Commentary Magazine


Topic: Rutgers

What If College Is Making People Stupid?

International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde has become the latest commencement speaker to be chased off by American academia’s guardians of the eternally closed minds. After protests over Lagarde’s planned graduation speech at Smith College from professors and students, Lagarde bowed out, echoing Condoleezza Rice’s tactful statement about not wanting to derail the celebratory atmosphere of the day.

The Washington Post sums it up perfectly: “The commencement speaker purity bug has hit Smith College.” Calling it a “bug” is the right classification, for it is certainly both a defect and an apparently contagious infection that demonstrates the extent to which American universities are failing their students while pocketing the tuition money (about $45,000 in Smith’s case).

Meanwhile at Syracuse, the New Yorker’s David Remnick apparently gave a commencement address that deviated from the airy, ego-boosting flattery to which America’s college-age toddlers are accustomed, and was thus not altogether well received. Remnick’s speech was a litany of liberal policy clichés, and so there was plenty to disagree with. But it was also a challenge to the graduates:

Read More

International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde has become the latest commencement speaker to be chased off by American academia’s guardians of the eternally closed minds. After protests over Lagarde’s planned graduation speech at Smith College from professors and students, Lagarde bowed out, echoing Condoleezza Rice’s tactful statement about not wanting to derail the celebratory atmosphere of the day.

The Washington Post sums it up perfectly: “The commencement speaker purity bug has hit Smith College.” Calling it a “bug” is the right classification, for it is certainly both a defect and an apparently contagious infection that demonstrates the extent to which American universities are failing their students while pocketing the tuition money (about $45,000 in Smith’s case).

Meanwhile at Syracuse, the New Yorker’s David Remnick apparently gave a commencement address that deviated from the airy, ego-boosting flattery to which America’s college-age toddlers are accustomed, and was thus not altogether well received. Remnick’s speech was a litany of liberal policy clichés, and so there was plenty to disagree with. But it was also a challenge to the graduates:

What gnaws at you? And what will you do about it?

Is it the way we treat and warehouse our elderly as our population grows older? Is it the way we isolate and underserve the physically and mentally disabled. Is it our absurd American fascination with guns and our insistence on valuing the so called rights of ownership over the clear and present danger of gun violence? What will we–what will you–do about the widening divides of class and opportunity in this country? You are, dear friends, about to enter an economy that is increasing winner take all. Part of this is the result of globalization. But do we just throw up our hands and say that’s the way it is? And what about our refusal to look squarely at the degradation of the planet we inhabit? In the last election cycle many candidates refused even to acknowledge the hard science, irrefutable science, of climate change. The president, while readily accepting the facts, has done far too little to alter them. How long are we, are you, prepared to wait?

As I said, plenty to disagree with. But good for Remnick. He is addressing a generation that seems to think hashtags will catch war criminals and casting a vote for a messianic snake-oil salesman will heal the planet. They need to be reminded that they should actually do something with their knowledge, and if they don’t like it–well, they can suck it up.

But that last point raises a slightly different question. Is using the phrase “their knowledge” too presumptuous for today’s university climate? In its story on Lagarde, the Wall Street Journal talks to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Greg Lukianoff:

Mr. Lukianoff said the trend is clearly growing. According to a tally by his group, between 1987 and 2008, there were 48 protests of planned speeches, not all for graduations, that led to 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking. Since 2009 there have been 95 protests, resulting in 39 cancellations, according to Mr. Lukianoff’s group.

After recounting previous speakers at Smith, including such liberal leading lights as Rachel Maddow, Gloria Steinem, and last year Arianna Huffington, the Journal gets the following quote from a student who possesses neither self-awareness nor even a tangential relationship with the facts:

“The issue isn’t that we’re against debate but that we’re only hearing one side of the debate continuously,” said Nandi Marumo, a 22-year-old junior at Smith, who signed the petition against Ms. Lagarde. “We hear the same narrative from every person, from the media, from everything.”

The question, then, is not whether American universities are producing ever more totalitarian-minded brats. Of course they are reinforcing such closed-mindedness; they are leftist institutions steeped in leftist values. This is a problem, and should be addressed. But the out-of-control speech police on college campuses, combined with the unwillingness to even listen to those who might disagree with them, raises the distinct possibility that colleges are producing brainless authoritarians.

What if college, in other words, is making the next generation stupid? Not uniformly, of course. There will always be exceptions, and there may even be a rebellion against what is increasingly making college the most expensive babysitting service in the modern world. But college administrators are now faced with the conundrum of students who pay them gobs of money to keep them uninformed and shielded from critical thinking. It’s a challenge administrators have to deal with–and the sooner, the better.

Read Less

Gender Grievance Crisis: GOP Women Flood Midterm Elections

The gender grievance lobby is going to have a hard time with this one:

Nearly two years after Sarah Palin became the Republican Party’s first female nominee for vice president, record numbers of Republican women are running for House seats, driving the overall count of women running for both the House and the Senate to a new high.

The surge in female candidates has taken place largely under the radar. The previous high came in 1992, the “Year of the Woman” that pushed the percentage of women in Congress into the double digits for the first time. That year, 222 women filed to run for the House and 29 for Senate contests.

So far this year, 239 women are candidates for the House and 31 for the Senate, according to data from the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. Among them, a record 107 Republican women have filed for a House seat, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee — surpassing a previous GOP high of 91 in 1994, and a sharp increase from the 65 who ran in 2008. And those numbers could still grow. In each year Rutgers has been keeping track, the final tally has exceeded the late April figure by more than 20 candidates.

“It looks like it is going to be a record year,” said Gilda Morales, who crunches the data for the Rutgers’ women’s center. “What’s bringing these numbers up is Republican women.”

But it was just a few months ago that we were told the Republicans had a problem with women, right? Not anymore, it seems. Now the liberal feminist lobby will be sure to rush forth to tell voters these women don’t really represent the interests of women, meaning  they are pro-life and don’t favor the expansion of the welfare state.

What must be particularly galling for the Palin-phobic is the notion that she has — gasp! — inspired other women to give politics a try. She is, dare we say, empowering and encouraging a whole generation of women:

“I think there could be some surprises this year,” said McMorris Rodgers. Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jan Larimer, who also heads its women’s program, attributed the increase to anger over Democratic domestic policy priorities: “The policies of the Obama administration and a Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have energized women to fight back. First, they were afraid and now they are angry about health care, their jobs, how to pay for their children’s education.”

And the example of Palin certainly didn’t hurt. Women “are giving the GOP a second look and realizing that our policies, principles and vision make sense and work for their families,” she said.

Well, to be fair, Obama has certainly helped get lots of viable conservative candidates, male and female, into the race. The biggest impact of the flood of women candidates may be the shutting down of the entire gender sob-story line. After all, if there’s no significant gender gap between the parties in their respective fields of candidates, I suspect the media will quickly lose interest in the entire topic, which was largely just another excuse to bash Republicans. And for that, we can, in part, thank Sarah Palin.

The gender grievance lobby is going to have a hard time with this one:

Nearly two years after Sarah Palin became the Republican Party’s first female nominee for vice president, record numbers of Republican women are running for House seats, driving the overall count of women running for both the House and the Senate to a new high.

The surge in female candidates has taken place largely under the radar. The previous high came in 1992, the “Year of the Woman” that pushed the percentage of women in Congress into the double digits for the first time. That year, 222 women filed to run for the House and 29 for Senate contests.

So far this year, 239 women are candidates for the House and 31 for the Senate, according to data from the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. Among them, a record 107 Republican women have filed for a House seat, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee — surpassing a previous GOP high of 91 in 1994, and a sharp increase from the 65 who ran in 2008. And those numbers could still grow. In each year Rutgers has been keeping track, the final tally has exceeded the late April figure by more than 20 candidates.

“It looks like it is going to be a record year,” said Gilda Morales, who crunches the data for the Rutgers’ women’s center. “What’s bringing these numbers up is Republican women.”

But it was just a few months ago that we were told the Republicans had a problem with women, right? Not anymore, it seems. Now the liberal feminist lobby will be sure to rush forth to tell voters these women don’t really represent the interests of women, meaning  they are pro-life and don’t favor the expansion of the welfare state.

What must be particularly galling for the Palin-phobic is the notion that she has — gasp! — inspired other women to give politics a try. She is, dare we say, empowering and encouraging a whole generation of women:

“I think there could be some surprises this year,” said McMorris Rodgers. Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jan Larimer, who also heads its women’s program, attributed the increase to anger over Democratic domestic policy priorities: “The policies of the Obama administration and a Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have energized women to fight back. First, they were afraid and now they are angry about health care, their jobs, how to pay for their children’s education.”

And the example of Palin certainly didn’t hurt. Women “are giving the GOP a second look and realizing that our policies, principles and vision make sense and work for their families,” she said.

Well, to be fair, Obama has certainly helped get lots of viable conservative candidates, male and female, into the race. The biggest impact of the flood of women candidates may be the shutting down of the entire gender sob-story line. After all, if there’s no significant gender gap between the parties in their respective fields of candidates, I suspect the media will quickly lose interest in the entire topic, which was largely just another excuse to bash Republicans. And for that, we can, in part, thank Sarah Palin.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.