Higher Ed Is Crumbling

John M. Ellis’ new book, The Breakdown of Higher Education, argues that higher education is so corrupt that it can only be reformed from the outside. One might observe now that if our politicians don’t do it, the coronavirus will! It remains to be seen whether there will be long-term changes initiated by the corona-induced move to on-line instruction, but, even so, changing the trajectory of higher education will probably require some political oversight. Ellis’ book is an indispensable starting point for thinking that through.

Ellis has been in the academy, mostly at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he is now Distinguished Professor Emeritus of German literature, since the mid-1960s. At this point in his career, when most people achieve a kind of stoical resolve about the corrupt ways of the world and turn philosophical and detached, Ellis calls for a radical dismantling of our universities. Can anything now be saved?

Free Speech or Civilized Heritage?

Ellis at times comes off as an old-time academic. He is interested in rational inquiry, weighing evidence, and a no-holds-barred exchange of ideas. It is all right for there to be America-hating, capitalism-hating faculty members on campus, as long as a thousand flowers can bloom. All need to endorse the norms of rational inquiry for the academic mission to continue. Today, however, what once was higher education has broken down and become left-wing indoctrination in identity politics. When the going gets tough, this old-time academic Ellis cites the defense of free speech in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty as the model for what the university should be and for the ills that it will encounter when it departs from the model of free speech. In using the one-time bromides of the Old Free-Speech Left against the New Left, Ellis makes what youngsters today call a “boomer” argument. But, unfortunately, sociologists do not blush.

There is another Ellis, however—one who has taken lumps watching one of the bastions of Western learning, our institutions of higher education, turn against its heritage. This is a betrayal, a sacrilege, a terrible act of ingratitude. Only in the West has slavery been abolished. Only in the West has the common life for the common man been so full of prosperity. But today’s academics ignore all of this and blame the West for all our modern ills. The Ellis angered by this development is more German, in the manner of Goethe, than he is Millian (wir sind Seelenfreunden, mein sehr geehrte Herr!). This more German Ellis worries that universities have broken down higher education and infused it with the wrong kind of education, both heavier and wrong-headed, in place of an education that leads to an appreciation of our rich heritage.

Products of the old education would have cheeks that burn red when the country was offended or disrespected. Today’s students may blush, but only at their own “privilege”; if their cheeks burn red with anger it is against the “white male” civilization that they should appreciate. At today’s universities, the students love and honor the wrong things because the institutions themselves love and honor the wrong things. Embracing the view of the world from this modern university means taxpayer-assisted suicide.

The old-time academic, Millian Ellis points to education based on the model of scientific progress. The German Ellis points to an education aimed at civic education and humane learning—a kind of learning that has a content, not just a process. For a defense of the latter, if that is what Ellis genuinely wants, a defense of free speech itself is not enough (if it is necessary at all). The Millian argument is a dead end when no one will listen. It is the recognition of this problem that has turned this reforming, old-time academic Ellis into a blow-it-all-up populist of sorts, even at his advanced age.

Just How Far Left is Higher-Ed?

Ellis runs the academy through a series of tests to defend his conclusion that it only will be reformed from the outside. The number of conservatives on campus is one canary in the coalmine. The professoriate has gone from leaning left (2 liberals for every conservative in 1969), to further left (5:1 in 1999) to lurching left (8:1 in 2006 and 11.5:1 in 2016). Ellis cites piles of other evidence. “Until about 2016,” campus radicals would deny that they had created “one-party ecosystems where right-of-center voices were rarely heard.” Such denials have stopped, indicating, perhaps, “a growing confidence that radical control is now complete” and leftist control can proceed “unashamed” without explanation.

Another canary in the coalmine is the quality of education as measured by skills and general knowledge. On this, universities graduate people “who know little and can’t think,” as Ellis relates in study after study. Arum and Roska, authors of Academically Adrift, find “no statistically significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing skills” for nearly half of students. The National Center for Education Statistics sees a “sharp decline” in literacy between 1992 and 2003. The numbers are astounding: nearly 70 percent of college graduates cannot read reasonably complex materials (we’re not talking about Shakespeare, but something like an FDR speech) and explain what it means. Depending on the question wording, somewhere between 40 and 70 percent of college professors think their students are unprepared to think, write, and speak clearly. (And judging from much academic writing, the professors are not overly prepared themselves!)

The state of “general knowledge” and civic education is, if anything, worse than the acquisition of skills. Relating a series of depressing tales and studies, Ellis shows that the beating heart of today’s university curriculum involves making the case for radical social transformation. Go through the course offerings in History or English departments, as Ellis does; analyze their titles, the research agenda of the instructor, and the syllabi. It is easy to see that an agenda for social justice is increasingly crowding out all alternatives. Studies by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) confirm this: more than 80 percent of college seniors at the top 50 schools fail tests about basic facts on American history or American government. Confronted with these studies, the higher-education industry does nothing. Could on-line education be any worse?

None of these canaries, dying on quads instead of coalmines, can be resuscitated. Ellis discusses others, ranging from campus radicalism, campus violence, the irreproducibility problems in experiments, the corruption of the peer review process, and the narrowing of acceptable questions that can be asked in an academic context. In each case, Jeremiahs like John Ellis have been making arguments for years without any action to remedy the problems. Conservatives themselves have warned of this coming anti-American radicalism since William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale (1948) and other books. Conservatives have founded organizations like ACTA to expose the problems and engage trustees, one of Buckley’s recommendations. Things have only gotten worse. Why?

One has to admire the Left, on some level, for what they have done to the universities. They thought of everything. On the one hand, they have continued to cultivate the public image of the university as a bastion of scientific and technological innovation; each university contributes billions to our economy. Watch the commercials during a college football game and a viewer can be excused for thinking that white coats are mandatory for college students and all of them major in physics or medical research or mechanical engineering. Americans, even conservative critics of the university, know that a university education is essential for advancement in the modern world. All line up to send their kids.

On the other hand, universities have established faculty hiring processes, administrative posts, boards of regents, accreditation standards, and funding to build universities designed for social transformation around the ideas of identity politics. The (mostly) false image of the university generates public funding and acceptance; the reality of the university creates a new public. Ellis calls this “the iron grip of political radicalism.”

Ellis concludes that universities no longer serve the common good; in fact, their “true north” undermines a well-functioning republican form of government that is capable of loving itself and protecting itself. The bait and switch of promising one kind of education and then delivering social transformation along the lines of identity politics amounts to the embezzlement of public funds for private, partisan activity, punishable, perhaps, under the Hatch Act, Ellis suggests.

Reform or Revolution?

There is no hope that academe, broadly conceived to include its boards of control, will reform itself. It only can be reformed from the outside through the mechanisms of politics. What mechanisms? Free speech reform is not availing because the campuses need diversity of opinion and willing ears to make free speech effective. Affirmative action for conservatives on campus to cultivate such diversity of opinion? Conservatives on campus are likely to feel like Christians in Tehran, alienated from the broader transformational mission and hence ignored and harassed. Relying on the professionalism of STEM ignores the ways in which these disciplines will be vulnerable to takeover and corruption from the diversity apparatus on campuses. From an ideological perspective, STEM is today where English was in the 1990s—and forces regulating it at universities are demanding that it conform. The reproducibility problems, where scientific progress is seriously compromised because scientists themselves have a difficult time reproducing findings of experiments, documented in a National Association of Scholars study, relate especially to STEM research. If hard sciences are compromised, the university loses its raison d’etre and there is every reason to think that this is already retarding progress.

More fundamentally, none of these reforms would further the university’s formative mission toward an appreciation of our country.

Therefore, Ellis concludes, “any solution that does not directly address and attempt to correct the problem of an overwhelmingly one-party, radical, activist professoriate is no more than wishful thinking. The problem is one of personnel, not of rules of guidance.” Removing funding, Ellis concludes, is the only effective lever that the public has to implement such changes. His statesmanlike plan for action might work like this:

First, “[develop] the will for political action” with reports, episodes, media, and stories that show how the modern university does not serve the common good and in fact undermines it. His book is an example of this, as are the reports on which he draws. State legislatures could mandate reports on faculty diversity of opinion (as has Florida) or require entrance and exit exams to measure learning on civic education (drawn up by an entity like ACTA, not the system itself). This work is underway.

Second, state governments could begin the effort to discipline particularly nefarious departments or disciplines by abolishing targeted departments whose “sole purpose” is “always. . . political” or who openly claim, as part of their mission, a transformative agenda or whose methods and assumptions are so enthralled to radical politics that they are beyond repair. Identifying such departments would presumably proceed with a board, akin to a tariff commission, collecting: 1) mission statements; 2) a list of required classes for majors and accompanying syllabi; 3) the rest of the curriculum and syllabi; and 4) accreditation requirements (because many such requirements are made in collusion with the accreditation bodies). Nationwide statistics on the partisan breakdown of particular departments (like sociology, for instance) could help such a commission decide who to target for abolition. Zeroing out more than a few departments might make the others take notice. If not, more would have to go.

Third, national efforts to tie funding to education reform might be availing. Defunding all things connected to the expansion of the diversity and inclusion apparatus would also help.

Could there be honor in reforming universities along these lines? Would parents send their kids in droves to such universities? Ellis imagines an “Athens on the Great Plains,” where some enterprising educational reform attracts the liberally educated, advocates of free speech, and parents who want their children to be improved through higher education (as opposed to those who simply want them to “get ahead”).

Ellis has been teaching at universities longer than I have been alive, and my hair is thinning and turning white. I cannot help but think about how he began his career with great hopes, within world-class universities. I too have been filled with such burning zeal to impart liberal learning and an appreciation for our civilization since I started teaching in 2000. What, pray, will universities look like in 2050 when I turn 80 (Lord willing)? The country itself will not survive if their drift continues at the speed it has in the last decade. I hope I live to see an “Athens” arise in Omaha. If I do, it will be because men like John Ellis pointed the way and statesmen, sensing the danger and the opportunity, rose to the occasion.

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 April 13, 2020 at 07:46:32 am

This book, and this review, should be required reading by every University President and Board of Trustees member in the US. I am sending it to those folks at my alma mater, Cornell. Sadly, I doubt it will have any impact. They are hopelessly addicted to the opiate of "progressivism" and reform will, as the author concludes, have to come by force from the outside.

read full comment
Image of Carl
on April 13, 2020 at 08:48:34 am

The problem is sufficiently serious, i.e. an existential threat to the country, that Ellis’ Step 2 should be instituted without wasting time trying to identify the “particularly nefarious.” Cut to zero ALL funding for humanities, where the rot originates. Allow them to fundraiser and self-fund, but zero taxpayer money for those who seek to destroy Western civilization.

If the reader thinks this is too drastic, I think the reader isn’t really serious about protecting law and liberty from destruction.

read full comment
Image of Charles N. Steele
Charles N. Steele
on April 13, 2020 at 10:21:03 am

There are, you obviously do not know, some few non-leftists teaching in the humanities, and the humanities contain a wealth of arguments against leftism. Eliminating all humanities departments would eliminate these professors as well as the leftists.

Given the imbalance that exists between leftists and others on the campus today, it would seem to me that a less radical route to fairness would be an insistance that public funding not go schools displaying a favoritism one way or the other. Make politically motivated actions, like the leftist persecution or discrimination against males in kangaroo campus courts trying sexual offenses or the denial of freedom of speech, a death sentence on funding from above. If there is any message today's administrators understand, it is a cut in funding. That and/or the well to do need to establish private regional universities that will outperform the leftist state-schools until it becomes an unacceptable and damaging embarassment to the leftist universities.

read full comment
Image of Bill McLane
Bill McLane
on April 18, 2020 at 07:31:28 am

Converting a country's socioeconomic conditions to socialist specifications is a process. America is well along the way toward this conversion. Educational institutions, media sources and cultural factions commence embellishing events involving interracial/gender/sexual orientation factors, which will herald the imposition of government solutions. That is the key to invoking a socialist regime: unilateral expansion of the size, scope, cost and authority of the government. Once the tipping point in this process is reached, it is virtually impossible to reverse the trend, or even counsel the gentry on the vagaries of unchecked government growth. These students are throwing away a vital chapter in their lives to gain valuable knowledge, while they languish in perceived victimization and resolve to emphasize their gender/race/sexual orientation status as needing official recognition and protections. In each example of Socialism's 'success', the population soon learns that they've yet again fallen for an age-old scam.

read full comment
Image of David Baker
David Baker
on April 13, 2020 at 09:47:37 am

Thank you for this. I think this fellow is correct that the impetus for reform must come from the outside. I would go a bit further and suggest that total overhaul, i.e., starting new institutions, is the only way. However, do reconsider that one comment about Christians in Tehran. Not really a comparable situation. The oppression of Christians in most Islamic societies is systematic, totalitarian, and conversion is punished by the death penalty. CS

read full comment
Image of Carl Eric Scott
Carl Eric Scott
on April 13, 2020 at 09:54:30 am

Biggest mistake I ever made was to send my kids to so called "elite liberal arts schools"[[Macalester/Carleton]]" thinking they were going to get a liberal arts education.-where they were taught to think "critically". What they got were 4 years of indoctrination with political correct drivel. They are so ignorant of history it is appalling. The one room country schools on the prairie provided a vastly superior education to what is offered in todays colleges. Also,what they do learn is dumbed down to the point of being worthless in order accommodate the initiative and abilities of the disadvantaged minorities.

read full comment
Image of sancho panzo
sancho panzo
on April 13, 2020 at 10:08:02 am

In general, things happen when the culture decides that they have to be. With regard to the reform of higher education, we are close to that point.

read full comment
Image of Tom
on April 13, 2020 at 11:26:41 am

Having spent over 40 years at a major state university casting fake pearls before real swine and having to associate with an ever larger percentage of worse swine among the faculty and administrators, I heartily agree with Ellis and his reviewer about the total corruption of the American higher educational system. But I am not as optimistic about the possibilities of politically--directed reform. What chance of such in such states as New York, California, or Illinois that have fallen under control of the far left? There are a number of things that can and should be done at the federal level: ending federal tax benefits for donations, a steeply progressive exise tax upon endowments; ending research grants and student aid outside the legitimate sciences. The most important would to assure the country's future technological supremacy by concentrating research and graduate training in the sciences in a network of federally-supported institutes on the European model.

read full comment
Image of John Braeman
John Braeman
on April 13, 2020 at 13:47:31 pm

Your research is in law... which is not a science. Without various post-isms in the philosophy of science, no one would be allowed to pass off opinion as research. I see no difference.

read full comment
Image of xkz
on April 13, 2020 at 12:45:28 pm

As a retired faculty member from one of the large state universities I mostly agree with the author. I would only say two things. First, the penetration of leftism into STEM is more advanced than this article suggests. The younger STEM faculty have been thoroughly inoculated with leftist ideas because of the general education requirements for all students (ironically, with the stated purpose of broadening their education) , specifically the humanities, social "science" and English requirements; that has been ongoing for some years, as the article suggests. Also, the so-called "climate change" hoax is well-established among them even though scientifically it doesn't withstand scrutiny under the most basic standards (e.g., hiding data and methods), and pseudo-environmentalism is well-established in some of the science departments. Second, around the time of my retirement I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the universities cannot be simply reformed; they need to be figuratively razed to the ground, so little of what's left beyond the purely vocational components being worth saving. However, it might be worthwhile to try reform at least before such drastic action. My suggestion, freely given in several other places, is for external political action using the accrediting bodies; they are key. They have been positioned as enforcers because accreditation controls eligibility for Federal student loans; that heavily influences enrollment, which also determines state funding. Either take them over, purging all the leftist educrats who infest them, or replace them with a new national accrediting body under the Executive; either way, the leftists have to be kept out. (This, by the way, is one reason the Department of Education has turned out so badly: the people who run it apart from the Secretary - or, under Obama, including the Secretary - are the same kind of people who are the problem in all of public education.) The Golden Rule applies.

read full comment
Image of Haywood Smith
Haywood Smith
on April 13, 2020 at 13:40:47 pm

Can you support this argument with evidence of your personal success? Is there some truth you have uncovered that profitably predicts events correctly in spite of published research?

read full comment
Image of xkz
on April 13, 2020 at 13:32:54 pm

There is an “Athens “ that has arisen, but it’s in Michigan. Hillsdale College. They take no government money and they do not offer tenure. If I had a kid currently looking at college, it would be Hillsdale or homeschooling. Those students are getting a true classical education, especially with regard to civics.

read full comment
Image of Paul
on April 13, 2020 at 14:39:28 pm

This reform agenda cannot work, however well-intentioned it be. The problem it does not address is tenure and promotion. These depend on publications. Who runs the journals? Well, the radical left, of course. You can hire young non-conformist faculty, but they will not be able to publish, and therefore not get tenure. In other words, you have to begin by eliminating all the poor research that is published in trash journals, peer edited by trash faculty of the lefty kind. They have devised a perfect self licking ice cream cone. Control the publications, and you control the research -- and therefore promotions and hiring. The problem lies in the ethos of the corrupted disciplines. They are no longer academic, they are overtly political, and oblivious of traditional academic standards. In other words, if you don't reform publications, you can't reform academia.

read full comment
on April 13, 2020 at 17:57:11 pm

Abolition of tenure will be critical. You can have 'evergreen' contracts that renew each year, but some employment commission, entirely outside the school it evaluates, needs to evaluate have to power to hire and fire at will.

And, we get to the 'research' and the papers it produces. I maintain except for certain Department of Defense contracts that require secrecy, that since we're paying for this research in the form of grants and the like (or by virtue of tax exempt status), that all such research and the papers produced are in the public domain. You can have all of your scholarly journals, but there's a copy on the internet open to the public.

read full comment
Image of Eugene P Podrazik
Eugene P Podrazik
on April 13, 2020 at 20:36:56 pm

How is Ellis’s criticism of higher ed not simply a conservative political position that’s hoping to replace the supposed liberal indoctrination allegedly occurring in academia? In other words, how can one separate any politics from areas of study that are inherently political, such as history, sociology, and political science? Is Ellis advocating merely replacing it with conservatism?

read full comment
Image of Kevin
on April 14, 2020 at 09:23:20 am

What the hell is the Liberty Fund Network? This article is full of half-truths and slander. To talk about politicians cleaning up corruption: who’s the stand-up writer? The Donald?

read full comment
Image of LiamAllan-Dalgleish
on April 21, 2020 at 13:19:02 pm

I'll bet the stand-up writer isn't Hillary..

read full comment
Image of David Baker
David Baker
on April 14, 2020 at 10:36:44 am

This is an addenda to my previous comment about what the federal government could and should do. There are individual private groups and individuals who have valiantly exposed the leftist corruption of colleges and universities. But what is needed is a central agency to collect and disseminate information about the whole range of abuses across the country--distribution requirements forcing students to take, for example, ethnic studies courses; course reading assignments; student complaints about instructors turning their classes into political indoctrination sessions; kangaroo court treatment of those accused of sexual harassment; hiring and promotion guidelines requiring support for inclusion; discrimination and abuse of conservative students and faculty; cases of attempted silencing of dissenting views, etc. Left-wing rich of the Soros ilk spend lavishly to promote their designs. Why haven't the conservative rich been as generous and far-sighted?

read full comment
Image of John Braeman
John Braeman
on April 14, 2020 at 13:35:25 pm

"Why haven't the conservative rich been as generous and far-sighted?"

Thank you. I have been saying this for years.
In fact, why does not some conservative billionaire buy out one of the networks or other major media organ?

Then again, we must remember the truism:

"Any organization nor constitutionally chartered as conservative will soon devolve into a progressive one."

And the REASON for this, contra some of our fellow commenters is this:
Because all those trained to assume the reins of the conservative organization have been SCHOOLED in, and by, leftist organizations / academies.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on April 25, 2020 at 12:13:21 pm

If your federal government (I worked for the outfit) had their druthers, they would crank out marginally educated serfs who could only function within authoritarian environments; the military, to name one. Our government should have minimal influence within the educational field to ensure students know their civil rights, along with other Constitutional topics. Educating our youth at the post-secondary level with weighted and challenging subject matter weeds out poor performers, and encourages successful students with incentives to further expand their knowledge and employment prospects in rewarding fields. These kids today are way too absorbed within a milieu of social-interaction protocols, surrendering their money and time to be admonished to regard others as being their 'equals'. This environment erodes a crucial element of their personal development. They can no longer project their superiority and academic skills for fear of being berated and marginalized. Somehow, the means to produce successful and competent individuals is now condemned and regarded as racist, sexist, etc.

read full comment
Image of David Baker
David Baker
on April 14, 2020 at 16:36:06 pm

How refreshingly realistic, a call to destroy that which is beyond reform, to use against the postmodern brutalists the very brutalism which they have applied to the fine, fragile architecture of the true academy.

And how ironic in L&L's colorful header to portray a classical Harvard Gate and its Biblical inscription, bringing to sad memory the glory that was the reason of Athens and the revelation of Jerusalem, both since the 1960's demolished and dumped like construction debris into the Left's dustbin of history, destroyed by cultural storm troopers and replaced by the foul likes of Marx, Marcuse, Guevara, Said, Foucault, Rorty and Dawkins and the countless jack-booted, brown and black-shirted "true believers" of academe, the "hollow men" of Harvard and its countless ilk who deny such an outmoded idea as "truth."

This fine essay, read in the light of 50 years of culturally-tragic academic decline and fall, makes ironic mockery the inscription on Harvard's Straus Gate, which is shown in L&L's photographic-header: "Open ye the gates that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in." It is from Isaiah 26:2, and it welcomes through the gates of God's shelter the righteous of all peoples in bondage who have kept the faith, wherein with divine guidance they may resume their pursuit of truth.

Better the inscription were to read today: "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."

read full comment
Image of Paladin
on April 14, 2020 at 18:50:38 pm

When will someone write about the disperaty facing Adjunct faculty lecturers in higher education, speaking of corruption. They've got Ajuncts in a serious lockdown; the only way is out, a complete turnabout. For many, this is their livelihood.

read full comment
Image of SG
on April 15, 2020 at 09:04:50 am

How does Ellis square his affinity for evidence-based instruction with teaching students to love their society, culture, and country? Does he suggest scholars ignore the manifold problems of racism, sexism, classism inherent in western liberal republics and constitutional monarchies? For a scholar insistent on evidence, I don't think that looking up a professor's research agenda as firm evidence that they are "indoctrinating" their students. From an empirical standpoint, I think to make that claim one would have to go to that professor's class, sit in every time it meets, and complete all of the assignments. I guess my perspective is different because the four scholars on my dissertation defense committee were all card carrying members of the Republican Party, and none of them tried to indoctrinate me into anything, nor did the self-avowed liberal professors in the department. And I worked as a TA for every historian in my department while in graduate school, and all of their classes were very evenly balanced. It was indeed difficult teaching complex topics in the survey classes to upward of 450 students in one auditorium. Maybe that approach to assembly-line instruction is why so few students at my STEM-emphasizing institution didn't learn any of the cultural literacy that they should have while completing 6 hours of gen ed required history surveys. "I'll never use history" is what the average chem major or nursing student told me. How do you teach somebody a subject that's important if the students believe they'll never "use'' it?

read full comment
Image of KBJ
on April 18, 2020 at 15:09:09 pm

While it is likely accurate to predict there's no hope that "academe will reform itself [and] only can be reformed from the outside through the mechanisms of politics" predicting that an about-face might occur through governmental institutions--state governments disciplining "nefarious" departments for instance--is a pipe dream. Who is the arbiter in deciding levels of neferiousness, and to what extent? Similarly untenable is the thought that "defunding all things connected to the expansion of the diversity and inclusion apparatus." Postmodernism is entrenched, progressives will argue, for no other reason than the shelves be stocked aplenty withiin the so-called marketplace of ideas. Reform of public higher learning is only possible through number one in this list and as Yenor makes clear, will not resolve the recent problem of the student body's ignorance of American exceptionalism due to the university's blatant disregard of teaching something that ought to have begun in the home at the toddler stage.
An "Athens on the Great Plains" is possible through the private (not charter) school sector now and for the foreseeable future. Until more of conservative-minded masses harness the power of "reports, episodes (podcasts?), media, and stories that show how the modern university does not serve the common good and in fact undermines it" can real change happen.

read full comment
Image of Kyle
on April 17, 2020 at 08:34:31 am

Though the contents of many major college courses are useless, universities will still identify individuals who'll undertake the arduous process of learning disciplines that will advance science, medicine, industrial productivity, agriculture and aviation. The concept of unfettered free speech has met with a zeitgeist of cultural regimentation of thought, conduct and ideologies. Rather than allowing students to formulate the environment for development of their social and political views, they're instead admonished to align their behaviors with reactionary dilettantes, who are intolerant of any deviation from their scripted zealotry. This is a process, and it is nothing new. Parents and taxpayers should be up in arms about their support for this activity. However, even those elements of our educational system are being regimented. The best course of action is to work to mandate fundamental educational knowledge: Mathematics, Reading, Writing, Civics and History, and let those aforementioned dilettantes fail due to their wanton ignorance.

read full comment
Image of David Baker
David Baker
on April 19, 2020 at 07:36:24 am

Folks who bemoan the inexorable downgrading of our educational institutions might peruse a statement made by Winston Churchill about Bolshevik Russia, which eerily foretold of America's current descent. This process is not new, and it is detectable. Just look for the usual suspects--Churchill vividly described them--who insinuate themselves into every key influential body of a stable and productive civilization: Their media, finance, academia, governments and courts. Believe me, you'll smell the same rats as that elder statesman.

read full comment
Image of David Baker
David Baker

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.


jeremy corbyn sad

Why the Left Is Losing

Underlying the Left's struggles is a realignment of politics away from the economic conflicts of the 20th century toward the cultural battles of the 21st.