fbpx

Boise State University’s Blueprint for Social Justice

Boise State University (BSU) has been my academic home since 2000. The university has grown as the greater Boise area has grown: the area has been a wonderful place to live and work.

National trends in higher education come a little later to Idaho and, perhaps because it is a deep red state, they often come a little gentler too. BSU is making a concerted effort to catch up to the rest of the country and to get with the diversity program.

I learned the hard way that I had “mis-underestimated” BSU’s effort to build what Jonathan Haidt calls a Social Justice University (SJU). Just how much BSU had changed became evident when I published a series of reports and articles concerning feminism and its relation to transgenderism in 2017.

This experience forced me to take a step back to see what happened at my home institution and why. I found that, brick by brick, BSU was building a diversity infrastructure to dismantle its “deep red” environment.

An Insider’s View of the New University

BSU traveled through three distinct phases in building an SJU: an emphasis on new “Shared Values”; a Report on Diversity and Inclusion; and the translation of this report into action (currently underway). My research became an opportunity for how this new university would manage dissent.

The statement of Shared Values was the “fire bell in the night.” It seemed innocuous. Who could object to a university embracing Academic Excellence, Caring, Citizenship, Fairness, Respect, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness as Shared Values? Posters about these shared values were pasted on walls throughout university offices.

The Shared Values were aspirational. For example, respect demanded that all on campus “treat people with dignity regardless of who they are or what they believe.” Some on campus asked about such declarations. How are we to know we have treated people with dignity? Who is to judge? The administration assured the campus that our values are shared, but people need not share the same meaning of these values.

As such assurances were made, BSU’s President Bob Kustra announced our “obligation to protect the University by reporting potential or apparent violations” of these Shared Values.  They needed fleshing out.

This fleshing out proceeded in the second phase, when President Kustra established a Commission on Diversity and Inclusion, which released its report in July 2017. This report would continue to change the university’s shape. The Commission that President Kustra established unsurprisingly thought “the time is right for President Kustra and his executive team to prioritize inclusion, diversity, and equity at Boise State.”

The Commission defined diversity and inclusion. Diversity “recognizes the uniqueness of individuals, populations, groups and their perspectives and experiences.” Inclusion required “the creation of an accepting and nurturing campus climate where similarities and differences are respected, supported, and valued by ensuring the active participation of the entire campus community.”

Boise State was a seedbed of prejudice and oppression—and new policies must fix the problem.  The university would “provide training and engagement around key aspects of diversity, inclusion, and belonging for faculty, staff, students, and the wider Boise community (e.g. implicit bias training, etc.).” Affirmative action in hiring and student recruitment would be emphasized. The university would also find “opportunities to expand or highlight curriculum focused on diversity and inclusion.”

The administration put themselves in the dock and found themselves guilty. “Our institution and those that lead it have reinforced cultural, structural, and personal norms of what success looks like in Idaho and rural America.”  The new vision of “true success” would center on “inclusive excellence – which is achieved through a self-reflective and uncompromised commitment to the practice of inclusivity, which seeks to break from implicit and limiting biases that reify exclusionary practices.”  The university will, from now on, work to “replace dominant cultural norms” with a more “welcoming culture.”

It turns out, however, that “implicit and limiting biases” do not merely influence campus culture, but supposedly permeate all the old ideas of academic success. Identifying and eliminating such subconscious, implicit biases would be a centerpiece of the new academic culture.

Moreover, uncovering such bias would require a continual creation and re-creation of an environment where all are affirmed and nurtured in their own individual identities. It hired a Director of Student Diversity and Inclusion, Francisco Salinas, with a budget funded through student fees. Programming would follow. Diversity, long haphazardly incorporated into curricular goals, would be the explicit focus of required classes on campus.

The Academic Diversity Brigade Attacks

Building this new environment would require tearing down elements of the old.  This is where I stepped in. I published my works on feminism and transgenderism in July 2017, right as the Commission’s report was published. As my work with the Heritage Foundation became public, entities across campus—starting with Director Salinas and then students and the Faculty Senate and even my own School of Public Service—got into the act of condemning me and my work.

A petition to have me fired was started. A segment of students demanded this action, since my presence was offensive. Posters popped up headed with “FIRE YENOR” because he has “BLOOD ON HIS HANDS.” BSU President Kustra, and my Dean, Corey Cook, have defended my legal rights as an academic in the face of this mob. (The incident could have been a lot worse!)

They also endorsed the view that my protected speech has hurt marginalized groups and reflects an “implicit bias.” The administration broadly endorses the premises of the student mob.  It agreed with the mob on ends, but not on means. This double game is a bridge from one vision of the university to another.

Dean Cook’s greatest wink in the direction of the new university came when he allowed Salinas to post a letter on the School of Public Service’s website. Salinas “connected the dots” between my work and the violence in Charlottesville and to genocide generally. Anyone who might agree with my work was, illogically, a Neo-Nazi.

Salinas revealed much in this post. “Reducing the impact of toxic seeds by identifying them,” he wrote, “helps us to ultimately control the character of what we will inevitably have to sow.”  Shaming and un-personing (to use Orwell’s term) opponents of left-wing identity politics would help the new university to control the students and hence to win the future. Stamping the university with left-wing identity politics comes across as the goal of BSU’s new policy of inclusion.

The Boise State Faculty Senate met to deliberate on a motion that I had “violated clear policies that govern our institution, our statement of shared values and the State Board of Education policy regarding academic freedom and most important, our concern for our students.”

I had, Sen. Lynn Lubamersky contended, expressed “bigoted, homophobic, and misogynist views.” Another senator read a statement, later published in the student newspaper, characterizing my writings as “misogynist, trans-phobic, and homophobic.” Another senator accused me of committing the crime of “hate speech.”  Several senators were “appalled” at my writings but thought that the Senate was not the place to bring the question.

Sen. Lubamersky, speaking on her authority “as a historian” thought that it was “no coincidence” that I had published my work in the Daily Signal, named, she risibly contended, for the “propaganda newspaper of the Nazi regime,” (which was Der Stürmer, which literally means “The Striker”). These were denunciations, not arguments.

No one in the Senate called any of these assumptions into question. No one doubted that “hate speech” was illegal and should be illegal—it was a question of whether the Faculty Senate had jurisdiction. No one called Sen. Lubamersky to task for embarrassing herself with such a ridiculous claim. No one objected that the denunciations were inconsistent with the university’s mission and perhaps even a violation of our Shared Values. No one on campus has taken Salinas to task.

An Orwellian Expansion of Shared Values

After the formal efforts to condemn me ran into dead ends for lack of jurisdiction, the effort turned to indirect condemnations through passing additional statements of Shared Values. The Faculty Senate took this route, as did the tenured members of the School of Public Service (SPS) where I teach.

I believe the intent of this Shared Values statement was to isolate me, to make it more difficult for any other faculty member to defend me publicly, and to signal to students that my voice on campus was not a respectable one. Otherwise why was this statement put out when it was?

Here is how it worked. The Shared Values memo circulated around SPS. I was shown what appeared to be the 12th draft and was asked if I would sign. I studied the statement and consulted wise friends on the left and right from across the country. I asked for clarification and justifications before I would sign since the Shared Values statement appeared to undermine BSU’s dedication to rational inquiry.

Much was objectionable, but consider only the following as a representative sample. The signers contend that “excellent teaching and research includes being guided by compassion and understanding toward others, including considering how certain communities have been abused, repressed, or oppressed.”

This statement strikes at the heart of the academic enterprise. Excellent teaching and research is guided by evidence, logic and argument, not “compassion and understanding toward others.”  This signer’s formulation violates the State Board policies, I argued. “Anything other than a focus on the advancement of knowledge and the thirst for truth hitches our teaching and research to a moving target and undermines the raison d’etre of the university.”

Again, no intellectual response—not even a revision along the lines of “excellent teaching and research are guided, among other things, by compassion. . .” That would still be objectionable but less so.

I withheld my signature (all but one other tenured faculty member signed).

BSU as an SJU

BSU is moving in the direction of an SJU. Is this progress?

The SJU assumes that all people (and especially students) are products of their environment and that that environment is hostile to them. They are thus victims. Universities make space for victims to announce their victimhood and hence affirm those individuals in their weakness. The SJU would also cultivate an environment where individuals compete with one another in finding signs of their victimhood. An excellent SJU will act as a third party to register grievances, manage resulting conflict, and remove, so far as possible, their causes.  BSU’s administration grants the premises of the hate speech movement (the implicit bias, the micro-aggression seminars, the diversity curriculum) and will wait accept the inevitable changes in law when they occur.

Free people, in contrast, see strength and honor in overcoming their environment through the cultivation of excellence and character. No one is strictly speaking a victim: all are individuals with obstacles to overcome and the university provides a venue where one can learn perseverance, skills, and intellect to become a free individual. Honor and notoriety come from one’s excellence, magnanimously scorning slights, and achieving dignity through one’s actions and service.

No one is beyond criticism. The very purpose of the Diversity and Inclusion infrastructure is to put a slew of people and ideas beyond the pale of respectable debate. Dismantling the Diversity and Inclusion infrastructure on public universities is a good place to start if universities educate as opposed to indoctrinate.

It is not too late for places like BSU to continue virtuously lagging behind the lemmings from the rest of the country.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on February 28, 2018 at 09:33:30 am

That this could happen in rural, conservative Idaho is truly a “canary in the coal mine” moment. Higher education is in the throes of a toxic ideology. In Orwellian fashion, the phrase “diversity and inclusion” means exactly the opposite—rigid conformity with prevailing orthodoxy. Our colleges and universities are openly operating as political and cultural indoctrination centers. Maoist re-education camps. Heaven help us all.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on February 28, 2018 at 10:09:08 am

"inclusive excellence – which is achieved through a self-reflective and uncompromised commitment to the practice of inclusivity, which seeks to break from implicit and limiting biases that reify exclusionary practices.” .
. . .I had, Sen. Lynn Lubamersky contended, expressed “bigoted, homophobic, and misogynist views.” Another senator read a statement, later published in the student newspaper, characterizing my writings as “misogynist, trans-phobic, and homophobic.” Another senator accused me of committing the crime of “hate speech.”

"a string of stereotyped words expressing pre-thought thoughts" -- Pierre Bourdieu.

It is no wonder that every such denunciation deploys the exact same rhetoric. Such speech is illocutionary par excellence. It is no more reasoned thought or analysis than is the act of picking up a hammer to drive in a nail.

“Reducing the impact of toxic seeds by identifying them,” he wrote, “helps us to ultimately control the character of what we will inevitably have to sow.”

First of all, he must have meant "reap," as the statement makes no sense otherwise, even allowing for its purely tendentious motivation. Second, the agricultural metaphor reminds one of Thrasybulus.

Why anyone continues to debate such persons is beyond me. You don't debate will to power. Prof. Yenor might not agree with me, but the answer here is not, as some states are doing, legislation to mandate "viewpoint diversity" in these new temples. but solely and simply to cut off all public funding and financing of all stripes to colleges and universities except for STEM majors who maintain a good GPA. That will result in the withering on the vine of all of the bloated bureaucracy dedicated to persecuting and prosecuting their political enemies as well as of all of the "______-Studies Departments" in whose ecosystems the progressive Left's will to power has been nurtured. Like Ridley Scott's Aliens, the progressive Left has incubated in US colleges and universities for decades and is now bursting through their vitals. They cannot be reasoned with. They can only be stopped.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on February 28, 2018 at 10:54:56 am

OMG! why don't these so-called bastions of learning teah history anymore? We just passed through 80 years of what these SJWs are now preaching and we barely survived. For God's sake let's have an administration here that believes in free speech, critical thinking skills, hard work, discipline and self reliance. Instead they are socializing everything sacrificing the individual on the pyre of group think and collectivisim. God help us survive this enslaught of political correctness run amok.

read full comment
Image of philip sargent
philip sargent
on February 28, 2018 at 10:58:46 am

Excellent post.

read full comment
Image of philip sargent
philip sargent
on February 28, 2018 at 11:23:57 am

"The SJU assumes that all people (and especially students) are products of their environment and that that environment is hostile to them. They are thus victims. Universities make space for victims to announce their victimhood and hence affirm those individuals in their weakness. The SJU would also cultivate an environment where individuals compete with one another in finding signs of their victimhood."

Cui bono?

Clearly not the students, who for a rather dear price of admission (tuition, fees, etc), apparently learn only how to identify those things that may be upsetting to them / others.

The University - perhaps? It may believe that its standing within the SJU universe is enhanced by its lemming-like march to oblivion and its ability to recruit other SJU *scholars* may be enhanced.

The Administrators - YEP!!!! as there has now been created a specific, yet limited, market for the purveyors of this academic pablum, and at rather respectable wages. Additionally, consider the latent power that affixes to these "administrators" by virtue of their ability to define and determine what is permissible and what is to be taught. I suspect that not unlike the local Chinese Communist Party cadres in Myrdahls "Report from a Chinese Village", these SJU types are there to "administer" the transformation to a new paradise.
Apparently, there is quite a good deal of power in victimhood!

As for cutting off all funds: Maybe - perhaps a quicker was would be to limit student financial aid to STEM degrees only.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on February 28, 2018 at 11:50:22 am

It seems obvious that it is time for the State of Idaho to start drastically reducing any remaining financial support for the school, as well as for alumni to boycott the fund campaigns, and to specifically state the reasons. The alumni can get together and combine its money to endow chairs in free expression, traditional society canon, etc.

read full comment
Image of Duane Oyen
Duane Oyen
on February 28, 2018 at 12:12:19 pm

I appreciate Professor Yenor’s post and the five comments so far.

“Who could object to a university embracing Academic Excellence, Caring, Citizenship, Fairness, Respect, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness as Shared Values?” An answer is: anyone who prefers privacy rather than caring; justice more than fairness; appreciation before respect; liberty rather than sharing; mutual safety and security more than citizenship; and freedom-from oppression and aspiration to liberty-to pursue personal happiness rather than the dictates of others.

Many people ponder what to do about the chaos that has developed. I constantly work to inspire relief by the people rather than by government or God. Neither one of those powers---state nor church---usurps human authority.

American citizens lost track of the 1787 Constitution for the USA. Some are influenced by foreigners, who do not realize the USA is unique more than exceptional. For example, some citizens are influenced by English tradition. The colonists turned statesmen won independence from England in 1781 at Yorktown, Virginia. In general, Europeans erroneously work for social democracy. But Americans understand freedom-from and liberty-to and will not freely go back to before.

The colonists had experienced freedom-from European oppression and from 1607 through 1765 earned the liberty-to live according to private preferences yet pursue civic morality. They declared war for justice more than controversial rights. In 1788, the people in nine of the 1783 Treaty of Paris’s thirteen free and independent states authorized a unique nation based on a civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. By “civic” I mean voluntary, or without contrived coercion or force. The agreement is in the civic American's genes and memes more than articulation.

The preamble offers a voluntary agreement by individual citizens, and many Americans erroneously reject it for reasons they may or may not understand. The agreement proposes collaboration for the American republic rather than democracy or monarchy. The American republic empowers every individual who collaborates for civic justice rather than dominant opinion. But most people do not accept their individual authority for living, and therefore choose some doctrine. Perhaps, by experience, they discover the doctrine’s evil before their life ends. If so, they may seek a new doctrine, continuously denying personal authority to live their life. Some, at last, accept their human authority and behave.

"Everybody knows" that something is in control of everything, in other words, something is in control of actual reality. Perhaps the controller is God, or the-objective-truth, or chaos, or potential energy, or physics, or sheer power.

"Everybody knows" that with 7.6 billion people on earth, there must be order. Perhaps order comes from government, cultures, the people, or raw power. Many people overlook---take for granted---the civic order they practice. For example, almost all people civically queue to enter a concert.

Thus, there are two external powers each person must deal with: actual reality and government. But there’s a preeminent authority that responds to the two external powers: Each individual has the authority over his or her energy for life---perhaps his or her ninety years. He or she may develop that authority according to personal preferences. The collective, individual choices effect humankind’s progress or regress.

Those who develop authority may choose to develop fidelity; perhaps a comprehensive fidelity. That is, fidelity to the-objective-truth, to self, to family, to extended family and friends, to the people (nation), to the world, and to the universe. No one knows, but the-objective-truth may involve the God; I doubt it but do not know.

Not everyone behaves with fidelity. For example, some people perceive crime pays and therefore abuse justice until harm is discovered. Then, they may either reform or perhaps face statutory justice, even annihilation. People who lie don't realize that they isolate themselves from the quest for justice.

Humankind seems on a deliberate march toward statutory justice, which is written law and law enforcement based on the-objective-truth (actual reality) rather than opinion. When an-objective-truth has not been discovered, a civic people collaborate for necessary law according to the theory of interconnected, discovered-objective-truths.

Having the same individual authority as other humans, criminals can accept statutory law but invariably reject capricious, dominant opinion. Criminals may be inspired to reform when a culture develops statutory justice.

Individuals who have discovered comprehensive fidelity may begin each day with the commitment: In every thought, in every word, in every action, I will first do no harm. It is a commitment more than an intention. For example, if someone has lied to him or her, he or she identifies and rebukes the lie. If he or she perceives need to act but imagines harm to another party, he or she discusses the proposal, listens to the other party’s views, and collaborates to discover beneficial action or none. These are only examples of recent experiences from my quest to first do no harm, now in my second month of practice.

I share these ideas with everyone who will read or listen and hope you will share too, with improvements I’d like to learn for collaboration. By word of mouth, we can establish an achievable, better future. One of the keys is each citizen’s individual authority to trust and commit to the preamble’s civic agreement.

read full comment
Image of Phillip Beaver
Phillip Beaver
on February 28, 2018 at 12:14:29 pm

Not to mention "implicit and limiting biases that reify exclusionary practices." Surely practices reify biases, not the other way around?

"Diversity" bureaucrats can't use language clearly because they mustn't allow themselves to think clearly. They have use words like "inclusion" to mean the opposite of what every normal English speaker takes them to mean.

read full comment
Image of Delawarean
Delawarean
on February 28, 2018 at 14:00:47 pm

Thank you Scott for exposing these activists and their agendas for what they truly are. Please know that you are not without allies in this fight, and that there are students at BSU that would gladly stand with you to reverse the sickness that is "Social Justice" in our school and communities. God Bless!

read full comment
Image of Benjamin Chafetz
Benjamin Chafetz
on February 28, 2018 at 15:04:23 pm

Really they have absolutely no idea what the words even mean. They just see that someone else has used them and so they use them, probably word for word.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on February 28, 2018 at 17:42:07 pm

Scott, of course, they don't have compassion for you or consider that you might be being marginalized. Tell me how does "compassion" for others guide physics research.

And so so you are bigoted, transphobic, homophobic. So what. Nobody has to like you.
You might also ask them to define those terms.

read full comment
Image of John Pinckney
John Pinckney
on February 28, 2018 at 20:04:10 pm

So sad to see what colleges have become. Why would any parent send their kids to these places?

read full comment
Image of Michael T Kennedy
Michael T Kennedy
on March 01, 2018 at 05:59:18 am

Academic Excellence, Caring, Citizenship, Fairness, Respect, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness...it takes "liberals" to make these bad things...

read full comment
Image of John Williams
John Williams
on March 01, 2018 at 06:00:47 am

Academic Excellence, Caring, Citizenship, Fairness, Respect, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness...it takes liberals to make these bad things....

read full comment
Image of John Williams
John Williams
on March 01, 2018 at 10:33:11 am

Welcome to your struggle session, Professor Yenor.

The illiterate Maoist punks have denounced you.

They deserve pity for their ignorant foolishness. They deserve scorn for their brutality. They deserve ridicule for their unintelligible jibberish.

They are driven by envy, spite, and a lust to destroy.

They need forgiveness.

I am praying for you. God be with you.

read full comment
Image of M Heiss
M Heiss
on March 01, 2018 at 10:46:56 am

Waiting for the cafepress T-shirt that says

“Running Dog of Imperial Capitalism”

With an adorable corgi on it.

They would sell out in a minute in support for Professor Yenor.

read full comment
Image of M Heiss
M Heiss
on March 01, 2018 at 14:19:04 pm

Look, the only way to deal with this is not to defend, but to ATTACK using the same techniques and strategies as the religious leftists

“I had, Sen. Lynn Lubamersky contended, expressed “bigoted, homophobic, and misogynist views.””
Accuse Lubamersky of expressing bigoted, heterophobic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, misandrist views in a FORMAL complaint. Make her defend herself

“…characterizing my writings as “misogynist, trans-phobic, and homophobic.”
Attac

“Another senator accused me of committing the crime of “hate speech.”
Claim that this particular committed HATE SPEECH and should be fired. Demand that the public university set up a hate speech commission that will determine what can and can’t be said or written on campus. Demand book burnings.

“ to deliberate on a motion that I had “violated clear policies that govern our institution, our statement of shared values and the State Board of Education policy regarding academic freedom and most important, our concern for our students.”

Based on words in your article, force the deliberation of a motion that all of those going after you are NOT recognizing your uniqueness, or your perspective or your experiences. That those attacking you are NOT creating an accepting and nurturing campus climate where similarities and differences are respected, supported, and valued by ensuring the active participation of the entire campus community.

Attack, Attack, Attack.

read full comment
Image of JWJ
JWJ
on March 01, 2018 at 19:50:06 pm

The adjective in "social justice" performs the same function as that in "wax fruit;" it does not delineate a subclass of the noun that it modifies, rather it indicates that subject is not what it appears to be. Social justice is not a subset of justice, it is a euphemism for something other than justice.

"Diversity" and "inclusion" are likewise euphemisms. When you hear them, think "conformity." The people who use these euphemisms are not enlightened defenders of human dignity, they are part of the joyless outrage-conformity complex who are irrationally vexed by the freedom of others, and who therefore advocate irrational views. When confronted with these views one should cheerfully (because cheerfulness is kryptonite to these people) maintain:

That sex is not a social construct;

That equality is a concept that a governs application of the laws, and little else;

That words are not violence and vice versa;

That the priority in choosing pronouns should be clarity of communication and avoidance of ambiguity, rather than the subjective preference of a third person, no matter how dignified, oppressive or oppressed that person may be;

That "safety" is not a synonym for unchallenged;

That the right of person A to express an opinion is more important than the feelings of person B, and it does not matter who A or B is.

I recently ran across an old recording made by Earl Nightingale over 60 years ago. In it he quoted a psychiatrist who said, that in this society, at this time, the opposite of courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. The person most feared by the outrage-conformity complex is the person who has the dignity to think his or her own thoughts and the courage to express them in the face of emotional caterwauling.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on March 02, 2018 at 14:51:32 pm

I appreciate this information as we help our daughter navigate her options for college.

read full comment
Image of IdahoMom
IdahoMom
on March 03, 2018 at 07:17:35 am

A university student's ultimate goals should be to become modestly educated, moderately informed, and pleasurably enlightened. But to do that an individual must learn to respect others' opinions, limitations and life choices; give generously of their time and talents, listen and ponder before speaking, and always comport themselves with utmost dignity.
Until they have learned these life lessons, they are not worthy to carry any social justice flag. They are just clashing cymbals in the cacphony of life.

read full comment
Image of Cathy
Cathy
on August 26, 2018 at 03:05:56 am

I'm so sorry this happened to you Scott. We met a few times back when you were Department Chair of Polictical Science. I left the University after many years of employment when I saw this transformation occurring right before my eyes - at a staggering pace.

In my position, I could see good people choosing to head down this path - doing what they thought was right. I only hope they can now see that Truth University is better than Social Justice University.

read full comment
Image of Anon BSU Alum
Anon BSU Alum
on September 17, 2018 at 13:13:21 pm

Wow, un artículo tan interesante. Realmente, he aprendido muchas nuevas cosas para mí. Para agradecerle, me gustaría compartir con usted una fuente provechosa llamada Muchosensayos. Lo uso para hacer hacer mi ensayo a tiempo. Tal vez va como ello también.

read full comment
Image of Rachel Woods
Rachel Woods
on September 17, 2018 at 13:14:24 pm

Wow, un artículo tan interesante. Realmente, he aprendido muchas nuevas cosas para mí. Para agradecerle, me gustaría compartir con usted una fuente provechosa llamada http://muchosensayos.com/. Lo uso para hacer hacer mi ensayo a tiempo. Tal vez va como ello también.

read full comment
Image of Rachel Woods
Rachel Woods
on October 17, 2019 at 06:01:04 am

[…] enough destruction for the promised construction to begin. Dostoevsky’s ideologists resemble today’s destructive identitarians, just as Dostoevsky’s remedies to the problem mirror conversations about “national […]

read full comment
Image of Contending with Demons
Contending with Demons
Trackbacks
on September 15, 2020 at 08:14:34 am

[…] BSU long ago announced an intention to transform Idaho through its diversity programming. That political project can only be countered with politics. Having politicized the university, universities cannot really object to politicians rising to the challenge. […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related