Bonfire of the Academies

Five problems with our colleges and how to fix them.  

Transcript

The Bonfire of the Academies

May 2024

(Quick note about my quotes section: if I wanted grand quotes about the importance of college, I could find thousands of quotes, but if I wanted quotes disparaging college, crickets. It is almost as if the folks at Google want us to see only particular views, which is crazy talk, I know. But I managed to find some things, and thank God for the Babylon Bee.  

“Hillsdale College Reports No Violent Antisemitic Protests For 180th Year In A Row.”

“Columbia Protestors Clarify They Only Want Death To America After America Is Done Paying Their Student Loans.”

“Liberals Warn Harvard President Ouster Could Lead To Terrifying World Where People Are Held Responsible For Their Own Actions.”

I wanted to throw this one in because I miss presidents, unlike the past three, who were capable of self-deprecation. “To those of you who are graduating this afternoon with high honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, “Well done.” And as I like to tell the C students, you, too, can be president.”

George W Bush

The Academy, variously known as Plato’s Academy, the Platonic Academy, and the Academic School, was founded in Athens by Plato circa 387 BCE. Aristotle studied there for twenty years before founding his school, the Lyceum. The Academy persisted throughout the Hellenistic period as a skeptical school until ending after the death of Philo of Larissa in 83 BCE. 

In Plato’s time, the school did not have any particular doctrine to teach; instead, Plato (and probably other associates of his) posed problems for others to study and solve. 

One of these was the following: wise words for our time. Though I think of Plato as a megalomaniac (someone who writes a book proclaiming themselves a grand ruler), he was a smart guy. 

“The great enemy of Plato is the world, not exactly in the theological sense, yet in one not wholly different--the world as the hater of truth and lover of appearance, occupied in the pursuit of gain and pleasure rather than of knowledge, banded together against the few good and wise men, and devoid of true education.”

There is evidence of lectures, most notably Plato’s lecture “On the Good,” but dialectic was probably more common. According to an unverifiable story, dated some 700 years after the school’s founding, the phrase “May no ignorant of Geometry enter here was inscribed above the entrance to the Academy.”

The trappings of the Academy were in place, and subjects such as science, arithmetic, literature, and philosophy were always the pillars of the Academy.  I would love to tell you, valued listener, that there was some Edenic code to the Academy from its inception.  Some beacon of light that we, following the better angels of our natures, are supposed to follow.  The reality is that the original Academy, like ours today, contained a smattering of ideology, if not the torrent of our Academy.  

It is not that I wish to impose my ideologies but rather contest the dominance of one ideology perpetuated by a system containing financial and elite means that keeps that ideology paramount in our nation.  An ideology implanted in the body of our colleges in the 1960s that it is a virus, and like a virus, the body must be cured by strong medicine.  

A favorite Yogi Berraism is when you come to the fork in the road, take it.  In terms of the Academy, we have come to the fork in the road and unlike the options posed by the great Yankee catcher, the choices are pretty clear.  One possibility is the status quo.  Continue to allow the government to hand out cash to potential students, then, under democratic administrations, try to transfer the cost of the debt to those who did not choose the loans.  Other aspects of the Academy, from tenure for professors, the elevation of Ivy League colleges in terms of future leadership, the mainstreaming of DEI in everything from admissions to curriculum, and the odd combination of seclusion of any harmful matter from students, unless such content is a condemnation of Israel in particular, and Jews in general.  

The maintenance of these detrimental aspects of the academies is one road.  The other is to take the government out of student loans, end tenure, remove all the DEI constructs imposed over the past ten years, and work to counter the prevailing wisdom that a degree from a specific college grants the owner some superiority over others, and expel those students who consistently espouse hate based on one’s religion or ethnicity, including the pro-Hamas protesters demanding the end of Israel, with the obvious implications inherent in the “river to the sea” exclamations.

It is not a coincidence that the protests breaking out on our campuses today, even at purported “elite” colleges, resemble those of the 1960s.  The student leaders of those protests so enjoyed the rush of protest combined with the ease of professorship that the radical leftists stayed on campus.  This was the alteration of colleges from focusing on learning to emphasize ideology, specifically that of progressivism and socialism.  My key reason for starting the Conservative Historian blog in 2012 was the disproportionate ratio, 12 years ago, of 5 to 1 progressive to conservative history professors.  This ratio became exorbitant because, in the 1990s, the conservative professors awarded tenure before the 1960s began retiring, and the leftists gaining their positions in the 1990s stayed on and altered the qualifications to fit their worldview.  Every new professor from the 1990s on was leftist.  Today, in 2024, the ratio is closer to 20 to 1.  Harvard has no conservative history professors.    

The concept of tenure was to create an open, objective pursuit of research, whether in the sciences or humanities.  The American Association of University Professors defines tenure as “a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.”

Instead, the opposite has happened. Because the left controls who gets the professor jobs, tenure only furthers the leftist status quo and discourages the intellectual diversity that was supposed to be the construct of a job for life. Hence, we see professors not only supporting radical antisemitism in their academies; in many cases, they are supporting it. Pressure needs to be exerted to end this self-serving and destructive practice.  

The government has long been a part of student loans, but in 2010, the Obama administration was another example of a government program that failed in its stated goals.  President Obama promoted enacting a federal takeover of student lending as part of the legislation that created the Affordable Care Act in 2010. At that time, Obama proclaimed that by cutting out the “middleman,” taxpayers would save $68 billion.

Along with assuming all student loans, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low-interest rates. The Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans. Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn’t happen. The Congressional Budget Office increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program’s costs by $27 billion, or 30%. I know it is shocking that a government program missed its projections with a higher cost as the result.  

Allysia Finley is writing for the Wall Street Journal in a piece entitled. “A Big Bank that Warren Loves noted, 

“Never has there been a bigger taxpayer scam than the federal student-loan program. Democratic lawmakers in 2010 took over the loan market and claimed fictitious savings to fund ObamaCare. Federal student debt has since more than doubled to $1.6 trillion and would be even higher but for the hundreds of billions that have already been written off. The student-loan office is the biggest government monopoly and predatory lender in US history. It’s also perhaps the only big business Ms. Warren doesn’t want to break up.”

And here is the reality of government student loans.  The government is now the only avenue for student loans, and being the monopoly in this business means that their assets under management would make them the 5th largest bank in the US.  Yet there is a difference.  The government can then transfer the loan.  There are no bailouts or bank failures in this case. The government will bail itself out, and 

The government hands out low-interest loans to anyone asking.  Unlike a mortgage or car loan, there is no correlation between the ability to pay.  Unlike a business loan, there is no concept of whether the degree is worthless. A potential medical doctor or engineering student gets the same cash as the person desiring that graduate degree in queer, intersectional, anti-colonist women’s studies.  And here is the cherry on the sundae.  If said person cannot pay the loan the government gave them, at their request, Democratic presidents will try to “cancel” the loan.  I put that in quotations because that term is woefully incorrect.  A worse term is forgiveness of that loan.  The correct term is transferred.

The government is like an arsonist who gives one guy, we will call him homeowner A, all the flammable tools necessary to set his house on fire.  Then, when the thing is burning, the government not only offers to bring in the fire department to put out the blaze they ultimately created but asks you, homeowner B, who has fireproofed his house, to pay for the fire department to put out the fire in A’s house.  Though B did not act carelessly, he is on the hook for the payment.  Owner A gets all the value of his home even though B just paid for it. 

A degree is not like a road, police force, or army.  Only one individual gets the full value.  The state of Florida is continually trying to create a national hurricane insurance scheme. Most other states oppose this because only Floridians benefit from living in Florida, so it is common sense that they pay for the privilege by having to incur costs UNIQUE to them.  A degree is even more precise.  A lawyer does not share fees with those who ultimately paid for his degree.  

Then, there is an argument put forth by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez that, typical of her thinking, is illogical and lacks even a 12-year-old sense of reason.  She has argued that a degree holder spreads value, such as buying a car or a house, that is worthy of subsidization.  This is such an elitist opinion, which suggests that a carpenter or plumber does not add value. Aside from the inanity of the argument that one contributor in a specific role adds value that others cannot, I would argue we need more plumbers and far fewer lawyers, and this perverse incentivizing of loan transfer enables more lawyers and fewer plumbers.  

This is a scam, a confidence game in which leftists get rightists to pay for their degrees, a system of certifications that they created and they perpetuate.  

Let’s pivot to the concept of “elite” universities. Of the Supreme Cout, only one member, Amy Coney Barret, is not a Yale or Harvard graduate.  Between Reagan and Biden, all of the Presidents hailed from an Ivy League Institution.  If it were so vital that these schools provide our leaders, how come our politics have become so toxic?  

This concept for so-called elite schools to fill all of the elite positions is not only oligarchic but problematic given the number of progressives vs conservatives who these schools crank out.  Increasingly, a few schools are accounting for leaders at the highest levels, and gradually, these schools veer hard and harder toward progressivism.  And we wonder at some of the nonsense we see from campuses and policymakers today, such as female congresswomen supporting Hamas, a terrorist group that would never tolerate dissenting women, much less female leaders. It is why gay people would support this same organization.  Hamas is evident in their charters that homosexuality is considered an abomination.  

Jeffrey Blehar writes this week on the Pro Hamas campus protests, 

“That’s why I pay attention to the kids these days. The kids matter, and they are not alright. Anyone seeking proof of this need look no further than one Khymani James, current undergraduate leader of the anti-Zionist protests at Columbia University and extremely online deranged advocate for virtuous murder. You’ve heard this story already, so I’ll give you the highlights. Above all else, you need to know that he was not taken out of context in any way.”

And note possible protests at universities in Texas, Georgia and Florida that, once they violated the codes of conducts of their universities, not to mention the law, they were put down, nipped in the bud.  The administrators meant what they said and said what they meant.  The blue state universities? Not so much as we have seen at CA Polytechnic, Northwestern in IL, and of course the Ivys.  It is not too much to suggest that part of the issue is that the leaders of these schools personally side with the anti Israel fervor and oppressor narrative driven from a certain paramount ideology.  

And what ideology is paramount.  The now-commonplace and well-funded DEI departments on campuses, which are consistent sources of identity-based propaganda, certainly give that impression. But in reality, the vast majority of statements and initiatives from such departments are half-baked, designed to quell the shrieks of a frothing, vocal minority — the one that’s actually in charge.

Once progressive, Bari Weiss penned a piece on DEI.  

“And the movement that is gathering all this power does not like America or liberalism. It does not believe that America is a good country—at least no better than China or Iran. It calls itself progressive but does not believe in progress; it is explicitly anti-growth. It claims to promote “equity,” but its answer to the challenge of teaching math or reading to disadvantaged children is to eliminate math and reading tests. It demonizes hard work, merit, family, and the dignity of the individual.”

Not only is DEI useless, but it is also expensive. The financial implications of DEI initiatives are particularly alarming, especially in the context of rising tuition costs, given that universities should aim to maintain, not increase, their tuition during nationwide financial turmoil. Instead of funneling millions of dollars into DEI initiatives that yield dubious returns, universities should implement evidence-based strategies promoting genuine inclusion. The time has come to dismantle the costly charade of DEI and find revival in a return to the true mission of higher education. 

But, as noted, there are some rays of hope.  According to a university memo released on Friday, the University of Florida has terminated all positions associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion at the school in compliance with new state regulations. The move comes almost a year after Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill that essentially banned the state’s public universities and colleges from spending federal or state money on DEI initiatives. By that law, Florida’s Board of Governors, which oversees the State University System of Florida, also voted to prohibit state spending on such programs at public universities. 

The University of Florida’s terminations included closing the office of the chief diversity officer and halting all DEI contracts with outside vendors, according to the announcement on Friday. Thirteen full-time positions were eliminated, along with administrative appointments for 15 faculty members, a spokeswoman for the university said in an email.

As for the final contention of so-called hate speech, in my last post, I wrote about free speech and free protest concepts.  I am not a fan of the term hate speech.  If you state that women are superior to men in all ways, that is not hate speech to men; it is an opinion. It is a wrong opinion because identitarianism, beloved by the left, precludes individual choice.  Some women are more intelligent than some men.  And some men are more intelligent than women.  However, where I differ is when one group calls explicitly for the harm of others.  Even if this is protected in terms of citizenry, it should not be protected in terms of organizational tolerance.  

I had mentioned Khymani James before. He was banned from the Columbia campus this past weekend over inflammatory antisemitic comments he made back in January during a campus disciplinary hearing.  

“What is a Zionist? A White supremacist,” James said in the video, which was unearthed by the Daily Wire last week. “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists,” added James, who uses “he/she/they” pronouns. “I’ve never hurt anyone in my life, and I hope to keep it that way.” He said he feels “very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for [Zionists] to die.”

It is ridiculous that Columbia knew of this young man and his beliefs as far back as January and did not act. Any organization, whether it be a business, association, or government entity, with an employee saying this kind of thing, would fire the person, call the cops, or both.  Colleges can be held to that standard.  Call for something illegal like the death of a fellow student, get expelled.  This is not complex.  

Nor are there prescriptions to fix our schools—no more government in student loans.  Eliminate tenure.  Start judging the individual and not the school.  Eliminate DEI.  Expel those who preach harm to others.  One does not have to have the wisdom of Plato to see these truths.