Political Correctness

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Why Are Conservatives Rejecting College Reading Materials?

The author & basketball great castigates William F. Buckley & conservatives for anti-intellectualism and "an attack on reason."

|

Longtime author, first-time novelist, UCLA grad, and basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has harsh words for college students trying to slap trigger warnings and micro-aggression labels on everything they enounter. Writing in Time, Abdul-Jabbar says:

These students' public attacks on required reading aren't merely a hold-their-breath tantrum while they refuse to eat their vegetables, they are a reflection of a larger hostility in American society against education—and against educated experts.

That may seem like an odd statement about a country that in 2015 has a federal budget of nearly $70 billion for education. Clearly we are serious when it comes to educating our young, but how we do so and what we teach them are problems.

For Abdul-Jabbar, the reason why political correctness on campus is so poisonous is that it goes to the heart of liberals arts and the critical thinking he rightly presumes to be central to a flourishing open society. 

The attack on education…[is]…on teaching them [students] to think logically in order to form opinions based on facts rather than on familial and social influences. This part of one's education is about finding out who you are. It's about becoming a happier person. It's about being a responsible citizen. If you end up with all the same opinions you had before, then at least you can be confident that they are good ones because you've fairly examined all the options, not because you were too lazy or scared to question them. But you—all of us—need the process. Otherwise, you're basically a zombie who wants to eat brains because you don't want anyone else to think either.

That's all a wind-up to a pretty interesting pitch at the end of the essay. Political correctness and a feelings-first sensibility on campus is typically (and understandably) characterized as left-wing. Most of the fanatics who are pushing the most extreme versions of policing language at colleges and universities are indeed progressives. But Abdul-Jabbar contends that much of the attack on critical thinking in and of itself comes not simply from the left but from the conservative right, which rarely misses an opportunity to mock and denigrate liberals arts and humanities professors who research and teach what conservatives consider trivial subject areas and topics. Abdul-Jabbar cites recent examples of conservative students at University of North Carolina rejecting readings in a class on "the literature of 9/11" because it supposedly sympathized with terrorists and Christian students at Duke objecting to a non-required summer reading selection because it explored homsexuality. Such populist anti-intellectualism is nothing less than

a war on reason. And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits who have characterized our greatest thinkers as "elitists" who look down on everyone else. Uber-conservative William F. Buckley once said that he'd rather entrust the government to the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book than to the faculty of Harvard University (he graduated from Yale).

That's a great sound bite that many would applaud as the triumph of street-level common sense over the egghead experts who are often viewed as impractical and removed, as if they didn't share experiences in love and grief and raising children and paying mortgages. Were he alive today, would Buckley say that after reading a 2014 poll by Alex Theodoridis of the University of California, Merced, in which 54% of Republicans polled think President Obama is a Muslim "deep down" (10% of Democrats and 25% of Independents agreed)? Yet Obama has always been publicly affiliated with Christianity and there is not one fact to suggest he's Muslim. Or what about the recent Iowa poll in which 57% of Republicans said they would trust the top candidate to "figure it out" once in office….

When I think of some of the beliefs I had when I was 19 and how different they are now that I have had more experience and education (both formal and self-induced), I'm astounded by how rigid I was. The joy of college is arguing with others who are equally passionate and informed but disagree. It develops empathy for others and humility in yourself because you now will look upon your opponents not as evil idiots but as good people who want the same thing as you: a safe, loving, moral community.

Read the full article.

NEXT: China Pledges to Enact Cap-and-Trade Carbon Market in 2017

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That may seem like an odd statement about a country that in 2015 has a federal budget of nearly $70 billion for education. Clearly we are serious when it comes to educating our young, but how we do so and what we teach them are problems.

    We’re NOT serious about educating our young. We’re serious about creating an education-industrial complex full of graft and corruption. Educating our children has always, always been a distant second to that.

    1. If we could get government out of the school business, maybe that would change.

    2. We’re NOT serious about educating our young. We’re serious about creating an education-industrial complex full of graft and corruption. Educating our children has always, always been a distant second to that.

      A distant third… second is to keep those uppity minorities in their place.

    3. For the record, that $70 billion is a tiny amount. Not because we aren’t serious about educating our young, but because education spending (which totals over a trillion a year) is mostly done at the state and local levels.
      One more reason you shouldn’t trust random sports players to lecture you on anything more serious than the ramifications of the NFL’s recent move of the the extra point kick.

  2. He ain’t no Wilt Chamberlain, that’s for sure.

    1. Hey, you drag Lanier and Walton up and down the court for 48 minutes!

      1. Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

  3. And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits

    Haven’t been back to campus in a while, have we, Kareem?

    No, I shan’t be reading any more. Not because I’m triggered, but because Abdul Jabbar is a fuckstick dumbass, and I’m tired of Nick pushing this pseudo-intellectual dreck.

    The dude’s a moron, and you’re starting to look like one more and more, Nick. Smarten up. Please.

    1. I wouldn’t call him a moron, I’d call him second-rate booboisie with money.

      A moron would get published by Salon.

    2. c’est vrai, c’est vrai

    3. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say “moron”. But he does miss his target pretty well. I think he has a bit of a point about conservative dismissal of whole fields of study. But that really isn’t the major problem with education today.

      1. Yes, conservatives mostly bitch but the vast majority of real censorship is from the left, and rightfully so. If your arguments can’t hold water all you can do is shut the other side up.

  4. which rarely misses an opportunity to mock and denigrate liberals arts and humanities professors who research and teach what conservatives consider trivial subject areas and topics. Abdul-Jabbar cites recent examples of conservative students at University of North Carolina rejecting readings in a class on “the literature of 9/11” because it supposedly sympathized with terrorists and Christian students at Duke objecting to a non-required summer reading selection because it explored homsexuality.

    I guess the question is this, which and whose tantrums end up with lawmakers or federal education administrators (or local college administrations) demanding full-fledged changes to University Curricula and/or policies, backed up by hefty grant money and funding?

    Which one of the conservative Duke students got invited to the White House as a symbol for an important cause?

    Having a temper tantrum, no matter how irrational doesn’t really count until there’s a mass policy change to reflect the demands of the tantrum.

    1. Having a temper tantrum, no matter how irrational doesn’t really count until there’s a mass policy change to reflect the demands of the tantrum.

      BTW, for those keeping score at home, I just summed up the difference between good parenting and bad parenting.

      1. Tantrums never end well for the tantrummer in my house

        1. So what you’re saying is, you don’t apply new policies, retrain all the adults in the house, and provide a subsidy and “safe space” for the kids?

          1. Oh you mean the Stormy Dragon approach. No I don’t do that.

    2. Yeah, it’s a pretty weak equivocation. On the one hand is university speech codes, trigger warnings, protests shutting down speakers, administrators buckling under to activist groups, etc. etc., on the other you’ve got some puritans whining about reading lists.

      I don’t doubt that some conservatives would stomp all over the academic freedoms of others if they had power, but they just don’t own the universities like the left does.

      1. Absolutely they would, but (at least for now), by my reading, from federal authorities all the way down to university professors, there doesn’t seem to be any sympathy for the conservative tantrums, so they remain just that.

  5. That’s Roger Murdock. He’s the co-pilot.

      1. Huh?

        We have clearance, Clarence

        Roger, Roger. What’s our vector, Victor?

        1. +1 Otto Pilot

          1. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

  6. Except the Duke student’s objection was a bit more nuanced. He was objecting to the illustrations
    of sex in a graphic novel, which, if memory serves, was the only suggested summer reading material. His complaint seemed more about the bizarre choices whomever came up with the material was making.

    1. This. It was a fucking porn comic book. (NTTAWWT!!!) I love me good porn. But this is college. Should they see research regarding sexuality? Sure! But kids coming into college should be exposed to the classics.

      1. Or at least something that can spur more than ten minutes of intelligent discussion

        1. Is that what they’re calling those 30 seconds – er, 10 minutes, these days?

        2. Is that what they’re calling those 30 seconds – er, 10 minutes, these days?

      2. Duke appears to be in a competition with the Clown College that Penn Jillette and Michael Goudeau attended.

        1. Duke has been screwed up ever since their English department went full deconstructionist sometime back in the 80s

          1. To be fair, the guy who ran the English Department at the time moved on to other jobs, and recently wrote a two-parter on “The Case for Kim Davis.”

            1. Well he’s gotten more reasonable. I don’t necessarily agree but he’s not out in left field with some Derrida nonsense like he used to spout.

        2. Duke appears to be in a competition with the Clown College that Penn Jillette and Michael Goudeau attended.

          Clown College? I’ll thank you not to refer to Princeton in that way.

      3. “But kids coming into college should be exposed to the classics.”

        Ah, like 1970s Playboy? Fanny Hill?

        1. Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS needs a comeback.

          1. Perhaps the greatest movie ever made.

        2. Well if you hadn’t already made it through the 1970’s Playboys by the 8th grade then maybe you should go to Duke.

      4. You know it wasn’t actually porn, right?

      5. This. It was a fucking porn comic book. (NTTAWWT!!!)

        I haven’t read the book, but everything I have seen and read about it indicates that it is a memoir which contains–as many memoirs do–representations of the author’s sexual experiences.

        Is A Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man “porn” because Stephen Daedalus bangs some whores?

        1. ‘Is A Portrait of the Artist of a Young Man “porn” because Stephen Daedalus bangs some whores?’

          Yes. Obviously. It’s not my fault you igrantly not know what the word means.

          1. I don’t think that the literal translation of ‘writing about prostitutes” really captures the current usage and meaning of “pornography”.

        2. A Portrait is a steaming pile of donkey shit unfit to fertilize my lawn.

          1. I quite like it. At least it’s possible to read.

    2. Summer reading in college is comic books these days? The education industry really needs to stop crying about anything.

      1. And the intellectual giant Kareem questions how conservatives might think that a college comic book is “anti-intellectual”? I am looking for Nick to move to either Huffpo or possibly even Vox within a short time. He has recently gone full Weigel.

      2. There is nothing inherently anti-intellectual about a comic book. See Watchmen or Sandman for example. Just because something has pictures doesn’t mean it’s childish or simplistic.

          1. What a clever rebuttal.

        1. And exclamation points. Lots of exclamation points.

        2. Soidisant “intellectual” comic book is ten times worser than a regular bullshit commie book. It’s like low fat icecream with extra high fructose cornsyrup and added retinyl palmitate (to replace that which they sucked out of it transmogrifying the milk into anti-G-d “low-fatness” state of abominableness. Watch it, monkey!

          1. end parenthesis, full stop.

  7. My dad says you don’t work hard enough on defense. And he says that lots of times, you don’t even run down court. And that you don’t really try… except during the playoffs.

    1. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.

      1. OMWC, do you like movies about…gladiators?

        1. I’ve always been curious about Turkish prisons

          1. Then don’t miss Midnight Express.

            1. +1 nipple on the glass

        2. I see Scraps is a boy doggie

        3. Ever see a grown man naked?

          1. Fuck, I need to learn to read down further. Sorry, Adans.

          2. “Ever see a grown man naked?”

            Who the fuck hain’t? It’s like,”Ever seen a full moon ashining through the clouds just so’s they form into a great hexagram all round it with a shimmering streak of reflected like dimpling out down and to one side like a huge stylised oxhead?” Nobody hain’t seen a grown man naked.

      2. DAMMIT! Scroll down, Swiss, scroll down!

    2. S.you ever seen a grown man naked?

    3. On a cereal note,I doubt they’d make Ariplane now,pretty triggering. Like ‘Excuse me stewardess ,I speak jive.’ And Blazing Saddles,No way.

      1. It’s a crying shame. Both of those are classics along with Young Frankenstein and Top Secret.

      2. Little known fact. Even the Airplane you watch on HBO (the tittie channels) has been edited.

        Back in the day, the lady who spoke jive ended the conversation with, “Nigger don’t want no help, nigger won’t get no help.”

        The word nigger was replaced with chump.

        I’ve also noticed that 99% of the radio stations, to include XM have edited the Dire Straits song, Money For Nothing, recently.

        1. IIRC, the Blazing Saddles they play on Esquire TV is not edited like that.

          1. +1 Shvartzes!

            Hosti gezen in dayne lebn?

              1. Hey,where are the white women?

              2. Where da white women at?

            1. The sheriff is near.

            2. My grandfather come from Norway and moved himself to Chicago, though his job regularly took him all over the fucking world. Jibuti even onced. Thing is, he used to talk about the “shvartze”.

              He also used to complain about how weak and piddly was the women in this country compared to the ideals of femininity he knew in Europe, “de sv?re teutoniske kvinda”, or something like that. And a lot about the follies of Marx.

        2. Yaeh no sense of humer any more. Dire Straits ,Sultans of Swing,,used to drink beer and have a little pot to that,and the Cars ,with some friends,good times.

          1. If you liked the Cars, I shit you not, run out and get Kris Delmhorst’s album “Cars.” Right now.

        3. There was always an edited version of Money For Nothing for radio play. It depended on what kind of station was playing it and in what time period.

      3. I was watching an old Batman the other day. Had some old dude dressed up in an Indian get up. Dialog very un-pc. His last line of the scene. “Boy is my face red”. Yeah, not today. I don’t even think they can be Speedy Gonzalaz any more. Too bad cause he was thee fastest mouse in all of mehico.

        1. Hey, let’s not forgot the greatest cartoon actor of all time…Foghorn Leghorn!

          1. WRONG. Screwball Squirrel. He was a true libertarian as well.

      4. Cereal note? WTF?

        1. I have it on good authority that if you combine the “Bear Naked” honey almond cereal with raisins and dried apples, you have an exact replica of Kellogg ‘s “Apple Raisin Crisp” which was, of course, the vest cereal EVAR!!!!!!!!

          1. As it turns out, the recipe is a poor substitute for the real thing.

  8. So, Republicans/conservatives AND Democrats/liberals are BOTH anti-libertarian shitbags?

    *displays look of astonishment*

    1. “The right does it too”

    2. Did Nick mention Democrats/liberals? No, he kind of generally uses the term “left-wing” but certainly not as a denunciation. For Weigel and Nick, there is only one enemy and it is not “democrats” or “liberals”.

      1. Technically, no, but he did say this:

        “Political correctness and a feelings-first sensibility on campus is typically (and understandably) characterized as left-wing. Most of the fanatics who are pushing the most extreme versions of policing language at colleges and universities are indeed progressives”

        If you’re going to bitch about him using the term “progressives” instead of “liberals” or “Democrats” that’s pretty weak. The persecution complex is real though.

        1. I tend to not use the term liberal myself. I consider classical liberals to be liberals, not the progressive shit heels that have co-opted the term.

  9. This is disappointing.

    Mr. Abdul-Jabbar has just come out with a book starring Sherlock Holmes’ smarter brother.

    But this article of his is dumber than Lestrade.

    Some Christian students don’t want to read a freakin’ *comic book* – and they’re anti-intellectual?

    And he’s looking for examples of conservative anti-intellectualism – and he cites *William Buckley*?

    This isn’t just dumb, this is (to paraphrase George Orwell) the kind of stupidity only an intellectual would spout.

    1. I wonder what he thinks of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.?

      1. He thinks they’re stupid by being stuck in the 1950’s.

        Whereas intelligent people like himself are stuck in the 1970’s.

        1. I don’t think Kareem is stuck in the 70’s. He’s citing the long since out-of-the-public-eye and long dead Buckley speaking from 1963 as an illustration of current right-wing anti-intellectualism on campus.

          Let that marinate for a moment.

          Speaking of anti-intellectualism in today’s campus environment, he pulls out a quote from his youth by an intellectual’s intellectual.

          Kareem has always been stuck in the 60’s, fighting the battles that were settled in 60’s.

      2. Betcha he thinks their books full of words are anti-intellectual and keeping Economics from the masses through an intentional lack of pictures.

        1. Plus they talk like fags and their shit’s all retarded.

          1. Welcome to Costco. I love you.

    2. Buckley would engage his critics. Third wave feminists won’t even come out of their safe spaces to do so.

      1. That was back when the Dick Cavett show was on network tv. Difrn’t times, Difrn’t times.

        1. Saw a Cavett episode recently. Google Slydini on Cavett. Older sleight of hand magician who was very good. Not Ricky Jay good, but good enough to fool most people.

          1. Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ. Ricky Jay would probably tell you he wishes he was nearly as good as Slydini.

            1. Slydini couldn’t shuffle Ricky Jay’s Old Maid deck!

      2. Ugh, I feel so bad for third-wave feminists sometime. We’re in the fourth wave now, guys. The third wave is the good one.

        1. Even the first wave had its share of kooks. But at least many of them weren’t.

          Later waves began actively purging the non-kooks.

        2. Nikki there was no good wave of feminism.

          There were ‘more ugly than other’ waves, but no good waves nevertheless.

      3. Lew Alcindor criticizing Buckley’s Intellect. Brilliant.

    3. And he’s looking for examples of conservative anti-intellectualism – and he cites *William Buckley*?

      Well, he’s hardly the only one.

  10. And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits

    What a crock! The counter-push AGAINST rampant PC-ism is from conservatives, but the attack on reason is from the aggressors which has been the realm of leftists for the past 30 years.

    Maybe Nick and Kareem are stuck in the early 70’s. If so, they should be ignored for their irrelevance.

  11. -Speech codes
    -Free speech areas
    -Trigger warnings
    -Yes means yes (affirmative consent)
    -Disinviting and shouting down speakers
    -Trying to defund college newspapers
    -Pushing the campus rape “crisis”
    Goddamn those fucking conservatives. They can be dickbags, but please.
    What the fuck’s wrong with Kareem? Dementia, willful ignorance, or just flat-out lying?

    1. He recognizes evildoing when it’s done, but because it’s evildoing, it must be “conservatives” doing it.

  12. Fun fact: After Buckley made the phone book crack, he was accused of… racism. No kidding. The argument was that by saying “the first X names” he was excluding people whose names began with letters from the end of the alphabet, who were (supposedly) more likely to be Eastern European or Jewish.

    1. “Anything named after a Zindberg… will always be at the end of the book…”

    2. Today it would be sexist, since most family phones were listed in the name of the patriarch. THE PATRIARCHY STRIKES AGAIN!

    3. Then I would call that brilliant since Eastern Europeans and Jews are more likely to be socialists.

      1. Uh…what?

      2. JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM

      1. Well, “a” and “b”

          1. and Dwalin, and Fili and Kili, and Oin and Gloin, Bifor, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, and Thorin Oakenshield.

            You think I’m kidding, don’t you?

            1. Not part of the group, but Gloin’s father’s name was Groin (grow-in).

            2. It is all so stupid. Tolkien lifted the names of most of the dwarves from the Voluspa in the Poetic Edda. Also Gandalf’s name.
              There is some room for discussion in that apparently Tolkein used the idea of the “wandering Jew” in his depiction of the dwarves: a lost homeland, a people apart, etc.

              1. I think this is the quote you’re looking for, Bear:
                All that is gold does not glitter
                Not all those who wander are Jews

    4. And he was also responding to a much more serious suggestion that the US should be governed by the Harvard faculty (Buckley, of course, was also a Yale man).

  13. Did Shikha Dalmia steal Nick’s password?

    1. No, NIck’s just going through a mid-life crisis.

      1. Now he wants to be called “La Femme Nikita.”

      2. He should get a young blonde and a sports car like a real man then.

        1. He’s trying to signal for a young blonde with this claptrap.

          1. Oh come on. A young blonde is much too bourgeois for a cosmotarian kingpin.

  14. which rarely misses an opportunity to mock and denigrate liberals arts and humanities professors who research and teach what conservatives consider trivial subject areas and topics.

    Those subjects ARE trivial areas and topics that deserve mockery. Most gender studies, queer studies, African American studies, etc were created so those fragile little left wing minds would have to be exposed to and triggered by ideas and works created by DEAD WHITE GUYS, which works and ideas have mostly stood the test of time. They are the ones who believe that they should only be taught by someone exactly like them. It is these professors and their minions who reject intellectualism and mistake their own radical conspiracy theories, activism and grievances for expertise and intelligence. Pointing that out is the fucking duty of all right thinking Americans.

    If Lew has a problem with a few conservatives taking that cue and rejecting a bunch of trash they don’t agree with, then too fucking bad. They’ve seen what complaining gets them. Maybe if they start beheading a few folks, they’ll really see what kind of power they have to censors ideas they don’t like.

    1. Most gender studies, queer studies, African American studies, etc were created so whiny leftards who don’t want to work can get degrees in something before becoming baristas.

      FTFY

    2. Taken a lot of those courses have you? Your opinions surely aren’t completely uninformed.

      1. I took one of them and there was some good stuff and some bullshit left-wing proselytizing in the course material and a lot more by the inept incoherent professor. I couldn’t even understand what he was saying and no one else could either.

        1. I stuck to the Old White Guy curriculum and never took a gender or queer studies course, but I kind of wish I had so that I could be more informed on the subject matter. I don’t get indoctrinated so if it was mostly bullshit, that would be the information I’d glean.

          The difference in our approach is that I believe in hearing them out, with the tentative assumption that perhaps I don’t know everything in the universe already.

          1. “I kind of wish I had so that I could be more informed on the subject matter.”

            These courses don’t inform. They proselytize to create new activists.

            “I don’t get indoctrinated”

            Hilarious.

            “The difference in our approach is that I believe in hearing them out,”

            Hilarity intensifies.

            I’ve dealt with more contrary opinion in my life than you ever will.

            1. Isn’t (s)he precious!

            2. You’re a true Internet renaissance man. Again, I’ll just have to take your word for it.

              The more you boast about your worldliness and intelligence, the less respect I have for you, because the things you believe are ridiculous bullshit.

        2. I didn’t take one, but there was definitely infiltration. You could always tell be the tone of grievance in the writing.

          I’m working on a comparative of Western and Asian literature; not because I’m in any “studies” program, but because I’m interested in it, and think the one can enhance the understanding of the other.

          It goes back to the soft bigotry of low expectations. “Obviously”, people won’t study outside their designated group out of mere scholarship or curiosity. Therefore, there must be a separate category that must be “boosted” to the level “unfairly” given to DWG lit.

      2. Taken a lot of those courses have you?

        Actually, while I haven’t taken the newer varieties of the pseudo-humanities, I’ve coached a number of friends through them using just general knowledge. They’re fluff courses where if you figure out the professor’s agenda and go along with it, you’ll get a good grade. It isn’t teaching kids how to think. It’s teaching them what to think.

    3. The the liberal arts and humanities have been rendered trivial and worthy of mockery by their practitioners. On their merits, liberal arts and humanities are worthy pursuits that cultivate a particular habits of mind that are worthwhile – how to write, how to think about the non-quantitative and how to look at context. That the study has been perverted into an agenda-driven pile of mush is not the fault of the study itself.

  15. As a life long Celtic’s fan,I’m ,I’m not surprised.

  16. I think he’s a very smart guy, actually.

    Unfortunately, he is missing the point. Regardless of who is leading the charge to “mock and denigrate professors who research and teach” what ideologues oppose, the real problem these days isn’t the “frank exchange of views”, its the harnessing of administrative and other power centers to drive speech off campus.

    And I think that is an area where lefty progs are definitely the biggest problem.

    1. He has no idea what he’s talking about,smart does no apply in this case. He also let his agent steal him blind and he had to keep playing.

    2. He’s a smart guy. For a basketball player.

      I noticed a subtle Phil Jackson bashing in the article. So he’s smart enough to do subtlety. It’s the fucking obvious he is struggling with.

      1. Bill Laimbeer would mop the floor with KAJ in a debate.

        1. And then give him a deserved elbow in the mouth.

          1. Laimbeer wouldn’t have waited for the debate.

      2. Like I said, he seems to be enough of an intellectual to be infected with the characteristic vices of intellectuals, minus the denigration of manly sports.

        1. the denigration

          Oh no you di’int.

              1. Wait, that’s a racist word now?

                Hey, it’s OK, Marion Barry used it.

                1. And this writer used it in an article listing several racist words.

                  “Denigrate” was *not* one of the racist words, but instead used by the writer to *describe* one of those words.

                  1. It was a joke, Francis. Lighten up.

  17. So, did this guy retire from basketball or was there an injury, like a really hard fall on the head?

  18. Does everyone think that silly nonsense being taught in college is a new phenomenon? And that silly nonsense is all that taught? And that college students aren’t smart enough to see through it? And that because Women’s Studies exists, the liberal arts are worthless?

    1. WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE

    2. The liberal arts were worthless long before that. Might be why they changed the name to “arts and sciences.”

      1. The only people who think that are those who want people never to learn how to think, the better to infect their brains with hogwash like libertarianism.

        We are more generous to the engineers and computer geeks. They’re not worthless at all, except when it comes to thinking big thoughts.

        1. The only people who think that are those who want people never to learn how to think

          As a scientist I am sure that I am a better thinker than 99% of the liberal arts grads in my university or most any university. Rationalizing solipsistic bullshit and FEELZ =/= critical thinking.

          1. Guess I’ll have to take your word for it. What accounts for all the bullshit you believe then?

            1. You’re just retarded Toney. You don’t know how to think.

        2. You’re so cute when you suck your own cock.

          1. Ha, my ill-timed comment applies to both of you fucks. Awesome.

            1. I only suck my own cock because I’ve earned it. Toney doesn’t even realize he’s doing it.

              1. But if you’re so smart why do you engage the troll? You must be bored or have too much free time so help me with my homework, Mr. Big Brain.

                1. Aren’t you also engaging it? And yes I do have too much free time. What question do you need help with?

              2. There’s a hilarious–albeit disturbing–image.

    3. It’s been going on for a while all right, but it’s changing. The students of yesteryear administrate and teach now and so on and so on. It gets progressively worse, with loopiness transitioning to ‘free speech zones’ and ‘muh triggering’. You can go ahead and pretend everything is peachy but it really isn’t.

      Frankly, the college/university doesn’t make a lot of sense. Most of my first and even second year classes were filler and most of what I did should have been done online. The labs are really the only use for the campus. Down with the campus!

      1. Frankly, the college/university doesn’t make a lot of sense. Most of my first and even second year classes were filler and most of what I did should have been done online

        Why do you hate knowledge?!!!

        /Warty

        1. The university system as it exists is retarded. I’m actually with Cytotoxic on this one. You’re an imbecile, though.

    4. Tony agrees with you.

    5. No, no, yes, yes

      1. When I was in school you’d see open eye-rolling in class, smarter students would challenge nonsense and everyone knew of easy liberal arts electives where you could just regurgitate some b.s. with the proper terminology and get an “A” or a “B” with minimal to no effort. Now I run into grads from tony and expensive private colleges who are totally indoctrinated into the idea that cultural borrowing (appropriation) is always a very bad thing. Not so long ago it was mostly neutral and often positive.

        I don’t know whether today’s grads are dumber, more gullible, or just feel more invested in the silly nonsense because they’ll be paying it off for the next 20 years.

        1. They’re dumber. Too many people are in secondary schools and so the quality of the minds has decreased and they are susceptible to stupid.

        2. ‘…the idea that cultural borrowing (appropriation) is always a very bad thing.’

          Aw, so we should boycott tempura? The Japanese appropriated the method of coating food in a batter and frying it in oil (a method of cooking unknown in Japanese cuisine) from the Portuguese missionaries. Heck, the Japanese even appropriated the word tempura from Latin. Now, that is not to say there is not bad tempura out there. When it is bad, it is a very bad thing.

    6. “And are shotgun-rhetorical-questions a cheap-but-common way of setting up staw-men?”

      nonsense being taught in college? – No
      nonsense is all that taught? – No
      college students aren’t smart enough? – No
      because Women’s Studies exists, liberal arts, worthless? – No

      which shouldn’t be surprising, since no one ever claimed any of these things to begin with.

      Despite that…. the contemporary bout of Identity-Politics-Bullshit is still significantly worse than it was in the early 1990s.

      And it has not at all been a cultural constant in the intervening years.

      I don’t think its limited to college campuses. It may have gotten its start there, but i see the same kind of horseshit, hypersensitivity appearing everywhere now. My 8yr old niece insists “proper pronouns” are an extremely important thing (despite not being able to explain what a pronoun was only last year). People say shit like this and do not see the irony at all.

      There’s an actual demonstrable cultural shit-fit going on.

      Noting that it exists does not make the observers part of some Hysterical, Anti-Intellectual-Red-Scare. People on the left are making note of the problems with this stuff as much as conservatives do.

      1. There weren’t so many paying gigs in the field of “diversity” in the ’80s and ’90s. A lot less openings in academic administration too.

      2. Warty identifies himself with Higher Education. It’s his tribe, in a loose way. His attachment to them is like a very dilute version of the attachment many conservatives have with law enforcement.

        1. Not particularly. I’ve had enough higher education to last me a lifetime. I’m tired of it.

          1. Doesn’t mean you don’t identify with it.

            1. Child, you don’t know anything about me.

              1. Yes I do. We all know some about each other.

      3. Those weren’t rhetorical questions. They seem to be common yokel beliefs. It’s troubling to me.

          1. That looks like it was written in some kind of faggy squiggle. What are you trying to do, give us bookAIDS?

        1. The position that ‘college students aren’t smart enough to see through it’ isn’t a yokel belief, it’s an observation of many and maybe even most students outside of the engineering department. Young people are stupid and gathering them all up in one area does not make them smarter, just more prone to social signalling and herd-ism. With far more people going to college than should, many are more interested in fun than learning.

          1. Outside of the engineering department? Lulz.

            1. ? Engineering students are, by virtue of what they study and who it attracts, the most hard-nosed and least likely to entertain BS.

              1. No, dude. Baby engineers are unbelievably stupid. Painfully so.

                1. Well, maybe in America. We do things differently in Canada.

        2. FWIW, my yokel “answers” are:

          1. No

          2.No

          3. Yes, and I find this very disturbing as they used to see through it just fine until quite recently.

          4. No, but “if present trends continue” a university education in what passes for liberal arts in that milieu will be worse than worthless.

        3. Do you consider Lukianoff/Haidt’s piece part of these troubling “Yokel Beliefs”?

    7. Liberal Arts isn’t worthless, at all. Unfortunately, it appears that colleges and universities no longer teach Liberal Arts, substituting SJW goodthink in its place.

  19. And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits who have characterized our greatest thinkers as “elitists” who look down on everyone else.

    There is a lot of truth to that, but the progressive equivalent, which is very prevalent and becoming more so, is to characterize anyone from a historically powerful group as “privileged” and exploitative of everyone else.

    1. How is that equivalent? How is it anti-intellectual? I think it’s blatantly obvious that being born white, male, and hetero means you have a leg up on others, all else being equal. But you can debate that point if you want. Liberals aren’t saying we should tear down academia and replace it with liberal church learnin’.

      The anti-intellectualism of the right is standard-issue, so it’s nothing new, and it’s really very dangerous. Tell a bunch of people that higher education is the devil (so listen to me instead!) never goes well.

      1. ” I think it’s blatantly obvious that being born white, male, and hetero means you have a leg up on others, all else being equal. ”

        “It’s obvious and that means white people and their ideas don’t have to be considered!”

        Since you don’t know what intellectualism is it is no surprise that you don’t think this is anti-intellectual.

        1. Really? You think that’s the upshot? At most it’s “let’s read these books by nonwhites in addition to the 90% of the canon that is white and that we’ll still read.”

          Ick, is there anything more unpleasant than the combination of an inflated ego and poor-white-guy whining? Are you that AIDS drug guy?

          1. “At most it’s “let’s read these books by nonwhites in addition to the 90% of the canon that is white and that we’ll still read.””

            Nope. It’s ‘white people can’t understand the lives of blacks and therefore their opinions are not valid’. It’s anti-intellectual to the extreme.

            “Ick, is there anything more unpleasant than the combination of an inflated ego and poor-white-guy whining? ”

            But enough about you.

            ” Are you that AIDS drug guy?”

            I wish! He’s a hero.

            1. Science is PATRIARCHY!

              And that is in no way anti-intellectual.

            2. The idea that it is difficult to internalize the experiences of people in whose shoes you have never walked is not automatically to be rejected, and is not anti-intellectual at all but an idea itself to be dealt with. I think it’s an important and fruitful insight. I get the impulse to think that you can sit in a winged chair and understand all you survey by the use of mere reason. I used to think things like that. But spending a great deal of time in what you might call social justice circles has educated me about the problem of experience–and people who openly disdain the other-people’s-shoes insight are the least likely to have a complete perspective.

              1. “The idea that it is difficult to internalize the experiences of people in whose shoes you have never walked is not automatically to be rejected, and is not anti-intellectual at all but an idea itself to be dealt with.”

                It’s anti-intellectual to use it to dismiss ideas and points entirely. It’s also anti-intellectual to treat ‘experiences’ as equal to evidence.

                “spending a great deal of time in what you might call social justice circles has educated me about the problem of experience taught me how to pretend to think when I really can’t using meaningless buzzphrases and rationalization” -FTFY

                1. You’re more of an idiot than I feared. Stop with the straw-men. No idea is rejected automatically. Your ideas are just fucking stupid.

                  And fine, pay attention to the evidence. I would never ask anything else. You, however, have just articulated a position of ignoring evidence because you’ve formed a whiny opinion about it already.

      2. all else being equal

        But all else isn’t equal. How, in your bizarro world, did someone like Ben Carson achieve what he did? White liberals gave it all to him through affirmative action?

        1. That qualification is important, because obviously a poor white kid will have fewer opportunities than the child of Colin Powell. The whole discussion is about inequities that exist on average for minority groups. I don’t think the fact is disputable, so the way we deal with it is either to do something or do nothing. Just say you’re OK perpetuating such inequities and I’ll respect you more than if you pretend they don’t exist, or worse claim that the white hetero males are the true victims.

          1. “The whole discussion is about inequities that exist on average for minority groups.”

            Asians and immigrant blacks sure don’t face these inequities. There is only one group in question here, and assholes like you do everything you can to promote the inequities they face.

            1. Your thesis is inherently racist, so own up to it. Something about native-born black Americans makes them have a bunch of social and personal problems, and it’s not the outcome of generations of economic warfare on them, but something… else. You’re like one or maybe two steps removed from the thesis that black Americans are dumber because their slaveowners bred them that way. Can you see that?

              1. “Your thesis is inherently racist, so own up to it. Something about native-born black Americans makes them have a bunch of social and personal problems”

                Being a retard must be hard for you Toney, what with that lack of reading comprehension.

                “Asians and immigrant blacks sure don’t face these inequities. ”

                “it’s not the outcome of generations of economic warfare on them”

                Oh it is absolutely the result of economic warfare in the form of welfarism, urban redevelopment, minimum wage, racist labour unions, Democrat local governance, as well as the WoD and other police actions.

                1. At least you acknowledge racism in there somewhere. This is a joke. You can’t possibly take yourself seriously. I suppose you take yourself for an above-it-all anti-partisan?

                  Blacks had it just great before the evil Dems and unions came along to oppress them in the second half of the 20th century!

                  1. “Blacks had it just great before the evil Dems and unions came along to oppress them in the second half of the 20th century!”

                    Not just a strawman, but a non-sequitor strawman.

                    “At least you acknowledge racism in there somewhere. ”

                    And it’s in your evil ideas.

          2. The whole discussion is about inequities that exist on average for minority groups. I don’t think the fact is disputable, so the way we deal with it is either to do something or do nothing.

            The problem I have, and I can’t stress it enough, is that the left only seems to want to do something as it relates to *groups*. I want to (and actively do, believe it or not) do something as it relates to *individuals*.

            1. That’s a common refrain here, but it’s essentially meaningless. You don’t talk about politics with respect to individuals. You want society and academia to focus only on the issues individuals have, never classifying anyone? Then what are we doing? Running a health clinic? Studying trends is what people do when they study anything.

              1. “You don’t talk about politics with respect to individuals. ”

                Yes we do. You don’t because you are too stupid to understand individuals and need to appeal to people’s idiot collectivism tendencies to push your horseshit.

                1. The only thing we ever talk about when we talk about anything is trends in human behavior. Talk about the habits of your next-door neighbor. Who gives a shit. It’s not the subject of political fora.

              2. There is nothing wrong with studying groups and trends. That provides insight. The problem is when you start assigning characteristics to people based solely on the membership in a group. That’s especially true when it’s a group that can’t be voluntarily joined/left.

              3. Tony, you post like a bitchy cunt.

      3. It’s anti-intellectual because it is used as an excuse to shut down opposing view points and insulate people from things that might be challenging or offensive. It’s used to dismiss competing ideas in the same way that conservatives do when they whine about “ivory tower elitists” or some such.

        More broadly, it contributes to the growing culture of victimhood. That’s really where the insularity comes from, because “victims” need to be protected from that which victimizes them.

        1. I’m with you guys (and lots of liberals) on the issue of trigger warnings and political correctness, for the reasons you list here. But I do think fixing it requires a minor course correction compared to whatever it will take to reverse the entrenched and essential bona fide anti-intellectualism of the right.

          1. ” I do think fixing it requires a minor course correction compared to whatever it will take to reverse the entrenched and essential bona fide anti-intellectualism of the right.”

            You don’t think. Ever.

          2. What, and waste a course on these lost cases?

            Nah.

            Better to let them go on and wreak havoc where ever they end up. Eventually, the economy, society etc. will hopefully flush them and they’ll be soon forgotten.

            Just stop enabling them NOW.

            If I were a Dean (and Lord knows the system can use a little Rufus), I’d bring Louis CK or Daniel Tosh on right away with the mandate to be as sick as they can.

            Then I’d play ‘Animal House’ all over the campus.

            1. I want stats on the severity of this problem, because it is almost certainly exaggerated by rightwingers with an agenda.

              1. Oh really?

                Have you read campus newspapers?

                The College Fix? Professors like Martin Kramer have been logging this sort of PC nonsense. for years.

                And it’s pretty bad. Just ask anyone you may know in academia.

                No, right wing conspiracy or cons with an agenda here Tony. This is all the doing of the progressive left. That is, they have only themselves to blame. Nobody else.

                Stop being predictable and boring.

                1. Have you surveyed campus newspapers, or are you only referring to the ones cherry-picked for their ideological offenses?

                  1. I read this online publication called ‘Reason’ that has done a good job of cataloging campus PC bullshit ex ‘affirmative consent’

                    1. Precisely.

                      Love how lefties play that angle.

                    2. Cherry-picking you mean.

                      You guys really don’t understand anything about facts do you?

                  2. I read this online publication called ‘Reason’ that has done a good job of cataloging campus PC bullshit ex ‘affirmative consent’

          3. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of left-anti-intellectualism, as well as how deeply entrenched it and the victimhood culture is.

            1. I don’t think so. I spend a lot of time here, and this is like the only barest mention of rightwing anti-intellectualism (quoting someone else of course) in a vast sea of hysterical bitching over the evil liberal thought police. You just don’t read comprehensively enough. It’s an obsession of you people; that doesn’t make it a real problem.

              1. This is where I think your partisanship is showing. I don’t dispute that the there is rampant anti-intellectualism on the right. There were laboriously long threads focusing on Trump that dealt exactly with this (did you miss those?).

                But that doesn’t make the anti-intellectualism on the left *less* of a problem.

              2. There is a liberal thought police.

                Next.

              3. IT’S NOT REAL BECAUZE UR OBSESSED

                1. Totally not being an anti-intellectual twat there btw.

            2. When you coming to Mtl?

              1. October 16-23.

      4. “How is that equivalent? How is it anti-intellectual? I think it’s blatantly obvious that being born white, male, and hetero means you have a leg up on others,…”

        …as I piss on your leg.

      5. How is it anti-intellectual?

        Dismissing anything said by somebody, based on their race/gender, isn’t anti-intellectual?

        1. No, but your insane hyperbole is certainly not adding anything to the human intellectual endeavor. Shakespeare and Beethoven are not going anywhere. Get a grip.

          1. Shakespeare and Beethoven aren’t really the concern here. Nice dodge.

      6. I think it’s blatantly obvious that being born white, male, and hetero means you have a leg up on others,

        And I think its blatantly obvious that anyone who thinks every single straight white male has a leg up on every single other person is complete tool.

        1. But that is specifically the opposite of what I said, you just failed to quote the part that makes that clear.

    2. “Our greatest thinkers”

      Nobody buys academically published books anymore. Almost all that shit has been garbage for the last 20+ years. If its not a required text there’s zero demand. It didn’t used to be that way and many older titles are either still in print or in high demand.

      1. What does ‘academically published’ mean?

          1. Yes. I have no metric to measure voluntary consumption of journal articles/papers unless they are issued as offprints.

          2. Ex-terrorists get published there like mad, even from prison.

      2. And waaaayyyy over-priced.

      3. Almost nobody.

  20. Tables are awesome and can be screwed onto all sorts of letters and with fucking results that slide up or down based on the tangent of the font, man.

    1. Vege, bro. Vege Table? Bro, how nuanced. Sweet, I have this clay earthen Inevi~ for your Vege~, bro. Just place that fucking shit over the table of fire… it will offer Equi- things so fucking Pala-.

  21. Every thoughtful thing needs a small creature. Doesn’t need to be real. Just diminutive. Imagination should not be so screwed down to the earth we can’t think like tiny things crawling out of million year rivers jabbing our fucking little fingers into the wet soil screaming about becoming fucking cavemen. So our dust-like inferiority bullshit can be made to feel like a goddamn galactic comet flying around all the shit darting eyes into further cosmos and rolling eyes like this galax is so fuckin’ gauche, bitch. I can’t hang out here, whores. I have other planets to ruint, fucking Milkway. Who the fuck named you, bitch? Shit, you suck, I’m outta here to fucking play gangstar on some place you fucks are too fucking stupid to discover with all your shit wrapped in foil. Star out!

  22. The eyes are the S=savannah of the imagination. man. Wide screeching piles of pure evolution…

  23. Toney = Cyto-pwnd

  24. Jabbar continues to exhibit all the hallmarks of a useful idiot. He correctly diagnoses part of the problem, and then proceeds to attribute its cause to the wrong source. He’s been a reliable token liberal for years, and his “intelligence” is highly overrated.

    The real story here is how Nick Gillespie was taken in by yet another leftist cult of personality. Nick is becoming a real embarrassment for libertarians; I wonder what the Vegas odds are on his losing favor with the Koch money train?

    1. “Nick Gillespie was taken in by yet another leftist cult of personality. “

      Where did Nick actually endorse KAJ’s argument?

      “Political correctness and a feelings-first sensibility on campus is typically (and understandably) characterized as left-wing. Most of the fanatics who are pushing the most extreme versions of policing language at colleges and universities are indeed progressives.”

      Then he points out that ‘jabbar contends’ otherwise. Not exactly the same as being “taken in”

      1. Yeah, I’m not understanding everybody being pissed at Nick here. Nor do I get the people who are mad at Kareem. The guy graduated from UCLA at a time when that meant something and he’s a published author of some pretty good books on history. Still, he’s denigrated as being “the dumb jock” or “the dumb actor” in a good number of the posts here, most of whom seem to be pissed because he’s attacking conservatives rather than liberals. Sorry, but I’m a libertarian, not a damn conservative.

        I think quite a few here are doing exactly what Jabbar is critiquing: completely dismissing the ideas presented as drivel out of hand rather than engaging intellectually. There is an anti-intellectual component of America’s right, but I don’t recall Kareem stating that anti-intellectualism was the exclusive provenance of conservatives.

        I don’t see eye to eye with Kareem on many ideas, but I enjoy reading his views. If there’s a sure bet, it’s that my life experience is very different from a man who is over a foot taller than I am, who was one of the most famous people in the country for over twenty years (and continues to be unable to be incognito, ever), was raised black in Harlem, and so forth. The guy comes from a very unique place. If you disagree with him, fine, but the objection here seems to be to Reason publishing an opinion piece from someone who isn’t a true believer in Libertarian orthodoxy.

        1. “…There is an anti-intellectual component of America’s right, but I don’t recall Kareem stating that anti-intellectualism was the exclusive provenance of conservatives…”
          ———————————
          He didn’t claim exclusivity, but I can understand the griping:

          “…And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits who have characterized our greatest thinkers as “elitists” who look down on everyone else…”

          I’d have to have some cites to justify that claim. Anecdotally, it sure seems the ‘generals leading the attack’ on free speech are galloping in from the left.
          If KAJ has evidence otherwise, I’ll be happen to look at it, but for now, it seems he’s pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

        2. And the generals leading the attack are mostly conservative politicians and pundits who have characterized our greatest thinkers as “elitists” who look down on everyone else.

          So not the exclusive provenance of conservatives just “mostly conservative.” That and the fact that nearly all of the examples he provides are about conservatives. The Bush/Kerry supporter anecdote being the exception. And all of that flying in the face of the facts about who is actually imposing speech codes on campus.

          Finally, when is appeal to authority ever accepted in libertarian philosophy?

          1. I see you’re not convinced either.
            BTW, see the pharm guy pulling the Elon Musk ‘game the regs’ schtick, and the drug pricing getting blamed on ‘market failure’?

    2. Gillespie starting abandoning libertarianism for leftism a while ago. Reason isn’t even the primary target audience for his writing now; it’s the secondary audience.

      I’m just glad to see that more and more people are getting tired of being patronized.

    1. It’s a zoo out there!

    2. Oh, there’s also the use of the uniquely-British verb, “Glassing

      I laughed and laughed at them and the fact that the pint glasses in most places were plastic. “Your country treats you like Children, and you let them”

      They didn’t think it was funny at all. “Mate, people do it all the time”. And indeed, it was only a few months before i got into an altercation and a guy came across the table with a cocktail glass aimed at my face.

      I still think its ridiculous. While punching people in the head can hurt your hand, its still far more satisfying, and something you can later defend as ‘sort of justifiable’ far more than “attempted facial mutilation”

  25. Conservatives have always rejected readin’ material. Why they’ve sought to even rejectin’ Mark Twain for usin’ that negro word in some o’ ‘is early books. ‘Cause y’know. That makes ever’thin’ he ever wrote worthless.

    1. Okay. They also rejected James Joyce, Henry Miller, DH Lawrence, Danielle Steele, Catullus and some of Stendahl.

      1. Never underestimate much oppression can be excused or ignored as long as taxes are lowered for billionaires.

  26. Censors vs nonCensors. It should never be put that way. That’s like telling people not to vote.

  27. The other day, I got a link to a fake site that pretended to be the New York Times. It claimed that a bunch of Islamic pilgrims died in a stampede at the Hajj in Mecca. That’s crazy.

  28. Don’t know how relevant this is, but in Peggy Noonan’s biography of Reagan “When Character Mattered”, she mentions a time when she was taking time off from her regular job to write a book. The people to whom she related her plan were weirded out that she would stop doing “real work” to write a book. A friend told her something along the lines of: “Liberals care about books because they care about ideas. Conservatives care about books because they care about ideas. Republicans care about money. Tell them you got a large advance to write a book.”

    1. As best I can tell, Noonan is Reagan’s eloquence without the substance.

  29. I don’t know that I’d call my self a conservative, but I do collect college reading material and have clear evidence that through the years, in many areas and on many subjects, it will come to completely contradict itself. What I don’t have is any examples of it forewarning the reader/user of that.

    College reading material has done so many complete 180’s over the years that at very best it should only be read and studied with huge doses of healthy skepticism.

  30. Just to pick at it a little more:

    Political correctness and a feelings-first sensibility on campus is typically (and understandably) characterized as left-wing.

    “Typically (and understandably) characterized” is a phrase that is used to patronize someone who is mistaken, to dismiss them in a passive-aggressive way.

    Either say “accurately” or “mistakenly”. The phrase use certainly implies “mistakenly”, to my ear, even though I don’t think there’s any doubt whatsoever that PC/feelings-first on campus is nearly the exclusive domain of the left, with the tiny handful of non-leftoids who pick up this particular tool being remarkable for their rarity in a “man bites dog” way.

    1. It is not about your ears! It is about the downtrodden being offended by your cis patriarchal racism!

      or something like that

  31. The whole “anti-intellectualism” debate to me is just a classic example of framing the issue to avoid discussing the real problem with colleges, which is that they are bloated sinks of taxpayer money and hugely inefficient old dinosaurs at their intended goal of preparing students for the workplace. But nah, let’s keep talking about diversity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.