Red Oak, can I ask you, with reference to American Universities: is your suggestion that there is a conscious effort to indoctrinate (in a set of views that we might loosely call "left" or "liberal" or something), or is it just that those Universities tend to have that culture, and so students tend to absorb it from their peers and professors and emerge more "L" than when they went in?
It appears to be both.
Conscious on the part of the activist minded of the faculty. Then there are other faculty who have better things to do with their time.
Perhaps we could say goes back to the saying best way for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
Where it’s originating I don’t know.
However, the education centers, beginning to end(K-graduate) have/are become/ing indoctrination centers.
Some of the things kids come home and tell parents now days.
I’m not saying all professors do it. There are courses however which can be considered indoctrination.
Study how nations are destroyed from within, and apply it to last 30 years of internal conflict and shifts.
colleague Michael Toscano and I wrote about the “peer and faculty environment” at one of the nation’s top-rated liberal arts colleges.
What that study showed more than anything is that Bowdoin’s left-wing bias was all pervasive. It wasn’t conveyed just by a few dozen hard-core leftist faculty members, though they did their part. It was embedded in the curriculum as a whole, residence life, extra-curricular activities, extra-curricular activities, pronouncements from the college president, self-declared college crises, invited speakers, student awards, and more. And just as important, that bias was made to seem normal by the absence or near absence of alternative views. It doesn’t feel like “bias” if you are surrounded with people who all agree.
How Political Indoctrination Destroyed the Promise of Learning in College Writing Courses
For example, a course at the City University of New York is a seminar in Writing Social Justice: Freshman Inquiry. The course description reads, in part, “In this course, we’ll take a look at and practice using the strategies social activists use in documents that further the causes of social justice.”
Course descriptions at other schools often include such terms as social justice, inclusion, community service, radical feminism, elimination of masculine and feminine pronouns, promotion of homosexual and illegal alien rights, degradation of Western Civilization, and destruction of the white male power structure. Courses often follow various theories that the professor favors: feminist, Marxist, queer.
Instead of showing students how to present and defend positions with empirical evidence, many teachers use classroom time to lecture on white privilege, perceived racism, and the alleged bigotry of standard written English. Political activism appears more important than grammar, sentence structure, and thesis development.
Some of it comes from younger instructors such as Alyssa Crow, a teaching assistant at the University of Utah. Writing instruction, she argues, involves more than helping students develop as writers.
In her master’s thesis at Texas State University, she wrote that,
“I must also teach students about privilege, hierarchies, and ideology in order to help them understand that (standard English) continues to be a tool of oppression because it is still privileged over other ways of speaking and writing when we know full-well that it is in no way better (but) simply different—none is better or worse—none marks deficiency; none is unintelligent; none is wrong.”
Crow is among those who have bought into the idea, first proposed in a 1974 resolution called Students’ Right to Their Own Language, that all dialects, including Ebonics and Haitian Creole, should be accepted as equal to standard English in college writing.
When I first saw people writing about those course descriptors I didn’t believe until I went to college websites and confirmed it myself.