Girls Creeped Out By Old Scientists Luring Them To STEM (?)

By Professor Doom

     Sometimes it’s really hard to believe the academic word works the way it does, and I’ve highlighted many of the surreal aspects of higher ed. A recent article highlights just how bizarre the endless emphasis on “must have more females in STEM” obsession in higher ed today is:

Young Girls Creeped Out By Older Scientists Constantly Trying To Lure Them Into STEM

     It really is amazing watching admin (and the faculty who eagerly do their bidding) bend over for the prospect of a female, particularly one who shows talent and interest in an ‘under-represented’ field, not that there’s a study showing what the proper representation should be. I grant that far fewer females than males go into most STEM fields. In my graduate mathematics cohort, we had 20 students, and only three were female. All three had full ride scholarships, of course…and all three dropped out by the end of the first year.

     Still, it’s amazing the bonuses and benefits for being a female going into STEM, and while I personally have never seen an admin look at such a student lecherously, I’ve noted a weird gleam in their eye at scooping another prospect with the right set of (self-identified?) genitals.

       So, yes, the title of the article caught my eye, and I bookmarked it for later review.

With responses ranging from “squirming in discomfort” to “completely discouraged from studying science and engineering,” a nationwide poll group of high school-age girls revealed Tuesday that the nation’s young women are being utterly creeped out by scientists twice their age constantly attempting to lure them into the study of science, technology, engineering, and math. 

      I know not to trust polls outright, and I read the above line before saving the link. Some time later I track down the origin of the poll, to see if it’s at least a little credible.

“They’re always hanging around our classrooms and sending us targeted messages online—they sometimes even offer us money if we’re into their sort of thing. It’s so desperate,” said 13-year-old…

      The targeting of girls starts in the public school system. Any female child showing aptitude has all her relevant information passed on to the guidance counselor, who “helpfully” passes it on to the state higher education system. These kids come out of high school with the STEM path all laid out for them—how can you turn down all the scholarship money and other benefits? Everyone is all smiles, doing everything they can to make STEM a warm, comforting environment.

     It sounds nice on the surface, but, at the risk of drawing ire from feminists, “guiding” female children like this into a STEM career is every bit as questionable as steering them into an early marriage and childbearing.

      And this of course assumes it even works as planned. All too often (much like the female grad students I started with), the female ends up dropping out of the program, and fast. Now there’s a big problem: the scholarships for being a female STEM student drain away if she’s no longer majoring in STEM. As yet, a female hasn’t decided to become male while remaining a STEM student, but in today’s lunatic world, we can’t rule this problem out as occurring at some point, and I wonder what would become of xer scholarship?

     Most STEM programs/schools are expensive, and so this poor student has now been guided into her own destruction—some scholarships are only “free money” contingent upon completing the program. Admin gets bonuses for luring in female STEM students, but doesn’t necessarily care what happens after they sign up. With any luck, the student has only wasted a year of her life, but it could go much worse.

     Even if she graduates with her STEM degree, there are problems, as there’s a big push to reduce STEM standards so the females will do better. Her degree when she graduates won’t even be worth as much as she was told, because it’s quite reasonable to believe a “female friendly STEM” degree isn’t quite as attracting to employers as previous (hard) degrees were.

      I really, really, hate the idea of identity politics infesting so much of higher education, as the capacity for evil is great while the potential for good is effectively nil.

       At long last, I check where this strange study is coming from: The Onion. This is a phenomenal parody site, though it’s been years since they “got me” with one of their fake articles. The last time they got me was with an article talking about a wide range of Hollywood stars, including legendary lothario Jack Nicholson, “coming out” as homosexuals.

      Higher education is now so bizarre that even the most ridiculous Onion piece about it can be as credible as something about Hollywood.

       This is not a good sign.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Christians Stand Up To University Bullying

By Professor Doom

     As schools become converged, taken over by this bizarre hate ideology, they remove everyone who doesn’t agree to it. They’ve already locked down the faculty on campus, but that was easy to do: faculty are only too happy to write and talk about their beliefs…those who didn’t virtue signal with sufficient sycophancy were easily identified and removed, or not allowed on campus in the first place. Thus we now quite commonly have departments which are pure in their ideology.

     How to purify the students? Well, you start with mandatory indoctrination courses, sacrificing academics in exchange for credit hours in Women’s Studies, Race Studies, and Sexual Orientation courses. This captures the souls of many students…but how to know who still aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid?

      Targeting student groups is the answer. So, anti-communist groups get targeted, while Satanists get a free pass…but one group is standing up this lunacy:

Iowa Christian club refuses to back down: ‘We have not caved to the university’s wishes’

     It’s hard to believe even flyover states are finding their institutions converged but it’s hard to argue with the facts. What problem, pray tell, did the Iowan University find with the Christian club?

…fail to comply with its new “human rights” policy.

     The “human rights” policy is more about sexuality, specifically homosexuality, which is something of a no-no for Christians (not that there’s anything wrong with that). To clarify, the Christian club wants its officers to adhere to Christian beliefs. Seriously, this is a problem for the university:

“deregistering any and all student clubs that has not signed its policy that requires the groups to open their membership — and leadership positions — to anyone, regardless of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

     The rule here is pretty ridiculous, as it basically means that even a Satanist can join the Christian youth group, even serve as leader (I’m dangerously close to making a comment about The Pope here…). As written, pretty much any group with any restrictions on its members could be targeted.

      Is the university targeting other groups?

…campus leaders let other groups, such as Muslim ones, limit membership and leadership opportunities, while it cracked down on the faith-based group Business Leaders in Christ, or BLinC, which sought to bar openly gay students from leading the club.

     If it weren’t for hatred and violence, hypocrisy would be one of the two biggest issues for this converging ideology. The Muslim groups require believers (of course), and certainly are against active homosexuals…but that’s ok. It’s only an issue for Christian groups. Toss in how this ideology commonly targets white males, and locks them out of jobs…and it’s tough to understand how anyone can follow it at all.

     Now, other (less religious) groups were hit with this policy, and caved in. But, those Christians have always been unwilling to yield to those claiming godlike power on Earth, and just won’t change their ways to suit the “leaders” ruling the school.

      Noting that the enforcement of the rules was selective (as it always is for people at the top), and knowing that there’s no hope for fair treatment on campus, the Christians took their case to off campus court, who managed to rule against the school:

Now a federal judge has ordered the taxpayer-funded institution to treat Business Leaders in Christ the same as it treats a registered Muslim student club.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose told the university Tuesday to immediately reinstate BLC so it could participate in a “spring recruitment fair” Wednesday that it deemed essential for its continued viability on campus.

     I’ll never understand why the SJW ideology hates Christianity for its views on gender and sexuality, but gives Islam a free pass, even though the latter holds views which are similar (and in many cases far more restrictive towards females). It’s weird how neither mainstream media nor alternatives can provide some explanation, although at least (and solely) the alternatives point out the very clear hypocrisy here.

      Despite the humiliating defeat and exposure of their hypocrisy, the University of Iowa, more accurately the SJWs running the place, can’t just leave well enough alone. I do feel the need the need to point out that a university’s mission is education and research. Since the “leaders” have forgotten this, I provide a copy of the University of Iowa’s mission statement here:

In pursuing its missions of teaching, research, and service, the University seeks to advance scholarly and creative endeavor through leading-edge research and artistic production; to use this research and creativity to enhance undergraduate, graduate, and professional education, health care, and other services provided to the people of Iowa, the nation, and the world; and to educate students for success and personal fulfillment in a diverse world.

The University of Iowa carries out its academic mission primarily through its 11 colleges, which offer undergraduate and graduate education, professional education, and education and training in the health sciences.

     I openly defy anyone to read the above and conclude the university needs to spend millions of dollars to make sure open homosexuals can be leaders of Christian clubs (but not Muslim clubs).

      I’ll just focus on the first few words of the above. “Teaching” refers to education of humans, and it’s not an accident that this is the first part of the mission. “Research” refers to education of humanity, by expanding the knowledge humanity possesses. Again, not an accident that this is part of the mission.

      The last, the very last goal of the mission is service, bringing good works to the community which has provided the funds which allowed for the creation of the university.

      Will it really take three guesses as to what are the religious beliefs of the community providing the funds? The community should take in interest in the leaders of the institutions.

        The leaders took the money, gave themselves huge salaries, luxurious retirements…and then used whatever money left over to violate and abuse those beliefs to the best of their abilities.

      There needs to be a real investigation as to who these leaders are and how they came into power. More importantly, of course: we need to get rid of these guys, although, as always, in the interim we should de-fund this system by eliminating the student loan scam.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

       

College Course: Heterosexuality Is Not “Natural”

By Professor

     My kind readers often give me “hints” on what to write about, and I had several point me in the direction of a strange-looking course, via ZeroHedge.

     First let’s address the course by dissecting the course description:

QUEER ECOLOGIES

FALL 2018

TAUGHT BY: HEATHER DAVIS

SECTION: A

CRN: 7681

Credits: 4

     The professor is Heather Davis, and section “A” means there’s probably only going to be one section. The CRN is the important part:7681. The first digit of a college course generally says what year student should be taking the course. Your typical undergraduate will probably not take courses numbered higher than 4000 (or 400, for smaller campuses), because a typical bachelor’s degree is a 4 year degree.

      Once you past 4000, you’re looking at graduate school. With a 7000 number, this is a very advanced course. If you walk into a 7000 level course in mathematics, physics, chemistry or engineering without a very firm background in the subject…you’re doomed. It takes years of preparation to understand the material in a 7000 level course—I remind the gentle reader the whole point of education is always to prepare the student for more.

      So what exactly is in this extremely advanced course?

This course will address the interdisciplinary constellation of practices that aim, in different ways, to disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature…

    

     The jargon a bit intense, but I’ll give the professor some slack here—advanced courses are like this. An easier way to express the above would be “this course is a look at all the ways we’re disrupting the view of heterosexuality as the way the world works,” at the risk of oversimplifying (small risk, I admit). There’s more:

and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.

     Hmm. It’s hard to view homosexual behavior as having much impact on evolutionary processes—homosexual behavior isn’t really conducive to pregnancy, after all (we’re specifically addressing humans here), and our understanding of evolution requires propagation of the species in that manner. Similarly, I’m hard pressed to understand what behavior homosexuality would have on the ecology of the world which would be different than heterosexuality (beyond dying off in a single generation, but I doubt that’ll be the gist of the discussion).

      Whatever benefits dying off would have on the ecology would be negated with environmental politics—if you don’t have children, destroying the environment would seem a more acceptable outcome, right? Somehow I suspect that point of view won’t come up in the course.

     There’s more:

Drawing from traditions as diverse as evolutionary biology, LGBTQ+ movements, feminist science studies, and environmental justice,

     One of these things is not like the others, big time. “Evolutionary biology” is something of a science, while the others are political movements/ideologies more than anything else. Ok, I guess some would dispute evolutionary biology as being scientific…but I sure can’t call it a “tradition.”

     There’s more to the course description, but color me puzzled. Where exactly would all this ideology lead? What do you need to know to come into the course? These are real questions in legitimate graduate courses which always—always!-- need to be justified by providing very solid answers to those questions.

     This course seems to be just a bunch of stuff. A bit more on the course:

College: Eugene Lang College Lib Arts (LC)

Department: Culture and Media (LCST)

Campus: New York City (GV)

Course Format: Seminar (R)

Max Enrollment: 18

      Again I’m scratching my head. What is a “culture and media” department? I sure don’t remember any of that in my academic studies, and I’m a little puzzled how “LCST” is a fair abbreviation for “Culture and Media.”

      More worrisome than the puzzling acronym is the enrollment of 18 is full, as near as I can tell. There are truly 18 people studying this incredibly advanced concept? I can’t recall ever seeing a 7000 level course in my discipline with 18 serious students. Again the question of “where are they going with this?” comes to mind.

      Campus Reform had some questions about the course but didn’t really understand the answers provided by the professor, so I’ll try to help, here.

Davis explained that queer ecologies is an “interdisciplinary field that examines the relationship between sexuality and nature, thinking beyond the boundaries of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or standard.”

     Wait. When I look up the definition of “norm,” it’s “usual, typical, or standard.” Gallup says around 4% of the population is homosexual, so, yes, a human being heterosexual is indeed quite typical, even if our media grossly exaggerates the percentage of the population as gay.

      So basically the professor is saying the course will be going beyond the boundaries of thinking “words have meaning.” Hmm.

     The professor continues trying to explain:

The field “inquires into the sexual lives of animals, plants, and bacteria—lives that are often much more strange, adaptable, and queer than anything humans do,” she elaborated. “It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”

      I’m not convinced that humans and bacteria could validly have their “sexual lives” compared, but…there’s a question about heterosexuality being natural? Again, a cursory inspection of the definition of “natural” is in order:

nat·u·ral

/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

adjective

·         1.existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:

As per the definition, yes, heterosexuality is natural, in that it is not caused by humanity. On the other hand, there’s evidence that homosexuals are more common among those abused as children, thus satisfying the definition of “unnatural” but I digress.

“We can see this in how queerness is often said to be ‘unnatural’...rather than thinking about how queer sex might actually be helpful to the survival of species,” Davis noted.

     As much as I have concerns about these types of courses, the above is certainly an interesting idea. Alas, she doesn’t give an example of how that might be the case. Instead, she devolves into faulty logic and obfuscation in what passes as her explanation:

One example of this, Davis asserted, is how scientists often characterize plants using gender-specific language.

“We still tend to characterize plants that reproduce sexually in heterosexual terms where a male and female plant need to transfer gametes. Although this understanding of plant reproduction is not un-true, it misses the point that in order for these plants to fertilize they also rely on other species, such as bees and wasps,” she argued.

   Homosexuality in humans refers to the same species, so discussion of how plants to some extent rely upon other species for their reproduction is a non-sequitur, not reinforcing her idea (it’s kinda-sorta leading up to it in a way, I suppose).

     I’m particularly worried about her “not un-true” line regarding understanding of plant reproduction in heterosexual terms. “Not un-true” is garble-speak for “true”…I’m don’t know what confusion of ideas allows for acknowledging the fact that something is true as a means to argue it’s not true.

     Perhaps I’m being hard on the course. I grant that someone could look at a description for a 7000 level mathematics course and criticize the strange terms and concepts being addressed there. But I still maintain that such a course would have real requirements for entry, unlike the above where simply being able to recite the ideological tenets would be sufficient.

       And, where exactly would this course lead?

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

 

College Moves From Loans To Income Sharing (Plus Loans)

By Professor Doom

     The student loan scam has destroyed many lives in this country, and people are finally starting to balk at letting their kids take out ridiculously huge loans, particularly for degrees which offer little hope of paying back the loan…these days, that’s most degrees.

      Eager to snatch up more students, and knowing that loans just aren’t selling like they used to, some schools are now getting students into an “income sharing” agreement in exchange for their tuition. Instead of a loan, the student agrees to pay a portion of his income after he gets his degree, for a set number of years after graduation.

      Now, considering how ruthless so many of our schools have been when it comes to exploiting kids, I’m naturally wary of anything they have to say. That said, this new agreement makes considerable sense. Part of why the student loan scam was so horrific was the schools had no skin in the game: no matter how fraudulent the “education,” the schools got their loot, while the students got debt.

      If the school has a vested interest in the student actually learning something, the school might be more motivated to offer a legitimate education. A recent article on Norwich University and its new plan to offer Income Share agreements to certain students caught my eye:

Norwich’s program is starting out on a small scale, mainly for students who do not have access to other types of loans or those who are taking longer than the traditional eight semesters to finish their degree.

      And…there goes their credibility. They’re only offering this to students who’ve basically run out of loan money, in an attempt to squeeze just a few more dollars out of them. So, after the school  has grabbed all the low hanging fruit of student  loan money, then and only then will the school return to its mission of helping humanity. Still, this isn’t all bad:

Those touting the programs say they give colleges greater incentive to help students find high-earning jobs after graduation, because a higher salary means the school may recoup its investment in a shorter period of time.

For some students, income share agreements are seen as less risky, especially if they end up in a lower-paying job or struggle to find work after graduation. While students are unemployed or earning below a certain threshold they don’t have to pay anything back.

      Overall, this still is a good idea, but I wish they would offer it to everyone, from their very first day on campus. Their cherry-picking worries me that they’re just simply looking for more revenue, rather than helping humanity through education and research.

       The very clear dark side here is higher education was never supposed to be about raking in money, either for the school or for the students. This type of program makes sense for jobs-training degrees…but what of the liberal arts, or frankly all sorts of degrees which are far more about knowledge than job skills? These have no choice but to fall to the wayside, although, granted, this is happening in schools not offering these types of programs anyway.

    The terms can vary, notably the length of the agreement and the salary percentage. Hoyler is currently paying back 8 percent of his income. Since future salary is generally unpredictable, it can be difficult to forecast how much a student will pay back over time, although most agreements do place a cap on the amount paid back.

     Again, in principle, the idea makes a great deal of sense, but I still see problems with making this work outside of very particular jobs training programs. Suppose a student comes in to be a petroleum engineer, but washes out after 2 years (and trust me, this happens quite often)? Can he switch over to gender studies, and then pay back the tuition by giving up a share of his income as a janitor?

In 2015, Oakton, Virginia-based Vemo Education began working with accredited colleges and universities. The company now works with nearly 30 public and private colleges and universities across the country, including Norwich University.

     In March of 2015,  I wrote of unaccredited coding schools which promised either a job or free tuition to its graduates. It’s good to see that this amazing idea is being taken to the “legitimate” schools, but I still find it likely they’ll corrupt it into yet another means of exploitation of vulnerable kids, instead of a way to help humanity.

      At least some schools are now heading the right direction again. Knowing that they will only do so once the student loan money runs out, we can speed up this process in an obvious way: end the student loan scam.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Universities Creating “Democratic Socialists”

By Professor Doom

     I’ve been slow to accept that our higher education system is turning into, or already is, a mass indoctrination system. Focusing more on the falling standards and mass academic fraud, I’ve perhaps missed that these were simply side effects of the political goal of indoctrination (and thus education is of no importance) rather than the side effects of the unchecked greed of our “leaders” in higher ed (who do  not deem education important).

     But as I look more and more into the current state of higher education, I’ve shifted more to the idea that our campuses follow the new ideology of edu-fascism, which merges the interests of the ideologues and plunderers which all too often seem to control our campuses hand in hand.

      I’ve focused mostly on the greed aspect of edu-fascism, but a recent article talks of the rising “democratic socialist” movement, a consequence of the other aspect. Even followers of this movement cannot explain the difference between “democratic socialism” and pure socialism—I suspect even the phrase “democratic feces” sounds better than simply “feces,” as well. There’s good reason there cannot be a difference worth explaining: sooner or later the person at the top will be voted absolute power (Hi Hitler! Yes, he was democratically elected, and a socialist), and then we’ll just have socialism in any event. Nearly 100,000,000 human beings died under the jackboots of this ideology, so I’m pretty much against it, no matter how sweet it sounds.

     Despite the clear problems with this ideology, the democratic socialist movement is gaining followers, followers who must be simply ignorant of the reality of what they’re supporting. A recent article offers a suggestion from whence these ignorant followers come:

Universities fuel the growth of Democratic Socialism

     I’d never even heard the phrase “democratic socialism” until the rise of Bernie Sanders, who emerged from one of his $10,000,000 homes in the last election to tell me I need to give up some of my wealth so he can hand out stuff for free to get votes. Alas, this ridiculous idea didn’t end with the last election any more than Hillary’s political career did, and recently a democratic socialist candidate even beat an incumbent Democrat (an extraordinary achievement!).

       A commenter gives a helpful description of what Democratic Socialism is all about:

Democratic Socialism: Everybody always gets everything they ever wanted, handed to them free at an all-you-can-eat buffet. A concept conceived and endorsed by people who don't actually work for a living and espoused by rich politicians and "ministers" who never actually worked for a living. They can't explain exactly who pays for all this carefree fun and frivolity, instead relying on shouting and meltdowns to deflect such practical nonsense. It all sounds great to the young and ignorant.

       Where’d the candidate get all those votes from anyway?

The Democratic Socialists of America has grown rapidly of late, recently surpassing 40,000 members, and our universities are largely responsible for its newfound appeal to young people.

     I’ve covered before that Karl Marx is among the most popular authors in higher ed today, dominating not just political science, but also sociology, economics, and others. Much like I concede the works of Charles Manson are worth study, I acknowledge Marx belongs on campus…but it’s bizarre that he’s this ridiculously popular, and unlike (I would hope) Manson, he’s viewed a great hero instead of a monster:

In myriad, often subtle ways, leftist professors exploit their positions of authority to "develop" new socialist acolytes by presenting students with a narrow framework of "acceptable" ideas that disguises socialism as virtuous.

      I disagree with the claim here, but only a bit, and just the word “subtle.” In many courses, the professor makes it clear that disagreement leads to failure, agreement leads to an easy “A.” Similarly, faculty who dare to challenge the socialist narrative are fired or, nowadays, never hired in the first place. Schools now advertise positions where holding political views is part of the job description, and evidence of political bias in hiring is so blatant that it is utterly preposterous to call these ways “subtle.”

As students are spoon-fed leftist talking points in class, reaffirmed by the overrepresentation of the left in social media, they begin to develop their own ideology under the framework set by their professors and shallow political awareness through social media. 

     Please understand when Marx is covered in class, he’s covered in a “pure” way; students are simply told how wonderful the ideas are, eg, “from everyone according to his abilities…”, and seldom, if ever, are the consequences of his ideas discussed, eg, “under socialism, everyone suddenly loses all their abilities, because everyone realize any abilities they claim to have will be taken from them and use of their abilities will benefit someone else…” More importantly, of course, only the Marxist theory is discussed, and the empirical evidence, such as mass starvation because nobody has the ability to grow food, ignored.

      After 4 to 6 years of being forced to nod in agreement every time socialist ideas are presents, and never being asked to think through the consequences of the ideas, it’s little wonder indeed that universities are swelling the ranks of believers in socialism.

The decline of religion has allowed for the rise of secularism…

     My time in public school is not so distant that I’ve forgotten that I, too, was trained in socialism, and this does lead to a minor disagreement with the article: yes, the universities are providing voting-age followers of democratic socialism, but the public schools indoctrinated them well, as my own memories remind me from time to time.

     Another part of my public school training was that “only stupid people believe in religion,” and I was trained to view “those religious kids” as some sort of freaks. Much like with my socialism indoctrination, I’ve overcome this as well, and I find even people who only mouth the precepts of Christianity to be far better than atheists.

      Yes, there are good atheists, but so many atheists I’ve met are just…not so nice. 

More importantly, there’s clearly a human need to worship something greater than what we can immediately touch, since every culture and civilization does so in some form. I completely respect atheists for being skeptical of any religion, but so many of these guys simply worship the government instead, and have an unbreakable faith that this time around, the government, through socialism, can be used as a force for good.  I’ve tried to reason with such people, many times, by using the empirical evidence of what’s happened every single time socialism is tried but…there’s just no breaking that secular faith.

      I’m not convinced universities are responsible for the rise of secularism, however, and point my fingers at the pubic (i.e., government) schools for that.

They haven't seen socialism in action

     This ultimately is the issue, since the empirical evidence is overwhelming on this point. And, indeed, our universities take the blame here, as instead of teaching academic courses like history (a great source of empirical evidence!), the edu-fascism of our campuses has guided our students to the much cheaper to teach and far more ideologically friendly indoctrination courses, which are mandatory on many campuses now, replacing academics as a core part of an education.

Ideologues knee deep in their own garbage are unable to understand the true evil that is socialism. The far left is a much greater threat to our nation than any neo-Nazi group will ever be, and our universities are the gateways to the left.

     As is increasingly obvious to those who watch more than just CNN, the leftists are indeed extremely violent and dangerous at this point. It’s funny the above compares them to “neo-Nazis,” because the comparison is even stronger than implied. See, “Nazi” is short for (in German) “National Socialism.” The leftists are worse than neo-Nazis because they are even more Nazi than neo-Nazis. I’ve literally tried to explain to followers of this ideology, when they praise socialism, that they’re following the beliefs of Hitler, the undisputed father of Nazism. On more than one occasion, this has caused a head to nearly explode in the effort to contain the cognitive disconnect of holding both “I must punch a Nazi” and “I’m a Nazi” in their brain simultaneously. So far, the end response has only been fury…but I feel the need to keep trying to impose reason with those who will at least go through the motions of attempting a dialogue.

      In any event, the rise of edu-fascism in our schools has indeed led to the creation of tens of thousands of democratic socialist party members…as well as fabulous wealth for those corrupt pirates running the system. As neither of these outcomes is desirable, I repeat my refrain to cut off the money paying for both: end the student loan scam.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Poo-Bah Overrules Vote, Removes Statue of Jefferson’s Grandson

By Professor Doom

     We’re trained as a people to respect the sanctity of the vote. If the people vote a certain way, then that’s the way it should go. I can’t quite break that conditioning, as it does strike me as a decent way to make decisions, at least up to a point (hi Bill of Rights!).

     Trouble is, this process has been corrupted. I’m not simply talking about voter fraud here, although that’s pretty huge and another factor. The problem I have with how it’s done today is, if the people vote the way the leaders want (and the leaders have endless money and other capacity to convince people to vote that way), then it very quickly gets done that way, and the issue is never addressed again.

      For example, I’d love to have another vote on income tax, since it’s clearly gone far beyond what it was promised to be (namely, only a tax on the very wealthy)…but, too bad, my grandfather apparently voted for it, and so we’re stuck with it forever. I’d love to be able to vote to get rid of all the victimless traffic fines—the typical response when people see a highwayman’s car (i.e., “police car”) on the road today is fear because of their primary activity. But, somehow, that vote option never seems to come up again.

      On the other hand, if people vote against what the leaders want…the vote just comes up again next year. If you vote to raise sales tax, for example, it goes up and stays up forever. If the tax fails to get enough votes, well, then, the people have to vote it down again next year, and the year after, and the year after, and so on.

      Even when the vote can’t come up again, the leaders really drag their feet when it comes to enacting “the will of the people” if they can get away with it (Hi Brexit!). Of course, if the leaders are powerful enough to simply overrule the vote and do what they wanted to do in the first place, they’ll do that, and nowhere are leaders more powerful than on campus, leading to today’s topic:

FSU prez defies student vote, agrees to relocate Eppes statue

     The Leftist takeover of our campuses is often presented as a student-initiated movement, but I have my doubts. The above campus had a statue of Jefferson’s grandson on it, and somehow the lunatics running the place were offended by the grandson of someone who owned slaves. I guess they had reasons:

the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapter at FSU had spearheaded a referendum in 2016 calling for the Eppes statue’s removal on the grounds that he was “especially racist” and “especially pro-slavery.”

--emphasis added.

      For years now, the weapon of “RACIST” has been bashed against the head of every enemy of these guys. Bottom line, it’s been used so much it’s blunted. So now they have to label people “especially” racist for the weapon’s blows to even register. Sheesh.

      And so that statue needed to go. I still suspect this has as much to do with his relationship to Jefferson as with his own, alleged, actions. What has happened to us as a people that we’re remotely capable of holding a grandchild responsible for the actions of a grandparent who died scores of years ago? For what it’s worth, a Leftist hellhole called North Korea does hold grandchildren responsible for the actions of dead grandparents (click the link you don’t believe me)….I only mention this because it really seems like the goal of the Leftists running so many of our campuses may well be to turn them into little North Koreas.

     Much like with Donald Trump’s Hollywood star, it seems the lunatic left is determined to erase even trifling evidence of things they don’t like, such as the liberty Jefferson thought was a good idea. But there needed to be a vote, and the students voted very strongly (70%) to keep the statue. Good for them! If they had voted to remove the statue, I assure the gentle reader it would have been removed overnight, and there would never be a vote to put the statue back.

     Our leaders, oh so eager to extoll the virtues of democracy when it goes their way, have a completely different view when the vote goes against them (hi Hillary!). The Poo Bah of this campus is no different and simply overrules the student vote:

…he will not only remove the Eppes statue, but will also seek legislative approval to erase former Florida Supreme Court Justice B.K. Robert’s name from the main building at the College of Law.

--I won’t bother to address the un-personing of Robert. It’s sick that the dead are being attacked this way for beliefs which were pretty common in their day, however.

      And…that’s that. I’ve said many times the power our campus Poo-Bahs wield is absolute, and I feel this is an unarguable example. The worst case scenario, assuming any fallout from the gross abuse of power, is the Poo-Bah will be removed, and granted a huge golden parachute on the way out. To add insult to injury, he’ll use his fluorescent virtue-signaling here in boldly overruling a vote and bravely having his minions destroy a statue to land another plum position in higher ed in short order.

      I grant that this is petty tyranny, but I assure the gentle reader: if this is the lengths these Leftists will go to over something as piffling as a statue, you can bet they’re more than willing to destroy all of higher education in pursuit of their ideology.

    There is a small protest against this abuse of power, but it’s irrelevant:

The FSU College Republicans vehemently condemned Thrasher’s decision in a statement on its Facebook page, saying the school’s president “has decided to cave in to the whims of the loud minority...in lieu of listening to the overwhelming 71.7% majority of FSU students who voted to keep the Eppes statue in place less than two years ago.”

      The gentle reader should understand there is no call to remove statues of Lincoln, or even Martin Luther King, Jr., even though they too were less than perfect. The people who disagree with these historical figures have too much decency to assault the dead, you see, and that’s something the Poo-Bah here, and others of his ilk, simply do not possess.

      In the meantime, any prospective student considering going to college should absolutely avoid this place, as there’s no reason to suspect education will be a priority here. Instead, the priority will be whatever the Poo-Bah wants it to be, namely, plenty of loot for himself and advancement of ideology, as per the tenets of campus edu-fascism.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com