College Course: ‘Strategies of Resistance’

Image result for images of angry professor

Butler U. is offering three credits to students who take a course on “resisting Trumpism” (–you know: that thing 62 million of us voted for.

For $36,000 a year (tuition only, not counting everything else), students will be regaled by their professor with tales of “Trumpism and U.S. Democracy,” consisting of “sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, nationalism, nativism, and imperialism.” Says the syllabus, “On Nov. 8, we lost more than just the presidency. We lost yet more ground in the decades-long campaign against progressive values.”

What values? Big government, abortion, sexual anarchy, stirring up racial animosities–oh, those values.

Can you imagine the uproar if a college, just a few years ago, had offered a course on “Resisting Obamaism”? “Racist, racist, racist! Biggit! Hater!” Loretta Lunch would’ve launched a prosecution.

But this is what they call “higher education.”

America has way too many colleges and universities, way too many college students, way too many far-left loons indoctrinating them, and way, way, way too much money being squandered on what can only be called a grotesque parody of education.

Parents who love and respect their sons and daughters, and wish them to be sane and productive citizens, don’t send them to those colleges.

Until “higher education” is cut down to size, nothing much good will happen to America.

14 comments on “College Course: ‘Strategies of Resistance’

    1. There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism
      –Hillary Clinton, the Pope, and every other left-wing humanist jidrool

  1. So they don’t like Trump, well welcome to our last 8 years with Obama. But we weren’t out rioting because of it or offering classing on how to subvert his administration. We handled it the right way, through the ballet box. Trump is not my favorite person either, but I’m not a sore loser about it. But what they are doing borders on sedition. Isn’t this the ultimate goal of the Left?

  2. What’s really sad about this, and what I tried to fight against during my 30 years of college teaching, is that these propaganda sessions, which pretend to be courses and are credited as such, swamp and ultimately wipe out genuine courses in literature, history, and other disciplines. The problem isn’t just the disinformation being poured into the students’ heads, but the lack of any genuine information; not just the demand that students accept whatever they’re told by their professors, but the lack of any instruction at all on how to evaluate ideas.

    Ironically, I always found that the most dogmatic propagandists among my colleagues were the ones most likely to proclaim, “We don’t teach them what to think; we teach them how to think.” Thinking, as they saw it, entailed accepting the politically correct slogans and shouting down anyone who disagreed.

    1. R.I.P. the spirit of scholarship–in fact, a real loss to humanity. Extinguished by the very persons charged with keeping it alive.

    2. You said a mouthful, there. The whole system was built as an exercise in manipulation and can only result in failure. We now have a world filled with compliant people whom the system praises and rewards, while those with even a smattering of independence are cast to the outer darkness.

    3. Phoebe, the last paragraph of your comment, IMHO, holds the key to this whole thing. Ultimately, it is not our place to teach anyone how to think. That is a ludicrous notion.

      Thinking is a very personal matter and we all know how to think of our own. If we didn’t, we would never learn to decode the sounds we hear and recognize these as speech.

      When someone says they are teaching someone else to think, they can only employ one metric and that is to compare the conclusions of the student to the conclusions of the instructor. It is an entirely subjective process.

      What if the student concludes that the material is not worthy of attention? What if the student see through the propaganda and concludes that they will avoid it instead of placing themselves at risk of being manipulated? Either of these scenarios involve thinking for oneself, but I doubt that either would be praised by the instructor.

      It is the height of presumptuous to even think that we can teach someone how to think. You can lead a student to certain material and evaluate how they interpret it, but ultimately the student will think for themselves

    1. I am appalled. This is an insult even to Trayvon Martin. Had he worked and applied himself, he could have become a pilot, or developed other skills in the aviation field and possibly built a good life upon these. But such a thing must be earned. Honorary credentials have no place in the world of aviation, even posthumously.

    2. Hoo-hah! You are now an honorary pilot, and here’s your first airliner. All aboard!
      I wonder if liberals would buy tickets for that flight.

Leave a Reply