Published on April 24th, 2011 | by Leonard Jackson0
Reading, Writing and Rot
Walter E Williams is an economist, commentator, syndicated columnist and author well known for his practical approach to economic conditions and his libertarian viewpoint. He has been a Professor of Economics at George Mason University since 1980 and is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at that university.
He has been my personal economics authority for many years – not actually in a classroom but from his books, essays and personal radio appearances. I have never known anyone who could better explain the complexities of economic science by using everyday situations to clarify those obscure theorems of what many call “the dismal science.”
But I most admire and hold him in highest regard for his views on our everyday life in these United States. His recent piece in Townhall Magazine dealt with a subject that Dr. Williams often writes about: the hate-America fervor that permeates our colleges and universities today. What he has to say is not encouraging to those of us who still care what our young folks are learning that will prepare them for life in the real world. This is not written by some political pundit with an axe to grind. This is from one who is there and sees what is actually happening. He writes:
”The average American, as parent, student and taxpayer, has little idea of the academic rot at so many of our colleges. Save for a tiny handful of the nation’s colleges, what distinguishes one college from another is the magnitude of that rot.”
“One of the best sources of information about our colleges is the New York City-based Manhattan Institute’s quarterly Web magazine, Minding the Campus, edited by John Leo, former columnist for U.S. News & World Report.”
“The magazine’s Winter 2010 edition contains an article by Dr. Candace de Russy, former member of the board of trustees of the State University of New York (SUNY), titled “Hate-America Sociology.” De Russy’s colleague sent her a copy of a student’s exam from an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at an East Coast public college. The professor had given it a perfect score of 100. Here are some of the questions asked and the student’s written response:
“Question: How does the United States ‘steal’ the resources of other (third world) countries?
We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor that cannot be turned down.
“Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?
Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning.” …
“Question: What is the interactionist approach to gender?
The majority of multi-gender encounters are male-dominated. For example, while involved in conversation, the male is much more likely to interrupt. Most likely because the male believes the female’s expressed thoughts are inferior to his own.
“Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination.
The belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished.”
Out of retaliation fears, de Russy withheld the name and university of her colleague who sent the exam. Teaching students hate-America indoctrination is widespread, as I’ve documented in the past.
It has always mystified me as to why people with the good fortune to have landed in this great country with all its opportunities and resources, usually through no particular effort on their part, are determined to disparage those very factors that provide them a decided advantage in any endeavor they are inclined to pursue.
I hope, no I pray, that this trend is not universal; that there are some institutions of higher learning still left that uphold our values and try to teach from the positive viewpoint. There has to be some teachers left that appreciate these opportunities and make known to their classrooms that questioning life and its environing circumstances is one of the major benefits of scholarship, but to merely degrade all things without objective deliberation is not questioning, its demagoguing.
Teachers who persist in promoting this one-sided, negative approach exemplify the old adage: Those who can, do; those who can’t teach; those who can do neither, degenerate.