Professor calls universities the ‘gravest internal threat’ to U.S.

Well yes, there's a problem with how the judiciary is appointed.

I like the Swiss system for executive. They have a 7 member executive and each member is appointed by the legislature. You literally have to have impressed people on all sides in order to get put into the executive.

Why not for the judiciary. Right now it's simply a case of gaining the attention of one side and hoping they get into power. Ridiculous.

If both sides had to agree on someone, the Supreme Court might be sensible.

Adjudication of the law shouldn't be political in the first place, so considering political stance is irrelevant, unless you want to add two sided politics into the equation. The problem occurs when the judge doesn't like the law, because it doesn't suit their politics, and wants it to mean something it doesn't. If the law is unsatisfactory in the judge's opinion, the judge has to understand their opinion doesn't have the power to write or change the law.
 
.....

Our civic personalities and national identities are being undermined by the very thing the professor promotes as healthy to American society, hyper individualism.....


There's the ultimate fear that keeps leftists awake at night. When weaklings crave power, they can only insist on a faceless mass because they know they cannot stand on their individual merits. Fortunately, human nature has something else to say about it.
I'm not insisting on anything. In fact it is the conservative professor who is insisting that Americans be indoctrinated in the classroom with civic responsibilities and national identity. I'm simply pointing out that promoting rugged individualism undermines the cause.....


It does not. You just don't understand America.
I understand America just fine. I'm watching 30+ years of economic liberalization create the conditions for an emerging quasi socialist movement on the left and a movement (bowel I want to say) on the right that elected a national populist to the White House. By all appearances all is not well in America, our social fabric is ripping apart and an individualist ideology isn't going to pull it back together.

In simplest terms: ideology has led America to the precipice of a historical, even politically epochal death drop into a cultural abyss. Ideology can save her; reinforced by a powerful enough government (authoritarian lite), guided by laser-like focus on projecting necessary reforms.

I disagree; the individual is and has been since America's founding, the "reason for the season". Western Civilization post-Enlightenment is predicated upon individual freedom and rights. Nowhere is this agency-spirit of the foundation for Modernist Western civilization more purer and true than in America's founding.

I enjoy reading your posts, Tehon. However, we seem to disagree at the most fundamental level of political philosophy. Marx and Engels believed in an eventual, natural death of capitalism-- perhaps a bit too condescendingly or cynically for the "natural death" part--at the hands of voluntary revolution in the name of the working class. However, the upper and middle class are not the enemy of a functional, individually beneficial society. Only in the Western democracy--no more so than in America-- can Marx's oppressed worker rise on his merit to join or even surpass the despised bourgeoisie without a bloody revolution; social, cultural or shooting. American followers of Marx to me seem to have no respect for the power of the individual freedom granted them by the equilibrium of the law and constitutional protections.
Yes, the individual was at the forefront of thought at the time of our country's founding, and that manifested itself in the principle of government by consent.
The philosophical debate centered around man living in a state of nature with all the natural rights accorded him and man living in civil society with limitations placed on his freedom. This country was founded on the latter.

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
The Federalist 1 < The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

I HAVE shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1
 
Ignore the Russophiles here, and let's concentrate on the OP.

It is correct, or is it alt right awareness that the alt righties are losing the war to indoctrinate America.

So what you're admitting is that the left is "winning" at indoctrinating America? Why is it you feel the need to indoctrinate anyone in the first place, Jake? If your ideas are superior then they should win out in a well thought out debate with other ideas. When you prevent other viewpoints from being heard...what you're admitting is that you don't think your ideas can stand up to debate...which says VOLUMES about those ideas!
 
I've put three kids thru public school and two 6 years they a public university. Not a shred of indoctrination so it is limited to a very minute number of places.
 
Jason Hill, DePaul professor, slams liberal colleges as ‘gravest internal threat to this country’
Professor calls universities the ‘gravest internal threat’ to U.S.

Quote:

"Jason Hill, who teaches at Chicago’s private DePaul University, blasted universities in a hard-hitting op-ed earlier this month as “propaganda machines” that indoctrinate students to reject Western culture.

“The core principles and foundations that keep the United States intact, that provide our citizens with their civic personalities and national identities, are being annihilated,” wrote Hill.

“The gravest internal threat to this country is not illegal aliens; it is leftist professors who are waging a war against America and teaching our young people to hate this country.”"

And quote:

"Moreover, “today’s scholars in humanities and social sciences increasingly declare that modern argumentation is a white, Western form of domination and linguistic imperialism that silences racial and ethnic minorities and devalues their ‘lived experiences,’” Hill said.

“One cannot argue with such people. The only alternative is to shut them down.”

That means universities as currently constituted have got to go, argued Hill, who has written on civil disobedience and identity politics, social and political philosophy, cosmopolitanism and race theory."
______________________________________________________________________________________

While I do not agree universities must be shut down, some kind of philosophical counterweight must
exist. One that provides humanities and social science majors--particularly future doctoral candidates headed for professorships--a balanced mix at least of ideological philosophies and political psychology, in particular, while depoliticizing core history courses.

Doctoral candidate exams also need to be reconsidered for less bias towards the "godless" schools of thought. While not yet as militant radical Left as say,the Sorbonne of the 70's, the anti-Western, anti-American indoctrination culture in many humanities and social science departments has surpassed the point of too far--perhaps the point of no return--for this generation at least. Essentially, the political correctness needs to go. Freedom to interpret and share ideas seems nearly lost to modern enclaves of radical liberalism.

What do you think?

Well before I went to college I only had the viewpoints from my family and friends. In college it not only was the viewpoints and beliefs from my professors but also from all my classmates from many different cultures and countries. I wouldn't say anyone was pushing me to be more liberal and a democrat, it's just once my eyes were opened and I saw perspectives and beliefs that were different from what my family and friends taught me in school I became more liberal. In college you get to interact with lots of people and in many ways just the interaction with so many people created a wealth of knowledge that I did not have before.

So I believe your premise is wrong. I don't believe professors are in anyway pushing their students to become leftists, it just seems to happen that way when people are exposed to a wide range of beliefs and viewpoints that are different than what their family and friends taught them growing up.

I find tragicomical and disingenuous the attempted condescension laced assertion that post exposure to an objectively unbiased humanities and social sciences core curriculum; one equally representative of conservative, liberal, Christian and secular diversity of epistemologies, dialectics and raw historical ethos and philosophies from antiquity to present, more often results in the young American mind aligning their belief systems voluntarily with atheism, cultural Marxism, and postmodernist thinking.

In other words, if new university students were offered a core curriculum truly representative of all historical social and political viewpoints, rather then fed predominantly Hegelian, Marxist and French postmodernist laced ones--supported in many cases by falsified academic papers, published works, field studies and antipositivist sociology passed off as science, then the average freshman student would likely choose a conservative toned syllabus, or in the very least have a chance to begin with a balanced source of historical information from which to make truly informed, balanced decisions. Rather than the prevailing winds of bias toward the historically liberal point of view and worse--the Marxist and cultural revolutionary one, and an anti-American social and political history ethos in particular.

Again, for the second time in as many days, I offer to a Liberal American mind knowledge of their idiocy in attempting to use the No True Scotsman Fallacy with the impunity of ignorance.
Do they really teach Marx in college? That is hard to believe given the complete ignorance of his ideas shown by nearly all Americans.

Indeed, and with extreme bias and prejudice. I am currently an undergrad psychology major at a Baltimore area university nationally vaunted and recognized for its liberal open mindedness and its position at the forefront of cultural political correctness and social justice. In my opinion the social sciences departments are enclaves of social justice and postmodernist dominated thinking, all derived directly from Moorish Utopian and Marxian political ideological rebellion against capitalism, Christianity and traditional American constitutionalism.

In fact, mere mention of a need for a Constitutional Economics or Aristotelean dialectics course will get you ridiculed in the least. Any critique of the antipositivist method of sociological study, versus a hard science approach, will be laughed away. Forget trying to introduce Christian philosophy to a discussion. I often joke with my fiancé, a student at the same university and hard sciences postgrad, that at least biology and numerical logic have yet to be politicized by memes of political correctness (not!). However, the philosophies have always led the epistemological academic direction of all disciplines in their approach to discovering knowledge, processes for studying and classifying results and the interdepartmental culture of the likelihood of academic publishing through the most recognized, and read peer reviewed publishing outlets.

There is a current prevailing wind in psychology blowing to remove all responsibility for "bad acts" from the power to prevent them of the individual's own mind. A turn back in time toward solipsism, or theory that everything the human mind knows and can discover is derived from internalized thought, rather than from interaction and observation of the external world around us. A very, very dangerous philosophy, and a regression to transcendentalist epistemology as normative across the disciplines, versus the empirical. At least naturalist philosophy and point of view scientific study can allow for a positivist tone and avoid the attempted destruction of God from the scientific process and findings.

The colleges were doing the same thing 30 years ago.
The students think that the professors are infallible gods.
The professors teach them that it’s hip to hate America and that it’s dumb to be patriotic.
The new thing though is the Virtue Signaling.
 
Educated people are more difficult to manipulate that's why Universities may be a real threat ... not to US but to US Establishment, War party, Elites, etc., to everything we call Deep State.

But the fact is that Deep State and its puppets are real internal threat and the professor is just one of those who have been trying to distract people's attention from that and to substitute that fact with something fake. That's exactly how propaganda works.
The Marxist propaganda that is being put into our youths minds is detrimental to individual freedoms and foments a lock-step mentality. One just has to look at nations where the Marxist ideology has taken hold and see there is nothing good that comes out of it. Marxist nations are one-party, strong central governments that oppress (and worse) those that do not march in tune with the one-party agenda. In China today, their citizens are given "social cooperation" points and those citizens that they feel haven't contributed enough to the group are forbidden travel as well as other restrictions.
Throughout the past, individuals and groups have fled to the US asking for asylum, simply because they wanted their freedom and individual liberty.
What is being pushed in our universities now are Marxist ideologies and tactics. Such universities need to be defunded.
 

Forum List

Back
Top