A Psychological Profile of the New Campus Activist

A certain anger at society seems to pervade the academy today. Hardly a week goes by without hearing about outraged students either demanding recompense for some perceived injustice or attempting to shut down an invited speaker. Between professors who spread neo-Marxist ideologies, administrators who enforce an extreme political correctness on campus, and peer pressure to be politically “woke,” student radicalism is reinforced from all sides.

The fundamental cause of this anger is more likely psychological rather than political. In his new book Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, journalist Robby Soave highlights young activists’ destructive behaviors and provides an in-depth analysis of the activists’ motivations and the philosophical origins of their ideology. Soave explains the purpose of his book is to provide a comprehensive “psychological profile” of the young activist generations—millennials and generation Zers—whom he refers to collectively as “zillenials.”

Soave dedicates the majority of his book to analyzing left-wing activists, not because he considers them to be worse than their far-right counterparts—the alt-right—but because they dominate in numbers and wield more influence over the culture, particularly universities.

Panic Attack addresses topics such as violent attempts to shut down free speech on campus, Title IX and the abuse of students’ due process rights, and the proliferation of victimhood culture. Although these issues have been extensively reported on, Soave at times provides a fresh take on them with his face-to-face interactions with students. In writing his book, Soave visited campuses across the country and interviewed hundreds of activists, attending many of the protests and meetings he describes.

However, even though Soave presents a vivid picture of academia’s ills, he struggles with translating his observations into workable solutions.

Soave begins the book by detailing the history of free speech at Berkeley and contrasting it with the campus climate of today. Those following headlines in the last few years have no doubt been struck by the irony that Berkeley—the site of the infamous 2017 riots that culminated in the setting of fires and several people being beaten unconscious for supporting alternate political views—was originally the site of the campus free speech movement in the 1960s.

Back then, students pressured the administration to get rid of its unofficial ban on communist speakers, and they similarly opposed rules that prohibited students from engaging in political activity on campus. Students of all political stripes came together and found a common cause in defending free speech.

Today’s leftist activists, Soave argues, are fundamentally different from the radical activists of the 1960s and 1970s, due to several “serious defects.” The first defect is that zillenials have an acute need for “emotional safety.” Even though Soave seemingly dislikes the colloquial term “snowflake,” calling it a smear, he makes the case that zillenials suffer from being overly coddled—similar to the case made by Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt in their book The Coddling of the American Mind. As a result, zillenials equate physical safety with emotional safety, and words that make them feel uncomfortable are considered on par with physical acts of violence.

Another serious defect Soave ascribes to leftist zillenials is ideological in nature: A faithful adherence to the trendy concept known as “intersectionality.” Soave defines it as:

Put simply, intersectionality means that various kinds of oppression—racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, economic inequality, and others—are simultaneously distinct from each other and inherently linked… [I]ntersectionality has become a ubiquitous force on college campuses, where young people are taught to perceive all social issues through the lens of interrelated oppression, and to find smaller and smaller grievances to add to the pile.

Among the groups that subscribe to intersectionality are fourth-wave feminists, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter—who are also united in their abhorrence of capitalism and their willingness to censor speech they find offensive.

Besides intersectionality’s insidious focus on wielding grievances as a manipulative political force, it is also self-defeating as a tactic. As Soave points out, it is virtually impossible to live in full accordance with the dictates of intersectionality. There are endless examples of otherwise left-of-center individuals who have been scorned and rejected from the intersectional left for their failure to adhere to its stringent ideological demands.

One infamous case is that of Bret Weinstein, a biology professor at Evergreen State University in Washington. Weinstein, who describes his own political views as “progressive,” endured serious verbal and physical threats after he refused to be forced off campus for a day because he was white. Soave wittingly describes intersectionality as “an ouroboros devouring its own tail” (an ouroboros is an ancient symbol of a serpent eating its own tail).

Nevertheless, despite its hostility to rationality and open inquiry, intersectionality permeates the academy, with entire academic departments dedicated to “studying specific kinds of oppression.” Many professors who espouse intersectionality are also proponents of critical theory—a neo-Marxist method of interpreting social phenomena.

Yet, although Soave acknowledges that faculty often promote Marxist ideology, he is skeptical that they are the source of student radicalization. Instead, he argues, students are more likely to radicalize each other.

To rein in radical activists’ illiberal tendencies, Soave offers several remedies. The first is: less college. Since college seems to be a “breeding ground for cult-like behavior, PTSD, and mountains of debt, why bother?” he asks.

Soave has a point: Colleges that fall short of their mission to pursue the truth arguably do more harm than good for students—particularly those in the humanities. Some students only go to college because of the widespread notion that everyone should go to college, despite the fact that some are better suited for alternative career paths. De-emphasizing the “college for all” mentality might not just alleviate an unnecessary pressure to spend thousands just to “check” the academic checkbox, it can also prevent the radicalization of young people.

 Soave then makes a brief call for better K-12 civic education so that young children can learn about the First Amendment. However, given the intersectional left’s tight grip on schools of education—as well as the administration of K-12 education—one can’t help but wonder whether curriculum changes today might undermine the First Amendment rather than promote it.

Finally, Soave calls on liberal intellectuals who are still in good standing with the radical left to “stand up to the plate” and convince intersectional extremists that being anti-free speech is self-defeating. He argues that the onus is on moderate leftists to persuade the radical activists how crucial it is to protect individual rights from being trampled upon:

We need free speech because we still need to hash all of this out—because liberal norms of tolerance, civility, openness, individual rights, and freedom of expression are still the best tools we have for bettering society. In these difficult conversations, everybody has a vested interest in participating— and that includes the left. Activists, you may not think it’s your job to educate me, but I invite you to try.

Soave may be guilty of wishful thinking in this line of reasoning. Although fighting bad ideas with good ideas is the ideal, it’s not clear how that is possible when the very notion of rational discussion is anathema to intersectional activists. Radical leftists aren’t going to be swayed by appeals to free speech. Indeed, it is precisely by expressing commitment to free speech that even moderate-left public figures fall from activists’ grace in the first place.

Dave Rubin, host of the popular Youtube talk show Rubin Report, is a highly illustrative example. He is center-left on nearly every social issue. One clear difference he has with the radical left is his openness to having his views challenged in open dialogue and his rejection of looking at the world through the lens of oppression. Because of this, Rubin has been rejected by much of the left and is often accused of being alt-right, a Nazi sympathizer, or a white supremacist.

Another explanation of how free speech is a non-starter to intersectional activists comes from conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, in his recent book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great:

In order to promote discussions about intersectionality, systems of oppression must be curbed— including the speech of others. Discussions must end. Reason must be thrown out the window since, owing to our different life experiences, we cannot understand one another. Freedom— supposedly a tool of the white power structure—itself must be redefined so as to support the self-realization of intersectional people.

Shapiro raises some issues Soave would do well to consider. Although Soave is correct that freedom of expression is a necessary requisite for a flourishing society, it is not sufficient; appeals to free speech alone are not enough to bridge the widening cultural divide. That’s because there is something deeper at stake than Soave’s prescription addresses: A loss of a common societal vision, and the deterioration of a shared moral framework. Shapiro describes this reality succinctly:

We used to believe in the Founding vision, supported by a framework of personal virtue culled from Judeo-Christian morality…We were a community, forged in fire and tethered together by a set of values…We can regain that. We must regain that. Our individual and communal happiness depends on us regaining the values we’re losing all too quickly.

As Shapiro says, the country’s present political and social upheaval requires rediscovering the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual foundations of the West. Although Soave advocates for Enlightenment values, he does not address the rich Western heritage that made the Enlightenment possible. Those foundations are much older than the Enlightenment and include a shared conception of community, culture, and the good life rooted in Greek philosophy and Christian civilization. Unmoored from this moral context, the values of free inquiry and open dialogue lose their persuasive force.

In the end, even though Soave provides a helpful summary of the psychological profile of young radicals, his solution doesn’t match the gravity of the situation he describes. Only a response that seeks to reclaim lost moral values and re-instill a common vision will do. The liberal society that Soave lauds depends upon it.

SOURCE 






Ethnic Studies’ Latest Ploy to Brainwash Kids

President Donald Trump told a rally last week: “We are all Americans. We all share the same home. We all share the same heart.” He cautioned that “the radical Democrats are trying to tear this country apart” with their divisive identity politics.

Warning to parents: Left-wing activists are using these same divisive tactics to target your kids’ schools and co-opt their young minds.

Across the country, leftists are demanding that public schools teach “ethnic studies.” Don’t be fooled by the title. Many of these courses demonize America’s past, label whites as oppressors, and convert students into “social justice organizers.”

California Democrats are pushing to make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement statewide. Their drafted curriculum defines ethnic studies as the “experiences of people of color in the United States” and the “forms of oppression” they’ve endured.

The California course urges students to become “agents of change” and mandates that all students complete an “engagement/action project.” Astoundingly, the course guide suggests only one project to meet this requirement: promoting “voting rights for undocumented immigrant residents” in local elections.

The curriculum tars white students—by virtue of their whiteness—as oppressors. The course outline calls for “the privilege walk,” an exercise to teach white students about privileges they take for granted. “Whiteness,” defined as “more than a racial identity marker,” apparently “separates those that are privileged from those that are not.”

White kids will have to endure this harassment to graduate.

Meanwhile, the course encourages minorities to think of themselves as oppressed. No mention of success stories like Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. No explanation for why millions around the globe are struggling to get into the U.S., even scaling walls and wading rivers, to make this country their home.

American capitalism is demonized as a system in which “people of color are disproportionately exploited.” Never mind that capitalism has lifted billions of people of color out of poverty worldwide.

Educators could point to Hispanic American and African American stars such as billionaire real estate developer Jorge Perez or former Citigroup CEO and Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons as role models for minority students.

Instead, the curriculum is a one-sided Marxist indoctrination to make students hate America. To what end? To brainwash the next generation of voters into becoming leftist Democrats.

California’s curriculum, drafted by teachers and university professors, nearly slipped through without public scrutiny—till Jews in the state Legislature noticed the curriculum condemned Islamophobia but not anti-Semitism.

Parents and the public, who foot the bill for public schools, need to wake up and demand more control over what’s being taught. Don’t leave curriculum reform to self-proclaimed professionals. The National Education Association, the largest teachers union, endorses reparations for slavery, Black Lives Matter, and other divisive concepts.

If parents want their children to learn the basics, without left-wing brainwashing, they need to win seats on local and statewide school boards.

The push for ethnic studies is a tidal wave, from Oregon to Indiana to individual school districts like Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Here in New York City, Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza would have us believe that R—for racism—is a more important lesson than the three R’s, reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic.

He’s wrong.

Teaching kids they’re victims won’t help them pass the Regents or succeed in life. Instead, teach them about the many Hispanic Americans and black Americans who have made it to the top.

The current struggle, in New York and California and elsewhere, isn’t new. In the 1930s and ’40s, activists critical of capitalism pinned their hopes for social transformation on changing the social studies curriculum and, with it, the next generation of voters.

The left has been trying ever since.

Today, all Americans—parents and nonparents alike—who share the vision of opportunity, common values, and colorblind justice need to recognize what’s happening and stop it.

Our future hinges not just on who’s elected president but on who’s elected to school boards. The leftist push for ethnic studies—more accurately termed “oppression studies”—poses a serious threat to the America we hold dear.

SOURCE 






British High School results 2019: hundreds achieve clean sweep of top grades

The proportion of top grades at GCSE has risen for the second year in a row following the biggest exam shake-up in a generation.

More than one in five GCSE entries in the UK, 20.8 per cent, scored a 9, 8 or 7 — the three new top grades — or A and A*, up from 20.5 per cent last summer.

Hundreds of thousands of teenagers received their GCSE results this morning in schools and colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Figures released by the exam boards show that 837 candidates were awarded at least seven grade 9s, more than last year. The highest proportions of 9s went to those taking classics and “other foreign languages” such as Polish and Portuguese.

Under sweeping reforms in England, the 9 to 1 scale replaces the old A* to G grades, with 7 pegged to an old A. An 8 is roughly equivalent to high A or low A* and 9 is equivalent to a very high A*. This is to reflect the more challenging content of the courses, the much more difficult exams and the scrapping of virtually all coursework.

The proportion securing the very top grade, grade 9, rose slightly this year to 4.48 per cent from 4.45 per cent in 2018. However it is considerably lower than the 8 per cent to 9 per cent who got A* under the old system.

Boris Johnson said: “I’m delighted to see an increase in those studying [English baccalaureate, or EBacc] subjects, including science, computing and foreign languages, as well as creative studies, meaning pupils are getting the rigorous yet well-rounded education they need.”

Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said: “It is deeply concerning that disadvantaged young people are far less likely to get good GCSE grades, creating an inequality that will remain for years to come. This government, by cutting school funding for the first time in a generation and creating a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, is making it harder for young people to succeed, while those going on to further education will once again see the impact of nearly a decade of Conservative cuts to education.”

The new GCSEs have been rolled out over several years. In 2017 pupils took the new-style exams in maths, English language and English literature; in 2018 they took them in all the major subjects; and this year the minor subjects were added in. This means that comparisons with previous years when A* to G were used are not exact.

Wales still uses the A* to G grades, and Northern Ireland has a mixture. The Scottish education system has a different set of exams.

Girls narrowed the gap on boys in maths and physics but boys still gained more of the top awards in those subjects.

The number of girls who took computing rose significantly, by 14 per cent, although they still made up only 21.4 per cent of the total. More girls achieved top grades in the subject.

The numbers taking foreign languages have plummeted over the past decade but entries were up 3 per cent this year. French remained the most popular language, taken by 130,000 students, although the number taking Spanish exceeded 100,000 for the first time.

In maths, boys continued to outperform girls, although the gap is narrowing — 16.7 per cent of boys achieved at least a 7 (up 0.1 percentage points on last year) compared with 15.5 per cent of girls (up 0.6 percentage points).

Girls also improved more than boys in physics and chemistry, while boys narrowed girls’ lead in biology.

More girls than boys achieved 9s across all subjects except maths, physics, statistics and performing arts.

Schools are measured on performance in the Ebacc set of qualifications: English, maths, science, humanities and a foreign language. Today’s figures suggest that the number doing well on this measure have decreased, a blow to the government’s much-cherished policy.

The new GCSEs have been controversial, with many head teachers saying that they are demoralising for those who are less able. There have been reports of students refusing to turn up to sit them.

Nick Gibb, the schools minister, said that the onus for this was on schools. “We don’t want children to be overstressed,” he said. “Testing and exams have always been part of an education system, there will always be some stress to them. We trust schools to make sure that children are well prepared and are supported.”

He said that GCSEs had to be made more difficult because the UK was falling behind other countries with its exam system, which had been considered too easy.

“We have conducted impact assessments to ensure that they’re suitable for children of all abilities, including children with special educational needs,” he said.

He also pointed out that figures for this year showed a 3 per cent increase in entries for arts subjects despite concerns that the greater focus on core Ebacc subjects would mean fewer pupils taking subjects outside this group.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are nearing the end of a massive programme of qualification reforms which has been extremely challenging. Our teachers deserve a huge amount of credit for all that they have done to support students taking new GCSEs, which have been deliberately designed to be more difficult, and which have undoubtedly caused increased levels of stress and anxiety.

“It is great to see that there has been an increase in entries to art and design. However, we continue to be concerned about the long-term decline in the uptake of other creative arts subjects, and design and technology. This has been caused by the government’s obsession with measuring schools largely on performance in a small suite of traditional academic subjects, combined with education cuts, which have left them without enough funding to sustain smaller-entry courses.”

SOURCE