A mandatory course intended to introduce students to liberal education replaces the Western intellectual tradition with critiques of identity, power, and oppression
What's more fascinating is that there is no pushback from the students. I complained all the time. Argued with my teachers and constantly told them they were wrong. But maybe that is why I am commenting here.
They don’t know any better. They’ve already been warmed up via TikTok and their progressive parents. All this appears to confirm their priors, and few things in this life feel as good as confirming your priors and feeling like a smarty pants.
The self-reinforcing dynamic in which graduates of higher education, and in particular of an Ivy League school, believe they are better than everyone else is a strange thing to witness firsthand.
It's shocking. Some of the conversations I have with progressive friends... they'll tell you everyone is equal, everyone who disagrees when them is brainwashed by propaganda, and that they get all their information about opposing viewpoints via progressive critiques *all in the same breath.*..
So everyone is equal but the majority of black and brown people who hate DEI are too stupid to discern propaganda and think for themselves? You *are* wise enough to think for yourself, but you've never tried to consider alternative views because people who agree with you have already told you everything you need to know? 😐
They are all expensive diploma mills....and they don't even do that very well. I just had one graduate from a 4 yr State University and I will say that the best education that he received was from his private, all boys high school.
A quick observation: At one point in the essay, bias and ideological capture are considered problems on a prima facie basis. Later the essay implies the education system should provide a "vaccination" against the *wrong* ideology and warns about "our enemies" engaging in subversion.
So are you more concerned about the fact Stanford has been ideologically captured, or that that is has been ideologically captured by *the wrong* group and we need to capture it back.
Hi Adam. I don't dispute any of your data. But to think the only reason young people find socialism more favorable than capitalism is because of ideological capture in universities is borderline naive.
I went to university in the 90's, and the Dept. of Education had a bunch of this kind of thinking throughout the curriculum. Education curriculum didn't make me view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Moving to Norway 11 years ago and looking at a bunch of historical economic data, on the other hand, did.
One can slice the data in a countably infinite number of ways, and unless you're gerrymandering the data to hell and back, the answer comes out pretty much the same: the working class of NA and EU are worse off than they were in 1973.
On top of that, they saw their aunts, uncles and older siblings take on a mountain of debt only to be told there's no job at the end of university.
Then there's the layoff numbers and corporate margins (not only the highest they've ever been, but 40% over the top of the historical range).
I could go on, suffice it to say the more data one looks at, the easier it is to come to the conclusion that capitalism has failed 99.99% of everyone, and the global rich are the reason why.
Thanks for sharing your story Todd, I do want to just point out the Nordic countries are capitalist with strong welfare state, so even you don't agree capitalism has failed 99.99% of everyone either, on the contrary, free markets have lifted the most people out of poverty in history. I do agree with you taking out insane debt is a bad thing that our university system has actively encouraged btw, and hope we'll stop doing that.
If you tried to implement any part of the Norwegian system: tax structure and reporting, healthcare, child care, child leave, welfare, and so on, in America it would be blasted as socialism. So, while Norway's system might not meet a dictionary definition of socialism, in practical political terms, it would be characterized that way.
The "lifted the most people out of poverty in history" is a favorite of mine, because at surface level, it can't disputed. Look any deeper than the surface, at who was lifted out of poverty at whose expense, and the picture is far less rosy.
Yes people call things socialism that aren't, but also we do have people who *expressly* want total state control over everything and quote Marx etc. I wish people would be honest about these things, otherwise we muddy the waters with these conversations. And yes, most people want a nordic model of capitalism with strong welfare state, not socialism
Hi Todd, I agree that northern and western European lifestyles for the general working class peaked by the early 1970s, but that doesn't mean capitalism is responsible for the general lack of improvement since.
Two key events at that time were the oil price shock which enriched the monarchies of the Middle East at Europe's expense, and Nixon's visit to China which started the process of global manufacturing under communism. Simultaneously, southern and eastern European countries were really poor, under either fascism or communism.
The debt burden for the British working class didn't really exist until they were enabled to buy houses in the 1980's, but at least that debt was secured via assets. Consumer debt, including student loans and car finance, is mostly optional. Meanwhile, the best-paid workers are those who didn't attend university and have practical skills. Tradesmen in the UK are now wealthier than they have ever been.
How would you characterize the phenomenon of the top .01% of the global income distribution taking 4x the total global growth of the next 3 quintiles of the global income distribution? According to Rand Corporation, the bottom 99% of the income distribution in America lost out on $47 trillion over the period 1975-2018. Isn't that capitalism's legacy?
I don't think so, because capitalism wasn't new in 1975. What was new, after the death of Mao, was the alliance between Western investors and the CCP to relocate production beyond the reach of Western labour unions. I would welcome your comments on my article at:
This is such a conservative take, that scientific progress, Nobel prizes were won because in those good old days colleges taught more Aristotle. Oh, the good old days, when women were not allowed to go to college, and all the powerful people were white.
You yourself wrote in another article, that young people do not read. Give them 545 pages of mandatory reading for mandatory courses? LOL. They will ask chatGPT, what it is about, as I did, and guess what? It will say, that racism is bad, colonialism is bad, don't think you are above the environment that you study, and think critically. Radical thoughts all round.
Funnily, I agree with the idea that it is a useless course. But not because it is over the top, but because it is a waste of time, it could be a 15-minute youtube video.
All of this is just proof, that prestigous colleges are only a place for networking, the actual subjects taught there are unimportant.They are only a conversation starter for people you hope to become the intelligent upper class.
Yeah agree on the fact these colleges are frequently glorified networking. Still, on the reading part - the Stanford kids are not normal kids and should def be able read longer form literature! And if it was *just* the course in isolation it would be one thing but it's part of a larger pattern, I don't think you have to even be conservative to notice this plenty of normal liberal friends comment too
I can't find a link, either in your piece or in the piece you link to or in any of the links within that piece, to the complete list of readings from the Standford website. Does one exist? Thanks in advance.
An outline is on the Stanford website, although it doesn't link all the readings - the professor who voted on and wrote the story shared analysis from his review so we are going based on that. I'm sure Stanford would provide if we asked.
What's more fascinating is that there is no pushback from the students. I complained all the time. Argued with my teachers and constantly told them they were wrong. But maybe that is why I am commenting here.
Watch this lecture and it all makes sense -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
If he only knew what 2020 was going to be like. LOL
They don’t know any better. They’ve already been warmed up via TikTok and their progressive parents. All this appears to confirm their priors, and few things in this life feel as good as confirming your priors and feeling like a smarty pants.
The self-reinforcing dynamic in which graduates of higher education, and in particular of an Ivy League school, believe they are better than everyone else is a strange thing to witness firsthand.
It's shocking. Some of the conversations I have with progressive friends... they'll tell you everyone is equal, everyone who disagrees when them is brainwashed by propaganda, and that they get all their information about opposing viewpoints via progressive critiques *all in the same breath.*..
So everyone is equal but the majority of black and brown people who hate DEI are too stupid to discern propaganda and think for themselves? You *are* wise enough to think for yourself, but you've never tried to consider alternative views because people who agree with you have already told you everything you need to know? 😐
Check out the University of Austin, but only if you like Western civilization, rigor, and free tuition.
Hillsdale too.
Qatar spent almost 9 billion dollars making our universities that way.
They are all expensive diploma mills....and they don't even do that very well. I just had one graduate from a 4 yr State University and I will say that the best education that he received was from his private, all boys high school.
Children of the world's 1% being taught to cosplay oppression. Shameful.
A quick observation: At one point in the essay, bias and ideological capture are considered problems on a prima facie basis. Later the essay implies the education system should provide a "vaccination" against the *wrong* ideology and warns about "our enemies" engaging in subversion.
So are you more concerned about the fact Stanford has been ideologically captured, or that that is has been ideologically captured by *the wrong* group and we need to capture it back.
Their values should be to veritas not social justice. Good lecture worth your time to understand this problem more if curious https://youtu.be/Gatn5ameRr8?is=VM3tbGTPNXr1QFJa
Hi Adam. I don't dispute any of your data. But to think the only reason young people find socialism more favorable than capitalism is because of ideological capture in universities is borderline naive.
I went to university in the 90's, and the Dept. of Education had a bunch of this kind of thinking throughout the curriculum. Education curriculum didn't make me view socialism more favorably than capitalism. Moving to Norway 11 years ago and looking at a bunch of historical economic data, on the other hand, did.
One can slice the data in a countably infinite number of ways, and unless you're gerrymandering the data to hell and back, the answer comes out pretty much the same: the working class of NA and EU are worse off than they were in 1973.
On top of that, they saw their aunts, uncles and older siblings take on a mountain of debt only to be told there's no job at the end of university.
Then there's the layoff numbers and corporate margins (not only the highest they've ever been, but 40% over the top of the historical range).
I could go on, suffice it to say the more data one looks at, the easier it is to come to the conclusion that capitalism has failed 99.99% of everyone, and the global rich are the reason why.
Thanks for sharing your story Todd, I do want to just point out the Nordic countries are capitalist with strong welfare state, so even you don't agree capitalism has failed 99.99% of everyone either, on the contrary, free markets have lifted the most people out of poverty in history. I do agree with you taking out insane debt is a bad thing that our university system has actively encouraged btw, and hope we'll stop doing that.
Norway is not a socialist economy. Socialism means state ownership of the means of production. It does not mean high taxes and a safety net.
Adam and Leora,
If you tried to implement any part of the Norwegian system: tax structure and reporting, healthcare, child care, child leave, welfare, and so on, in America it would be blasted as socialism. So, while Norway's system might not meet a dictionary definition of socialism, in practical political terms, it would be characterized that way.
The "lifted the most people out of poverty in history" is a favorite of mine, because at surface level, it can't disputed. Look any deeper than the surface, at who was lifted out of poverty at whose expense, and the picture is far less rosy.
Yes people call things socialism that aren't, but also we do have people who *expressly* want total state control over everything and quote Marx etc. I wish people would be honest about these things, otherwise we muddy the waters with these conversations. And yes, most people want a nordic model of capitalism with strong welfare state, not socialism
Your experience is very different from mine, but I'm willing to chalk my experience to YMMV. Anyway, good chat. Gave me some things to think about.
Hi Todd, I agree that northern and western European lifestyles for the general working class peaked by the early 1970s, but that doesn't mean capitalism is responsible for the general lack of improvement since.
Two key events at that time were the oil price shock which enriched the monarchies of the Middle East at Europe's expense, and Nixon's visit to China which started the process of global manufacturing under communism. Simultaneously, southern and eastern European countries were really poor, under either fascism or communism.
The debt burden for the British working class didn't really exist until they were enabled to buy houses in the 1980's, but at least that debt was secured via assets. Consumer debt, including student loans and car finance, is mostly optional. Meanwhile, the best-paid workers are those who didn't attend university and have practical skills. Tradesmen in the UK are now wealthier than they have ever been.
Hi Daniel.
How would you characterize the phenomenon of the top .01% of the global income distribution taking 4x the total global growth of the next 3 quintiles of the global income distribution? According to Rand Corporation, the bottom 99% of the income distribution in America lost out on $47 trillion over the period 1975-2018. Isn't that capitalism's legacy?
I don't think so, because capitalism wasn't new in 1975. What was new, after the death of Mao, was the alliance between Western investors and the CCP to relocate production beyond the reach of Western labour unions. I would welcome your comments on my article at:
https://danielhowardjames.substack.com/p/samuel-pisars-century
Besides, extreme wealth inequality is a feature of most systems, from monarchy to whatever we call Putin's regime.
This is such a conservative take, that scientific progress, Nobel prizes were won because in those good old days colleges taught more Aristotle. Oh, the good old days, when women were not allowed to go to college, and all the powerful people were white.
You yourself wrote in another article, that young people do not read. Give them 545 pages of mandatory reading for mandatory courses? LOL. They will ask chatGPT, what it is about, as I did, and guess what? It will say, that racism is bad, colonialism is bad, don't think you are above the environment that you study, and think critically. Radical thoughts all round.
Funnily, I agree with the idea that it is a useless course. But not because it is over the top, but because it is a waste of time, it could be a 15-minute youtube video.
All of this is just proof, that prestigous colleges are only a place for networking, the actual subjects taught there are unimportant.They are only a conversation starter for people you hope to become the intelligent upper class.
Yeah agree on the fact these colleges are frequently glorified networking. Still, on the reading part - the Stanford kids are not normal kids and should def be able read longer form literature! And if it was *just* the course in isolation it would be one thing but it's part of a larger pattern, I don't think you have to even be conservative to notice this plenty of normal liberal friends comment too
Dear god.
I can't find a link, either in your piece or in the piece you link to or in any of the links within that piece, to the complete list of readings from the Standford website. Does one exist? Thanks in advance.
An outline is on the Stanford website, although it doesn't link all the readings - the professor who voted on and wrote the story shared analysis from his review so we are going based on that. I'm sure Stanford would provide if we asked.