It's because they've been hijacked by "Activist Scholars" who use them to spread woke ideology.
These political activists are using universities as vehicles to indoctrinate students into far left ideology
Here are the receipts:🧵
2/ Let's get something clear first.
The problem is NOT merely that some professors have blind-spots that can be corrected by other professors with different views. That's not what I am talking about here....
Activists Scholars are an entirely different problem.
3/
It used to be that University professors would try to teach about ideas as evenhandedly as is possible. Of course everyone has biases, but the idea was that professors would at least TRY to put their biases aside and teach the material in a balanced, fair, evenhanded way...
4/ This is no longer the case.
"Activist Scholars" think education is ALWAYS political. because we choose what to teach children, and in doing so we are teaching certain values, and that's political.
So, they think choosing to teach kids that 2+2=4 is a political act.
so...
5/ Because the Scholar activists see their job as a political, in accordance with woke politics they use university classrooms to indoctrinate students into their politics
This Paper by Kia M. Q. Hall is about activities for training Black Lives Matter activists in the… https://t.co/mtqBssF76etwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
6/ You see, the Scholar Activist does not even attempt to teach from neutral ground. They have an ideology, and use their classroom to train students to become activists on behalf of that ideology.
Here Deborah Lowry suggests a way to teach that "supports student-activists":
7/ And this is where we can see this leading to rot in the Universities.
Because the goal of "Scholar Activists" is to spread their political ideology, not to find truth, they end up adopting bad academic methods because those methods help them with their political goals.
8/ They explicitly state that they don't want theories that lead to truth, they want theories that help them gain political power. Here, Kelly Oliver says explicitly that feminist theories do NOT have to be true...they have to be STRATEGIC, because the goal is power, not truth.
9/ This is not just one paper that says this either. I could bring receipts all day.
IE: Joan Scott tells us that they seek a theory that will be relevant for political practice, and transgender Sociologist Raewyn Connell seeks a theory of Gender that takes politics into account
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ These Republicans are protecting the CDFI fund, an institution which funnels money into left wing causes.
The CDFI gave 173 Million dollars to the Opportunity Finance Network, and organization that is concerned with DEI, Systemic Racism, and "Racial Justice"
2/ The Opportunity Finance Network is an institution that has as its goal advancing leftists ideology and talking points.
For example, the CDFI ran a post reflecting on how they were going to "operationalize racial equity" into their work.
This is just a folk version of Critical Race Theory
3/ The Opportunity Finance Network also worked to ensure that the Community Development Financial Institutions's (that are funded by the governments CDFI Fund) are bringing in DEI to their networks and business practices.
Canadians aren't ready for what this is going to do to our economy.
Canadian Liberals adopted smug, self-satisfying anti-americanism because they see themselves as more sophisticated and intelligent than Americans, and they think having to win Trump over is beneath them...
Canada's Elite Liberal class thinks that Trump is beneath them, and they think it is they who deserve to be the ones with all the power and decision making. It eats them alive that Canada needs America more than America needs Canada...
They think Trump should "know his place" and do what Canada's elites want because they are better and Smarter that him. Because of their hubris and pride, they would rather say "elbows up" and crash their own economy than to treat Trump like an equal and show him some respect.
1/
I realize the over-feminization of public life is a problem, and I think wokeness is also feminine coded.
But leftist extremism of wokeness are not necessarily feminine coded.
In the 60's and 70's the radical left was led by violent, militant, masculine men...
2/ The left engaged in bombings, riots, kidnapping, riots, and other such sort of behavior. They formed militia's armed themselves to the teeth, and made straight-forward demands while engaging in direct confrontation.
In fact, feminists used to complain about how the left...
3/ Was run entirely by men. This was a common theme in feminist writing and discourse.
The recent increase in popularity of guys like Hasan Piker (or Bob Vylan, the rappers who chanted "death to the IDF" onstage at a festival) are attempts by the left to re-masculinize...
Indigenous displacement is an idea from postcolonial theory often used to normatively criticize western nations; often using statistical demographic change as evidence of the charge.
My question is: why this doesn't idea apply to London?
2/ The point I am trying to bring out here is related to a question asked by the philosopher Joseph Heath: "What is the difference between a settler and an immigrant?"
Concepts like "indigenous displacement" appear to be neutral descriptions but are in fact normatively loaded...
3/ And the result is that they get deployed according to the normative political considerations of the person using them.
This is why Europeans who move to the U.S. are called "settlers" but Syrian refugees get called immigrants.
"Catholics would be tolerated on the fringes of society"
This sentence is why the dissident right will fail. Trad-Caths/Catholic Integralists see protestants as an abhorration of the true faith. So there's *zero* chance they ever agree to be "tolerated at the fringe of society."
The dissident right has a Protestant wing and a catholic wing.
Protestant DR types think some form of *protestant* Christianity (usually but not always some form of Calvinism) needs to be the default religion of the public.
Trad-caths think it should be catholicism...
And the trad-caths are never, evr, going to let the protestant calvinists (whom the catholics view as a heretical abhorration of true Christianity) force catholics to be merely "tolerated at the fringes."
Likewise, protestants will *never* submit to catholic rule. Ever.
Since "noticing" appears to be a thing, I'd like to say that I "notice" things as well....And I can't help but *notice* the obsession that certain people have with Israel, even though other nations (China, India, Russia, etc) impact the U.S. far more....
I also can't help but notice that those same sorts of people are obsessed the influence of wealth Jews, but have nothing to say about the influence of money from China, Qatar, Russia, India, and so on.
The Jews are, apparantly, an item of incredibly deep concern...
For a great number of people, and I can't help but *notice* that the far greater and more pernicious influence (and subversion) coming from foreign money in other countries gets mysteriously ignored, and I *notice* that Israel is held to a higher standard than every other country