Proposal: A Strategy to Reign In Marxist Indoctrination at Universities (LONG! Please read ENTIRE post before commenting)
All,
A couple of days ago, I posted on an idea that I was forming.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/17...
This post sparked off some vigorous and, for the most part, appreciated debate.
However, because I was just forming my thoughts on the issue, I did not frame the introduction properly: it became clear there was a lot of response to the title of the post but not to the content which I intended.
For that I apologize and would like to restate my intended point.
In doing so I would like to thank the people who helped me hone my argument, and I would also like to ask that each of you read the entire post before responding.
There are a couple of related crises looming.
1) Our universities are cranking out hundreds of thousands of indoctrinated, ill-educated, unemployed (and even unemployable), angry, disaffected youth.
2) The Feds have nationalized all student loans and in doing so have created a sub-prime education bubble which we the taxpayer are now on the hook for.
Gulcher strugatsky posited that the indoctrination, heavy debt burden, and depressed economy are perfect for the Marxists to create their much needed, angry, revolutionary underclass, and that all of this could have been done on purpose.
If true, I wouldn't doubt it, the Marxists have always had an eye toward “The Long Game”, an eye which we often lack.
To give credence to strugatsky's claim, look at the rising and manipulation of OWS.
If not stopped, the Marxists will find themselves in a no-lose situation:
1) Student Loan debt is forgiven as OWS demands and the US now has de-facto free university indoctrination.
2) The student loans default and further damage is done to the US economy.
3) Enough OWS types are pushed out of the university sausage grinder for full out Marxist revolution.
These *are* The Long Game stakes.
So, what to do?
I propose a class action lawsuit against the US university system to expose them.
Such a lawsuit would claim that universities are engaging in deliberate fraud:
a) An education was advertised and a Marxist indoctrination was delivered - ( class was advertised as 'x' and delivered as “Marxist Criticism of 'x'”)
b) An implied (and at times explicit) promise was made of improving one's chances at one's chosen career, yet through indoctrination over education and through the universities public perception as petri-dishes for leftist agitation, the very opposite is delivered.
The oppositional points to my previous improperly formed suggestion, along with my responses to those points follow:
1) “Lawsuit Distaste”: A deserved heavy distaste for the lawsuit strategy as it is a much abused tool of The Left.
We see this often and lose because of it: the Marxists street-fight and we take the high ground.
If the Marxists choose to duel with swords, then pick up the damned sword.
Moreover, Rand herself included courts in her Atlantis.
The only other option is waiting for our so-called representation to grow some testosterone glands, step up to the plate, and address the issue... sure...
2) “Indoctrination is a False Claim”: An insistence that there is no Marxist indoctrination occurring at the universities, so there is no legal standing to claim fraud.
If you honestly believe this, then there is no point in further discussing the issue.
The premise is too fundamental to address any disagreement with anything other than: I fundamentally disagree.
3) “No implied promise”: An insistence that there is no implied or explicit promise from universities that completion of a degree will better one's chances at pursuing their chosen career, so there is no legal standing to claim fraud.
The Hallings have provided links to specific university literature and brochures which explicitly make such a claim.
Moreover, if such a promise were not implied, so many people would not bother going into debt to attend.
4) “Personal Responsibility” / “Caveat Emptor”: An insistence that the students received an education and if they were scammed, then it was their own fault.
“Caveat Emptor” claim does not apply to “Lemon” situations.
Education is not advertised as “as-is indoctrination”, if it were, few would attend.
What's more, the lawsuit's claim would not be one of negligence, but one of intentional sub-par education for the sake of indoctrination.
5) “Personal Responsibility” / “OWS”: An insistence that the claim is a cop-out which gives credence to the OWS argument.
The OWS claim is that society should bear the burden because they can not find employment in a rigged Capitalist system.
The lawsuit's claim would be that universities purposely produce such disaffected unemployed and that the taxpayers, not the OWS types, need to be made whole and that the universities need to immediately cease and desist creating more OWS types.
6) “Personal Responsibility” / Reductio ad Absurdum: An insistence that the claim is absurd because it would give legal standing to anyone, anywhere, of any age or circumstance who could then claim that their university is responsible for their financial and career failings
The lawsuit's claim gives standing only to taxpayers and to students who have outstanding tax-payer backed student loans who can prove that their university engages in Marxist indoctrination and promotion.
The parties seeking restitution for damages would be the taxpayers, not every OWS type who sees a gravy train.
With all of that said, I hope I have restated this idea more soundly.
Your comments are welcome: help me make this argument better.
And please address my points, not misrepresentations of them.
And please, do think about The Long Game.
Thank you.
A couple of days ago, I posted on an idea that I was forming.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/17...
This post sparked off some vigorous and, for the most part, appreciated debate.
However, because I was just forming my thoughts on the issue, I did not frame the introduction properly: it became clear there was a lot of response to the title of the post but not to the content which I intended.
For that I apologize and would like to restate my intended point.
In doing so I would like to thank the people who helped me hone my argument, and I would also like to ask that each of you read the entire post before responding.
There are a couple of related crises looming.
1) Our universities are cranking out hundreds of thousands of indoctrinated, ill-educated, unemployed (and even unemployable), angry, disaffected youth.
2) The Feds have nationalized all student loans and in doing so have created a sub-prime education bubble which we the taxpayer are now on the hook for.
Gulcher strugatsky posited that the indoctrination, heavy debt burden, and depressed economy are perfect for the Marxists to create their much needed, angry, revolutionary underclass, and that all of this could have been done on purpose.
If true, I wouldn't doubt it, the Marxists have always had an eye toward “The Long Game”, an eye which we often lack.
To give credence to strugatsky's claim, look at the rising and manipulation of OWS.
If not stopped, the Marxists will find themselves in a no-lose situation:
1) Student Loan debt is forgiven as OWS demands and the US now has de-facto free university indoctrination.
2) The student loans default and further damage is done to the US economy.
3) Enough OWS types are pushed out of the university sausage grinder for full out Marxist revolution.
These *are* The Long Game stakes.
So, what to do?
I propose a class action lawsuit against the US university system to expose them.
Such a lawsuit would claim that universities are engaging in deliberate fraud:
a) An education was advertised and a Marxist indoctrination was delivered - ( class was advertised as 'x' and delivered as “Marxist Criticism of 'x'”)
b) An implied (and at times explicit) promise was made of improving one's chances at one's chosen career, yet through indoctrination over education and through the universities public perception as petri-dishes for leftist agitation, the very opposite is delivered.
The oppositional points to my previous improperly formed suggestion, along with my responses to those points follow:
1) “Lawsuit Distaste”: A deserved heavy distaste for the lawsuit strategy as it is a much abused tool of The Left.
We see this often and lose because of it: the Marxists street-fight and we take the high ground.
If the Marxists choose to duel with swords, then pick up the damned sword.
Moreover, Rand herself included courts in her Atlantis.
The only other option is waiting for our so-called representation to grow some testosterone glands, step up to the plate, and address the issue... sure...
2) “Indoctrination is a False Claim”: An insistence that there is no Marxist indoctrination occurring at the universities, so there is no legal standing to claim fraud.
If you honestly believe this, then there is no point in further discussing the issue.
The premise is too fundamental to address any disagreement with anything other than: I fundamentally disagree.
3) “No implied promise”: An insistence that there is no implied or explicit promise from universities that completion of a degree will better one's chances at pursuing their chosen career, so there is no legal standing to claim fraud.
The Hallings have provided links to specific university literature and brochures which explicitly make such a claim.
Moreover, if such a promise were not implied, so many people would not bother going into debt to attend.
4) “Personal Responsibility” / “Caveat Emptor”: An insistence that the students received an education and if they were scammed, then it was their own fault.
“Caveat Emptor” claim does not apply to “Lemon” situations.
Education is not advertised as “as-is indoctrination”, if it were, few would attend.
What's more, the lawsuit's claim would not be one of negligence, but one of intentional sub-par education for the sake of indoctrination.
5) “Personal Responsibility” / “OWS”: An insistence that the claim is a cop-out which gives credence to the OWS argument.
The OWS claim is that society should bear the burden because they can not find employment in a rigged Capitalist system.
The lawsuit's claim would be that universities purposely produce such disaffected unemployed and that the taxpayers, not the OWS types, need to be made whole and that the universities need to immediately cease and desist creating more OWS types.
6) “Personal Responsibility” / Reductio ad Absurdum: An insistence that the claim is absurd because it would give legal standing to anyone, anywhere, of any age or circumstance who could then claim that their university is responsible for their financial and career failings
The lawsuit's claim gives standing only to taxpayers and to students who have outstanding tax-payer backed student loans who can prove that their university engages in Marxist indoctrination and promotion.
The parties seeking restitution for damages would be the taxpayers, not every OWS type who sees a gravy train.
With all of that said, I hope I have restated this idea more soundly.
Your comments are welcome: help me make this argument better.
And please address my points, not misrepresentations of them.
And please, do think about The Long Game.
Thank you.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
It makes a claim based upon the fraud of an intentionally sub-par product.
Return on Investment (ROI) for degrees from most schools is way, way out there. In many degree paths there is no effective ROI.
If you spend $1M on a gender studies degree(s) from say Harvard, how long do you figure for an ROI? And I have seen education loan packages in that ballpark on credit reports. No idea what they were studying but in what field would that be an investment you could recoup in a reasonable time frame?