Academia first stop in Trump revamp

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

There is a cancer at work in America that is currently having its way with our young people. I am speaking of much of American academia. To conclude that it is partisan would be to sell it short. It has become a weapon against conservative students. Many are reaping the bitter seeds of discrimination and prejudice based on their personal political persuasions. In many cases, they are students at federal land grant institutions. For too long, society coaxed by a disinterested legacy media, has been resigned to the notion that “it’s just the way that it is and always has been.” Is this the final word? If so, we are in trouble!

To truly grasp the direness of the dilemma, one must return to Florida Senator, Secretary of State nominee, Marco Rubio’s 2022 CPAC address:

‘Never Seen In This Country Before!’: Rubio Warns Of Marxist ‘Influence’ In US At CPAC | Full Speech

A Popular Destination for Stalinists

Unfortunately, academia has become a popular rendezvous for American Stalinists. True, many wouldn’t classify themselves as Stalinists. But the proof is in their paradigm. They hold to a specific narrative. If a student, faculty, or staff member violates it, they can expect some sort of disadvantage. It is never openly stated. But it always remains their constant companion. The most disquieting aspect of it is our willingness to allow it to proceed without questioning it.

Maybe it’s because it is so subtle. No Marxist is going to openly profess their preference for Marxism. In many cases, they don’t even know that they are advancing this continuously failed idea! What we do know is that students especially, and faculty members to a lesser extent, are subjected to hidden pressure that comes from defying the established narrative. This narrative is often advanced by an entrenched administration that has quietly carried out federal mandates. Hence the interest in abolishing the Department of Education.

In many cases, non-faculty members are the key henchmen. For example: An openly conservative student with a 2.56 undergraduate grade point advantage in a difficult major such as Accounting is denied entry into graduate school and forced to take the post-baccalaureate route. Meanwhile, a liberal student with a 2.76 GPA in an easier major such as Sociology is admitted. These administrators are experts at hiding behind protocol.

Let’s say that the first student opted to work in an accounting firm for two years before applying for graduate admissions. He now has two years’ experience in the field, in addition to the degree. Same outcome. Why? Simple preference. The admissions administrator liked the second applicant better. He knows that he can always attest to the student’s higher grade point average and be relatively safe from scrutiny.

To be fair, there are a lot of faculty members who will fight for a promising student. Experience outside academia is considered a solid compensating factor. But the admissions administrator almost always has the final say. Especially when there are faculty members in that same department holding similar preferences.

A Drastic, Albeit Effective Remedy

Decisive action is often the key to exerting effective pressure against an established hierarchy. In this case, “annual objectivity reviews” would be instigated. It would work like this:

1. Public colleges and universities would adopt a new standard. Annual objectivity reviews would be a pre-requisite for continued employment.

2. The determination would be made by a triumvirate. Appointees from the state’s executive branch, the Congress, and the Senate would make the assessment. If two of the three gave unsatisfactory reviews, the employee would be “terminated for cause.”

3. The reviewers would change annually.

This would indirectly result in a downsize of college and university staffing. When staff members failed to make the cut, the position would not be refilled. Arresting “administrative bloat” has been a topic of discussion for the past two decades. The savings would be passed on in the form of lower tuition. More authority would be shifted to faculty members and their departments. Benefits for students, faculty, and remaining staff members would likely improve thanks to the reductions in force.

What if the offender were a faculty member? The same rules would apply. It would certainly be done on a case-by-case basis. Much would be based on the discipline concerned. In some cases, there might be exemptions, such as for Botany, Physics, and Nursing.

Students, faculty, and staff members would be encouraged to submit anonymous complaints revealing any excessive partisan behavior exercised by a faculty or staff member. The new standard: “Expression of diverse and unique ideas will be encouraged. There will be no one accepted narrative. This is a learning pool, funded by taxpayer dollars. There is no right or wrong answer here. Just expression.”

The course correction’s main purpose is to allow open discussion on Marxism and its dangers. Its sordid history needs to be fully revealed. Very few Americans know of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” in China and of Stalin’s forced famines in Ukraine. This will come with increased openness.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!