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture." 'David Limbaugh, syndicated columnist and author

"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time. ... [An] important and groundbreaking book." 'D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

"From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice,' the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive?with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines a light on them all." 'Michelle Malkin, Fox News Channel

"Like the dazzling disclosures found in the final page of a gripping whodunit or the fascinating revelation of a magician's secrets, The Marketing of Evil irresistibly exposes how it was done." 'Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition

"The game's over, folks'the con men have been exposed. I urge every parent to read this eye-opening book." 'Rebecca Hagelin, the Heritage Foundation

"The Marketing of Evil offers Americans real hope?because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions." 'Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com

"Excellent! Simply excellent." 'Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association

About the Author
David Kupelian is managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, a widely read online columnist and the driving force behind the acclaimed monthly news magazine [i]Whistleblower[/i].After serving as managing editor of the news analysis magazine [i]New Dimensions[/i] (where he met WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah), Kupelian became co-founder and creative director of TriMedia Communications, established to help values-oriented organizations present their messages effectively.

Brainwashed How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth
Author: Ben Shapiro

When parents send their children off to college, mom and dad hope they'll return more cultivated, knowledgeable, and astute--able to see issues from all points of view. But, according to Ben Shapiro, there's only one view allowed on most college campuses: a rabid brand of liberalism that must be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

In this explosive book, Ben Shapiro, a college student himself, reveals how America's university system is one of the largest brainwashing machines on the planet. Examining this nationwide problem from firsthand experience, Shapiro shows how the leftists who dominate the universities--from the administration to the student government, from the professors to the student media--use their power to mold impressionable minds. Fresh and bitterly funny, this book proves that the universities, far from being a place for open discussion, are really dungeons of the mind that indoctrinate students to become socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and narcissists.

'Brainwashed' Charges Up Amazon Charts
Book reveals how academic leftists mold impressionable young minds
Posted: May 15, 2004 --1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

An explosive new book revealing how America's university system has become one of the largest brainwashing machines on the planet has risen as high as No. 28 on Amazon.com's bestseller list, even before its national ad campaign. . . .

From WND Books, A Division of Thomas Nelson Publishers ....

You haven't heard it all until you've heard it from the inside.

Los Angeles, CA - It won't come as a shock to any American that today's Universities are filled with left-wing professors and a very definite liberal bias. Ben Shapiro, a graduating UCLA student, has lived it for the past four years, and what he reports is shocking, informative, and unfortunately for parents and students, worse than y ou ever thought possible.

Shapiro, who was fired from the UCLA student newspaper for taking on the rabid pro-Muslim bias of the paper, provides an insider's look at academic indoctrination. In Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, Shaprio reveals:

Exit polling data that shows students become more liberal as they progress through their college career. Shapiro reveals why.
Segregated graduations: lavender Graduations for gay students, Latino Graduations, African-American graduations, Asian pacific Islanders graduations, Filipino graduations, Jewish graduations, Iranian graduations - melting pot? What melting pot?
9% of Ivy League professors surveyed voted for Bush - and it shows.
After eliminating moral absolutes, professors are free to advocate anything - even murder.
Student groups, from the Muslim Student Association to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, from the African Student Union to MEChA, receive funding to push perversion and hate.
September 11 on Campus: Actual Quotes from Professors: "Anyone who bombs the Pentagon has my vote," "the people who caused 9-11 might fit into Locke's definition of justified resistance".
Dirty Words in the Classroom: profit, free-enterprise, and patriotism.
Perfectly Acceptable: sex columns in the student newspaper encouraging casual sex and same-sex experimentation, forays to strip clubs for university credit, pornographic acts for art finals, and the "America as terrorist" theory.
Actual Classes: Black Marxism, Same Sex Desire in Modern Literature, The Poetics of Palestinian Resistance, The Sexuality of Terrorism, and How to Be Gay: male Homosexuality and Initiation. One university actually offers a Marxist Studies minor.

Brainwashed Blurbs:

"Ben Shapiro's writing is smart, informative and incisive. He is wise beyond his years without losing the refreshing fearlessness of youth."
--Ann Coulter

"Most older Americans suppose that our universities are forums of open inquiry, free thought and unique tolerance. Ben Shapiro, America's youngest syndicated columnist and a senior at UCLA, knows otherwise. In Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate, he tells the truth -- that universities are forums of left-liberal indoctrination, where dissent is discouraged and penalized, with more restrictions on free speech than any other part of American society. Parents who are paying for tuition might want to take note, and see what their hard-earned money is paying for.
--Michael Barone
U.S. News & World Report
Co-author, The Almanac of American Politics

"Welcome to P.C. 101. In this trenchant insider's expose, Ben Shapiro bears witness to the modern American campus freak show. You'll get up close and personal with the Marxist loons, moral relativists, multicultural zealots, and America-haters who are corrupting young minds. Brainwashed reveals the ignominious lows to which higher education has sunk. Get deprogrammed: Buy this book."
--Michelle Malkin
Nationally syndicated columnist and author of Invasion

"A worthy successor to God and Man at Yale and Harvard Hates America in exploring the belly of the academic beast."
--David Horowitz
Founder of Students for Academic Freedom
Author of Radical Son and Left Illusions

"Sharp thinking, tight writing, crazy-but-true stories: Ben Shapiro sees campus brainwashing and raises a rational protest. This is a good book to give both freshmen who need warning and voters/alumni who need to take action."
--Dr. Marvin Olasky
University of Texas professor and World magazine editor-in-chief

"Ben Shapiro is the Political Prodigy.  He's young, in academia's trenches, and he will probably fail his poli-sci course just for writing this book.  His writing is brilliant and biting -- if I had not been told he was an undergrad at UCLA, I'd never know it by reading this book.  Brainwashed is a fantastic insight on and analysis of today's university system. What Animal House did for the toga party, Brainwashed should do for American resistance to campus radicalism."
--Rusty Humphries
Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host

"Ben Shapiro's courage and insight should provide inspiration not only for other young conservatives on campus, but also for their parents. His book is a welcome sign that all is not lost for this new generation."
--Michael Medved
Nationally Syndicated Radio Host
Author of Hollywood Vs. America

"Don't tell me a book this brilliant was written by a college kid barely out of his teens. It's got to have been written by a gutsy old sage who somehow got himself embedded into UCLA and whose piercing observations have the power to save the oncoming generation from tyrants with tenure."
--Barry Farber
Nationally Syndicated Talk Show Host

"A brilliant new voice for a new generation of activists: Don't miss Ben Shapiro's new book!"
--Hugh Hewitt
Nationally syndicated talk show host
Author of In, But Not Of

"With wit and verve, Ben Shapiro - America's youngest national columnist - provides a first-hand account of how liberal pieties masquerade as the only truth in today's corrupted universities. With luck, his critique will help others begin to the take those steps needed to fix the campus and return it to its esteemed place in our national life."
--Daniel Pipes
Founder of Campus Watch
New York Sun columnist

"Overwhelming majorities of our teachers -- our supposed torchbearers in the dark -- are liberals. Though they cannot admit it, their personal beliefs invariably season their teaching methods. After all, teachers are charged with educating us about what they think is most important. The result is that they invariably stamp their students with morally deficient liberal rhetoric.
In Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate, Ben Shapiro rips the liberal university system to shreds. With an arch wit and insider's perspective, Shapiro exposes how liberal group-think has spread bacteria like through our education system and is threatening to squash genuine debate in our schools."
--Armstrong Williams
Syndicated Columnist
Tribune Media

"Shapiro has a razor-sharp pen.  His pointed criticism is directed at the overwhelming percentage of college professors who believe Islam is good and Christianity is bad, who don't accept that capitalism beat socialism because capitalism is ending centuries of destitution, and who worship skin color diversity but who blithely create strict campus rules against diversity of speech."
--Jill Stewart
"Capitol Punishment" syndicated columnist,
radio and television political commentator

"With courage, wit, and dramatic flair in abundance, Ben Shapiro demonstrates that our institutes of higher learning have become wastelands of Leftist indoctrination, poisoning young minds with an endless barrage of propaganda for every fashionable cause on the planet. This book reveals how deeply entrenched a noxious culture of hatred for America and Western values has become among those who teach our nation's young men and women. Shapiro delivers a sobering wake-up call for all Americans, detailing the pressing need to - as the Left might put it - take back our colleges and universities."
--Robert Spencer
Director of Jihad Watch
Author of Onward Muslim Soldiers and Islam Unveiled

"Been there. Done that (Tulane, A&S, '91). Ben gets it exactly right about the modern collegiate brainwash. Thankfully, beer and Mardi Gras saved me from full indoctrination. But Ben Shapiro's unassailable book, most assuredly, is the healthier blueprint to avoiding Marx and Engel's witting accomplices."
--Andrew Breitbart
Co-author, Hollywood, Interrupted

Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation by Jim Nelson Black
Author: Jim Nelson Black

It's happening in colleges all across the country. Instead of being educational institutions designed to encourage the free discussion of ideas, universities have become prisons of propaganda, indoctrinating students with politically correct (and often morally repugnant) ideas about American life and culture. This book exposes the liberal bias in today's universities, providing hard evidence, in clear and unimpeachable terms, that shows how today's colleges are covertly and overtly proselytizing with leftist slants on sexuality, politics, and lifestyles. By naming names and providing specific and credible insights from faculty members, administrators, professional observers, and analysts who have witnessed and chronicled the intellectual and ethical collapse taking place within the academy, this book offers a broad overview of the issues, the history of the problems, analysis from a broad range of academics and professionals, and also observations of the university students themselves, in their own words, from schools all across the nation.

A worthy contribution to the growing literature documenting the devastation wreaked on our schools by left-wing professors and educators. -- David Horowitz, founder of Students for Academic Freedom and author of Radical Son and Left Illusions.

The fate of the next generation is in your hands...
When you send your children off to college, do you know where your money is going? Do you know what they're being taught?

According to author, educator, and researcher Jim Nelson Black, the one thing they're not being taught is the truth. Instead, he says in this provocative analysis, they're being "intellectually scarred, morally neutered, socially and intellectually programmed." Our institutions of higher learning are "responsible for the collapse of educational standards and a debasement of morality that is unprecendented in American history."

With hundreds of disturbing examples and dozens of powerful first-person interviews with faculty, students, and alumni of America's premier universities, Black puts the reader right in the middle of one of the most important controversies of our day. Freefall of the American University presents an eye-opening assessment of where we stand, where things went wrong, and what must be done to turn it around.

Jim Nelson Black's Freefall of the American University is a reasoned, articulate, and provocative look at the radicalization of our campuses and the perversion of basic educational goals in today's university system. Freefall deserves a place on the bookshelf of every concerned American: student, parent, or taxpayer. This is our higher education system, and it's time to take it back. -- Ben Shapiro

Creating Equal My Fight Against Race Preferences
by Ward Connerly

From his impoverished childhood in segregated pre-war Louisiana to his audience with Bill Clinton at the White House, Ward Connerly's panoramic book spans a civil rights story that's making headlines from coast to coast. Since 1995, when Connerly first burst onto the American scene as the University of California Regent who forced the nation's largest public university to become color blind in its admissions policies, Connerly has led a national campaign to end race preference. In 1996, he passed Proposition 209 in California and two years later he led I-200, an identical measure, to victory in Washington state. He is now battling Governor Jeb Bush in Florida as he attempts to put a Florida Civil Rights Initiative on the ballot there. A personal book that gives the inside story of Connerly's battle against race preferences, Creating Equal names names and tells it like it is. It is destined to provoke debate from the dining room table to the halls of Congress. Connerly's encounters with the great and near great ranging from Jesse Jackson and Al Gore to Bill Clinton and Rupert Murdoch illuminate this book that has been praised by writers such as Shelby Steele. Illustrated with family and political photographs.

Amazon.com Review
Ward Connerly, the champion of California's controversial Proposition 209 outlawing racial preferences in state government, offers a compelling memoir and polemic with Creating Equal. Political figures don't often write books worth reading, but Connerly can both turn a good phrase (liberals, he says, "need to believe that Rosa Parks is still stuck in the back of the bus, even though we live in a time when Oprah is on a billboard on the side of the bus") and tell a good story (as when he describes tracking down his long-lost biological father in Louisiana). Connerly has generated strong reactions, many of them negative, ever since he burst on the scene as a University of California regent opposed to racial preferences in student admissions. Because he is black (or, more accurately, of mixed black, white, and Indian ancestry), Connerly was derisively labeled an "Uncle Tom" for his efforts. Conservatives will applaud Creating Equal, while many of Connerly's sparring partners will recognize its thoughtfulness: "Affirmative action was the kissing cousin of welfare, a seemingly humane social gesture that was actually quite diabolical in its consequences--not only causing racial conflict because of its inequities, but also validating blacks' fears of inferiority and reinforcing racial stereotypes." Moreover, Connerly's insider account of Proposition 209 (plus similar efforts in Houston and Washington state) will appeal to political junkies of all stripes. Regardless of their views on the philosophical content of Connerly's crusade, readers will find Creating Equal to be a surprisingly good book. --John J. Miller

From Library Journal
Connerly is one of the most maligned public figures in the United States; no one can say he is dishonest, duplicitous, or confused. His integrity fairly shines, and this causes his opponents the utmost discomfiture, for not only is he personally invulnerable, his basic argument is almost unanswerable: that Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by character and not by the color of their skin should be the public policy of the day instead of race-based affirmative action or demeaning quota systems of any kind. As Connerly reads his autobiography, one senses that he has minimized the assaults he has endured. Bitterness is there, but mostly he sticks to his main purpose, to describe how he came to be and to outline the public policy ideas and events in which he has participated for many years. His early foray into California politics is described, particularly his relationship with former governor Pete Wilson and current San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, each of whom influenced him in different ways. As a reader, Connerly is effective; his performance is straightforward and uncomplicated. His voice mirrors his ideas. A vital bit of contemporary history for any public and general academic library. - Don Wismer, Cary Memorial Lib., Wayne, ME

From Booklist
The University of California regent who got that institution to dump affirmative action and then spearheaded successful California and Washington ballot initiatives overturning those states' affirmative action policies explains himself very well. For openers, he recounts a group discussion of affirmative action with President Clinton, then backtracks to a brief autobiography stressing the poverty and loss of parents out of which he grew to become a successful postgraduate collegian, state housing official, and businessman--all without the benefit of affirmative action. His famous public-policy activities are his main concern, though, and he discusses them as straightforwardly as he does his earlier life. Connerly treats his many adversaries humanely, expressing discontent and bewilderment with their actions but never smearing them as he has been smeared (as an "oreo" and worse). Better than his equanimity is his demonstration that U. of C. minority admissions have not plummeted and that the university's outreach to poor minority high-schoolers--the untrumpeted companion policy to quashing affirmative action--is going great guns. This is top-drawer "right-wing" apologetics. Ray Olson

Connerly's book is surprisingly good. Most political figures can't produce anything worth reading.... But Connerly really did write Creating Equal himself and it is an outstanding combination of autobiography, polemic, and history of the campaign to outlaw racial preferences. It is one of the year's best political books." -- National Review's Washington Bulletin March 1, 2000

Memo to Al Gore and George W. Bush: Read this book.... (a) warmly personal, highly readable book. -- Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2000

About the Author
Ward Connerly
If you're not sure where you stand on affirmative action, let Ward Connerly present you with the cogent and timely arguments he used in promoting the passage of propositions that ended the policy in California and Washington. His personal observations of George Bush, Al Gore, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, and Jesse Jackson provide interesting insights into their views of equal opportunity. The author's strength as a narrator resides in the fact that he is expressing his own polemic views, with a vocabulary that may even send advanced readers to their dictionaries. The audiobook will be a treat for those seeking a new voice with modern ideas. J.A.H.

Missing Diversity On America's Campuses

California's Betrayal of Academic Freedom

It's Time for Fairness and Inclusion in Our Universities

Bowling Green Barbarians
How Communists and college professors tried to stifle my right to free speech.

An Ill-Bred Professor, and a Bad Situation
How the chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Hawaii used the occasion of my visit to insult his students.

How to Get an "A" at One Elite School
Close your eyes and lie.

Wake Up America: My Visit To Vanderbilt
 I was then approached by a group of undergraduates who by their appearance and questions were not politically conservative. A young woman with a diffident demeanor asked, in an earnest tone, what I thought of racial profiling.
Her question was inspired by a portion of my talk that addressed the problem of airport security. I had pointed out that nine of the World Trade Center terrorists were actually stopped by airport security on 9-11 because they had faulty I.D.s. But they had been allowed to board the planes anyway. I said that the Clinton Administration's failure to institute adequate security measures prior to the attack was due in part to an ideological aversion to profiling Muslim terrorists.
I tried to explain to the student the difference between factoring race into a profile and using race as the profile itself. I referred her to Heather MacDonald's article in the conservative magazine City Journal, "The Myth of Racial Profiling," fully realizing as I did so that this undergraduate would never have heard of Heather MacDonald or the City Journal. Nor would she be familiar with the writings of virtually any living conservative writer including myself. I gave her the name of the website where MacDonald's article was posted and could be located. But I did so with a heavy heart, because I knew that the student had many questions not one; that her parents were paying $30,000 a year to give her a good education, but that at Vanderbilt she would only be getting one side of the story and only one perspective on the ideological conflicts that would affect her life.
I had met students like this throughout my campus sojourns. The encounters were the saddest memories I took away with me. Millions like this young woman would pass through universities like Vanderbilt, which would routinely betray their trust. They would be given decks that were stacked, instruction that was partisan and partial, and there was nothing I, or a small contingent of conservatives could do in one hour or during one event to alter these facts.

Patrolling Professors' Politics:  bias on campuses

Studies on Faculty and Campus Diversity - The Campus Today - News - Students For Academic Freedom

Conservatives Need Not Apply
From the claims of supporters of diversity one might think that law schools are sparing no effort to make sure that campuses ring with contentious voices.
In its upcoming Supreme Court case, the University of Michigan Law School justifies its very substantial preferences for selected racial and ethnic minorities on the ground that a "critical mass" of African-American and Hispanic students is needed to assure that all students have the benefit of a variety of views and experiences. But professors even more than students set the intellectual tone in university life. Generating ideas is their job. These same law schools almost uniformly lack a "critical mass" of conservatives to offer an alternative to the reigning liberal orthodoxy.

Delusional Diversity

Recomended Readings
Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate, The Shadow University
Stanley Fish, Professional Correctness
Mark Edmundson, Why Read?
Ben Schapiro, Brainwashed : How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth
Mike Adams' book, Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel : Confessions of a Conservative College Professor

Many PDF documents you can read/download:

Students Who Learn Little or Nothing

Is Academic Freedom a License to Indoctrinate?

The Subversive Agenda of our Public Schools

JW  Freedom Center Students

150+ Books You Should Be Reading In Class, But Probably Aren't  Freedom Center Students

?Hard Indoctrination, Soft Indoctrination, and the Books that Change Us?  Freedom Center Students

Betraying Academic Freedom

Academia's Failing Grade

Is There an Academic Blacklist?

A Place for Teaching, Not Indoctrination


Denial at Brown · 30 November 2007
By Robert Spencer - FrontPageMagazine.com

'Polemics don't advance the debate,' says the Brown Daily Herald in 'Ignoring 'Islamofascism? hype,' a vicious little polemic that accuses the organizers of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week of wanting a 'fight.' The editorialist preens: 'we're glad that the debate is being carried out at this level, not with signs and shouting.'

Of course, there was shouting when I spoke at Brown last week, although not too much, so the Daily Herald has every right to be proud. There were few disruptions during the talk itself, although there was a loud group of louts toward the back, one of whom during the question period told me angrily that he didn't want to listen to what I was saying. I assured him that no one was forcing him to listen at all, and that he was quite welcome to leave.

The question period was full of the usual self-righteous lecturing by thoroughly propagandized students who have no training in critical thinking and quite obviously feel deeply threatened when their cherished ideas, which rest on such shaky intellectual and evidentiary foundations, are questioned.

I see that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Left, and their Islamic supremacist allies, is that they believe their own propaganda, and don't even have the conceptual apparatus required to help them recover when its inaccuracy and dishonesty is exposed. Even at their best the questioners were clearly playing 'Gotcha,' trying to get me to say something they could use against the Week and the perspective I represent, rather than engaging in real intellectual give-and-take. This too is a function of how thoroughly they have been propagandized, for they have been taught that those who oppose them are morally evil, and can't even conceptualize the possibility that people of good will might disagree with them and thus should be engaged with ideas, not rants and attempted traps.

I didn't expect anything else at the beginning of the Week, and of course I was nowhere greeted with anything like the reception that Nonie Darwish and David Horowitz received at other universities. In general, the hysteria, the lies about the Week and the intentions of its organizers, and the attempts to silence us all indicate how much the Week was needed, how threatened the Left and its jihadist allies are by our shining this light upon them and pointing out the hypocrisy of their 'bigotry? talk, and how vitally important it is that we keep up this kind of pressure.

But Brown students should indeed be very proud, considering the immense provocation they had to suffer through. The editorial says: 'Fortunately, despite confrontational remarks made by Robert Spencer, who said in his lecture here Thursday that he does not believe 'that Islam at its core is a peaceful religion,' Brown's campus remained largely calm.'


Anyway, this was not an assertion I made without evidence. I drew a distinction between teaching and practice and explaining the vulnerability of peaceful Muslims to jihadist recruitment on the basis of the jihadists? use of various passages of the Qur?an and Hadith (which I cited), I explained that all the schools of Sunni and Shi?ite jurisprudence have a doctrine involving warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

This was and is a statement of fact. If it is false, the Brown Herald, or the Muslim community at Brown, should refute it. Anyone is welcome to refute it if they can. I can and have (in my books and elsewhere) explained it at length, with abundant citations from the Qur?an and Sunnah, as well as from mainstream Islamic commentaries on the Qur?an and Islamic jurists.

But they don't refute it. No one ever has refuted it. Instead, here the Herald treats it as if the very statement constitutes incitement to violence against Muslims. And in an unconscious irony, the Herald expresses relief that the campus remained 'largely calm,' rather than erupt into violence over someone daring to assert that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Well, bravo, Brown students! What admirable, nay, noble restraint! But if you really want a debate on the key issues, as you say in this editorial, simply heaping abuse and contempt on your opponent and being glad that nobody popped him one is not actually a demonstration of the falsity of his arguments. If you are willing to engage in a genuine discussion and debate of this question -- does Islamic doctrine actually teach peace? -- I am at your service, and will return to Brown.

If you do not wish to engage in such a debate, as appears clear, then be assured that you will not forever be able to ignore this question, or to act as if the mere asking of it is the equivalent of burning a cross on someone's front lawn. Unfortunately, those Muslims who do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace, who are the ones who benefit most from the ruling of this question out of polite discourse, will continue -- unimpeded by their peaceful coreligionists -- to commit acts of violence in order to advance the cause of Islamic supremacism. It is more than likely that this conflict will touch you personally, and your vilification of the anti-jihad movement and your refusal to engage it intellectually may at that point look very different to you from the way it looks today.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?

Books and Films Generally Excluded from the Current Curriculum in Middle Eastern Studies  Freedom Center Students

Palestinian Wall of Lies

In the Name of Education: How Weird Ideologies Corrupt our Public Schools, Politics, the Media, Higher Institutions, and History by Jonas E Alexis 

Product Description
After several published reports by the Department of Education on the decline of education, Jonas E. Alexis felt compelled to do a little detective work of his own and discover what has caused the political, social, moral, educational, and spiritual malaise of our time. The book includes discussions on everything from slavery and Darwinism to world depopulation and the effect of rock music culture on a dwindling moral base, as well as solutions to the educational crisis.
"Why is education in crisis?" queries Alexis. "Because we concerned individuals are letting weird--and detrimental--ideologies infiltrate our schools." He quotes classicists Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath in their book, Who Killed Homer? "'And why did we do it? For our own very short-term gain, for a few paltry offices and titles, some small sense of self-importance, the pathetic smugness of belonging to the latest esoteric sect, a bit of money--all the usual companions of sloth, greed, and arrogance.'"

In the Name of Education seeks to answer questions that have plagued concerned individuals for decades. Armed with a bevy of historical facts, Alexis takes on the challenge of addressing the problematic situations in education today--including a discussion of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, a book that has sold more than forty million copies.

From the Back Cover
After several published reports by the Department of Education on the decline of education, Jonas E. Alexis felt compelled to do a little detective work of his own and discover what has caused the political, social, moral, educational, and spiritual malaise of our time. The book includes discussions on everything from slavery and Darwinism to world depopulation and the effect of rock music culture on a dwindling moral base, as well as solutions to the educational crisis.
"Why is education in crisis?" queries Alexis. "Because we concerned individuals are letting weird--and detrimental--ideologies infiltrate our schools." He quotes classicists Victor Davis Hanson and John Heath in their book, Who Killed Homer? "'And why did we do it? For our own very short-term gain, for a few paltry offices and titles, some small sense of self-importance, the pathetic smugness of belonging to the latest esoteric sect, a bit of money--all the usual companions of sloth, greed, and arrogance.'"

In the Name of Education seeks to answer questions that have plagued concerned individuals for decades. Armed with a bevy of historical facts, Alexis takes on the challenge of addressing the problematic situations in education today--including a discussion of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, a book that has sold more than forty million copies.

India Graduates Millions, but Too Few Are Fit to Hire By GEETA ANAND

 Many recent engineering grads in India say that after months of job hunting they are still unemployed and lack the skills necessary to join the workforce. Critics say corruption and low standards are to blame. Poh Si Teng reports from New Delhi.
BANGALORE, India?Call-center company 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd. is desperate to find new recruits who can answer questions by phone and email. It wants to hire 3,000 people this year. Yet in this country of 1.2 billion people, that is beginning to look like an impossible goal.

So few of the high school and college graduates who come through the door can communicate effectively in English, and so many lack a grasp of educational basics such as reading comprehension, that the company can hire just three out of every 100 applicants.

Flawed Miracle
The Journal is examining the threats to, and limits of, India's economic ascent.

In India, Doubts Gather Over Rising Giant's Course
.India projects an image of a nation churning out hundreds of thousands of students every year who are well educated, a looming threat to the better-paid middle-class workers of the West. Their abilities in math have been cited by President Barack Obama as a reason why the U.S. is facing competitive challenges.

Yet 24/7 Customer's experience tells a very different story. Its increasing difficulty finding competent employees in India has forced the company to expand its search to the Philippines and Nicaragua. Most of its 8,000 employees are now based outside of India.

In the nation that made offshoring a household word, 24/7 finds itself so short of talent that it is having to offshore.

"With India's population size, it should be so much easier to find employees," says S. Nagarajan, founder of the company. "Instead, we're scouring every nook and cranny."

India's economic expansion was supposed to create opportunities for millions to rise out of poverty, get an education and land good jobs. But as India liberalized its economy starting in 1991 after decades of socialism, it failed to reform its heavily regulated education system.

India's Growth Battle
View Interactive at above link

Take a look at India's economy 20 years after the country abandoned its Soviet-style, centrally planned economic model, embraced capitalism and jump-started economic growth.

.Business executives say schools are hampered by overbearing bureaucracy and a focus on rote learning rather than critical thinking and comprehension. Government keeps tuition low, which makes schools accessible to more students, but also keeps teacher salaries and budgets low. What's more, say educators and business leaders, the curriculum in most places is outdated and disconnected from the real world.

"If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys," says Vijay Thadani, chief executive of New Delhi-based NIIT Ltd. India, a recruitment firm that also runs job-training programs for college graduates lacking the skills to land good jobs.

Muddying the picture is that on the surface, India appears to have met the demand for more educated workers with a quantum leap in graduates. Engineering colleges in India now have seats for 1.5 million students, nearly four times the 390,000 available in 2000, according to the National Association of Software and Services Companies, a trade group.

But 75% of technical graduates and more than 85% of general graduates are unemployable by India's high-growth global industries, including information technology and call centers, according to results from assessment tests administered by the group.

Another survey, conducted annually by Pratham, a nongovernmental organization that aims to improve education for the poor, looked at grade-school performance at 13,000 schools across India. It found that about half of the country's fifth graders can't read at a second-grade level.

At stake is India's ability to sustain growth?its economy is projected to expand 9% this year?while maintaining its advantages as a low-cost place to do business.

The challenge is especially pressing given the country's more youthful population than the U.S., Europe and China. More than half of India's population is under the age of 25, and one million people a month are expected to seek to join the labor force here over the next decade, the Indian government estimates. The fear is that if these young people aren't trained well enough to participate in the country's glittering new economy, they pose a potential threat to India's stability.

"Economic reforms are not about goofy rich guys buying Mercedes cars," says Manish Sabharwal, managing director of Teamlease Services Ltd., an employee recruitment and training firm in Bangalore. "Twenty years of reforms are worth nothing if we can't get our kids into jobs."

 .Yet even as the government and business leaders acknowledge the labor shortage, educational reforms are a long way from becoming law. A bill that gives schools more autonomy to design their own curriculum, for example, is expected to be introduced in the cabinet in the next few weeks, and in parliament later this year.

"I was not prepared at all to get a job," says Pradeep Singh, 23, who graduated last year from RKDF College of Engineering, one of the city of Bhopal's oldest engineering schools. He has been on five job interviews?none of which led to work. To make himself more attractive to potential employers, he has enrolled in a five-month-long computer programming course run by NIIT.

Mr. Singh and several other engineering graduates said they learned quickly that they needn't bother to go to some classes. "The faculty take it very casually, and the students take it very casually, like they've all agreed not to be bothered too much," Mr. Singh says. He says he routinely missed a couple of days of classes a week, and it took just three or four days of cramming from the textbook at the end of the semester to pass the exams.

Others said cheating, often in collaboration with test graders, is rampant. Deepak Sharma, 26, failed several exams when he was enrolled at a top engineering college outside of Delhi, until he finally figured out the trick: Writing his mobile number on the exam paper.

That's what he did for a theory-of-computation exam, and shortly after, he says the examiner called him and offered to pass him and his friends if they paid 10,000 rupees each, about $250. He and four friends pulled together the money, and they all passed the test.

"I feel almost 99% certain that if I didn't pay the money, I would have failed the exam again," says Mr. Sharma.

BC Nakra, Pro Vice Chancellor of ITM University, where Mr. Sharma studied, said in an interview that there is no cheating at his school, and that if anyone were spotted cheating in this way, he would be "behind bars." He said he had read about a case or two in the newspaper, and in the "rarest of the rare cases, it might happen somewhere, and if you blow [it] out of all proportions, it effects the entire community." The examiner couldn't be located for comment.

Cheating aside, the Indian education system needs to change its entire orientation to focus on learning, says Saurabh Govil, senior vice president in human resources at Wipro Technologies. Wipro, India's third largest software exporter by sales, says it has struggled to find skilled workers. The problem, says Mr. Govil, is immense: "How are you able to change the mind-set that knowledge is more than a stamp?"

At 24/7 Customer's recruiting center on a recent afternoon, 40 people were filling out forms in an interior lobby filled with bucket seats. In a glass-walled conference room, a human-resources executive interviewed a group of seven applicants. Six were recent college graduates, and one said he was enrolled in a correspondence degree program.

One by one, they delivered biographical monologues in halting English. The interviewer interrupted one young man who spoke so fast, it was hard to tell what he was saying. The young man was instructed to compose himself and start from the beginning. He tried again, speaking just as fast, and was rejected after the first round.

View Full Image at above link

Another applicant, Rajan Kumar, said he earned a bachelor's degree in engineering a couple of years ago. His hobby is watching cricket, he said, and his strength is punctuality. The interviewer, noting his engineering degree, asked why he isn't trying to get a job in a technical field, to which he replied: "Right now, I'm here." This explanation was judged inadequate, and Mr. Kumar was eliminated, too.

A 22-year-old man named Chaudhury Laxmikant Dash, who graduated last year, also with a bachelor's in engineering, said he's a game-show winner whose hobby is international travel. But when probed by the interviewer, he conceded, "Until now I have not traveled." Still, he made it through the first-round interview, along with two others, a woman and a man who filled out his application with just one name, Robinson.

For their next challenge, they had to type 25 words a minute. The woman typed a page only to learn her pace was too slow at 18 words a minute. Mr. Dash, sweating and hunched over, couldn't get his score high enough, despite two attempts.

Only Mr. Robinson moved on to the third part of the test, featuring a single paragraph about nuclear war followed by three multiple-choice questions. Mr. Robinson stared at the screen, immobilized. With his failure to pass the comprehension section, the last of the original group of applicants was eliminated.

The average graduate's "ability to comprehend and converse is very low," says Satya Sai Sylada, 24/7 Customer's head of hiring for India. "That's the biggest challenge we face."

Indeed, demand for skilled labor continues to grow. Tata Consultancy Services, part of the Tata Group, expects to hire 65,000 people this year, up from 38,000 last year and 700 in 1986.

Trying to bridge the widening chasm between job requirements and the skills of graduates, Tata has extended its internal training program. It puts fresh graduates through 72 days of training, double the duration in 1986, says Tata chief executive N. Chandrasekaran. Tata has a special campus in south India where it trains 9,000 recruits at a time, and has plans to bump that up to 10,000.

Wipro runs an even longer, 90-day training program to address what Mr. Govil, the human-resources executive, calls the "inherent inadequacies" in Indian engineering education. The company can train 5,000 employees at once.

Both companies sent teams of employees to India's approximately 3,000 engineering colleges to assess the quality of each before they decided where to focus their campus recruiting efforts. Tata says 300 of the schools made the cut; for Wipro, only 100 did.

Tata has also begun recruiting and training liberal-arts students with no engineering background but who want secure jobs. And Wipro has set up a foundation that spends $4 million annually to train teachers. Participants attend week-long workshops and then get follow-up online mentoring. Some say that where they used to spend a third of class time with their backs to students, drawing diagrams on the blackboard, they now engage students in discussion and use audiovisual props.

View Full Image at above link
Vivek M. for The Wall Street Journal
Job applicants at 24/7, which says only three of 100 are qualified.
."Before, I didn't take the students into consideration," says Vishal Nitnaware, a senior lecturer in mechanical engineering at SVPM College of Engineering in rural Maharashtra state. Now, he says, he tries to engage them, so they're less nervous to speak up and participate in discussions.

This kind of teaching might have helped D.H. Shivanand, 25, the son of farmers from a village outside of Bangalore. He just finished a master's degree in business administration?in English?from one of Bangalore's top colleges. His father borrowed the $4,500 tuition from a small lending agency. Now, almost a year after graduating, Mr. Shivanand is still looking for an entry-level finance job.

Tata and IBM Corp., among dozens of other firms, turned him down, he says, after he repeatedly failed to answer questions correctly in the job interviews. He says he actually knew the answers but froze because he got nervous, so he's now taking a course to improve his confidence, interviewing skills and spoken English. His family is again pitching in, paying 6,000 rupees a month for his rent, or about $130, plus 1,500 rupees for the course, or $33.

"My family has invested so much money in my education, and they don't understand why I am still not finding a job," says Mr. Shivanand. "They are hoping very, very much that I get a job soon, so after all of their investment, I will finally support them."

See video at: http://online.wsj.com/video/indian-engineering-grads-unprepared-for-work/7746AB30-4B5C-401A-A2E9-62E87B80758A.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

The Diversity Hoax - Law Students Report from Berkeley
The Diversity Hoax: Law Students Report From Berkeley
Edited by David Wienir and Marc Berley
Afterword by Dennis Prager
To order call: (800) 247-6553 Toll free 24 hours
U.S. $12.95
Only $9.95 for students ordering from this Web site
ISBN 0-966994-0-0

THE DIVERSITY HOAX is a book about diversity on campus, written by those who know it best -- students. These essays by UC Berkeley law students from across the political spectrum offer hopeful solutions to an important problem in higher education today. They will motivate students nationwide to start exercising their right to free speech and express their diverse opinions on various topics, including what "diversity" really means.

***** Praise for THE DIVERSITY HOAX *****

"This fascinating and powerful collection of thoughtful young voices is eye-opening even to those versed in the machinations of diversity in higher education. It is a book of experiences more than abstractions, and it opens us to the inner lives of those usually too young and too busy to speak for themselves. I was disturbed and yet also moved as I read the stories of people so young already fighting so hard for their integrity. No one can read this book without admiration for its writers and horror at the situation they find themselves in. There is no other book like it."
 --Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character and A Dream
 Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America

"The Diversity Hoax is required reading for anyone concerned about legal education in America. These intriguing essays show how the illiberal orthodoxy of "political correctness" is stifling debate at an institution that should be an open marketplace of ideas. By describing the problem so clearly and candidly, this excellent book may be the beginning of its resolution."
 --Edwin Meese, III, former U.S. Attorney General, Boalt Hall Alumnus

"A frightening look at how the left wing thought-police have invaded one of America's most prestigious law schools."
 --David Horowitz, author of Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith

"David Wienir, Marc Berley, and the contributors to The Diversity Hoax are profiles in courage."
 --Dennis Prager, author of Think a Second Time and Happiness Is a
 Serious Problem, syndicated radio talk show host (KABC)

"David Wienir and Marc Berley are to be congratulated both for their principles and this illuminating book. They believe in true diversity of ideas, including those that disagree with the main premise of this extraordinary collection. An indispensable follow-up to The Shadow University, The Diversity Hoax bears moral witness to a scandal of immense proportions: freedom of speech and conscience are being trampled at American college and university campuses. Bravo for an essential job well done!"
 --Harvey A. Silverglate, co-author (with Alan Charles Kors) of The Shadow
 University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses

Edited by David Wienir and Marc Berley
Table of Contents

Introduction - Marc Berley

Part One: The History
The History - David Wienir

The Question
Part Two: The Voices
Chapter One: The Idea of Diversity
 Losing the King's Peace - Richard MacBride
 The Great Buzzword - Anthony Patel
 Boalt is No Exception - Anonymous

Chapter Two: The Lack of Dialogue
 The Unprofitable Monopoly - Heather McCormick
 The Usuals - Anne Hawkins
 A Call for Respect - Jim Culp

Chapter Three: The Muddled Goals of Diversity
 We all Belong Here - Isabelle Quinn
 Vanishing Diversity - Daryl Singhi
 Minority Views Are in the Majority - Jennifer Wood

Chapter Four: Cuffed By The Thought-Police
 Of Vandals and Cowards - Catharine Bailey
 News from the Ladies' Room - Megan Elizabeth Murray
 We're All Losers - Randall Lewis
 What Ever Happened to John Stuart Mill - Nick-Anthony Buford
 Two Jews, a Cuban, and an Indian: A True Story - David Wienir

Chapter Five: An Institutionalized Problem?
 Disorientation Day - Jeff Bishop
 An Institutional Problem - Richard Kevin Welsh
 Part One: The Prevailing Dogma
 Part Two: Update, August 10, 1998
 Boalt's Incentive Programs - Anonymous

Chapter Six: The Dissent: "It's Your Problem"
 Stop All the Whining - Lesley R. Knapp
 Quibbles about the Margins - Joshua Rider

Chapter Seven: Reflections on Affirmative Action
 Reflections on Proposition 209 - Darcy Edmonds
 Not on Campus, Of Course - Megan Elizabeth Murray
 Part One: No Special Handshake
 Part Two: The Affirmative Action Article
 Behind the Tattered Curtain of Racial Preferences - Brian D. Wyatt

Chapter Eight: The Double Standard
 Raw Hypocrisy - Jason Beutler
 Please, Remain Silent - Naomi Harlin

Chapter Nine: Attempts at Good Humor
 Almost Nonfiction - Anonymous
 Constipation of the Brainium - Grant Peters, M.D

Chapter Ten: The End of the Individual?
 Truly Anonymous - Anonymous

Part Three: The Future
The Future - David Wienir and Marc Berley

Afterword - Dennis Prager

A. California Civil Rights Initiative
B. Information about FAST
C. The Federalist Society Statement of Purpose
D. Memorandum from Dean Herma Hill Kay (April 3, 1998)


About the Editors


THE DIVERSITY HOAX Copyright 1999 David Wienir and Marc Berley. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission.

This publication has not been authorized or endorsed by the University of California, Berkeley. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors and editors.

Our greatest collective hope for civility and tolerance -- indeed, for a better, if not harmonious, America -- is the reassertion of basic liberal principles: respect for justice based on fairness; pursuit of truth rooted in reason; the right to free speech; and respect for individuals and their individual rights. Nowhere is this more important than in our schools. If those who recognize the problems [described in this book] can take stock and act boldly now, perhaps we can save and nurture what is best in all of us. Hope can prevail, along with differences. New generations of American students can learn to disagree civilly. And as they ascend to positions of power in this country, they would be in a better position to address difficult problems and arrive at workable solutions. -- David Wienir and Marc Berley, "The Future"

About The Diversity Hoax
by Marc Berley

In his first months as a student at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1997, David Wienir was startled by the lack of intellectual diversity he found among students, professors, and administrators. What is more, he was initially dismayed and later terrified by the lack of intellectual freedom to be found in classrooms, hallways, and courtyards. David encountered something he had not expected to find at a "top-ten" law school -- inconceivable intolerance for any views that did not accord with what appeared to be the prevailing campus view on Proposition 209. Although it was voted on by the people of California, David found many on campus acting as if Proposition 209 carried none of the moral power of the law and had to be reversed by any means necessary.

David was not naive when he applied to Berkeley; he knew that radical liberal politics rule the roost at most American ivory towers -- and especially Berkeley. He just could not believe that an elite American law school would turn its back on the tradition that, from the time of Cicero, had lawyers train by learning to argue in utrimque parte, speaking on both sides of every issue. Certain hypothetical questions about certain cases were taboo. David did not expect his classmates to hold his view on controversial topics such as racial preference, but he also did not expect to find classes disrupted and to be called names merely for holding his opinion, and pretty much keeping it to himself. As David describes it, the problem was that protesters were intimidating diverse students in the name of diversity:

Within the first month of school, certain members of the Class of 2000 authored an open letter, addressed to the dean, for all students of the class to sign. Those who signed the letter confessed that they "chose to attend Boalt in spite of [their] grave disappointment in the lack of diversity evidenced in the Class of 2000." The letter professed that "completely abolishing [racial preferences] without implementing any other sufficient means of achieving diversity has compromised our legal education. The pool of background experiences and perspectives we are exposed to has diminished significantly, limiting our opportunities for intellectual growth." Seventy-one percent of the entering class signed the letter, and there was scarce evidence at Boalt that those among the twenty-nine percent minority were welcome to speak. I myself was one among the palpably silent twenty-nine percent.

The protesters wanted David, among others, to sign the anti-Proposition 209 petition, and the more often David politely refused to sign, the more fiercely he was maligned, accused, and called offensive names. Finding his views excluded, his voice silenced, and his signature demanded, David describes what he calls "a hypocritical definition of 'diversity'":

Those who signed the letter seemed to see themselves as more empowered and enlightened than their dissenting contemporaries. Those who refused to sign the letter were -- I speak from experience -- scorned and disparaged. The intolerance of the authors of this open letter was clearly paradoxical: on the one hand, they espoused "diversity"; on the other hand, they rejected anything but group-think. Support them, in other words, or be prepared for a gross slinging of names that largely stick.

David's first few months at Boalt Hall were rough ones. Nevertheless, he kept his poise and remained optimistic. "At Berkeley, my voice was not supposed to be heard," writes David. "I was supposed to count only as one of those hateful, oppressive opponents of diversity. Hidden amidst the shadows of the debate over racial preference, I nevertheless refused to go without putting my ear to what I hoped was fertile ground."

Hoping to find that there was more intellectual freedom and diversity at Boalt Hall than he himself had experienced, David set himself a project. He sent out a letter to every student at Boalt suggesting they submit essays that he would try to publish as The Berkeley Federalist Law Papers, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to open and honest expression. The call for papers asked some simple questions: "How healthy is the marketplace of ideas here at Boalt? Do you have fair opportunity to share your ideas in the classroom? Does expression flow freely in an environment tolerant of diversity, or does the climate of tolerance at Berkeley paradoxically inhibit true diversity of opinion? Has political activism within the classroom silenced important student perspectives?" Seeking "diary-like" submissions, David made it clear that "all viewpoints are welcome and encouraged." "Let your voice be heard," he wrote.

What was the result of David's equipoise, perseverance, and effort? A remarkable collection of twenty-seven essays revealing a rampant attack upon intellectual freedom and free speech affecting diverse students from across the political spectrum. David sent me the collection to see if FAST, the not-for-profit student organization I run, would be interested in publishing it. The essays submitted to David clearly deserved to be heard. David and I edited the collection. We left the submissions alone, but added an introduction, an essay on the history of free speech at Berkeley and attacks upon it, and a conclusion addressing the current and future status of free speech on American college and university campuses. We kept David's word. In the spirit of free speech, the collection reprints all of the submissions David received. Of the twenty-seven essays, only two suggest that intellectual freedom and free speech exist at UC Berkeley. Hence the title of the final book: The Diversity Hoax: Law Students Report from Berkeley.

As The Diversity Hoax shows, David Wienir's experience as a student at UC Berkeley is not an anomalous one. He is just one of many students who are shocked by the threat to freedom posed by an entire campus. But David is the first to dedicate himself to the task of rendering a full account:

The institutional practice of racial preference was just about over in California, and some people are upset -- very upset. California's Proposition 209, which banned government-sponsored racial discrimination, including racial preference in admissions decisions at University of California campuses, turned the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) into ground zero for the debate about racial preferences. The fabric of the entering class changed noticeably from previous years -- in the fall of 1997, only one black arrived as a first-year student.

But that number does not tell the whole story. Eighteen black students were accepted to Boalt Hall in 1997, but none chose to attend. The eighteen who gained admission were so qualified that they not only merited acceptance to Berkeley even after Proposition 209; many also gained acceptance to even more prestigious law schools such as Harvard and Yale. The one black student who did attend Boalt as a member of the entering class in 1997 was actually admitted in 1996, while a policy of racial preference was still in place.

"Although Proposition 209 merely made academic achievement the absolute criterion for admission to one of the nation's "top-ten" law schools," writes David in "The History," his account of the making of The Diversity Hoax, "it had a number of more noticeable effects. Many people at Boalt geared up to turn back the clock." As David reports, "in the classrooms, hallways, bathroom stalls, and bars, students and faculty bemoaned the lack of 'diversity' due to the 're-segregation' of campus. These fierce opponents of Proposition 209 (and less-than-tolerant enemies of the Californians who supported it) rallied behind the claim that education itself was being compromised by racial homogeneity." David offers as one example Marjorie Shultz, a Boalt professor and 1976 Boalt graduate, who stated: "how can [they] be excellent collectively if [they] have experiences that are narrower than the experiences of this population." An even better example, perhaps, is the dean of Boalt Hall, Herma Hill Kay, who claimed that without ethnic diversity, "it is more difficult to have a classroom discussion." Joshua Irwin, a student of the Class of 2000 told the Sacramento Bee, "I think that there's not going to be as many views represented in this class."

David admits that "it is virtually undeniable that the law school at Berkeley is suffering from a lack of diversity, and that the education at Boalt has indeed been compromised." But the decline in "the quality of education at Boalt Hall has'little to do with race," he points out. "It has everything to do with intellectual freedom'.The Class of 2000 has strongly supported the proposition that race serves as a proxy for opinion."

What is worse, "scare tactics, parading as enlightened 'politically correct' peer pressure, are all part of the fight to control the definition of diversity at Berkeley," writes David, describing what it is like to live among the horrifying contradictions of the diversity hoax:

The intolerant activists, comprised of both Boalt students and other enthusiasts, have personally attacked students who express contrary views by using techniques of slander, intimidation, and pejorative personal statements. They have torn down flyers of organizations with diverse views. They have marched up and down the halls chanting militant slogans such as "Let them in or tear it down" ("them" referring to under-qualified minority students who had not gained admission under the new race-blind admission policies, "it" referring to the university). They have interrupted classes by insulting professors, blowing whistles, and screaming into loudspeakers'.The campus has been defaced. Fire alarms have been pulled. Many of the students even came to class in full uniform, wearing identical T-shirts signifying their desire to ethnically reengineer the law school. The language that the 'diversity' protesters used was clear. On the walls they wrote: "FUCK 209" and "SUPPORT DIVERSITY, NOT BOALT."

Given his experience, David had to draw the following conclusion about Boalt Hall: "Diversity is defined according to skin color, rather than according to ideas." To reduce diversity to pigmentation and ethnicity is, as David writes, "a form of racism that ignores the diversity of opinions not only among populations, but among minorities themselves." What is more, "given the fact that control of the definition of not only 'diversity' but also of 'minority' is in the hands of people with a narrow agenda, great harm has come to minorities themselves."

One of the most grievous tactics of the 'diversity' protesters' prolonged campaign was to disrupt classes by bringing in minority students from outside the Boalt community. After acting rudely to professors, the protesters would then confront white people and ask them in a forceful way to give up their seats to a minority student -- a symbolic gesture. But in at least one case, the 'diversity' protesters unwittingly asked a minority student and refused to tolerate her dissenting view. As one woman who cares greatly about both intellectual and racial diversity tells in some of the most riveting pages of The Diversity Hoax, she herself, although a minority of mixed race, was called repugnant, indeed racist, names simply on account of the views she held. "When I expressed my outrage at being asked to give up my seat to a minority at a recent classroom protest staged in support of affirmative action," writes Isabelle Quinn, "this caused a classmate to call me a 'racist white conservative idiot.'

The Diversity Hoax is a book of essays by Berkeley law students: women, men, minorities, Democrats, Republicans, and moderates alike -- and different. While their backgrounds, life experiences, political views, and physical characteristics are different, their views on intellectual freedom at Berkeley are starkly similar: diversity -- different points of view -- is not, by and large, to be found on campus. Regardless of background, many of the students who submitted essays to David see themselves, with considerable authority, as part of a true minority at Berkeley -- those who are not only willing to tolerate opposing views but who know that only "a free and open marketplace of ideas benefits all."

Students who have always fought to protect the free speech of others found themselves confronting hostile methods to silence their views at Berkeley. "Funny, I've always thought of myself as a classic liberal -- the type that defends vociferously the rights of people to disagree with me," writes Nick-Anthony Buford in "What Ever Happened to John Stuart Mill?" But, "ironically, the inspiring 'traditional' 1960's paradigm of Berkeley -- of respect for diverse opinions -- is subverted, and trampled by the new intolerance of the activist student thought-police who police the discussions which take place in the classrooms and hallways." In "News from the Ladies' Room," Megan Elizabeth Murray holds "the belief that we all have a right to speak." But at Boalt, she points out, "the very people whose rights I was trying to respect were not respecting the rights of others."

Anyone who finds any of the above unbelievable or overstated needs to read every essay in The Diversity Hoax. The students who submitted essays to David did so because they perceived a problem they wanted to describe to the world. Berkeley was famous for fighting for free speech in the 1960's. But, as the student essays in The Diversity Hoax describe, the academic year of 1997-98 saw the successful silencing of many students who sought diversity of ideas and free speech. The 'diversity' protesters and petitioners (a fluctuating group of students generally ranging from 20 to 100) used bullying tactics -- tactics so ugly that liberal and moderate Democrats alike felt silenced by the radical liberals with whom they thought they shared a belief in fairness and freedom of speech. Read together, the student essays paint a compelling portrait of the state of free speech at one of America's top law schools.

Almost all of the submissions David received report that a true diversity of ideas is neither encouraged nor tolerated at Berkeley. Free speech is in jeopardy. Politically correct ("PC") thought-police censor. In too many awful scenarios, PC racism prevails.

PC racism has been blind to its various victims in recent years. The essays in The Diversity Hoax document how hypocritical, self-centered, and intolerant the 'diversity' protesters could be. But that is what happens when some people put their feelings before other people's facts. One would not think that people who worship at the altar of identity politics would assert their right to declare their "group" without affording other people the same right, but that is what often happens. The 'diversity' protestors, after all, do not ask everyone they harass for a family tree. Of course, we would not want them to, and that is the point. Wishing to be outwardly proud of their "group" or ethnicity, however, they don't allow true individuals to be quiet about theirs. There is also that other problem of not respecting people who actually happen to be and consider themselves white.

As every student of civil rights in America should know, bullying tactics can keep justice at bay for only so long. A dedicated student of Western civilization, Martin Luther King, Jr. had absolute beliefs about justice that he would not violate -- that was his power. Unfortunately, many of today's students are indoctrinated warriors, taught by radical professors to reject the best of what the Western tradition has to offer and mistake power for justice. Not coincidentally, they mistake polite dissent for usurpation of their power. It is sad to see so many of America's students pushed in the direction of intolerance, pessimism, and confrontation rather than in the direction of tolerance, hope, and peace.

Racism still exists in America. Thirty-five years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, America has much reason for optimism. America has been and remains committed to eradicating institutional racism. Unfortunately, new forms of resistance to a color-blind society are increasingly evident. In an atmosphere in which the color of skin has come to matter more than the content of character or demonstrated skills, Proposition 209 reasserts the language of that momentous Civil Rights Act of 1964. Opposition to Proposition 209, however, especially on the UC Berkeley campus, has demonstrated a determination by some to defer the dream of a color-blind society. Anti-American sentiment, refusal to assimilate, and separatist ethnic identity politics do untold damage to our schools and to our country, generally harming minorities most of all.

Now is not the time to sanction institutionalized racism. That, at least, was the view of California when it voted on Proposition 209. Even if students disagree with the people of California, now is not the time to sanction the silencing of democratic debate about controversial topics, especially at universities, where intellectual freedom is invaluable.

The Diverstity Hoax is not a joy to publish. It documents some of the worst educational trends currently threatening our country. According to the immediate needs of the "liberal" revolution on campus, skin color comes to substitute for ideas. In this charged atmosphere, many of America's most successful minorities -- Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas, to take just a few examples -- are vilified on university campuses as traitors or puppets, rather than accepted (or merely tolerated) as successful individuals who are free to espouse their views. Although these black intellectuals have arrived at their diverse views through life experience and considerable study, their experience and hard work do not matter to the 'diversity' protestors who disagree with them. To many opponents of Proposition 209, minorities who oppose racial preference "think white" and hence are white -- at least for the purposes of the diversity revolution. By the same token, repugnant pejorative names are slung at minorities who hold anything resembling conservative views.

These are some of the sad facts at the center of the diversity hoax. To the 'diversity' protesters, only some facts matter. Only some efforts count. Only some opinions are acceptable. And all ideas are reducible to race.

I continue to put the word diversity in single quotation marks when referring to the 'diversity' protesters because, as the essays here demonstrate, diversity is coming to mean whatever the 'diversity' protesters say it means. And whoever says otherwise is hastily silenced and excluded from diversity. As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." So the 'diversity' protesters would have it.

In the 1960's, Berkeley was the famous center of the Free Speech Movement in America. People dedicated to free speech came from all around the country to be a part of the movement led by Mario Savio. Savio died in 1996. In the 1997-98 academic year, Berkeley became a place where 'diversity' protesters not only worked to curtail the free speech of students who disagreed with their position on racial preference; they also intimidated students who early supported them but who, after joining in, came to question the protesters' intolerant tactics. It appears the 'diversity' protesters weren't for diversity; they were against it.

As the essays in The Diversity Hoax recount, the 1997-98 academic year was a sad chapter in the free speech at Berkeley. True liberalism gave way to an impulse to accomplish a mission by illiberal means. The classical liberal John Stuart Mill would not have been happy to witness the recent silencing of minority views at Berkeley. "All silencing of discussion," wrote Mill, is a dangerous "assumption of infallibility."

When the mind is fettered, it is not free to grow. To suppress free speech is to champion error. When intellectual freedom is denied to some, everyone loses, as the essays in The Diversity Hoax make clear. "In my module, in particular, there exists a great deal of unease between the Right and the Left," writes Randall Lewis in "We're All Losers." "I sympathize with the Left much more often. Yet, that does not imply that I won't make comments that I regard as theoretically true when an argument on the Left is weak," writes Lewis. "Hindering speech and refraining from making logical points only works to all our detriment."

The biggest problem expressed in the essays in The Diversity Hoax is that because diversity of opinion is stifled at Berkeley, students -- all students -- are not learning as much as they could in their classrooms. Students from across the political spectrum form what has become a silenced minority -- students who understand that the end of free speech and intellectual freedom, in the service of whatever revolution, means the destruction of education, individualism, and any semblance of the American dream.

The "silencing of dissenting voices at Boalt also means that our classroom discussions are much less rich than they might otherwise be," writes Heather McCormick in "The Unprofitable Monopoly." Indeed, "many who disagree with the ultra-liberal viewpoint that dominates discussion at Boalt have learned to keep silent." Wondering how this could be the case at an elite law school, she asks: "Why is it that we, as advocates in training, are nevertheless so reluctant to stand up for our positions?" Like many others raised in The Diversity Hoax it is a material question. "Our expectations are anchored so far to the Left at Boalt" that "in most classes, we don't hear from true conservatives at all, only less extreme liberals," McCormick writes. "In reading this article, maybe you have assumed that I am a conservative. I am not. I am a moderate Democrat. That my viewpoints can pass for conservatism in the classroom (which they sometimes do) appalls me and shows just how flat the debate is." McCormick's proposed solution to the problem would demand more of conservatives and liberals alike: "More conservatives must be willing to express their viewpoints in class, in spite of their fears of being demonized. Should the debate become one-sided nevertheless, more liberals and moderates need to offer alternative perspectives, even if that means playing devil's advocate."

It is a caring, reasonable proposal, but Boalt Hall appears to have a long way to go. On her first day of school, writes Darcy Edmonds, "I feared confrontation with fellow students asking me to carry signs and demonstrate for a cause about which I was still unsure." Soon, however, Edmonds writes, "I agreed with [the protesters'] intention of showing that the students were united in their belief in diversity in the classroom, so I agreed to participate." Edmonds soon noticed the duplicity of the protesters, who did not tell all their supporters the full extent and intolerant nature of their plans. Instead, she saw their ability "for using...other students like pawns in their game of political strategy." Where did this leave her? "I felt I could not tell anyone my personal philosophies -- that I wanted to increase opportunities for students of diverse backgrounds but did not support affirmative action." The harassing tactics of the 'diversity' protesters created an atmosphere in which students were "not willing to risk resentment by voicing their honest opinions." The diversity hoax -- the hoodwinking assumption that diversity includes only certain views -- was terrifying.

The 'diversity' protesters even treated Dean Kay terribly. This treatment," David points out, "was part of a larger hypocrisy at the root of their tactics." McCormick offers this moving comment: "While I endorse efforts to increase minority enrollment at Boalt, there was no way I was going to stand in the Dean's office and shout down a woman who has devoted a lifetime to defending the rights of women and minorities."

David's experience at Boalt is testimony to the one-sided intolerance that creates division and keeps people from coming to common ground. "I came to Berkeley sympathetic to some of the issues of the liberal Democratic agenda, and remain so," David writes. "However, I am adamant that the tactics of the intolerant radical activists actually erode the validity of much that they have to say. As I gazed across the historic campus late one April night, I wondered whatever happened to the Berkeley of the sixties -- a Berkeley that celebrated freedom of expression, and despised narrow-mindedness?"

"Many Boalt students act as if their education is threatened whenever any conservative view is expressed," writes David. "Ironically, the conservative views are generally those supporting liberal notions of freedom of expression. Still, almost every time a lone conservative tried to raise his or her voice during my first year at Boalt, things got ugly." How ugly? "Fists, rather than hands, were raised. Eyes rolled. Glares flashed. Intolerance radiated. Diversity of mind was declared dangerous and unwanted. Only racial diversity was celebrated and cherished."

The students published in The Diversity Hoax ask some numbing questions, questions American higher education would do well to confront with honesty. "What was I thinking expecting a mature public discussion in a top U.S. law school?" writes Murray. "To me," she adds, "diversity is a range of viewpoints and experiences." Murray asks further, "How can we 'become' color-blind all the while highlighting our differences with fireworks? We end up pitted against each other based on race instead of forgetting that we look different. To advance we must advance ourselves. Each of us must stop complaining about the past and look to the future."

The purpose of The Diversity Hoax is to allow students not merely to express their views, but also to express in a meaningful way the difficulty they have faced trying to express them at UC Berkeley.

The circumstances of the publication of The Diversity Hoax by the Foundation for Academic Standards & Tradition (FAST) are particularly important. FAST is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization created to empower diverse college and university students nationwide to restore both high academic standards and humanistic study of the liberal arts in the Western tradition to their schools. FAST works to reverse the tragic "dumbing down" and irresponsible politicization in evidence at so many schools across the country. FAST was founded because many students understand the value of the Western intellectual tradition and the necessity of raising academic standards in American institutions of higher learning. Without common ground, students from increasingly diverse backgrounds will not learn to speak and listen to one another. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that American educators make sure that students read a collection of books that will help make them informed critical thinkers with common ground. At the same time, schools must encourage intellectual freedom. FAST is dedicated to the pursuit of free speech for student voices. This is why FAST is publishing The Diversity Hoax.

What is occurring at Berkeley is a decline in academic standards that appears to be the result of efforts on the part of administrators, professors, and students to reject some of the best aspects of the Western intellectual tradition. The essays in The Diversity Hoax suggest that the pursuit of truth rooted in reason is being replaced by a rejection of reason as a mere tool of oppression, rather than the valuable source of self-correction that, in America, led visionary white men to abolish slavery.

It is under such conditions that Shakespeare becomes known as the cultural artifact of an oppressive culture, rather than a fine poet who has much to teach diverse people about human nature. Under such conditions, Western civilization is wrongly attacked, made responsible for all of the world's ills, but ignored where it has led the way in confronting and lessening those ills. When pursued with honesty, history shows, the Western intellectual tradition leads to recognition of errors and a determination to accomplish self-correction. Conversely, many countries and cultures that have done neither are the pets of the 'diversity' protesters and their demands for a multicultural curriculum based on vague and hyperbolic notions of egalitarianism and social engineering.

Racial preference, it is the reasoned belief of many, and the belief of a majority of Californians who voted on Proposition 209, is not only unjust but also harmful to both individuals and institutions of higher learning. Lowering admissions criteria for some helps no one. I myself would like to see more black students attend elite universities, including UC Berkeley. The best way to improve the opportunities for all students, I believe, is truly to raise standards in K-12 education and apply college admissions criteria fairly. A more challenging course of action than many are willing to consider, but more promising than racial preferences.

The Diversity Hoax is by no means, however, a book about Proposition 209. It is a book about free speech and intellectual freedom -- a book in which students recount the obstacles they confronted when they expressed their views on a number of controversial topics at UC Berkeley.

David calls The Diversity Hoax "a compilation of those student essays, thoughts, and intellectual prayers." How does he describe its mission? "This book is dedicated to diversity -- diversity of thought, and diversity of opinion. It asserts the value of minorities themselves freely to debate diverse opinions."

UC Berkeley, as David and I point out, is not unique. "While the essays of The Diversity Hoax were written about Boalt, it would be incorrect to assume that the problems it describes are unique to its halls," writes David. "The scope of this book is much greater than the uncivil actions of a small number of Berkeley radicals. If only we could be so lucky. If only the disease of contemptuous intolerance were so well contained." Indeed. As David writes, "Berkeley serves as the perfect backdrop for the first comprehensive collection of essays published by students dealing with the loss of intellectual freedom within a 'top ten' law school. What is particularly troubling is that so many law students seem to be sanctioning an attack upon reason itself, upon the foundation of justice and objectivity upon which America is based."

Our country is based on justice grounded in the possibility of a fair, free, reasonable pursuit of truth. The state of democracy in America has much to do with what the country's law schools are teaching a new generation of American lawyers. Anyone with an interest in the American justice system, higher education, intellectual freedom, free speech, and a number of other important issues will read the student essays in The Diversity Hoax with considerable interest. As David writes, The Diversity Hoax is "intended to create a moment of pause and reflection":

My goal is for a copy of this book to sit on the desk of every dean, academic, and student in the nation. This book allows the world to see what many students see -- and feel what they feel. I hope it will make people think. I hope it will help people to realize that there is a problem, and address it'.This book lets those who are actually affected by intolerance in academia speak for themselves'.They are snapshots into the minds of students studying amidst paradoxes, unfounded allegations, and restrictions and limitations of free thought and ideas. They should be taken seriously.

The issues broached and treated in The Diversity Hoax are complex. If the book causes its readers to consider them further, it will have achieved its goal: widening the perspective on one of the most important issues in American education and society today. The ramifications of the diversity hoax are enormous. May the wisdom of the students open many eyes.

This essay is excerpted from Marc Berley's "Introduction" and David Wienir's "The History." All quotations are from The Diversity Hoax.

Copyright 1999 by Marc Berley
All rights reserved.

Excerpted from "The History"
by David Wienir

The Contributors
The students who contributed to this volume are truly courageous. They are willing to think and express themselves in what is a repressive environment. They are people who value freedom of thought. They are people who are not willing to abandon their values and ideas. They are, rather, eager to test their thoughts by subjecting them to free and open discourse. It is for this reason that many of these students came to Boalt Hall. Seeing that intellectual freedom is stifled at Boalt, these students have dared to take the first step toward freedom. They have realized that complacency means surrender, and that surrender means self-destruction. They have realized the primacy of ideas and the need to share them. I am grateful to each and every contributor.

Each essay is subjective and speaks only for itself. Each contributor relates the facts as he or she perceived them. Each essay was submitted blindly, without any opportunity to review the work of others. This was not a group project. This collection records the observations of concerned individual students, some of whom know each other, some of whom know neither each other nor me. Of the twenty-seven essays submitted, two disagree with the notion that there is a problem with respect to intellectual diversity and freedom. In the interest of truth and freedom of expression, no submissions have been omitted. Every student who cared enough to submit his or her view on the topic has been published here. Each writer thought independently, yet for the most part the voices speak as a unified whole. The message is plain -- there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

There are more than 700 students at Boalt Hall and only twenty-seven essays here. This collection therefore makes no claim to speak on behalf of the entire student body or of Boalt Hall itself. These essays represent the view of a minority of students at Boalt Hall. The real question here is the size of the minority for which the contributors speak. Only a small portion of the daily readers of the New York Times ever writes a letter to the editor. But for every person who does write, there are many who agree with the points expressed but who, for whatever reason, choose not to air their opinions in a public forum. Given the nature of this book, fear of reprisal was one reason not to contribute, as a number of would-be contributors told me in response to my call for papers. In a less intolerant atmosphere, I might have been deluged with essays. But in a more tolerant atmosphere, there would have been no need -- and no subject -- for such a book at all.

All contributors were actively studying at Boalt Hall during the academic year 1997-98, the time when all but one of these essays were written. Some contributors were in their twenties, some were in their forties. Men and women contributed. Some had blond hair, while others had brown or red hair. Many of the contributors were considered "minorities" when they applied to the law school. To my knowledge the contributors are racially diverse. East Asians, Near-East Asians, Hispanics, and others of various religious and ethnic backgrounds contributed to this publication. As I fervently believe that diversity of opinion has little if anything to do with gender, race, or hair color, such information about each writer is not specified. I received twenty-seven essays. All of them are printed here. While some essays needed minor grammatical and stylistic corrections, most are published largely untouched. Only three contributors asked to be anonymous. Only one essay was submitted anonymously. The effort and resolve of those who contributed to this volume ought to be celebrated.

The timely participation of the contributors demonstrates the sense of urgency expressed in this book. Many students wrote their essays while studying for "all-important" law school exams. One student submitted his essay less than 48 hours before he was due to be married. Another student actually broke down into tears when she discussed submitting her essay. No student received any form of monetary compensation for his or her contribution. For the most part, it was not even clear if the project, The Berkeley Federalist Law Papers, would even be published. To my knowledge, only about a quarter of the contributors were active members of the Berkeley Federalist Society, a fact which speaks to the desire of the contributors to address an important problem. The writing is pure, heartfelt, and immediate, but also reasoned.

To my knowledge, no book had ever been published by a collection of concerned law students commenting on the intellectual health of their institution. Lawyers always look to precedent, and we had none to follow. Lawyers are trained to be cautious and seldom to commit -- these future lawyers were willing to make bold and important statements.

Historically, what has made Berkeley an outstanding academic institution is not only its willingness to question, but also the eagerness of its students to respond. This is no less true today than at any time in the past. I posed a question. The students bravely responded. For this reason alone, I am grateful to have been accepted to Boalt and would enthusiastically encourage all accepted students to attend. Even conservatives. The reader should not think for a moment that this project has been driven by bitterness or scorn. Rather, this book has been inspired by unbridled optimism and hope for change. The future is bright -- but requires thought and action by those who care.

The cathartic effect that this book has had on the students who contributed appears to have been profound. Through writing for this publication, many students told me that, for the first time, they were able to formulate and organize their perceptions. Through reading, I hope that students across the nation who are concerned with open and free debate and intellectual honesty will realize that they are not alone. I hope that readers will become less tolerant of intolerance, and will realize the consequences of remaining silent and not making their world a better place.

Copyright 1999 by David Wienir
All rights reserved.

About the Editors
DAVID WIENIR is a member of the class of 2000 at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). He is co-author of Last Time: Labour's Lessons from the Sixties (London: Bellew Press, 1997) with Austin Mitchell, Member of British Parliament (Labour, Great Grimsby). He graduated from Columbia University in 1995 with a B.A. in political science and studied history and politics at Oxford University as a vistiting scholar. He earned his M.Sc. in Public Administration and Public Policy from the London School of Economics in 1996. David has worked as an intern for the Los Angeles District Attorney; hosted a political and cultural commentary broadcast on Estonia National Radio in the former Soviet Union; worked as researcher within the British House of Commons; conducted research for the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation; and worked for the Governor of California's Legal Affairs Office.

MARC BERLEY is executive director of the Foundation for Academic Standards & Tradition (FAST), a not-for-profit organization created to empower diverse college and university students nationwide to restore high academic standards and humanistic study of the liberal arts in the Western tradition to their schools. He earned his Ph.D. in English and Comparative Literature from Columbia University in 1993. He has taught literature, humanities, and writing at Columbia University, Lawrence University, and Rutgers University and written on Shakespeare, Milton, Plato, W. B. Yeats, Wallace Stevens, and education.

To order The Diversity Hoax call: (800) 247-6553

Students who order by telephone pay only $9.95 for the book.
Just tell the operator if you are a student.

A review of The Diversity Hoax: Law Students Report From Berkeley, edited by David Wienir and Marc Berley.
Defining Diversity Down by J. Richard Pearcey

For Wienir, the incident became a paradigm of what "diversity" often really means on today's college campus: the imposition of a leftist orthodoxy that brooks no dissent.

The protesters' mistake was to act on the racist assumption that skin color determines a person's politics, and that someone who looks white must therefore "think white."

Martin Luther King, Jr., understood that the ideal of a color-blind society could only be based on the conviction that there is a law above the law -- a transcendent moral law that acts as the basis for human law.

In the fall of 1998 David Wienir, a law student at the University of California at Berkeley, joined with three classmates to start a new fraternity, whose purpose was pretty much the same as all frats: to "provide support for heterosexual men" and offer an "opportunity to interact with a large number of interesting, eligible women."

Harmless enough, one might think. But apparently not everyone did think so. Is the word "heterosexual" so inflammatory these days? Within a week, Wienir writes, "the dean of the law school was notified that something like a white supremacist group had been started" at Boalt Hall, the Berkeley law school.

Ironically, Wienir is Jewish, and his three friends were Jewish, Cuban and Indian. Yet the slanderous report spread like wildfire. "I overheard students I had never met discuss the 'white supremacist' clan, often mentioning my name," Wienir writes. "Students I had never even seen before angrily approached me, demanding both explanation and repentance." Almost a year after the incident, "my name is still being linked to a white-supremacist movement that, to my knowledge, does not, thank God, even exist."

For Wienir, the incident became a paradigm of what "diversity" often really means on today's college campus: the imposition of a leftist orthodoxy that brooks no dissent. During that first year of law school, Wienir writes, he "began to understand the methods of the radical Left to be nothing short of intellectual terrorism. ... The intolerant activists ... have personally attacked students who express contrary views by using techniques of slander, intimidation and pejorative personal statements." Other methods include tearing down "flyers of organizations with opposing views," and interrupting classes by "insulting professors, blowing whistles and screaming into loudspeakers."

All this was part of an organized reaction against the passage a year earlier of Proposition 209 (known as the California Civil Rights Initiative), which forbids the practice of racial preferences in university admissions policy. The result was that only one African-American student entered UC Berkeley in 1997 as a first-year student, which outraged diversity advocates. (In fact, 18 black students were accepted to Boalt Hall, but all chose to go elsewhere.)

Hoping to discover that there was more open-mindedness and tolerance at Boalt Hall than he himself had experienced, Wienir came up with a project that became the core of this book. He sent a letter to all law students, asking them to submit diary-like essays in response to questions such as: "How healthy is the marketplace of ideas here at Boalt? Do you have fair opportunity to share your ideas in the classroom? Does expression flow freely in an environment tolerant of diversity, or does the climate of tolerance at Berkeley paradoxically inhibit true diversity of opinion?"

Twenty-seven students responded, and all are included in The Diversity Hoax. Two of the contributors hold that intellectual diversity at Boalt Hall is alive and well. The rest, however, describe a left-wing hegemony and flatness of intellectual life that would give any free-thinker pause, not just out of concern for free speech on campus but also for freedom off campus, as these law students graduate and spread their worldview throughout the rest of American culture.

Consider the story told by Isabelle Quinn. One October day in 1998, a group of demonstrators entered the classroom and demanded that white students give up their seats to minority protestors. When Quinn refused to give up her seat, they denounced her as a "racist white conservative bigot." It turns out that Quinn is the daughter of Filipino immigrants (of European descent); she herself had benefited from affirmative action when she first entered Berkeley and had previously "protested in support of minority students." The protesters' mistake was to act on the racist assumption that skin color determines a person's politics, and that someone who looks white must therefore "think white."

Or take the story of Heather McCormick, who says that her "first big lesson in the silencing of dialogue" happened in a first-year course on property law. The professor showed a video on housing discrimination, while calling for "an open dialogue, encouraging everyone to express what they felt about what they had seen." At one point, a male student asked a question about the hypothetical possibility of reverse discrimination in housing; indeed, might there not be situations wherein a majority person finds himself discriminated against in housing? "How could you even bring that up?" the professor demanded, and launched into a "tirade [that] went on for a good two minutes," while the student sank "down into his chair, lowered his eyes, and said nothing." The professor's hostile response illustrated "what too often passes for 'open dialogue' at Boalt," McCormick concludes.

Or again, consider the story of Jim Culp. In a class on tort law, discussing the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the professor noted that courts do not allow legal action between spouses, on the grounds that emotional distress is part and parcel of married life. A female student protested that the courts should not ignore "mental abuse of women." The professor asked Culp what he thought. "Well," he replied, "I don't feel that men have a monopoly on inflicting emotional distress. ... Hence ... inflicting emotional distress is not an issue specific to women, as men and women are equally perpetrators and victims of it." Immediately, "There was a roar of scorn from many women in the class," Culp writes. "Many stood up screaming unintelligible insults. Some even threw objects at me." So much for diversity of opinion.

Finally, consider the story of former Army Airborne Ranger Richard Welsh, who was falsely accused by a left-wing activist of cheating on an exam. Welsh then faced a kangaroo-court inquiry by the Honor Board, which found him guilty (but promised that, barring "future violations," it would not go on his record). Welsh could have kept quiet about this potentially career-ending episode, but he wants justice. As The Diversity Hoax was being published, he was pursuing an outside appeal with the university's ombudsman, having "exhaustively traveled the jagged avenues of recourse offered by the law school." Welsh says his hopes for that outside appeal have dimmed, however. The ombudsman won't even return his phone calls.

Stories like these form the core of The Diversity Hoax, and the strength of the book is that it allows students to tell in their own words accounts of leftist intolerance and bigotry on the campus. In addition to the student essays are introductory and concluding chapters by Wienir and Marc Berley, executive director of the Foundation for Academic Standards and Traditions (FAST), which helps students "restore high academic standards and humanistic study of the liberal arts in the Western tradition in their schools." The book also has an afterward by Dennis Prager, conservative Jewish radio talk-show host.

The book gives little attention to the intellectual roots of the diversity hoax; but this comes as no surprise given the book's emphasis on personal experience. For more of a historical perspective, consider the work of Gene Edward Veith, author of Modern Fascism, who documents the parallels between the contemporary diversity movement and the philosophy of fascism.

Veith shows that the diversity movement shares with philosophical fascism an emphasis on group rights over individual rights -- in the case of the Nazis, the Aryan race; today, women and minorities. Both diversity champions and fascists deny objective reason, and locate "truth" in the subjective perspective of favored group(s). Both look to the state to redistribute wealth to those same favored groups. Both reject reasoned debate in favor of power politics. And both even grant the state the power to decide who shall live and who shall die -- the Nazis with their concentration camps; today's liberals with their impassioned defense of abortion and euthanasia. Finally, both repudiate historic Christianity and revive ancient forms of paganism -- the Nazi paganism of blood and soil; today's New Age paganism of pantheism and goddesses worship.

At the heart of these parallels, Veith writes, is a "revolt against transcendence." It is a revolt against any concept of a Creator God who has revealed a truth that is objective and universal, and whose holy character is the basis for an objective and universal morality. As such it must also be a revolt against universal human rights, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which states that we are all "endowed by the Creator" with certain inalienable rights. This kind of universalism is dead set against the particularism of group "truth" and group rights.

How ironic that the people who most loudly proclaim the rights of various race and ethnic groups today actually repudiate the vision that makes those rights possible. Martin Luther King, Jr., understood that the ideal of a color-blind society could only be based on the conviction that there is a law above the law -- a transcendent moral law that acts as the basis for human law. It is the content of our character that matters, not the color of our skin -- or our gender or class.

The Diversity Hoax is a good place to start in taking a critical look at the true meaning of what is called "diversity." The students who speak out here should be commended for protesting against racism and discrimination.

The Diversity Hoax - Law Students Report from Berkeley

Editorial Reviews
"The Diversity Hoax is required reading for anyone concerned about legal education in America. These intriguing essays show how the illiberal orthodoxy of "political correctness" is stifling debate at an institution that should be an open marketplace of ideas. By describing the problem so clearly and candidly, this excellent book may be the beginning of its resolution." -- Edwin Meese, III former U.S. Attorney General, Boalt Hall Alumnus

"A frightening look at how the left wing thought-police have invaded one of America's most prestigious law schools." -- David Horowitz, author of Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith

"David Wienir and Marc Berley are to be congratulated both for their principles and this illuminating book. They believe in true diversity of ideas, including those that disagree with the main premise of this extraordinary collection. An indispensable follow-up to The Shadow University, The Diversity Hoax bears moral witness to a scandal of immense proportions: freedom of speech and conscience are being trampled at American college and university campuses. Bravo for an essential job well done!" -- Harvey A. Silverglate, co-author with Alan Charles Kors of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses

"David Wienir, Marc Berley, and the contributors to The Diversity Hoax are profiles in courage." -- Dennis Prager, author of Think a Second Time and Happiness Is a Serious Problem, syndicated radio talk show host (KABC)

"The publication of The Diversity Hoax shows students aren't going to acquiesce to such tactics anymore." -- Forbes

"This fascinating and powerful collection of thoughtful young voices is eye-opening even to those versed in the machinations of diversity in higher education. It is a book of experiences more than abstractions, and it opens us to the inner lives of those usually too young and too busy to speak for themselves. I was disturbed and yet also moved as I read the stories of people so young already fighting so hard for their integrity. No one can read this book without admiration for its writers and horror at the situation they find themselves in. There is no other book like it." -- Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character and A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America

"Vital...insiders' perspective on the culture wars." -- Boston Book Review

Product Description
The Diversity Hoax is a book about diversity on campus, written by those who know it best - students. Does diversity of ideas prevail? A remarkable collection of essays on the subject of intellectual freedom and free speech by students at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, this book reveals many "student secrets" that universities have been doing their best to keep quiet. These essays by UC Berkeley law students from across the political spectrum will motivate students nationwide to exercise their right to free speech and express their diverse opinions on various topics, including what "diversity" really means.

About the Author
David Wienir is a second-year student at University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Marc Berley is president of the Foundation for Academic Standards & Tradition (FAST), a not-for-profit student organization.

Racial Games: UCLA's Biased Admissions Process
By Andrew Jones

Chapter 1
A Brave New World

 The conservative writer and activist David Horowitz has argued that the Left believes with religious fervor that it can create a world with no hunger, cruelty, or unfairness. What every other religion believes only possibly in the Kingdom of Heaven, the Left plans to make reality in the here and now -- by any means necessary.

 Racially-focused admissions to our most prestigious colleges and universities have been a major part of this decades-long struggle to realize this radical conception of social justice and equality of outcome. The end of affirmative action in California -- firmly ensconced in the state Constitution with the overwhelming passage of Proposition 209 -- was a major blow against this project and the radicals' vision for a new world.

 Delayed by the inevitable round of court battles, it was not until the incoming class of 1998 that race-neutral UC admissions were achieved. Finally accepting their legal defeat, the race lobby turned its attention to the court of public opinion, making dire predictions of demographic disaster. Proposition 209 would spell ruin for minority students, they predicted; the voters would live to regret their monstrous decision

 Predictable howls of protest from radical students and faculty greeted the release of statistics about the incoming Class of 1998 -- from Hispanic student leaders, "outrage," while black student leaders were "appalled."[i] And why not? The evidence was all there, they declared. Just look at the large drops in minority admissions to the elite campuses of Berkeley and UCLA.

 Except that most of the minority applicants hadn't actually been denied admission altogether. Instead, they had been directed to less rigorous UC campuses that better matched their lower qualifications. For the race preferences lobby, however, this act of academic mercy was unacceptable. In response, they launched a two-part plan that had been in development since the UC Regents' 1995 elimination of affirmative action in admissions, hiring and contracting.

 The first component of the plan, as described in Diversity@UCLA: By Any Means Necessary, was the burgeoning campaign for diversity. Renaming affirmative action "diversity" was a cynical, devious, but ultimately well-chosen tactic. The general public perceives diversity as a noble, laudable goal -- one in which a wide variety of participant backgrounds strengthens the collective experience of the group in question. The public also mistakenly believes that diversity is about ensuring equal access -- to college admissions, to hiring, to public programs. The irony of the entire diversity hoax is that in philosophy and practice, the goal is not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. Therein lies the crucial difference between radical diversity as practiced at UCLA, and the mainstream diversity of the public imagination.

 At the same time that diversity was being cemented as a public policy goal, the means of achieving the objective - a new admissions policy - was first publicly introduced. This new policy, called "comprehensive review," would, Californians were told, avoid the pitfalls of only looking at narrow measures of achievement like GPA and SAT scores. Instead, UCLA admissions would look at the whole person, picking up on more subtle, unspecified, forms of collegiate qualification. The policy proposal represented a major departure from the meritocratic system currently in place, in which 50-75% of the class was admitted on GPA and test scores alone.

But despite the audacity of such a plan, the triumph of the Diversitistas' campaign for comprehensive review was nearly inevitable. Their leaders were more powerful and better organized than the scant opposition -- and it didn't hurt that then-UC President Richard Atkinson was on their side. Along with powerful friends in high places, the proponents boasted a highly motivated ground attack.

 UCLA student radicals had been organizing from the first time that the Regents discussed ending affirmative action. And while they were sent reeling from SP-1 and SP-2, and suffered the crushing blow of Proposition 209, they just as quickly began to turn the tide.

 On May 16, 2001, the Diversitistas forced the symbolic repeal of SP-1, and quickly followed that with their defining triumph, the November 15, 2001 passage of a new "comprehensive review" admissions system. The process, still ill-defined at the time of its passage, broke so many precedents that its full effect would not be understood for many months.

 What was immediately obvious was the hastiness of the decision. On the UC level, reforms have typically moved at a snail's pace -- especially any changes to admissions systems or standards. But not in the case of comprehensive review. The Regents proved so eager to satisfy the diversity lobby that the changes were made literally in the middle of the Fall 2002 class' application period. Worse yet, the changes were effective immediately. Many students had already submitted their applications when the criteria were changed, but were given no opportunity to resubmit information to address the new areas of emphasis.

 The sudden change also had a negative effect on sophomore and junior students. Those who had been placing greater emphasis on academics over extracurriculars -- in line with the previous criteria -- were thrust into a new system which discriminated against all-grades, few-activities students. Perversely, the new system most disadvantaged the worthiest applicants -- those high school students dedicated enough to micromanage a high school career in line with UCLA admissions standards.

 With one fell swoop, the Regents not only sent its most dedicated future applicants back to the start, it actually sent them behind less dedicated students, who, by dumb luck, or mere neglect, had the jack-of-all-trades record suddenly favored by UCLA admissions. But then, comprehensive review was never about equity, or fairness to those playing by the rules. And it was no accident that the changes hit future white and Asian applicants the hardest. UCLA admissions officials figured that as members of "overrepresented" groups (in their cruel bureaucratic jargon), these applicants would take care of themselves. It was unsuccessful minority applicants who needed love and nurturing.

Chapter 2
A Pale Imitation

 The true nature of comprehensive review would not become fully apparent for some time. If practiced according to theory, the policy looks at the entire student, reviewing GPA, test scores, breadth and difficulty of courses taken, personal statements, letters of recommendation, personal interviews, and more. But the financial and organizational strain introduced by a truly comprehensive review process is why it is practiced almost exclusively by private schools. The UC, from the first year to present, proved utterly incapable of offering even the barest simulacrum of holistic admissions.

 The first and most obvious obstacle was a simple matter of numbers. In 2004, UCLA received a nation-leading 43,199 applications, reviewed by 140 UCLA staff or volunteer readers. Compare this number to Harvard, America's most prestigious and desirable university, which in that same year received 20,986 applications. It is fair to assume that all 20,000-plus Harvard applicants received a full and thorough review -- one of the glorious excesses affordable to a school with a $65 application fee and an endowment in excess of $22 billion.

 By contrast, the demographic crush of 43,000-plus applicants meant that each UCLA review lasts an average of eight to ten minutes -- total. And despite making laughably cursory reviews, UCLA still did not have time to review letters of recommendation, much less conduct personal interviews -- both hallmarks of the private school process. It is these shortcomings, and several others, which led UCLA professor Matt Malkan to rightly deride the process as a "parody of what the Ivy Leagues do."[i]

 The system, as described by the Daily Bruin immediately after its November 2001 approval, was intended to "evaluate UC applicants on academic achievements, personal achievements and life challenges in no given ratio."[ii] As awkward and vague as that summary is, the actual process of comprehensive review was even less elegant.

 In the eight to ten minutes they are allotted per applicant, readers review comprehensive dossiers composed of the UC application, a personal statement, and a summary sheet of academic information. The staff and volunteers assign a ranking of one to five for "personal achievement" and another numerical ranking on the same scale for "life challenges." Another group of readers conduct academic reviews looking at grades, test scores, scholastic honors, and breadth and difficulty of high school coursework, assigning a score between one and six.

 It would be a challenge to communicate the "holistic" reality of any applicant in eighty minutes, if not eight hours. But the process was never about allowing UCLA to make a superior admissions decision. It was only a smoke-screen for a hurry-up boiler room process, with reviewers skimming for buzz-words ("barrio," "poverty," "ghetto," "crime," etc..) by which they might justify what they wanted to do already -- admit more minorities.

 In line with the preoccupation with race (or its indirect signifiers of which, the UCLA reviewers are keenly aware), is a hatred for race-blind standards -- since they tend to yield disappointing numbers of minority admissions. Standardized tests are a particular bogeyman to the proponents of comprehensive reviews. But the SAT, along with GPA, is an objective measure thrown away at our peril. As UCLA Professor Matt Malkan points out, the SAT "is the only standardized test taken by most college-bound students for the last 30 years. It is the only practical way to compare the academic preparation of high school students across the country."[iii] Moreover, the SAT is the only way for all students to compete on a level playing field.

 The irony of the radical diversity lobby's hatred for the SAT is the test's historical role in establishing a meritocracy beneficial to a racial minority. In the 1920s, a rising tide of Jewish students was so successful at the SAT that Ivy League schools had to create legacy admissions -- preferences for children of (then almost exclusively non-Jewish) alumni -- to keep their numbers down.

 Just as the Jews' Ivy League success in the 1920s threatened the established order of things, so did the success of Asian UC applicants in the post-Prop. 209 era. Though the Diversitistas would hotly deny it -- after all, they're busy righting the world's wrongs -- both the legacy admissions of yesteryear, and the comprehensive review of today, are equally corrupt in their purpose and effect.

 Setting aside UCLA's practical inability to conduct a proper comprehensive review, or the historical myopia inherent in its dislike of standardized tests, there is a larger truth about this particular admissions system. Whether practiced by UCLA, Harvard or Cal State Fresno, comprehensive review will always far short of its impossible goal, for one simple reason: only God himself really knows "the whole person."

Chapter 3
Things Fall Apart

 After the passage of comprehensive review, Keith Stolzenbach, faculty chairman of the Academic Senate's admissions committee, admitted to the Bruin that SAT-I scores would now rank last on a reader's priorities.[i] This reprioritization was in response to UC President Richard Atkinson's successful campaign to win a greater admissions emphasis on the SAT-II subject tests. These exams included, not coincidentally, the Spanish language SAT-II, aced in great numbers by desirable (and bilingual) minority Hispanic students. The move away from the SAT-I also included greater emphasis on the personal statement, the forum in which applicants present tales of woe to explain a lack of academic achievement.

 In fact, UCLA gives credit in the life challenges component for problems ranging from immigration hardships, living in a high-crime neighborhood, being a victim of a shooting, or long-term psychological difficulties. Other oft-cited examples include poverty, uneducated parents, or involuntary after-school commitments like caring for a sick parent or working a job to support family. Not surprisingly, every one of UCLA's targeted life challenges correlates strongest (though of course not exclusively) with minority applicants.

 Setting aside the motivation for choosing these particular life challenges, there is an unstated assumption which underlies them. Namely, that applicants who have overcome great challenges and achieved -- however modestly, as the numbers show -- deserve a boost. However, by Berkeley admissions director Carla Ferri's own words, UC schools desire "students that can tackle the academic programs with enthusiasm, with strength, with purpose."[ii]

 How do teenage schizophrenia, gunshot wounds, or a home in the ghetto serve as particular qualifications to meet the stated challenge? Nobody can rightly have a dispute with slight preference for students who overcome great obstacles to achieve great things. But that's not UCLA's system. To get minority numbers up, the records show that the UCLA admissions office headed by director Vu Tran is admitting students who have overcome exaggerated obstacles to achieve minor things. And to make an even more unpopular point, the very same traumas for which UCLA assigns bonus points also correlate to students most at a disadvantage for achieving in the university's academic meat-grinder.

 In several press accounts, former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin admitted that the radical diversity lobby wears race-colored glasses. After Proposition 209 depressed minority admissions at Berkeley and UCLA, Siporin and other self-appointed social engineers considered an admissions process incorporating pure socioeconomic preference as a boost to applicants from a background of poverty. But the plan was rejected after their modeling yielded too many low income, high-achieving Asians and whites, while failing to properly plump up the number of minorities.

 The modeling for comprehensive review generated more pleasing results. This system assigned particular importance to extracurricular activities, and allowed minority applicants to pervert the personal statement into a written river of tears, blaming their lack of qualifications on external limitations. By indexing for academic failure instead of mere poverty, comprehensive review achieved the desired ethnic numbers.

 But other than the candor of Siporin (now retired), the Diversitistas have suffered from sudden amnesia and refuse to admit that the motive for comprehensive review was bringing up minority numbers. Those struck by this selective erasure of memory included Chand Viswanathan, 2001 UCLA Academic Senate chairman, who defended less-qualified minorities by arguing that they "were very intelligent, but [their intelligence] was not reflected"[iii] in their scores. Along with trotting out that tired argument, current UCLA admissions director Vu Tran argued that seemingly unqualified "students in the very low range (of SAT scores)" deserve admission because "they still demonstrated academic excellence in spite of environmental conditions." What Tran asserted is that while students are admitted with low SATs, they make up for it with superior GPAs. His contention is not based on fact.

 As a review of the Fall 2002 UCLA admits and denials shows, average GPA for both admits and denials rises with every 100 point range on the chart -- from 3.43 for the 7 admitted students with a 701-800 SAT, 106 students with SATs from 801-900, 412 students from 901-100, on up to 4.43 for the 958 admitted students with a 1501-1600 score. At the same time, though, UCLA rejected 191 students with a 1500+ SAT score, and 1455 students in the 1401-1500 SAT range.[iv] Which is all well and good until you look again and are reminded that students with stratospheric scores are being rejected in favor of vastly underqualified students scoring in the sub-1000 score range. Clearly, the underperforming students admitted by Tran may very well have been demonstrating excellence, but not as much excellence as the thousands of denied students with both higher GPAs and higher SATs.

 For those still disbelieving, other UCLA statistics confirm the existence of differing standards of "excellence" depending on race. For the Fall 2004 class of new freshmen, African-Americans scored an average 1091 SAT and 3.67 GPA, while Chicanos scored 1128 and 4.00. By contrast, whites scored 1325 and 4.13, with Asians at 1328 and 4.17.[v] The difference is stark enough to be irrefutable. But Tran and Viswanathan continue to dissemble -- a disappointing but typical inclination. In the world of UCLA admissions, such deception is Job 1 -- burying the reality of racial preferences under an avalanche of words.

Chapter 4
Are You a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?

 It all seems quite common-sense -- giving a boost to students who performed well despite the obstacles in their way. But the process of comprehensive review is insultingly oversimplified. UCLA boils down the entirety of an applicant's life into three score ranges of 1-5, 1-5, and 1-6. Making the situation worse is the deliberate lack of verification or quantification. Personal statements, newly emphasized, are a place in which a student can "explain" that an after-school job caused their low test scores and GPA. But can UCLA really verify this? Did the applicant actually work? And did the applicant truly need to work? It's not a big leap to change a job for spending money into a job to support the family; to change a weekends-only position into daily graveyard shifts.

 Even if our applicant is telling the truth about a 30 hours-per-week job to help pay the bills, can we say definitely that it had a negative effect on scholastic achievement? As most college students will attest, scheduled obligations like employment tend to teach time-management, so that in the end, the student does more with less studying time. And this is the subjectivity introduced by just one factor for which comprehensive review gives preference. As noted, only God himself knows the full truth of every application. That He's not on the UCLA staff should give the Diversitistas pause -- but it doesn't.

 The Diversitistas will sometimes contend that comprehensive review is needed to combat the malleability of GPA and SAT scores. They contend that test preparation classes are a class- or wealth-based advantage unavailable to (presumably poor) minority applicants. The selectivity inherent in the argument is amusing to behold. Radicals who normally wouldn't accept that the sky is blue if it came from the mouth of a businessman, suddenly swallow whole the test preparation company claims of 150-250 SAT point increases. One wonders whether they've ever seen -- or more importantly understand -- the legal disclaimer, "Results not typical." Sure, you could lose 150 pounds on the South Beach Diet -- but don't count it. Test preparation is the same way. Randomized and controlled SAT studies on preparation courses show that the average increase via this wealth-based advantage is 30-40 points. Very simply, no SAT course can make a genius of a dullard. For a smart student -- the kind who should even be bothering to apply to UCLA -- all the "prep" needed is a $20 book and some self-directed study. That's something even our prototypical South Central striver can afford.

 The real effect of implementing comprehensive review was not pretty. While Chand Viswanathan reassured the Bruin that "admissions officials are very careful not to lower the standards,"[i] the reality belied his words. A significant Wall Street Journal article from July 12, 2002 communicated the real-life injustices perpetrated by the new admissions policy. The story profiled a number of students, including Stanley Park, who while caring for his single mother stricken with breast cancer, and tutoring to pay the rent, managed to score a 1500 on the SAT. Hyejin Jae, the daughter of a "struggling Korean-immigrant pastor," scored a 1410. Both were rejected by UCLA, as was Albert Shin, an engineer's son who scored an off-the-charts 1540.[ii]

 By contrast, Blanca Martinez of South Gate High School, who also nursed a mother with breast cancer, scored an 1110 and was admitted. Martinez's South Gate classmates Susana Pena, with a pitiful 940 SAT, and Dania Medina with a score of 1050, including a mere 410 on the verbal section, also won admission. Rosauro Novelo of Belmont High School scored 980, but no matter -- UCLA welcomed her with open arms. Even more satisfying for the diversity lobby is that these successes were mirrored on the scale of entire high schools. Irvine's University High, with a 50% white and 41% Asian-American student population, dropped from 89 admits to 69. By contrast, the 99% Hispanic South Gate surged from 14 admits to 36, and primarily Hispanic Belmont High in Los Angeles shot from 8 to 24.[iii]

The article also revealed a vicious game being played by UCLA to comply with the California Legislature's Latino Caucus demand to 'get the numbers up.' The UC targets, to the tune of $85 million per year, low-performing high schools for "outreach," which is special attention and resources devoted to encouraging its students to qualify for and apply to UCLA. But any student attending one of these targeted schools like South Gate or Belmont who also participates in a UC outreach program, earns 7 of the 8 points possible under the "exceptionally challenged" category. The single additional needed point could come from hardships like single parenting, a background of poverty, or recent immigrant status.[iv]

 UCLA, by combining its outreach program with comprehensive review admissions standards, has created a closed circuit loop designed to admit unqualified minority students. But they face a grim future. Overmatched by UCLA's unrelenting academic demands, they do not graduate. Or worse, in many ways, they graduate only by retreating into UCLA's ethnic studies programs -- hothouses of racial paranoia which grow the next generation's Jesse Jackson or Antonio Villaraigosa.

 But despite the insanity of such outcomes, UCLA rolls on heedlessly. In fact, to ensure that the fix is securely in, students at these underperforming high schools are coached personally by UCLA staff on how to tell a proper sob story. One outreach memo advised students to "mention if you have lived most of your life in a ghetto, barrio or low-income area." Even more remarkably, the same outreach staff which coaches minority applicants how to game the system is among the staff which reads applications.[v] And while they don't pass judgment on those they personally coached, the outreach staff also don't check their "race matters" philosophy at the door. It is these staff members, cynical enough to teach-woe-is-me strategies to minority applicants, who have a deadly effect on any chance of conducting an impartial admissions process.

 The anecdotal evidence presented in the Journal article was later confirmed in full by a report from UC Berkeley, created at the behest of then-UC Regents Chair John Moores. The October 21, 2003 report released the statistics on Fall 2002 Berkeley admissions. It provided clear evidence of a resurrected regime of racial preferences. Berkeley had rejected 641 applicants with near-perfect SAT scores, while accepting 378 students who scored between a 600 and 1000. Approximately 62% of the students with low SAT scores were underrepresented minorities, and less than 15% of those in that 600-1000 range were student-athlete exemptions.[vi]

 Less publicized was the fact that UCLA was actually the victor in this race to the bottom. In 2002, the university admitted 525 students with SATs of 1000 or below and rejected 1,646 students with SATs higher than 1400.[vii] Of particular note is UCLA's rejection of 191 students with an SAT score higher than 1500. The score of exactly 1500 places a student in the 99th percentile of test-takers; any higher and the College Board can only express it as "99+." From a numerical standpoint, out of the almost 1.4 million high school students who took the SAT, only 19,717 scored between in the 750-800 range for verbal, and only 24,802 scored in the 750-800 range for the math section. The group that did both is even smaller. By contrast, 72% of the entire nation's test takers exceeded every one of the 113 UCLA admits for students with a 900 or lower SAT.[viii]

Chapter 5

Speaking Out
In response to the shocking October report, Moores wrote an editorial for the March 2004 issue of Forbes Magazine summarizing the findings and airing his contention that the UC was engaged in racially preferential admissions. But what followed was a prime illustration of how far the UC Regents had swung to the left. In 1995, when the Board ended affirmative action, every one of the Regents was an appointee of a Republican governor. At the November 2001 meeting which established comprehensive review, five of the voting Regents were Democratic appointees, joined by another three Democrats serving by virtue of their elected state office.

There were also five Democrat appointees present for the March 18, 2004 meeting of the Regents' Education Committee. The meeting, which followed Moores' fateful column, resulted in the passage of an unprecedented resolution. Not only did it stubbornly reiterate the Committee's devotion to comprehensive review, but the resolution also specifically condemned Moores' public comments.

This public reiteration of support for comprehensive review made clear that the Regents saw nothing wrong with a racial diversity achieved on the backs of better qualified whites and Asians. But the condemnation of Moores -- simply for pointing out the elephant in the room -- is disturbing evidence of the depth of the radical commitments of the UC's top policymakers.

Both the concept of diversity and the admissions policy of comprehensive review prey on the public's sympathy for the general -- and generally reasonable -- principles of fair play and opportunity for all. The problem is that the proponents of diversity -- and comprehensive review -- abuse that trust by operating a very different UCLA admissions regime. Having here exposed UCLA's corrupt admissions practices, we can call diversity and comprehensive review what they are -- a racial sham foisted on all tax-paying Californians.

UCLA in Black and White
Radicalism in the African-American Studies Department
By Andrew Jones

Chapter 1
Joining the Multi-Cult

 The identity politics which infest UCLA today are both a product, and a cause, of radical undergraduate academics. The politically-correct focus on women, minorities and gays serves as a lens through which all topics, from Shakespeare to the Civil War, the 1760's to the 1960's, are viewed.
 By contrast with the ongoing radicalization of departments like English or Political Science, UCLA's recently created multi-cultural departments were never subsumed by the Left. They couldn't have been, because they were created by the left, to serve the goals of the left.

 We're in a brave new (UCLA) world now. For the student who wants to avoid the relative intellectual rigor of the other humanities and social-science disciplines, UCLA now boasts a long-list of victimoligist specialties. African-American Studies? Check. American Indian Studies? Check. Asian-American Studies, Chicano Studies, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Studies, and Women's Studies? Check, check, check, and?check.

 Getting a sense of the multi-cultis' pseudo-scholarship requires a close look at the class topics and assigned readings. This case study examines one typical department, African-American Studies, for one academic year, 2004-2005. Understanding that each department has its quirks, the troubling situation we find in African-American Studies offers strong backing to the anecdotal evidence available about the other five disciplines not examined here.

 The following are brief profiles of problem classes characterizing the professionalized radicalism of the department. Despite confining the investigative focus to radical topics and readings, the study still endless problematic content in the department's offerings.

 African-American Studies M107, titled "Cultural History of Rap," uses Professor Cheryl Keyes' own book Rap Music and Street Consciousness along with That's the Joint! The Hip-Hop Studies Reader. Part of the rigorous intellectual demands of the course include couch time with BET and MTV. The syllabus states, "Students are strongly encouraged to view hip-hop related television programs, if possible, on a weekly basis."[1]

 In that same vein, the department also offers Professor Scot Brown's "Recent African American Urban History: Funk Music and Black Popular Culture," which is cross-listed with the History department.[2] This class, like 56% of the year's African-American Studies courses, is co-offered by one or more other departments.[3]

 It is this cross-listing that is perhaps the biggest problem with identity politics studies. Through this interdisciplinary charade, the multi-culti infection of identity group compartmentalization spreads to mainstream majors like English, History and Political Science. Such cross-listing results in a History major learning about the Civil War from the perspective of an African American, an Asian-American, a Chicano, and a lesbian, for good measure. But with their eyes focused firmly on the politically correct microscope, students miss the broader picture of our common American experience.

 Meanwhile, courses which do not examine their subject through a racial lens are "re-educated," and otherwise made to conform. Non-compliant courses, and any professors who will not bow to the system, simply disappear.

 In Scot Brown's "Recent African American Urban History: Funk Music and Black Popular Culture" course, the professor argues that "James Brown, Sly & the Family Stone, Parliament Funkadelic, Betty Davis, [and] Earth, Wind and Fire," compose "multiple voices of anguish, protest and vision." The final exam assigns a 3-5 page paper analyzing one of a limited choice of "songs as they relate to the course themes of realism and surrealism in funk music." These choices include the deep thoughts of Chic's "Everybody Dance," which declares in part:

Everybody dance, do-do-do
Clap your hands, clap your hands
Everybody dance, do-do-do
Clap your hands, clap you hands
Everybody dance, do-do-do
Clap your hands, clap your hands
Everybody dance, do-do-do
Clap your hands, clap your hands [4]

 Lots of people feel that funk is great music. Many people feel the same about polka. But neither deserves to the subject of academic study, much less a university's final exam.

 "Interracial Dynamics in American Society & Culture" is listed both as General Education Cluster 20, and African-American Studies M167. While deeper than classes that give credit for a straight-faced examination of Black Entertainment Television rump-shaking or '70s slap-bass virtuosity, "Interracial Dynamics" only digs a deeper grave of academic fraud. The course presents the usual theories and the usual suspects of the academic left. "White privilege," "institutional racism," and racial deconstruction -- but only against whites -- are par for the course here.[5]

 Familiar from my own experience with a similar class, Chicano Studies 182, "Whiteness Studies," is one assigned reading, George Lipsitz's "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness." Given the book's subtitle, "How White People Profit from Identity Politics," it's clear that Lipsitz wasn't writing about UCLA, where white people are in fact the only group not benefiting from identity politics.

 As the final class activity of the "Interracial Dynamics" class, those students enrolled in the class through the African-American Studies department hold a debate on California's Proposition 187 -- but only after being properly "educated" by two articles: Rene Sanchez's "Divisive Prop. 187 Is Voided," and Tamar Jacoby's "Anti-Immigration Fever In Arizona."[6] As with most academics at UCLA, students aren't expected to reach their own conclusions on controversial topics. Professors prefer to do it for them -- and then confirm their indoctrination as creatively as possible. For "Interracial Dynamics," that method is a sham debate that the pro-187 side could not possibly win without independent study above and beyond the course readings.

 In the next quarter of the "Interracial Dynamics" General Cluster class, the "Civil Rights and Black Power Movements" module consists of selections from Stokely Carmichael, Charles V. Hamilton, Huey P. Newton, and Bobby Seale.[7] The views of independent historians, for or against that ugly period of America history, are noticeably absent.

 Writers contrarian to the hagiography of what was in reality a Marxist street gang, like David Horowitz, Peter Collier, or Kate Coleman, are not presented for the students' benefit. Contrarian voices, as a close reading of the class syallabi make clear, are only welcome coming from the left. Thus are students assigned to read Edward Said's "Islam As News," and in further reading on immigration issues, are favored with Augusta Dwyer's "Let's Shoot Some Aliens: The US Border Patrol."[8]

 Wrapping up the winter quarter for GE Cluster students is a debate on "Income-based vs. Race-based Affirmative Action in Higher Education Admissions." There's no mention of the possibility of no affirmative action at all; and, given the assigned readings of "Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke (Justice Marshall's Dissent)" and Nell Irvin Painter's "Whites Say I Must Be on Easy Street,"[9] the reason is clear: you can't debate an idea you haven't learned.

 Making the outrageous content of the "Interracial Dynamics" class detailed here is that it is derived only from a brief review of the two course syllabi. Were there enough time and resources for a close review of every single author, work, and film in this class (or others), the result would be the enumeration of far more examples of radical works disguised by bland titles.

 A prime example illustrating this problem is the course screening of "I'm the One That I Want." The title itself is rather innocuous, not wearing its politics on its sleeve. However, the film is noted anti-war leftist Margaret Cho's foul-mouthed exposition on her life as a self-proclaimed Korean "fag hag." In the recording, which is simply a tape of her stand-up performance at San Francisco's Warfield Theater, Cho notes that "straight men are scary," and discusses, among other scholastically relevant topics, vagina-washing and oral sex.[10] This one example is bad enough, but it represents only the tip of the radical iceberg.

Chapter 2
More of the Same (Radicalism)

 Professor Cheryl Harris teaches African-American Studies C191, titled "Race, Equal Protection and the Law."[1] Harris assigns her own Harvard Law Review article, "Whiteness as Property" which expands on her suspect racial theories. Also assigned is Omi and Winant's "Racial Formation in the United States," another pair of the usual suspects from the "Whiteness Studies" field of academics. The two contend that "racial meanings pervade U.S. society," and argue that "race in the United States [must be treated] as a fundamental organizing principle of social relationships."[2]

 In that same vein is Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev's article "Immigrants and Whites," from his celebrated -- and intellectually lightweight -- publication Race Traitor. Ignatiev's magazine, which caught the fancy of academic radicals when it debuted in 1992, trumpets the confused slogan "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." Ignatiev himself states on the Race Traitor website, "It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color."[3] Fair enough. Since Ignatiev wants to "abolish the white race," we eagerly await, albeit without holding our breath, the announcement of his desire to abolish the black race as well. But don't count on it.

 Professor Harris thinks highly enough of academic hacks like Omi, Winant and Ignatiev to assign their works in the limited ten-week duration of the class. And while it's bad enough that undergraduates are being force-fed such rubbish, it's far worse that Professor Harris, with her belief that race underlies everything in our nation, also holds the privilege of educating this nation's future lawyers.

 For an academic field seemingly uninterested with classic areas of inquiry, another pop culture class in African-American Studies is hardly surprising. Professor Paul Von Blum's "African-American Film" "serves as an alternative vision" to the "dramatic disrespect," and "racial distortions, caricatures, and stereotypes" of the white film establishment. Films screened include blaxploitation classics "Sweet Sweetback's Baadassss Song," "Shaft," and "Cotton Comes to Harlem." Von Blum also samples more recent, violent fare like Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing," and John Singleton's "Boyz in the Hood."[4] As with 1970's funk, pop culture is fun, but hardly academic fodder.

 For a developing discipline, African-American Studies' amateurish focus on music and movies does itself no favors. This shortcoming, however, is inevitable. African-American Studies, like all multi-cultural studies, is simply too narrow a pedestal on which to mount an entire academic field. In slicing and dicing the common American experience into color-coded segments, multi-cultural academics miss the forest for the trees, because the story of African-Americans is the story of America -- and the story of America is history.

 UCLA's multi-cultural studies departments make a brave attempt to weave their separate, narrow threads into a common tapestry. But the attempt backfires. When multi-cultural studies intersect, the story is no longer even about the particular minority group as a whole -- itself already too narrow by comparison to broad narrative of American history. The intersections instead create, for example, tiny subfields like African-American women, African-American lesbians, transgendered African-Americans, and so on. Does the transgendered Chicano have a different cultural experience from the transgendered African-American? Possibly. But what of it?

 Von Blum's "African American Films" ignoring the obvious inanity, indulges this minority-of-a-minority obsession by spending class time on gay black filmmaker Marlon Riggs' execrable PBS documentary "Tongues Untied." An almost indescribable pastiche of spoken-word drum-circle nattering and soft-core gay pornography, it served in 1989 as the catalyst for Senator Jesse Helms' condemnation of National Endowment for the Arts funding practices. Riggs bitterly dismissed the criticism as the work of "white arch-conservatives and religious fundamentalists," but readily admitted the inclusion of "words like 'fuck'?images of two black men tenderly embracing?[and] highly diffused, silhouetted nudity."[5] The film's NEA funding and PBS distribution are clear evidence of these institutions' cooptation by political radicals. That a UCLA class would examine Riggs' work with a straight face is abundant evidence that the same has happened to the African-American Studies department.

 "The Psychology of Race and Gender Among African-Americans," cross-listed in African-American and Women's Studies, has a promising title, one which might even indicate the possibility of an actual intellectual discussion on race issues. But Professor James Cones' inclusion of the radical author bell hooks [sic] tempers even this possibility.[6] hooks is famous for her lesbian radicalism, manifested in an infamous essay in which she confessed to feeling a "homicidal malice" toward an anonymous white man on an airplane. Defending her fury, hooks noted, "Blacks who lack a proper killing rage are merely victims."[7] Nihilism also characterized hooks' remarks in her 2002 commencement speech at Southwestern University: "Every imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal nation on the planet teaches its citizens to care more for tomorrow than today."[8]

 Professor Cones, no doubt cognizant of hooks' well-known radicalism, nonetheless assigned the radical's book, "Where We Stand: Class Matters." The Library Journal notes that the work "illustrates how everyday interactions reproduce class hierarchy while simultaneously denying its existence."[9] Marxoid theorems aside, the Journal also praises the book's "valuable framework for discussing such difficult and unexplored areas as'the ruling-class co-optation of youth through popular culture, and real estate speculation as an instrument of racism."[10] Knowing the specifics of the book, Cones could only properly have assigned it as an example of abnormal "Pyschology of Race and Gender." But if the syllabus is any indication, hooks' work and its ideas are taught with the greatest respect, alongside other marginal works like J.L. King's "On the Down Low: A Journey Into the Lives of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep With Men."[11]

 Professor Cheryl Keyes returns in a Winter 2005 class, cross-listed with Ethnomusicology, titled, appropriately enough, "African American Musical Heritage."[12] This predominance of music and film classes within the African-American Studies department serves to outline its narrow academic boundaries -- race, music, film, and political radicalism. Other notable -- but distastefully conservative -- aspects of the African-American experience, like evangelical religion, are denied a place at the table.

 Keyes' survey of African-American music returns to her unfortunate fixation on rap with the caustically titled Ebony article "Why Whites Are Ripping Off Rap and R&B." Never mind that music is constantly evolving and is owned by no race, ethnicity, or individual. Keyes' readings teach her students otherwise. Unfortunately, the endorsement of childish possessiveness of a universality like music is characteristic of the political radicalism and racial rage which permeates the department and its faculty.

Chapter 3
This Is Academics?

 African American Studies 118, which is cross-listed with American Indian, Asian American, and Chicano Studies, is a prime example of the peculiarly UCLA propensity toward navel-gazing. The class, "Issues in Student-Initiated Retention and Outreach: Student-Initiated Retention and Social Change in Los Angeles,"[1] runs in the same vein as Asian-American or Chicano Studies classes that chart the history of their race's militant ethnic organizations from the 1960s to present. But the "Issues" class is even worse, because there's not even a separation of 30 years to provide perspective. The class description admits that the "focus [is] on UCLA as a case." What it doesn't admit is that like many other multi-cultural classes, the philosophy, learning, and outcome is centered on conducting radical activism for credit.

 As the website explains, "For the past fifteen years, the Campus Retention Committee (CRC) has provided a vehicle for the organized participation of students in their own retention and successful matriculation. The Student-Initiated Outreach Committee (SIOC) has similarly focused student efforts on the development of student-run outreach programs for K-12 students, particularly those from underrepresented, disadvantaged communities. The CRC and SIOC represent the most elaborate expressions of student-initiated retention and outreach activity in the country. Collectively, they support, fund, and evaluate 12 student-initiated retention and outreach projects employing more than 60 student staff and over 100 student volunteers in service of nearly 2000 of their fellow undergraduates and 1500 K-12 students annually. The CRC and SIOC provide a broad, creative range of services, uniquely harnessing the collective experiences, energies, and aspirations of students to improve the quality of life and education at UCLA and in the community." The website further notes that "The CRC has acknowledged the impact of social change theory and practice on its own retention methodology. Students will have the opportunity to consider whether the CRC has made a reciprocal contribution through its alumni and former students."[2]

 Translation: through the use of all students' mandatory undergraduate student government fees, minority students on campus have built a recruitment and retention machine on campus that offers special outreach to prospective students, and members-only tutoring and other support services to current students. Well, that is, if you're a minority student. If you're a middle-class black student, even upper-class, the CRC and SIOC machines will seek you out, offer you priority enrollment, proprietary tutoring, and full-time employees whose only task is aiding your academic efforts at UCLA. But if you're an Iranian émigré, or the poorest of white trailer-park trash, the CRC and SIOC's doors, and their noble goals of "social change," are closed to you. As with the issue of diversity, minorities are UCLA's Chosen People. If you're not one, you are a nobody, an un-person.

 This entire UCLA class revolves around the idea that such a deeply corrupt system of preferential treatment is in fact deeply right, and deeply just. Rather unnecessarily -- given the almost exclusive enrollment of committed student radicals -- the syllabus warns that the class will not "tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory, rude, insensitive or personal remarks." That is, of course, unless the rude remarks come from class readings like bell hooks' "Let Freedom Ring," from "Why LA Happened: Implications of the '92 Los Angeles Rebellion." This is one of two class readings which refer coyly to the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a "rebellion." A third selection, from UCLA Professor Paul Von Blum, lauds "Resistance Art in Los Angeles."[3]

 The syllabus also assigns "Economic Justice in the Los Angeles Figueroa Corridor," and "Fighting for a Living Wage in Santa Monica," both from the radical UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education title, "Teaching for Change." It is made clear through the syllabus' reading assignments and general outline of topics that, for this class and its leaders, teaching is not a dispassionate calling. Instead, "Education is Change" (bell hooks), "Education is Politics," and teachers are to pursue "social change," "equality, self-determination, [and] community empowerment."[4]

 In this spirit of teaching change, students are assigned to complete ten hours of fieldwork "with a local community-based organization that includes 1) volunteering/site visits/workshops and 2) informational interviews with key staff members." Based on the backgrounds of class participants, and on the radical political philosophy underlying the very premise of the class, it's safe to assume that the fieldwork isn't with the Westwood Rotary Club, or the Los Angeles-based libertarian Reason Magazine.

 Rather, count on it being with the type of community organizations known as labor unions. To make this preference crystal-clear, the course website features an informational link about "Organize to Improve," a February 24, 2005 gathering held by the UCLA Labor Center in downtown Los Angeles.[5] The event featured UC Berkeley professor Steven Pitts discussing the "security officers campaign, the electrical workers' push to bring African Americans into the trade, and homecare workers' struggle to maintain dignity for workers." Macias' deception in mandating work with "community organizations" when that category is essentially confined to labor unions and radical organizations, is characteristic of the deception behind the class itself: turning legitimate academics into liberal activism.

Chapter 4
A Shallow Academic Pool

 African American Politics is in truth anything but a one-way street. While Democrat registrations still predominate, religious conservatism in the black community drives a strongly Republican streak in a mostly liberal population. But not to hear UCLA tell it.

 Like so many other classes, the radicalism of the Winter 2005 course "African American Politics" infects the Political Science department by cross-listing. In this class' examination of affirmative action, the philosophy of 'teaching for social change' seems to have strong root. Not one to use a rubber mallet when he could overdo it with a sledgehammer, Professor Antonio Brown provides a startlingly one-sided view of affirmative action, assigning Nathan Glazer's "A Case for Racial Preferences," along with three other articles. Not one of the selections offers the faintest suggestion of opposition. Rounding out his one-sided argument, Professor Brown helpfully suggests reading the affirmative action apologia "Shape of the River." The book, cited endlessly by defenders of preference for its quasi-scientific character, purports to show that affirmative action does no harm to whites, while simultaneously lifting up deserving minorities -- who were not one bit less qualified, they'll have you know! No Ward Connerly, no Dinesh D'Souza, no David Horowitz, no National Review articles'sounds like just another fair and balanced examination of racial issues at UCLA.

 Professor J.C. Djedje's "The African-American Musical Heritage," is another of the innumerable music and film classes that comprise the shallow academic wading pool of African American Studies. And, as with every other African American music class, the professors insists on straining credulity by placing the violence and misogyny of rap into an academic context, here, the article, "Kickin' Reality, Kickin' Ballistics: Gangsta Rap and Postindustrial Los Angeles" from the collection "Droppin' Science: Critical Essays on Rap Music and Hip Hop Culture."[1] Unfortunately, African-American academics have taken the fact that the music form happened to have originated with African-American musicians as sufficient justification for its academic study.

 Professor Scot Brown's "Introduction to Afro-American History," cross-listed with the History department, presents the works of two well-known radicals.[2] "Propaganda as History," by John Hope Franklin, features the thoughts of the Duke professor emeritus who has been at the vocal forefront of the reparations movement. Franklin went so far as to attack David Horowitz, and the anti-reparations advertisement Horowitz placed in the Duke Chronicle in 2001. Franklin made the radical contention that "Most living Americans do have a connection with slavery," and that "All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery."[3]

 The course also features, as do other UCLA African American Studies courses, the works of long-time Communist Party member Paul Robeson. Robeson is idolized by, among others, the infamous long-time radical Columbia professor Eric Foner. Foner, at the 2001 Columbia teach-in that saw Professor Nicholas De Genova call for "a thousand Mogadishus," recalled Robeson's declaration: "The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country."[4] Dissatisfied with America as he might have, Robeson was notably satisfied to receive a Stalin Peace Prize in 1952 from the dictator himself, and a Peace Medal from Communist East Germany. Professor Brown proudly includes a selection from Robeson's self-justifying autobiography, "Here I Stand."

 Professor Kyeyoung Park offers her addition to the African American Studies rolls with her class "Race and Racism" (which for good measure is cross-listed with Anthropology and Asian American Studies). The same small group of pseudoscholars in the field of "whiteness studies" are trotted out: Brodkin, Roediger, Winant, and Riggs. Park admits that race is a "historically constituted, socially constructed, and politically contested process," yet in the same breath complains that "the consequent denial of the existence of race has been used to justify cutting various social programs." Park's words are a coded complaint about the horrors which political radicals have confronted in recent years -- means-testing and time limitations on welfare, a developing state-by-state battle to end affirmative action and other "reactionary" events.[5]

 Park hoists herself on her own petard -- admitting that race is an invention, but remaining reluctant to abandon it and the benefits that being an "oppressed" minority now confer. What's a good leftist to do?

 The answer, so it would seem, is to avoid the question. Thus, all the readings in this African-American class are about white racial identity -- giving the inadvertent appearance that blacks are only able to define themselves through opposition with the prevailing white standard. In the course, the dead horse of "whiteness" is flogged plentifully, with articles like "The Invention of the White Race: Racial Oppression and Social Control," "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class," "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness," "Establishing the Fact of Whiteness," "Whiteness and Americanness: Examining Constructions of Race, Culture, and Nation in White Women's Life Narratives," and "Racial Faultlines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California."

 This being a UCLA African American studies class, there are several requirements:

 * A selection from bell hooks, here, "Reflections on Race and Sex"

 * An obligatory examination of homosexuals: "'Claiming' and 'Speaking' Who We Are: Black Gays and Lesbians, Racial Politics, and the Million Man March."

 * Assignment of the professor's own work. Park includes in Week 10's segment, "Race and Resistance: 1992 Los Angeles Civil Unrest" his essays, "Confronting the Liquor Industry in Los Angeles," and "South Central Aftermath: Black and Latin Commentaries on Koreans."

 * Apologia for the Los Angeles riots, described in Park's title as an "unrest," and put in scare quotes in the title of fellow UCLA Professor Darnell Hunt's work "Screening the Los Angeles "Riots": Race, Seeing and Resistance." It is typical Leftist Orwellian redefinition to call riots "unrest." Unrest is solved with Unisom; riots are solved with the National Guard.[6]

Chapter 5
The Dynamic Duo

 Rounding out the selection of African American Studies classes for the Spring 2005 catalog is "Non-Violence and Social Movements," co-taught by two of the most usual of all usual suspects: anti-war radical and dyed-red laborista Kent Wong, and one-time Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. crony Reverend James Lawson.[1]
 The class's main philosophy, and operating assumption, is that nothing is accomplished by violence. Lawson's view is understandable, given that the defining moment of his life was his leadership of the successful Nashville, Tennessee lunch-counter sit-in movement. But Lawson's success has warped his view of the world, and convinced him that, as the Daily Bruin summarizes his views, "Violence is effective in creating a change of power, but does not create lasting social change."[2] The sit-in was right for the time and place -- but did not constitute, as Lawson seems to think, a new paradigm for all human relations. Any level-headed look at the very warlike, very successful example of World War II will show that sometimes, the best choice is to meet force with force.

Part and parcel of Lawson's radically inflated self-perception are his and Wong's radical scholarship. Mandatory reading for their class features Wong's own work "Teaching for Change: Popular Education and the Labor Movement," published by Wong's Center for Labor Research and Education. The very title, "Teaching for Change," is epitomized in Wong's dogmatic lectures with titles like "Nonviolence and the War in Iraq; The War at Home: Attacks on Civil Liberties." With all the room for dissent that is breathed into a lecture topic like that, the subpoints outlined in the syllabus, like "Why are we waging War in Iraq?" and "Selective Repression" become far more understandable.

 Just as biased is the syllabus' list of possible final paper topics, including "The Peace Movement and the War in Iraq," "The United Farm Workers Movement," "The Living Wage Movement," "Homeland Security and the Attacks on Civil Liberties," "Student Anti-Sweatshop Movement," "Affirmative Action," and "Student Movement for Ethnic Studies." It need not be spelled out that, from a grading basis, arguing against any of those concepts, other than Homeland Security, would not be advisable. To paraphrase the course description from the infamous Berkeley class "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance," conservative thinkers would be advised to seek other sections. And, if you're not in agreement with the radical precepts governing UCLA's African-American Studies, or any other multi-culti major, you'd do best to simply move out of the department altogether.

Excerpted from "Bruin Alumni Association - Farewell, Dear Chancellor":

 Much of the benign neglect which characterized Carnesale's tenure can be understood as a matter of political expediency. A career bureaucrat through and through, Carnesale was scrupulous in mouthing the proper words about 'diversity.' And in light of these commitments, what would be less respectful of that sacred cow of diversity than cracking down -- even for legitimate reasons -- on the radical activities of a cosseted minority group like the Muslim Student Association? Never mind their direct participation in rallies at the Israeli Embassy, their leaders chanting "Death to the Jews!" These were students?of color! And who would have a right to complain anyway? As the administration's thinking went, protests -- even anti-Semitic ones -- were all part of the wonderful hurly-burly of college life.

 For Carnesale, the choice hardly even had to be weighed. If he confronted the MSA, he faced a campus backlash and total lack of support from fellow Diversitista administrators. His choice: sit on the campus powder-keg, smiling broadly and hoping nobody would light a match.

 That's where UCLA's new byword of "excellence" comes in. The most successful con man is the one who can tell the boldest lies -- 'UCLA has never been better -- don't listen to those axe-grinding critics' -- with the straightest face. Carnesale's poker face was good -- in fact, it was great. And the donors ate it up.

 Meanwhile, the campus continued to descend into radicalism, ethnic factionalism and violence and discrimination against those who dared to think -- or speak -- differently. And again, when a few simple words and simple actions by Carnesale could have reversed this slow slide, UCLA's top man was nowhere to be seen or heard. One example of his inaction was on building takeovers during student protests. In 1998, just days after his taking office, when student radicals occupied Royce Hall, Carnesale did authorize outside LAPD intervention. The illegal demonstration was swiftly broken up and 88 students were arrested.

Chapter 1
An Exquisitely Devious Plan

 University of California Regent Ward Connerly did two utterly inexcusable things in his lifetime. He committed his first sin in 1995, when he led the Regents in ending, throughout the UC system, affirmative action in admissions, hiring and contracting. He sinned again the next year, spearheading the successful passage of Proposition 209, which altered the California Constitution to outlaw affirmative action in all state business. Student radicals, most with a personal stake in a system of racial preferences, were outraged, and expressed their displeasure in typical fashion -- protests, building takeovers, and violent confrontations at Regents meetings.
 While the students raged, the race lobby went back to the drawing board and returned with the concept of Diversity. "Diverse" classrooms populated by people of different backgrounds, they argued, were an inherent good for all students. Minority students would earn a well-deserved leg up in society, while white students would learn how to live and interact with minorities -- a most useful skill in an increasingly non-white world. The concept was exquisitely devious, allowing diversity proponents to argue that they cared for all students (because all sides supposedly benefited from the system), while still pursuing the old affirmative action goal of managed admissions outcomes. Diversity, in short, had artfully spun its selectively beneficial outcomes as serving the interest of all society.

 The concept of diversity has had a long and respectable history in the United States -- which is the primary reason that it was adopted (and perverted to partisan ends) by the race lobby. No reasonable person objects to the idea of people from different backgrounds coming together in a common setting. Diversity also leeches on the concept of equal opportunity, the traditional American belief that, absent outside control, a group of applicants selected through a meritocracy will naturally be diverse.

 Several common social assumptions also help drive the public acceptance of diversity. The public takes as a given that through social interaction black people have things to teach white people, whites can teach Hispanics, Hispanics can teach Asians, and so on around the circle. But most Americans don't have a full understanding of the leaps of logic inherent in the way that diversity is practiced today, or the Faustian bargains it makes in the goal of assuring the diversity in a group of participants. When the reality is successfully communicated to the public, such as with Proposition 209, truth inevitably wins out. Affirmative action was about ensuring a diverse pool of applicants, but in its zeal to assure equal opportunity it violated another American fundamental, the third-rail of equal access. Affirmative action was successfully put down once the truth was told. The challenge is before us to do the same with the concept of diversity.

 Don't expect UCLA leadership like Chancellor Albert Carnesale to admit diversity's fraudulence. Carnesale insists diversity is a complex concept which emphasizes the presence of students from varying "racial, ethnic, economic, social and geographic" backgrounds. Only occasionally do UCLA's diversity proponents go off message. Raymund Paredes, one-time UCLA vice-chancellor of academic development, admitted in 1999 that diversity "certainly includes affirmative action."[i] Paredes' candor belies Carnesale's insistence that diversity is about more than affirmative action's characteristic fixation and discrimination against the white male.

 Further evidence against Carnesale's claim of a "complex" diversity is found on the webpage of Carnesale's own Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Diversity. It complains, "UCLA's faculty is still overwhelmingly white (81%) and male (78%)."[ii] This black vs. white, us vs. them argumentation stands in stark contrast to Carnesale's cheery emphasis on a multifaceted, mainstream diversity. That's because at base, affirmative action then and diversity both make a scapegoat of the white male. The name has changed to "diversity," but the underlying motives of class and race war remain the same.

 Chancellor Albert Carnesale's rhetoric apes the illogical, Orwellian doublespeak of the UCLA diversity lobby. Carnesale presided over the inauguration of an entire website dedicated to the topic, Diversity@UCLA,[iii] and has given at least three public addresses specifically praising this philosophy. Carnesale's characteristically agreeable rhetoric masks the unstated racism of Diversity, its desire for managed outcomes, and the fact that at UCLA, the only diversity that matters - diversity of thought - does not matter at all. In his "Statement on Diversity," Carnesale posits that "Diversity of the student body has long been a hallmark of UCLA's excellence, and that diversity is essential to producing graduates who are capable of leading a multi-cultural society? Diversity -- including racial, ethnic, economic, social and geographic -- remains a core institutional value for UCLA and is particularly crucial to the success of this institution..."[iv]

 Carnesale also notes that "education is markedly enhanced by a diverse student body, largely because students learn so much from each other. Diversity of backgrounds, beliefs and experiences is among the most valuable of educational assets."[v] Carnesale sums up the mission of the Diversitistas: "Our challenge at UCLA in the post-affirmative action era is to make sure we sustain our tradition of excellence and diversity." Unstated in all of Carnesale's bloviation is that the presence of students from different "racial, ethnic, economic, social and geographic" backgrounds -- Carnesale's self-stated formulation of diversity -- does not a good education make. He is of course correct in stating that "students learn?from each other." But typical of diversity proponents, he confers a pedagogical rank on student interaction approaching that of the professor himself. It's unlikely that Carnesale really believes that student interaction is all that central in the totality of a university education. But it sounds nice. And it keeps him out of trouble with the diversity lobby.

Chapter 2
Justifying the Unjustifiable

 The views of Diversitistas like Carnesale are echoed by students, faculty and staff. These voices, however, display a refreshing lack of finesse in disguising their racially-motivated goals. In a 2001 UCLA Daily Bruin article discussing low numbers of minority law school students, Gary Blasi, a clinical and public interest law professor, bemoaned the "harm [to] every white or Asian American student who is here because their education is without the benefit of the perspectives those now absent students once brought to classroom discussions."[i] In a Black History Month article, the African Student Union Sergeant at Arms Kelly Wynn expanded on this theme, arguing that a lack of diversity "not only affects students of color, it affects other students as well because they're not exposed to our perspective."[ii]

 The students and professors of UCLA commit the fatal mistake of letting race and gender serve as a proxy for intellectual contributions that actually do help students to learn from one another. The prototypical situation - whites learning from blacks learning from Hispanics learning from Asians - sounds eminently reasonable. And it's one of the reasons why diversity is so far winning the battle of public opinion. But the argument falls apart on closer inspection.

 The justice of favoring minority students in any way over majority students is sustained only if every minority student possesses a significant characteristic that not one majority student possesses. But what is this characteristic?

 Is it a background of poverty? A full 8% of white Californians and 9% of Asian Californians are living below the poverty line.[iii] So that doesn't work.

 Is it poor educational access? Thousands of "majority" students attend terrible public schools in every public school district throughout the state. But there must be something?

 Is it coming from a broken home? No, divorce, joblessness or domestic abuse are not unique to any one race or gender.

 By the time we identify characteristics that, say, all black students possess and no white students possess, we have descended into a group of physiognomic features. Even then, it must be a full set of ethnic traits -- curly hair, broad nose, full lips, and dark skin -- since Jews, Sri Lankans, Italians, or any other group or admixture thereof might share one or two of these attributes. In short, the Diversitistas will never identify a single substantial characteristic that will prove the justice of Diversity, because lauding the classroom contribution of hair kink or lip size is absurd on its face.

 The diversity movement is illogical and unjust, and ironically enough, derives a great amount of its success from exploiting politically incorrect assumptions by unthinking whites. However un-PC it may be, the Diversitistas benefit from the benign white misconception that blacks, Hispanics and other minorities really are all different, that they all have experienced something unique or foreign to whites. We know that radicals hate racial profiling -- which in its most objectionable form uses race as a proxy for individual characteristics like criminality. But as is their wont, this distaste for profiling is highly selective -- and deeply hypocritical. If a black man is pulled over in Beverly Hills because he probably doesn't live there, and might break the law, it's racism. But if a black man is accepted to UCLA because he probably overcame a background of poverty and might make a unique contribution to classroom discussions, why, that's justice.

Chapter 3
Diversity in Black and White

 Another primary -- and absurd -- justification given for Diversity is to avoid a situation in which a minority student might be one of only a handful of members of his race in a given classroom. As UCLA Professor Tyrone Howard told the black-oriented student newsmagazine Nommo in the Fall 2003 issue, Diversity might spare future students from the chamber of horrors he found in 1986 as a UC Irvine undergraduate:

"It was a lecture class with about three hundred people, who [were] almost exclusively white. The only exceptions were another brother who sat far in the front of the class, and myself. We happened to catch eyes and without saying a word, we were able to communicate the message: I am going through the same thing. He ended up becoming one of my closest friends."

 Magical black telepathy aside, Howard's anecdote summarizes the repellent philosophy of Diversity proponents: don't be an individual, be scared of white skin, and only seek acquaintances and friendships within your own race. The Diversitistas' goal of ending scarring experiences like Howard's is unfortunately doomed to failure. In case the good professor wasn't aware, blacks have been and will continue to be a minority in California at 6.1% of the population. The question must then be: how many blacks would make Howard and his ilk comfortable? A perfectly proportional 18.3 out of the 300? 50 blacks? 100 blacks? Going through life with a psychological need for a critical mass of black colleagues is a recipe for constant disappointment.

 To soothe the rattled nerves of minority students, UCLA could create an on-call pool of Designated Minorities dispatched as needed to restore proper classroom racial balance. Or, UCLA professors like Howard could teach their students a bigger philosophy, the philosophy of the individual. Race relations, in their decrepit state, would be improved if every student learned to regard himself as an individual, not a skin color.

 Unfortunately, the philosophy of racial separatism dominates the psyche of minority students. Curt Young told the Daily Bruin in 2002 of "feel[ing] like a stranger in a strange land" at UCLA, and noted that "When we (blacks) see each other, it's like an event."[i] For the restive racial minorities who are the heart and soul of the radical student left, the lack of fellow minorities is not just disappointing, it verges on a hate crime. At a 1998 anti-209 law school protest, Nancy Freeman, one of seven African American students admitted in 1997, wept, "When I walk up the steps to this law school, this does not feel like a friendly place to me."[ii]

 Other undergraduates are more direct. In the September 24, 2001 Daily Bruin, Bryant Tan, that year's Academic Affairs commissioner in the undergraduate student government, spat, "Welcome to a university that masks in blue and gold a student body that is ill reflective of Los Angeles and California, a limited and culturally irrelevant education, and a continued unwelcome mat for underrepresented students." For the radical student left, a lack of faces the same color as theirs morphs from not simply dissatisfying to actively hostile. But the problem is not an issue of mats of any kind, welcome or unwelcome, but rather that we're providing entry of any kind to students of such massive intellectual immaturity.

 The radical minority even directs some of their racial hostility to a group of their own supporters -- white-guilt liberals who just want to feel their pain. As Lakesha Breeding noted in a 1998 Daily Bruin letter, "it is nice that some whites and Asians express an interest in minority issues, but until they have actually dealt with the racism firsthand and felt the isolation from walking around campus and finding only a few faces like theirs, they cannot truly contribute perspectives on minority issues."[iii] Breeding's philosophy, if applied to the Civil Rights Movement, would have led to the exclusion of Jews and other sympathetic whites -- and the certain failure of their just cause.

 Like most radical cant at UCLA, the idea that only minorities have standing to discuss minority issues has its roots in the Sixties; Breeding's in particular stem from the separatist Black Power movement. Hispanics also shamelessly advance this brand of separatism. Celia Lacayo, President of the Latin American Students Association in 2000, justified her support for racial preferences with the blunt statement, "UCLA puts out the leaders in this community, and the leaders should look like their constituency." The message is clear -- it's every ethnic group for itself. For the Diversitistas, even philosophical agreement does not trump the primacy of race.

Chapter 4
Making UCLA 'Look Like L.A.'

 The arguments surrounding diversity would be academic but for the fact that UCLA admissions are a zero-sum game. Or, as UC Regent Ward Connerly bluntly stated, "People do not understand that when they say there are not enough of those people that they are also saying they have too many of those (other) people."
 Unfortunately, Connerly's view is in a literal minority. Radicals do not recognize individuals or respect individuality. There are no people, only groups. Identity politics, one of the kitsch Marxisms of modern academia, drives Diversity.
 Racial balancing and reflective demographic representation sound like something out of a dense academic study, or a 1970's court-ordered busing plan. But the old talk of quotas didn't die out when affirmative action was ended. The Daily Bruin, allegedly the home of UCLA's finest thinkers and writers, has editorialized no less than three times in past years about the need for UCLA's racial composition to mirror that of the city at large, complaining that "UCLA admits a shamefully low number of minority students each year."
 Los Angeles may be "one of the most diverse cities in the nation, yet its own university continues to be unreflective of the population" and "diversity of the public." The idiocy of the idea that UCLA must look like L.A. is evident in simply reviewing the university's title. The name is "University of California, Los Angeles," not "Los Angeles University." The UC and its branch campuses are tasked with serving all the citizens of California, not the residents of any particular city.

 But even if we entertain this notion of demography dictating admissions, we find that the Diversitistas are again advancing a selective argument. They are pushing, as always, for the admission of more ethnic minorities. And it is true that if UCLA did "represent the diversity" of Los Angeles, blacks would rise from their 2004 undergraduate enrollment of 3.48% to 11.2%. Hispanics would receive a similar boost from their current 15.38% to 46.5%. But imagine for a second, the howls of protest that would accompany a secondary effect of this scheme: a massive increase in white admissions. To wit:

School           City % of Whites      County % of Whites     Undergrad % of Whites
Berkeley         59.2                  48.8                   29.95
Davis            70.1                  67.7                   41.48
Irvine           61.1                  65.6                   24.31
Los Angeles      46.9                  48.7                   32.92
Riverside        59.3                  65.6                   21.97
San Diego        60.2                  66.5                   35.33
Santa Barbara    74                    72.7                   53.84
Santa Cruz       78.7                  75.1                   52.38
California       N/A                   59.5                   35.92

City % and County % drawn from 2000 Census

Undergrad % drawn from 2004 University of California Office of the President report: http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2004/statsumm2004.pdf

 The chart makes abundantly clear several facts:

- Whites are underrepresented in every city and county context, and even state-wide.

- The Diversitistas were wise to target UCLA with this argument, since the percentage gap between white city population and white school population is the smallest of all the UCs. But even here, whites are underrepresented by 42%.

- If the University of California were to adopt the plan in question, it would require the acceptance of 37,591 more white undergraduates.

 Unstated along with the fact that demographically matched diversity would lead to a massive white influx, is who would be sacrificed on the altar of "representation": Asian students who are vastly overrepresented on every campus. In a track race, we don't start a successful sprinter later and later when he's winning. The burden of improvement is on the trailing runners. It is this philosophy -- not the absurd idea of representative admissions -- which should form the core of UCLA admissions policy. Rather than bemoaning the "overrepresentation" of Asian students, let us say more power to them, and may the best applicant win.

 Besides "reflecting Los Angeles," UCLA diversity proponents also make the specious argument that diversity's outcome, the classroom presence of students from different backgrounds, produces the benefit of teaching "majority" students how to relate with minorities in a peaceful, productive manner. There is no acknowledgement that basic human decency could possibly be an alternate source of teaching peaceful interracial relations. To the Diversitistas, we are poised on the precipice of a collegiate Lord of the Flies, saved only by racial homogeneity.

 Ironic for a political movement so deeply secular and dismissive of religion in any form, the Left has adopted the characteristically Christian precept of original sin. We are all born racists, their argument goes, and only through Diversity shall we be saved. Or as Reynaldo Macias, the former chairman of the UCLA Cesar Chavez Center for Chicana and Chicano Studies stated in 1999, "the value of diversity lies in being able to live in a society without conflict based on race, of which recent high school violence and random acts of terror have had their roots based in ethnic intolerance."[v] [sic]

 Daily Bruin columnist Mitra Ebadolahi hyperventilated on this theme in 2000, gasping, "If our university becomes racially homogenous, or reflective only of a particular class or personal background, our education suffers and our awareness of the experiences of others is profoundly hindered. Ignorance can breed uneasiness, fear and misunderstanding, which can lead to intolerance, oppression and, ultimately, violence."[vi] In other words, but for the grace of Diversity, UCLA could be the next Kosovo.

 The last, and most sourly amusing argument for diversity, is encapsulated by the comments of Marky Keaton, the only black male accepted to the UCLA Law School in the post-affirmative action admission year of 2001:

 "We want people to understand that this issue, the issue of a diverse student body at the law school, is one that affects actual living people. Every time that the law school doesn't enroll a diverse student body, that represents actual lives that are being affected. It's not just something in a scholarly paper. Those are students who are missing out on an opportunity -- actual human beings who are being affected."[vii]

 Keaton's views characterize the myopia and the stupendous egotism of the diversity movement. There were no lamentations or rending of clothing when affirmative action was rampaging through UCLA. "Majority" students who lost out to vastly lesser-qualified minority students were "actual living people," too. But no tears were shed on their behalf. After all, Keaton and his ilk were getting what they wanted -- a "diverse student body." As with most of the 'logic' which characterizes the diversity movement, the argument is a selective one. And like the scheme to engineer UCLA's racial composition to reflect Los Angeles, it is only meant to serve the underlying purpose of diversity: more for their groups and less for others. More tellingly, Keaton's ideas emphasize what "majority" students were, and are, to the Diversitistas -- un-persons, nobodies, not "actual living people."

Chapter 5
Where Intellectual Diversity Is a Dirty Word

 Given the abundance of so many false diversities, UCLA's silence about intellectual diversity speaks volumes. Unlike racial, gender, economic, or geographic diversity, intellectual diversity is related to the actual goal of higher education -- ideas. It is also the one diversity that dare not speak its name. An exhaustive search for any mention of intellectual diversity at UCLA turns up few examples indeed.

 One of the few, the Diversity@UCLA "Statement on Diversity," insists "We are fundamentally committed to including and integrating within the campus community individuals from different groups as defined by such characteristics as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and intellectual outlook."[1]

 Unfortunately, these bold words have not been met by bold action. As documented in two exhaustive studies, UCLA, like most other elite schools in the country, is not intellectually diverse in general faculty composition[2], faculty hiring committees, or in representative choices like commencement speaker.[3] But UCLA's administration takes a hear no evil, speak no evil approach to this decay. Former Chancellor Charles E. Young claimed in his 1996 "Vision Statement" shortly before retirement, that "The social, ethnic, national, and intellectual diversity within the ranks of our students, faculty, and staff makes UCLA one of the most diverse major research university in the nation."[4]

 Current Chancellor Albert Carnesale is similarly blind to the truth. Author Ajay Singh, in the Winter 2004 issue of UCLA Magazine, summarized Carnesale's contention that UCLA "prides itself on its role -- one that is essential to all public universities -- as a venue for the free exchange of ideas representing the full spectrum of political, societal and cultural thought."[5] Any conservative student could attest to the free exchange of liberal ideas among a 93% Democrat-affiliated faculty. But Carnesale is only correct about a "full spectrum," if the range to which he refers runs from center-left to Marxist.

 More hypocritical by far is that in the article, Carnesale then "notes that UCLA has hosted speakers ranging from filmmaker Michael Moore on the left to former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett on the right."[6] Michael Moore, the notorious left-wing hackteur, appeared at UCLA in 2004, and received thousands of dollars of mandatory student fees from the Campus Events Commission (part of the undergraduate student government). CEC Staff member Donovan Daughtry responded to charges of partisanship by claiming "We've tried to program with conservative speakers in the past. It's not as interesting to the campus community."[7] Whatever community disinterest Daughtry gauged did not come from actually hosting a conservative speaker -- student government has not aided such an effort for at least six years. But Daughtry's dismissive attitude does mirror Carnesale's more artful deception, his claim that UCLA "hosted" William Bennett.

 In 2003, William Bennett's Americans for Victory Over Terrorism organization organized a national series of teach-ins. As the then-chairman of the Bruin Republicans, I was delighted to host the series' UCLA stop. What followed was an amazing event, featuring not only Bennett but L. Paul Bremer, and R. James Woolsey. Woolsey was rumored that day to become the Presidential Envoy to Iraq; in the end, Bremer received the position. Even more amazing was the total lack of institutional support from UCLA. No undergraduate student fees provided honoraria -- all participants spoke for free. Nor did UCLA even completely cover venue rental or advertising costs; AVOT shouldered significant costs on both.

 No significant UCLA administration figure attended the event; there were no proclamations or warm congratulations for any of the speakers or the Bruin Republicans. Carnesale himself evinced no pleasure or even notice of the event. In short, "UCLA" did nothing to host this influential group of conservatives. This, as well as any example, sums up UCLA's approach to issues like intellectual diversity -- deny the obvious, do nothing unless forced, and when history is written, claim cooperation with the ideas and groups you ignored or resisted.

 Despite Diversity's manifold flaws, it has been enshrined at UCLA, becoming a regular -- if intellectually bankrupt -- part of daily life. A high priest of Diversity, the Executive Chancellor on Diversity, oversees the worship by entire administrative groups - the Chancellor's Committee on Diversity, the Academic Senate's Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and the UCLA Library's Committee on Diversity. Even alumni cannot escape the tentacles of diversity -- the UCLA Alumni Association boasts a Diversity/Outreach Council.

 The pervasive nature of diversity is testament to its success. But despite its success, diversity exists only by deception. For now, the public believes that diversity is another name for equal opportunity and the presence of a diverse set of participants in any competitive setting. At the point that the truth gets out -- that diversity pursues popular goals through immoral methods -- there will be another Proposition 209 moment in California -- and hopefully elsewhere.
Antonio Villar(aigosa) -- UCLA MEChista


Antonio Villaraigosa (then, Tony Villar) leading a protest to include the Communist organization "Committee to Free Los Tres" on the Steering Committee of the Chicano Studies Center. UCLA campus, May 23, 1974.

Chapter 1
"Born to Raise Hell" -- at UCLA

 Antonio Villaraigosa, a one-time juvenile delinquent still tattooed with the slogan "Born to Raise Hell," entered the UCLA campus as a transfer student from East Los Angeles Community College in 1972. Known then simply as Tony Villar, he would not successfully graduate by the time he left in 1975.(1) But Villar did leave a wide swath of influence in other, more radical ways.

While on campus, Villar joined the UCLA chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), and was part of its leadership by 1974. MEChA had only been founded as a regional movement in 1969, and in many ways, the UCLA chapter, and the radical Chicano student left today, is a direct product of Villar's work then.

Fellow MEChA alumni from the period remember Villaraigosa's exploits well:
"He was one of the guys that would go out there and start the slogans because he was the loudest one," said Arturo Chavez, a fellow activist in college. "He was one of the people who would make sure people were riled up."

 Chavez underemphasizes what young Tony Villar did on the UCLA campus. Archives from the campus newspaper The Daily Bruin of 1974 have revealed that Villar led a campaign to ensure an advisory role in the UCLA Chicano Studies Center for a communist Chicano community group, and successfully engineered the dismissal of the Chicano director of the Center who stood in the way of this goal.

 As first reported May 9, 1974, a group of approximately 50 Chicano students (out of the 1,500 with Hispanic surnames on campus at that time) called on the Chicano Studies Center Director Rudolfo 'Rudy' Alvarez to resign from his post. Villar accused Alvarez of "trying to alter the concept behind Chicano studies." The article paraphrased Villar's further accusation "that the center has drifted away from its initial direction of research conducted in conjunction with the community."

 After the protest by the group of students, the Bruin further reported:
 "When CSC staff members arrived at the center Monday morning, they found locks inside and out of the offices jammed with toothpicks and matches, file cabinets also jammed, and the mouthpieces of the phones removed. It is not known who was responsible or whether this was connected to the demonstration Friday. Leaders of the demonstration deny any knowledge of the incident."

 Not content with petty vandalism, Villar's group engineered, with the cooperation of a like-minded staff, a shut-down of the Center with the stated threat that it would not to end until Alvarez resigned.(2)

 But it is the article from June 25, 1974(3) that explains the real roots of the controversy and shows the true agenda that belied Villar's posturing about Alvarez's supposed "lack of leadership and incapability as an administrator."(4)

 The Daily Bruin on that date reported that "Chicano students are considering filing a class action suit against Rodolfo Alvarez, Chicano Studies Center (CSC) director, according to student leader Raoul Garcia.

 "Students criticized Alvarez' mishandling of the Steering Committee in 1973. "Where at one time the Steering Committee composed of students, faculty, and community people was the policy making body of the Center, now Rudy is its sole dictator," said Tony Villar, another leader in the movement against Alvarez.

 "Both Villar and Garcia attacked the Alvarez-directed CSC for working only with government-sponsored drug programs "instead of community organizations like the National Committee to Free Los Tres.""

  The "National Committee to Free Los Tres," it must be understood, was a Los Angeles group created by former MEChistas to defend three members of the militant Chicano organization Casa Carnalismo who were convicted of assaulting a federal narcotics officer posing as a drug dealer in East Los Angeles. Even more telling about this "community organization" that Villar favored is that by 1974, a Marxist-Leninist faction emerged within the NCFLT seeking to deemphasize the social-service aspect of the organization, and hoping to transform its parent group Casa Carnalismo into a "revolutionary vanguard" dedicated to the "liberation of the Mexican people."(5) In a direct and unmistakable way, Villar was advocating for nothing less than a Communist place at the table within UCLA's Chicano Studies Center.

 The Bruin ended the story with a final quote from Villar:
"As Chicanos going to University they're demanding relevant education that they have some input into."

 The term "relevant education" is Orwellian code used by minority political activists to describe their vision of a network of non-academic interests that both feed from, and direct, the university. The ideal network includes, but is not limited to, labor unions, minority racial affiliation groups, and members of the public taking direct action to aggregate political power. Stripping away Villar's self-justification about 'relevant education,' it becomes clear that the fight was a proxy power grab by militant Chicano organizations. Their goal: to turn an academic unit at a proud university into a mere ideological factory to support and undergird a drive for exclusive minority power accumulation.

 Villar was ultimately successful in his fight for his vision for a relevant education. On July 19, 1974, the Daily Bruin announced in a brief notice that Professor Alvarez had resigned from his directorship following internal private deliberations with higher administration figures.

Villar's goals, and the actions which made it possible, are instructive in understanding the man who desires to be the next mayor of Los Angeles. Not only did Villar himself harbor radical ambitions, he proved willing to destroy both an innocent man and a fellow Chicano by turning his staff, his students, and eventually, his employer, against him.

Chapter 2
A Media Blackout on Villar's Past

 For a youth who displayed such ambition and achieved such lofty goals -- removing a UCLA professor who would not, under his directorship, subsume the Chicano Studies Center to the cause of Chicano radicalism -- Antonio Villaraigosa has shown surprisingly little interest in talking about his time as a UCLA MEChA leader.

 In a comprehensive search of every major news database, even passing references to Villaraigosa's affiliation with this radical, violent and separatist organization are few and far between. Direct acknowledgement of his association is almost nil.
During the controversy over Cruz Bustamante's MEChA alumni status during the 2002 gubernatorial recall campaign, Villaraigosa airily remarked, "Most of us attended a meeting or more. Nearly everybody was involved with it some way."[1] But more telling is that during the 2001 campaign for Los Angeles mayor, Villaraigosa was asked at the final mayoral debate live on ABC 7-TV and KNX 1070-AM if he still adhered to the group's goals, and refused to give a direct yes or no answer.[2]

  More instructive about Villaraigosa's acceptance of the goals and philosophies of MEChA are his public affiliations with MEChA and student radicals at UCLA. Most significant would be his appearance on April 12, 1998 at the MEChA National Convention, held that year on the UCLA campus.

  MEChA held a banquet that night honoring, among others, Sal Castro, organizer of the East Los Angeles School Blowouts of 1968, and featured a speech from Villaraigosa, then the president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

  Villaraigosa also came to the UCLA campus and spoke glowingly about the actions of student radicals (including many MEChA members) the very night that they shut down a 2001 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Royce Hall. Villaraigosa also spoke personally to the radicals, blasting the University of California anti-preference statutes SP-1 and SP-2: "This is not Mississippi in 1960; this is not Alabama! This is California, the golden state; people from every corner of the world come here to realize the American Dream."

  Villaraigosa's strong feelings about racial preferences are not just the product of a fevered mind that viewed a Communist Chicano splinter group as a reasonable community partner, but a matter of bald self-interest as well. While speaking to those students, Villaraigosa also admitted that as an affirmative action admit to UCLA, "some people have said I got in through the back door, but I left through the front." What Villaraigosa failed to mention is that he left campus in 1975 to take a job and didn't meander back to any graduation doors, front or back, until many years later.[3]

  Those who benefit from an unequal system usually have the most interest in preserving that inequality. The rabid beneficiaries of affirmative action like Villaraigosa are prime examples of this maxim.

Chapter 3
What Tony Villar Wrought

 The UCLA Chicana and Chicano Studies Department, and its associated Cesar E. Chavez Interdisciplinary Studies Center, today bears the mark of Villar's "by any means necessary" philosophy. The Chicano Studies Department, upgraded from interdepartmental status just this year, is the outgrowth of the Chavez Interdisciplinary Studies Center, itself the 1993 creation of radical direct action, Hispanic community pressure and the gutless then-Chancellor Charles E. Young.

 The cause of creating a Chicano studies major at UCLA had been an ongoing one since the late '60s, and started innocently enough with the Chicano Studies Center that Villar found not radical enough for his liking in 1974. Much as it was in that year, the events of 1993 epitomized the bullying tactics of Chicano radicals in their cause of establishing a narrowly exclusive minority-interest major at UCLA.

 In April 1993, Chancellor Young rejected student demands that the Chicano Studies Program be given departmental status. The announcement, in an example of incredibly in-fortuitous timing, came on the eve of Cesar Chavez's funeral. The Chicano students and MEChA members who had been leading the campaign for departmental status responded by occupying and laying waste to the Faculty Center on May 11, 1993, causing between $35,000 and $50,000 in damage. The president of the non-ideological, private Faculty Center noted that protestors "smashed windows within a few feet of our [occupied] lunch tables?rifled a purse, stole a wallet and tossed car keys in a toilet. Walls were defaced, honorary plaques [were] cut."[1] 91 Chicano radicals, half of them not even students, were arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department.[2] Bad enough was that 84 of the radicals were let go within days of the incident. Worse yet was that supporters of the remaining seven that still faced stronger vandalism charges, were allowed to donate two works by Chicano artists "Gronk" and "Elo," (alleged combined value of $25,000), as compensation for the riot damage. Gronk's "The Mug," was even hung at the very scene of the crime, the UCLA Faculty Center, as a final insult from the radical Chicanos.[3]

 The student radicals were emboldened by their successes in trashing the school with impunity, but still smarting from the rejection by Young. On May 25, 1993, a group of nine Chicanos (including seven students) initiated what would eventually be a 14-day hunger strike. Two UCLA students, Marcos Aguilar and Balvina Collazo, and one high school student, Norma Montanez, adopted Azteco-babble names; respectively, Huitzilixtlitiu, Chitlichicoshayotl, and Ixtlapapayotl. The nine, which included an assistant professor from the medical school, rallied to their cause nearly every Chicano-interest activist and politician. Then-State Senator Art Torres (later to become chair of the California Democratic Party) threatened to withhold state funding unless demands were met. Cesar Chavez's son Fernando led a rally of Chicano students on June 3, 1993 supporting the hunger strikers. And in an evolution that would have warmed Tony Villar's radical heart, UCLA MEChista Gil Cedillo, and Chicano radicals Vivien Bonzo and Juan Jose Gutierrez, came together to lead a "United Community and Labor Alliance," that agitated for departmental status. Even old-time white radical Tom Hayden, then a State Senator from Santa Monica, threw his lot in with the mob.

 Not surprisingly for a man who built a long legacy of favoring student radicals on campus and opposing racial neutrality in UC policy, Chancellor Young quickly wilted under the pressure, signing a Hunger Strike Agreement. This agreement was a victory for special interest racial affiliation groups, and was a victory for the philosophy introduced by Tony Villar twenty years before: that Chicano Studies be 'relevant' to the community at large. Of special note was the involvement of the UCLA MEChA alum Gil Cedillo's "United Community and Labor Alliance," which established (though not for the first or last time) that UCLA academics would be converted by pressure groups into an ideological assembly line for labor and minority political interests. Education and dispassionate inquiry were out -- 'relevance' was in.

 The creation of the Interdisciplinary Center via the Hunger Strike Agreement was done with the further proviso that when "the evolution and the experience of the center for interdisciplinary instruction warrant[s] it, departmentalization will once again be on the table."[4] With this principle, full departmental status, and a realization of a 'relevant' department acting as an ideological factory for the radical Chicano movement, became a fait accompli. The path was clear, in that, barring a melt-down of the Center, full victory was only a matter of time. Thus it was that in 2005, many long years removed from the tumult of 1993, Villar's vision was fulfilled. Unfortunately for Californians, there will be for the foreseeable future, a radical Chicano fox in our university's hen house. And alumni like Antonio Villaraigosa and Gil Cedillo, who disguise radicalism with suits and smiles, will issue forth into the public, pursuing the MEChA agenda.

 An "affirmative action baby"[5] and a radical Chicano, Antonio Villaraigosa has charmed his way into power, and now seeks to become the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since the 19th century. But will Villaraigosa win if voters understand that the one-time Tony Villar is an unreconstructed MEChista, dedicated to the goals of Aztlan liberation, whose radical past at UCLA informs his thoughts and actions today? We will know soon enough: Election Day is May 17, 2005.

Understanding MEChA -


 Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, is a Chicano group that has chapters at both the high school and college level. These chapters are most heavily concentrated in predominantly Latino areas, especially in the Southwestern United States, but are found in other areas as well.

 MEChistas from Cruz Bustamante to Antonio Villaraigosa have dismissed their membership in the organization by characterizing it as the equivalent of a Chicano Rotary club. While MEChA does indeed pursue community service, the founding documents of MEChA make it very clear that it is community service with only one recipient -- Chicanos.

 Unfortunately, the same founding documents of MEChA (Philosophy of MEChA in particular), also reveal that membership in MEChA requires acceptance, belief and action for MEChA goals like the "liberation of Aztlan [the Southwestern United States]." Furthermore, every chapter, including MEChA de UCLA, was and is required to hold discussions and introduce new members to the uniformly radical historical documents of MEChA. Thus, by their own peculiar bylaws it becomes clear that MEChista alumni are lying when they claim ignorance on the topic of the following three racist documents:

 El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan
Understanding MEChA -

El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan

 El Plan is, to be brief, a racist, seditionist and treasonous document. To wit:
 "Aztlan [the Southwestern United States] belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gathers the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. '

 Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." [For those of the Hispanic race, everything. For those outside the Hispanic race, nothing.]

 Under Organizational Goals, El Plan Espiritual continues: "economic control of our lives and our communities can only come about by driving the exploiter out of our communities, our pueblos and our lands. -- Lands rightfully ours will be fought for and defended."

 Under the "Self-Defense" section, El Plan Espiritual proclaims "For the very young there will no longer be acts of juvenile delinquency, but revolutionary acts."

 El Plan Espiritual finishes "El Plan de Aztlan is the plan of liberation!"

 The Philosophy of MEChA sums up the goals out El Plan Espiritual thusly:

 "1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation); 2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture; 3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation."

 This is not poetic license. This is not ethnic pride. This is a declaration of war.

 El Plan de Santa Barbara
Understanding MEChA -

El Plan de Santa Barbara

 El Plan de Santa Barbara is a more prosaic document but still radical in its view and intolerance for dissent, as seen in the declaration that "The Mexican American or Hispanic is a person who lacks self-respect and pride in one's ethnic and cultural background."

 In discussing sympathetic administrators within the campus community, EPSB warns that "students must constantly remind the Chicano administrators and faculty where their loyalty and allegiance lie."

 EPSB also condemns Chicanos who have been willing to work within the structure of the university, noting "Too often in the past the dedicated pushed for a program only to have a vendido sharp-talker come in and take over and start working for his Anglo administrator." "Vendido," of course, is the Spanish slur meaning "sell-out," and was used by Tony Villar against Chicano Studies Director Rudy Alvarez in 1974.

 It is in the section titled "Tying the campus to the barrio," that gives context for Tony Villar's demands for a "relevant education."

 The section reads in part, "The colleges and universities in the past have existed in an aura of omnipotence and infallibility. It is time that they be made responsible and responsive to the communities in which they are located or whose member they serve. As has already been mentioned, community members should serve on all program related to Chicano interests." Expanding on this theme, EPSB declares: "The idea must be made clear to the people of the barrio that they own the schools and all their resources are at their disposal." The section concludes with the understated analysis, almost as if discussing a business plan, that the use of school resources by the barrio "is an area which has great potential."

 The Philosophy of Aztlan /Understanding MEChA - Philosophy of MEChA

 The Philosophy of MEChA contains many valuable insights into the mindset of the founders and the MEChistas, past and present, who abide by its precepts. Philosophy explains that "Chicanismo involves a personal decision to reject assimilation and work towards the preservation of our cultural heritage." This rejection of assimilation, among the supposed "descendants of El Quinto Sol" extends to any Hispanic who simply wants to be an individual. They are derided as "corporate Hispanics." True MEChistas, by contrast, are to undertake a struggle for the "liberation of Aztlan." The means by which this goal would be pursued are various, but by Philosophy's specific reference to both El Plan Espiritual and EPSB, one can safely assume that the means would include cooptation of the university for "community purposes" -- the very goals young Tony Villar pursued in 1974.

 Also notable is the stark statement deep within the pages of Philosophy that, while there is a general lack of uniformity from club to club, general standards do include the requirement that:

"General membership shall consist of any student who accepts, believes, and works for the goals and objectives of M.E.Ch.A. including the liberation of Aztlán"

The first requirement for affiliation is that the chapter "Orient all members by discussing and reading historical documents of our movement including El Plan de Santa Barbara, El Plan de Aztlán and the Philosophy of M.E.Ch.A."

 As noted in the introduction, these two statements prove that any MEChista alumni who refuses to renounce his or her past associations by claiming ignorance or non-involvement with radical elements within MEChA are quite simply lying: they are radicals by definition.

Maurice Zeitlin Denies Reality

By Andrew Jones
August 24, 2005

In Monday's UCLA Daily Bruin article about the Bruin Alumni Association, a number of outrageous criticisms were leveled at the BAA by faculty radicals. The most usual of the usual suspects, Sociology professor Maurice Zeitlin, made the laughable claim that I or other concerned Bruin alumni don't have a "shred of evidence anywhere about the suppression" of conservative voices at UCLA.

Not a shred, Maurice? What about my personal experience with the Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU, Ramona Ripston? (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23206) What about the 12-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican professors in the UCLA departments of Economics, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology? (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/reports/lackdiversity.html)

And if Maurice wants to talk literally about 'voices' -- well, in the past 10 years (1994-2003), UCLA has not featured a single conservative or Republican speaker at a graduation ceremony. (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16464) And that's out of 39 speakers (the high number accounts for the fact that UCLA, from 1994-2001, had separate speakers at every single Letters and Science division). Surely, if UCLA were so scrupulously evenhanded, we would find a conservative or Republican somewhere in that group.

I could go on like this, but ultimately, I have to admit that Maurice is right. It's true that I don't have a "shred of evidence." I've got reams of it.

The "who me?" rhetoric from Zeitlin is not all that surprising. As conservative legend David Horowitz revealed in 2003, Zeitlin is not just your garden variety white-guilt liberal.

Horowitz, Zeitlin, and LA Times columnist Robert Scheer founded in 1960 the first journal of the New Left, titled Root and Branch. That first issue featured Zeitlin's interview with the blood-soaked revolutionary Che Guevara. As Horowitz tells it:

In 1960, long before the creation of Ramparts, Zeitlin had visited Cuba and interviewed Che Guevara, who was then the second most powerful man in the dictatorship. We published the interview in the first issue of our Berkeley magazine, Root and Branch, which one of the political journals that launched the new left (Robert Scheer was also an editor). The rest of us were both shocked and impressed when we read the interview and realized what Maurice had done.

He had not just interviewed Guevara, already a radical legend. He had challenged Guevara's policies and in effect called into question his revolutionary credentials. Maurice had asked Guevara about the role he thought the trade unions should play in a socialist country, specifically Cuba. Should they be independent - as new left socialists like us wanted - or would they be appendages of the state, as Lenin and Stalin had made them? Maurice reminded Guevara that the elimination of independent unions, the organizations after all of the revolutionary class, had paved the way for the Soviet gulag. Guevara was angered by the question and by Maurice's temerity in raising the question, would not criticize the Soviets and abruptly changed the subject.

Zeitlin had put Guevara to the test and Guevara had failed. The interview revealed that Guevara was a Stalinist himself. We all recognized the significance of what he had said. Yet to our shame, we continued to support the Cuban regime anyway, knowing that it was destined to be a totalitarian gulag - because that was the intention of its creators. Maurice did write a subsequent critique for Ramparts. But like us, he continued to support the regime and to attack the United States and its efforts to restore freedom to Cuba. Later, when I had second thoughts about my political commitments and left the political left and comrades like Maurice Zeitlin, I wrote about my regrets for defending a regime that has become the most sadistic dictatorship in Latin American history. Except for Ronald Radosh and other "second thoughters" who have also turned their backs on the left, I don't know of any new radicals who have done the same.

 Zeitlin has no regrets about his support for Fidel Castro, Che Geuvara, and the other socialist revolutionaries who ensured that for nearly half a century, Cuba has remained an island prison. Indeed, Zeitlin, at a 1997 academic conference, proclaimed Guevara "a leader of the first socialist revolution in this hemisphere," and that Guevara's "legacy is embodied in the fact that Cuban revolution is alive today despite the collapse of the Soviet bloc." Completing his endorsement, Zeitlin declared, "No social justice is possible without a vision like Che's."

 It is this "revolutionary spirit" which sends radicals like Zeitlin on contradictory flights of rhetorical fancy. The revolution which would sweep in this long-desired age of "social justice" would also result in the slaughter, as it always has, of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie -- of which college professors are most certainly a part. Zeitlin would do well to remember the old saying about getting what you wish for.

 Zeitlin is a man of contradictions. The underlying incongruity between Zeitlin's social vision and the inevitable outcome should that vision be realized, is one such example. Just as illustrative is the dissonance between his status as an American, and his hatred for this country. Because of this country's religious and political tolerance, and generous taxpayer funding for the University of California system, Zeitlin has achieved a rare level of material comfort and professional success. But that's not enough. And it never will be. Because with radicals like Zeitlin, the greater their success, the greater the feelings of inadequacy.

 All of this points directly to a new area of sociological study, one in which Zeitlin could play both doctor and patient: investigating political radicals' irrational hatred of America, and the psychological disturbance underpinning that loathing.

One Last, Leftist Lecture
 By: Center for the Study of Popular Culture
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, September 09, 2003

A Report of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture Study of Bias in the Selection of Commencement Speakers at 32 Elite Colleges and Universities Executive Summary

(David Horowitz) This study of the selection of commencement speakers [1] is intended to supplement the Study of Political Bias in the Administration and to provide an independent measure of its accuracy. In this case we were able to assign an identity to all the subjects with a political profile. The results are, in fact, even more imbalanced than what we discovered in our more imperfect inquiry into the political views of faculty and administrators. The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right was 226-15, a ratio of over 15-1. Removing the three schools that featured multiple speakers every year, the count of 172-15 still almost perfectly mirrors the similar 10-1 ratio we observed with faculty political alignment.
 Commencement speakers at different universities are selected through different procedures but in almost all cases through committees composed of administrative staff, faculty, and students. They may be said, therefore, to reflect the preferences of the respective campus communities.

The position of Commencement Speaker is a high honorific and the individuals chosen are generally regarded as role models for each graduating class, reflecting values that students are encouraged to emulate. The occasion -- the passage of students into society as a new generation of potential leaders -- makes the selection of these individuals an important statement by the selection committee as to what that leadership should entail. For these reasons, we believe that the selection of commencement speakers is a good index of the preferences of the institutions themselves.
 The list of commencement speakers has the additional advantage of being transparent. The names of most speakers will be familiar to anyone examining these results. Therefore the judgments we have made in matching speakers with viewpoints is open to instant review.

For each of the thirty-two schools we acquired lists of the last ten commencement speakers and identified them using five categories: Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, Republican and No (Public) Political or Partisan Identification. The last category is important since some commencement speakers are leaders in scientific, charitable and civic fields that are not partisan in nature.

In conducting our study we felt it was the public identities of speakers that were important for our purposes and not the fact that they may have cast a secret ballot for one political party or another. Molly Ivins and George Will -- writers about political issues from opposite sides of the spectrum -- are thus identified as "liberal" and "conservative" rather than "Democrat" and "Republican." Actors like Alan Alda, Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Cosby and Danny Glover who publicly associate themselves with liberal causes are identified as liberals.

Summary of Results
 o  Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in the entire ten years surveyed. The same schools invited 173 liberals and Democrats to address their graduating classes in the same ten-year period.
 o  Six of the remaining schools invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared to 38 liberals or Democrats.
 o  The three schools (Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA) which host multiple speakers every year did not feature a single Republican or conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and Democrats.
 o  Overall, the ratio of commencement speakers on the left to commencement speakers on the right is 226 to 15, a little over 15-1.
 o  141 commencement speakers were not associated with a partisan viewpoint.

[1] Researched by Andrew Jones.

Total schools surveyed: 32
Total speakers: 382
Political Breakdown: 226 Left, 15 Right (54 Democrats, 172 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, 13 Republicans 141 Nonpartisan)
Political Breakdown (without Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA which have multiple commencement speakers): 172 Left, 15 Right (48 Democrats, 124 Liberals, 2 Conservatives, 13 Republicans, 86 Nonpartisan)

(See above link if you're interested in detailed breakdown of the above).

5L, 0R, 0C, 0R, 5N

2D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 2N

1D, 2L, 0C, 0R, 8N

2D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 4N

1D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 3N

Bryn Mawr
0D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 5N

Cal Tech
0D, 3L, 0C, 1R, 7N

Carnegie Mellon
0D, 3L, 0C, 1R, 6N

University of Chicago
0D, 1L, 0C, 0R, 0N

1D, 4L, 1C, 3R, 1N

2D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 3N

4D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 1N

4D, 2L, 0C, 0R, 3N

1D, 5L, 1C, 2R, 1N

4D, 1L, 0C, 0R, 5N

0D, 26L, 0C, 0R, 12N

1994 The Aga Khan - Muslim leader  N
3D, 1L, 0C, 0R 7N

0D, 6L, 0C, 0R, 4N

1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

3D, 5L, 0C, 1R, 1N

2D, 3L, 0C, 0R, 4N

2D, 7L, 0C, 1R, 0N

0D, 4L, 0C, 2R, 4N

0D, 17L, 0C, 0R, 15N

1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

UC Berkeley
4D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 1N

6D, 5L, 0C, 0R, 28N

1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

1D, 7L, 0C, 0R, 2N

2D, 5L, 0C, 1R, 2N

1D, 7L, 0C, 1R, 1N

Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities · 28 August 2003
Executive Summary
David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer

This report on political bias at 32 elite colleges and universities is the third in a series conducted by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and researched by Andrew Jones.


The Center generated a list of 32 elite colleges and universities. We included the entire Ivy League, premier liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Pomona, well-known technically-oriented universities like MIT, highly competitive public institutions like the University of California at Berkeley, and other elite private universities like Stanford. We compiled lists of tenured or tenure-track professors of the Economics, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology departments - choosing these because they teach courses focusing on issues affecting the society at large. We compared these lists to the voter registration lists of the counties or states in which the colleges were located, and attempted to match individual names.

The quality of our data varied. Not all faculty are registered to vote and not all reside in the county or even state which we searched. The political affiliation of these individuals was therefore not accessible. In other cases there was more than one individual with the same name, again making a positive identification impossible In some places, the Center was able to identify most professors; at others, only a minority were positively identified. The figures contained in this report are indicators of a problem; they make no claim to definitively identify that problem. This would only be possible with greater resources than are available to the Center or with the cooperation of the institutions themselves.

We selected party registration for our study because other indices of bias would be highly subjective. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" are notoriously indeterminate, reflecting as much the prejudices of the cataloguer as they would the preferences of those being studied. Although the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" may seem inappropriate in the context of academic pursuits, they have the advantage of reflecting the self-identifications of the individuals under scrutiny and they are clearly identifiable.

Moreover the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" can reasonably be said to reflect a predictable spectrum of assumptions, views and values that affect the outlooks of Americans who finance, attend, administer and teach at these educational institutions. This is why we chose them. It is not our intention to suggest that there should be quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at universities. Rather it is our purpose to discover whether there is a grossly unbalanced, politically shaped selection process in the hiring of college faculty. While recognizing the limitations imposed on our study, we believe the figures recorded in this report make a prima facie case that there is.

Summary of Results

In our examinations of over 150 departments and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges and universities, the Center found the following:

* the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).
* Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

At other schools we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans:
* Brown 30-1
* Bowdoin, Wellesley 23-1
* Swarthmore 21-1
* Amherst
* Bates 18-1
* Columbia
* Yale 14-1
* Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley 12-1
* Smith 11-1

At no less than four elite schools we could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
* Williams 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
* Oberlin 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
* MIT 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
* Haverford 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Faculty registration is just as unbalanced at major research universities as it is at small colleges. At Columbia University, the Center could identify only 6 faculty Republicans. The Center could not locate a single Republican in the history, political science, and sociology departments. Cornell University was just as left-leaning: the departments of English and history were entirely devoid of registered Republicans.

Administrators lean just as far to the left: at schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, we could not identify a single Republican administrator. In the entire Ivy League, we identified only 3 Republican administrators.


These figures suggest that most students probably graduate without ever having a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint. The ratios themselves are impossible to understand in the absence of a political bias in the training and hiring of college instructors. They strongly suggest that the governance of American universities has fallen into the hands of a self-perpetuating political and cultural subset of the general population, which seems intent on perpetuating its control. This is an unhealthy development for the both the educational enterprise and the democracy itself.

Without further investigation it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty why this state of affairs has come into existence, but there are many obvious factors that may be said to have contributed to it. Among them is the very exclusion of conservatives from faculty and administrative positions itself. This in itself creates a hostile environment for conservative students contemplating an academic career. This core hostility is amplified by practices that have been incorporated into academic life in the last several decades, including campus speech codes and politicized classrooms - both which represent radical departures from the pre-Sixties academic environment. A comprehensive study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (available at www.speechcodes.org ) found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban and punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative, speech. (Cases available at www.thefire.org.) Student testimonies about in-classroom political indoctrination are available at www.noindoctrination.org.

The impression that conservative values and ideas aren't welcome on campus is driven home daily to students until it becomes second nature. Professors generally do not grade politically, but a large enough percentage do that students - and not just conservative students - will take the prudent course of concealing what they actually think in order to protect their academic standing. This is obviously at odds with the educational mission of the university but academic authorities have done little to address the abuse.

All these factors exert a negative influence on the choices a conservative student might make about pursuing an intellectual career. But of all these factors the lack of conservative professors is the most significant. It serves to reduce the ability of the best and brightest conservative students to pursue graduate study even when they want to. Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching students with professors who have compatible interests. A student interested in pursuing a Ph.D. based on his or her interest in Austrian school economics, traditionalist literary criticism, conservative historiography or religious poetry will have a difficult time finding a professor who wants to take her on. In the social sciences, Marxists have an infinitely easier time finding good mentors than Hayekians or Straussians. The lack of conservative professors provides a ready-made excuse (professors don't even think of it that way) for rejecting doctoral program applications for conservative students with stellar grades, recommendations, and standardized test scores.

For those conservatives who earn the doctoral "union card" necessary to teach at a major research university, a second obstacle awaits: hiring and tenure committees, which are stacked with their ideological and political adversaries. A number of high profile cases have occurred recently in which conservative scholars with significant records of publishing have performed according to the book and still ended up out of work.

The entire process of training graduate students, qualifying Ph.D. recipients, hiring junior faculty and granting tenure is hierarchical, arbitrary, closed to public scrutiny and designed to produce intellectual conformity in the best circumstances. Therefore special concern would be required to ensure that there are protections for students' academic freedom and for intellectual diversity. Unfortunately, in the present institutional framework no such protections exist.

We believe a remedy for this problematic situation would be for universities and state legislatures to adopt an Academic Bill of Rights stressing the importance of intellectual diversity to the goal of academic freedom, and making this goal an integral part of educational policy. We are attaching a copy of our suggested draft for such a Bill of Rights to this report.

When Ezra Cornell founded the institution that bears his name he said: "I would found an institution, where any person can find instruction in any study." American universities do not fulfill that promise when they cater to only half the population and fail to provide protections and adequate representation for the other. Presently, conservative viewpoints and values are under-represented in the academic curriculum, and conservatives themselves are relegated to second-class citizenship. While nearly all university administrations devote extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown interest in the diversity of ideas. This bias has created a situation that is unworthy of the academic enterprise and unhealthy for the democracy that supports it, and in serious need of reform.


Total Schools Surveyed: 32
Total Democrats: 1397
Total Republicans: 134
Total Unaffiliated: 1891
Total TM : 790
Total Miscellaneous: 43

55D, 3R, 23U, 0TM, 1M

18D, 1R, 18U, 0TM, 0M

23D, 1R, 23U, 0TM, 1M

8D, 1R, 76U, 0TM, 0M

59D, 2R, 67U, 18TM, 0M

Bryn Mawr
14D, 2R, 13U, 8TM, 1M

Cal Tech
22D, 4R, 14U, 4TM, 0M

Carnegie Mellon
31D, 6R, 39U, 34TM, 0M

79D, 8R, 144U, 0TM, 0M

35D, 4R, 22U, 38TM, 1M

57D, 4R, 74U, 123TM, 0M

55D, 6R, 72U, 70TM, 1M

38D, 4R, 68U, 0TM, 0M

2D, 3R, 35U, 19TM, 0M

95D, 15R, 50U, 0TM, 15M

77D, 11R, 127U, 0TM, 2M

15D, 0R, 12U, 11TM, 0M

17D, 0R, 71U, 2TM, 0M

25D, 7R, 136U, 63TM, 0M

19D, 0R, 21U, 26TM, 0M

60D, 5R, 69U, 55TM, 0M

49D, 6R, 127U, 75TM, 1M

43D, 4R, 46U, 0TM, 0M

75D, 8R, 85U, 33TM, 8M

21D, 1R, 14U, 22TM, 0M

12D, 1R, 84U, 3TM, 0M

UC Berkeley
100D, 8R, 80U, 59TM, 6M

137D, 11R, 90U, 55TM, 6M

23D, 1R, 63U, 0TM, 1M

32D, 3R, 46U, 19TM, 0M

51D, 0R, 43U, 1TM, 0M

73D, 5R, 102U, 52TM, 0M

SAF: Color Cleaves UC Campus · 28 August 2003
By Mickey Thomas

Last spring as the semester was winding to a close, the University of Missouri College Republicans hosted New York Times' best-selling author David Horowitz. His appearance spurred controversy on campus. Professor Miriam Golomb accused Mr. Horowitz of being a racist. Students alleged that she offered to give additional bonus points to protest Horowitz's speech.

When uproar over the alleged extra points for protesting occurred, professors came to her rescue. Instead of questioning her actions in a "Genetics and Society" class on accusing Horowitz of being a racist, people like Charles N. Davis, Chairman of the School of Journalism at MU, questioned the students.

Davis implied in his article that the conservative students who have hosted Horowitz were racists, too, and suggested facetiously that the students invite former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to campus. Not content to ridicule MU students, Davis insulted other conservative speakers, calling Ann Coulter the "world-renowned bigot and Islamaphobe" and Reagan biographer Dinesh D'Souza a "white victomologist." Journalism professor Davis showed a poor example to would-be reporters by making several fact errors in his diatribe and failing to offer any argument other than personal attack.

Davis stated that Coulter had been fired from the "pretty-darned conservative New Republic." Wrong. First, the New Republic is not conservative; and, second, she had been fired from National Review. One also wonders why Dinesh D'Souza would be a "white victomologist" when he is of Indian decent. Not only this, but he hasn't spoken at MU within the last year. It seems odd that a university that wouldn't let anchors at the university television station wear American flags because it didn't want to appear as partial to a political persuasion, yet here is a journalism professor blithely implying that conservative students are racists.

Why were the conservative students at the University of Missouri not ever defended by a professor on campus? It is either because there are few conservative professors at MU or the ones who are conservatives have been intimidated to not voicing their opinion. The only thing that conservative students can do anymore to have their side of the debate heard is to turn to national conservative organizations like Young America's Foundation.

Unfortunately, last spring's episode was just one of a series of examples of bashing against conservatives and their ideals on the MU campus. Between canceling exams in lieu of protests or faculty organizing "teach-ins," the bias against conservatives is the real struggle on campus today. However, MU isn't alone in its flood of liberal propaganda to indoctrinate the next army of young socialists.

Ohio University threatened to dismiss students from the university after painting "offensive" language on the communal wall where student organizations paint announcements for upcoming events. The "offensive" comments were only in response to a graphic display of the female anatomy to announce the upcoming "Vagina Monologues." All of this occurred during sibling weekend where the mostly younger brothers and sisters of current students visited the campus.

A personal friend of mine is currently in a battle with Cal Poly University over his free speech rights. Steve Hinkle, president of the Cal Poly College Republicans, is currently dealing with a pending case of "disruption" when he was denied posting a flier in the public lounge of the Multi-Cultural Center. The students refused to let him post the flier because they viewed it as "offensive" and proceeded to call the police on him. He willingly left the lounge, yet was still charged with disruption even though the police report states nothing about disruption. It only states that "a suspicious white male was posting material of an offensive racial nature."

Students at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill are fighting back. They've organized a group to question the university and its policies like requiring freshman to read Nickled and Dimed, a book about low-wage earners. The university conducted a study on the persecution of the gay student population, and now the conservatives are demanding a similar study be conducted for the conservative students.

This is the kind of action that needs to be taken by students. Conservative students across the country shouldn't roll over and say, "Well, this is just how it is in academia." There needs to be a fight. Conservatives are fighting the good fight. All we are asking for from liberal administrators and professors is for the university to be a marketplace of ideas, and to stop censoring and intimidating conservative students.

Conservatives are by no means asking to censor professors and usurp their free speech rights; however, conservatives deserve equal representation. America's college campuses need equal representation in the true sense - in diversity of thoughts and ideas. Conservatives professors are the real minority on college campuses.

The bottom line becomes this. In a state where the Republicans control the House and Senate, why are Missourians' children being taught ideas that directly contradict what they've been taught at home? If there is going to be a plethora of liberal professors who share their opinions in class, there should be an equal amount of conservative professors willing to do the same.

It is one thing to represent both sides of a debate and let students decide for themselves, but professors are accusing conservatives of being racist--an unacceptable state of affairs. This is precisely what is wrong with academia today and it is up to the students and parents to push for a change and for real equal representation in our nation's universities.

Students for Academic Freedom: A New Campus Movement · 16 October 2006
Filed under: Reports
By SARA HEBEL - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Conservative activists and students press campaigns against perceived bias on campuses.
Patrolling Professors' Politics

Conservative activists and students press campaigns against perceived bias on campuses
Opinion: In Defense of Intellectual Diversity

Opinion: 'Intellectual Diversity': the Trojan Horse of a Dark Design

Colloquy Live: Join a live, online discussion with David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, about policies that would promote "intellectual diversity" on campuses and protect students and faculty members with unpopular political and religious views, on Wednesday, February 18, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time.

One View on Violation of Students' Rights

Excerpts From 'Academic Bill of Rights'By SARA HEBEL

Gerald Wilson, a history professor at Duke University, says a student's question on the first day of class last semester caught him off guard: "Do you have any prejudices?"

Unsure what the young man meant, Mr. Wilson decided to reply with a joke. "Yeah, Republicans," he recalls saying. (He found out later that the student was asking about writing styles.)

"Everybody laughed," the professor says.

Well, not quite everybody.

Matt Bettis, a senior in the class, thought the comment among others was inappropriate and sent an e-mail message to Mr. Wilson telling him so. The professor apologized to Mr. Bettis, who had dropped the course, "American Dreams/American Realities."

"I was absolutely dumbfounded," Mr. Bettis later wrote about Mr. Wilson's comments in a letter to Students for Academic Freedom, a national group that is collecting stories about political bias on campuses. "What worried me was the excited and proud manner in which he stated it, thus implying that his politics would be a large part of the classroom experience."

While Mr. Wilson calls the incident "regrettable," he says his remark reflected his tendency to use humor to engage students. "Everybody knows I'm very political," he says. "But, dear God, I make jokes about Democrats as well as Republicans. This is a course where we're going to talk about different viewpoints."

To some college students -- and legislators -- who hold conservative views, however, comments like Mr. Wilson's raise a red flag. Professors who unnecessarily interject their political views into the classroom contribute to conservative students' feelings of isolation on campuses that often seem to be dominated by faculty members with liberal views, these critics say. Several students who say they have Republican leanings argue that their grades have suffered or that their participation in classroom discussions has been stifled by liberal professors.

"Our institutions of higher education have become institutions of indoctrination," declares Stephen Miller, a freshman at Duke. "That's a frightening trend."

Now conservative activists are fighting back. David Horowitz, president of the California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, is leading a national campaign to change campus climates. The centerpiece of his efforts is an "Academic Bill of Rights," which he is urging Congress and state legislatures to adopt. It enumerates several principles that colleges should follow, among which is that they should foster a variety of political and religious beliefs in such areas as making tenure decisions, developing reading lists for courses, and selecting campus speakers.

Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced as legislation a version of the proposal. In Colorado, a visit paid by Mr. Horowitz to state officials led the president of the State Senate, a Republican, to ask the heads of the state's 29 public institutions to specify their processes for handling complaints about bias and the steps they are taking to promote "intellectual diversity" in classes and faculty recruiting. Now Colorado's Republican lawmakers are pushing for legislation that would force college governing boards to develop and publicize processes for resolving students' complaints about bias.

Mr. Horowitz says he believes that his proposal, or similar ones, could be introduced in as many as a half-dozen more state legislatures, which he declines to identify, as well as in the U.S. Senate, by this spring. He is also urging campus administrators and student-government leaders to adopt policies that would spell out students' rights to academic freedom.

"The university should not be a political place,"says Mr. Horowitz. "It's a place where there ought to be reasoned discourse." He has conducted studies finding that at 32 universities he deemed "elite," Democratic professors and administrators outnumbered Republican colleagues by a ratio of more than 10 to 1.

He says he took a lot of time crafting his bill of rights so that it would protect faculty members and students who hold views across the political spectrum. Practically, though, most of the students and politicians who are backing such legislation are Republicans who complain of liberal bias on campuses.

As viewpoint-neutral as Mr. Horowitz's proposal may be, some argue that the principles it lays out are likely to give other conservative activists and lawmakers ammunition to push more-controversial plans in the name of intellectual diversity. For instance, Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argues in this week's Chronicle Review that lawmakers may try to use the goal of ideological balance as a rationale for requiring institutions to hire additional conservative scholars or to monitor students' assigned reading to make sure it is sufficiently "pro-American."

"It is obvious that for Horowitz these are debating points designed to hoist the left by its own petard," writes Mr. Fish, "but the trouble with debating points is that they can't be kept in bounds."

A Matter of Balance

Many university administrators, faculty members, and state lawmakers believe that Mr. Horowitz's plan, or similar proposals, would invite too much meddling by lawmakers in academic matters. Some insist that such legislative efforts might actually hinder debate on campuses and restrict professors' ability to appropriately balance classroom discussions of significant scholarly ideas.

The American Association of University Professors issued a statement saying that Mr. Horowitz's proposal would encourage state and campus officials to exert oversight on faculty members on academic matters rather than trust their professional judgment. The group took specific exception to language in the proposal that would encourage institutions to make faculty employment decisions "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives."

"The danger of such guidelines is that they invite diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession," the statement reads. For example, it said, a political-theory department might be required to hire a professor espousing Nazi philosophy if a college were forced to provide a real "plurality of methodologies and perspectives" in its academic courses.

Mr. Horowitz argues that the group has misread his proposal, and that it clearly states that professors' independence should be protected. He says he wants to promote "intellectual diversity," not "political pluralism."

"Political balance implies political interference (to correct any imbalance)," he wrote to the AAUP. "By contrast, intellectual diversity calls for intellectual standards to replace the existing political ones."

Political bias, rather than academic standards, has driven too many decisions by professors and other people on campuses, he says, citing a course in "Modern Industrial Societies" that he sat in on at Bates College a few years ago. The sole text, he says, was a 500-page document, put together by editors of the New Left Review, that included only Marxist views.

In a letter to the editor of the Web site Salon, which ran an article about Mr. Horowitz's visit to Bates, the professor, Kiran Asher, replied that the text that Mr. Horowitz complained about included "serious engagement of such conservative icons" as Francis Fukuyama. Ms. Asher, who is no longer at Bates, added that she also required her students to read The Economist, which she called "not exactly a bastion of leftist doctrine."

Colorado at Center Stage

Across the country, college students who hold conservative views are coming forward with dozens of reports of incidents in which they assert that professors treated them differently than their more-liberal peers. On Web sites that collect such anecdotes and in other forums, the students tell stories of faculty members who made demeaning jokes about Republicans and spent class time urging students to protest the war in Iraq. Some of the students expressed the belief that their conservative opinions, no matter how well argued, have resulted in low grades. Others describe reading lists that include controversial material that is unrelated to the subject matter.

Much of the debate in the past several months has centered in Colorado. State Sen. John Andrews, president of the chamber, who surveyed the state's public colleges about their policies, says he has long been concerned about bias against conservative students and faculty members. After reviewing the colleges' policies on academic freedom, he concluded that they are well established but that the procedures for filing complaints are "more ragged" and not well known to students.

Following up, State Rep. Shawn Mitchell, a Republican, introduced legislation last month that would require the governing boards of public colleges in Colorado to create and make known a process for students to challenge any discrimination they experience because of their political beliefs.

The proposal also would amend Colorado's existing "bill of rights" for students by spelling out the protections against political discrimination that students should be guaranteed. The legislation requires, among other things, that students' grades be unaffected by their political or religious views, that professors refrain from introducing controversial topics unrelated to their courses, and that student fees be distributed among campus groups only on a viewpoint-neutral basis.

"This isn't about stifling political debate," Mr. Mitchell says. "It's about allowing political debate and trying to create a fair environment for everyone."

Some members of Colorado's legislature, however, say legislation to reaffirm the political rights of students isn't high on their agendas.

"There are some huge challenges facing Colorado's higher-education system; this isn't one of them," says State Rep. Andrew Romanoff, a Democrat who is minority leader in the House of Representatives. "I haven't heard from any of my constituents who have identified the liberal-college conspiracy as a problem worth our time."

Instead, he says, his colleagues should focus on improving high-school graduation rates and college participation among Colorado residents, and providing more money for financial aid.

Robert Nero, spokesman for the University of Colorado System, argues that the legislation is unnecessary because the institution has adequate policies to protect students, and that it would be "demoralizing to the faculty."

Administrators also believe it would be harder to draw top scholars to Colorado if the legislation passed, he says, because it would appear that lawmakers were "micromanaging" university affairs.

Mr. Horowitz acknowledges that involving lawmakers was not his first choice as a tactic for raising the issue of bias on campuses. But he decided to take that approach, he says, after public-university officials in various states failed to adopt stronger policy statements about the issue.

"I at least wanted to open the discussion," he says, arguing that his proposed legislation would make a difference in protecting students. "You can tell," he says, "by the resistance."

Campaigns on Campuses

As Mr. Horowitz works to drum up support, students on some campuses are taking their own actions. Student-government leaders at Occidental College, Utah State University, and Wichita State University have adopted a "Student Bill of Rights" modeled after Mr. Horowitz's.

At the University of Colorado at Boulder, the College Republicans last month placed a form on their Web site for students to report experiences of bias based on political beliefs. The group says it wants to use the stories to help demonstrate the extent of the discrimination they see on the campus as they talk with state lawmakers and university administrators.

One Boulder student who has filed a complaint through the Web site is Meaghan McCarty, a junior. In her "Social Problems" class, she says, the professor would often speak over her and try to discredit her arguments during class discussions of issues like poverty. When she raised her concerns with the professor after class, Ms. McCarty says, he told her that no one agreed with her, and that she should consider taking a course with a more conservative professor. Ms. McCarty's professor could not be reached for comment.

"I'm not here for my views to be popular," Ms. McCarty says. But "it goes too far when a professor starts to stifle students' own thoughts. There should be less of their own opinion and more facts from both perspectives."

While many professors agree that courses should include healthy debates, some worry that legislation aimed at protecting students from political bias would place too much emphasis on simply balancing facts in course material.

"Learning is simply more than facts," says Mr. Wilson, the Duke professor. "What we need is intelligent discourse on these kinds of things. To do that, we should have flexibility and freedom."

But students who support Mr. Horowitz's campaign argue that his bill of rights seeks to foster just the kind of wide-ranging discourse that Mr. Wilson seeks, by protecting the expression of more viewpoints.

"When students like myself feel alienated, that drastically compromises the educational environment," says Mr. Miller, the Duke freshman. "We need a completely, utterly, entirely unbiased pursuit of knowledge."

As part of a national effort to protect students with unpopular political views from discrimination on campuses, the group Students for Academic Freedom is collecting anecdotes from students who believe they have been treated unfairly. The group's Web site (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org) contains an "Academic Freedom Complaint Form." It lists several ways in which, the group believes, students' academic freedom can be violated, including:

* Requiring readings or texts that cover only one side of an issue.
* Gratuitously singling out political or religious beliefs for ridicule.
* Introducing controversial material that is unrelated to the subject.
* Forcing students to express a certain point of view in assignments.
* Mocking national political or religious figures.
* Conducting political activities in class (e.g., recruiting for demonstrations).
* Allowing students' political or religious beliefs to influence grading.
* Using university funds to hold one-sided, partisan teach-ins or conferences.

Following are excerpts from the "principles and procedures" that the Academic Bill of Rights says universities should follow. The full text of the proposed code is available online at http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

* All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.
* No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
* students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
* Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
* Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
'selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
* An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
'... Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

Professor Ripston
 By: Andrew Jones
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, August 16, 2002

It is a rare conservative UCLA student who would willingly take a class in which the professor's second job is executive director of the Southern California ACLU. But I did just that and my reason was a simple one: I needed the class credit. "Can Law Change Society?" fulfilled the requirement for my American politics concentration in the political science major, and it was the only one still open. In the end, I endured the ten weeks, and observed just how political the already heavily politicized (and uniformly left-wing) courses in UCLA's curriculum could be.

It was clear by the end of the first lecture that our professor, Ramona Ripston, was there not to teach, but to recruit us for her causes. Like too many UCLA professors, Ripston could never be bothered to treat with respect both sides of a debate or allow students to make up their own minds. This was either a function of her disrespect for the intelligence of her students, or an unintentional acknowledgement that many liberal arguments can't withstand scrutiny. Instead of presenting a spectrum of opinion or soliciting student inputs, she ruthlessly controlled the class debate, using the power of her position to dismiss any opposition that might surface.

Ripston expected students to agree with her position on the day's topic and they almost always obliged. Abortion? Great! Proposition 209 (Ward Connerly's anti-racial preferences initiative): Bad! Dissent was rare. When someone did disagree, another student could be counted on to adopt a hurt expression, and whine, "As a member of (insert aggrieved minority group here), I feel hurt by your remarks. I can't believe that you're allowed to say those things out loud." To which Ripston would cry encouragingly "Did everyone hear that?" (No doubt this encouraged such responses.) Strong counter-arguments to her personal views - and the lesson for the day was always about her personal views - would receive only a curt nod and a quick return to the prevailing liberal dittoism.

The best example of the group-think Ripston pushed in class was a venomous anecdote she told about Chief Justice William Rehnquist. She informed her students of exactly one thing about the most important judge in America - that in 1952, as a young law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson, he drafted a memo on Brown v. Board of Education holding that Plessy v. Ferguson is "right and should be affirmed." This issue was brought up by the left and dismissed in both his 1971 confirmation hearings and those for his elevation to Chief Justice in 1986. As a law clerk, Rehnquist was drafting the opinion based on Jackson's feelings, which did not represent his own. Yet half a century later, Ripston revived this false and discredited allegation and slander and presented it as fact. Ripston repeated the story in the class not once, but on three separate occasions. By the term's end, members of the class could repeat back the tale from memory, to her glowing approval.

Some students later criticized her approach in their course evaluations - one noting that "She always says she is very open and liberal but she turns out to be the most close-minded professor I know, which affects the grading a lot!" Most students have unfortunately stopped thinking critically, or at least letting on that they think critically. They found out years ago that a "go along, get along" philosophy, not analytical engagement, is the key to UCLA success.

An integral part of Ripston's indoctrination involved importing guest lecturers from her ACLU office. It was an attempt to provide a facade of intellectual variety - but in the end, one song sung by different voices is still the same tune. Her first guest was her husband - technically her fifth - Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Stephen Reinhardt, identified by the Weekly Standard as "one of the most overturned judges in history." His was the second vote in the recent decision which found the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Not coincidentally, Reinhardt's biggest foe in the Supreme Court turned out to be Chief Justice Rehnquist - the man his wife relished bashing. In his presentation, Reinhardt first analogized the Florida court case Bush v. Gore to Plessy v. Ferguson. He subsequently implied that due to the Rehnquist Court, we live in a police state with no right to resist arrest or search of our possessions.

Reinhardt then provided unintended comedy for a few of us with his contention that the reputation of rampant liberalism in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was a myth. Self-reflection is clearly not the strong suit of liberals like Reinhardt whom even the Los Angeles Times referred to as "the most liberal judge on the circuit." Like his wife, Reinhardt showed no inclination to present a second side to any question. In his mind, the 2000 presidential election was illegitimately settled by thuggish Republicans who instigated a riot at the Miami-Dade vote-counting in a desperate attempt to head off a certain victory by Gore. And the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case on a writ of certiorari? No Supreme Court scholar ever saw that coming - not a one.

Ripston then invited anti-death penalty activist (and former M*A*S*H* actor) Mike Farrell, but couldn't find an opponent for him (probably because of a dearth of death penalty supporters in the ACLU office). While Farrell made his presentation at the lectern, Ripston passed around a misleading petition for a death penalty moratorium, with students left to decide whether ignoring the petition would affect their grade.

Since nobody else seemed willing to challenge this charade, I broached the subject of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Not only did Farrell stand up for Mumia, but he misrepresented the facts of the case, calling the convicted killer a "journalist" merely "accused" of the crime. The first was at best a misrepresentation, the second blatantly false. When I challenged his claims, Farrell turned, well, feral. "So what's your problem?" he snarled. As I began answering his question, Ripston herself grabbed the microphone to shout hostile questions of her own. In addition to being intolerant, liberals like Ripston seem to be instinctive bullies.

My resolve seemed to affect her however, as though she realized she had stepped too far over the line. Ending our exchange abruptly, she announced that she was in no way endorsing the petition, but had only agreed to distribute it as a favor to a student.

True to the course's spirit, the guest lecturers were all equally partisan and intolerant. There was the presentation on gay/lesbian issues by a left-wing lawyer from Ripston's office actively involved in promoting one side of those issues. This lecturer was followed by another from Stephen Rohde, president of the Southern California ACLU. Dan Tokaji, also from Ripston's office, rounded out the quarter. Ripston's willingness to "reach out" for a diverse group of lecturers was literal - every guest was someone who had walked within arm's length of her desk at the ACLU.

Unfortunately, Ripston's disregard for presenting both sides of an issue is mirrored in many other courses at UCLA. The only question is whether the popularity of this teaching method is the result of intellectual laziness, or is a calculated attempt to manipulate impressionable students in behalf of a liberal agenda. (There are no conservatives to speak of on the UCLA faculty.)

If the guest lectures were bad, the class readings were no better. Racial preferences (always referred to as "affirmative action") and abortion were the issues comprising the first six weeks' reading, and on both the readings reflected the ACLU party line - there's a pressing need for more of both. Ripston put little emphasis on the negative aspects of either issue: the hours of daily busing to achieve "racial balance" of debatable value, or the moral implications of killing an unborn child.

The second half of the class was only marginally better. On racial profiling, she did offer students John Derbyshire's seven-page National Review article "In Defense of Racial Profiling," in a rare gesture of even-handedness. But the "balance" she provided was a 25-page ACLU special report on the subject, replete with graphs and statistical analyses. The reading was intended to produce a simple, manipulated conclusion for students: racial profiling is bad.

As a conservative at a liberal school, I am used to disagreeing with my professors. But this class crossed a line of partisanship that even a department employing only one Republican professor out of forty-seven had so far avoided. In an attempt to work through the system, I decided to make an appeal to department chair Michael Lofchie, to whom I complained about the blatant political agenda of the class.

Lofchie freely admitted that Ripston's class was one-sided, but refused to see that this might present a problem. He dismissed my concerns, remarking that "a professor in a classroom will say things to be provocative, to get students worked up." He further assured me, "We would never monitor a professor's point of view in the classroom." Obviously he doesn't have to, since all but one of his professors is from the left. The faculty search committee, which does the department's hiring, is evidently run by a group imbued with the Ripston educational philosophy - no dissenters allowed. In fact, Lofchie's only regret was that "we just don't have the budget for her." Budgetary issues, not gross abuse of student's academic freedom is the only reason that Ripston will not be returning for the 2002-2003 academic year.

Needless to say, the often abysmal quality of its undergraduate education is not something that UCLA likes to publicize. Instead, the fundraising solicitations, visitor brochures, and press releases by Chancellor Albert Carnesale continue to advertise UCLA's "intellectual rigor." On the other hand, if rigor means indoctrinating captive students in partisan political agendas, then UCLA's educational program is an unqualified success.

Taking On The Neo-Coms, Part I
 By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, May 01, 2003

How to identify the political left? Current usage refers to everyone left of center as "liberal." Yet what are currently identified liberals liberal about except hard drugs and sex? In regard to everything else, they are determined to intervene, regulate and control your life, or redistribute your income. Obviously, when terror-hugging radicals like Ramsey Clark and Communist hacks like Angela Davis are referred to as "liberals" -- as they routinely are -- the obfuscation works to their advantage and against the interests of veracity and democracy. The term "liberal" should be reserved for those who occupy the center of the political spectrum; those to the left should be referred to as leftists, which is what they are.

This is the easy part of rectifying the political lexicon. There is another more difficult aspect, however, which is how to identify the "hard" left, which is to say, those who are dedicated enemies of America and its purposes? In practice, it easy to identify such leftists and it is not difficult to describe them. They are people who identify with hostile regimes like North Korea, Cuba, and China, or -- more commonly -- believe the United States to be the imperialist guardian of a world system that radicals must defeat before they can establish "social justice" on the planet.

Adherents of this anti-American creed variously describe themselves as "Marxists," "anti-globalists," "anti-war activists" or, more generally, "progressives." Their secular worldview holds claims that America is responsible for reaction, oppression, and exploitation across the globe and causes them to regard this country as the moral equivalent of militant Islam's "Great Satan." This explains the otherwise incomprehensible practical alliances that individuals who claim to be avatars of social justice make with Islamo-fascists like Saddam Hussein.

Among the intellectual leaders of this left are Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Edward Said and Cornel West; among its figureheads, Angela Davis and Ramsey Clark; among its cultural icons, Tim Robbins, Barbara Kingsolver, Arundhhti Roy and Michael Moore; among its political leaders, Ralph Nader and the heads of the three major "peace" organizations (Leslie Cagan, Brian Becker and Clark Kissinger); among its electoral organizations, the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party; among its elected officials Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-California) and Congressman Dennis Kucinch (D-Ohio); among its organizations, the misnamed Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild; among its publications and media institutions, The Nation, Z Magazine, The Progressive, Counterpunch, Pacifica radio, Indymedia.org and commondreams.org. Like the Communist Party in the heyday of the Soviet empire, the influence of the hard left --intellectually and organizationally -- extends far beyond the institutions, organizations and publications it controls.

Yet what to call them? One of the hard left's survival secrets has been its ability to embargo attempts to identify it by labeling those who do "red-baiters" and "witch-hunters," as though even to name it is to persecute it. These same people, on the other hand, think nothing of labeling their opponents "racists" and "fascists," or calling the President of the United States a "Nazi" puppet of the oil cartel. Yet their defense strategy is highly effective in the tolerant democracy they are determined to destroy. I myself have been called a "red-baiter" and "McCarthyite" for pointing out that the current "peace" organizations like International ANSWER and Not In Our Name are fronts for the Workers World Party -- a Marxist-Leninist vanguard that identifies with North Korea -- and the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist sect. The facts are obvious and unarguable, but their implications are unpleasant and therefore suspect.

Nothwithstanding this difficulty, a more significant concern is that the term "Communist" in the context of the contemporary left can be misleading. While the Communist Party still exists and is even growing, it is a minor player and enjoys nothing approaching its former influence or power in the left. Even in the hard left, the Communist Party USA is only a constituent part of the whole whereas once, along with its front groups, it dominated progressive politics.

In these circumstances, for reasons I will soon make apparent, the best term to describe this left is "neo-communist," or "neo-coms" for short.

The place to begin an understanding of the neo-coms is the period following 1956, when the left sloughed off its Communist shell and became first a "new left" and then what might be called a "post-new left." In my own writings, particularly Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith I have shown that the "new left," was in reality no such thing. While starting out as a rejection of Stalinism, by the end of the Sixties the "new left" had devolved into a movement virtually indistinguishable from the Communist predecessor it had claimed to reject. This was as true of its Marxist underpinnings, as its anti-Americanism or its indiscriminate embrace of totalitarian revolutions and revolutionaries abroad.

The new left imploded at the end of the Sixties a victim of its own revolutionary enthusiasms, which led it to pursue a violent politics it could not sustain. America's withdrawal from Vietnam in the early Seventies, deprived the left of the immediate pretext for its radical agendas. Many of its cadre retired from the "revolution in the streets" they had tried to launch and entered the Democratic Party. Others turned to careers in journalism and teaching, the professions of choice for secular missionaries. Still others took up local agitations and discrete campaigns in behalf of saving the environment, feminist issues and gay rights -- without giving up their radical illusions. In the 1980s, spurred by the Soviet-sponsored "nuclear freeze" campaign and by the "solidarity" movements for Communist forces in Central America, the left began to regroup without formally announcing its re-emergence or proclaiming a new collective identity as its Sixties predecessor had done.

At the end of the decade, the collapse of the Soviet empire ushered in an interregnum of confusion for the left, calling a temporary halt to this radical progress. In the Soviet debacle "revolutionary" leftists confronted the catastrophic failure of everything they had believed and fought for during the previous 70 years. Even those radicals who recognized the political failures of the Soviet regime, believe in what Trotksy had called "the gains of October" -- the superior forces of socialist production. But the leftist faith proved impervious to this rebuttal by historical events. Insulated by its religious devotion to the progressive idea, the left survived the refutation of its socialist dreams. Instead of acknowledging their wrongheaded commitment to the socialist cause, they looked on the demise of what they had once hailed as "the first socialist state," as no more than an albatross that providence had lifted from their shoulders.

In short, having defended the indefensible for 70 years, they were suddenly relieved that they would no longer have to defend it. Turning their backs on their own past, they pretended it was someone else's. They said, "The collapse of socialism doesn't prove anything because it wasn't real socialism. Real socialism hasn't been tried." This subterfuge rescued them from having to make apologies for abetting regimes that had killed tens of millions and enslaved tens of millions more. Broken eggs with no omelet to show for it -- not a workable socialist result. Better yet, there was no need to acknowledge that the country whose efforts they had opposed and whose actions they had condemned had liberated a billion people from the most oppressive empire the world had ever seen. They had no need for second thoughts about what they had done. They just went on to the next destruction, the newest incarnation of the radical cause.

This act of cosmic bad faith was the foundation of the left's revival in the decade that followed. It was the necessary premise of its re-emergence as leader of the anti-globalization and "antiwar" movements that came at the end of the Nineties and the beginning of the millennium. The hard left was now ready to resurrect its internal war against America at home and abroad.

If one looks at almost any aspect of this left -- its self-identified intellectual lineage (Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, Fanon, Gramsci -- in sum, the totalitarian tradition), its analytic model (hierarchy and oppression), its redemptive agenda (social justice as state-enforced leveling) and its enemies -- imperialist America and the American "ruling class" -- one would be hard put to find a scintilla of difference with the Communist past. Of course leftists themselves will have none of this. Most of them will proclaim their anti-Stalinism (even as they embrace its practices); and will not defend the Communist systems that have in any case collapsed. But so what? The Soviet rulers denounced Stalin. Were they any less Communists for that?

It seems appropriate, therefore, to call the unreconstructed hard-liners, "neo-communists" --a term that accurately identifies their negative assaults on American capitalism and their anti-American "internationalist" agendas. It may be objected that the term "neo-communist" does not describe a group, which itself identifies with the term, but then neither does "neo-conservative." There is, for example, no current movement calling itself "neo-conservative," nor do the individuals so designated refer to their own ideas as "neo-conservative." "Neo-conservative" is, in fact, a label that was imposed by the left on a group of former Democrats, loosely grouped around Senator "Scoop" Jackson who left the party fold at the end of the Seventies to join and support the Reagan Administration. It was accepted out of necessity for a while, because the left so dominates the political culture that resisting it was futile. But it is no longer used by neo-conservatives because, as Norman Podhoretz long ago observed, "neo-conservatism" is indistinguishable from conservatism itself. No "neo-conservative" that I am aware of has challenged Podhoretz's conclusion. Yet others insist on describing conservatives -- particularly those whom they regard as "hard-line" conservatives -- with this label. If the "neo" shoe can be made to fit conservatives, why not the hard-line left?

David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center (http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/) and author of the new book, One Party Classroom (http://www.amazon.com/One-Party-Classroom-Professors-Indoctrinate-Undermine/dp/0307452557).

Taking on the Neo-Coms, Part II
By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, May 02, 2003

I have argued that the contemporary left, which opposed the American war and opposes the America peace, which denounces American corporations and the global capitalist system, should be called "neo-communist," a term to denote anti-American leftists who demonize the American economic system and identify it as a "root cause" of global problems. An objection to the term is that some members of this left -- perhaps many -- no longer advocate a Communist future sensu strictu. Many in fact call themselves anarchists and would be eager to denounce (costless as that might be now) the late Soviet state.

I have already provided one answer to this objection. There is no group that identifies its politics as "neo-conservative," either. There are no "neo-conservative" organizations (official or unofficial) and there is no "neo-conservative" policy or plan. Yet there is little objection to the use of "neo-conservative" to describe what others consider a readily identifiable political position.

The resistance to the term "neo-communist," derives from a misunderstanding of the nature of a political left that is proud of its Communist heritage -- gulags aside -- (as this left mainly is) and still clings to socialist "solutions" and the revolutionary idea (as this left mainly does). There are always (and inevitably) two sides to the revolutionary coin. The first is negative and destructive, since it is necessary first to undermine the beliefs, values and institutions of the old order which must be destroyed before a new one can be established. The second is positive and utopian, a vision of the future that condemns the present and encapsulates the idea of a redemptive fate.

For half a century now, ever since Khrushchev's revelations about the crimes of Stalin, the left has been exclusively driven by its negative agendas. (This has become even more the case since the pathetic implosion of the socialist system.) Leaders of the contemporary left have put forward no serious plans for the post-capitalist future. More importantly, none of the energies that drive them are inspired by such plans. The left's inspirations are mainly negative and nihilistic, and have been so for nearly fifty years.

For even in its innocent beginnings, the new left defined itself by negatives, as "anti-anti Communist." It was a "new" left because it did not want to identify with communism. But it also did not want to oppose Communism either, because then it would have had to support America's Cold War. "Anti-anti Communism" was the code for its anti-Americanism. What the left wanted was to oppose America and its "sham democracy."

There is a sense, of course, in which the left has always been defined by its destructive agendas. Its utopian vision was just that -- utopian, a vision of nowhere. In practice, socialism didn't work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy. In the vast library of socialist theory (and in all of Marx's compendious works), there is hardly a chapter devoted to the creation of wealth -- to what will cause human beings to work and to innovate, and to what will make their efforts efficient. Socialism is a plan of morally sanctioned theft. It is about dividing up what others have created. Consequently, socialist economies don't work; they create poverty instead of wealth. This is unarguable historical fact now, but that has not prompted the left to have second thoughts.

Because its positive agendas are unworkable, to characterize the left by its negative critiques and destructive agendas is perfectly appropriate; everything else, everything it claims to intend, everything it does in fact intend is so much utopian air.

In a previous, article titled, "Neo-Communism: The Forty Years War," I identified several exemplars of the neo-communist left, one of whom has since responded. Maurice Zeitlin is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the co-author of a faculty resolution condemning the United States' liberation of Iraq -- after the fact. Because the resolution was drafted and passed after the liberation of Baghdad its agendas are clearly aimed at America and not the reality in Iraq.

I have known Maurice Zeitlin for more than forty years since we were both new left radicals in the Sixties. In my article, I pointed out that Zeitlin, speaking at an academic conference, had recently hailed the late Cuban Communist, Che Guevara, as "a leader of the first socialist revolution in this hemisphere." He had also said, "[Guevara's] legacy is embodied in the fact that Cuban revolution is alive today despite the collapse of the Soviet bloc," and also that, "No social justice is possible without a vision like Che's."[1] I concluded that it was Zeitlin's neo-communist agenda, and not any specifics of the war that had inspired the post-hoc UCLA faculty resolution against the U.S. action.

Zeitlin has responded to this article in a terse and angry email, which he sent to my assistant, Elizabeth Ruiz, referring to me in the third person. This email affords a further look into the mind of the neo-communist left.

In my article I had mentioned that Zeitlin and Robert Scheer, an L.A. Times columnist with similar politics, had written one of the first books celebrating the Communist revolution in Cuba. In his email Zeitlin is irritated because I didn't mention in the article that I had edited this book. ("You can tell Davey for me that he might have mentioned in this column that he edited the book by myself and Scheer on Cuba -- and we thanked him in the acknowledgments.")Zeitlin appared to think that this fact implicated me in his radical politics in a way I had not already written about in my autobiography Radical Son. He continues: "To think that I saved him from an enraged audience and protected his right to speak at the LA Times Festival of Books a few years ago."[2] I have also written about this incident. "Saved" is a little over the top for the remarks Zeitlin made in defense of my right to express myself. Book readers are not the most violent of audiences and in any case the event was being televised on C-Span. The point Zeitlin seems to want to make is that since he defended my free speech at UCLA, he cannot be called a "neo-communist."

Why not? Didn't Communists defend the principle of free speech in America when they stood up to Senator McCarthy? Communists are great defenders of freedom in the democracies they want to overthrow. It enhances their powers to subvert the system. Didn't Lenin himself defend the right to vote in democratic Russia before abolishing it as soon as he took power?

In the second brief paragraph of his email, Zeitlin makes his objection clearer, and makes explicit the defense of good intentions: "[David] knows damn well that I have long opposed execrable regimes like Hussein's, years before, indeed, Bush even knew who Hussein was. He also knows that I wrote severe criticisms of the restrictions on rights in revolutionary Cuba in Ramparts, when he was its very editor and still gung ho for Fidel;?"

This cri de coeur begs the most important question: What does it mean to oppose Saddam Hussein's "execrable regime" and at the same time oppose the effort to change it? Or to condemn the regime change after the fact when Iraqis are rejoicing in the streets? What are intentions worth when actions contradict them? Are Zeitlin's critiques of Castro harsher than Khrushchev's criticisms of Stalin? Did Khrushchev cease to be a Communist because he criticized Stalin? Zeitlin's attempt at self-exculpation does not provide answers.

Zeitlin was indeed critical of the Cuban revolutionary regime, and was critical even earlier than he indicates. He is correct as well that as a fellow leftist I did not want to see such criticisms aired. (However I would not describe myself at the time as exactly "gung ho for Fidel). The fact is that I published his critique. But Zeitlin could have cited a much more impressive instance of his new left independence from the Communist past.

In 1960, long before the creation of Ramparts, Zeitlin had visited Cuba and interviewed Che Guevara, who was then the second most powerful man in the dictatorship. We published the interview in the first issue of our Berkeley magazine, Root and Branch, which one of the political journals that launched the new left (Robert Scheer was also an editor). The rest of us were both shocked and impressed when we read the interview and realized what Maurice had done.

He had not just interviewed Guevara, already a radical legend. He had challenged Guevara's policies and in effect called into question his revolutionary credentials. Maurice had asked Guevara about the role he thought the trade unions should play in a socialist country, specifically Cuba. Should they be independent -- as new left socialists like us wanted -- or would they be appendages of the state, as Lenin and Stalin had made them? Maurice reminded Guevara that the elimination of independent unions, the organizations after all of the revolutionary class, had paved the way for the Soviet gulag. Guevara was angered by the question and by Maurice's temerity in raising the question, would not criticize the Soviets and abruptly changed the subject.

Zeitlin had put Guevara to the test and Guevara had failed. The interview revealed that Guevara was a Stalinist himself. We all recognized the significance of what he had said. Yet to our shame, we continued to support the Cuban regime anyway, knowing that it was destined to be a totalitarian gulag -- because that was the intention of its creators. Maurice did write a subsequent critique for Ramparts. But like us, he continued to support the regime and to attack the United States and its efforts to restore freedom to Cuba. Later, when I had second thoughts about my political commitments and left the political left and comrades like Maurice Zeitlin, I wrote about my regrets for defending a regime that has become the most sadistic dictatorship in Latin American history. Except for Ronald Radosh and other "second thoughters" who have also turned their backs on the left, I don't know of any new radicals who have done the same.

The left's silence over these unforeseen consequences of its political commitments underscores the pitiful impotence and ultimate irrelevance of good intentions however good they may be. What does it matter that we wanted to create a "new" left or a "democratic socialism," if we did not put our actions behind these desires, if we did not apply the same standards of judgment (and action) for socialist tyrannies as we did for others? What were our "critiques" worth if we were prepared to continue our support for such regimes, or to remain part of a movement that actually defended them? What are Zeitlin's critiques worth if he preserves the myth of Che's leadership and the viability of the socialist idea?

Forty years later, the results of our defense of the Cuban revolution are indisputable. Cuba is an island prison, a land of regime-induced poverty, misery and human oppression (greater by far than the old regime it replaced). Yet despite his criticisms, Maurice Zeitlin is still defending the Cuban "revolution" -- along with its patron saint, Che Guevara. As a UCLA professor he is now teaching a new generation of college students who have no memory of this past to idolize the Communist predator he criticized forty years before, calling him an inspiration for the future! ("No social justice is possible without a vision like Che's.") In view of this record, what do Zeitlin's parenthetical condemnations and critical asides matter?

Zeitlin's political career reminds me of a short story by Irwin Shaw titled, "The Ninety-Yard Run," about a college football star who makes a ninety-yard run in his senior college year, which turns out to be the high point of his life. It's down hill all the way for him from there.

In defining the term "neo-communist" as applied to leftists like Zeitlin, I was careful to be specific. I defined a neo-communist as "a political radical and a determined opponent of America and its capitalist democracy." What I had in mind in this description was not just a political outlook, but an outlook reflecting a profound feeling of alienation from America and a hostility towards it that only someone who was or had been a radical himself could really understand.

In attempting to describe this attitude, I have elsewhere employed as an example a line we once used in Ramparts magazine, the flagship publication of the new left. On the cover of our issue we had placed a photograph of a seven-year-old holding the flag of the Communist enemy in Vietnam. The cover line said, "Alienation is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win."[3] That was the way we felt, and we felt that way because our outlook had led us to look at the United States as the imperialist leader of world reaction, which meant that anything that caused America's defeat would be a benefit to mankind.

In the 1980s, I was provided a personal insight into Maurice Zeitlin's own profound alienation from his country -- a country that had provided him intellectual freedom, a six-figure income, and opportunities to travel all over the world doing research and writing Marxist tracts at American taxpayers' expense. When the incident in question occurred, I had not seen Maurice nor heard from him in more than twenty years, since our days together in the radical Sixties. I had no idea whether he had had second thoughts like mine or whether he was still on the left. Our paths crossed, so to speak, because of a newspaper report about another Sixties radical named Margaret Randall who was applying for the reinstatement of her American citizenship. She was supported by a chorus of radicals, who claimed that in resisting her request the State Department was trampling on her civil rights.

This news item so outraged me that I promptly wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Times urging the authorities to deny her request. The reason Randall no longer had her citizenship was that she had joined a movement of local terrorists in Mexico City who were attempting to obstruct the 1968 Olympic games. When the street battles were over and many lay dead, she publicly renounced her American citizenship and attacked her homeland as a "fascist" state. She then went to live in Communist Cuba and work as a teacher, indoctrinating Cuban schoolchildren in the Communist creed. In my letter to the Times, I urged officials to demand that Randall apologize to her country before returning to her the citizenship she had renounced. Being an American, in my view, meant accepting a social contract that included a commitment to democracy and individual freedom. I thought Randall should be treated like a new citizen-applicant, and required to make a formal commitment to her country and its principles before being receiving her citizenship back. What is America if it is not a nation of citizens committed to these common ends?

Maurice read my letter to the Los Angeles Times. His reaction, which I learned about through a mutual friend was, "I wonder how low Horowitz will sink next?" This came as a shock to me, because I remembered Maurice's bold defense of freedom to Che Guevara years before, and was unaware of his political evolution since. This remark told me more about Maurice's political commitments than I wanted to hear.

The purpose of the term "neo-communist" is to identify a segment of the left that regards the United States as the root cause of international evil because it is the guardian of the international property system. In the eyes of radicals, this makes America the bulwark of the prevailing system of "social injustice" in the world. These propositions have profound implications for one's political loyalties and commitments, and explain how individuals who claim to honor peace, justice, equality and freedom, can interpose themselves between America and a fascist like Saddam Hussein.

In my previous article on this subject, I referred to Nicholas DeGenova, the Columbia professor who recently made himself notorious at an "antiwar" teach-in by wishing for "a million Mogadishus" -- a million American military defeats. The outrage at his remarks was a response to the image of American troop casualties. But this was to miss the forest for the trees. As DeGenova himself explained in defending his remarks afterwards, what he meant was not that a lot of Americans should be killed (the left always imagines it can separate support for America's troops from support for America's wars) but that a defeat for America would be a victory for humanity. This is the way DeGenova put it:

What I was really emphasizing in the larger context of my comments was the question of Vietnam and that historical lesson'.What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam is that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination. [4]

 DeGenova might have added "for social justice."

This is the essence of the neo-communist vision. It explains how leftists like Maurice Zeitlin can condemn America's liberation of Iraq, despite the fact that they recognize that Iraq's regime is "execrable" and that the Iraqi people have been freed from a tyranny. "The analogy between Mogadishu and Vietnam," DeGenova elaborates, "is that they were defeats for U.S. imperialism'. The analogy between Mogadishu and Iraq is simply that there was an invasion of Somalia and there was an invasion of Iraq."[5]

A key to the mentality of the left is that it judges itself by its best intentions, and judges its opponents -- America chief among them -- by their worst deeds. Or by the fantasies of what their worst deeds might be. By imagining a perfect world of social justice that leftists (unopposed) will surely create, even America's most positive achievements can be made to look bad. If a world can be made in which everyone will be fed and have shelter and medical attention, then the fact that they don't can attributed to America, because America is the guardian of the international "status quo."

Therefore, every good that America has achieved can be seen in its reality -- from the point of view of social justice -- as a social obscenity. It may be the case, for example, that America has raised unprecedented millions out of the ranks of poverty into a comfortable middle-class existence. But a neo-communist sees this achievement as one that is realized at the expense of a million greater achievements. A historical good that America has accomplished is thus turned into a malevolent deprivation or an evil deed. By extension, when the left acts to weaken America or defend America's enemies, it is really advancing the cause of social progress. This is the neo-communist creed.

Therefore, let us call such radicals neo-communists, or neo-coms (or small "c" communists) for short. They are neo-communist because in the past the Communist left was driven by the illusion that the Soviet Union was actually a "workers paradise" and that true socialism had been achieved. Communists who defended Stalin's oppressive state believed that Russia was really a paradigm of human freedom. Consequently, they experienced none of the problems of cognitive dissonance such as their political heirs do today. Neo-communists know the execrable nature of regimes like Iraq's but defend them against American arms nonetheless. Yet, unlike Moscow, Baghdad is not their socialist mecca. In order to sustain their antagonism to America's intervention to liberate Iraq, they must disconnect their intentions from their actions and their actions from the results.

Neo-communists survive on bad faith. In the past, Communists believed in what they did; today, neo-communists justify their deeds by invoking the excuse of good intentions. But isn't this just what all utopians do? If you believe in a future that will redeem mankind, what lie will you not tell, what crime will you not commit to make the future happen? Which is why progressives have committed every crime in the last half century and lied to all, especially themselves. The Communist mantra that "the ends justify the means," is exactly the rationalization that neo-communists use to defend their alliances with reactionary Islamic radicals and fascist regimes. But after all, using good intentions to justify bad deeds is the first requirement of a utopian bad faith.

By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Wars are a test of citizens' loyalty, commitment and political understanding; in providing this test the end of a war can be as illuminating as its beginning. It was a striking fact of the "anti-war" demonstrations against Operation Iraqi Freedom that the left was able to mobilize more protesters in three months -- from the UN deadline of November 7 to the launch of the war in March -- than the new left was able to mobilize in the first six years of the war in Vietnam. (The first of these anti-Vietnam demonstrations, which I helped to organize, took place in June 1962 at the University of California, Berkeley with less than a hundred students.) The same was true of the world wide protests against the war to topple the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Both the rapidity and size of the anti-Iraq mobilization indicate that it was not merely -- and not mainly -- a response to the particular war or the issues that defined it, but the expression of an attitude towards American power itself. Moreover, the same rapid growth of the protests in advance of suitable facts (e.g., the "quagmire" of the Vietnam War, the mounting loss of life without apparent result) indicates that the attitude towards American power is relatively unaffected by the uses to which the power is put. One could see this phenomenon in the demonstrations after 9/11, which mobilized tens of thousands of American college students before America lifted a finger in response. The purpose of the demonstrations was to protest any military response America might consider to the unprovoked terrorist attack.

The same attitude was manifest in an event that took place when the military phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom had been concluded, that is, after the regime in Bagdhad had been swiftly toppled with limited casualties and no significant reaction from the "Arab street." In April, 2003, less than a week after United States and British forces had liberated Iraq, and after the victors had opened Saddam's prisons, dismantled the torture chambers, shipped vast quantities of food and medicine to the Iraqi population and had begun to assemble the first Iraq regime in history that would not be a monarchy or military junta, or a fascist dictatorship and chamber of horrors -- at this very moment -- the faculty senate of the University of California, Los Angeles voted to "condemn" the "United States invasion of Iraq." The extraordinary session was convened just for the purpose of expressing the condemnation. The vote was 180-7 in favor, as though in the university such an extremist view was merely conventional wisdom.

The professors also voted to "deplore the doctrine of preventive war the President has used to justify the invasion"[1][1] and to "oppose the establishment of the American protectorate in Iraq," even though the President actually justified Iraq's liberation under U.N. Resolution 1441 (which had called on the regime to disarm immediately) and no American "protectorate" was ever contemplated.

In other words, 95% of the faculty senate of one of America's most prestigious academic institutions are of the view -- without any visible evidence to support that view -- that their own country is a dangerous, imperialistic aggressor, bent on acquiring control of a sovereign nation. They did this in the face of many contrary facts. This was a war that had already demonstrated that not even the Iraqi army or its elite Republican Guard had the will to defend its dictator and that the Iraqi people who warmly welcomed the "invading" troops, considered the Americans and the British to be their liberators.

The co-author of the UCLA resolution, Professor Maurice Zeitlin, is a leftist I happen to have known for forty years since the moment we both arrived at the University of California to pursue graduate studies at the beginning of the Sixties. Zeitlin was a Marxist (like myself) and in 1961 published one of the first books hailing the triumph of the Communist revolution in Cuba.[2][2] In October 1997, Zeitlin spoke at a UCLA symposium on 20th Century utopias invoking the dead guerrilla Che Guevara, who had once attempted to incite an international civil war, calling for the creation of "Two, three, -- many Vietnams." Zeitlin declared his continuing faith in the cause that Guevara symbolized: "Che [Guevara] was above all a revolutionary socialist and a leader of the first socialist revolution in this hemisphere. His legacy is embodied in the fact that Cuban revolution is alive today despite the collapse of the Soviet bloc? No social justice is possible without a vision like Che's."[3][3]

In other words, for forty years, the co-author of UCLA's anti-Iraq resolution has remained a small "c" communist, or -- as I prefer -- a "Neo-communist," by which I mean a political radical and a determined opponent of America and its capitalist democracy. The UCLA resolution is an expression of those commitments rather than a reaction to a particular policy or war.

The faculty resolution at UCLA echoed an equally illuminating event weeks earlier at a Columbia University "teach-in" (a mode of protest invented in the Sixties). During this anti-war protest led by 30 members of the Columbia faculty, one of the professors, Nicholas DeGenova declared that every honest opponent of the Iraq War should want America to lose, and that for his own part he wished for "a million Mogadishus." (DeGenova was referring to a 1993 incident in which 18 American soldiers were killed in an al-Qaeda ambush in Somalia.[4][4]) The negative reaction to DeGenova's statement was so strong that the Columbia organizers, led by Eric Foner, the leftist chairman of Columbia's leftist History Department, immediately distanced themselves from DeGenova's image. In Foner's words, "We do not desire the deaths of American soldiers."

The immediate effect of Foner's gesture was to obscure how universally DeGenova's actual view of the war -- which led to the impolitic remark -- was shared by those present, including Foner himself.

This was made apparent when DeGenova subsequently attempted to explain himself in an interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education.[5][5] In the interview, DeGenova categorically denied that he wanted American soldiers to die, and explained why he had referred to Mogadishu in the context of Iraq: "I was referring to what Mogadishu symbolizes politically. The U.S. invasion of Somalia was humiliated [sic] in an excruciating way by the Somali people. And Mogadishu was the premier symbol of that."

DeGenova's comment is virtually identical to the reaction of Noam Chomsky to the attacks of 9/11.[6][6] Chomsky is an intellectual leader of the anti-war left who has written a book with these reflections that has sold over 200,000 copies. In Chomsky's view, the World Trade Center deaths were regrettable but the unprecedented humiliation of the imperialist power -- America -- was an historic victory for social justice and human progress.[7][7]

In the Chronicle interview, DeGenova explained that at Columbia he had also drawn an analogy between Mogadishu and the "historical lesson" of Vietnam. "What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam [was] that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination."

DeGenova did not explain how the slaughter of two-and-a-half million Cambodians and a hundred thousand Vietnamese by the Communist victors after America's defeat, let alone the colonization of South Vietnam and Cambodia by the Hanoi regime was a triumph of self-determination. But he did elaborate on the present relevance of the historical distortion. "The analogy between Mogadishu and Vietnam is that they were defeats for U.S. imperialism'. The analogy between Mogadishu and Iraq is simply that there was an invasion of Somalia and there was an invasion of Iraq."

Of course, there was no invasion of Somalia -- U.S. troops were not sent to Mogadishu on a military mission but to feed starving Somali Muslims. The military engagement was triggered because a local al-Qaeda warlord, named Aidid, was stealing the food before it reached the Somali people and the Americans were sent to try to capture the thief.

It is safe to say that not a single protester at the Columbia event nor a single signer of the UCLA resolution nor many of the 14,000 professors who signed a protest petition against the war would disagree with DeGenova's reading of this history of Vietnam, Mogadishu and Iraq.

This is confirmed in a representative anti-war declaration by Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire and four other schools,[8][8] and a signer of the leftwing professors' petition. Klare is also a regular contributor to The Nation where he was an apologist for Soviet expansion and a staunch opponent of American policy during the Cold War.

More than a month before the hostilities began in Iraq, Klare wrote an article for The Nation titled, "Resist War and Empire." While the UN inspectors were conducting their searches, while the world was waiting to see if Saddam Hussein would disarm, while the Russians were attempting to get Saddam to step down, and before a single shot had been fired or troop deployed, Klare issued this clarion call: "The peace movement must prepare itself to conduct a long-term struggle against the Administration's imperial designs in the gulf. These plans must be exposed for what they are: a classic appropriation of political power and material goods (especially petroleum) by material force masquerading as a campaign for democracy." Vladimir Lenin could not have chosen his words more appropriately.

What the prologue to the war and its aftermath reveal is that the facts of the war are not the issue for the "anti-war" left and neither is the war itself. The so-called "anti-war" left is a Neo-communist movement that was launched forty years ago under the pretense of being a "new left," and it has been at war with the "American empire" ever since. During these years of struggle with Communists in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America, and in the aftermath of America's liberation of a billion inhabitants of the Communist empire, this left has been impervious to every good deed America has done and every bad deed its Marxist and now Islamo-fascist enemies have committed. Instead, this "antiwar" left relentlessly attributes the bad deeds of America's enemies to America itself -- hence the search for "root causes" every time America is attacked.

The Neo-communist left opposes America's efforts to promote freedom and supports (sometimes "critically") America's declared enemies not because of what America does, but because of what they think America is. The Neo-communist left is impervious to facts because it is a political messianism, in essence a religious movement. Its delusions of social redemption are fed on a rich diet of anti-American myths. These myths were once generated in institutions funded by the Communist Party and other marginal radical sects. But that has all changed with the long march of the left during the last thirty years through America's institutions of higher learning. The Neo-communist left is now entrenched on the faculties of America's elite universities, where it is a "hegemonic" force. It has converted America's elite universities into a political base for its radical and anti-American agendas. In the present war with radical Islam, this poses a problem Americans can continue to ignore only at their own peril, and which sooner or later they must address.

An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal
By Linda Chavez

     I grew up in a working-class home, the daughter of a Mexican-American house painter, believing that disadvantaged students deserved a chance at a college education even if their grades and test scores didn't measure up to the usual admissions standards. When I entered the University of Colorado in 1965, there were no affirmative-action programs to assist me, but by the time I was a graduate student at the University of California in Los Angeles in 1970, such programs had proliferated. Initially, I thought that affirmative action would extend a helping hand to those who might not otherwise learn about available opportunities and might lack the skills to be able to compete for them.

     I would soon learn, however, that affirmative action could be a double-edged sword, even for its intended beneficiaries. My experiences as a grad student at UCLA would profoundly influence not just my personal life but the role I would play in public policy in years to come.

     About a week before my classes at the university were to begin, I received a telegram from the university asking me to contact the "High Potential Program" immediately. In addition to the regular affirmative-action program on the campus, UCLA had set up a special program for young black and brown men coming out of prison, admitting dozens of felons as students.

     I was assigned to teach two classes: a composition class made up of Chicano men in the ex-offender program, and another class that was essentially a reading discussion group made up of regular HPP students.

     There were eight men in the composition class, most of whom were a good deal older than I. Their spelling and grammar were atrocious, and they had great fun at my expense. They took every chance to embarrass me, and I soon found out that open-ended writing assignments usually turned into fantasies of what they would like to do to me if they could get me alone sometime. Not quite knowing how to handle the situation, I decided to correct the spelling and syntax and return the papers with a note suggesting the writers ought to learn how to spell the sex acts they described. I also decided to forgo the short skirts and hip-hugger slacks then in fashion in favor of more conservative dress, but I often felt vulnerable when the classroom door closed and I faced the group of sometimes leering young men.

     The students in my reading class were less provocative but no less challenging to teach. I had students of all races in the class, including one or two Anglo kids from poor, rural backgrounds; a middle-aged American Indian couple; and several Mexican-American and black students. The Indian couple was heartbreaking. They were the most serious and devoted of any of the students, but they read at a grade-school level. I have often wondered what happened to them, if they made it through four years at one of the best colleges in the country, and if so, whether that said more about the university's indifference to standards than it did about their power to overcome disadvantages.

     The text we used in the class, Mixed Bag: Artifacts from the Contemporary Culture, was typical of the era: hip, multicultural, and interdisciplinary. But I soon found that not only were the selections in the text (everything from Sophocles to Lenny Bruce) way over the heads of most of the kids, but the topics themselves (race, violence, religion, family, and death) provoked anger and hostility among the students. Classroom discussions quickly degenerated into name-calling between groups of students. With no sense of irony and lots of racial grievances, real and perceived, most of the students found it impossible to empathize with characters and situations beyond their own racial experience.

     For example, when one student called me a "honky," the Chicano kids in the class seemed to think the remark was particularly funny. Many came from the barrios of East L.A. and viewed me as an outsider. I talked funny -- "like a gabacho," as one student pointed out, which meant I spoke standard English without an accent. I also used my married name, Gersten, and I didn't speak Spanish -- unlike many of my students who were first-and second-generation Americans.

     But perhaps their reaction had less to do with me personally than it did with the shift taking place in the organized Chicano movement, especially in California, which had become increasingly radicalized as Mexican-American groups joined the antiwar movement and mixed with violent black groups like the Black Panthers for national attention.

     On August 29, 1970, Mexican-Americans rioted in East Los Angeles. The riot erupted during the Chicano Moratorium, a march of more than 20,000 through the streets to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam. It began when police responded to complaints from neighborhood merchants that protesters were stealing from them. The police wielded clubs and set off tear gas into the crowds gathered to hear moratorium speakers. They also shot tear gas into a building where an armed robber had supposedly hidden, and the tear-gas projectile hit a local TV reporter, Ruben Salazar, in the head, killing him instantly.

     Salazar soon became a martyr to many in the Chicano movement who believed he'd been murdered by the LAPD.

     The university's administrators, worried by the unrest in the Mexican-American community, were anxious to demonstrate their sensitivity and good will. In response to student demands, they created courses in Chicano studies in the political-science, history, and sociology departments. They also established a Chicano library, run by a graduate student from Chile. Finally, the English department decided it would offer a sophomore-level "Chicano Literature" course -- but had little idea about what would be taught or who would teach it.

     In 1970 there weren't enough novels, short stories, poems, or essays published by Mexican-American authors to fill a syllabus for a 12-week course. Nor was there anyone on the faculty to teach the course -- especially since MEChA, the Chicano student association, insisted that all of the new Chicano-studies courses had to be taught by Mexican-Americans.

     The English department approached me, since I was the only Mexican-American in their Ph.D. program. Despite my total unfamiliarity with the field, I would be paid as a regular faculty member at the lecturer level -- nearly twice as much as I earned in the High Potential Program for teaching just half as many hours. Plus it would give me another teaching credential, which would make it easier to secure a faculty job once I completed my doctorate.

     I accepted the offer but soon discovered that I had struck no bargain. Nothing I had encountered in my teaching assignments to that point had prepared me for the problems I would face in the classroom that spring.

     I had no real idea what I was doing, and there were few academic resources to draw on. Although a huge body of excellent Latin American literature existed in English translation, the Chicano students wanted a course devoted exclusively to works written by Mexican-American authors. I chose two contemporary novels, City of Night, by John Rechy, and Chicano, by Richard F. Vasquez. Rechy, whose mother was Mexican, was a talented writer, but only the first chapter of his memoir touched on his ethnic background. Though more traditional in its subject matter, Chicano was a second-rate novel in which the heroes were hard-working Mexicans and the villains, hard-hearted Anglos. The plot and characters were better suited to an afternoon soap opera than a college literature class, but it was one of the few novels published by a Mexican-American author at the time. I also assigned Corky Gonzales's poem "I Am Joaquin," an epic about a Mexican "Everyman." In addition, I chose several short stories from a new publication called El Grito. I supplemented the readings with analysis -- such as there was -- of Chicano culture, including books written by non-Mexican-American authors.

     Despite my efforts to give students an authentic Chicano literary experience, the class got off to a bad start and quickly went downhill. When I tried to organize classroom discussions, it became clear that most of the students hadn't bothered to look at the assignments at all. One group of students sat sullenly as I lectured or audibly talked to each other as if I wasn't there. Finally, the ringleader of the dissident group, Richard, spoke up.

     "I don't need to read Chicano literature. I live Chicano literature," he said. "And you -- you don't even know how to say 'Chicano,' Mrs. Gersteeeen," he said, drawing out the last syllable in case anyone in the class had failed to notice it was a Jewish name.

     With that the class erupted in hoots and hollers, slapping their desks and stomping their feet.

     I could feel my face turn crimson. "You may not like the way I pronounce 'Chicano,'" I said, in the nasal tones that characterized my students' barrio pronunciation, "but at least I know something about Chicano literature because I've actually read it."

     "She got you, man," another of the boys chimed, drawing appreciative assents from the others.

     For the moment, I'd taken back control of the classroom. But not for long. The students sensed they could intimidate me, and I felt shaky and frightened, despite my bravado. A week later, I encountered more trouble when I wrote a list of reference books on the chalkboard. Among the books was a short work on the Pachuco dialect, a hybrid Spanish and English slang spoken originally by "zoot-suiters" in the 1930s, which had become very popular once again among young Chicanos throug