How Bad Is the Indoctrination in our Colleges?

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


How bad is the indoctrination process in American colleges?

I had occasion to see for myself an answer to this question when I recently visited the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This is a state school with 20,000 students, and while I was there I audited an hour-and-a-half lecture about the Warren Court’s landmark decisions on civil liberties by a well-known and highly respected political scientist named Sheldon Goldman, a nationally recognized expert in the field.

There are no open conservatives on the faculty of the University of Massachusetts and none that the conservative students who were hosting me could identify. My student hosts were political science majors and the absence of conservative professors was a real problem for them given the extreme and abusive nature of many of their professors. One professor gave an exam, for example, that consisted of a speech by President Reagan. The exam question was: Explain why Reagan is wrong. Another professor was a militant leftist who required a paper on the Vietnam War. To avoid the political minefield which confronted him, a student wrote a paper comparing military strategies for the war. The professor rejected the paper with the comment: “We shouldn’t have been there in the first place.”

When I entered Goldman’s classroom I saw that half of my student hosts were taking his course, a relief they told me later from the harassment they experience in other political science courses. Goldman is regarded by these conservative students as the “best” and “fairest” professor on the UMass faculty, someone who every now and then would vent a “liberal” sentiment or prejudice but whose lectures were relatively free from bias and whose classroom behavior was respectful towards them. Political Science departments in my experience are more academic and less politicized than other departments such as Anthropology, Sociology and the various inter-disciplinary fields (“Peace Studies,” “Cultural Studies”) that tenured radicals have invented to establish their ideological claims.

Consequently, I was not prepared for what I encountered in Professor Goldman’s classroom. I had previously suggested in my writings and lectures on universities that professors who use their classrooms as platforms for their political agendas represent a small but significant minority, which I have estimated to be about ten percent of a given faculty. The other ninety percent are scholars who are professional and observe the guidelines on academic freedom which enjoin faculty from presenting students with “ready-made conclusions” on controversial matters. Or so I thought. After auditing Professor Goldman’s course I will have to revise that judgment.

Let me begin by stating what I believe indoctrination to be and what it is not. Indoctrination is presenting opinion to students as though it were scientific fact or as though no rational, decent, and moral person could have any other view. It is the equivalent of presenting students with ready-made conclusions which they cannot realistically feel free to challenge. There are entire fields of study that are in fact programs of indoctrination. For example, all Women’s Studies programs with which I am familiar are programs to train students to be radical feminists and specifically to instill in them the doctrine that gender differences are “socially constructed” – that they are artificially created by male elites to subordinate and oppress women.

The social construction of gender is not a theory that students in Women’s Studies courses are free to adopt or reject. It is taught in the same way university courses in physics teach Newton’s laws of motion. When, at a recent academic conference, I confronted the president of the American Association of University Professors over this very issue, he replied that he did indeed teach the social construction of gender as a scientific fact but because he allowed students to take the opposite point of view it wasn’t indoctrination. But what does it mean to let a student who is seeking a good grade argue against a scientific fact, except that you are allowing him to make a fool of himself?

Professor Goldman is not a radical and his presentation was of much subtler order, but its import was surprisingly similar. Let me be clear at the outset. If Professor Goldman had presented the rulings of the Warren Court along with the conservative objections to those rulings and then said that personally — and based on his own years of study — he was of the opinion that the Warren rulings were wise or correct, I would have no problem with his presentation, particularly since the students were confident that he was fair-minded in his treatment of them. But Professor Goldman did not do this. Instead he presented a series of landmark Warren Court decisions as a salesman for Warren Court’s point of view, and without giving the conservatives’ concerns a proper day in his court. To put it more bluntly, Professor Goldman suppressed the conservative argument against the Warren Court so that no one sitting in the class who was not already familiar with it could think that any modern person, or any rational and moral person for that matter, could fail to approve what the Warren Court did.

In discussing the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment, for example, he made it seem as though the issue was whether saying a prayer in school was a step in establishing religion or whether it was too inconsequential to trigger concern. But this was not the gravamen of the conservative argument. The conservative position is that the establishment clause refers to the establishment of a particular religion not to acknowledgment that a deity exists. After all, the Founders were or were descended from refugees who had fled to American as Christians persecuted by the Anglican Church which, as the established Church of England could therefore use government powers against rival denominations. Mentioning a non-denominational “God” in the classroom may or may not qualify as the kind of establishment the Founders had in mind, but obviously reasonable, and moral, and modern people can disagree on this matter, something no student in Goldman’s class would understand from his lecture.

Goldman then turned to an even more important case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which as he pointed out provided the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. This, as he did not point out, was a decision that can be said to have transformed the politics of this country by virtually creating a “religious right” opposition, turning Supreme Court nominations into political battles and causing a polarization of the two major parties.  Nor did he explain why this should be so.

The Griswold case involved a Connecticut law against contraceptives and was resolved when the Warren majority invented a “right to privacy” which Goldman conceded cannot be found in the actual Constitution but then went on to argue in effect that it should have been there and to imply that we can be thankful that it was put there by Justice Douglas under the mysterious doctrine of “penumbras.” Goldman made the case for the ruling easy by making fun of the Connecticut law, acting out an imaginary knock at the door by the contraceptive police coming to look into citizens’ bedrooms. The effect was to insinuate that this was a stupid and dangerous law, and if we have to invent rights that aren’t in the Constitution to get rid of it, well and good. They should have been there and we as enlightened progressives are really obligated to supply them. At no point do I remember Goldman reminding students that actually there was another way to get rid of a stupid and dangerous law, which was through the legislative process. This would avoid having  nine unelected judges, appointed for life, rewriting the Constitution and substituting themselves for the electorate. The closest Professor Goldman came to recognizing this issue was a passing reference to Justice Stewart’s dissent in which he said that the majority decision was like having a constitutional convention every day.

At no point did Professor Goldman explain to students that the conservative opposition to the Warren Court decisions revolved around this absolutely critical point, or as the noted liberal law professor Mark Tushnet acknowledges, “To conservatives, the Warren Court converted constitutional law into ordinary politics….” By circumventing (really subverting) legislatures and the democratic process instead of merely applying the Constitution as written, the Warren Court liberals made the selection of a Supreme Court justice a momentous political act, which is why the Supreme Court nominations have since become such open political conflicts, while the Constitution as written by the Founders has been gravely weakened. That is the conservative argument which was absent from Professor Goldman’s lecture.

All this would have been less problematic if the text Professor Goldman required his students to read for the course was not a partisan liberal view of the Court written by Jeffrey Toobin. It is not as though there aren’t equally accessible conservative books about this very history. Robert Bork a distinguished a law professor and jurist (whose name was mentioned a few times in vain by Goldman) has written one himself, The Tempting of America. How difficult would it have been to assign students to read Bork’s book alongside Toobin’s so that students could familiarize themselves with the arguments that Goldman left out of his presentation?

Here is the relevant passage on indoctrination from the classic 1915 statement on academic freedom:

“It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials, which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence, in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected to be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without super-cession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.”

If Professor Goldman had followed these guidelines I would have had no problem with his personal judgments about the wisdom of the Warren Court. But he didn’t and therefore I do. The larger problem is this: what happens to a democracy when its educational institutions are converted into training and recruitment programs for one political party and its worldview?

  • http://www.drudgereport.com jimbo ellis

    Go Navy, beat marxism

    • aspacia

      jimbo, you are also off topic.

  • http://otherspoon.blogspot.com Ann Neumann

    The politicization of personal rights is an effort by the Religious Right to maintain a structure within society that inhibits equality of women, gays, and other minorities – essentially, the objective is to maintain "traditional" hierarchies that subject all of society to a particular version of biblical law (ala Bork). Liberation from that discriminatory structure is knowledge. The Religious Rights works to maintain discrimination in our politics. The Medical Right works to do this in our health care. The Legal Right works to do this in our courts. Were conservatives in favor of equality, there would be a very different political discussion in the U.S. instead of the battle that Horowitz here works to perpetuate – a battle that distracts our country from being that true beacon on a hill, a light equality for all.

    • xman

      The politicization of personal rights is an effort by the Religious Right to maintain a structure within society that inhibits equality of women, gays, and other minorities

      Does that mean you think Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mad mullahs are part of the 'Religious Right'? Somehow, I thought not. After all, Iran is where the likes of Westerner-haters like yourself belong.

    • Stephen D.

      Ms. Neuman, you have your "current issue" Cause now. You will work fervently toward your goal. Equality for all! That is an admiril, altruistic goal that no one can argue with. The point is to get there does anything go? Does the end justify the means? You look to a utopian society that will never arrive relying on mankind to get us there. Let us all, therefore, work together to get as close as we can to this ideal. How do we do this? By looking at History, Experience and Human Nature. Make decisions based on these not on what "may be." Your "rightous indignation feels noble to you and worthy of your energy. Casualties along the way are colateral and worth it. Abridge the Constitution! Silence the opposition! Lie, Cheat, Harm. The Goal is what matters! (I see you hold your fist up to the heavens about now) How bad would it be to follow the edict of 1915 and present, unbiased, both sides? Oh no!! Students being tought HOW to think instead of WHAT to think!?! That will NEVER do for your cause! Do you see the point Ms. Neuman?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

        My regards Stephen D ! Excellent answer.
        Yeah lefties, how about looking at history and engaging in fair debate? Just because I don't share in their genocidal crusade against Judeo/Christian beliefs and morality doesn't mean I'm less than human.

      • trickyblain

        Abridge the Constitution? Where is the Constitution does it grant the gov't power to prohibit marriage b/t two men or two women? After the 14th amendment nulified slavery, where does it give gov't the power to discriminate? Equality is core to the ideals of this nation – and it took 150 years to even begin to overcome the conservative Royalists who blocked progress.

        Your reply is a classic strawman – instead of addressing Ms. Neuman's actual arguments, you set up the paranoid Right's construction of a "liberal" and wail away. It may give the echo-chamber something to holler about, but it does very little to convince the independant minded.

        • Democracy First

          Neither does the constitution grant gay marriage. You think the founders wouldn't be shocked by this idea? Gay marriage constitutes a change in social values, structure and the family itself. As a family counsellor, I can state this opinion confidently: evolution determined that each child intrinsically and fervently needs both a mom and dad, not two of one.

          Thus, it should be the prerogative of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, to agree to change society in this way. It is not the prerogative of the courts to invent such a right.

          The US was founded not, btw, on principles of equality, but individual liberty. Equality is not mentioned in either the constitution or Bill of Rights. Liberty is the prime concern. You're confusing France with your own country.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

            Gay marriage would have been absolutely obscene and unthinkable to them.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

          The constitution gives the people the right through their state legislatures to make their own laws!
          If the people don't like individuals using their excretory organs as sexual organs and parading about the pride they take in so doing, then it's their prerogative to make laws prohibiting or at least laws that frown upon such perversion.

        • Bruce

          The Constitution was written to protect citizens from a capricious, punitive, authoritarian government. It wasn't intended to be an an ever-changing roster of do's and dont's. If you want to shack-up with your horse and dog go ahead. Just don't ask me to bless the relationship with legal codification.

    • Democracy First

      I see you've got all your left wing bogeyman talking points about conservatives down pat. In no way do they reflect reality.

    • Johnny Appleseed

      The secular and religious Left maintain a Marxist structure within society that inhibits equality before law – raising a new proletariat class of feminist women, gays and other minorities superior before law compared to the middle class; the objective is to maintain Marxist hierarchies that subject the middle class to a particular version of Manifesto law (ala Marx). Liberation from that discriminatory structure is equality before law with individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The secular and religious left works to maintain Marxist discrimination in our politics – class struggle where the new proletariat class, aided by Marxist government, legally (but immorally) confiscates the property of the middle class. The secular and religious Left works to do this with our health care and the Legal Left does this in our courts. Were Marxists in favor of natural equality before law (rather than irrational and unnatural equality of outcome – except of course for the Marxist ruling elite which is always "more equal") there would be true social justice in the U.S. – a light of sacred equality before law for all – a light of God-given, unalienable, individual human rights (life, liberty, and private property honestly earned through creative labor) for all.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        That's great, and also what I was thinking as I read her screed.

    • J Carter

      What? Women's studies major (or graduate) no less.

      lubyanka

  • Kim Hatley

    I think the media is another example of this, whereas a person can choose to add to ratings by choosing to watch media (news for example) that are very left or very right. For educational institutions, well, same thing goes, except the only difference is, the patron is actually willfully paying out of his own pocket to support the institutions political agenda. If the patron is not aware of it at first, he/she will be later. My opinion is that in a democratic society, colleges and universities need to provide a balanced (with oversight and high standards) presentation of "both sides", which to me is paramount in order to present and provide the necessary facts/history, etc.. for the students to discern on their own, since we do have a democracy after all. In regards to professors and heads of educational institutes who go against this thought, well, they are committing an injustice.

    • Coogar

      Fair and balanced like Fox News!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      What pray-tell 'very right' news?
      Fox News is far from 'very right wing'

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        I think She, like many, confuses news with commentary.

  • Kim Hatley

    Recruiting for such, seems to translate to me, simply, "It's another expression of democracy and the rights I have, because I can get away with it, if students choose to pay and in America, we can do this. The more the merrier. I truley think the educational institutions have a "higher" responsibility to represent democracy in it's innocence, by remaining unbiased and therefor only presenting facts/history. He conveniently left out the conservative argument, by suppressing it….. Professor Goldman provided undue influence through "his" selections for his students and somehow, something is very wrong with that. His strategy was noticed, but then again, I'm sure he'd be able to debate that America is about democracy and this is his right. Ugh.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      ??????????

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

        Those comments should be left to stand so that everyone can see them.

  • Rybbe

    The larger problem is this: what happens to a democracy when its educational institutions are converted into training and recruitment programs for one political party and its worldview?

    David, unfortunately we are all going to find out the hard way very soon. These students are the next wave of hard line progressives entering into adulthood / society. God only knows what they will try to unleash on us. Our only hope is that these students are also some of the most self-indulged, pampered, spoiled and downright lazy human beings living today. They have never known what it is like to really fight for or struggle for anything. I think they will choose Facebook, Iphone, Twitter and video games when the need arises to force their newly minted beliefs on society. Also, the election of Obama has shown a revealing light on the whole progessive movement. More people are aware of what they are up against with your incredible service to this country, David. Thank you for everything you do for this great nation. To me, you are a national treasure!

  • aspacia

    Robert,

    You are off topic yet again.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/DavidSwindle DavidSwindle

      Spammers usually are.

  • USMCSnpier

    For nearly a century Progressive education has dominated American schools. As a result, generations of students have graduated ignorant of history, unfamiliar with the classics of literature and unable to think logically, write clearly. In recent years the growing number of parents seeking a superior education outside the school system have turned to a different movement: " a classical education."

    “The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.” ~Ayn Rand

    • Johnny Appleseed

      “It was possible no doubt to imagine a society in which wealth… should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged cast; but in practice such a society could not long remain stable, for if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves, and when once they had done this they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function and they would sweep it away… In the long run a hierarchical society was only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.” George Orwell – 1984

  • jbtrevor

    David, It's puzzling to me that the students view Goldman as the "best and most fair" of the UMASS faculty…If this level of indoctrination is "best" and most 'fair' – I hate to think what the worst and unfair faculty are saying…

    • BS1977

      From my college days I still remember the cheesy wool suit jackets, with the elbow patches, the obligatory pipe, glasses, piles of books, pictures of Marx, Che or Allen Ginsberg posted in their creepy, smelly staff offices…..all leftists, liberals, collectivists, guys who wore shorts with black socks, used pen holders, bearded, flabby, out of shape twerps demonstrating at the ROTC offices…..

  • Supertx

    We need to stand up to these universities and back people like Horowitz in their fight against the indoctrination. In the meantime, we can at least make our own children aware that this is in their schools and universities, and teach them to keep their eyes wide open and challenge these things rather than blind acceptance. That is what we've done with our three kids. Two of them are very aware and individual thinkers, but our third is a liberal puppet because all of his friends are. We can only hope he will eventually branch out in his thinking. (He plans to major in anthropology, of course.)

  • Jim Stuart

    I wish that 20 years ago I had been aware of ideological bias in schools before I paid for my children's college education. The information would definitely have affected our choice of schools. As it turned out, one of them is a 100% liberal convert, another about 75%, and the last, thankfully, is an engineer and ideology-blind.

    • Democracy First

      Interesting, though, that a fair chunk of those indoctrinated by the left either nonetheless remain conservative, revert to conservatism later on, or move to the right later in life.

  • BS1977

    Most colleges and universities are incubation chambers for leftists. Nothing new here.

  • johnMcCall

    After 33 years as an economist at a major state university, I can endorse your view expressed above. I also support the hypothesis that one tends to get less indoctrination – at least overt – in some disciplines than one gets as a student in some other disciplines. One also must consider what causes a person to become a professor in the first place.
    Remember, those that can't do — teach. I also suggest that those who can't teach —
    coach. And those who can do none of the above go to journalism school or school of social work.

  • jbtrevor

    I would add the the indoctrination starts in elementary school, increases in secondary school and is competed in college…start with your children, now.
    Our 14 y.o. is a conservative hawk at his (private) school…

  • gpcase

    Exposing leftist propaganda is only the first step to correcting the danger it poses to our republic. Conservatives must speak directly to fellow alum and lead the effort to withhold donations to these colleges – to hit them where it hurts. A corollary to this would be to introduce some competition. Help establish and fund alternative institutions with a curriculum based on a classical liberal education. If Fox News can lure the majaority of conservatives away from the old TV networks, conservative-leaning schools can do the same over time, provided they are first-rate.

  • gpcase

    Finally, we need to bring pressure to bear on state or federal representatives to audit the faculty of state universities and establish some minimum standards for hiring adjunct professors and guidlines for tenured professors. If its found that say over 50% of professors are "leftists" based on input from their students, collegues and published writings, then withhold funding until some balance is restored to reflect the balance of opinion in their respective states. This of course would force many universities to let go of half of their professors in the humanities departments.

    If we are to save our republic, we must remake those insitututions that transmit information, the media, the schools, and entertainment. Yes, this last tactic may seem high-handed, but to blindly look the other way is to surrender the field of battle to those who would reduce us all to indentured servants, serving the needs of the collective.

  • Ben

    I am a former president of the UMass (Amherst) Republican Club.

    UMass is the most close-minded, ideollogically rigid, hidebound, ignorant, places on the planet earth. It's no wonder climate change charlatan Michael Mann got his start at my university! My department, actually. There are still more members of the UMass faculty intertwined in the climategate scandal, and none of them seem to think they've done anything wrong. The university doesn't think so either. Move along folks! Nothing to see here, nothing to see!

    • SCUMBUCKET

      Wow, you really love America.

  • boston

    Coogar What does education in our institutions have to do with gasing Jews? Nothing. But If Germans were not indoctrinated there might not be gas chambers. So continiue to watch Olberman Who is of couse fair and balanced.

  • http://yahoo.com CT

    What the hell is the medical right? Anyone?

  • gpcase

    The medical right are presumably health care professionals who do not blindly follow science for science's sake, but take into consideration the moral or ethical dilemmas that are encountered. For example on abortion, is there one patient and one partially-developed cluster of cells, or are there two patients, two human beings the doctor must consider, both of whom presumably wish to live?
    Stem cells, euthenasia, animal testing, human testing, etc. have all become part of the culture wars…and the medical "left" doesn't appreciate or tolerate a competing moral code.

  • Truthteller

    We can at least thank David for at least once actually ATTENDING a classroom that he attacks. Even after the Francisco Nava scandal, which turned out to be a typical right-wing fraud, David has continued to pursue professors and schools without due process. What is most disconcerting in his discussion is the unnamed professors whom he accuses of bias with their tests. I would ask him to cite the professors involved in handing out exams saying "Explain why Reagan was wrong." Perhaps this really happened, but we have no way of knowing from the information provided. It would help this discussion a good deal if one of his students could provide a copy, or give details to corroborate the story. I would like to see a copy of the test scanned on FPM for verification. Thanks, TRUTHTELLER (I'm Back!!!!!!)

    • Robert M

      I hear your debate, and reply by asking you to provide absolute proof of global warming.

      Heheheh……that should keep him busy a few hundred years or so….back to the real discussion,please?

    • wooswerjin

      The Nava "scandal" was a single individual whose hoax was uncovered by the very conservative group, "ambscombe" which he was a member. The professor (George) who also received some of the hoax e-mail threats was the man who told Nava to admit an earlier false report he had been exposed for in Groton, years earlier. There have been scores more fraudulent threat hoaxes perpetrated from the college students on the left than from the right. Google Francisco Nava's name and go to the article in the Princetonian on December 19 about this hoax. Read it and then read the 3 recent examples of similar hoaxes perpetrated by college students. They were all leftists who tried to be little agent provocateurs and got caught. You Fail!

      • SCUMBUCKET

        Horowitz based much of his so-called student movement on the Nava scandal, and basically tried to weasel out of it. Of course there are scandals on both sides, but only Horowitz made a federal case out of Nava. But thanks for recognizing that Nava was a charlatan, which simply proves my point.

  • Nassovian

    As this article shows, the pol-sci student often leaves school ignorant of the application of the Constitution as it was designed…

    However, there is another Mass. professor whose works live on…

    From 1829, at his inauguration as Harvard's first Dane Prof. of Law, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, through his famed Commentaries on the Constitution, for a century set the mark for those who would teach the Constitution according to the Framers' intent.

    Note below, how Story, in one paragraph from his Inaugural Discourse, projects what proves to be liberalism's scheme to relieve citizens of their property, and liberty:

    “Upon the actual administration of justice in all governments, and especially in free governments, must depend the welfare of the whole community. The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary.

  • Nassovian

    Continued:

    What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry’? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us, and all our posterity’? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity? "

    How does Story provide a defence against such schemes?

    “In the last place, the Constitutional Law of the United States. In the correct exposition of this subject, there is not a single American citizen, who has not deep stake and permanent interest….

    “An American citizen has many political duties to perform, and his activity is constantly demanded for the preservation of the public interests.”

    Mr. Horowitz, articles like these are a great fulfillment towards "the preservation of the public interests".

  • Len Powder

    "The larger problem is this: what happens to a democracy when its educational institutions are converted into training and recruitment programs for one political party and its worldview?"

    Answer: The democracy becomes an autocracy. The will of the people is replaced by the will of the dictator. For examples, refer to articles about Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, etc.

  • http://Hollywoodremoteleash.com A Bit Profound

    Progressive is Regressive – Here's some proof: Political Correctness is Suppression of the Truth for the Purpose of Advancing the Left Wing Agenda. Political Correctness is a form of mind control, meant to limit and control free speech and to undermine public opinion, It intends to weaken the defenses of a free democracy and reeducate us and our children. It is a well known and well documented Communist subversion tactic & procedure. And a Tactic in the Dismantling of Traditional America Inherant in this definition is the fact that Liberals lack Integrity and don't value truth.
    LIBERALISM:
    Absence of critical logical thinking
    Abandonment of the Rules of Logic
    Rejection and avoidance of the facts
    Thinking based on emotions not on facts
    Fueled by ignorance
    Coming from well-intentioned naivety
    derived from a Marxist humanism perspective

  • PAthena

    I took a course in Public Law and Jurisprudence in my college in 1954. We read different points of view, not only about jurisprudence but about constitutional law. The readings about constitutional law were the cases themselves, with ALL the opinions, majority, concurring, and dissenting. Why doesn't Professor Goldman assign reading of the cases themselves?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sos sos

    The irony here , of course, is that these so-called professors are the same people who were marching to protest the same type of one-sided education when they were students. Now that they are in charge they crush any dissenters with a ruthlessness that would have had them burning down campuses across the country had it happened to them in their day!
    This would be laughable if it wasn't so damn dangerous!!

  • Larry

    In case mis-educating our student's minds was not bad enough, I see a larger and more fundamental problem: we have a growing deficit of minds to educate. Kaiser Foundation just released a study that showed our 8 – 18 year-olds devote an average of 7 1/2 hours daily using "entertainment media" – that's 53 hours per week! It grew 1 1/4 hours over the last five years. By race, they found that black and hispanic children in the same age group consumed 4 1/2 hours more media daily -13 hours/day!

    So looking at the leftist indoctrination of young minds is bad, but seeing that soon there will be no minds to indoctrinate is even worse!

  • wade

    i fear we are already beyond the point of no return. leftists are dedicated to their "religion" and push it wherever they find themselves in life. we conservatives believe in liberty and allow people to live their lives. it's like a game where only one side has boundaries or rules.

    in that instance the good guys lose!

  • John C. Davidson

    The only way these radicals can keep their jobs is to invent a utopian world for a bunch of kids who really don't want to work for a living. Those jobs are surfeit in our goverment.

  • eor

    My advise to parents is to run your children through a couple of years of Community College first. They may learn to do something useful and be beyond the indoctrination age by the time they hit University. My personal favorite is Military Service. They learn to focus, and generally come away far more mature than any college only young people. And a true blessing is that there are no lawyers in my family. Just REAL people.

  • Jim

    The indoctrination in our colleges is extremely problematic, the result of the Rockefeller's long-time influence, in which the Tavistock Institute continues to play a major role.

    One might inititally believe that college life would be a refreshing change from the business world's stagnation, however, upon closer inspection, American colleges are
    a breeding ground for the Rockefeller's own New World Order ideology. An ideology which furtively espouses Zionism, and its leadership's intent for a one world religion, government and money trust.

    Our societies are governed by such dupicity, yet most people remain unaware of this.

    Who's at the source of this deception?

    The House Of Rothschild and its global banking cartel.

    Read Eustace Mullins "Secrets Of The Federal Reserve" to learn more.

  • Steven P. Barrett

    As a former UMass/Amherst employee & sometime journalism student, (and news reporter/columnist in Amherst) and Amherst “Townie,” I wasn’t particularly surprised to find Mr. Horowitz’s findings of leftist bias in the classrooms. For the past 40 years, the university has been dominated by the Left and I fully expect it to be dominated for another 40. The reason is quite simple: The left wants it that way and turned Amherst, its local Town government, its public schools and economic structure into an academic elitist theme park wherein only well-heeled left of center academics will find themselves welcome. One only needs to attend Amherst’s elected Town Meeting (TM) every Spring and Fall to watch the elitists at work, especially when a pet ideologically charged issue or property tax hike is on the docket.

  • Steven P. Barrett

    Amherst Townie II: I vividly recall the debates on whether or not Amherst was to declare itself a “nuclear free zone” (which it did) during the depths of the final death rattle days of the Evil Empire. And there were debates on whether or not to allow the Air Force to build a high radio tower it needed to develop a new early warning system to complement its much older system north of the Arctic Circle. “Oh, it’d send the wrong message to the Soviets … “ etc., ad (very) nauseum. Sure, I some editorial liberty, but these debates took place, and Town Meeting predictably took the Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain ostrich positions on these and other “foreign policy” matters. Author Tracy Kidder said Amherst is perhaps the only town with its own foreign policy. For this “distinction” we can thank TM members who are also UM and other Five College (Amherst, Smith, Hampshire & Mount Holyoke Colleges to round out the list.)

  • Steven P. Barrett

    Amherst Townie (Conclusion): I’ll never forget the contempt shown by the dominate lettered leftist professorial clique in TM towards Amherst’s blue collar workers when a garbage delivery service owner addressed the august body, only to be distracted by people talking, newspapers all of a sudden pulled out for reading and the lady academics busy knitting their next scarves. My wife and I will always be Amherst “Townies,” even though we had to move to more affordable Hadley because Amherst’s leftist professoriate TM never met a tax hike it didn’t like; the real working class will [always] be damned.

  • http://lechdharma.blogspot.com LechDharma

    Imagine a world with Congressional term limits, and with no tenure protection for university professors. It took great effort, time and expense to rid Colorado University of Ward Churchill—though he should not have been teaching there to begin with. Before his outrageous, public statement about America deserving the 9-11 attack—which eventually led to his exposure as an academic fraud—who knows how many young minds he had poisoned??

  • tom

    To read an account of David Horowitz's visit to UMass go here.

    http://tommydevine.blogspot.com/2010/02/judgement

  • Steven P. Barrett

    Excellent submission by Tom. Notice the photos. Yep, many of the same "usual suspects" hit David Horowitz' lecture as those who ever so politely hit Don Fedor's. Same room, too. Something else, too. Same university where Hubert Humphrey, less than a year after losing to President Nixon, was rudely treated and booed so badly and loudly while he was trying to address the crowd in the old Curry Hicks Cage Arena — (sorry Tom, in my reply to your post, I accidently wrote Cooley Dickinson, the local hospital … LOL! or was it a Freudian slip!) — that the talk had to be stopped before things got out of hand. Humphrey later gave the speech on the local UM radio station from Amherst College's Boltwood Tavern. Some "college traditions" seldom fade away…especially at some institutions.

  • SCUMBUCKET

    According to Nassovian, property is more important than people. Perhaps we should release Bernie Madoff to enjoy his 'property', and murder the sick and infirm.

  • Steven P. Barrett

    Have I come down with Rip van Winklitis, missing the moment when Congress was urged to amend the Constitution for this kind of gem so fervently desired “for the kids” by a UMass Psychology prof? In a letter to the editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Maureen Perry-Jenkins exhorted Amherst residents to approve a property tax hike. Boy! Do the (liberal) academics love those babies! Her primary reason? “ … every child has a fundamental right to a high quality education; it is this right that opens up our minds, our opportunities and our futures.” Lady, I’m not sure about the minds, etc., but I’m sure you’re hoping Amherst residents’ wallets will be opened wide. Thank God we’re in Hadley!

    • John C. Davidson

      I wonder if the college she works for is paying property taxes?

  • SCUMBUCKET

    No indoctrination. If you don't like higher education in America, move out of our country. If you're a real patriot, you'll stay and get an education

  • Pingback: Education is not indoctrination – is it? | Education is ...?