Academics Denounce Responsible Lifestyle as White Supremacist

Academics Denounce Responsible Lifestyle as White Supremacist

The leftists running the education establishment are not well-meaning fools. They are evil fools, who understand right and wrong, and aggressively side with wrong. Their objective is to destroy everything good, decent, sane, and constructive, and to reduce America to a dysfunctional hellhole. Don’t believe me? Then explain this story:

Last month, two law professors published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 1950s and still does among affluent Americans: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. . . . Eschew substance abuse and crime.” The weakening of these traditional norms has contributed to today’s low rates of workforce participation, lagging educational levels and widespread opioid abuse, the professors argued.

Who could argue with that? Liberals could — vehemently. Except that having no sane arguments, they don’t argue so much as crap in their hands and fling it.

The op-ed triggered an immediate uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, where one of its authors, Amy Wax, teaches. The dean of the Penn law school, Ted Ruger, published an op-ed in the student newspaper noting the “contemporaneous occurrence” of the op-ed and a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., and suggesting that Ms. Wax’s views were “divisive, even noxious.” Half of Ms. Wax’s law-faculty colleagues signed an open letter denouncing her piece and calling on students to report any “bias or stereotype” they encounter “at Penn Law ” (e.g., in Ms. Wax’s classroom). Student and alumni petitions poured forth accusing Ms. Wax of white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia and demanding that she be banned from teaching first-year law classes.

Wax was subjected to the Two Minutes Hate. Her thought crime was to advocate hard work, self-discipline, and responsible behavior, which are now to be regarded as equivalent to the ultimate in wrongthink, white supremacism.

Her coauthor Larry Alexander teaches at University of San Diego…

The dean of USD’s law school, Stephen Ferruolo, issued a schoolwide memo repudiating Mr. Alexander’s article and pledging new measures to compensate “vulnerable, marginalized” students for the “racial discrimination and cultural subordination” they experience.

“Cultural subordination” apparently means being expected to work for a living rather than getting paid by the government to squirt out babies out of wedlock.

This really got the Thought Police gnashing their teeth:

Ms. Wax and Mr. Alexander observed that cultures are not all “equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” Their critics pounced on this statement as a bigoted, hate-filled violation of the multicultural ethic. In his response, Penn’s Dean Ruger proclaimed that “as a scholar and educator I reject emphatically any claim that a single cultural tradition is better than all others.” But that wasn’t the claim the authors were making. Rather, they argued that bourgeois culture is better than underclass culture—specifically, “the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks.” The authors’ criticism of white underclass behavior has been universally suppressed in the stampede to accuse them of “white supremacy.”

This is why it is so alarming that the federal government is taking steps to suppress thought associated with white supremacy. The term is applied to anything whatsoever that liberals associate with the white race.

Consider the ramifications of the liberal dogma that no culture can be better than another. That means having cancer detected and removed via advanced medical technology is no better than a witchdoctor muttering and shaking a bone. Supermarkets bursting with affordable food are no better than poking through animal dung for bits of undigested grain. The liberties enshrined in the Constitution are no better than dying in a dungeon because you offended an official. Jet planes are no better than walking in crude sandals. Electric lights and heat are no better than shivering in the dark. I could go on, but anyone other than a liberal intellectual already gets the point.

The op-ed’s other offense was extolling the 1950s for that decade’s embrace of bourgeois virtues. “Nostalgia for the 1950s breezes over the truth of inequality and exclusion,” five Penn faculty assert in yet another op-ed for the student newspaper.

The 1950s were a golden era for America. Consequently, liberal hatred for this period is demonic in its intensity. Everything that made the 50s great they want to denigrate, desecrate, corrupt, and destroy. This has been accomplished through the tactic known as Critical Theory, usually by focusing on the failure to orient all of society around the hallowedness of blacks.

None of the professors’ high-placed critics [has] engaged with any of their arguments.

Of course not. They won’t engage Bruce Gilley's arguments in favor of colonialism either. You can’t expect a pack of rabid dogs to engage your arguments.

Objecting to industriousness and personal responsibility proves that the liberal intelligentsia does not wish society well. It wants poverty, dysfunction, dependency, and ruin. It is a cancer, and it is killing us.

detroit+ruins
What they want America to look like.

On a tip from Varla. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend