Skip to comments.
Thought control replaces academic freedom
| Tuesday, March 25, 2003
| by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted on 03/25/2003 5:08:07 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Gone are the days when academic freedom was the watchword on college campuses. Today, thought control is the dominant theology, often hiding behind the mantras of diversity and multiculturalism.
The American Enterprise magazine's survey of the political affiliations of professors in 19 major universities confirms similar surveys. The tally: Cornell, 166 professors registered in the Democratic Party or another party of the left; and only six registered with Republicans or another party of the right; the Harvard score is 50-2; Penn State 59-10; Stanford 151-17; Brown 54-3; University of California Berkeley 59-7; University of California Los Angeles 141-9; University of Texas 94-15.
More than two-thirds of colleges and universities have speech codes even though, at least at public universities, they are unconstitutional. The codes are aimed at forbidding the free speech of conservatives, Christians and humor magazines, because the politically correct brigade and the feminists have no sense of humor.
Many of the speech codes are as silly and intolerant as the British speech code at Stockport College that made international news by banning 40 "offensive" words and phrases. Lady and gentleman are banned because of "class implications," history and chairman are sexist, "normal couple" is simply unacceptable and "slaving over a hot stove" is offensive to the plight of real slaves.
Colleges and universities have hired highly paid itinerant facilitators to train incoming freshmen to feel guilty if they are white and to think politically correct thoughts about race and diversity. Two of the films widely used at these Soviet-style re-education sessions are "Skin Deep," which presents intolerance and racism as the norm in the United States, and "Blue-Eyed," a 90-minute tirade designed to humiliate people with blue eyes and empower people with brown eyes.
Get ready for the next round of left-wing commencement speakers.
Cornell has announced it has signed up that rowdiest of leftists, James Carville.
Al Gore and Madeleine Albright were recent commencement speakers at Harvard, Robert Reich and Janet Reno at the University of California, Berkeley, Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter at the University of Pennsylvania, and Gloria Steinem and Whoopi Goldberg at Wellesley. At most prestigious colleges, students never hear a conservative commencement speaker.
Diversity includes requiring freshmen at Northern Arizona University to read "Science and the Case for Animal Rights" by Steven M. Wise so students can learn that animals can be "persons." But multiculturalism does not permit the campus newspaper at the University of California, Riverside, to publish a cartoon critical of the large numbers of foreign teaching assistants who speak broken English.
Nor does multiculturalism permit criticism of Hispanic students working for the Aztlan movement calling for revolutionary liberation from "gringos." When the conservative campus publication, The Patriot, printed a critical story, its staff was personally harassed, some received death threats, the office was broken into and 3,000 copies of the magazine were stolen.
At the women's studies program at the University of South Carolina, students must acknowledge the existence of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism and other institutional forms of oppression of women before being permitted to participate in class discussions.
Alas, this is typical of the 900 women's studies courses taught nationwide.
The textbooks in women's studies programs teach that women are the victims of a male-dominated society, that marriage is an "instrument of oppression," and that fathers are "foreign male elements" who stand between mothers and daughters. This was the conclusion of an Independent Women's Forum review of five of the most widely used textbooks and 30 course outlines from major universities.
The obscene show touted by feminists as the way to observe Valentine's Day, "The Vagina Monologues," will be staged on 667 college campuses this year, up from 550 last year. The original version eulogizes the "good rape" of a 13-year-old girl by a 24-year-old woman who plies her with alcohol and leads her to conclude, "I'll never need to rely on a man."
At Georgetown University, the student who dared to write a critical review for the campus newspaper was fired.
College thought control is not merely political. The attack on morality is so savage that it sometimes even breaks into The New York Times.
One Times headline read: "No Big Deal, but Some Dorm Rooms Have Gone Coed," with the push coming "from gay groups that said it was 'heterosexist' to require roommates to be of the same sex."
Another Times headline described "The Naked Dorm at Wesleyan University in Connecticut," which advertises itself as a diverse, multicultural, politically active dormitory for men and women where clothing is "optional."
Students who are victimized by the new thought control should contact the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization dedicated to the First Amendment and academic freedom.
FIRE is piling up a series of successes in discrediting the intolerant politically correct campus Gestapo
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: censorship; college; freespeech; georgetownu; highereducation; phyllisschlafly
Egads, my son just got accepted to Cornell, and Carville is going to be there. Ewwww! This political correctness is stupefying. V's wife.
posted on 03/25/2003 5:12:39 AM PST
I recently read somewhere that many colleges now have a larger number of women attending them than men.
I guess the guys are waking up -- probably after listening to their older brothers. It's bad enough when you have to go through this multiculturism, radical feminism, anti-male PC nonense under compulsion in the public schools, but why pay for it out of your own pocket and put yourself into debt?
posted on 03/25/2003 5:23:23 AM PST
This is news?
Mabey I'm just more in touch with it because I went to University of Vermont and experienced it first hand.
The straw that broke the camels back for me was being forced to take a "Race Relations" class to graduate.
I have not and will not be graduating.
Interesting article on what's wrong with today's public schools. Lots of unhappy boys and potential turmoil down the road.
ADVERSE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (29)
by JANN FLURY
Appearing Exclusively every Monday
March 24, 2003
It is a fact that men and women, by nature, think differently, and that they often have different interests, sentiments, and priorities. Therefore, it follows that boys and girls also think differently. This fact becomes obvious at school, and it creates unnecessary problems, mostly, because these intrinsic differences in the psyche between the sexes aren't accepted or taken into consideration by the "progressive" educators, bent on creating an egalitarian society of underlings.
Well disciplined children who know their place and are treated fairly are happy students. They contribute to the morale and well-being of the school and form part of the safe learning environment. Misunderstood or treated unfairly, without due consideration or appropriate interpretation of rules of conduct, students become resentful, uncooperative, and jeopardize the safe learning environment. In many schools today the prevalence of unruliness and defiance borders on anarchy, and instances have been reported where teachers actually fear for their own safety.
It is noteworthy that, today, boys have more discipline problems at school than girls. They have more problems academically; they do most of the bullying and fighting; and boys rebel against the politically-correct doctrine promoted by modern schools and drop-out more than girls. Have our schools become an adverse environment for boys through the promotion of rules of conduct that are incompatible with the nature of the developing male psyche? If so, why and how?
The high-tech brain wizards of the psychiatric world put their own spin on the problem. They claim that by looking through their own magic looking-glass, they can actually SEE how the human brain and thought processes work. They claim that men and women use the brain differently to solve any given problem. To us mortals, it is common knowledge that boys behave differently from girls because they think differently, and they think differently because their natural roles in life are meant to be different: "Vive la difference!" These differences are observable from early childhood and become modified as the character develops into adulthood.
Girls instinctively exhibit innate, typically feminine traits from early childhood. Girls are more demure, precocious, circumspect, and adaptable than boys. They like to learn new things and are interested mostly in art related, cerebral, non-physical activities. They are gregarious, like to socialize and play role-games with their peers.
Boys, by nature, are typically physical, boisterous and competitive. They like to lead more than follow and prefer physical or competitive games. They tend to be egocentric and readily resort to physical action when angered or threatened. Boys tend to be critical and idealistic, while girls are more altruistic and realistic.
Today, an overwhelming majority of grade-school teachers are women. Schools no longer have adequate male role models for the boys, and churlish boy-type behaviour is no longer well understood or tolerated. It is now seen as symptomatic of a violent personality or labeled as a learning disability in need of counseling or even psychiatric help. Male values like courage and competitiveness are seen as aggressive qualities that must be subdued and replaced with the more benign and politically acceptable female traits of compassion, tolerance and understanding. Consequently boys find themselves in a hostile, adverse school environment, unable to keep up with the girls in study and the woman teacher's behavioural expectations.
These attempts of behaviour modifications have come at a price. Over recent years, there has been an appalling deterioration in school discipline, accompanied by increased violence, and school dropouts. Through the ages, the natural character differences between men and women have been celebrated, and schools encouraged the development of these differences. Today, however, educators are striving to produce a gender-neutral set of values in students that is biased in favour of the female psyche, and the innate differences are being suppressed or crippled starting right in Kindergarten.
Modern educators tore down the old style school with all its traditions and transformed public education into what they tell us is a kinder, gentler institution. They set out to make school fun and exciting; they liberalized school by relaxing discipline and dress codes; they no longer teach manners or social etiquette and ignore traditional codes of conduct; they encourage students to explore and do their own thing. They promise to cater to the needs of every individual student and promote a nonjudgmental attitude by stating that there is no right or wrong. Progressive educators promote group learning in a modern school that is devoid of values and standards. They claim all students learn at their own pace and cannot be held to a timetable or specific goals of achievement.
To the modern educator the object of public school is to produce a student who is tolerant, nonjudgmental and can work cooperatively with a wide range of people in a global community. The emphasis is on political correctness, not academic achievement. Students must learn to "celebrate diversity," without rancor or prejudice. Many restless boy students cannot identify with such nebulous values, and fail to see any purpose in attending school.
Paradoxically, these liberalized institutions have found it necessary to make a whole new set of extensive rules to enforce their edict for a politically-correct environment. They even have a policy of "zero tolerance" against intolerance and against numerous fabricated petty offences that reflect typically boyish behaviour. Any physical horsing around, skylarking, pushing or shoving is strictly forbidden and is often interpreted as violent behaviour or assault. Even teasing is now a punishable offence and classified as a form of bullying.
It seems that the rules in our public schools today are made by cadre of modern educators largely composed of women unsympathetic to boyish behaviour. Boy behaviour is no longer tolerated. Natural male development is suppressed, crippled, or perverted. It's okay to be or act like a homosexual, but it's not okay to act like a normal boy.
It's bad enough that we have such lopsided rules for behaviour in public schools, but what is worse--even criminal--is how educators have chosen to enforce these lopsided rules. Boys must behave like girls or face psychological scrutiny or suspension if they don't comply with the "zero-tolerance" policy against perceived discrimination, prejudice or violence. Many schools hand out suspensions for minor physical altercations, expulsion for repeat or more serious offences. And, of course, for an in-house remedy we have the ubiquitous school psychologist who is usually all too willing to prescribe harmful mind-altering drugs like Ritalin to make boys more docile and obedient.
All these extreme measures for minor infractions do nothing to alleviate the underlying problem: they exacerbate it. It is like putting a dirty bandage on a festering wound. The developing character of a boy needs to be gently, firmly guided--sublimated--not stifled, crippled, or perverted, by politically-correct poppycock.
The intent to create a kinder, gentler society, shaped according to feminine logic, has neglected the developmental needs of boys. The nonsensical, politically-correct rules for behaviour have spawned an environment of rebellious resentment and loathing: a seething powder-keg ready to explode.
Soon we may reach a point with the school discipline problem where neither security guards, school psychologists, psychiatrists nor "All the Kings Horses and all the King's Men will be able to put Humpty-Dumpty together again."
posted on 03/25/2003 6:34:20 AM PST
To: ladylib; Hobsonphile; LiteKeeper; TxBec
Good article. Do you have a link?
posted on 03/25/2003 7:46:15 AM PST
To: Black Agnes; rmlew; cardinal4; LiteKeeper; hoppity; Lizard_King; Sir_Ed; TLBSHOW; BigRedQuark; ...
Leftism on Campus ping!
If you would like to be added to the Leftism on Campus ping list, please
notify me via FReep-mail.
posted on 03/25/2003 9:57:53 AM PST
(Human nature can't be wished away by utopian dreams.)
Give no mind to thought control instead expose the liberal left wing commies on campus for what they are.
Yes I thought about it before posting this! LOL
posted on 03/25/2003 10:02:36 AM PST
(The gift is to see the truth......)
Back during the early Clinton years (and I was a lurker) there was a letter posted on FR from some education guru to Hillary stating something to the effect that "now that you are elected, we can go forward with our plans". Had something to do with School to Work where a child was pegged at an early age whether he/she would go to college or not. If college was not in the works, then the child would be educated for the workforce. The name of the program kept changing because when parents found out about it they raised hell. That is when lots of parents started home schooling. I remember Texas and Ohio being some of the states talked about. I had the letter printed, but when moving I have misplaced it. I hope I can find it. If anyone remembers this and can freep mail it to me I would appreciate it. This indoctrination starts in the first grade and continues throughout a childs education. If parents don't start looking at what Johnny is being taught, we are going to have big problems - bigger than we have now.
posted on 03/25/2003 5:14:46 PM PST
(Support our boys in uniform - TAKE NO PRISONERS)
Here it is. It's the infamous Marc Tucker letter to Hillary Clinton, which outlines their plans to transform education (and life as we know it)in this country from knowledge-based education to job training -- a seemless web of government interference from birth to death. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/marc_tucker_letter.html
Hillary and Bill Clinton sent their daughter to Sidwell Friends in Washington, DC. I don't think Chelsea had any "School-to-Work" training, but then again, she is among the elite. I read on this forum where she is going to accept a job for $100,000 a year.
Hillary was very big on public school students wearing uniforms to school, but several weeks ago, I passed Sidwell Friends and I didn't see any of those kids in uniform.
School-to-Work was tried in my state, but parents went ballistic. The plan was to have juniors and seniors devote one day a week to job training. That would have meant that they would lose 20% of their academic classes. If a student did not wish to particpate, he would be required to take some sort of job training on his own time (weekends, vacations). Today, we have various career classes and career academies, but nothing as radical as School-to-Work.
I believe the government tries to entice poor districts with School-to-Work. It's fine if that's what parents and students want, but parents in my state (who pay a big chunk of change in school taxes) want something better for their children than job training for menial jobs.
posted on 03/25/2003 5:35:52 PM PST
posted on 03/25/2003 5:40:39 PM PST
You are awesome ladylib. Thanks!
posted on 03/25/2003 6:05:32 PM PST
(Support our boys in uniform - TAKE NO PRISONERS)
For what it's worth, "School-to-work" is based on the same model of education used in France and Germany.
In France, students start their placement exams for future university education eligibility as early as 11. If they they are still on the university track and pass the BAC exam at the end of lycee (high school), they go to university. Otherwise, they are dumped back into the technical schools or drop out completely. At anytime prior to 18, a student can fail their placement exams and fall off the university track onto the technical school route and there's no returing to the "higher track".
And one wonders why there are so many contributing causes to low European GNP growth.
posted on 03/26/2003 12:55:59 PM PST
(We are a Republic not a Democracy)
I believe South Carolina is trying to do the same thing with their STW program. St. Paul, MN, tells kids if they don't have a certain average by the end of 8th grade, they aren't going to pursue an academic track. They'll have to choose a career track based on local workforce needs. If they don't choose or if what they want is no longer available, the school will do it for them.
I don't understand why parents aren't furious over the whole thing, but then St. Paul probably has a large uneducated minority population who can be easily gulled.
If it isn't working in Germany, why do people assume it will work here? Why do parents and students put up with it? It's un-American.
posted on 03/26/2003 2:50:16 PM PST
Here's your answer to why South Carolina is following the German education model - it is an important issue for German companies based in South Carolina. The following comes from a SC trade promotion website targeting European firms.
German roots run deep in South Carolina
GERMANY HAS THE MOST PREDOMINANT international business presence in South Carolina, with about 130 companies statewide. In all, almost 22,000 South Carolinians work for German-owned companies.
In the early days, most employees of German companies worked for textile machinery manufacturers. Today, the largest segment of those employees work for the transportation equipment sector (i.e. automotive and automotive parts), followed by the chemical and industrial machinery sectors. More than a third of the 22.000 German-company employees in South Carolina work for the transportation equipment sector.
The oldest German business in South Carolina is MECO Metal Finishing, which came to Rock Hill in 1897. Some of the more recognizable German companies operating in South Carolina are BMW, Robert Bosch, Hoechst Celanese, Lockwood Greene, Bayer Corporation and BASF Corp.
Germany is also the Port of Charleston's largest customer. South Carolina businesses shipped about $796 million in goods to Germany during 1997. When combined with air freight volume, South Carolina exports to Germany total more than $928 million in 1997, 216 percent higher than in 1995.
posted on 03/26/2003 4:49:03 PM PST
(We are a Republic not a Democracy)
Thank you for this information. By the way, I once worked for Bayer Corporation.
posted on 03/27/2003 4:40:16 AM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson