Tragic as it may be, we send our children off to a major college to receive an education that will assist them in life after trying to bring them up with values and truth.

Instead we get back a "head full" of leftist thinking and they have learned to hate the system that allowed them to get the education in too many instances.

Which is more dangerous, a simpleton with a black heart, or a genious with one? Both harm those around them, regardless of their IQ. Noah Webster gets to the point:

"The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head."

Education never has been, and never will be "The Answer." Moral training is.

Sowell is an advocate of honest, empirical, documentable evidence. Fact: there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. Fact: of these schools, roughly 98% of the curricula consist of courses that are non-controversial and largely technical training in the fields of mathematics, biology, engineering, the medical sciences, business administration, marketing, advertising, computer-related sciences, management, trades, etc. Millions of people attend these schools over the years. Some are exposed to ideas that conservatives deemed "radical". But that happens in a very small minority of courses. Most are classes in the humanities. Of those, only a relative handful really focus in any substantive detail on ideas that are "radical". Most people attending these schools are trying to figure out a way to make a buck when they get their degree so they can pay back loans and stay afloat.

The idea that the 4,000 secondary schools in the U.S. are somehow overrun with radicals in all the programs and departments, and are indoctrinating millions with their thousands of courses on radical ideas is . . . well, not only completely unsupported, but also ridiculous.

This is not difficult to verify: Open the curriculum to the community colleges, technical colleges, etc. in your area, and you will find all sorts of course offerings. Very, very little of what you will find has anything to do with "radical" ideas.

The bottom line is that for every one class at one school that purportedly teaches "radical" ideas, there are probably 1,000 classes that are completely non-controversial and focus on basic technical training in the fields of business, management, technology, engineering, computers, medical fields, industry, and the like.

There are not any radical, marxist schools of dentistry,vetinary medicine, material science engineering, commercial construction, hotel management, food service marketing, investment, and so on. So let's all stop playing the "Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!"

Best pitch for a book I've ever seen. After reading this, "Intellectuals and Society" is on my ToDo list. This may be the most important question of the 21st century.

I say that without irony. Mr Sowell is quite correct when he says intellectuals made the world worse in the 20th century. The systems and regimes advocated by intellectuals were responsible for the destruction -- the industrial, wholesale slaughter -- of more than 90 million people.

Meanwhile, those intellectuals attacked the one system responsible for bringing liberty, prosperity and longevity to more millions of people than any other system ever used: Capitalism. So they advocated Socialism which murdered people, and opposed Capitalism which liberates people. Those intellectuals could not have been more wrong if they'd claimed the Earth was a perfect cube, hollow and full of Borg drones.

What makes it so? Evan Sayet observes that these otherwise smart people invariably choose "evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success." What makes them do so? Allan Bloom suggested it was the belief that "indiscriminateness is a moral imperative." What brings them that belief? That's a question I would give much to know the answer to. I will read Mr Sowell's book with high anticipation.

"Intellectuals" is an extremely broad category. Taken literally, it would certainly apply to technocrats and scientists at tobacco companies who worked tirelessly and with great dedication to the project of spreading the virtues of nicotine throughout the world. Studies by well-reputed epidemiologists conservatively calculate that tobacco related deaths and illness easily outstrip the achievments of Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler. Indeed, one study published at Oxford estimates that within the next several decades, roughly 50 million Chinese, alone, will die from tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses.

It is a supreme irony that the "system responsible for bringing liberty, prosperity and longevity to more millions of people than any other system ever used" (to quote a contributor) is also the system that enables death by other means, and at a scale that would have made Stalin blush.

James,

You must be a college professor who happens to be a conservative in a sea of liberals or, you have not set foot on a U.S. campus in the last 25 years.

Yes, the courses seem innocuous when you look at the handbook but the teachers are far from it - a very, very high percentage are liberals and are not shy to express their views, inculcate, and indoctrinate their students into their beliefs while holding the Damocles sword over the heads of their students - the proverbial grade. Not to mention the ridiculous assignments that professors give their students with the actual intent of marxist indoctrination.

Michael, I so agree with you. Dr. Sowell's new book sounds very interesting and I cannot wait to purchase it. I would love to go to a book signing.

Ileana,

Thank you for contributing. You offer an interesting hypothesis, but it is not tested or verified -- something that Mr. Sowell would require. The rest of your comment is non-responsive speculation.

Question: did you actually open up a catalog (any catalog) of course listings from an area school and peruse the hundreds of course offerings (Squash 101; Advanced Studies in Soil Enrichment Strategies; Reptile Anatomy and Development; Bronze Age Aegean Archeology; Physical Chemistry; Techniques in Advanced Photoshop; Principles of Microeconomics; Probability & Statistical Methods; Architectural Form in Contemporary Urban Design; Civil Engineering 101; Traffic Modeling and Design; Intermediate Voice; Spanish for Beginners; Advanced Studies in Firmware Programming; Christianity in the Middle Ages; Quine and Positivism; Studies in Milton; Diary Herd Management; Heavy Equipment Servicing and Repair; Calculus I; Robotic Design; Basics in Hotel Management and Food Industry Services; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) ???

Can you seriously look yourself in the mirror, and believe that the above courses and hundreds of thousands comparable to them are being run by professors "with actual intent of marxist indoctrination"? (Who ARE these marxist Dental Hygienist instructors?)

If so, exactly how does one advance "marxist indoctrination" in a class on "Principles of Non-Surgical Endontic Therapies"; "Raid-Array Hard Drive Servicing"; "Advanced Restaurant Management"; "Printing for Business Clients"; "Linear Algebra I"; "Shaker Cabinet-Making"; "Intermediate Latin"; "Civil Procedure For ParaLegals"; etc.???

The simple statistical fact is that the overwhelming majority of secondary school courses involve technical training of one sort or another, and are taught by quite competent instructors, very few of whom can be bothered with attempting to teach Karl Marx while instructing their students with how to take integrals, synthesize glucose, program an automated answering service, plan a diet for a nursing home, design an efficient drive-through window, assist in anesthetizing a cat spay, and so on.

Your idea of what REALLY goes on, by and large, day in and day out, in thousands of classrooms, labs., clinics, workrooms, and the like at thousands of U.S. secondary schools is simply not supported by any honest, informed, empirically verifiable evidence. Such evidence would BEGIN by: (1) taking stock of the total number of students enrolled each term, year-in and year-out, in graduate and undergraduate courses, in colleges, universities, on-line course, community colleges, technical and vocational schools, and so one; (2) reviewing the courses offered, their principles, objectives, goals, course materials, requirements, etc.; and (3) determining whether students enrolled in those courses are subjected to marxist, liberal, radical or whatever-you-want-to-call-it ideas. We owe it to Mr. Sowell to follow his lead: do the work; verify empirically; don't just make broad, easy, and facially ridiculous assumptions. Such assumptions are an insult to students, dedicated teachers and your readers.

Thank you for your ample response, James. You actually convinced me that you are a liberal college professor and are part of the problem. I believe I have a broad, well-informed experience on which to base my "ridiculous assumptions." You are making incorrect assumptions as well in your lengthy tirade.

You cannot possibly quantify everything that goes on in a classroom because teaching is an art, if done correctly, to which you cannot assign numerical values. Teaching by definition is subjective and yes, most of the teaching that goes on in this country has a communist slant. There are some great conservative and patriotic teachers like Dr. Sowell, but they are fewer and fewer.

I do not owe Dr. Sowell anything to prove empirically or otherwise, I am not a statistician, I am not a cultural elitist who feels morally superior, I am entitled to my opinion and so are you. Neither am I insulting students, dedicated teachers, or my readers. I do not have an audience, I am simply expressing my opinion. If you don't like it, move to Cuba, they are really good there at supressing opposing views and freedom of speech.

Ileana,

Non-responsive. I recommend that you re-read my comment.

Instead of addressing the issue raised, you simply hurl invective, confess your general intelligence, and assume that anyone who asks you a difficult question is a "liberal college professor", "part of the problem", and has a "communist slant".

You provide no evidence in support of your statements, which are nothing more than broadly stated, naked propositions lacking any explanatory force or support.

You resort to the old escape of declaring that the issue cannot be quantified, teaching is subjective and has a communist slant, you are entitled to your opinion, and so on. Again, none of that constitutes an explanation.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. No one has stated otherwise. I am merely asking that you provide reasoned support for the opinion to which you are entitled and which you have made public.

You also appear to take the position that if someone raises a question that you cannot answer, then that warrants the old "don't like it, move to Cuba" response. Thus, your only response to a fellow citizen who questions your opinion is to tell them to leave the very land that invites its citizens to ask questions. You seem to believe that raising issues for discussion and challenging each other's opinions is equal to totalitarianism. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The fact that you do not know that again speaks for itself. I dare say the great conservative patriots -- Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, William F. Buckley, Antonin Scalia, and Thomas Sowell would find your attitude a disturbing one, and not at all consistent with conservative values, much less American ones.

p.s. If I were to adopt your rhetorical strategy, I would respond to YOU by stating, "I am simply expressing my opinion. If you don't like it, move to Cuba, they are really good there at surpressing opposing views and freedom of speech." I trust that by application of the principle of universality ("we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others") you are capable of appreciating how such a retort is warranted under these circumstances. I also trust that you are able to perceive how adopting such a rhetorical strategy immediately pushes dialog into a total stalemate.

p.p.s. I am not a "liberal college professor"; I am a fire fighter.

Ileana, better give it up. as much as I hate to, I agree with James. I think you re getting upset for nothing. I've been to community college (HVAC rules!) and there reallys isn't anything political in the teaching. just mostly information. I think that what you are thinking about is big elite schools with pompose English teachers who think they known everything and try to make students learn socialism.

Just how many college courses besides trade courses have you attended? How do you know exactly how many thousands of courses are taught yearly in this country with no indoctrination slant whatsoever vis-a-vis those that do, when courses change from semester to semester based on the availability of students or teachers, and syllabi seldom reflect what is actually taught in the classroom? Just because you state it as a fact, does not make it so. Trying to cull some obscure data that has been manipulated does not make it so either. Quoting stats is no evidence at all, on the contrary.

I will agree with your point that a person teaching at a community college would have less oppportunity to indoctrinate, not so K-12 and four year colleges.

James, non-responsive can mean comatose, catatonic, in a transe!!??!!

I will not tell you how to extinguish a fire, so don't tell me about four year universities and K-12.

Teaching is an art, it is not science, and how a teacher achieves that goal is entirely subjective to the teacher's ideology, belief system, prejudices, biases, and methodology.

Ileana,

In the above context, "non-responsive" means that your rejoinder does not specifically respond to the arguments raised. That remains the case.

To answer one of your questions, I have taken probably 75 college courses over my lifetime. Majored in Italian (grandfather was from Perugia). From time to time, I returned to take a night course here and there (accounting; photography; math courses).

But that is simply not the point. No one person can, solely based on personal experience, draw general conclusions about the state of affairs over a period of years at over 4,000 secondary schools. (That does not mean that personal experience is not important.) That is precisely why we need to go beyond personal experience and research the issue (including referring to the research of others).

You ask: "How do you know exactly how many thousands of courses are taught yearly in this country with no indoctrination slant whatsoever vis-a-vis those that do, when courses change from semester to semester based on the availability of students or teachers, and syllabi seldom reflect what is actually taught in the classroom?"

Answer: Your question contains an assumption that is, itself, highly dubious -- i.e., that course syllabi "seldom reflect what is actually taught in the classroom". Such a proposition is contrary to common sense and flatly refuted by reference to the hundreds of thousands of graduating accountants, architects, engineers, programmers, business administrators, chemists, etc. each year in the U.S.

Nonetheless, taking your question at face value, one might quite reasonably assume that classes in the subjects I identified in an earlier post do not especially lend themselves to political indoctrination -- certainly no political indoctrination of any significance. I again ask you: how could a course in, say, differential equations even begin to accommodate "marxist indoctrination" (your words, remember)? I've taken such a course (including other basic courses in math and science), and it is simply not possible to teach that kind of material and to get through the course syllabi by discussing politics. My spouse is an instructor at the School of Pharmacy in an area university. We have friends who also teach in that area and in related fields of medicine around the country. If you talk to people who teach in these fields, it becomes immediately obvious that the course syllabi are highly technical and focus on mastering materials that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "marxist indoctrination" -- nor could it! There is a tremendous amount of material to get through, and in a very short period of time.

Again, one need not personally sit in on every course in every classroom in the U.S. But that hardly means that one cannot, upon reviewing a course syllabus and considering the area of study, goals and objectives of the course, make first-order assumptions about what is and is not being taught. This is where your entire argument fails. You make the remarkably broad proposition that "marxist indoctrination" is somehow rampant in higher education. I respond by noting that based solely on the very nature of the vast majority of courses offered, such a proposition is simply not plausible. Above, I gave an illustrative laundry list of such areas of study and courses. That list could easily have gone on for pages.

Your remark that "teaching is an art, not a science" is not "artfully" expressed, but is nonetheless hardly controversial. Of course, different teachers take different approaches to explaining their subject area. No reasonable person would suggest otherwise.

Your state: "how a teacher achieves that goal is entirely subjective to the teacher's ideology, belief system, prejudices, biases, and methodology." Again, your formulation is not especially helpful, and in large part suggests far more variation than functionally exists in most fields. How a teacher "achieves that goal" is not "entirely" subjective. Rather, how the goals of a course are achieved reflects a combination of things -- clarity of presentation, organization of course materials, preparation of the instructor, learning environment, establishing objectives, explaining the relation between topics, involving students, use of demonstration (labs, etc.), maintaining continuity between and among areas of study, developing effective modes of evaluation (assignments, tests, etc.), etc. Naturally, different teachers produce and implement the foregoing conditions in different ways. It hardly follows that the resulting course of study collapses into a complete hodgepodge of subjective prejudices, biases and "belief systems". (This sort denial of objective reality drives use conservatives crazy!) I don't care what your "belief system" is; a course in Electro-Magnetism MUST entail the instruction of vector analysis and Maxwell's equations. The idea that such a course of study somehow serves as any kind of substantive occasion for teaching marxist indoctrination is, well, pretty laughable. I suggest you search the internet for some course syllabuses on courses in the math, sciences, technology, computers, business, accounting, languages, and the social sciences (for starters) and see if you see any trends in what such courses entail. See if you can draw any preliminary conclusions on whether "marxist indoctrination" is even capable of being taught in those courses.

Finally, the proposition that ""Quoting stats is no evidence at all" is so broadly over-stated as to merit no comment. Statistics are certainly evidence. The evidence may be qualified; it may lack some or even all credibility; it may reflect limitations in methodology.

Moreover, relying on statistical evidence is (since the Enlightenment) a regular feature of reasoned analysis and argumentative support. Now, that does not mean that all statistics are unqualifiedly reliable and true. But it hardly follows that consequently ALL statistics lack evidentiary value. I have to wonder whether you seriously mean half the things you say?

If we put as much passion into saving our country from a communist/fascist takeover that we put into our arguments, we have a pretty good chance of winning.

When I will have as much experience as you do, saving people from fires, and when you have as much experience at a four-year university as I do, plus ten years of graduate school plus traveling in over 50+ countries, we will talk again about the academics indoctrinating our children day by day.

Parents have no clue because children do not tell them or the teaching is too insidious for them to understand. At the college level, professors hold grades over their students heads - they have to say and do what the teacher says or else they fail. You don't dare question or offend a tenured teacher in any way or deviate from their ideology - your grade will suffer. You pay good money for a college education to listen to indoctrination in some classes. Can you drop them? Yes, but you must graduate at some time and more objective teachers' classrooms are already full. Furthermore, you must fulfill core requirements as well as major requirements and, if the teacher is a communist, what are you going to do? Transfer somewhere else, start over, and ultimately run into your former teacher's clone?

I've had a professor at Harvard who was the teacher of record yet only came to class twice - both times in Hurachi sandals, sitting on the podium with legs crossed Yoga style asking us what we wanted him to talk about - the rest of the time we had to study on our own with arcane help from lowly paid graduate teaching assistants. In retrospect, I was glad he only came twice to class, he was a hippie and a communist. Did he earn his pay? No. Was my tuition an overpayment? Of course.

Ileana,

You still do not present specific responsive arguments. You merely recirculate what you deem to be self-identical truisms. You are passionate. But you do not persuade.

Your world travel experience (whatever the merit) is not relevant to this discussion -- not unless you specifically link those experiences to what happens in secondary schools. You have not done so. One may very well travel the globe, but have no experience whatsoever in, say, animal husbandry. By comparison, someone who grows up on a diary farm and never drove more than 50 miles from their home town may have considerable relevant experience. I find it surprising that you would resort to an old liberal-elite cliche: "I have travelled the world and have gone to Harvard; therefore, I know of what I speak; you do not, lowly, under-educated working stiff Trust the educated elite to explain the truth to you."

Your experience at Harvard is hardly dispositive. And outside of suggesting some broadly drawn stereotypes derived from mass culture, I fail to see the relevance of footwear and posture.

The rest -- professors holding grades over students' heads, daring to question a tenured teacher, etc. -- is so much puffery, typically grossly over-stated, and demonstrably beside the point. We conservatives demand excellence. We demand that our teachers of language, mathematics, physics, accounting, business administration, architecture, nursing home care, medicine, biology, meteorology, chemistry, computer science, etc. impose strict standards. We demand that students who take a course in multivariable calculus demonstrate with rigor and precision how to derive Green's theorum. We demand that intro. chemistry students demonstrate the ability to solve acid-base equations. We insist that Latin students demonstrate the ability to conjugate. We require that human anatomy students be able to identify all 200+ bones in the human body.

So, yes, your grade will suffer if you do not listen in class and learn. Yes, if you attempt to apply the principles of bloodletting in a large animal surgery lab. in vet. school, you will fail. Yes, if you refuse to be "indoctrinated" by your astrophysics teacher, and insist on applying the principles of astrology to celestial movement, then yes, you will likley not pass the course.

You may call this communist indoctrination. We conservatives call it learning.

p.s. Sounds like you are simply bitter and angry about paying for tuition. Sorry, but that is the American way. We conservatives think that each person is responsible making adult decisions and living with the consequences. Are you asking that other people, or perhaps the government, bail you out for your mistakes?