The following is a general summation of the attitudes disseminated by my liberal professors in the History and English departments this past semester:
US and European history is negative and evil, but every other culture on the planet should be celebrated. Women are treated like children, and are without agency, free will, or much ability. Men are villains, barely able to conceal their “toxic” true selves. Biological differences between the sexes are socially constructed, and yet every transgender person must take hormones and have countless surgeries because they were “born” the opposite sex. Every culture is equal, but we must change everything about ours while other cultures are perfect as they are. Majority White nations must be made multicultural through unfettered immigration, without consent from their White majorities, but other nations have the right to preserve their identity, autonomy, and culture.
As a White male, I had the privilege (how dare I, let the public flagellation commence!) of taking a course at an American university this past semester, taught by a self-professed Marxist and feminist. The course was a “capstone course” in the history department, which implies that it was meant to be the culmination of all my prior collegiate education. The course was worth four credits, as opposed to the standard three, and an additional hour per week was allotted. However, the last few weeks of the course we rarely even met as a class, with the purported reason given, “so students could devote time to their projects.”
The course dealt with the history of alcohol in the United States. I was initially very excited for the potential course material. Between early settlers, Prohibition, wars, amazing literature, and civil rights, I anticipated an immense wealth of subject matter, to be addressed from a more alcohol-centric approach.
I should have known better.
I came to discover the professor had a degree in gender studies, which is synonymous with third-wave feminism. For those of you who are not aware, gender studies curriculum is the vanguard in the anti-man, anti-White, anti-capitalist, anti-Western Civilization brigade on campuses. Some of their infamous contributions to higher learning include the treatise on feminist glaciology (aimed at “a more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions), and Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a rape manual.
Incidentally, a male professor’s course about male authors was recently nixed by Springfield College. The course would have been fine, except that it was taught “from a perspective that was positive toward men” and included books such as Christina Hoff Sommers’s The War Against Boys, and Until Proven Innocent, an account of the Duke lacrosse scandal. This is what most people would call hypocrisy, given that there are whole departments devoted to women in literature.
And of course, it’s the same with race. Black power can be celebrated at the Superbowl in front of millions, while the mere hushed utterance of pride in one’s Whiteness will lead to name-calling, ostracizing, or potential violence, even on a campus.
Because I had never been directly exposed to a professor with her background, I investigated the types of things she believed. Critical Theory, Marcuse, Freud, Adorno — I wanted to know how they all shaped her ideology, because so often I found myself opposed to how she taught. Students were being indoctrinated, not so much helped how to think, but shown what to think. Her ideology is perpetuated and strengthened by the mass media, which often subtly reinforces the same anti-West ideas.
This cultural shift has emboldened the proliferation of click-bait articles with titles such as, “Study Says Women Are Physically Stronger Than Men (Told You So).” While the public receives its news in smaller installments — devoid of context, and as sensationalist as possible — a quick paragraph of pseudo science can have a great impact. The original study, by Dr. Jennifer Ashton (a propagandist for CBS), remarked on the resilience of the X chromosome, and by some magical correlative property, stated that it is the reason women live longer on average. Never mind the physical strength headline — causation proved! Of course, the physical differences between the sexes are quite real and numerous, just not in the way Ashton’s work is interpreted. Here is a thorough list of the differences between men and women in terms of physical ability, backed up by recent scientific research. The fact that the “women stronger than men” trope is so pervasive now is indicative of the grand illusions regularly put forth by the mainstream press, not so much to edify women as to put down men, and blur gender identities and question the existence of inherent characteristics.
Another divisive myth often parroted by college professors, feminist speakers at the UN, and even President Obama, is the “1 in 4 college women will be raped.” Reason did a terrific job of refuting this absurd notion point by contrived point.
Beginning in the 1990s, the first salvos against the anti-White, anti-male, anti-science feminist propaganda were fired. Initially written as a joke to illustrate just how little substance existed in published social science scholarship, a physicist’s satire passed for postmodernist thought at a prominent journal in the field. The war had begun. The tenets of Western Civilization, including rational thought, empiricism, repeatable experiments, and logic were pitted against the anti-intellectual world consisting of word-salad feelings and “intuitive forms of knowing.”
After examining where the professor’s ideologies and biases lay, I could move forward better equipped with how to interpret the course. Subjectivity would reign supreme, and feelings would be more important than facts. The entire focus of the class was about the European abuse of indigenous Native American populations, men’s abuse of women, and racism against immigrants or Blacks, all viewed through the lens of alcohol.
Beginning with the colonial period, the sides were clearly demarcated — the peace-loving natives were one with the earth, while the White colonizers stole from them, abused them, and brought destructive elements into their community. The professor argued that the continued selling of alcohol, after its effects on the native population were witnessed, demonstrated a genocidal conspiracy. To her credit, she did dispel the myth of the smallpox blanket, which is still taught regularly in U.S. history courses to children. The anti-White, anti-male agenda begins earlier and earlier in public schools.
After the extensive inspection of colonial America and the ills of colonization — without any mention of agricultural improvements, mutually beneficial trade, or improved literacy — the course moved on to how Prohibition primarily focused on immigrant populations. Once again, Whites were seen as the oppressive force. Sometimes they would try to take away cultural practices involving alcohol dear to the immigrants. Other times, the professor explained, soulless capitalist factory owners wanted to limit immigrant access to alcohol while they were working with heavy machinery. My professor, like most other Marxists, lacked nuance and impartiality; she automatically pitted one group against another, and White males were always viewed as the oppressors.
We also investigated Harlem in New York during Prohibition and the cultural shift toward sexual promiscuity. The professor became particularly worked up during this part of the course, noticeably perspiring when race mixing and women’s liberation came up. She glorified alcohol, said White jazz musicians stole or “culturally appropriated” the entire genre, and argued that many husbands were upset because they couldn’t control their women anymore.
The speakeasies were often in lower-income neighborhoods. The rampant criminality brought on by Prohibition was glossed over in class, and we mainly focused on Italian mafias. However, less than 100 years later, in a city like “Chiraq,” the Italian mafia has nothing to do with the Third-World level of violence that occurs. Marxists tend to think of violence as a logical response to oppressive laws of the State, benefitting a few rich capitalists. Some can argue that these armed gangs, in most cities across the country, are already waiting in place behind enemy lines, waiting for a spark. The professor is eagerly awaiting “the revolution,” ironically from her comfortable upper-middle class vantage point.
The professor’s moral relativism mirrors mainstream views today, where liberals justify criminal behavior because of socio-economic factors, ignoring other factors such as race or one-parent households. However, when these liberals are shown that twice as many Whites are in poverty compared to Blacks in the U.S., they are left without any rational explanation as to why violent criminality occurs at starkly different rates between the races. In fact, Blacks commit over 50% of murders, while they make up only 13% of the country’s population. Any time I would attempt to introduce facts like these into class, the professor would quickly change the subject, obfuscating the point.
Finally, the anti-male viewpoint was held throughout the course. Domestic violence against women was highlighted, with alcohol being the instigating factor. We were shown cartoons from the Prohibition period, where women and children were neglected, barefoot, and impoverished, all to be blamed on men’s violent outbursts while drinking. However, studies recently conducted by the CDC show men are more often victims of partner abuse. Another stark discovery I recently made while researching my professor’s views is that domestic violence between lesbian couples is higher than any other type of domestic partnership. Despite feminisms’ stated goals, only male on female abuse suits their agenda. Again, whenever I tried to assert facts or scientific studies, I was quickly shot down.
Throughout the five months of class, counterpoints were rarely given to the professor’s Marxist views, and the political brand of progressivism was interchangeably used in place of the more benign term of “progress.” After all, who could be against progress? Conversations were framed so that anyone who opposed the professor’s views was stupid, backwards, or morally deficient. The White professor was instilling a soft form of psychological abuse on students in my class, over 90% of which were White. I fought against these types of attitudes whenever I could, but I was often the only dissenting voice. Unfortunately, many millennials who grow up with Facebook’s liberal news slant are often oblivious to other points of view.
I also railed against “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” I proposed a syllabus for a course I would teach, and made specific references as to why both of these relatively new tactics in academia are anathema to higher education.
University is meant to foster critical thinking. Diversity refers most importantly to an open venue where opinions and ideas can challenge each other. By endorsing censorship or segregated echo chambers, higher learning is not preparing people for the real world. In fact, it is infantilizing them, inhibiting their development as adults. Events that may cause momentary upset because of difficult subjects or alternate opinions should be used as a valuable opportunity for critical thinking, teaching, and learning. I welcome everyone’s opinions and thoughts — not just those that are widely accepted or heard on the evening news. If you feel your mental well-being can truly be harmed by words — in an open classroom setting, I suggest you seek professional help. Ideas, concepts, history, and the search for truth cannot be explored and ultimately found without intellectual rigor and freedom of speech.
Our culture is under attack. Recently, riots have occurred repeatedly outside Trump rallies, with more in the offing as we head toward the election. But if Whites were burning things, flying ancestral flags, and hurling bricks at police, would the mainstream press report the event in a way that condones the “protesters” actions? Meanwhile, a Milo Yannopoulos speech was shut down at DePaul University, while security did nothing — a stance that was applauded by the president of the university. Most colleges ban conservative speakers, but instead DePaul allowed him to come to their campus, only to then watch two protesters rush the stage — without consequence, basically ending the event.
Tyranny is coming, and it is dressed up in innocuous terms like ‘progress’, ‘diversity’, ‘feminism’, or ‘socialism’. These ideas are being fomented on college campuses across the country, and our survival begins with addressing their hypocrisy and hate towards all that is good in this country.
Aesop (email him) is the pen name of a college student.