mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Higher Education Watch
Right-Wing Inquisitors on Campus

Donald Trump’s upset victory has been hailed by his supporters as an unprecedented repudiation of politically correct ideology on college campuses. For those of us who think that campus victim culture has gone off the rails, this is a good thing. But it also may have emboldened anti-PC forces in higher education to overreach and take illiberal steps of their own. An example, from Inside Higher Education:

A new website is asking students and others to “expose and document” professors who “discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

The site, called Professor Watchlist, is not without precedent — predecessors include the now-defunct NoIndoctrination.org, which logged accounts of alleged bias in the classroom. There’s also David Horowitz’s 2006 book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. But such efforts arguably have new meaning in an era of talk about registering certain social groups and concerns about free speech.

Conservatives have understandably felt for decades that the higher education establishment is indifferent or hostile to their interests. The number of right-of-center faculty has dwindled to the point of disappearance; Republican speakers are regularly shouted down; campus speech codes and harassment policies seem designed to disfavor conservative points of view. Now that the cultural wind is at their backs as never before, some on the Right may be tempted to be vindictive, and to do to college liberals what college liberals have done to them. Ben Carson, currently being considered for a Trump Administration cabinet position, suggested during the primaries that the government should police colleges for liberal bias.

Needless to say, such efforts would be deeply destructive. If Orwellian left-wing speech codes are wrong, then McCarthyist speech codes are wrong as well. If the principle of academic freedom requires the protection of conservative scholarship, it requires the protection of liberal scholarship, too. The aim of genuine defenders of the liberal tradition must be to promote tolerance and open-mindedness, not to replace left-wing academic hegemony with a right-wing version.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • QET

    The cultural wind is not at their backs. The Leftward wind still howls at gale force. What these people are doing is called self-defense. You know, like when someone points a gun at you, when you point one back in self-defense that is not to be considered as some sort of deplorable act of violence. Requiring the Right to unilaterally disarm is the kind of thinking that has left the academic field open to the Left’s predations these last 40 years. While the Right was busy softly speaking the names Locke, Madison, Tocqueville, Strauss, in hopes that the Left would “engage,” the Left was busy installing junior assistant associate deans for diversity and inclusion in every crevice, throwing kids out of classrooms for daring to question whether the “1 in 5” fraud is legit, and throwing professors out of their jobs for refusing to take Halloween costumes for V weapons. The Left is not going to just suddenly now say “You’re right, we have been grossly biased and unfair; we have overreached and abused; from now on we will be open to the free exchange of ideas in a vigorous civil discourse blah blah blah.” No: the Left is going to have to be pushed back.

    If anything, the current situation resembles the breakout from the Pusan perimeter. Pushing the North Koreans all the way back across the 38th Parallel is not “replacing left-wing academic hegemony with a right-wing version.” It is restoring balance and the status quo ex ante. The overreach on the Right will occur, if at all, when a MacArthur arrives and pushes the Left across the Yalu. But we have a long, long way to go before that day arrives.

    • Jim__L

      Also, there is the question of what is to be done with the “record and document” information. If it’s simply a matter of having data to use for an informed conversation about bias, then it’s a perfectly justified matter of rigorous intellectual debate.

      *What is done with* that information will determine whether it’s good or bad.

      Will people be hounded out of their jobs based on this information? Is that good or bad? Well, do you think affirmative action is justified?

      • QET

        Well, for myself, I see it as necessary that certain people should lose their jobs, as either (i) those jobs had no business being created in the first place, or (ii) those people had no business being given those jobs in the first place. I don’t know that I want to valorize “hounding people out,” as that suggests a degree of malice unneeded to accomplish the goal. But at the same time, people don’t just “do” things; they do things as a result of motivation, and given the undisguised animus of the academic Left toward anyone on the Right in recent years, I think it is probably the case that the initial efforts to restore balance will require a corresponding animus. Spinoza observed that reason cannot overcome a passion; a passion can only be overcome by another passion.

      • John200

        Dear Jim_L,
        1. Yes, I hope that unqualified people will be hounded out of “their” jobs – affirmative action doinks are, by definition, less capable than others who were not hired. They have jobs they should not have, again by definition.

        By the way, most affirmative action doinks have positions, not jobs. But that leads to a whole ‘nother discussion thread. We’ll do it later….

        2. Yes, getting rid of the unqualified (by definition, AA doinks are unqualified) is an unopposable good. It will strengthen every organization that has been weakened by hiring affirmative action doinks. There is nothing bad about it.

        OK, I’ll repeat my thesis: Dropping each and all affirmative action doinks will strengthen every organization
        that has been weakened by hiring affirmative action doinks. Moving to the macro level, the stronger the organizations, the stronger the nation.

        3. Theoretically, AA is completely unjustified as of November 24, 2016. Practically, it is comprehensively wrong. If you believe in evil (I dunno you well enough to make a conclusion), it is also a great evil, self-inflicted by the body politic upon itself.

        AA is, to conclude, a plague upon the nation that we all love and defend and hope to improve by our tiny little actions.

        • mrdoug1

          I agree with a lot of what you write, in theory, but it’s just not going to happen. Not even close. Not anytime soon. Academia will remain a bastion of Leftist thought & indoctrination for the foreseeable future.

          • John200

            Thanks, Mr. Doug, for the note.

            Nor, I take it, is a non-politician America-first businessman going to win the presidency. It’s just not going to happen; not even close; not anytime soon, am I right? No, I am not.

            I do not mean to taunt you, but my thesis is that change is possible only for those who try. Soon it becomes plausible, then inevitable, and later we recognize, in retrospect, how silly we were to believe the status quo was ordained to last.

            I am glad you agree with a lot of it. We have a great opportunity to accomplish much more than the usual transfer of power from one sleepy party to another group of Snoozing-Americans.

            “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”.
            – Samuel Adams

            Now let’s go! Our descendants will judge us on the basis of what we do for them, and they will damn us to hell if we do nothing when we had the opportunity to act.

            Please? Let’s go?

    • mrdoug1

      Precisely. As I write above.

  • Boritz

    Liberals abandoned “the liberal tradition” a very long time ago. Defense of “tolerance and open-mindedness” have disappeared from the landscape having been replaced by demands, not suggestions, for embracing and celebrating. This has been driven relentlessly and those in power have promoted it. Conservatives have not wanted this. If you are afraid, it is fear of monsters of liberal creation which have predictably slipped from their control.

  • Anthony

    Truth in advertising you think – “Donald Trump’s upset victory has been hailed by his supporters as an unprecedented repudiation….”

    The college argument aside, no doubt Donald Trump is President- Elect (all informed and law-abiding citizens know that, as America does not decide national elections by who wins the most votes). But reality of a mandate – unprecedented repudiation – bends the truth (couldn’t one say): more Americans voted for Democratic Senatorial candidates and Presidential candidate than Republicans in both categories. Educationally centered, the students ought to be advised (as youngsters are always in need of) not to confuse reality of being in electoral power with the idea of unprecedented repudiation – a majority of Americans voted contra.

    • Proud Skeptic

      Correction…a majority of Americans who voted, voted contra. Precision, please.

      • Anthony

        Thanks, as precision eliminates confusion!

      • docwatson55

        And do you know how many illegals voted? How many dead people? How many people voted multiple times?
        I don’t, nor do you, because the Left mightily resists any basic vetting of votes based on some kind of verifiable voter ID.

        The Democrat mantra: “Vote early, vote often.”

        • Proud Skeptic

          Nope…we don’t know any of that, either. You seem upset. Did you understand my point?

          • Anthony

            Precision (as I was informed) or in this case accuracy is important – 59% of eligible voters voted by my latest numbers (but if you choose to round up, that’s O.K.). Unfortunately over 90 plus million American did not. There’s the challenge.

          • Proud Skeptic

            We can postulate what the remaining 41 percent might have done but we cannot know. Therefore, we cannot state that one candidate is supported by the entire population more than is the other candidate. We can count votes…which represent only those who voted, leaving tens of millions of opinions not collected. We can count electoral college votes and state that the president is X or Y because that is the rule we go by.

            That’s it.

            Like in the 1960 World Series…the winner is the winner in accordance with the rules of the game…not the total runs scored.

            One can like it or not. One can chose to change it or not. One can even pretend that he knows the hearts of the non voting public. Have at it. But the counter argument exists.

          • Anthony

            There is no postulating here and certainly no mind reading. Facts are the d******* things. I remember the 1960 World Series and I did not like outcome but accepted the Fact. And counter arguments as far as they go, I leave to the self-serving.

          • Proud Skeptic

            You lose.

          • Anthony

            Whatever that means, it’s not first nor will it be last (losing comes with really living).

          • ChuckFinley

            You seem to assume that the voter rolls are accurate and that everybody listed on them is a genuine live person who has not moved away to another county or state.

            One of the things that Republicans tend to do when they are elected to the post of County Clerk or whoever is the local official in charge of the voter rolls is to cross reference the voter rolls against dead people or against people who have registered to vote elsewhere in the state. This often results in significant decreases in the number of people on the voter rolls which makes it more difficult for Democrats to cast fraudulent votes. For the most part the reduction in voter rolls is less than 40% but this only happens in political entities where Republicans are elected. For all we know, Democrat controlled political subdivisions may have many more invalid names on the voter rolls.

            Democrats always scream when this happens and claim that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise people. The only people being disenfranchised are dead or moved away.

          • Proud Skeptic

            That has literally nothing to do with the point I was making…nothing.

          • ChuckFinley

            ” My point is that since only about 60 percent of the people voted, we
            don’t really know for certain who the other 40 percent would have voted
            for.”

            My point is that it may be a lot less than 40% because in a lot of places they do not make any effort to keep the voter rolls up to date. That being the case, the votes cast may be a lot closer representation of people’s preferences than you seem to think it is.

          • Proud Skeptic

            “May be” is not much to go on, is it?

          • ChuckFinley

            If people did not bother to vote, we can assume that they are content with the results of the election or they would have gone to the effort of voting for a different result. However, if the percentage of live people who voted is higher than the turnout numbers suggest because of voter rolls filled with invalid names, that would suggest that the election results were the result of an electorate that cared more deeply about the election and took a more active part in it.

          • Proud Skeptic

            Again with the “If” You are trying really hard to make a point by proffering scenarios you have invented. My point stands. We do not know how the election would have turned out if everyone had voted…and we never will.
            The system is set up to decide who becomes president based on a set of rules and, thanks to the wisdom of our founders, doesn’t try to figure out what “everybody wants”
            I’m done.

          • ChuckFinley

            Well, then my mistake was in thinking that you were trying to say that the results of the election did not matter and were not really morally binding because of some sort of pretzel logic about not everybody’s preferences being fully accounted for.

        • mrdoug1

          Bingo. Democrats actively & vigorously, via lawsuits, oppose every effort by the states to cull their voter rolls. There’s only one reason for that.

    • QET

      You could go by the simple arithmetic. Or, you could reflect that in this case it was Donald Trump who was elected, not an ordinary GOP party candidate touting the ordinary GOP drivel running the ordinary GOP campaign. All along it was said by everyone that Trump had no chance. He was vigorously, even viciously opposed not just by the usual suspects on the Left but by the entire institutional Right as well. And still he won, his opponent’s arithmetic victory coming almost entirely from one state (CA) and by a margin that, had she won, would not demonstrate any mandate or “unprecedented repudiation” in her favor. So it may be that concluding solely on the basis of arithmetic is faulty reasoning in this case.

      • Anthony

        Simple, qet, 52% of voting Americans chose someone other. Our system has rules (38 million Californians get 2 U.S. Senators just as 500,000 or 600,000 residents of Wyoming). No logic or verbal semantics necessary (in this instance). The data is there to be interpreted.

        • QET

          The data is there to be interpreted.

          Yes, precisely. What I am arguing for is an interpretation based not on simple quantities, as it seems you might be doing and others definitely are doing, but on a consideration of what those quantities might, politically, mean in the context in which they came about.

          • Anthony

            I cannot interpret for you what those “quantities” mean beyond (in this case) the numbers. Now, the post referenced “Mandate” I submit (to use FG’s word) there is no unprecedented repudiation.

          • QET

            I wasn’t asking you to. I am interpreting for myself, and I say that Donald J. Trump himself is unprecedented, which is also what nearly everyone else has been saying for months. Therefore, it is a true statement to say that his victory represents an unprecedented repudiation of the political status quo embodied both by Hillary individually, Clinton Incorporated and the Democratic Party as well as by the established Republican Party, which at all times acts as a permanent minority party even when it holds a numerical majority of legislative seats.

          • Anthony

            What has that to with the Post? However as we are in America, of course your interpretation and opinion remains yours, qet.

          • QET

            I was just replying to your original comment. I’m not trying to pick a fight.

          • Anthony

            Qet, I know you’re not!

          • QET

            Also, insofar as your argument is based on the voting numbers for Democratic Senators, all I can offer in response is Theodore White’s observation that Americans tend to vote for Democrats for Congress for the purpose of directing as much federal largess back to their state/district as possible, and tend to vote for Republican Presidents for the purpose of protecting them from other people’s Congressmen!

          • Anthony

            I don’t know what context Theodore White make observation nor whether said reference apply but as you will qet.

        • Jim__L

          What percentage of Americans picked someone other than Bill Clinton, in 1992?

        • CaliforniaStark

          Believe it was also reported that the Republicans received about 3,000,000 more votes than the Democrats in the House of Representative races. This represents totals from all 50 states. The Senate vote totals only represent 33 states, including heavily Democratic states like California and New York with large populations.

          • Anthony

            Yea, I saw that 3,000,000 number for the house and individual Congressional 2 year elections; for whatever its worth, last cycle Dems. in house got more votes but were still minority party. My point was and is there is no mandate (an astonishing Trump win, yes) reflective of races outside of 5000,000 compact House Districts. Also, you know U.S. Senate election are staggered hence 1/3.

          • CaliforniaStark

            Important to also remember that because of California’s unique run-off system, both candidates in the senate race in California were Democrats. So all the Senate votes in California would be attributed to the Democrats. My hunch is if you take the California vote out, the Republicans may have gotten more votes than the Democrats in the remaining 32 senate races.

          • Anthony

            If you need to justify a point of view rather than except things as they are, fine (Happy Thanksgiving).

    • Angel Martin

      “But reality of a mandate – unprecedented repudiation – bends the truth ”

      If it isn’t a big repudiation, why are liberals having such a meltdown over Trump’s win ?

      The repudiation isn’t just the election win. It is also that so many issues that liberals claimed were “settled” are once again able to be discussed:
      -global warming
      -“free” trade
      -ending uncontrolled open borders immigration
      -building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants
      -American interest based foreign policy
      -military free riding allies
      -counterterrorism based on reducing risk not muslim hurt feelings
      -reducing the power of global institutions
      -clipping the feathers of America’s coastal elite

      Add to that, success on perennials such as tax reduction, regulation, court appointments, gun control, abortion on demand… no wonder liberals are so unhappy !

      • Anthony

        Vanish!! Fine your lane (better still, write something original to the topic).

        • Dusty Thompson

          “Thinking” is a skill you are sorely lacking. This is the intention of Liberals.

          • Anthony

            Who are you and most importantly does it matter.

  • docwatson55

    Academic freedom is fine, but it needs to be balanced by a public airing of what is being taught in universities by professors who have absolute power in their classrooms over what it taught and how they grade their students. At the least, “scholarship” needs to based on facts, not biased opinion. The light of day is not a bad thing.

    • f1b0nacc1

      “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”

      If we are talking about publicly funded universities, I agree….the private ones can do what they wish. Of course, we should break out the Left’s own playbook here…’public funding’ includes a great deal, after all…

      I believe it was Alinsky who said “make them live by their own rules”….the Left has imposed rather expansive rules about what constitutes “public” in the past…perhaps it is time for them to get a lesson as to the consequences of that choice.

      • CapitalHawk

        I disagree with respect to “Private” Universities, since they generally *are* publicly funded. The vast majority would wither without the constant support of the government via grants and loan programs for students. And in any event, before parents or students pay a university tens of thousands of dollars, they have the right to know what kind of education they are purchasing.

        • f1b0nacc1

          I am not sure that you got my point. I personally prefer that private institutions of all sorts be free from governmental interference, but (as you correctly point out), the Left has redefined ‘public’ to include any organization that gets any public money from any source, no matter how attenuated. I suspect that they will come to regret this very, very soon…..

          As for being informed (your second point), we completely agree. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with identifying the bad actors….

  • George Gamble

    You reap what you sow. How else do you suggest conservatives fight back in the culture war that is getting more venomous and dangerous by the week and has been fought on the left’s grounds for most of my lifetime? Not fighting back has its own dangers with right wingers being harassed for their thoughts all over this country and in many other parts of the western world.

    One of the reasons that Trump won was he refused to be bullied on any topic and sometimes he bullied right back. This is what has caused the left’s head to explode and so far they seem to have no real answer. Its really the first time they have been so publicly challenged. And now they look out at the landscape after the cloud of Obama and find that Republicans are rolling over them just about everywhere (the Vermont governor is now Republican…yikes). The conservative hand wringers can continue to bemoan lack of civility, etc., but why should conservatives constantly be on the defensive? Trump proved that going on the offensive works and sometimes a bit of bullying is what’s needed. As our current President once said, when they bring a knife to the fight, we need to bring a gun. So go clutch your pillow and suck your thumb before bedtime while others fight the real battle.

    • FriendlyGoat

      When, in order for the conservatives of academia to win, they have to dip down to the least educated voters in America and feed them a 12-month diet of unmitigated lying, you have nothing to be proud of. Gonna put Hillary in jail? Nope. Gonna tear up the Iran deal? Nope. Gonna deport 11,000,000 people? Nope. Gonna replace PPACA with something “fantastic”? Nope. There will be other cave-ins on all the Trumpian talk too, of course. But we should wait to document them until they happen. Stay Tuned for those. Many are coming. Meanwhile, the biggest bait and switch of our lifetimes is underway to empower the highest echelons of corporate America beyond their wildest dreams while campaigning to do the opposite. Any professor supporting this has an integrity problem.

      • Tom

        “When, in order for the conservatives of academia to win, they have to dip down to the least educated (or least thoughtful) voters in America and feed them a 12-month diet of unmitigated lying, you have nothing to be proud of.”

        Given that it took the left decades of lying to get into the position it is in vis-a-vis the academy, you might want to reconsider that statement.

        • FriendlyGoat

          No, I have so reason to reconsider that statement. It just happened and even the conservatives of academia know what they won on. They could not be in academia if their perceptions were so under-developed to not know they had been losing for decades until “Crooked Hillary”, wall, deportations, tear up nuclear deals, tear up trade deals, replace PPACA with something “fantastic” and bomb the sh*t out of this or that.

          • Tom

            Yes, they know what they won on. The utter failure of the Democratic Party to have a halfway decent candidate.

          • FriendlyGoat

            If they believe that, they have the same spin problem you have been displaying to me for some time. No one of intellectual integrity can argue of virtues of Republican economics at the college level on the basis of “Hillary was a bad woman”. They have to stick to real subjects there and not be tricked by junk talk like you insist on limiting yourself to with me here.

          • Tom

            I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about the election, seeing as that is what you were going on about. Don’t try and conflate the course of the election with the academic debate over economics, FG.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The election was about nothing but the debate over economics. That will become more clear to you after you realize that the results of the election mainly serve to shift wealth vastly upward from nearly every other priority on earth.

            We were talking about conservatives in academia and whether their world views are valid. OF COURSE anyone in the instruction level of a college—–in any field—— was supposed to know that political conservatism is really about very little other than economics and choose their sides accordingly. That any of them celebrate winning the spoils going to where the spoils are now irretrievably going BY WAY OF THE MANY LIES TOLD TO LESSER-INFORMED VOTERS—–well, it actually would be the same spin problem you have been playing on me for months or years. Deception on a stick.

          • Tom

            Oh great. Charles Beard has found an acolyte.
            Protip: not everyone sees this election the way you do, and it’s long past time you stopped claiming that people who see the world other than you do are fools or liars.
            I’m also still not sure why you think selecting Clinton was going to avert a wealth transfer upward, but that’s not my problem, it’s yours.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Why do I need your protip? I’m called a fool or a liar every day in the comment section by nearly everyone here. You think I’m not entitled to see through you guys and your crap attitudes because you barely won an election?

          • Tom

            First, as far as I’m concerned we all lost, and that was decided in the spring.

            Second, this: “Now you are going to be slapped every day with the realization of the meanness it entails for some time to come,” is a completely non-unique argument to this particular election outcome. It was going to happen either way.

          • Anthony

            First, you’re no fool nor a liar; second, something in line with your analysis: “…They got the election itself. They got to give a big middle finger to the establishment, to the coastal elites, to immigrants, to feminists, to college students, to popular culture, to political correctness, to every person and impersonal force they see arrayed against them. And that was it.” See http://www.washingtonpost.com (How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them? and Donald Trump pulls a bait and switch on America).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, thank you. I happened to see that article in my Bing news feed yesterday. It expresses precisely what I have been feeling in these recent weeks. The answer, to the “how long before they figure it out?” question——unfortunately—–will be AFTER a great deal of unfixable damage is done to workers and their families (again).

            I’ve had to realize that nearly no one in the professional writing class has been willing to say—–as I do—-the simple statement that high-end tax cuts do not “create (living-wage) jobs” but actually work in reverse of that goal. It should have been the central political issue over-riding all others since the Reagan era. But it’s not—-EVEN THOUGH we have been clearly watching the problem unfold for three decades to the great chagrin or ordinary people all over red-state America. Now, the principal thing they will get from their “middle-finger” vote is the real middle finger flown back at them by more high-end tax cuts.

          • Anthony

            FG, I wrote as an affirmation in your attempt at TAI to provide another perspective (despite audience labeling) as well as because your voice ought to be heard. You sense and have observed effects policies promoted under unfettered laissez faire have done to American workers. The actual working of the political economy remains unknown to those often-times most affected. The politics of entertainment attracts via our “new” forms of transmission. So, it becomes easier to attack FG than question legitimate property relations. The pro-business, conservative mantra you encounter regularly is by no means accidental (the facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas are promoted reside deep in our societal apparatus).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Some people think that anti-tax and pro-business are the same thing.
            I have come to believe that business flourishes just fine in a taxed environment and is not at all ruined by a robust public sector effort. The difference is that there is not as much pressure in a taxed environment for ordinary people to be thrown out on their ear, for their hearts to be broken with the message “we don’t need you any more.” This is the very sentiment that drove so many people to be so hurt, so angry——then, they just voted for more of the same.

          • Anthony

            Theoretically, the virtue of the market is that its efficient – the most basic law of economics: demand = supply. But we have a country where there are huge unmet needs and underutilized resources. Free market advocates fail to appreciate how government cannot be separated (nor should it be) from the so-called “power of markets” to work magic if only government regulations are conservatively removed.

            “The failures in politics and economics are related, and they reinforce each other. A political system that amplies the voice of the wealthy provides ample opportunity for laws and regulations – and the administration of them – to be designed in ways that not only fail to protect the ordinary citizens against the wealthy but also further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society.”

            So on some level. I think awareness (by the hurt you reference) that a political system that is so sensitive to moneyed interest may work (nexus between politics and economics) to perpetuate those interests is readily needed (and real), despite cultural claims to contrary – social mores and institutions.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Indeed. So many of the things we really need are on a level that no force but government can coordinate the demand and underwrite the initiatives. Water, air, roads, pubic safety, disease management, research, communications, education, international relations, protection of the ownership of property, anti-pollution, elder care—-it’s a long list and these kinds of things are not even POSSIBLY the province of pure free enterprise like consumer goods at the whim of consumer demand.

          • Albert8184

            Aside from anarchists, extreme libertarians and communists, I’ve never heard anyone advocate for a state-less society when no government interference in human affairs is present. I marvel at Leftists and liberals and their assorted ilk, who will argue on one hand that conservatives are fascists, but on the other eliminating all government interference in free markets. And I gotta say… given the fact that the most vocal mouthpieces for liberalism are Hollywood celebrities and rich guys and corporate puppets like Bill Gates, Hillary and Bill and George Soros… it’s hard to really believe that they aren’t in favor of exactly the sort of society you seem to abhor. The forgotten working people of Europe and America are speaking… and your side refuses to listen. Even the Marxists refer to the Democrats as a “bourgeois party”.

          • Anthony

            I don’t have a side – I’m an American; but here may be something of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/human-factor-gave-us-brexit-trump

          • Anthony

            I don’t have a side – I’m an American; but here may be something of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/26/human-factor-gave-us-brexit-trump

          • Albert8184

            Good article. As is often the case, I found the comments to be the most poignant part of the piece. Here’s my favorite by hogswatch. It’s actually the second half, but the first half explains WHAT it was “we” objected to.

            “You wonder why we are so angry II:
            But when we objected to this we were called not by the internet but by politicians and the newspapers:
            Senile old farts, fruitcakes, loonies, nutters, gadflies, fascists, dullards, Nazis, blazer wearers, Colonel-Blimps in blazers, BNP in blazers, Brownshirts in blazers, anti-EU-Taliban, clowns, racists, bigots, closet racists, poor blue-collar losers, saloon-bar bores, right-wing nitwits, coffin-dodgers, golf-club bores, swivel-eyed loons, computer illiterates, little Englanders, know-nothing loudmouths, ill-educated, ill-qualified and pretty unpleasant and odd people
            Boggle-eyed collection of malcontents, vacuum-cleaner-onanists, d*kheads, knobs, grumpy old men, the disappointed elderly, rats, the lycra clad-tattooed, whinging, vile, despicable, abhorrent, whining, rabble-rousers, boors, twats, un-British, lily-livered-doormats, daft, self-pitying, xenophobic, four-ale- bar drunks, intellectually-frightened-milksops, bigot-chimps, filth, extreme nationalists, racist halfwits, protectionists, backward-looking, cultists, Euro-bores, rabid, weird people, populists, a bacillus, a rabble, English flag wavers, brutish and low-grade, friendly people waiting to die
            Angry people, pariahs, Tory toxins, beer-swillers, sour-lipped populists, the Tory fifth-column, an infection, damaged goods, absurd, ignorant, neo-fascists, the septic and the geriatric, the empty-headed led by the foul-minded, cynical, corrosive, pond life, thick, pernicious, racist filth, disgruntled elderly, dog-end voters, nativists, scum-bigots, Faragebola.
            And they wonder – they wonder – why we are so angry.”

          • Anthony

            Anger and projection often confuses. So, reflect carefully would be my suggestion.

          • 1952rmdg

            It you want to see “bait and switch,” just look at Obama’s record – doubling the national debt while wages stagnated and jobs were off-shored – where did those “shovel ready jobs go” Hint: that money went to fund failed enterprises like Solyndra as pay-off to Obama’s plutocratic buddies on Wall Street and Silicons Valley et al. HRC’s cozy relationship with the 1% globalists would have more than likely insured that we continued in what one person noted as a “managed decline” for all but the crony capitalists and their political lackeys.

          • Anthony

            I’m with FriendlyGoat, you’ve been here two hours and all you can do is deride. Thanks but no thanks!

          • Dusty Thompson

            Aren’t you getting dizzy yet Goat? So much spin in such a short period of time.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Not at all. I practice clear thinking here every day. Just wrote an example of that to Anthony, now appearing immediately above your sentence.

          • Albert8184

            But… nobody is arguing that government shouldn’t be involved in the markets at all… except the most extreme anarchists or libertarians. Or communists who theorize that the state will wither away. But, by the same token, not ONE of these things you mention are accomplished without cooperation at some level between government and private enterprise. And Trump didn’t get elected (if we want to talk about elections) on the basis that he was telling his fans all about his plans to eliminate these initiatives you describe. Quite the opposite. He promised a massive jobs program to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Among other things. And his wall would be a pretty big government project too.

          • Albert8184

            Nobody argues the virtues of free market economics versus command economics by focusing on Hillary Clinton (as if there was no such debate until Hillary Clinton ran for president). There’s no such thing as Republican economics anyway.

          • Albert8184

            The “conservatives of academia” don’t have a universal consensus on the reason Trumjp won. But there is a general consensus about why Trump won… and even the Democrat party is acknowledging it in a backhanded way. And Leftist academia is FULL of people with under-developed perceptions. I know this from experience. And moreover, perceptions that are outright driven by hate, emotion, vindictiveness and a fundamental belief that people can’t rule themselves without the oversight of elites.

      • Beauceron

        Yeah– our mainstream Leftist press were completely exposed by WikiLeaks this year. They do not just sympathize with the Democrats, they outright collude with them. And now all our vapid Lefties have gone on a “fake news” tear.
        “They only won because they believed the lies!” they squeal. No. They won because you are horrible, nasty human being and we have had enough.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Sure, Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

        • 1952rmdg

          When you label a good 30% or more of the US population, many of whom were once part of the Dem Party coalition of working people as “deplorable” at a fund raiser populated by the Hollywood elites, you have shown the true face of the Dems – they fancy themselves our betters and denigrate any who challenge their political agenda.

      • f1b0nacc1

        You really aren’t that bright are you?

        If you cannot tell the difference between campaign rhetoric and serious discourse, between substantive concerns (the SCOTUS, etc.) and nice to have stuff…that is your concern, not mine. After all, you supported the guy who gave us “most transparent administration in history”, “if you like your plan you can keep your plan”, “not a smidgen of corruption”, etc…..

        I am content to see what happens, with the clear understanding that I will get some of what I want, and not get some of what I want. Trump was acceptable to me for very limited reasons, and I (like most of those who voted for him) understood his (extremely significant) limitations going in.

        On the other hand, he has exceeded my expectations already. Watching the infantile hysterics of you and your ilk really has made the election worthwhile.

        • FriendlyGoat

          You are not the first and only person who apologized for your Trump support——until—–you discovered you can brag on him for being a tricky liar now that he won. “Campaign rhetoric” is supposed to be based in truth. Most of his was not. Bumpkins bought it and bumpkins are going to be punished for a very long time by the bait and switch.

          • f1b0nacc1

            You really are too easy to troll you know….

            Enjoy the next four years, but see a doctor…this sort of thing isn’t good for your health you know…

          • FriendlyGoat

            That’s what you trolls do. Had your number years ago.

            BTW, I happen to have excellent blood pressure—–no doctors, no meds. If you hadn’t been so busy being an A$$ all this time, I’d tell you the simple cheap way I do that.

          • mrdoug1

            Man, you are tremendously full of yourself, aren’t you. That comes through loud & clear after reading just a few of your comments. You’re infected with the liberal disease of self-righteous smugness & arrogance. Not that you can see it from the inside.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Here’s the deal. In football, they call penalties for piling on after the play—–which is all I see you doing here. If you have something on a discussion point to say to me, what the heck is it?

            I have years of history with f1b. You’ve been here two hours and have your guns blazing. If that’s how you introduce yourself to strangers, go away.

        • mrdoug1

          f1b0, new to this page & this string of comments, but you’ve expressed my view, as well.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Thank you…let us hope that we are *BOTH* right!

            Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours…

      • Josephbleau

        12 month diet? how about the last 8 years of “they gonna put you back in chains!” The Republicans are truly evil when they do the same thing as Democrats. It is quite funny. I am waiting to see the measure of the sea level fall that Mr. Obama promised, what a cave in.

        • FriendlyGoat

          They are going to put a lot of people back into metaphorical chains of greater hardship. What’s funny about that?

          • SDN

            Just think, they might have to worry about the law being enforced.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, people under conquest have always worried about the laws from their overlords being enforced. It is the entirety of human history until the past two centuries. You can go back if you want, but you’re not taking me with you.

          • Martin Knight

            Biden might have intended to be metaphorical – but huge numbers of Democrats took him literally.

            Go to any college campus in the last two decades and you will have found no lack of students convinced by their Professors that Republicans want to bring slavery, legalize lynching and rape, strip even native-born Hispanics of their citizenships, mass slaughter the poor and put gay people in concentration camps.

            Please note that I’m not being metaphorical or hyperbolic – this belief or some variant of it is prevalent in Blue America.

            Either way, it was no accident that Biden’s “Put y’all *back* in chains” warning was delivered to an African American audience.

          • FriendlyGoat

            After the Trump campaign, it’s beyond ridiculous to be complaining about what some people mistakenly “took literally”. The biggest bait and switch of our lives is underway. There are a lot a metaphorical chains and into them is where a lot of people actually are going. Many of them headed to those chains of hardship are actually Trump voters.

          • Martin Knight

            Trump’s election changes nothing.

            Biden knew what he was doing – and unfortunately, the vast numbers of Democrats who believe Republicans want to bring back slavery and legalize rape means that you guys are not very good at conveying that your rhetoric is metaphorical.

            As for your prediction that we’re all gonna starve to death under Trump (who I certainly didn’t want to win the GOP nomination), I’ll not start stockpiling food yet.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Another apologizer for Trump. But that his election “changes nothing” is too far a stretch for me. HE thinks it changes everything, so what the heck are you talking about?

            As for me predicting we’re all gonna starve to death, you’re lying, because I have never said any such thing in thousands of comments I wrote. I’m not gonna starve. You’re not gonna starve. We simply are going to witness the biggest bait and switch of our lifetimes between what Trump sold to chump voters and what they are going to get from him.

          • Martin Knight

            Oh … I despise Trump. My comment history is enough proof. And I stand by it that Trump’s victory changes nothing … especially since I am talking about the Democrats’ incendiary rhetoric.

            Of course; after convincing young Leftists that Republicans want to enslave black people, legalize rape, etc. why would they not be rioting when a Republican wins the Presidency?

            And heck, Obama said *his* election changed everything as well – the sea levels would fall, the world would love America again – what happened?

            Apart from an incompetently written economically illiterate healthcare bill and a doubling of the national debt?

            Either way; I do not accept your predictive powers as dispositive. Trump – like all politicians – is bound to disappoint but I will not accept that he has failed before he even takes office.

          • FriendlyGoat

            He won’t be failing for the upper crust of Americans. Others should be having serious concerns, including about half or more of the people who voted for him.

          • Martin Knight

            Exactly like Obama, it seems.

          • mrdoug1

            Biden is an unmitigated clown. That he is a respected Dem party figure is astonishing.

      • SDN

        “Gonna put Hillary in jail?” Got multiple no longer interfered with investigations doing just that.
        “Gonna deport 11,000,000 people?” Yep, one bite at a time.
        Gonna replace PPACA with something “fantastic”? ” Already got the repeal written.

        Only integrity problem is yours.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Stay Tuned, not to me, to what your new government does. You may be rich enough to not give a hoot about anybody but yourself. But that arrogance and selfishness is not convincing to me.

          The lie about PPACA is how good the replacement—–THE PROMISED REPLACEMENT—- will serve ordinary people. It is supposed to be much better than “that disastrous Obamacare”. Well, it is not going to be because it financially cannot be. Millions of people are going to find that out to their great distress. Go lord your wisdom over them.

          • Disappeared4x

            “…Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s chief architects, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that 63 percent of the coverage gains owed to increased Medicaid enrollment. Nearly 70 percent of that Medicaid coverage increase (44 percent of the overall coverage increase) came from people who were already eligible for Medicaid coverage before ACA passage. This had nothing to do with the ACA’s Medicaid eligibility expansion. …”
            read more http://www.city-journal.org/html/repeal-and-revise-14869.html

          • FriendlyGoat

            It does not matter what Jonathan Gruber wrote. The GOP plan for health care is to sell insurance “across state lines”. That means the federal government telling 49 states that they MAY NOT object to policies for sale in their states approved only at the lowest policy standards by the least-regulated red state in the country. As soon as those policies are available, employers are going to buy them. The GOP “solution” is a downdraft on policy standards for virtually every working person in the country over time. Nearly no one understands that the main push against PPACA is to 1) Destroy federal policy standards, and 2) Destroy the policy standards of 49 states as well.

          • Disappeared4x

            proof the FG cannot read. especially when it is from a fact-based assessment at City Journal which quotes Gruber as part of the rebuttal to critics who have less cognition than dreaming puppies.. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba58c6a320db442946f925eeaba6174420ad060042c7bd22d4eb1092becfda59.jpg

          • FriendlyGoat

            I actually CAN read. I just didn’t read what you linked.

          • mrdoug1

            Your last paragraph is comical. I wonder if that isn’t intentional it’s so blatant. “Derision?” That appears to be your stock & trade. Look over your own comments, why don’t you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Did your nose get lost in someone else’s conversation? Golly, I think it did. Not being there for my previous exchanges with Disappeared4x, you really have no context for what you’re butting in upon.

            Above, I correctly explained the situation on Republicans’ goals for replacing PPACA and from Disappeared4x I got off-point bullsh*t and then a bunch of smart-assed stuff. This from a man who claims he suffers from depression while engaging in an addiction to needling other people online which is my only and repeated experience with him. If he does not wish me to play “shrink”, it would be nice if he sent his pestering replies to someone else. You too.

          • Disappeared4x

            Thank you so much, mrdoug1.
            FG is the stereotype of the ALT-CTRL-Left, who have been brainwashed into reciting attacks, smears, insults, myths and legends, personal attacks: whatever will silence anyone who challenges The Narrative.
            I prefer CTRL-Left, but they really are ALT-CTRL-Left, one button away from DELETE-ing anyone who fails to behave, say, think what these elitists dictate.

          • Un manageable

            More that a few in Congress have suggested your item #2 as a part of comprehensive health care reform. Trump mentioned it somewhat during his campaign. As a large employer, reducing health care costs runs to his personal benefit. I’m inclined to believe he’d push both items (#1 & #2), because he wouldn’t care how costs go down — just that they do so for his stuff.

            But today I’m interested in item #2. And in particular how that could be implemented. Its clearly a states’ rights issue. There will be some that object, if only under that premise. Perhaps a commerce clause matter? Until today’s circumstances, who’d care or has cared if its a state or federal control item? I’ve not looked into this much, and wondered if you had done so.

            Do you think this issue will be a part of SCOTUS choices? And how so? Apart from the obvious republican leaning. So many of Trump’s base is against more federal intrusion.

            I think Trump will nominate a strong Roe opponent. Its not so much his ideology — I don’t think he personally cares about Roe. But, its an easy win and satisfies a large, vocal constituency. But ramming this insurance component through, as you believe, would ultimately be reviewed by SCOTUS — at least I think so. Robert’s has strong prior precedence leanings. A new guy? Strong justices have a way of being … unpredictable? Any thoughts on how this might play through? Just curious. Thanks.

          • FriendlyGoat

            My frustrations and dire predictions about “selling insurance across state lines” come from several directions:

            1) It has been a talking point of nearly all Republicans for several years as the most frequent “replacement” for PPACA, together with greater use of Health Savings Accounts. I have seriously never heard any Republican want to drill down to details in a public statement about it other than to imply that doing this will cause insurance companies to “compete”.

            2) I am a former accountant in a manufacturing company who helped administer a good plan for 1000 employees + dependents using both purchased insurance and then self-funding in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. I’m not unfamiliar with the upward march of medical costs over the past 45 years and with the concepts of what a good plan should cover and the difficulties with deductibles, copays, provider networks and so forth. I know enough to know that implementation of anything is incredibly complex and that health cost risks to ordinary people are a big dang deal.

            3) There is no insurer in any state which either can or will write policies which lose money. Most of the people we taught to “hate” Obamacare in the past three years are either in group plans they think are safe, or are just under-informed as to what their risks could be and how “market” insurance really works.

            4) The American Health Care Reform Act was introduced to Congress in 2013 and again in 2015 by Republicans who were quite aware that President Obama would veto it. You can find the txt here https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2653

            It actually explains the “across state lines” thing and nearly no ordinary person in the USA has a clue what it is about.

            5) If employers are offered thin insurance from Mississippi or Oklahoma or somewhere, many of them will buy it. The group plans are not as safe as many people think in terms of what they have been used to having.

            6) I don’t think Trump is trying to just reduce standards for the benefit of his own companies. I do think he is over his head in what he has promised as a replacement being “fantastic”. Come spring, a lot of his supporters are going to be negatively surprised at what Republicans do to them.

          • Un manageable

            Thanks. I’ll look that up (#4). I’m not suggesting that Trump would reduce national standards for his own benefit (#6). I think he’s more inclined to go along with something that “happens” to be in his interest. Like Roe, he wants something easy and simple to do with the ACA — red meat for the pack, so to speak. I’m pretty sure that whatever he signs “will” be in his interest, though.

            My ex-employer was a large national company (60,000+) that self insured. The administration was contracted out to major industry providers and followed the national coverage standards for the most part. The overall plan high points correlated fairly closely with the exchange plans. At least that was the case for me, personally.

            The company captured, with participant consent, health data for aggregation (BP, Obesity, Cholesterol, etc.). The “tobacco tax” insurance surcharge was added with voluntary adherence, for the time being. A number of us within the company speculated that an ultimate goal would be to carve out more “unhealthy” groups and charge them for their additional risk. Alcohol, for example. Maybe “discounts” for folks in better shape that work out.

            I’m still interested in the “across state lines” aspect. Its such a simple concept that appears reasonable on its face. I’ll look at the 2013 & 2015 docs that you suggested and may have another comment or question in that regard down the road.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Okay. Nice talking with you.

      • Rick Caird

        That is an incredible series of stupid claims, goat boy. We have tangled before. Now we get nothing but “bitter grapes” from another far left loser. You are hoping against hope that all your “nope”s are actually true, but they will not be. You take mercy toward Hillary as lying. But, if Hillary were held to the same standard as others who have been put in jail for security breeches, she would be jailed. She is lucky that we do not want a history of arresting members of a previous administration as Eric Holder threatened to do AFTER he was appointed AG. Everything after that is just idle speculation on your part hoping that you can yell “liar”. But, you are a more appropriate target of “liar” that as “yeller”. You lost. Get over it, loser goat boy.

        • FriendlyGoat

          If the intent toward Hillary Clinton was mercy, Donald Trump should have said so. Everything else was lying which actually influenced many people to vote for the now bigger lie that PPACA will be replaced by something “fantastic.” Your friendly goat will continue to see the world as it is. Go brag on your victory with the boys at the bar,

          • Rick Caird

            The result was mercy. Trump could have left her hanging as Holder did with the CIA interrogators, but it would have been a distraction. ObamaCare will be replaced and with will go the mandate and the forced ObamaCare compliant policies with all those poorly functioning insurance marketplaces.. You are just dreaming while looking through your shattered lens with all the cracks, spiders, and distortions while thinking you are seeing accurately, goat boy. Go drown your sorrows at the progressively declining bar with the other people who cannot understand why the world does not work as they see it. These will surely be fun filled conversations.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I really don’t know why conservatives who are supposed to know better believe that insurers are ever going to write insurance (health or any other kind) which does not make money FROM policyholders.
            Stay Tuned. A lesson about real economics is on the way to those who thought they knew economics.

          • Rick Caird

            Why do you think anyone does anything that does not benefit them in some way. Do you go to work without your personal profit motive involved? Do you , in fact, work for free? Why is your profit motive different than that of the insurers? Do you actually think that government would provide health care services out of the goodness of their heart? Of course not. Government does this in an attempt to expand its power and its reach. Do you not realize that the government workers who would provide the health care services are also getting paid. If government has no competition for that service, do you think these government workers have any interest in reducing costs or would they not be more interested in expanding their span of control. The fact is that Medicare and Medicaid are now the largest government expenditures, far above what was projected when they were created. This country will go bankrupt on entitlements far sooner than on any other expenditures.

            If anyone needs a lesson in basic economics and public interest economics it is you. I can help you with understanding all this, but I expect you have little interest in actually understanding it. You are much more interested in virtue signaling.

      • Albert8184

        But it’s not the fact that the promises of a candidate were lies or wildly impractical. It’s that the promises elicited a favorable response from a legion of voters who want to see action taken along those lines. So… you’re talking about an aspect of Trump’s campaign that has nothing to do with the OP’s original comment.

      • 1952rmdg

        I guess you’ve not met too many of the left, many of them are anti-intellectual dullards who mouth the p.c. litany to spare them the trouble of actually thinking for themselves.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I actually do spend more time arguing with “the right” than hanging out with “the left” and
          it’s true “the left” has some airheads. The fact that some of those really don’t think enough for themselves, however, does not make the right side’s main arguments either true or desirable.

  • vepxistqaosani

    So some random folks who start a website to identify those liberals whose speech should argued against are equivalent to — nay, far worse than — college administrators who regularly censor conservative speech.

    I see.

    • Jim__L

      Of course, because these random website-starters have the ability to do something to these professors. Fire them maybe? Um, give them classroom teaching assignments they don’t want? Er, make it clear that they’ll never be promoted if they don’t toe the right political line? Uhhhhh…

      No wait, that’s what the Leftist administrators can do, have been doing, to Conservatives for years.

  • jsdozcn9

    Then who is going to defend conservative students from the hostile environment at universities? The university administration? Not likely.

  • Disappeared4x

    It’s been three years since the CTRL-Left made me feel welcome, and unsafe, on the campus of my alma mater? It’s not just academics, but alumnae who are silenced and shunned by these very expensive re-education camps.

    • Agent__86

      CTRL-Left
      .
      Nice

  • JR

    Can we wait for the first victim of these so-called “right-wing inquisitors” before we have a full blown moral panic over it? I think this is jumping the gun a bit.

  • Fat_Man

    I am not vindictive, I just think that our higher education system has crashed and burned.

    We should abolish the college’s tax exemptions, tax their endowments, require them to admit students by lottery, abolish tenure, abolish accreditation, abolish federal student loans and grants, fire at least 80% of the administrators and cut the salaries of the survivors dramatically. Burn the buildings down, plow them under, and sow the land with salt.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Too many half-measures….

      • Fat_Man

        “Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

        • f1b0nacc1

          Bravo!

  • gabrielsyme

    If the principle of academic freedom requires the protection of conservative scholarship, it requires the protection of liberal scholarship, too.

    This is true so far as it goes, but it is entirely reasonable to require public universities to have a diverse faculty that does not lean overwhelmingly leftist. It is reasonable to demand that conservative students not feel that they have to conceal their opinions and views. It is reasonable to demand that public universities not discriminate against conservatives and religious believers in their hiring practices and graduate admissions. Public funds should not go to benefit institutions that discriminate against religious believers and those of a conservative political persuasion. Moreover, it is a basic element of political fairness that public institutions be politically neutral, so that the power of the state is not used to reinforce a partisan advantage.

  • Beauceron

    Please.
    Expecting a literature or philosophy professor to stick to the course materials you paid for and not use the opportunity to indoctrinate students into their juvenile, fatuous political views is hardly an inquisition.
    Our faux intellectual and media class always do this when they are criticized from the right: insist that their critics are anti-intellectual or anti-free press. The bleating should fall on deaf ears. The professoriate has raped the humanities over the past 30 years and we must take it back– and they will not give it back, it will have to be taken.

  • f1b0nacc1

    Is anyone discussing firing professors based upon viewpoint? Is anyone discussing stunting the career options of professors based upon viewpoint? No, what is being done here is ‘naming and shaming’….making it clear what is going on in the academy. This is free speech, in fact the best sort…countering free speech with more free speech. The Left, on the cusp of losing is ability to enforce its monopoly on speech, is panicking not because of a threat from the Right, but out of childish pique at the realization that they might have to treat those with differing opinions with a modicum of common courtesy. Horrors!

    When mobs shut down your speaking engagements, agitate for your firing, etc, call me…until then…

  • Kevin

    I’m not terribly interested in unilateral disarmament in the face of an ongoing attack.

    Call me when the leftists who control the campus and culture start policing their own.

  • BannedbyBreitbart

    I fail to see how telling the truth about a professor is a speech code. I’ll be donating to the site. Thanks for pointing it out.

  • ChuckFinley

    In order for liberals to value academic freedom and intellectual diversity they have to appreciate what in means to be on the wrong side of the regime that they have created at universities. Even a flatworm turns away from pain.

    Universities are not free now. Give the left a few years of pain before trying to restore academic freedom so that they will appreciate it.

    • Dusty Thompson

      These indoctrinated Leftwits will die indoctrinated leftwits. No amount of education will overcome their “feelz” about Liberalism and “evil” Conservatives..

  • Will

    This article is projecting the repression of the left on campuses.

  • http://backwardsboy.blogspot.com/ BackwardsBoy

    One person dares to push back against the free-speech denying, anti-American progressive campus administrators and this will suddenly result in Congressional investigations/inquisitions? That’s some projection you’ve got going there.

  • SolarHacksaw

    A lesson I learned as a football offensive lineman: you CANNOT move a defensive lineman to the right by pushing directly to the right.

    If the o-lineman is pushing to the right, and the D-lineman is pushing you backwards, the direction you end up going is BACKWARDS at a 45 degree angle.

    To move the D-lineman to the right, you have to PUSH BACK (against the D-lineman’s backward pressure) and to the right.

    To move our culture to the right, we need to push back (against the left’s backward’s pressure) and to the right.

  • John Moore

    This isn’t about vengeance, it is about pushing back. The “McCarthy” parallel is very weak. If right wing professors can be forced out of academia for the slightest deviation from PC, then informing students and others who the worst of the left are is prudence.

  • Dusty Thompson

    Stop using the verb McCarthyism like Liberals do. McCarthy has been proven correct. McCarthy wasn’t a verb, McCarthy was a Prophet.

    If you’re interested in why these indoctrinated leftwits act this way then watch this video:
    https://youtu.be/vLqHv0xgOlc

  • SolonGone

    Punch back twice as hard. It’s not tit-for-tat, it’s tit-tit-for tat. No quarter, utter destruction.

  • mhjhnsn

    Yes, certainly there should be no government involvement on either side.

    But it is also certainly fine for conservatives not in the govt to keep track of anti-conservative bias (which is different from liberal bias) and call them out on it.

    • gabrielsyme

      Why should governments subsidize left-wing institutions that discriminate against conservatives and religious believers in hiring and graduate admissions?

  • Terenc Blakely

    “Ben Carson, currently being considered for a Trump Administration cabinet position, suggested during the primaries that the government should police colleges for liberal bias. Needless to say, such efforts would be deeply destructive.”

    I disagree. Anything that accelerates the inevitable collapse of the current scam called ‘higher education’ is to be lauded. What we call ‘higher education’ costs far too much, delivers far too little, promotes ignorance, gullibility and violence. The vast majority of kids going to college have no business there since even if they graduate most degree programs nowadays provide little knowledge on how to earn a living other than a credential that they completed college. I mean look at the clueless Ivy League hacks that have been running this country into the ground for the past several decades.

    Pretty much only engineering and ‘hard’ science programs really need a campus for lab work and are pretty much the only degrees nowadays that actually teach useful stuff. The rest of the degree programs could easily be taught via the internet at much lower costs assuming you’d want to learn about useless propaganda.

    Sadly, the majority of kids nowadays leave college more ignorant than when they entered. Of course that assumes that most went to college to actually learn rather than to party.

  • mrdoug1

    You’re dreaming if you really think there’s any real threat of American college campuses cracking down on left wing speech. For that to happen, the entire faculty & administration at most colleges would have to be replaced wholesale. Not gonna happen anytime soon. Nice hypothetical, though

  • jim

    A silly article. The idea that Trump’s victory is going to change anything about campus political correctness and the ongoing intimidation of conservatives is preposterous. There is no cultural wind “changing” anything in academia, “doubling down” on the part of the dominant left is the more accurate term. The unanimous opinion on campus is that Trump won because he managed to get a lot of white racists out from under their rocks and into the voting booth. They “knew” this already of course, and since that’s also what the New York Times says, it must be true!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service