By Professor Doom
As a white male, it’s been long made clear to me that I have little future in higher education….my skin color and gender preclude advancement, you see.
I’ve mentioned the “white” part of campus bias before, but I want to address the “male” part a bit more today. It isn’t just evidenced at the faculty level, where there are whole departments where males are not welcome…I suspect it’s a factor in why such a clear majority of our college students are female, but only a small factor.
Having an anti-male department isn’t really good enough to entirely explain the shortage of males on campus. Most males have enough sense to avoid Women’s Studies courses, or at least to know what they’re getting into when signing up.
No, this department by itself doesn’t scare away the males. In a similar vein, a male prospective college student isn’t going to be turned off of college just by seeing the registrar, the dean, and many other positions are filled by females. He’ll probably not even notice that, nor should he.
There is something, however, that an incoming college student will notice, because he has no choice in the matter: student orientation. Every student coming on campus is subjected to “orientation.”
In the old days, student orientation was exactly as it sounded: the student was provided with the opportunity to orient himself on campus, to know where everything is. Those were the old days, before the Cultural Marxist takeover happened to so many of our campuses, and these new masters never miss an opportunity for indoctrination.
Gettysburg College freshman James Goodman began his first moments of higher education by being lectured by campus leaders about “toxic masculinity,”
Imagine coming on campus, and having the first thing you learn be “you’re a male, and that’s a problem.” It’s so funny, time and again faculty are told about every little microaggression they supposedly make, and it’s their fault enrollments are down because of all their microaggressions, such as speaking using the English taught in school.
Meanwhile, admin-sponsored hate speech is telling half the people who come on campus that their very genetics make them less equal than others. How can it not occur to admin that this sort of indoctrination is chasing students off far more effectively than using proper English in class?
Part of the indoctrination is students are forced to watch the film, The Mask You Live In. Now, certainly gender is something worth study, and students that want to learn about this should be allowed to do so…but what does this have to do with orientation? We’re supposed to be showing them where the library is, what to do if they need help…not tell them how much they suck because they are male, and force them to watch movies reinforcing what is nothing more than indoctrination.
They really lay it on thick about how being male is a problem:
Other headlines that peppered the trailer apparently link shooting massacres to masculinity; images included stories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six staff members, and the shooting in Aurora, Colo., in which James Holmes killed 12 people inside a movie theater.
Yes, males are more likely to be murderers and drug addicts…but males are also more likely to be musicians and physicists. To only address one side is as vile as damning females because they’re more likely to be crack-addicted prostitutes than males (I know, that sounds a little judgmental, bear with me). How does anyone present this biased “orientation” with a straight face?
Moreover, it was expressed during group discussion that “video games and movies make us violent” and that “kids are becoming violent because they can’t talk about their feelings,” he said.”
I only vaguely remember my orientation, beyond a sales pitch to live in the dorms on campus and a daylong walk around campus in the blazing Florida sun. I suspect many of my readers had no idea “student orientation” now involved this sort of silliness.
“…green, yellow or red dot stickers on pictures of various popular culture images. The green dot was intended to symbolize something good and acceptable, yellow was more moderate, and red as completely inappropriate and unacceptable behavior.
The students were given choices such as Barney Stinson, a misogynistic character from the “How I Met Your Mother” television show, and Grand Theft Auto, among others.
“The entire movie and lesson made it seem like masculinity was an unacceptable human trait. That it’s something males should avoid. It was completely pointless. It did nothing to help anyone. I got absolutely nothing out of the experience, other than a headache,”
I grant that the student above thinks it was just a big waste of time, and I imagine it was, for the most part. Nevertheless, the indoctrination plants a seed: “I’m worth less, because I am male.”
A few months down the road, when this student is struggling in a college course, can anyone conjecture that having male student initiation into college being such a kick in the teeth that he’ll be motivated to try harder? Or is it more likely that the thought “I’m just a male, this stuff isn’t for me…” will make it harder to succeed?
Maybe I’m wrong about the effect of the indoctrination, but then I keep coming back to administration’s insistence that even the tiniest microaggression should be avoided, because it might scare kids off campus. They can’t have it both ways, you see, either microaggressions are a real problem on campus (and not just a stupid make-work project to justify hiring more admin), or insulting half the students who come to campus by telling them how inferior they are is a great idea (and not just a stupid make-work project to justify hiring more admin).
Admin gets it both ways because there’s nothing to stop them from doing whatever they want, but the parenthetical explanations I provide do seem to be an easier explanation for this additional example of insane behavior on campus.