Skip to comments.Professors forcing students to support a political cause; not just unconstitutional, it's criminal
Posted on 06/23/2013 8:57:28 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
The next time we hear about a conservative college professor forcing his/her students to support a political position will be the first time such news comes to us. Pulling stunts like that is the province of the Left.
Like most people of the Left, college professors are cowards and bullies who will do anything to force Americans to support their causes. Leftist college professors have created a hostile environment in our college classrooms.
From first-hand experience I know this has been the case for at least forty years. Being one of only three straights (of 25 students) in a cynically labeled English Lit course taught by a Black Lesbian was not a pleasant experience.
Last year a Leftist professor in Florida forced his students to...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Every conservative student should have the site bookmarked.
Holy smokes. The posting just above this one is about muslims in prison bullying inmate into joining their faith, or else. Is there any difference in the professors using their power over the students?
If students of conscience would stand up to these leftist/progressive so called professors, they could start getting rid of them.
One thing I found out quick on any college campus is that a tenured position is a popularity contest, has nothing to do with competence. This is particularly true in the soft courses.
I understand that these kids want to graduate; but a boycott of bad teachers is a very effective weapon, particularly when you are talking about the students or their parents money.
That title makes it sound like the Constitution is subservient to criminal law.
Conservatives MUST do four things:
1) Close down all government K-12 indoctrination collectives. Remove your own children immediately. Remember that most private school teachers were, and are, trained by Marxist Borgs in Marxist Borg colleges of education.
2) See that all children in the U.S. have access to a private and **conservative** education ( preferably NOT based on the Prussian model of schooling.)
3) Lobby **vigorously** to defund state run colleges and universities. Cease sending donations to Marxist dominated colleges and universities and encourage others to do the same.
4)The **less** time spent on college campuses the better! Charles Murray is RIGHT! We need **private** certifying exams for all individual subjects starting in the first grade. Most of the work done in the U.S. historically NEVER required any college attendance. Literacy and numeracy was sufficient. Except for a very very very few professions college attendance is not needed and with qualifying exams even these students in the professions could spend less time on campus.
Sometimes you have no choice. You have to take the fluff because you need so many credits to fill up your degree.
I agree - that picking the ‘least bad’ courses is the way to go, but we still need to get a degree. The purpose of school is to get that little piece of paper which the left can’t take away.
Academia is where the left dominates and begins its propoganda on the American public. It starts from elementary school all the way through to college. I went to high school during the Reagan years and every social sciences teacher I had hammered him personally and politically,and I lived in a state that President Reagan took twice by over 60% in his elections. The left knows where to strike and academia plus the media are where they staked their flags and frankly they’ve had decades of almost unopposed opposition from conservatives and non-liberals. Rooting them out completely will never be accomplished. Sadly, conservative ideas and principles are not articulated very well by our side. Our politicians, with rare exceptions, don’t do a very good job of it. We can’t rely on just Rush, Levin, Savage, and local radio hosts to spread the word. If I’m judging things as they stand today I’m not hopeful for the future of our country.
“We need **private** certifying exams for all individual subjects starting in the first grade. Most of the work done in the U.S. historically NEVER required any college attendance. Literacy and numeracy was sufficient. Except for a very very very few professions college attendance is not needed and with qualifying exams even these students in the professions could spend less time on campus.”
The problem is the hiring structure. If conservative students had a pipeline direct into teaching positions for conservative institutions, then much of this nonsense could be bypassed.
Fifty years ago I was a Political Science major at a highly esteemed east coast university. This crap was going on even then, so it is not a new phenomenon. I haven’t been back for forty five years and have no intention of attending my fiftieth reunion. I can’t remember the last time I gave them any money. When I hear someone is interested in the school I make an attempt to dissuade them.
1) The hiring structure:
How about starting with their own businesses? Use SAT and ACT scores and internships to find motivated and capable employees.
2)The education pipeline:
Abolish the “pipeline”! Let's work to demolish the entire idea of the Prussian-model, brick and mortar, and factory-model school.
It can be done (I’m a private school teacher and run my own tutoring business).
But, my peers are all substantially ahead of me in both pay and hours.
Some are willing to make these sacrifices, others are not. If we want young people, especially young men who we would need for such a scheme, we have to offer them something they aren’t getting elsewhere. Either steady work or pay. Until then we aren’t going to see it happen.
This began in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s, during the Vietnam War.
One of the great fears of young men during that time was the lie that unless they had one of any number of deferments, that at any moment they could be “drafted, sent to Vietnam, and diiiieee!”
The truth was anything but that. The vast majority of soldiers wounded and killed in Vietnam belonged to combat branches in “hot” or “medium” combat zones. These were a tiny minority of all soldiers in Vietnam, must less the majority of all US soldiers, who remained in the US or went to Europe.
Even more, any soldier of good character, in a combat unit who wanted to reenlist and stay with his unit, would get that slot, so the unit would get no replacement. It was not uncommon for soldiers to stay on the front for three or four tours.
By the time of Vietnam, the ratio of combat support and combat service support personnel to combat personnel was about 15 to 1.
In any event, back in the US, radical professors would sometimes blackmail their own students with the refrain: “Unless you go to the anti-war demonstration, you will fail this class, lose your deferment, be drafted, and be sent to Vietnam and diiiieee!”
Students, already frightened a lot by the media, and tantalized by the numerous draft deferments offered by congress, were psychologically brow beaten.
The Tet Offensive, in January of 1968, caused by the last ditch effort of the Viet Cong, who had almost been destroyed by the Phoenix Program, effectively wiped them out, but was declared a huge defeat for the US by the media, starting with Walter Cronkite. From that point on, the Democrat party and the media did everything in their power to undermine the war effort.
This gave campus radicals everything they needed to create chaos. So from then, until president Nixon ended the draft in January of 1973, America was effectively in a Civil War between a tiny number of radicals supported by the media and the Democrats, with passive support from terrified young people.
The radicals were already losing, because after the Kent State incident, a lot of the impulse to radicalism ended, because the mood was that the government had finally lost patience with the radicals.
The end of the draft killed the anti-war movement. All that was left were universities filled with a new generation of leftist professors. And there they remained.
I hear you. I went to college in the 60s, which is when and where I started hearing it; but then, even my lesbian department head defended my right to my conservative opinions against the tobacco-stained, greasy Red Diaper socialist history professor who was banging one of the other students (pre-feminism!). The difference was that the nation was solidly, solidly conservative, even though Kennedy had been elected and Johnson was in the White House.
Now, no way. Their "revolution" is well-advanced. But by my reckoning, it only has at most another decade or so to go, since it started in the 30s. The Soviets didn't make it past 70 years, and the Chinese gave way even sooner to free trade; socially, they will change as prosperity enables them. We all need to stay busy keeping the flame for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
University of Colorado regent supports adding conservative professors
A University of Colorado regent suggests that liberal arts departments should recruit more conservative professors to strike a better political balance on the notoriously liberal Boulder campus.
Jim Geddes, R-Sedalia, will likely raise the issue at a Board of Regents meeting this week when campus chancellors for the first time give formal reports about intellectual diversity efforts on their campuses.
A few years ago, the board added political, intellectual and philosophical diversity to its guiding principles, which Geddes says is a directive from the regents to campuses to enhance conservative faculty in departments where they're underrepresented.
Geddes suggests department leaders in liberal arts disciplines should take an honest assessment of their faculty and ask whether major viewpoints are represented. If there are too few conservatives, he suggests they recruit them when positions open up.
"If I were sending one of my children off to college, I'd tell them I want you to go to a university where you are going to hear smart intellectuals on both sides of issues so you can learn for yourself and form your own opinions," Geddes said. "I wouldn't be in favor of sending my child to a purely conservative university. They've already had that course their whole life living with me."
The regents convene for a public meeting Tuesday at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.
Regent Stephen Ludwig, D-Denver, says he doubts it would be legal to ask job candidates about their political affiliation.
"While we need to encourage a diversity of opinion, we have to be smart about that," he said.
The large, peer-pressuring contingent of Baby Boomers just reaching college age at the outset of the Vietnam conflict;
Post-ww2 affluence sending more young people to college AWAY from home, parents and the values they were raised with than ever before;
The completion of the interstate roadways and access to cars and transportation as never before;
The legalization of the Pill and abortion and the launch of Pop Feminism (Ms. Magazine, Bella Abzug, et cetera) during the Vietnam conflict;
An uptick in non-Christians in positions of power actively seeking to water down cultural solidarity;
Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill favoring nonwhite non-Europeans; and
A generalized rage against "the establishment" arising from the Civil Rights movement.
A perfect storm of inducements to youthful gullibility, rage, fear and irresponsibility.