All that is Wrong with Higher Education

Around mid-April, I had a unique encounter with a Wake Forest University political science professor that demonstrates to me everything that is wrong with this political science department in particular, and most university educations in general.

I am currently enrolled in a discussion-based class required of all senior political science majors. The topics for these discussion-based seminar classes vary by the whim of the professor teaching the class. My particular professor happens to be a young, energetic, self-professed crazy leftie. The topic of the class is "Power and Powerlessness." (I'll give you a hint - a small band of white, male, conservative, profit-munching American capitalists are the powerful, and women, minorities, the poor, and non-Christians are the powerless. And it's stuck that way).

This class meets once a week for three hours, and this particular professor makes it a point to assign readings and stimulate discussion that promotes his particular radical left-wing agenda. He wants to be fair. He wants to present an honest depiction of what an intellectual capitalist Republican might argue in response to his Noam Chomsky, Malcolm X, Chinua Achebe, and Barbara Ehrenreich readings. But he can't. He does not understand the rationale of the conservative mind.

Luckily for him (and the rest of the class) he has me. In typical fashion, I let him get away with nothing. The problem is this: next semester he is teaching this same seminar again. Next semester I will not be there to defend traditional American values, a market-based system of economic performance, the merits of globalization, or the danger of radical Islamic extremists.

I am lucky to have a professor who realizes the innate bias in his classroom (it also helps that I remind him whenever I see him). He and I were discussing potential changes in his syllabus for next year and discussing the shortcomings of having only left-leaning readings.

This is when I discovered the complete dominance of liberalism in the academic elite. My professor said that he respected the conservative perspective I brought to class, and he wanted to include that in his class again in the fall. Could I recommend some foundational conservative texts that might highlight the arguments I had made all year? After all, he didn't know any conservative professors he might ask for additions to his reading list.

I was utterly flattered - and completely let down. It was amazingly empowering to be asked to present conservative thought. It was also incredibly disappointing that an intelligent, young, energetic professor from Princeton teaching at a top 30 university knew not one single conservative in academia that he might ask for suggestions. Instead, my professor had to resort to asking a student - a student! - to defend some of the major underpinnings of Western civilization.

I am currently composing a conservative summer reading list for my professor, and doing it gladly - after all, I am actively correcting a liberal bias in at least one classroom. However, it can't but hurt to know that intellectual conservatives at Wake Forest and elsewhere in higher education have not one single professor that serves to defend the bedrock principles on which this great nation is built.

It's no wonder that intellectually dead and morally abhorrent ideas (like Marxism), continue to thrive no where else but the hallowed halls of academia - institutions dedicated to challenging thought and growing minds can't even cough up a single professional conservative.

How to Spot a Radical in SG Elections

Elections for WFU Student Government are this week. I am not running for an office, and while I intend to vote for several of my friends who are running, I do not have any vehemently emotional bones to pick with the candidates. At least not yet.

I worry about Student Government elections for the same reason I worry about all elections - if the wrong person with the wrong agenda (generally a Democrat) ends up winning, we all suffer the consequences, and people with the right agenda (generally Republicans) have to spend years fighting to undo the harm caused by misguided enthusiasm.

This year, as my friends and I sit at our computers to cast our vote, I hope that we use all of the resources available to us (think: Facebook) to investigate the interests of the candidates running for office. I'm not suggesting that some one who is an ardent Democrat couldn't do an excellent job serving on Student Government (after all, the current SG President is a well-known Democrat, and he has been superb). What I am saying is this - some liberals are gentle, and some have hidden agendas for radical change. I don't want radical change. I think this last bastion of collegiate conservatism is doing just fine.

How does one tell the difference between a gentle Democrat and a closet revolutionary?

1. Rhetoric
There are keywords that revolutionary Democrats harp on that reveals their radical underpinnings. These include (but are in no way limited to):

Equality ( to the extreme that it eliminates competition),
Education (when it means "I'm right and I need to educate you about it")
Diversity (when it is selective and not inclusive of all - specifically Republican or faith-based - viewpoints).

These are some examples of radical keywords that, though seemingly innocuous, mean things much different on closer inspection. Let me be clear on this point: I am not suggesting that I am against equality, education, or diversity. I am against the perversion of those ideals to the exclusion of specific people or groups.

2. Worldview
What is a worldview? It is the way in which people frame their responses to political issues. For any given issue (race relations, Greek life, Student Government finances), people frame their responses in a way that reveals their political tendencies. For example, if your emphasis of and response to the problem of race relations on campus (as one example) highlights the importance of the Administration offering seminars to foster dialogue (a top-down approach) your worldview places much less faith in an individual than if you put forward a proposal that emphasizes events that are developed, organized, and planned by students (a proposal that places faith in individuals at the grass-roots level). Furthermore, a candidate that proposes any type of "education" like that expressed above reveals their inability to accept alternate approaches to solving the problem.

An individual's worldview is important because it is the lens through which they see problems and solutions. If your lens is shaded to favor the individual you will provide much different policy insight than if your lens is shaded to favor the federal government (or worse - the world community).

Worldviews matter - even in a relatively pithy student government election. I want the leader of the student body to be some one who tackles problems the way I would tackle them. I want some one who values what I value and sees the world the way I see it. Some people's worldviews are shaded through a lens of race relations. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of religion or faith. Some people's worldview is shaded through a lens of cynicism. It makes sense to vote for some one whose lens is shaded the same way yours is.

3. Priorities and Agenda
Radical Democrats tip their hand most obviously when you investigate the specifics of their priorities. In the case of a student government election, a radical candidate would advocate drastic changes in the way students think and the ideas to which they are exposed. A radical candidate's priorities would be to change traditions. A gentle Democrat would express a desire to preserve the character that makes this campus unique.


To conclude, when you go to cast your vote for SG elections on Tuesday, my friends, I hope that you will weigh your decision seriously. I hope you will investigate the rhetoric, worldview, and priorities that the candidates use and possess, and cast your vote accordingly. And while all candidates campaign on a platform of change, please remember that there is a difference between radical change and a cautious evaluation of Wake Forest’s values.

Feminists Respond, I Respond to Feminists

I apologize for the horrid lack of updating - midterms and spring break snuck up on me. I guess I don't have this blogging thing down yet. Fear not, however, I return much tanned and ready do continue battle with the forces of liberalism across the virtual globe.

On March 2nd, the WFU student director of the Monologues responded to my critical analysis of the play (see previous post). I say she "responded" and not "she addressed the relevant questions that I raised" because the latter would give credit to her response that is not due. You can find her, in her own words, in the OGB Online. I would like to take this opportunity, (naturally, since this is the prerogative of the blogger) to address her concerns systematically. It is my hope that you will see, as I do, how ludicrous her response is. It's actually quite amusing.

Argument #1 - I missed the point.
She argues that I miss "the point of The Vagina Monologues - women shouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed to speak freely about their bodies, regardless of their experiences with or reactions to them." Ah, yes, and speak freely those actors did! Imagine the intelligent commentary that arose from such riveting acts as "Smell," "My Short Skirt," "My Angry Vagina," "Hair" and "The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could." I don't contend that these actors, all women, spoke freely.

In fact, I acknowledge their speaking freely, and it is this irreverent, disgusting, un-funny free speaking that so disgusted me. Just because the play "speaks freely" does not mean that the resulting dialogue is not marred with sexual objectification. The way in which these women speak about themselves and their bodies is the very objectification which I find so repugnant. I'll present an alternate scenario: Ann Coulter speaks freely on what she believes is a predilection for violence in Islam. I posit that this would be a type of "speaking freely" that perhaps the advocates of the Monologues might consider repugnant (gee, now you know how I feel about your little orgasm scene!)

Argument #2 - The VM do NOT Objectify Women
She argues that the play does not objectify women, because "There is no more obvious way to claim power over a situation than to tell your own version of it, and women's perspectives of their own bodies and their sexual encounters have long been unspoken. "

My favorite line in the column comes shortly after: "Rather than portraying themselves as sexual objects, as Smith asserts, the characters in the play speak frankly about a myriad of topics including gang rape, the inconveniences of gynecological visits and tampons and the celebration of the function of the clitoris."

Recall: my point is that women are more than the sum of their physical parts, and that we should be appreciated for our intellect and character. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but I believe the entire point in the fight for gender equality was to allow women to be seen as more than sexual objects. (READ: more than clitoris-loving, tampon-using, gynecologist-visiting, helpless rape victims). And while we are on the topic of rape, let's not forget that the Monologues includes its very own rape scene!

"Rather than ignoring women and their bodies, as mainstream culture has done for hundreds of years, I believe it is a step in the right direction that women can openly acknowledge and discuss their vaginas both in and as a result of this play." Of course women are free to discuss their vaginas (impolite, crude, and off-putting as this act of free speech may be). But a two hour play that does nothing BUT discuss vaginas is a step in the right direction on the path to gender equality, because it takes the emphasis off of what is really important in women's lives. I'll give you a hint: the most important things in women's lives are not sexual bliss or vaginal wonder.

Argument #3 - The VM DO Objectify Women by Focusing on Sex and Sexuality, but that's Okay.
Yes, yes - arguments 2 and 3 seem incompatible. They are. Let's ignore this fact and treat them both as valid points. "This play does not claim to represent the voices of all women. It does, however, expose the complex, funny and disturbing accounts of real women concerning their bodies, their sexuality and sometimes even their vaginas. Women infrequently speak candidly about sex, menstruation or their physical experiences, even with one another. This is why the content of The Vagina Monologues is often so shocking or foreign even to female audience members."

In the above passage, the author admits to BOTH of my arguments - that the play objectifies women (see the key terms she uses to describe the content of the play - "bodies...sexuality...vaginas.") and that this is offensive to most people (see "shocking" and "foreign" as code words for vulgar and outlandish). At last we admit the truth! This is a play that focuses on the physical which, I argue, neglects the most important part of a women! It only took our author eight lonely paragraphs to get here. Sheesh. She goes on to say, "Women have the opportunity to prove their intellectual capabilities and strong characters elsewhere in society."

Again, this is an admission that this particular play does NOT emphasize the intellectual capabilities or strength of character that define real women.

Argument #4 - The Money raised from the Play goes to a Good Cause, so leave us Alone!
On this point I will say just one thing - The College Republicans have raised money for the American Red Cross through a September 11th memorial fundraiser. This is a good cause. This does not, however, put the political agenda of the College Republicans above criticism. In the same way, the radical sexual agenda of the Monologues is not lessened by a gesture of good will. Additionally, I find it ironic (as I imagine you do too, dear reader) that the money raised from this play (that includes a scene depicting the abduction and rape or a young girl) raises money for BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTERS. That's like Saddam Hussein charging an admittance fee to one of his infamous rape rooms and then handing the money over to build a rape trauma center. Okay, so maybe that analogy is a little extreme, but I would consider watching the Monologues to be somewhat damaging to your psyche.


To conclude, I would like nothing more than for you to re-read my original thoughts on the Monologues in the OGB Online. Also, I would love for you to never, ever, waste your 12 dollars on this drivel.

Ruffling the Petticoats of Feminists Across Campus

Last week, I saw the Vagina Monologues performed on Wake Forest's campus. If you are fortunate enough not to know what they are, the Vagina Monologues consist of a series of short monologues in which irreverent women bemoan the state of their sex organs. Needless to say, I found the play horrifying. My reaction, in a nutshell, was that -

"The Vagina Monologues degrade women. The Vagina Monologues degrade men. The Vagina Monologues are not well-written, are not funny, and in this case were not terribly well acted. In short, the Vagina Monologues suck the intellect, spirit, and passion from women and gives them … their vaginas. What a shocking feat, since women were never really without them."

I editorialized about the experience in the Wake Forest student newspaper. You can find the entire editorial posted in the Old Gold & Black Online.