Our Emerging Matriarchy

Feminists maintain that society is a patriarchy in which males oppress females, causing females to lack confidence and self-esteem. But when acclaimed social psychologist Jonathan Haidt visited an elite high school on the West Coast, he found a very different situation. The behavior of the boys and girls was indeed markedly different, but not in the ways one might expect. The girls seemed free to speak up without reservation, and they peppered Haidt with hostile, and in at least some cases, unfair questions. In contrast, the boys were almost universally afraid to speak up, and effectively cowed into submission. As Haidt described it, the boys were “bullied” by the girls. Indeed, Haidt surmises from this experience that the “crybullies” that have plagued university campuses during the past year are getting their initial training in the high schools.

I don’t mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was “So you think rape is OK?” Like most of the questions, it was backed up by a sea of finger snaps — the sort you can hear in the infamous Yale video, where a student screams at Prof. Christakis to “be quiet” and tells him that he is “disgusting.” I had never heard the snapping before. When it happens in a large auditorium it is disconcerting. It makes you feel that you are facing an angry and unified mob — a feeling I have never had in 25 years of teaching and public speaking.

After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male. I began to search the sea of hands asking to be called on and I did find one boy, who asked a question that indicated that he too was critical of my talk. But other than him, the 200 or so boys in the audience sat silently.

After the Q&A, I got a half-standing ovation: almost all of the boys in the room stood up to cheer. And after the crowd broke up, a line of boys came up to me to thank me and shake my hand. Not a single girl came up to me afterward.

After my main lecture, the next session involved 60 students who had signed up for further discussion with me. We moved to a large classroom. The last thing I wanted to do was to continue the same fruitless arguing for another 75 minutes, so I decided to take control of the session and reframe the discussion. Here is what happened next:

Me: What kind of intellectual climate do you want here at Centerville? [Ed.–Not the real name of the school.] Would you rather have option A: a school where people with views you find offensive keep their mouths shut, or B: a school where everyone feels that they can speak up in class discussions?

Audience: All hands go up for B.

Me: OK, let’s see if you have that. When there is a class discussion about gender issues, do you feel free to speak up and say what you are thinking? Or do you feel that you are walking on eggshells and you must heavily censor yourself? Just the girls in the class, raise your hand if you feel you can speak up? [about 70% said they feel free, vs about 10% who said eggshells ]. Now just the boys? [about 80% said eggshells, nobody said they feel free].

Now, it’s easy to say that the boys should toughen up and not be so easily intimidated. But the fact is that the boys have the school authorities arrayed against them. If they step out of line, they’re sure to face harsh discipline.

And Centerville High is not alone. Last summer I had a conversation with some boys who attend one of the nation’s top prep schools, in New England. They reported the same thing: as white males, they are constantly on eggshells, afraid to speak up on any remotely controversial topic lest they be sent to the “equality police” (that was their term for the multicultural center). I probed to see if their fear extended beyond the classroom. I asked them what they would do if there was a new student at their school, from, say Yemen. Would they feel free to ask the student questions about his or her country? No, they said, it’s too risky, a question could be perceived as offensive.

Anyone who doubts that America’s schools have become a hostile environment for boys should read Haidt’s entire post. His report in fact reveals all of the regrettable social trends of recent years, including stifling political correctness, hostility to maleness, increasing narcissism among young people, and the unhealthy and growing separation of the sexes. All of these pathologies are on display in Haidt’s description of the contemporary high school. Compared to the American high school we attended a generation ago, Haidt’s report seems almost like a science fiction account from a faraway galaxy. Society, and in particular the relationship between the sexes, is clearly undergoing profound changes.

We hereby declare Jonathan Haidt’s report at Heterodox Academy to be Yet, Freedom!‘s 2015 Blog Post of the Year.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Know Shit about Economics: An Ongoing Series

Sanders-Tweet-copyThe state of Vermont sends a guy to the U.S. Senate who doesn’t even understand the difference between a secured and an unsecured loan. And he’s running for president.

As president, Bernie Sanders will apparently consider it his job to ensure that interest rates and other prices make ‘sense,’ and if he decides they don’t make sense he’ll…what…issue a decree from the White House fixing the rates, like late-Roman Emperor Diocletian dictating the price of flax from the imperial palace? History records that it did not work out so well.

Back in 2011, the price of iron ore was $170 per metric ton. Now it’s only $43. What sense does that make? Maybe we should just abolish market prices and set prices to whatever makes sense to Bernie Sanders.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

The Two Academies

John Edwards ran for president some years ago on the theme of ‘Two Americas’–the haves and have nots. We didn’t agree with all the details of Edwards’ characterization, but we do believe there are Two Academies. One academy consists of blithering, incoherent, and illiterate fools protesting ‘microagressions’ and, without even perceiving the contradiction, the First Amendment. These academic hangers-on, having no real knowledge or skills, traffic in jargon and catch-phrases, and live an almost completely politicized existence. Notably, these people are almost exclusively confined to the humanities, social sciences, and fake ‘studies’ fields like feminist studies, Marxist studies, American studies, etc.

The other academy exists in the STEM fields and economics. Here we generally find people with real knowledge and commitment to truth and the scientific method. The best people in this academy display astonishing talent and ability, generally not fully appreciated by the general public. For instance, the talent on display when a math professor from Berkeley or Madison proves his theorems is, in its own way, as impressive as hearing Maxim Vengerov play the violin.

George Will had a good piece recently that recognized the huge chasm separating the Two Academies.

Higher education is increasingly a house divided. In the sciences and even the humanities, actual scholars maintain the high standards of their noble calling. But in the humanities, especially, and elsewhere, faux scholars representing specious disciplines exploit academia as a jobs program for otherwise unemployable propagandists hostile to freedom of expression.

Will correctly notes that the STEM fields, by their nature, brook no fakery. The academic frauds therefore find refuge in the non-STEM fields.

Scientists and engineers live lives governed by the reality principle: Get the variables wrong, the experiment will fail, even if this seems insensitive; do the math wrong, the equation will tell you, even if that hurts your feelings. Reality does not similarly regulate the production of Marxist interpretations of “Middlemarch” or turgid monographs on the false consciousness of Parisian street sweepers in 1714. Literature professors “deconstructing” Herman Melville cause nothing worse than excruciating boredom in their students. If engineers ignore reality, reality deconstructs their bridges.


In their scalding 2007 book “Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case,” Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson plausibly argue that Duke’s disgrace — a fictional rape; hysterical academics trashing due process — was driven by the faculty Group of 88. Signatories of its manifesto included “only two professors in math, just one in the hard sciences, and zero in law. . . . More than 84 percent described their research interests as related to race, class or gender (or all three). The Group of 88 was disproportionately concentrated in the humanities and some social science departments. Fully 80 percent of the African-American studies faculty members signed the statement, followed by women’s studies (72.2 percent) and cultural anthropology (60 percent).”

In the shameful Duke incident, the Group of 88 brushed aside all notions of due process, not to mention human decency, in order to rush to condemn students at their own institution. Note that in this case the only department on the Duke campus to issue its own statement in defense of due process was economics. Which of the Two Academies one belongs to really is pretty much determined by one’s choice of major. Or should we say ‘magor’.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Will 2016 be the Year the Universities Finally Get Adult Supervision?

This past year witnessed the most protests and tumult on America’s university campuses since the abolition of the Vietnam-era military draft over 40 years ago. Those Vietnam-era students at least had something real to protest against. Today’s campus protestors, in contrast, are at war with the very idea of the university, and trying to tear down what remains on campus of free speech and academic standards. As we wrote back in November, state governments are going to need to step in to save the universities from themselves.

The universities, however, have shown themselves to be badly in need of adult supervision. If that adult supervision doesn’t come from the president or the trustees then, at public universities at least, governors and state legislatures need to step in. Someone has to lead, or America’s university system faces a bleak future.

Fortunately, it appears that at least some state legislatures have been moved to action. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports that a civil rights bill will be introduced in Washington state.

Included in the bill’s meritorious provisions is the Campus Free Expression Act (CAFE Act), similar to a new law in Missouri, which would prevent public institutions of higher education from limiting expressive activity in the open outdoor areas of campus to tiny, misleadingly labeled “free speech zones.”

Another important part of Representative Manweller’s legislation is a provision aimed at ensuring faculty at the state’s public colleges have the freedom to speak out on institutional policy and matters of public concern without fear of reprisal. The bill is crucial to preserve academic freedom and the ability of faculty members to blow the whistle when they observe wrongdoing.

The bill’s wide-ranging scope includes a provision that would prevent campus administrators from forcing faculty members to affix “trigger warnings” on class syllabi that caution students that certain topics might be unsettling. Under the legislation, individual faculty members would decide if and when they want to include such warnings. The legislation also forbids institutions from punishing students or faculty for so-called “microaggressions”—defined by proponents as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.”

Let’s hope this bill becomes law and that more states follow Washington’s lead.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Will Autonomous Cars Put Automakers Out of Business?

‘Futurist’ Zack Kanter wrote an essay about how autonomous cars will transform transportation and related industries. Kanter depicts autonomous cars as virtually eliminating vehicle-related costs, including household vehicle ownership. As a result, Kanter maintains that the automakers and supporting industries will collapse. Kanter, however, overstates the effects, because his analysis contains a fundamental flaw.

Morgan Stanley’s research shows that cars are driven just 4% of the time, which is an astonishing waste considering that the average cost of car ownership is nearly $9,000 per year…The car purchasers of the future will not be you and me – cars will be purchased and operated by ride sharing and car sharing companies…The effects of the autonomous car movement will be staggering. PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that the number of vehicles on the road will be reduced by 99%, estimating that the fleet will fall from 245 million to just 2.4 million vehicles…Disruptive innovation does not take kindly to entrenched competitors – like Blockbuster, Barnes and Noble, Polaroid, and dozens more like them, it is unlikely that major automakers like General Motors, Ford, and Toyota will survive the leap. They are geared to produce millions of cars in dozens of different varieties to cater to individual taste and have far too much overhead to sustain such a dramatic decrease in sales…The environmental impact of autonomous cars has the potential to reverse the trend of global warming and drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Passenger cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans account for 17.6% of greenhouse gas emissions – a 90% reduction of vehicles in operation would reduce our overall emissions by 15.9%.

Autonomous cars will no doubt reduce costs associated with driving (the opportunity cost of time) and accidents, and might also substantially reduce the number of vehicles in operation (though probably not by 99%). But it does not follow that auto production and pollution will be virtually eliminated, as Kanter maintains. The reason is that total vehicle miles will increase. Since the cost per mile will decline, the Law of Demand implies that total vehicle miles will rise. The rise in vehicle miles implies that cars will produce more total emissions, not less.

Furthermore, the automakers will not be facing a collapse in demand for their product. Even if the total number of vehicles in operation were to fall dramatically, the increase in total vehicle miles implies an increase in driving-related vehicle depreciation. For instance, the average passenger car is today operated 4% of the time, during which it travels 12,000 miles per year. If the rate of use were to soar to, say 80%, the implied annual mileage per vehicle equals 240,000. At that rate of use, the typical car might not last even a year, at least not without rebuilding or replacing the engine. The total number of vehicles in operation would plummet, but the rate of turnover would correspondingly increase; in fact, turnover might increase more than proportionately due to the increase in overall demand for vehicle miles. Automakers will still enjoy robust demand for their products.

Notwithstanding Kanter’s claim to the contrary, household vehicle ownership is not enormously wasteful. Owners may only operate their vehicles 4% of the time, but those vehicles depreciate relatively little during the 96% of the time they’re not in use.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Why Does Yale Hate the First Amendment?

Ami Horowitz put together a short video of folks on the Yale campus signing a petition affirming their support for freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition, and…oh, who are we kidding? They signed a petition to remove protections for all those freedoms by repealing the First Amendment. Horowitz claims he obtained 50 signatures in just an hour. Such is the commitment to liberty exhibited by America’s contemporary intellectual elites.

In his 1951 classic God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley exposed Yale’s increasing alienation from America’s traditions of liberty. As early as 1951, the rot had started to set in. We doubt, however, that in 1951 anyone could easily have obtained on the Yale campus signatures to repeal the First Amendment. America’s Ruling Class is steadily losing its republican virtue, and that does not bode well for the future of freedom in America.

A Get-out-of-jail Card for the Free-range Kid

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is fast becoming one of our favorite social scientists. His latest display of awesomeness consists of a note he wrote for his son to carry in case he gets accosted by busybodies. Lenore Skenazy shares the note on her excellent site, Free Range Kids.

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Max Haidt. I am 9 years old and live in NYC. My parents are teaching me a sense of independence, the kind that they had when they were growing up. They encourage me to go out and play in my neighborhood. I also help my mom by doing an occasional grocery store run for her.

New York State Law does NOT specify an age below which children must be attended by an adult. It grants substantial leeway for parents to exercise their judgment about what is safe. And my parents and I believe it’s safe, healthy, and fun for me to be allowed to explore my neighborhood.

If you do not believe me, please call them or text them:
Jayne Riew, [I deleted the #]
Jonathan Haidt, [I deleted this #, too, but I’m glad to have it!]

If you attempt to detain me on grounds that you think it’s inappropriate or illegal for me to be on my own, then please:
1) Read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
2) Read Free Range Kids, by Lenore Skenazy
3) Call my parents with your name and address so they can pursue legal action against you.

Then let me go.


Max Haidt

Note the part about how “New York State Law does NOT specify an age below which children must be attended by an adult.” That lack of legal specificity hasn’t stopped the state from arresting and persecuting parents for running afoul of Child Protective Services. As we’ve written previously, there are two problems with enforcing such vague laws. First, the citizen can never feel secure that he or she is in full compliance with the law. Second, since the law stipulates no specific age, unelected bureaucrats and judges are effectively empowered to decide what the law is.

For instance, can a 10-year-old girl lawfully ride her bike to school? The legal code doesn’t say specifically. Whether or not that parent faces legal consequences therefore depends entirely on the whim of unelected judges and bureaucrats. It follows that the law is effectively whatever the bureaucrats say it is. This empowering of bureaucrats to make law violates the principles of representative democracy and the rule of law. At this point, the states need to put up or shut up–legislate a legal minimum age for unsupervised children, or GTFO.

As great as Jon Haidt’s note is, reader “Warren” at Lenore Skenazy’s site offered a second note, intended for police. We like this note even better since it exposes and exploits the state’s lack of legal legitimacy on this issue.

They might consider having him carry a second note, for law enforcement only.

“Dear Police Officer,

I am out and about with the knowledge and permission of my legal guardians.

Am I being detained?

If the answer is NO, then I will be on my way.
If the answer is YES, then please contact our family’s attorney at —————, and explain to him/her why I am being detained.

A Future Voter and Taxpayer.”

We’d love for middle-class kids all over America to start carrying notes like this. And we say middle class, because it’s the middle class on which the state primarily preys. You can be sure that the rich and the Political Class never have to worry about harassment from CPS. If her parents approved, Nancy Pelosi’s grand daughter would certainly be allowed to ride her bike to school, or to play unsupervised in her own yard.

At the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum, the bureaucrats are not too keen to venture into the scary and benighted ghettos of the underclass. Furthermore, those people don’t have the money to pay fines. It follows that the soft target for the predatory state is the middle class.

Time to start fighting back.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Only in ‘Murica: University Students Who Can’t Read

CNN has a fascinating exposé on NCAA athletes who can’t read. And when we say can’t read, we literally mean can’t read ‘The Cat in the Hat.’

Early in her career as a learning specialist, Mary Willingham was in her office when a basketball player at the University of North Carolina walked in looking for help with his classwork.

He couldn’t read or write.

“And I kind of panicked. What do you do with that?” she said, recalling the meeting.

Willingham’s job was to help athletes who weren’t quite ready academically for the work required at UNC at Chapel Hill, one of the country’s top public universities.

But she was shocked that one couldn’t read. And then she found he was not an anomaly.

Soon, she’d meet a student-athlete who couldn’t read multisyllabic words. She had to teach him to sound out Wis-con-sin, as kids do in elementary school.

And then another came with this request: “If I could teach him to read well enough so he could read about himself in the news, because that was something really important to him,” Willingham said.

Pretty sad when you can’t even read your own press clippings.

As a graduate student at UNC-Greensboro, Willingham researched the reading levels of 183 UNC-Chapel Hill athletes who played football or basketball from 2004 to 2012. She found that 60% read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. Between 8% and 10% read below a third-grade level.

“So what are the classes they are going to take to get a degree here? You cannot come here with a third-, fourth- or fifth-grade education and get a degree here,” she told CNN.

In any event, the CNN article frames this issue as a huge scandal for the NCAA. But isn’t it an even bigger scandal for America’s public schools? Before these athletes entered their NCAA programs they were supposed to have spent 12 or 13 years getting schooled for 180 days per year. So in well over 2000 school days, the government employees couldn’t manage to teach them to read polysyllabic words? The government employees somehow never got around to that, although they never neglected to cash their paychecks, paid for by the taxpayers.

As far as we know, universities do not admit students unless they possess a high school diploma. All these athletes who read below the 8th grade level were pushed through school and awarded diplomas. That should be a huge scandal for the schools.

Public schools were established around 1850 in order to ensure that every child would learn to read (and also that Catholic immigrants would be socialized to Protestant society). Even before public schools were established, literacy in America was nearly universal. Nowadays, the literacy rate is not any higher; probably somewhat lower. That means the public schools have failed in their mission. They should be shut down and totally replaced with a voucher system.

One last point about the CNN article.

“College textbooks are written at the ninth-grade level, so we are putting these elite athletes into classes where they can’t understand the textbooks. Imagine yourself sitting in a class where nothing makes sense.”

Wait–shouldn’t college textbooks be written at the twelfth-grade level, at least? America’s education system clearly has some fundamental problems that have nothing to do with the NCAA.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

What Liberals Really Care About: Power

The New York Times, official paper of the Democrat Party, recently ran an unintentionally hilarious piece entitled “Who Turned My Blue State Red?” The Times laments that Democrats’ longstanding scheme to buy votes with welfare is not working out as planned. Specifically, poor states that rely disproportionately on federal handouts like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas and that traditionally voted Democrat are increasingly voting GOP. Indeed, Bill Clinton in both his campaigns carried each of those states, but now his wife wouldn’t be able to win any of them.

The piece is quite revealing about the true feelings of Northeast liberal elitists. At no point in the article does the author express any sympathy or concern for the problems plaguing these underprivileged communities–drugs, idleness, hopelessness–nor any recognition of the role of the welfare state in exacerbating those problems. No; the problem is that the ingrates won’t vote Democrat!

In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process.

Turns out the people voting Republican are not the welfare recipients but, get this, the people who work for a living.

The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns.

These are people who are on the ground in their communities and can see first hand the damage wrought by the welfare state. On the issue of the welfare state, their views are shaped by hard reality, not the fanciful theories and easy assumptions of Upper West Side liberals and cloistered Ive League professors. Working people in the heartland are who liberal elitists should be listening to–if they cared.

The other notable takeaway from the article is the facile liberal assumption that working people in the heartland are somehow voting against their own economic interests.

These are voters like Pamela Dougherty, a 43-year-old nurse I encountered at a restaurant across from a Walmart in Marshalltown, Iowa, where she’d come to hear Rick Santorum, the conservative former Pennsylvania senator with a working-class pitch, just before the 2012 Iowa caucuses…Yes, citizens like Ms. Dougherty are at one level voting against their own economic self-interest, to the extent that the Republican approach on taxes is slanted more to the wealthy than that of the Democrats. This was the thesis of Thomas Frank’s 2004 best seller, “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” which argued that these voters had been distracted by social issues like guns and abortion.

Yeah, our memory is good enough to remember Obama campaigning in 2012 on raising taxes on couples earning more than $250,000. This proposal would have raised about $80 billion in tax revenue, or about as much as the government spends in a week. How does that extra week’s worth of federal revenue benefit Iowa nurse Pamela Dougherty?

Step 1: Democrats squeeze yet another $80 billion out of America’s most productive citizens.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Iowa nurse Pamela Dougherty profits!!!

The fact is that more tax revenue would just be spent by the Political Class on itself and on the underclass clients who keep the Political Class in power. That’s what this article is complaining about–the failure of the underclass to uphold its end of the bargain by voting Democrat in exchange for a share of the loot.

Only a fool would believe that liberal New York Times journalists are lying awake a night wondering how to get more money into the hands of heartland working people like Pamela Dougherty. What they really want is more subsidies for politically-connected cronies invested in economically unviable wind farms, billions for J.P. Morgan Chase to process EBT payments, corporate welfare laundered through the Export-Import Bank, etc. What’s in it for Pamela Dougherty?

After Obama was reelected, Republicans compromised and gave him half of what he wanted by agreeing to raise taxes on couples earning more than $450,000. How much of that money went to Pamela Dougherty?

She is wise not to be fooled.

Moreover, a primary reason why parts of West Virginia and Kentucky are economically moribud is the War on Coal waged by liberals.

The war on coal is not just political rhetoric, or a paranoid fantasy concocted by rapacious polluters. It’s real and it’s relentless. Over the past five years, it has killed a coal-fired power plant every 10 days….

Almost every watt of new generating capacity is coming from natural gas, wind or solar; the coal industry now employs fewer workers than the solar industry, which barely existed in 2010. Utilities no longer even bother to propose new coal plants to replace the old ones they retire. Coal industry stocks are tanking, and analysts are predicting a new wave of coal bankruptcies.

But hey, Kentucky, Obama supported that tax hike on the ‘rich’!

Finally, if liberals really cared about the working class, they wouldn’t support unrestricted immigration, which depresses wages. But liberals need more immigrants to do the job that native-born Americans increasingly won’t do: voting Democrat.

Liberals make war on the working class, and at the same time are so cluelessly out of touch that they genuinely believe, like Louis XIV, that the peasants should be grateful for the crumbs they receive. It is indeed a level of decadence worthy of the ancien regime.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Why Does the GOP Hate Due Process?

We’ve written previously about campus kangaroo courts that are routinely violating the rights of men accused of sexual assault. These tribunals are turning back the clock on justice by hundreds of years by denying men due process and the traditional rights afforded the accused. The violations of traditional rights include:

  • No right to an attorney
  • No cross-examination
  • No right to face your accuser
  • No right to be judged by peers
  • No discovery process
  • No ‘reasonable doubt’ standard of guilt

The impetus for setting up these campus star chambers comes from a 2011 ‘Dear Colleague’ letter from the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. The letter itself has no force of law; it is not a law passed by Congress, nor is it valid administrative law. But it may as well have the force of law, because universities fear to disobey it because so much of their funding comes from the federal government. Even leftist institutions such as Harvard Law School are appalled by the lack of due process, but reluctantly accede to the policy.

Note also that while the stated purpose of the policy is to crack down on campus rate, in effect it does the opposite because it makes universities the only place in America where rape is not treated as a real crime to be handled by the police and the justice system. Imagine if corporate America tried to handle rape allegations internally using it’s own tribunals. “Miss Allen has accused her supervisor Mr. Burns of raping her while on their last business trip to Cucamonga. No need to call the police! We’ll just put together a committee and hold a meeting in the conference room. If the committee decides based on preponderance of evidence that Mr. Burns is guilty, we will fire him, or maybe just suspend him for awhile.” The outrage would be real and justified. So if the process would be outrageous in the corporate world, why should academia be any different?

Now, when the rights of the people are violated by unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away, what should happen is that the people’s elected representatives should step in to restore the people’s rights.

So what are our elected representatives in Congress doing about the ongoing depredations of Education’s Office of Civil Rights? Well, in the omnibus spending bill approved this week, the Republican-controlled Congress rewarded the Office of Civil Rights by increasing its budget by 7%. We don’t know about you, but our last pay raise was nowhere near 7%. In a more just world, the budget for the Office of Civil Rights would be ZEROED OUT.

Remind us again why it’s important that Congress remain in the hands of the GOP.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone