What Your Sons and Daughters Will Learn at University

Universities in the 20th century were dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. Scholarship and research were pursued, and diverse opinions were exchanged and argued in the “marketplace of ideas.”

This is no longer the case. Particularly in the social sciences, humanities, education, social work, and law, a single political ideology has replaced scholarship and research, because the ideology presents fixed answers to all questions. And, although the most important thing in universities today is the diversity of race, gender, sexual practice, ethnicity, economic class, and physical and mental capability, there is no longer diversity of opinion. Only those committed to the ideology are admitted to academic staff or administration.

Universities have been transformed by the near-universal adoption of three interrelated theories: postmodernism, postcolonialism, and social justice. These theories and their implications will be explored here:

There Is No Truth; Nothing Is Good or Bad

All Cultures Are Equally Good; Diversity Is Our Strength

The West Is Evil; The Rest Are Virtuous

Only the West Was Imperialist and Colonialist

Israeli Colonialists Are White Supremacists

Canadian? You Have No Right to Stolen Native Land

White Men Are Evil; Women of Color Are Virtuous

Individuals Are Not Important; Only Category Membership Is

Justice Is Equal Representation According to Percentages of the Population

Members of Oppressor Categories Must Be Suppressed

Victims of The World Unite!

Being Educated Is About Being on The Right Side


The symptoms of age-related cognitive decline include being unable to remember whether you’re in Vermont or New Hampshire, and what the talking points of your own presidential campaign are, but recalling exactly what you said nearly 60 years ago when you had a summer job as a lifeguard at a pool in Wilmington, Del. and a ‘bad dude’ called Corn Pop took umbrage when you ordered him to put on a shower cap so he looked like an old lady and then, to further emasculate him in front of his ‘boys’, called him ‘Esther’……

The Kavanaugh and Corn Pop stories must at all times be considered separately, for two reasons. First, if taken together, these stories show the extent to which pro-Democratic media, even the upmarket kind which advertises its fact-checking, will go in order to slander its enemies and support its team — and that the obvious cognitive decline of the Democratic frontrunner might not be as alarming as the obvious ethical decline in the press, because a party can find a better candidate, but the Times, it isn’t a-changin’.

Second, there’s the risk that the two stories will merge into a single image in which Joe Biden’s friends push his penis into Corn Pop’s hand in order to prove his tolerance, while Brett Kavanaugh the Porn Cop stands pink and proud for family values. This composite is the true image of American politics today, so is best not considered at all, let along pushed into anyone’s face as part of a presidential nomination strategy

Rutgers announces eight new studies on gun violence

Mr & Mrs Giffords have their hands in all of them.

Rutgers’ New Jersey Center of Gun Violence Research has announced eight studies on gun violence and prevention to be led by University faculty, according to a press release……..

Last year, The Daily Targum reported that, in a partnership with former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.) and her husband Mark Kelly’s foundation, New Jersey donated a $2 million grant to the University to launch the New Jersey Center for Gun Violence Research.

Fact Check Time: Dana Loesch Shreds New WaPo/ABC News Poll On Gun Control

A new poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post was just released. Specifically, pollsters asked Americans what they thought about various gun control proposals. Gun rights advocates have long said that using correct terminology and being familiar with laws that are already on the books is important. Terminology matters because it can mean the difference between a person breaking a law or not. The same goes for knowing what laws already exist.

Radio host and Second Amendment advocate Dana Loesch took to Twitter to explain some of the issues with the ABC News/WaPo poll.

“I’ve never before seen a topic where a lack of education isn’t just encouraged, but is seen as a virtue by leftists politicians and certain members of media. That’s not a convincing enough argument to engender trust in the proposed policies or reporting. Terms matter. Law is written based on certain terms. In some cases, certain terms are the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony,” Loesch told Townhall. “Regarding loading mechanisms: A magazine feeds a chamber and a clip feeds the (internal) magazine. In discussions about magazine bans and capacities, this is an important distinction. So one magazine is the limit but numerous clips are fine? I want to believe that these people are interested in actual solutions, but refusing to learn important terms and why those terms are important makes it hard to believe so.”

High School Assignment Forces Kids to Disclose Sexual Orientation, Reveals Massive Political Agenda

One more time parents; Are you fully informing yourself of what curriculum is going to be taught at the schools your children attend before they have this kind of propaganda forced on them?

A high school in North Carolina is under fire for an assignment entitled “Diversity Inventory” that left students crying and parents outraged. Heritage High School English teacher Melissa Wilson gave out an assignment to her class last week that asked them to categorize themselves, their parents, their doctor, friends, and more by race, class, sexuality, and religion, among other things.

Students reported that Wilson made them go stand by a sign on the wall that correlated with their sexuality. One student called a parent during the exercise to express her discomfort with it. Another student broke down crying. North Carolina Values Coalition reports.

Students were also asked to stand up, and walk towards posters in different areas of the room that correlated with their sexual identities.  Students were traumatized. Some were even brought to tears. At this morning’s meeting, one parent said that her student had been experiencing PTSD from the incident. Another student didn’t attend school on Friday, and is so scared to return to Wilson’s classroom environment that they told their parent they hoped the hurricane would distract everyone from this incident. Another parent’s child Facetimed them in the middle of the classroom to tell them how uncomfortable they were with the assignment. Another student had a friend who had recently shared very private information about themselves to a select number of their peers, and went white when the teacher asked students to now stand and reveal their private identities.

When the students expressed discomfort, the teacher’s response was to tell them it was alright because she used to be Catholic and is now a bi-sexual atheist………….

The North Carolina Values Coalition found that the teachers at this school district are involved in a district-sponsored program called WCPSS Equity.

This office promotes a far-left “social justice” curriculum written by the controversial anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center. The assignment, created by Wilson, is taken from lessons found on a website founded by the SPLC called Tolerance.org. The district also contributes to Tolerance.org via articles written by at least one staff member, assistant superintendant of WCPSS, Rodney Trice, who wrote:

Equity work is not a one-off professional development training or an office that works in isolation. This work requires embedded and systemic shifts. Diversity, equity and inclusion must be infused within the very fabric of your organization, school or district. The transportation department needs to be operating with an equity lens just as much as an academic department, and so on. While traditional leadership is top-down, equity leadership looks more like a lattice—everyone from families to support staff to educators all the way to the school board  must be in.

A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban ‘Really Did Work’

Stanford law professor John Donohue claims to have discovered evidence that the 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons “really did work,” because mass shootings and the deaths caused by them declined while the law was in effect, then rose afterward. But the methodology Donohue used is suspiciously selective, and his results do not show what he thinks they do.

“Public mass shootings—which we defined as incidents in which a gunman killed at least six people in public—dropped during the decade of the federal ban,” Donohue and Stanford student Theodora Boulouta write in a New York Times op-ed piece published yesterday. “Yet, in the 15 years since the ban ended, the trajectory of gun massacres has been sharply upward, largely tracking the growth in ownership of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

Donohue and Boulouta relied on the Mother Jones database of mass shootings, which includes “indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker.” Yet they chose to focus on cases with six or more fatalities, for no obvious reason except that it exaggerates the changes they attribute to the “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004.

Based on the definition used by Mother Jones, there were 16 mass shootings, involving 125 fatalities, during the 10 years before the “assault weapon” ban took effect on September 13, 2004. During the 10 years when the law was in effect, there were 15 mass shootings with 99 fatalities. That represents a slight decline in a rare kind of crime, and it is by no means clear that the ban had anything to do with it.

As Donohue and Boulouta note, violent crime in general was falling throughout that period. Furthermore, the law targeted guns based on “military-style” features, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and threaded barrels, that had little or nothing to do with their lethality in the hands of mass shooters, and it left more than 1.5 million “assault weapons” in circulation.

Limiting their analysis to shootings in which six or more victims were killed, Donohue and Boulouta report that the “federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).” Those are bigger drops than the Mother Jones database shows, but only because Donohue and Boulouta arbitrarily excluded mass shootings that killed four or five people.

Having magnified the decrease associated with the “assault weapon” ban through careful case selection, Donohue and Boulouta suggest the change must be due to the law. “This decline is plausible because assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use, and large-capacity magazines increase the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading,” they say. “While the gun lobby prevented the ban from being as effective as it could have been and saddled the law with a 10-year sunset provision, the ban did impede the easy access to the type of lethal weaponry that those intent on mass killing have readily available in most of the country today.”

Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta’s implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters. By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect. Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 21 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.

What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jones tally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because “assault weapons” were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise. Guns that would have been covered by the ban were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, they were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.