The Anti-Intellectualism, Ignorance, and Intolerance at Our American Universities

Since the 1960s the American University as an institution has ceased to be geared for education. It has, instead, become an institution geared to the indoctrination of an anti-American leftism that is wholly anti-intellectual. This is something that a member of the American Enterprise Institute recently saw first hand, but he isn’t the only one.

Murray, a libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and a fellow at AEI, had for months been scheduled to speak at Azusa Pacific University about his new book, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead, but only a day before his scheduled appearance, the university sudden revoked his invitation.

Azusa President Jon Wallace sent Murray, who may be best known as the co-author of the controversial book The Bell Curve, an email with one of the most absurd and convoluted excuses to cancel a speaker imaginable.

In part, the university president said, “Given the lateness of the semester and the full record of Dr. Murray’s scholarship, I realized we needed more time to prepare for a visit and postponed Wednesday’s conversation.” But Murray was also told from other sources what the real reason for canceling his talk was. He was told his appearance would hurt “our faculty and students of color.”

Murray is a conservative minded economist and social scientist and we can’t expect our poor, hapless, emotionally fragile students confronted with any ideas or opinions that might deviate from the extremist, liberal norm can we?

Murray took to the web posting an open letter to urge Azusa students to “think for themselves” for a change.

You’re at college, right? Being at college is supposed to mean thinking for yourselves, right? Okay, then do it. Don’t be satisfied with links to websites that specialize in libeling people. Lose the secondary sources. Explore for yourself the “full range” of my scholarship and find out what it is that I’ve written or said that would hurt your faculty or students of color. It’s not hard. In fact, you can do it without moving from your chair if you’re in front of your computer.

Murray admits that some of what he writes is controversial. In fact, he says that real scholarship must be controversial to some. “Yes, because (hang on to your hats) scholarship usually means writing about things on which people disagree,” he writes.

The task of the scholar is to present a case for his or her position based on evidence and logic. Another task of the scholar is to do so in a way that invites everybody into the discussion rather than demonize those who disagree. Try to find anything under my name that is not written in that spirit. Try to find even a paragraph that is written in anger, takes a cheap shot, or attacks women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, or anyone else.

“Azusa Pacific’s administration wants to protect you from earnest and nerdy old guys who have opinions that some of your faculty do not share. Ask if this is why you’re getting a college education,” Murray wrote.

But Murray isn’t the only one that liberal professors have prevented or tried to prevent from speaking at a university. Just to provide a very short list, such well-known conservatives as columnist and author Ann Coulter, conservative activist David Horowitz, Women’s right activist and Muslim critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writer Star Parker, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, writer Daniel Pipes, and a host of others have been prevented from speaking by either left-wing professors, left-wing administrators, or rioting, anti-intellectual students (and often all three at once).

For another example,a study by Campus Reform shows that students are twice as likely to be forced to sit through a liberal commencement speaker than one perceived as a conservative.

Our system of education, or mis-education as it should more rightfully be termed, needs to be torn down and re-made again in the image of America instead of Stalinist Russia as it is currently.

We will not be able to return this country to the constitutional republic it was intended to be until we eliminate the control that extremist, left-wingers infesting and destroying our education have on the system.

Our kids are taught from the earliest grades to hate America. They are told that our history is evil. They are trained to think that the U.S.A. is a blot on mankind. They are trained that every other system of government is better than ours. They are taught racism against white is “OK.” They are also inculcated with the idea that listening to contrary opinions and to stretch their understanding of others is something to be abhorred.

It is long past time to do something about this disgust state of affairs, isn’t it? Conservatives need to reassert themselves into our system of education. The health of our nation depends on it.

Obama Gives IRS, Obamacare Employees BIG Raises While Americans Lose Jobs
Lawless Seattle Democrats Make to Steal Woman's Business
  • Peter Castle

    Coulter likes to regard herself as an intellectual, but she is certainly not the best representative for conservatives given her sometimes bizarre remarks. She is not an advocate for conservatism – she is an advocate for Ann Coulter. A growing number of people are discovering that we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at

    • jim_m

      That’s nice. Now do you have anything to actually address the subject matter at hand?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Take a look at his profile. Ann Coulter is apparently his bug-a-boo, like Harry Reid and the Koch brothers.

        • jim_m

          Probably a drone run by Media Mutters. Real people have more breadth to their interest.

          • I really miss the down ding button and running tally of down dings when it comes to morons such as Peter.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Yeah, the new Disqus sucks.

          • But at least it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings!

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So I guess it’s safe for those fragile darlings on our college campuses.

          • Yeah, and aren’t they going to be surprised when the real world doesn’t worry about their tender sensibilities…

    • Hank_M

      I have to disagree.
      I don’t agree with everything she says/writes, but she’s an excellent conservative spokesman. She’s sharp, witty and often uses humor to make her points. She isn’t afraid to debate any liberal and will take on anyone, be it Maher, Morgan and others.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    As one who went to college in the 60’s, I find today’s schools to be stifling, anti-intellectual, Orwellian institutions that only Uncle Joe could love. As Swarthmore student Erin Ching stated after a “discussion of the meaning of discourse at Swarthmore: “What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

    As Mark Steyn comments: “Young Erin Ching at Swarthmore College has grasped the essential idea: it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what’s to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.”

    • jim_m

      Especially well said.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Yeah, Steyn has a wonderful way with words.

        Of course, academe is a mirror image of liberals in general. The shift from free and robust debate to “shut-up, it’s settled” on the part of liberals is one of the most astounding philosophical transformations I’ve witnessed. As written in another column:

        “But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy….

        This shift has been building for decades and follows the increasingly uniform capture of key institutions – universities, the mass media and the bureaucracy – by people holding a set of “acceptable” viewpoints.”

    • A greenhouse for the next generation of zealots…

  • Hank_M

    When Universities have to resort to setting up “free speech” zones, you know they have a problem.

    The good news is that the college bubble is starting to burst.
    More and more people, old and young, are realizing that they no longer receive an education. They receive 4 or more years of indoctrination, a degree in crap, and a debt that cripples them for years.

    My favorite was listening to a graduate during the Occupy protests.
    She was complaining about her massive debt and an inability to find a job.
    When asked what her degree was in, she replied Medieval Feminist Studies.

    • Obviously the demand for her specialty wasn’t exactly a factor in selecting her major.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    And another of our super-elite institutions’ super-elite students proposes academic censorship. She says we should have “academic justice” instead of “academic freedom.” In other words – “Shut-Up!”:

    “Harvard student Sandra Y.L. Korn recently proposed in The Harvard Crimson that academics should be stopped if their research is deemed oppressive. Arguing that “academic justice” should replace “academic freedom,” she writes: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”

    In other words, Korn would have the university cease to be a forum for open debate and free inquiry in the name of justice, as defined by mainstream liberal academia.”

    • jim_m

      This small minded little brownshirt should learn the lesson that by articulating the argument against oppression we encourage others and strengthen our resolve to stand against that oppression. But then what she really wants is for people to be uncritical automatons that obey their master without thinking.

      However, I am encouraged that budding little nazis like Ms Korn have been summarily rejected across the nation in their recent attempts to impose antisemitic BDS sanctions against Israeli academic institutions.

  • ackwired

    Another example of the dumbing down of America. This type of prejudice fits right in with the anti-science culture, the desire to insult anyone with whom you disagree, the predominance of using anecdotal evidence, and the abandonment of higher education of the teaching of critical thinking to become institutions that simply train students in the use of skills.

    • jim_m

      The problem is that much of the anti-science culture is being driven from inside academia.

      • ackwired

        Hmm…do you have an example of that (said the guy who just criticized anecdotal evidence)?

        • jim_m

          To be fair much of the anti-science culture is not from the science faculty (thankfully) but from the humanities faculty.

          But there was the Sokal Hoax and more recently, this math hoax. The Sokal hoax was made possible by people committed to the post modern idea that all truth is relative, even scientific fact. This should be kept in mind every time some far left idiot screeches about some scientific consensus. The latter hoax by Rathke just shows that the rigor found today in the scientific community is sorely lacking. The fact is that there simply isn’t the need for the number of PhD’s we are generating so the standards of scholarship have dramatically declined.

    • I’d argue (a bit) that it’s not even training students in the use of skills. It’s about making sure they’ve got the proper mindset and beliefs, and establishing an unquestioning and unthinking acceptance of the proper authority figures. Given the proper programmed stimuli the authorities could state three and three is 27, and nobody would think twice – they’d just say it was 27, regardless of what actual demonstration would show.

      Frankly, it’s the unquestioning aspect that seriously worries me. Progress is dependent on questioning the status quo and finding better ways to do things, and the ‘progressives’ seem to want a status quo that’s unchanging from what they consider optimal.

      And what they consider optimal isn’t necessarily going to take the wants or needs of others into account.

  • GarandFan

    Libs value diversity of opinion – as long as that opinion coincides with their own. Otherwise, it’s STFU!

    • jim_m

      Indeed. Diversity of opinion – lots of superficially diverse people all believing the same thing.

  • Brucehenry

    Stephen Jay Gould in 1994, upon publication of Murray’s “The Bell Curve,” politely called Murray a disingenuous hack.

    Murray has been fighting that perception, and that of being an apologist for naked racism, ever since. Not very successfully, I might add.

    Not very successfully because, by all indications, he indeed IS a disingenuous hack and an apologist for naked racism. Perhaps that’s why he was disinvited. Perhaps he should never have been invited in the first place.

    Sometimes these schools come to their senses and decide not to give haters and kooks the platforms they need. Sometimes they are wrong to disinvite, as in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali case, but maybe not in this instance. All my opinion, of course.

    • jim_m

      So says the apologist for fascism. It doesn’t surprise me that you would claim this since your lack of education means you are unable to grasp the concepts and you appeal to an authority who makes ad hom attacks rather than address substance. It might do well to point out that Gould is supposedly an evolutionary biologist (and not simply an anti-religious bigot, but he is that too) and he is not a statistician. So his objections are primarily ideological and not sufficiently informed scientifically.

      The fact of the matter is that intelligence does distribute in a bell curve. Not everyone is above average (which is the point Garrison Keiller’s joke). And there do appear to be differences between the races in how those curves compare.

      Now it is fair criticism to say that there are some cultural issues in IQ testing, but most of those criticisms seem to fail to address why Asian immigrants test so well despite the obvious cultural differences. It is also fair to point out that there is a significant impact from a person’s environment on their IQ scores (people in more challenging intellectual environments tend to do better) so to claim that the differences are all genetic is a stretch. It may be that the differences are primarily cultural, but the differences are real none the less. It should also be pointed out that these are broad generalizations and do not apply to individuals. Individuals should always be judged on their own merit.

      I find it funny how the left feels it necessary to demand that blacks get special consideration for college admission, jobs etc, because they cannot compete on a level playing field, yet they claim that blacks are not at any disadvantage intellectually. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is a deficit or there isn’t. And contra the wise latina on the SCOTUS, eliminating a systematic preference is not racism, it is elimination of racism. There is no need to give blacks an advantage based on their skin color. Doing so is racism flat out.

      • Brucehenry

        So you didn’t read Gould’s book review that I posted then.

        • jim_m

          The fact is that there will always be half the population that is below average intelligence and barring a career in politics will not have the earning potential of the rest of the population. This happens to be true and is not a claim unique to any sort of social Darwinism. Denying this fact is simply perverse and ignorant. The left wing fantasy that everyone can get a college education and everyone can succeed is bullshit. You are a good example of that, Bruce.

          As to the second issue, it is reasonable to postulate a genetic component since it is clear that it is not solely a cultural issue. However, I do believe that there are social forces in the black community that powerfully disincentivize blacks from performing well on such tests and by doing so “appearing white”. But that is due to their own racism so I say fuck ’em if that is the problem.

          • Brucehenry

            And so you still haven’t read it but feel comfortable puking up boilerplate and slinging insults. Alrighty then.

            Here’s another, more actually liberal, critique of Murray’s career and his opus “Coming Apart” which also came in for criticism from all over academia.


          • jim_m

            I’m not familiar with that book so I really have no opinion.

            I will say that my parents read “The Bell Curve” for Recording for the Blind and they found its ideas to perfectly fit with their radically left wing views.

          • Brucehenry

            An unkind person might say that your relationship with your parents might have had some influence on your ideology. Maybe it had something to do with why you seem so angry at liberals. (That unkind person might say.)

            BTW that CAP link talks about more than Murray’s latest book. It talks about his whole career. Seems like a grifter to me. No wonder you find him so credible. Many rubes have been taken in by his “work.”

          • jim_m

            I visit them quite often. We don’t talk politics but share a great deal in common on the subjects of literature and movies.

          • Brucehenry

            You’re lucky to still have them.

          • jim_m

            Nah. They’re lucky to have me. 😉

  • Lawrence Westlake

    The headline here is an insult to anti-intellectualism, ignorance and intolerance. U.S. academia makes all that look good. Speaking of which, have you interviewed any Gen. Y waste cases for jobs? Scary. There’s never been a demographic so poorly educated, inexperienced, spoiled, tactless and entitled. They make their Boomer waste case liberal arts profs. look like Jack Welch. And of course the unemployment and underemployment rates for the age 18-30 demographic are catastrophic, bordering on dystopian. Not coincidental. It’ll actually get worse as time marches on. Just wait until the parents of these Millennial nitwits finally throw up their hands and kick them out of their basements. Zombieland will ensue.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    So, Brandeis dis-invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but yukked it up with Rwandan President Paul Kagame – who had, according to one witness who served on Kagame’s elite security team, machine-gunned “… to death between 30 and 40 civilians ‘in a matter of seconds’ and later order the killing of three bishops.”

    Brandeis clarified that Kagame appeared, not as public speaker, but as a participant in a round-table discussion with invited guests, faculty, students, and various campus groups, including the oh-so-aptly named “Brandeis University program in Peace, Conflict and Coexistence.”

  • hamiseady

    I don’t believe the fact with everything she says/writes, but she is a great traditional spokesperson. She’s distinct, funny and often uses comedy to create her factors. She isn’t scared to discussion any generous and will take on anyone, be it Maher, Morgan and others.