We recently discussed how Wake Forest Psychology Professor S. Mason Garrison described conservatives as “guilty, anxious, and unable to handle stress well as children.”
It was indicative of the overt hostility often encountered by Republicans and conservatives on our campuses today.
Now, another psychology professor is under fire for a quiz that matter-of-factly explained that white men are characterized as a group for their abuse of others and lack of remorse for their violence and deceit.
Like Professor Garrison, the resulting outcry reportedly led Professor Kirsten Bradbury to rescind the quiz.
However, the incident reflects both the orthodoxy and hostility that now characterizes higher education. It also follows a familiar pattern when academics are called to account for such biased attacks.
Professor Bradbury gave a quiz as part of her “Personality Psychology” class and included a question that stated “[n]either race nor gender is determinative in Antisocial Personality Disorder.” It then asked:
“However, if we must go there, which sociodemographic group is most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse?”
Bradbury then added an addendum stating:
“Hint: They also happen to hold the most social power and because of that they can get away with the most wrongdoing.”
She gave four choices with three obviously absurd choices of middle class Latino families, female dentists and Asian men of all economic groups.
The correct answer was, of course, wealthy white men.
Like many, Bradbury felt that she had license to engage in such racial stereotyping and disparagement. It reflects a culture today at universities that not only tolerates but fosters such proselytizing and intolerance.
We have seen attacks based both on race and ideology from professors over the years without any repercussions or even criticism from universities in many cases. We have previously discussed faculty who called for “detonating white people,” abolishing white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).
At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
On every level of our educational systems, it has become acceptable to demonize conservatives and oppose their teaching students. One school board member recently called for conservatives to be “culled” from faculties by “taking them to the slaughterhouse.” Many faculties have indeed “culled” their ranks of conservatives. A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican.
The survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year. Yet editors at the newspaper assured students that eliminating Republicans or conservatives from the faculty was nothing to fear or regret.
Likewise, in an editorial column, the editors of the legal site Above the Law mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools. Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law. (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.
It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and by roughly half of the population are invalid to be taught.
It is not limited to faculty. Polls now show that 60 percent of students fear sharing their views in class, including some polls showing an even higher level of fear. There is a growing orthodoxy taking hold on our campuses with rising intolerance for dissenting faculty and students alike.
When this controversy arose, Bradbury simply offered a mild “my bad” and pulled the quiz. It was not because she issued an insulting and unsupported racial attack. She simply told students that “given the current rate of sociocultural and scientific change,” the quiz had “grown too stale to use.” No real apology and no action from the university. Just a shrug.
Imagine if a professor described black men in such disparaging terms. Would the University of Texas at Austin or its faculty remain silent?
When conservatives have uttered controversial statements, the response is quite different. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.
Students often face such choices of losing points on exams or just mouthing the political bias of their professors. We previously discussed how historian Jon Meachum asked students in a quiz at Vanderbilt University “Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery?” When a student answered “false,” the answer was marked wrong.
Bradbury’s question and later shrugging off of the controversy reflects the intolerance and sense of impunity in higher education. She clearly has little fear that attacking white males would have any repercussions and felt little need to apologize for the attack. The response of the University of Texas reinforces the sense of license.
We recently discussed how Wake Forest Psychology Professor S. Mason Garrison described conservatives as “guilty, anxious, and unable to handle stress well as children.”
It was indicative of the overt hostility often encountered by Republicans and conservatives on our campuses today.
Now, another psychology professor is under fire for a quiz that matter-of-factly explained that white men are characterized as a group for their abuse of others and lack of remorse for their violence and deceit.
Like Professor Garrison, the resulting outcry reportedly led Professor Kirsten Bradbury to rescind the quiz.
However, the incident reflects both the orthodoxy and hostility that now characterizes higher education. It also follows a familiar pattern when academics are called to account for such biased attacks.
Professor Bradbury gave a quiz as part of her “Personality Psychology” class and included a question that stated “[n]either race nor gender is determinative in Antisocial Personality Disorder.” It then asked:
“However, if we must go there, which sociodemographic group is most likely to repeatedly violate the rights of others in a pattern of behavior that includes violence, deceit, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse?”
Bradbury then added an addendum stating:
“Hint: They also happen to hold the most social power and because of that they can get away with the most wrongdoing.”
She gave four choices with three obviously absurd choices of middle class Latino families, female dentists and Asian men of all economic groups.
The correct answer was, of course, wealthy white men.
Like many, Bradbury felt that she had license to engage in such racial stereotyping and disparagement. It reflects a culture today at universities that not only tolerates but fosters such proselytizing and intolerance.
We have seen attacks based both on race and ideology from professors over the years without any repercussions or even criticism from universities in many cases. We have previously discussed faculty who called for “detonating white people,” abolishing white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).
At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
On every level of our educational systems, it has become acceptable to demonize conservatives and oppose their teaching students. One school board member recently called for conservatives to be “culled” from faculties by “taking them to the slaughterhouse.” Many faculties have indeed “culled” their ranks of conservatives. A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican.
The survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year. Yet editors at the newspaper assured students that eliminating Republicans or conservatives from the faculty was nothing to fear or regret.
Likewise, in an editorial column, the editors of the legal site Above the Law mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools. Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law. (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.
It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and by roughly half of the population are invalid to be taught.
It is not limited to faculty. Polls now show that 60 percent of students fear sharing their views in class, including some polls showing an even higher level of fear. There is a growing orthodoxy taking hold on our campuses with rising intolerance for dissenting faculty and students alike.
When this controversy arose, Bradbury simply offered a mild “my bad” and pulled the quiz. It was not because she issued an insulting and unsupported racial attack. She simply told students that “given the current rate of sociocultural and scientific change,” the quiz had “grown too stale to use.” No real apology and no action from the university. Just a shrug.
Imagine if a professor described black men in such disparaging terms. Would the University of Texas at Austin or its faculty remain silent?
When conservatives have uttered controversial statements, the response is quite different. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.
Students often face such choices of losing points on exams or just mouthing the political bias of their professors. We previously discussed how historian Jon Meachum asked students in a quiz at Vanderbilt University “Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery?” When a student answered “false,” the answer was marked wrong.
Bradbury’s question and later shrugging off of the controversy reflects the intolerance and sense of impunity in higher education. She clearly has little fear that attacking white males would have any repercussions and felt little need to apologize for the attack. The response of the University of Texas reinforces the sense of license.
Loading…
