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
Tate presents himself as the antidote to a culture that pathologizes masculinity and abusively tears down men, but he's really presenting a mirror image of feminism that unchains masculinity from virtue and then celebrates the resulting pathologies
2/ The result is a form of masculinity that is every bit as harmful and damaging as the radioactive feminism to which he is a response.
Tate is the collective id of every young man whose life was destroyed by pathological feminism/femininity and who sees no way forward.
3/ As such Tate is a test for the right: can we provide version of masculinity that lost and broken men find compelling, but avoids the temptation to appeal to the bitterness, anger, and worst instincts of those lost and broke men in order to gain their favor.
This is, again, the countercultural idea at the heart of the critique of mass society.
This version claims the "Christofascist conservative" vision requires repressive conformity, and thus creativity can only be found by those who rebel against the culture of Christofascism.
Since the 60's the political left has thought that there is a "mass society" that depends upon homogeneity and conformity in order to reproduce itself, and that the system brainwashes the masses so that they accept the repressive conformity the system demands.
Having accepted this view, the leftist countercultrual rebel concludes that great art is a product of rejecting the conformity that the system demands, and thus believes that great art can only be produced by those who rebel against the system.
1/ As Trump abolishes DEI departments, de-funds woke NGO's and non-profits, and removes woke activists from government, a large group of well trained political and social activists will watch their industry be destroyed, leaving them unemployed with no plausible career path...
2/ Activists, administrators, bureaucrats, and other credentialed members of the professional/institutional social justice left will be left without a job, and a resume that's only suitable for finding work in the very Social-Justice government-NGO complex Trump is shutting down
3/ This means the best trained and most politically extreme leftist organizers are going to be left broke, angry, and unemployed. They will have nothing better to do then street level activism where they can agitate and organize for their social and political revolution full-time
1/ The left is demoralized and exhausted, but they are not going away and will try to maintain their hold on cultural, education, and government institutions.
This is what happened in the 80's. Reagan won, but the left took over universities, schools, and cultural institutions.
2/ The fact that the right had won a significant political victory only made the left more desperate to take over the social institutions that make up our society.
So they went about taking over our colleges, universities, public schools, accreditation boards, and so fourth.
3/ The result was that even while it looked like the right was winning, the left was putting themselves in a position to control all of societies knowledge production and legitimizing institutions.
They made themselves the gate-keepers of respectable opinion.
The left owned our cultural institutions (Journalism, televsion, advertising, Universities, entertainment, social media, medicine, publishing, non-profits/NGO's, education, government) and used them to flood the culture with anti-trump messaging for a decade.
Trump still won.🧵
They spent a decade using a vertically integrated messaging apparatus to run anti-Trump messaging in every inch of the culture, 24/7, for a decade, while censoring, deboosting, suppressing anyone who pushed back against their extreme leftist ideas.
Trump still won.
The left had complete control of the institutions of: 1. cultural production (movies, music, books, magazines, art,) 2. knowledge production (universities, public schools, academic journals, scientific journals, accreditation bodies, colleges of education)
In 2012 a weird form of identity politics mixed with "social justice" emerged from academia and used social media to take over of journalism, the Arts and culture industry, NGO's, Non-profits, news media, and the government; and used that power to censor the rest of society....
Then, for the next decade, anybody who thought men and women are different, believed kids can't pick their gender, or judged people by character rather than race, was driven out of our societies institutions by mobs of online social activists screaming social justice slogans.
A group of social activists, moral entrepreneurs, and grifters, used their dominance of our social institutions and their influence online to create what amounts to a social and economic death star that they aimed at the reputation and social standing of anyone who opposed them.