Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,458
» Latest member: vsjbbohx
» Forum threads: 1,625
» Forum posts: 11,920

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 51 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 50 Guest(s)
Google

Latest Threads
The Truth in Minneapolis
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Herbert Spencer
07-05-2020, 03:22 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 673
Obama Perp Walk Video
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Dickie Billericay
06-25-2020, 06:01 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 710
UCLA is a Shithole
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: ham
06-13-2020, 02:00 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 444
Gollin Brat Fake Doctor
Forum: George Gollin
Last Post: Dickie Billericay
05-29-2020, 07:00 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 673
Porn Peddler Chip White M...
Forum: Chip White
Last Post: ham
05-25-2020, 02:12 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 708
ChiCom Virus to Crush Sma...
Forum: Unaccredited vs. State-Approved vs. Accredited
Last Post: Herbert Spencer
05-20-2020, 08:11 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 428
Feds Own 92% of Student L...
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Don Dresden
04-04-2020, 07:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 602
American History
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Martin Eisenstadt
04-01-2020, 07:08 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 835
Convict Hosts Dem Funder
Forum: George Gollin
Last Post: ham
03-31-2020, 11:11 PM
» Replies: 28
» Views: 18,486
I'm an Indian Too
Forum: General Education Discussions
Last Post: Martin Eisenstadt
03-21-2020, 05:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,989

 
  UCLA is a Shithole
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 06-12-2020, 12:29 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (4)

Suspended UCLA professor under police protection days after students sign petition to fire him

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/suspended-ucla...01190.html

Can some people initiate complaints to WASC about UCLA giving bogus grades and issuing worthless shithole degrees to black people.  Tell the world that the degrees they give to black people are freebies.  Who does that help?  White people with degrees.

Can they also complain to the USDOE about UCLA and their fellow conspirator WASC.

Print this item

  The Truth in Minneapolis
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 06-10-2020, 02:38 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (7)

If you think last week's rioting, looting, and accompanying celebration was a big deal?  Wait until the cops are found not guilty.

The prosecutor made a mistake in overcharging to appease the ethnics.  Charging 2nd degree murder with a option of manslaughter may be a little harsh considering the evidence.  Chauvin was clearly guilty of a serious assault or criminal negligence causing death but to make the leap to homicide might be taxing jurors credibility.

Why?  Chauvin had his knee on the back of Floyd's neck, not in a position of strangulation.  This is way too obvious from the video.  The coroner said the cause of death was heart attack.  What's a major symptom of heart attack?  Shortness of breath.  I will testify to that.  The prosecutor has to go into court and tell the juror to ignore what they are seeing and to ignore the coroner's report and believe a narrative because he says so.  Good luck on that one.

Print this item

  Gollin Brat Fake Doctor
Posted by: Yancy Derringer - 05-25-2020, 03:35 PM - Forum: George Gollin - Replies (4)

The rotten apple sure doesn't fall very far from the tree.

Dr. Cordelia LootS-Gollin” reads the headline at the eCyberclinics website.
https://www.ecyberclinics.com/physician/...0749555720

[Image: ChlamydiaDoctor.jpg]

Quote:Dr. Cordelia LootS-Gollin
Clinical Social Worker. Female
Dr. Cordelia LootS-Gollin is an clinical social worker specialist in Skokie, Illinois (IL). She specializes in Clinical Social Worker.

Turning Point Behavioral Health Care Center
8324 Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
(847) 933-0051

Dr. Cordelia LootS-Gollin
• General Information
• Locations
• Compare
General Information

Board certification Clinical Social Worker
Gender Female
Education Graduated : 2015
School : Other
Group Affiliations Turning Point Behavioral Health Care Center

The graduation date for the alleged "doctor" is stated as 2015, but that was the year it got its MSW from Penn.  No indication on its LinkedIn page that it has any new degrees.

This would appear to be…

Another phony, fake, false, feigned Gollin Crime Family fraud!

How many unsuspecting innocents thought they were being treated by a real “doctor,” not some parent-hating lesbian cheerleader with a master’s degree?  Too bad there’s not some sort of bald, ass-scratching diploma mill sleuth lurking around who can report her to the authorities and ruin her life. 

Sometimes, danger lurks in the eCyberclinic listing on the internet.  I wonder what hypocrite wrote this (or had someone write it for him)?  Could it be the same retard who endorsed a candidate with a phony, fake "degree" from a phony, fake "college"?

Quote:It is bad enough that persons using fake degrees obtain undeserved status or swindle unwitting victims, but there is a real danger when phony physicians treat the sick, untrained engineers design bridges or teachers with purchased credentials instruct our children.

[Image: ChlamydiaMuddy.jpg]
Chlamydia Loots-Gollin
Phony Physician, Real Danger

Print this item

  Porn Peddler Chip White MIA?
Posted by: Herbert Spencer - 05-20-2020, 08:44 PM - Forum: Chip White - Replies (4)

Not that anybody would miss the sicko, but gay boy porn peddler and quack enema maven Thomas Vernon "Chip" White has not posted at his porn front operation DegreeInfo.com since December 26, 2018, nor has he been seen on the board since August 16, 2019.  Insiders report he is not answering emails either.  One can only hope that the answer lies at the bottom of Folsom Lake.  Worms gotta eat too!

Gone, or just dead?  Or who cares?

Quote:Chip was last seen: Aug 16, 2019
https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?members/chip.3/

Link to Chip's most recent post, December 26, 2018: https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?thr...ost-517459


[Image: ChipWhite07.jpg]
Notorious pedophile-pandering pervert and gay boy porn peddler Thomas "Chip" White (on right)

Print this item

  ChiCom Virus to Crush Small Schools
Posted by: Herbert Spencer - 05-20-2020, 08:11 PM - Forum: Unaccredited vs. State-Approved vs. Accredited - No Replies

Another byproduct of the ChiCom virus: Small schools get crushed, rich schools get richer.  More profits and power for the big players.  Small players decimated, driven out of the market as big and wealthy will wield more power.

Quote:American Colleges Are Headed for a Meltdown
The coronavirus crisis could sink many schools—and leave a windfall for the survivors

[Image: Harvard-1-736x491.jpg]

Charles Fain Lehman - May 18, 2020 5:00 AM

They've been through riots, protests, and natural disasters—but America's colleges have never seen anything like the financial meltdown the coronavirus is about to bring to their campuses.

The rising wave of health fears, added costs, and vanishing tuition payments could crush small colleges, many of which were already hanging by a financial thread. Those that can weather the crisis—including big-name universities with billions in their bank accounts—in turn stand to gain big from the fallout.

The emptying out of schools and the mass transition to distance learning has already been "the largest all-sector hit that we've ever seen," Jim Hundrieser, a vice president with the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), told the Washington Free Beacon. But the challenges of this spring pale in comparison to the shock many colleges are expecting in the fall, when social distancing measures and a possible second wave could create the most surreal semester ever.

That strangeness, experts project, could in turn cause a massive drop in college revenue. Well-endowed colleges and big research schools have the savings to weather those effects. But many schools are beholden to semi-annual tuition payments, which are about to undergo the biggest shock since the Second World War.

The result could see the shuttering of many universities, particularly small liberal arts colleges, accelerating a trend of rising closures since the Great Recession. At the same time, experts predict, the drop off in demand will be temporary, as a prolonged recession sends millions back to school—resulting in renewed profits, and power, for the schools that make it through to the other side.

When 20 million college students return to school this fall, their campuses will look very different. Schools are considering shortened school years, smaller class sizes, and keeping classes partially virtual. In addition to social distancing measures, Purdue University will use its on-campus laboratory to test students and trace contacts. The California State University system will be entirely online through the fall—its University of California sister schools are expected to follow suit.

These changes will radically alter not just campus life, but schools' balance sheets.

Added safety measures mean more expenses, Brown education professor Susanna Loeb told the Free Beacon. Colleges will need to pay fixed costs, like staff salaries and facilities maintenance, while simultaneously spending more on cleaning, testing, and added space for socially distanced classes and living. At the same time, money will stop flowing in; Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education at Seton Hall University, said that colleges are expecting a 20 to 30 percent drop in revenue next year.

The net effect will be monumental. Hundrieser, whose organization represents over 1,900 schools, predicted that the crisis "will transform the finances of a lot of institutions, and they'll have to be incredibly fiscally prudent and innovative in order for them to rebound in a year."

"The effects of this crisis are likely to be much larger than the Great Recession," Kelchen said.

Universities, Kelchen explained, have four sources of income: tuition, public funding, on-campus fees (for housing, food services, etc.), and donations/endowments. Those funding streams are not equally distributed, however. Among 768 endowments surveyed by NACUBO, more than half of the value was held by the top 25, just 3 percent of schools.
[Image: plot1-1.png]
Research funding is similarly concentrated: Data from the National Science Foundation show that the top 5 percent of recipient universities get over 60 percent of federal research dollars.

Wealthy Harvard or well-funded Johns Hopkins can smooth the coming bumps. But most colleges are dependent on either state budgets that are rapidly drying up, or on tuition and activities payments.

That explains why universities are scrambling to reopen. As Brown University president Christina Paxson wrote in the New York Times, "remaining closed in the fall means losing as much as half of our revenue." Even larger schools are afraid. Cornell University has a $7.3 billion endowment, but its president recently wrote that without a reopening, the school is looking at "hundreds of millions" in losses.

Unfortunately, absent a medical miracle, any reopening will only be partial—which still means substantial losses.

College costs a lot, over $40,000 at the average four-year school. For that much money, students expect the full package: not just classes, but the extracurriculars, parties, and social connections that come with attending a college.

Corona-college will be nothing like that, leaving many education consumers considering other options. Some will just be unwilling to keep forking out for online courses: Georgia resident Alex Popovich told the Free Beacon that his daughter, who is a freshman at William & Mary, is considering taking a semester off or taking classes at a local university in the fall if her school remains online.

Others are worried about in-person education: Thirty-five percent of students in a recent poll said that if colleges reopened in the fall, they would either only attend online (31 percent) or not attend at all (4 percent). Others are indecisive. One in six were considering taking a gap year as of April.

Those numbers might change further as it becomes apparent that many classes will remain online—63 percent of current students say e-learning is worse than in-person classes. Tuition will also be disproportionately affected by declining foreign enrollment, as foreign students generally pay full price.

Even if colleges manage a partial reopening, therefore, they will inevitably take a hit to their revenue. That's a recipe for financial disaster. As Paxson put it, "It’s not a question of whether institutions will be forced to permanently close, it’s how many."

Which colleges will be hardest hit? Kelchen said he was most worried about "small, rural private colleges," where students will be less willing to travel to or live. Losing tuition and housing revenue, Kelchen said, "will be more than these colleges can handle."

Beth Akers, a higher education fellow at the Manhattan Institute, thinks the colleges most at risk are "the expensive institutions that are offering that kind of boutique college experience, but ones that aren't sitting on the pile of cash that could help them weather this kind of storm." Loeb noted that "many small liberal arts schools" were in financial straits even before the crisis began, adding "that difficulty will likely increase."

Will all of this mean the end of college education? Probably not—paradoxically, colleges which weather the crisis may find themselves on the other side with too many students, not too few. If one in six students take a gap year, then the fall of 2021 will see student populations swell.

There will be even more students if the current financial crisis persists and, as experts project, unemployment remains elevated. That's because in a recession, people return to school; college enrollment rose by 13 percent between 2007 and its peak in 2011.

"People like to go back to school" when unemployment is high, education policy expert Preston Cooper told the Free Beacon.
"They say, ‘the labor market's really weak right now, there aren't a lot of job opportunities, this is my opportunity to go back and get that degree I always wanted.'"

Many of those who return will go back for associate's degrees, as enrollment in two-year colleges rose disproportionately during the Great Recession. Online colleges will likely also do well, as they have the infrastructure in place to absorb recession demand immediately. But high-prestige universities will benefit indirectly. The same demand, paired with lower supply, will necessarily lead potential students to attach more value to degrees.

Higher education resembles many other industries facing the coronavirus crisis. The small players look set to be decimated by the coming storm, while the ones that are big and wealthy enough to survive will wield even more power on the other side.

Print this item

  Obama Perp Walk Video
Posted by: Don Dresden - 05-18-2020, 01:04 PM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (5)

Coming soon. 

Print this item

  Feds Own 92% of Student Loans
Posted by: Don Dresden - 04-04-2020, 07:24 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - No Replies

Quote:The Federal Government Owns 92 Percent of Student Loans. Why Do Politicians Lie About It?


04/01/2020   Chris Calton

Representatives Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley just introduced the Student Debt Emergency Relief Act to provide student debt relief during the coronavirus pandemic. In reality, the crisis is a pretext to push through student loan forgiveness of as much as $30,000 per borrower. This should hardly come as a shock. Outstanding student debt is bordering on $1.6 trillion, and many Democrats have made debt relief a pillar of their election campaigns. As if their intentions weren’t already transparent enough, Representative James Clyburn publicly admitted that the crisis was “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Although many libertarians and conservatives oppose student loan forgiveness, I have previously argued that as long as the federal government owns the loans, there is no ethical dilemma with forgiveness—libertarians, at least, should be eager to cut off any stream of revenue to the government. The caveat for advocates of free market solutions, however, is that the federal government must accompany forgiveness with a repeal of all programs for subsidizing and guaranteeing loans. Anything less, I warned, would be a formula for socializing higher education.

The US Department of Education (DOE) does, indeed, own more than 92 percent of all student debt. Since Congress passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act in 2010, putting the Department of Education in charge of administering all federal loans, student debt has more than doubled. Given that these loans are exempt from bankruptcy laws, offer guaranteed access, and target people whose brains are still developing, it would not be unreasonable to describe them as predatory.

[Image: balance.png?itok=8E9l603v]
Source: "Measure One Private Student Loan Report," June 18, 2019.

And this is exactly the word used by Representative Pressley when announcing the bill, but her full statement seems misleading. Millions of borrowers are “facing financial ruin,” she said in her official press release, especially those “who were preyed upon by the predatory for-profit college industry.” Her language isn’t unique. As a pillar of her presidential campaign, Elizabeth Warren promised to “crack down on for-profit institutions, and eliminate predatory lending”—conveniently omitting the federal government’s role in “predatory lending” while also scapegoating for-profit colleges, which are already on the decline and only make up about 13 percent of total college enrollment.

Seth Frotman was the student loan ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for seven years before he resigned in protest of the Trump administration’s failure to protect against “predatory lenders” and “for-profit colleges”—a remarkable act of political theater for somebody who started the job at the very outset of the Department of Education’s amplified role in student lending. As quoted on Pressley’s webpage for the Relief Act, Frotman recently complained that “student loan companies are shutting their doors and turning off their phones in response to the coronavirus pandemic, cutting off borrowers from access to critical protections.” Following the same rhetorical strategy, he neglects to mention that these “student loan companies” are not the lenders, but collections agencies that work exclusively on Education Department contracts. Conveniently, these are the organizations that borrowers deal with, rather than the DOE, reinforcing the misconception that their student loan debts are owned by private companies.

It’s one thing to find these deceptions in political rhetoric, but it’s another thing entirely to see how these myths manifest in the Student Debt Emergency Relief Act. Although media outlets are emphasizing the $30,000 per borrower debt cancellation provision, this would only take place after the coronavirus crisis is over. For the duration of any national emergency, the bill stipulates, the federal government would make the minimum monthly payment each borrower is responsible for.

But why not simply freeze payments instead of pointlessly having the DOE pay itself money? Certainly the loan agencies—whose entire existence is the product of government graft—stand to benefit, claiming the associated fees for processing the payments. This would essentially make the payment process a make-work jobs program.

But the true beneficiary of this bill, it seems, would be the federal education bureaucracy. The bill states that for “implementation and coordination” of this policy, the DOE is authorized to appropriate $50 million from the Treasury, in addition to the total funds necessary to service the loans and provide the $30,000 in cancelled debt per person. Since the DOE owns the debt—and the bill does not apply to the 7 percent of debt that is privately owned—it requires zero funds to simply cancel it or freeze payments. However, by maintaining the pretense that the government has to pay the loans, the DOE can claim Treasury funds as a de facto budget increase.

There are 42.8 million people who still have outstanding federal loans. At the maximum cancellation of $30,000 per person, paid from the Treasury, the Department of Education would receive nearly $1.3 trillion. Many borrowers, of course, owe less than $30,000, so the true total is impossible to know from publicly available data, but it makes little difference. The 2019 budget for the DOE was about $66 billion, so the Relief Act would provide an enormous increase in revenue—all undoubtedly funded through inflationary borrowing.

The proponents of the bill are selling it as student loan relief and debt cancellation, but they’re really engineering a tenfold (or greater!) budget increase for the Department of Education, which almost certainly will be put toward the nationalization of higher education. It makes no provision for paying for these appropriations, but this will ultimately fall to the taxpayers, including the very people that this relief is purported to help. If student loan cancellation were really the goal, the DOE could simply forgive the debts of existing federal loans—as is the prerogative of any creditor—and shut down the loan program, which would almost exactly balance the loss of revenues from loan payments. Instead, we are presented a bill that will inevitably impose massive burdens on the average citizen, only cancel a portion of federal loan debt, and leave in place all the policies that created the debt crisis to begin with.

Even if the bill dies, these rhetorical strategies will not. Politicians will continue to pretend that student debt is the result of private lenders and for-profit colleges, just as they pretend that private prisons are the cause of mass incarceration. These are genuine issues with real-world consequences, so the outcry for relief and reform is understandable. But we should be wary of any politician who deliberately and dishonestly presents capitalism as the cause of government-created problems.

Print this item

  American History
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 03-26-2020, 03:34 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (2)

I was bored and the courses were free so I took American History I & II.  Funny how history has changed so much since the last time I took it 40 years ago.  I didn't know that the whole point of settlement of America from 1492 to 2020 was to abuse black people and nothing else.  It was odd the last time I took it from a communist prof in a yarmulke but this is nuts.  The other thing that's nuts is the amount of semi-literate black and female literature they stuff into an American Literature course.  Universities are now re-education camps.  Why do people put up with it?

Print this item

  Pelosi
Posted by: Fort Bragg - 02-07-2020, 12:06 AM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (3)

That was disgusting, Nancy Pelosi tearing up her liquor bill in Congress.

Print this item

  Why Give $ to Socialist Mills?
Posted by: Harrison J Bounel - 01-26-2020, 02:47 PM - Forum: General Education Discussions - Replies (3)

Quote:Preventing Suicide by Higher Education

Arthur Milikh

From the birth of the modern conservative movement, dissidents concerned with civic and liberal education have tried almost everything to reshape America's universities: from refusing to donate to their alma maters (as William F. Buckley prescribed), to funding tenure-track positions, forming independent centers on campuses to host outside speakers, organizing external supplementary seminars to make up for what students do not get in the classroom, and creating new academic departments. Despite 70 years of increasingly sophisticated efforts, conservatives are now begging on many campuses merely to be heard.

America's universities have been progressivism's most important asset, its crown jewel. For over half a century, they have served as the left's R&D headquarters and the intellectual origin or dissemination point for the political and moral transformation of the nation, especially through the sexual revolution and the identity-politics revolution. Universities have trained the new elites who have taken society's helm and now set its tone through the other institutions thoroughly dominated by the left: the mainstream press, mass entertainment, Fortune 500s, and tech companies. Universities have also brought to rural and suburban America these moral revolutions, converting generations of young people to their cause. Universities are arguably the most important institution in modern democracy — no other institution has such power to determine the fate of democracy, for good or ill.

Universities were meant be the one fixed place in democratic society insulated from the ceaseless motion of democratic life, with its petty passions, consumption, and moral and intellectual fashions. They were meant to serve as the guardian of the mind and its greatest fruits. In previous eras, segments of society (especially the clergy and the aristocracy) were devoted to protecting learning and a tradition of books. But democracy does not support such classes, and it was originally hoped that the universities would assume this role. Regrettably, they are no longer animated by their original purpose of serving republican self-government or the freedom of the mind. As such, they must be treated as political entities.

That the freedom of speech is under attack on many campuses should not be surprising, given that the freedom of the mind, of which speech is the expression, is rarely understood as their purpose any longer. Without that purpose, most American universities no longer serve the public good for which they were created and for which they continue to be publicly funded. Their transformation, which in turn has led to the transformation of the nation, has taken place with the unwitting assistance of American taxpayers — and amounts to defrauding the public. If citizens are compelled to pay for others to go to college, it should be to the benefit of the entire nation — forming good citizens and advancing useful sciences, rather than teaching the rising generation that the nation is irredeemably evil. Taxpayers have funded the research, bankrolled the student loans (including generous forgiveness programs), and allowed the universities and their enormous endowments to operate without paying taxes. These funding sources are the operational life blood of universities, but they can no longer be justified. In fact, it seems likely that the nation would be better off if the vast majority of America's more than 3,000 colleges and universities closed down.

An executive order signed by President Trump on March 21, 2019, gives administrators in 12 executive-branch agencies that issue research grants broad discretion to withhold funding from universities that suppress "free inquiry" and "undermine learning." This is a worthwhile half-step to chastening them. But given where things stand, bolder, more aggressive action is needed. If the universities are going to be rebuilt, only external force, rather than pleading or slight policy modifications, will work. Success in this could bring generational change.

THE PURPOSE AND THE PROBLEM

Modern democracies have a special need for universities in a way that other regimes do not. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Letter to M. D'Alembert on the Theater concludes with a scene from Sparta where three generations — the frail, those in full bloom, and the young — sing together a song whose verses articulate the place of each generation in their ancestral order. Such a people does not need modern universities, as their existence is ordered by their traditions, laws, and gods. Our Enlightenment-informed republic, however, requires the production of citizens in accord with it. We cannot be a nation of war-like men guided by ancestral gods; we need citizens capable of commerce, modern science, rights-based self-rule, and political prudence. Perhaps most critically, our universities must actively correct certain vices stemming from the nature of our regime, seeking to forfend the mass production of souls modeled on mass tastes, suited mainly for intellectual and moral conformity, consumption, and industriousness alone.

The first traditional purpose of our colleges and universities is civic education, which aims to preserve the nation by creating citizens suited to it. Through civic education, citizens are prepared for political self-rule by developing rational habits of mind, the capacity for forming political judgments, and a moral character capable of self-restraint and toleration. Civic education also teaches reverence for something beyond the very strong forces silently guiding democracies, especially public opinion, with its overwhelming capacity to determine all tastes, objects of worship, and moral horizons. Civic education thus attempts to preserve images of human greatness against the sea of intellectual and moral conformity, while instilling at least a modicum of reverence and affection for the nation and the tradition upon which it is built — its history, its greatest individuals, and its contributions. Individuals are thus trained to become parts of a whole. Our natural-rights republic does not require mindless assent but can (and should) be defended rationally.

The second purpose of our universities is modern natural science. The origin of this goal is found in the works of René Descartes and Francis Bacon. Modern natural science, distinct from ancient science, is concerned with two different ends according to its inventors. The first is unlocking the inner secrets of material nature in order to increase human powers and thereby relieve man's estate. The second is articulating a comprehensive opinion of the material world and thereby ridding man's mind of reliance on natural and conventional prejudices.

The scientific enterprise requires large institutions, public respectability, and the employment of a multitude of minds that would otherwise be badly used in what Descartes calls scholastic "disputations." Moreover, because of the brevity of a single life, Descartes writes, "one man alone cannot perform all the experiments that can be useful." Generations of scientists must accumulate and build up scientific knowledge in order to penetrate more deeply the laws of matter. And since no one man is sufficiently wealthy to take on this expensive enterprise, entire nations must be engaged.

The power of the new nations created on the basis of Cartesian and Baconian Enlightenment depends on the new power of science. Alexander Hamilton, second only to Benjamin Franklin in his understanding of this aspect of the modern project, discusses in the Federalist Papers the extent to which industrialization and commerce, based on science, will be America's main comparative advantage against other nations, since conquest and empire, which contradict the natural-rights teaching, are not feasible sources of wealth and power for republics.

Science applied to industry is for Hamilton both defensive and offensive: It compels other traditional nations to compete on America's terms — scientific and commercial — a battleground on which we have great advantages. It is defensive because the effectual truth of science and industry will weaken other nations' attachments to traditional pieties, which can inflict harm on us. Moreover, since the genie of modern science is now out of the bottle, and other nations, some of them enemies, possess it and threaten to out-compete us, the United States has no choice but to succeed in this area.

But modern science is not and should not be the university's highest goal. In important ways, modern science exists uneasily alongside both civic education and liberal education, the highest goals of the university. Liberal education is concerned primarily with philosophical self-knowledge, which consists in confronting our own contradictions and errors: the prejudices that come from our own times (like the authoritative opinions that order the lives and self-understanding of most), and the prejudices given to all by nature. This purpose includes the quiet questioning of the modern scientific account of material nature as the final, comprehensive view. In this sense, the university's duty is to resist becoming merely utilitarian; that is, devoting itself wholly to serving the public's needs or demands, and thereby becoming its flatterers.

Today, these three ends are either corrupted or on their way to corruption in the great majority of America's universities. In their confusion about or open rebellion against these ends, America's universities too often create students in the opposite vein: ideologues with technical skills, despisers of tradition without insight (not to mention wisdom), or scientists without perspective. These problems are hardly new and have been the centerpiece of the conservative critique of higher education for more than half a century. What is new, however, is the thoroughness of the corruption, the impossibility at this point of changing course through conventional means, and the extent of the pernicious effects of these institutions on the nation as a whole.

DO OUR UNIVERSITIES UNDERMINE THE COMMON GOOD?

Allan Bloom's remarkable 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind, is still unmatched in its treatment of the problem of America's universities. According to Bloom, beginning in the 1940s but blossoming in the 1960s, many American academics superficially and gleefully appropriated the tenets of Friedrich Nietzsche and his followers (especially Freud and Weber) in adopting a thin relativism suitable for democracy. Moral and intellectual relativism, these academics argued, would lead to a tolerant and open social order called multiculturalism. But relativism had two effects. The first was the thinning out of all cultures and opinions to make them serve the genuine goals that guided these academics: moral permissiveness and a conflict-free existence. The second, unanticipated, though truer outgrowth of relativism — which yielded the opposite of its first goal — was the elevation of "commitment," or unyielding moral attachment in the absence of an intelligible justification of its truth.

The contemporary manifestation of commitment is called "identity," and it is expressed especially through race and sexuality. Identity, as it is broadly understood today, is an unfalsifiable, self-created opinion of oneself or one's group that others must recognize, accommodate, and celebrate. Identity has become sacred, placed beyond questioning or criticism. But the sacredness of identity applies only to allegedly oppressed or marginalized groups. These are allowed to possess an identity, while the alleged oppressors must not only be denied an identity but must perpetually atone for the oppression stemming from it. Herbert Marcuse's goal of getting universities to teach that "history was the development of oppression" has not only succeeded — it is now publicly financed.

These doctrines stand in stark contrast to natural rights, the foundational teaching of America. Natural rights mean that human beings belong to a common humanity, not to an identity group. As such, all human beings have the same rights, which can be grasped rationally. Since all human beings possess rights, a political common good is possible, as is mutual understanding and rational persuasion. Deep commitments, to the contrary, imply real conflict.

A generation after Bloom's writing, identity fanaticism, having first gained institutional support in the universities, and now in the Democratic Party, has turned to demanding conformity and punishing dissenters. The next logical outgrowth of identity politics is suppression of free speech, as speech is the expression of a free, questioning mind. An example of this fanaticism is captured in a letter written by Williams College students to faculty members who supported the adoption of the University of Chicago statement in defense of free speech on campuses. For these students, enforcing the freedom of speech is merely a reflection of "white fragility" and "discursive violence," and is thus primarily supported by "white faculty," the oppressor group. This letter reflects beliefs widely held by faculty and students across the nation's universities. If universities once understood their purpose as seeking intellectual clarity, now rational questioning of identity theories is itself an act of violence.

In fact, raising the basic contradictions of dangerous and anti-republican theories in the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry has become impossible on most campuses — perhaps the only place in American society where such thinking could take place. How it is, for example, that deeply meaningful identity can emerge from an act of will remains unanswered. Nor can one ask why marginalization itself leads to a special knowledge of justice, rather than to distortion; and if marginalization grants access to the truth about justice, marginalization would then imply superiority in terms of human goods like moral purity and knowledge. Nor can one ask how meaningful identity can be present during the struggle against identity-denying oppression without identity being defined exclusively in terms of opposition and therefore lacking positive content. Finally, as these doctrines are applied to politics, should one conclude that the rights of the oppressor group should be taken away?

Without the moderating force of reason, fanatical identity attachments often terminate in anger and the desire for punishment. Since rational inquiry (or perhaps religious belief) could have once openly moderated these passions, in its absence, the new identities become these passions, and come to dominate the nation. The net effect is fanatical group attachments without a common good.

Writing in the late 1980s, Bloom's book presumed a high concentration of scholars devoted enough to seeking the truth in their fields — scholars whose minds were sufficiently open to the value of truth — so as to care about liberal education. These regrettably have largely disappeared. And Bloom did not witness the radicalization of university administrators, beginning in the early 2000s, who have doubled down on the identity-politics project. Indeed, the purpose of such university administrators, now found on nearly all campuses, is to forcefully secure the dogmas of identity politics and spread them to the nation by teaching students obedience to them.

Not only students' minds but their characters are formed by these new doctrines. Liberal education should cultivate the capacity for self-criticism, the opposite of self-satisfaction, which coheres with republican citizenship or opens them to philosophical self-knowledge. But teaching that all of history is merely oppression has the opposite effect: It creates the sense that the allegedly liberated individual or group is somehow on the cusp of history, and therefore possesses deep knowledge and insight, and it promises that rebellion leads to inner wholeness and honor. This spirit forecloses the capacity for subordinance to higher reason or belief in a political common good.

Moreover, asserting that human happiness is gained through non-rational identity creation — rather than self-exploration, attachment to one's nation, family, or romantic love — creates no wisdom for life, let alone philosophic wisdom, and leaves many young adherents confused and unhappy. Future citizens, statesmen, and free minds cannot emerge from such teachings. For instance, neither love nor families form as a result of teachings about a global patriarchal conspiracy against women. What forms instead is a war between the sexes, an ethic of using and being used, which, in turn, fails to form the virtues of character that are the groundwork from which love grows. Having destroyed any sense of belonging to a just order, what remains is anger and vengeance, the satisfaction of which determines one's self-respect. Students are often left to understand that there is no nation, love, or even gender — only open self-creation and, ironically, dogmatic conformity to this doctrine.

Institutions that aggressively advance such teachings and form young people on such a model are intensely hostile to the core ideals of American life. And such institutions should not be supported with public funds. Universities' tax-exempt status, we might recall, is granted only on account of the promise that they serve the public good. By this criterion, it is time to reconsider that status. The condition of our universities has degenerated to such a degree that action is required. Those still concerned with civic and liberal education have two specific levers of power at their disposal at the federal level: Federal research money can be revoked, and student loans can be returned to the private domain.

RESEARCH FUNDING

A nation that publicly funds institutions must obtain something beneficial from them. America surely benefits from some of the scientific research and discoveries produced by our best universities. But the sciences give many of America's flagship universities public respectability and thereby allow them to hold hostage public funding that supports their other, anti-republican, elements.

Total research funding given to universities is around $40 billion annually. Despite this large sum, there is currently no accurate and reliable publicly accessible online database that accounts for all money issued to all universities from all government granting agencies. Detailed designations of the money, to whom it goes, and exactly how it is distributed, are difficult to trace.

Moreover, since money is fungible, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a portion of these federal funds goes toward the administrators that serve as the ground forces of the identity-politics revolution. Nationwide, the number of university administrators increased by roughly 60% between 1993 and 2009. And universities collect overhead fees from research grants: The base rate averages 52% nationwide, and is far higher at some places, including 67.5% at Yale University. Distribution of these overhead fees is not publicly traceable, though one can presume they support the diversity administration, among other uses.

Just as identity politics has undermined civic and liberal education, so too are taxpayers funding "research" that may undermine science. For instance, as Elizabeth Harrington has documented, the University of California, Berkeley, received $1,999,886 from the National Science Foundation to "zero in on the ways in which students' stigmatized identities may be particularly sensitive to structure and belonging" in STEM concentrations. The University of New Hampshire received $999,752 from the National Science Foundation to "create systemic institutional change by scaling up the levels of awareness about and interventions used to address implicit bias in scientific research and learning settings." California Polytechnic State University received $570,890 from the National Science Foundation to systematically conceptualize "how labor segregation may relate to an ideological hierarchy between the social and technical dimensions [in Engineering and Computer Science] and influence cultural exclusions along intersecting vectors of gender and race." Iowa State University and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University received $368,695 from the National Science Foundation to study building "a gender and race microaggressions psychometric scale" that offers "An Intersectional Perspective to Studying Microaggressions in Engineering Programs." Similar examples abound. While it is easy to snicker at such studies (the costs of which amount to relatively little in the larger scheme of federal spending), one detects their underlying aim: enforcing identity politics in the sciences. The moral purification of the sciences may become more important than scientific progress itself.

Should the identity revolution fully impose itself on the sciences — among the last places in universities where the freedom of the mind still excels and is celebrated — they will wither on the branch as have the social sciences and the humanities, with untold losses to our national wealth, power, and prestige. This corrosion will be slow and hidden from the public eye, but likely irreversible once it is visible to all. Tocqueville foresaw this possibility and used the image of China as a warning to America. The Chinese, he says, long ago had refined arts and sciences:

Quote:The nation was industrial; most of the scientific methods had been preserved within it; but science itself no longer existed....The Chinese, in following the trail of their fathers, had forgotten the reasons that had directed them. They still made use of the formula without seeking the sense of it; they kept the instrument and no longer possessed the art of modifying and reproducing it. Therefore the Chinese could not change anything. They had to renounce improvement.

We should not assume that science will prosper forever in the absence of the right intellectual conditions.

What suicidal nation would continue to publicly fund institutions that intentionally or even semi-consciously undermine the strength and unity of the society that protects them? To set an example, President Trump (or future presidents) could use his March 21st executive order to remove federal research funds from a single university for a violation of students' freedom of speech. That money could then be given to a university that does fulfill its public purpose, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to use one example. The federal government could even pay to transfer the laboratories and scientists — or fund the creation of new national laboratories.

While this sounds radical, and although there is disagreement among conservatives, it is less radical than tolerating what is already taking place. While it is bad to interrupt scientific research in such a way, it is worse and more dangerous to maintain institutions working to sink the nation while hiding behind the prestige of science. The goal, again, is to make universities serve their fundamental purpose, which at this point can be done only by rebuilding them after they are significantly weakened.

STUDENT LOANS

America's taxpayers also continue to fund the corruption of the nation by footing the bill for student loans. Federal student-loan funding pays for the indoctrination of students and builds up the wealth, reach, and prestige of these institutions. Cumulative outstanding student-loan debt currently sits at over $1.5 trillion. Today, the federal government originates and services 90% of all student loans.

As the quality of education gets worse, the price of college tuition increases. It has grown almost eight times faster than wages over the last three decades, and there is no natural limit in sight. Will the government resist lending to students when, in 15 years, universities offer an even worse education, on campuses with even larger diversity infrastructures, where the cost is $150,000 a year?  In no reasonable world is money lent in such a fashion. But currently the U.S. government, which represents American citizens, does not say "no" to students — no matter how frivolous or corrupting the education they will receive, and regardless of how underqualified the students may be. The present arrangement of limitless lending has become a kind of scheme for universities. They slowly build up their administrative staff and their faux-educational facilities, thereby falsely justifying rising costs, all to create students hostile to the nation.

America's taxpayers lend out money to many students who simply are not suited for college. Among the incoming class of 2010 entering four-year institutions, the four-year graduation rate was 40.6%, the five-year rate 55.8%, and the six-year rate 59.8%. At some universities, the six-year graduation rate was below 10%. Though the decent goal behind allowing everyone entrance into college has not been achieved, the universities have greatly profited. But the students, for whom universities have deflated the entrance requirements with a view to their own enrichment, leave without a degree, indebted, and often humiliated. Since the university does not hold the debt, it has an incentive to let almost anyone in, and thereby gives students the impression that they can succeed, even if they are clearly unqualified.

The federal government must get out of the lending business, which means a return to the pre-1965 system where private lenders fund the education of those whom they believe will be able to repay their loans. Specifically, Congress should end the direct-loan program and the PLUS loan program, which provide federal loans to graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students. It should also, as was the case before 1965, not guarantee private loans. No private lender would give money for a degree in grievance studies that costs $300,000.

One solution for preserving liberal education for the best students is currently being employed by Purdue University. Purdue lends money directly to students whom it believes can successfully complete their educational programs; the university therefore has a stake in the students' success. That Yale's $30 billion endowment goes untouched while students borrow from taxpayers is unconscionable.

If we were to end the federal lending programs, as fewer and fewer graduate from colleges, the employment ecosystem and America's moral horizon would change for the better. Most practical degree programs can return to apprenticeship models. One does not need a four-year college degree to pass a Certified Public Accounting exam. Furthermore, the shortage of working-class labor in America is used to lobby for the importation of immigrants. Few Americans want to hang sheetrock after attending college. While having learned very little in classes, they have, however, often acquired a classist snobbery (and massive debt) that looks down on such labor — even if the wages for it might be higher than for the white-collar jobs to which they aspire.

RENEWAL BY FIRE

Reforms like these would be catastrophic for key elements of the existing model of higher education in America. But they could be enormously helpful to forms of higher education that actually serve the nation and fulfill the purpose of the university.

Addicted as they are to federal funding, the administrators of our flagship universities may become more obliging, while mid-tier schools, having enriched themselves for too long from student loans, will close their doors.

If large parts of the current system collapse, donors can regenerate colleges in new forms. From the ashes, the best faculty could be plucked to teach in new institutions devoted to liberal education. Hillsdale College, for example, has raised nearly $1.3 billion over the past 20 years, entirely from private funds, and it does not accept federal student aid. It is likely that such private funding will be found to buy bankrupted colleges in order to make them anew.

The purpose of such proposals is not punitive. It is simple sense. Universities that spread poisonous doctrines no longer believe in the purpose of the university. While it is their right to disagree with this purpose, they should not be the beneficiaries of public funds. No society should be expected to subsidize its own corrosion.

Print this item