IF YOU CAN ONLY ARGUE USING FOUR LETTER WORDS, YOU DON’T DESERVE TO BE HEARD!
I don’t have to tell you that the leftist running the education establishment are NOT well-meaning fools. They are evil fools who have no understanding of right and wrong, and aggressively side with wrong. The objective is the destruction of everything good decent sane, and constructive, and to reduce America to a dysfunctional hellhole. Don’t believe me? Then explain this:
Last month, two law professors published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 50’s and still does among affluent Americans: “Get married before having children, strive to stay married for their sake, get the education needed for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. . . . Eschew substance abuse and crime.” The weakening of these traditional norms has contributed to today’s low rates of workforce participation, lagging educational levels and widespread opioid abuse, the professors argued.
So who could argue with that? Liberals could — vehemently. Except that having no sane argument they don’t argue so much as sling mud or other brown substances.
The op-ed triggered an immediate uproar in the University of Penn. where one of its authors, Amy Wax, teaches. The dean of Penn law school, Ted Ruger, published an op-ed in the student newspaper noting the “contemporaneous occurrence” of the op-ed and a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., and suggesting that Ms. Wax’s views were “divisive, even noxious.” Half of Ms. Wax’s law-faculty colleagues signed an open letter denouncing her piece and calling on students to report any “bias or stereotype” they encounter “at “end Law” (e.g., in Ms. Wax’s classroom). Student and alumni petitions poured forth accusing Ms. Wax of white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia and demanding that she be banned from teaching first-year law classes.
Ms.Wax was subjected to Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate. (read the book) Her thought crime was to advocate hard work, self-discipline, and responsible behavior, which are now to be regarded as equivalent to the ultimate in wrong think, white supremacism. Her co-author Larry Alexander teaches at University of San Diego. . .
The dean of USD’s law school, Steven Ferruolo, issued a school wide memo repudiating Mr. Alexander’s article and pledging new measures to compensate “vulnerable, marginalized” students for the “racial discrimination and cultural subordination” they experience.
(Would someone explain how you can be vulnerable, marginalized, and racially discriminated against when you’re attending a top law school? Wouldn’t that be more likely to apply to those who couldn’t get in?)
Of course now the thought police began gnashing their teeth:
Ms.Wax and Mr. Alexander observed that cultures are not all “equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” Their critics pounced on this statement as a bigoted, hate-filled violation of the multicultural ethic. (didn’t know they had ethics). In his response, Penn’s Dean Ruger proclaimed that “as a scholar and educator I reject emphatically any claim that a single cultural tradition is better than all others.” But that wasn’t the claim the authors were making. Rather, they argued that bourgeois culture is better than underclass culture–specifically, “the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites’ the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks.” The authors criticism of white underclass behavior has been universally suppressed in the stampede to accuse them of “white supremacy.”
The other offense here was glorifying the 50’s. That was a golden era for America. Consequently, liberal hatred for that period is demonic in its intensity. Everything that made the 50’s great they want to denigrate, desecrate, corrupt, and destroy. This has been accomplished through the tactic known as Critical Theory, usually by focusing on the failure to orient all of society around the hallowedness of blacks.
Objecting to industriousness and personal responsibility proves that the liberal intelligentsia does not wish society well. It wants poverty, dysfunction, dependency, and ruin. It is a cancer, and it’s killing us.
By the way, none of the professors’ high-placed critics have engaged with any of their arguments.