Conformity to identity politics or education: The student’s dilemma

woman writing notes


Every year on university campuses across the country, students like me navigate a variety of disciplines in pursuit of numbers that will open the door to our career of choice. Whether we yearn for a high grade point average (GPA), a high grad school test score, or a high paying job, numbers are what matter to those of us who see university as an important gateway to future happiness and prosperity. However, in certain disciplines, it can be difficult to reconcile this aspect of the student experience with the freedom to pursue our studies in a spirit of open and disinterested inquiry. In the liberal arts programs in particular, activism and ambition can conflict so that students must choose between writing what they think and getting the grades they want and need.

Of course, this ought to be a false dilemma. That it exists at all raises troubling questions about academic liberty-a cornerstone of any educational institution-and what a university education is actually for. Although most schools continue to affirm free inquiry as central to their pedagogic mission, this honorable commitment is being eroded as the humanities and parts of the social sciences become increasingly insular and politicized within a wider climate of hyper-polarization.

Part of the problem is that the marking of work in many liberal arts programs often lacks the same degree of objectivity and rigor found in disciplines like mathematics or the natural sciences. In disciplines such as philosophy, politics, and sociology, professors enjoy considerable latitude to teach and grade in any way they see fit. If a student views a given theory or interpretation differently to his professor or teaching assistant, he can either write what he believes, even though it is at odds with the views of the marker, or he can write what he thinks the marker wishes to read. Granted, there is often a middle ground, but the very existence of such dilemma in the minds of many students unnecessarily inhibits their intellectual freedom. While there is nothing directly prohibiting students from being intellectually honest and open minded, such an approach is hardly incentivized if simply regurgitating a professor’s preferred view is more likely to be rewarded with a higher mark.

The risk of writing an essay that contests the theories promulgated by a professor or teacher’s assistant may be too consequential when the goal is to secure a job or a place in grad school upon which a GPA may be heavily dependent. The intense competition for admission means that every grade and percentage point matters. There is more riding on grad school admission and career prospects than there is on intellectual integrity. As a result, students are implicitly encouraged to sacrifice the latter for the former, and learning what to think becomes more valuable and important than learning how to think. Why would a student such as myself bother to challenge the conventional wisdom and risk a B, when I can simply provide what I know is expected and receive an A?

Something has gone fundamentally awry. This is not to say that every professor will mark heterodoxy more harshly than orthodoxy. There are still professors who value clarity, originality, and consistency over conformity. But students holding views that differ fundamentally from those taught must nevertheless consider and evaluate the risk that they will be penalized for their opinions, particularly when writing about politically contentious topics. Speakers and authors now described as part of the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ have become radioactive for many students writing for university courses. They hesitate to cite the work of these figures or even mention the names of thinkers deemed ‘controversial’ or beyond the pale by whoever is responsible for reading it and grading their work. In such cases, it is generally safer to avoid controversy and to rely instead upon those approved scholars already lauded by faculty. We are free to browse the ‘IDW’ on our own time, of course, but this only widens the chasm between learning in the true sense and the demands of a formal education.

This has implications for the meaning and value of university education. On the one hand, colleges are theoretically committed to placing open-mindedness and intellectual honesty at the center of the university experience. On the other, students who see high grades as the only route to success may conclude that conformity is an easier way to achieve that end than free thought. This requires a form of self-censorship that directly contradicts the values universities claim to defend and uphold. Which is not to say that students should be permitted to write whatever they like. But coherent and well-supported argument is surely a better yardstick of academic ability than the robotic repetition of the latest fashionable theory. Instead, a tear in the fabric of university culture is growing that privileges indoctrination and the suppression of academic freedom over open inquiry and the exploration of ideas.

The question for many students has become not “What do I think?” but “What do they want me to write?” For many us, this sacrifice may ultimately be the correct and easy one to make. If we want to be successful, we can curb our intellectual curiosity, not because we are prevented from using it, but because obedient co-operation is in our more immediate best interests.

Avel Ivanov studies Ethics, Society & Law at the University of Toronto. You can follow him on Twitter @av3ll

Source Article from

Dilemma for Kate? Does the Duchess show solidarity with #TimesUp or stick to royal rules?

The Duchess, who will attend this year’s British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA) ceremony with her husband, the Duke of Cambridge, is about to be landed in a diplomatic minefield. Actresses are gearing up to don black dresses in support of the #TimesUp movement, a campaign against sexual harassment prompted by the #MeToo phenomenon.

The move comes after the Academy Awards in the US saw only a handful of women ignore the call of solidarity by wearing lighter shades. Kate is faced with a crisis: show solidarity or keep with the royal family’s policy of avoiding political statements or comment.

Kensington Palace told RT that they would not comment, but they did confirm that Meghan Markle – Prince Harry’s fiancée – would not be in attendance, only the Duchess and Duke.

A letter to BAFTA guests, published by film industry magazine the Hollywood Reporter, has laid out plans from a “collective of UK based female film and television industry leaders,”  for a “physical and visual representation of our solidarity with people across all industries who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse or have been held back due to an imbalance in power.”

“Here in the UK, more than half of all women and nearly two-thirds of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment at work,” the letter said.

“And we hope that those of us who are privileged enough to have a platform, can use it to raise awareness of the experiences of women beyond our industry, whose experiences are often silenced and marginalized.

“At this point, we are keeping things under wraps as the UK-side movement shapes up and we’ll have some exciting plans to announce soon. We wanted to personally reach out to you at this point to let you know of the colour code and we will be in touch again with more information, including talking points on why we’re wearing black.”

While stars have not publicly vowed to wear black to the BAFTAs, Harry Potter star Emma Watson all-but confirmed it with a single, simple tweet.

BAFTA CEO Amanda Berry told the Telegraph that awards organizers are braced for speeches about the Hollywood harassment scandal. “It often has (been used as a platform) in the past, I think in different years there have been different issues,” she said.

“People obviously feel it’s a very powerful platform. The film awards go out globally so that makes it even more powerful, so we never say to people don’t say anything, please just thank the crew or whatever it is. Because if somebody feels passionately about it, they are going to say it. There has been a lot of conversation to date and obviously that conversation continues, awards season shines a very bright spotlight on that conversation.”

The BAFTAs will take place on February 18 at London’s Royal Albert Hall.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

Source Article from

The Dilemma of Raising a Child to Live In the New World Order


I have written countless articles where I accuse Google as being the enemy of democracy. Google is  more powerful than nations. They are treating the world like any conquering army. They are erasing history, altering culture, stiffling legitimate dissent, strangling economic competition,monopolizing the Internet, hacking elections and relentlessly spying on American citizens.

Beyond 1984

Google has gone beyond Orwell’s 1984. They are in the midst of creating a “Blue Pill” reality. Google is the matrix. Google has created the cage where the young people of America are growing up. It is the cage that people my generation resists because we were essentially born free. My generation respects our collective innate spirit of autonomy that the Lord blessed us with. However, our younger generation has been raised in the Google-created cage and they do not know true freedom and are unable to see the loss of free will that is a central part of our God-created spirit.

The Despot, John McCain, Taught Me About Freedom

When John McCain tried to steal my community’s property without compensation, he awakened my spirit of self-preservation and ultimately freedom. When I discovered what this demagogue and his kind had in store for the American people as one of the Deep State’s chief minions, I opposed McCain with every fiber in my being.

My beloved wife had a difficult time absorbing all that I was learning in the false matrix created by the globalists which is dominated by Google.  I am sure there were times when my wife wondered if I was going to lose my mind. However, as I discovered, my talented, highly intelligent and beautiful wife and myself were merely on two different learning curves. My wife was raised by two wonderful parents who taught her to be independent and my wife was not raised in the proverbial Google-created  cage and could think for herself. Today, my wife educates me about much of what is really going in the world outside of our false reality as shaped by the CNN’s of the world.

The Fruit Does Not Fall Very Far From the Tree

My son is as independent at his mother and father and summarily rejects all elements of arbitrary control over his freedom. However, when I compare my son’s awareness and desire to be in control of his destiny to that of  many of his friends, he is in rarified air. My fear for him is that he will get crushed by the ruling authority if my generation is not successful against the Google type entities that control the New World Order. For example, most young adults favor socialism as their preferred from of government and if they have their way, Bernie Sanders will be the next President. In other words, many of son’s cohorts are already enslaved as slavery first begins in the mind.

It is in this sense that my generation will be the last generation to know true freedom. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and our nation’s Chrisitan traditions are all fading into the sunset and I am experiencing cognitive dissonance as I cannot fathom what motivates people to vote for such nefarious people as Hillary Clinton.

The young people have in large part forsaken the Lord. They are self-entitled and one ruler away from acting out, in real life, a Lord of the Flies type of country where dissenters are disposed of and the hive mentality reigns supreme. And to all you parents who have raised intelligent and autonomous children, you, me, have raised our children to not fit into what is coming. And what is coming? It is the Mark of the Beast which I have documented as well as my concerns that Google is that central authority and technology that will usher in the Mark of the Beast.

My Son Is Not Anyone’s Cannon Fodder

When my son was young, I was writing counseling courses for a post-secondary institution where I met a wonderful person who happened to be one of the Deans of the University. He and I bemoaned our ruling class who thought nothing of sending our young people off to die in a banker’s created war of occupation. We swore to each other that we would never send our sons off to such a conflict no matter what we had to do including the leaving of our country.


Today, all parents are forced to confront the same kind of reality. However, the stakes are much higher. It is no longer just a question of letting your child be sacrificed in a banker’s war. It is now a question of letting your children have their souls compromised. By teaching our children to “fit in” to the ruling regime in this country, and I am not speaking of Trump, we are teaching our children to compromise their Christian principles. However, I know history and I know that if I do not teach my son to “blend in” and become of the members of the Satanic Deep State, Google-dominated hive members, he will live a life of terrible persecution and worse. In short, I often wonder if the independent spirit we impart to our offspring will the reason that will not end their lives in an old age home, but in a FEMA camp.

I was once told, after I had just become a father, that the hardest thing to do in life was to let go of your children as they grow up. I found that was not the case at all. The hardest thing about being a father is to let our children go and live in a world dominated by the Googles’ on this planet. And who controls these entitites such as Google? It is none other than Satan, himself. The next stop on this planet is the Mark of the Beast.

My generation picked a helluva time to become parents.

Source Article from