Nail, meet hammer. When 90% of college history professors are liberal Democrats, fully invested in the Obama legacy, it’s a sure bet their accounts will gloss over Zero’s many failures, and emphasize his status as the first black President, implementation of Obamacare, and his green agenda.
If most FReepers took a look at history books being used in high schools and colleges across the country, they’d be shocked. The accomplishments of Ronald Reagan—already ranked among the greatest Presidents in American history—are minimized. Instead, the authors focus on such “issues” as the AIDS epidemic (and Reagan’s response), and Gorbachev’s role in “transforming” the former Soviet Union. Ronaldus Magnus is often portrayed as someone who just happened to be in the White House when the Soviets imploded, and the economy added 20 million new jobs.
Henry Ford got it right with his assertion that “History is bunk.” Especially when the “scholars” writing that history abandon any pretense of independence and objectivity.
I believe there is going to be a huge shift in education, and that this will markedly erode the stature and meaning of many universities over the next 50 years. It will matter less and less ‘where you went to school’, and more and more how well you did on specific aptitude tests that demonstrate what you actually learned.
I believe this will lead to greater significance and concentration placed on ‘marketable’ knowledge and skills, and that thus the ivory tower will become fragmented. This is a good thing for those who are committed to education, and a bad thing for those with an agenda who have made too many universities bastions of monolithic thought.